06-24-2012, 11:43 PM
Well Nathan you do bring up something interesting; dialectical variation in Latin. We know from inscriptions that it was pretty rampant, in particular in areas which previously spoke related Italic languages. As for Septimus...well I can't say, one of the apparent phonological features of Punic rendered into Latin was the tendency to aspirate like that. HOWEVER we know that from an early period people specifically attempted to change their elocution...so I'd be sort of surprised if he didn't manage to de-punicise.
the V in Latin was indeed a /w/ for a long period of time, but obviously before we get to Juvenal's time this was changing. The /r/ was in fact an alveolar sound.
Macedon:
Interesting questions, I love grappling with these. It depends on period! the Greeks viewed the form and function of language/literature in a different light than we did. There are a few salient points here:
Homeric Greek is a fake language built of many dialects in the first place, however the rhapsodic context would have ensured a level of uniformity in the pronunciation. Even in Hellenistic times necessity of metrics would ensure this long after the major guilds had perished.
Later dialectical variation isn't massively a problem, literary forms were often tied to dialect. It would be madness for, say, an Aeolic speaker to write Bucolic in anything other than Doric.
Re: studies. Well it depends what you're after, there is general agreement amongst linguists nowadays in the salient points so there isn't much stuff fun to argue over anymore. I would say that in general its best to approach from a general grounding in phonetics first.
However I would in particular have to recommend Horrock's "A History of the Greek Language and its Speakers" (the new, 2011, edition) and Lejeune's "Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien" though slightly out dated, the newer edition remains a handy guide to pronunciation over and above the usual stuff (Allen's Vox Graece etc).
Other than that the usual comparative philology stuff is very helpful, so Fortson (Oxford), Clackson (Cambridge)etc.
Its hard to whittle the list down, I have several pages worth of reading. But then again I guess most people just want to see how we work/the evidence and don't care about the evidence (or lack of) for a soft delta earlier than the 4th century etc.
EDIT: PS "correct" Latin/Greek is wholly dependant on the period you're working on. Don't read the bible whilst trying to be Plato, similarly Ennius is voiced much differently to Cicero.
the V in Latin was indeed a /w/ for a long period of time, but obviously before we get to Juvenal's time this was changing. The /r/ was in fact an alveolar sound.
Macedon:
Interesting questions, I love grappling with these. It depends on period! the Greeks viewed the form and function of language/literature in a different light than we did. There are a few salient points here:
Homeric Greek is a fake language built of many dialects in the first place, however the rhapsodic context would have ensured a level of uniformity in the pronunciation. Even in Hellenistic times necessity of metrics would ensure this long after the major guilds had perished.
Later dialectical variation isn't massively a problem, literary forms were often tied to dialect. It would be madness for, say, an Aeolic speaker to write Bucolic in anything other than Doric.
Re: studies. Well it depends what you're after, there is general agreement amongst linguists nowadays in the salient points so there isn't much stuff fun to argue over anymore. I would say that in general its best to approach from a general grounding in phonetics first.
However I would in particular have to recommend Horrock's "A History of the Greek Language and its Speakers" (the new, 2011, edition) and Lejeune's "Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien" though slightly out dated, the newer edition remains a handy guide to pronunciation over and above the usual stuff (Allen's Vox Graece etc).
Other than that the usual comparative philology stuff is very helpful, so Fortson (Oxford), Clackson (Cambridge)etc.
Its hard to whittle the list down, I have several pages worth of reading. But then again I guess most people just want to see how we work/the evidence and don't care about the evidence (or lack of) for a soft delta earlier than the 4th century etc.
EDIT: PS "correct" Latin/Greek is wholly dependant on the period you're working on. Don't read the bible whilst trying to be Plato, similarly Ennius is voiced much differently to Cicero.
Jass
