Module talk:la-pronunc

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


On pollinem, it has output dark l followed by light l. That doesn't seem right, as the outcome in later languages suggests the pronunciation was a geminate light l in that case. Should this be fixed? —CodeCat 17:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@CodeCat Well, I just followed the ninth point in the notes in w:Latin spelling and pronunciation#Consonants. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
But it says: "According to Andrew Sihler, comparative evidence indicates that, when after a vowel, el exīlis [l] occurred before an /i/ or another /l/, while el pinguis [ɫ] occurred in all other circumstances." So it seems that the realisation of /ll/ was [lː], not [ɫː], and [lɫ] or [ɫl] seem very improbable in any language. —CodeCat 17:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@CodeCat Changed accordingly. --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed patella has a similar problem but in reverse. It should be geminate [ll] (light) here also, as confirmed by all the descendants which have a palatalised l here. —CodeCat 23:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to note that in Catalan decendants, i.e. pol·len from Latin pollen, it is pronounced [ɫː] or [ɫɫ]. I think Catalan and Portuguese are the only Romance languages with pinguis and Catalan and Italian are the only ones with double L not palatalised, so Catalan descendants with "l·l" are a good comparative, although not conclusive about original Latin. --Vriullop (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
l·l occurs in Catalan exclusively in loanwords though, precisely because inherited double l became palatal ll. —CodeCat 10:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Most l·l are modern loanwords, but not exclusively: col·legi dates al least from 14th century. In Balearic dialects, more close to old Catalan, the sound [ɫɫ] is usual, i.e. al·lot or diminutives -el·lo like Italian -ello. Anyway, I am not sure about classical Latin. --Vriullop (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


It seems that the module is doing the syllable division wrong here. Is that something that can be fixed? —CodeCat 00:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Intervocalic consonantal i and v[edit]

It seems that the module doesn't recognize that intervocalic consonantal i is usually geminate: inputting maior yields (Classical) IPA(key): /ˈmaj.jor/, [ˈmaj.jɔr], when it should yield IPA(key): /ˈmaj.jor/, [ˈmaj.jɔr]. If I remember right, W. Sidney Allen says the main exceptions are compound words: trāiectus is IPA(key): /traːˈjek.tus/, [traːˈjɛk.tʊs], since it comes from trāns and iactus. There may be other cases that I don't recall.

Intervocalic consonantal u shows sort of the opposite behavior: usually single, except in Greek loans, such as evangelium, because Ancient Greek had doubled intervocalic semivowels. (I think that word has an inaccurate transcription: the v, not the e, should be long. The macron on the e is an attempt to represent the fact that the first syllable is heavy, like the macron sometimes written on the first vowel of cuius or maior.) — Eru·tuon 03:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Do you mean that the macron indicates syllabic stress, overriding the Latin stress rules? --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it's simply that the macron is indicating an increase in syllable weight, which almost always means the vowel is long vowel, but sometimes instead means the following consonant is doubled (does this happen only with semivowels?). --WikiTiki89 13:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: I do not intend on fixing the first one because there are too many exceptions. Please use {{la-IPA|majjor}} to produce (Classical) IPA(key): /ˈmaj.jor/, [ˈmaj.jɔr]. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: I suppose it kind of makes sense to feed the phonetic spelling of the word into the IPA template. I was thinking that perhaps the few cases without doubled /jj/ could be given using a hyphen (for instance, trā-jectus); then any cases without hyphen would have doubled jj. But I am not sure if manually inputting the lack of gemination is more or less work than manually inputting gemination.
I'm not sure what to do with evangelium. If I input evvangelium, the Classical IPA is right, but Ecclesiastical is wrong (see this revision) – /eu̯.vanˈd͡ʒ Is there a way to tell the module to only display Ecclesiastical, so I can input one spelling for Classical and another for Ecclesiastical? — Eru·tuon 20:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: There are actually not just a "few cases"; there are many cases without the geminated consonant.
Do you mean that it should be pronounced IPA(key): /eu̯.wanˈɡ in Classical Latin but IPA(key): /e.vanˈd͡ʒ in Ecclesiastical Latin? --kc_kennylau (talk)
@Kc kennylau: I haven't gone through and done a census of the exceptions. I suppose you are right, since there are quite a few verbs beginning in /j/ with prepositional prefixes added. Is that what you're referring to?
Yes, those two transcriptions of evangelium are more or less accurate. W. Sidney Allen said that the Ancient Greek doubled semivowel, which appears when a diphthong is followed by a vowel, was borrowed into Latin. I say more or less accurate because the Classical Latin could also be transcribed IPA(key): /ew.wanˈɡ, since a non-syllabic /u̯/ is roughly equivalent to a semivowel /w/. I am not sure how to decide between the two transcriptions. {{grc-IPA}} doesn't currently transcribe this feature: see the first IPA transcription at εὐαγγέλιον (euangélion). — Eru·tuon 18:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: Why is the "i" not geminated in Cāiēta? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: The transcription is puzzling. I think it should be IPA(key): /kajˈjeː.ta/, or at the very least that the i should be a consonant – IPA(key): /kaːˈjeː.ta/ – since the Greek form has a diphthong. — Eru·tuon 17:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Why did you put {{la-IPA|Cāi.ēta}} for Cāiēta? --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@kc_kennylau: I inferred from L&S and Gaffiot both lemmatising the spelling “Cāiēta” that the i is a vowel, since they would lemmatise *“Cājēta” if it were a consonant. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: ISMETA does have a point. --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Aeneis VI.900:
Tum se ad |Caie|tae rec|to fert |limite |portum.
Aeneis VII.2:
aeter|nam mori|ens fa|mam, Cai|eta, de|disti;

@Kc kennylau, I'm so meta even this acronym: That's a valid inference, but I was curious to see what the scansion would tell us. It's used in two lines of the Aeneid, which can be seen above. It seems ai can either be a diphthong in both cases (a͡i), or else in the first case aie is a sequence of a long vowel and two short vowels (āĭĕ) and in the second case ai is a sequence of two short vowels (ăĭ). The more parsimonious analysis would be that ai is a diphthong. Not sure why L&S don't write the word as Cājēta. — Eru·tuon 01:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: The more parsimonious analysis would be that "ai" can be both a diphthong and two monophthongs in poetry. A reason that L&S doesn't write the word as Cājēta might be that they want to preserve the diphthong "āi". --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: Actually, I would have assumed that by writing Caieta as Cāiēta, L&S would be indicating a non-diphthongal pronunciation Cāĭētă. Cājēta would indicate the diphthongal pronunciation Cajjētă (analogous to mājus = majjus). By diphthongal, I mean having a short vowel followed by a semivowel.
Cajjēt- makes the most sense because the same analysis can be used in both of the lines from the Aeneid. The alternative analysis Cāĭĕt- in the first of the two lines quoted above would contradict the vowel length in the Ancient Greek etymon Καιήτη (Kaiḗtē), and the alternative analysis Căĭē- in the second of the two lines is unnecessary, because the diphthong /aj/ (Caj(jēt)-) works just fine in the meter (unless there's some reason why the foot that the syllable is in has to be a dactyl rather than a spondee). In addition, the analysis Cajjēt- agrees with the Greek, which has the diphthong αι (ai), not the disyllabic sequence ᾱῐ (āi). — Eru·tuon 03:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


@Erutuon: How is iēiūnus pronounced?

I think it's probably got the doubled semivowel: jejjūnus. The intervocalic j came from PIE *ǵy, and the fact that it comes from a sequence of two consonants suggests it's double. — Eru·tuon 03:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: How is -ēius pronounced? --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: How is stoicheiologia pronounced? --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: I think stoicheiologia would have -ejj-. Not sure about -ēius. It looks like it has three different etymologies, and each one might be different. The one from Greek is probably -ēĭŭs. — Eru·tuon 20:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: I'm only interested in the first etymology. The other two probably are -ēĭŭs. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: I think this settles it. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: But this is trisyllabic... --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: And this is polymorphic... --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: I think I agree with you re Ca͡iēta. Could you explain your parenthetical analysis, viz. “unless there's some reason why the foot that the syllable is in has to be a dactyl rather than a spondee”, please? @kc_kennylau: It should be sto͡iche͡iologia; I'm not sure how that affects the IPA, but it definitely shouldn't begin /sto.i.kʰ/… Maybe /stoj.kʰ/ or /stoi̯.kʰ/? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@kc_kennylau: The OLD doesn't have an entry corresponding to L&S's Ĕlătēïus. It does have entries for plēbēius (plebs +‎ -ius), Pompē(i)ī [sic], and Pompēius, but unfortunately it makes no remarks concerning numbers of syllables or diphthongisation. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Latin does not have the diphthong "oi". I have changed it to "oe". --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@kc_kennylau: That's probably fine. Stoicheiologia is just an unnaturalised transcription of στοιχειολογία (stoikheiología), really. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: It was something I read about dactylic hexameter, maybe relating to Homer. I looked at my book of the first 12 books of the Odyssey, and it says that spondees are less common in the third and fifth feet. I was thinking that some generalization like that might be true for Latin as well. But since it's just a generalization and not a rule, it's probably not relevant. — Eru·tuon 20:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: OK. I need to teach myself scansion. My understanding of it is most limited. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Erutuon, kc_kennylau: Re parasceūē, do y'all think Gaffiot meant to signify “părasce͡uē”? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This anon. seems to think so. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


@CodeCat, Metaknowledge, Erutuon, Kc kennylau, JohnC5: I noticed this module transcribes th, ph, ch, and gh with aspiration ((Classical) IPA(key): /a.tʰa.pʰaˈkʰaɡʰ.a/). Was aspiration ever actually a spoken feature of Latin? I had thought it was only present in the orthography. --WikiTiki89 13:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I was taught that it was indeed aspirated, at least at the time when words were being borrowed from Greek (very few native words have this). I don't know what gh is doing at all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat, Metaknowledge, Erutuon, Wikitiki89, JohnC5: I cannot find any word beginning in gh except the (obviously) New Latin word ghanensis. I do not reject that gh might occur in the middle of a word, but I have no idea how to search for that. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: Perseus contains no mentions of gh. Wikiling has 101 results containing the sequence, but to my eye, they all appear to be Medieval Latin and thus irrelevant to this discussion. —JohnC5 14:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
What does the actual research say? People who teach languages are not always experts on the finer linguistic details of the language. From my perspective, most speakers of languages that do not have phonemic aspiration do not perceive aspiration and it is therefore unlikely that they would have borrowed phonemic aspiration from another language. --WikiTiki89 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Generally, people who teach languages know little about language itself — but it's different in the classics. Here's Wikipedia: "The aspirated consonants /pʰ tʰ kʰ/ as distinctive phonemes were originally foreign to Latin, appearing in educated loanwords and names from Greek. In such cases, the aspiration was likely produced only by educated speakers." I like to bring up Catullus 84, which is a poem making fun of a lower-class man who tries to seem more educated by aspirating more, but fails utterly because most of his aspirations are just hypercorrections. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so then shouldn't they be marked with optional aspiration or something like that? I feel like this is roughly equivalent to how English-speaking francophiles have different pronunciations of some words borrowed from French than the average English speaker (for these words, we normally give both pronunciations separately). --WikiTiki89 17:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

circum- assimilation[edit]

@CodeCat, Metaknowledge, Erutuon, Kc kennylau, Wikitiki89: This anon has recently been converting circum into circun in the the {{la-IPA}} call before no labial consonants (e.g.). Is there any evidence of this assimilation? I just wanted to make sure before the editor changes everything. The person has also been making some other interesting changes that should be examined more carefully. —JohnC5 22:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

g and ɡ[edit]

@JohnC5 There's an incorrect "g" slipping through on ghanensis- do you know how to fix that? I don't want to break anything. DTLHS (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@DTLHS: I believe this was the culprit! Please tell me if there are any other issues. —JohnC5 01:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe it was decided at some point that the regular g was actually preferred over the "IPA" ɡ. Who changed the IPA module to complain about the regular g? --WikiTiki89 02:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that was not decided, considering that it would go against our standard practice, and would really need to be decided by a vote, which most certainly has not occurred. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)