I understand your opinion and respect it. But I very much want to learn classical Latin. I disagree very much that Ecclesiastical Latin is more useful (unless you wish to take Holy Orders) or that it sounds better. How a language sounds - like music, is very personal. For a person such as my self - interested in history, classical poetry, etc. classical Latin is more useful. But with several Latin Masses and Many well recorded Gregorian Chants, you will be well prepared!
agreed. late latín developed various pronunciations 2/2 place and time of use. but classicists preferencia classical. since se have no recordings i often wonder how the ancient sounds are known for latín or any language. preferencia=prefer & se=we. i have spanish autocorrector which always gets me.
I too wondered how the "Reconstructed Classical" pronunciation was reconstructed, so I bought and have read Vox Latina, the Pronunciation of Classical Latin, by W. Sidney Allen. I am now convinced. Though there are some open questions, many details have been nailed down quite well. From the forward to that book:
... but the principal types of data invoked in phonetic reconstruction may be summarized as follows:
(1) specific statements of Latin grammarians and other authors regarding the pronunciation of the language;
(2) puns, plays on words, ancient etymologies, and imitations of natural sounds;
(3) the representation of Latin words in other languages;
(4) developments in the Romance languages;
(5) the spelling conventions of Latin, and particularly scribal or epigraphic variations; and
(6) the internal structure of the Latin language itself, including metrical patterns.
Our arguments will seldom rely on one type of evidence alone, and the combinations of evidence will vary from case to case.
Regarding "scribal and epigraphic variations": once again, the bad students and the semi-literate scribes have left a priceless legacy for antiquarians and philologists.
OTOH, just as the sixteenth century English grammarians were overly influenced by Latin, the Latin grammarians were overly influenced by Greek.
Not so much "rules" as observations and inferences, though there are some rules laid down fairly late in the period by the Latin grammarians.
For the pronunciation of "ae", the answer is "it depends on where and when". Roughly,
1) the sound starts out being written in Latin as "ai" and transcribed into Greek as "αι";
2) by the time of Quintus Terentius Scaurus, the (urban?) sound is still described as a diphthong, but with a lower ending vowel, more like "ae";
3) in the rural areas it was simplifying to a single vowel, something like "ē", eventually in the Romance languages merging with Latin "ĕ" and turning into something like "ę" (lower than "ē").
Latin had no articles, which is why it can be "a man" or "the man".
Latin did not have a separate progressive aspect. You'll come across this in Spanish as well. The progressive in Spanish is reserved for particular use. They use the simple present in contexts where we in English might use the simple present or the present continuous. This is why it can be "sleeps" or "is sleeping".
Different languages make different distinctions. Having a progressive aspect is not inevitable.
What I don't understand is the pronunciation of the letter v. I mean, I know it's supposed to be formal, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't many people actually used this pronunciation. Kind of like the word thine in English today. Also I agree that they should have recorded a native Italian speaker as well.
It was pronounced like a "u" or "w". The distinction between the letter "u" and "v" is a late one. https://www.quora.com/Is-V-in-Latin-really-pronounced-as-W
I disagree for the native Italian, why Italian and no other languages that is born from Latin? I don't think Latin sounded so much like modern Italian. Italian had the time to be influenced by many accents and languages to give modern Italian. The pronunciation of the "v" etc, is so different in Latin and in Italian for instance. They are as much daughters of this language than Italian, and there are several accents in Italian, so which one is the best one? I wonder. The one still in use in Rome? When I see other countries evolution, the language talked in a place is sometimes very far from the past. For instance, in France, the accent of Québec is closer from the past than the accent used in the modern Paris. In Québec, they kept the ancient accent, and it was forgotten and evolved in Paris.
I, too, think that's what Kat166678 means. That is, "borrowed words" probably does mean "borrowed from Greek". In ancient Rome, knowledge of Greek was a sign of being educated. Since the Classical Attic dialect of Ancient Greek had a contrast between
"φ" vs "π" (phi versus pi),
"θ" vs "τ" (theta versus tau), and
"χ" vs "κ" (chi versus kappa),
educated Romans would try to aspirate their phi's, theta's and chi's, in words borrowed from Greek. The pi's, tau's and kappa's would naturally come out unaspirated without any particular effort.
Of course, as with the word-initial 'h", social climbers, such as Arrius in Catullus 84, would overcompensate in aspirating consonants. (The over-aspiring would over-aspirate.)
"Chommoda dicebat, si quando commoda vellet"
"dicere, et insidias Arrius hinsidias."
("Hadvantages" Arrius was saying whenever he wished to say advantages"
"And ambush he was saying "hambush,")
[translation from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_84]
Both "a man sleeps" and "the man sleeps" are valid translations. Latin does not have any articles, so without any context, it can go either way. If you responded to the prompt Vir dormit, any of the following ought to be accepted:
A man sleeps.
A man is sleeping.
The man sleeps.
The man is sleeping.
If you wrote any of those and it marked you wrong, please flag it and report "My answer should be accepted."
"Vir dormit" can be "A/the man sleeps/is sleeping." It's not "asleep" though because that's an adjective.
"Dormit" vs "dormiunt" is "he sleeps" vs "they sleep". For the regular verbs, the suffixes go like this:
For the ones intervening about the ‘femina’ word as being mulier, I wish to understand the connection between some Italian dialect ‘mugghiera’ or ‘moglie/wife’. I am studying as well Bahasa Indonesia and find curious to learn that wife is ‘istri’ probably connected to histeria
This is the definition of "virile" in English:
In Classical Latin, it is spelled V and pronounced W.
Latin does not have word "the"
That's right. Latin has no articles at all -- neither definite articles nor indefinite articles. But English does. So you may have to add them when translating from Latin into English.
Much like you can't translate Dormio. into "Am sleeping." -- you have to add the subject pronoun in English and write "I am sleeping." even if you may leave it out in Latin.
And you can't translate Ubi Marcus dormit? into "Where Marcus sleeps?"; you have to add the word "do" because that's how most questions are formed in English, and write "Where does Marcus sleep?".
You have to translate from correct Latin into correct English. This will often require you to add, remove, or rearrange words.