Latin (short educational program)

are you really interested in Latin?I've been teaching for 8 years now...in addition to phrases, I can also share grammar...
in general, this topic is sooo fascinating...
Latin is a great language, what else can I say...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As far as I understand (perhaps not quite adequate to reality), there are two traditions of Latin pronunciation: ancient and medieval. According to the ancient tradition of tio, tia in any combination will be (tio) and (tia), sch will be (cx) , that is, schizogamy, and not schizogamy, (l) is always solid, etc. The medieval tradition prevails in Russian zoology and botany, but, it seems (as one very authoritative person in this field told me), in world practice (well, apparently, among the most literate) there is a tendency to use the ancient pronunciation. Which is probably correct...

As far as I understand (perhaps not quite adequate to reality), there are two traditions of Latin pronunciation: ancient and medieval. According to the ancient tradition of tio, tia in any combination will be (tio) and (tia), sch will be (cx) , that is, schizogamy, and not schizogamy, (l) is always solid, etc. The medieval tradition prevails in Russian zoology and botany, but, it seems (as one very authoritative person in this field told me), in world practice (well, apparently, among the most literate) there is a tendency to use the ancient pronunciation. Which is probably correct...

And then you can be more specific, in terms of pronunciation differences, because no one has heard ancient Latin, and it is probably impossible to find out how the ancients spoke. I studied Latin in honey, rather, a medieval version, from the nomenclature there is anatomical, as botanists and zoologists read, I judge only by acquaintances. It would be nice to get links to ancient grammar literature, or even better, comments from your reputable friend in this forum thread.
Yes, the Linnean nomenclature did not appear in the ancient world, but when "modern" Latin was spoken, and, in my opinion, it is more correct to use it rather than the ancient one.

And then you can be more specific, in terms of pronunciation differences, because no one has heard ancient Latin, and it is probably impossible to find out how the ancients spoke. I studied Latin in honey, rather, a medieval version, from the nomenclature there is anatomical, as botanists and zoologists read, I judge only by acquaintances. It would be nice to get links to ancient grammar literature, or even better, comments from your reputable friend in this forum thread.
Yes, the Linnean nomenclature did not appear in the ancient world, but when "modern" Latin was spoken, and, in my opinion, it is more correct to use it rather than the ancient one.

Well, first of all, no matter how you pronounce Latin words, the nomenclature will not be affected at all; you will only need Latin grammar for the generic conjugation of the name of the genus and the specific epithet, and the International Commission is going to cancel this condition in the next edition of the Code. But the unification of pronunciation is necessary to avoid difficulties in understanding the scientific names of organisms in the oral speech of native speakers of another language. It has already been mentioned here that representatives of different peoples cover Latin at any rate. Here, for example, a few years ago in St. Petersburg at an international conference there was a funny case. A speaker from Southeast Asia talked about a certain organism that he called Icolai. It was clear from the report that this Icolay should be known to everyone, but no one knew what it was about, and for some reason everyone was too shy to ask. There was still one person who asked. "What, you don't know Icolai?!!", - the speaker was almost afraid - "After all, he lives everywhere and is used in laboratories..." In the end, he was asked to write the Latin name on the blackboard. He wrote: E. coli

So, if we unify the norms of Latin pronunciation, then unify it for everyone, and this is not a matter for zoologists or doctors, but for Latin philologists. And the reconstruction of the ancient pronunciation is their task, which, as far as I know, is well performed. However, I judge only by popular literature (for example, M. Gasparov describes the peculiarities of pronunciation in various Greek polis). As for the literature on differences in pronunciation traditions, it seems that there was something about this in the book by Gornostaev and Zabinkova (or Kirpichnikov) on Latin names, published by Moscow University.

ancient Latin — centuries 1 BC-1 AD Latin is correct...and modern-it is not clear what...that is, Latin is VULGAR or popular, to put it scientifically....this is for reference
further
, ae praesens
oe moenia
about the pronunciation of C has already been said...in the classical variant, it is always pronounced as K

the Russian pronunciation tradition is borrowed from Germany; in England and China, on the contrary, the classical tradition prevails, the written tradition is more uniform, the tradition of great ancient authors, the tradition of more refined pronunciation, the preservation of linguistic diversity, and the vulgar one is vulgar...
of course, it is impossible to accurately reproduce the ancient pronunciation, but at the morphemic level, i.e. semantic, it is practically established by classical philologists and comparative scholars who study the general trends of Indo-European languages.
and this is despite the fact that both of these traditions were reproduced by the philologists of the Renaissance and, undoubtedly, have some measure of conventionality...but all these developments are based on the works of Alexandrian grammarians, so they are as close as possible to the original version

  
The pronunciation of C has already been mentioned...in the classical variant, it is always pronounced as K

Really?
And let me tell you, classical - which one is "antique" or "vulgar"?

This post was edited by mikepride - 08/16/2007 15: 23

I found a book in the library that I wrote about earlier (sorry, I forgot to log in). G. N. Gornostaev, N. N. Zabinkova, N. N. Kaden. Latin names of animals and plants. 1974. Here is an excerpt from there:

"Among biologists from different countries, two main variants of pronunciation of Latin names have been established. One of them, which is widely used in our country and in Western Europe, meets the standards of Latin pronunciation of late antiquity and the Middle Ages; the other option is as close as possible to the ancient model. The most unusual feature of the ancient pronunciation for us is reading " c " in all cases as [k]: Kikada (Cicada), Kikuta (Cicuta), etc. Its other features are: solid l, reading s always as [c] and t always as [t], including before i followed by a vowel.

The ancient pronunciation of Latin names is likely to be legalized as an international one. That is why it is set out in the proposed manual with the only concession to the established tradition of reading the letter " c " in different positions as [k] or [c]".

I think we should stick to the option outlined in this book.

Fortunately, this discussion has nothing to do with low practices. I've never heard of" kikida "or" omo sapiens, " and I don't think I'll ever hear of it... Beyond the world of specialized philologists.

as for the pronunciation, it was a funny case. For a long time I couldn't understand what "yusika" is, "c" as "th". It turned out to be ootheca...

Fortunately, this discussion has nothing to do with low practices. I've never heard of" kikida "or" omo sapiens, " and I don't think I'll ever hear of it... Beyond the world of specialized philologists.

There is a good joke about this (in the old sense of the word). Once the academician-metallurgist I. P. Bardin was asked: "How do you pronounce: Kilometer or kilometer?" To which he replied: "At the Novotul plant, of course, I say a kilometer, so as not to think that Bardin is arrogant, and when I speak at meetings at the Academy of Sciences, then a kilometer, otherwise Academician Vinogradov will wince in the presidium."

Exactly...
What philologists say to each other at the meetings, ripping out of each other's throats the truth of recognizing this or that application as unique and unique, all this is nonsense.
Among scientists," for many centuries "one or another approach to reading Latin has been adopted, and in no way will this very" ancient " (by the way, based on ancient Greek) be spread against the long-standing traditions adopted almost everywhere, and not only in biology, but also in medicine, as well as law, that's all.
As for the quotation from Gornostaev and his co-comrades-I believe that they were wishful thinking, but probably "at the call of the party", a discount on what should always be made when studying such works, that's all.
Well, as for the pronunciation of any exceptions, this was already mentioned at the very beginning of the topic and for all that, it is far from obvious.
It's funny that no one comes to translate modern Spanish and Portuguese into the same "Ancient Pronunciation"... I wish I had a lot of fun

As for the quotation from Gornostaev and his co-comrades-I believe that they were wishful thinking, but probably "at the call of the party", a discount on what should always be made when studying such works, that's all.

"How do you pronounce it: Kilometer or kilometer?"

By the way, G. N. Gornostaev said "Carabids", not "Carabids" (Carabidae).

it was odd that he should have said that. After all, we were taught for a whole year that the emphasis is on the "Ides". here, for example: Musculus deltoideus - "musculus deltoideus"

It's about medvuz.

By the way, G. N. Gornostaev said "Carabids", not "Carabids" (Carabidae).

Anglo-American style? "CarAbidi" or, for example, "Terastichus" - Pterostichus (I heard it myself)

This post was edited by Bad Den - 17.08.2007 01: 05

Anglo-American style?

No, he thought it was the right thing to do in Latin. I don't know why.

it was odd that he should have said that. After all, we were taught for a whole year that the emphasis is on the "Ides". here, for example: Musculus deltoideus - "musculus deltoideus"

We were taught that the stress in most cases is on the penultimate syllable.

Anglo-American style? "CarAbidi" or, for example, "Terastichus" - Pterostichus (I heard it myself)

From student memories: we had a young and early teacher, so he could not just pronounce "crossing" in Russian, he pronounced it "crossinhoua" with an accent on "khoua" and a long "a" at the end (I can't tell you, you need an audio file here, but he pronounced it so artistically that until now I still remember...). And when I said it, I paused and looked at the audience so "zyrk-zyrk" - like everyone appreciated the coolness of the English pronunciation! Well, a relatively young teacher - everything is clear, solid guys then why so assert themselves?

By the way, G. N. Gornostaev said "Carabids", not "Carabids" (Carabidae).

Are you sure you pronounce this word correctly?

We were taught that the stress in most cases is on the penultimate syllable.

The rules for putting stress in Latin are much more complex than you were taught. To put stress, first you need to determine whether the penultimate syllable is closed or open. A closed syllable is always long and therefore stressed. Open syllables can be either long or short. An open penultimate syllable is long if it contains a digraph or diphthong, or if the last syllable begins with C, Z, or X; it is short if the last syllable begins with a vowel or with H.If the second syllable from the end is short, then the stress falls on the third syllable.

In addition, in Gornostaev's book I mentioned, there are stress tables for specific cases. For (-idae), the unstressed penultimate syllable is indicated in these tables... So, it turns out to be CarAbidae. And in general, it turns out a lot of unusual things: MYlabris, PyrrhOcoris, Aradus, CAntharis, FormIca, CicindEla, RAnatra, EphEmera, CAssida, etc. I, of course, do not call for changing the usual accent and pronunciation. Well, different professions have the right to emphasize things that contradict the norm: mining, compass, etc. But at the same time, you need to know the norm, so as not to embarrass Academician Vinogradov, and I also write all this for those who like to fight evil and bring enlightenment to the masses. I witnessed a case when an old teacher came to a lecture to a young one, and he just said "Lal-imancy"in front of him. The old teacher did not hesitate to correct him in front of the whole audience, saying, shame on you, you need a Laliimance! And the young man could not object. So, gentlemen, if you will be poked in the nose by incorrect Latin, then feel free to pretend to be supporters of the ancient tradition, and my special respect for its principled supporters.

Well, a relatively young teacher - everything is clear, solid guys then why so assert themselves?

Duc I heard an American say that. At first, I couldn't figure out what genus he was talking about

Maybe we can make it easier, I have a textbook "Yu. M. Kagan, Latin language." If there are five or six applicants, I will scan it and post it. Well, not on Ermine to learn Latin, with all due respect to him.

  ...

All this is true, BUT. Unfortunately, the book you need is not at hand, but without links. For biologists, mainly, and doctors, linguists are unimportant, using the "Latin language" from the Germans, French and Italians.

1) Stress on the first syllable is allowed only if there are only two syllables and the last one is short. In all other "kitchen" cases, hit boldly on the second syllable. but:

2) There are a whole bunch of exceptions here, including complex words. The suffix-id-is just such a root-reduced case, i.e. the word must be two-stressed, and since the second root was preceded by the nth number of semi-stressed/unstressed syllables, the emphasis is placed on the first root vowel of the second root. Therefore, by tradition, in words with such suffixes, the emphasis is placed on them. Therefore: Carab i dae, M. delto i deus, Pterost i chus etc.

3) How to read Latin C? The classical "kitchen Latin" involves pronouncing [k] in cases where it is followed by non-softening vowels (o; u; a). C is pronounced as [ts] (Russian "ts") if it is followed by softening vowels (e; i; y), and also if the diphthong starting with "non-softening letter" is generally pronounced as a softening sound: caecum is read [ts e k um] ("tsekum").

As marasmius, I am not responsible for the" holy Latin", because every pastor in every monastery in every country has his own responsibility. Adhering to the "ancient traditions" is right and good, but only no one knows what they were like, and there is no one to ask-everyone has died. By verse? "it's bullshit, it's not even being discussed seriously. "Ancient traditions" of Latin pronunciation-this is the same new model of Serious Scientists who have convinced everyone that they are right.

Conclusion: stick to good traditions, no matter who they come from.

Maybe we can make it easier, I have a textbook "Yu. M. Kagan, Latin language." If there are five or six applicants, I will scan it and post it. Well, not on Ermine to learn Latin, with all due respect to him.

Well, this isn't serious at all. Do not sin on the book. I can't say anything about Gornostaev, but you should trust N. N. Zabinkova. She is one of the authors of a wonderful Latin-Russian dictionary for botanists. And the fact that Latin is used in botany much more widely than in zoology, I think you know. And it is unlikely that Gornostaev and his co-authors would invent new rules of the Latin language or twist the old ones. You can view it on the Internet, for example, here: http://latinlessons.narod.ru/latless2.htm. And scan the book, of course. Useful

...
"L" - always a soft sound - "l" For example, Lamia - "Lamia"
...

Well, yes.. And about the Latin L. Before the same non-softening vowels (a; o; u), it is read not quite softly, but as a Central European palatal [l'], this sound is closer to the Russian hard sound than soft. This is difficult for us, and then some words sound very funny: betulya pendulya, blyaziya, etc. Hence, there is a tradition to pronounce L firmly in these positions, although this is .

And then what is science, if not "a new model of serious scientists who have convinced everyone that they are right"?

  
2) There are a whole bunch of exceptions here, including complex words. The suffix-id-is just such a root-reduced case, i.e. the word must be two-stressed, and since the second root was preceded by the nth number of semi-stressed/unstressed syllables, the emphasis is placed on the first root vowel of the second root. Therefore, by tradition, in words with such suffixes, the emphasis is placed on them. Therefore: Carab i dae, M. delto i deus, Pterost i chus etc.

And yet, where does the information come from?

Exactly...
What philologists say to each other at the meetings, ripping out of each other's throats the truth of recognizing this or that application as unique and unique, all this is nonsense.

I'll ask for it.....
culture must be respected!!!and ancient traditions....

http://graecolatini.narod.ru/publ/publ.html
Tsisyk A. Z., Shevchenko G. I.
Door to the Latin language and biological terminology:
Textbook. - Mn.: BSU, 1999. - 115 p
. it would be useful
and in general it is best to learn Latin from normal textbooks, i.e. according to Podosinov sorrel, Sobolevsky, etc...

This post was edited by fly-km-17.08.2007 12: 51

Latin, I don't know where or how, but here in Med they teach at the Department of foreign languages, and linguists teach it. Accordingly, experts in their field. But this is by the way. I will repeat once again, if you really teach, then by serious manuals, and not by books, such as "one hundred tips for a novice laundress" or "computer for dummies". Dear Tentator, you yourself started promoting classical pronunciation, and you refer to the Latin-Russian Dictionary for botanists, literature, by and large, for a narrow circle of specialists. Okay, I'll move away from this discussion, at least as long as it goes under the slogan: "Who first said Uh-uh"

And then what is science, if not "a new model of serious scientists who have convinced everyone that they are right"?
And yet, where does the information come from?

1) Here you write THEM with a small letter and with errors, and I with a large and red one. There are too many answers to this question. To whom as. For example: science-a systematic association and presentation of objectively reliable information belonging to any field of knowledge, in a more general sense-objectively reliable and systematic knowledge about the phenomena of nature and human life from the side of their regularity and unchangeable order (Brockhaus and Efron).
2) In the absence of objectively reliable sources, consider that from me.

And anyway, today is Friday. Leave, colleagues, your Latin about his penis'styti, it's good, it's good...

He...

I'll ask for it.....  
culture must be respected!!!and ancient traditions....

Those who know me personally laugh loudly, I suppose...
especially when it comes to respecting ancient traditions.
Actually, between you and me, the very language from which Latin actually came (almost) is my native language, and I speak it.

This post was edited by mikepride - 17.08.2007 13: 52

... Actually, between you and me, the very language from which Latin actually came (almost) is my native language, and I speak it.

CTHULHU???!!! My FHTAGN to You!

  CTHULHU???!!! My FHTAGN to you!

Boyan (c)

Here, for those who want to laugh at the pendos. The site Sphingidae of Americas provides Americanized transcriptions of Latin names.
For example, Eumorpha triangulum - you-MOR-fuh trye-ang-Gewe-luhm.

Well, quite funny: Xylophanes pluto (Xylophanes pluto) - Zail-AH-fan-ees plu-toh.

No LOL is enough.

Here, for those who want to laugh at the pendos. The site Sphingidae of Americas provides Americanized transcriptions of Latin names.

By the way, here is an example of another tradition in pronunciation. I wonder how the English pronounce Latin?

To my ears (I repeat, to mine), "karAbide" just sounds nicer than " karabIde.

This post was edited by amara - 18.08.2007 10: 13

In this work:

CAPINERA , J. L., R. D. SCOTT , AND T. J. WALKER . 2004. Field Guide to the Grasshoppers, Katydids, and Crickets of the United States. Comstock Publishing Associates (Cornell Univ. Press), Ithaca, NY. vi + 249 pp. ISBN 0-8014-8948-2. Paperback. $29.95 (also as ISBN-0-8014-4260. Hardback. $65.00)

the authors talk about how the "Anglicized" pronunciation of Latin names took root among American entomologists.

On pages 219-221 the authors explain the pro-
nunciation of scientific names. They say there are
two systems of pronunciation in English-speak-
ing countries. One is the system of pronunciation
explained in Latin textbooks published during
the last 50 years; it is taught in Latin classes in
the U.S.A. and internationally. The second is
Latin as it had come to be pronounced in English-
speaking countries by the 19th century [cor-
rupted because it had come, over the centuries, to
be pronounced more or less like English]. Its use
was abandoned by Latin teachers by the mid-
twentieth century. Instead of being allowed to
die, it is perpetuated in an entomology textbook
(Borror et al. 1989). The authors of this book ex-
plain how U.S. (and English-speaking Canadian)
orthopterists tend to pronounce the names, and
the explanation closely mirrors the Borror et al.
(1989) explanation. I am waiting for a future
edition of Borror et al. to drop its explanation of
corrupted Latin pronunciation, and instead adopt
Latin pronunciation as it is now taught—perhaps
then will we (entomologists in the USA and Eng-
lish-speaking Canada) be able to communicate
scientific names to entomologists in non-English-
speaking countries.

I read and thought: why all these nuances, when most of the world community does not say so? Now, even in the oral reports of international conferences, you have to fake the English pronunciation of Latin! Has anyone ever heard foreigners pronounce Bacillus? - basillus.

I like "always" and "never", given that many names are formed from surnames and geographical names, in which l can be hard, and m-soft. It is clear that chernovae will not be read as "hernove", but it is already read that way! Like Chattoniella.

most of it???Well, well...just because they're stupid doesn't mean everyone has to be like them all at once...

  
If there is an umlaut above the letter e - "ae" - then it is read as " AE " for example, air - aeg

By the way, umlaut (or rather, diaeresis) is prohibited by the Codex, as well as apostrophes, the use of numbers, punctuation marks, and hyphens in words (for example, instead of 17-maculatum-septendecimaculatum, but an exception is made for symbols denoting a taxon trait: c-album); specific epithets are written only in English. with a small letter, even being the name of a person in the genitive case, which used to be written with a large one. However, despite the prohibition of dieresis, it is possible (and necessary)to read the names where it used to exist as before: Meloe, Aedes, Baetis, etc.