Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:16:53 +0100 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I've been following this discussion about the Latin pronunciation
of the Latin words and as a shell lover and archaeologist by formation,
during my years of studies in the university I learn a lot about the
controversy around the Latin pronunciation of the words.
Being portuguese, means that most of our language is developed upon a
Latin and also arabic roots (as well as other languages of Europe like
spanish, etc.)
There were to points which were very clear to my Latin teacher:
1º There is classic latin and the late adopted and adapted by the church.
2º There are significant differences between them:
Example 1:
- In classic Latin the syllable - 'ae' has the sound of the american 'y' in
'by'
- The clerical reading of the same syllable is 'e' like the american 'e' in
'red'
Example 2:
- In classic Latin there are no 'v'-what we see in epigraphs with the form
of 'v'
is indeed a 'u'. It was much easier to engrave this form of the
letter because
it has no curves.
- The clerical read the 'v' like the 'v' of the american 'v' in 'violent'
(they write and read villa, but in archaeology I write and read
'uilla')
These are just two examples of differences between two currents of latin.
As a curiosity I found very recently that the Vatican, which official
language is Latin,
translates every year thousands of new words to Latin, words such as -
e-mail, computer,
internet, etc. - words that the Romans didn't use in their Latin language
2000 years ago...
So Latin is not a dead language after all....
Alexandra Oliveira
|
|
|