Re: Latin x in 're:x'

Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Is it known whether _x_ in Latin _re:x_ was voiceless /ks/ or voiced
> /gz/?  Since the stem is in -/g/, I'm not sure.
The evidence clearly points to _x_ always being [ks]. Likewise /b/ + /s/
was pronounced [ps] - whether one should write these _phonemically_ as
/gs/ and /bs/ is another matter. But /gz/ is certainly incorrect.

> So is there a difference in pronunciation compared to _pax_, whose stem
> ends in -/k/?
Nope.

As for the final sound in _urbs_ (gen. urbis) and _stirps_ (gen.
stirpis) where both /b/+/s/ and /p/+/s/ were pronounced [ps], Claudius
introduced a new letter shaped like a reversed C (i.e. the IPA 'open-o'
symbol) - but it fell into disuse after his death   :)
======================================
Alain Lemaire wrote:
 > According to <a
 > href="http://www.omniglot.com/writing/latin2.htm">omniglot</a> ,
there are
 > two different ways of pronouncing x: /ks/ and /gz/.

I regret to say that particular page of Omniglot contains quite a lot of
errors in its description of the 'Classical Latin' pronunciation. It is
a confusion of 'restored' pronunciation, Ecclesiastical (medieval)
pronunciation, and *modern* conventions (e.g. pronouncing _th_ as /T/).
It is, alas, quite unreliable.

 >So it could very well have been that 'rex' was pronounced /regz/ in
'the old days'.

In the "old days" it was [re:ks].

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply