Re: Quick Latin pronunciation question

> 2008/5/25 Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder@...>:
>> Latin orthography had no "u" and no "j", both u and v were written "v"
>> and
>> both "i" and "j" as "i".
>>
>> So, might there be a possibility that TVVM, later written as "tuum", was
>> actually pronounced as something like [twum], and PATRICII as
>> [patrikji], from
>> sing PATRICIVS [patrikjus]?
>
> Yes, in Vulgar Latin and the late pronunciation of Classical Latin.
Yes and no.

In VL prevocalic _i_ was always [j] with consequent palatalization
preceding consonant. In CL _i_ between consonant and vowel was always
vocalic.

BTW note that in 'Pompeii' the first _i_ is _intervocalic_, and was
pronounced [jj] in CL. 'Pompeii' was three syllables /pom.pej.ji/. In VL
the Classical [jj] became something like [dj].

But in VL _u_ between consonant and vowel seems generally to have been
dropped altogether; for examples the Romance descendants of the Classical
_tuus_ and _suus_ show no trace of any VL [w] between /t/ or /s/ and the
endings. However, it would seem that in more learned words a [w] was
retained, cf. French _janvier_ <-- *janwariu.

But in Late Latin & Medieval Latin the Clasdical practice of giving _i_
and _u_ between consonant and vowel a vocalic pronunciation was generally
retained, tho the exact realization would be influenced by speaker's L1.

Ray.

Reply