# phonology of ecclesiastical pronunciation



## James Bates

I know the pronunciation of Latin known as ecclesiastical is that of Italian. I was wondering if the phonetics and phonologies of the two are exactly the same or not. Actually, I learned Italian before Latin, and was taught the classical pronunciation of the latter. In order to convert my pronunciation to ecclesiastical need I simply pretend I'm speaking/reading Italian? I'm guessing that's what the clergy in the Vatican do.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings!

To me as a choral singer over more decades than I care  to admit, this is an invitation to mount a hobby-horse, so forgive me  if I wax lengthy.

First, there is no such (single) "correct"  linguistic phenomenon as "ecclesiastical Latin". What passes therefor is  in fact (as you say) Italian pronunciation, but this is chiefly because  of the influence of Italian church- (and indeed other) music during the  period of early modern musical history (Palestrina, Monteverdi &  company).

Latin, secondly, has always been (spoken and) sung  according to local patterns and rhythms of pronunciation, as you can  hear still if you listen (say) to German choirs singing Latin texts,  where can distinctly be heard, for example, _qui es in coelis_ pronounced as "kvi ayz in tse(r)leece", or _ecclesiam_ pronounced "eccle*z*iam",  where Italianate pronunciation calls for "qui ess in chairleece",  "ecclessiam" (with unvoiced 's'). English monks or choristers of the  late Renaissance period would for example sing "conditsionem" for _condicionem_, where the Italianate "condi_*ch*_ionem" might be claimed as "correct".

It's quite interesting to hear Russian choirs trying to do the (dog-) Latin of the Teutonic knights in Prokofiev's _Alexander Nevsky_, where the vowels are of course darkened and some consonants modified (_pedes meos expectavi_ becomes something like "pyudεz muyos expectavi").

In  the Vatican - just as in the ancient Roman Empire - there were and are  distinct pronunciations, contingent upon the national linguistic  backgrounds of the speakers: the public Latin utterances of Popes  John-Paul II, Benedict XVI and the present pope Francis will confirm  this, if you track them down.

Σ


----------



## James Bates

Thank you for waxing lengthy! I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I take it no one uses the restored classical pronunciation except university professors.
Should I ever meet a member of the clergy I'll simply speak Latin and pretend I'm speaking Italian, i.e. ignore vowel lengths, pronounce ci as chi, etc. Gratias ago!


----------



## wandle

My great-uncle was a canon in the Catholic Church, and had taken one of his doctorates at the Irish College in Rome. 
He was once called upon to give evidence in court on behalf of a parishioner, and in doing so he used a Latin quotation. 

The judge, with his English public school education, was unable to understand until it was translated. Then he said:
 - 'Where on earth did you learn to speak Latin like that?'
 - 'In Rome, m'lud'.


----------



## James Bates

Yeah, I can imagine!


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

hullo, James.

Afraid even University professors and Classic Licés' teachers speak Italianised Latin. When I say something like "Kikero" or "sanktifiketur", etc, they look at me with a look of profound compassion.

GS


----------



## James Bates

Oh, I see. Thanks


----------



## S i m e o n

James Bates said:


> I know the pronunciation of Latin known as ecclesiastical is that of Italian. I was wondering if the phonetics and phonologies of the two are exactly the same or not. Actually, I learned Italian before Latin, and was taught the classical pronunciation of the latter. In order to convert my pronunciation to ecclesiastical need I simply pretend I'm speaking/reading Italian? I'm guessing that's what the clergy in the Vatican do.



They are not the same.

In regard to consonantism there are minor differences in spelling, such as* -ti- plus vowel*, which is pronounced "tsi" in ecclesiastical latin. Ex. *Latium* > *Latsium, *otium *> *otsium, *natio, nationis* > *natsio, natsionis. That's not a big deal for somebody who knows italian, because most of those words are spelled there directly with a -z-, which indicates exactely the same pronunciation: _Lazio_, _ozio_, _nazione_. As a matter of fact, though, -ti- in italian, when found, is read as soundless dental "t" + "i" which makes a difference in comparation to ecclesiastical latin.

Other aspect of the same issue: you may notice that in manuscripts and critical editions of mid-latin texts, the spelling *-c- plus vowel instead of -ti- plus vowel* can be found (*Lacium, *ocium, *nacio etc.). That spelling indicates in any case the dental affricate "tsi", the problem is that in the areas where those texts were being written, also "c" plus vowel was being pronounced as a dental affricate rather then as a palatal affricate (ex. "amici" > *amitsi instead of "ah-mee-chee"). That has been happening since a very early age over the line "La Spezia - Rimini" (northern Italy, German speaking countries, France, Spain, Portugal, England). In some areas -ti- and -c- merged and the evolution went also further, until a dental fricative (normal "s") for both spellings (Spain, Portugal), while elsewhere (England, France) you have -ti- for *chee and -ci / ce for *see / seh. As a reader, you have to be skilled enough to recognize what is what: *condicio*, *condicionis* / *conditio*, *conditionis* are the same word, and nobody reading ecclesiastical latin in Rome would say "cawn-dee-_chee_-oh", unless he is highly illiterate, the right pronunciation beeing "cawn-dee-_tsee_-oh". Anyhow, that's another difference in spelling between ecclesiastical latin and italian. 

Huge differences can be found instead in vocalism. As you probably know, in standard italian there are seven wowels which can be heard in stressed position: a, (open) è, (closed) é, i, (open) ò, (closed) ó and u. Even though in Italy we do have a local-languages issue that influences people's actual pronunciation of the standard italian they try to speak, and makes a notion such as that of "standard italian phonology" practically inconsistent, ecclesiastical latin pronunciation differs from any given pronunciation pattern you may find in Italy and abroad in the Romania, that's why it's incorrect to say that for reading it you can just pretend to read italian. The pattern itself, anyway, is a very simple deal, indeed: *you pronounce the stressed vowels open, and the unstressed ones closed*, quantity and position making no difference. That makes things actually easier: words with a stressed _vocalis media_ in it, which you are supposed to distinguish from each other based on quantity, if you read according to the classical pronunciation, or on quality, if you read according to other reconstructed pronunciations, sound all alike.

All the nomina und adiectiva in _-o, onis_,  are with an open "ò" in the casi obliqui: *conditionis*,* passionis*, *lectionis* etc. The genitivi plurali in _-orum_ of nouns and adjectives in _-us_ or _-um_ are also with an open "ò": *filiorum, verborum, illorum *etc. Verbs like *lego, nego, tego, rego,* as well as *rogo, cogo, conor, *the vowels of which an italian reader may pronounce as being different from each other, are all with open "è" and "ò", and so on. Hope it's clear enough. 

Another thing, is that in ecclesistical latin you have to separate the syllables of the words more then you do when speaking italian: each vowel is a syllable, besides (obviously) the -_ae_- -_oe_- and -_au-_ dyphtongues. For example: *ausiliarius* >_au-si-li-a-ri-us,_ not *au-si-lia-rius; *supercilium* > _su-per-ci-li-um_ not *su-per-ci-lium, *familiaris* > _fa-mi-li-a-ris_, not *fa-mi-lia-ris, *vespertiliones* > _ve-sper-ti-li-o-nes_, not *ve-sper-ti-lio-nes, *conditio* > _con-di-ti-o_, not *con-di-tio. Italian native speakers would pronounce all those nouns in the sloppy way rather then in the more accurate one, unless they are specially trained. 

Trust me, it makes a big difference: at school and serving the mass, wherever anyway I had to speak latin, I noticed that people who were speaking out all as if it was italian, were immediately identified by the audience as being bad at latin, and you can guess they actually were


----------



## James Bates

Thank you so much for your amazingly detailed answer.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Buongiorno, S i m e o n.

Grazie per l'analisi dettagliata e approfondita che hai offerto. E benvenuto al Forum!

Una cosa soltanto vorrei segnalarti: la pronuncia corretta dell'espressione "Par condicio" -- che, come saprai, fu reintrodotta nel lessico politico dall'ex Presidente della Repubblica Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, e che ha fatto impazzire i mezzi di comunicazione creando un mare di polemiche (politiche, non linguistiche!) mai sopite --  è / parkon'diʧo /*.
Naturalmente si tratta di pronuncia italiana/ecclesiastica. Se fosse pronunciata in modo "classico" sarebbe / parkon'dikio /.

Saluti.

GS 

* (Fonte: Treccani)


----------



## S i m e o n

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Buongiorno, S i m e o n.



Salve Giorgio, 

Grazie! Ho sempre fatto ricorso al forum per risolvere i miei eventuali dubbi linguistici e quasi non avevo realizzato che ci si potesse iscrivere. Sono contento di averlo fatto, è un piacere incontrare tutti voi!

Grazie anche per la tua osservazione. Effettivamente "_par condicio"_ mi era sempre suonato male ma non me ne ero mai preoccupato, visto che nella nostra classe politica non è certo l'erudizione ad abbondare, semmai il contrario. Adesso, in seguito a una breve ricerca, risulta che sia un deverbativo da _condico, condicis_, cosa che non sapevo assolutamente, né sospettavo, aspettandomi_ condictio, condictionis, _come da_ indico > indictio, indictionis. _Io vado molto a orecchio, e non sono un latinista, questa cosa non la sapevo.
Poi, ho trovato un interessante articolo, risposta dell'Accademia della Crusca alla domanda: _"condicio or conditio sine qua non?". _Il forum non me lo lascia linkare, chi è interessato lo può facilmente trovare.


Saluti a tutti.


----------

