# nuntio or nuncio?



## Nucleara

I'm confused by this word, is it _nuntio _or _nuncio_ ? (the verb that means _to announce, report_)
I've looked up in the dictionary and the same meaning came out.

Thank you so much.


----------



## Agró

My dictionary says that only _nuntio _is correct, and labels _nuncio _as incorrect.


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete omnes

It may be worth adding to Agró's remark (# 2) that the confusion arises from the development in vulgar, late classical and mediaeval Latin of the phonological equivalence of _t _and_ c_ before _i_ in particular. This has enduring relics in (for example) the orthography of words in legacy languages (including, for the purpose of the present discussion, English) such as "pronun*c*iation", Fr. _annon*c*e_(_r_), and of course all those abstract nouns such as Lat._ providentia_, _iustitia_, _scientia_, which generate modern derivatives such as "providence", "justice", "science".

The confusion, if that is what it is, is not helped by the fact that a _nuncio_ is an emissary from the Pope, so designated because it is the (early?) modern Italian for Latin _nuntius_, "messenger".

I hope this helps.

Σ


----------



## Nucleara

Thank you so much Agró and Scholiast.


----------



## wandle

Lewis & Short's  Latin Dictionary under the letter *T* has the following:


> The sibilant pronunciation of a medial *t* before *i* and a following vowel, is a peculiarity of a late period.
> ... but the commutation of *ci* and *ti*, which occurs not unfrequently in older inscriptions, shows the origin of this change in pronunciation to have been earlier.


For *nuntio*, the spelling *nunc-* is shown as an alternative. 

That seems to say that for the Romans, both spelliings were valid. However, the spelling with *t* is now seen as the usual one.


----------



## Nucleara

wandle said:


> Lewis & Short's  Latin Dictionary under the letter *T* has the following:
> 
> For *nuntio*, the spelling *nunc-* is shown as an alternative.
> 
> That seems to say that for the Romans, both spelliings were valid. However, the spelling with *t* is now seen as the usual one.



This makes it clear. Thank you so much wandle!


----------



## CapnPrep

wandle said:


> That seems to say that for the Romans, both spelliings were valid.


I suppose it depends which Romans you mean. Your quotation of Lewis & Short ended a bit prematurely:


> the commutation of _ci_ and _ti_, which occurs not  unfrequently in older inscriptions, shows the origin of this change in  pronunciation to have been earlier [than the 7th century]. *In the golden age of the language,  however, it was certainly   unknown.*


If — as I believe to be very likely — Nucleara is focusing on the Classical Latin of the Golden Age, the only acceptable form is _nuntio_.


----------



## wandle

The full paragraph reads:





> The sibilant pronunciation of a medial t before i and a following vowel, is a peculiarity of a late period. Isidorus (at the commencement of the seventh century after Christ) is the first who expresses himself definitely on this point: cum justitia sonum z litterae exprimat, tamen quia Latinum est, per t scribendum est, sicut militia, malitia, nequitia et cetera similia (Orig. 1, 26, 28); but the commutation of ci and ti, which occurs not unfrequently in older inscriptions, shows the origin of this change in pronunciation to have been earlier. In the golden age of the language, however, it was certainly unknown.


The point being made by L&S is that the sibilant pronunciation is a late phenomenon, unknown in the golden age (classical period).

*Nucleara's* question, however, is about the spelling. L&S do not give us any clear dating for that. They point out that the origin of the sibilant pronunciation is earlier than the seventh century, because the spelling with *c* is found in older inscriptions. No date is given for 'older inscriptions'. This vague expression could in principle refer to any period before the seventh century, from very early, pre-classical times onwards.

Thus I was not, and still am not, clear when the spelling with *c* was first used. It may have existed in pre-classical inscriptions, but not have been used in the classical period: and then have come back into favour in later Latin. In such a case, I conclude that the Romans of Cicero's time would have recognised both spellings, even though they normally used only that with *t*. The fact that L&S under *nuntio* recognise the alternative spelling *nunc-* would be consistent with that. This provisional conclusion is what I was trying to encapsulate in my simpler, though guarded, comment above.


----------



## CapnPrep

wandle said:


> They point out that the origin of the sibilant pronunciation is earlier than the seventh century, because the spelling with *c* is found in older inscriptions. No date is given for 'older inscriptions'.


According to Lindsay, "[t]he earliest examples date from the second cent. A. D." (p. 88) but sibilant pronunciation of "ti" was not established until the 5th century (p. 82).





wandle said:


> The fact that L&S under *nuntio* recognise the alternative spelling *nunc-* would be consistent with that.


L&S covers several distinct periods of Latin, and the variant forms it gives do not always come with full chronological indications. I notice also that they cite no textual examples of the_ ci-_ spelling. You will find many things in L&S that Cicero would not have recognized as valid.


----------



## wandle

CapnPrep said:


> According to Lindsay, "[t]he earliest examples date from the second cent. A. D." (p. 88) but sibilant pronunciation of "ti" was not established until the 5th century (p. 82).


Well, unlike L&S, this does give an apparent date for the appearance of the spelling with *c* (C2 A.D.), though, since the focus is on pronunciation, it is not entirely explicit.


> L&S covers several distinct periods of Latin, and the variant forms it gives do not always come with full chronological indications.


How true.


> You will find many things in L&S that Cicero would not have recognized as valid.


Of course you will; and it is hardly surprising, when you consider the time span covered.


----------



## bibax

Scholiast said:


> Salvete omnes
> ...
> This has enduring relics in (for example) the orthography of words in legacy languages (including, for the purpose of the present discussion, English) such as "pronun*c*iation", Fr. _annon*c*e_(_r_), and of course all those abstract nouns such as Lat._ providentia_, _iustitia_, _scientia_, which generate modern derivatives such as "providence", "justice", "science".
> ...
> Σ


On the other side, in Modern English the noun condi*ti*on is written with *-ti-*, the correct form would be condi*ci*on (from the Latin verb condico, condicere 'to agree'). The Latin word condi*ti*o means 'seasoning, spice' (from the verb condio, condire 'to season, to balm').


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete amici!



> On the other side, in Modern English the noun condi*ti*on is written with *-ti-*, the correct form would be condi*ci*on (from the Latin verb condico, condicere 'to agree'). The Latin word condi*ti*o means 'seasoning, spice' (from the verb condio, condire 'to season, to balm').


 (Bibax #11)

This is surely doubly wrong. First, the English spelling _condicion_ is known in some texts of the Reformation or Elizabethan periods (perhaps later too).

Secondly, the word is derived from the supine root of Lat. _condo_, _condere_, _condidi_, _conditum_, and has nothing to do with condiments or any other kind of seasoning, nor with _condicere_, the English abstract noun from which would be "condiction".

Σ


----------



## bibax

Scholiast said:


> Salvete amici!
> 
> (Bibax #11)
> 
> This is surely doubly wrong. First, the English spelling _condicion_ is known in some texts of the Reformation or Elizabethan periods (perhaps later too).
> 
> Secondly, the word is derived from the supine root of Lat. _condo_, _condere_, _condidi_, _conditum_, and has nothing to do with condiments or any other kind of seasoning, nor with _condicere_, the English abstract noun from which would be "condiction".
> 
> Σ


If you mean that the Latin word *condicio* (English equivalent written _condition_ instead of the older more accurate spelling _condicion_) is derived from the verb condo, condere, conditum, then you are surely wrong. Condicio is derived from the verb *condīco, condīcere, condictum*. I don't know why there was no _*condictio_ in Latin.

_sub *condicione* certa_ = under certain condition;
_*condicio* sine qua non;_

The Latin word *condītio* has another meaning and is derived from *condio, condīre, condītum* (stressed *ī* - 4th conj.):

_ ciborum *conditiones*;
*conditio* frugum;_

Some Latin derivations from the verb *condo, condere, cónditum* (unstressed i - 3rd conj.):

conditivum (grave), conditor (founder), conditorium (repository, coffin), but no _*conditio_ from this verb in Latin;


----------



## CapnPrep

bibax said:


> I don't know why there was no _*condictio_ in Latin.


Actually, there was: _condictio_.


bibax said:


> Some Latin derivations from the verb *condo, condere, cónditum* (unstressed i - 3rd conj.):
> […] no _*conditio_ from this verb in Latin;


Actually (in later Latin): _condĭtio_.

You are correct, however, about _condition_ replacing the etymological form _condicion_ (< condicio).


----------

