# cui bono (pronunciation)



## cyberpedant

I have heard--and the dictionaries I've looked at state-- that "cui" in the phrase "cui bono" is pronounced /kwi/ exactly as "qui," the nominative. I was taught--in the "Church Latin" tradition--that the dative was pronounced as two syllables. Is either more correct than the other?


----------



## Nino83

At school we pronounced /kui̯ /

/kwis kwis kwid
kujus kujus kujus
kui̯ kui̯ kui̯ 
kwem kwem kwid
kwo kwo kwo/ 

I'd say /kui̯ bɔːno/


----------



## cyberpedant

Thank you, Nino83. Do you consider /kwi/ completely incorrect, or is there some latitude?


----------



## Nino83

I always heard the pronunciation /kui̯ /, in sentences like _cui prodest?_ and other ones. 
I think the Latin orthography has some reason (cu = /ku/, qu = /kw/) and the Italian descendant, _cui_ is pronounced /kui̯ / too, so /kwi/ sounds very strange to me.


----------



## cyberpedant

Thanks again. I imagine I'm confusing "quis, quis, quid" with "qui, quae, quod." But on at least a few US TV shows the pronunciation has been /kwi/.
 Annoying.


----------



## Nino83

You're right.
In this case it is _qui quae quod_. 

At school we pronounced it like:

/kwi kwe kwod
kujus kujus kujus
kui̯ kui̯ kui̯
kwem kwam kwod
kwo kwa kwo/

Some right pronunciation from forvo, from two Italian speakers:
http://it.forvo.com/word/cui_bono/#la
http://it.forvo.com/word/cui_prodest?/#la 

/kwi boʊ̯noʊ̯/ is the actual English pronunciation


----------



## Copperknickers

It's always slightly dangerous to start correcting English loan phrases to real Latin pronounciation. Pronouncing cui properly as 'cu-ee' is harmless, but it's a slippery slope from that to 'Yoo-lee-us Kai-czar'. Which sounds like some kind of crazy Korean dictator. I think it's generally better to stick to the English pronounciation or people won't understand you.


----------



## jrundin

You raise some interesting questions here. One issue is how the Romans pronounced qu. We actually do not know. What we
do know is that it was pronounced as a single consonant. That is, it was not pronounced as 'kw,' which would be a double consonant. We also know that in the descendants of Latin, the qu turned into a 'k' sound.  Finally, if it were just a 'k' sound, the Romans would probably have spelled it with a 'c,' but they spelled it 'qu,' so it ought to be somehow different. One plausible theory that fits with these facts is that it was essentially a 'k' sound pronounced with a simultaneous lip rounding (but the lip rounding did not drag on past the 'k' sound to make a double consonant something like 'kw')—the 'u' was there to indicate the lip rounding. That is, "qui" was pronounced "ki," except the lips were rounded while, not after, pronouncing the "k."

Now on to "cui." The "ui" is a diphthong here. So this is a one syllable word. I guess it should sound like "k-u-i" with the "u" and "i" blended to make one sound.

This being said, I always hear "kwee boh-noh. And Copperknickers is right about just pronouncing it as everyone else does.


----------



## Copperknickers

jrundin said:


> You raise some interesting questions here. One issue is how the Romans pronounced qu. We actually do not know. What we
> do know is that it was pronounced as a single consonant. That is, it was not pronounced as 'kw,' which would be a double consonant. We also know that in the descendants of Latin, the qu turned into a 'k' sound.  Finally, if it were just a 'k' sound, the Romans would probably have spelled it with a 'c,' but they spelled it 'qu,' so it ought to be somehow different. One plausible theory that fits with these facts is that it was essentially a 'k' sound pronounced with a simultaneous lip rounding (but the lip rounding did not drag on past the 'k' sound to make a double consonant something like 'kw')—the 'u' was there to indicate the lip rounding. That is, "qui" was pronounced "ki," except the lips were rounded while, not after, pronouncing the "k."
> 
> Now on to "cui." The "ui" is a diphthong here. So this is a one syllable word. I guess it should sound like "k-u-i" with the "u" and "i" blended to make one sound.



Not according to my Latin professor. Do you have a source that proves 'qu' was not 'kw' and cu not 'koo'?


----------



## Nino83

Copperknickers said:


> Not according to my Latin professor. Do you have a source that proves 'qu' was not 'kw' and cu not 'koo'?



http://venus.unive.it/canipa/dokuwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=en:pdf&cache=cache&media=en:latino121.pdf 

Here it is said that, for example, _ad quem_ was pronounced [akˈk̮ɛ̃] where /k̮/ is is a /k/ with lip rounding. 
By the way, in all Romance languages this _qu_ was/is pronounced /kw/ and it is pronounced so in _liturgical Latin_. 

Anyway, _cu_ was surely pronounced /ku/, so _cui_, in Latin pronunciation, is /kui̯/, not /kwi/.


----------



## francisgranada

[QUOTE="Nino83, post: 15518903] ...Anyway, _cu_ was surely pronounced /ku/, so _cui_, in Latin pronunciation, is /kui̯/, not /kwi/.[/QUOTE]Further more, if _cui _had been pronounced /kwi/ then not only the Italian _cui _should have become *_qui _/kwi/ or _*chi_ /ki/, but also the Spanish _cuyo _(_< cuius_)_ w_ould be *_quío _/kio/, etc ...


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

I couldn't agree with nino more on the fact that the "Restituta" pronunciation of CUI is indeed/kui̯/, not /kwi/, and the same goes for the ecclesiastical pronunciation.

Valete.

GS


----------

