# Ave!



## Invictus7

I'm wondering of the pronunciation and translation of "Ave". As in: "Ave Caesar" 

Just to confirm: pronounced: A-VAY?
translates: hail?


----------



## XiaoRoel

*Aue* [*awe*], o con otra grafía _*haue*_, parece un punicismo adaptado al latín segun el modelo de _uale_. Es fórmula de saludo corriente en las inscripciones funerarias (al lado de los caminos) para saludar al viajero.
Los latinos lo sentían como imperativo de _auere_ (de ahí formas como _auete, aueto_).
Equivale a ¡_hola_! en español (y _uale_ equivaldría a ¡_adiós_!), aunque aparece a veces en la fórmula "_aue et uale_".
Lo que las lenguas modernas representan con /v/ en latín se escribe con /u/ con pronunciación [w], y en mayúscula /V/. *En latín clásico no existen ni /v/, ni /U/, ni /J/ o /j/*.


----------



## Invictus7

Sorry XiaoRoel but I can't understand what you write!


----------



## XiaoRoel

*Aue* [_*awe*_], or, with another graphie *haue*, seems a punicisme adapted to the Latin according to the model of _*uale*_. It is formule of current greeting in the funeral inscriptions (next to the roads) to greet the traveller.
The Latins felt it as imperative of _auere_ (of there forms like _auete_, _aueto_).
It is equivalent a  _hello_! in English (and *uale* it would be equivalent a  good bye)sometimes, although *uale* appears in the formula “aue et uale”.
What the modern languages represent with /v/ in Latin writes with /u/ with pronunciación [w], and in /V/ capital letter. In Latin classic neither /v/, nor /U/, nor /J/ or /j/ exist.


----------



## Invictus7

thanks xiao


----------



## XiaoRoel

I apologize for my english.


----------



## Frenchlover1

This was fantastic, XiaoRoel!!! You are excellent!
It was a pleasure to read both the English and the Spanish versions! I speak French, and it is wonderful to look at the similarity to Spanish, and how easy it is to understand!
And your English is very good according to my Norwegian eyes

(Post scriptum. ¡Felicitaciones por el mundial de fútbol!
Dal segno.)

(Please correct any mistakes)

Saludos cordiales,
Frenchlover1


----------



## Cagey

Yes, the English is fine.

And the explanation is very clear and informative, as is usual with XiaoRoel.


----------



## Ben Jamin

XiaoRoel said:


> *Aue* [*awe*], o con otra grafía _*haue*_, parece un punicismo adaptado al latín segun el modelo de _uale_. Es fórmula de saludo corriente en las inscripciones funerarias (al lado de los caminos) para saludar al viajero.
> Los latinos lo sentían como imperativo de _auere_ (de ahí formas como _auete, aueto_).
> Equivale a ¡_hola_! en español (y _uale_ equivaldría a ¡_adiós_!), aunque aparece a veces en la fórmula "_aue et uale_".
> Lo que las lenguas modernas representan con /v/ en latín se escribe con /u/ con pronunciación [w], y en mayúscula /V/. *En latín clásico no existen ni /v/, ni /U/, ni /J/ o /j/*.


I think that Invictus asked a question of a rather simpler level: not the actual pronunciation by Romans (with the "w" vs "v" thing), but rather the "correct traditional school pronuciation". Then it would be "aveh" not "avey" using the traditional English orthography. In general rendering the final 'e' in most languages other than English with an 'ey' gives usually a wrong result, as 'ey' is actally a closed syllable, although not perceived as such by the English speakers.


----------



## XiaoRoel

The correct traditional school pronunciation is a _*erroneous*_ pronunciation of the classic Latin, and it is only possible to be admitted for later texts to (that?) the s. VIII.


----------



## Ben Jamin

XiaoRoel said:


> The correct traditional school pronunciation is a _*erroneous*_ pronunciation of the classic Latin, and it is only possible to be admitted for later texts to (that?) the s. VIII.


 Yes, from a point of view of a classical philologist. But the 'erroneous' pronunciation is well established in the Catholic Church, in schools, among choir singers, etc, and I do not believe it will be replaced during our life. One can say that we have several vaieties of Modern Latin (Italian, French, Spanish, German) which are more alive than Classical Latin.


----------



## XiaoRoel

For thirty years I have been professor of Latin. In Spain, at least since my generation we are professors, “the Spanish” pronunciación has been exiled of education. We studied Latin classic, non dialectal vulgar Latin. In any case, and if we talked about Latin the vulgar one, only they would be permissible the Neolatin pronunciations, but not it germanic. The Catholic Church uses the Italian pronunciation, does not exist an ecclesiastical pronunciation.


----------



## Cagey

Ben Jamin said:


> Yes, from a point of view of a classical philologist. But the 'erroneous' pronunciation is well established in the Catholic Church, in schools, among choir singers, etc, and I do not believe it will be replaced during our life. One can say that we have several vaieties of Modern Latin (Italian, French, Spanish, German) which are more alive than Classical Latin.


The variations are interesting, of course.  However, it is reasonable to assume that this question about the pronunciation of _Ave_ in _Ave Caesar_ is a question about the pronunciation in a classical context.  That is, it is about the pronunciation classical philologists would use. 





Invictus7 said:


> I'm wondering of the pronunciation and  translation of "Ave". As in: "Ave Caesar"
> 
> Just to confirm: pronounced: A-VAY?
> translates: hail?


----------



## orloberto

XiaoRoel said:


> *Aue* [*awe*], o con otra grafía _*haue*_, parece un punicismo adaptado al latín segun el modelo de _uale_. Es fórmula de saludo corriente en las inscripciones funerarias (al lado de los caminos) para saludar al viajero.
> Los latinos lo sentían como imperativo de _auere_ (de ahí formas como _auete, aueto_).
> Equivale a ¡_hola_! en español (y _uale_ equivaldría a ¡_adiós_!), aunque aparece a veces en la fórmula "_aue et uale_".
> Lo que las lenguas modernas representan con /v/ en latín se escribe con /u/ con pronunciación [w], y en mayúscula /V/. *En latín clásico no existen ni /v/, ni /U/, ni /J/ o /j/*.


 

Hola:
Entonces, ¿"ave" es lo mismo que "Salve" o este último es un saludo más formal?


----------



## Ali Smith

I know the first vowel of avē is short and the second is long, but why do some people place a small crescent above the _e_ and write avē̆? What does it signify?


----------



## Ben Jamin

Ali Smith said:


> I know the first vowel of avē is short and the second is long, but why do some people place a small crescent above the _e_ and write avē̆? What does it signify?


It must be a mistake. This "crescent" sign has been used to mark a short syllable/vowel in Latin poetry. Setting both the mark for a long and a short vowel has no sense.


----------



## Sobakus

Ali Smith said:


> I know the first vowel of avē is short and the second is long, but why do some people place a small crescent above the _e_ and write avē̆? What does it signify?





Ben Jamin said:


> It must be a mistake. This "crescent" sign has been used to mark a short syllable/vowel in Latin poetry. Setting both the mark for a long and a short vowel has no sense.


It's not a mistake – this notation is used to mean "short or long". It's used both when the length is uncertain, or when the pronunciation actually varies.

In the interjection _ave,_ which is a borrowing from Punic (Carthaginian), the original and ordinary pronunciation was with a short /e/ and with aspiration, which is accurately represented in the graphy HAVE. Some incorrectly removed the aspiration and added a long vowel by false analogy with the verb _avēre_ “to be eager”. The word then grew an infinitive and a plural _(h)avēte_ as if it was a verb. Still, the vowel in the singular would have been short for the absolute majority of speakers who weren't trying to make a point of “knowing better”.


----------



## Ali Smith

That explains why some people spell “ubi” (“where”) as ubī̆.


----------



## Sobakus

Ali Smith said:


> That explains why some people spell “ubi” (“where”) as ubī̆.


That's right - all short final _i's_ are the result of shortening, mostly of the original diphthong /ei/, in which case they probably had the quality of the long vowel /ē/ (i.e. they were tense even though short). In Sardinian, which reflects /ĭ/ as /i/, they give _ube, tibe _etc. All of these forms exhibit what's known as _iambic shortening, _meaning the vowel shortens in two-syllabic words where the first syllable is light (short). Originally this happened only when the short-long iambic sequence was immediately followed by a stressed syllable.


----------

