# pronunciation of 'rex' in Classical Latin  [/regs/ vs /reks/]



## Arabus

Salvete,

Was the word _rex _pronounced /regs/ or /reks/ in CL? Is this matter disputed?

Gratias,


----------



## DigitalepurpureA

Hi =)

I always pronounced it as /reks/ during my studies...


Maybe some expert latinist can solve your doubt ^_^


----------



## Corvus Valerius

Not expert, but my own opinion, I guess picked up from my latin teachers, would be something more like "rayks" if that makes sense... a long e sound.


----------



## chamyto

could it be /eks/  ????


----------



## DigitalepurpureA

I always heard and pronounced it as /eks/...

I'm curious to hear some expert's opinion XD


----------



## Arabus

Thank you; but the correct answer must be /regs/, and anything else does not make sense to me. Still waiting for someone who knows. /rayks/ is obviously an Anglicism; and why would it be /eks/?! I thought Spanish and Italian had a trilled r!


----------



## DigitalepurpureA

/eks/ considering e+x...

By the way, /rayks/ seems an anglicism to me too.

In our schools and universities I always heard /reks/ (that is not wrong, it's not the Classical pronunciation)

Maybe because I don't know some classicisms...


----------



## Arabus

Thank you. You know what, /gs/ and /ks/ have pretty similar sounds and you probably wouldn't realize that a professor is saying /regs/ rather than /reks/ if you weren't paying particular attention to this nuance. Just an idea.


----------



## DigitalepurpureA

Mmm no... /regs/ and /reks/ have a completely different pronounce...

g and k are very different consonants in Italian


----------



## Forero

The thread title is the pronunciation of _X_ in Classical Latin, but the question is about the pronunciation of the word _rex_.

My answer for Classical Latin is that _REX_ was pronounced [reks]. Vulgar Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, Neo-Latin, and pre-classical Latin (sometimes) pronounced _X_ differently.

The syllable _REX_ was long because it ends in a (double) consonant, but there was no _y _sound, only the classical simple vowel [e]. The initial  _r_ was [r], not [ɹ], [ʀ], or [ʁ].
 
Though I have read that the actual sound of the _X_ may have been [kʂ] rather than [ks], I don't know of anything to support this but the existence of [ʂ] in medieval and peninsular Castillian.

I believe Roman writers of the Classical period said _X_ always had the same sound regardless of its origins (an _-X_ word may have other forms with _-C-_, _-G-_, or _-H-_). And Classical Greek writers said the same thing about the Greek _Ξ_.  Neither Greeks nor Romans mentioned any difference between the sound of the Latin _X_ and the sound of the Greek _Ξ_, even though Romans noticed that Greeks could not pronounce the _F_ properly (pronouncing it as [pʰ]) and Greeks noticed that Romans confused Greek _Φ_ ([pʰ])and _Π_ ([p]).

Many varieties of Castillian/Spanish do have the [gs] sound (and some [gʂ]) for _x_ between vowels in Latin-derived words like _exacto_, but not at the end of a word. Spanish words ending in _-x_ are loan words from Latin or truncated words like _ex_ for "former spouse". The Spanish reflex of _REX_ is _rey_, and _REGALIS_ has become both _real_ (the older term) and _regal_ (another loan word).


----------



## Arabus

Thank you.

Now let me first list some facts:

-The _original _pronunciation of _rex _must have been /regs/ because the stem is [reg-].
-According to Wikipedia's Old Latin (under "Orthography") the word _rex _was spelled _regs_ in Old Latin, and if you scroll down to under "Grammar and Morphology," you will see the declension table and beneath it a vague line that implies that X stood for both [gs] and [ks] in OL. This assumption (of mine?) is supported by the fact that C stood for both [g] and [k] in OL per the same article.

Now after I established (logically and apparently by evidence from Old Latin orthograhpy which did not distinguish between the pairs g/k and gs/ks) that the original pronunciation of _rex_ must have been /regs/, my question is: was [regs] pronounced /reks/ in CL?

What you are saying is that it was; so I guess this would be a kind of regressive assimilation. I wonder though if this kind of assimilation happened in other consoant clusters or was just restricted to /gs/ > /ks/, because the latter alternative would be somewhat weird.

Regardless, I am going to continue pronouncing it /regs/, because this is more original and more consistent, and one of the most beautiful things about Latin IMO is its consistency.


----------



## Arabus

BTW, the previous title was more apropriate because the word _rex_ is just an example to make the discussion of the larger question (gs/ks) easier, I hoped this would be clear.


----------



## Imber Ranae

Arabus said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Now let me first list some facts:
> 
> -The _original _pronunciation of _rex _must have been /regs/ because the stem is [reg-].
> -According to Wikipedia's Old Latin (under "Orthography") the word _rex _was spelled _regs_ in Old Latin, and if you scroll down to under "Grammar and Morphology," you will see the declension table and beneath it a vague line that implies that X stood for both [gs] and [ks] in OL. This assumption (of mine?) is supported by the fact that C stood for both [g] and [k] in OL per the same article.
> 
> Now after I established (logically and apparently by evidence from Old Latin orthograhpy which did not distinguish between the pairs g/k and gs/ks) that the original pronunciation of _rex_ must have been /regs/, my question is: was [regs] pronounced /reks/ in CL?
> 
> What you are saying is that it was; so I guess this would be a kind of regressive assimilation. I wonder though if this kind of assimilation happened in other consoant clusters or was just restricted to /gs/ > /ks/, because the latter alternative would be somewhat weird.
> 
> Regardless, I am going to continue pronouncing it /regs/, because this is more original and more consistent, and one of the most beautiful things about Latin IMO is its consistency.



Just because at one time it was written _gs_ doesn't mean it was ever pronounced that way. It's almost impossible to pronounce an unvoiced sibilant after a voiced plosive. Because Latin doesn't possess a native voiced sibilant [z] (Z was borrowed from Greek later), it makes sense that sandhi would devoice the plosive instead. Latin is very strong on euphony.

What other kinds of consonant clusters did you have in mind? Latin reduces very many of these, because only a small number of such clusters are permitted by its phonology. That's why we have, for example, nominative _custos_ instead of _custods_*, despite the stem being _custod-_. Another example is the noun _Arabs_, which is actually pronounced _Araps*_ in Latin. We know this because it comes directly from Greek Ἄραψ. Latin simply lacks a double consonant grapheme for _ps_ like Greek has, but for some reason it still prefers the etymologically correct spelling _bs_ to _ps_. That doesn't mean we should assume the Romans pronounced it differently than the Greeks did, from whom they borrowed it.


----------



## Forero

So apparently _-ds_ was already _-s_ in Classical Latin. But was _urbs_ pronounced "urps"?

(Modern Spanish does pronounce unvoiced _s_ after a voiced _g_ in words like _exacto_. Oddly, the flanking vowels cause voicing of the _k_ component of the _x_ but modern Spanish always devoices _s_ before a vowel. In Old Spanish the _s_ component was also voiced in this environment.)


----------



## Imber Ranae

Forero said:


> So apparently _-ds_ was already _-s_ in Classical Latin. But was _urbs_ pronounced "urps"?
> 
> (Modern Spanish does pronounce unvoiced _s_ after a voiced _g_ in words like _exacto_. Oddly, the flanking vowels cause voicing of the _k_ component of the _x_ but modern Spanish always devoices _s_ before a vowel. In Old Spanish the _s_ component was also voiced in this environment.)



I believe it is pronounced "urps", approximately.

You're right about that example from Spanish. I was speaking a bit too definitively. Spanish has voiced _g_ + unvoiced _s_ in _exacto_ because of the syllable boundary, which allows the two consonants to be pronounced separately in different syllables. That's not possible with Latin _rex_ and _urbs_ (unless perhaps the _s_ may be carried over to the next word if it is vowel-initial. I rather doubt that, however.)


----------



## Arabus

Thank you. Actually I was thinking of _urbs_ when I talked about the consonant clusters. My question turned out to be totally unnecessary -- I have looked in a Latin grammar and found out the answers to all these questions:

In Latin, regardless of transcription:
- * always devoices to /p/ before [s] or [t].
- [g] always devoices to /k/ before [s] or [t].
- d or t before s or t give s or ss.

I found these and other interesting rules in an old Latin grammar on the web. I think my problem was that I thought Latin transcription was regular, so I misunderstood the Wiki article.*


----------

