Chapter V: Sounds of the Diphthongs.--Summary

IT must be remembered that the Latin diphthongs (Æ, AU, EI, EU, Œ), were originally true _diphthongs_ (double sounds), in the full sense of the word. That is, in pronouncing a diphthong the sound of each of its elements was distinctly heard, though pronounced in the time of one syllable. (Terent. Maur. p. 2392 P; Prisc, p. 561 P.) Knowing, then, the true sounds of the individual letters which compose the diphthongs, it is a simple matter to determine the general pronunciation of the diphthongs themselves. At the same time, it is undoubtedly true that in the latter part of the classical period, a tendency to give only one elemental sound to the combination finally made its way from the pronunciation of the vulgar into that of the cultivated.

With this preliminary observation we may proceed to the discussion of the several diphthongs.

----

_Æ had originally the double sound _ah-ê_ pronounced quickly; later, the simple sound of Latin E, i.e. of English _a_ in "fate"._

(_a_) _Ae_ represents an early _ai_ which appears in the oldest Latin. Thus, _praifecius_, _quaistor_, _aulai_; and so Vergil to give an antique coloring to his language has _pictai_, _vestis_, _aquai_, _aulai_, etc. (Quint. I. 7.18). About the year B.C. 175, the _ai_ sound began to give way to the _ae_ sound, as can be shown from the testimony of inscriptions. The _ai_ sound of the diphthong (that of the English affirmative _ay_) may have lingered in the pronunciation of purists, for at the time when the Emperor Claudius instituted his reforms, we find a temporary revival of the spelling _ai_.

(_b_) As early as the beginning of the classical period _ae_ ceased to be sounded as a diphthong by the rustics and by the provincials generally. This is expressly stated by Varro in his treatise on the Latin language (iv. 9, and vii. 96 and 97), in which he gives _Mesius_ and _hedus_ as rustic sounds for _Maesius_ and _haedus_.

(_c_) This rustic neglect of the first element of the diphthong gradually prevailed until at last _ae_ had only the force of a long _e_ and is very generally so written, e.g. _seculum_ for _saeculum_, _femine_ for _feminae_, and even _que_ for _quae_. But this is as late as the third and fourth centuries A.D. The classical sound was undoubtedly _ăé_.

_AU had the sound of _ow_ in English "now"._

(_a_) _Au_ remained a true diphthong down through the classical period at least in the pronunciation of the educated. The Greeks represent it by _αυ_, as in _Κλαύδιος_ for Claudius.

(_b_) In vulgar and provincial circles, _au_ had sometimes the sound of _u_, the first element of the diphthong being neglected as was the case with _ae_. Hence we find occasionally in inscriptions such forms as _frudavi_ for _fraudavi_, _cludo_ for _claudo_, etc. But the vulgar generally gave to _au_ the sound of _ō_, as in modern French. Thus, some branches of the Claudian family called themselves _Clodii_, and we find in provincial inscriptions even at an early period _Pola_ for _Paulla_, _Plotus_ for _Plautus_, etc. Suetonius in his life of the Emperor Vespasian tells a story bearing on this, which has been often repeated and is important as showing that even in the Silver Age, _au_ was still pronounced as a diphthong. The anecdote runs as follows: "Having been admonished by one Mestrius Floras, a man of consular rank, that he ought to say '_plaustra_' rather than '_plostra_,' he greeted Floras the next day as '_Flaurus_'"--the point of which is that _Flaurus_ suggests the Greek _φλαῦρος_, "good for nothing."

_EI had the sound of _ei_ in English "feint"._

_Ei_ remained a true diphthong in keeping the sound of both its elements; but the combination _ei_ is often found merely as an equivalent for _ī_. Gorssen remarks that in the root-syllables of the words _deiva_, _leiber_, _deicere_, _ceivis_; in locative forms; and in the dative and ablative plural of -_a_ stems and -_o_ stems, _ei_ is a true diphthong, but is elsewhere a transition vowel between _ī_ and _ē_. Cf. _Aussprache_, I. 719, 788; Ritschl, _Opuscula_, II. 626; Roby, §§ 267, 268.

_EU had (nearly) the sound of _eu_ in English "feud"._

_Eu_ remained a true diphthong with more stress upon the second element than upon the first. This is seen by the fact that (rarely) it has passed into _ū_ [1] but never into _ē_. The combination _eu_ is not often found in Latin except in transliterating Greek words, and in the exclamations _heu_, _heus_, and _eheu_, and in the contractions _neu_ (_neve_), _seu_ (_sive_), and _neuter_ (_ne_ + _uter_). In _neutiquam_ the antepenult is short.

_OE had the sound of _oi_ in English "toil" (nearly), or of _ōē_._

Oe represents an original _oi_ and remained a diphthong in those words in which it continued to be written. When the first element predominates over the second, _oe_ passes into _u_, as in _plura_ for _ploera_, _punio_ from the root of _poena_, _cura_ for _coera_. When the second element predominates, _oe_ passes into _ae_ (by a confusion) and _ē_, as in _obscaonus_ and _obscenus_ for _obscaenus_. But in words where _oe_ is regularly written, it is to be pronounced as a true diphthong.

_UI as a diphthong_ occurs only in a few interjections, as _hui_, _fui_, and in _huic_ and _cui_. In both _huic_ and _cui_ it represents an earlier _oi_ (_hoic_, _quoi_). In other words (e.g. _exercitui_, _gradui_, etc.) _ui_ is not a diphthong, but each vowel is pronounced separately.

----

The Romans were the first people to call the letters of the alphabet by their _sounds_ rather than by _names_, as was done in Greek and in the Semitic languages. Thus the Latin vowels were named by simply uttering their sounds; the mute consonants and _h_ by uttering a vowel after them, and the so-called nasal and fricative consonants by uttering a vowel before them. This vowel was _e_ except in the case of _k_, _h_, _q_, and _x_. Hence, a Roman boy saying over his alphabet, would have given it thus:

_ah, bé, ké, dé, ê, ef, ghé, ha, î (_ee_), ka, el, em, en, ô, pé, qu (_coo_), er, es, té, oo, ix, (ü, zeta)_. (Prise, p. 540 P.)

In pronouncing Latin words, too much care can not be taken in distinguishing between long vowels and those that are short. Cicero says: _Omnium longitudinum et brevitatum in sonis sicut acutarum graviumque vocum indicium, natura in auribus nostris collocavit_; and student and teacher alike will find that if from the outset a correct and careful pronunciation of Latin be required, those bugbears of the learner--the rules of prosody--will almost teach themselves, because they will have a consistency and meaning that can never be obvious to the unfortunate victim of the "English system." Professor Richardson, who deserves honor as being one of the first American scholars to advocate and adopt the true method of pronouncing Latin, has well summed up the whole matter in a single paragraph:

"To teach the student, from his first entrance upon the study of Latin, the English system of pronunciation; to get him thoroughly habituated to this false method, and then by lodging in his brain some verbal rules of quantity and prosody, at war often with each other and commonly with his pronunciation, to attempt to make him appreciate and observe the rhythm of Latin poetry, is like keeping a child in a rude society where all the laws of a pure and finished language are habitually violated, and then expecting him, by virtue of committing to memory the common rules of grammar and rhetoric, to talk at once with grammatical and rhetorical correctness and elegance."

And this little treatise may be closed by citing the most obvious of the _reasons for adopting the Roman System_.

(1) Because it is approximately the system used by the Romans themselves.

(2) Because it is more musical and harmonious in sound, and makes the structure of Latin verse clear even to the beginner.

(3) Because it is simpler than the English system, giving as it does but one sound to each alphabetical character, and thus always distinguishing words of different orthography and meaning by their sounds, while the English system often confuses them; e.g. _census_ and _sensus_; _caedo_, _cedo_, and _sedo_; _circulus_ and _surculus_; _cervus_ and _servus_; _amici_ and _amisi_.

(4) Because it makes the connection of Latin words with their Greek cognates plain at once, and renders easier the study of Greek, of the modern Romance language, and of the science of Comparative Philology. [2]

[1] In the _Carmen Saliare_ we find _Leucesie_, a vocative of the later _Lucelius_ from the root of _lux_. Cf. Paull. ex Fest. p. 114 (Müller).

[2] See Richardson's _Roman Orthoëpy_, pp. 83-106. This little book, which is unfortunately out of print, contains some exceedingly good points very cleverly put, though the view that it takes of certain phonetic questions is one that more recent scholarship does not accept.