Latin: "Syllables are like sandwiches. Vowels are the meat, or peanut butter: you need those. But consonants are like bread: you can have only one slice or you can have it on both sides, but you can also eat the salame by itself." Georgian: "I really like bread. Let me rephrase that: I fucking love bread. Can I have a sandwich with an empty sandwich in it?"
Dude you’re great. Thank you so much for helping me on my journey. I’m sure you could release a (hard or soft) textbook which matches content in the vids. If you have done please make it known aha
Thanks! The interesting thing with publishing is that I have far more reach here than with a traditional textbook. So, I’ll keep trying to innovate on the web and RU-vid to find new avenues of instruction.
Interesting how in Arabic, syllabification is so important too in poetry as it defines the nature of some poetry (i dunno what's the english right translation but we call them seas as they actually mean "fields" ((بحر الطويل على سبيل المثال - العَرُوض)
Have you ever heard of the sonority hierarchy? Latin is no exception in the rules of sonority, because it concerns all languages equally well. So it would be much easier to figure out without any arbitrary rules if the sonority hierarchy were employed. For example, vowels are usually the most sonorous, so they make the nuclei of the syllables (the syllabic centres), but there are languages (e.g. Czech) in which consonants can work as syllabic centres as well, provided they are the peak in sonority (that is, they are more sonorous than their surrounding sounds). So you can have words like "kr·tek" (two syllables), for example. A neat example in English would be the onomatopoeic word "pssst", in which the "s" sound makes the syllable centre, because it's more sonorous than the surrounding "p" and "t" stops. The syllable boundaries are the "valleys" in sonority - places where sonority stops decreasing and starts increasing again. Consonants that follow the most sonorous sound and gradually fall in sonority make the syllable's coda, while the consonants that start to increase in sonority again make the syllable's onset. So all you have to do is to order the sounds according to their sonority and "graph" the "sonority curve" under a word to see where the syllabic centres are and where the boundaries between the syllables should go. No other arbitrary (and often flawed) rules are needed.
I love this section about pronunciation, it really helps me a lot because I am learning it on my own But my English is not very fluent, it would be so appreciate if it can be telling a bit bit slowly. Thank you!
Yes, the i in villa is long. I follow the Oxford Latin Dictionary rule of not marking longs when they are followed by two consonants. How do we know that the i is long, though? Villa most probably is a dimunitive from the noun vīcus (where we know the i is long), meaning village or town. vīcus > vīculus > vīlla.
Actually, Latin syllables are completely obvious and intuitive, English is the tough language to split them apart. Or maybe I think so because I`m Brazilian and speak Portuguese as a mother tongue.
how is the Latin word “sui” properly pronounced? from what i have gathered from your rudimentary videos on Consonants, Vowels, & on Syllables, it seems “Sui” would sound either like if one were to say “Swiss”, but without the two S letters, or like the French “oui” with an S before it. The internet has repeatedly revealed a pronunciation like if “chop suey” didn’t have the chop in it. I’ll appreciate your take, as i do the wealth of information in the Latin Tutorial videos that i’ve so truly and thoroughly enjoyed learning with . if anybody else has a suggestion on this topic of how to pronounce Sui, id love to know what some thoughts are… 🌻
It has two syllables, even though some words beginning su- treat the u consonantally (e.g., suavis). So “suey” is closer than s + oui. But with a stress and emphasis on the su-.
There is no way you could split "dixit" in two ways. As explained before in the video, there are two vowels and hence two syllables, and consonants rather start syllables.
Do you have documentation for this? This is great! I completely agree with you and but I would like to be able to Source the material rather than a RU-vid video.
The word abest should be syllabified as a-best, wright? For example in the 584th verse of the first book of Aeneis we have: Ūnus abest, mediō in flūctū quem vīdimus ipsī, which has to be: Ū-nu-sa-best-me-di-[ō]in-flūc-tū-quem-vī-di-mu-sip-sī
Well, prefixes should really be kept in their own syllable: ab-est. And you should also keep a consonant within its own word. So: U-nus ab-est me-di-[o] in fluc-tu quem vi-di-mus ip-si
A lot of scientists, linguists, archaeologists, historians etc. are considering that 8,500 years ago, Romania was the heart of the old European civilization. The new archaeological discoveries from Tartaria, (Romania), showed up written plates older than the Sumerian ones. More and more researches and studies converged to the conclusion that the Europeans are originated in a single place, the lower Danube basin. Down there, at Schela and Cladova in Romania have been discovered proves of the first European agricultural activities which appear to be even older than 10,000 years. Out of 60 scientifically works which are covering this domain, 30 of them localize the primitive origins of the man-kind in Europe, where 24 of them are localizing this origin in the actual Romania, (Carpathian- Danubian area); 10 are indicating western Siberia, 5 Jutland and/or actual Germany room, 4 for Russia, 4 for some Asian territories, 1 for actual France area and all these recognisied despite against the huge pride of those nations. Jean Carpantier, Guido Manselli, Marco Merlini, Gordon Childe, Marija Gimbutas, Yannick Rialland, M. Riehmschneider, Louis de la Valle Poussin, Olaf Hoekman, John Mandis, William Schiller, Raymond Dart, Lucian Cuesdean, Sbierea, A. Deac, George Denis, Mattie M.E., N. Densuseanu, B.P. Hajdeu, P Bosch, W. Kocka, Vladimir Gheorghiev, H. Henchen, B.V. Gornung, V Melinger, E. Michelet, A. Mozinski, W. Porzig, A. Sahmanov, Hugo Schmidt, W. Tomaschek, F.N. Tretiacov are among the huge number of specialists which consider Romania the place of otehr Europeans origines and Romanian the oldest language in Europe, older even than Sanskrit. According to the researchers and scientists, the Latin comes from the old Romanian (or Thracian) and not vice versa. The so called "slave" words are in fact pure Romanian words. The so called vulgar Latin is in fact old Romanian, or Thracian language, according to the same sources... The arguments sustaining the theories from above are very numerous and I don't want to go into them so deeply as long as the forum is and has to remain one languages dedicated, to. In the limits of the language, please allow me to present a list of just a few (out of thousands of words), which are very similar/ even identical in Romanian and Sanskrit: Romanian numerals : unu, doi, trei, patru, cinci, sase, sapte...100=suta Sanskrit numerals: unu, dvi, tri, ciatru, penci, sas, saptan...100 = satan then Romanian Sanskrit acasa acasha (at home) acu acu (now) lup lup ( wolf) a iubi (considered slave) iub (love) frate vrate (brother) camera camera (room) limba lamba (tongue) nepot napat (neffew) mandru mandra (proud) lupta lupta (fight) pandur pandur (infanterist) nevasta navasti (wife) prieten prietema (friend) pranz prans (lunch time) Ruman Ramana (Romanian) saptamana saptnahan (week) struguri strughuri (grapes) vale vale (valley) vadana vadana (widow) a zambi dzambaiami (to smile) umbra dumbra (shadow) om om (man-kind) dusman dusman (enemy) a invata invati (to study) a crapa crapaiami (to break something) naiba naiba (evil) apa apa (water) and not AQUA like in Latin. It looks like aqua came from apa and not the other way around... and so on for more than thousand situations... According to M. Gimbutas, the confusion Roman (Romanian as in original language) = Roman (ancient Rom citizen), is generated by the fact that Romans and Romanians have been the same nation, the same people. The Dacians/Thracians and Romans have been twins. The illiterate peasants called Romanians, Ruman and not Roman. Why do they call so? Because RU-MANI, RA-MANI, RO-MANI, API, APULI, DACI and MAN-DA , VAL-AH are all synonyms expressing the person from the river banc or from the river valley. APII could be found under the form of mez-APPI in the ancient Italy, under he same name as the APPULI Dacians. APU-GLIA, (or Glia Romanilor in Romanian - Romanian land) can be found with this meaning only in Romanian (Glia= land) In the Southern side of Italian "booth" exists the first neolitical site of Italy and it is called MOL-feta. The name itself has Romanian names, according to Guido A. Manselli: MOL-tzam (popular Thank you), MUL-tumire (satisfaction), na-MOL (mud); MOL-dova (province and river in Romania, Za-MOL-xis, Dacian divinity. Manselli said that this archaeological sit is 7,000 years old and has a balcanic feature. I came up with this topic just to hear decent opinions and not banalities like those of a few days ago when while surfing for a language forum, I read all kind of suburban interventions. This topic is for people whith brain only. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IhDMWmGOBrA.html
LifeInspector Thanks, I'll look into it. But for the time being, you can always support me via PayPal (go to latintutorial.com) or go to my channel page (ru-vid.com) and click on the Support link on the right side of the page.
