Latin syllabification

Lucas wrote:

Hi everyone, what do you think about:

a-u-res

side note on the first one, I'd say:
au-res

imagine a French soprano...

joking aside, one would need to see the context

I am not the most suitable person for Latin... but I didn't understand (@Bianca) the French and context argument...

...does syllabification not depend on the language?

"Au" is one of those diphthongs that form a single syllable, such as au-res; instead, deprecationis is de-pre-ca-ti-o-nis ("io" is a hiatus, meaning it does not form a single syllable).

In any case, in sacred texts, it is a good idea to look for passages with that particular text (for the De profundis, see http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/78469 for example) and see how it is syllabified in the work in question.

Thanks Zedef!

Dilettante wrote:

I am not the most suitable person for Latin... but I didn't understand (@Bianca) the French and context discussion...

...does syllabification not depend on the language?

Zedef preceded me

it depends on the music ... both versions are easily used with vowels joined or not.

even if au-res would be correct by syllabizing in the "encoded" language, in music if there is a need, one can also use a-u-res

Same goes for deprecationes. It would be correct to say de-pre-ca-ti-o-nis, but if there is a necessity it becomes de-pre-ca-tio-nis.

It doesn't matter who sings: French or German or Chinese, Latin is the same for everyone.

If the French choir then has difficulty pronouncing this sequence, that is their problem ... just as for the German "agnus" becomes the horrendous "aghnus" ... that is their problem.

The composer must never think about this.

Regarding the second "it depends," I do not agree at all. There is only one syllabification. If, for various reasons, someone has made mistakes over the centuries, it is solely due to incapacity or ignorance. I have always found de-pre-ca-tio-nes/nis (a word that in the accusative plural is found in the "Gloria" and is therefore very commonly used), I don't remember, ti-o as it should be.

Regarding the diphthong, the issue is different: being two consecutive vowels, it can sometimes be convenient to separate them. It is a bit like the issue with the "L": when followed by a consonant, while singing it feels natural to place it close to it, so "al-tus" becomes "a-ltus," but it is not the syllabification at stake.

Zedef wrote:

I do not agree at all with the second "it depends." There is only one way to syllabicate. If, for various reasons, someone has made a mistake over the centuries, it is only due to incapacity or ignorance. I have always found de-pre-ca-tio-nes/nis (a word that in the accusative plural is found in the "Gloria" and therefore is very commonly used), I don't remember, with "ti-o" as it should be.

Regarding the diphthong, the issue is different: being two consecutive vowels, it can sometimes be convenient to separate them. It is a bit like the issue with the "L": when followed by a consonant, while singing it feels natural to place it close to it, so "al-tus" becomes "a-ltus," but that is not the syllabication at stake.

the issue is not right or wrong ... the issue is that if you find yourself in a certain situation you must adapt the text ... reason: the tonic accent of the word is precisely on the 'o' and therefore if you find yourself on a strong beat with the syllable 'ti' you might have no alternative and be forced to join 'tio'.

mmmhmm, I agree with Zedef, if we don't want to end up like Vinicio Capossela, in a traditional context, the music should respect the syllabification... it is up to the composer to use compositional material suitable for the text being set to music... and not vice versa.

Regarding the syllabification of "sarei", I agree with Zedef, in the sense that syllabification is an intrinsic characteristic of the language and, specifically, of the Latin language ("au-" in "aures" is a diphthong in itself, not because the composer decides it), but my geeky soul insists on emphasizing that, anyway, every composer does whatever they want. Not only that, as a singer I can testify that great performers always decide on internal divisions regarding casual pronunciation. That is, if I have a beautiful syllable "au" on a C that lasts two quarter notes, I will mark with a pencil where to pronounce the "u" that closes the syllable and I will do so following the rhythmic division of the phrase (suppose the accompaniment is dotted, perhaps I will decide to place the "u" on the last available eighth or sixteenth note) or my own particular interpretive thought (I could shade from "a" to "u" passing through the intermediate vowel "o", for example). In these cases, having indications from the composer is not a bad thing. In vocal polyphony, it would be very useful, not only on vowels but even on consonants, especially final ones. There is no codified performance practice for final "s" sounds, for example. "S" sounds have a duration and overshoot significantly; they have a very audible rhythmic value, and understanding how long they should or can last could be useful in the construction of a polyphonic phrase. The same goes for all other consonants. A typical phrase comes to mind: "Fac me Crucem custodire". Let's take "Fac Me Crucem" and divide it into a bar of 4/4 as Fac-Me-Cru-Cem. If the tempo allows, the "true" pronunciation of all phonetic elements in the phrase would presuppose a much more complex subdivision. A soloist would probably sing like this (dividing into sixteenth notes):

Fa-a-a-c/ Me-e-e-Cr/ u-u-u-u/ ce-e-m-m. In a polyphonic context, however, phonemes like the guttural "c" in "fac" could serve as rhythmic or phraseological articulations. If after a quarter-note "Fac" there were a rest of one quarter note, then it would probably make sense to have the "a" last only an eighth note and truncate with the guttural "c". And this is because the previous writing, i.e., fa-a-a-c, would cause a very strong accent on the fourth sixteenth note, which is a weak beat.

All these considerations, which often concern performers, could profitably be taken into consideration by composers as well (who generally ignore them...).

What I truly disagree with, however, is the discussion regarding "aghnus".

It is a complex issue, so I will try to be schematic.

1) we do not fully know the correct pronunciation of Classical Latin. Anyone who studied Latin in high school or university should know that our pronunciation is incorrect, since most likely in Classical Latin the palatal "c" did not exist, diphthongs did not exist as we pronounce them, and all consonants and vowels of Greek derivation were pronounced in the Greek manner. That is, "Caesar" was pronounced "Ka-e-sar", etc. etc.

2) the Latin we are talking about, however, is Medieval Latin, and Medieval Latin never had one single pronunciation. This is because it was not and is not a dead language. It is a particular matter, comparable to that of today's English. Does it make sense to go to Jamaica and tell Jamaicans they pronounce English incorrectly? Their English is a living language, almost an autonomous language, so much so that linguists divide it into Jamaican English and British English. Likewise, in the 1500s, it is practically certain that French theologians speaking Latin pronounced it with a series of phonetic "particularities", such as accents on the final syllables, or "c" sounds that instead of being palatal were similar to "s", or certain diphthongs pronounced like those in Vulgar French. But does it make sense to say that the "Italian" way is more correct than the French way? The answer is no.

3) in a truly informed performance, and not pseudo-philological, the criteria for "choosing" a pronunciation can be many. The most obvious and LEGITIMATE one is that it is pronounced in the way that your choir or your soloist is most comfortable with. That is, German choirs pronounce in the German way (with "c" becoming "z"), Italian choirs pronounce in the Italian way. Another criterion could be the nationality of the composer, so Palestrina is pronounced in the Italian way but Mozart is pronounced in the German way. If possible, a very "classy" criterion would be to pronounce according to what the score asks for... I sang a mass by Cherubini for MiTo months ago, and the musical accentuation made us realize it was all "in the French style": matèr, patèr, nostrùm. Well, if we had wanted to, we could have, I don't know, pronounced the "u" as an "iu", or the diphthongs "au" as "o". An even more striking example is a beautiful carol by William Walton that I sang the other night. It is titled "Make we joy now in this fest" and it is all based on

on the assonances between English and Latin. The phrases are half in Latin and half in English, and the Latin MUST be pronounced in an English manner, otherwise there are no rhymes. Here is an excerpt of the text

Make we joy now in this fest,

In quo Christus natus est.

Eya, eya.

A Patre Unigenitus,

Is through a maiden come to us:

Sing we of Him and say

'Welcome' Veni, Redemptor gencium.

Agnoscat omne seculum,

A bright star made three kings to come,

Him for to seek with their presen'ts,

Verbum supertum prodiens.

"A patre unigenitus" is pronounced with the final "as" so that it rhymes with "is through a maiden come to US", in English. Now, pronouncing these Latin phrases "the Italian way" means not only doing something the composer did not want (the composer's intention is obvious here), but destroying from the foundations the only cute find of this piece. Ignoring once again the fact that in the 1500s English in England was probably pronounced this way and not in the way our high school professors taught us

You are the cream of the crop of the WEB. Heartfelt thanks, you're fantastic!