Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

39 Parrhesia, Schemata Lexeos (Patreon)

Published:
2024-08-07 15:00:02
Imported:
2024-08
Tags:

Downloads

Content

Schēmata Lexeōs Index

39) Παῤῥησίᾱ. Parrhēsia

Ferē contrārium est hoc superiōrī. Nam in hōc vehementer cum jūdice agendum est, et vitium aut errātum ejus audācter cōram eō reprehendendum. Sed dīligenter hōc ūtendum et rārō, ac simulandum est invītōs necessāriō dīcere, nē magis cōnfīdentiā quam dolōre excitātī videāmur, atque ita nōn fidēs, sed odium jūdicum cōnsequātur.

Dēmosthenis: 'Sed ego līberam vōcem vēritātis apud vōs omittam? Nōn, inquam, nec reticēbō, quod salūs commūnis dīcī flāgitat. Vestra opera, Athēniēnsēs, in tantō rēs pūblica perīculō est. Vōs enim dēfendere dēfēcistis, temere omnibus crēdendō, et quōrum ignāvissima sunt cōnsilia, eōrum sententiās ūtilissimās exīstimandō.'

Item Lycūrgī: 'Sed vōs, jūdicēs, vōs haec facere dēbētis. Nam cum in sententiīs ferundīs nocentibus remissē parcitis, vōs inpiōrum studium ad peccandum excitātis.'

Files

Comments

Enrico Muzunna

Just one question about Latin: why did you change in these years the open vowels "e" and "o" in mid vowels (in phonetic transcriptions and in speech)? A. Calabrese said that these were open vowels, and you didn't explain (if I remember correctly) why you changed the vocalic system. Is that because languages tend to "balance" their consonants and vowels basing on the space in the mounth (as you explained for the retracted "s"), or there's more?

Luke Amadeus Ranieri

I think this ends up being more about relative perception, in addition to actual realization. Calabrese recommends “open-mid” qualities, but “true-mid” would have satisfied as well. Sardinian vowels e and o appear “open” but are best described as true mid as well since they don’t contrast phonemically with close-mid partners. Thus in Sardinian, and in Latin too, we can expect some variation from close mid to open mid, and most often fall on true mid.

Enrico Muzunna

Thank you. It is very interesting the work done by Calabrese (someday I'm gonna read it all) and I still can't figure out how is it possible that such a great debunking is still ignored by the great majority of the academic linguistic. Something could be "legally" ignored if someone at least tried to de-debunk it, but since I've never seen a counterargument against the Calabrese's paper (if it exists correct me), the historical linguistic literature is sinning of logical fallacy, the ignōrātiō elenchī one. I hope this situation will be resolved someday

Luke Amadeus Ranieri

I suppose it’s because it’s explanation that satisfies the linguists who deal mostly with modern languages, and thus the problem is considered “solved” without further reflection upon the Classical Period of Latin literature. But I’ll be publishing in the future.

Enrico Muzunna

New videos about the argument? That sounds OPTIMÉ!

Enrico Muzunna

Hi Luke, I was thinking about a specific aspect of the pronunciation that you never mentioned: I'm talking about the three pronunciations of "l" as a [l̪(ː)], [ɫ̪] (or [ɫ]) and [l(ː)ʲ] (or [l̪(ː)ʲ]. Perhaps I have a bad ear, but I think that you just use the light l [l̪(ː)] pronunciation, am I right? And if it's so, why don't you make allophonic distinctions? I know that allophonic differences are the most difficult to detect in a language (especially a dead language with no living phonetic; I read a little the book about the New Testament's pronunciation), but why don't you pronounce it? Just a convention or you have evidences to treat them all as [l̪(ː)]s? Maybe you can talk about this topic on YouTube ;) Thank you in advance

Luke Amadeus Ranieri

Salvē, Enrīce! I comment about this rather a bit, actually (though perhaps not in recent videos or Patreon posts): while a dark L has been proposed for Classical Latin, the grammarians' commentary does not seem to line up with this hypothesis on close reading. We can propose a dark L for Old Latin due to certain developments in Old Latin (but not further developments in Classical Latin, such as Old Latin *velt > volt/vult), but then we have to understand why only Portuguese, French, and Spanish, such as altus > oto in Old Spanish, haute in French, show the development of dark L, but not Italian, Sardinian or Romanian, where alto in Italian, alt in Romanian remain with light L. It seems that, at a bare minimum, there existed a minority pronunciation of Classical Latin with the same L as Italian. Indeed, the grammarians' commentary seems to support that, rather than dark L. While I would not impune anyone for choosing a dark L, I do not at this time believe this to be the best reconstruction of a general Classical Latin Pronunciation circa 1cBC-2cAD.

Enrico Muzunna

I understand all, thank you! What do you think about the other “l” before “i” (and some says even before “e”), like [lʲ]icet or [l̪ʲ]icet? Thank you again, because all your advices are not obvious and it's not simple understand when the linguists (and ancient grammarians!) contradict each other