Tanquam or tamquam?
ChoirMan
I've seen both "tanquam" and "tamquam" used in this passage (Acts
2:2):
"et factus est repente de cælo sonus, tamquam [tanquam] advenientis
spiritus vehementis, et replevit totam domum ubi erant sedentes."
Is one option more correct? Are the two words interchangable? I
discovered, through the magic of Google, that there seems to be a
Latin phrase "tamquam tanquam", which seems to mean the same thing as
either word individually.
Is this some sort of linguistic joke from old Roman times...?
Thank you for your clarification -
ChoirMan
Johannes Patruus
> Dear Latinists,
>
> I've seen both "tanquam" and "tamquam" used in this passage (Acts
> 2:2):
>
> "et factus est repente de cælo sonus, tamquam [tanquam] advenientis
> spiritus vehementis, et replevit totam domum ubi erant sedentes."
>
> Is one option more correct?
Don't know about correct, but some folks prefer the "m" form -
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tamquam%20not%20tanquam%22
> Are the two words interchangable?
Yes. Similarly unquam/umquam, quicunque/quicumque, etc. No doubt there's
a learned disquisition about this out there somewhere.
> I discovered, through the magic of Google, that there seems to be a
> Latin phrase "tamquam tanquam", which seems to mean the same thing as
> either word individually.
>
> Is this some sort of linguistic joke from old Roman times...?
From what I've seen, I'm not convinced that it's a phrase as such, but
rather a collocation misrepresented as being a phrase.
> Thank you for your clarification -
>
> ChoirMan
Patruus
Johannes Patruus
PS. I've just had a listen to the first of the audioclips on your site:
http://www.benesonarium.com/audio-samples/
I liked it!
Patruus
Will Parsons
> Dear Latinists,
>
> I've seen both "tanquam" and "tamquam" used in this passage (Acts
> 2:2):
>
> spiritus vehementis, et replevit totam domum ubi erant sedentes."
>
> Is one option more correct? Are the two words interchangable? I
> discovered, through the magic of Google, that there seems to be a
> Latin phrase "tamquam tanquam", which seems to mean the same thing as
> either word individually.
>
> Is this some sort of linguistic joke from old Roman times...?
>
> Thank you for your clarification -
>
> ChoirMan
I would regard them as interchangeable and equally correct. "Tamquam"
represents the etymology better ("tam" + "quam"), but "tanquam" is closer
to how the word no doubt was actually pronounced.
(Getting ready for Pentecost I see.)
--
Will
Evertjan.
If you look at in- words there is a shift in- to im- before labials:
imb.., imm.., imp..
[while: irr-, ill-, inn-]
but never! before the other consonants:
inc-, inj-, inqu-, ins-, etc.
So perhaps "tamquam" was reduced to "tanquam" applying the gut-feeling of
the above ""never"-rule in the "wrong" place.
If so, you would see "tanquam" appearing later and being felt as correct
only after a certain date in Latin timeline.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Johannes Patruus
Palmer (p.337) says "tam . . . quam coalesced to form a single conjunction
tamquam", so I guess "tamquam" scores as the etymologically "correct" form
in Latin.
In the English lexicon, however, "tanquam" is normative, it being a noun
meaning (inter alia) "Something that has only an apparent existence; a
mere seeming; an ‘as it were’" (OED).
(Kinda feel like a tanquam myself!)
Patruus Phantasma
Ed Cryer
There's the added effect of "tantus a um" to consider; plus "quantus".
Ed
Will Parsons
> Will Parsons wrote on 04 jun 2011 in alt.language.latin:
>
>> ChoirMan wrote:
>>> Dear Latinists,
>>>
>>> I've seen both "tanquam" and "tamquam" used in this passage (Acts
>>> 2:2):
>>
>> represents the etymology better ("tam" + "quam"), but "tanquam" is
>> closer
>> to how the word no doubt was actually pronounced.
>
> If you look at in- words there is a shift in- to im- before labials:
>
> imb.., imm.., imp..
>
> [while: irr-, ill-, inn-]
>
> but never! before the other consonants:
>
> inc-, inj-, inqu-, ins-, etc.
>
> So perhaps "tamquam" was reduced to "tanquam" applying the gut-feeling of
> the above ""never"-rule in the "wrong" place.
>
> If so, you would see "tanquam" appearing later and being felt as correct
> only after a certain date in Latin timeline.
Actually, I doubt that. I think that Romans were far more likely to spell
words the way they actually sounded as opposed to how they "should" be spelled
by etymological criteria, and I really doubt that "tamquam" was ever actually
pronounced [tamkwam] in normal speech, since Latin regularly assimilates nasal
sounds to the point of articulation of a following consolant.
--
Will
Will Parsons
> On 05/06/2011 08:52, Johannes Patruus wrote:
>> On 05/06/2011 07:12, Evertjan. wrote:
>>> Will Parsons wrote on 04 jun 2011 in alt.language.latin:
>>>
>>>> ChoirMan wrote:
>>>>> Dear Latinists,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen both "tanquam" and "tamquam" used in this passage (Acts
>>>>> 2:2):
>>>>
>>>> represents the etymology better ("tam" + "quam"), but "tanquam" is
>>>> closer
>>>> to how the word no doubt was actually pronounced.
>>>
>>> If you look at in- words there is a shift in- to im- before labials:
>>>
>>> imb.., imm.., imp..
>>>
>>> [while: irr-, ill-, inn-]
>>>
>>> but never! before the other consonants:
>>>
>>> inc-, inj-, inqu-, ins-, etc.
>>>
>>> So perhaps "tamquam" was reduced to "tanquam" applying the gut-feeling of
>>> the above ""never"-rule in the "wrong" place.
>>>
>>> If so, you would see "tanquam" appearing later and being felt as correct
>>> only after a certain date in Latin timeline.
>>
>> Palmer (p.337) says "tam . . . quam coalesced to form a single
>> conjunction tamquam", so I guess "tamquam" scores as the etymologically
>> "correct" form in Latin.
>>
>> In the English lexicon, however, "tanquam" is normative, it being a noun
>> meaning (inter alia) "Something that has only an apparent existence; a
>>
>> (Kinda feel like a tanquam myself!)
>
Note that "tantus" is formed from "tam", illustrating the assimilation of the
"tam" to the following "-tus", just like "tam"+"quam" -> "tanquam". (Though
since the bond between the two elements in "tantus" is much stronger than
those of "tanquam", there was no doubt little temptation to spell it
"tamtus".)
--
Will
admin benesonarium
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough replies. I'll simply leave
the word as I find it in various sources.
For the final results in this case, see "Factus est repente" of
Aichinger, here:
http://www.benesonarium.com/free-scores-by-title/
Thanks again,
ChoirMan