Correct pronounciation of Rationale
Dj Padzensky
last syllable rhyming with "pal." However, recently, I met someone
who insists on pronouncing it to rhyme with "kaylee"
(ie- ra-shun-ay-lee). Is this an acceptable pronounciation? Webster's
didn't list it...
Anyone else heard of this one?
--Dj
Mark Israel
> All my life, I've been taught that "rationale" is pronounced, with the
> last syllable rhyming with "pal." However, recently, I met someone
> who insists on pronouncing it to rhyme with "kaylee"
> (ie- ra-shun-ay-lee). Is this an acceptable pronounciation?
Yes, that is the original pronunciation, and was recommended by
Fowler. "Rationale" is a Latin word, and it had 4 syllables in
Latin. The new, 3-syllable pronunciation is the result of
assimilation to French- and German-derived words like "chorale",
"locale", and "morale".
> Webster's didn't list it...
Nor do my other dictionaries. I guess it's obsolete.
mis...@csi.uottawa.ca Mark Israel
pronunciation pronunciation pronunciation pronunciation pronunciation
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Mark Israel
} In article <2rbfom$c...@paris.ics.uci.edu>, Dj Padzensky <djp...@john-coyote.ics.uci.edu> writes:
}
}> All my life, I've been taught that "rationale" is pronounced, with the
}> last syllable rhyming with "pal." However, recently, I met someone
}> who insists on pronouncing it to rhyme with "kaylee"
}> (ie- ra-shun-ay-lee). Is this an acceptable pronounciation?
}
} Yes, that is the original pronunciation, and was recommended by
} Fowler. "Rationale" is a Latin word, and it had 4 syllables in
} Latin.
Sorry, 5 syllables in Latin (ra-ti-o-na-le). "ti" and "o" became
one syllable in English.
My sysadmin promises me that I'll be able to cancel my posts
soon.
Philip Howells
djp...@john-coyote.ics.uci.edu "Dj Padzensky" writes:
Isn't this another example of the problem of "how do we pronounce foreign
language words that we adopt into our own?" The word is French and therefore I
use the same pronounciation as you, ie to rhyme with "pal". However, like 99%
of others here I say Paris to rhyme with "kiss" not "see" so I guess you can
take your pick! :)
--
Philip Howells
Manchester UK
CompuServe 100042,1434
Herschel Browne
phi...@walkden.demon.co.uk (Philip Howells) writes:
>
>Isn't this another example of the problem of "how do we pronounce foreign
>language words that we adopt into our own?" The word is French and therefore I
>use the same pronounciation as you, ie to rhyme with "pal".
directly from Latin, but people pronounce it as if it were borrowed
from or derived from French. Of course, there's a bunch of spurious
French in English ("nom de plume" and "double entendre" spring to
mind), so I suppose we should just grin and bear it. To pronounce
_rationale_ "ray-shun-ay-lee" is pedantic, to say the least.
Herschel Browne
American University
Christopher Monsour
>In article <2rbfom$c...@paris.ics.uci.edu>, Dj Padzensky <djp...@john-coyote.ics.uci.edu> writes:
>
>> All my life, I've been taught that "rationale" is pronounced, with the
>> last syllable rhyming with "pal." However, recently, I met someone
>> who insists on pronouncing it to rhyme with "kaylee"
>> (ie- ra-shun-ay-lee). Is this an acceptable pronounciation?
>
> Yes, that is the original pronunciation, and was recommended by
>Fowler. "Rationale" is a Latin word, and it had 4 syllables in
>Latin. The new, 3-syllable pronunciation is the result of
>assimilation to French- and German-derived words like "chorale",
>"locale", and "morale".
Not only did it have 5 syllables in Latin (which you note in another post),
but a Latin `a' does not have the sound of English `ay', and a Latin `e'
does not have the sound of English `ee'. So it is pretty damn far from
the original pronunciation.
--Christopher J. Monsour
Mark Israel
> Not only did it have 5 syllables in Latin (which you note in another post),
> but a Latin `a' does not have the sound of English `ay', and a Latin `e'
> does not have the sound of English `ee'. So it is pretty damn far from
> the original pronunciation.
You are referring to the restored classical pronunciation of Latin --
the way we now think the ancient Romans pronounced Latin. But the
restored classical pronunciation did not come (back) into use until the
20th Century. Previously, there were different national pronunciations.
The Englishman who imported the word "rationale" from Latin to English
would have used the traditional English pronunciation of Latin. In
*that* pronunciation, long "a" and long "e" *did* have the sound of
English "ay" and English "ee".
mis...@csi.uottawa.ca Mark Israel
Christopher Monsour
Can you substantiate your claim about this being the pronunciation of
Latin by Englishmen who actually knew Latin? This would understandably
be a regular change of vowels if a Latin word were borrowed by English, but
then you are talking about a pronunciation of English, especially of English
legal jargon, not a pronunciation of Latin. Can you name an
Englishman educated in Latin (preferably someone like S. Johnson, who wrote
poems in Latin) who would have considered the pronunciation you
propose a correct pronunciation of `rationale' as a LATIN word?
Such a very odd national pronunciation seems rather unlikely to me, since
Latin (once recognized as clearly distinct from Romance vernaculars) served
for many centuries as an international language in a Europe that did not
have strong national distinctions.
And, no, I wasn't referring to the classical pronunciation, but to
the ecclesiastical, which is the only received pronunciation of which I am
aware. Certainly I do not think that English borrowed `rationale' directly
from classical Latin; the pronunciation of Latin was pretty far from classical
by the time English even began to exist. (Of course, the classical and
ecclesiastical only disagree (concerning `rationale') on what consonant
sound(s) begin the second syllable.)
Also, though I am not sure of this, I think that the (modern) classical
pronunciation of Latin began rather a bit before the 20th century.
--Christopher J. Monsour
Mark Israel
>>> Not only did it have 5 syllables in Latin (which you note in another post),
>>> but a Latin `a' does not have the sound of English `ay', and a Latin `e'
>>> does not have the sound of English `ee'. So it is pretty damn far from
>>> the original pronunciation.
>>
>> You are referring to the restored classical pronunciation of Latin --
>> the way we now think the ancient Romans pronounced Latin. But the
>> restored classical pronunciation did not come (back) into use until the
>> 20th Century. Previously, there were different national pronunciations.
>> The Englishman who imported the word "rationale" from Latin to English
>> would have used the traditional English pronunciation of Latin. In
>> *that* pronunciation, long "a" and long "e" *did* have the sound of
>> English "ay" and English "ee".
>
> Can you substantiate your claim about this being the pronunciation of
> Latin by Englishmen who actually knew Latin?
Yes, I can.
I couldn't immediately dig up any evidence for the 18th century
(which seems to especially interest you), because most 18th-century
Latin textbooks didn't mention pronunciation at all. I've cross-posted
this to sci.classics; maybe someone there can help.
Turning to the 19th century, I find _A Latin Grammar for Schools
and Colleges_, by Albert Harkness (Appleton, revised edition, 1867).
On pp. 2-3, under "English Method of Pronunciation", it says: "Long
sound. -- Vowels have their long English sounds -- _a_ as in _fate_,
_e_ as in _mete_, _i_ as in _pine_, _o_ as in _note_, _u_ as in _tube_,
_y_ as in _type_ [...] Short sound. -- Vowels have the short English
sound -- _a_ as in _fat_, _e_ as in _met_, _i_ as in _pin_, _o_ as in
_not_, _u_ as in _tub_, _y_ as in _myth_". A footnote says that
"every nation on the continent of Europe has its own method", but
this was clearly the pronunciation used in England.
> Can you name an Englishman educated in Latin (preferably someone like
> S. Johnson, who wrote poems in Latin) who would have considered the
> pronunciation you propose a correct pronunciation of `rationale' as a
> LATIN word?
I did Latin A-level in England, and Latin verse composition was one
of the things we did! My memory is rusty, but I can still recall
writing some elegiacs that began:
"Curque", rogo, "clamas? Cur debes vociferari?
Te nihili piguit, forte favente tibi.
We used the restored classical pronunciation, of course, but memory of
the traditional English pronunciation was not dead.
> Such a very odd national pronunciation seems rather unlikely to me, since
> Latin (once recognized as clearly distinct from Romance vernaculars) served
> for many centuries as an international language in a Europe that did not
> have strong national distinctions.
The language of diplomacy was French. True, Roman Catholic priests
talked to one another in Latin; but they didn't talk to Anglicans very
often.
> And, no, I wasn't referring to the classical pronunciation, but to
> the ecclesiastical, which is the only received pronunciation of which I am
> aware.
The ecclesiastical Latin that I learned for singing does not distinguish
long vowels from short vowels. The traditional English pronunciation of
Latin *does* distinguish them. Classical verse scanned, not (like modern
verse) by stress, but by syllable length, which depended on vowel length.
I don't know what sort of Latin verse Samuel Johnson wrote; but if it was
classical-style, he would have found it *much* easier using the traditional
English pronunciation than the ecclesiastical!
> Also, though I am not sure of this, I think that the (modern) classical
> pronunciation of Latin began rather a bit before the 20th century.
I was referring to the date of its adoption for the teaching of Latin
in English schools. This was well into the 20th century. For a hilarious
description of the confusion that resulted from the switch, see _What a
Word!_ by Sir Alan Herbert.
mis...@csi.uottawa.ca Mark Israel
Christopher Monsour
>In article <1994May27.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Christopher Monsour <mons...@appmath.uchicago.edu> writes:
>> Such a very odd national pronunciation seems rather unlikely to me, since
>> Latin (once recognized as clearly distinct from Romance vernaculars) served
>> for many centuries as an international language in a Europe that did not
>> have strong national distinctions.
>
> The language of diplomacy was French. True, Roman Catholic priests
>talked to one another in Latin; but they didn't talk to Anglicans very
>often.
In medieval times, when the first universities were founded, the international
language was Latin.
>> And, no, I wasn't referring to the classical pronunciation, but to
>> the ecclesiastical, which is the only received pronunciation of which I am
>> aware.
>
> The ecclesiastical Latin that I learned for singing does not distinguish
>long vowels from short vowels. The traditional English pronunciation of
>Latin *does* distinguish them. Classical verse scanned, not (like modern
>verse) by stress, but by syllable length, which depended on vowel length.
>I don't know what sort of Latin verse Samuel Johnson wrote; but if it was
>classical-style, he would have found it *much* easier using the traditional
>English pronunciation than the ecclesiastical!
From what I understand, ecclesiastical Latin does distinguish vowel
quantities except in chant (or when the speaker is being lazy).
(You can't distinguish vowel quantities in chant without screwing up the
chant.)
Moreover, in both the ecclesiastical and classical pronunciations, the long
vowels actually are the long versions of the corresponding short vowels.
This is not at all true of English vowels.
--Christopher J. Monsour
P.S. Thanks very much for your reply. It was quite informative.
Kenneth C Moore
(presumably much more in writing than in speech) Latin was pronounced
differently in different countries. Anyone wishing to learn something
of current understanding of these varieties should read "Singing in Latin",
written and published by Harold Copeman, and available from him at
22 Tawney Street, Oxford, OX4 1NJ, UK, price 25 pounds sterling.
This book, nominally aimed at choir directors, deals with both regional
and temporal variations in pronunciation. It quotes widely from 16th
and 17th century philologists and phoneticians and, particularly in the
sections about England, discusses the changes in the vernacular vowels
which were reflected in local pronunciation of Latin.
If I understand Copeman's arguments aright, the three most common
pronunciations of Latin in the UK are as follows:
'Old Style' :
As used in the English legal system, with letters pronounced as in
English (eg beati -> bee-ay-tie; c and g soft before e and i).
There is some evidence that this has its origins before the
Reformation (early 16th century), though its pronunciation has
changed as English pronunciation has.
'Reformed' or 'Restored Classical':
As taught in British schools, with c and g always hard. Initiated
c. 1870 by the 'Latin Professors of Oxford and Cambridge' and
codified and promulgated by the Classical Association in 1907.
'Roman Latin':
Close to modern Italian (c before e or i -> ch). Requested by the Pope
(Pius X) in his letter Motu proprio of 1903 for services in Roman
Catholic churches and now the usual pronunciation by both Anglican and
secular choirs, possibly because of the influence of the choir of
King's College, Cambridge "widely admired and heard by radio each
Christmas since 1928 (except 1930)".
For another dozen or so varieties, read the book.
--
Kenneth C Moore | "Art is emotion put into form" Barbara Rucha.
SINE QUA NON
>
>As taught in British schools, with c and g always hard. Initiated
>c. 1870 by the 'Latin Professors of Oxford and Cambridge' and
>codified and promulgated by the Classical Association in 1907.
This style leads to some unfortunate consequences. (e.g. the sentence fidum duc scit (the leader knows the faith) being pronounced feed-im duck shit)
--
----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
-HEBREWS
--=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=----=-
William C Waterhouse
between Mr. Israel and Mr. Monsour about the history of the
pronunciation of Latin.
The best convenient source for pronunciation of Latin in
England is the appendix (bearing that title) in
Vox Latina: The Pronunciation of Classical Latin, by
W. Sidney Allen (Cambridge Univ. Press).
There is quite clear evidence of different national pronunciations,
not just in England. For instance, I remember some short poems
in (supposedly medieval) Latin by Baudelaire which look extremely
strange until you realize that he expected them to be pronounced
"with a French accent." Erasmus was already complaining that the
French pronounced "tempus" as "tampus," and there's a sixteenth-
century book where a joke depends on hearing "habitaculum" as
"habit a cul long" (Allen, p. 106-7). Allen also mentions
a "Societe des amis de la prononciation francaise du Latin."
What Mr. Monsour calls "ecclesiastical" pronunication is just
the Italian national pronunciation. "An attempt to spread [it]
throughout the Catholic church was made in a letter of Pope Pius X
.. in 1912, and... this movement may be expected to be intensified
as a result of the `Constitutio Apostolica de Latinitatis studio
provehendo'... 22 Feb. 1962..."(Allen, p. 108). In my
(limited) experience, if you hear a German chorus singing
the Mozart Requiem, you will still hear the "c" in "luceat" pronounced
in the German style (like English "ts") rather than in the
Italian style (like English "ch").
William C. Waterhouse
Penn State
Francois Velde
>There is quite clear evidence of different national pronunciations,
>not just in England.
This discussion comes up often in the classical music newsgroups, where
pronunciation of Latin is often an issue. The evidence has been
researched, because singers who want to pronounce Latin the way it
was pronounced when the piece was composed need that kind of information.
There is a comprehensive volume by Harold Copeman, _Singing in Latin_,
1990, which details pronunciation by region and period.
There is also an article in the Journal of Musicology, 1986, on the
pronunciation of Latin ca. 1490-1600 in various countries.
>Erasmus was already complaining that the
>French pronounced "tempus" as "tampus,"
Indeed, Erasmus' examples come from a diplomatic meeting where the
various ambassadors, all speaking Latin, could barely understand
each other.
>What Mr. Monsour calls "ecclesiastical" pronunication is just
>the Italian national pronunciation. "An attempt to spread [it]
>throughout the Catholic church was made in a letter of Pope Pius X
>.. in 1912, and... this movement may be expected to be intensified
>as a result of the `Constitutio Apostolica de Latinitatis studio
>provehendo'... 22 Feb. 1962..."(Allen, p. 108).
This (successful) attempt coincided with the imposition of a strict,
unified way of singing Gregorian chant, which hitherto varied from
tradition to tradition. It generated fierce debate in various
countries (hence the creation of the French society you mention)
but was ultimately successful. In French, one can find traces
of the old pronunciation in the way Latin names which have
long been incorporated into French language are pronounced:
the words rogaton and dicton, from rogatum and dictum, were incorporated
before the 16th c., and the final vowel is fully nasal (rimes with
"bon"), while album or pensum rime with "pomme", trace of 17th-18th c.
usage.
--
Francois Velde
Johns Hopkins University
ve...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu