Pronunciation of Mihi - Latin question
Jeff DeMarco
was the original spelling, and that "mihi" came into being because of an
oft-repeated scribal error. This does not sound quite right to me - perhaps it
is the other way around - viz. the monks wrote "miki" instead of "mihi?"
Anyone have insight into this question?
Thanks!
Jeff DeMarco
Pacific Grove, CA
j...@alumni.princeton.edu
Alain Naigeon
SyXra.175$kJ1...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> I've been told by an associate that "mihi" is pronounced "miki" because
that
> was the original spelling, and that "mihi" came into being because of an
> oft-repeated scribal error. This does not sound quite right to me -
perhaps it
> is the other way around - viz. the monks wrote "miki" instead of "mihi?"
> Anyone have insight into this question?
I haven't, but this one : mihi (or miki) has been written much before
any monk has been born ;-)
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France
Owk28
>> I've been told by an associate that "mihi" is pronounced "miki" because
>that
>> was the original spelling, and that "mihi" came into being because of an
>> oft-repeated scribal error. This does not sound quite right to me -
Well, as I understand it there was no letter k in the Roman alphabet, so this
seems unlikely to me, but an expert may enlighten us further...
Oliver Webber
Flavio "Senesino" FBG
please, definitely discard "Miki" as a pronunciation. "H" between vocals
is supposed not to be pronounced (this has been deduced after analysation
of metrics, mostly, of course we have no "recording" whatsoever).
Anyway, if you are singing early music (that is, medieval to baroque) in
Latin,
you are not supposed to reproduce the pronunciation of the Romans, but the
pronunciation of the Europeans who sung and talked that Latin in those
centuries. Thus, go for "mihi". I have never heard of "Miki".
Also, if it is an Italian or Spanish composition (I am not sure
about the French) be sure that "mihi" should be "mi-i", the "h"
should not be aspirated as in English.
Hope this helps!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flavio Ferri Benedetti *** Countertenor-Sopranist
Translation Studies (Universitat Jaume I)
http://www.orfeo-translations.com --> Translation Services
http://www.caffarelli.net --> Baroque Singing - My Voice
"Nunc scio quid sit amor" (Virgilio, Bucoliche, VIII, 43)
Joakim Olsson Kruse
thing, but should the "mihi" once have been pronounced "miki" because
of that spelling? Pronounciationwise of course a lot has happened with
languages, latin included, throughout the times, but since the latin
alphabet to my knowledge does not contain the letter "k", this seems
unlikely. If it was pronounced "miki" it therefore ought to have been
spelled with "c": single, double or in combination with "h", isn't
that true?
The theory behind the oft-repeated scribal error is also possible, or
actually not an "error" but more that the ancient ways of writing
letters, and the alphabets used, actually looked differently. A more
modern and wellknown example is of course the gothic-german way of
writing "s" and "f": very similar. 18th century handwriting's "k" for
example is not very different from "h". Is this a part of the problem?
I personally think you can pronounce it with a very soft "k"; not in
an explosive way as usually done today, but a soft one, in between "h"
and "k". Then it actually sounds more clear and the authentic way
whatever it was is conformed to as well.
Sincerely,
j
Hans van Duijnhoven
According to my Latin grammar (Prisma Grammatica Latijn (in Dutch))
the pronunciation of the h in "mihi" and "nihil" is unclear.
When I was young (long ago) I sung in an catholic church choir and we
learned to pronounce as "miki". It is the pronunciation of medieval
and later latin. Most catholic choirs singing in services pronounce
latin as is told in f.ex.:
http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~cmed/rehnotes/latin.html
and / or
http://members.aol.com/stlmetros/latin.html
But you can still hear some differences in pronounciation in different
countries
Regards, Hans
Hans van Duijnhoven
DeMarco) wrote:
Now, I remember:
One of the european abbeys with a very old tradition in singing latin,
gregorian chant is the abbey of Solemnes in Belgium. There is a web
site, with examples of their singing and pronounciation, at
www.solesmes.com
Regards, Hans
John Briggs
> I've been told by an associate that "mihi" is pronounced "miki" because
> that was the original spelling, and that "mihi" came into being because
> of an oft-repeated scribal error. This does not sound quite right to me -
> perhaps it is the other way around - viz. the monks wrote "miki" instead
> of "mihi?" Anyone have insight into this question?
>
I think the point is that in mediaeval Latin "mihi" is often (usually?)
spelt "michi". How it was pronounced is a different can of worms!
John Briggs
John Briggs
>
> One of the european abbeys with a very old tradition in singing latin,
> gregorian chant is the abbey of Solemnes in Belgium. There is a web
> site, with examples of their singing and pronounciation, at
> www.solesmes.com
>
Maybe, maybe not. It depends whether you regard 1833 as "very old" in this
context!
John Briggs
John Briggs
And while we're at it: no, Solesmes isn't anywhere near Belgium!
John Briggs
Flavio "Senesino" FBG
> spelt "michi".
On which sources?
Regards,
Flavio "Senesino" FBG
> spelt "michi".
On which sources?
John Briggs
>> I think the point is that in mediaeval Latin "mihi" is often (usually?)
>> spelt "michi".
>
> On which sources?
>
That's a mysterious question, Flavio! To answer it I've just grabbed the
nearest book: "The Use of Salisbury" (Ed. Nick Sandon), Vol. 2 "The Proper
of the Mass from Advent to Septuagesima" (2nd ed., Antico Edition, 2000),
p.1:
Introit for the First Sunday in Advent:
"Ad te levavi..." the Psalm fragment begins "Vias tuas domine demonstra
michi..."
(Google is also your friend!)
John Briggs
John Briggs
> I've been told by an associate that "mihi" is pronounced "miki" because
> that was the original spelling, and that "mihi" came into being because
> of an oft-repeated scribal error. This does not sound quite right to me -
> perhaps it is the other way around - viz. the monks wrote "miki" instead
> of "mihi?" Anyone have insight into this question?
>
From the "Medieval Latin Online Textbook"
http://liaisons.ou.edu/~lgibbs/medieval/grammar/silenth.htm
"In later medieval Latin, you will regularly see the word mihi spelled
michi. This does not mean that the "h" was being pronounced like the English
sound "ch", and it does not mean that it was being strongly aspirated (like
"kh"). It just means that the medieval Latin writers wanted to make it clear
that this "h" was really and truly supposed to be pronounced, so that mihi
would remain a two-syllable word. In order to make it clear that this was a
sound that was supposed to be pronounced, they replaced the silent "h" with
"ch"."
John Briggs
Hans van Duijnhoven
Oops, sorry you're quite right, Solesmes is in France!
Hans.
Warren Steel
> I've been told by an associate that "mihi" is pronounced "miki" because that
> was the original spelling, and that "mihi" came into being because of an
> oft-repeated scribal error. This does not sound quite right to me - perhaps it
> is the other way around - viz. the monks wrote "miki" instead of "mihi?"
You've certainly learned that there are diverse views on this
issue. It is a fact that the English version of the Liber Usualis,
in its summary of Italianate ecclesiastical pronunciation, prescribes
the pronunciations "mee-kee" and "nee-keel" but it's also true that
many Italians are not familiar with this pronunciation. In McGee,
_Singing Early Music_ the various chapters on Latin pronunciation
vary from region to region. The hard "ch" or "k" pronunciation is
cited, at least occasionally, in France and Italy, but not in
Spain or German-speaking lands--silent in Spain, and pronounced
as H in the latter. And, although H is pronounced in English,
it was normally silent in Latin among English-speakers, hence the
hypercorrected spellings michi and nichil in some MSS; such
spellings were apparently widespread in the late middle ages.
Another possibility mentioned in this book is a fronted fricative,
as in German 'ich'.
Flavio "Senesino" FBG
> issue. It is a fact that the English version of the Liber Usualis,
> in its summary of Italianate ecclesiastical pronunciation, prescribes
> the pronunciations "mee-kee" and "nee-keel" but it's also true that
> many Italians are not familiar with this pronunciation.
To be exact, this pronunciation is unheard of in Italy. We simply
are taught (in Italy and Spain, as far as my experience goes) to
pronounce it like "mi-i". Clearly two syllables, but no trace of "h".
Best wishes,
MegaMole
<j...@alumni.princeton.edu> writes
>I've been told by an associate that "mihi" is pronounced "miki" because that
>was the original spelling
No.
Completely and totally wrong.
Otherwise "mihi" could never have been shortened to "mi", as it was by
Latin authors from Virgil to the Vulgate.
>, and that "mihi" came into being because of an
>oft-repeated scribal error. This does not sound quite right to me - perhaps it
>is the other way around - viz. the monks wrote "miki" instead of "mihi?"
>Anyone have insight into this question?
<dusts off Medieval Latin Part II Tripos paper>
Monks wrote "michi" rather than "mihi" because of the "scribal minim".
This is not a note lasting two beats. It is the standard stroke of the
scribe's pen, which we shall here transcribe as | .
Now, a lot of letters are made up of |. For example,
||||||| could be "mihi". It could equally stand for "mumi", "ninu",
"huhu" or anything else. So monks started doing things like lengthening
the stroke of the | for final "i" giving "iij". Or sticking extra more
distinguishable letters in to give them a clue what they were reading.
||||C||| is at least recognisable as "michi" -> "mihi". The same,
|||C||||, happened with the word "nihil" (nothing), which still survives
as "nil" - "Nil Desperandum", or "Everyone Else Two, England Nil".
So it's all because Black Letter was bloody illegible. At least, that's
what I was taught.
--
MegaMole, the Official Enrico Basilica
\\\\\ laaa! mo...@lspace.org mo...@music.slut.org.uk
\\\\\\\_o / "I'll sit in the U-bend and think about death."
__ \\\\\'c/__ Hitting the high notes with hedgehogs since 2001
Alain Naigeon
news: 1jj2bvsa8jf8q89h8...@4ax.com...
> >
> Oops, sorry you're quite right, Solesmes is in France!
Yes, let's not confuse gregorian chant with good beers :-)
Rob Durk
My understanding of this is that since 'h' is not
aspirated in Latin (including in variant spellings
such as Jhesus and Hierusalem) that it was marked 'ch'
in the two cases in which it WAS to be aspirated,
namely mihi and nihil.
Thus, they should both be pronounced with an 'h' in
the middle and not a 'k' sound.
Cheers
Rob
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
John Howell
>oft-repeated scribal error. This does not sound quite right to me - perhaps it
>is the other way around - viz. the monks wrote "miki" instead of "mihi?"
>Anyone have insight into this question?
>
>
>Jeff DeMarco
Well, I'm sure lots of people have an opinion, which is not quite the same.
I see no reason to argue with the pronunciation guide in the Liber Usualis:
"H is pronounced K in the two words nihil (nee-keel) and mihi
(mee-kee), and their compounds. In ancient books these words are
often written nichil and michi. In all other cases H is mute."
So there is, indeed, a documented history beyond the simple fact that
they were (or were not) Greek in origin.
Q.E.D.
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John....@vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
Flavio "Senesino" FBG
> they were (or were not) Greek in origin.
I am sorry to say, but there is absolutely no ethimologic relationship
between these two words and Greek. This has also been confirmed by
a few Classics scholars.
Early forms (by which I mean 500BC and earlier) may
have showed remnants of something like michi, tibhi,
but that these disappeared at an early point.
Hope this helps!
Pete Barrett
>>I've been told by an associate that "mihi" is pronounced "miki" because that
>>was the original spelling, and that "mihi" came into being because of an
>>oft-repeated scribal error. This does not sound quite right to me - perhaps it
>>is the other way around - viz. the monks wrote "miki" instead of "mihi?"
>>Anyone have insight into this question?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Jeff DeMarco
>
>Well, I'm sure lots of people have an opinion, which is not quite the same.
>
>I see no reason to argue with the pronunciation guide in the Liber Usualis:
>
>"H is pronounced K in the two words nihil (nee-keel) and mihi
>(mee-kee), and their compounds. In ancient books these words are
>often written nichil and michi. In all other cases H is mute."
>
>So there is, indeed, a documented history beyond the simple fact that
>they were (or were not) Greek in origin.
>
>Q.E.D.
>
Not quite. The pronunciation guide is intended for a specific
audience, and if that audience is speaking a language (such as French
or Italian) which has neither a breath h or a velar fricative (German
<ch>), it *may* be that <k> is the closest approximation they can
easily make to the intended sound. A quick Google check tells me that
the Liber Usualis was first published in 1896, so what I've just said
could easily be the case. What we really need is a pronunciation guide
from the Middle Ages (though French and Italian had lost the <h> then,
too).
Pete Barrett
Simon Crouch
"Pete Barrett" <peteb...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:8bv9bv0nek804jmp5...@4ax.com...
I've got A. G. Rigg's chapter on "Orthography and Pronounciation" from the
seemingly standard "Medieval Latin - An Introduction and Bibliographical
Guide" here in front of me.
I quote: "In 1528 Erasmus lamented that the divergence of Latin
pronunciations across Europe was so wide that this once universal language
was no longer mutually intelligible among nations...We can be sure only that
two common pronunciations are inappropriate: that of Classical Latin, and
the practice outlined for ecclesiastical Latin in the Liber Usualis of
1896."
all the best,
Simon.
Demofoonte
"Warren Steel" <mu...@olemiss.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3EB176EE...@olemiss.edu...
> You've certainly learned that there are diverse views on this
> issue. It is a fact that the English version of the Liber Usualis,
> in its summary of Italianate ecclesiastical pronunciation, prescribes
> the pronunciations "mee-kee" and "nee-keel" but it's also true that
> many Italians are not familiar with this pronunciation.
This is just because the Italianate ecclesiastical pronunciation prescribes
mi-i, as Flavio correctly stated.
It is not a matter of "familiarity".
D.
John Briggs
Has the "Liber Usualis" been translated into Italian?
John Briggs
Demofoonte
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:Okrva.2032$Mu3....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> Has the "Liber Usualis" been translated into Italian?
;-)
About "mihi", maybe this can be of help
http://www.music.princeton.edu/~jeffery/pronunc.html
Parva nota bibliographica
Qui cupiat quaestionem de pronuntiatu restituto pernoscere, consulat librum
Alfonsi Traina, cui titulus L'alfabeto e la pronuncia del Latino, Bologna,
Patron, 1973, IV editio, integrationibus aucta. Agitur de libro non modo
translucido sed etiam miram doctrinam patefaciente. Ditissimam offert
bibliographiam.
Vale.
D.