There is indeed evidence for the u-consonant being pronounced as a voiced fricative during the Classical period, even as early as the middle of the 1st century. A wax tablet dated to AD 39 records a transaction by merchant Gaius Nouius Eunus, about which Clackson and Horrocks write:
Eunus’s text provides us with one of the earliest examples of the ...
Joonas is correct: those forms don’t belong in good classical style.
Peter Stotz’s Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters mentions that Donatus explicitly forbade comparatives and superlatives from pronouns (note 180 in the linked page)
but I could not find the citation online.
The same source says that Plautus’ ipsissimus was “certainly” (...
Classical corpus searches suggest that ipsimus is only attested in Satyricon and ipsissimus is used once by Plautus and once by Afranius.
There are not enough attestations to decide which is correct, or whether both superlatives should be dismissed as improper classical Latin.
Since nothing is found in the best classical authors, I would say that in good ...
It turns out, we know quite a bit about this!
There are three main sources for Vulgar Latin pronunciations: Classical texts imitating (or mocking or correcting) Vulgar speech, graffiti from actual plebs, and reconstruction from the Romance languages.
For the first of those, we have bits by Petronius and Catullus (the Cena Trimalchionis and Carmen 84), as ...
Isolated usages of unus as an indefinite article have been identified in Old and Classical Latin, but generally speaking unus and ille did not establish themselves as articles until Late and early Medieval Latin.
Regarding unus, Harm Pinkster provides several commonly cited examples of unus as article or article-like from the 4th century and earlier:
The key to the meaning is ipse; all the rest is just intensifiers glommed onto that.
In Classical Latin, ipse meant "self"—not as a reflexive, but as an intensive:
Barack Obaman ipsum apud tabernam vīdī!
I saw Barack Obama himself at the store!
This eventually took on a meaning of "same":
Barack Obaman vīdistī? Praesidentem emeritum?
You saw ...
It actually does appear in vulgar Latin. Here's Palmer, The Latin Language 319:
[Infinitives], as we saw, are formally either old datives or locatives and both these cases could express purpose. This function is apparent in the expression dare bibere ... Such infinitives of purpose are especially common in colloquial and poetical texts after verbs of ...
By the fifth century you'd already have this, this, this.
Palatalization of "c" before "e" or "i" would still be under way.
I'm not totally sure but "ae" and "oe" might have remained [ae̯] and [oe̯] until after the Fall of the Empire, because it seems that graphically they were replaced by "e" only around the XI century - in contrast the ...
As your question implies, the * in *toccare means that the word is unattested, i.e., there is no direct written evidence that the verb actually existed.
This does not mean that there is a good argument against its existence: vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance was the language of (mostly) illiterate people. It doesn't mean either that there is no good argument for ...
TL;DR: No; I wouldn't, at least.
Ave seems like a very good word for this. It's conventionally translated as "hail", but at this point that just sounds archaic; the Latin word can also be a casual "hi!" or "hey!" to a friend.
(There's also eja or heja, cognate to English "hey", but that's more like "ah!" to my mind, less of a greeting.)
The Wiktionary article on Italian volere says that, as the infinitive suggests, the verb was moved to the second conjugation in Vulgar Latin, so it traces it to a "Vulgar Latin *volēre". The -gli- in voglio would come from -le- before a vowel (through steps something like [le] > [lj] > [ʎː]), as in Italian paglia from Latin palea. I don't see any indication ...
I think the wording of the Encyclopædia Britannica article is unclear, leading to misunderstanding. I don't think they mean that Latin "gn" could represent [ŋ(ː)] rather than [ŋn], but I'll admit the wording is confusing.
The point they're trying to make (I think) is that on the face of it, if [ŋ] can appear before a velar consonant and [n], it looks like ...
We can judge some features of educated Late Latin from the Appendix Probi (probably from the 3rd or 4th century). It is a list of corrected errors. There are can see that learned speech was different from the popular usage.
So at that time we already see indications that standard Late Latin had the same qualities for long and short vowels ("turma non torma")...
The wiktionary entry on the Italian verb toccare is somewhat more explicit, saying
Probably from a Vulgar Latin root *toccare, of Germanic or onomatopoetic origin. Compare French toucher, Friulian tocjâ, Portuguese tocar, Romanian toca, Romansh tutgar, Sicilian tuccari, Sardinian toccai, Spanish tocar, Venetian tocar
The existence of descendants in such ...
An Early, Classical, and Late Latin synthetic expression corresponding to Sp. "llevar a cuestas" is the denominal verb bāiulāre (see the image below). As for analytic variants formed by a verb of motion plus a body part (the ones you appear to be more interested in), I've been unable to find any relevant verb with costa 'rib' but, for example, there are ...
A Latin form *volĕre would have been stressed on the first syllable. Italian volere is stressed on the penultimate syllable, like a Latin form *volēre. There could have been a Vulgar Latin form *volĕre that was later replaced with voˈl[e]re, but it seems more parsimonious to just give *volēre as the ancestor of the Italian and French forms.
"The Destiny Of ...
volō can indeed mean either “I want” or “I fly”, but the other forms of the two words are different (e.g. infinitive velle vs volāre), so they were definitely perceived as different words and this difference is expanded in Romance. Like Italian, French also has vouloir < *volēre and voler < volāre. The infinitive *volēre is not attested as such, but it ...
I don't know of any recordings. But we can make a good guess:
The high-class, "proper" pronunciation is documented in books on oratory and rhetoric; Allen's Vox Latina summarizes and explains it thoroughly
We know how the common/vulgar pronunciation differed from this standard
Common features of prosody like stress and elision are known through poetry (and ...
It was a typo.
All of the online sources I find have been based on the book Sprachlicher Kommentar zur vulgärlateinischen Appendix Probi, but in the book it was correctly printed as non (Page 5 of this document).
Therefore, I suspect that someone, when typing from that book, made a typographical error which is then spread everywhere.
On Page 73 of ...
§ 1. Latin, Greek, and Hebrew
I would argue that the consonant V by itself was never pronounced as a W, and that something near to the W sound only occurred depending on the position of the letter within a word, of which V [ U ] would then act as a semi-vowel.
Speaking of consonantal V, Walter Blair says:
...the evidence which we have to adduce points ...
In Czech, we have the word "ještě" with the same three primary meanings:
1) (not) yet (ještě tu není - il n'est pas encore ici - he is still
2) again (ještě jednou - encore une fois - one more time)
3) even more (je ještě větší - il est encore plus grand - he is even
The underlying meaning is some sort of continuation - "...
Like Draconis stated, it's the weakening of the original word that caused it to be a demonstrative to fill the void that ille and iste left. It's similar to what happened in our language, "the" was originally a demonstrative as well in Old English, but weakened to merely a definite article totally in Middle English.
I believe the addition of the meaning "...
Hanc hodie, literally "this today", is already attested in Plautus's time: the ho- element in hodie (originally a form of hic "this") had gotten semantically bleached until it was no longer emphatic, so an extra form of hic was added to get proper emphasis ("on this day!").
Loss of /h/, similarly, happened very early on: by the first century BCE we have ...
formŭla , ae
The tonal accent is on the first syllable as in English.
for- the -r- should be heard; o as in note/ Fr. nôtre.
-mŭ- short 'u' as in 'foot' (no intrusive y, or j )
-lae ae as 'ai' in aisle; [ae becomes e, 'é' in mediaeval L. ].
(This answer is based on a 1960 schoolbook; choirmasters, revisionists, recidivists, and historians have ruined ...
In English, events unfold. In Italian, gli eventi prendono una piega, i.e. they get a fold (usually una brutta piega, a bad one, but that’s how the world goes...) The same thing is referenced by two opposite metaphors.
Note that for specific persons or processes we have an almost exact English equivalent: ha preso una brutta piega is a possible traslation ...
The Vulgar Latin metipsimus, as a contraction of older metipsissimus, a superlative of metipse, comes from a reanalysis of egomet ipse "me myself" as ego metipse. In Latin, -met was attached to pronouns, but in Vulgar Latin it was reanalyzed as part of ipse instead.
Using the example from Wiktionary:
Même les rois doivent mourir
= Even kings must die
= Kings must die, the same way as everyone else
Or perhaps even "Kings must die the same", but this is too close to the boundaries of my syntactical comfort zone in English for me to make strong claims.
These two English translations (the first one from Wiktionary, ...
Does anybody know how normal Latin dialog sounded
We don't know enough about the historical pronunciation of Latin to make an audio file that we could confidently say would have the same feeling as listening to the normal speech of a Latin speaker during the time of the Roman Republic or Roman Empire.
We know with a high degree of certainty the basic sound ...