Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:32:53.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XLVII The Pronunciation of Latin Learned Loan Words and Foreign Words in Old English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Thomas Pyles
Thomas Pyles*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The obvious and very necessary distinction between learned and popular loan words was first made by A. Pogatscher in his Zur Lautlehre der griechischen, lateinischen und romanischen Lehnworte im Altenglischen. E. Sievers made a further division, realizing that a distinction, recognized by Pogatscher (for example, on p. 31), but not stressed by him sufficiently for Sievers's purposes, should be made between two classes of learned borrowings. With an approach somewhat different from that of Pogatscher, he at first distinguishes two groups, loan words (Lehnwörter) and foreign words (Fremdwörter), designating by the former term such words as are a part of the vocabulary of living communication and bear a more or less native stamp; by the latter, such words as exist for the most part only in learned literature and are distinctly felt as foreign, such as proper names like Caesar and Suetonius. The loan words of his first division Sievers further subdivides into popular loan words, the earliest of all borrowings, and learned loan words, taken over later than the popular words and owing their adoption to more or less cultural influences such as, in the case of the Old English learned borrowings, the church. These last are to be distinguished, he points out, from foreign words in that they are part of a living vocabulary, even though their use is limited to a certain class of speakers. What Sievers has done simply amounts to extracting from Pogatscher's learned loan words those bookish words which are distinctly felt as foreign and making of them a third class, which he calls foreign words.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 58 , Issue 4_1 , December 1943 , pp. 891 - 910
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 891 note 1 Quellen und Forschungen, 64 (Strassburg, 1888), 23–24.

page 891 note 2 Zum angelsächsischen Vocalismus (Leipzig, 1900), pp. 3–5.

page 891 note 3 These foreign words, mostly eye-words in that their use was confined largely to writing, would seem to have had no such fixed traditional pronunciation as the learned loan words, though I am strongly of the opinion that, when they were used orally, their pronunciation was likely to conform to the pattern of the learned loan words much more closely than Sievers's metrical tests would indicate for their pronunciation in verse.

page 892 note 4 Words of Greek and Hebrew origin are also considered, inasmuch as most of these came into English via Latin.

page 893 note 5 Einführung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft, Dritte neuarbeitete Auflage (Heidelberg, 1920), p. 120.

page 893 note 6 Cf. H. Berger, Die Lehnwörter in der französischen Sprache ältester Zeit (Leipzig, 1899), P. 7.

page 893 note 7 Since, for reasons to be discussed at various points in the course of this paper, I do not agree with Sievers as to the extent of the phonological importance of the useful distinction between learned loan words and foreign words, I shall not distinguish between the two classes except where such a distinction seems to me important.

page 893 note 8 Some of the illustrative words have been documented, particularly those which show or seem to show deviations from the principles deduced or synthesized. Practically all these words may be traced to their sources, however, through the indexes in Pogatscher, pp. 210–220; Otto Funke, Die gelehrten lateinischen Lehn-und Fremdwörter in der allenglischen Literatur (Halle, 1914), pp. 195–199, 205–209; and Mary S. Serjeantson, A History of Foreign Words in English (New York, 1936), pp. 307–354. Serjeantson includes an appendix, pp. 271–288, listing pre-Conquest loans from Latin, and devotes her second chapter to a discussion of such words. She is, however, concerned with cultural history rather than with phonology, which is dealt with in a brief note, pp. 289–292.

page 894 note 9 Funke (p. 61) concludes that we dare not unqualifiedly depend on the metrical handling of the rare word for its pronunciation in prose. This is true enough as a general principle, but when the metrical treatment of the foreign words under discussion agrees, as we shall see, with the metrically and linguistically demonstrable treatment of learned loan words, it seems a fairly safe assumption that, allowing of course for individual differences, they fitted into the same general scheme.

page 894 note 10 Alliteration in the line “Cometa be naman cræftgleawe men” (Chronicle, 975, MS A, in Two of the Saxon Chronicles, ed. Earle and Plummer [Oxford, 1892], i, 120) indicates that the obviously foreign comēta was not stressed on the penultimate syllable, as it was in Latin. Even the word reliquias, in which the re- might have been regarded as a prefix, like the a- in (a)postol, (a)pistol, had initial stress, as shown by the alliteration in the Menologium preceding the Chronicle in MS C (Two of the Saxon Chronicles, ed. cit., Appendix A, i, 275).

page 894 note 11 P. 59. He holds that we must presume the retention of the Latin stress position, in speech if not in poetry. However, as Funke himself points out, many of these words appear in OE in double form, that is, both as foreign words with Latin inflexion and as loan words with native inflexion. He therefore assumes, according to the degree in which a word has laid aside the intrinsic character of the Fremdwort, i.e., its foreign inflexion, that variations in stress and also in quantity occurred. See also J. W. Bright, “Proper Names in Old English Verse,” PMLA, xiv (1899), 347–368, who contends that the stressing of proper names in verse had no such pretension to uniformity as Sievers and Pogatscher believe. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to infer that, on the comparatively rare occasions when such proper names were used orally in OE times, they were stressed according to the contemporary school pronunciation.

page 895 note 12 Because a learned loan word or a foreign word was not likely to be completely isolated from its original, it is reasonable to infer that a Latin word of three or more syllables with the accent not on the initial syllable in Latin bore in OE a secondary stress (sometimes approaching full stress) on the syllable originally stressed in the Latin word. The inference has some support in the fact that in a few isolated cases the syllable stressed in the original bears the alliteration in verse, a most unlikely occurrence if the Latin stress had not in some degree been retained. Cf. M. Rieger, “Die alt-und angelsächsische Verskunst,” Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, vii (1876), 11, note.

page 895 note 13 When such Latin trisyllables appeared in OE in dissyllabic form, the secondary accent was lost: cálend, gígant, sácerd.

page 895 note 14 Following Sievers's metrical system, Pogatscher, p. 25, believes that these words had a second principal stress and classifies them under Sievers's Type A.

page 895 note 15 When the i in words in -ia, -ius was pronounced [j], the syllable count would obviously be reduced, but the same syllables would receive the stress: (as three syllables) Ássyria [-ja], (as four syllables) Mármedònia [-ja].

page 895 note 16 Meyer-Lübke, Einführung, p. 141: “Vokale in geschlossener Silbe werden nämlich durchweg gekürzt, in offener durchweg gedehnt.” Though “der Zeitpunkt dieser Veränderung lässt sich nicht genau bestimmen” (p. 142), it is certain that it took place well before the beginning of the period of borrowing with which we are here concerned.

page 896 note 17 Cited by Funke, p. 46.

page 896 note 18 Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. J. Zupitza (Berlin, 1880), p. 2.

page 896 note 19 Ælfric's reference is, of course, to Latin poetry. We can infer nothing as to the treatment of loan words in OE poetry from what he says.

page 896 note 20 For examples see Funke, p. 47.

page 897 note 21 Sievers believes that one can at most speak of an approximate fixity of length in twosyllabled forms like Adam, Jacob, etc., and their oblique cases.

page 897 note 22 “Zur Rhytlimik des germanischen Alliterationsverses,” Zweiter Abschnitt, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, x, 492.

page 897 note 23 Zum ags. Vocalismus, p. 6.

page 897 note 24 “Zur Rhythmik des germanischen Alliterationsverses,” loc. cit., p. 499.

page 898 note 25 It should be borne in mind that the words in question are foreign words, i.e., bookish words and proper names, rarely spoken.

page 898 note 26 Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache (Leipzig, 1921), i, i, 200. Luick came to this conclusion earlier in “Zu den lateinischen Lehnwörtern im Altenglischen,” Archiv, cxxvi (1911), 35–39, in which he presents evidence to show that shortening in trisyllables occurred much earlier than is generally thought.

page 898 note 27 Historische Grammatik, p. 201, note 1.

page 899 note 28 Cf. Pogatscher, pp. 22–23; Funke, pp. 54–56.

page 900 note 29 This statement holds equally for ME as for OE, and for NE as well, up to the introduction of the “reformed” or “classical” pronunciation in the nineteenth century, a procedure which has caused considerable confusion in the pronunciation of Latin learned loan words and foreign words in Present English. As the late G. C. Moore Smith has put the matter in a letter to me (11 June 1939), “When I was a boy, we had only one pronunciation of Latin, and Latin phrases or short quotations were in familiar use among educated people, but when all the vowels were changed, no one dared to quote a word of Latin lest he should not be understood, and Latin became for the first time a dead language.” For a review of the situation in NE, see my “Tempest in Teapot: Reform in Latin Pronunciation,” ELH, vi (1939), 138–164.

page 900 note 30 Cf. C. H. Grandgent, An Introduction to Vulgar Latin (Boston, 1907), pp. 88, 90.

page 901 note 31 In Old Latin the voiceless stop p was used for the representation of the Greek [ph], as reflected in older loans, e.g., ampulla.

page 901 note 32 Cited by Funke, p. 27.

page 902 note 33 Angelsächsische Grammatik, 3d ed. (Halle, 1898), §205.

page 902 note 34 Grandgent, p. 135.

page 902 note 35 Cf. ibid., pp. 116–118.

page 902 note 36 Cf. c in the same position, below.

page 902 note 37 Quoted by Funke, p. 32.

page 902 note 38 H. Keil, Grammatici Latini (Leipzig, 1855–80), ii, 36.

page 902 note 39 Cf. Pogatscher, pp. 184–194.

page 902 note 40 Countless spellings, e.g., Agaton, Cartage, Tisbee, Trace, indicate that the usual ME pronunciation was simply [t]. Since t and th had thus come to be equated in loan words and foreign words, a quite natural confusion arose, and words with t were often incorrectly spelled with th, e.g., Anthaeus, bithumen, Pathmos, Sathanas.

There must, however, have been many speakers in England who pronounced Latin th as [b] in ME times, though evidence on the matter is scant. The ending -t of the Latin verb, third person singular, sometimes became [þ], perhaps by analogy with the English ending -th, and the familiar English sound must have been carried over to other Latin t and d-sounds: Chaucer, for example, rimes savith-significavit (Prologue to Cant. Tales, 661–662. But see B. ten Brink, Chancers Sprache und Verskunst, 3d ed., rev. E. Eckhardt, Leipzig, 1920, Sec. 326, who apparently believes either that savith was pronounced with [t] or that the rime is inaccurate). Palsgrave warns against this type of blunder as late as 1530, as does Salesbury in 1567 (A. J. Ellis, On Early English Pronunciation, Part ni, EETS, extra ser. 14, pp. 759, 767), but we may fairly assume, quite apart from the Chaucer rime, that it is much earlier. This pronouncing of final t as [þ] seems, indeed, to have been a trick of the schools in late mediaeval times. The Brevissima Institutio, a portion of Lily's Latin Grammar, warns specifically against this “fault,” an admonition reflected in John Hart's Orthographie (1569). H. M. Ayres, “A Note on the School Pronunciation of Latin in England,” Speculum, i (1926), 440–443, reprints the pertinent section of the Institutio.

page 903 note 41 Cited with his own emendations, which lead him to some amazing conclusions, by Funke, p. 29. I have used Funke's punctuation in the passage, but have restored Mai's readings. Digammate for original digamma is Mai's emendation.

page 903 note 42 “On the Text of Abbo of Fleury's Quaestiones Grammaticales,” Proceedings of the British Academy, x (1921–23), 174–175, note.

page 903 note 43 “Zur Aussprache des Lateinischen im Mittelalter,” Aufsätze zur Sprach- und Literaturgeschichte (“Wilhelm Braune zum 20. Februar 1920 dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern”) (Dortmund, 1920), p. 26.

page 903 note 44 The passage is further interesting in showing a learned survival of the classical pronunciation of digamma.

page 903 note 45 Grandgent, p. 139; cf. Erasmus, in Jellinek, loc. cit.

C before e and i had the same sound, a pronunciation reflected in the Chaucerian Cithero: the spelling probably indicates a fashionable continental school pronunciation; since c before e, i had ceased to be [ts] in France in Chaucer's day, th is used in order to ensure the [ts] pronunciation. (Pronunciation with [t] or [þ] is unthinkable here.) If Cithero and its variant Scithero are Chaucer's own spellings and not merely scribal, the equation of th with c indicates that Chaucer used, in this word at least, a continental pronunciation of th. (The fact that the word in question is a proper name, a Fremdwort, is here probably of some significance.) However, we may be sure that such a pronunciation was not frequent in

England in OE times, though it may have been employed as something of an affectation in later times. Anthaeus, Pathmos, Sathanas, all Chaucerian, indicate that, if Cithero is really Chaucer's own, he was not consistent in his pronunciation of th in foreign words, for in these examples the th has its more usual ME value of [t].

page 904 note 46 Quoted Funke, p. 27. Cf. Jellinek, pp. 18–19.

Grandgent, p. 119, points out that in Vulgar Latin “at the end of a word there was hesitation between d and t; d may have been devocalized before a voiceless initial consonant, and possibly at the end of a phrase,” as such spellings as aput, capud, quoi, set indicate.

page 904 note 47 Grandgent, loc. cit.

page 904 note 48 Reference in Grandgent, p. 125, note.

page 904 note 49 Meyer-Lübke, Historische Grammatik der französischen Sprache (Heidelberg, 1913), pp. 126–127.

page 904 note 50 Quoted Funke, p. 19.

page 905 note 51 Keil, Gram. Lat., ii, 36.

page 905 note 52 Grandgent, pp. 140–141.

page 905 note 53 For the Latin development of this sound from original [k], see Grandgent, p. 111; Meyer-Lübke, Einführung, pp. 160–164.

page 905 note 54 See M. H. Jellinek, “Über Aussprache des Lateinischen und deutsche Buchstabennamen,” Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 212. Band, 2. Abhandlung (Wien und Leipzig, 1930), 12–13.

page 905 note 55 Modern inch is from a different form: ynce [t§], in which the assibilation is English, not Romance. See Pogatscher, pp. 186–187.

page 906 note 56 Entire passage quoted by Jellinek, “Zur Aussprache des Lateinischen im Mittelalter,” loc. cit., p. 20.

page 906 note 57 See under g, below.

page 906 note 58 “Zur Aussprache ... im Mittelalter,” loc. cit., p. 21.

page 906 note 59 Ibid., pp. 21–22.

page 907 note 60 Grandgent, p. 107.

page 907 note 61 Sievers, Ags. Gram., §208.

page 907 note 62 From the middle of the secondcentury b.c. the spelling ch occurs in Latin as a transcription of $chi; but the sound of the Greek letter was foreign to the Romans, who pronounced it [k].

page 907 note 63 “Zur Aussprache ... im Mittelalter,” pp. 24–25.

page 907 note 64 Keil, Gram. Lat. ii, 10.

page 907 note 65 Grandgent, p. 108.

page 907 note 66 Sievers, Ags. Gram. §209.

page 908 note 67 The passage is quoted by Funke, p. 33, who misunderstands it.

page 908 note 68 The passage is quoted by Bradley, p. 174, and given in the following paragraph. It will be remembered, of course, that the original diphthongs had been smoothed.

page 908 note 69 For its development in early popular and clerical Latin see Meyer-Lübke, Einführung, pp. 164–165, and Grandgent, pp. 109–110.

page 909 note 70 Cf. above, under b and d.

page 909 note 71 But cf. its loss in popular proper names, e.g., Ercol (Hercules), Elene.

page 909 note 72 Keil, Gram. Lai., ii, 12 and 36.

page 909 note 73 Grandgent, p. 106.

page 909 note 74 Grandgent, pp. 93–94.

page 909 note 75 Ibid., pp. 135–136.

page 910 note 76 These values would, of course, approximate those of Classical Latin (and of Vulgar Latin as well) much more closely than would be the case in the modern period. The great vowel shift has made the English pronunciation of Latin, up to the time of the “reform,” differ radically from the classical, as well as from any contemporary continental pronunciation.