Did The Romans Speak Latin With An Accent?

I cannot speak Latin however anytime I do hear it spoken it is in a monotone drone. Surely the language must have been more voluable and inflective when spoken but do we have any idea of just how it sounded? Do any writings that survive phonetically spell the language ala Robert Burns? Would a Roman be able to understand and converse with a fluent Latin linguist from today?

Well, some have made good guesses. The Latin you have heard is “church Latin” and Classical Roman Latin was certainly NOT spoken like that.

Doubtless there were many dialects, some right there in The City.

The use of Latin was spread out over a large empire with few efforts to ensure linguistic conformity among the diverse population. Thus, accents and dialects were inevitably going to develop. That’s also how the Romance languages of Spanish, Portuguese, French, Romanian, and Italian evolved.

Welease Bwian!

Just as today the accents of spoken Latin had much to do with one’s economic class/station of life. Horace (IIRC) wrote a satire about a working class plebian who come into a great deal of money and, naturally, decided to act the part of the wealthier man. Part of this behavior modification included speaking with a more upper-class accent. What this points to is the fact that speakers of working-class Latin, like Cockneys, tended to drop their word-initial letters ‘H’. Because this fellow, in an effort to sound wealthier, kept adding an H to the beginning of words that didn’t require them.

I’m sure that different geographical regions had different pronunciations, especially as time went by. One cute touch in the Heinlein novel “Have Sopacesuit – Will Travel” is the Roman soldier picked up via time machine from Spain – he’s from a time when they started turning the “-us” endings into “-o” endings on nouns, with that region’s Latin starting to morph into Spanish.

As other people have noted, there were many many dialects of Latin across space and time, so obviously some of them would not be spoken in a monotone drone. Indeed, it is unlikely that any of the dialects would be spoken in a monotone by native speakers. Tone and syllable stress can carry a lot of extra information, it would be strange if a language didn’t make use of them in everyday speech.

As to whether a Roman would be able to understand and converse with a fluent Latin linguist of today, I don’t know. I would guess that a person who knew their Latin very well would be able to make themselves understood by Roman (provided they were both using the same variety), but that it might be a very stilted conversation. The modern person might have to fumble around a bit while she figured out the nuances of pronunciation and the Ancient Roman might have to speak slowly to be understood.

I should also add that everyone speaks with an accent, no matter what language you are speaking.

I suppose some might speak of, for example, “Standard English” and say that this is accentless. I don’t agree. In the first place, speech varies too much on a moment to moment basis to realistically enforce an unchanging standard, in the second place there may be competing “standards” as with British English and American English.

This also applies to other languages.

I knew somebody would call me on that. :smiley:

Thanks for the responses.

Vulgar/Vulgate Latin. Article on Wikipedia here.

This was the variety of Latin that eventually gave rise to the Romance Languages, according to Wikipedia, which jibes with my recollection that this was the working man’s version of Latin. As opposed to the highflown stuff called Classical. :slight_smile:

Besides, there’s the point that your average Roman jarhead (helmethead?) would likely have a metric buttload of slang that a modern linguist would have a) spasms of joy over and b) a headache trying to figure it out at conversational speed. I agree that it’d be a very stilted conversation.

Of course. Rent Spartacus sometime and listen carefully to Tony Curtis’s speech. It’s a good example of Latin as it was spoken in northern New Jersey, east of the Turnpike.

One thing I liked about the BBC “I, Claudius” was how they used accents. All the patricians had recieved english accents, but the soldiers and servants all had working-class London accents.

Which exit?

The Bronx. It’s pronounced Spa-teh-cus. And it’s kinda gay.

That one made my morning. :sunglasses:

Here’s a recent Metafilter post with links to readings of Latin and Greek. http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/45552

I have always wondered at about what point Latin became standardized into the form my parents learned. That is when did “Weni, wedi wiki” get to “Venite Adoremus?”

There was a book written in the 1970s by Richard Ben Sapir called The Far Arenas. In it a Roman gladiator from just after the death of Christ is revived in the present. He speaks nothing but working class Latin. A Ph.D in Latin and a nun from Scandinavia with several advanced linguistics degrees and papers to her credit are brought in to talk to the poor schlep. He, of course, finds them almost completely incomprehensible. He is illiterate and their pronunciation of even simple words is totally different from even the upper classes of his time. They do eventually learn to talk to him (or there’d be no book). I don’t remember how the book ended but I do recall that he was horrified by the crucifix the nun is wearing. He can’t understand why a religion devoted to peace would use an instrument of torture as their identifying symbol. He tells her that the fish was the image that the early Christians used as their symbol and she stops wearing the crucifix.

There were also regional differences in the church latin. The latin used by an Irish priest sounded very different than that used by an Italian one. James Reston Jr. wrote a book called *1000 A.D. the Last Apocalypse * that dealt with the subject of how Europe became universally Catholic around this time. Several French clerics played prominent roles in this process. They all complained about how barbaric the church latin that was used in the different states was compared to their own.

The poem is by Catullus, Carmina 84 (Chommoda dicebat).

The contrasts between the literary Latin of Cicero and the vulgar Latin of the common man have been noted in this thread, and the Wikipedia article cited summarizes the differences. The Vulgar tended to have a greater influence in Medieval Latin. Latin had become mainly a secondary language for most scholars (and there was no central figure like a Cicero or Vergil to guide uniform usage), writers tended to adopt vocabulary and grammar from their native languages. Spelling changes are particularly obvious, and these indicate how native language pronunciation was usurping the classical pronunciation. By the time of the Renaissance, Erasmus could complain that speakers from different countries were unable to understand each others’ form of Latin.

Erasmus didn’t just complain, however; he wrote a comprehensive Latin grammar based on the classical language, and this was in turn adopted by William Lily in creating his own grammar for English schools. Lily’s canonical pronunciation was Italian, reflecting the style of the leading Latin scholars of the Renaissance. This grammar, by decree of Henry VIII, became the standard grammar used in English schoolrooms (and by extension the English-speaking Americas), and thus institutionalized Latin education (and pronunciation) for generations of students until the 19th century.

Thanks for the identification. One of my Latin profs told me about this years ago, but kept forgetting to look it up for me. Now I know.