Disputatio:Cingischam

Motum a pagina anteriori[fontem recensere]

Cum hanc paginam non vidissemus, Cingischam creavimus. Frater Simon, qui terras a Tartaris victas viserunt, scripsit Cingischam. Vide nexum. Wayne's Quicky Lube 02:25, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen[fontem recensere]

The first phoneme of his name appears to be /č/ as in English church, or /dž/ as in George; so why is the Latin a "c" = /k/? Wouldn't Cicero have heard /č/ or /dž/ as /s/ or /ts/? Confer how Vicipaedia handles the first phoneme of the word that in English is chocolate. IacobusAmor 03:21, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified this is the correct spelling. THe alternative way is as two separate words Cingis Cham. Perhaps back when it entered the latin language the pronunciation was different than it is now or perhaps the latin version was taken from a different language or dialect?--Rafaelgarcia 04:04, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exstant sine dubio orthographiae nonnullae, sed pro Cingischam habemus fontem bonam (vide supra: disputationes nunc contribui). Simon pronuntiavit aut ts aut č. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:22, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's OK then, as long as we're content to be consistent and pronounce cingis as /kiŋgis/, not /čindžis/. We've been through a similar problem with chocolate, whose initial phoneme, /č/, we resolved to render as "s," not "ci." IacobusAmor 10:58, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's pronouncing? When Vicipaedia accepts edits viva voce, we may have to think again. Until then, I have no idea how you pronounce your Latin, and vice versa!

With chocolate (and other difficult spelling issues), our rule has been to look for real Latin sources, surely. If we can't find them, then we have to work out a transliteration. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:28, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Who's pronouncing?"—Not enough of us, evidently ! In an article that just came into view, I've corrected a urbe to ab urbe and a Antonio to ab Antonio. The original errors are unlikely to have been made by writers listening to their own words. IacobusAmor 12:33, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the best way to render the /č/ in classical latin pronunciation? It doesn't exist right? So C is just as good as anything else.--Rafaelgarcia 14:29, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To most people, /č/ = [tʃ] probably sounds more like [s] than [k]. For chocolate, try comparing siokolata and kiokolata. IacobusAmor 16:51, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a phoneme missing from a language 'sounds like' to a user of that language is something that, I think, cannot easily be predicted in itself (especially as, being speakers of a different language, we are likely to project our own opinions of the most relevant features of the sound in question). The most likely options, imo, are:

[tʃ] replaces the unusual shibilant with the usual sibilant /s/, thus in Latin ts /ts/.
[tʃ] both replaces the unusual shibilant and reduces the unusual cluster, thus s /s/.
[tʃ] drops the unusual affrication entirely, thus t /t/.
[tʃ] ignores the unusual affrication entirely and interprets it as a stop midway between [t] and [k], which might drop into the standard phonology either as t /t/ or c /k/.
[tʃ] interprets the unusual affrication as very heavy aspiration, whether on a /t/ or on a stop midway between [t] and [k], thus ending up as either th /tʰ/ or ch /kʰ/.

Of course in general, people who wrote Latin after the end of the native-speaking community pronounced it the same way they did their own language, so any unusual sounds were handled in the same way their own language did (though a regionally-spelled form might become standard when introduced into other areas). —Mucius Tever 20:12, 20 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I guess I should also mention that I think kiokolata has a sound closer to the [tʃ] than siokolata does... that may just be because, as an English speaker, /kj/ feels easier to pronounce as a cluster than /sj/.) —Mucius Tever 20:19, 20 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]