How to pronounce 'que' and 'angeli'?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












5















I came along these in a Latin song our choir is singing.
How to pronounce them?
I guess I can absorb an international phonetic alphabet transcription.



Update after reading some answers: I should have stated that I know that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could e.g.'que' be pronounced as "ke" (or "kɛ", ...) i.e. without glide?










share|improve this question
























  • Related: latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/…

    – luchonacho
    Feb 9 at 18:07















5















I came along these in a Latin song our choir is singing.
How to pronounce them?
I guess I can absorb an international phonetic alphabet transcription.



Update after reading some answers: I should have stated that I know that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could e.g.'que' be pronounced as "ke" (or "kɛ", ...) i.e. without glide?










share|improve this question
























  • Related: latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/…

    – luchonacho
    Feb 9 at 18:07













5












5








5








I came along these in a Latin song our choir is singing.
How to pronounce them?
I guess I can absorb an international phonetic alphabet transcription.



Update after reading some answers: I should have stated that I know that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could e.g.'que' be pronounced as "ke" (or "kɛ", ...) i.e. without glide?










share|improve this question
















I came along these in a Latin song our choir is singing.
How to pronounce them?
I guess I can absorb an international phonetic alphabet transcription.



Update after reading some answers: I should have stated that I know that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could e.g.'que' be pronounced as "ke" (or "kɛ", ...) i.e. without glide?







pronunciation






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Feb 10 at 11:52







wondering

















asked Feb 9 at 16:52









wonderingwondering

1264




1264












  • Related: latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/…

    – luchonacho
    Feb 9 at 18:07

















  • Related: latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/…

    – luchonacho
    Feb 9 at 18:07
















Related: latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/…

– luchonacho
Feb 9 at 18:07





Related: latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1000/…

– luchonacho
Feb 9 at 18:07










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















9














The first question is, what tradition are you following?



In the reconstructed Classical pronunciation, the way scholars think Romans spoke around the first century, they'd be pronounced [kʷɛ] and [ˈɑŋ.gɛ.liː]. In English, approximately "kweh" and "AHNG-geh-lee".



In the common Ecclesiastic pronunciation, the system the Vatican uses, they'd be pronounced [kʷe] [ˈɑn.d͡ʒɛ.li]. In English, approximately "kway" and "AHN-jeh-lee".



However, there have been a wide variety of Latin pronunciations used across the centuries. It's worth asking which your chorus is using: while most use Ecclesiastic pronunciation, for example, some choruses would use a German pronunciation for Bach, but an Italian pronunciation for Palestrina.




Some of these regional pronunciations used [k] instead of [kʷ] before [e], as you mention in the comments—based on how the Romance languages developed, I would expect this in France and Spain, but not in Portugal or Italy (or Germany or England for that matter). In Germany or Russia, on the other hand, you'd find something more like [kv].



However, these regional pronunciations aren't generally used nowadays, unless you're singing music by a specifically French or Spanish composer. You should talk to your director about that.






share|improve this answer

























  • Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

    – wondering
    Feb 10 at 0:20












  • @wondering Added a note about that.

    – Draconis
    Feb 10 at 1:09











  • Why do you write the vowels of "que" and "angeli" differently in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation? My understanding is that Ecclesiastical pronunciation has no standardized distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/, and both "-que" and "angeli" had short e in Latin anyway (except for when "-que" was positioned in the "arsis", apparently).

    – sumelic
    Feb 10 at 7:09












  • @sumelic My understanding was that Ecclesiastical vowels tend to "weaken" (lower) a bit when adjacent to the stressed syllable.

    – Draconis
    Feb 10 at 17:01











  • Would't -que and the second syllable of angeli both be in the same context in terms of stress, though? I think both would be unstressed and directly after the stressed syllable of the word. Aside from that, it sounds a bit odd to me that "e" would lower in unstressed syllables in Ecclesiastical Latin, since the reverse happens in Italian: Italian has [ɛ] only in stressed syllables, and turns it into [e] when stress is shifted to another syllable.

    – sumelic
    Feb 10 at 18:34



















3














It depends on the pronounciation you are using.
If you want classical reconstructed pronunciantion, the one Romans used, you say something like [kwe] and [ˈaŋ.ɡɛ.li]
If you want ecclesiastical proniunciation, which is used by the catholic church, you say some thing like [kwe] and [ˈan.d͡ʒe.li]
I hope it helped 😁






share|improve this answer























  • Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

    – wondering
    Feb 10 at 0:22



















3














Note: This answer should be regarded as an adjunct to the answers already given by user22198 and Draconis.



Both correctly mention that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin, including a reconstructed Classical pronunciation, and an "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation. There also have existed various national pronunciations, as Draconis mentions.



Your question about que being possibly pronounced as [kɛ] is most likely true for certain "national" pronunciations in the past (I'd guess e.g. probably French and Spanish), but is not followed by the pronunciations in common use to-day. In fact, the de facto pronunciation for Latin used in singing is nowadays the "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation (and therefore quite likely by your choir). (Although I have heard some Mediaeval music pronounced with a German, or at least non-Italianate, mediaeval pronunciation, as Draconis alludes to.)



You might be interested in this related post.






share|improve this answer






























    2














    "All possible pronunciations" is a pretty tall order.



    -que



    As far as I know, "que" in Latin does not exist as an independent word, only as the enclitic/suffix -que, which doesn't receive stress in prose (the existence of "stress" in Latin poetry is a disputed point). Latin -que is a conjunction that can be translated as "and".



    "Ecclesiastical"



    The "Ecclesiastical" (Italian-based, although perhaps not exactly identical to Italian) pronunciation of -que would be something like [kwɛ]. There doesn't seem to be any clear rule about the use of [e] vs. [ɛ] in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation, so [kwe] might also be possible. There is no contrast between [kw], [kʷ] and [ku̯] in this context, so you might see the onset transcribed as any of these.



    "Classical"



    The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is approximately the same. The onset is the "qu" sound, and the nucleus is the "ĕ" ("short e") sound (with the exception that, according to Lewis and Short, the vowel may be lengthened in the "arsis" in poetry). The Classical Latin "qu" sound has been variously analyzed as either a single labiovelar phoneme /kʷ/ or as a sequence /kw/. We will never be able to be sure of the exact phonetic realization. Latin didn't have a contrast of velar vs. palatal plosives, or front rounded vs. back rounded glides; it has been suggested that in Classical Latin the glide of the "qu" sound was fronted before a front vowel. Wiktionary gives a reconstructed phonetic transcription "[kᶣɛ]", although I would expect the plosive part of the "qu" to also be fronted in a context like that, so maybe something like [cᶣɛ] would be possible. (In various modern Romance languages, such as French, the velar stop phonemes are supposed to have palatal stop allophones that are used before front vowels.)



    There seems to be general agreement on the value of Classical Latin ĕ being [ɛ], although [e] may have existed as an allophone (e.g. it has been suggested that a realization like [e] could occur in words like meum).



    The distinct phoneme ē ("long e") is reconstructed as being [eː] for at least some of the Classical Latin time period; from what I've read, ē is often thought to have been [ɛː] at some earlier stage.



    Others



    As mentioned, other traditions have further variations in pronunciation. "Qu" is traditionally /kv/ (phonetically, devoicing of the /v/ may occur in contexts like this in many languages, so possibly [kf]) in German pronunciation, and I think in the pronunciation of some other regions. "Qu" in traditional French pronunciation is often pronounced as French /k/, which as mentioned above is supposed to have [c] as an allophone.



    From what I remember, in German pronunciation vowel "length" and "quality" is traditionally determined mostly from context (such as syllable structure), so the traditional German pronunciation of "-que" would I think be /kveː/, not /kvɛ/.



    I don't know how French traditional pronunciation treated the vowel "e" in contexts like this, but I doubt that /ɛ/ would be used.



    In "traditional English pronunciation" of Latin, "-que" would be something like /kwi/ (since it is unstressed, I think the vowel would be /i/ and not /iː/, although I'm not entirely sure).



    angeli



    "Ecclesiastical"



    The "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation would be something like [ˈand͡ʒɛli].



    In a "reference" Italian accent, a coda nasal assimilates in place to a following plosive; I don't know enough to give a detailed description of the quality of "[n]" in this context, but Wikipedia suggests it would be something like [n̠ʲ].



    The "a" vowel of Italian and Ecclesiastical Latin is typically described as being phonetically central [a], not back [ɑ], although the difference is not contrastive.



    In actual Italian, the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/ is neutralized in unstressed syllables, and the merged realization is typically transcribed as [e]. But as I mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule about when [e] vs. [ɛ] should be used in an "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation of Latin.



    "Classical"



    The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is something like [ˈaŋgɛliː]. The final vowel is long. As mentioned earlier, there was no phonemic contrast between velar and palatal stops in Classical Latin, so we don't know whether coarticulation with/assimilation to the following front vowel might have caused the "ng" to be pronounced as something like [ɲɟ] in this context.



    As far as I know, there is little evidence that would provide grounds for reconstructing the specific quality of the Classical Latin "a" sound. It is agreed that it was an open/low vowel, but that would be compatible with anything in the range of [a], [ɑ] or [ɐ].



    Others



    In "traditional English pronunciation", angeli would be ˈændʒəlaɪ (or possibly /ˈændʒɪlaɪ/? I'm not sure whether /ɪ/ would be possible in an accent without the "weak vowel merger").



    In traditional German pronunciation, I believe it would be [ˈaŋgeli].






    share|improve this answer

























    • Unlike other answers, you don't mention [kɛ] as a possible pronunciation for 'que'. Does it mean that you don't think it can be pronounced that way?

      – wondering
      Feb 10 at 11:12











    • @wondering: I can't think of any particular tradition where -que would be pronounced as [kɛ] as opposed to [ke]. In many languages, such as Spanish, there is no phonemic distinction between [e] and [ɛ], and the neutralized sound is typically transcribed /e/, but may have a range that overlaps with both "[e]" and "[ɛ]" sounds of other languages.

      – sumelic
      Feb 10 at 11:16












    • I am sorry for not writing my comment fully, I was actually interested of both [kɛ] and [ke] as possible pronunciations (or, for that matter, any pronunciation which would take [k] before [e], instead of [kʷ]). Nevertheless, you don't mention neither [kɛ] nor [ke]. But this is what one would expect in Italy and Spain, right?

      – wondering
      Feb 10 at 11:27












    • @wondering: In standard Italian, "qu" retains the glide, so [ke] would not be expected. (There are many regional varieties of Italian, and I don't know about the treatment of "qu" in them.) Spain I think would have /ke/ as a possible realization, but I would have to check to make sure.

      – sumelic
      Feb 10 at 11:29











    • @wondering: If you can somehow get your hands on Harold Copeman's Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd, it covers many of these kinds of details. I read it a while ago, but not front-to-cover, and I don't remember all of the parts that I did read. It seems to be expensive, but you might be able to get access to it through a library near you--that's what I did.

      – sumelic
      Feb 10 at 11:35










    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "644"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9084%2fhow-to-pronounce-que-and-angeli%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    9














    The first question is, what tradition are you following?



    In the reconstructed Classical pronunciation, the way scholars think Romans spoke around the first century, they'd be pronounced [kʷɛ] and [ˈɑŋ.gɛ.liː]. In English, approximately "kweh" and "AHNG-geh-lee".



    In the common Ecclesiastic pronunciation, the system the Vatican uses, they'd be pronounced [kʷe] [ˈɑn.d͡ʒɛ.li]. In English, approximately "kway" and "AHN-jeh-lee".



    However, there have been a wide variety of Latin pronunciations used across the centuries. It's worth asking which your chorus is using: while most use Ecclesiastic pronunciation, for example, some choruses would use a German pronunciation for Bach, but an Italian pronunciation for Palestrina.




    Some of these regional pronunciations used [k] instead of [kʷ] before [e], as you mention in the comments—based on how the Romance languages developed, I would expect this in France and Spain, but not in Portugal or Italy (or Germany or England for that matter). In Germany or Russia, on the other hand, you'd find something more like [kv].



    However, these regional pronunciations aren't generally used nowadays, unless you're singing music by a specifically French or Spanish composer. You should talk to your director about that.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

      – wondering
      Feb 10 at 0:20












    • @wondering Added a note about that.

      – Draconis
      Feb 10 at 1:09











    • Why do you write the vowels of "que" and "angeli" differently in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation? My understanding is that Ecclesiastical pronunciation has no standardized distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/, and both "-que" and "angeli" had short e in Latin anyway (except for when "-que" was positioned in the "arsis", apparently).

      – sumelic
      Feb 10 at 7:09












    • @sumelic My understanding was that Ecclesiastical vowels tend to "weaken" (lower) a bit when adjacent to the stressed syllable.

      – Draconis
      Feb 10 at 17:01











    • Would't -que and the second syllable of angeli both be in the same context in terms of stress, though? I think both would be unstressed and directly after the stressed syllable of the word. Aside from that, it sounds a bit odd to me that "e" would lower in unstressed syllables in Ecclesiastical Latin, since the reverse happens in Italian: Italian has [ɛ] only in stressed syllables, and turns it into [e] when stress is shifted to another syllable.

      – sumelic
      Feb 10 at 18:34
















    9














    The first question is, what tradition are you following?



    In the reconstructed Classical pronunciation, the way scholars think Romans spoke around the first century, they'd be pronounced [kʷɛ] and [ˈɑŋ.gɛ.liː]. In English, approximately "kweh" and "AHNG-geh-lee".



    In the common Ecclesiastic pronunciation, the system the Vatican uses, they'd be pronounced [kʷe] [ˈɑn.d͡ʒɛ.li]. In English, approximately "kway" and "AHN-jeh-lee".



    However, there have been a wide variety of Latin pronunciations used across the centuries. It's worth asking which your chorus is using: while most use Ecclesiastic pronunciation, for example, some choruses would use a German pronunciation for Bach, but an Italian pronunciation for Palestrina.




    Some of these regional pronunciations used [k] instead of [kʷ] before [e], as you mention in the comments—based on how the Romance languages developed, I would expect this in France and Spain, but not in Portugal or Italy (or Germany or England for that matter). In Germany or Russia, on the other hand, you'd find something more like [kv].



    However, these regional pronunciations aren't generally used nowadays, unless you're singing music by a specifically French or Spanish composer. You should talk to your director about that.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

      – wondering
      Feb 10 at 0:20












    • @wondering Added a note about that.

      – Draconis
      Feb 10 at 1:09











    • Why do you write the vowels of "que" and "angeli" differently in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation? My understanding is that Ecclesiastical pronunciation has no standardized distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/, and both "-que" and "angeli" had short e in Latin anyway (except for when "-que" was positioned in the "arsis", apparently).

      – sumelic
      Feb 10 at 7:09












    • @sumelic My understanding was that Ecclesiastical vowels tend to "weaken" (lower) a bit when adjacent to the stressed syllable.

      – Draconis
      Feb 10 at 17:01











    • Would't -que and the second syllable of angeli both be in the same context in terms of stress, though? I think both would be unstressed and directly after the stressed syllable of the word. Aside from that, it sounds a bit odd to me that "e" would lower in unstressed syllables in Ecclesiastical Latin, since the reverse happens in Italian: Italian has [ɛ] only in stressed syllables, and turns it into [e] when stress is shifted to another syllable.

      – sumelic
      Feb 10 at 18:34














    9












    9








    9







    The first question is, what tradition are you following?



    In the reconstructed Classical pronunciation, the way scholars think Romans spoke around the first century, they'd be pronounced [kʷɛ] and [ˈɑŋ.gɛ.liː]. In English, approximately "kweh" and "AHNG-geh-lee".



    In the common Ecclesiastic pronunciation, the system the Vatican uses, they'd be pronounced [kʷe] [ˈɑn.d͡ʒɛ.li]. In English, approximately "kway" and "AHN-jeh-lee".



    However, there have been a wide variety of Latin pronunciations used across the centuries. It's worth asking which your chorus is using: while most use Ecclesiastic pronunciation, for example, some choruses would use a German pronunciation for Bach, but an Italian pronunciation for Palestrina.




    Some of these regional pronunciations used [k] instead of [kʷ] before [e], as you mention in the comments—based on how the Romance languages developed, I would expect this in France and Spain, but not in Portugal or Italy (or Germany or England for that matter). In Germany or Russia, on the other hand, you'd find something more like [kv].



    However, these regional pronunciations aren't generally used nowadays, unless you're singing music by a specifically French or Spanish composer. You should talk to your director about that.






    share|improve this answer















    The first question is, what tradition are you following?



    In the reconstructed Classical pronunciation, the way scholars think Romans spoke around the first century, they'd be pronounced [kʷɛ] and [ˈɑŋ.gɛ.liː]. In English, approximately "kweh" and "AHNG-geh-lee".



    In the common Ecclesiastic pronunciation, the system the Vatican uses, they'd be pronounced [kʷe] [ˈɑn.d͡ʒɛ.li]. In English, approximately "kway" and "AHN-jeh-lee".



    However, there have been a wide variety of Latin pronunciations used across the centuries. It's worth asking which your chorus is using: while most use Ecclesiastic pronunciation, for example, some choruses would use a German pronunciation for Bach, but an Italian pronunciation for Palestrina.




    Some of these regional pronunciations used [k] instead of [kʷ] before [e], as you mention in the comments—based on how the Romance languages developed, I would expect this in France and Spain, but not in Portugal or Italy (or Germany or England for that matter). In Germany or Russia, on the other hand, you'd find something more like [kv].



    However, these regional pronunciations aren't generally used nowadays, unless you're singing music by a specifically French or Spanish composer. You should talk to your director about that.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Feb 10 at 1:09

























    answered Feb 9 at 22:32









    DraconisDraconis

    16.5k22171




    16.5k22171












    • Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

      – wondering
      Feb 10 at 0:20












    • @wondering Added a note about that.

      – Draconis
      Feb 10 at 1:09











    • Why do you write the vowels of "que" and "angeli" differently in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation? My understanding is that Ecclesiastical pronunciation has no standardized distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/, and both "-que" and "angeli" had short e in Latin anyway (except for when "-que" was positioned in the "arsis", apparently).

      – sumelic
      Feb 10 at 7:09












    • @sumelic My understanding was that Ecclesiastical vowels tend to "weaken" (lower) a bit when adjacent to the stressed syllable.

      – Draconis
      Feb 10 at 17:01











    • Would't -que and the second syllable of angeli both be in the same context in terms of stress, though? I think both would be unstressed and directly after the stressed syllable of the word. Aside from that, it sounds a bit odd to me that "e" would lower in unstressed syllables in Ecclesiastical Latin, since the reverse happens in Italian: Italian has [ɛ] only in stressed syllables, and turns it into [e] when stress is shifted to another syllable.

      – sumelic
      Feb 10 at 18:34


















    • Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

      – wondering
      Feb 10 at 0:20












    • @wondering Added a note about that.

      – Draconis
      Feb 10 at 1:09











    • Why do you write the vowels of "que" and "angeli" differently in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation? My understanding is that Ecclesiastical pronunciation has no standardized distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/, and both "-que" and "angeli" had short e in Latin anyway (except for when "-que" was positioned in the "arsis", apparently).

      – sumelic
      Feb 10 at 7:09












    • @sumelic My understanding was that Ecclesiastical vowels tend to "weaken" (lower) a bit when adjacent to the stressed syllable.

      – Draconis
      Feb 10 at 17:01











    • Would't -que and the second syllable of angeli both be in the same context in terms of stress, though? I think both would be unstressed and directly after the stressed syllable of the word. Aside from that, it sounds a bit odd to me that "e" would lower in unstressed syllables in Ecclesiastical Latin, since the reverse happens in Italian: Italian has [ɛ] only in stressed syllables, and turns it into [e] when stress is shifted to another syllable.

      – sumelic
      Feb 10 at 18:34

















    Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

    – wondering
    Feb 10 at 0:20






    Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

    – wondering
    Feb 10 at 0:20














    @wondering Added a note about that.

    – Draconis
    Feb 10 at 1:09





    @wondering Added a note about that.

    – Draconis
    Feb 10 at 1:09













    Why do you write the vowels of "que" and "angeli" differently in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation? My understanding is that Ecclesiastical pronunciation has no standardized distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/, and both "-que" and "angeli" had short e in Latin anyway (except for when "-que" was positioned in the "arsis", apparently).

    – sumelic
    Feb 10 at 7:09






    Why do you write the vowels of "que" and "angeli" differently in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation? My understanding is that Ecclesiastical pronunciation has no standardized distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/, and both "-que" and "angeli" had short e in Latin anyway (except for when "-que" was positioned in the "arsis", apparently).

    – sumelic
    Feb 10 at 7:09














    @sumelic My understanding was that Ecclesiastical vowels tend to "weaken" (lower) a bit when adjacent to the stressed syllable.

    – Draconis
    Feb 10 at 17:01





    @sumelic My understanding was that Ecclesiastical vowels tend to "weaken" (lower) a bit when adjacent to the stressed syllable.

    – Draconis
    Feb 10 at 17:01













    Would't -que and the second syllable of angeli both be in the same context in terms of stress, though? I think both would be unstressed and directly after the stressed syllable of the word. Aside from that, it sounds a bit odd to me that "e" would lower in unstressed syllables in Ecclesiastical Latin, since the reverse happens in Italian: Italian has [ɛ] only in stressed syllables, and turns it into [e] when stress is shifted to another syllable.

    – sumelic
    Feb 10 at 18:34






    Would't -que and the second syllable of angeli both be in the same context in terms of stress, though? I think both would be unstressed and directly after the stressed syllable of the word. Aside from that, it sounds a bit odd to me that "e" would lower in unstressed syllables in Ecclesiastical Latin, since the reverse happens in Italian: Italian has [ɛ] only in stressed syllables, and turns it into [e] when stress is shifted to another syllable.

    – sumelic
    Feb 10 at 18:34












    3














    It depends on the pronounciation you are using.
    If you want classical reconstructed pronunciantion, the one Romans used, you say something like [kwe] and [ˈaŋ.ɡɛ.li]
    If you want ecclesiastical proniunciation, which is used by the catholic church, you say some thing like [kwe] and [ˈan.d͡ʒe.li]
    I hope it helped 😁






    share|improve this answer























    • Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

      – wondering
      Feb 10 at 0:22
















    3














    It depends on the pronounciation you are using.
    If you want classical reconstructed pronunciantion, the one Romans used, you say something like [kwe] and [ˈaŋ.ɡɛ.li]
    If you want ecclesiastical proniunciation, which is used by the catholic church, you say some thing like [kwe] and [ˈan.d͡ʒe.li]
    I hope it helped 😁






    share|improve this answer























    • Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

      – wondering
      Feb 10 at 0:22














    3












    3








    3







    It depends on the pronounciation you are using.
    If you want classical reconstructed pronunciantion, the one Romans used, you say something like [kwe] and [ˈaŋ.ɡɛ.li]
    If you want ecclesiastical proniunciation, which is used by the catholic church, you say some thing like [kwe] and [ˈan.d͡ʒe.li]
    I hope it helped 😁






    share|improve this answer













    It depends on the pronounciation you are using.
    If you want classical reconstructed pronunciantion, the one Romans used, you say something like [kwe] and [ˈaŋ.ɡɛ.li]
    If you want ecclesiastical proniunciation, which is used by the catholic church, you say some thing like [kwe] and [ˈan.d͡ʒe.li]
    I hope it helped 😁







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Feb 9 at 22:27









    user22198user22198

    584




    584












    • Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

      – wondering
      Feb 10 at 0:22


















    • Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

      – wondering
      Feb 10 at 0:22

















    Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

    – wondering
    Feb 10 at 0:22






    Thanks. I am interested in all possible pronunciations. Could 'que' be pronounced as "ke" or "kɛ"? (This is what I told my friends, but promised to check it:-)

    – wondering
    Feb 10 at 0:22












    3














    Note: This answer should be regarded as an adjunct to the answers already given by user22198 and Draconis.



    Both correctly mention that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin, including a reconstructed Classical pronunciation, and an "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation. There also have existed various national pronunciations, as Draconis mentions.



    Your question about que being possibly pronounced as [kɛ] is most likely true for certain "national" pronunciations in the past (I'd guess e.g. probably French and Spanish), but is not followed by the pronunciations in common use to-day. In fact, the de facto pronunciation for Latin used in singing is nowadays the "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation (and therefore quite likely by your choir). (Although I have heard some Mediaeval music pronounced with a German, or at least non-Italianate, mediaeval pronunciation, as Draconis alludes to.)



    You might be interested in this related post.






    share|improve this answer



























      3














      Note: This answer should be regarded as an adjunct to the answers already given by user22198 and Draconis.



      Both correctly mention that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin, including a reconstructed Classical pronunciation, and an "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation. There also have existed various national pronunciations, as Draconis mentions.



      Your question about que being possibly pronounced as [kɛ] is most likely true for certain "national" pronunciations in the past (I'd guess e.g. probably French and Spanish), but is not followed by the pronunciations in common use to-day. In fact, the de facto pronunciation for Latin used in singing is nowadays the "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation (and therefore quite likely by your choir). (Although I have heard some Mediaeval music pronounced with a German, or at least non-Italianate, mediaeval pronunciation, as Draconis alludes to.)



      You might be interested in this related post.






      share|improve this answer

























        3












        3








        3







        Note: This answer should be regarded as an adjunct to the answers already given by user22198 and Draconis.



        Both correctly mention that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin, including a reconstructed Classical pronunciation, and an "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation. There also have existed various national pronunciations, as Draconis mentions.



        Your question about que being possibly pronounced as [kɛ] is most likely true for certain "national" pronunciations in the past (I'd guess e.g. probably French and Spanish), but is not followed by the pronunciations in common use to-day. In fact, the de facto pronunciation for Latin used in singing is nowadays the "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation (and therefore quite likely by your choir). (Although I have heard some Mediaeval music pronounced with a German, or at least non-Italianate, mediaeval pronunciation, as Draconis alludes to.)



        You might be interested in this related post.






        share|improve this answer













        Note: This answer should be regarded as an adjunct to the answers already given by user22198 and Draconis.



        Both correctly mention that there are different traditions in pronouncing Latin, including a reconstructed Classical pronunciation, and an "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation. There also have existed various national pronunciations, as Draconis mentions.



        Your question about que being possibly pronounced as [kɛ] is most likely true for certain "national" pronunciations in the past (I'd guess e.g. probably French and Spanish), but is not followed by the pronunciations in common use to-day. In fact, the de facto pronunciation for Latin used in singing is nowadays the "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation (and therefore quite likely by your choir). (Although I have heard some Mediaeval music pronounced with a German, or at least non-Italianate, mediaeval pronunciation, as Draconis alludes to.)



        You might be interested in this related post.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Feb 10 at 0:57









        varrovarro

        3,7501315




        3,7501315





















            2














            "All possible pronunciations" is a pretty tall order.



            -que



            As far as I know, "que" in Latin does not exist as an independent word, only as the enclitic/suffix -que, which doesn't receive stress in prose (the existence of "stress" in Latin poetry is a disputed point). Latin -que is a conjunction that can be translated as "and".



            "Ecclesiastical"



            The "Ecclesiastical" (Italian-based, although perhaps not exactly identical to Italian) pronunciation of -que would be something like [kwɛ]. There doesn't seem to be any clear rule about the use of [e] vs. [ɛ] in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation, so [kwe] might also be possible. There is no contrast between [kw], [kʷ] and [ku̯] in this context, so you might see the onset transcribed as any of these.



            "Classical"



            The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is approximately the same. The onset is the "qu" sound, and the nucleus is the "ĕ" ("short e") sound (with the exception that, according to Lewis and Short, the vowel may be lengthened in the "arsis" in poetry). The Classical Latin "qu" sound has been variously analyzed as either a single labiovelar phoneme /kʷ/ or as a sequence /kw/. We will never be able to be sure of the exact phonetic realization. Latin didn't have a contrast of velar vs. palatal plosives, or front rounded vs. back rounded glides; it has been suggested that in Classical Latin the glide of the "qu" sound was fronted before a front vowel. Wiktionary gives a reconstructed phonetic transcription "[kᶣɛ]", although I would expect the plosive part of the "qu" to also be fronted in a context like that, so maybe something like [cᶣɛ] would be possible. (In various modern Romance languages, such as French, the velar stop phonemes are supposed to have palatal stop allophones that are used before front vowels.)



            There seems to be general agreement on the value of Classical Latin ĕ being [ɛ], although [e] may have existed as an allophone (e.g. it has been suggested that a realization like [e] could occur in words like meum).



            The distinct phoneme ē ("long e") is reconstructed as being [eː] for at least some of the Classical Latin time period; from what I've read, ē is often thought to have been [ɛː] at some earlier stage.



            Others



            As mentioned, other traditions have further variations in pronunciation. "Qu" is traditionally /kv/ (phonetically, devoicing of the /v/ may occur in contexts like this in many languages, so possibly [kf]) in German pronunciation, and I think in the pronunciation of some other regions. "Qu" in traditional French pronunciation is often pronounced as French /k/, which as mentioned above is supposed to have [c] as an allophone.



            From what I remember, in German pronunciation vowel "length" and "quality" is traditionally determined mostly from context (such as syllable structure), so the traditional German pronunciation of "-que" would I think be /kveː/, not /kvɛ/.



            I don't know how French traditional pronunciation treated the vowel "e" in contexts like this, but I doubt that /ɛ/ would be used.



            In "traditional English pronunciation" of Latin, "-que" would be something like /kwi/ (since it is unstressed, I think the vowel would be /i/ and not /iː/, although I'm not entirely sure).



            angeli



            "Ecclesiastical"



            The "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation would be something like [ˈand͡ʒɛli].



            In a "reference" Italian accent, a coda nasal assimilates in place to a following plosive; I don't know enough to give a detailed description of the quality of "[n]" in this context, but Wikipedia suggests it would be something like [n̠ʲ].



            The "a" vowel of Italian and Ecclesiastical Latin is typically described as being phonetically central [a], not back [ɑ], although the difference is not contrastive.



            In actual Italian, the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/ is neutralized in unstressed syllables, and the merged realization is typically transcribed as [e]. But as I mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule about when [e] vs. [ɛ] should be used in an "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation of Latin.



            "Classical"



            The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is something like [ˈaŋgɛliː]. The final vowel is long. As mentioned earlier, there was no phonemic contrast between velar and palatal stops in Classical Latin, so we don't know whether coarticulation with/assimilation to the following front vowel might have caused the "ng" to be pronounced as something like [ɲɟ] in this context.



            As far as I know, there is little evidence that would provide grounds for reconstructing the specific quality of the Classical Latin "a" sound. It is agreed that it was an open/low vowel, but that would be compatible with anything in the range of [a], [ɑ] or [ɐ].



            Others



            In "traditional English pronunciation", angeli would be ˈændʒəlaɪ (or possibly /ˈændʒɪlaɪ/? I'm not sure whether /ɪ/ would be possible in an accent without the "weak vowel merger").



            In traditional German pronunciation, I believe it would be [ˈaŋgeli].






            share|improve this answer

























            • Unlike other answers, you don't mention [kɛ] as a possible pronunciation for 'que'. Does it mean that you don't think it can be pronounced that way?

              – wondering
              Feb 10 at 11:12











            • @wondering: I can't think of any particular tradition where -que would be pronounced as [kɛ] as opposed to [ke]. In many languages, such as Spanish, there is no phonemic distinction between [e] and [ɛ], and the neutralized sound is typically transcribed /e/, but may have a range that overlaps with both "[e]" and "[ɛ]" sounds of other languages.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:16












            • I am sorry for not writing my comment fully, I was actually interested of both [kɛ] and [ke] as possible pronunciations (or, for that matter, any pronunciation which would take [k] before [e], instead of [kʷ]). Nevertheless, you don't mention neither [kɛ] nor [ke]. But this is what one would expect in Italy and Spain, right?

              – wondering
              Feb 10 at 11:27












            • @wondering: In standard Italian, "qu" retains the glide, so [ke] would not be expected. (There are many regional varieties of Italian, and I don't know about the treatment of "qu" in them.) Spain I think would have /ke/ as a possible realization, but I would have to check to make sure.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:29











            • @wondering: If you can somehow get your hands on Harold Copeman's Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd, it covers many of these kinds of details. I read it a while ago, but not front-to-cover, and I don't remember all of the parts that I did read. It seems to be expensive, but you might be able to get access to it through a library near you--that's what I did.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:35















            2














            "All possible pronunciations" is a pretty tall order.



            -que



            As far as I know, "que" in Latin does not exist as an independent word, only as the enclitic/suffix -que, which doesn't receive stress in prose (the existence of "stress" in Latin poetry is a disputed point). Latin -que is a conjunction that can be translated as "and".



            "Ecclesiastical"



            The "Ecclesiastical" (Italian-based, although perhaps not exactly identical to Italian) pronunciation of -que would be something like [kwɛ]. There doesn't seem to be any clear rule about the use of [e] vs. [ɛ] in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation, so [kwe] might also be possible. There is no contrast between [kw], [kʷ] and [ku̯] in this context, so you might see the onset transcribed as any of these.



            "Classical"



            The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is approximately the same. The onset is the "qu" sound, and the nucleus is the "ĕ" ("short e") sound (with the exception that, according to Lewis and Short, the vowel may be lengthened in the "arsis" in poetry). The Classical Latin "qu" sound has been variously analyzed as either a single labiovelar phoneme /kʷ/ or as a sequence /kw/. We will never be able to be sure of the exact phonetic realization. Latin didn't have a contrast of velar vs. palatal plosives, or front rounded vs. back rounded glides; it has been suggested that in Classical Latin the glide of the "qu" sound was fronted before a front vowel. Wiktionary gives a reconstructed phonetic transcription "[kᶣɛ]", although I would expect the plosive part of the "qu" to also be fronted in a context like that, so maybe something like [cᶣɛ] would be possible. (In various modern Romance languages, such as French, the velar stop phonemes are supposed to have palatal stop allophones that are used before front vowels.)



            There seems to be general agreement on the value of Classical Latin ĕ being [ɛ], although [e] may have existed as an allophone (e.g. it has been suggested that a realization like [e] could occur in words like meum).



            The distinct phoneme ē ("long e") is reconstructed as being [eː] for at least some of the Classical Latin time period; from what I've read, ē is often thought to have been [ɛː] at some earlier stage.



            Others



            As mentioned, other traditions have further variations in pronunciation. "Qu" is traditionally /kv/ (phonetically, devoicing of the /v/ may occur in contexts like this in many languages, so possibly [kf]) in German pronunciation, and I think in the pronunciation of some other regions. "Qu" in traditional French pronunciation is often pronounced as French /k/, which as mentioned above is supposed to have [c] as an allophone.



            From what I remember, in German pronunciation vowel "length" and "quality" is traditionally determined mostly from context (such as syllable structure), so the traditional German pronunciation of "-que" would I think be /kveː/, not /kvɛ/.



            I don't know how French traditional pronunciation treated the vowel "e" in contexts like this, but I doubt that /ɛ/ would be used.



            In "traditional English pronunciation" of Latin, "-que" would be something like /kwi/ (since it is unstressed, I think the vowel would be /i/ and not /iː/, although I'm not entirely sure).



            angeli



            "Ecclesiastical"



            The "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation would be something like [ˈand͡ʒɛli].



            In a "reference" Italian accent, a coda nasal assimilates in place to a following plosive; I don't know enough to give a detailed description of the quality of "[n]" in this context, but Wikipedia suggests it would be something like [n̠ʲ].



            The "a" vowel of Italian and Ecclesiastical Latin is typically described as being phonetically central [a], not back [ɑ], although the difference is not contrastive.



            In actual Italian, the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/ is neutralized in unstressed syllables, and the merged realization is typically transcribed as [e]. But as I mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule about when [e] vs. [ɛ] should be used in an "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation of Latin.



            "Classical"



            The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is something like [ˈaŋgɛliː]. The final vowel is long. As mentioned earlier, there was no phonemic contrast between velar and palatal stops in Classical Latin, so we don't know whether coarticulation with/assimilation to the following front vowel might have caused the "ng" to be pronounced as something like [ɲɟ] in this context.



            As far as I know, there is little evidence that would provide grounds for reconstructing the specific quality of the Classical Latin "a" sound. It is agreed that it was an open/low vowel, but that would be compatible with anything in the range of [a], [ɑ] or [ɐ].



            Others



            In "traditional English pronunciation", angeli would be ˈændʒəlaɪ (or possibly /ˈændʒɪlaɪ/? I'm not sure whether /ɪ/ would be possible in an accent without the "weak vowel merger").



            In traditional German pronunciation, I believe it would be [ˈaŋgeli].






            share|improve this answer

























            • Unlike other answers, you don't mention [kɛ] as a possible pronunciation for 'que'. Does it mean that you don't think it can be pronounced that way?

              – wondering
              Feb 10 at 11:12











            • @wondering: I can't think of any particular tradition where -que would be pronounced as [kɛ] as opposed to [ke]. In many languages, such as Spanish, there is no phonemic distinction between [e] and [ɛ], and the neutralized sound is typically transcribed /e/, but may have a range that overlaps with both "[e]" and "[ɛ]" sounds of other languages.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:16












            • I am sorry for not writing my comment fully, I was actually interested of both [kɛ] and [ke] as possible pronunciations (or, for that matter, any pronunciation which would take [k] before [e], instead of [kʷ]). Nevertheless, you don't mention neither [kɛ] nor [ke]. But this is what one would expect in Italy and Spain, right?

              – wondering
              Feb 10 at 11:27












            • @wondering: In standard Italian, "qu" retains the glide, so [ke] would not be expected. (There are many regional varieties of Italian, and I don't know about the treatment of "qu" in them.) Spain I think would have /ke/ as a possible realization, but I would have to check to make sure.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:29











            • @wondering: If you can somehow get your hands on Harold Copeman's Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd, it covers many of these kinds of details. I read it a while ago, but not front-to-cover, and I don't remember all of the parts that I did read. It seems to be expensive, but you might be able to get access to it through a library near you--that's what I did.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:35













            2












            2








            2







            "All possible pronunciations" is a pretty tall order.



            -que



            As far as I know, "que" in Latin does not exist as an independent word, only as the enclitic/suffix -que, which doesn't receive stress in prose (the existence of "stress" in Latin poetry is a disputed point). Latin -que is a conjunction that can be translated as "and".



            "Ecclesiastical"



            The "Ecclesiastical" (Italian-based, although perhaps not exactly identical to Italian) pronunciation of -que would be something like [kwɛ]. There doesn't seem to be any clear rule about the use of [e] vs. [ɛ] in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation, so [kwe] might also be possible. There is no contrast between [kw], [kʷ] and [ku̯] in this context, so you might see the onset transcribed as any of these.



            "Classical"



            The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is approximately the same. The onset is the "qu" sound, and the nucleus is the "ĕ" ("short e") sound (with the exception that, according to Lewis and Short, the vowel may be lengthened in the "arsis" in poetry). The Classical Latin "qu" sound has been variously analyzed as either a single labiovelar phoneme /kʷ/ or as a sequence /kw/. We will never be able to be sure of the exact phonetic realization. Latin didn't have a contrast of velar vs. palatal plosives, or front rounded vs. back rounded glides; it has been suggested that in Classical Latin the glide of the "qu" sound was fronted before a front vowel. Wiktionary gives a reconstructed phonetic transcription "[kᶣɛ]", although I would expect the plosive part of the "qu" to also be fronted in a context like that, so maybe something like [cᶣɛ] would be possible. (In various modern Romance languages, such as French, the velar stop phonemes are supposed to have palatal stop allophones that are used before front vowels.)



            There seems to be general agreement on the value of Classical Latin ĕ being [ɛ], although [e] may have existed as an allophone (e.g. it has been suggested that a realization like [e] could occur in words like meum).



            The distinct phoneme ē ("long e") is reconstructed as being [eː] for at least some of the Classical Latin time period; from what I've read, ē is often thought to have been [ɛː] at some earlier stage.



            Others



            As mentioned, other traditions have further variations in pronunciation. "Qu" is traditionally /kv/ (phonetically, devoicing of the /v/ may occur in contexts like this in many languages, so possibly [kf]) in German pronunciation, and I think in the pronunciation of some other regions. "Qu" in traditional French pronunciation is often pronounced as French /k/, which as mentioned above is supposed to have [c] as an allophone.



            From what I remember, in German pronunciation vowel "length" and "quality" is traditionally determined mostly from context (such as syllable structure), so the traditional German pronunciation of "-que" would I think be /kveː/, not /kvɛ/.



            I don't know how French traditional pronunciation treated the vowel "e" in contexts like this, but I doubt that /ɛ/ would be used.



            In "traditional English pronunciation" of Latin, "-que" would be something like /kwi/ (since it is unstressed, I think the vowel would be /i/ and not /iː/, although I'm not entirely sure).



            angeli



            "Ecclesiastical"



            The "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation would be something like [ˈand͡ʒɛli].



            In a "reference" Italian accent, a coda nasal assimilates in place to a following plosive; I don't know enough to give a detailed description of the quality of "[n]" in this context, but Wikipedia suggests it would be something like [n̠ʲ].



            The "a" vowel of Italian and Ecclesiastical Latin is typically described as being phonetically central [a], not back [ɑ], although the difference is not contrastive.



            In actual Italian, the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/ is neutralized in unstressed syllables, and the merged realization is typically transcribed as [e]. But as I mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule about when [e] vs. [ɛ] should be used in an "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation of Latin.



            "Classical"



            The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is something like [ˈaŋgɛliː]. The final vowel is long. As mentioned earlier, there was no phonemic contrast between velar and palatal stops in Classical Latin, so we don't know whether coarticulation with/assimilation to the following front vowel might have caused the "ng" to be pronounced as something like [ɲɟ] in this context.



            As far as I know, there is little evidence that would provide grounds for reconstructing the specific quality of the Classical Latin "a" sound. It is agreed that it was an open/low vowel, but that would be compatible with anything in the range of [a], [ɑ] or [ɐ].



            Others



            In "traditional English pronunciation", angeli would be ˈændʒəlaɪ (or possibly /ˈændʒɪlaɪ/? I'm not sure whether /ɪ/ would be possible in an accent without the "weak vowel merger").



            In traditional German pronunciation, I believe it would be [ˈaŋgeli].






            share|improve this answer















            "All possible pronunciations" is a pretty tall order.



            -que



            As far as I know, "que" in Latin does not exist as an independent word, only as the enclitic/suffix -que, which doesn't receive stress in prose (the existence of "stress" in Latin poetry is a disputed point). Latin -que is a conjunction that can be translated as "and".



            "Ecclesiastical"



            The "Ecclesiastical" (Italian-based, although perhaps not exactly identical to Italian) pronunciation of -que would be something like [kwɛ]. There doesn't seem to be any clear rule about the use of [e] vs. [ɛ] in "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation, so [kwe] might also be possible. There is no contrast between [kw], [kʷ] and [ku̯] in this context, so you might see the onset transcribed as any of these.



            "Classical"



            The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is approximately the same. The onset is the "qu" sound, and the nucleus is the "ĕ" ("short e") sound (with the exception that, according to Lewis and Short, the vowel may be lengthened in the "arsis" in poetry). The Classical Latin "qu" sound has been variously analyzed as either a single labiovelar phoneme /kʷ/ or as a sequence /kw/. We will never be able to be sure of the exact phonetic realization. Latin didn't have a contrast of velar vs. palatal plosives, or front rounded vs. back rounded glides; it has been suggested that in Classical Latin the glide of the "qu" sound was fronted before a front vowel. Wiktionary gives a reconstructed phonetic transcription "[kᶣɛ]", although I would expect the plosive part of the "qu" to also be fronted in a context like that, so maybe something like [cᶣɛ] would be possible. (In various modern Romance languages, such as French, the velar stop phonemes are supposed to have palatal stop allophones that are used before front vowels.)



            There seems to be general agreement on the value of Classical Latin ĕ being [ɛ], although [e] may have existed as an allophone (e.g. it has been suggested that a realization like [e] could occur in words like meum).



            The distinct phoneme ē ("long e") is reconstructed as being [eː] for at least some of the Classical Latin time period; from what I've read, ē is often thought to have been [ɛː] at some earlier stage.



            Others



            As mentioned, other traditions have further variations in pronunciation. "Qu" is traditionally /kv/ (phonetically, devoicing of the /v/ may occur in contexts like this in many languages, so possibly [kf]) in German pronunciation, and I think in the pronunciation of some other regions. "Qu" in traditional French pronunciation is often pronounced as French /k/, which as mentioned above is supposed to have [c] as an allophone.



            From what I remember, in German pronunciation vowel "length" and "quality" is traditionally determined mostly from context (such as syllable structure), so the traditional German pronunciation of "-que" would I think be /kveː/, not /kvɛ/.



            I don't know how French traditional pronunciation treated the vowel "e" in contexts like this, but I doubt that /ɛ/ would be used.



            In "traditional English pronunciation" of Latin, "-que" would be something like /kwi/ (since it is unstressed, I think the vowel would be /i/ and not /iː/, although I'm not entirely sure).



            angeli



            "Ecclesiastical"



            The "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation would be something like [ˈand͡ʒɛli].



            In a "reference" Italian accent, a coda nasal assimilates in place to a following plosive; I don't know enough to give a detailed description of the quality of "[n]" in this context, but Wikipedia suggests it would be something like [n̠ʲ].



            The "a" vowel of Italian and Ecclesiastical Latin is typically described as being phonetically central [a], not back [ɑ], although the difference is not contrastive.



            In actual Italian, the distinction between /e/ and /ɛ/ is neutralized in unstressed syllables, and the merged realization is typically transcribed as [e]. But as I mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule about when [e] vs. [ɛ] should be used in an "Ecclesiastical" pronunciation of Latin.



            "Classical"



            The reconstructed Classical Latin pronunciation is something like [ˈaŋgɛliː]. The final vowel is long. As mentioned earlier, there was no phonemic contrast between velar and palatal stops in Classical Latin, so we don't know whether coarticulation with/assimilation to the following front vowel might have caused the "ng" to be pronounced as something like [ɲɟ] in this context.



            As far as I know, there is little evidence that would provide grounds for reconstructing the specific quality of the Classical Latin "a" sound. It is agreed that it was an open/low vowel, but that would be compatible with anything in the range of [a], [ɑ] or [ɐ].



            Others



            In "traditional English pronunciation", angeli would be ˈændʒəlaɪ (or possibly /ˈændʒɪlaɪ/? I'm not sure whether /ɪ/ would be possible in an accent without the "weak vowel merger").



            In traditional German pronunciation, I believe it would be [ˈaŋgeli].







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Feb 10 at 11:50

























            answered Feb 10 at 10:19









            sumelicsumelic

            7,21611652




            7,21611652












            • Unlike other answers, you don't mention [kɛ] as a possible pronunciation for 'que'. Does it mean that you don't think it can be pronounced that way?

              – wondering
              Feb 10 at 11:12











            • @wondering: I can't think of any particular tradition where -que would be pronounced as [kɛ] as opposed to [ke]. In many languages, such as Spanish, there is no phonemic distinction between [e] and [ɛ], and the neutralized sound is typically transcribed /e/, but may have a range that overlaps with both "[e]" and "[ɛ]" sounds of other languages.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:16












            • I am sorry for not writing my comment fully, I was actually interested of both [kɛ] and [ke] as possible pronunciations (or, for that matter, any pronunciation which would take [k] before [e], instead of [kʷ]). Nevertheless, you don't mention neither [kɛ] nor [ke]. But this is what one would expect in Italy and Spain, right?

              – wondering
              Feb 10 at 11:27












            • @wondering: In standard Italian, "qu" retains the glide, so [ke] would not be expected. (There are many regional varieties of Italian, and I don't know about the treatment of "qu" in them.) Spain I think would have /ke/ as a possible realization, but I would have to check to make sure.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:29











            • @wondering: If you can somehow get your hands on Harold Copeman's Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd, it covers many of these kinds of details. I read it a while ago, but not front-to-cover, and I don't remember all of the parts that I did read. It seems to be expensive, but you might be able to get access to it through a library near you--that's what I did.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:35

















            • Unlike other answers, you don't mention [kɛ] as a possible pronunciation for 'que'. Does it mean that you don't think it can be pronounced that way?

              – wondering
              Feb 10 at 11:12











            • @wondering: I can't think of any particular tradition where -que would be pronounced as [kɛ] as opposed to [ke]. In many languages, such as Spanish, there is no phonemic distinction between [e] and [ɛ], and the neutralized sound is typically transcribed /e/, but may have a range that overlaps with both "[e]" and "[ɛ]" sounds of other languages.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:16












            • I am sorry for not writing my comment fully, I was actually interested of both [kɛ] and [ke] as possible pronunciations (or, for that matter, any pronunciation which would take [k] before [e], instead of [kʷ]). Nevertheless, you don't mention neither [kɛ] nor [ke]. But this is what one would expect in Italy and Spain, right?

              – wondering
              Feb 10 at 11:27












            • @wondering: In standard Italian, "qu" retains the glide, so [ke] would not be expected. (There are many regional varieties of Italian, and I don't know about the treatment of "qu" in them.) Spain I think would have /ke/ as a possible realization, but I would have to check to make sure.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:29











            • @wondering: If you can somehow get your hands on Harold Copeman's Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd, it covers many of these kinds of details. I read it a while ago, but not front-to-cover, and I don't remember all of the parts that I did read. It seems to be expensive, but you might be able to get access to it through a library near you--that's what I did.

              – sumelic
              Feb 10 at 11:35
















            Unlike other answers, you don't mention [kɛ] as a possible pronunciation for 'que'. Does it mean that you don't think it can be pronounced that way?

            – wondering
            Feb 10 at 11:12





            Unlike other answers, you don't mention [kɛ] as a possible pronunciation for 'que'. Does it mean that you don't think it can be pronounced that way?

            – wondering
            Feb 10 at 11:12













            @wondering: I can't think of any particular tradition where -que would be pronounced as [kɛ] as opposed to [ke]. In many languages, such as Spanish, there is no phonemic distinction between [e] and [ɛ], and the neutralized sound is typically transcribed /e/, but may have a range that overlaps with both "[e]" and "[ɛ]" sounds of other languages.

            – sumelic
            Feb 10 at 11:16






            @wondering: I can't think of any particular tradition where -que would be pronounced as [kɛ] as opposed to [ke]. In many languages, such as Spanish, there is no phonemic distinction between [e] and [ɛ], and the neutralized sound is typically transcribed /e/, but may have a range that overlaps with both "[e]" and "[ɛ]" sounds of other languages.

            – sumelic
            Feb 10 at 11:16














            I am sorry for not writing my comment fully, I was actually interested of both [kɛ] and [ke] as possible pronunciations (or, for that matter, any pronunciation which would take [k] before [e], instead of [kʷ]). Nevertheless, you don't mention neither [kɛ] nor [ke]. But this is what one would expect in Italy and Spain, right?

            – wondering
            Feb 10 at 11:27






            I am sorry for not writing my comment fully, I was actually interested of both [kɛ] and [ke] as possible pronunciations (or, for that matter, any pronunciation which would take [k] before [e], instead of [kʷ]). Nevertheless, you don't mention neither [kɛ] nor [ke]. But this is what one would expect in Italy and Spain, right?

            – wondering
            Feb 10 at 11:27














            @wondering: In standard Italian, "qu" retains the glide, so [ke] would not be expected. (There are many regional varieties of Italian, and I don't know about the treatment of "qu" in them.) Spain I think would have /ke/ as a possible realization, but I would have to check to make sure.

            – sumelic
            Feb 10 at 11:29





            @wondering: In standard Italian, "qu" retains the glide, so [ke] would not be expected. (There are many regional varieties of Italian, and I don't know about the treatment of "qu" in them.) Spain I think would have /ke/ as a possible realization, but I would have to check to make sure.

            – sumelic
            Feb 10 at 11:29













            @wondering: If you can somehow get your hands on Harold Copeman's Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd, it covers many of these kinds of details. I read it a while ago, but not front-to-cover, and I don't remember all of the parts that I did read. It seems to be expensive, but you might be able to get access to it through a library near you--that's what I did.

            – sumelic
            Feb 10 at 11:35





            @wondering: If you can somehow get your hands on Harold Copeman's Singing in Latin: Or Pronunciation Explor'd, it covers many of these kinds of details. I read it a while ago, but not front-to-cover, and I don't remember all of the parts that I did read. It seems to be expensive, but you might be able to get access to it through a library near you--that's what I did.

            – sumelic
            Feb 10 at 11:35

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Latin Language Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9084%2fhow-to-pronounce-que-and-angeli%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown






            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

            How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?