Latin "i" vs. "j" - source?
  • JonathanKKJonathanKK
    Posts: 542
    The question of the use of "i" versus "j" in Latin liturgical books had been on my mind, when Mr. Giffen happened to link to a document from CCWatershed (correction - I found the document in the article he linked), which mentions off-hand that the use of "i" was mandated by a "SCR decree of November 1961".

    Can anyone point me to this decree?

    I was not having any success trying to find it in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis here.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,172
    “Item, circa modum rectae scripturae vocabulorum, haec notentur: a. Litera ‘J’ aboletur, et eius loco adhibeatur semper litera ‘I’.”

    Ordinationes ad librorum liturgicorum editores directe a S. Rituum Congregatione datae, mensibus octobris et novembris 1961.

    In Braga, C. and Bugnini, A. (eds.), Documenta ad Instaurationem Liturgicam Spectantia. Roma: CLV - Edizioni Liturgiche, 2000, p. 1110

    So I am told by whom I asked. I don't have another way to check.
    Thanked by 1JonathanKK
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 987
    The document "Ordinationes ad librorum liturgicorum editores" is also found in the Periodica de re Morali Canonica Liturgica 50(2) (1961), 235-237

    Google Books provides only a partial view, and the article in question isn't shown.
    Thanked by 1JonathanKK
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,017
    http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/04/03/01-40-13_0.pdf
    Thanked by 1JonathanKK
  • JonathanKKJonathanKK
    Posts: 542
    This of course leaves me wondering what else is in that set of directives for the editors of liturgical books.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,175
    Ah, the poor Swedish immigrant who had so much trouble with the letter "j" in English. He finally succeeded, but in his old age (having already reverted back to his Swedish "y" pronunciation) was heard to remark on the problem: Ven I yust finally learnt how to say "yam" - I mean "jam" - dey vent and changed it to "yelly". It vas so confoozing.

    Think of the problems he would have if, instead of changing "jam" to "jelly", they had changed "iam" to "ielly"!
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,017
    iollie old Saint Nicholas...

    Thanked by 2CHGiffen CharlesW
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    FWIW: I have found that people not familiar with Latin have an easier time singing if a distinction is made between i & j: they quickly learn that Filius is pronounced differently than ejus; when these same people are given a modern score that removed the distinction problems arise, they try to pronounce eius with three syllables. I always try to find older scores, if available, that retain the distinction. YMMV.

    I find it interesting that they removed 'J' as the consonantal 'I', yet retained 'V' as the consonantal 'U'. Consistency seems not to be a priority: Et in terra pax hominibus bonae uoluntatis.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,175
    We've had a different problem with "ejus" ... some people want to pronounce it "eh-oos" rather than "eh-yoos" (think "Deus" instead of "dejus" or "deius". When told that they should think of the "j" as an "i" most have no problem (at least the ones who mark their scores accordingly).
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Maybe I have better luck with the J thing being in a Polish Parish: They already know that "Jesu" (in Latin!) is "Yezoo", since in Polish it's "Jezu".

    And, of course, getting people to mark the music is half the battle, anyway.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,125
    I find that using I instead of J prevents people from pronouncing it as a hard consonant...
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    And i thought this was Discussion was going to be about
    i
    ij
    iij

    Purple.
    Thanked by 3Adam Wood CHGiffen Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Reminds me of when the pastor asked one of the altar boys who was studying Latin if he could count in Latin. The boy thought a minute and them responded: "I, I-I, I-I-I, I-V, V, V-I..."
    Thanked by 3Adam Wood Liam eft94530
Add a Comment