You got it!

Thanks, for the posts.

Robert, if we sing the liquescent note just lightly, it would be singing as podatus. And I even check the Triplex and it has a different sign than podatus. But two groups I heard, CD (solesmes monks) and the one from St. Jogues site, which are in different styles but both done very nicely, sing it like a podatus. Liquescent note is to isolate the second vowel of a diphthong (if it's over the consonants it is to seperate them.) If "lui" from 'alleluia' is a diphthong and supposed to be seperated on liquescent, I wonder why those schola are not doing it? Is it musically unsatisfying for them, so change the neum to sing as podatus? How other scholae are doing this?

singing "ah le lu ee ah" rather than "ah le lu yah" is perfectly acceptable--very Greek, actually.

You are absoluetely correct, miacoyne, in your suggestion that "i" is not a diphthong. As such, it should never be pronounced as "ah leh lu ee ah," even on a liquescent neume. Rather, it should always be pronounced "ah leh loo yah." The reason for this is found in the etymology of the word, which is neither Latin nor Greek. Rather, "Alleluia" is a Hebrew word meaning "Praise to Him Who Is." It is a compound word, which includes, as you posit, a contraction of Yahweh, which is always pronounced "jah" and never "ee-ah." Unfortunetly, the Greek language, both in the Septuagint and the NT, is forced to fit a foreign phoneme into an alphabet that lacks a glide /j/ sound. Instead, iota, has similar qualities, was utilized to produce the word αλλελυια (with rough breathing over the first alpha, diasresis over iota, and an acute accent over the penult alpha).

When the Greek was transliterated into Latin, further complications resulted, including the omission of an aspirate. While some books spell it "alleluia," we should always understood it as "allelu-ja," as found in the Vatican edition. In Latin, among other languages, it is possible to have approximant consonants, such as this palatal "j" in "alleluja," which form semivowels with the true vowel following them. And as we all know, the Latin "j" is also written as "y" or, more frequently, "i." This all results in great confusion. How can we tell the difference between a true vowel "i," one which can form diphthongs, and the semivowel "i/j" which is really a gliding consonant. If you doubt what I'm saying, just look a Latin pronunciation guide, even the one found in the introduction of the Liber Usualis (the debate over French pronunciation notwithstanding). You would find "alleluia" as an example under the consonant "j," along with "Jesus," "cuius," etc., and not under any vowel or common diphthong. To illustrate this concept, consider the English word "you." This "y" sound, which is also found, for example, in German or Polish as "j," is never pronounced "ee-u," no matter the musical context or the disposition of the director. The same principle should apply with "alleluia."

This all being said, it's my humble opinion that we should never attempt to seperate the "i" out. We should preserve the purity of God's Name. Stick to "ah leh loo yah"!

PS:

A note of liquescence, at least as I see it. I think two arguments are of merit, the first perhaps a little less logically sound!

First, I challenge anyone to find a monastery where they sing "ee-ah," even on liquescent neumes. I'm fairly certainly you won't find one. I don't think this would be because of musical or stylistic ignorance on the part of the monks, but merely the continuation of tradition and proper pronunciation.

Second, take a look at Dom Cardin'es "Gregorian Semiology." His chapter on liquescence includes a review Dom Mocquereau's "classificiations," which include a category of "vowel-/j/-vowel" patterns seperate from other diphthongs. Even within this /j/ grouping, there is a great diversity of interpretation depending on context and meaning. In the end, we must remember that it is "text, melody, and expression" (in that order of importance) which determine the manner in which one interprets chant, especially when it comes to the ambiguous liquescent neume.

And remember, too, liquesence, in the words of Cardine himself, is not an essential or required element of interpretation. Don't feel bound to "fit it in."

+SDG+

I knew that would be brought up! :)

Koine Greek and Modern Greek are different "languages." From what I have experienced, Greek parishes are for the most part using modern pronunciation of ancient, essentially Koine, prayers But, I'm not Orthodox, so I don't know 100% whether that's universal. I would attempt to explain it this way...

As you may know, the Greeks got "iota" happy as they were developing their modern phonology and a lot of stuff was lost--most of the diphthongs, in fact. My guess is a lot of people, not realizing the root of the word, began to pronounce it "ee-ah," since -ια is not one of the eight Greek diphthongs. What else could they do? This stuck. Now, I've heard it both ways in the East...I do not find "ee-ah" at all attractive. But, Latin is not a "living" language like Greek, so we shoud try to find the most ancient usage, which I think is "ah le loo yah."

However, speaking of the East, consider the Slavic churches, which used a liturgical language from the 800s. I've a lot of experience with the Ukrainian and Ruthenian traditions, and even though they use the vernacular, their "alleluia" has remained the same--always with a glide /j/. Аллилуйя = Alliluja. Never "ee-ah."

I like the "ee ah" in Byzantine stuff. It just seems to fit. But for Latin stuff, hey, I guess we ought to go with the Latin way of doing it. Consistency is good.

My understanding of the liquescent is that the tongue moves to the position of the following consonant without the voice changing the tone of the vowel. It's very easy to do when the next consonant is "N" - the tongue changes position at the very front of the mouth. I guess in this case the tongues position needs to change further back in the mouth - without swallowing it!

Well, no one can make always perfect judgement, even the prefessionals are still improving their performances and scholars are correcting their theories. When there is a controversy, we have to study, research and try out to make your own choice. Music is not like math, 1+1is not always 2 in music. That's one of the reason why music is beautiful and more challenging; therefore, it is both intellectually and artistically satisfying than any other subject, at least to me.

Thanks. I’m on my way to the audiologist to see if they have something for a tin ear.