Help with Latin phonetic pronunciation
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    I recently wrote a new composition that will be published soon. The text is in English with the exception of two Latin words: "Deo gratias." I'd like to have a phonetic spelling of the Latin pronunciation as a possible footnote on the first page of the score, especially for those who do not know how to pronounce Latin. What would be the best way to do this? The following options have been suggested to me:

    1. Day-o grah-tsee-oss

    2. Deh-aw gra-tsee-ahs

    Or...?

    Thanks for any help.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,161
    Maybe this is sort of opinionated, but I'd write it in International Phonetic Alphabet, and leave anything else to the choir director.

    I think of pseudo-English phonetic renderings as misleading for those who don't speak Latin yet, and patronizing to those who have learned it.

    I'm not an expert on IPA, but (for what it's worth) I'd write it as [dˈɛ.ᴐ gɾˈaːtsi.as] . Perhaps someone could improve on that rendering.
    Thanked by 1Earl_Grey
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    Richard Chonak,

    Thanks for your comments. Yes, English phonetic renderings can be somewhat misleading, as it's a challenge to spell Latin vowel sounds with English quasi-equivalents. For example, I know that the first syllable of the word "Deo" doesn't have a long "A" sound (as in the word "day"), but I'm not sure if the English syllable "deh" is quite right, either.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Fr. Jim, it's only in the "De-" that it seems we can't find agreement except to default to a "local custom" solution. Well, we ain't got a "local custom." I was harangued by a famous Israeli conductor in undergrad for using the heavily dipthonged presumption of the spelling "day-oh" (Good ol' Harry Belafonte!) So traumatized was I, the mere slip of a singer into the long 'e' would make me pucker. However, at a colloquium in advanced schola with Scott Turkington (and Mahrt, I believe seconded this) the vowel is not totally purified to "eh." So.......that being far more nuanced, what about trying:

    Dæ-aw Grah-tsee-ahz/s
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    GIA still publishes the decades old The Correct Pronunciation of Latin according to Roman Usage. This book, the pronuciation guide in the Liber, and many vocal/choral diction books (probably based on those seeming legitimate sources) indicate "deh," i.e. [dɛ], for the syllable in question.

    This pronunciation is very Italianate, perhaps slightly a bit too much so - but that's an overly(?) academic debate - and in my opinion, far better than the alternative. (From my time in Pittsburgh I can attest that anything one can do to educate and avoid having the diphthong of "dayee" from creeping in is well worth it.)

    Every well-respected, non-liturgically published choral piece I have seen has given the pronunciation guide "deh" in similar circumstance. It seems to me a bunch of average choristers trying to sing "deh" (while probably thinking to themselves it's not quite right) will sound better than a bunch of people trying to interpret anything else and/or being left to their own devices.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Who is the resource intended for?
    I ask because I'm wondering if something as simple as Deo Gratias needs a phonetic aide.
    Thanked by 2Gavin Chrism
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,185
    Adam, you have clearly never been to central Kentucky.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    SR, I believe your take is on the money, but the determinant is for choral precision, not pedagogical or traditional custom. Ron Jeffer's roundly accepted sourcebook agrees with the pure vowel. OTOH, as you mention the GIA source title includes "Roman usage," that doesn't just presume that Turk or Mahrt haven't their own historical documentation for the slightly modified pure vowel. And the obvious differences in dialectical Latin in Germanic and British schools of thought edify the "local practice" factor I mentioned. I just go with the Ostrowski approach: "Sing it the way I sing it."
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    SR, I believe your take is on the money, but the determinant is for choral precision, not pedagogical or traditional custom. Ron Jeffer's roundly accepted sourcebook agrees with the pure vowel. OTOH, as you mention the GIA source title includes "Roman usage," that doesn't just presume that Turk or Mahrt haven't their own historical documentation for the slightly modified pure vowel. And the obvious differences in dialectical Latin in Germanic and British schools of thought edify the "local practice" factor I mentioned. I just go with the Ostrowski approach: "Sing it the way I sing it."


    I love and respect Turk and Mahrt, and they know their stuff, but something makes me doubt somewhat their opinion comes from anything more than their own academic music training - simply because what they do know about music is too much for them to have done the in-depth language study also! Perhaps I'm wrong.

    In the end, I have nothing against tradition or custom of pronunciation, but those with a strong and well-reasoned attachment to a specific tradition or custom of Latin pronunciation are clearly capable of reasoning their way to ignoring a footnote provided for the benefit of those who might be seeking guidance out of complete ignorance.

    And "Sing it the way I sing it" is perfect for a rehearsal, but it's impossible to provide the necessary required follow-up to that sentence in a footnote!
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    MeloCharles & Skip, Thanks for your insights. I appreciate them.
    From my time in Pittsburgh I can attest that anything one can do to educate and avoid having the diphthong of "dayee" from creeping in is well worth it.
    Ah, yes! Our (in)famous "Pittsburgh accent!" A true Pittsburgher is "prahd" (proud) of it, and enjoys going to the stadium near "dahntahn" (downtown) to cheer the Pittsburgh "Stillers" (Steelers) football team!
    Who is the resource intended for?
    I ask because I'm wondering if something as simple as Deo Gratias needs a phonetic aide.
    Great question, Adam. Thanks for asking. The piece is a refrain-verse song of thanksgiving, with the refrain probably intoned by cantor/choir and repeated by the congregation. The verses would be sung by cantor/choir. The piece could also be sung by the choir alone, omitting the initial refrain intonation. The composition is for organ and SATB voices (optional soprano descant), with optional C Instrument and Handbells.

    If some music director (Catholic or non-Catholic) who doesn't know Latin wants to use this piece, I thought it might be helpful to provide a phonetic spelling of the words "Deo gratias."
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    In other words, the level at which we're discussing this proves none of us needs the footnote, I think what Father is asking is for those who do need it and have more pressing needs that to care about all this detail, what immediate pronunciation guidance can we give in one sentence or less.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    some music director (Catholic or non-Catholic) who doesn't know [how to pronounce two words in] Latin


    I was just curious if this is a real problem. Maybe it is.
    Thanked by 1SkirpR
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I was just curious if this is a real problem. Maybe it is.


    THIS
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    Skip wrote:
    In other words, the level at which we're discussing this proves none of us needs the footnote, I think what Father is asking is for those who do need it and have more pressing needs that to care about all this detail, what immediate pronunciation guidance can we give in one sentence or less.
    Exactly, Skip! You hit the nail on the head, so to speak!
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,152
    I guess I'm hearing from the assembled group here a chorus of "Dayo" nays. :-)
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    When I wrote my new composition, I searched Google with the words "Deo gratias pronunciation." Three of the first four recommended sites had audio files:

    http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=deo gratias

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?fwdeog01.wav=Deo+gratias

    http://www.pronouncehow.com/english/deogratias_pronunciation

    Each of these sites pronounced "Deo gratias" differently!

    Oh, what's a musician to do?!

    So, that was an impetus to my original question on this thread.

    Thanks to all who have commented so far. Can anyone else here provide some more guidance?

    Anyone? Anyone? (with apologies to Ben Stein in his teacher role in the movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off")!
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    That's fascinating, Father, but I would caution that all of these sites seem to come from the point of view of Deo Gratias as borrowed into English, which at some level I suppose it is, like Gesundheit.

    Obviously pronouncing Gesundheit in German is different from English, as are borrowed Italian musical terms. (I get hugely annoyed by native English-speaking conductors pronouncing common Italian terms like legato or soprano in an Italian accent in an otherwise English sentence.)

    The real question now is how should Latin "Deo gratias" be pronounced in your piece... with an American accent or in the rules of the Church? In this case I personally would go with Church Latin, for no other reason than I assume the piece is intended for use in liturgy and the phrase Deo Gratias is a common liturgical response...even if that isn't the liturgical point of your piece.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    pronouncing Gesundheit in German is different from English


    more yelling
    Thanked by 1SkirpR
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 945
    I think of pseudo-English phonetic renderings as misleading for those who don't speak Latin yet, and patronizing to those who have learned it.


    I think exactly the opposite, err, well, partially the opposite. Pseudo-English renderings may or may not be helpful to those who do not speak Latin yet, but those who have learned it will (should) just ignore it.

    On the other hand, IPA renderings will be completely useless to someone who doesn't speak Latin, and needless to someone who does. Besides, can you imagine anyone who is versed in IPA who can't pronounce "Deo Gratias?" I think it's much more likely that someone who is unsure of that pronunciation knows nothing of IPA, either.
    Thanked by 1SkirpR
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,161
    Oh, I'm acquainted with a few musicians who know IPA but not Latin; but YMMV.
    Thanked by 1Earl_Grey
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I'm with Mr. Motyka.

    If a musician has learned IPA, then you can assume he or she has studied diction for the major classical music art song and aria languages - Italian, German, French, and hopefully Latin. But really, if they weren't taught Latin diction rules, they're likely to get almost everything fairly accurate (except for things like "mihi" and "nihil") if they think Italian rules.
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    This has been a fascinating discussion... but back to my original question: What is the best/closest phonetic English spelling for "Deo Gratias"? I'm leaning toward "Deh-o grah-tsee-oss."

    Any thoughts on that? Thanks.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Just that, for consistency's sake, gratias, as you have it "grah" as in ah ha! should be replicated with the "ah" of "as" rather than "oss." I may have missed something along the line, but I wouldn't apply "ss" as it implies a Teutonic cut off. Light "s" but not Italian "z" should do.
    Thanked by 1SkirpR
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    Charles: So "Deh-o grah-tsee-ahs" is what you think is best? I'd be fine with that.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    Another vote for IPA here.

    "Spelling out" vowels can be confusing because of regional pronunciations. In particular, making the Latin O equivalent to the English "aw" is confusing for speakers in regions affected by the "caught/cot merger."

    Moreover, as Durnford observes in his translation of Dom Sunol's Text Book of Gregorian Chant (at p. 20) the ecclesiastical Latin E "has no exact English equivalent."

    And then there's sloppy pronunciation. If you make "Deo" "Deh-o" rather than "Day-o" you mitigate the risk of one vowel being diphthongized, but what about the second vowel which one sometimes hears as "owe"? Better to go with "Deh-oh."
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    So "Deh-oh grah-tsee-ahs" seems better? That's OK with me.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,152
    Or "DEH-awh GRAH-tsee-ahss" ??
    Thanked by 2SkirpR chonak
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I would not use "o" or "oh" - anybody who needs a pronunciation guide and doesn't know IPA will turn those into a diphthong.

    I think "aw" or "awh" would be better for the Latin syllable "-o".
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    Skip, thanks for all your comments here.

    I wonder if using "aw" for the Latin syllable "-o" would lead some to pronounce it as "awe," based on other English words that end with "aw" (e.g., jaw, law, paw).

    Chuck, interesting idea to use "-ahss" for the Latin "-as." Thanks.

    This isn't easy!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 892
    My preference would be for IPA as well. As someone who took several semesters of diction I always second guess spelled out pseudo-English pronunciations as there is often more than one way to interpret them. In the classical voice word entire libretti have been rendered in IPA so non-native singers can learn to pronounce the text. I'd love to see a complete Psalter and Missal done this way.

    I concur with chonak's IPA transcription with the possible exception of the "a:" vowel (I don't know how to get the IPA font in html). Typically the Italianate a is rendered as a rounded a rather than the type set a (this would be easier if I could just type it!).

    Short of using IPA then perhaps "Deh-oh grah-tsee-ahs" to indicate no diphthong on O but IPA would be more precise.


  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,161
    Earl, every system has a "Special Characters" utility program for producing characters from the extensive Unicode character set. It includes a category for "Phonetic Symbols", which includes the IPA symbols which are not already provided by the Latin and Greek alphabets.

    Besides the [a], it provides these other "a"-like symbols: [ɑ] [ɒ] [ɐ].


  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 892
    I'm just not that familiar with html. I tried typing it in Word and the pasting it here, but it didn't work. However, the first one you wrote above after "like symbols:" was the one to which I was referring. All ah vowels are transcribed that way in Italian and Latin as far as I know.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,768
    I can think of one octavo that takes the trouble to explain which pronunciation of "amen" is desired, but people usually can make up their minds without such help; the congregation just has to take the cantor's lead, regardless of any footnote. I myself would intone it day-o graw-see-ahce, unless your sort don't sing inn-eck-sell-cease at Christmas.

    But I should rather think the English part would give considerably more trouble: Ah-dam lie ih-bøn-dn, ihbøndn inn ah bound...
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    My preference would be for IPA as well. As someone who took several semesters of diction I always second guess spelled out pseudo-English pronunciations as there is often more than one way to interpret them.


    Of course I would use IPA too, but not for two Latin words. Again, anybody who knows IPA would know how to pronounce "Deo gratias" !!
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I wonder if using "aw" for the Latin syllable "-o" would lead some to pronounce it as "awe," based on other English words that end with "aw" (e.g., jaw, law, paw).


    Yes, that's exactly the sound it would be, and I'm fine with that - although what I usually ask my choirs for is the slightly more closed American o sound, but without the usual American diphthong (owe-ooh). But "awe," "saw," etc, is actually what the liturgical books call for!
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    But "awe," "saw," etc, is actually what the liturgical books call for!


    As these words are pronounced in England and New York, yes. As they are pronounced in California and increasingly most of North America, no. This is why there is potential for confusion.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Just to throw in my vote:

    DEH-oh GRAH-tsee-ahs


    The second syllable of Deo is not "ah" but "oh." If that leads to weird American mangling, they will at least be mangling the correct thing. You can phoneticize for language, or phoneticize for choral-vowel-modification. But doing both at the same time seems confusing.
    Thanked by 1Earl_Grey
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Chuck, I appreciate the CAPS for emphasis, but again I disagree with the "ss" at the end as it could be interpreted (isn't this what Fr. wants to be clear and accessible) as a hard sibilant prolonged hiss, even under a good conductor? Beware the snakes.
    Adam, the "aw" indicates a jaw and interior mouth formation, however the lips are formed towards the "oh." Again, a matter for a good teacher/conductor to ingrain in singers.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    a matter for a good teacher/conductor to ingrain in singers.


    Right- an issue of choral singing, not actual pronunciation.

    The second syllable of "Deo" should be pronounced like the first syllable of "O God, beyond All Praising," not the first syllable of "Alleluia." I should think that "oh" is the best simplified transliteration available. It's up to choir directors to make sure that O, although, Hosts, open, and baloney omelet are sung with the proper vowel modification. It's the job of a phonetic transcription to point out that Deo is the same vowel as those other ones.
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    I am grateful and pleasantly amazed that this thread (posted only 24 hours ago) had so many responses! I thank all of you for your contributions and for a wonderful discussion.

    But now it's down to the wire... I need to correct the final proofs of the piece this morning. So, based on the responses here, I've decided to go with:

    Deh-oh grah-tsee-ahs

    I won't use caps for emphasis, as the melodic contour of the piece takes care of the proper accent.

    The composition in question is actually titled "Deo gratias." It will be published by MorningStar and in print by the end of July. If anyone is interested, the catalog number is MSM-50-6081.

    The text for the refrain is :
    Loving God, to you we sing. Hear the grateful songs we bring. Deo gratias (6x)

    For the verses, I composed new music for the familiar text "For the Beauty of the Earth" (Folliot S. Pierpont, 1835-1917).

    Thanks again for all your help.
    Thanked by 1Earl_Grey
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    It will be published by MorningStar

    This answers my question about whether a phonetic translation was needed.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    When editions use a non IPA phonemic guide on a separate page, good idea.
    If anybody remembers the old Fred Waring series (including sacred texts) where the transliteration was under the Latin (or even English!) it almost seems satirical in 21st century eyes.
    Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,952
    I have a different idea, one that I have observed skilled directors using in the past: use the pronunciation that is least likely to compromise pitch without materially compromising intelligibility. This is the practical reason for avoiding a dipthong with a long-E sound (and for avoiding long-E sounds); amateur singers tend to go flat.

    The meta version of this rule is that you do what your choir director tells you now for this choir to sound its best, rather than what your old choir directors told you*, because your current director is addressing the specific vulnerabilites of this group of singers in this acoustical space.

    * There is both primacy and latency bias in the loyalty of singers to their directors: some folks remain loyal to whatever first rule they were given, others less so. In this case, so long as latency bias pertains to whatever your director is telling you now, latency bias is better.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    The meta version of this rule is that you do what your choir director tells you now for this choir to sound its best, rather than what your old choir directors told you*, because your current director is addressing the specific vulnerabilites of this group of singers in this acoustical space.

    * There is both primacy and latency bias in the loyalty of singers to their directors: some folks remain loyal to whatever first rule they were given, others less so. In this case, so long as latency bias pertains to whatever your director is telling you now, latency bias is better.


    True. Even with a terminal degree in choral music, when singing for other conductors, I still have to force myself to ignore my instinct toward pronunciation as taught by my undergraduate conductor.
  • AP23AP23
    Posts: 119
    How about a mixture between the two:

    Deh-o grah-tsee-oss

    P.S. Who will this work be published by?
  • Hellsepp
    Posts: 2
    I think that a basic knowledge on Latin phonetics is indispensible anyway. Moreover, I would urge to mind the length and quality of vowels and to agree on a certain standard at all, perhaps the Carolingian one: "ce" = "tse" and so on, whereas in Italy and the Vatican they pronounce it "che" (English ch), and some purists even assign "k" for any "c". Why do I worry about this? Well, it would utterly advance Latin for any purpose.
    Dyr Fättinger Heilgrueß.txt
    2K
  • AP23AP23
    Posts: 119
    I have just found out from the MorningStar website, that the piece has been published: http://www.morningstarmusic.com/viewitem.cfm/item_id/50-6081
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    Pronouncing "c" as a "k" and "ce" as "se" are classical latin pronunciations.

    Soft "c" and "ce" as "che" are the Italianate pronunciations and are correct for ecclesial texts.
  • ScottKChicago
    Posts: 349
    Classical Latin pronunciation is used in non-ecclesiastical choral works like Stravinsky's Oedipus Rex.

    For ecclesiastical Latin, I'd say there's a correct answer for every pronunciation question, subject to a few regional differences (German "kvee" for "qui," for instance).
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Also, I've heard that there is some documentation and research into regional differences in Latin pronunciation even within Italy during the Renaissance. Of course, I wouldn't take this into account liturgical use, but if I were performing, say, the Monteverdi Vespers in concert, I'd definitely be curious to look into that research!
  • ScottKChicago
    Posts: 349
    One good resource is Harold Copeman's Singing in Latin, which looks at differences in Latin pronunciation among various regions and historical periods. You can use it to figure out how an English choir pronounced texts of Byrd motets, for instance, in Byrd's time. Not foolproof, but based on some good scholarship.
    Thanked by 1IanW
Add a Comment