Latin pronunication of "ae"
  • Musicteacher56
    Posts: 621
    Last night at my schola rehearsal, someone told me that I am pronouncing "ae" incorrectly as "eh", saying it should be pronounced as "ay". Regina Chaylee, versus Regina Cehli. Can somebody please confirm which one is correct? In have the Parish Book of Chant that clearly states that the ae is pronounced as "eh", but I've also heard it pronounced as "ay".
    Thanked by 1canadash
  • JPike1028
    Posts: 95
    There is no "ay" in Latin, only "eh." Latin only has five vowel sounds. At least according to my classical singing diction books, besides "ay" is going to give you a nasty diphthong.
    Thanked by 2francis Mark Husey
  • Bassorous
    Posts: 24
    In my classical, not ecclesiastical, Latin class, "ae" was pronounced as an "i." This may be where the person is getting the "ay" sound from.
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    eh
    Thanked by 1TheUbiquitous
  • bkenney27bkenney27
    Posts: 444
    Another vote for eh. :) ESPECIALLY in the context of multiple (presumably amateur) singers singing together.
    Thanked by 1Ioannes Andreades
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    The Liber usualis contains a guide to the pronunciation of liturgical Latin (pp. xxxv and following), and it gives the same rule as our colleagues have written above: no diphthong, just the single sound that appears in the English words "bell" and "mess". In International Phonetic Alphabet notation, it's [ɛ].

    If you don't have the Liber, you can download it as a PDF from the CMAA site.
    Thanked by 3bkenney27 Chris Hebard SamuelDorlaque
  • canadashcanadash
    Posts: 1,501
    Great conversation! In Canada eh is ay so this was confusing. Thanks for the clarification.
  • donr
    Posts: 971
    According to my Liber it's pronounced eh as in red. However in my eleclesial Latin book it's ay as in ray.

    Go figure
    Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
  • Musicteacher56
    Posts: 621
    I've taught my schola the five vowel sounds, ah, eh, ee, o, oo, but there is still some confusion on the combined vowels. But, I have now downloaded the Liber usualis and will, of course, go with those pronunciations in the future.

    Thanks for the input.
    Thanked by 1SamuelDorlaque
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 946
    According to my Liber it's pronounced eh as in red. However in my eleclesial Latin book it's ay as in ray.

    Go figure.


    I compared those very same books way back in the thread of the "H." The Liber said it's always silent, the ecclesiastical Latin book said it's always pronounced.

    I love how there is total disagreement on the pronunciation, but no matter what it is, it's always done that way.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    We've probably all heard of German-style Church Latin, with "kvi tolis pekata" and "regina tse-li" (and a hard G sound in that, too). And we've heard French monks from Solesmes singing Latin chant with French-sounding vowels; and there are the British-Latin choral pronunciations that sound to me like the wooden Latin terms lawyers use. "Regina Chaylee" would be American-style Latin: just one more variety.
    Thanked by 1canadash
  • Bobby Bolin
    Posts: 419
    I was taught to pronounce it as a long i in high school (Classical Latin I believe) but that would not sound too good with the caeli starting as a ch rather than a hard c.
  • Musicteacher56
    Posts: 621
    Now I'm more confused than ever and I'm the director. It would seem the best route to go for a liturgical schola, then, would be the Liber and leave it at that.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,414
    I think that some latitude is in order. Our Italianate 'church Latin' really is a convention hardly more than a century old; nor, as is evident here, is there universal agreement on that convention. In line with Chonak's observations, pronunciation of Latin through most of post-classical history has varied from language to language, everyone pronouncing it according as he would pronounce his own tongue. Erasmus complained that one could hardly comprehend this supposedly universal Latin when venturing out of his own linguistic homeland. To us, German or French (and, I suppose, Italian or Portuguese, not to mention oriental) 'church Latin' sounds rather odd. English university Latin, odder yet. And to complicate matters, as has been pointed out, not even all our ecclesiastical books agree. So, it's the choirmaster's choice of which 'authority' he or she wishes to accept as normative in his/her situation. Let consistency and artful musicianship be your guides. Any 'insisted upon' pronunciation of non-classical Latin is an inelluctably subjective matter.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Lest anyone be confused, I was writing a bit tongue-in-cheek above: most church choirs and probably most concert choirs in this country follow the Italian-influenced directions in the Liber, often even for works by German or Austrian composers. I'd react to "Chaylee" as a barbarism.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    I am a relentless pragmatist: Use whatever has the least risk of creating pitch problems for your group in your space.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,979
    With my choir, I don't always care which specific pronunciation they use, as long as all are using the same pronunciation.
    Thanked by 1jpal
  • Musicteacher56
    Posts: 621
    Liam--it would seem to me that using the Liber's pronunciations would create the least amount of pitch problems because it uses the pure vowels. In contemporary music, the accompaniment hides a lot of problems, but with chant the purity of the vowel is imperative for good pitch.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    "ay" as in "ray"?
    And how, praytell, would you sing that?

    Oh, right:
    eh
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Obtaining the "pure vowel" is easy. Imagine that the letter "H" follows each Latin vowel. No dipthong results!

    We've used the Rossini catechism-of-pronunciation along with the "H" mandate. Works just fine.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    The right vowel is whichever you tell them to use.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Adam Wood M. Jackson Osborn
  • Ambrosius
    Posts: 49
    There is a very long tradition of pronouncing ecclesiatical Latin 'oe' and 'ae' as a slightly elongated 'e' (roughly 'eh' as mentioned above in his thread; and cf. spellings in mediaeval manuscripts: 'celi', 'seculorum'). For me the important thing is to keep the vowel pure(-ish) and not to close it with a '-y' sound, something English speakers (and hence singers) are inclined to do. Latin sounds best in church if it's not too anglicised! But I don't think we should get too fussy about it. (Incidentally, the classical Latin pronunciation is quite different: Julius Caesar would have pronounded 'caelis' roughly as 'kaileess' - where 'ai' sounds like the word 'eye'. You sometimes hear, in Oxford and Cambridge, Latin graces, composed in ecclesiatical Latin, pronounced in classical style - very bizarre!)
  • OrganistRob320OrganistRob320
    Posts: 164
    I've always used 'eh' for ae in Latin. I once had a two hour debate with a "trained vocalist in five languages, one of which being Latin" who swore to me that in Adeste Fideles, the 'i' triumphantes was supposed to be 'ay' not 'ee' and despite my best efforts her recording now contains that first verse with a pronounciation that does not exist in Latin!
  • Daniel Bennett PageDaniel Bennett Page
    Posts: 835
    Medieval Latin usually renders what we and 'classical' Latin spell as ae and oe simply as e. And since ecclesiastical Latin is mostly medieval Latin, the phonetic suppression of the orthographic diphthong is indicated.
  • ChoirpartsChoirparts
    Posts: 147
    This might help.... it's from the book : The Correct pronunciation of Latin by Rev Michael de Angelis

    CHAPTER II.
    Consecutive Vowels – Diphthongs - Double Vowels
    General Rule
    The general rule regarding the pronunciation of consecutive vowels, diphthongs
    and double vowels is to give each vowel its proper sound. With two exceptions,
    “AE” and "OE," each vowel in the word is heard distinctly, particularly when the consecutive vowels belong to separate syllables.

    “AE” and “OE”
    The digraphs ae and oe are pronounced -eh- exactly like the Latin "e."

    Examples: Caelum (or coelum): CHEH-loom; not CHAY-luhm.
    Regi'na coeli laetare: Reh'JEE-nah CHEH-lee leh-TAH-reh

    Exceptions: ae and oe are given two distinct sounds whenever the second vowel has a
    diaeresis on it and in words derived from the Hebrew language. Examples:
    (A) Poesis—paw'EH'sees: Poema—paw-EH-mah: Aer—AHehr; Aerope—ah-EHraw'peh
    (B) Michael—MEE-kah-ehl: Raphael—RAH-fah-ehl.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    Of course, The New Yorker is the last mainstream American periodical that maintains the use of the diaeresis.

    Which reminds me of the shibboleth (in the pure, not pejorative sense) of how locals in northern New Hampshire can discern people who are From Away by how they pronounce the name of NH's northernmost county (Coos). There's an unwritten diaeresis. (Also, the proper pronunciation of the delicious mid-season (as in NOW) apple variety favored in much of New England - Macoun - depends on an unwritten diaeresis, but even many locals don't know that nowadays).
    Thanked by 1Ioannes Andreades
  • francis
    Posts: 10,824
    I always used eh as in men. It is artistically superior in my artistic opinion.
    Thanked by 1Daniel Bennett Page
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 946
    I artistically agree with the ever artistic francis.
    Thanked by 1Daniel Bennett Page
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    @Choirparts, I think that book might be referring to "ae" and "oe".
    Thanked by 1Choirparts
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,979
    ee-i-ee-i-o ;-)
  • ChoirpartsChoirparts
    Posts: 147
    Link to "Correct Pronunciation of Latin" book. It's now in public domain.

    http://archive.org/details/correctpronuncia00dean
    Thanked by 1expeditus1
  • francis
    Posts: 10,824
    Charles wrote

    ee-i-ee-i-o ;-)


    Pronounced:

    eh-ee-eh-ee-o
    Thanked by 3Bobby Bolin TheUbiquitous mmeladirectress
  • Musicteacher56
    Posts: 621
    But only if Old McDonald directs it!
  • francis
    Posts: 10,824
    Well, actually Old McDonald would probably use an alternate pronunciation.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,979
    And on this farm he had a peeg...
  • francis
    Posts: 10,824
    Ma-meh-mee-mo-Mooooooooo!
  • SamuelDorlaque
    Posts: 318
    Dare I add that an historically informed performance of William Byrd's classics would sound very strange to us. Tradition has it that in his day, Latin would have been sung in England with English pronunciation.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,979
    No surprise. I suspect that if 4th-century Romans could hear current pronunciations, they would be mystified. They probably wouldn't understand much, either.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,414
    I have a recital coming up on Christ the King Sunday. On the program are de Grigny's organ versets for the office hymn, Verbum supernum prodiens nec Patris. The schola will be singing their verses in something close to late XVIIth century French pronunciation of Latin. I am being aided in this endeavour by a French scholar and a book which should be on the shelves of all who like to present 'historically informed' (as opposed to impossibly 'authentic') performances. The book is 'Singing Early Music', by T.J. McGee, A.G. Rigg, and D.N. Klausner (Indiana Univ Press, 1996). Of course, one does not suggest using such pronunciations at mass, but one does encourage their use with appropriate organ literature at recitals.

    Samuel's observation about Byrd, et al., is quite accurate. In fact, Latin still is staunchly pronounced 'in English' at universities, though, thankfully, no longer in churches. There is a remarkable CD (on the Archive label) of the third mass of Christmas according to the Sarum use with plainchant and John Sheppard's Missa Cantate Verbum Caro. The Latin is pronounced and sung throughout in 'English Latin' of the early XVIth century (roughly around the time of the great vowel shift). Of particular interest is the manner in which the boys' voices singing the chant an octave high is exploited for impressive dramatic effect at certain points (as is the contrast between chant and polyphony). This recording is one of Paul McCreesh's early music efforts, performed by the Gabrieli Consort and the choir of men and boys of Salisbury Cathedral. It may be out of print, but I highly recommend it if you can get it.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    Dare I add that an historically informed performance of William Byrd's classics would sound very strange to us. Tradition has it that in his day, Latin would have been sung in England with English pronunciation.

    Actually, the English pronunciation of Byrd's time, not just of Latin but of English as well, would sound somewhat strange for us.
    Thanked by 3francis M. Jackson Osborn Gavin
  • Ambrosius
    Posts: 49
    I once, several years ago, was at a (novus ordo) Mass in St Peter's, Rome, where the concelebrants from around the world each spoke their parts of the Latin Eucharistic Prayer very much in their home language style: I chuckled at the huge variety of sounds of this universal language, as great as if they had been speaking in their vernaculars. At least the text was fixed - I don't know how intelligible the Vatican II Council Fathers were to one another . . .
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen Gavin
  • Protasius
    Posts: 468
    I once read about problems for the shorthand secretaries at Vatican I, eg the question, whether a spanish bishop said vivere or bibere; in the end they used seminarians from the various Roman colleges so a secretary with the same mother tongue as the speaker was present.

    For Vatican II the bishops gave the manuscript of their speeches before the sessions; that has the strange consequence that the protocols of V2 sessions are actually longer than the sessions themselves, because what couldn't be said because time was over was printed as a footnote (as was every difference to the manuscript).
Add a Comment