http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/3126/pronunciation-for-the-greek-sections-of-the-reproaches/p1

I am not sure that either is in fact the case, madorganist.

One overstates the case by saying that it’s like Italian, at least to be correct. Pius XII was recorded praying the Pater Noster. https://youtu.be/JmVucwgy0oU

In seven months with the ICRSS, not once did I hear it sung or recited in such fashion. At Gricigliano, M. le supérieur, Canon Mora, does not allow the French pronunciation, with the caveat that “ps” is interpreted as in French and that “r“ is a wee bit guttural. Besides, other French and German clerics have historically ignored this prescription, which is of recent origin.

The thread reminded me that vowels are always long if and only if following certain schools of chant. The regular vowels and aspirate h are to be respected in spoken Latin, and when chanting recto tono or singing a more monosyllabic chant, the pronunciation can be better respected.

As far as the Greek is concerned, the melodies of the Kyrie suggest that there is no one single pronunciation which works for all. The pronunciation clearly shifted over time.

Evidently, per the linked thread, the new books use the older form of the Reproaches, which by the time of the Vatican edition had been corrupted in the spelling. It simply does not use the modern spelling, and in this case, other than for convenience, I don’t feel bound to the gradual or any book of Solesmes, even for the TLM.

Italian dropped the “p.” The word is “salmo.”

There was a discussion here, wherein I was totally schooled on the “ps.” Both consonants are indeed pronounced in French. The conclusion seemed to be that because Italians don’t care for such initial combinations of letters such as “ps” and even “ex” (see “straordinaria”) that they’d be likely to drop them in Latin as well. Books rarely get into such detail.

...classicists are irrelevant...

I do understand your basic premise and the legitimate rationales behind it, and think that, in general, you are correct. The in general, though, is the key word here. Indeed, one should not sing anything at liturgy in a manner that is self consciously eccentric with respect to educated norms, for doing so calls attention to the musical item itself rather than to its role and import in the liturgical continuum.

Nonetheless, such educated norms and 'speculations' are never categorically 'irrelevant', nor should one rule out a cautious and judicious inclusion of what some people would consider out of bounds 'classicist speculation' simply because it is, in the context of a culturally impoverished American Catholicism, rather unusual. On such grounds Gregorian chant itself, sung in whatever manner, is banished from more parish and cathedral worship in this land than one could shake a well-deserved stick at. No. We should not think of chant, done in an accustomed manner or in an historically informed manner, speculative or not, as out of bounds, particularly for a congregation which has a history of music appreciation and an openness to a wide variety of music. The 'speculations of classicists' are not only for concerts, sacred concerts, and recitals and such. They are legitimate for worship wherever there is reason to believe that they will be appreciated, will be a positive spiritual experience, and will be a true grace to the Lord's worship. This applies to whatever constitutes correct pronunciation of Greek in the liturgical chant repertory as well as to any and all other liturgical music. Lift people up. Always. Speak (and sing) to their highest minds.
________________________________________

One example out of many in my experience - I often play at St Basil's Chapel at Houston's UST. The people there are perhaps a tad above average. They sing very well and are appreciative of organ and choral music. I always sing (a capella) the psalm responsory and the alleluya verse to chant that I improvise 'on the spot'. This chant is quasi flourid and might be defined as 'neumatic' as opposed to 'syllabic' or 'melismatic'. Several of the Basilian fathers are amazed by it and look forward to hearing it. The people? They are rapt to the point that one knows that a deep rapport betwixt cantor and people exists. When I am not there (when the choirmaster and choir are not in recess) they are accustomed to R&A. There are some who might call this way of performing the responsory as 'speculative' or outlandish. I prefer to think of it as logical and as an heir to the historic (and unique) Roman gradual responsory. It could be called 'speculative'. It is definitely unusual. It should definitely be commonplace.

It's been noted numerous times on our forum that Latin in times past was pronounced in each and every land just like one's own language, so this fetish for Italianate Latin (a convention which is hardly an hundred years old) is an entirely new-fangled thing. I think that most of our forumites know this already, but it doesn't hurt to keep it in mind when there are those who worry about whether their 'church Latin' sounds Italian enough, or if it slavishly follows Liber Usualis Latin. Good diction, good vowels, and clear consonants are the most important factors. The Latin of late antiquity or of the mediaeval era cannot reasonably be replicated. If they could they would represent a far more 'correct' pronunciation than Italian, whether modern or antique. Some have noted that the French are not all that enamoured of 'Italian' Latin, nor, I think, are the Germans or Spanish. We Anglophones seem to be the only ones obsessed with it - which may be a boon, lest (heaven forbid!) our Latin sounded like British public school and university Latin, or the Latin of botanists and lawyers.

1) I said above that spoken Latin is to be pronounced correctly. The words of institution for the host is a great example: the “h” is pronounced and the vowel is short. The Italian style would be less than desirous here.

2/3) If there haven’t been some modernizations to the texts of liturgies of the Greek Orthodox Church and of the Church of Greece, to the Greek Catholic liturgy, etc. then that would be surprising. (Basically, what we saw with the Good Friday reproaches but left unrestored...)

I don’t want it to sound straight–up Italian. Blimey, why is it so hard to understand? It’s not identical to Italian, and even Italians have to moderate it. To go back to the Vianini example–and repeat myself again...– “ps” is fine, but don’t lose the preceding “t” too.

You get a whole hour?!?!?! The choir at my church gets maybe 30 min. before Mass.

I have found there are 3 ways of pronunciation of the Greek in the Liturgy...

1. The 'Latin' pronunciation found in the second post of the link provided by Liam. We have usually sung like this.

2. Our resident liturgical expert fluent in Latin and Greek, tells us that the above is wrong and we should use a different pronunciation. Sorry I can't remember what it is, I have almost always been part of the Latin choir (EF).

3. We have a Eastern Rite priest that visits us, his pronunciation appears to be of a 3rd kind. But he did not complain about our singing on Good Friday.

tomjaw -
I nearly always bow deferentially to your scholarship and your views. It does indeed seem strange to us that Bede or mediaeval English monks pronounced Latin just as they did their own language; further, that the Latin with which Augustine was presented was very likely quite different from that spoken in the Rome from whence he came. But, this seems nevertheless to have been the case. Even Erasmus complained that, though Latin was supposed to be an international language, one could not understand it going from one land to another. Heavily Anglicised Latin, a 'gift' from historic times, is to this day spoken in English public schools and universities as if it were English. Not only did tribal and geographical boundaries produce new language children from antique Latin, but what Latin remained had a quite different and readily apparent pronunciation from place to place. We (including me) really don't want to believe this, perhaps because it seems unseemly, but it does happen to be true. Further, it would be reasonable to assume that what our forebears did to Latin they did also unto Greek.

Look up Paul McCreesh's CD of an English Christmas Day mass about the time of the great vowel shift. It features a polyphonic mass by John Sheppard and much chant, the Latin being sung with a heavily informed early XVIth century English. The contrast betwixt chant and polyphony in this presentation is highly dramatic, as is the alternation betwixt men and boys at dramatic moments - a thing which, I think, our mediaeval cousins took deliberate advantage of.

Interesting... I studied Νέα Ελληνικά in high school taught by a native Spartan. Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός would be pronounced Άγιος ο Θεός / Ay'-os oh Theh-os' (with unvoiced theta sound) in modern, romaic greek. It is assumed the true manner of pronouncing the more ancient aspirational diacritics has been lost to time (There are no mp3's of ancient greeks speaking). Even Ah'-ee-os oh Theh-os' is acceptable as some music requires. The rough part of the mediant gamma is almost not present: the tongue and palate don't rattle as they would in the initial position (like in γάλα or γάμμα), but the airway is restricted enough to briefly modulate the stream. Agios or Hagios is also written as Άïος.

But, um, isn't Latin the Church's Esperanto???

IIRC, the Church has an approved Mass text in Esperanto for use at conferences, so one could say Esperanto is the Church's Esperanto.

Um, need one ask if there is an ecclesiatically approved pronunciation of Church Esperanto? Actually, I've always thought of Esperanto (on those incredibly rare occasions on which I have thought about it at all) as something of a linguistical simulacrum.