Advertise on ChoralNet
Latin PronounciationDate: January 9, 2010
Would the work, Nihilo, be pronounced, "Nee-kee-loh"? by virtue of Mihi, being pronounced, "Mee-kee."
Dean M. Estabrook Replies (11): Threaded | Chronological
Allen H Simon on January 9, 2010 5:16pm
Yes.
on January 10, 2010 1:42am
From the Liber:
H is pronounced K in the two words nihil (nee-keel) and mihi (mee-kee), and their compounds. In ancient books these words are often written nichil and michi. In all other cases H is mute. So I assume that Nihilo would follow the same pronunciation as Nihil.
John
on January 10, 2010 3:13am
Ecclesiastical Latin would be pronounced "Nee-hee-lo," and classical Latin as "Nee-kee-lo." If you're singing a piece designed for church, use the ecclesiastical. If you're doing something akin to "Carmina burana," the classical is appropriate.
on January 10, 2010 10:29am
Robert, I believe that the forward to the Lieber Usualis actually lists these two excpetions - I don't have my Lieber here at home, but I am certain this is true. So Allen's YES is the correct answer, though you will hear this done incorrectly more often than correctly. The 'classical vs. ecclesiatical" debate does not apply here.
And of course the "h" would be pronounced as an aspirant if you decide to use the German/Austrian variant of Latin that many of us use when performing Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven. In that case "h's" would be pronounced as in "hat" EXCEPT for hihil and mihi and their compounds
on January 10, 2010 3:55pm
I know of no authority for "nee-keel" in classical Latin. It would sound very strange.
As for ecclesiastical Latin, I can't find any suggestion of "nee-keel" in the Liber Usualis. I can find it in the introduction to an English translation of the Liber Usualis, which says "H is pronounced K in the two words nihil (nee-keel) and mihi (mee-kee), and their compounds", as John Howell quotes above. "...and their compounds" must be intended to include nihilo with nihil.
The same introduction says "In all other cases H is mute." So if you sing neekeelo, you will also presumably sing abent for habent, and ostias et preces, and so on.
Not being a Roman Catholic, I have no idea how authoritative that is, or was, nor how widely it is, or was, observed. Perhaps somebody could let us know if they have listened carefully to recordings of (for example) Italian, French, Irish, German or Spanish RC singers from the days when Latin was in routine liturgical use.
JW
Edinburgh, Scotland
on January 11, 2010 2:17am
The reference to 'classical Latin' is clearly off-beam. I
learnt classical Latin (in what I think would be called 'reformed
pronunciation' -- that is, a careful reconstruction of how the
Romans actually pronounced it) from the age of 12 right through to
second-year university, and subsequently taught it, in British
public grammar schools and private schools, to A-Level and
university entrance level for another 20 years.
My acquaintance with the 'k' for 'h' pronunciation, however, goes back only a couple of years, when the British Embassy Choir of Tokyo sang a German piece in Latin and we had to learn some completely new ideas, including 'kvi' for 'qui' as well as 'miki' for 'mihi'. German it may be; classical, it ain't. Doreen, always open to new ideas, but always trying hard to stick to the facts
on January 10, 2010 5:47pm
Thanks folks ... it's nice to be reinforced once in awhile ... esp. at my age, when retrieving data from the old "punkin" is not what it once was. What brought up my question, was encountering the phrase, "Ex nihlo" many, many times in reading Karen Armstrong's book (on the Kindle I gave my wife for Christmas, BTW), "The Case for God." Very informative, I think ... especially in the xenophobic era we experience at present.
Pacem,
Dean
on January 10, 2010 8:14pm
Well, now that's a completely different kettle of fish. Latin phrases embedded in English sentences are pronounced in a completely different way. Think how we pronounce habeas corpus, or prima facie, or et cetera. Not according to Roman usage at all...
I'd pronounce that "ex nee-hill-oh", or "ex nee-ill-oh" if in a hurry.
on January 11, 2010 12:26am
I must restrain myself from pointing out that the Church and its documents often gives rise to situations that might be considered "much ado about nothing (nihil / nichil)," although nothing (nihil) hinders (obstat) me from doing so.
The Liber Usualis is a book created in a time and place for a particular purpose. Language usage at any given time and place often stretches the rules into surprising and sometimes almost unrecognizable utterances. Another very useful "authority" on this subject, which many of us have on our desks, is Timothy McGee's "Singing Early Music." A quick look at the sections on regional pronunciations of liturgical Latin reinforce the michi / nichil (miki / nikil) argument from a historical viewpoint, but also offer some surprising variants, and some good information about the somewhat arbitrary way in which "h" was inserted and omitted at various times and places. Worth a look, if you are interested.
Charles Q. Sullivan
cqsmusic(a)hotmail.com
on January 11, 2010 2:32am
If you really want to get precise, Latin consonants & even vowels reflect the country and period of the music. Therefore, the Liber is only worthwhile as a source for "contemporary" interpretation.
Terry Hicks
Beverly Hills, CA
on January 11, 2010 4:32pm
Allen is certainly correct inre the pronounciation of Latin embedded in English discourse. I'm sure, however, that I risk being thought of as elitist, when even at a dinner party, say, I will be found uttering, "A-beh-oos Coh(r)-poos." Somehow, it just seems right to me ... and I was raised a Protestant for crying out loud ...
Dean M. Estabrook
|
Help support ChoralNet by buying via these links
|
