Extremely Late Latin

[Imperfacundus]

As anyone who has looked at original documents dating to 600‒1000 CE can attest, spelling mistakes proliferated in later Latin. They may appear random at first glance, but they turn out to be largely systematic and reflective of contemporary pronunciation in the same way that modern spelling mistakes such as 'rite' and 'definate' (for right and definite) hint at English pronunciation habits.

Over a millennium later, a scholar by the name of Roger Wright woke up in an adventurous mood one morning and decided to examine a document from León, Spain- dated to the year 908- and reconstruct the underlying pronunciation in its entirety (Late Latin and Early Romance, pp. 166‒167). Naturally he had to keep in mind spellings found in other Iberian documents from the period as well as the known evolution of the Astur-Leonese language.

Here is most of the original document, with expanded abbreviations:

In Dej nomine. Ego Splendonius tiui Fredesinde in Domino salutem. Ideo placuit mici atque conuenit, nunlljusque cogentis Inperio neque suadentjs artjculo set probria mici acesi uoluntas ut uinderem tjui Iam dicte Fredesinde terra In uilla Uiasco suber Illa senrra domniga lloco predicto Agro rrodundo. Ipsa terra atpretiata In duos modios et duas quartas, et dedistj mici pro Idem In pretjo sicera et zeuaria cod mici bene conplacuit, et de Ipso pretjo abut te nicill remansi, aueas, adeas, uindices ac defendas et quidquid exinde agere facere uel Iudigare uuolueris lljueram in Dei nomine abeas potestatem. Et si quis tamen, cod fieri minime non credo, aljquis tjui contra anc uindicionem mea at Inrumpendum uenerit uel uenire conauero Imfram uel Imferat pars mea partjque tue ipsa terra dubplata. Facta uindicio U. Idus magji era DCCCC Xᵛ VIᵃ.

For the sake of intelligibility, I have written a version with modernized spelling:

In Dei nomine. Ego Splendonius tibi Fredesindae in Domino salutem. Ideo placuit mihi atque convenit, nulliusque cogentis imperio neque suadentis articulo sed propria mihi accessit voluntas ut venderem tibi iam dictae Fredesindae terram in villa Viasco super illam senaram* dominicam (in) loco predicto Agro Rotundo. Ipsam terram adpretiatam in duos modios et duas quartas—et dedisti mihi pro idem in pretio siceram et cibariam quod mihi bene conplacuit, et de ipso pretio apud te nihil remansit—habeas, adeas, vindices ac defendas et quidquid exinde agere, facere, vel iudicare volueris, Iibram in Dei nomine habeas potestatem. Et si quis tamen, quod fieri minime non credo, aliquis tibi contra hanc venditionem meam ad inrumpendum venerit, vel venire conaverit, inferam vel inferat pars mea partique tuae ipsam terram duplicatam. Facta venditio V. Idus Maii era** DCCCC Xᵛ VIᵃ.

* A type of field, cf. Portuguese senra~seara.
** Referring to the Spanish Era, an old dating system.

I have left the sometimes-eccentric grammar and morphology untouched.

Below is how Wright thinks the author would have pronounced it. I have added word-breaks and pauses.

en díe nwémne ‖ ío esplendóɲo tíe fredzínde en dwéɲo salúde ‖ íjo plóɡo míe e kombíne · núʎjoske kodʒjéntes empérjo ni swaðjéntes artéʎo · se próbrja míe atséze voluntáde · o vendjére tíe · ja ðíjta fredzínde · tjérra en vílla vjásko sobre la sénra doɲíɡa · (en) ʎwéɡo preðíjto · áɣro rrodóndo ‖ ésa tjérra · apretsjáda en dóz mójos e ðúas kwártas · e ðíste míe por íðe · em prétsjo · sídzra e tseβéjra ke míe βjéne komplóɡo · e ðése prétsjo abo tí ní:l remáze · áβjas · ájas · véndzes · e ðefjéndas ‖ e kéke ʃénde adʒére fadzére vel ʒulɡáre voljéres · ʎíβra en díe nwémne áβjas podestáde ‖ e se kí tamne · ke fjére ménme no kréo · alkí tíe · kwéntr aŋk vendzóne mía · a enrompjéndo vinjére vel veníre konáro · énfra · vel énfra párte mía · párteke túe ésa tjérra ðobláda ‖ féjta vendzóne tsíŋko i ðoz máʒe éra nove tsjéntos kwarénta sjésta

Although I disagree with several aspects of his reconstruction, I find it an interesting exercise nevertheless, so I have decided to record myself reading it out loud. Pardon the vowel reduction here and there. To appreciate the level of divergence between spelling and pronunciation that Wright proposes, I suggest following the Latin text while listening.

 

[Clemens]

Wright and those who agree with him propose that until the Carolingian period, people in Romance-speaking cultures were not conscious of the way they spoke being a different language than Latin, but merely a colloquial register, if they thought about it at all. I believe he proposes that Latin would have been pronounced not according to its spelling (as in the later historical pronunciations), nor as it would have been pronounced in the Republican period, but as a (possibly modified) version of their own speech.

 

[Charles II of Spain]

As anyone who has looked at original documents dating to 600‒1000 CE can attest, spelling mistakes proliferated in later Latin. They may appear random at first glance, but they turn out to be largely systematic and reflective of contemporary pronunciation in the same way that modern spelling mistakes such as 'rite' and 'definate' (for right and definite) hint at English pronunciation habits.

Over a millennium later, a scholar by the name of Roger Wright woke up in an adventurous mood one morning and decided to examine a document from León, Spain- dated to the year 908- and reconstruct the underlying pronunciation in its entirety (Late Latin and Early Romance, pp. 166‒167). Naturally he had to keep in mind spellings found in other Iberian documents from the period as well as the known evolution of the Astur-Leonese language.

Here is most of the original document, with expanded abbreviations:


For the sake of intelligibility, I have written a version with modernized spelling:

* A type of field, cf. Portuguese senra~seara.
** Referring to the Spanish Era, an old dating system.

I have left the sometimes-eccentric grammar and morphology untouched.

Below is how Wright thinks the author would have pronounced it. I have added word-breaks and pauses.

Although I disagree with several aspects of his reconstruction, I find it an interesting exercise nevertheless, so I have decided to record myself reading it out loud. Pardon the vowel reduction here and there. To appreciate the level of divergence between spelling and pronunciation that Wright proposes, I suggest following the Latin text while listening.

Could you provide an English translation of this text for me? It might help me read it a bit better.
I'm planning on doing my own reconstruction of the pronunciation of this text. I don't fully agree with the way Wright proposes it would have been pronounced as well, as I think they would have pronounced the archaic grammar in a different way too.

 

[Charles II of Spain]

Wright and those who agree with him propose that until the Carolingian period, people in Romance-speaking cultures were not conscious of the way they spoke being a different language than Latin, but merely a colloquial register, if they thought about it at all. I believe he proposes that Latin would have been pronounced not according to its spelling (as in the later historical pronunciations), nor as it would have been pronounced in the Republican period, but as a (possibly modified) version of their own speech.

I'm one of those people who supports his theory.

 

[Clemens]

I'm one of those people who supports his theory.

Yes, it does seem convincing to me, although I don’t know all the details and there are still problems to be worked out, according to a former participant here.

 

[Charles II of Spain]

Yeah, like I personally think that when the text is read out loud in Spain like this one, the moribund case endings would be glossed, and they would basically read preposition + plus the surviving noun form descended from accusative instead of directly reading the different case endings out loud.

 

[Charles II of Spain]

For example, "In Dei nomine" could have been read aloud as "En nuemne de Dio. I was thinking before that it could have been read "En Dio nuemne." But the problem is as far as I know the prepositionless unmarked possessive genitive like how Medieval French sometimes used the oblique case, or in some of the older Italo-romance languages where they would just right down the noun without a preposition too, and in some modern dialects in the Apulia region in southern Italy, is not attested in any of the Ibero-romance languages by the time they were written down.

 

[Clemens]

If what you're saying is that written Latin was regarded as just a code for the spoken language, I don't think it was that clearly organized. I'd guess it's akin to a modern Chinese person reading a Classical Chinese text aloud, using (mostly) modern pronunciations, but still having to engage with an archaic grammar and idiom. Although I agree with Wright that words that were likely pronounced as in the spoken language, there must have been others, encountered only in writing, which could have maintained some kind of archaic pronunciation, as some speakers of Arabic pronounce important words relating to religion in a more classical manner.

 

[Charles II of Spain]

If what you're saying is that written Latin was regarded as just a code for the spoken language, I don't think it was that clearly organized. I'd guess it's akin to a modern Chinese person reading a Classical Chinese text aloud, using (mostly) modern pronunciations, but still having to engage with an archaic grammar and idiom. Although I agree with Wright that words that were likely pronounced as in the spoken language, there must have been others, encountered only in writing, which could have maintained some kind of archaic pronunciation, as some speakers of Arabic pronounce important words relating to religion in a more classical manner.

I think it could have worked. I did a Medieval/Late Latin translation of the Oaths of Strasbourg and Sequence of Saint Eulalia and treated the Latin version as if it was the correct way of writing down Early Old French, and it totally almost worked. I applied the reconstructed pronunciation of those Old French texts to the Latin versions and was able to treat it as if it was the same language.

 

[Imperfacundus]

Could you provide an English translation of this text for me? It might help me read it a bit better.

Sure.

In God's name. I, Splendonius, greet you, Fredesinda. I have found it to my liking and wish—on my own accord and with nobody forcing or cajoling me—to sell to you, the aforementioned Fredesinda, a plot of land in the villa of Viasco over the royal field in the place called Ager Rotundus. May you own, access, claim, and defend that land, which is valued at two modius-es and two quarters, a sum that you paid in barley and cider, which suited me well enough, and you kept none of that sum for yourself. And should you wish to do anything with the land, may you, in the name of God, have free reign to do so. And should anyone violate, or attempt to violate, this agreement—a scenario which I find most unlikely—may I or my people hand over to your people twice as much land as was agreed. This transaction was completed on the eleventh of May in the year 946 of the Spanish era.

Not 100% literal.

 

[Charles II of Spain]

Sure.



Not 100% literal.

Thank you! Btw I found a few other example texts like this one you're doing the pronunciation exercise with in another one of Roger Wright's books. They're all "Extremely" Late Latin/Medieval texts from around the same time and same region in northern Spain. I want to try and do the same thing you did and reconstruct the underlying pronunciation of them too and read it aloud. If you're interested in helping out, I can share the screenshots of the texts from the book I was reading online.