This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Quality contrast between long and short vowels
If you read the article "On the Evolution of Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance" by Andrea Calabrese, you'll see that he contests Allen's Classical Latin vowel system as [iː ɪ eː ɛ ä(ː) ɔ oː ʊ uː]. According to Calabrese, Classical Latin had a vowel system with five different qualities, i.e. [i(ː) ɛ(ː) ä(ː) ɔ(ː) u(ː)], with no quality distinction between long and short vowels, at least until the 1st century AD. YanisBourgeois (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this has been discussed before (see archives). Calabrese's view, unfortunately popularized by some youtuber, runs counter to the overwhelming scholarly majority in favour of Allen's. It is mentioned in footnote #4 already. Nicodene (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I haven't seen a counterargument against Calabrese's vowel system other than the argument of majority. It has been discarded as a minority view, but not debunked (or maybe I'm wrong, please tell me if I am). Thanks for your response YanisBourgeois (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm saying that Calabrese hasn't been debunked is that nobody as far as I know has justified Allen's vowel system for Classical Latin while taking into account Calabrese's objection to Allen. All the sources that justify Allen's vowel system accept as a premise that Classical Latin is the most recent "common ancestor" to the Western Romance Languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.) which is incorrect. Those languages, used to justify Allen's system, are actually descended from Vulgar Latin. So Allen may very well have described Vulgar Latin while believing to describe Classical Latin. The Romance languages that actually descend from Classical Latin as opposed to Vulgar Latin (e.g. Sardinian) tend to indicate Calabrese's vowel system. YanisBourgeois (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM and WP:FRINGE. We can discuss this on my private talk page or yours, if you like, but such a discussion will have no impact on this article. Nicodene (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
