When I was at school in the 40's our headmaster was the music teacher and he insisted that the pronunciation of the letter 'c' in Latin words in Christmas carols was hard and not the Italian 'ch' sound, so should be 'In Dulki Jubilo' for example. I believe this was based on the idea that the modern Italian language is NOT related to Latin. Apparently this view was held by a small number of scholars and I wondered if anyone still holds this view?
Merely a fad, trying to emphasise the original name/pronunciation in the original language. To me Beijing will always be Peking, as will Mumbai be Bombay.
this is hardly new. Way back in Goodbye Mr Chips, written in 1934, Chips was grumbling about having to say we kiss 'im instead of vicissim.
Italian is certainly related to Latin, though.
Boudicca's different; Boadicea is just thought to have been a typo. It looks as though someone mistranscribed it in the Middle Ages, reading the second C as an E.
Jake, I think the rule's different for living languages. Given that nobody but the pope speaks Latin any more, there's no reason not to establish a regular pronunciation for it, though it might be rash to assume that all Romans in all eras pronounced it the same way.
sorry jno, there is a thriving community of people who study Latin at evening class still. It helps so much with vocabulary to understand Latin and Greek roots for words now in everyday use.
That's right, Boxy. Latin taught me more about language than anything else. I recall my first ever Gaelic lesson where the teacher was explaining that my Gaelic name is "Marc" unless you're calling it to my face in which case it's "a Mhairc". I remember thinking to myself oh, right, Gaelic has a vocative case. Fine, next...