Thread for variable rules

[jillianchang]

ūnius ob noxam et furiās Ajācis Oīleī?

Does my scansion match up with what you would come up with?

If so, I think furiās is [fur.jas] and Oīleī is [oj.lej]. Then essentially I would allow long i's to glide (in addition to the short i's), as part of synezisis?

[kylebgorman]

Yes that seems like the right analysis to me.

(Dang, ī can glide. That defeats one of my pet theories about Latin glides.)

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 3:37 PM jillianchang @.***> wrote:

ūnius ob noxam et furiās Ajācis Oīleī?

Does my scansion match up with what you would come up with? [image: IMG_0882] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/57687959/128763656-f42eecd0-6340-45ea-8dbc-ac8a46f97a69.jpg

If so, I think furiās is [fur.jas] and Oīleī is [oj.lej]. Then essentially I would allow short and long i's to glide, as part of diaeresis?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/CUNY-CL/LatinScansion/issues/32, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABG4OLHUS2YRSP3SNB7UADT4AVAFANCNFSM5B2VLKUQ . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email .

[jillianchang]

File "scansion_test.py", line 66, in test_aen_1_247
    self.assertEqual(
AssertionError: 'hiːk tamillurbẽː patawiː seːdeːskwe lokaːwit' != 'hiːk tame nillurbẽː patawiː seːdeːskwe lokaːwit'
- hiːk tamillurbẽː patawiː seːdeːskwe lokaːwit
+ hiːk tame nillurbẽː patawiː seːdeːskwe lokaːwit

One problem that I've noticed is the grammar overapplying elision and resyllabification. In this specific case, only resyllabification needs to be applied for the line to scan (DSDSDS). The variable grammar, however, applies elision after the resyllabification as the resyllabification just so happens to present the correct left and right contexts for it. It therefore incorrectly scans the line as SSDSDS. What I'm perplexed about is why it feels like it needs to use elision, since the line does scan properly once resylllabification is in place.

[kylebgorman]

That’s curious: exactly the sort of thing we’re trying to avoid. I think I’ll replicate locally to understand this evening.

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:59 AM jillianchang @.***> wrote:

File "scansion_test.py", line 66, in test_aen_1_247

self.assertEqual(

AssertionError: 'hiːk tamillurbẽː patawiː seːdeːskwe lokaːwit' != 'hiːk tame nillurbẽː patawiː seːdeːskwe lokaːwit'

• hiːk tamillurbẽː patawiː seːdeːskwe lokaːwit

• hiːk tame nillurbẽː patawiː seːdeːskwe lokaːwit

One problem that I've noticed is the grammar overapplying elision and resyllabification. In this specific case, only resyllabification needs to be applied for the line to scan (DSDSDS). The variable grammar, however, applies elision after the resyllabification as the resyllabification just so happens to present the correct left and right contexts for it. It therefore incorrectly scans the line as SSDSDS. What I'm perplexed about is why it feels like it needs to use elision, since the line does scan properly once resylllabification is in place.

— You are receiving this because you commented.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/CUNY-CL/LatinScansion/issues/32#issuecomment-900422404, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABG4OIWL6JJPNZULROVOEDT5KBM5ANCNFSM5B2VLKUQ . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email .

[kylebgorman]

Just looked at this (by adding what I assume that unit test to be; it's not in your PR yet).

It's obvious to me how to scan the last four feet (...bem Patavī sēdēsque locāvit). Nothing fancy there. But I'm a bit at loss of how to get two feet out of Hīc tamen ille ur.... I think this is actually a defective line (probably an error by the poet or in manuscript transmission). You propose resyllabification but I'm not sure you can resyllabify a final n like that: certainly our grammars don't allow you to do that, because nasalization has already applied. I am now wondering whether n is different than m in this regard.

Then, the only way I see to make this work is to elide the en in tamen and lengthen it its first syllable via diastole. I checked: the weight for the output pronunciation is 10,200. This means it applied elision twice and diastole once.

This might be a good question for one of those online fora where people discuss Latin scansion...there's one on Stack Overflow for instance. I asked on Twitter: https://twitter.com/wellformedness/status/1428049166287114241

[kylebgorman]

Yeah everybody is telling me that the n elides. So I guess I'm wrong: it doesn't do nasal lengthening, that's just m. Can you fix the pronunciation grammar to reflect?

[kylebgorman]

Closed in #44.