WYD 2008: Iuventutem registrations

7 Comments

1. Diane says:

   10 March 2008 at 12:17 PM

   Fr. Z,

   Can you please explain the J vs. the I?

   I keep hoping to get Latin self-study in, even if it is only 15 minutes daily I so often see the J. Even in my Missal (at least the Angelus Press version).

   What do the other Missals show?

   I would just like some background on this.

   Thanks!
2. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:

   10 March 2008 at 12:25 PM

   Diane: There really is no “J” in sound Latin. It is/was used sometimes, but it isn’t really very good orthography.

   I once told this story here:

   There is no “J” in Latin, or shouldn’t be. Fr. Foster, famous Latinist here in Rome, tells the story of when John Paul II was elected and he began to sign his first name with a “J” as in “Joannes”. Foster reminded the Pope that there is no “J” in Latin. The Pope thought about that for a while and then responded: “There is now.” No other man on earth could make that declaration. On the other hand, there is no “J” on JP2’s tomb. But I digress.

   But I think the most important thing is the possibility that young people will sign up this way!
3. Matt Q says:

   10 March 2008 at 12:51 PM

   Diane:

   Father’s right on on that, oc. ;-)

   If I can add to the discussion, adding Js to present-day Latin texts is based on modern considerations of vernacular language. As words evolve, or devolve depending on the word, modern constructs come into play. For instance, the Latin for “Jesus” is IESVS: “ee-eh-soos,” ( sorry, can’t add diacritical marks on this blog ) which evolved into JESUS. Actually there are no Us in Latin either. As we see, Juventutem, classically spelled, it would IVENTVTEM. Vs and Us were interchanged by their use and so was their pronunciations. As time went on, that is how we got the W. That’s why it’s called a double-U. In French, we call it “double-V” or double V. VV. Both reflect back to this point. Same thing. Two Vs = W. :-)

   BTW, Latin/French Missals do the same; add Js to Latin words. :|

   Hope this helps and not muddle you any further. LOL
4. Diane says:

   10 March 2008 at 2:48 PM

   Thanks! Interesting thoughts.

   I learned Croatian back in 1980 and their “J” is pronounced like our “Y”. So, when I see it in Latin texts, it is natural for me to say it that way. But, I had seen the “I”. However, that is so infrequent I just brushed it off until this post.

   I can see it now…. a new movement to purge the “J” in favor of “I”.

   lol
5. Gregor says:

   10 March 2008 at 3:10 PM

   I am really surprised that Fr Z of all people should propagate “I” instead of “J”. What is this if not archaeologism? The “J” has developed organically, and, like the “U” mentioned by Matt, for a very good reason. Its use was universal until the archaeologisms began in the early 20th century. Latin is not a dead language, which must be returned to its Ciceronian incarnation (which was only a literary form anyway), but the living language of the Church. No one is arguing for the abolition of “th” and the reintroduction of þ and ð like in Old English (well, I suppose, someone actually is, but you know what I mean).
6. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:

   10 March 2008 at 3:15 PM

   I don’t like “J” in Latin.
7. Legisperitus says:

   10 March 2008 at 3:48 PM

   I like the J, rather than trying to read a word like “eiiciam.” Sometimes I use a hand missal from the 1920’s that even goes so far as to say “Alleluja.”

   My understanding is that the introduction and assignment of the U is just as recent as that of the J. But still, “de gustibus” and all that.

Comments are closed.