Written by Dyami Millarson

I recently wrote a blog post discussing the spelling of the Latin /w/ sound as ⟨w⟩ instead of ⟨v⟩. On 10 June, I was contemplating the use of the letter ⟨c⟩ in Latin orthography. Nowadays, ⟨c⟩ is employed for various fricatives, causing confusion. Similarly, speakers of Romance languages often misinterpret ⟨qu⟩ as non-labialized /k/. Since the choice has previously been made to deviate from Classical Latin orthography by distinguishing the consonant /w/ as ⟨v⟩ and the vowel /u/ as ⟨u⟩ in the modern orthography of Classical Latin, based on which I am proposing to spell the consonant /w/ as ⟨w⟩ instead of ⟨v⟩ in our contemporary spelling of Classical Latin, we should not that the Classical Latin ⟨qu⟩ actually stands for ⟨qv⟩ or ⟨cv⟩, and the Classical Latin ⟨gu⟩ likewise stands for ⟨gv⟩. Therefore, it is preferable to write ⟨qu⟩ as ⟨cw⟩ or ⟨kw⟩, as seen in Old English or Dutch, to avoid any misunderstanding. By the same token, we should consider replacing ⟨c⟩ in order to discourage the c in words like “centum” from being misinterpreted as /t͡ʃ/ (among speakers of Italian), /s/ (among French and Portuguese speakers for example), or /θ/ (among Castilian Spanish speakers). Instead, the orthography should give people a clear cue that Classical Latin words like centum, certus, carcer, cibus in the traditional spelling actually stand for kentum, kertus, karker, kibus. The letter ⟨k⟩ here unambiguously represents the /k/ sound.

My recent proposals for spelling reform, including the proposal to spell Classical Latin /w/ as ⟨w⟩, are based upon the premise that, after centuries of usage, letter choices should be updated to conform and adapt to the evolving spelling conventions of modern languages. If Latin were being reconstructed today without any prior attestation, it is highly likely that the reconstructed Latin word for hundred would be spelled as *kent- with the letter ⟨k⟩. After all, we write the Proto-Italic form with ⟨k⟩, not ⟨c⟩, for clarity’s sake: *kentom, not *centom. We must acknowledge that ⟨c⟩ may be an outdated choice for representing a plosive sound. Furthermore, the ⟨k⟩ is not wholly un-Latin, as can be seen in the Latin word kalendae.

Let us take a look at Finnic languages for modern spelling choices. The /k/ sound is represented in Finnish and Estonian as ⟨k⟩ and not ⟨c⟩, and the /ks/-sound is usually spelled as ⟨ks⟩ in Finnish and Estonian, rather than ⟨x⟩. For instance, x is used for /s/ in Spanish, Vietnamese, and Occitan, for /ʒ/ in Ligurian, /ɕ/ in Chinese pinyin, for /dz/ in Albanian, for /ʃ/ in Portuguese, Leonese, Basque, Maltese, Catalan, for /ts/ in Occitan, etc. Since the x is a natural choice for all these fricatives and affricatives nowadays, we need to rethink the use of ⟨x⟩ in the modern spelling of Classical Latin. Similarly, speakers of Romance languages, such as French, Spanish and Portuguese, often misinterpret ⟨qu⟩ as non-labialized /k/. These are not insignificant Romance languages, as they are in modern times the largest Romance languages by speaker count.

⟨kw⟩, not ⟨qu⟩, can be observed in Modern Germanic spelling, and since Germanic ⟨w⟩ and ⟨kw⟩ are phonetically equivalent to Latin ⟨v⟩ and ⟨qu⟩, there is a reason to consider adapting the modern orthography of Classical Latin. After all, if one already accepts ⟨k⟩ based on Estonian and Finnish spelling, for instance, why not incorporate some beneficial elements from Modern Germanic languages as well? In fact, the Latin alphabet used in Germanic and Finnic languages is a natural evolution and improvement upon the original Latin alphabet. Therefore, applying these new insights to Latin seems appropriate. We have moved away from the “source” and it is also normal to apply our modern conventions or norms to the “source” in order to clarify to our own minds and other modern readers what the Romans really meant according to our modern orthographic standards.

An orthography is but a visualisation of the actual pronunciation: we already commonly write Classical Latin iam (IAM) and uirtus (VIRTVS) as jam and virtus respectively, reflecting a more modern way of visualising the actual pronunciation. So, why not introduce a new update this century and spell it as wirtūs, which accurately represents the pronunciation? Wirtūs comes from the combination of wir (formerly spelled vir, uir and VIR) man and the nominal suffix -tūs. If Latin were a reconstructed language, we would already have used ⟨w⟩, not ⟨v⟩, for /w/ like Proto-Italic. For instance, the Proto-Italic equivalent of Classical Latin wir man is *wiros man. So why not just spell wirtūs and wir instead of virtūs and vir which we have already changed from uirtus and uir, which is, in its turn, a change from VIRTVS and VIR? We have always spelled Latin according to the times, and spelling Latin ⟨c⟩, ⟨qu⟩, ⟨x⟩, and ⟨gu⟩ as ⟨k⟩, ⟨kw⟩, ⟨ks⟩, ⟨gw⟩ will help modern readers — from all over the world — guess the right pronunciation. As stated in my other recent article on reforming the Latin orthography, my didactic mission in adapting Classical Latin spelling to modern norms is making Classical Latin pronunciation more accessible to modern language users. Proto-languages are likewise made more accessible by adapting to modern orthographic norms among languages using the Latin alphabet rather than sticking to now outdated conventions, which, if continued, may lead to unnecessary misunderstandings about the phonetic nature of the sounds that the letters are supposed to represent. Italian, French, Castilian Spanish, and Portuguese speakers, for instance, have a tendency to misinterpret the ⟨c⟩, particularly in the phonetic environment where ⟨c⟩ appears before ⟨i⟩ and ⟨e⟩. In response to this modern reality, the implementation of the spelling reform proposed in this blog post will help raise awareness about the fact that the Classical Latin sound previously denoted by ⟨c⟩ is not actually realised like in Italian, French, Portuguese, or Spanish when it precedes ⟨i⟩ and ⟨e⟩. In fact, the Classical Latin sound is a /k/, and therefore it helps to spell this sound as ⟨c⟩.

TL;DR

• This article proposes a spelling reform for Classical Latin to improve clarity and align with modern language conventions.
• Replacing the letter ⟨c⟩ with ⟨k⟩ is suggested to avoid misinterpretation by speakers of large modern languages.
• It is argued that adopting ⟨k⟩ for the hard /k/-sound is not uncommon among modern languages and the article points to examples from Finnic and Germanic languages.
• The Classical Latin ⟨qu⟩ should be understood as ⟨kw⟩, and the Classical Latin ⟨gu⟩ should be understood as ⟨gw⟩.
• Examples of how such updates can accurately reflect the pronunciation while maintaining linguistic continuity are provided.
• The proposed reforms aim to make Classical Latin more accessible and prevent misunderstandings about the phonetic values of letters.