Is there any difference between Roman and Latin transliteration? English script uses Latin alphabet. Is there any difference between Roman and Latin alphabet? And is there any difference between Roman and Latin?
1 2
Hi Jackson,

You might like to begin by reading this link -

Clive
The two are sometimes used interchangeably, but "Latin alphapbet" is usually used to describe the alphabet used to write Latin in classical times, whilst "Roman alphabet" is usually used to describe the adaptation of the Latin alphabet to write languages like English and French. To provide a language with such an alphabet to replace another sytstem of writing is referred to as "Romanisation" rather then "Latinisation".

The Latin alphabet originally consisted of 21 letters. <y> and <z> were added when Greek words started to be used - note the position of these two letters at the end of the alphabet (at least in English). The differentiation between <u>/<v> and <i>/<j> and the introduction of <w> came after the classical period. Many languages use "extra" letters and accents.

Latin was the language of Rome and its surrounding area (Latium) - hence the distinction between "Roman" (relating to the city) and "Latin" (referring to the language).
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Hi Forbes,

Thank you very much. I really appreciate your help. It would be very kind of you if you could explain to me the following sentence:

''<y> and <z> were added when Greek words started to be used''

Kind regards, Jackson
In Latin there was no sound equivalent to the "z" in "zoo", or the sound of the Greek letter upsilon, equivalent to French "u" or German "ü". When the Romans started to borrow a few words from Greek they felt the need to represent these sounds and so borrowed the letters.
ForbesTo provide a language with such an alphabet to replace another sytstem of writing is referred to as "Romanisation" rather then "Latinisation".

Hi Forbes,

Why is the practice of Latinisation known as Latinisation? Couldn't it be called Romanisation rather than Latinisation?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Restricting ourselves purely to the question of providing an alphabet, it seems that Romanisation can be referred to as Latinisation - see here: http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Romanisation I cannot say I have ever come across Latinisation used in that sense.
I have a question I've been rlly confused with im trying to learn Roman Latin not modern so there is no U or W but we don't understand how to pronounce V for example "villa" in the book I have says its pronounced (weel-la) but translators on my phone and everything says villa like its spelled I don't understand when V makes the U andW sound
AnonymousI have a question I've been rlly confused with im trying to learn Roman Latin not modern so there is no U or W but we don't understand how to pronounce V for example "villa" in the book I have says its pronounced (weel-la) but translators on my phone and everything says villa like its spelled I don't understand when V makes the U andW sound
You need a full stop at the end of your text.
Anonymousthe U andW sound
the U and W sound
Anonymousrlly
really http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/really
Anonymousim
I'm http://www.thefreedictionary.com/I%27m
Anonymousdon't understand how to pronounce V for example "villa" in the book I have says its pronounced (weel-la)
That might be the case in languages that don't have the v sound that is in English. In English, the letter v is pronounced as v, not as the letter w. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/v & http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/v

That means that the English pronunciation of villa is vi-la http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/villa
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more