The Latin word “Have” rather than “Ave” as a translation of the Greek word Χαῖρε?

Question

According to BlueLetterBible, the Latin Vulgate translation of Matthew 26:49 states,

The Greek text from the Textus Receptus states,

^ΜΘʹ καὶ εὐθέως προσελθὼν τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἶπεν Χαῖρε ῥαββί καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν ^{TR, 1550}

I assumed the Latin translation of Χαῖρε to be Ave, but what is Have? Is that a typo?

My Colunga-Turrado edition of the Vulgata Clementina has "Ave" here. — brianpck, Jan 09 '17 at 04:38
Possibly assimilation to a 'hard H' pronunciation of Haire / Χαῖρε. — Hugh, Jan 09 '17 at 14:03
See also: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15836/was-av%C4%93-truly-pronounced-with-an-unspelled-h — Dewi Morgan, Mar 06 '23 at 01:49

score 16 · Accepted Answer · answered Jan 09 '17 at 02:13

16

It's an alternate form of ave; the L&S entry gives a couple of examples.

Presumably this form arose through hypercorrection: since h was generally not pronounced in popular speech, confusion easily arose about which words did and did not contain it. Catullus makes fun of a certain Arrius who inserted h's where they weren't needed.

answered Jan 09 '17 at 02:13

TKR

31,292
2
66
120

7

I prefer to call him Harrius. – Joonas Ilmavirta Jan 09 '17 at 11:39
Et vīvēbat in aedibus Gestātiōnis Ligustrōrum numerō quattuor signātis. – Canned Man Aug 27 '22 at 11:12

score 15 · Answer 2 · answered Sep 14 '17 at 18:53

There is a longstanding view that the interjection ave is not the imperative of the verb aveo “to long for”, but is a loan from Punic ḥawe (tentative vocalisation), the imperative of the Semitic verb ḥ-w-h “to live”. The first attestations are in Plautus, who also uses the plural havo (=Punic ḥawū) three times in his Poenulus. If this is true, then have would actually be the etymologically correct spelling.

See the discussion in Walde, Lat. Etym. Wb., who comes out in favour of this analysis. By contrast, de Vaan, Etym. dict. of Latin does not even mention it as a possibility.

De Vaan (unfortunately) excludes loanwords completely, so his lack of an entry for ave may actually mean he accepts the Phoenician etymology. The connection with the verb meaning "long for" does seem semantically difficult; L&S list the words separately. Weiss lists ave as a Phoenician loanword, without discussion. — TKR, Sep 15 '17 at 02:05

score 2 · Answer 3 · answered Jul 19 '18 at 08:06

2

'Have' is a variation albeit not popular, of 'ave'. Please be advised. It can be seen in some inscriptions. Check out the wiki page of ave, with the image if it is still there.

answered Jul 19 '18 at 08:06

Jondel

29
1

1

Welcome to the site, Jondel! Can you edit your answer to add a link, and perhaps the image itself (with proper attribution)? – Joonas Ilmavirta Jul 19 '18 at 09:37

The Latin word “Have” rather than “Ave” as a translation of the Greek word Χαῖρε?

3 Answers3

Linked