Italic languages - WikiMili, The Best Wikipedia Reader

Italic languages

Last updated

Italic
Latino-Sabine, Italic–Venetic
EthnicityOriginally the Italic peoples
Geographic
distribution		Originally the Italian Peninsula and parts of modern day Austria and Switzerland, today Southern Europe, Latin America, France, Romania, Moldova, Canada, and the official languages of half the countries of Africa.
Linguistic classification Indo-European
Proto-language Proto-Italic
Subdivisions
ISO 639-5 itc
Glottolog ital1284
Main linguistic groups in Iron-Age Italy and the surrounding areas. Some of those languages have left very little evidence, and their classification is quite uncertain. The Punic language brought to Sardinia by the Punics coexisted with the indigenous and non-Italic Paleo-Sardinian, or Nuragic. Iron Age Italy.png
Main linguistic groups in Iron-Age Italy and the surrounding areas. Some of those languages have left very little evidence, and their classification is quite uncertain. The Punic language brought to Sardinia by the Punics coexisted with the indigenous and non-Italic Paleo-Sardinian, or Nuragic.

The Italic languages form a branch of the Indo-European language family, whose earliest known members were spoken on the Italian Peninsula in the first millennium BC. The most important of the ancient languages was Latin, the official language of ancient Rome, which conquered the other Italic peoples before the common era. [1] The other Italic languages became extinct in the first centuries AD as their speakers were assimilated into the Roman Empire and shifted to some form of Latin. Between the third and eighth centuries AD, Vulgar Latin (perhaps influenced by substrata from the other Italic languages) diversified into the Romance languages, which are the only Italic languages natively spoken today, while Literary Latin also survived. [2]

Contents

Besides Latin, the known ancient Italic languages are Faliscan (the closest to Latin), Umbrian and Oscan (or Osco-Umbrian), and South Picene. Other Indo-European languages once spoken in the peninsula whose inclusion in the Italic branch is disputed are Venetic and Siculian. These long-extinct languages are known only from inscriptions in archaeological finds. [3] [4]

In the first millennium BC, several (other) non-Italic languages were spoken in the peninsula, including members of other branches of Indo-European (such as Celtic and Greek) as well as at least one non-Indo-European one, Etruscan.

It is generally believed that those 1st millennium Italic languages descend from Indo-European languages brought by migrants to the peninsula sometime in the 2nd millennium BC. [5] [6] [7] However, the source of those migrations and the history of the languages in the peninsula are still a matter of debate among historians. In particular, it is debated whether the ancient Italic languages all descended from a single Proto-Italic language after its arrival in the region, or whether the migrants brought two or more Indo-European languages that were only distantly related.

With over 800 million native speakers, the Romance languages make Italic the second-most-widely spoken branch of the Indo-European family, after Indo-Iranian. However, in academia the ancient Italic languages form a separate field of study from the medieval and modern Romance languages. This article focuses on the ancient languages. For the others, see Romance studies, and for the subgroup of Italic languages currently spoken see Romance languages. [8]

Most Italic languages (including Romance) are generally written in Old Italic scripts (or the descendant Latin alphabet and its adaptations), which descend from the alphabet used to write the non-Italic Etruscan language, and ultimately from the Greek alphabet. The notable exceptions are Judaeo-Spanish (also known as Ladino), which is sometimes written in the Hebrew, Greek, or Cyrillic script, and some forms of Romanian, which are written in the Cyrillic script.

History of the concept

Historical linguists have generally concluded that the ancient Indo-European languages of the Italian peninsula that were not identifiable as belonging to other branches of Indo-European, such as Greek, belonged to a single branch of the family, parallel for example to Celtic and Germanic. The founder of this theory is Antoine Meillet (1866–1936). [9]

This unitary theory has been criticized by, among others, Alois Walde, Vittore Pisani and Giacomo Devoto, who proposed that the Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian languages constituted two distinct branches of Indo-European. This view gained acceptance in the second half of the 20th century, [10] though proponents such as Rix would later reject the idea, and the unitary theory remains dominant in contemporary scholarship. [11]

Classification

The following classification, proposed by Michiel de Vaan (2008), is generally agreed on, [12] although some scholars have recently rejected the position of Venetic within the Italic branch. [13]

History

Proto-Italic period

Proto-Italic was probably originally spoken by Italic tribes north of the Alps. In particular, early contacts with Celtic and Germanic speakers are suggested by linguistic evidence. [6]

Bakkum defines Proto-Italic as a "chronological stage" without an independent development of its own, but extending over late Proto-Indo-European and the initial stages of Proto-Latin and Proto-Sabellic. Meiser's dates of 4000 BC to 1800 BC, well before Mycenaean Greek, are described by him as being "as good a guess as anyone's". [30] Schrijver argues for a Proto-Italo-Celtic stage, which he suggests was spoken in "approximately the first half or the middle of the 2nd millennium BC", [31] from which Celtic split off first, then Venetic, before the remainder, Italic, split into Latino-Faliscan and Sabellian. [32]

Italic peoples probably moved towards the Italian Peninsula during the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, gradually reaching the southern regions. [6] [7] Although an equation between archeological and linguistic evidence cannot be established with certainty, the Proto-Italic language is generally associated with the Terramare (1700–1150 BC) and Proto-Villanovan culture (1200–900 BC). [6]

Languages of pre-Roman Italy and nearby islands: N1, Rhaetian; N2, Etruscan: N3, North Picene (Picene of Novilara); N4, Ligurian; N5, Nuragic; N6, Elymian; N7, Sicanian; C1, Lepontic; C2, Gaulish; I1, South Picene; I2, Umbrian; I3, Sabine; I4, Faliscan; I5, Latin; I6, Volscian and Hernican; I7, Central Italic (Marsian, Aequian, Paeligni, Marrucinian, Vestinian); I8, Oscan, Sidicini, Pre-Samnite; I9, Siculian; IE1, Venetic; IE2, Messapian; G1-G2-G3, Greek dialects (G1: Ionic, G2: Aeolic, G3: Doric); P1, Punic. Italic-map.svg
Languages of pre-Roman Italy and nearby islands: N1, Rhaetian; N2, Etruscan: N3, North Picene (Picene of Novilara); N4, Ligurian; N5, Nuragic; N6, Elymian; N7, Sicanian; C1, Lepontic; C2, Gaulish; I1, South Picene; I2, Umbrian; I3, Sabine; I4, Faliscan; I5, Latin; I6, Volscian and Hernican; I7, Central Italic (Marsian, Aequian, Paeligni, Marrucinian, Vestinian); I8, Oscan, Sidicini, Pre-Samnite; I9, Siculian; IE1, Venetic; IE2, Messapian; G1-G2-G3, Greek dialects (G1: Ionic, G2: Aeolic, G3: Doric); P1, Punic.

Languages of Italy in the Iron Age

At the start of the Iron Age, around 700 BC, Ionian Greek settlers from Euboea established colonies along the coast of southern Italy. [33] They brought with them the alphabet, which they had learned from the Phoenicians; specifically, what we now call Western Greek alphabet. The invention quickly spread through the whole peninsula, across language and political barriers. Local adaptations (mainly minor letter shape changes and the dropping or addition of a few letters) yielded several Old Italic alphabets.

The inscriptions show that, by 700 BC, many languages were spoken in the region, including members of several branches of Indo-European and several non-Indo-European languages. The most important of the latter was Etruscan, attested by evidence from more than 10,000 inscriptions and some short texts. No relation has been found between Etruscan and any other known language, and there is still no clue about its possible origin (except for inscriptions on the island of Lemnos in the eastern Mediterranean). Other possibly non-Indo-European languages present at the time were Rhaetian in the Alpine region, Ligurian around present-day Genoa, and some unidentified languages in Sardinia. Those languages have left some detectable imprint in Latin.

The largest language in southern Italy, except Ionic Greek spoken in the Greek colonies, was Messapian, known from some 260 inscriptions dating from the 6th and 5th centuries BC. There is a historical connection of Messapian with the Illyrian tribes, added to the archaeological connection in ceramics and metals existing between both peoples, which motivated the hypothesis of linguistic connection. But the evidence of Illyrian inscriptions is reduced to personal names and places, which makes it difficult to support such a hypothesis.

It has also been proposed that the Lusitanian language may have belonged to the Italic family. [29] [34]

Timeline of Latin

In the history of Latin of ancient times, there are several periods:

As the Roman Republic extended its political dominion over the whole of the Italian peninsula, Latin became dominant over the other Italic languages, which ceased to be spoken perhaps sometime in the 1st century AD. From Vulgar Latin, the Romance languages emerged.

The Latin language gradually spread beyond Rome, along with the growth of the power of this state, displacing, beginning in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, the languages of other Italic tribes, as well as Illyrian, Messapian and Venetic, etc. The Romanisation of the Italian Peninsula was basically complete by the 1st century BC; except for the south of Italy and Sicily, where the dominance of Greek was preserved. The attribution of Ligurian is controversial.

Origin theories

The main debate concerning the origin of the Italic languages mirrors that on the origins of the Greek ones, [36] except that there is no record of any "early Italic" to play the role of Mycenaean Greek.

All that is known about the linguistic landscape of Italy is from inscriptions made after the introduction of the alphabet in the peninsula, around 700 BC onwards, and from Greek and Roman writers several centuries later. The oldest known samples come from Umbrian and Faliscan inscriptions from the 7th century BC. Their alphabets were clearly derived from the Etruscan alphabet, which was derived from the Western Greek alphabet not much earlier than that. There is no reliable information about the languages spoken before that time. Some conjectures can be made based on toponyms, but they cannot be verified.

There is no guarantee that the intermediate phases between those old Italic languages and Indo-European will be found. The question of whether Italic originated outside Italy or developed by assimilation of Indo-European and other elements within Italy, approximately on or within its current range there, remains. [37]

An extreme view of some linguists and historians is that there never was a unique "Proto-Italic" whose diversification resulted in an "Italic branch" of Indo-European. Some linguists, like Silvestri [38] and Rix, [39] further argue that no common Proto-Italic can be reconstructed such that its phonological system may have developed into those of Latin and Osco-Umbrian through consistent phonetic changes and that its phonology and morphology can be consistently derived from those of Proto-Indo-European. However, Rix later changed his mind and became an outspoken supporter of Italic as a family.

Those linguists propose instead that the ancestors of the 1st millennium Indo-European languages of Italy were two or more different languages that separately descended from Indo-European in a more remote past and separately entered Europe, possibly by different routes or at different times. That view stems in part from the difficulty in identifying a common Italic homeland in prehistory, [40] or reconstructing an ancestral "Common Italic" or "Proto-Italic" language from which those languages could have descended. Some common features that seem to connect the languages may be just a sprachbund phenomenon – a linguistic convergence due to contact over a long period, [41] as in the most widely accepted version of the Italo-Celtic hypothesis.[ undue weight? – discuss ]

Characteristics

General and specific characteristics of the pre-Roman Italic languages:

Phonology

The most distinctive feature of the Italic languages is the development of the PIE voiced aspirated stops. [42] In initial position, *bʰ-, *dʰ- and *gʷʰ- merged to /f-/, while *gʰ- became /h-/, although Latin also has *gʰ- > /w-/ and /g-/ in special environments. [43]

In medial position, all voiced aspirated stops have a distinct reflex in Latin, with different outcome for -*gʰ- and *gʷʰ- if preceded by a nasal. In Osco-Umbrian, they generally have the same reflexes as in initial position, although Umbrian shows a special development if preceded by a nasal, just as in Latin. Most probably, the voiced aspirated stops went through an intermediate stage *-β-, *-ð-, *-ɣ- and *-ɣʷ- in Proto-Italic. [44]

Italic reflexes of PIE voiced aspirated stops
initial positionmedial position
*bʰ-*dʰ-*gʰ-*gʷʰ-*-(m)bʰ-*-(n)dʰ-*-(n)gʰ-*-(n)gʷʰ-
Latin [43] f-f-h-f--b-
-mb-		-d- [lower-alpha 1]
-nd-		-h-
-ng-		-v-
-ngu-
Faliscan [45] f-f-h- ?-f--f--g- ?
Umbrian [46] f-f-h- ?-f-
-mb-		-f-
-nd-		-h-
-ng-		-f-
?
Oscan [47] f-f-h- ?-f--f--h- ?
  1. ↑ Also -b- in certain environments.

The voiceless and plain voiced stops (*p, *t, *k, *kʷ; *b, *d, *g, *gʷ) remained unchanged in Latin, except for the minor shift of *gʷ > /w/. In Osco-Umbrian, the labiovelars *kʷ and *gʷ became the labial stops /p/ and /b/, e.g. Oscan pis 'who?' (cf. Latin quis) and bivus 'alive (nom.pl.)' (cf. Latin vivus). [48]

Grammar

In grammar there are basically three innovations shared by the Osco-Umbrian and the Latino-Faliscan languages:

  • A suffix in the imperfect subjunctive *-sē- (in Oscan the 3rd person singular of the imperfect subjunctive fusíd and Latin foret, both derivatives of *fusēd). [49]
  • A suffix in the imperfect indicative *-fā- (Oscan fufans 'they were', in Latin this suffix became -bā- as in portabāmus 'we carried'). [50]
  • A suffix to derive gerundive adjectives from verbs *-ndo- (Latin operandam 'which will be built'; in Osco-Umbrian there is the additional reduction -nd- > -nn-, Oscan úpsannam 'which will be built', Umbrian pihaner 'which will be purified'). [51]

In turn, these shared innovations are one of the main arguments in favour of an Italic group, questioned by other authors.[ who? ]

Lexical comparison

Among the Indo-European languages, the Italic languages share a higher percentage of lexicon with the Celtic and the Germanic ones, three of the four traditional "centum" branches of Indo-European (together with Greek).

The following table shows a lexical comparison of several Italic languages:

Gloss Latino-Faliscan Osco-Umbrian Proto-
Italic 		Proto-
Celtic 		Proto-
Germanic
Faliscan Old
Latin 		Classical
Latin 		Oscan Umbrian
'1'*ounosūnus*𐌖𐌉𐌍𐌖𐌔
*uinus		𐌖𐌍𐌔
uns		*oinos*oinos*ainaz
'2'du*duōduō𐌃𐌖𐌔
dus		-𐌃𐌖𐌚
-duf		*duō*dwāu*twai
'3'tristrēs (m.f.)
tria (n.)		𐌕𐌓𐌝𐌔
trís		𐌕𐌓𐌉𐌚 (m.f.)
𐌕𐌓𐌉𐌉𐌀 (n.)
trif (m.f.)
triia (n.)		*trēs (m.f.)
*triā (n.)		*trīs*þrīz
'4'quattuor𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌖𐌓𐌀
𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌕𐌉𐌖𐌓
petora
pettiur		𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌖𐌓
petur		*kʷettwōr*kʷetwares*fedwōr
'5'*quiquequinque𐌐𐌏𐌌𐌐𐌄-
pompe-		*𐌐𐌖𐌌𐌐𐌄
*pumpe		*kʷenkʷe*kʷenkʷe*fimf
'6'śex*sexsex*𐌔𐌄𐌇𐌔
*sehs		𐌔𐌄𐌇𐌔
sehs		*seks*swexs*sehs
'7'*śeptenseptem𐌔𐌄𐌚𐌕𐌄𐌍
seften		*septem*sextam*sebun
'8'oktuoctō*𐌖𐌇𐌕𐌏
*uhto		*oktō*oxtū*ahtōu
'9'*nevennovem*𐌍𐌖𐌖𐌄𐌍
*nuven		*𐌍𐌖𐌖𐌉𐌌
*nuvim		*nowen*nawan*newun
'10'decem𐌃𐌄𐌊𐌄𐌍
deken		*𐌃𐌄𐌔𐌄𐌌
*desem		*dekem*dekam*tehun

The asterisk indicates reconstructed forms based on indirect linguistic evidence and not forms directly attested in any inscription.

Map showing the approximate extent of the centum (blue) and satem (red) areals Centum Satem map.png
Map showing the approximate extent of the centum (blue) and satem (red) areals

From the point of view of Proto-Indo-European, the Italic languages are fairly conservative. In phonology, the Italic languages are centum languages by merging the palatals with the velars (Latin centum has a /k/) but keeping the combined group separate from the labio-velars. In morphology, the Italic languages preserve six cases in the noun and the adjective (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative, vocative) with traces of a seventh (locative), but the dual of both the noun and the verb has completely disappeared. From the position of both morphological innovations and uniquely shared lexical items, Italic shows the greatest similarities with Celtic and Germanic, with some of the shared lexical correspondences also being found in Baltic and Slavic. [52]

P-Italic and Q-Italic languages

Similar to Celtic languages, the Italic languages are also divided into P- and Q-branches, depending on the reflex of Proto-Indo-European *kʷ. In the languages of the Osco-Umbrian branch, *kʷ gave p, whereas the languages of the Latino-Faliscan branch preserved it (Latin qu[kʷ]). [53]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indo-European languages</span> Language family native to Eurasia

The Indo-European languages are a language family native to the overwhelming majority of Europe, the Iranian plateau, and the northern Indian subcontinent. Some European languages of this family—English, French, Portuguese, Russian, Dutch, and Spanish—have expanded through colonialism in the modern period and are now spoken across several continents. The Indo-European family is divided into several branches or sub-families, of which there are eight groups with languages still alive today: Albanian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic, Indo-Iranian, and Italic; another nine subdivisions are now extinct.

The Old Italic scripts are a family of ancient writing systems used on the Italian Peninsula between about 700 and 100 BC, for various languages spoken in that time and place. The most notable member is the Etruscan alphabet, which was the immediate ancestor of the Latin alphabet used by more than 100 languages today, including English. The runic alphabets used in Northern Europe are believed to have been separately derived from one of these alphabets by the 2nd century AD.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oscan language</span> Extinct language of southern Italy

Oscan is an extinct Indo-European language of southern Italy. The language is in the Osco-Umbrian or Sabellic branch of the Italic languages. Oscan is therefore a close relative of Umbrian.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Umbrian language</span> Extinct Italic language of central Italy

Umbrian is an extinct Italic language formerly spoken by the Umbri in the ancient Italian region of Umbria. Within the Italic languages it is closely related to the Oscan group and is therefore associated with it in the group of Osco-Umbrian languages, a term generally replaced by Sabellic in modern scholarship. Since that classification was first formulated, a number of other languages in ancient Italy were discovered to be more closely related to Umbrian. Therefore, a group, the Umbrian languages, was devised to contain them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samnium</span> Historical region of southern Italy; part of the Roman Republic/Empire

Samnium is a Latin exonym for a region of Southern Italy anciently inhabited by the Samnites. Their own endonyms were Safinim for the country and Safineis for the people. The language of these endonyms and of the population was the Oscan language. However, not all the Samnites spoke Oscan, and not all the Oscan-speakers lived in Samnium.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Old Latin</span> Latin language in the period before 75 BC

Old Latin, also known as Early Latin or Archaic Latin, was the Latin language in the period before 75 BC, i.e. before the age of Classical Latin. It descends from a common Proto-Italic language; Latino-Faliscan is likely a separate branch from Osco-Umbrian with possible further relation to other Italic languages and to Celtic; e.g. the Italo-Celtic hypothesis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Messapic language</span> Extinct Indo-European language of Southeastern Italy

Messapic is an extinct Indo-European Paleo-Balkanic language of the southeastern Italian Peninsula, once spoken in Salento by the Iapygian peoples of the region: the Calabri and Salentini, the Peucetians and the Daunians. Messapic was the pre-Roman, non-Italic language of Apulia. It has been preserved in about 600 inscriptions written in an alphabet derived from a Western Greek model and dating from the mid-6th to at least the 2nd century BC, when it went extinct following the Roman conquest of the region.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Venetic language</span> Extinct Indo-European language of northeast Italy

Venetic is an extinct Indo-European language, usually classified into the Italic subgroup, that was spoken by the Veneti people in ancient times in northeast Italy and part of modern Slovenia, between the Po Delta and the southern fringe of the Alps, associated with the Este culture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Faliscan language</span> Language

The Faliscan language is the extinct Italic language of the ancient Falisci, who lived in Southern Etruria. Together with Latin, it formed the Latino-Faliscan languages group of the Italic languages. It seems probable that the language persisted, being gradually permeated with Latin, until at least 150 BC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Etruscan alphabet</span> Alphabet used by the Etruscans of central and northern Italy

The Etruscan alphabet used by the Etruscans, an ancient civilization of central and northern Italy, to write their language, from about 700 BC to sometime around 100 AD.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Osco-Umbrian languages</span> Group of Italic languages

The Osco-Umbrian, Sabellic or Sabellian languages are an extinct group of Italic languages, the Indo-European languages that were spoken in Central and Southern Italy by the Osco-Umbrians before being replaced by Latin, as the power of Ancient Rome expanded. Their written attestations developed from the middle of the 1st millennium BC to the early centuries of the 1st millennium AD. The languages are known almost exclusively from inscriptions, principally of Oscan and Umbrian, but there are also some Osco-Umbrian loanwords in Latin. Besides the two major branches of Oscan and Umbrian, South Picene may represent a third branch of Sabellic. The whole linguistic Sabellic area, however, might be considered a dialect continuum. Paucity of evidence from most of the "minor dialects" contributes to the difficulty of making these determinations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Latino-Faliscan languages</span> Language family

The Latino-Faliscan or Latinian languages form a group of the Italic languages within the Indo-European family. They were spoken by the Latino-Faliscan people of Italy who lived there from the early 1st millennium BCE.

In historical linguistics, Italo-Celtic is a hypothetical grouping of the Italic and Celtic branches of the Indo-European language family on the basis of features shared by these two branches and no others. There is controversy about the causes of these similarities. They are usually considered to be innovations, likely to have developed after the breakup of the Proto-Indo-European language. It is also possible that some of these are not innovations, but shared conservative features, i.e. original Indo-European language features which have disappeared in all other language groups. What is commonly accepted is that the shared features may usefully be thought of as Italo-Celtic forms, as they are certainly shared by the two families and are almost certainly not coincidental.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Italic peoples</span> Ethnolinguistic group

The Italic peoples were an ethnolinguistic group identified by their use of Italic languages, a branch of the Indo-European language family.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Latin</span>

Latin is a member of the broad family of Italic languages. Its alphabet, the Latin alphabet, emerged from the Old Italic alphabets, which in turn were derived from the Etruscan, Greek and Phoenician scripts. Historical Latin came from the prehistoric language of the Latium region, specifically around the River Tiber, where Roman civilization first developed. How and when Latin came to be spoken has long been debated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South Picene language</span> Ancient Italic language

South Picene is an extinct Italic language belonging to the Sabellic subfamily. It is apparently unrelated to the North Picene language, which is not understood and therefore unclassified. South Picene texts were at first relatively inscrutable even though some words were clearly Indo-European. The discovery in 1983 that two of the apparently redundant punctuation marks were in reality simplified letters led to an incremental improvement in their understanding and a first translation in 1985. Difficulties remain. It may represent a third branch of Sabellic, along with Oscan and Umbrian, or the whole Sabellic linguistic area may be best regarded as a linguistic continuum. The paucity of evidence from most of the 'minor dialects' contributes to these difficulties.

The Indo-European Etymological Dictionary is a research project of the Department of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics at Leiden University, initiated in 1991 by Peter Schrijver and others. It is financially supported by the Faculty of Humanities and Centre for Linguistics of Leiden University, Brill Publishers, and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Latins (Italic tribe)</span>

The Latins, sometimes known as the Latials or Latians, were an Italic tribe which included the early inhabitants of the city of Rome. From about 1000 BC, the Latins inhabited the small region known to the Romans as Old Latium, that is, the area between the river Tiber and the promontory of Mount Circeo 100 km (62 mi) southeast of Rome. Following the Roman expansion, the Latins spread into the Latium adiectum, inhabited by Osco-Umbrian peoples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proto-Italic language</span> Ancestor of Latin and other Italic languages

The Proto-Italic language is the ancestor of the Italic languages, most notably Latin and its descendants, the Romance languages. It is not directly attested in writing, but has been reconstructed to some degree through the comparative method. Proto-Italic descended from the earlier Proto-Indo-European language.

References

  1. ↑ "Italic Languages". obo. Retrieved 9 March 2023.
  2. ↑ Sturtevant, E. H. (13 December 1920). "The Italic Languages". The Classical Weekly. 14 (9): 66–69. doi:10.2307/4388079. JSTOR   4388079 . Retrieved 2 May 2023.
  3. ↑ S. Beeler, Madison (1952). "The Relation of Latin and Osco-Umbrian". Language. 28 (4): 435–443. doi:10.2307/409679. JSTOR   409679 . Retrieved 2 May 2023.
  4. ↑ FERRISS-HILL, JENNIFER L. (2011). "Virgil's Program of Sabellic Etymologizing and the Construction of Italic Identity". Transactions of the American Philological Association. 141 (2): 265–284. doi:10.1353/apa.2011.0016. JSTOR   41289745. S2CID   161961761 . Retrieved 2 May 2023.
  5. ↑ Mallory & Adams 1997, p. 314–319.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Bossong 2017, p. 859.
  7. 1 2 Fortson 2004, p. 245.
  8. ↑ Manning, Eugene W. (1892). "Romance Languages". Modern Language Notes. 7 (5): 158. doi:10.2307/2918378. JSTOR   2918378 . Retrieved 2 May 2023.
  9. ↑ Villar 2000, pp. 474–475.
  10. ↑ Villar 2000, pp. 447–482.
  11. ↑ Poccetti 2017.
  12. ↑ de Vaan 2008 , p. 5: "Most scholars assume that Venetic was the first language to branch off Proto-Italic, which implies that the other Italic languages, which belong to the Sabellic branch and to the Latino-Faliscan branch, must have continued for a certain amount of time as a single language."
  13. ↑ Bossong 2017 , p. 859: "Venetic, spoken in Venetia, was undoubtedly Indo-European. It is safe to assume that it formed an independent branch by itself, rather than a subgroup of Italic."
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 de Vaan 2008, p. 5.
  15. ↑ Fortson 2017, p. 836.
  16. ↑ Polomé, Edgar C. (1992). Lippi-Green, Rosina (ed.). Recent Developments in Germanic Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 50. ISBN   978-90-272-3593-0.
  17. 1 2 3 Poccetti 2017, p. 738.
  18. 1 2 3 de Vaan 2008, p. 14.
  19. ↑ Bossong 2017, p. 863: "Up to the middle of the 2nd century BCE (conquest of Carthage and Greece) the language was uniform; no differences between 'higher' and 'lower' styles can be detected." p. 867: "From a strictly linguistic point of view, the Strasbourg Oaths are just an instantaneous snapshot in the long evolution from Latin to French, but their fundamental importance lies in the fact that here a Romance text is explicitly opposed to a surrounding text formulated in Latin. Romance is clearly presented as something different from Latin."
  20. ↑ Posner 1996, p. 98.
  21. ↑ Herman 2000, p. 113: "That is, the transformation of the language, from structures we call Latin into structures we call Romance, lasted from the third or fourth century until the eighth."
  22. ↑ Fortson 2004 , p. 258: "The earliest Romance language to be attested is French, a northern variety of which first appears in writing in the Strasbourg Oaths in or around the year 842 (...) it had diverged more strongly from Latin than the other varieties closer to Italy."
  23. ↑ Bossong 2017, pp. 863, 867.
  24. ↑ Bossong 2017, pp. 861–862, 867.
  25. 1 2 3 4 5 de Vaan 2008, p. 2.
  26. 1 2 3 4 Baldi 2017, p. 804.
  27. 1 2 Vine 2017, p. 752.
  28. ↑ Hartmann 2018 , p. 1854: "The Siculian language is widely believed to be of Indo-European, Italic origin..."
  29. 1 2 Villar 2000.
  30. ↑ Bakkum 2009 , p. 54.
  31. ↑ Schrijver 2016 , p. 490
  32. ↑ Schrijver 2016 , p. 499
  33. ↑ "history of Europe : Romans". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
  34. ↑ Francisco Villar, Rosa Pedrero y Blanca María Prósper
  35. 1 2 Fortson (2010) §13.26.
  36. ↑ Leppänen, Ville (1 January 2014). "Geoffrey Horrocks,Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (2nd edn.). Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 2010. Pp. xx + 505". Journal of Greek Linguistics. 14 (1): 127–135. doi: 10.1163/15699846-01401006 . ISSN   1566-5844.
  37. ↑ Silvestri 1998 , p. 325
  38. ↑ Silvestri, 1987
  39. ↑ Rix, 1983, p. 104
  40. ↑ Silvestri 1998 , pp. 322–323.
  41. ↑ Domenico Silvestri, 1993
  42. ↑ Meiser 2017, p. 744.
  43. 1 2 Stuart-Smith 2004, p. 53.
  44. ↑ Meiser 2017, pp. 744, 750.
  45. ↑ Stuart-Smith 2004, p. 63.
  46. ↑ Stuart-Smith 2004, p. 115.
  47. ↑ Stuart-Smith 2004, p. 99.
  48. ↑ Meiser 2017, pp. 749.
  49. ↑ Vine 2017, p. 786.
  50. ↑ Rix 2002, p. 3.
  51. ↑ Vine 2017, pp. 795–796.
  52. ↑ Mallory & Adams 1997, pp. 316–317.
  53. ↑ Whatmough, Joshua (2015). The Foundations of Roman Italy. London: Routledge. pp. 276–277. doi:10.4324/9781315744810. ISBN   9781315744810.

Sources

de Vaan, Michiel (2008). Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Brill. ISBN   978-90-04-16797-1.

  • Fortson, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture. Blackwell. ISBN   978-1-4443-5968-8.
  • Fortson, Benjamin W. (2017). "The dialectology of Italic". In Klein, Jared; Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. 2. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN   978-3-11-054243-1.
  • Hartmann, Markus (2018). "105. Siculian". In Klein, Jared; Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 1854–1857. doi:10.1515/9783110542431-026. ISBN   978-3-11-054243-1. S2CID   242076323.
  • Herman, Jozsef (2000). Vulgar Latin. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN   978-0-271-04177-3.
  • Mallory, James P.; Adams, Douglas Q. (1997). "Italic Languages". Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Fitzroy Dearborn. pp. 314–319. ISBN   978-1-884964-98-5.
  • Meiser, Gerhard (2017). "47. The phonology of Italic". In Klein, Jared; Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. 2. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 743–751. doi:10.1515/9783110523874-002. ISBN   978-3-11-054243-1.
  • Poccetti, Paolo (2017). "The documentation of Italic". In Klein, Jared; Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. 2. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN   978-3-11-054243-1.
  • Posner, Rebecca (1996). The Romance Languages. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0-521-28139-3.
  • Schrijver, Peter (2016). "Ancillary Study: Sound Change, the Italo-Celtic Linguistic Unity, and the Italian Homeland of Celtic". In Koch, John T.; Cunliffe, Barry (eds.). Celtic from the West 3. Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages: questions of shared language. Oxbow Books. pp. 489–502. ISBN   978-1-78570-227-3.
  • Silvestri, Domenico (1998). "The Italic Languages". In Ramat, A. (ed.). The Indo-European Languages. pp. 322–344.
  • Stuart-Smith, Jane (2004). Phonetics and Philology: Sound Change in Italic. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-925773-7.
  • Villar, Francisco (2000). Indoeuropeos y no indoeuropeos en la Hispania prerromana. Universidad de Salamanca. ISBN   978-84-7800-968-8.
  • Vine, Brent (2017). "48. The morphology of Italic". In Klein, Jared; Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. 2. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 751–804. doi:10.1515/9783110523874-003. ISBN   978-3-11-054243-1.

Further reading

  • Baldi, Philip. 2002. The Foundations of Latin. Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Beeler, Madison S. 1966. "The Interrelationships within Italic." In Ancient Indo-European Dialects: Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics held at the University of California, Los Angeles, April 25–27, 1963. Edited by Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel, 51–58. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
  • Coleman, Robert. 1986. "The Central Italic Languages in the Period of Roman Expansion." Transactions of the Philological Society 84.1: 100–131.
  • Dickey, Eleanor, and Anna Chahoud, eds. 2010. Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • Joseph, Brian D., and Rex J. Wallace. 1991. "Is Faliscan a Local Latin Patois?" Diachronica 8:159–186.
  • Pulgram, Ernst. 1968. The Tongues of Italy: Prehistory and History. New York: Greenwood.
  • Rix, Helmut (2002). Handbuch der italischen Dialekte. Sabellische Texte: Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen. Vol. 5. Heidelberg, Germany: Winter.
  • Rix, Helmut. "Towards a reconstruction of Proto-Italic" (PDF). Program in Indo-European Studies. UCLA. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 November 2017. Retrieved 24 June 2017.
  • Silvestri, Domenico (1995). "Las lenguas itálicas" [The Italic languages]. Las lenguas indoeuropeas[The Indo-European languages] (in Spanish). Cátedra. ISBN   978-84-376-1348-2.
  • Tikkanen, Karin. 2009. A Comparative Grammar of Latin and the Sabellian Languages: The System of Case Syntax. PhD diss., Uppsala Univ.
  • Villar, Francisco [in Italian] (1997). Gli Indoeuropei e le origini dell'Europa[Indo-Europeans and the origins of Europe] (in Italian). Bologna: Il Mulino. ISBN   978-88-15-05708-2.
  • Wallace, Rex E. 2007. The Sabellic Languages of Ancient Italy. Languages of the World: Materials 371. Munich: LINCOM.
  • Watkins, Calvert. 1998. "Proto-Indo-European: Comparison and Reconstruction" In The Indo-European Languages. Edited by Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat, 25–73. London: Routledge.
  • Clackson, James, and Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2007. A Blackwell History of the Latin Language
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.