Content deleted Content added
CanisRufus (talk | contribs) m RedWolf - Latin linkage |
Krissemerlad (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1:
{{
{{More citations needed|date=January 2021}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2020}}
{{Infobox language family
| name = Italic
| altname = Latino-Sabine, Italic–Venetic
| speakers = {{c.|900 million}} ([[Romance languages]])
| ethnicity = Originally the [[Italic peoples]]
| region = 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]].
| familycolor = Indo-European
| fam2 = [[Italo-Celtic]]?
| protoname = [[Proto-Italic language|Proto-Italic]]
| child1 = [[Latino-Faliscan languages|Latino-Faliscan]] (including [[Romance languages|Romance]])
| child2 = {{extinct}}[[Belgic language|Belgic]]?
| child3 = {{extinct}}[[Lusitanian language|Lusitanian]]?
| child4 = {{extinct}}[[Sabellic languages|Sabellic]]
| child5 = {{extinct}}[[Siculian]]?
| child6 = {{extinct}}[[Venetic language|Venetic]]?
| iso5 = itc
| glotto = ital1284
| glottorefname = Italic
| map =
| mapcaption = Detailed distribution of languages in [[Italy]], during the 5th century BC. ([[North Picene language|North Picene]] is an [[unclassified language]], and [[Etruscan language|Etruscan]] and [[Rhaetian language|Rhaetic]] are classified as [[Tyrsenian languages]], and are not [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] like the rest of the languages on the map.)
| ancestor =
| glottoname =
| notes =
}}
[[File:Iron Age Italy.png|thumb|320px|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 language|Paleo-Sardinian]], or [[Nuragic civilization|Nuragic]].]]
The '''Italic languages''' form a branch of the [[Indo-European languages|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 Italic languages was [[Latin]], the official language of [[ancient Rome]], which conquered the other [[Italic peoples]] before the [[Common Era|common era]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Italic Languages |url=https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195389661/obo-9780195389661-0045.xml |access-date=2023-03-09 |website=obo |language=en}}</ref> The other Italic languages became [[Extinct language|extinct]] in the first centuries AD as their speakers were assimilated into the Roman Empire and [[Language shift|shifted]] to some form of Latin. Between the third and eighth centuries AD, [[Vulgar Latin]] (perhaps influenced by [[Substratum (linguistics)|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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sturtevant|first=E. H.|date=December 13, 1920|title=The Italic Languages|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4388079|journal=The Classical Weekly|volume=14 |issue=9 |pages=66–69 |doi=10.2307/4388079 |jstor=4388079 |access-date=May 2, 2023|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
Besides Latin, the known ancient Italic languages are [[Faliscan language|Faliscan]] (the closest to Latin), [[Umbrian language|Umbrian]] and [[Oscan language|Oscan]] (or Osco-Umbrian), and [[South Picene language|South Picene]]. Other Indo-European languages once spoken in the peninsula whose inclusion in the Italic branch is disputed are [[Venetic language|Venetic]] and [[Siculian]]. These long-extinct languages are known only from inscriptions in [[Archaeology|archaeological]] finds.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=S. Beeler|first=Madison|year=1952|title=The Relation of Latin and Osco-Umbrian|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/409679|journal=Language|volume=28 |issue=4 |pages=435–443 |doi=10.2307/409679 |jstor=409679 |access-date=May 2, 2023|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=FERRISS-HILL|first=JENNIFER L.|date=2011|title=Virgil's Program of Sabellic Etymologizing and the Construction of Italic Identity|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41289745|journal=Transactions of the American Philological Association|volume=141 |issue=2 |pages=265–284 |doi=10.1353/apa.2011.0016 |jstor=41289745 |s2cid=161961761 |access-date=May 2, 2023|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
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 languages|Celtic]] and [[Hellenic languages|Greek]]) as well as at least one non-Indo-European one, [[Etruscan language|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 through [[Bell Beaker]] and [[Urnfield culture]] groups north and east of the [[Alps]].{{Sfn|Mallory|Adams|p=314–319|1997}}{{Sfn|Bossong|2017|p=859}}{{Sfn|Fortson|2004|p=245}}{{Sfn|Bossong|2017|p=859}} 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 900 million native speakers,<ref name="ethnologue.com">{{cite book|editor-last=Lewis|editor-first=M. Paul|url=http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/distribution.asp?by=size|chapter=Summary by language size|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130202224556/http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/distribution.asp?by=size |archive-date=2013-02-02|url-status=dead|title=Ethnologue : Languages of the World|edition=16|publisher=Ethnologue|isbn=978-1556712166|date=2009-05-30|pages=1248}}</ref> the Romance languages make Italic the second-most-widely spoken branch of the Indo-European family, after [[Indo-Iranian languages|Indo-Iranian]] at 1.7 billion native speakers. 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 information on the academic study of the Romance languages, see [[Romance studies]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Manning|first=Eugene W.|year=1892|title=Romance Languages|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2918378|journal=Modern Language Notes|volume=7 |issue=5 |page=158 |doi=10.2307/2918378 |jstor=2918378 |access-date=May 2, 2023|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
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, which was derived 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 language|Romanian]], which are written in the Cyrillic script.
== History of the concept ==
{{Indo-European topics|315}}
[[Historical linguistics|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 languages|Celtic]] and [[Germanic languages|Germanic]]. The founder of this theory is [[Antoine Meillet]] (1866–1936).{{Sfn|Villar|2000|pp=474–475}}
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,{{Sfn|Villar|2000|pp=447–482}} though proponents such as Rix later rejected the idea, and the unitary theory remains dominant in contemporary scholarship.{{Sfn|Poccetti|2017}}
== Classification ==
The following classification, proposed by [[Michiel de Vaan]] (2008), is generally agreed on,<ref>{{harvnb|de Vaan|2008|p=5|ps=: "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."}}</ref> although some scholars have recently disputed the inclusion of Venetic in the Italic branch.<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|Bossong|2017|p=859|ps=: "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."}}</ref>
{{tree list}}
* [[Proto-Italic language|Proto-Italic]] (or Proto-Italo-Venetic){{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=5}}{{Sfn|Fortson|2017|p=836}}
** Proto-Venetic<ref>{{Cite book|last=Polomé|first=Edgar C.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GsEvtZOAlHoC|title=Recent Developments in Germanic Linguistics|date=1992|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing|isbn=978-90-272-3593-0|editor-last=Lippi-Green|editor-first=Rosina|page=50|language=en|author-link=Edgar C. Polomé}}</ref>
***[[Venetic language|Venetic]] (550–100 BC){{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=5}}
** Proto-Latino-Sabellic{{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=5}}
***[[Latino-Faliscan languages|Latino-Faliscan]]{{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=5}}
**** Early [[Faliscan language|Faliscan]] (7th–5th c. BC){{Sfn|Poccetti|2017|p=738}}
*****Middle Faliscan (5th–3rd c. BC){{Sfn|Poccetti|2017|p=738}}
******Late Faliscan (3rd–2nd c. BC), strongly influenced by Latin{{Sfn|Poccetti|2017|p=738}}{{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=5}}
**** [[Old Latin]] (6th–1st c. BC){{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=14}}
*****[[Classical Latin]] (1st c. BC–3rd c. AD){{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=14}}
******[[Late Latin]] (3rd–6th c. AD){{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=14}}
*****[[Vulgar Latin]] (2nd c. BC–9th c. AD){{Sfn|Bossong|2017|ps=: "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 [[Oaths of Strasbourg|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."|p=863}} evolved into [[Proto-Romance language|Proto-Romance]] (the reconstructed Late Vulgar Latin ancestor of Romance languages) between the 3rd and 8th c. AD{{Sfn|Posner|1996|p=98}}{{sfn|Herman|2000|p=113|ps=: "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."}}
******[[Romance languages]], non-mutually intelligible with Latin since at the least the 9th c. AD; the only Italic languages still spoken today<ref>{{harvnb|Fortson|2004|p=258|ps=: "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."}}</ref>{{Sfn|Bossong|2017|pp=863, 867}}
*******[[Gallo-Romance languages|Gallo-Romance]] (attested from 842 AD), [[Italo-Dalmatian languages|Italo-Dalmatian]] ({{Circa|960}}), [[Occitano-Romance languages|Occitano-Romance]] ({{Circa|1000}}), [[Iberian Romance languages|Ibero-Romance]] ({{Circa|1075}}), [[Rhaeto-Romance languages|Rhaeto-Romance]] ({{Circa|1100}}), [[Sardinian language|Sardinian]] (1102), [[African Romance]] (extinct; spoken at least until the 12th c. AD), [[Eastern Romance languages|Eastern Romance]] (1521){{Sfn|Bossong|2017|pp=861–862, 867}}
***[[Osco-Umbrian languages|Sabellic]] (Osco-Umbrian){{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=2}}{{Sfn|Baldi|2017|p=804}}
****[[Umbrian language|Umbrian]] (7th–1st c. BC), including dialects such as [[Aequian language|Aequian]], [[Marsi#Language|Marsian]], and [[Volscian language|Volscian]]{{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=2}}{{Sfn|Baldi|2017|p=804}}
****[[Oscan language|Oscan]] (5th–1st c. BC), including dialects such as [[Hernici#Language|Hernican]], North Oscan ([[Marrucini#Language|Marrucinian]], [[Paeligni#Language|Paelignian]], [[Vestinian language|Vestinian]]), and [[Sabines#Language|Sabine]] ([[Samnites|Samnite]]){{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=2}}{{Sfn|Baldi|2017|p=804}}
****Picene languages{{Sfn|Baldi|2017|p=804}}
*****[[Pre-Samnite language|Pre-Samnite]] (6th–5th c. BC){{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=2}}
*****[[South Picene language|South Picene]] (6th–4th c. BC){{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=2}}
** (?) [[Siculian]]{{Sfn|Vine|2017|p=752}}<ref>{{Harvnb|Hartmann|2018|p=1854|ps=: "The Siculian language is widely believed to be of Indo-European, Italic origin..."}}</ref>
**(?) [[Lusitanian language|Lusitanian]]{{Sfn|Villar|2000}}{{Sfn|Vine|2017|p=752}}
{{tree list/end}}
==History==
=== Proto-Italic period ===
{{main|Proto-Italic}}
[[Proto-Italic language|Proto-Italic]] was probably originally spoken by [[Italic peoples|Italic tribes]] north of the [[Alps]]. In particular, early contacts with Celtic and Germanic speakers are suggested by linguistic evidence.{{Sfn|Bossong|2017|p=859}}
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".<ref>{{harvnb|Bakkum|2009|p=54}}.</ref> 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",<ref>{{harvnb|Schrijver|2016|p=490}}</ref> from which Celtic split off first, then Venetic, before the remainder, Italic, split into Latino-Faliscan and Sabellian.<ref>{{harvnb|Schrijver|2016|p=499}}</ref>
[[Italic peoples]] probably moved towards the [[Italian Peninsula]] during the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, gradually reaching the southern regions.{{Sfn|Bossong|2017|p=859}}{{Sfn|Fortson|2004|p=245}} Although an equation between archeological and linguistic evidence cannot be established with certainty, the Proto-Italic language is generally associated with the [[Terramare culture|Terramare]] (1700–1150 BC) and [[Proto-Villanovan culture]] (1200–900 BC).{{Sfn|Bossong|2017|p=859}}
===Languages of Italy in the Iron Age===
{{More citations needed|section|date=April 2021}}
At the start of the Iron Age, around 700 BC, [[Ionians|Ionian Greek]] settlers from [[Euboea]] established colonies along the coast of southern Italy.<ref name="Britannica">{{cite encyclopedia|title=history of Europe : Romans|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica|url=https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/195896/history-of-Europe/58256/Romans|access-date=28 October 2012}}</ref> They brought with them the [[alphabet]], which they had learned from the [[Phoenician people|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 language|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 Sea|Mediterranean]]). Other possibly non-Indo-European languages present at the time were Rhaetian in the [[Alps|Alpine region]], [[Ligurian language (ancient)|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 language|Messapian]], known from some 260 inscriptions dating from the 6th and 5th centuries BC. There is a historical connection of Messapian with the [[Illyria]]n tribes, added to the [[archaeology|archaeological]] connection in [[ceramic]]s and [[metal]]s 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 by some scholars, although not confirmed, that the [[Lusitanian language]] may have belonged to the Italic family.{{Sfn|Villar|2000|p=}}<ref>Francisco Villar, Rosa Pedrero y Blanca María Prósper</ref>
===Timeline of Latin===
{{unreferenced section|date=January 2021|find=History of Latin}}
In the history of Latin of ancient times, there are several periods:
*From the archaic period, several inscriptions of the 6th to the 4th centuries BC, fragments of the oldest laws, fragments from the sacral anthem of the [[Salii]], the anthem of the [[Arval Brethren]] were preserved.
*In the pre-classical period (3rd and 2nd centuries BC), the [[Old Latin|literary Latin language]] (the comedies of [[Plautus]] and [[Terence]], the [[agriculture|agricultural]] treatise of [[Cato the Elder]], fragments of works by a number of other authors) was based on the dialect of Rome.
*The period of [[Classical Latin#Authors of the Golden Age|classical ("golden") Latin]] dated until the death of Ovid in AD 17<ref name=Fortson1326>Fortson (2010) §13.26.</ref> (1st century BC, the development of vocabulary, the development of terminology, the elimination of old morphological doublets, the flowering of [[literature]]: [[Cicero]], [[Julius Caesar|Caesar]], [[Sallust]], [[Virgil]], [[Horace]], [[Ovid]]) was particularly distinguished.
*During the period of [[Classical Latin#Authors of the Silver Age|classical ("silver") Latin]] dated until the death of emperor [[Marcus Aurelius]] in AD 180, seeing works by [[Juvenal]], [[Tacitus]], [[Suetonius]] and the ''Satyricon'' of [[Petronius]],<ref name=Fortson1326/> during which time the phonetic, morphological and spelling norms were finally formed.
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 languages|Illyrian]], [[Messapian language|Messapian]] and [[Venetic language|Venetic]], etc. The [[Romanization (cultural)|Romanisation]] of the Italian Peninsula was basically complete by the 1st century BC; except for the [[Southern Italy|south of Italy]] and [[Sicily]], where the dominance of [[Greek language|Greek]] was preserved.
The attribution of [[Ligurian language (ancient)|Ligurian]] is controversial.
== Origin theories ==
{{Cleanup|date=April 2021|reason=This section duplicates the section 'Proto-Italic period'|section}}
The main debate concerning the origin of the Italic languages mirrors that on the origins of the Greek ones,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Leppänen|first=Ville|date=2014-01-01|title=Geoffrey Horrocks,Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (2nd edn.). Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 2010. Pp. xx + 505.|journal=Journal of Greek Linguistics|volume=14|issue=1|pages=127–135|doi=10.1163/15699846-01401006|issn=1566-5844|doi-access=free}}</ref> 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 [[Old Italic alphabets|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 [[toponym]]s, 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.<ref name=sylvestri325>{{harvnb|Silvestri|1998|p=325}}</ref>
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<ref>Silvestri, 1987</ref> and Rix,<ref>Rix, 1983, p. 104</ref> 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 language|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,<ref>{{harvnb|Silvestri|1998|pp=322–323}}.</ref> 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,<ref>Domenico Silvestri, 1993</ref> as in the most widely accepted version of the [[Italo-Celtic]] hypothesis.{{Undue weight inline|1=Calvert Watkins paragraph ... what did he say about Italic?|reason=Among experts, opposition to the Proto-Italic hypothesis is not a widespread viewpoint anymore|date=September 2020}}
==Characteristics==
General and specific characteristics of the pre-Roman Italic languages:
*in [[phonetics]]: [[Oscan language|Oscan]] (in comparison with [[Latin]] and [[Umbrian language|Umbrian]]) preserved all positions of old diphthongs ai, oi, ei, ou, in the absence of [[rhotacism (sound change)|rhotacism]], the absence of [[sibilant]]s{{clarify|date=April 2020}}, in the development of kt > ht; a different interpretation of Indo-European kw and gw (Latin qu and v, Osco-Umbrian p and b); in the latter the preservation of s in front of nasal sonants and the reflection of Indo-European *dh and *bh as f; initial stress (in Latin, it was reconstructed in the historical period), which led to [[syncopation]] and the reduction of vowels of unstressed syllables;
*in the [[syntax]]: many convergences; In Osco-Umbrian, impersonal constructions, [[parataxis]], partitive genitive, temporal genitive and genitive relationships are more often used;
=== Phonology ===
The most distinctive feature of the Italic languages is the development of the PIE voiced aspirated stops.{{sfn|Meiser|2017|p=744}} 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.{{sfn|Stuart-Smith|2004|p=53}}
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.{{sfn|Meiser|2017|pp=744,750}}
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
|+caption | Italic reflexes of PIE voiced aspirated stops
! rowspan=2| !! colspan=4| initial position !! colspan=4| medial position
|-
! *bʰ- !! *dʰ- !! *gʰ- !! *gʷʰ- !! *-(m)bʰ- !! *-(n)dʰ- !! *-(n)gʰ- !! *-(n)gʷʰ-
|-
! Latin{{sfn|Stuart-Smith|2004|p=53}}
| f- || f- || h- || f- || -b-<br/>-mb- || -d-{{efn|Also -b- in certain environments.}}<br/>-nd- || -h-<br/>-ng- || -v-<br/>-ngu-
|-
! Faliscan{{sfn|Stuart-Smith|2004|p=63}}
| f- || f- || h- || ? || -f- || -f- || -g- || ?
|-
! Umbrian{{sfn|Stuart-Smith|2004|p=115}}
| f- || f- || h- || ? || -f-<br/>-mb- || -f-<br/>-nd- || -h-<br/>-ng- || -f-<br/>?
|-
! Oscan{{sfn|Stuart-Smith|2004|p=99}}
| f- || f- || h- || ? || -f- || -f- || -h- || ?
|-
| colspan=9| {{notelist}}
|}
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'').{{sfn|Meiser|2017|pp=749}}
=== Grammar ===
{{more citations needed section|section|date=January 2021|find=Grammar of Romance languages}}
In grammar there are basically three innovations shared by the Osco-Umbrian and the Latino-Faliscan languages:
*A suffix in the [[imperfect]] [[subjunctive mood|subjunctive]] ''*-sē-'' (in [[Oscan language|Oscan]] the 3rd person singular of the imperfect subjunctive ''fusíd'' and [[Latin]] ''foret'', both derivatives of ''*fusēd'').{{sfn|Vine|2017|p=786}}
*A suffix in the [[imperfect]] [[realis mood|indicative]] ''*-fā-'' (Oscan ''fufans'' 'they were', in Latin this suffix became ''-bā-'' as in ''portabāmus'' 'we carried').{{sfn|Rix|2002|p=3}}
*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').{{sfn|Vine|2017|pp=795–796}}
In turn, these shared innovations are one of the main arguments in favour of an Italic group, questioned by other authors.{{who|date=August 2023}}
=== Lexical comparison ===
{{more citations needed|section|date=January 2021|find=Comparative Romance grammar}}
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 and satem languages|centum]]" branches of Indo-European (together with Greek).
The following table shows a lexical comparison of several Italic languages:
{|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
! rowspan=2|Gloss
! colspan=3|[[Latino-Faliscan languages|Latino-Faliscan]]
! colspan=2|[[Osco-Umbrian languages|Osco-Umbrian]]
! rowspan=2|[[Proto-Italic language|Proto-<br />Italic]]
! rowspan=2|[[Proto-Celtic language|Proto-<br />Celtic]]
! rowspan=2|[[Proto-Germanic language|Proto-<br />Germanic]]
|-
! [[Faliscan language|Faliscan]] !! [[Old Latin|Old<br />Latin]]!! [[Latin|Classical<br /> Latin]]
! [[Oscan language|Oscan]] !! [[Umbrian language|Umbrian]]
|-
| '1' || || *ounos || ūnus
| *𐌞𐌝𐌍𐌔<br />*úíns || 𐌖𐌍𐌔<br />uns || *oinos || *oinos || *ainaz
|-
| '2' || du || *duō || duō
| *𐌃𐌖𐌔<br />*dus || -𐌃𐌖𐌚<br />-duf || *duō || *dwāu || *twai
|-
| '3' || tris || || trēs (m.f.)<br />tria (n.)
| 𐌕𐌓𐌝𐌔<br />trís || 𐌕𐌓𐌉𐌚 (m.f.)<br />𐌕𐌓𐌉𐌉𐌀 (n.)<br />trif (m.f.)<br />triia (n.) || *trēs (m.f.)<br />*triā (n.) || *trīs || *þrīz
|-
| '4' || || || quattuor
| 𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌕𐌉𐌖𐌓<br />pettiur || 𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌖𐌓<br />petur || *kʷettwōr || *kʷetwares || *fedwōr
|-
| '5' || *quique || || quinque
| *𐌐𐌞𐌌𐌐𐌄<br />*púmpe || *𐌐𐌖𐌌𐌐𐌄<br />*pumpe || *kʷenkʷe || *kʷenkʷe || *fimf
|-
| '6' || śex || *sex || sex
| *𐌔𐌄𐌇𐌔? *𐌔𐌄𐌔𐌔?<br />*sehs? *sess? || 𐌔𐌄𐌇𐌔<br />sehs || *seks || *swexs || *sehs
|-
| '7' || *śepten || || septem
| *𐌔𐌄𐌚𐌕𐌄𐌌<br />*seftem || || *septem || *sextam || *sebun
|-
| '8' || oktu || || octō
| *𐌞𐌇𐌕𐌖<br />*úhtu || || *oktō || *oxtū || *ahtōu
|-
| '9' || *neven || || novem
| *𐌍𐌞𐌅𐌄𐌍<br />*núven || *𐌍𐌖𐌖𐌉𐌌<br />*nuvim || *nowen || *nawan || *newun
|-
| '10' || || || decem
| *𐌃𐌄𐌊𐌄𐌌<br />*dekem || *𐌃𐌄𐌔𐌄𐌌<br />*desem || *dekem || *dekam || *tehun
|}
The asterisk indicates reconstructed forms based on indirect linguistic evidence and not forms directly attested in any inscription.
[[File:Centum Satem map.png|thumb|305px|Map showing the approximate extent of the ''centum'' (blue) and ''satem'' (red) [[Areal feature|areals]]]]
From the point of view of Proto-Indo-European, the Italic languages are fairly conservative. In phonology, the Italic languages are [[centum and satem languages|centum language]]s 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.{{sfn|Mallory|Adams|1997|pp=316–317}}
=== P-Italic and Q-Italic languages ===
Similar to [[P-Celtic and Q-Celtic languages|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'' {{IPA|[kʷ]}}).<ref>{{Cite book |last=Whatmough |first=Joshua |date=2015 |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315744810/foundations-roman-italy-joshua-whatmough |title=The Foundations of Roman Italy |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781315744810 |___location=London |pages=276–277|doi=10.4324/9781315744810 }}</ref>
== See also ==
{{portal|languages}}
*[[Italo-Celtic]]
*[[Italic peoples]]
*[[List of ancient peoples of Italy]]
*[[Romance languages]]
*[[Indo-European languages]]
*[[Languages of Italy]]
== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Sources ==
{{refbegin|2|indent=yes}}
*{{Cite book|last=Baldi|first=Philip|title=Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics|date=2017|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=978-3-11-054243-1|editor-last=Klein|editor-first=Jared|chapter=The syntax of Italic|volume=2|editor-last2=Joseph|editor-first2=Brian|editor-last3=Fritz|editor-first3=Matthias|author-link=Philip Baldi}}
*{{Cite book|last=Bakkum|first=Gabriël C. L. M.|url=https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_vUvIWIQMDokC|title=The Latin Dialect of the Ager Faliscus: 150 Years of Scholarship|date=2009|publisher=Amsterdam University Press|isbn=978-90-5629-562-2|url-access=registration}}
*{{Cite book|last=Bossong|first=Georg|title=Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics|date=2017|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=978-3-11-054243-1|editor-last=Klein|editor-first=Jared|chapter=The Evolution of Italic|volume=2|editor-last2=Joseph|editor-first2=Brian|editor-last3=Fritz|editor-first3=Matthias}}
{{Cite book|last=de Vaan|first=Michiel|title=Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages|year=2008|publisher=Brill|isbn=978-90-04-16797-1|author-link=Michiel de Vaan}}
*{{Cite book|last=Fortson|first=Benjamin W.|title=Indo-European Language and Culture|year=2004|publisher=Blackwell|isbn=978-1-4443-5968-8|author-link=Benjamin W. Fortson IV}}
*{{Cite book|last=Fortson|first=Benjamin W.|title=Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics|date=2017|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=978-3-11-054243-1|editor-last=Klein|editor-first=Jared|chapter=The dialectology of Italic|volume=2|editor-last2=Joseph|editor-first2=Brian|editor-last3=Fritz|editor-first3=Matthias|author-link=Benjamin W. Fortson IV}}
* {{Cite book |last=Hartmann |first=Markus |chapter=105. Siculian |date=2018 |title=Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |___location=Berlin |isbn=978-3-11-054243-1 |editor-last=Klein |editor-first=Jared |volume=3 |pages=1854–1857 |editor-last2=Joseph |editor-first2=Brian |editor-last3=Fritz |editor-first3=Matthias |doi=10.1515/9783110542431-026|s2cid=242076323 }}
*{{Cite book|last=Herman|first=Jozsef|title=Vulgar Latin|date=2000|publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press|isbn=978-0-271-04177-3}}
*{{Cite book|last1=Mallory|first1=James P.|chapter=Italic Languages|title=Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture|last2=Adams|first2=Douglas Q.|year=1997|publisher=Fitzroy Dearborn|isbn=978-1-884964-98-5|author-link=James P. Mallory|author-link2=Douglas Q. Adams|pages=314–319}}
*{{Cite book|last=Meiser|first=Gerhard|chapter=47. The phonology of Italic |title=Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics|date=2017|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=978-3-11-054243-1|editor-last=Klein|editor-first=Jared|volume=2|editor-last2=Joseph|editor-first2=Brian|editor-last3=Fritz|editor-first3=Matthias|pages=743–751|doi=10.1515/9783110523874-002}}
*{{Cite book|last=Poccetti|first=Paolo|title=Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics|date=2017|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=978-3-11-054243-1|editor-last=Klein|editor-first=Jared|chapter=The documentation of Italic|volume=2|editor-last2=Joseph|editor-first2=Brian|editor-last3=Fritz|editor-first3=Matthias}}
*{{Cite book|last=Posner|first=Rebecca|title=The Romance Languages|date=1996|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-28139-3|author-link=Rebecca Posner}}
*{{Cite book|last=Schrijver|first=Peter|title=Celtic from the West 3. Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages: questions of shared language|date=2016|publisher=Oxbow Books|isbn=978-1-78570-227-3|editor1-last=Koch|editor1-first=John T.|editor2-last=Cunliffe|editor2-first=Barry|chapter=Ancillary Study: Sound Change, the Italo-Celtic Linguistic Unity, and the Italian Homeland of Celtic|pages=489–502|author-link=Peter Schrijver}}
*{{cite book|last=Silvestri|first=Domenico|chapter=The Italic Languages|editor1-last=Ramat|editor1-first=A.|title=The Indo-European Languages|year=1998|pages=322–344}}
*{{cite book|last=Stuart-Smith|first=Jane|year=2004|title=Phonetics and Philology: Sound Change in Italic|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0-19-925773-7}}
*{{Cite book|last=Villar|first=Francisco|title=Indoeuropeos y no indoeuropeos en la Hispania prerromana|date=2000|publisher=Universidad de Salamanca|isbn=978-84-7800-968-8|author-link=Francisco Villar Liebana}}
*{{Cite book|last=Vine|first=Brent|chapter=48. The morphology of Italic |title=Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics|date=2017|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=978-3-11-054243-1|editor-last=Klein|editor-first=Jared|volume=2|editor-last2=Joseph|editor-first2=Brian|editor-last3=Fritz|editor-first3=Matthias|pages=751–804|doi=10.1515/9783110523874-003}}
{{refend}}
==Further reading==
{{refbegin}}
*[[Philip Baldi|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.
*Clackson, James, and Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2007. ''A Blackwell History of the Latin Language''.
*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.
*{{cite book |last=Rix |first=Helmut |date=2002 |title=Handbuch der italischen Dialekte |volume=5 |series=Sabellische Texte: Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen |___location=Heidelberg, Germany |publisher=Winter}}
*{{cite web|last1=Rix|first1=Helmut|title=Towards a reconstruction of Proto-Italic|url=http://www.pies.ucla.edu/WeCIEC/Rix_H_2002.pdf|website=Program in Indo-European Studies|publisher=UCLA|access-date=24 June 2017|ref=3 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171113062505/http://www.pies.ucla.edu/WeCIEC/Rix_H_2002.pdf|archive-date=13 November 2017}}
*{{cite book|last=Silvestri|first=Domenico|year=1995|chapter=Las lenguas itálicas|trans-chapter=The Italic languages|title=Las lenguas indoeuropeas|publisher=Cátedra |trans-title=The Indo-European languages|language=es|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.
*{{cite book|last=Villar|first=Francisco|author-link=:it:Francisco Villar|date=1997|title=Gli Indoeuropei e le origini dell'Europa|trans-title=Indo-Europeans and the origins of Europe|language=it|___location=Bologna |publisher=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.
{{refend}}
== External links ==
{{Wiktionary category|type=Italic languages|category=Italic languages}}
{{Library resources box|by=no|onlinebooks=yes|others=yes|about=yes|label=Italic languages|viaf=|lcheading=|wikititle=}}
*[http://www.trismegistos.org/tm/list_italic.php TM Texts Italic] A list of all Italic texts in Trismegistos.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20130617111122/http://iedo.brillonline.nl/dictionaries/content/latin/index.html Michael de Vaan (2008) ''Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages'' p. 826, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionaries Series], Brill Academic Publishers (archived 17 June 2013) – part available freely online
*{{cite web|title=Tree for Italic|url=http://multitree.org/trees/Indo-European:%20Composite@664078|publisher=Linguist List, Eastern Michigan University|year=2010|access-date=4 April 2010}}
*{{cite web|title=A Glossary of Indo-European Linguistic Terms|url=http://korpling.german.hu-berlin.de/~amir/IE_Glossary.php|publisher=Institut für deutsche Sprache und Linguistik|year=2009|access-date=16 September 2009|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081204005927/http://korpling.german.hu-berlin.de/~amir/IE_Glossary.php|archive-date=4 December 2008}}
* "[https://www.prin-italia-antica.unifi.it/index.html?newlang=eng Languages and Cultures of Ancient Italy. Historical Linguistics and Digital Models]", Project fund by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (P.R.I.N. 2017)
{{Indo-European languages}}
{{Italic languages}}
{{Authority control}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Italic languages}}
[[Category:Italic languages| ]]
[[Category:Languages of Europe]]
[[Category:Languages of Italy]]
[[Category:Indo-European languages]]
| |||