The Anglish Moot
Register
Advertisement

The Italish tungs make up a stem of the Ind-Europish language family, whose earliest known members were spoken on the Italish byland in the first yearthousand BC. The most important of the fern tungs was Leeden, the wickeny tung of fern Rome, which conquered the other Italish folks before the common era. The other Italish tungs became extinct in the first yearhundreds AD as their speakers were assimilated into the Roman Empire and shifted to some form of Leeden. Between the third and eighth yearhundreds AD, Folkleeden (perhaps influenced by speech shift from the other Italish tungs) diversified into the Romance tungs, which are the only Italish tungs natively spoken today, while Bookleeden also survived.

Besides Leeden, the known fern Italish tungs are Faliskish (the nearest to Leeden), Umbrish and Oskish (or Osco-Umbrish), and South Picenish. Other Ind-Europish tungs once spoken in the byland, whose inclusion in the Italish stem is disputed are Venetish and Sickel. These long-dead tungs are known only from inscriptions in archaeological finds.

In the first yearthousand BC, several (other) not-Italish tungs were spoken in the byland, including members of other stems of Ind-Europish (such as Welsh and Greekish) as well as at least one not-Ind-Europish one, Etruskish.

It is generally believed that those 1st yearthousand Italish tungs stem from Ind-Europish tungs brought by migrants to the byland sometime in the 2th yearthousand BC. However, the source of those migrations and the history of the tungs in the byland are still a matter of debate among historians. In particular, it is debated whether the fern Italish tungs all descended from a single Or-Italish tung after its arrival in the region, or whether the migrants brought two or more Ind-Europish tungs that were only distantly related.

With over 800 million native speakers, the Romance tungs make Italish the next-most-widely spoken stem of the Ind-Europish family, after Ind-Iranish. However, in outhwitting the fern Italish tungs form a separate field of study from the mid eld and modern Romance tungs.

All Italish tungs (including Romance) are generally written in Old Italish scripts (or the descendant Leeden staffrow and its adaptations), which descend from the staffrow used to write the not-Italish Etruskish tung, and ultimately from the Greekish staffrow.

The begrip's stear[]

Historical linguists have generally concluded that the fern Ind-Europish tungs of the Italish byland that were not identifiable as belonging to other stems of Ind-Europish, such as Greekish, belonged to a single stem of the family, parallel for example to Welsh and Germanish. The founder of this theory is Antoine Meillet (1866–1936).

This unitary theory has been criticized by, among others, Alois Walde, Vittore Pisani and Giacomo Devoto, who proposed that the Leeden-Faliskish and Osco-Umbrish tungs constituted two distinct stems of Ind-Europish. This view gained acceptance in the other half of the 20th yearhundred, though proponents such as Rix would later reject the idea, and the unitary theory remains dominant in contemporary scholarship.

Branding[]

The following classification, proposed by Michiel de Vaan (2008), is generally agreed on, although some scholars have recently rejected the position of Venetish within the Italish stem.

  • Or-Italish (or Or-Italish-Venetish)
    • Or-Venetish
      • Venetish (550–100 BC)
    • Or-Leeden-Sabellish
      • Leeden-Faliskish
        • Early Faliskish (7th–5th yh. BC)
          • Middle Faliskish (5th–3rd yh. BC)
            • Late Faliskish (3rd–2nd yh. BC), strongly influenced by Leeden
        • Old Leeden (6th–1st yh. BC)
          • Classical Leeden (1st yh. BC–3rd yh. AD)
            • Late Leeden (3rd–6th yh. AD)
          • Folkleeden (2nd yh. BC–9th yh.AD) evolved into Or-Romance (the reconstructed Late Folkleeden ancestor of Romance tungs) between the 3rd and 8th yh. AD
            • Romance tungs, non-mutually intelligible with Leeden since at the least the 9th yh. AD; the only Italish tungs still spoken today
              • Gallo-Romance (attested from 842 AD), Italish-Dalmatish (umb 960), Occitano-Romance (umb 1000), Ibero-Romance (umb 1075), Rhaeto-Romance (umb 1100), Sardinish (1102), Africkish Romance (extinct; spoken at least until the 12th yh. AD), Eastern Romance (1521)
      • Sabellish (Oskish-Umbrish)
        • Umbrish (7th–1st yh. BC), including dialects like Aequian, Marsian, or Volscian
        • Oskish (5th–1st yh. BC), including dialects like Hernican, North Oskish (Marrucinian, Paelignian, Vestinian), or Sabine (Samnite)
        • Picenish tungs
          • Foresamnitish (6th–5th yh. BC)
          • South Picenish (6th–4th yh. BC)
    • (?) Sicel
    • (?) Lusitanish

Stear[]

Or-Italish eld[]

Or-Italish was probably originally spoken by Italish theeds north of the Alps. In particular, early contacts with Welsh and Germanish speakers are suggested by speechly evidence.

Bakkum defines Or-Italish as a "chronological stage" without an independent development of its own, but extending over late Or-Ind-Europish and the initial stages of Orleeden and Orsabellish. 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". Schrijver argues for an Or-Italish-Welsh stage, which he suggests was spoken in "approximately the first half or the middle of the 2th yearthousand BC", from which Welsh split off first, then Venetish, before the remainder, Italish, split into Leeden-Faliskish and Sabellish.

Italish folks probably moved towards the Italish Byland during the other half of the 2th yearthousand BC, gradually reaching the southern regions. Although an equation between archeological and speechly evidence cannot be established with certainty, the Or-Italish tung is generally associated with the Terramare (1700–1150 BC) and Or-Villanovan culture (1200–900 BC).

Tungs of Italy in the Iron Eld[]

At the start of the Iron Eld, around 700 BC, Ionish-Greekish settlers from Euboea established colonies along the coast of southern Italy. They brought with them the staffrow, which they had learned from the Feenishmen; specifically, what we now call Western Greekish staffrow. The invention quickly spread through the whole byland, across speech and political barriers. Local adaptations (mainly minor letter shape changes and the dropping or addition of a few bookstaves) yielded several Old Italish staffrows.

The inscriptions show that, by 700 BC, many tungs were spoken in the region, including members of several stems of Ind-Europish and several not-Ind-Europish tungs. The most important of the latter was Etruskish, attested by evidence from more than 10,000 inscriptions and some short texts. No relation has been found between Etruskish and any other known tung, and there is still no clue about its possible origin (except for inscriptions on the island of Lemnos in the eastern Wendle Sea). Other possibly not-Ind-Europish tungs present at the time were Rhaetish in the Alpine region, Ligurish around present-day Genoa, and some unidentified tung(s) in Sardinia. Those tungs have left some detectable imprint in Leeden.

The largest tung in southern Italy, except Ionish Greekish spoken in the Greekish colonies, was Messapish, known due to some 260 inscriptions dating from the 6th and 5th yearhundreds BC. There is a historical link of Messapish with the Illyrish theeds, added to the archaeological link in ceramics and blooms existing between both folks, which motivated the hypothesis of a speechly link. But the evidence of Illyrish inscriptions is reduced to personal names and places, which makes it hard to support such a hypothesis.

It has also been proposed that the Lusitanish tung may have belonged to the Italish family.

Timeline of Leeden[]

In the history of Leeden of fern times, there are several elds:

  • From the archaic eld, several inscriptions of the 6th to the 4th yearhundreds 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 eld (3rd and 2th yearhundreds BC), the bookly Leeden tung (the comedies of Plautus and Terence, the agricultural treatise of Cato the Elder, fragments of works by a number of other authors) was based on the bytung of Rome.
  • The eld of classical ("golden") Leeden dated until the death of Ovid in AD 17 (1st yearhundred BC, the development of wordstock, the development of terminology, the elimination of old morphological doublets, the flowering of literature: Cicero, Caesar, Sallust, Virgil, Horace, Ovid) was particularly distinguished.
  • During the eld of classical ("silver") Leeden dated until the death of coaser Marcus Aurelius in AD 180, seeing works by Juvenal, Tacitus, Suetonius and the Satyricon of Petronius, 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 Italish byland, Leeden became dominant over the other Italish tungs, which ceased to be spoken perhaps sometime in the 1st yearhundred AD. From Folkleeden, the Romance tungs emerged.

The Leeden tung gradually spread beyond Rome, along with the growth of the power of this state, displacing, beginning in the 4th and 3rd yearhundreds BC, the tungs of other Italish theeds, as well as Illyrish, Messapish and Venetish, asf. The Romanisation of the Italish Byland was basically complete by the 1st yearhundred BC; except for the south of Italy and Sicily, where the dominance of Greekish was preserved. The attribution of Ligurish is controversial.

Origin theories[]

The main debate concerning the origin of the Italish tungs glasses that on the origins of the Greekish ones, except that there is no record of any "early Italish" to play the role of Mycenaean Greekish.

All we know about the speechly landscape of Italy is from inscriptions made after the introduction of the staffrow in the byland, about 700 BC onwards, and from Greekish and Roomanish writers several yearhundreds later. The oldest known samples come from Umbrish and Faliskish inscriptions from the 7th yearhundred BC. Their staffrows were clearly derived from the Etruskish staffrow, which was derived from the Western Greekish staffrow not much earlier than that. There is no reliable information about the tungs 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 Italish tungs and Ind-Europish will be found. The question of whether Italish originated outside Italy or developed by assimilation of Ind-Europish and other elements within Italy, approximately on or within its current range there, remains.[32]

An extreme view of some linguists and historians is that there is no such thing as "the Italish stem" of Ind-Europish. Namely, there never was a unique "Or-Italish", whose diversification resulted in those tungs. Some linguists, like Silvestri and Rix, further argue that no common Or-Italish can be reconstructed such that (1) its phonological system may have developed into those of Leeden and Oskish-Umbrish through consistent phonetic changes, and (2) its phonology and morphology can be consistently derived from those of Or-Ind-Europish. However, Rix later changed his mind and became an outspoken supporter of Italish as a family.

Those linguists propose instead that the ancestors of the 1st yearthousand Ind-Europish tungs of Italy were two or more different tungs, that separately descended from Ind-Europish in a more remote past, and separately entered Europe, possibly by different routes and/or in different epochs. That view stems in part from the difficulty in identifying a shared Italish homeland in forestear, or reconstructing an ancestral "Common Italish" or "Or-Italish" tung from which those tungs could have descended. Some common features that seem to link the tungs may be just a speechbund phenomenon – a speechly convergence due to contact over a long timeframe, as in the most widely accepted version of the Italish-Welsh hypothesis.

Characteristics[]

General and specific characteristics of the fore-Roomanish Italish tungs:

  • in phonetics: Oskish (in comparison with Leeden and Umbrish) preserved all positions of old diphthongs ai, oi, ei, ou, in the absence of rhotacism, the absence of sibilants[clarification needed], in the development of kt > ht; a different interpretation of Ind-Europish kw and gw (Leeden qu and v, Osco-Umbrish p and b); in the latter the preservation of s in front of nosely sonants and the reflection of Ind-Europish *dh and *bh as f; initial stress (in Leeden, it was reconstructed in the historical eld), which led to syncopation and the reduction of vowels of unstressed syllables;
  • in the syntax: many convergences; In Osco-Umbrish, impersonal constructions, parataxis, partitive streeningly, temporal streeningly and streeningly relationships are more often used;

Phonology[]

The most distinctive feature of the Italish tungs is the development of the OIE rearded aspirated stops. In initial position, *bʰ-, *dʰ- and *gʷʰ- merged to /f-/, while *gʰ- became /h-/, although Leeden also has *gʰ- > /v-/ and /g-/ in special environments.

In medial position, all rearded aspirated stops have a distinct reflex in Leeden, with different outcome for -*gʰ- and *gʷʰ- if preceded by a nosely samedsweyend. In Oskish-Umbrish, they generally have the same reflexes as in initial position, although Umbrish shows a special development if preceded by a nosely samedsweyend, just as in Leeden. Most probably, the rearded aspirated stops went through an intermediate stage *-β-, *-ð-, *-ɣ- and *-ɣʷ- in Or-Italish.

Italish reflexes of PIE rearded aspirated stops
initial position medial position
*bʰ- *dʰ- *gʰ- *gʷʰ- *-(m)bʰ- *-(n)dʰ- *-(n)gʰ- *-(n)gʷʰ-
Leeden f- f- h- f- -b-

-mb-

-d-[a]

-nd-

-h-

-ng-

-v-

-ngu-

Faliskish f- f- h- ? -f- -f- -g- ?
Umbrish f- f- h- ? -f-

-mb-

-f-

-nd-

-h-

-ng-

-f-

?

Oskish f- f- h- ? -f- -f- -h- ?
  1. ^ Also -b- in certain environments.

The unrearded and plain rearded stops (*p, *t, *k, *kʷ; *b, *d, *g, *gʷ) remained unchanged in Leeden, except for the minor shift of *gʷ > /v/. In Osco-Umbrish, the labiovelars *kʷ and *gʷ became the lippy stops /p/ and /b/, e.g. Oskish pis 'who?' (cf. Leeden quis) and bivus 'alive (nom.pl.)' (cf. Leeden vivus).[43]

Speechcraft[]

In speechcraft there are basically three innovations shared by the Oskish-Umbrish and the Leeden-Faliskish tungs:

  • A suffix in the unfulfremmed undertheedingly mood *-sē- (in Oskish the 3rd hoad afold shape of the unfulfremmed undertheedingly fusíd and Leeden foret, both derivatives of *fusēd).
  • A suffix in the unfulfremmed beckoningly mood *-fā- (Oskish fufans 'they were', in Leeden this suffix became -bā- as in portabāmus 'we carried').
  • A suffix to derive gerundive ekends from tidewords *-ndo- (Leeden operandam 'which will be built'; in Oskish-Umbrish there is the additional reduction -nd- > -nn-, Oskish úpsannam 'which will be built', Umbrish pihaner 'which will be purified').

In turn, these shared innovations are one of the main arguments in favour of an Italish group, questioned by other authors.

Lexical comparison[]

Among the Ind-Europish tungs, the Italish tungs share a higher percentage of lexicon with the Welsh and the Germanish ones, three of the four traditional "centum" stems of Ind-Europish (together with Greekish).

The following table shows a lexical comparison of several Italish tungs:

Word Leeden-Faliskish Osco-Umbrish Or-

Italish

Orwelsh Or-

Germanish

Faliskish Old

Leeden

Classical

Leeden

Or-

Romance

Oskish Umbrish
'1' *ounos ūnus *unʊs, acc. *unu *𐌖𐌉𐌍𐌖𐌔

*uinus

𐌖𐌍𐌔

uns

*oinos *oinos *ainaz
'2' du *duō duō *dos, f. *duas 𐌃𐌖𐌔

dus

-𐌃𐌖𐌚

-duf

*duō *dwāu *twai
'3' tris trēs (m.f.)

tria (n.)

*tres 𐌕𐌓𐌝𐌔

trís

𐌕𐌓𐌉𐌚 (m.f.)

𐌕𐌓𐌉𐌉𐌀 (n.) trif (m.f.) triia (n.)

*trēs (m.f.)

*triā (n.)

*trīs *þrīz
'4' quattuor *kʷattɔr 𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌖𐌓𐌀

𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌕𐌉𐌖𐌓 petora pettiur

𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌖𐌓

petur

*kʷettwōr *kʷetwares *fedwōr
'5' *quique quinque *kinkʷɛ 𐌐𐌏𐌌𐌐𐌄-

pompe-

*𐌐𐌖𐌌𐌐𐌄

*pumpe

*kʷenkʷe *kʷenkʷe *fimf
'6' śex *sex sex *sɛks *𐌔𐌄𐌇𐌔

*sehs

𐌔𐌄𐌇𐌔

sehs

*seks *swexs *sehs
'7' *śepten septem *sɛpte 𐌔𐌄𐌚𐌕𐌄𐌍

seften

*septem *sextam *sebun
'8' oktu octō *ɔkto *𐌖𐌇𐌕𐌏

*uhto

*oktō *oxtū *ahtōu
'9' *neven novem *nɔwe *𐌍𐌖𐌖𐌄𐌍

*nuven

*𐌍𐌖𐌖𐌉𐌌

*nuvim

*nowen *nawan *newun
'10' decem *dɛke 𐌃𐌄𐌊𐌄𐌍

deken

*𐌃𐌄𐌔𐌄𐌌

*desem

*dekem *dekam *tehun

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

From the point of view of Or-Ind-Europish, the Italish tungs are fairly conservative. In phonology, the Italish tungs are centum tungs by merging the palatals with the velars (Leeden centum has a /k/) but keeping the combined group separate from the labio-velars. In morphology, the Italish tungs preserve six abyings in the name and the ekend (nemmeningly, wrayingly, streeningly, foryeavingly, atbraidingly, chyingly) with traces of a seventh (locative), but the twifoldly atell of both the name and the tideword has completely disappeared. From the position of both morphological innovations and uniquely shared lexical items, Italish shows the greatest similarities with Welsh and Germanish, with some of the shared lexical correspondences also being found in Baltish and Winnetish.

P-Italish and Q-Italish tungs[]

Similar to Welsh tungs, the Italish tungs are also divided into P- and Q-stems, depending on the reflex of Or-Ind-Europish *. In the tungs of the Oskish-Umbrish stem, * gave p, whereas the tungs of the Leeden-Faliskish stem preserved it (Leeden qu [kʷ]).

Advertisement