“THE LATINO-FALISCAN LANGUAGES”
.
.
(the italic languages are a ‘subfamily’ of the ‘indo-european’ language family, originally spoken by ‘italic peoples’)
(they include ‘latin’ and its descendants (aka ‘romance languages’) as well as a number of ‘extinct languages’ of the ‘italian peninsula’, including…)
‘umbrian’
‘oscan’
‘faliscan’
‘south picene’
(and possibly ‘venetic’ + ‘sicel’)
.
(with over ‘800 million native speakers’, the ‘italic languages’ are the 2nd most widely spoken branch of the indo-european family, after the ‘indo-iranian languages’)
(in the past, various definitions of “italic” have prevailed)
(this article uses the classification presented by the linguist list: ‘italic’ includes the ‘latin subgroup’ (‘latin’ and the ‘romance languages’) as well as the ancient ‘italic languages’ (‘faliscan’, ‘osco-umbrian’ and 2 unclassified ‘italic languages’ (‘aequian’ and ‘vestinian’))
(‘venetic’ (the language of the ‘ancient veneti’), as revealed by its ‘inscriptions’, shared some similarities with the ‘italic languages’ and is sometimes classified as ‘italic’)
(however, since it also shares similarities with other ‘western indo-european branches’ (particularly ‘celtic languages’), some linguists prefer to consider it as an independent ‘indo-european language’)
(in the extreme view, ‘italic’ did not exist, but the different groups descended directly from ‘indo-european’ and converged because of ‘geographic contiguity’)
(that view stems in part from the difficulty in identifying a ‘common italic homeland’ in ‘prehistory’)
(in the ‘intermediate view’, the ‘italic languages’ are 1 of the 10 or 11 major subgroups of the ‘indo-european language family’ and might therefore have had an ancestor (‘common italic’ or ‘proto-italic’) from which its ‘daughter languages’ descended)
(moreover, there are similarities between major groups, but how the similarities are to be interpreted is one of the major debated issues in the historical linguistics of ‘indo-european’)
(the linguist ‘calvert watkins’ went so far as to suggest, among the 10 major groups, a 4-way division of ‘east’, ‘west’, ‘north’, and ‘south’ indo-european)
(he considered them to be “dialectical divisions” within ‘proto-indo-european’ which go back to a period long before the speakers arrived in their historical areas of attestation”)
(it is not to be considered a ‘nodular grouping’; in other words, there was not necessarily any common ‘west indo-european’ serving as a ‘node’ from which the ‘subgroups’ branched but a hypothesized similarity between the dialects of ‘proto-indo-european’ that developed into the recognized families)
(although generally regarded as a ‘single branch’ that diversified from a ‘common’ or ‘proto-italic’ stage, after the ‘proto-indo-european’ period, some authors doubt this common ‘affiliation’)
(all the ‘italic languages’ share a number of ‘common isoglosses’; thus, all of them are centum languages that do not present ‘palatalization’ of the ‘indo-european’ (or ‘palatal’) velars /*k, *kʷ, *g, *gʰ, *gʰʷ/.)
.
(the ‘romance languages’ present a later ‘palatalization’ of ‘latin phonemes’ /k, g/, although only before phonemes /ɛ, e, i/.)
.
.
.
.
👈👈👈☜*“INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES”* ☞ 👉👉👉
.
.
💕💝💖💓🖤💙🖤💙🖤💙🖤❤️💚💛🧡❣️💞💔💘❣️🧡💛💚❤️🖤💜🖤💙🖤💙🖤💗💖💝💘
.
.
*🌈✨ *TABLE OF CONTENTS* ✨🌷*
.
.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥*we won the war* 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥