Talk:Proto-Italic language

Comments on new page

Hey, CodeCat. It looks pretty good overall. A major source you missed is Sihler 1995 "A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin", which has a lot of discussion of Proto-Italic. Sihler reconstructs /θ/ in all positions, holding the view that the change /θ/ > f was a later change that occurred in all extant dialects. He gives an example of a word borrowed from Proto-Italic into 8th-century BC Greek (from Greek colonists in Italy), where /θ/ was represented as /t/, as evidence that Proto-Italic preserved /θ/. I think this is a reasonable position to take and simplifies the presentation of allophones. It seems odd to me that /ð/ would remain as a phoneme after the change θ > f ; I think it's more likely that the ancestor of Latin changed voiced fricatives into stops *before* the general change θ > f, which occurred areally. (Compare the elimination of labiovelars in Greek, which occurred in all dialects of the 5th/6th century BC but the labiovelars were still present in Proto-Greek.)

In any case I think you need to clearly present the voiced fricatives as allophones. Even if a phoneme /ð/ remained, all the others were clearly allophones.

As for your claim that ew -> ow word-medially, I thought this was universal? In what contexts did this change not occur?

You mention *ðr > *βr but at least in Latin, also *rð > *rβ (verbum "word" < *werdh-). Similarly, *uð > *uβ (*reudh- "red" > rūbeus, rūfus borrowed from Oscan or Umbrian) and *ðl > *βl (tool suffix *-dhlo- > *blo- > -bulum etc.). Since the change ð > β occurred exceptionlessly elsewhere, it could be argued that these changes are pan-Italic.

In the section on language-specific developments, you might want to mention that *-dy-, *-gy- > Latin medial -i- /jj/ but *-ðy-, *-ɣy- > -di-, -gi- (e.g. *medhyos "middle" > medius but pedyōs "worse" > peior). Also, in Oscan (or Umbrian?), final -ā > -ū whereas in Latin final -ā > short -a.

A pan-Italic trait was the extension of ablative -d, originally only in the o-declension, to all declensions.

Benwing (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• That /ð/ remained distinct from /f/ is certain though, because it happened in Latin. Whether ð > d and then þ > f later, or the reverse, you still end up with an "orphaned" allophone that doesn't share in the change. I'm not sure what arguments there are for a post-Italic change þ > f. If it happened in all Italic languages, and it doesn't depend on a post-Italic change to occur before it, doesn't that make it Proto-Italic by definition? This is what I meant when I said most sources seem to skip that completely. I haven't found a source yet that gives any evidence for reconstructing þ > f in post-Italic as opposed to proto-Italic.
  • Sihler reconstructs Proto-Italic forms with *θ in them, e.g.
    • p. 90 "PItal. *sta-θlom 'place of abode', *sta-θlis 'firm' ... > *stabl- > L. stabulum, stabilis: Osc. staflatas nom. pl. 'statutae'"
    • p. 90 "PIE *s(y)uH-dhleH₂- 'sewing tool' > PItal. *sūθlā > *sūblā > L sūbula 'shoemaker's awl'".
    • He also p. 139 says that "G lítra [actually written in Greek chars -- BW], name of a Sicilian coin, appears to confirm a prehistoric Italic *līθrā, etymon of L lībra 'pound'."
  • From this last, you can assume that he reconstructs a stage where the voiceless fricatives hadn't yet voiced medially, although it's unclear what stage of Italic this is.
    • This is what I mean though. I'm not doubting that θ existed at some point in the history of Proto-Italic, but there's nothing so far to suggest that it was still there when it began to split into separate languages. Of course θ > f could be an areal change, but unless there is anything that requires that somehow, it's pure speculation. Assuming no θ existed anymore is the more straightforward idea, given the available evidence which does not show any reflex of θ anywhere. CodeCat (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think it's a matter of perspective. Probably from Sihler's perspective it looks cleaner to assume that Proto-Italic still had θ, both because it makes the phonology more symmetrical and because otherwise you need to assume a larger series of changes: (1) θ > f initially; (2) θ > f adjacent to l, r, u (more or less); (3) θ [ð] > f [v] everywhere else (but not in Latin); (4) ð > d in Latin. If however you assume an early change in Latin ð > d, then you only need three changes: (2) then (4) then a general areal change θ > f. This avoids the problem of having [ð] but no [θ] (which is cross-linguistically uncommon) and also follows the common cross-linguistic path where both θ and ð get eliminated at the same time. But this is all speculation ... basically we just need to go by the sources, and if Sihler reconstructs a Proto-Italic with θ whereas the others don't (can you add citations for which authors don't?), then we say that, somewhat as I've done in the article. Benwing (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
        • But ð > d also appears to have affected Venetic, which is at the opposite end of the Italic language area. Or at the very least it kept ð but wrote it with d because there was no other letter available. That is very strong evidence that it was the "inverse" development that was areal; that is, ð > v in the intervening Osco-Umbrian languages. The outlier languages (Latin-Faliscan and Venetic) kept ð, and then merged it with d due to its isolated status as a phoneme. Also, [ð] without [θ] is not that uncommon. It occurs in Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan... CodeCat (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
          • In the Romance languages, [ð] isn't phonemic. What's unusual is phonemic /ð/ without phonemic /θ/. Also, I agree with your logic but I wouldn't go so far as to say "very strong" evidence. ð > d is common enough that it might have occurred independently esp. as it may have been precisely these outer languages that were more affected by nearby substrate/adstrate languages. In any case, as elsewhere we need to follow the sources. Benwing (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
            • Having phonemic /ð/ by itself is unusual, but it's not impossible. If /ð/ became /v/ or /d/ because it was unstable as a phoneme, that gives weight to its unusual status in the phonemic inventory of the language. So saying that isolated /ð/ is unlikely and must therefore not have existed is a circular argument. It was its isolation that led to further changes, but those changes only happened because it existed in the first place. Languages are living systems, they don't just suddenly eliminate unusual situations. Sometimes unusual situations can last for centuries before they're eliminated, if they are at all. The Q-Celtic languages for example made do with a phonemic inventory that had [b] but lacked [p] for maybe up to a millennium (up to the earliest Old Irish). CodeCat (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• *ew > *ow didn't occur word-initially, as far as I know. The list of sound changes probably isn't complete, but it's only a new article and I moved most of what was already on Italic languages to this article.
  • OK, but "word-medially" implies in internal syllables. You mean to say "everywhere except absolutely word-initially". Sihler admits no such exception, but doesn't quote any words with word-initial PIE *eu-. Can you quote one?
    • Not off-hand, no. CodeCat (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• As for dy > jj, that's actually a change within the attested historical period of Latin. The oldest Latin inscriptions still show dj.
  • Really??? Can you cite an example? Sihler cites OL DIOVOS Iovis but this is word-initial. Word-medially, things would have been different. See below with FOIED.

I don't think *meðjos > medius is the right reconstruction precisely because of that. It's actually *meðios, with a syllabic -i-, precisely to account for the lack of development to -j-. That's what De Vaan 2008 reconstructs as well and probably for the same reason.

Sihler p. 188 just says "PIE *medhyos > L medius : ...". p. 189 he says "Initial and medial *dy, and medial *gy and *sy become consonant i (medial ii). Examples given on p. 189 are Iuppiter and Iovis for *dy-; *pedyōs "worse" > pēior; *magyōs "bigger" > māior (note O maimas = maximae gen. sg. fem., although of unclear significance); *kʷosyo "of whom" > L. cūius : Ved. kásya, G poû < PG *kʷohyo. Also Faliscan FOIED hodie which is supposed to reflect the expected outcome of *-dy-, whereas Latin hodie was reformed based on diēs.

CodeCat (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Benwing (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

diovos is the example I would have cited. There isn't any indication that the change operated differently initially and medially, though. The doublet between diēm (which kept the d-) and iovis (which lost it) is very strange. Both come from the same Proto-Italic *djous, acc. *djēm (PIE *dyews, *dyēm). The nominative still survives in a few fossilised expressions in Latin, as diūs. If even two different forms of the same lexeme show different treatment of this cluster, then there isn't much else we can say about it. There was apparently a process that turned j into i on occasion, based on sentence rather than word environment. Sievers' law maybe? CodeCat (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is strange. Sihler has a discussion about exactly this issue. I don't remember exactly what he said but I don't think he had a good answer. I wonder if there are other examples of -dhy- or -ghy-. Benwing (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Verbs with presents in -ye- might be a good place to look for them. Or comparatives of adjectives. Those could easily be affected by analogy, but it still might show something. CodeCat (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

They would have to be light-syllable verbs because heavy-syllable words were evidently affected by Sievers' law and didn't have the -Cy- sequence. There's fodiō < PIE bhedh- but this might be a causative due to the root /o/ and in any case analogy would have restored the /d/ if it were deleted. The only verb I know with palatalization is aiō < *agyō, and this has generalized the palatalization everywhere (aiēbat I think exists). There's also the problem of analogy operating elsewhere, too. Benwing (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Causatives had -ē- as the suffix (second conjugation) in Italic though, from earlier -eje- with later loss of -j-. In any case, if this law, whatever it is, affected *meðjos > *meðios, then I don't think it's Sievers' law because that word had a light syllable. CodeCat (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, I was not referring to that word but to cases like rēgius, where Sievers' law is claimed to be the reason the outcome isn't *rēius (although analogy to rēx, rēgis could apply). Benwing (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@CodeCat: About Common Italic */f/, Tropylium argues here that Proto-Italic must still have had */θ/ because */ts/ became, via a merger with */θ/, */f/ in Sabellic. I'm not sure where */ts/ > */f/ occurred in Sabellic, though. I only know of the famous change of word-final */ns/ > Sabellic /f/ (apparently only after vowels, including /e/ in */ens/ < */n̥s/). Is the idea that */Vns/ > */Vnts/ > */Vts/ > */Vθ/ > */Vf/? While I'm sympathetic to the idea that */θ/ > */f/ is post-Proto-Italic, I'm not sure if Tropylium's argument is unassailable. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tropylium: Sorry, I forgot to tag you. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing references

You're missing the actual bibliographic entries for the books cited. The footnotes should go in a "Notes" section while the "References" section should contain the bibliographic entries. Create with template citation not cite book etc. to get the footnotes to link to the bib entries. Benwing (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Vowel length changes

I notice you changed plural *āis to *ais, and accusative singular *ā̆m to *ām. The forms as I wrote them are what appears in Sihler; are the alternative forms what appears in your sources? If so we should probably add a note indicating the disagreement. Benwing (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

-āis could not have developed into Latin -īs though. In general Italic disallowed long vowels followed by a sonorant and a consonant in the same syllable. This is Osthoff's law, which remained productive in Italic, apparently. So a sequence V:R could only occur word-finally, or when the R began the next syllable. So "long diphthongs" only occurred word-finally, and were shortened elsewhere. That's why you see -ai > -ī and -ais > -īs in Latin, but -āi > -ae. And likewise, -ōi > -ō but -oi > -ī. It's also visible in the 1st conjugation 3rd plural present endings, which are -ant for active and -antur for passive, and not -ānt and -āntur. Latin of course does have dēns with a long vowel, but that's a later development of vowels before -ns- and -nf- and it's actually a lengthening. CodeCat (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Although I understand your logic, I feel uncomfortable going against sources just because we think we have a better solution; that has a scent of OR. Sihler is no dummy and I'm sure he has an explanation; I'll read it when I have a chance. You also haven't justified the removal of *ā̆m; again, Sihler was very specific in writing exactly that. Benwing (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable writing -ām, -am, just to make it clear there is ambiguity. A letter with both a macron and a breve isn't as clear to readers. CodeCat (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

De Vaan 2008 as a source

I have no reason to question De Vaan's authority but keep in mind that the Leiden school often has unorthodox views about PIE, e.g. many of them still believe in the glottalic theory. Benwing (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Syllabic nasals

Schrijver (1991), The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin, pp. 72f. and 220f., argues for a reflex *eN of the syllabic nasals in Proto-Italic. Examples with iN appear to be secondary, and Sabellic aN in initial syllables might also be a secondary development. (I wonder if there are clear examples for PIE *eN in initial syllables in Sabellic; the numeral for "5" appears to be pompe or the like, not **pampe, but this example is not quite ideal.) He does allow for the possibility of an intermediate stage with schwa, though. Schrijver has also pointed out (in the context of his explanation for sum) that both nasals and liquids that have been secondarily vocalised after Proto-Italic are regularly vocalised with /i/, although I cannot recall the relevant examples right now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right that there were two stages of epenthesis. The one gave -o- and was limited to syllabic l and r in early Italic. The other gave -e- and applied to nasals. Presumably, when esmi lost its final vowel, the result esm was expanded to esom. I take it that this indicates that the epenthesis before nasals happened first, and that the second epenthesis applied to anything, not just l and r. So the loss of -i happened after the nasal epenthesis, but before the second. Also in Latin, it appears that there was a third stage of epenthesis, where the result was again -e-. There are many cases of this before final -r. CodeCat (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

For the third stage, compare also *tritios > *tr̥tios > tertius. (Note that Meiser 1998 thinks that in final syllables, Proto-Italic *i and *o were generally syncopated in the environments t_s and r_s at some point in the history of Old Latin, perhaps around 500 BC because that's when unstressed medial syllables were weakened or syncopated in Etruscan, Sabellic and apparently Latin – the Forum inscription still has sakros. The apocope of word-final i under certain conditions appears to be older.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I get your drift now. You think that the first stage vocalised with e, the second with o and the third with e again. Well, I would be careful with the example esom as it is quite isolated – there appear to be no clear further examples for vocalisation with o outside syllabic liquids, and there is Schrijver's alternative explanation for esom (as an intrusive form of a subjunctive with secondary endings) which I happen to find quite appealing (parallels in Celtic, the subjunctive with primary endings which gave the future forms, and the potential to explain sumus and sunt more neatly as well). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My three stages are actually different:

1. the Proto-Italic vocalisation of the syllabic liquids with *o and the syllabic nasals with *e,
2. the Pre-Archaic-Latin (?) vocalisation of secondarily arisen syllabic liquids and nasals with *i,
3. the Old Latin vocalisation of tertiarily (neat mnemonic) arisen syllabic liquids with *e.

Roughly like this. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have thought of an example for the i-vocalisation of the second stage: the diminutive of vēlum < *wekslom, namely *weksl-elo-m > *weksl̥lom > vexillum. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Latin had vowel reduction so what appears as -i- may not be original, especially in medial syllables. Regarding your chronology, the question is still how esom got its -o- if not by epenthesis. CodeCat (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that vowel reduction does not apply in closed medial syllables except for a. For example, both ap-pellō and cerebellum (e from tertiary syllabic liquid) keep their e. So the o in esom is indeed unexplained – unless we assume it is original, following Schrijver. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Literature in German?

Meiser, Rix and Untermann have published important work on Sabellic, Venetic and Italic in general. Especially Meiser's 1998 introduction to Latin historical phonology and morphology is very useful, not only for the beginner. Given that you, CodeCat, seem to have decent German (reading specialised literature doesn't require perfect language skills at all), you might consider consulting some literature in German as well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"f" in pronunciation

According to this article, there was no labiodental consonant, but wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/faβros starts with an "f". Which is correct? — Sebastian 02:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It indicates a bilabial consonant. CodeCat (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean /ɸ/? Is there a reason why its voiced counterpart /β/ is rendered as IPA symbol, but /ɸ/ isn't? — Sebastian 21:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

What symbol would you suggest for /β/? CodeCat (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, CodeCat, I overlooked your question. I'm perfectly happy with “β”; I was just wondering how there can be a word “faβros”, if Proto-Italic had no labiodental consonant. Or is the “f” in that word is just another spelling for “ɸ”? If so, then of course I should ask that question at wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/faβros. ◅ Sebastian 23:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

/ð/

This phoneme appears as b in Latin in quite a lot of environments. The page currently makes note of the sequence -ðr-, but the change is also observed in for example rubeō (< PIt *ruðēō). So what are the conditions for ð > b change? CodeCat (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sihler in New comparative grammar… claims "adjacent to *r, *l, *ū̆". Rubeō would thus be *-uð- > *-uv- (and looking thru some other data also turns up iubeō < *yudʰ-, nūbēs < *snowdʰ-, ūber < *(H)owdʰros). Other examples include *-rð- > *-rv- in verbum (also barba < *bʰardʰ-, ebulus < *h₁edʰ-l-), *-ðl- > *-vl- in stabilis (< *stablis). He has no examples of *-ðu- (but cf. lumbus < *lendʰwos) or *-lð-. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Inconclusive Language

My English skills might be insufficient, but I don't understand the very first sentence. Is Latin Proto-Italic or Italic?

"The Proto-Italic language is the ancestor of the Italic languages, including notably Latin."

The relative clause would typically refer to the subject of the main clause. However, the second sentence goes "It is not directly attested in writing, so I assume that doesn't include Latin. 91.66.15.220 (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Proto-Italic is the ancestor of the Italic languages, and Latin is an Italic language. CodeCat (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"When a participle phrase concludes a main clause and is describing the word right in front of it, you need no punctuation to connect the two sentence parts." ([1])

That's what I learned in 5th year. However, the rules are far more complex than I thought. After flying over relative clause I still can't tell. Is there a reason to set the comma? 91.66.15.220 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty to reword the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.15.220 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The original wording was just fine to me. I don't understand what the issue is. CodeCat (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It is confusing to me, because I take the comma to refer the participle specifically not to the preceding noun.

I wasn't totally convinced of my edit either. Another Alternative, "the ancestor of Latin and other Italic Languages", but that's also not perfect. Actually the wording is fine as is, I'd just remove the comma. 91.66.15.106 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's another link confirming my assumption only to be contested further down with comparable sentence structure

I found myself setting the comma at another occasion, though, so I'm not certain. English punctuation is notoriously difficult, so I'd prefer not to have to have an argument. Although, I'd be curious to know your justification for why the comma is fine or even needed, and the fault with my edit that made you revert it. 91.66.15.106 (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Since several decades, it has been determined that there really has never existed a Proto-Italic language that included the Latin and Oscoumbrian branch. Latin and Oscoumbrian represent two separate branches of Indo-European languages. The Proto-Latin group, formed a family with Siculian, Venetian and Proto-Celtic, but separated from the Oscoumbrian group.When there are affinities between Latin and Osco-Umbrian languages, they are explained by the many centuries of coexistence in central Italy, not by the belonging of Proto-Latin and Osco-Umbrian to a common subgroup of Indo-European languages called Proto-Italic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino-Faliscan_languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.29.96.46 (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede wording

Proto-Italic is not a natural language and for that reason can't be natural language ancestor to the natural languages from which it was reconstructed. That would be circular reasoning. 91.66.15.106 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Proto-Italic is a natural language. As far as linguists are concerned, the language really existed and was spoken natively by people. However, it's unattested, so it has to be reconstructed. CodeCat (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but there exists a fine semantic difference between the reconstructed language and the natural language to be reconstructed. I did base my comment on the specific categories used at Wiktionary. However, It's natural to use metaphors (Metonymy).

It's difficult to quantify the degree to which the original and the reconstructed language differ. I assume the original language is inherently hypothetical, whereas the reconstruction is actual. A reconstructed language is constructed and ideally equivalent to the original, but in practice it isn't. It would be objective to write from a point of view that focuses on what is. I see now the body of the article does that, it uses the past tense, but the intro confusingly doesn't.

I was looking for a time estimate, that would put things in perspective. I try to copy that from other articles, but then I can't even fix a comma, so for now I just leave my impression here. 91.66.15.106 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Time estimate of what exactly? The end of Italic unity?

Considering that in the middle of the first millennium BC Italic already showed significant internal diversity, the end of Italic unity is widely placed some 1000 years earlier, into the second millennium. The Terramare culture is a plausible archaeological correlate. Venetic may already have diverged around 2000 BC. The Polada culture seems like a good fit for a hypothetical Italo-Venetic unity, although Rix's model would rather point to the Early Bronze Age Ljubljana culture. See Helmut Rix, "Ausgliederung und Aufgliederung der italischen Sprachen", in: Alfred Bammesberger und Theo Vennemann (eds.), Languages in Prehistoric Europe, Heidelberg 2003.

Going back even further, the Tumulus culture of the mid-second millennium BC seems too recent to form a plausible candidate for the origin of Italo-Venetic, presumably somewhere east of the Veneto; however, the Vučedol culture of the third millennium BC (late Neolithic), if it was already Indo-European linguistically, should be considered in this regard. More conventionally, the Corded Ware culture of the third millennium BC is generally thought to be the wellspring of western Indo-European, and the early Unetice culture (late third millennium BC) might be the origin of Celtic (through the subsequent Tumulus and Urnfield cultures), and possibly also of Italic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

In Celtic from the West 3 (2016), Schrijver argues (pp. 489–502) for a period of Italo-Celtic unity and suggests (p. 490) that Proto-Italo-Celtic was spoken in "approximately the first half or middle of the 2nd millennium BC". While under his model, the Terramare culture remains a viable and even plausible correlate of Proto-Italic (quite probably including Venetic, at least in the earlier period), the Polada culture is an excellent fit for his Proto-Italo-Celtic both in time and space. This suggestion would imply a dating of Proto-Italo-Celtic to the first quarter, Proto-Italo-Venetic to the second, Proto-Italic to the third and Proto-Celtic to the fourth quarter of the second millennium BC (although Schrijver's model does not seem to rule out a dating to the first quarter of the first millennium BC, either). In any case, to return to the original question, there seems to be general agreement that the last stage of Proto-Italic before diverging into Latino-Faliscan and Sabellian is to be placed into the second millennium BC and into northern Italy. (This includes Meiser's cautious guess of 1800 BC, mentioned in Italic languages § Origin theories). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"textual sample"

The texts in "textual sample" is fictitious. I will remove it if no one objects. --Ioe bidome (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

since its been a month since I posted this, I'm going to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioe bidome (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

While trying to do some quick research on what the correct source for the texts were (assuming they were not completely made up) I stumbled upon this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vlxU79Jcy8 which is a reconstruction of the Lord's Prayer in Proto-Italic. Most of the reconstruction was apparently done by Reuben J. Pitts (whose researcher profile can be found in the video's description) and it's very similar, though not identical (e.g. declensions, long vowels are marked) to the Lord's Prayer text previously in this article. However, given the fact that this is sourced from a YouTube video after all, I'll leave it to more expert users whether to include this or not. 37.14.179.39 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Terminology of aspects

I'm not an expert or an actual enthusiast at PIE aspects but as I know perfective and aorist aspects are actually same things. In the last part of the verb section, there says "The new common perfect stem in Latino-Faliscan derives mostly from the PIE Perfective, while the perfect stem in Osco-Umbrian derives mostly from the PIE aorist.".

Aren't PIE perfective and aorist same things or am I missing something? Also this PIE perfect in the text is related to perfective or stative aspects? MahmetArslan (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

200 2804:54:1CC4:2200:D899:C0AC:766B:F5F6 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This was bad wording on my part, I think. I was using the older terminology where perfective referred to what is now more commonly known as stative, and aorist referred to what is now more commonly known as perfective. We can change it to the more modern terminology, if we think it is better/less confusing? Directrule (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)