Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Interesting video. How accurate is this map?
The origin of Proto-Italic in the area spanning Northeastern Italy, Croatia and Slovenia is pretty speculative, though plausible, as also is the path and timing of expansion of Italic languages southward. AFAIK no such consensus or even dominant hypothesis exists so far. It would make sense, considering Proto-Celtic was nearby, probably arising in Southern Germany/Switzerland or nearby, but I think the most honest answer is that nobody really knows where Proto-Italic started to expand from. Venetic, which was spoken roughly in the same area by the early Roman times, may not have been even Italic itself, though from some closely related group, just like Proto-Celtic, but in the video it seems they assume it was Italic, not derived from another, former sister-language of Proto-Italic. I'm not sure if Sicel is also universally acknowledged as an Italic language, though it is very probable.
I also find the decision to separate Classical vs. Vulgar Latin territorially a mistake, because the Vulgar Latin dialects were most certainly not spoken just away from the Latium, but in it, too, and their relationship to Classical Latin is most likely not one of sister-daughter kinship (Classical > Vulgar), but rather one of sibling varieties originated from the same high-class register of Latin spoken in Latium by the 3rd/2nd century B.C.,or so. While Classical Latin became a standardised, fossilized "cultured dialect", that didn't change over the time due to formal learning and strict rules, the popular Latin dialects kept their natural evolution. So, it was a matter of class-bound register, not one of regional dialect.
The mid-late Medieval Era up to Contemporary Era changes, though, seem pretty accurate to me. It's quite of saddening how much more homogeneous, less diverse the map suddenly becomes between 1800-1850 and the late 20th century. A huge loss of linguistic heritage.
FWIW, I like the fact they included the history of the Romance languages in the New World... and it wound up creating some particular dialects, like my own Central-Northeastern Brazilian Portuguese speech, which you can see me myself speaking in here (yep, that's me, for those who once wondered how this way too loquacious Northeastern Brazilian man in Eupedia looks and speaks like; I figured this interesting language channel, Wikitongues, lacked any video from someone not from the Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo axis and I just had to do something about it, LOL).
I wonder how easily people who speak other Romance languages can get what I talk about my region and my dialect/accent in the video.
The Portuguese language, casually spoken | Ygor speaking Brazilian Portuguese | Wikitongues - YouTube
They seem thinking Osco-Umbrian shifted from other Italic dialects in Italy peninsula. Are we sure of that? Were they not already apart before entering Italy? I wonder if they don't push too late the first apparition of Italic dialects in Italy. Just an interrogation...
This thread has been viewed 5207 times.