History of Romance Languages [Video Map]

Very interesting! It allowed me to know some things ..., the history of the Italic languages ​​prior to Latin, the early emergence of Sardinian, the persistence of Latin African after the Arab conquest ...
 
Too little known about Ligurian to include it, I suppose.
 

Interesting video. How accurate is this map?

looks accurate from what I was taught ..............that is , the Umbri came from modern east-austria, slovenia into italy bringing their language


only area I see is an error is in keeping the italo-dalmatian group together for too long and not distinguishing what linguistic scholars state as the La Spezia-Rimini syntax divide of Italian romance language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Spezia–Rimini_Line
 
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
 
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

Nice analysis.
 
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...
 
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...

Latino-Faliscan looked so much like a group pushed to a small corner of the peninsula, and one which clearly came from Proto-Italic, not from an earlier Osco-Umbrian branch, tha I speculate (stress this word) that Proto-Italic started to diverge in two distinct groups outside Italy or at least outside Central/Southern Italy and Latino-Faliscan tongues may have once been much more widespread in the peninsula, eventually replaced in large part by later Osco-Umbrian conquests... until, of course, a certain Latin city pushed back and spread Latin rapidly between the 4th and 1st century B.C.
 
I'm influenced by old theories. Today doxa seems placing Italics (all) later in time, all of them linked to Iron Age. Beofre that, some scholars thought Terramare could have been already I-Ean, and already linked to Latino-Falisc groups, putting Osco-Umbrian in IA; it seems it's left todate. But concerning language, I'm tempted see O-U's as tribes placed more easternly than the L-F's in their common possible "cradle" (I see it also between Venetia/N-Croatia/S-Hungary and around), their breaking off maybe conditioned by the arrival of other tribes more northern at first, maybe of same ancient 'meta-proto-italic' (Veneti? These last ones could have had conserved longer time contacts with proto-Germanics and proto-Balto-Slavs before going southwards). All feelings, no science! I would need more works linking linguistics to anDNA and archeology.
ATW for auDNA, the links between Italics and North-ex-Yougoslavia are evident, and they could have existed already before, since Chalco-BA, not without a BB's influence.
 
My links between Italics and ex-Yougoslavia concern IA or before, not today! Sorry.
 

This thread has been viewed 5039 times.

Back
Top