Debate need clarification on the topic of Italian population genetics and its amateur and academic treatment

[Pax Augusta]

My stance has been that the ProtoItalics migrated from the Carpathian Basin in the MBA westward through the Julian alps rather than from directly north or north west of the alps. This is represented by mass expansion of the Terramare demography and their close cultural ties which were maintained with a geography that roughly covers modern Hungary.

Your idea implies that there is no Italic language family that includes both the Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian groups. Since what you claim is already disproved by the results of the Latins.

 

[Vitruvius]

Your idea implies that there is no Italic language family that includes both the Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian groups. Since what you claim is already disproved by the results of the Latins.

You've totally lost me here. I don't see how anything I've said implies a lack of an Italic language family which includes Latino-Faliscan/Osco-Umbrian. I also don't see what claim is supposed to be disproved. The Latins clustered with the Pian Sultano individuals of ~1750BC just as I've mentioned. Do you disagree with this?

 

[torzio]

You've totally lost me here. I don't see how anything I've said implies a lack of an Italic language family which includes Latino-Faliscan/Osco-Umbrian. I also don't see what claim is supposed to be disproved. The Latins clustered with the Pian Sultano individuals of ~1750BC just as I've mentioned. Do you disagree with this?

i do not recall the romans who spoke faliscan being associatted with the umbri language ....which is associated with sabellic, sabine, samnite, volosci, lucati and others

veneti spoke a slang of faliscan with a touch of CE

what links do you have

 

[Vitruvius]

i do not recall the romans who spoke faliscan being associatted with the umbri language ....which is associated with sabellic, sabine, samnite, volosci, lucati and others

veneti spoke a slang of faliscan with a touch of CE

what links do you have

The Faliscan and Umbrian languages are both branches of the Italic language family which links their common association. This is common knowledge.

 

[Pax Augusta]

You've totally lost me here. I don't see how anything I've said implies a lack of an Italic language family which includes Latino-Faliscan/Osco-Umbrian. I also don't see what claim is supposed to be disproved. The Latins clustered with the Pian Sultano individuals of ~1750BC just as I've mentioned. Do you disagree with this?

The subject of the origins of the Italics is no longer given much attention in recent studies, and when you happen at a conference to ask an Italian scholar, whether archaeologist or linguist, the scholar will tell you that all the chronologies are wrong but generally does not add much more. In Italy, unlike abroad, as I have said many times, there is no consensus among scholars that the linguistic ancestors of the Latino-Faliscan languages (with which Venetic is associated) and those of the Osco-Umbrian languages arrived at the same time in Italy, and that they constitute a true linguistic family, because the linguistic convergence may have occurred in Italy because of contacts in protohistoric times. This approach in Italy is due to the past studies of Vittore Pisani, Giacomo Devoto and others. According to this idea, the linguistic ancestors of the Latino-Faliscan languages would have arrived much earlier than those of the Osco-Umbrian languages, and it is generally for the latter that an arrival from the Balkans is assumed, and the term Italics would be better to be used with the Sabellian languages, i.e., the Osco-Umbrian languages.

On the basis of the DNA of the Latins in our possession, it cannot be ruled out that they too, like the Etruscans, may have a relationship with the Bell Beaker of central-western Europe (same genetic position as the Etruscans and the Pian Sultano, uniparental markers...), although 6 individuals are still too few to draw any firm conclusions. And that, therefore, those past scholars who theorized that the linguistic ancestors of the Latino-Faliscan arrived first in Italy were right. Since languages have been attested only since 700 B.C. due to the spread of the Euboic Greek alphabet in Italy, it will be difficult to find evidence to prove one or the other theory. Also because there were probably continuous migrations from the Bell Beaker to the end of the Bronze Age of small groups in Italy, and figuring out exactly which of these brought the Indo-European languages attested later in the Iron Age may turn out to be impossible.

 

[Robotnick]

The subject of the origins of the Italics is no longer given much attention in recent studies, and when you happen at a conference to ask an Italian scholar, whether archaeologist or linguist, the scholar will tell you that all the chronologies are wrong but generally does not add much more. In Italy, unlike abroad, as I have said many times, there is no consensus among scholars that the linguistic ancestors of the Latino-Faliscan languages (with which Venetic is associated) and those of the Osco-Umbrian languages arrived at the same time in Italy, and that they constitute a true linguistic family, because the linguistic convergence may have occurred in Italy because of contacts in protohistoric times. This approach in Italy is due to the past studies of Vittore Pisani, Giacomo Devoto and others. According to this idea, the linguistic ancestors of the Latino-Faliscan languages would have arrived much earlier than those of the Osco-Umbrian languages, and it is generally for the latter that an arrival from the Balkans is assumed, and the term Italics would be better to be used with the Sabellian languages, i.e., the Osco-Umbrian languages.

On the basis of the DNA of the Latins in our possession, it cannot be ruled out that they too, like the Etruscans, may have a relationship with the Bell Beaker of central-western Europe (same genetic position as the Etruscans and the Pian Sultano, uniparental markers...), although 6 individuals are still too few to draw any firm conclusions. And that, therefore, those past scholars who theorized that the linguistic ancestors of the Latino-Faliscan arrived first in Italy were right. Since languages have been attested only since 700 B.C. due to the spread of the Euboic Greek alphabet in Italy, it will be difficult to find evidence to prove one or the other theory. Also because there were probably continuous migrations from the Bell Beaker to the end of the Bronze Age of small groups in Italy, and figuring out exactly which of these brought the Indo-European languages attested later in the Iron Age may turn out to be impossible.

What if Italy was more or less a funnel (due to its overalll aesthetic and economic appeal due to the fertility of its valleys and abundance of metals) for various early Indo-European (and possibly other) groups, Bell Beakers and Paleo-Balkan peoples included. I'd imagine the so-called Italic languages could have been shaped by this dynamic conflux of peoples/elements during the Bronze Age and perhaps later. I suppose in many cases a predominant language's grammar may be entirely derived from a single ancestral tongue and therefore be considered a branch of it. I'd think total hybridizations of languages wouldn't be impossible either.