The Italian Language

[Pax Augusta]

Actually the languages spoken in Lombardia are from Gallo-Italic group of languages being more closed to French,than to Italian.

Not true that Gallo-Italic is closer to French than to Italian.

Now,Italian is the official language and people needs to learn it,even if they are willing or not.

Italian is spoken by 95% of Italians.

The division in Italy in terms of dialects can be seen on the following maps and it precedes the arrival of the Lombards. As you can see from the first map, Romanian, like Tuscan and the dialects of the south, is an Eastern Romance language. Generally, the areas north of the red La-Spezia-Rimini line, drawn by some linguists from Massa to Senigallia, speak Gallic Italian dialects.

Ed. Sorry, I have to post the maps separately, as they are too large.

@Angela

This division West-East is extremely forced nowdays (not to mention that Venetian and Furlan are not considered Gallo-Italic languages by many scholars) and that Wikipedia's map is based on poor sources.

This West-East demarcation was conceived as division of the Románia antiqua. Romance-speaking Europe is generally divided into Romania continua, Romania submersa and Romania nova.

As you can see, at the time of Románia antiqua North Africa was included in the Western Románia.

 

[Sile]

Not true that Gallo-Italic is closer to French than to Italian.



Italian is spoken by 95% of Italians.





@Angela

This division West-East is extremely forced nowdays (not to mention that Venetian and Furlan are not considered Gallo-Italic languages by many scholars) and that Wikipedia's map is based on poor sources.

This West-East demarcation was conceived as division of the Románia antiqua. Romance-speaking Europe is generally divided into Romania continua, Romania submersa and Romania nova.

As you can see, at the time of Románia antiqua North Africa was included in the Western Románia.

Gallo-Italic is closer to french via L'Oc language........even the simple word apple is link ..........Pomo in gallo-Italiac and Mela in Italian ....the french word is Pom
The link is closer due to franco-provenzal, catalan and savoyard languages with Gallo-Italic.

it is true Friuli and venetian have gascon and catalan links respectively...such as drinking glass in Italian being bicere while in venetian it is goto' ( exactly the same as catalan )

Also true is the friuli has also some german and hungarian..........while Venetian has some German and Portuguese ( very minimal )
Ligurian and Piedomentese is clearly linked to franco-provenazal and savoyard.

To conclude...........you will know that Italian was artificially created by Dante in the 13th century , 10 years AFTER he wrote about the best and worst of each italian regional language.
Italian was not really accepted, because the census of 1861 only found less than 600000 italians out of a population at the time of 22 million , knew or spoke Italian, and of these the bulk came from southern tuscany.

The amusing thing also is the word for day .........in Italian it is giorno , but in northern italian it is di .........I still find birth certificate as late as 1950 with the term, che di ( what day was the child born )
Italian uses the old word di for day .........lunadi
Luna = moon
di = day
combined moonday which equals monday
We do not see lunagiorno for monday.

an example of di


bottom line ...di ieri = day yesterday

another example


del di = which day
answer quindici = 15th day

 

[Angela]

@Angela

This division West-East is extremely forced nowdays (not to mention that Venetian and Furlan are not considered Gallo-Italic languages by many scholars) and that Wikipedia's map is based on poor sources.

This West-East demarcation was conceived as division of the Románia antiqua. Romance-speaking Europe is generally divided into Romania continua, Romania submersa and Romania nova.

As you can see, at the time of Románia antiqua North Africa was included in the Western Románia.

I'm familiar with the term "Romania continua, Romania submersa and Romania nova" and what it means. However, that division of the Romance languages doesn't even address, much less illuminate the linguistic differences between the dialects spoken north of the La Spezia Rimini line and those spoken south of it. I posted the map to show that line.

My understanding has always been that there were people in the areas north of this line who spoke "Celtic" languages, and that this formed a substrate to the versions of Latin which developed there. Also, the last text on the issue which I've read has this to say:



https://books.google.com/books?id=K...AS25oCYCg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

For non Italian speakers, the gist of it is that the line reflects an administrative division of the peninsula by Diocletian, which isolated the center and south from the northern area oriented toward Milano, and which also reinforced prior geographic divisions. To that I would add the cultural division to which I referred in the above paragraph.

I don't want to derail the thread and take it off topic into a detailed discussion of the development of the Italian language, but if you have papers which dispute the importance of the LaSpezia/Rimini line, I would be very interested in reading them.

More to the point, I would be interested in your view on whether there was a substantial superstrate effect of Langobardo on Italian.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Gallo-Italic is closer to french via L'Oc language........even the simple word apple is link ..........Pomo in gallo-Italiac and Mela in Italian ....the french word is Pom
The link is closer due to franco-provenzal, catalan and savoyard languages with Gallo-Italic.

it is true Friuli and venetian have gascon and catalan links respectively...such as drinking glass in Italian being bicere while in venetian it is goto' ( exactly the same as catalan )

Also true is the friuli has also some german and hungarian..........while Venetian has some German and Portuguese ( very minimal )
Ligurian and Piedomentese is clearly linked to franco-provenazal and savoyard.

To conclude...........you will know that Italian was artificially created by Dante in the 13th century , 10 years AFTER he wrote about the best and worst of each italian regional language.
Italian was not really accepted, because the census of 1861 only found less than 600000 italians out of a population at the time of 22 million , knew or spoke Italian, and of these the bulk came from southern tuscany.

The amusing thing also is the word for day .........in Italian it is giorno , but in northern italian it is di .........I still find birth certificate as late as 1950 with the term, che di ( what day was the child born )
Italian uses the old word di for day .........lunadi
Luna = moon
di = day
combined moonday which equals monday
We do not see lunagiorno for monday.

an example of di


bottom line ...di ieri = day yesterday

another example


del di = which day
answer quindici = 15th day

Excellent post!
I want to add,in Romanian,we are telling to "what day" "ce zi" so it seems "zi" from Romanian.the word used for day,comes from Gallo-Italic di.
In old Romanian it was "dzi",to be more clear.
So Romanian,is my supposition,rather comes from a Gallo-Italic dialect and not from Latin.

 

[Pax Augusta]

To conclude...........you will know that Italian was artificially created by Dante in the 13th century , 10 years AFTER he wrote about the best and worst of each italian regional language.

Italian wasn't artificially created by Dante. Many North Italians had an important role to make the Tuscan the main language of Italy: Pietro Bembo, Alessandro Manzoni and many others.

Italian was not really accepted, because the census of 1861 only found less than 600000 italians out of a population at the time of 22 million , knew or spoke Italian, and of these the bulk came from southern tuscany.

Italian wasn't really accepted by some of the poorest and uneducated people. Italian was already the language of the upper class of most of the preunitarian states with few exceptions.

Even the Republic of Venice used for many centuries since the 1500 AD the Tuscan as language in the internal affairs: "Così, per es., le relazioni degli ambasciatori veneziani al Senato della Serenissima all’inizio del XVI secolo appaiono scritte in un volgare sostanzialmente toscano, cioè italiano, ma che conserva ancora elementi fonologici, morfologici e lessicali veneziani."

"La diffusione di una lingua letteraria di base toscana era cominciata già attorno alla fine del XIII secolo a Bologna; nel secolo successivo i principali poli di irradiazione furono le città del Veneto (Venezia, Treviso, Padova) e la corte dei Visconti a Milano. Nel 1332 il metricologo e poeta padovano Antonio da Tempo dichiara la lingua tusca, cioè il toscano, magis apta [...] ad literam sive literaturam quam aliae linguae «più adatta all’espressione scritta e alla letteratura delle altre lingue». Sempre nel Trecento, il modello fiorentino si diffonde anche in centri dell’Italia centrale e meridionale come Perugia e Napoli. Il processo di unificazione della lingua letteraria, anzitutto poetica, procede – anche se con esitazioni e regressioni – nel Quattrocento, accelerando alla fine del secolo, grazie soprattutto all’affermarsi del petrarchismo.
Più tarda è l’adozione del toscano nella lingua amministrativa. La prima corte che adotta il fiorentino trecentesco come modello, oltre che nella letteratura, anche nella prassi cancelleresca, è quella di Ludovico il Moro, signore di Milano tra il 1480 e il 1499 (Vitale 1988).

Le lingue in uso nelle corti d’Italia tra Quattrocento e Cinquecento avevano abbandonato i tratti dialettali più evidenti, ma facevano pur sempre concessioni nella fonetica e nella morfologia ai volgari locali. Il successo della proposta arcaizzante di ➔ Pietro Bembo, che appoggiava la lingua letteraria all’uso degli autori fiorentini del Trecento, soprattutto ➔ Francesco Petrarca e ➔ Giovanni Boccaccio, spezza il filo che le lingue cortigiane mantenevano con la lingua parlata, e dunque anche con i volgari locali.
Nell’ambito cancelleresco, amministrativo, giuridico, ecc., l’uso dell’italiano-fiorentino restava basato su conoscenze approssimative e condizionato dal volgare locale più a lungo di quanto accada nella lingua letteraria. Così, per es., le relazioni degli ambasciatori veneziani al Senato della Serenissima all’inizio del XVI secolo appaiono scritte in un volgare sostanzialmente toscano, cioè italiano, ma che conserva ancora elementi fonologici, morfologici e lessicali veneziani. Questo genere di lingua è chiamata spesso tosco-veneto. Nei decenni successivi i tratti locali vennero progressivamente abbandonati, e si giunse entro la fine del secolo a una pressoché completa toscanizzazione (Durante 1981: 163-164; Tomasin 2001: 158-164). L’adozione del modello toscano nel secondo Cinquecento e nel Seicento è un fenomeno che riguarda più in generale la lingua degli scriventi colti di tutta Italia. Da questo termine in avanti solo le scritture dei semicolti (➔ italiano popolare) presentano fenomeni di ibridismo tra la norma scritta nazionale, l’italiano, e la lingua parlata locale, il dialetto (Bartoli Langeli 2000). "


Source:
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/volgari-medievali_(Enciclopedia-dell'Italiano)/

Gallo-Italic is closer to french via L'Oc language........even the simple word apple is link ..........Pomo in gallo-Italiac and Mela in Italian ....the french word is Pom. The link is closer due to franco-provenzal, catalan and savoyard languages with Gallo-Italic.

Northern Italian Pomo and French Pom both derives from Latin pomum, generic term for a fruit. In Sicilian there is pumu, in Italian/Tuscan there is pomo (just as in Gallo-Italic and Venetian) but considered obsolete in Tuscany.

Giovanni Boccaccio (medieval Tuscan writer) from The Decameron

«nell'un di questi forzieri è la mia corona, la verga reale e 'l pomo »

The amusing thing also is the word for day .........in Italian it is giorno , but in northern italian it is di .........I still find birth certificate as late as 1950 with the term, che di ( what day was the child born )

"dì" is Italian/Tuscan of Latin origin (Latin dies), not northern Italian only. If you were Italian, you'd know it.

buon dì (or buondì) and buongiorno are both Italian. Buondì is still used today in many regions of Italy, not only in North Italy.

http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/di/


Giovanni Boccaccio (medieval Tuscan writer) from The Decameron

«Io son veramente colui che quell'uomo uccisi istamane in sul di" »

Excellent post!
I want to add,in Romanian,we are telling to "what day" "ce zi" so it seems "zi" from Romanian.the word used for day,comes from Gallo-Italic di.
In old Romanian it was "dzi",to be more clear.
So Romanian,is my supposition,rather comes from a Gallo-Italic dialect and not from Latin.

Dì is not Gallo-Italic and Romanian doesn't surely derive from a Gallo-Italic dialect.

 

[mihaitzateo]

@Pax Augusta:
Romanian do not derive from Latin,for sure.
We have postponed article and plenty of other things that are quite different from Latin,including the fact that in Romanian,the verb was never put at the end of the sentence.
The theory which says that all Romance languages are coming from latin is just a lol-mode theory.
It makes as much sense as telling that all Germanic languages are coming from Old Norse .
If we take today languages spoken in Italy,neither uses the verb at the end of sentence.

 

[Angela]

@Pax Augusta:
Romanian do not derive from Latin,for sure.
We have postponed article and plenty of other things that are quite different from Latin,including the fact that in Romanian,the verb was never put at the end of the sentence.
The theory which says that all Romance languages are coming from latin is just a lol-mode theory.
It makes as much sense as telling that all Germanic languages are coming from Old Norse .
If we take today languages spoken in Italy,neither uses the verb at the end of sentence.

That is a totally nonsensical statement. Please post a link to a study by an internationally recognized linguist who claims that Romanian does not derive from Latin.

 

[mihaitzateo]

That is a totally nonsensical statement. Please post a link to a study by an internationally recognized linguist who claims that Romanian does not derive from Latin.

From where?
Mainstream theory is that all Romance languages are deriving from Latin.
If someone will make a theory to prove otherwise,most likely his work will be marginalized .
I already gave two arguments,that Romanians nevers uses the verb at the end of sentence and uses postponed article,which are a serious difference,from Latin language.
From my knowledge,most Romance languages are using Subject Verb Object while Latin was using Subject Object Verb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject–verb–object
If all Romance languages are deriving from Latin,how is possible that the order of putting the verb in a sentence was changed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject–object–verb#Latin
Why should we not better suppose that it existed a proto-Romance language?
This is how it is supposed in case of Slavic,is supposed a proto-Slavic language existed,from which West Slavic,Eastern Slavic and South Slavic derived.
This is how is supposed in case of Germanic,that a proto-Germanic language existed,from which Norse,West Germanic and East Germanic languages derived.
However,in case of Romance,is told that all Romance languages derived from Latin.
While Latin derived from a proto-Celto-Italic language,which somehow gave proto-Celtic and Latin,not proto-Celtic and proto-Romance.

Besides,from what history I know,only a part of Romania was occupied by Roman Empire,however all Romania including Bessarabia speaks Romanian.
How all Romanians got to speak Romanian?

EDIT:
Historians and linguists from Romania which are making Latin/Roman propaganda are encouraged,while those who are showing the truth,that was not possible for a whole population,composed of mostly illiterate people,to learn Latin,in 180 years,are marginalized.
I think same happens in Italy.

 

[Angela]

From where?
Mainstream theory is that all Romance languages are deriving from Latin.
If someone will make a theory to prove otherwise,most likely his work will be marginalized .
I already gave two arguments,that Romanians nevers uses the verb at the end of sentence and uses postponed article,which are a serious difference,from Latin language.
From my knowledge,most Romance languages are using Subject Verb Object while Latin was using Subject Object Verb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject–verb–object
If all Romance languages are deriving from Latin,how is possible that the order of putting the verb in a sentence was changed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject–object–verb#Latin
Why should we not better suppose that it existed a proto-Romance language?
This is how it is supposed in case of Slavic,is supposed a proto-Slavic language existed,from which West Slavic,Eastern Slavic and South Slavic derived.
This is how is supposed in case of Germanic,that a proto-Germanic language existed,from which Norse,West Germanic and East Germanic languages derived.
However,in case of Romance,is told that all Romance languages derived from Latin.
While Latin derived from a proto-Celto-Italic language,which somehow gave proto-Celtic and Latin,not proto-Celtic and proto-Romance.

Besides,from what history I know,only a part of Romania was occupied by Roman Empire,however all Romania including Bessarabia speaks Romanian.
How all Romanians got to speak Romanian?

EDIT:
Historians and linguists from Romania which are making Latin/Roman propaganda are encouraged,while those who are showing the truth,that was not possible for a whole population,composed of mostly illiterate people,to learn Latin,in 180 years,are marginalized.
I think same happens in Italy.

It was a rhetorical question. The fact is that no linguist anywhere has ever or now maintains that Romanian is not a Romance language. You are alone and unsupported on this one. One only needs to look at the name, for goodness sakes. Languages change and evolve. The fact that Romanian has changed, including through the addition of Slavic loanwords, doesn't change the essential facts.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Do Italians here agree with these (taken from some study):
"Italian has 85% oral intelligibility of Umbrian dialect and Corsican,40% of Catalan, 35% of Romanian,16% of Portuguese,11% of French,and 0% of Arpitan and Sicilian."
Italian has 60% written intelligibility of French and Spanish,40% of Portuguese and 35% of Catalan."
EDIT:
If you agree,can you explain,why Italian has 0% oral intelligibility with Sicilian,however,Romanian has some oral intelligibility with Sicilian?

 

[mihaitzateo]

It was a rhetorical question. The fact is that no linguist anywhere has ever or now maintains that Romanian is not a Romance language. You are alone and unsupported on this one. One only needs to look at the name, for goodness sakes. Languages change and evolve. The fact that Romanian has changed, including through the addition of Slavic loanwords, doesn't change the essential facts.

On wikipedia there is a theory of a Proto-Romance language.
I have seen Old French and is much closer to Latin than today French.
However,Romanian spoken at around 1500 was less closed to Latin than today spoken Romanian.
As you can see from this study:
http://www.academia.edu/4057079/Mutual_Intelligibility_among_the_Romance_Languages
Romanian borrowed a lot of French words,after 1800,since most of the Romanian elite were making their studies in Paris and were francophones.

 

[Angela]

On wikipedia there is a theory of a Proto-Romance language.
I have seen Old French and is much closer to Latin than today French.
However,Romanian spoken at around 1500 was less closed to Latin than today spoken Romanian.
As you can see from this study:
http://www.academia.edu/4057079/Mutual_Intelligibility_among_the_Romance_Languages
Romanian borrowed a lot of French words,after 1800,since most of the Romanian elite were making their studies in Paris and were francophones.

I don't want to keep belaboring the point, mihaitzateo, but Romanian is derived from Latin. That may not please you for whatever reason, but it is the reality.

As to the paper to which you linked, there are no references to published papers, no description of methodology, nothing, and I have no idea as to the identity or qualifications of the writer.

What he does say is that his percentages are based on the discussions on various blogs on the internet.

I'm afraid that this does not constitute scientific proof.

Anecdotally, based only on my own experience, I find it easier to understand northern Italian dialects than Neapolitan or Calabrian or Sicilian, but I can still get the gist.
It's difficult for me to compare it to intelligibility of Italian and Spanish because I studied Spanish for many years. The same applies to French. However, I do remember that I found it easier to read French in the beginning than to read Spanish, and for oral comprehension it was the opposite.

I think that there aren't very many studies of "intelligibility" because linguists can get very contradictory results. I personally think it is because linguistic ability is very variable from person to person. A lot of it has to do with auditory processing ability and some of it just has to do with verbal processing differences in general. Some people can just pick up on the similarities more than others.

 

[mihaitzateo]

@Angela
offtopic:
When you will explain to me how Romanian got postponed definite article,how is using Subject verb Object and other things like that,I would believe Romanian is derived from Latin. Till than,I do not .
Ontopic:
However,this topic is about Italian language,maybe you and other Italian native speakers can post at least a short history of Italian language,since from what I am seeing,from your posts and other Italians posts here,Italian is derived from some Italic dialect.
I would be curious,what is the most closed dialect to Italian,Umbrian?
As for that study,I do not agree with it,from what I have heard a little sicilian,there are common words to Italian.
So I find it very very hard to believe that Italian and Sicilian have 0% oral mutual inteligibility ,I think that is a very absurd afirmation.
I have seen on another forum or so that Italian and French have like 75% mutual inteligibility.

 

[Pax Augusta]

My understanding has always been that there were people in the areas north of this line who spoke "Celtic" languages, and that this formed a substrate to the versions of Latin which developed there. Also, the last text on the issue which I've read has this to say:


For non Italian speakers, the gist of it is that the line reflects an administrative division of the peninsula by Diocletian, which isolated the center and south from the northern area oriented toward Milano, and which also reinforced prior geographic divisions. To that I would add the cultural division to which I referred in the above paragraph.

I don't want to derail the thread and take it off topic into a detailed discussion of the development of the Italian language, but if you have papers which dispute the importance of the LaSpezia/Rimini line, I would be very interested in reading them.

Yes, many scholars write about this Celtic substrate on Gallo-Italic languages plus a Germanic superstrate. Btw the name "Gallo-Italic" has some controversial. Some scholars today prefer to call the Northern Italian languages i "dialetti settentrionali o altoitaliani" and not to use "Gallo-Italic" anymore that was a conceived by Biondelli around 1850 AD.

Dialetti settentrionali o altoitaliani

Delimitato a sud dalla linea tradizionalmente denominata La Spezia-Rimini (altri preferiscono far valere quella che congiunge Massa Carrara e Senigallia)1, questo insieme di parlate, accomunate dal fatto di staccarsi nettamente dall'italiano di tipo toscano, è a sua volta suddivisibile in due sottogruppi: i dialetti galloitalici e i dialetti veneti.

- Dialetti g a l l o i t a l i c i (piemontesi, lombardi, liguri, emiliano-romagnoli con l'appendice del Pesarese, nelle Marche settentrionali)

La denominazione di galloitalico, dovuta a Bernardino Biondelli (1853), si spiega con l'esigenza di sottolineare l’appartenenza di queste parlate all'interno al sistema dialettale
italoromanzo e nello stesso tempo di tenerle distinte rispetto al tipo galloromanzo rappresentato dal francese e dai dialetti provenzali e francoprovenzali, che conosce
propaggini anche al di qua delle Alpi in territorio italiano (soprattutto in Piemonte e Valle d'Aosta). Pur condividendo infatti con le varietà galloromanze tutta una serie di sviluppi dovuti all'azione di un comune sostrato prelatino di tipo gallico (in tutto il territorio dell'Italia nordoccidentale il latino dovette in effetti fare i conti con le lingue praticate da popolazioni di stirpe celtica), le parlate galloi t a l i c h e vanno in ogni caso ricondotte al sistema italoromanzo in quanto "la loro storia culturale, amministrativa, economica, si è da sempre orientata verso i grandi centri di cultura e di potere politico italiani e per conseguenza la loro evoluzione linguistica si è sviluppata in modo differente rispetto a quella del gruppo galloromanzo" (Telmon 2001, p. 40). Isolati nuclei di espressione galloitalica si ritrovano nell'Italia meridionale e insulare: in Sicilia e Basilicata, infatti, al seguito della dominazione normanna si sono stanziate diverse comunità di origine presumibilmente monferrina; sono poi di parlata in ultima analisi ligure i centri tabarchini di Carloforte e Calasetta in Sardegna (nel territorio dell’attuale provincia di Carbonia Iglesias).

- Dialetti v e n e t i
I dialetti veneti si estendono tra il lago di Garda e l'Adige a ovest e i fiumi Piave e Livenza a est, con propaggini costituite dalle diverse varietà venete diffuse nel
Friuli Venezia Giulia e, fuori dall'attuale territorio italiano, dall'istroveneto (il veneto dell'Istria). Ai dialetti veneti viene tradizionalmente riservata una collocazione a se stante nell'ambito dei dialetti settentrionali in quanto non condividono alcuni tratti tipici dei dialetti di nord-ovest (come ad esempio la presenza di vocali anteriori arrotondate del tipo /y/ /ø/ tradizionalmente notate con ü, ö).


______
1 Tra questi L. Renzi, Nuova Introduzione alla filologia romanza, Bologna 1994

http://www.orioles.it/materiali/pn/Class_dialetti_it.pdf

More to the point, I would be interested in your view on whether there was a substantial superstrate effect of Langobardo on Italian.

Italian has surely an Ostrogoth, a Langobard and a Frankish superstrate. The Langobard is probably the one that had a bigger impact on Italian, most on toponyms and onomastics.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Do Italians here agree with these (taken from some study):
"Italian has 85% oral intelligibility of Umbrian dialect and Corsican,40% of Catalan, 35% of Romanian,16% of Portuguese,11% of French,and 0% of Arpitan and Sicilian."
Italian has 60% written intelligibility of French and Spanish,40% of Portuguese and 35% of Catalan."
EDIT:
If you agree,can you explain,why Italian has 0% oral intelligibility with Sicilian,however,Romanian has some oral intelligibility with Sicilian?

Which study?

 

[Hauteville]

Do Italians here agree with these (taken from some study):
"Italian has 85% oral intelligibility of Umbrian dialect and Corsican,40% of Catalan, 35% of Romanian,16% of Portuguese,11% of French,and 0% of Arpitan and Sicilian."
Italian has 60% written intelligibility of French and Spanish,40% of Portuguese and 35% of Catalan."
EDIT:
If you agree,can you explain,why Italian has 0% oral intelligibility with Sicilian,however,Romanian has some oral intelligibility with Sicilian?

Zero intelligibility between Italian and Sicilian sound like a joke.

 

[Hauteville]

Contrariwise Sicilian had a large contribution in the formation of modern Italian language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_School

 

[mihaitzateo]

Which study?

This one:
http://www.academia.edu/4057079/Mutual_Intelligibility_among_the_Romance_Languages
I find it hard to believe what is told there.
I understand 95% of Istro-Romanian,lol.

 

[Angela]

This supposed paper as I stated upthread, contains no references and the "author" states that it is partially based on opinions expressed by anonymous people on internet blogs based on their own anecdotal experiences. I think we can safely ignore it, yes?

I would agree that 0% intelligibility betweeen Sicilian and standard Italian is ludicrous.

 

[mihaitzateo]

@Pax Augusta:
What is that Germanic superstrate from Italian,of which you are talking about?
Can you give some examples of words?
I do not speak German ,I speak English and I understand French very well,but do not speak too well,so I find it hard to see if a word from Italian is of Germanic origins.
I was thinking that Italian have some words borrowed from Celtic and Gaulish and the dialects from North Italy,have some Germanic words.
But I was not expecting that Italian would have German words.