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.
what was the original Sicilian language, greek or greek and something else?
what was the original Sicilian language, greek or greek and something else?
Just reading through this thread.
Firstly, as a few have already stated, the idea that Sicilian has zero intelligibility with Italian is just too absurd for words.
Is Romanian intelligible with Italian?
It's very difficult for a northern Italian and equally for a central Italian (Tuscan, Umbrian...) to understand the Sicilian, Calabrian, Neapolitan.
Not really.
Yes, difficulty is one thing, I don't disagree, especially if we are talking about an authentic Sicilian rather than the modern Italianised version.
But the original statement was "zero intelligibility", which is absurd.
Also, Neapolitan is even closer to Tuscan Italian than Sicilian, and therefore there is a higher degree if intelligibility between Italian and Neapolitan (unsurprisingly, given their respective geographical positions on the peninsular).
It's a good question, which can have a simple answer, or a more complicated answer, depending on the granularity you are seeking, and/or what exactly you are viewing as Year 0.
Firstly, there were three identifiable peoples occupying Sicily before the arrival of the Greeks (the ones we know of), all or some of which may or may not have been indo-european, all or some of which may or may not have been Italic people, all or some of which may or may not have arrived from the Near East, either via the North of Italy, or having crossed the Adriatic from Illyria, or directly from the Aegean, etc, etc
The Sicels occupied East Sicily, and they appear to have arrived after the Sicani, who end up occupying central Sicily. Various ancient writers do not distinguish between the two groups. Ultimately, the arrival of the Greeks push the Sicels further inward, either displacing the Sicani, or absorbing them, and ultimately, the Sicels themselves get absorbed into the Greek populations. Discussion of the origin of these three groups deserves a thread in its own right. The third group were the Elymians who occupied the far Western corner.
So from the 7th century BC, the Greeks start colonising Sicily, first in the East, and then gradually along the Northern coast and the Southern coast. Carthaginian settlements remain in far Western Sicily right up to the time of the Punic Wars.
So, at the time of Sicily becoming a colony of Rome, Greek is the dominant language on the island, and remains the dominant language throughout the Roman period.
While Latin is introduced to Sicily, we're mainly talking about elites, landowners and soldiers, the population continues to be Greek speaking (as was the case in far far Southern Italy).
Here we come to one of the great unanswered linguistic questions: did parts of Sicily remain latin speaking after the fall of the Roman empire? We don't know for sure, plenty of crackpot theories out there, but in one sense, it probably doesn't need to be answered...
Goths/Vandals rule Sicily for a century or so, and then Sicily is incorporated into the Byzantine Empire, and is officially Greek speaking again (even if it was always Greek speaking).
For between 200 to 250 years, Sicily comes under Muslim rule, and Arabic is introduced to the island (and lots of words of Arabic origin are found in Sicilian). Here we reach one of those points where we lack some clarity. We know most of Eastern Sicily remained Greek-speaking and Orthodox Christian, but we're unclear on the extent to which this permeated the whole island. We do know many mosques were built, especially in Western Sicily.
The Normans commence the conquest of the island in 1060, and it took them 30 years to conquer the island from the Saracens.
As at 1090, we know much of the population was still Greek-speaking, and we know there were Arabic-speaking communities, and we know that a large contingent of latin speakers had been introduced - once again, it's the exact degree we don't know.
Further complications:
1. We talk of Norman rule, but these were elites, the actual number of Normans probably could be counted in the hundreds. Also, the Normans had already been in Southern Italy for a generation, so we are talking of some Normans from Hauteville, plus Italo-Normans from the peninsular, plus various allies and mercenaries (Lombards already settled in Southern Italy, and various Southern Italians, both Greek and Latin speaking).
2. Between 1090 and 1100 large scale migrations occur from Northern Italy to fill much of the interior which has now been vacated following the long conquest of Italy.
3. A large group of mercenaries are brought in from Provence, introducing a large vocabulary from Provence into Sicilian.
4. The last Norman king dies childless, and a daughter born posthumously to Roger II is married off to Henry of Hohenstaufen, bringing German rule to Sicily (and the introduction of some vocabulary of German origin).
5. Following the Sicilian Vespers in 1282, the Sicilian crown comes under Aragon, and a cadet branch of the family rules Sicily for 100 years or so, bringing a significant Catalan vocabulary to Sicilian.
My personal theory? At the time of the Norman conquest, very little Latin was spoken anywhere in Sicily. The Norman forces were supplemented by mercenaries from Campagnia, and the vulgar Latin introduced to Sicily at the time of the conquest was from this region, laced with a large vocabulary from the extant Greek and Arabic-speaking population, plus Gallic influences from Norman French, Provencal and Northern Italy (and later Catalan and Spanish).
By around 1300, Sicilian is spoken throughout the island, and the other languages appear to have died out (although there remained Greek speaking populations in far Southern Italy, a few small ones remain to the present day).
Also, Neapolitan is even closer to Tuscan Italian than Sicilian
Many argue that this is just a normal development, but I would argue that the degree of change in the course of around 50 years (during the lifetime of my parents) is anything but normal.
Clearly, Italian and this other thing, which is nothing more than a Sicilian variant of Italian, are mutually comprehensible.
However, I would still say that correct Sicilian and Italian still shares a degree of comprehensibility, although clearly it would be far more difficult for an Italian speaker, perhaps only marginally more comprehensible than, say, Spanish.
This is a theory of Gerard Rohlfes but himself retract of his theory, there are no evidences that Latin was not spoken in medieval Sicily, meanwhile Arab yes?The same Maltese is a mix of Arab and Romance, probably in Palermo and some other islamized zones the language spoken was similar of modern Maltese but Romance survived otherwise why modern Sicilian has loads of words who are closer to Latin more than standard Italian?If Roman settlers were a minority Arabs and Berbers were much less, just a bunch of soldiers and oppressors expelled later by Normans and Federico IIAs I said, there remains a question of degree.
Greek was clearly the dominant language throughout Roman rule, what is unclear is the extent to which Latin was spoken beyond the ruling elites, landowners and soldiers.
The other open question is whether Latin was spoken to any significant degree when the Normans first commenced their conquest circa 1060.
Personally, I doubt it, because it was not large scale to begin with, and it's unlikely it would have survived the 600 years between the fall of the Roman empire and the Norman conquest.
When the Normans arrive, they confront Greek and Arabic speaking people. It is the Normans who re-introduce Latin into Sicily (in the main, via the armies they have assembled from Campagnia, which had remained thoroughly latinised post-Roman rule).
If any Latin had survived in Sicily in those intervening 600 years, it could only have been tiny, isolated communities, but no way could it have been the basis for the Sicilian Language. For starters, there's very little which can be traced directly to the Latin of the Roman era.
Judging by this statement Latin and Romance languages would disappear from all over the ex Western Roman Empire.and it's unlikely it would have survived the 600 years between the fall of the Roman empire and the Norman conquest.
For starters, there's very little which can be traced directly to the Latin of the Roman era.
Going back to the mutual intelligibility of Sicilian and Italian, we need to differentiate between the Sicilian my grand parents spoke and that which modern Sicilians might speak (in ever diminishing circumstances).
In my grand-parents' era, pre-fascism, teachers in Sicilian primary schools were allowed to conduct their lessons in Sicilian, so the whole population continued to use Sicilian as their primary language.
This practice was outlawed during the fascist period, and gradually, a stigma gets attached to speaking Sicilian, and work opportunities are enhanced via better education, etc, and we reach a point where Sicilian is only something to be used amongst family and very close friends, but even then, the watering-down process has well and truly begun, so that we are no longer hearing the Sicilian of my grand-parents era, we are hearing Italianised Sicilian or Sicilianised Italian (the kind which you'll occasionally read in Andrea Camelleri's novels).
Here are some examples from an excellent introductory grammar written by Bonner, in which he laments the italianisation of modern Sicilian, to the point where he genuinely questions whether it's worthwhile bothering with this form of Sicilian (may as well just speak Italian):
1. Whereas an "r" used to be used instead of an "l" before many consonants, the trend is to replace the "r" with an "l" as would be the case in Italian: so quarchi becomes qualchi.
2. Whereas the Sicilian construction "mm" was often used in instances where in Italian you would find "nv", the modern trend is to use the Italian construction, so cumminciri become cunvinciri.
3. A string of Sicilian words have changed so that they more closely resemble the Italian equivalent (in both spoken and written Sicilian), e.g.:
abbitutini has become abitudini
accuminzari has become cuminciari
the construction of aviri a + inf (to denote an obligation, similar to the English construction) has become duviri (an example where both the vocab and grammar has changed completely)
carziri has become carciri
chiazza has become piazza
distrudiri has become distruggiri
disiari has become disiddiari
mmitari has become invitari
nnucenti has become innocenti
raggia has become rabbia
sonnu has become sognu
vrancu or jancu has become biancu
Many argue that this is just a normal development, but I would argue that the degree of change in the course of around 50 years (during the lifetime of my parents) is anything but normal.
Clearly, Italian and this other thing, which is nothing more than a Sicilian variant of Italian, are mutually comprehensible.
However, I would still say that correct Sicilian and Italian still shares a degree of comprehensibility, although clearly it would be far more difficult for an Italian speaker, perhaps only marginally more comprehensible than, say, Spanish.
Anyway, it's all academic, Sicilian doesn't really exist any more.
This thread has been viewed 86283 times.