How Did Italian Arise?

A question for those linguists out there! Latin is very different to modern day Italian and the Empire was overrun by Germanic races when it crumbled so how did Italian and the modern race arise? Modern Italians to me seem different to my idea of Romans in fact in some ways almost the opposite of the organised methodical Romans.

Modern Italians to me seem different to my idea of Romans in fact in some ways almost the opposite of the organised methodical Romans.

Thank you very much Gini -.-

the only big difference between italian and latin is the presence of declansions i think. Verbs and nouns are pretty similar.

Concerning our culture...we have more latin and roman elements than everyone else in the world

Gini-this older thread may be of assistance to you :

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3179

This thread might migrate to join it depending on how it develops.

the only big difference between italian and latin is the presence of declansions i think. Verbs and nouns are pretty similar.

It's more than just the lack of declensions--which didn't really happen as much as people think. There are still 3 declensions: -o, -a, -other. There were several major morpho-syntactical and phonological differences between Classical Latin and the modern Romance languages, including Italian:

Nominal differences:

--loss of case > fixed word order in the phrase and in the sentences, increased used of prepositional phrases

--loss of the third, neuter gender > fixation of the bi-generic system (masculine and feminine)

--invention of and increased use of determiners (Latin had demonstratives, but there was a much larger contingent of demonstratives in Latin, some of which became used as definite articles, other which fell out of use)

--because of the loss of case and the phonogical changes, the number inflections changed a bit--although they still pulled from the nominative plural inflections of Latin (Rumanian did, too, but no other Romance language did, I'm almost positive (my Sardinain knowledge is off))

Verbal differences:

--loss of the perfect (and changing of the endings) > increased use of the 'present perfect' (yes the passato remoto is still used, but its role in the language has died down considerably)

--change in the simple future endings--the Latin system went by the wayside and in its place was a synthetic form (pan-Romance) which was a combination of the infinitive + habeo/habere (pres.ind.)

--creation of a new perfective system, which used mostly habere (and occasionally essere) with the past participle

--loss of the future perfect, the pluperfect indicative, the imperfect and perfect subjunctive, the perfect and future infinitives and the future participle.

--complete dismemberment of the passive and middle system > forms of esse/essere + past participle

Syntactical differences:

--fixed word order, at the expense of the case system

--increased use of conjunctions (which were free morphemes, instead of Latin's bound morphemes)

As I understand it, there were slight changes in aspect (preterite/perfect vs. imperfect), and the move to using the compound passato prossimo would show this, but someone more qualified on Latin aspect can answer this better, perhaps. Also, I believe that the role of subjunctive increased with the modern languages, but again I defer to a Latin expert. (I need to brush up on my Latin )

Phonological differences (excuse the lack of IPA notation here):

--loss of final consonants, except for borrowed words (true Italian words are almost always vowel-final)

--palatalization of the yod--this takes a while to explain, but there are numerous Latin sound combinations which usually involved an alveolar or velar stop with a weak front vowel (usually or occasionally [e]), and these would create your palatal affricates and fricatives. I can go into this at depth later.

--reduction of the Latin vowel system--starting with the loss of length as a phoneme, but including the paring down of the vowel options to 7

--creation of consonantal sounds: [v], the trill [r:] (no one that I have read is fully convinced that there was one in Latin, but probably there was the tap/flap [r]), the palatal liquid (the 'gl' sound), the palatal nasal (the 'gn' sound), the various fricatives and affricates which are a result of the palatalization of the yod.

--Italian seemed, by and large, to have kept the Latin stress pattern better than the other Romance languages. Latin's stress patter was: if the penultimate syllable was a closed syllable (CVC) or a long open syllable (CV:), then it held the stress; if not, then it was the antepenultimate syllable. Italian is close to this: if the penultimate syllable is closed (CVC), then the vowel is short, and if the penultimate syllable is open and stressed, the vowel is long (CV:). But there are differences as to where Italian places stress--it's not always on the penultimate syllable.

I know I've left some out...but I'm not much of a morning person...so excuse omissions, please. But this, as you can see, is quite a list. I will say this: of the Romance languages, Italian phonologically is closer to Classical Latin than most (I think Sardinian is the only one closer), but morphologically and syntactically it is quite a bit different.

Gini:

Your wrong opinion may have been formed by an overdose of the propaganda, prevarications and perjoratives of the 'better' beings. Perhaps Hollywood was of help. An extended excursion to Italy would amend your knowledge. Always keep in mind that in the Book of Culture, all others are mere footnotes - if that.

Insofar as 'language' is concerned, a dose of Docoflove will be a good tonic.

In the thread Pertinax reccommended to you, have a care as regards Ladino. Depending on where and when it was spoken, it could have been heavily larded with Greek, Turkish, Arabic and Hebrew. Romansch is a Hindustani based language spoken by the Romany.

Now, for a digression. What is the status of Rhaeto-Romanic with regard to Latin?

In the thread Pertinax reccommended to you, have a care as regards Ladino. Depending on where and when it was spoken, it could have been heavily larded with Greek, Turkish, Arabic and Hebrew. Romansch is a Hindustani based language spoken by the Romany.

And depends on which Ladino you're looking at: Ladino the language of the (ex) Spanish and Portuguese Jews, who were expelled from Iberia in the reign of los Reyes Catolicos, or Ladino the Alps-based Rhaeto-Romance dialect/language. I've never head of 'Romansch' as a version of Romani...where did you get that from?

Now, for a digression. What is the status of Rhaeto-Romanic with regard to Latin?

My expertise in this area is lacking, but a great source is: Haiman, John, and Paola Beninc

I've never head of 'Romansch' as a version of Romani...where did you get that from?

 

Actually, dear lady, I have been wondering where YOU got that from? Another quake out there?

Actually, dear lady, I have been wondering where YOU got that from? Another quake out there?

Um...I'm confused. Romani, indeed, has been 'classified' as a Hindu-based language, although the language has undergone an extraordinate amount of change lexically, phonologically and morph-syntactically. Romansch is an alternate name for Rhaeto-Romance, or of a dialect of it, depending on your persuasion.

Thanks so much for the help guys. Ginevra no offence intended - you may note my name which is Italian by the way.(save your criticism Gaius Ocatvius for the factual) I love ancient Rome AND I love modern Italy And this is not a quality judgement - who's is to say that supreme organisation is better than creativity and emotion. Look at the fantastic Italian art of the Renaissance which still goes on. I have friends who do incredible art work for a hobby in their spare time. The creativity in Italy is amazing and i have never seen it to such a scale anywhere elseThe Romans were incredible engineers but looked up to the Greeks for art. Just an aside butI stayed with an engineering family in Milan and was fascinated at the father who was to my mind an ancient Roman in appearance. He later told he couldn't understand his wife going to La Scala as he didn't really appreciate it - the only music he reallyliked was military marches.

I am also talking about the SOUND of the language. I know there are many similarities in grammar having studied Latin many years ago though ot a linguist and not knowledgeabel about historical language stuff, but the Roman plus OstrgGoth does not equal for me equal Italian Perhaps the romans were much more expressive than we think.\

My opinion is not from Hollywood but from living in Italy, reading about the Romans. Hollywood plays up the decadence, opulence etc This is not the feeling I get from reading - while it was there it wa not what Rome was about

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this too and will read the threads when I get some time

"... so how did Italian and the modern race arise?"

Italy's population can not be fit into the category of any one race. The concept of race is not scientific. Do you mean the modern Italian culture? Even with that, there are many microcultures in Italy according to region and social class.

I am also talking about the SOUND of the language. I know there are many similarities in grammar having studied Latin many years ago though ot a linguist and not knowledgeabel about historical language stuff, but the Roman plus OstrgGoth does not equal for me equal Italian Perhaps the romans were much more expressive than we think.\

The sound of the language is a very interesting question, but hard to answer. Many other people think that Italian has a very musical sound, but who is to tell us whether Latin sounded similar? The only comments are likely to have been made by Greeks, and they traditionally regarded the peoples of Italy as (1) barbarians or (2) imperialists, and in severe cases both.

Classical Greek depended on rise and fall of tones, but not in every syllable, like Chinese or Thai; rather in each word, like Burmese or Welsh. I have always guessed that Greek would have sounded a bit like one of these two latter languages.

Unlike classical Greek, Latin had stress; one stress per word. What to compare it with? There is a big difference with Italian because classical Latin also had a crucial distinction of vowel length, in every syllable, which Italian doesn't. If you can imagine a language that sounds half way between Finnish (which has the vowel length distinction) and Italian (which has the stress, and the right consonant groups) you might have pinned down classical Latin.

But then comes the big change between classical Latin (which people wrote, and must have spoken up to a certain point) and vulgar Latin (which must be the way everyone eventually spoke, at least in the mid and later empire, because it is the origin of the Romance languages). Vulgar Latin had lost the vowel length distinction and had also the same seven vowel sounds that Italian has. So vulgar Latin must, really, have sounded quite a lot like Italian (or Spanish, or a mixture; but without the -th- sound of Spanish, and without the -ch- sound of Italian).

But then comes the big change between classical Latin (which people wrote, and must have spoken up to a certain point) and vulgar Latin (which must be the way everyone eventually spoke, at least in the mid and later empire, because it is the origin of the Romance languages). Vulgar Latin had lost the vowel length distinction and had also the same seven vowel sounds that Italian has. So vulgar Latin must, really, have sounded quite a lot like Italian (or Spanish, or a mixture; but without the -th- sound of Spanish, and without the -ch- sound of Italian).

Good point, Signore Dalby, one I forgot to bring up. Jozsef Herman (2000) notes Sacerdos (late 3rd c. AD) in mentioning that at that point the long vowels had been shortened in the final syllable, and an even later grammarian Sergius "explicitly comments that 'it is difficult to know which syllables are naturally long' (that is, which syllables contain a long vowel; syllabas natura longas difficile est scire, GL, IV.533)" (p. 28). His statement is that, beyond the comments from the grammarians, "there are other indications that confusion over length had come into Vulgar Latin toward the end of the Empire" (p. 29), such as the construction of poems (he notes Commodian), but I wonder if this is not just the typical lag between speech and written documentation. As I have said for years, we really need that time machine up and running, so we can go back and observe all of this!

But then comes the big change between classical Latin (which people wrote, and must have spoken up to a certain point) and vulgar Latin (which must be the way everyone eventually spoke, at least in the mid and later empire, because it is the origin of the Romance languages). Vulgar Latin had lost the vowel length distinction and had also the same seven vowel sounds that Italian has. So vulgar Latin must, really, have sounded quite a lot like Italian (or Spanish, or a mixture; but without the -th- sound of Spanish, and without the -ch- sound of Italian).

 

Good point, Signore Dalby, one I forgot to bring up. Jozsef Herman (2000) notes Sacerdos (late 3rd c. AD) in mentioning that at that point the long vowels had been shortened in the final syllable, and an even later grammarian Sergius "explicitly comments that 'it is difficult to know which syllables are naturally long' (that is, which syllables contain a long vowel; syllabas natura longas difficile est scire, GL, IV.533)" (p. 28). His statement is that, beyond the comments from the grammarians, "there are other indications that confusion over length had come into Vulgar Latin toward the end of the Empire" (p. 29), such as the construction of poems (he notes Commodian), but I wonder if this is not just the typical lag between speech and written documentation. As I have said for years, we really need that time machine up and running, so we can go back and observe all of this!

Put me down for a ticket. And I promise to distribute a phrase book of Roman foods to all passengers. But we'll need Pertinax there with his herbal skills to keep us healthy.

Please invite me. I promise to keep my tounge. All I wish to do, is to amend my prior bad habits.

docoflove1974 -- thank you so much for your detailed comparison of Italian and Latin. I'm starting Italian in the Fall, and this will be a great help. I'm also starting my 4th year of Latin, and have already completed 4 years of spanish, 2 years of ancient greek, and 1 year of modern greek. No doubt your summary will help keep it all straight! Thanks again!