Hey /his/.
Why is it called Latin and not Roman?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latium
>>1208182
Because originally Rome was just one settlement out of dozens that spoke the language which originated in a region called Latium.
>>1208191
The way I understand it, Latin was already a sort of creole Etruscan. Once it became the lingua franca, that "standard" as modern day english, indeed had minorly varying dialects. There was, for a time, a "Roman Latin", which evolved, as there today are "American English" and "British English" as a result of loanwords.
Someone tell me if this is incorrect.
>>1208206
Latin isn't a creole at all
>>1208182
Ancient Greeks call the language "roman".
Ρωμαιστι = romaistí = "in latin".
>>1208211
What substantiates this claim? It's Etruscan language with a lesser fusion of surrounding Mediterranean, primarily Greek.
>>1208206
>lingua franca
had to look this up tbqh
>>1208226
Latin and Greek don't have much in common.
>>1208238
That's why I referred to it as "a creole", opposed to a "pigdin".
>>1208226
How about you substiantiate your claim? If you think Latin is Etruscan + Greek I get the feeling you don't know anything about either language.
>>1208238
They have a lot in common actually, so much that ancient Romans erroneously believed Latin was descended from Greek, but they are actually cousins.
>>1208191
Why didn't Americans change English to American?
>>1208248
To add, if it were "Etruscan", we'd call it "Etruscan", but it's not. It's Latin, which was Etruscan with ancient Greek.
>>1208253
Because England still exists.
Romans literally had no reason not to change it from Latin to Roman.
>>1208250
>How about you substiantiate your claim? If you think Latin is Etruscan + Greek I get the feeling you don't know anything about either language.
Ok. Why are not "Latin" and "Etruscan" synonymous? What changed, what was added to make "Latin"?
>>1208263
Because they are completely different languages with different histories?
>>1208191
Why would change its name, idiot?
>>1208270
Retard.
>>1208270
No, they are most certainly not. Latin's most heavy "influence" is Etruscan, as the most heavy "influence" of English is a dialect of German, to which one adds Old Norse.
>>1208182
That image in itself is presumptive evidence of "ancient" Rome not being ancient at all.
>>1208283
Etruscan influence on Latin is just a handful of loanwords
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_terms_derived_from_Etruscan
English is literally descended form the Germanic dialects spoken on the North Sea coast.
>>1208283
to add, look at this. This was English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English#/media/File:Beowulf.firstpage.jpeg
In a similar fashion, in an early period, "Latin" would have been barely recognizable from "classical Latin".
>>1208253
They did, though.
>>1208257
Well they didn't if you were still wondering.
>>1208257
On the contrary, they had no reason to change it from Latin to Roman. What's the point?
I hate this language/nation/ethnic group origin discussion.
It's always a bunch of retarded arguments that never go anywhere. It's always the same style, always the same pattern, always goes on for whole threads.
Fuck this.
>>1208289
What do you mean, my man?
>>1208292
English is the bastard child of Old English being a cum dumpster for every other language on the planet.
>>1208309
The one from 1989 only has one word that isn't from Old English
>>1208300
I don't know, them not changing it to Roman just doesn't align with the way I perceive Romans.
I feel like they were extremely proud of themselves and had the need to put their name on everything and conquer everything, so why not change the name of your official language?
>>1208309
But Old English wasn't "every language on the planet". It was Germanic with Norse, later influenced, over centuries, by Frankish, and the "cum dumpster" part happened during the period of the Enlightenment, when intellectuals cleverly fused Latin and Greek orthography.
To be able to study languages you also need to know those languages, right?
Now, that's fucked up, and like double the effort than just majoring in one language.
>>1208316
Because the original speakers weren't Roman, they were Latin. Latins were an important part of Rome's early history and they knew it. If there's one thing the Romans overcame themselves with it's preserving history.
>>1208319
Similarly, "Latin" was an Italic dialect, as was Etruscan, and while Etruscan was slightly older and more prevalent in the inception of "old latin", Latin was heavily influenced by the "Greek" of the southern Italian peninsula. That "Greek" was not the "classical Greek" you'd recognize, but nonetheless, the progenitor of that classical Greek. Latin speakers were right "in the middle" and it was a fusion, with the stronger influence being Etruscan.
Now, I'm not trying to pontificate, here, but this is genuinely the way I understand the evolution of the language that would become "old Latin".
>>1208339
Etruscan is not Italic, or even Indo-European. And Latin was not heavily influenced by Greek.
>>1208339
Here, look at this map.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages#/media/File:Iron_Age_Italy.svg
That "Greek" in the southern Italian peninsula evolved from something relatively unrecognizable from the written ancient Greek. All these people traded and interacted.
>>1208339
And Latin was not influenced by Etruscan either.
>>1208339
>"Latin" was an Italic dialect, as was Etruscan
So you know nothing about any of those 3 languages but you looked at a map and decided that's how it worked out?
>>1208350
Now, I know that isn't correct. The amount in which Etruscan language influenced the development of Latin differs from one hypothesis to another. You've just categorically eliminated all of them in one statement.
>>1208361
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_terms_derived_from_Etruscan
This is the extent of Etruscan influence on Latin, a few dozen loanwords, and if you click on half of these it says the source is "unknown, perhaps from Etrsucan"
>>1208358
So you're going to propose Latin evolved in a vacuum, completely independent, in its little territory, from the surrounding dialects?
>>1208369
Those are examples, not a conclusive lexicon.
>>1208372
It has 25,000 entries, and Etruscan loans only make up around 30, most of which are dubious. It's pretty complete.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_lemmas
>>1208372
Ok, tell us more about how Etruscan is an italic dialect along with Latin.
>>1208309
The Old English is not a word-by-word equivalent to the modern English version, which is partly why it looks so different. Not denying that Old English is mad different tho.
>>1208344
>Latin was not heavily influenced by Greek
It was pretty heavily influenced by Greek.
It is my opinion the destruction of "classical" culture wouldn't have occurred, had Rome not enfranchised non-Mediterranean peoples (under Caracalla) - whose cultures weren't nearly as advanced as those to the South of them - and given them partial control of the Mediterranean World.
>>1208339
>Etruscan is an Italic language, the Greek of Magna Graecia was the ancestor of Attic Greek
This has to be bait.
>>1208404
Latin did get a lot of loanwords from Greek, but this happened much later, after the time period this guy's talking about.
>>1208399
Ok. Where do you believe Etruscan falls on this?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/IndoEuropeanTreeDielli1.svg
I believe it's a "sister" of Sabellic.
>>1208309
saved
>>1208413
Actually, "this guy" proposes it happened far earlier, in a time you might not "recognize Greek", as I was attempting to illustrate there was a time you might not "recognize English".
>>1208415
>Etruscan is traditionally considered to be a language isolate. Bonfante, a leading scholar in the field, says "... it resembles no other language in Europe or elsewhere ...".[9] The ancients were aware that Etruscan was an isolate. In the first century BC, the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus stated that the Etruscan language was unlike any other.[16]
>>1208415
>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/IndoEuropeanTreeDielli1.svg
How about not at fucking all on that chart since the top of it say indo-european.
>>1208427
By the time Etruscan language evolved into the 1st Century BC, it quite likely was unrecognizable. I'm discussing 1000 years prior.
>>1208419
it's all yours my friend
>>1208430
You think Etruscan was not Indo European? It was just "born there", huh.
>>1208436
If Etruscan was related to Latin we would know it
Linguists recognized the relation between Indo-European languages that split at around 3000 BC.
>>1208440
Ok, maybe you've convinced me. Let's see your extensive research. Grammar, vocabulary, and comparative analysis with other early indo-european languages that have been missed by the world's greatest historical linguists.
>>1208440
Was indo-european just "born there", huh.
>>1208440
PIE was a language spread by steppe nomads, mong
Roman is a cultural thing you fool. There are no ethnic romans or ethnic byzantines. If you apply the same standard to the WRE, it was never a roman empire.
The patricians spoke Greek, they worshipped Eastern gods and cults, their armies were full of provincials, their emperors were Syrians, Iberians, and Illyrians. Rome itself was irrelevant for two centuries before the WRE fell.
>>1208453
I have the same evidence anyone else has. I come to a slightly different conclusion.
>>1208574
>all of this wrong
>>1208584
>still not understanding 'Roman' was just citizenship and not an ethnic denomination
>>1208574
Hmm, they weren't actually "Iberians", there are better words for "people of the Iberian peninsula", and "Iberians" were from far to the east. The rest of your logic is sound.
>>1208588
Second wrong post. The myth of the "multicultural Roman paradise"
Romans were cultural exporters; they built, and forced themselves onto the populace. Rejection of the empire was grounds for an execution. Forced subscription into the military was normal. That's why today we are still heavily influenced by them.
Just your daily reminder that Caligula, Commodus, Nero, and Elagabalus did nothing wrong.
>>1208605
>subscription
>conscription
Not to whom you're replying, but the logic is historically sound. Rome exerted control over an area, those people, under provisions, could become "Roman citizens", i.e. "Romans". That becomes a matter of semantics. It would be very odd a difficult for "all Roman provinces" to have been populated specifically from the gene pool around Rome proper. That is not the correct understanding.
If I lived in Hispania in 200AD, if I was a citizen, I was a "Roman". See, here you have the same kind of misunderstanding that happens via skewed interpretation and, sometimes, poetics. Look at the statement, from a 19th century poem, about the events of 1776, wherein a particular rider might have announced, "The British are coming!". Well, no shit, sherlock, one of them was on a horse yelling about it, because he was a British citizen in a British colony.
>>1208591
>>1208605
Roman was citizenship not nationality. Get it right.
>>1208630
Wait you actually seriously think Roman emperors were black
pfftt...hahahahh
And let me guess...it's all a conspiracy by world wide historians to keep it a secret?
>>1208630
Iberians were from the Caucasus mountain area north of Persia. They were decidedly not Roman. Calling "people of the Iberian peninsula" as "Iberians" is just lazy and historically inaccurate. It was my point that, if they were citizens, they were Romans, not Iberians, and further, if they were not "Romans", they'd have been referred by the city of their origin, not the fact they were from "south of a river".
>>1208637
Are you of the understanding they were categorically "Anglo"? They were not. They were varying shades of olive-skinned Mediterraneans. Ariana Grande looks more "stock Roman" than Justin Bieber, but that would not have precluded someone who looked like Justin Bieber, or Ice Cube for that matter, from being "a Roman".
>>1208637
Why is it so fucking hard for you autists to accept that there was actually a black emperor?
>>1208630
>this pic
>berber and syrian
>having anything to do with subsaharan african
Holy shit the mental gymnastics
>>1208688
There's another word with an ambiguous distinction of skin tone, "Berber". There were very dark skinned Berbers, particularly in West Africa, which is not "subsaharan".
Something tells me you're trying to pigeon-hole "black people" to hut dwellers in and south of the Congo region, and that's not ever correct.
>>1208226
... what?
Latin is an Italic language, which is a group made up of the different languages that evolved from the Indo-European groups that migrated to Italy (Oscan, Umbrian, Scillian, Latin). Italic languages are closely related to the larger Celtic group of languages.
Latin picked up a few grammatical structures from the Etruscans, which may or may not be from the Tyrsenian languages family, making it unrelated to Indo-European languages.
It's even less related to Greek. Latin merely adopted loanwords from the Greek, but it never influenced the language itself.
t. knower
>>1208699
>berbers
>west africa
>west africa
>not subsaharan
u wot?
>>1208339
>[...] an Italic dialect, as was Etruscan
Are you retarded?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrsenian_languages
>>1208703
>Latin picked up a few grammatical structures from the Etruscans
Like what?
>>1208703
>Tyrsenian
Is a hypothetical term. There were no actual "Tyrsenian people". It's a placeholder in a popularly held understanding, but to keep that understanding, you'll have to maintain that group was never invaded or culturally assimilated by surrounding cultures for thousands (read thousands) of years, and no one, not one culture, has accomplished this, let alone a little one in the middle of a bunch of hungry, pissed off "Pleistocenes".
>>1208372
Latin evolved as an Italic language, eventually mixing up and absorbing Umbrian, Oscan and Scillan. They took some loanwords from the Etruscans and Greeks, but couldn't do much more because those 2 languages are so far removed from the Italic branch no meaningful grammatical exchange could take place.
Basically it's like in the Balkans, where the Slavs use Turkish/Persian loanwords (kupus, kava, dušman, etc...), but not much more, becuase the languages are to dissimilar for any other mixing to take place.
>>1208705
Tell me about how you feel the people of Ghana looked in the 3rd century CE, trans-saharan traders. As Arabs? no.
Better yet, how did the Libyans and Nubians appear to the Egyptians? You think lighter? Think again.
>>1208711
Dunno, that's what my Professor said, she didn't really elaborate.
>>1208699
I'm not, I know there were several civilizations in subsaharan Africa (btw by definition West Africa is the region below the Sahara and West of the Niger river drainage basin, pretty subsaharan if you ask me) and there are dark-skinned people in north africa, but that's besides the point. I'm saying that comparing Ice cube, of probable West African descent, who has a wide face and a spread nose, with anyone of Berber descent is utterly absurd. Mongols and Armenians have about the same skin tone but they wouldn't be comparable
If anything Caracalla was something between Zidane and Ice T "color-wise"
I know that Egyptians were darker than the average European and that some important Roman figures were "tanned" or tawny but it doesn't mean that u wuz kangz in any way
>>1208748
You're thinking of "Berbers" in the era after the cultural influence of "Phoenecians" (which wasn't an actual people either, but a label), as Carthaginians and Moroccans. They were darker before 700BC.
>>1208718
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_languages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
>>1208580
So prove it. Show us how you came to your conclusions. You could literally change linguistics as we know it.
>>1208718
What are you saying? That the original etruscans were conquered and culturally assimilated by indo-europeans? If there language is indo-european show us the evidence. That's all you need to do.
>>1208759
Thanks, user-contributed wikipedia by people with oft-misled modern understanding, making people know daily more and more about less and less.
>>1208761
>That the original etruscans were conquered and culturally assimilated by indo-europeans?
What else are they? Space aliens? In another thread, I already debated a guy who thinks Scandinavians are half-angel. Gooby, pls.
>>1208771
Ok, so show us how their language is indo-european. That's all I want. Nothing else. Just your comparative analysis that refutes everything linguists have proven.
>>1208775
First tell me from where else cultural influence have come. If you cannot, they're just an extant branch with a slightly faster evolving dialect to the point which it was unrecognizable by the last first millenium BC, not "a whole other creature", for which you'd need to invent labels as "Tyrsenian" because you reached the end of your rope with excuses.
>>1208779
Not evidence.
Again, how is etruscan an indo-european language? Vocabulary, grammar, syntax?
>>1208785
Tell me how "Ebonics" is English in grammar and syntax.
>>1208703
Radan Rusanov
>>1208790
Not evidence.
Why do you seem reticent to show how you reached your conclusions?
>>1208794
Why don't you point to a person or skeleton and say "That was a Tyrsenian"? My evidence is the lack of evidence to support your argument of authority. You're not understanding someone completely made up a word to "fix a bridge" which appeared to have a gap. The bridge never needed fixing, the bridge was always there, evident in the way we know dialects evolve.
>>1208793
What?
Also if anyone is interetsed I found this rad book sometime ago: A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian.
https://archive.org/details/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft
>>1208802
Not evidence.
Show how etruscan is indo-european.
>>1208724
based serb
>>1208729
What do you mean? You think they were completely black? As in Chief Keef tier black? Nah.
>>1208790
Ebonics (or AAVE) is an actually recognized dialect of English with its own conventions and everything. It isn't just random slang like a lot of people seem to think it is.
Suck my dick.
>>1208805
http://www.maravot.com/Indo-European_Table.html
>>1208841
Ebonics is fucking garbage tier for any given purpose that isn't being an idiot gangbanger.
>>1208864
It's good for rap and having fun with friends.
>>1208864
You've made it clear that you don't understand linguistics at all. Fuck off.
>>1208874
That guy probably doesn't. He's not the one with whom you've been having the conversation.
Why did people stop speaking Latin?
>>1208903
They didn't, it just changed into the Romance languages over many generations.
>>1208903
Well, because Latin evolved into various "Vulgar" dialects. The specific "Latin" became other things. Almost all languages evolve over time, words become substituted with new ideas, people add slang, vernacular, soon you have something which barely resembles the predecessor.
I guess, in a non-academic way, you could argue "every person who speaks Spanish, Italian, French, Portugese" is speaking a sort of "new Latin", but that's not wholly correct, either.
>>1208915
>almost all
>>1208916
Some languages have changed very little over 3000 years or longer because of specific cultural tradition which retains terms for spiritual implications.
>>1208916
>binary
>>1208915
>evolved into various "Vulgar" dialects
>>1208905
>They didn't, it just changed
It didn't evolve. American English evolved from the Queens English. People in Italy went from speaking Latin to speaking Italian. And in the Vatican people still speak Latin. Latin is in our textbooks for the names of animals, plants species and genus. Homo-Erectus is Latin.
Homo is the same word 1 thousand years ago and the same word today. It didn't evolve. It was abandoned. People stopped speaking it in public for some reason. I need a more concrete explanation.
>>1208916
A Hebrew speaker can look at text from 1100BC and know exactly what it says. Some grammar has changed slightly, and terms have been added, but it's very clear what the text says.
>>1208922
The "Vatican people" don't just run around "speaking Latin".
American English didn't just "evolve" from "Queen's English".
People didn't just "go from speaking Latin to speaking Italian".
Damn, come on.
>>1208922
>I need a more concrete explanation.
You've already got one. You just refuse to accept it for some fucking reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_language
>>1208859
Not evidence.
But you would know that if you had spent some time studying etruscan.
Or maybe you already knew that and you were seeing if you could get one by me? Good job, I hope I proved my linguistic capabilities to you.
Now, where is your evidence?
>>1208938
Schizophrenic troll. You don't know Etruscan from your asshole.
>>1208932
>You've already got one. You just refuse to accept it for some fucking reason.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_language
OK I just read that and it doesn't answer the question.
Let me break down the question. In America there were some Indian tribes that we're sent to school. It was called boarding school and the children were forbidden to speak their native language. The language of many of the tribes have been forgotten or lost but not all because not all tribes were subjected to the same conditions. Some signed treaties for example.
Now back to Latin. Were the people in Egypt or Lybia part of the Rome? Did they speak Latin at one time? Why do they now speak Arabic? Honest question. How do the changes take place?
>>1208922
>Homo is the same word 1 thousand years ago and the same word today. It didn't evolve. It was abandoned
No it wasn't, it became homme in French, hombre in Spanish, and uomo in Italian.
>>1208925
>>1208934
Hebrew was revived in the 20th century. Before that it was dead since 200 AD. And even when it was still alive it changed quite a bit throughout its lifetime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hebrew#Sound_changes
>>1208943
Not evidence.
And you know that's not Etruscan. Just from the first line you know, right?
Now, just show some evidence or own up to the fact that you have no linguistic training.
>>1208950
>No it wasn't, it became homme in French, hombre in Spanish, and uomo in Italian.
If you go to school in France, Spain or Italy the book uses the latin word "homo." For example in a French Science TextBook:
" Homo erectus signifie littéralement « homme dressé, droit » en latin : ce nom binominal d'espèce est un héritage historique lié à la description"
All the classifications are catagorized by Latin for plants and animals. In America and England as well. If I say to you that you are a homo sapien how do you know what I am saying? Because when you went to school you were taught Latin terminology just as the rest of us.
>>1208954
Huh. Did your extensive linguistic training tell you that guy wasn't speaking Etruscan to you, right there?
I know, I know. Not evidence.
>>1208966
Your point? It evolved naturally into homme, hombre, and uomo, then was borrowed back into those languages a millenium later.
>>1208966
But that didn't start until the 17th century. Before the enlightenment, if you said, "Cogito ergo sum" to an English speaker, he'd have said, "God bless you, infidel".
>>1208973
or I guess he might have recognized it, were he of upper crust, and thought you might be a priest, but now I'm digressing. Latin was not a part of English until later.
>>1208966
"Homo sapiens" as you understand it was coined by a Swede in the 18th Century.
If I say "c'est la vie", does that mean I speak French?
>>1208630
>Mixed Syrian and Berber
>implying this would make you black-skinned
lyl
>>1208182
because romans werent the only latins
there were many south of rome who eventually found themselves under rome during the time of the samnite wars
>>1208995
Syrians and Berber were 100% black before the albino demons came along.
My source is the history channel, you should check out their upcoming "Barbarians rising" series, their portrayal of Hannibal should enlighten your racist mind.
>>1208973
>But that didn't start until the 17th century.
I see. And my question is why. Why did things change? In the US there is a definitive answer why natives don't speak their language. They were forbidden by law.
Why did things change in the 17th century? Was it war, religion, we're people being burned at the stake and accused of being witches?
Saying Latin evolved doesn't explain very much. If you don't know just say you don't know.
>>1209042
People started adding Latin and Greek terms to English vocabulary in the 17th century to be stylish. There was an awakened interest in ancient languages because more and more people were being educated, outside the church, in history and anthropology. It began simply as a prefix or a suffix in some editorialist's musing, and caught on as a trend, putting the words together in ways, probably never intended or uttered in the original practice of said languages. Sometimes you can catch orthographically diverse terms which are obvious imaginations as adding "un", "anti" or "proto" to anything.
>>1208874
suck my fucking dick you fucking retard
>>1208947
The thing about Vulgar Latin that makes it hard to study is the fact that we've found almost no written sources attesting to it. Remember, we're talking about antiquity here. The vast majority of the population was completely illiterate. Those who could read and write wrote in the increasingly-archaic "Classical Latin" dialect, while the common people's dialect slowly diverged from it over time.
Eventually, all those different dialects in different parts of the Empire became languages unto themselves, mutually unintelligible from one another and from Classical Latin itself, which is around the time they suddenly begin appearing in the written record, as by this point the Western Empire has collapsed and Latin is becoming less and less useful.
Although much of North Africa was Roman at one point, a Latin dialect never really took root once the Romans left, as the people in the area weren't completely supplanted by Romans (like the Celtic Gauls in France) and the people living there already had written languages. However, when the Arabs conquered North Africa, they not only began supplanting the native population, they also introduced Islam, which pretty much requires one to learn Arabic in order to practice it properly. As a result, Arabic became the dominant language of the area.
Interestingly, Arabic is currently going through a similar process as Latin once did - most Arabic is written in one dialect called "Modern Standard Arabic", while spoken Arabic has split into multiple regional dialects. In some places, kids need to be taught Modern Standadd Arabic in school as if it's a foreign language. However, Standard Arabic's continued relevancy in the Islamic world and relatively high literacy compared to antiquity are currently preventing the Arabic dialects from completely fracturing into different languages altogether.
>>1209461
>Although much of North Africa was Roman at one point, a Latin dialect never really took root once the Romans left
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Romance
>>1209371
lol?
>>1208182
What monument is this?
Hey /his/.
Why is it called English and not American?
>>1214384
Because England still exists.
Meanwhile Latins got completely assimilated by Romans, so there was no reason in keeping the old name of the language.
>>1214391
The Romans WERE Latins
But thats besides the point. Theres no official body that changes the names of things, it was called latin and it remained as latin because it was called latin so it remained as latin
>>1214393
If I was a Roman emperor, I would have renamed it.
Or maybe I'd name it after myself, I'd also name every city after myself.
>>1214396
Go to bed Commodus
>>1214396
Go to bed Alexander
>Aeneid
this whole thread is just intellectual masturbation
>>1214746
Stay jealous you don't get it.
>>1208339
>Etruscan was an Italic dialect
Why do people just pull shit out of their ass and expect no one to notice?
>>1208440
Holy shit, you're actually doubling down on this, against every linguist who has ever studied this question? Only thing left to do is point and laugh.
>>1216350
>Why do people just pull shit out of their ass and expect no one to notice?
So that wasn't true?
Fuck. I get most of my history knowledge from this board. I should stop taking everything I read here as a fact. I just assume that everyone here knows so much about history.
