![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No justification was given where I could find it. If someone has good reasons for the merge, please leave them on the talk page linked in the template. UnDeadGoat 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
An article on the history of Latin without citing Palmer? Egads! i'll be back!-- Ioshus (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"Latin was first brought to the Italian peninsula in the 9th or 8th century BC by migrants from the north, who settled in the Latium region, specifically around the River Tiber, where the Roman civilization first developed."
The Italics immigrated that late, but there was no folk memory of this immigration? While there was a folk memory of the Trojan?/Lemnian?Etruscan? migration from ca. 1180 BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.1.74 ( talk) 16:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the recent changes to my expansion of the article. OK, fine. What I look for is whether it says the same thing; that is, makes the points I wanted to make, whether it is factually correct and whether the writing is worse. It seems to pass the test OK. Stet. Now, for Renaissance Latin, that has its good points and bad points. For the good it is well written. We can't keep it though; it is entirely duplicated word for word in the Renaissance Latin article. Why do that? Moreover, the article just mentioned is tagged for no sources. It shouldn't be too hard to find sources for that good stuff. What do you say, hey? A third disadvantage is that, alas, it looks too good to be true. Wikipedia editors aren't that good; they are freshman, high school students or eight-graders posing as adults. It has to be given the Internet test for plagiarism. Logically I would get to this section after I look carefully at Renaissance Latin but if you want to correct something, correct it, hey? Or is it only me you are interested in correcting? Many times things are not as seems and something that can look good can be 100% baloney. Look at sales writing. Dave ( talk) 17:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a copy of a note I left on User:Flibjib8's talk page. I'm concerned about a number of changes (s)he made. If I don't get a response fairly soon I may revert.
Benwing ( talk) 01:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Just noticed that you changed a whole lot of things in History of Latin. I appreciate you taking the time to work on and help clean up this rather technical page.
However, I'm not convinced that all of your changes are for the better; some of them seem to make things worse. Also, some of them are stylistic, and generally Wikipedia does not favor changing the existing style of a page without discussion and agreement. So I'm wondering if you can justify why you changed them. Some issues in particular:
An example with many issues:
Old:
PIE *bher- "to carry" > ferō (cf. Greek pherō, English bear < Old English beran, Vedic Sanskrit bhárati)
New:
PIE *bʰére "carry" > ferō (cf. Old Irish beirim "I bear", English bear, Sanskrit bhárati)
Another example:
Old:
New:
Benwing ( talk) 00:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the vowel reduction of Latin is notable in its own right, because it's a major and obvious change that many students of Latin will notice. Having a dedicated article will also allow us to go into more details, regarding dating, attested examples, exceptions and so on. CodeCat ( talk) 16:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
CodeCat, a note on your recent edit. You wrote that gēns and such forms once had the ending -is, then underwent syncope of the i and other sound changes. If so, it needs explaining how the nominative singular (gēns) ended up being different from the genitive singular (gentis), and how on the other hand words like cīvis (with nominative singular and genitive singular having the same form) did not undergo syncope as gēns did. Personally, I had thought gēns and such words simply had the ending -s, requiring no vowel reduction, since that is the nominative singular ending for most masculine and feminine third declension nouns in both Latin and Greek, and that would solve this difficulty entirely. But on the other hand the form of gentium shows that the stem of the word ends in i, because otherwise it would be gentum, and therefore the nominative singular must have had i at some point as well. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. — Eru· tuon 16:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
"4. All short vowels apparently merge into -e in absolute final position." What about -a in 1st decl. vocative singular? Cf. Greek, and Slavic N. gora : V. goro. 46.186.34.99 ( talk) 22:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Greek Loanwords in Nautical Latin, Loan-Words In Latin by Edward Ross Wharton. Thought this might be help. Komitsuki ( talk) 13:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that Etruscan had widespread vowel reduction, and Latin's vowel reduction developed through language contact with Etruscan. There's precious little evidence possible on this subject, but does anyone know of a reputable scholar on language contact or historical phonology who has remarked on this?
Language contact and Sprachbund may provide explanations for several divergences in the Indo-European languages. For instance, the Germanic languages and the Uralic languages both have initial stress and assimilatory vowel changes ( umlaut and vowel harmony); Sanskrit and the Dravidian languages have retroflex consonants; Spanish and the Celtic languages both have lenition. The sharing of vowel reduction between Latin and Etruscan looks like the same type of influence. However, to simply mention it would perhaps be WP:OR. — Eru· tuon 04:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of this phonological table where you have othr languages (two Germanic) but not Latin itself?? kind of useless... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.40.118.48 ( talk) 22:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The chart says that medial o before a cluster ( of which the first consonant does not condition its own changes) stays unchanged and gives ad-optare as example. The text below says that o in the same environment becomes u and has its own supporting examples. So which is ultimately true? Anatol Rath ( talk) 22:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, this article, while full of useful information seems to be much more focused on the linguistic development of the language than the "history", ie the language in its social and political context. There are now a good four or five recent general histories of Latin that cover these topics and can be used to ensure a balanced view is given (all are in the Latin page sources).
If anyone has ideas about how to structure the article to accomodate these two views please do say. I'll hold off making changes for a bit as I've got a few other things going on, but I wanted to flag that I think this needs doing. Jim Killock (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No justification was given where I could find it. If someone has good reasons for the merge, please leave them on the talk page linked in the template. UnDeadGoat 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
An article on the history of Latin without citing Palmer? Egads! i'll be back!-- Ioshus (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"Latin was first brought to the Italian peninsula in the 9th or 8th century BC by migrants from the north, who settled in the Latium region, specifically around the River Tiber, where the Roman civilization first developed."
The Italics immigrated that late, but there was no folk memory of this immigration? While there was a folk memory of the Trojan?/Lemnian?Etruscan? migration from ca. 1180 BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.1.74 ( talk) 16:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the recent changes to my expansion of the article. OK, fine. What I look for is whether it says the same thing; that is, makes the points I wanted to make, whether it is factually correct and whether the writing is worse. It seems to pass the test OK. Stet. Now, for Renaissance Latin, that has its good points and bad points. For the good it is well written. We can't keep it though; it is entirely duplicated word for word in the Renaissance Latin article. Why do that? Moreover, the article just mentioned is tagged for no sources. It shouldn't be too hard to find sources for that good stuff. What do you say, hey? A third disadvantage is that, alas, it looks too good to be true. Wikipedia editors aren't that good; they are freshman, high school students or eight-graders posing as adults. It has to be given the Internet test for plagiarism. Logically I would get to this section after I look carefully at Renaissance Latin but if you want to correct something, correct it, hey? Or is it only me you are interested in correcting? Many times things are not as seems and something that can look good can be 100% baloney. Look at sales writing. Dave ( talk) 17:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a copy of a note I left on User:Flibjib8's talk page. I'm concerned about a number of changes (s)he made. If I don't get a response fairly soon I may revert.
Benwing ( talk) 01:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Just noticed that you changed a whole lot of things in History of Latin. I appreciate you taking the time to work on and help clean up this rather technical page.
However, I'm not convinced that all of your changes are for the better; some of them seem to make things worse. Also, some of them are stylistic, and generally Wikipedia does not favor changing the existing style of a page without discussion and agreement. So I'm wondering if you can justify why you changed them. Some issues in particular:
An example with many issues:
Old:
PIE *bher- "to carry" > ferō (cf. Greek pherō, English bear < Old English beran, Vedic Sanskrit bhárati)
New:
PIE *bʰére "carry" > ferō (cf. Old Irish beirim "I bear", English bear, Sanskrit bhárati)
Another example:
Old:
New:
Benwing ( talk) 00:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the vowel reduction of Latin is notable in its own right, because it's a major and obvious change that many students of Latin will notice. Having a dedicated article will also allow us to go into more details, regarding dating, attested examples, exceptions and so on. CodeCat ( talk) 16:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
CodeCat, a note on your recent edit. You wrote that gēns and such forms once had the ending -is, then underwent syncope of the i and other sound changes. If so, it needs explaining how the nominative singular (gēns) ended up being different from the genitive singular (gentis), and how on the other hand words like cīvis (with nominative singular and genitive singular having the same form) did not undergo syncope as gēns did. Personally, I had thought gēns and such words simply had the ending -s, requiring no vowel reduction, since that is the nominative singular ending for most masculine and feminine third declension nouns in both Latin and Greek, and that would solve this difficulty entirely. But on the other hand the form of gentium shows that the stem of the word ends in i, because otherwise it would be gentum, and therefore the nominative singular must have had i at some point as well. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. — Eru· tuon 16:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
"4. All short vowels apparently merge into -e in absolute final position." What about -a in 1st decl. vocative singular? Cf. Greek, and Slavic N. gora : V. goro. 46.186.34.99 ( talk) 22:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Greek Loanwords in Nautical Latin, Loan-Words In Latin by Edward Ross Wharton. Thought this might be help. Komitsuki ( talk) 13:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that Etruscan had widespread vowel reduction, and Latin's vowel reduction developed through language contact with Etruscan. There's precious little evidence possible on this subject, but does anyone know of a reputable scholar on language contact or historical phonology who has remarked on this?
Language contact and Sprachbund may provide explanations for several divergences in the Indo-European languages. For instance, the Germanic languages and the Uralic languages both have initial stress and assimilatory vowel changes ( umlaut and vowel harmony); Sanskrit and the Dravidian languages have retroflex consonants; Spanish and the Celtic languages both have lenition. The sharing of vowel reduction between Latin and Etruscan looks like the same type of influence. However, to simply mention it would perhaps be WP:OR. — Eru· tuon 04:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of this phonological table where you have othr languages (two Germanic) but not Latin itself?? kind of useless... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.40.118.48 ( talk) 22:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The chart says that medial o before a cluster ( of which the first consonant does not condition its own changes) stays unchanged and gives ad-optare as example. The text below says that o in the same environment becomes u and has its own supporting examples. So which is ultimately true? Anatol Rath ( talk) 22:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, this article, while full of useful information seems to be much more focused on the linguistic development of the language than the "history", ie the language in its social and political context. There are now a good four or five recent general histories of Latin that cover these topics and can be used to ensure a balanced view is given (all are in the Latin page sources).
If anyone has ideas about how to structure the article to accomodate these two views please do say. I'll hold off making changes for a bit as I've got a few other things going on, but I wanted to flag that I think this needs doing. Jim Killock (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)