Proto-Italic Language
Get Proto-Italic Language essential facts below. View Videos or join the Proto-Italic Language discussion. Add Proto-Italic Language to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Proto-Italic Language
Proto-Italic
Reconstruction ofItalic languages
RegionItalian Peninsula
Eraca. 1000 BCE
Reconstructed
ancestor
Lower-order reconstructions

The Proto-Italic language is the ancestor of the Italic languages, most notably Latin and its descendants, the Romance languages. It is not directly attested in writing, but has been reconstructed to some degree through the comparative method. Proto-Italic descended from the earlier Proto-Indo-European language.[1]

History

Based on glottochronological evidence, Proto-Italic is believed to have split off from the archaic western Proto-Indo-European dialects some time before 2500 BC.[2][3] It was originally spoken by Italic tribes north of the Alps before they moved south into the Italian Peninsula during the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE. Linguistic evidence also points to early contacts with Celtic tribes and Proto-Germanic speakers.[4]

Although an equation between archeological and linguistic evidence cannot be established with certainty, the Proto-Italic language is generally associated with the Terramare (1700-1150 BCE) and Villanovan cultures (900-700 BCE).[4]

Phonology

Consonants

Proto-Italic consonants
Bilabial Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Labial-velar
Nasal m n (?)
Plosive p  b t  d k  ? k?  
Fricative ?  (?) ??  ð? s  (z) x  (?) x??  ?
Trill r
Approximant j w
Lateral l
  • [?] was an allophone of /n/ before a velar consonant.
  • The voiced fricatives [?], [ð], [?], [] and [z] were in complementary distribution with word-initial voiceless fricatives [?], [?], [x], [x?] and [s], and were thus originally simply allophones of each other. However, at some point in the Proto-Italic period, the allophony was somewhat disrupted by the loss of the voiceless allophones [x?] and [?], which merged with [?]. Scholars disagree on whether to reconstruct Proto-Italic with the phonemes /x? ~ / and /? ~ ð/ still present (hence assuming that the merger with [?] was a later areal change that spread across all extant dialects, possibly occurring simultaneous with or after the loss of the corresponding voiced fricatives), or to reconstruct Proto-Italic with the phonemes' voiceless allophones merged into /? ~ ?/, and their voiced allophones becoming independent phonemes /ð/, //. Both of these sounds are relatively uncommon cross-linguistically, and eventually they were eliminated in all later languages, but differently in each.

Vowels

Short vowels
Front Central Back
Close i u
Mid e (?) o
Open a
Long vowels
Front Central Back
Close i: u:
Mid e: o:
Open a:
  • /?/ was perhaps not a true phoneme, but was inserted before consonants as a prop vowel. It can be reconstructed based on the outcome of the Proto-Indo-European syllabic nasals *m? and *n?, which appear in Latin as *em, *en or *im, *in, but also as *am, *an in Osco-Umbrian alongside *em, *en. Thus, it appears necessary to reconstruct /?/ as a distinct sound.

Proto-Italic had the following diphthongs:

  • Short: *ai, *ei, *oi, *au, *ou
  • Long: *?i, *?i, *?i

Osthoff's law remained productive in Proto-Italic. This caused long vowels to shorten when they were followed by a sonorant and another consonant in the same syllable: V:RC > VRC. As the long diphthongs were also V:R sequences, they could only occur word-finally, and were shortened elsewhere. Long vowels were also shortened before word-final *-m. This is the cause of the many occurrences of short *-a- in, for example, the endings of the ?-stems or of ?-verbs.

Prosody

Proto-Italic words had a fixed stress on the first syllable. This stress pattern probably remained in most descendants. In Latin, it remained during the Old Latin period, after which it was replaced with the "Classical" penultimate stress pattern.

Grammar

Nouns

Nouns could have one of three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. They declined for seven of the eight Proto-Indo-European cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative and locative. The instrumental case had been lost. Nouns also declined for number in singular and plural. The dual number was no longer distinguished, although a few remnants (like Latin duo, amb?) still preserved some form of the inherited dual inflection.

o-stems

This class corresponds to the second declension of Latin. It descends from the Proto-Indo-European thematic declension. Most nouns in this class were masculine or neuter, but there may have been some feminine nouns as well.

o-stem declension[5]
*agros[6] m.
"field"
*jugom[6] n.
"yoke"
Singular Plural Singular Plural
Nominative *agros *agr?s
( *agroi)
*jugom *jug?
Vocative *agre *agr?s
( *agroi)
*jugom *jug?
Accusative *agrom *agrons *jugom *jug?
Genitive *agrosjo
*agr?
*agrom *jugosjo
*jug?
*jugom
Dative *agr?i *agrois *jug?i *jugois
Ablative *agr?d *agrois *jug?d *jugois
Locative *agroi?
*agrei?
*agrois *jugoi?
*jugei?
*jugois
  • The genitive singular in *-? is of unknown origin, but is found in both Italic and Celtic. It mostly ousted the older (presumably inherited) genitive in *-osjo in Latin. The older form is found in a few inscriptions, such as popliosio valesiosio on the Lapis Satricanus. It is also continued in some pronominal genitives, such as cuius < *k?ojjo-s < *k?osjo, with *-s added by analogy with the consonant stem genitive in *-os.[7] In Osco-Umbrian, neither ending survives, being replaced with *-eis, the i-stem ending.
  • The nominative plural was originally *-?s for nouns and adjectives, and *-oi for pronominal forms. The distribution in Proto-Italic is unclear, but both endings certainly still existed. The *-?s ending was replaced altogether in Latin in favour of *-oi, whence the classical -?. In Osco-Umbrian, the reverse happened, where *-oi was replaced with *-?s, whence Oscan -ús, Umbrian -us.
  • In Old Latin, the genitive plural was still generally -om, later -um. It was then reformed based on the ?-stem form *-?zom, giving the classical -?rum.

?-stems

This class corresponds to the first declension of Latin. It derives primarily from Proto-Indo-European nouns in *-eh?-, and contained mostly feminine nouns, but maybe a few masculines.

?-stem declension[8]
*tout?[6] f.
"people, populace"
Singular Plural
Nominative *tout? *tout?s
Vocative *tout? *tout?s
Accusative *tout?m *toutans
Genitive *tout?s *tout?zom
Dative *tout?i *toutais
Ablative *tout?d *toutais
Locative *tout?i *toutais
  • The accusative singular ending would have been *-am originally, due to shortening of long vowels before final *-m. However, a long vowel is found in the attested forms. This long vowel most likely arose by analogy with the other endings that have a long vowel.[9]
  • The genitive plural ending was originally a pronominal form, PIE *-eh?-soHom.

Consonant stems

This class contained nouns with stems ending in a variety of consonants. They included root nouns, n-stems, r-stems, s-stems and t-stems among others. It corresponds to the third declension of Latin, which also includes the i-stems, originally a distinct class.

Masculine and feminine nouns declined alike, while neuters had different forms in the nominative/accusative/vocative.

Consonant stem declension[10]
*sniks[6] f.
"snow"
*kord[6] n.
"heart"
Singular Plural Singular Plural
Nominative *sniks *snies *kord *kord?
Vocative *sniks *snies *kord *kord?
Accusative *sni?m *sni?ns *kord *kord?
Genitive *snies
*snios
*sniom *kordes
*kordos
*kordom
Dative *sniei *sni(?)?os *kordei *kord(?)?os
Ablative *snii
(*snia?)
*sni(?)?os *kordi
(*korda?)
*kord(?)?os
Locative *snii *sni(?)?os *kordi *kord(?)?os

Nouns in this class often had a somewhat irregular nominative singular form. This created several subtypes, based on the final consonant of the stem.

  • For most consonant stem nouns, the ending of the nominative/vocative singular was -s for masculine and feminine nouns. This ending would cause devoicing, delabialisation and/or hardening of the stem-final consonant, as seen in *sniks above. Neuter nouns had no ending.
  • n-stems generally had the ending *-?, with the infix *-on- (or maybe *-en-) in the other cases. Neuters had *-?n in the nom/voc/acc singular, while the stem of the remaining forms is unclear.
  • r-stems had *-?r, alternating with *-(e)r-. The alternation in vowel length was lost in Latin, but is preserved in Oscan.
  • s-stems had *-?s (for masculines and feminines) or *-os (for neuters). This alternated with *-ez- (or maybe *-oz- in some masculine/feminine nouns) in the other forms.
  • The r/n-stems were a small group of neuter nouns. These had *-or in the nominative/vocative/accusative singular, but *-(e)n- in the remaining forms.

Other notes:

  • The genitive singular had two possible endings. Both are attested side by side in Old Latin, although the ending -es/-is may also be from the i-stems (see below). In Osco-Umbrian, only the i-stem ending -eis is found.
  • The Latin masculine nominative plural ending -?s (with a long vowel) was taken from the i-stems.
  • The neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural originally had short *-a as the ending, or lengthening of the vowel before the final consonant. Already in Italic, this was replaced with the o-stem ending *-?.
  • The dative (and ablative/locative?) plural ending would have originally been added directly to the stem, with no intervening vowel. In Latin, there is an intervening -e- or -i-, while in Osco-Umbrian the ending is replaced altogether. It's not clear what the Proto-Italic situation was.

i-stems

This class corresponds to the nouns of the Latin 'third declension that had the genitive plural ending -ium (rather than -um). In Latin, the consonant stems gradually merged with this class. This process continued into the historical era; e.g. in Caesar's time (c. 50 BC) the i-stems still had a distinct accusative plural ending -?s, but this was replaced with the consonant-stem ending -?s by the time of Augustus (c. 1 AD). In Proto-Italic, as in the other Italic languages, i-stems were still very much a distinct type and showed no clear signs of merging.

Masculine and feminine nouns declined alike, while neuters had different forms in the nominative/accusative/vocative.

Endings[11]
*m?ntis[6] f.
"mind"
*mari[6] n.
"sea, lake"
Singular Plural Singular Plural
Nominative *m?ntis *m?nt?s *mari *mari? (*-?)
Vocative *m?ntis *m?nt?s *mari *mari? (*-?)
Accusative *m?ntim *m?ntins *mari *mari? (*-?)
Genitive *m?nteis
*m?ntjes
*m?ntjom *mareis
*marjes
*marjom
Dative *m?nt?i *m?nti?os *mar?i *mari?os
Ablative *m?nt?d *m?nti?os *mar?d *mari?os
Locative *m?ntei *m?nti?os *marei *mari?os
  • There were apparently two different forms for the genitive singular. The form -eis is found in Osco-Umbrian. However, -es appears in early Latin, while there is no sign of *-eis. This could reflect the consonant-stem ending, but it could also come from *-jes.[12] Compare also *-wos of the u-stems, which is attested in Old Latin, and may represent a parallel formation.
  • The original form of the neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural was *-?. Already in Italic, this was extended by adding the o-stem ending to it.

u-stems

This class corresponds to the fourth declension of Latin. They were historically parallel to the i-stems, and still showed many similar forms, with j/i being replaced with w/u. However, sound changes had made them somewhat different over time.

Endings[13]
*portus[6] m.
"harbour, port"
*kornu/?[6] n.
"horn"
Singular Plural Singular Plural
Nominative *portus *portous?
*portowes?
*kornu? (*-??) *kornu? (*-?)
Vocative *portus *portous?
*portowes?
*kornu? (*-??) *kornu? (*-?)
Accusative *portum *portuns *kornu? (*-??) *kornu? (*-?)
Genitive *portous
*portwos
*portwes
*portwom *kornous
*kornwos
*kornwes
*kornwom
Dative *portowei *portu?os *kornowei *kornu?os
Ablative *port?d *portu?os *korn?d *kornu?os
Locative *portowi? *portu?os *kornowi? *kornu?os
  • The neuter nominative/vocative/accusative singular must have originally been short *-u, but in Latin only long -? is found. It is unclear what the origin of this could be. It may be a remnant of a dual ending, considering that neuter u-stems were rare, and the few that survived tended to occur in pairs.[14]
  • Like the i-stems, the u-stems had two possible types of genitive singular ending, with an unclear distribution. *-ous is found in Oscan, and it is also the origin of the usual Latin ending -?s. However, the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus inscription attests senatvos, and the ending -uis (from *-wes) is also found in a few sources.[15]
  • The masculine/feminine nominative/vocative plural is not securely reconstructable. Latin -?s seems to reflect *-ous, but from PIE *-ewes the form *-owes (Latin *-uis) would be expected. The ending is not attested in Osco-Umbrian or Old Latin, which might have otherwise given conclusive evidence.[16]
  • The original form of the neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural was *-?. Already in Italic, this was extended by adding the o-stem ending to it, like in the i-stems.

Adjectives

Adjectives inflected much the same as nouns. Unlike nouns, adjectives did not have inherent genders. Instead, they inflected for all three genders, taking on the same gender-form as the noun they referred to.

Adjectives followed the same inflectional classes of nouns. The largest were the o/?-stem adjectives (which inflected as o-stems in the masculine and neuter, and as ?-stems in the feminine), and the i-stems. Present active participles of verbs (in *-nts) and the comparative forms of adjectives (in *-j?s) inflected as consonant stems. There were also u-stem adjectives originally, but they had been converted to i-stems by adding i-stem endings onto the existing u-stem, thus giving the nominative singular *-wis.

Pronouns

Declension of Personal Pronouns:[17]

Singular 1st Person 2nd Person Reflexive
Nominative *eg? *t? --
Accusative *m?, *me *t?, *te *s?, *se
Genitive *moi, *mei *toi, *tei *soi, *sei
Dative *me?ei *te?ei *se?ei
Ablative *med *ted *sed
Possessive *meos *towos *sowos
Plural 1st Person 2nd Person Reflexive
Nominative *n?s *w?s --
Accusative *n?s *w?s *s?, *se
Genitive *nosterom? *westerom? *soi, *sei
Dative *nei *wei *se?ei
Ablative *nei *wei *sed
Possessive *nosteros *westeros *sowos

Note: For the third person pronoun, Proto-Italic *is would have been used.

Declension of Relative Pronouns:[17]

Singular Masculine Feminine Neuter
Nominative *k?oi *ki *k?od
Vocative -- -- --
Accusative *k?om *km *k?od
Genitive *k?ojjos *k?ojjos *k?ojjos
Dative *k?ojjei, *k?ozmoi *k?ojjei, *k?ozmoi *k?ojjei, *k?ozmoi
Ablative *kd *kd *kd
Locative ? ? ?
Plural Masculine Feminine Neuter
Nominative *k?oi, *ks *ks *k, *k?ai
Vocative -- -- --
Accusative *k?ons *kns *k?a, *k?ai
Genitive *k?ozom *k?azom *k?ozom
Dative *k?ois *k?ais *k?ois
Ablative *k?ois *k?ais *k?ois
Locative *k?ois *k?ais *k?ois

Declension of Interrogative Pronouns:[17]

Singular Masculine Feminine Neuter
Nominative *k?is *k?is *k?id
Vocative -- -- --
Accusative *k?im *k?im *k?id
Genitive *k?ejjos *k?ejjos *k?ejjos
Dative *k?ejjei, *k?ezmoi *k?ejjei, *k?ezmoi *k?ejjei, *k?ezmoi
Ablative *kd *kd *kd
Locative ? ? ?
Plural Masculine Feminine Neuter
Nominative *ks *ks *k, *k?ia
Vocative -- -- --
Accusative *k?ins *k?ins *k, *k?ia
Genitive *k?ejzom?, *k?ozom? *k?ejzom?, *k?azom? *k?ejzom?, *k?ozom?
Dative *k?i?os *k?i?os *k?i?os
Ablative *k?i?os *k?i?os *k?i?os
Locative *k?i?os *k?i?os *k?i?os

Declension of Demonstrative Pronouns:[18]

*is "this, that"

Singular Masculine Feminine Neuter
Nominative *is *ej? *id
Accusative *im *ej?m *id
Genitive *ejjos *ejjos *ejjos
Dative *ejjei, *esmoi *ejjei, *esmoi *ejjei, *esmoi
Ablative *ej?d *ej?d *ej?d
Locative ? ? ?
Plural Masculine Feminine Neuter
Nominative *ej?s, *ejoi *ej?s *ej?
Accusative *ejons *ejans *ej?
Genitive *ejozom *ejazom *ejozom
Dative *ejois *ejais *ejois
Ablative *ejois *ejais *ejois
Locative ? ? ?

Verbs

Present Aspect[19]

From Proto-Indo-European, the Proto-Italic present aspect changed in a couple of ways. Firstly, a new past indicative suffix of *-?- was created. This likely occurred due to the elision of word-final *i within the Indo-European primary verb endings (E.g. PIE Present Indicative *h?ésti > PIt *est, but also PIE Past Indicative *h?ést). Secondly, the desiderative suffix of *-s-/-so- became the future suffix in Proto-Italic. The subjunctive of this desiderative-future, with a suffix of both -s- and a lengthening of the following vowel, was used to represent a potentialis and irrealis mood. Finally, while the subjunctive and the optative of PIE were still in principle different moods, the moods became merged in Post-PIt developments (E.g. PIt subjunctive *esed vs optative *si?d which became Latin present subjunctive sit); this can be already seen in the Proto-Italic phase, where the subjunctive mood began to take secondary endings as opposed to the primary endings they exhibited in PIE (c.f. the Sabellian reflex of the PIt 3rd person singular imperfect subjunctive being -d and not *-t).

The PIE dual person was also lost within PIt verbs just as it was in PIt nouns.

First Conjugation

This Conjugation pattern was derived from the PIE suffix *-eh?-yé-ti, and formed primarily denominative verbs (I.e. deriving from a noun or an adjective).

Example Conjugation: *don?- (to give)[17]

Present Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *d?n *d?n?or
2nd. Sing. *d?n?s *d?n?zo
3rd. Sing. *d?n?t *d?n?tor
1st. Plur. *d?n?mos *d?n?mor
2nd. Plur. *d?n?tes *d?n?menai
3rd. Plur. *d?n?nt *d?n?ntor
Past Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *d?nam *d?nar
2nd. Sing. *d?nas *d?nazo
3rd. Sing. *d?nad *d?nator
1st. Plur. *d?namos *d?namor
2nd. Plur. *d?nates *d?namenai
3rd. Plur. *d?nand *d?nantor
Future Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *d?n?s? *d?n?sor
2nd. Sing. *d?n?ses *d?n?sezo
3rd. Sing. *d?n?st *d?n?stor
1st. Plur. *d?n?somos *d?n?somor
2nd. Plur. *d?n?stes *d?n?semenai
3rd. Plur. *d?n?sont *d?n?sontor
Present Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *d?nm *d?nr
2nd. Sing. *d?ns *d?nzo
3rd. Sing. *d?nd *d?ntor
1st. Plur. *d?nmos *d?nmor
2nd. Plur. *d?ntes *d?nmenai
3rd. Plur. *d?nnd *d?nntor
Past Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *d?n?s?m *d?n?s?r
2nd. Sing. *d?n?s?s *d?n?s?zo
3rd. Sing. *d?n?s?d *d?n?s?tor
1st. Plur. *d?n?s?mos *d?n?s?mor
2nd. Plur. *d?n?s?tes *d?n?s?menai
3rd. Plur. *d?n?s?nd *d?n?s?ntor
Optative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *d?n?ojam *d?n?ojar
2nd. Sing. *d?n?ojas *d?n?ojazo
3rd. Sing. *d?n?ojad *d?n?ojator
1st. Plur. *d?n?ojamos *d?n?ojamor
2nd. Plur. *d?n?ojates *d?n?ojamenai
3rd. Plur. *d?n?ojand *d?n?ojantor
Present Imperative Active Passive
2nd. Sing. *d?n? *d?n?zo
2nd. Plur. *d?n?te --
Future Imperative Active Passive
2nd/3rd. Sing. *d?n?t?d --
Participles Present Past
  *d?n?nts *d?n?tos
Verbal Nouns tu-derivative s-derivative
  *d?n?tum *d?n?zi

Second Conjugation Causative

This conjugation pattern was derived from PIE *-éyeti, and formed causative verbs (I.e. expressing a cause) from "basic" 3rd conjugation verbs.

Example Conjugation: *mone- (to warn)[17]

Present Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *mone? *moneor
2nd. Sing. *mon?s *mon?zo
3rd. Sing. *mon?t *mon?tor
1st. Plur. *mon?mos *mon?mor
2nd. Plur. *mon?tes *mon?menai
3rd. Plur. *moneont *moneontor
Past Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *monam *monar
2nd. Sing. *monas *monazo
3rd. Sing. *monad *monator
1st. Plur. *monamos *monamor
2nd. Plur. *monates *monamenai
3rd. Plur. *monand *monantor
Future Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *mon?s? *mon?sor
2nd. Sing. *mon?ses *mon?sezo
3rd. Sing. *mon?st *mon?stor
1st. Plur. *mon?somos *mon?somor
2nd. Plur. *mon?stes *mon?semenai
3rd. Plur. *mon?sont *mon?sontor
Present Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *mone?m *mone?r
2nd. Sing. *mone?s *mone?zo
3rd. Sing. *mone?d *mone?tor
1st. Plur. *mone?mos *mone?mor
2nd. Plur. *mone?tes *mone?menai
3rd. Plur. *mone?nd *mone?ntor
Past Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *mones?m *mones?r
2nd. Sing. *moness *moneszo
3rd. Sing. *monesd *monestor
1st. Plur. *mones?mos *mones?mor
2nd. Plur. *monestes *monesmenai
3rd. Plur. *mones?nd *mones?ntor
Optative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *moneojam *moneojar
2nd. Sing. *moneojas *moneojazo
3rd. Sing. *moneojad *moneojator
1st. Plur. *moneojamos *moneojamor
2nd. Plur. *moneojates *moneojamenai
3rd. Plur. *moneojand *moneojantor
Present Imperative Active Passive
2nd. Sing. *mon? *mon?zo
2nd. Plur. *mon?te --
Future Imperative Active Passive
2nd/3rd. Sing. *mon?t?d --
Participles Present Past
  *mon?nts *monetos
Verbal Nouns tu-derivative s-derivative
  *monetum *mon?zi

Second Conjugation Stative

This conjugation pattern was derived from PIE *-éh?ti (or the extended form *-eh?yéti), and formed stative verbs (I.e. indicating a state of being).

Example Conjugation: *wal?- (to be strong)[17]

Present Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *wal *wal?or
2nd. Sing. *wal?s *wal?zo
3rd. Sing. *wal?t *wal?tor
1st. Plur. *wal?mos *wal?mor
2nd. Plur. *wal?tes *wal?menai
3rd. Plur. *wal?nt *wal?ntor
Past Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *walam *walar
2nd. Sing. *walas *walazo
3rd. Sing. *walad *walator
1st. Plur. *walamos *walamor
2nd. Plur. *walates *walamenai
3rd. Plur. *waland *walantor
Future Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *wal?s? *wal?sor
2nd. Sing. *wal?ses *wal?sezo
3rd. Sing. *wal?st *wal?stor
1st. Plur. *wal?somos *wal?somor
2nd. Plur. *wal?stes *wal?semenai
3rd. Plur. *wal?sont *wal?sontor
Present Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *walm *walr
2nd. Sing. *wals *walzo
3rd. Sing. *wald *waltor
1st. Plur. *walmos *walmor
2nd. Plur. *waltes *walmenai
3rd. Plur. *walnd *walntor
Past Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *wal?s?m *wal?s?r
2nd. Sing. *wal?ss *wal?szo
3rd. Sing. *wal?sd *wal?stor
1st. Plur. *wal?s?mos *wal?s?mor
2nd. Plur. *wal?stes *wal?smenai
3rd. Plur. *wal?s?nd *wal?s?ntor
Optative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *wal?ojam *wal?ojar
2nd. Sing. *wal?ojas *wal?ojazo
3rd. Sing. *wal?ojad *wal?ojator
1st. Plur. *wal?ojamos *wal?ojamor
2nd. Plur. *wal?ojates *wal?ojamenai
3rd. Plur. *wal?ojand *wal?ojantor
Present Imperative Active Passive
2nd. Sing. *wal? *wal?zo
2nd. Plur. *wal?te --
Future Imperative Active Passive
2nd/3rd. Sing. *wal?t?d --
Participles Present Past
  *wal?nts *walatos
Verbal Nouns tu-derivative s-derivative
  *walatum *wal?zi

Third Conjugation

The bulk of Proto-Italic verbs were third-conjugation verbs, which were derived from Proto-Indo-European root thematic verbs. However, some are derived from other PIE verb classes, such as *link (PIE nasal-infix verbs) and *diksk? (PIE *s?e-suffix verbs).

Example Conjugation: *ed-e/o- (to eat)[17]

Present Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *ed? *edor
2nd. Sing. *edes *edezo
3rd. Sing. *edet *edetor
1st. Plur. *edomos *edomor
2nd. Plur. *edetes *edemenai
3rd. Plur. *edont *edontor
Past Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *edo?am *edo?ar
2nd. Sing. *edo?as *edo?azo
3rd. Sing. *edo?ad *edo?ator
1st. Plur. *edo?amos *edo?amor
2nd. Plur. *edo?ates *edo?amenai
3rd. Plur. *edo?and *edo?antor
Future Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *edes? *edesor
2nd. Sing. *edeses *edesezo
3rd. Sing. *edest *edestor
1st. Plur. *edesomos *edesomor
2nd. Plur. *edestes *edesemenai
3rd. Plur. *edesont *edesontor
Present Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *ed?m *ed?r
2nd. Sing. *eds *edzo
3rd. Sing. *edd *edtor
1st. Plur. *ed?mos *ed?mor
2nd. Plur. *edtes *edmenai
3rd. Plur. *ed?nd *ed?ntor
Past Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *edes?m *edes?r
2nd. Sing. *edess *edeszo
3rd. Sing. *edesd *edestor
1st. Plur. *edes?mos *edes?mor
2nd. Plur. *edestes *edesmenai
3rd. Plur. *edes?nd *edes?ntor
Optative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *edojam *edojar
2nd. Sing. *edojas *edojazo
3rd. Sing. *edojad *edojator
1st. Plur. *edojamos *edojamor
2nd. Plur. *edojates *edojamenai
3rd. Plur. *edojand *edojantor
Present Imperative Active Passive
2nd. Sing. *ede *edezo
2nd. Plur. *edete --
Future Imperative Active Passive
2nd/3rd. Sing. *edet?d --
Participles Present Past
  *edents *essos
Verbal Nouns tu-derivative s-derivative
  *essum *edezi

Third Conjugation j?-variant

This conjugation was derived from PIE *ye-suffix verbs, and went on to form most of Latin 3rd conjugation io-variant verbs as well as some 4th conjugation verbs.

Example Conjugation: *g?en-je/jo- (to come)[17]

Present Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *g?enj? *g?enjor
2nd. Sing. *g?enjes *g?enjezo
3rd. Sing. *g?enjet *g?enjetor
1st. Plur. *g?enjomos *g?enjomor
2nd. Plur. *g?enjetes *g?enjemenai
3rd. Plur. *g?enjont *g?enjontor
Past Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *g?enjo?am *g?enjo?ar
2nd. Sing. *g?enjo?as *g?enjo?azo
3rd. Sing. *g?enjo?ad *g?enjo?ator
1st. Plur. *g?enjo?amos *g?enjo?amor
2nd. Plur. *g?enjo?ates *g?enjo?amenai
3rd. Plur. *g?enjo?and *g?enjo?antor
Future Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *g?enjes? *g?enjesor
2nd. Sing. *g?enjeses *g?enjesezo
3rd. Sing. *g?enjest *g?enjestor
1st. Plur. *g?enjesomos *g?enjesomor
2nd. Plur. *g?enjestes *g?enjesemenai
3rd. Plur. *g?enjesont *g?enjesontor
Present Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *g?enj?m *g?enj?r
2nd. Sing. *g?enjs *g?enjzo
3rd. Sing. *g?enjd *g?enjtor
1st. Plur. *g?enj?mos *g?enj?mor
2nd. Plur. *g?enjtes *g?enjmenai
3rd. Plur. *g?enj?nd *g?enj?ntor
Past Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *g?enjes?m *g?enjes?r
2nd. Sing. *g?enjess *g?enjeszo
3rd. Sing. *g?enjesd *g?enjestor
1st. Plur. *g?enjes?mos *g?enjes?mor
2nd. Plur. *g?enjestes *g?enjesmenai
3rd. Plur. *g?enjes?nd *g?enjes?ntor
Optative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *g?enjojam *g?enjojar
2nd. Sing. *g?enjojas *g?enjojazo
3rd. Sing. *g?enjojad *g?enjojator
1st. Plur. *g?enjojamos *g?enjojamor
2nd. Plur. *g?enjojates *g?enjojamenai
3rd. Plur. *g?enjojand *g?enjojantor
Present Imperative Active Passive
2nd. Sing. *g?enje *g?enjezo
2nd. Plur. *g?enjete --
Future Imperative Active Passive
2nd/3rd. Sing. *g?enjet?d --
Participles Present Past
  *g?enjents *g?entos
Verbal Nouns tu-derivative s-derivative
  *g?entum *g?enjezi

Athematic Verbs

Only a handful of verbs remained within this conjugation paradigm, derived from the original PIE Root Athematic verbs.

Example Conjugation: *ezom (copula, to be)[17][19]

Present Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *ezom --
2nd. Sing. *es --
3rd. Sing. *est --
1st. Plur. *(e)somos --
2nd. Plur. *(e)stes --
3rd. Plur. *sent --
Past Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *fu?am --
2nd. Sing. *fu?as --
3rd. Sing. *fu?ad --
1st. Plur. *fu?amos --
2nd. Plur. *fu?ates --
3rd. Plur. *fu?and --
Future Indicative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *fuzom --
2nd. Sing. *fus --
3rd. Sing. *fust --
1st. Plur. *fuzomos --
2nd. Plur. *fustes --
3rd. Plur. *fuzent --
Present Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *ezom --
2nd. Sing. *ezes --
3rd. Sing. *ezed --
1st. Plur. *ezomos --
2nd. Plur. *ezetes --
3rd. Plur. *ezond --
Past Subjunctive Active Passive
1st. Sing. *fuzom, *essom --
2nd. Sing. *fuzes, *esses --
3rd. Sing. *fuzed, *essed --
1st. Plur. *fuzomos, *essomos --
2nd. Plur. *fuzetes, *essetes --
3rd. Plur. *fuzond, *essond --
Optative Active Passive
1st. Sing. *si?m --
2nd. Sing. *si?s --
3rd. Sing. *si?d --
1st. Plur. *s?mos --
2nd. Plur. *s?tes --
3rd. Plur. *s?nd --
Present Imperative Active Passive
2nd. Sing. *es --
2nd. Plur. *este --
Future Imperative Active Passive
2nd/3rd. Sing. *est?d --
Participles Present Past
  *s?nts --
Verbal Nouns tu-derivative s-derivative
  -- *essi

In addition to these conjugation, Proto-Italic also has some deponent verbs, such as *?dai (Perfect-Present), as well as *gn?sk?r (Passive-Active).

Perfective Aspect[19]

According to Rix(2002), if a verb stem is present in both the Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian (Sabellian) branches, the present stem is identical in 90% of cases, but the perfect in only 50% of cases. This is likely because the original PIE aorist merged with the perfective aspect after the Proto-Italic period. Thus, the discrepancy in the similarities of present versus perfect stems in the two groupings of the Italic clade is likely attributed to different preservations in each group. The new common perfect stem in Latino-Faliscan derives mostly from the PIE Perfective, while the perfect stem in Osco-Umbrian derives mostly from the PIE aorist.

In the Proto-Italic period, the root perfect of PIE was no longer productive. However, other PIE perfect and aorist stems continued to be productive, such as the reduplicated perfect and lengthened-vowel perfect stems, as well as the sigmatic aorist stem (found in Latin d?c?, d?x?).

Sometimes, multiple perfect forms for each stem. For example, De Vaan gives the forms *f?k-, *fak- for the perfect stem of *faki?, and the reduplicated form <FHEFHAKED> is also attested on the Praeneste fibula in Old Latin.

In addition, there were some new innovations within the perfective aspect, with the -v- perfect (in Latin am?, am?v?) and the -u- perfect (mone?, monu?) being later innovations, for example.

Example Long-Vowel Conjugation: *f?k- (to have done).[20] Alternatively *k- (from PIE *d?eh?-) if PIt is reconstructed at a stage before /x?/ and /?/ had merged with /f/ [?].

Perfect Active
1st Sing. *f?kai
2nd Sing. *f?kistai
3rd Sing. *f?ked
1st Plur. *f?komos
2nd Plur. *f?kistes
3rd Plur. *f?k?ri

Example Reduplicated Conjugation: *fefu- (to have been)[21]

Perfect Active
1st Sing. *fefuai
2nd Sing. *fefuistai
3rd Sing. *fefued
1st Plur. *fefuomos
2nd Plur. *fefuistes
3rd Plur. *fefu?ri

Development

A list of regular phonetic changes from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Italic follows. Because Latin is the only well-attested Italic language, it forms the main source for the reconstruction of Proto-Italic. It is therefore not always clear whether certain changes apply to all of Italic (a pre-PI change), or only to Latin (a post-PI change), because of lack of conclusive evidence.

Obstruents

  • Palatovelars merged with plain velars, a change termed centumization.
    • *? > *k
    • *? > *g
    • * > *g?
    • Sequences of palatovelars and *w merged with labiovelars: *?w, *?w, *w > *k?, *g?, *g
  • *p...k? > *k?...k?, a change also found in Celtic.
  • Labiovelars lose their labialisation before a consonant: *k?C, *g?C, *gC > *kC, *gC, *g?C.
  • Obstruent consonants become (unaspirated) voiceless before another voiceless consonant (usually *s or *t).
  • Voiced aspirates become fricatives. Word-initially, they become voiceless, while they are allophonically voiced word-medially. Judging from Oscan evidence, they apparently remained fricatives even after a nasal consonant. In most other Italic languages they developed into stops later in that position.
    • *b? > *f [?] (medially *?)
    • *d? > *? (medially *ð)
    • *g? > *x (medially *?)
    • *g > *x? (medially *)
  • *s was also allophonically voiced to *z word-medially.[22]
  • *sr, *zr > *?r, *ðr.[clarification needed]
  • *?, *x? > *f. Found in Venetic vhagsto/hvagsto (compare Latin faci?). The voiced allophones *ð and * remained distinct from *? in Latin and Venetic, but also merged in Osco-Umbrian.
  • *tl > *kl word-medially.[22]

Vowels and sonorants

  • *l?, *r? > *ol, *or[23]
  • *m?, *n? > *?m, *?n (see above on "Vowels")
  • *j is lost between vowels. The resulting vowels in hiatus contract into a long vowel if the two vowels are the same.
  • *ew > *ow.[23]
  • *o > *a before labials and *l.

Laryngeals

The laryngeals are a class of hypothetical PIE sounds *h?, *h?, *h? that usually disappeared in late PIE, leaving coloring effects on adjacent vowels. Their disappearance left some distinctive sound combinations in Proto-Italic. In the changes below, the # follows standard practice in denoting a word boundary; that is, # at the beginning denotes word-initial.[24] H denotes any of the three laryngeals.

The simpler Italic developments of laryngeals are shared by many other Indo-European branches:

  • *h?e > *e, *h?e > *a, *h?e > *o
  • *eh? > *?, *eh? > *?, *eh? > *?
  • *H > *a between obstruents
  • Laryngeals are lost word-initially before a consonant.

More characteristic of Italic are the interactions of laryngeals with sonorant consonants. Here, R represents a sonorant, and C a consonant.

  • #HRC > #aRC and CHRC > CaRC, but #HRV > #RV
  • CRHC > CR?C, but CRHV > CaRV
  • CiHC and probably CHiC > C?C

Morphology

  • General loss of the dual, with only a few relics remaining.[25]
  • Loss of the instrumental case.[25]

Post-Italic developments

Further changes occurred during the evolution of individual Italic languages. This section gives an overview of the most notable changes. For complete lists, see History of Latin and other articles relating to the individual languages.

  • *x debuccalises to [h]. *? similarly becomes [?] between vowels, but remains elsewhere. This change possibly took place within the Proto-Italic period. The result, whether [h] or [?], was written h in all Italic languages.
  • *?(e)r, *ð(e)r > *f(e)r, *?(e)r in all but Venetic. Compare Venetic louder-obos to Latin l?ber, Faliscan loifir-ta, Oscan lúvfreis.
  • *?, *ð, *? > Latin b, d, g. In Osco-Umbrian the result is f (probably voiced) for all three. In Faliscan, *? remains a fricative.
  • * > g? in Latin, which then develops as below. > f in Osco-Umbrian.
  • *d? > b in classical Latin, although still retained in the archaic (see Duenos inscription)
  • *k?, *g? > p, b in Osco-Umbrian. They are retained in Latino-Faliscan and Venetic. In Latin, *g? > v [w] except after *n.
  • *z > r in Classical Latin and Umbrian, but not in Old Latin or Oscan.
  • Final -? (fem. sg. nom., neut. pl. nom./acc.) > [o:] in Osco-Umbrian,[26][27] but becomes short -a in Latin.
  • Final *-ns (acc. pl. of various noun classes), *-nts (masc. nom. sg. of participles), and *-nt (neut. nom./acc. sg. of participles) developed in complex ways:[28]
PItal Pre-O-U Oscan Umbrian Pre-Latin Latin
*-ns *-ns -ss -f *-ns -s
*-nts *-nts -ns
*-nt *-nts -ns --
  • Latin vowel reduction, during the Old Latin period. This merged many of the unstressed short vowels; most dramatically, all short vowels merged (usually to /i/) in open medial syllables. Furthermore, all diphthongs became pure vowels except for *ai and *au (and occasionally *oi) in initial syllables.

References

  1. ^ "Immigrants from the North". CUP Archive – via Google Books.
  2. ^ Baumer, Christoph (December 11, 2012). "The History of Central Asia: The Age of the Steppe Warriors". I.B.Tauris – via Google Books.
  3. ^ Blench, Roger; Spriggs, Matthew (September 2, 2003). "Archaeology and Language I: Theoretical and Methodological Orientations". Routledge – via Google Books.
  4. ^ a b Bossong 2017, p. 859.
  5. ^ Sihler 1995, pp. 256-265.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i de Vaan 2008.
  7. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 387.
  8. ^ Sihler 1995, pp. 266-272.
  9. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 268.
  10. ^ Sihler 1995, pp. 283-286.
  11. ^ Sihler 1995, pp. 315-319.
  12. ^ Sihler 1995, pp. 316-317.
  13. ^ Sihler 1995, pp. 319-327.
  14. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 323.
  15. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 324.
  16. ^ Sihler 1995, pp. 325-326.
  17. ^ a b c d e f g h i De Vaan, Michiel (2008). Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. ISBN 978-9004167971.
  18. ^ (De Vaan 2008 p.284, 310, 323-4 426)
  19. ^ a b c Rix, Helmut. "Towards a reconstruction of Proto-Italic" (PDF). Program in Indo-European Studies. UCLA. Retrieved 2017.
  20. ^ (De Vaan 2008 p.198)
  21. ^ (De Vaan 2008 p.599)
  22. ^ a b Silvestri 1998, p. 326
  23. ^ a b Silvestri 1998, p. 325
  24. ^ Bakkum 2009, pp. 58-61.
  25. ^ a b Silvestri 1998, p. 332
  26. ^ Written o in the Latin alphabet, but ú in the native Oscan alphabet, and u or sometimes a in the native Umbrian alphabet. See Sihler 1995:266.
  27. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 266.
  28. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 230.

Bibliography



  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Proto-Italic_language
 



 



 
Music Scenes