Question: Who was responsible for establishing modern Italian as a language?
About the article "Italy", section "Literature and theatre".

Candidate passages:
Italian is a legacy of Italian colonial period when Libya was part of Italian North Africa.
Although it was the primary language since colonial rule, Italian greatly declined under the rule of Muammar Gaddafi who expelled the Italian Libyan population and Italian-educated Libyans who were opposed to Gaddafi’s rule and returned Arabic to be once again the sole official language of the country.
Nevertheless, Italian is still spoken and understood to some degree by mainly some old people.
After the National Transitional Council (NTC) has been responsible for the transition of the administration of the governing of Libya, returning Libyan refugees from Italy or Switzerland and their children who speak Italian introduced the language again in Libya.  
William Joseph Mackey (1915 in Montreal, Canada - October 18, 1995 in Thimphu, Bhutan) was a Canadian Jesuit priest who was responsible for establishing the modern education system in Bhutan, including its first high school (which is now its first accredited university, Sherubtse College). 
Ghil'ad Zuckermann (; born June 1, 1971) is an Israeli linguist who works with language revival, contact linguistics, lexicology and the study of language, culture and identity.
Zuckermann is Professor of Linguistics and Endangered Languages at the University of Adelaide and holds an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Fellowship, as well as a Project 211 Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Shanghai International Studies University.
According to Zuckermann, "Israeli" (his term for Modern Hebrew) is a Semito–European hybrid language, simultaneously based on Hebrew, Yiddish and other languages such as Russian and Polish.
His multi-parental hybridization model is in contrast to both the traditional revival view (i.e.
that "Israeli" is Hebrew revived) and the relexification position (i.e.
that "Israeli" is Yiddish with Hebrew words).
Zuckermann's approach to language revival weakens the family tree tool in historical linguistics.
His publications include the books "Israelit Safa Yafa" (Israeli – A Beautiful Language) (Am Oved, 2008, ISBN 978-965-13-1963-1) and "Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, ISBN 1-4039-1723-X), the latter establishing a socio-philological framework for the analysis of camouflaged borrowing such as phono-semantic matching, and introducing a classification for "multisourced neologization".
He has published academic articles in English, Hebrew, Italian, Yiddish, Spanish, German, Russian and Chinese. 
Katharevousa (Καθαρεύουσα): A semi-artificial sociolect promoted in the 19th century at the foundation of the modern Greek state, as a compromise between Classical Greek and modern Demotic.
It was the official language of modern Greece until 1976.
Katharevousa is written in polytonic Greek script.
Also, while Demotic Greek contains loanwords from Turkish, Italian, Latin, and other languages, these have for the most part been purged from Katharevousa.
See also Greek language question. 
A second period in Heliade's linguistic researches, inaugurated when he adopted Étienne Condillac's theory that a language could be developed from conventions, eventually brought about the rejection of his own earlier views.
By the early 1840s, he postulated that Romanian and Italian were not distinct languages, but rather dialects of Latin, which prompted him to declare the necessity of replacing Romanian words with "superior" Italian ones.
One of his stanzas, using his version of the Romanian Latin alphabet, read:Approximated into modern Romanian and English, this is:The target of criticism and ridicule, these principles were dismissed by Eminescu as "errors" and "a priori systems of orthography".
During their existence, they competed with both August Treboniu Laurian's adoption of strong Latin mannerisms and the inconsistent Francized system developed in Moldavia by Gheorghe Asachi, which, according to the 20th century literary critic Garabet Ibrăileanu, constituted "the boyar language of his time".
Ibrăileanu also noted that Asachi had come to admire Heliade's attempts, and had praised them as an attempt to revive the language "spoken by Trajan's men"—in reference to Roman Dacia.
While defending the role Moldavian politicians in the 1840s had in shaping modern Romanian culture, Ibrăileanu argued that practices such as those of Heliade and Laurian carried the risk of "suppressing the Romanian language", and credited Alecu Russo, more than his successors at "Junimea", with providing a passionate defense of spoken Romanian.
He notably cited Russo's verdict: "The modern political hatred aimed at has thrown us into Italianism, into Frenchism, and into other -isms, that were not and are not Romanianism, but the political perils, in respect to the enslavement of the Romanian soul, have since passed; true Romanianism ought to hold its head up high".
The literary critic George Călinescu also connected Heliade's experimentation to his Russophobia, in turn reflecting his experiences as a revolutionary: "Hating Slavism and the Russians, who had striven to underline [Slavic influences in Romanian, he said to himself that he was to serve his motherland by discarding all Slavic vestiges".
Călinescu notably attributed Heliade's inconsistency to his "autodidacticism", which, he contended, was responsible for " casual implication in all issues, the unexpected move from common sense ideas to the most insane theories".
Overall, Heliade's experiments had marginal appeal, and their critics (Eminescu included) contrasted them with Heliade's own tenets.
Late in his life, Heliade seems to have acknowledged this, notably writing: "This language, as it is written today by people who can speak Romanian, is my work".
One of the few authors to be influenced by the theory was the Symbolist poet Alexandru Macedonski, who, during his youth, wrote several pieces in Heliade's Italian-sounding Romanian.
Despite Heliade's thesis being largely rejected, some of its practical effects on everyday language were very enduring, especially in cases where Italian words were borrowed as a means to illustrate nuances and concepts for which Romanian had no equivalent.
These include "afabil" ("affable"), "adorabil" ("adorable"), ("colossal"), "implacabil" ("implacable"), "inefabil" ("ineffable"), "inert" ("inert"), "mistic" ("mystical"), "pervers" ("perverse" or "pervert"), "suav" ("suave"), and "venerabil" ("venerable").