Talk:Italic languages

message: I've seen the peoples speaking Italic languages being referred to as Italic peoples. I still don't know much about these peoples besides the Romans, though. Gringo300 11:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Italic peoples

message: Why, in the infobox, is Romance shown as a sibling of Latino-Faliscan when the Romance languages are descendants of Latin, itself a descendant of Latino-Faliscan? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hierarchy 

message: The article on Friulian says it is an Italic language. However, the article on Itlaic languages lists the romance languages and "extinct languages". Friulian is not a Romance language, so logic would make one reason that it must be included under the reference to extinct languages. However, Friulian is alive and kicking and has a thriving community on the Wikipedia! --Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI general: someone changed the Friulian article to make it a Romance language. Nice catch Correia, you ought to do more on WP.Dave (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead or Alive - the case of Friulian 

message: Is there any non-Romance Italic language still alive? Kanzler31 (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  --Taivo (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See Griko language 88.193.103.47 (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The anonymous IP obviously doesn't have a clue about what he is saying since "Griko" is a dialect of Greek and not an Italic language at all.  --Taivo (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct? 

message: The list is incomplete: Sicel is attested in inscripitions and mentioned even by Varro in his De Lingua Latina: it belonged in the Latino-Faliscan group. Oenotrians too were possibly a  Latino-Falsican speaking people.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, Rix also mentions that a Latino-Faliscan dialect was originally spoken in the town of Caere, besides Etruscan, and I seem to recall that Auruncan, the dialect of the Latin tribe of the Aurunci, attested in the Garigliano Bowl, is sometimes considered a separate language or variety. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Latin ursus is an unsolved problem. Rix's law predicts **ar-, that's true. The s is probably regular, see Thorn cluster. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

text: It is assumed that words for 'bear' (and 'wolf') are affected by taboo deformation. —Tamfang (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of lupus, a Sabellic loan (maybe to avoid homonymy with lūcus) is more likely. In the case of ursus, taboo deformation is of course possible, but unsatisfying as an explanation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Sicel and Oenotrian

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Italic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617111122/http://iedo.brillonline.nl/dictionaries/content/latin/index.html to http://iedo.brillonline.nl/dictionaries/content/latin/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204005927/http://korpling.german.hu-berlin.de/~amir/IE_Glossary.php to http://korpling.german.hu-berlin.de/~amir/IE_Glossary.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The caption for the coloured diagram of languages in Italy refers to 'Raetian', but the diagram itself refers to 'Raetic'. I don't know which is correct, but the same term should surely be used in both cases.213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raetian/Raetic? 

message: at least according to wiktionary, it is with a short o  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.110.19 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin "duo" is without macron

message: It seems to me that if we are using CE (and not AD) we should use BCE (and not BC). Or am I out of touch? Jlaramee (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has no standard or house style on this subject. See WP:ERA. Editing an article practically only to change the convention is deprecated, and strongly advised against; it's considered pedantic, combative, and poorly regarded, almost like vandalism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC versus BCE 

message: The article is in a poor state of sourcing, which is required per the core principle of WP:Verifiability.  I have tagged various sections as unreferenced or poorly referenced, and plan to start removing unsourced content after a decent interval, starting with the #Phonology section, and continuing on from there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got access to a copy of this book: Stuart-Smith, Jane (2004), Phonetics and Philology: Sound Change in Italic, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Give me some time, I'll take care of #Phonology. The current version gives an oversimplified picture of the phonoloigcal history, but at the same time gives undue weight to things like the sporadic change of Latin d > l. –Austronesier (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks so much for this. (Here's a formatted ref for you; it also includes a hidden full-text url if you have login access via one of hundreds of universities or other institutions). For quite some time, I've noticed that among major topic areas, languages/linguistics has some of the worst state of sourcing of any of the topics that I'm aware of. I have this theory, that it's related somehow to Chomsky's "native competence" idea, namely, that everybody feels that they are (and indeed, they are) experts in their own language, and therefore feel qualified to add material unsourced to the article.  However, even with legit expert ability, WP:Verifiability takes preference, for good reason. I'm sometimes tempted to reduce painstakingly developed articles on language or linguistics with 100kb, ten years, and 300 editors to a skeleton of what they were, because they are almost entirely unreferenced.  So far, I've held back, and am considering what approach to take. One possible approach was my message above, just sort of nibbling at the edges, waiting a more than decent interval, and then remove a section, then leave another message.  I think a more activist approach might be warranted, I'm just not sure what.  Maybe try to get something going at the project pages at WP:LING or WP:Languages. Thanks again, and looking forward to your changes. Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, occasionally, it stems from "native competence", but the same problem occurs in many articles about general linguistics. I think these pages were developed with much verve in an early stage of WP when adherence to WP:V seems to have felt optional even to good editors (that's at least how it appears to me, a relative newbie). And the field still has "experts" who apply WP:BLUESKY to things which aren't blue-sky-knowlegde even for experts (e.g. "per WP:BLUESKY, [x] in sources about Dutch and German actually refers to [χ], so we can use the latter even if the source writes the former" – believe it or not, I have read something like this in a talk page). And look at all the phonetics pages: the section "Features" is almost always unsourced (e.g. Voiceless retroflex plosive). In short: you have my full support. –Austronesier (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: The lead says
:The best known of them is Latin
"them" referring to the italic languages. That is hardly true - I'd say Spanish and French are better known. I'm not sugesting writing that instead; I think the intention was to say something about Latin (but I'm not sure what, or how to say it). Possibly (but I don't know), the problem is that Italic is used in two different senses: A "monophyletic group" including the Romance languages, and a "paraphyletic group", including only Indo-European languages spoken in Italy (and not Romance languages in general).--Nø (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it. An IP changed the version which was the outcome of the discussion in Talk:Italic_languages#Axe_grinding above. –Austronesier (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hadn't seen that discussion - thanks! Yes, "dinosaurs" are a good comparison. The modern stance is that birds are dinosaurs - and Romance languages are Italic, making groups monophylitic clades.--Nø (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The best known of them ...