Hey Veeky Forums

That's why I referred to it as "a creole", opposed to a "pigdin".

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.

They have a lot in common actually, so much that ancient Romans erroneously believed Latin was descended from Greek, but they are actually cousins.

Why didn't Americans change English to American?

To add, if it were "Etruscan", we'd call it "Etruscan", but it's not. It's Latin, which was Etruscan with ancient Greek.

Because England still exists.

Romans literally had no reason not to change it from Latin to Roman.

>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"?

Because they are completely different languages with different histories?

Why would change its name, idiot?

Retard.

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.

That image in itself is presumptive evidence of "ancient" Rome not being ancient at all.

Etruscan influence on Latin is just a handful of loanwords

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_terms_derived_from_Etruscan

English is literally descended form the Germanic dialects spoken on the North Sea coast.

to add, look at this. This was English.
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".

They did, though.

Well they didn't if you were still wondering.

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.

What do you mean, my man?

English is the bastard child of Old English being a cum dumpster for every other language on the planet.

The one from 1989 only has one word that isn't from Old English

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?

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.

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.

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".

Etruscan is not Italic, or even Indo-European. And Latin was not heavily influenced by Greek.

Here, look at this map.

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.

And Latin was not influenced by Etruscan either.

>"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?

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.

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"

So you're going to propose Latin evolved in a vacuum, completely independent, in its little territory, from the surrounding dialects?

Those are examples, not a conclusive lexicon.

It has 25,000 entries, and Etruscan loans only make up around 30, most of which are dubious. It's pretty complete.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Latin_lemmas

meant to quote

Ok, tell us more about how Etruscan is an italic dialect along with Latin.

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.

>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.

>Etruscan is an Italic language, the Greek of Magna Graecia was the ancestor of Attic Greek

This has to be bait.

Latin did get a lot of loanwords from Greek, but this happened much later, after the time period this guy's talking about.

Ok. Where do you believe Etruscan falls on this?
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/IndoEuropeanTreeDielli1.svg

I believe it's a "sister" of Sabellic.

saved

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".

>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]

>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.

By the time Etruscan language evolved into the 1st Century BC, it quite likely was unrecognizable. I'm discussing 1000 years prior.

it's all yours my friend

You think Etruscan was not Indo European? It was just "born there", huh.

If Etruscan was related to Latin we would know it

Linguists recognized the relation between Indo-European languages that split at around 3000 BC.

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.

Was indo-european just "born there", huh.

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.

I have the same evidence anyone else has. I come to a slightly different conclusion.

>all of this wrong

>still not understanding 'Roman' was just citizenship and not an ethnic denomination

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.

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.

>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.

Roman was citizenship not nationality. Get it right.

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?

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".

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".

Why is it so fucking hard for you autists to accept that there was actually a black emperor?

>this pic
>berber and syrian
>having anything to do with subsaharan african
Holy shit the mental gymnastics

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.

... 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

>berbers
>west africa
>west africa
>not subsaharan
u wot?

>[...] an Italic dialect, as was Etruscan
Are you retarded?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrsenian_languages

>Latin picked up a few grammatical structures from the Etruscans
Like what?

>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".

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.

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.

Dunno, that's what my Professor said, she didn't really elaborate.

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

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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_languages
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language

So prove it. Show us how you came to your conclusions. You could literally change linguistics as we know it.

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.

Thanks, user-contributed wikipedia by people with oft-misled modern understanding, making people know daily more and more about less and less.

>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.

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.

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.

Not evidence.

Again, how is etruscan an indo-european language? Vocabulary, grammar, syntax?

Tell me how "Ebonics" is English in grammar and syntax.

Radan Rusanov

Not evidence.

Why do you seem reticent to show how you reached your conclusions?

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.

What?
Also if anyone is interetsed I found this rad book sometime ago: A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian.
archive.org/details/grammarofoscanum00buckuoft