docoflove1974

And this is a very good point. My first Latin teacher was a hard-core classicist; this, added to my linguistics background, lends me to use a Latin pronunciation...usually. I still say [ju-li-us si-zar] and others, including often saying [si-se-row]; same with the Spanish or Italian pronunciation, as the situation warrants. But that's in normal, English conversation. If I was teaching a Classical Literature course, I probably would use the Latin pronunciation. And when I'm teaching my student in Spanish, and want to model the original Latin etymon, I use a Latin pronunciation. When singing a song in Latin, I use the Latin pronunciation. As for [w] or [v] for 'v', I always use [w]. As far as I've read, it's the correct pronunciation; besides, it's historically linguistically correct for the various results in the Romance descendants. But I don't mind being the odd person!

My parties are not sordid! At least, they're not planned to be.... Any and all are welcome...c'mon in, Kyle. The wine flows, and the food is plentiful!

Indeed. Can't have Pater Arcanae with ruffled feathers!

Dude, all of the tender vittles that emerged from my kitchen are of top quality...I can't say the same for the street vendors which you frequent often!

Sheesh, I can't even play pool when single-tasking and sober...

You are truly an odd fellow. This is not a novel statement, but a further reinforcement of known facts.

Ooooooooh very nice...although I do prefer modeling slaves to be somewhat curvy...helps in imagining how the clothes really would look on me! And while the metal and leather outfit would have it's place I like the little purple number

No thanks, I just ate

Sounds like he was a damn fine soldier. At least he came back alive, and enjoyed several years with family and friends.

To be most correct, it's "mo-tza-rel-la"...but the silly Southerners who inhabit the East Coast have messed it up for everyone

This was perhaps the most interesting part of the article. If this is true, it wasn't a healthy child that was usually sacrificed--perhaps this is another way of 'taking care' of kids who weren't deemed healthy enough to survive? Another question...were these sacrifices done in order to bring normal rain, or in order to break drought? If the sacrificed children were ill, perhaps this is a clue, that they were sacrificed in order to break a drought.

As for the first part, there are naturally borrowings into Latin from Etruscan, but otherwise that is it. Lexical borrowing does not imply any other influence over the language. Since the Etruscan language died during the Roman times (IIRC, not much into the Christian Era, but I could be wrong here), there would not be much influence over Tuscan/Florentine that isn't also over the other dialects. As for the other Italic languages, there are strong similarities between Oscan and Umbrian, and in turn between them and Latin. I can't find my notes right now, but as I recall the morphology and syntax of Oscan and Umbrian was highly similar to Latin, and the phonology was quite similar.

Etruscans spoke their own language--of course called Etruscan--which is an isolet. It is not related to any known language, Indo-European or otherwise. There were other Italic languages spoken up and down the peninsula: Oscan, Umbrian and Faliscan are the most commonly known languages. A good resource can be found here: at the University of Texas' Center for Indo-European Linguistics. There are other links and bibliographies on there. In addition, Carl D. Buck wrote two very useful resources on Indo-European in general, as well as focusing on the Italic branch: Buck, Carl Darling. 1933. Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Buck, Carl Darling. 1904. A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian. Boston: Ginn & Company. Both of these (or other editions) should be at any good university library. Hope that helps!

Oooooooooh d'you like it? I just had it freshly shorn and dyed to match my threads. A girl must accessorize! *girly giggle*

Doc peaks in from the kitchen...giddy with excitement for what's about to take place! Dude...the Mac Daddy of the Gods visited us!

...Oh bother...why is there always a disturbance when I'm getting in a groove with a guest... ...no, Augusta...really...it's ok...

Watch some PBS during the Brit comedy hour...or some BBC America. That'll help you. PS: Wellies = galoshes

Or his brain in my case! Although brains and wealth would be heaven! But those are soooooooooo hard to try...I keep looking, and I've yet to find one! (or, I've yet to find one who wants a run for his intellectual money!)

A very telling statement, Tolga. And quite a bit of truth in it: in the Anatolian geographic area, there have been so many different peoples and cultures, that there is quite the mix in the blood of modern Turks. It reminds me of a conversation we had on here regarding Italians v. ancient Romans. I know that, though my mother's family is from Genoa and north-western Lombardy, I can't say that I have all that much 'Roman' blood in me, rather a mix of various Celtic tribes, Gothic, Roman, perhaps Etruscan...perhaps much more! And that's just my mother's side...my dad's family has been in the US since the days of the 13 Colonies, and there is Cherokee blood in there, too (another mish-mash). So who knows! I don't know about you...but I'm just plain ol' human

Well...not exactly. The Celtic, Italic, and Germanic branches are all different branches of Proto-Indo-European. What can be said is that Germanic did break off earlier from the tree than Celtic and Italic, and that Celtic and Italic probably broke off at about the same time. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans and Schwink (2004) The Third Gender: Studies in the Origin and History of Germanic Grammatical Gender are both good sources on this. But Celtic and Italic are not of the same branch, so to speak. Celtic and Italic language groups are nonetheless close relatives, the closest contemporaries to each other. Germanic is more distantly related to either. Yes, although the wording of your statement presumes more similiarities than there are. There are still many distinctions between the two groups, and because of its proximity and contact with speakers, Germanic as a family is about as dis/similar to Celtic and Italic as Celtic and Italic are to each other.

You may fall for Apollo, but I've heard it said that all men are lyres. -- Nephele *GROAN* I take the blame for that one...give her the set-up....

Yeah, I have a friend who's done that, too. I'm seriously shocked at how often it works. As for me...I was always more partial to Apollo. Must be the lyre

Well...not exactly. The Celtic, Italic, and Germanic branches are all different branches of Proto-Indo-European. What can be said is that Germanic did break off earlier from the tree than Celtic and Italic, and that Celtic and Italic probably broke off at about the same time. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans and Schwink (2004) The Third Gender: Studies in the Origin and History of Germanic Grammatical Gender are both good sources on this. But Celtic and Italic are not of the same branch, so to speak.

Oh wow--that was soooo bad (it was great). Stop encouraging her!!!

Depends on the age of the lady in wanting. As a female in her 30s, I'd go for more of an athletic look (not necessarily muscle-bound), confident, and definitely 'male' looking. No weenies allowed!