...who decided, lets call it Latin

[Viggen]

...any reasonable explanation why the language wasnt called Italic, or Roman or something else?

 

regards

viggen

[Aurelia]

Probably because it originated in the region of Latium, which was inhabited by an ancient people known as Latini.

[docoflove1974]

Probably because it originated in the region of Latium, which was inhabited by an ancient people known as Latini.

 

 

Yes, and the language was spoken (and sporatically written) before Rome the city was firmly established as a powerhouse.

[Viggen]

...sure makes all sense, however why did they call it then not Latin Empire or Latin Republic, i know i am nitpicking here, but i am always fascinated with origins of words...

...and of course what happend to the Latini then? when did they decide to call themselves Romans and no longer Latini?

 

cheers

viggen

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

...sure makes all sense, however why did they call it then not Latin Empire or Latin Republic, i know i am nitpicking here, but i am always fascinated with origins of words...

...and of course what happend to the Latini then? when did they decide to call themselves Romans and no longer Latini?

 

cheers

viggen

Their was a latine league that was slowly integrated by the Roman elite after being beaten by the roman army (I hesitate calling them a legion so early) in 493 B.C.

The latine league had been created to defend the area around Alba Longua from the Etruscan forces, and fought the romans before becoming allied to the young republic. Then in the 4th century they went back to war against each other, amongst other for loot issues. Following that war the latin cities were called municipium and coloniae were founded in their midst, the latins becoming essentially second class roman citizens. The league was dissolved in 338 B.C. The Romans had begun to expend.

[Kosmo]

...and of course what happend to the Latini then? when did they decide to call themselves Romans and no longer Latini?

 

Latini became romans and some other provincials became Latins. Confusing...

[docoflove1974]

...and of course what happend to the Latini then? when did they decide to call themselves Romans and no longer Latini?

 

Latini became romans and some other provincials became Latins. Confusing...

 

It seems to have more to do with the founding of Rome as a stable city. Once that group of Latini identified themselves as Romans first (of the Latini general tribe secondarily), that's when the switch was made. The language was used by the entire tribe, hence the term being from there. But the city of Rome was the center of the eventual Republic, and because of this those specific people (and their civilization, and the actions henceforth) are considered 'Roman'. But the region in general was always considered Latium, the land of the Latini people. Rome just happened to be the major hub, the central and most important city.

[Caius Maxentius]

How close was Latin to the languages of the neighbouring tribes (Etruscans, Samnites, etc.)?

[docoflove1974]

Etruscan was not an Italic language, nor even Indo-European...in fact, it's a linguistic isolet, meaning we don't know of a language family that connects to it.

 

The languages of the Sabines, Aequi, Marsi and Volsci have very little to data to discuss, so that I know of there isn't much to say. There are questions as to whether Ligurian, Rhaetian, Siculian and Elymian are Indo-European. It's possible, however there are very few data--mostly toponyms--but the feeling is that they are IE, just probably not Italic (Beekes 1995: 26).

 

The closest to Latin is Faliscan, which we don't have much evidence on. We have some inscriptions in the territory of the Falerii, and a 4th century BCE cup found in Rome. (Baldi 1983: 25)

 

Oscan and Umbrian (or the Sabellian languages) are the other Italic languages, and they are fairly close to Latin. Oscan was spoken by the Osci in Campania--in other words, it's the language of the Samnites. We have about 200 inscriptions from Campania, Samnium, northern Apulia, Lucania, Bruttium and Messana. Chiefly we have the Tabula Bantina, a list of municipal regulations, and the Cippus Abellanus, another municipal document. (Baldi 1983: 29-30) Oscan did have its own alphabet, but also there are inscriptions using the Greek alphabet as well as the Latin alphabet (Beekes 1995:26).

 

Umbrian, spoken in the region to the east of Tuscany, also is recorded in various inscriptions and, principally, the Iguvine Tables. These were from 400-90 BCE, and contained directions for and descriptions of various religious ceremonies performed by a group of priests called the Atiedian Brothers." (Baldi 1983: 30) These tables were written in their own script, which is the youngest in the Latin alphabet (Beekes 1995: 26)

 

There are a fair number of similarities to Latin, although with such limited data it's always hard to definitively make this call. Definitively, we have a much larger bank of data for Latin, especially of Old Latin, to make the comparisons, but it seems clear from the data available that these are the languages that are related.

 

References...and definitely a couple of handbooks on all things Indo-European:

Baldi, Philip. 1983. An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

 

Beekes, Robert S.P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.