What languages did these tribes speak?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Although it's well known that Latin was spoken by the Romans and the early Latin tribes, what is less clear to me is what language was spoken by the surrounding peoples such as the Samnites, Etruscans, and the people of Apulia, Campania, etc. - I'm wondering if they spoke a derivative of or something very similar to the Latin tongue? Thanks in advance.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Well etruscan is a separate, currently untranslated, language very different from the latin ( and from all other known languages too, even if some have tried to link it with some semitics languages ). As for the other tribes south of Rome they mainly spoke oscian derivated languages of which little survives, most of it being short epigraphic inscriptions.

[docoflove1974]

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!

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

That's fascinating that Etruscan has an unknown origin. I remember reading that modern text-book Italian is actually derived from the dialect of Tuscany, which is roughly where the Etruscans lived. It might be a good idea to look at the dialect spoken in modern day Tuscany, in Florence for example, for any surviving Etruscan words. Just a thought.

So as far as the other Italic languages go I think it would be safe to assume some type of similarity with Latin?

[docoflove1974]

That's fascinating that Etruscan has an unknown origin. I remember reading that modern text-book Italian is actually derived from the dialect of Tuscany, which is roughly where the Etruscans lived. It might be a good idea to look at the dialect spoken in modern day Tuscany, in Florence for example, for any surviving Etruscan words. Just a thought.

So as far as the other Italic languages go I think it would be safe to assume some type of similarity with Latin?

 

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.

[caldrail]

I'm a bit curious about those etruscans. The fact their language is different suggests to me they developed it in seclusion from the native tongues in italy at the time, so is their physical origin from elsewhere? A displaced people? Conquerers? Migrants? or is the language similar but the alphabet they used for reading and writing unique and therefore as yet undeciphered?

[sonic]

I'm a bit curious about those etruscans. The fact their language is different suggests to me they developed it in seclusion from the native tongues in italy at the time, so is their physical origin from elsewhere? A displaced people? Conquerers? Migrants? or is the language similar but the alphabet they used for reading and writing unique and therefore as yet undeciphered?

 

 

From what I can remember, the Etruscan language is completely different to that of the other 'Italians'. The fact that it is so different has led many experts to believe that the Etruscans were the original inhabitants of Italy, and that the other 'Italians' migrated in from the north, bypassing the Etruscan heartland and setting up their own societies.

 

At the height of their power, the Etruscan city-states were a Thalassocracy controlling the Tyrhennian Sea, having an early alliance with the Carthaginians. They also conquered the lands all across the north of Italy, and one of their cities gave its name to the Adriatic.

 

If I can remeber where I got all of the information from, I'll post the reference.

[docoflove1974]

From what I can remember, the Etruscan language is completely different to that of the other 'Italians'. The fact that it is so different has led many experts to believe that the Etruscans were the original inhabitants of Italy, and that the other 'Italians' migrated in from the north, bypassing the Etruscan heartland and setting up their own societies.

 

The Indo-European peoples who spoke the 'Italic' branch of the language, who later conquered and settled in the peninsula, did come in from the north...or by sea...no one's 100% sure. Personally, I believe that the bulk of them came from the north, in the same (or similar) wave of migration as the Celtic tribes. As for the Etruscans, yes, I do believe the 'consensus' opinion is that they were there first before the Italic-speaking peoples came in...but that's also a default position; that is to say, we don't know where they came from, and they were there first, but no one's sure about how or when they got there. Now, this is the linguistic evidence that I know...but the archeology might say something else, or corroborate it.

[Kosmo]

I'm a bit curious about those etruscans. The fact their language is different suggests to me they developed it in seclusion from the native tongues in italy at the time, so is their physical origin from elsewhere? A displaced people? Conquerers? Migrants? or is the language similar but the alphabet they used for reading and writing unique and therefore as yet undeciphered?

 

An old, but still popular theory has the etruscans caming from West Anatolian kingdom of Lydia. There are many arguments but I believe that is possible that an elite coming from the east dominated local Villanovan tribes.

 

In north Italy some tribes spoke a celtic language. Ligurians were also present. Ilirians on the East coast, greeks in the South played a role as well.

[Pantagathus]

Well etruscan is a separate, currently untranslated

is the language similar but the alphabet they used for reading and writing unique and therefore as yet undeciphered?

The notion of Etruscan being undeciphered & untranslated is incorrect. Since the alphabet they used was adopted from Euboean Greek, the phonetics of the language are known so Etruscan can be and has been 'read'. Tons of work has also been done in regards to not just reading the language but of course translating it to. The problem is that they left no great body of literature...

 

The only thing that Etruscan liguists have to work with is a corpus body woefully terse epigraphic inscriptions (monumental & funerary inscriptions + pottery discriptors) which is not satisfactory for understanding an entire language (same problem with Punic).

 

@ Doc, either I'm misinformed or perhaps you may want to double check but I think It's now somewhat accepted that Etruscan, Lemnian & Raetian perhaps belong to the same family; the proposed 'Tyrsenian' language group. Doesn't seem to be considered an isolate anymore.

 

What's really interesting is that in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and other ancient writers (Herodotus? Thucydides?) there are anecdotes in regards to 'Tyrrhenian Pelasgians' in and around Lemnos. (Perhaps even in an alternate telling of the Lemnian Women?)

 

It's quite a curiously out of place anecdote unless there really is some familial link there.

 

The new argument within the last 10 years is whether the Tyrsenian Group is pre-IE or an obscure branch of IE related to the Anatolian variants.

[docoflove1974]

@ Doc, either I'm misinformed or perhaps you may want to double check but I think It's now somewhat accepted that Etruscan, Lemnian & Raetian perhaps belong to the same family; the proposed 'Tyrsenian' language group. Doesn't seem to be considered an isolate anymore.

 

I honestly hadn't heard this, Pantagathus...but will look into this.

[Andrew Dalby]

@ Doc, either I'm misinformed or perhaps you may want to double check but I think It's now somewhat accepted that Etruscan, Lemnian & Raetian perhaps belong to the same family; the proposed 'Tyrsenian' language group. Doesn't seem to be considered an isolate anymore.

 

I honestly hadn't heard this, Pantagathus...but will look into this.

I, too, have heard that these are connected. And, yes, therefore (unless the other two count as 'dialects of Etruscan') Etruscan doesn't meet the strict definition of a 'linguistic isolate'! It doesn't really change the facts, though. The Etruscan group has not been shown to be connected to any other, and it hasn't yet been fully deciphered.

[docoflove1974]

True enough, AD. Just like I'm sure that Basque has 'relatives' around in the ancient languages of Europe, those which were never recorded by the Romans, Germanic tribes, or anyone else of the Indo-European group. Somehow the puzzle pieces fit together!