Although an equation between archeological and linguistic evidence cannot be established with certainty, the Proto-Italic language is generally associated with the Terramare (1700–1150 BC) and Proto-Villanovan cultures (1200–900 BC).[2]
On the other hand, work in glottochronology has argued that Proto-Italic split off from the western Proto-Indo-European dialects some time before 2500 BC.[3][4] It was originally spoken by Italic tribes north of the Alps before they moved south into the Italian Peninsula during the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. Linguistic evidence also points to early contacts with Celtic tribes and Proto-Germanic speakers.[2]
Development
A list of regular phonetic changes from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Italic follows. Because Latin is the only well-attested Italic language, it forms the main source for the reconstruction of Proto-Italic. It is therefore not always clear whether certain changes apply to all of Italic (a pre-PI change), or only to Latin (a post-PI change), because of lack of conclusive evidence.
Sequences of palatovelars and *w merged with labiovelars: *ḱw, *ǵw, *ǵʰw > *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ
*p...kʷ > *kʷ...kʷ, a change also found in Celtic.
Labiovelars lose their labialisation before a consonant: *kʷC, *gʷC, *gʷʰC > *kC, *gC, *gʰC.
Obstruent consonants become (unaspirated) voiceless before another voiceless consonant (usually *s or *t).
Voiced aspirates become fricatives. Word-initially, they become voiceless, while they are allophonically voiced word-medially. Judging from Oscan evidence, they apparently remained fricatives even after a nasal consonant. In most other Italic languages they developed into stops later in that position.
*bʰ > *f (medially *β)
*dʰ > *θ (medially *ð)
*gʰ > *x (medially *ɣ)
*gʷʰ > *xʷ (medially *ɣʷ)
*s was also allophonically voiced to *z word-medially.[5]
*θ, *xʷ > *f. Found in Veneticvhagsto/hvagsto (compare Latin faciō). The voiced allophones *ð and *ɣʷ remained distinct from *β in Latin and Venetic, but also merged in Osco-Umbrian.
The laryngeals are a class of hypothetical PIE sounds *h₁, *h₂, *h₃ that usually disappeared in late PIE, leaving coloring effects on adjacent vowels. Their disappearance left some distinctive sound combinations in Proto-Italic. In the changes below, the # follows standard practice in denoting a word boundary; that is, # at the beginning denotes word-initial.[10] H denotes any of the three laryngeals.
The simpler Italic developments of laryngeals are shared by many other Indo-European branches:
*h₁e > *e, *h₂e > *a, *h₃e > *o
*eh₁ > *ē, *eh₂ > *ā, *eh₃ > *ō
*H > *a between obstruents
Laryngeals are lost word-initially before a consonant.
More characteristic of Italic are the interactions of laryngeals with sonorant consonants. Here, R represents a sonorant, and C a consonant.
#HRC > #aRC and CHRC > CaRC, but #HRV > #RV
CRHC > CRāC, but CRHV > CaRV
CiHC and probably CHiC > CīC
Morphology
General loss of the dual, with only a few relics remaining.[11]
[ŋ] was an allophone of /n/ before a velar consonant.
The voiced fricatives [β], [ð], [ɣ], [ɣʷ] and [z] were in complementary distribution with word-initial voiceless fricatives [ɸ], [θ], [x], [xʷ] and [s], and were thus originally simply allophones of each other. However, at some point in the Proto-Italic period, the allophony was somewhat disrupted by the loss of the voiceless allophones [θ] and [xʷ], which merged with [ɸ]. Scholars[who?] disagree on whether to reconstruct Proto-Italic with the phonemes /θ~ð/ and /xʷ~ɣʷ/ still present (hence assuming that the merger with [ɸ] was a later areal change that spread across all extant dialects, possibly occurring simultaneous with or after the loss of the corresponding voiced fricatives), or to reconstruct Proto-Italic with the phonemes' voiceless allophones merged into /ɸ~β/, and their voiced allophones becoming independent phonemes /ð/, /ɣʷ/. Both of these sounds are relatively uncommon cross-linguistically, and eventually they were eliminated in all later languages, but differently in each.
/ə/ was perhaps not a true phoneme, but was inserted before consonants as a prop vowel. It can be reconstructed based on the outcome of the Proto-Indo-European syllabic nasals *m̥ and *n̥, which appear in Latin as *em, *en or *im, *in, but also as *am, *an in Osco-Umbrian alongside *em, *en. Thus, it appears necessary to reconstruct /ə/ as a distinct sound. However, Meiser reconstructs a nasal vowel /ẽ/ as this prop vowel, citing how Old French/ẽ/ evolved to modern French /ɑ̃/ as a parallel.[13]
Osthoff's law remained productive in Proto-Italic. This caused long vowels to shorten when they were followed by a sonorant and another consonant in the same syllable: VːRC > VRC. As the long diphthongs were also VːR sequences, they could only occur word-finally, and were shortened elsewhere. Long vowels were also shortened before word-final *-m. This is the cause of the many occurrences of short *-a- in, for example, the endings of the ā-stems or of ā-verbs.
Prosody
Proto-Italic words may have had a fixed stress on the first syllable, a stress pattern which probably existed in most descendants in at least some periods. In Latin, initial stress is posited for the Old Latin period, after which it gave way to the "Classical" stress pattern. However, fixed initial stress may alternatively be an areal feature postdating Proto-Italic, since the vowel reductions which it is posited to explain are not found before the mid-first millennium BC.[14]
Furthermore, the persistence of Proto-Indo-European mobile accent is required in early Proto-Italic for Brent Vine's (2006) reformulation of Thurneysen-Havet's law (where pre-tonic *ou > *au) to work.[15]
Grammar
Nouns
Nouns could have one of three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. They declined for seven of the eight Proto-Indo-European cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative and locative. The instrumental case had been lost. Nouns also declined for number in singular and plural. The dual number was no longer distinguished, although a few remnants (like Latin duo, ambō) still preserved some form of the inherited dual inflection.
o-stems
This class corresponds to the second declension of Latin, basically divided into masculine and neuter nouns. It descends from the Proto-Indo-European thematic declension. Most nouns in this class were masculine or neuter, but there may have been some feminine nouns as well (e.g., names of plants such as Latin "papyrus").
The genitive singular in *-ī is of unknown origin, but is found in both Italic and Celtic. It mostly ousted the older inherited genitive in *-osjo in Latin. The older form is found in a few inscriptions, such as popliosio valesiosio on the Lapis Satricanus, likely rendered as Publii Valerii in classical Latin.[19] It is also continued in some pronominal genitives, such as cuius < *kʷojjo-s < PIE*kʷosjo, with *-s added by analogy with the consonant stem genitive in *-os.[20] In Osco-Umbrian, neither ending survives, being replaced with *-eis, the i-stem ending.
The nominative plural was originally *-ōs for nouns and adjectives, and *-oi for pronominal forms. The distribution in Proto-Italic is unclear, but both endings certainly still existed. The *-ōs ending was replaced altogether in Latin in favour of *-oi, whence the classical -ī. In Osco-Umbrian, the reverse happened, where *-oi was replaced with *-ōs, whence Oscan -ús, Umbrian -us.
In Old Latin, the genitive plural was still generally -om, later -um. It was then reformed based on the ā-stem form *-āzom, giving the classical -ōrum.
Neuter o-stems also had a dual ending -oi (< *-oyh₁), surviving in some Latin relics like caelum "sky", frēnum "bridle" and rāstrum "rake", whose plurals end in -ī instead of -a.[21]
ā-stems
This class corresponds to the first declension of Latin. It derives primarily from Proto-Indo-European nouns in *-eh₂-, and contained mostly feminine nouns, and maybe a few masculines, such as names of jobs in Classical Latin, some of them being loanwords from Ancient Greek (e.g., incola, nauta, poeta).
The accusative singular ending would have been *-am originally, due to shortening of long vowels before final *-m. However, a long vowel is found in the attested forms. This long vowel most likely arose by analogy with the other endings that have a long vowel.[23]
The genitive plural ending was originally a pronominal form, PIE *-eh₂-soHom.
The genitive singular in -s, still used in Old Latin, went extinct in Classical Latin except in the fixed expression "Pater familias".
Consonant stems
This class contained nouns with stems ending in a variety of consonants. They included root nouns, n-stems, r-stems, s-stems and t-stems among others. It corresponds to the third declension of Latin, which also includes the i-stems, originally a distinct class.
Masculine and feminine nouns declined alike, while neuters had different forms in the nominative/accusative/vocative.
Nouns in this class often had a somewhat irregular nominative singular form. This created several subtypes, based on the final consonant of the stem.
For most consonant stem nouns, the ending of the nominative/vocative singular was -s for masculine and feminine nouns. This ending would cause devoicing, delabialisation and/or hardening of the stem-final consonant, as seen in *sniks above. Neuter nouns had no ending.
n-stems generally had the ending *-ō, with the infix *-on- (or maybe *-en-) in the other cases; e.g., PIt *sermō, sermōnes, in which *-mō derives from PIE *-mō < **-mons. On the other hand, neuters had *-ən in the nom/voc/acc singular, while the stem of the remaining forms is unclear. An example is *kreimən, *kreimənVs, from PIE *kréymn̥, in which -mn̥ is related to **-mons.
r-stems had *-ēr, alternating with *-(e)r-. The alternation in vowel length was lost in Latin, but is preserved in Oscan.
s-stems had *-ōs (for masculines and feminines) or *-os (for neuters). This alternated with *-ez- (or maybe *-oz- in some masculine/feminine nouns) in the other forms.
The r/n-stems were a small group of neuter nouns. These had *-or in the nominative/vocative/accusative singular, but *-(e)n- in the remaining forms.
Other notes:
The genitive singular had two possible endings. Both are attested side by side in Old Latin, although the ending -es/-is may also be from the i-stems (see below). In Osco-Umbrian, only the i-stem ending -eis is found.
The Latin masculine nominative plural ending -ēs (with a long vowel) was taken from the i-stems.
The neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural originally had short *-a as the ending, or lengthening of the vowel before the final consonant. Already in Italic, this was replaced with the o-stem ending *-ā.
The dative (and ablative/locative?) plural ending would have originally been added directly to the stem, with no intervening vowel. In Latin, there is an intervening -e- or -i-, while in Osco-Umbrian the ending is replaced altogether. It's not clear what the Proto-Italic situation was.
i-stems
This class corresponds to the nouns of the Latin third declension that had the genitive plural ending -ium (rather than -um). In Latin, the consonant stems gradually merged with this class. This process continued into the historical era; e.g. in Caesar's time (c. 50 BC) the i-stems still had a distinct accusative plural ending -īs, but this was replaced with the consonant-stem ending -ēs by the time of Augustus (c. AD 1). In Proto-Italic, as in the other Italic languages, i-stems were still very much a distinct type and showed no clear signs of merging.
Masculine and feminine nouns declined alike, while neuters had different forms in the nominative/accusative/vocative.
There were apparently two different forms for the genitive singular. The form -eis is found in Osco-Umbrian. However, -es appears in early Latin, while there is no sign of *-eis. This could reflect the consonant-stem ending, but it could also come from *-jes.[30] Compare also *-wos of the u-stems, which is attested in Old Latin, and may represent a parallel formation.
The original form of the neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural was *-ī, from PIE *-ih₂. Already in Italic, this was extended by adding the o-stem ending to it, thus culminating into either *-īā or *-jā.
u-stems
This class corresponds to the fourth declension of Latin. They were historically parallel to the i-stems, and still showed many similar forms, with j/i being replaced with w/u. However, sound changes had made them somewhat different over time.
The neuter nominative/vocative/accusative singular must have originally been short *-u, but in Latin only long -ū is found. It is unclear what the origin of this could be. It may be a remnant of a dual ending, considering that neuter u-stems were rare, and the few that survived tended to occur in pairs.[34]
Like the i-stems, the u-stems had two possible types of genitive singular ending, with an unclear distribution. *-ous is found in Oscan, and it is also the origin of the usual Latin ending -ūs. However, the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus inscription attests senatvos, and the ending -uis (from *-wes) is also found in a few sources.[35]
The masculine/feminine nominative/vocative plural is not securely reconstructable. Latin -ūs seems to reflect *-ous, but from PIE *-ewes the form *-owes (Latin *-uis) would be expected. The ending is not attested in Osco-Umbrian or Old Latin, which might have otherwise given conclusive evidence.[36]
The original form of the neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural was *-ū. Already in Italic, this was extended by adding the o-stem ending to it, like in the i-stems, thus culminating in either *-wā or *-ūā.
Adjectives
Adjectives inflected much the same as nouns. Unlike nouns, adjectives did not have inherent genders. Instead, they inflected for all three genders, taking on the same gender-form as the noun they referred to.
Adjectives followed the same inflectional classes of nouns. The largest were the o/ā-stem adjectives (which inflected as o-stems in the masculine and neuter, and as ā-stems in the feminine), and the i-stems. Present active participles of verbs (in *-nts) and the comparative forms of adjectives (in *-jōs) inflected as consonant stems. There were also u-stem adjectives originally, but they had been converted to i-stems by adding i-stem endings onto the existing u-stem, thus giving the nominative singular *-wis.
From Proto-Indo-European, the Proto-Italic present aspect changed in a couple of ways. Firstly, a new past indicative suffix of *-β- was created. This likely occurred due to the elision of word-final *i within the Indo-European primary verb endings (E.g. PIE Present Indicative *h₁ésti > PIt *est, but also PIE Past Indicative *h₁ést). Secondly, the desiderative suffix of *-s-/-so- became the future suffix in Proto-Italic. The subjunctive of this desiderative-future, with a suffix of both -s- and a lengthening of the following vowel, was used to represent a potentialis and irrealis mood. Finally, while the subjunctive and the optative of PIE were still in principle different moods, the moods became merged in Post-PIt developments (E.g. PIt subjunctive *esed vs optative *siēd which became Latin present subjunctive sit); this can be already seen in the Proto-Italic phase, where the subjunctive mood began to take secondary endings as opposed to the primary endings they exhibited in PIE (cf. the Sabellian reflex of the PIt 3rd person singular imperfect subjunctive being -d and not *-t).
The PIE dual person was also lost within PIt verbs just as it was in PIt nouns.
First conjugation
This conjugation pattern was derived from the PIE suffix *-eh₂-yé-ti, and formed primarily denominative verbs (I.e. deriving from a noun or an adjective).
The bulk of Proto-Italic verbs were third-conjugation verbs, which were derived from Proto-Indo-European root thematic verbs. However, some are derived from other PIE verb classes, such as *linkʷō (PIE nasal-infix verbs) and *dikskō (PIE *sḱe-suffix verbs).
This conjugation was derived from PIE *ye-suffix verbs, and went on to form most of Latin 3rd conjugation io-variant verbs as well as some 4th conjugation verbs.
Example Conjugation: *gʷen-jo/je- (to come),[44] from earlier *gʷəmjō
Tense
1st. Sing.
2nd. Sing.
3rd. Sing.
1st. Plur.
2nd. Plur.
3rd. Plur.
Present Active Indicative
*gʷenjō
*gʷenjes
*gʷenjet
*gʷenjomos
*gʷenjetes
*gʷenjont
Present Passive Indicative
*gʷenjor
*gʷenjezo
*gʷenjetor
*gʷenjomor
*gʷenjemenai
*gʷenjontor
Past Active Indicative
*gʷenjoβam
*gʷenjoβas
*gʷenjoβad
*gʷenjoβamos
*gʷenjoβates
*gʷenjoβand
Past Passive Indicative
*gʷenjoβar
*gʷenjoβazo
*gʷenjoβator
*gʷenjoβamor
*gʷenjoβamenai
*gʷenjoβantor
Future Active Indicative
*gʷenjesō
*gʷenjeses
*gʷenjest
*gʷenjesomos
*gʷenjestes
*gʷenjesont
Future Passive Indicative
*gʷenjesor
*gʷenjesezo
*gʷenjestor
*gʷenjesomor
*gʷenjesemenai
*gʷenjesontor
Present Active Subjunctive
*gʷenjōm
*gʷenjе̄s
*gʷenjе̄d
*gʷenjōmos
*gʷenjе̄tes
*gʷenjōnd
Present Passive Subjunctive
*gʷenjōr
*gʷenjе̄zo
*gʷenjе̄tor
*gʷenjōmor
*gʷenjе̄menai
*gʷenjōntor
Past Active Subjunctive
*gʷenjesōm
*gʷenjesе̄s
*gʷenjesе̄d
*gʷenjesōmos
*gʷenjesе̄tes
*gʷenjesōnd
Past Passive Subjunctive
*gʷenjesōr
*gʷenjesе̄zo
*gʷenjesе̄tor
*gʷenjesōmor
*gʷenjesе̄menai
*gʷenjesōntor
Active Optative
*gʷenjojam
*gʷenjojas
*gʷenjojad
*gʷenjojamos
*gʷenjojates
*gʷenjojand
Passive Optative
*gʷenjojar
*gʷenjojazo
*gʷenjojator
*gʷenjojamor
*gʷenjojamenai
*gʷenjojantor
Present Active Imperative
*gʷenje
*gʷenjete
Passive Active Imperative
*gʷenjezo
Future Active Imperative
*gʷenjetōd
Participles
Present
Past
Tense
*gʷenjents
*gʷentos
Verbal Nouns
tu-derivative
s-derivative
Type
*gʷentum
*gʷenjezi
Athematic verbs
Only a handful of verbs remained within this conjugation paradigm, derived from the original PIE Root Athematic verbs.
Example Conjugation: *ezom (copula, to be)[45][46]
Tense
1st. Sing.
2nd. Sing.
3rd. Sing.
1st. Plur.
2nd. Plur.
3rd. Plur.
Present Active Indicative
*ezom
*es
*est
*(e)somos
*(e)stes
*sent
Past Active Indicative
*fuβam
*fuβas
*fuβad
*fuβamos
*fuβates
*fuβand
Future Active Indicative
*fuzom
*fus
*fust
*fuzomos
*fustes
*fuzent
Present Active Subjunctive
*ezom
*ezes
*ezed
*ezomos
*ezetes
*ezond
Past Active Subjunctive
*fuzom, *essom
*fuzes, *esses
*fuzed, *essed
*fuzomos, *essomos
*fuzetes, *essetes
*fuzond, *essond
Active Optative
*siēm
*siēs
*siēd
*sīmos
*sītes
*sīnd
Present Active Imperative
*es
*este
Future Active Imperative
*estōd
Participles
Present
Past
Tense
*sēnts
Verbal Nouns
tu-derivative
s-derivative
Type
*essi
In addition to these conjugations, Proto-Italic also has some deponent verbs, such as *ōdai (Perfect-Present), as well as *gnāskōr (Passive-Active).
Some examples of verb derivation from PIE in Proto-Italic
During the transition from Proto-Indo-European into the Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan languages, the aorist and perfect merged into a single tense,[47] referred to as the perfect in Latin and Sabellic grammar.[48] In Latin and Sabellic, the perfect tense of a verb is formed via a unique perfect stem to which the inflectional endings are affixed (i.e. the perfect stem of glūbō is glūps-). To form these perfect stems, both Italic branches often reused original aorist or perfect stems.[49] In addition, there were some new innovations within the perfective aspect, with the -v- perfect (in Latin amō, amāvī) and the -u- perfect (moneō, monuī) being later innovations, for example.[citation needed] Latin more typically preserved original sigmatic aorists, such as in the case of dīx-, whereas Sabellic often preserved original root aorists.[49] However, neither Italic branch exclusively preserved one type of aorist or perfect stem:[50] The Latin perfect stem dīx- continues the Proto-Indo-European s-aorist dḗyḱst,[51] but the perfect stem peper- continues the Proto-Indo-European reduplicated perfect pepórh₃e[52] and the perfect stem iēc- continues the full-grade k-aorist (H)yéh₁kt.[50][53] Moreover, the chosen stems in the two Italic branches are usually opposite: Where Latin continues an original perfect form, Sabellic typically preserves an aorist, and vice versa.[54] According to Rix, if a verb stem is present in both the Latino-Faliscan and Sabellic branches, the present stem is identical in 90% of cases, but the perfect in only 50% of cases.[46]
Due to the vast array of morphological distinctions between the perfect in Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan, it is generally held in the field of Italic linguistics that the aorist-perfect merger was completed independently in the Italic daughter languages, thereby preventing the branches from inheriting one unified system common to Proto-Italic.[48][46] Furthermore, since Latino-Faliscan and Sabellic consistently continue opposite perfect and aorist stems, the linguist Gerhard Meiser argues that most Proto-Italic verbs likely had both perfect and aorist forms. Meiser concludes that—in Proto-Italic—these stems may not have differed significantly in meaning, and thus, a given form was selected for preservation in the daughter languages based on morphology rather than meaning.[54] However, the linguist Reuben Pitts proposes that Old Latin, Faliscan, and the Sabellic languages shared far more morphological similarities than linguists such as Meiser suggest.[55] If these theories are accepted, then this may indicate a later date for the divergences between the Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan perfect systems.[56]
Pitts argues that both Italic clades likely opted for s-aorists in situations where a reduplicated perfect was not phonotactically permissible, particularly forms that lack a syllabic nucleus. For instance, the verb "coquō" bears the s-perfect stem cox- instead of the inadmissible reduplicated perfect form *kʷokʷkʷ-.[57] Similarly, Oscan kúmbened may preserve a thematic aorist, as opposed to the zero-grade reduplicated perfect *gʷegʷn-, which likely would have produced *bobn-. a form without a syllabic nucleus.[58] The Latin verb fingō, though it bears an s-perfect stem finx-, may have once utilized a reduplicated perfect, as shown by the closely related Faliscan term fifiked.[56] Furthermore, long-vowel perfect stems such as ēg- and frēg- also appear in situations in which factors such as vowels or fricatives may have ensured that any reduplicated perfect would be phonologically unacceptable.[59] The Latin verb faciō, which formed a long-vowel perfect stem fēc-, is known to have at one point held a reduplicated perfect stem, as the Praeneste fibula attests to a form fhefhaked. However, this term may have eventually become phonotactically impermissible in Latin, perhaps—according to Pitts—due to rules within Latin concerning fricative reduplication.[60]
Pitts cities further similarities in the long-vowel perfect formations of Sabellic and Latin. In Latin, long-vowel perfects typically display variation between short /ă/ in the present (i.e. faciō) and long /ē/ in the perfect, which—in some cases—regularly derived from a Proto-Indo-European form (i.e. fēc- < "*fēk-" < "*dʰeh₁-k-" ).[61] However, this pattern extended to verbs where the long /ē/ would not have regularly emerged from Proto-Indo-European, such as in the Latin verb capiō, which bears the long-vowel perfect cēp- instead of the expected form "*cāp-." According to Pitts, it is likely that these unusual forms were refashioned after terms such as faciō.[62] Pitts argues that this same sort of analogical remodeling may have affected Oscan, where the long-vowel perfect hipust contains an unexpected /p/ instead of the expected /b/, perhaps due to the influence of a stem like cēp-. He concludes that the presence of similar influences in both Oscan and Latin suggests to a common origin for this shared type of long-vowel perfects.[59]
The linguist Michael Weiss postulates that some Latin long-vowel perfects may originate from Narten-type presents in Proto-Indo-European.[63] In support of the Narten theory, the linguist Jay Jasanoff notes that many long-vowel perfects in Latin derive from roots that form Narten-type presents.[64] For instance, the Old Latin perfect form "surrēg-" attests to an original long-vowel perfect for the verb "regō," which itself derives from the root "*h₃reǵ-," for which a Narten present may be attested in Sanskrit "rā́ṣṭi."[65] An alternative hypothesis holds that long-vowel perfects derive from reduplicated forms in Proto-Indo-European. For instance, the Latin perfect stem ēd- is sometimes interpreted as a descendant of Proto-Indo-European *h₁e-h₁ód-e, although Jasanoff argues instead for a derivation from a Narten present.[66] According to Jasanoff, the reduplication theory is sufficient to explain the Latin forms, although it does not properly explain the existence of other long–ē preterites in the rest of the Indo-European family, thereby implying that a different form served as the common origin.[67]
Conjugation of the aorist
The aorist in Proto-Italic is characterized by the PIE secondary endings connected to the aorist stem by the appropriate thematic vowel. These endings are best attested in Sabellic, where aorist endings generally ousted the perfect ones;[48] Latin instead generalized the perfect endings to its aorist-derived perfects.[48] However, Faliscan preserved the original third-person plural active aorist ending *-ont, which eventually became the third-person plural active perfect ending in Faliscan. The Latin third-person plural active perfect ending, -ērunt, has likewise been interpreted as mix of -ēre and *-ont. Though, Fortson doubts this argument, citing the lack of any inscriptional evidence for the ending *-ont in Early Latin.[49] Minor attestation for the Proto-Italic aorist imperative may appear in the Latin term "cedō," whose latter component, "*dō," presumably reflects a Proto-Italic form that itself derives from the Proto-Indo-European aorist imperative "*déh₃." Likewise, "cette," the plural form of "cedō," may reflect a Proto-Italic form "*-date," itself from the Proto-Indo-European second person plural aorist imperative "*dh₃té."[68]
The following stem formations for the aorist are known:
The simple root aorist, formed by simply attaching aorist endings to an unsuffixed root. If ablaut is available for a root, the root is in the e-grade in the singular and zero-grade in the plural.
The s-aorist, where the root in the e-grade is suffixed with -s- to make the aorist stem.
Aorist conjugations in Proto-Italic
Person and number
Endings
Root aorist *fēk-/*fak- "did, made"
s-aorist *deiks- "said"
1st Sing.
*-om
*fēkom
*deiksom
2nd Sing.
*-es
*fēkes
*deikses
3rd Sing.
*-ed
*fēked
*deiksed
1st Plur.
?
?
?
2nd Plur.
?
?
?
3rd Plur.
*-ond
*fakond
*deiksond
Conjugation of the perfect
The other main type of perfective formation in Italic was the perfect, which was derived from the Proto-Indo-European stative and had its own set of endings.
Perfect stems are created by a reduplication process where a copy syllable consisting of the first consonant of the verb root followed by e is prefixed to the root. In Italic, Vine believes that the root either is in the zero grade or has the same vowel as the present stem, but De Vaan identified at least two perfects with o-grade in the root syllable. Latin and Sabellic also both attest a tendency in which if a root has a semivowel in the middle, this semivowel replaces e in the copy syllable. If a verb root begins in *s followed by a stop consonant, both consonants appear in the copy syllable and the root syllable loses the *s.
Perfect stem formation in Italic
Root
Copy syllable
Root syllable
Perfect stem
Notes
*deh₃- "to give"
*de-
*d-
*ded-
Widely attested across Italic. Zero-grade root *-dh₃- resolves as non-syllabic when preceding a vowel.
*perh₃- "to bring forth"
*pe-
*par-
*pepar-
Reduplication with *e in the copy syllable. Vine claims that the *a in the root syllable is taken from the present stem *parj-;[69] but this is unnecessary, as zero-grade *-prh₃- would yield *-par- anyhow.[52]
*pewǵ- "to prick"
*pu-
*pug-
*pupug-
Semivowel instead of *e in the copy syllable.
*dʰeyǵʰ- "to form"
*θi-
*θiɣ-
*θiθiɣ-
*telh₂- "to bear"
*te-
*tol-
*tetol-
Reduplication with *e in the copy syllable, but oddly, o-grade in the root syllable.
*deḱ- "to take (in)"
*de-
*dok-
*dedok-
Another perfect with o-grade in the root syllable. Corresponding Latin didicī has the copy syllable vowel replaced by i by analogy with present discō "I learn".[70]
The perfect endings in Italic, which only survive in the Latino-Faliscan languages, are derived from the original PIE stative endings, but with an extra -i added after most of them.[71]
An additional suffix -is- of difficult-to-trace origin was added in the evolution of Latin to the 2nd-person endings.
↑ Appears in Plautus, remodelled with -t from the present endings. Replaced by short-vowel -it derived from the aorist endings otherwise.
1 2 Ending reshaped after the present active endings.
↑ Extended by *-ond from the aorist endings to form the usual ending -ērunt.
Post-Italic developments
Further changes occurred during the evolution of individual Italic languages. This section gives an overview of the most notable changes. For complete lists, see History of Latin and other articles relating to the individual languages.
*x debuccalises to [h]. *ɣ similarly becomes [ɦ] between vowels, but remains elsewhere. This change possibly took place within the Proto-Italic period. The result, whether [h] or [ɦ], was written h in all Italic languages. Initial *xl, *xr are reflected (in Latin at least) as gl, gr
*θ(e)r, *ð(e)r > *f(e)r, *β(e)r in all but Venetic. Compare Venetic louder-obos to Latin līber, Faliscan loifir-ta, Oscan lúvfreis.
*β, *ð> Latin b, d. In Osco-Umbrian the result is f (probably voiced) for both. In Faliscan, *β remains a fricative.
*ɣʷ > *gʷ in Latin, which then develops as below. > f in Osco-Umbrian.
*dw > b in classical Latin, although still retained in the archaic (see Duenos inscription)
*kʷ, *gʷ > p, b in Osco-Umbrian. They are retained in Latino-Faliscan and Venetic. In Latin, *gʷ > v[w] except after *n.
*z > r in Classical Latin and Umbrian, but not in Old Latin or Oscan.
Final -ā (fem. sg. nom., neut. pl. nom./acc.) > [oː] in Osco-Umbrian,[a][72] but becomes short -a in Latin.
Final *-ns (acc. pl. of various noun classes), *-nts (masc. nom. sg. of participles), and *-nt (neut. nom./acc. sg. of participles) developed in complex ways:[73]
PItal
Pre-O-U
Oscan
Umbrian
Pre-Latin
Latin
*-ns
*-ns
-ss
-f
*-ns
-s
*-nts
*-nts
-ns
*-nt
*-nts
-ns
—
Latin vowel reduction, during the Old Latin period. This merged many of the unstressed short vowels; most dramatically, all short vowels merged (usually to /i/) in open medial syllables. Furthermore, all diphthongs became pure vowels except for *ai and *au (and occasionally *oi) in initial syllables.
↑ Meiser, Gerhard (2018). "The phonology of Italic". In Brian Joseph; Matthias Fritz; Jared Klein (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. De Gruyter. p.747.
↑ Weiss, Michael L. (2009). Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press. p.109. ISBN978-0-9747927-5-0.
↑ M. de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary of Latin, 2008, Brill, p. 9; B. Vine, 2006: “On ‘Thurneysen-Havet’s Law’ in Latin and Italic”; Historische Sprachforschung 119, 211–249.
↑ Written o in the Latin alphabet, but ú in the native Oscan alphabet, and u or sometimes a in the native Umbrian alphabet. See Sihler 1995:266.
Bibliography
Bakkum, Gabriël C.L.M. (2009), The Latin Dialect of the Ager Faliscus: 150 Years of Scholarship:Part I, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, ISBN978-90-5629-562-2
Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2017). "The dialectology of Italic". In Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias; Klein, Jared (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. De Gruyter.
Jasanoff, Jay (2012), "Long-vowel preterites in Indo-European", in Melchert, C. (ed.), The Indo-European Verb
Silvestri, Domenico (1998), "The Italic Languages", in Ramat, Anna Giacalone; Ramat, Paolo (eds.), The Indo-European languages, Taylor & Francis Group, pp.322–344
Wallace, Rex (2017). "Italic". In Mate Kapović (ed.). The Indo-European Languages (2nded.). London, New York: Routledge. pp.317–351. ISBN978-1-315-67855-9.
Weiss, Michael (2012). "Italo-Celtica: Linguistic and Cultural Points of Contact between Italic and Celtic". In Stephanie W. Jamison; H. Craig Melchert; Brent Vine (eds.). Proceedings of the 23rd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen. pp.151–173.
Further reading
Heidermanns, Frank (2002). "Nominal Composition In Sabellic And Proto–Italic". Transactions of the Philological Society. 100 (2): 185–202. doi:10.1111/1467-968X.00096. ISSN0079-1636.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Category