Talk:Italian language

Derivation of Italian from classical Latin

It is not just a matter of borrowings. According to Giacomo Devoto, the introduction of thousands of words from Classical Latin into the language in the 13th and 14th centuries profoundly changed the Italian phonological system, which had been established the 9th and 12th centuries. In this sense, the Italian language has two fathers: vulgar Latin and classical Latin. However, I agree that there is no cronological ancestry: Early Latin => Classical Latin => Vulgar Latin. Alex2006 (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

:Exactly. Classical Latin in no way belongs in what seems to be intended as a sort of glottological time line in the development of what is today known as Italian. Even if it were true that lexical intrusions from Classical Latin in 13th-14th C eventually had major effects on the Italian phonological system (odd claim on the face of it, and the quote from Devoto is not supplied to uphold it), that would place Classical Latin after Florentine in the time line, obviously absurd. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I refer to paragraphs 173 'Arricchimento lessicale' and 174 'Secondo sistema fonologico italiano' in chapter 34 of Devoto's book. In the former, the enrichment of the vernacular caused by Latin words is described, in the latter its consequences on the phonematic level. It is three pages long, so I will limit myself to this quotation: "L'indipendenza del secondo sistema fonologico italiano rispetto al primo è stata determinata dalla fiumana di parole latine di tradizione interrotta che, per essere accolta, HA IMPOSTO (sic) ritocchi vistosi alle strutture italiane, quali si erano assestate fra i secoli IX e XII". However, what Devoto writes is nothing odd: I am not a linguist, but a "profano colto" (more profano than colto :-)) and the first time that I read something like this I was in the "scuola media". In general, however, I recommend reading the "Linguaggio d'Italia" (it is an excursus on the idioms spoken in the peninsula from the Palaeolithic to 1960) a classic work that I think has also been translated into English and that only Devoto could have written. Returning to the article, it would be logical to move classical Latin after Tuscan, but I don't think anyone would understand why, and we would have to do a revert a day, so better to remove it. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removing Classical Latin from the early forms list, because it's simply not true. Thanks for doing it. (Friendly hint: A way to reduce strife and save time is to not revert unless you're absolutely sure of what you're doing. If it seems to be something truly troublesome, go to talk and discuss it (no saving of time, but reduces strife.)) -- As for the rest, I am a linguist, with specialization in Romance. With no examples, there's no way to know what Devoto means by the "fiumana di parole latine" having "IMPOSTO ritocchi vistosi alle strutture italiane, quali si erano assestate fra i secoli IX e XII". I can't think of any examples -- vistosi o meno -- but maybe there was some effect that I'm simply not aware of... or he's actually referring to Latin(ate) spellings used in some medieval texts, not linguistic structures at all? Simply can't judge without the information, and I don't have quick access to the book in my present location. If you want to present some examples, perhaps this can be sorted out and something interesting and accurate regarding the Latin-influenced phonological system can be added to the article. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

About the revert you are right, but I had just finished re-reading Devoto's book...anyway I never do edit war on principle, just a revert, then what happens happens. Clearly Devoto gave examples (actually, rules and examples). Here some of them:

• Accettazione indiscriminata di parole sdrucciole: solido invece di soldo;
• Accettazione dei gruppi di consonante + 'l', che prima venivano palatalizzati in consonante + 'j': "plebe" invece di "pieve";
• Fusione della pronuncia toscana della affricata di aceto, dieci, da originario latino K, con la spirante di bacio, brucia, da un antecedente SJ;
• Persistenza della B intervocalica, che nelle parole della tradizione ininterrotta subivano la lenizione in V: again, pleBe invece di pieVe;
• Arbitrarietà della apertura delle vocali E e O nelle parole introdotte dal latino;

I think that sooner or later you will read this book... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I read the book long ago. Thanks for taking the time to list some examples. The only item in the list that affects the phonological system of what would become Italian is the acceptance of plosive + /l/ in a few words. There are no instances of /l/ not developing as yod in that position in the natural evolution from (spoken) Latin, so addition (re-introduction) of e.g. /pl/ is "innovative" to post-Vulgar Latin/Proto-Tuscan, the addition of the "new" phonotactics of the consonant cluster. As for /b/, quite true that word-internal /b/ had developed to /v/. A re-introduced word-internal /b/ would have been an addition affecting lexicon, but highly frequent /b/ → [b] across word boundaries (e.g. una [b]ella..., conosco [b]eppe etc. etc) allowed its acceptance easily, thus no change to the phonological system. The most that can be claimed is that words with internal /b/ were introduced (plebe is doubly odd and clearly non-popular; cibo might be a better example).

Also no effect to the system regarding the character open or closed of Latinisms with stressed E or O: by definition of being late borrowings, words with those vowels did not undergo the natural changes through time of the actual spoken language, and with no aid found in the spelling, assignment as open or closed was perforce arbitrary (I don't recall if it was Latinisms per se that Migliorini was referring to when he observed "vocale incerta, vocale aperta" -- meaning not absolutely always, but more often than not if I remember correctly) -- in any case, no change to the phonological system at all. With regard to the case of parole sdrucciole, Devoto seems to be referring to forms that didn't undergo syncope. Re-introduction of solido to create a doublet such as soldo/solido would have expanded the lexicon, but antepenultimate stress was definitely part of the language: 3rd person verbs, verb forms with appropriate enclitics, numerous toponyms such as Empoli, Fiesole, Cecina, Radicondoli, Bolgheri, ... as well as family names such as Ricasoli demonstrate that the addition of lexicon with the stress pattern of solido added just that, i.e. lexicon, but nothing new to the phonological system. I don't know why Devoto considers the coincident developments of aceto/dieci type and bacio type as [ʃ] to be triggered by Latinisms, so I can't address that. Portuguese does the same, except that the outcome is voiced [ʒ] rather than voiceless [ʃ] (CASEU > ca[ʃ]o, Portuguese quei[ʒ]o), and no Latin causation can be claimed for it. (The odd outcome in Tuscan is that BASIU came out voiceless ba[ʃ]o, but OCCASIONE came out voiced ca[ʒ]one.)

If you're interested in this sort of thing and have access to a good library, a solid basic source is Martin Maiden's Storia linguistica dell'italiano. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Just an afterthought re Devoto's concern with the phonological merger of the bacio and dieci types. True enough that if earlier /sj/ as in /basju/ was fated to palatalize, the phonemic (and phonetic) result of fricative /ʃ/ would be expected, not affricate /tʃ/: phonemic structure /ˈbaʃo/ pronounced [ˈbaːʃo] phonetically, very straightforward, no allophony of interest. Separately, /k/ before any /i/ or "E" (open or closed) would develop as the affricate /tʃ/, as we know it did: CIVITATE > /tʃitˈta/, /LUCE > /ˈlutʃe/ and so forth. For these, however, an allophonic weakening rule between vowels developed, apparently at a very early stage (and still alive and well today), so that /ˈlutʃe/ was (and still is in Tuscany) pronounced [ˈluːʃe]. As is normal in the area, the weakening applies across word boundaries as well, so that the affricate of [tʃitˈta] if the word is said by itself alternates with the fricative when preceded by a non-raddoppiamento vowel: [laʃitˈta] la città, application of /tʃ/ → [ʃ], just as in luce. What seems to have happened is that speakers interpreted the phonetic form [ʃ] in bacio as belonging to the same phoneme as the [ʃ] of luce and città/la città. The result was reinterpretation of phonemic /ˈbaʃo/ as being instead /ˈbatʃo/, thus today's standard non-weakened pronunciation [ˈbaːtʃo], reinforced by the spelling bacio. I hope this description is understandable. What I don't know is why Devoto would attribute the merger to any sort of Latin influence. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ligurian is recognized as a regional language in the French department of the Alpes-Maritimes

Why is this mentioned here? How is Ligurian relevant to Italian? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Shareable comment: I deleted the reference to the Ligurian. --LukeWiller (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC).

Similar problem with this, in the sense that in the 1860s, it's very unlikely that the population described knew Italian: In the French department of the Alpes-Maritimes there is an autochthonous Italian population dating from the Savoyard Kingdom of Sardinia, which controlled the area until 1860, the year the Treaty of Turin entered into force, regardless of the more recent Italian immigrants of the 20th century. Somebody apparently thought there was relevance to the topic Italian language -- what would that relevance be? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done This is also a shareable comment: I deleted the sentence. --LukeWiller (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC).

Early forms

The early forms Tuscan and Florentine directs to the modern dialects of Italian, although is likely that the Tuscan and Florentine variety was a previous form of the modern one. Wouldn't that be a mistake? Francesco Miracapillo (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you flesh out the question to clarify what it is you're asking? An historically earlier form of either was obviously a previous form of the modern form of either. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes but the one that is referring to, in the page, is the modern form of those. For instance, if you click on the "Florentine" link it will take you back to the page of the modern Florentine dialect, instead what it refers to is probably the Florentine of 1300, which for sure was pretty different. I was wondering if it wasn't better to either remove the link, or find another solution. Francesco Miracapillo (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me the solution is to improve the article on Florentine -- assuming it should exist in the first place, rather than as a sub-category within Tuscan. As it stands, the article labeled Florentine contains very little that's unique to Florence, the reason for the existence of the list under Examples is unexplained (mostly to illustrate subject clitics and use of ci with avere, neither of which is solely Florentine?), and there is no history. One reference is uninformed dilettantism containing outright falsehoods. The two serious references are good, but they seem to have been mostly ignored, and more are needed, most obviously, among other sources, Neri Binazzi's work. Bref, the problem isn't the link to Florentine, but the contents of the Florentine article. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

OR Map removed

I just removed a newly created map, for the following reasons:

• The map has no sources supporting it;
• In the map there are macroscopic errors. Among them:
  • In Corsica and Nice nowadays there is no native Italian speaking minority anymore;
  • In Central Italy, Italian has been traditionally spoken by minorities only in Tuscany (Florence, Siena) and Rome;

If someone wants to restore the map, please before doing that bring sources which support it (at best on Common). Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how to change it, also Toronto is labeled where Detriot is Reddogisguilty (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Change "human body" in the sentence on humanism?

Perhaps "human mind and body" or something like that instead?

Original: "During this time, long-existing beliefs stemming from the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church began to be understood from new perspectives as humanists—individuals who placed emphasis on the human body and its full potential—began to shift focus from the church to human beings themselves." 205.178.63.9 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)