Print

Print


Eliott wrote:

> Tommaso niy
>
>  Just checked in a textbook on IE languages I have.  Faliscan is
>  given as a "Latin variant with strong 'rustic' connotations (due to
>  Umbrian interferences)."  I seem to understand that this statement
>  is not uncontroversial, though.
>
>
>    In all the textbooks and other types of books that
> I've looked at Faliscan and Latin are described as distinct
> languages to about the same extent as Dutch and German.
> Saying that Faliscan is a "Latin variant" is to the best of
> my knowledge a falsehood. Imagine telling a German person
> that there language is just a variant of Dutch or vice versa!
>

OTOH, I've always found Faliscan described as a Latin variant with strong
Umbrian and Etruscan adstrata (Falerii veteres was on the Etruscan border).
Yet, I perfectly remember that Faliscan on my Historical Grammar of the
Latin Language was described as 'il dialetto di Faleri' (the dialect of
Faleri). Anyway it had to sound quite different from Latin. A proof could be
mutual intelligibility... but if we rely on that, we'll never get an answer
: ))

Luca