Talk:Venetic language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The attempt to connect Venetic to Slavic is so weak, it is a joke. Nothing more than fantasy-wish-fulfillment on the part of some Slovenian nationalists, who hope they can somehow claim some sort of autochthonic status in the area. Good luck, because Venetic was obviously very close to Italic, despite what some say. Alexander 007 03:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Some Slavic scholars think they see similarities with Slavic languages of the region, Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian, though this is not apparent.
- Could you please deweaselize - who are "some (Slavic) scholars"? Boraczek 11:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know all the names of the Slavic scholars who see these imaginary similarities, but such "scholars" (propagandists) exist. Excuse me for using the term "Slavic" (which sounds racist) but I couldn't just say Slovenian or just say Croatian because they are not all Croatians or Slovenians, but they are all Slavic. See the second link in the article which mentions the name (Matej Bor) of a Slovenian "linguist" who first promoted the "Slavic-Venetic" idea, in contrast to the prevailing and correct view that Venetic was close to Italic. Alexander 007 00:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
About Venetic being closest to Italic, save me some trouble and search this topic yourself. A few references I'll mention now (I don't remember the others) are John Wilkes, who in his 1992 book The Illyrians stated the consensus (he was not stating his idea, because his field is Roman archaeology) that Venetic was very close to Italic; see also [1]. I'll also try to find again a comparison of PIE to Venetic and PIE to Italic sound-changes, which are also very close. There really is no debate among the scholars that Venetic was closest to Italic from all the IE branches. This is proven by language-samples, names, and sound-changes. The illusion of a debate is promoted by propagandists. Alexander 007 01:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
it is clear to the majority of scholars that Venetic shared many similarities with the Italic languages (a group that includes Latin and Umbrian).
- The same request. Any name of a prominent scholar who advances a theory of Italic-Venetic relation? Boraczek 11:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are many scholars who have stated this, and it is well-known and not even controversial except among some Slovenian or whatever nationalists who don't want to admit it. I'll find some names and quotes later. This is not my personal Point of View, it is the majority scholarly consensus, while the alleged similarities to Slavic are not at all in evidence, and are promoted by fringe nationalistic groups. After Italic, the next closest language to Venetic is Illyrian.Alexander 007 00:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Given the consensus, the burden of legitimizing their arguments is on those who deny the close relation of Venetic to Italic. I don't think there is any actual scientific debate, because all the references I've seen affirm the Italic connection, while the supposed Slavic-Venetic idea (which is demented) I first came across in this Wikipedia article and in a not-credible link provided in the Wikipedia article: I am referring to the link entitled "The Enigma of the Venetic Script".
To a nationalist, any ancient IE language can magically appear to be "close to Slavic", including the Venetic language, the Ancient Macedonian language, Thracian, Dacian, Illyrian, Scythian, et cetera. Alexander 007 02:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Dear 007,
- Thank you for your answer. As regards "some Slavic scholars", my real concern is whether they can be called scholars. The Venetic theory seems to be quite popular among Slovenians, but not among Slovenian scholars (linguists and slavists). Matej Bor, for example, was a poet rather than a scholar.
- I also read that Venetic was closely related to the Italic languages, which was stated as a matter of fact. So I am inclined to believe you that this is a generally accepted conclusion among the linguists. I never investigated the Venetic language. I edited the phrase about the Italic relation because I did not like the wording. If I put something wrong, sorry!
- I only dealt with the Venetic language as a slavist. I read some text written by Venetic theory supporters which was meant to show that Venetic was close to Slovene and I have to say that it was a pure and arbitrary game of associations which had nothing to do with a linguistic analysis. Boraczek 09:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dear Boraczek, your point is well taken: before I edited the Venetic language article, I found the sentence "some scholars also see a similarity to the Slavic, etc.". After searching the net, I found that in fact all such scholars (who, as you point out, are not actually scholars) were mostly Slovenian, so I changed the phrase to "some Slavic scholars claim, etc.", because I knew from my own knowledge of the situation that it could only be a claim, unsupported by the majority consensus. It is one of those nationalistic pseudo-scientific claims, as you know. See also the situation concerning the ancient Macedonian language, and how some Macedonian Slav nationalists allege that the language of the ancient Macedonians was also "close to Slavic". Alexander 007 09:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I read the language sample; it would be madness indeed to link it with the Slavonic languages. But why does it constitute a seperate branch at all? Why isn't it simply an Italic language? Caesarion 18:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I guess the reason must be that there are enough differences to make some linguists hesitate to classify it as Italic. But I'm not sure. It's possible that it may one day be included as a branch of Italic. The question is still being debated as of now. See also: [2]. This is an interesting site with info on the old Italic languages and more, where Venetic is discussed also. Click on Classification of the Languages, and other links.
I found a file online from Cornell University Edu (not a personal page, it was a page describing lectures on Indo-European linguistics) where Venetic is included under Italic and described as being possibly part of the Latino-Faliscan group of Italic languages. There was also reproduced another complete Venetic sentence which again was quite Italic in nature. Alexander 007 03:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Etruscan alphabet
Weren't Venetic inscriptions written with the Etruscan alphabet? Can anyone confirm that? If so, I think this is worth mentioning in the article. Boraczek 11:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(see Old Italic alphabet)--007)
- There were five alphabets in ancient northern Italy specifically derived from the Etruscan alphabet, i.e. not from other Old Italic alphabets. In any case, there was never any such thing as a single "Old Italic alphabet" and it is incorrect for the Wikipedia to carry an article entitled "Old Italic alphabet". (It should at least be changed to "Old Italic alphabets".)
- Those five alphabets are named after the main site of each:
- 1. Alphabet of Lugano (used primarily for Lepontic and Cisalpine Gaulish, but also on coins minted by other tribes, such as the Salassi of present-day Val d'Aosta, and the Salluvii and Cavares of Provence;
- 2. Alphabet of Sondrio (used for an unidentified pre-Roman language of the Italian Alps (ancient Raetia);
- 3. Alphabet of Bolzano (used for another unidentified pre-Roman language of the Italian Alps (ancient Raetia);
- 4. Alphabet of Magrè (used for yet another unidentified pre-Roman language of the Italian Alps (ancient Raetia);
- 5. Alphabet of Este (used for Venetic).
- (NOTE: The Runic alphabet is a further derivation from one of the above five, probably Bolzano.)
- Anyway, in my modest opinion, this article on Venetic is little more than garbage and should be completely rewritten. What is the purpose of saying that "They first known Venice was on Baltic river in front of Gdańsk." [sic]? Huh?? What does that mean? Is this a joke?
- The Venetic language remains for the moment an unclassified, standalone Indo-European language. While it was probably closest to Italic, the evidence is not sufficient to assign it to the Italic group (if that was indeed a unified group, which is not quite clear). On the other hand, it clearly also has intriguing similarities to Germanic, which may point to a northern origin. Ultimately, it may well be that the Venetic language originated near the Baltic Sea, but that certainly does not make it a Balto-Slavic language. The Venetic language was also close to the Illyrian languages, except that too little is known about this latter Indo-European group to pass judgment. It too may have ultimately had a northern origin.
- Pasquale 22:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Not to cause more controversy but is the Italic Classification really so Certain and University accepted? I ask because, although I'm no linguist, when I read books and websites that cover the Venetic language, I've see it always classified as either Unknown or as Illyrian. Indeed I was just looking up a little history book the other day and it clearly stated that it was Illyrian. BTW I'm not trying to drag up that thing about Slavic, that sounds like B.S to me too, but the issue of Illyrian really does seem to be under debate. --Hibernian 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted
The article became a mess after 16:57 16 September, when an anonymous came by while I was on Wiki-break (Sep 12--Oct 1st). Before that, it was a skeletal article---not much, but somewhat clean. I have reverted it back to September 12th, to bypass any need for rewriting (this is the solution I prefer, anyway). -Alexander 007 09:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Need your help
Please take a look at this stub: Venet. Are these two articles relative? - Caiyu (采豫) 04:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
