Editing Italic languages (section)

==Characteristics==
General and specific characteristics of the pre-Roman Italic languages:

*in [[phonetics]]: [[Oscan language|Oscan]] (in comparison with [[Latin]] and [[Umbrian language|Umbrian]]) preserved all positions of old diphthongs ai, oi, ei, ou, in the absence of [[rhotacism (sound change)|rhotacism]], the absence of [[sibilant]]s{{clarify|date=April 2020}}, in the development of kt > ht; a different interpretation of Indo-European kw and gw (Latin qu and v, Osco-Umbrian p and b); in the latter the preservation of s in front of nasal sonants and the reflection of Indo-European *dh and *bh as f; initial stress (in Latin, it was reconstructed in the historical period), which led to [[syncopation]] and the reduction of vowels of unstressed syllables;
*in the [[syntax]]: many convergences; In Osco-Umbrian, impersonal constructions, [[parataxis]], partitive genitive, temporal genitive and genitive relationships are more often used;

=== Phonology ===
The most distinctive feature of the Italic languages is the development of the PIE voiced aspirated stops.{{sfn|Meiser|2017|p=744}} In initial position, *bʰ-, *dʰ- and *gʷʰ- merged to /f-/, while *gʰ- became /h-/, although Latin also has *gʰ- > /w-/ and /g-/ in special environments.{{sfn|Stuart-Smith|2004|p=53}}

In medial position, all voiced aspirated stops have a distinct reflex in Latin, with different outcome for -*gʰ- and *gʷʰ- if preceded by a nasal. In Osco-Umbrian, they generally have the same reflexes as in initial position, although Umbrian shows a special development if preceded by a nasal, just as in Latin. Most probably, the voiced aspirated stops went through an intermediate stage *-β-, *-ð-, *-ɣ- and *-ɣʷ- in Proto-Italic.{{sfn|Meiser|2017|pp=744,750}}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
|+caption | Italic reflexes of PIE voiced aspirated stops
! rowspan=2| !! colspan=4| initial position !! colspan=4| medial position
|-
! *bʰ- !! *dʰ- !! *gʰ- !! *gʷʰ- !! *-(m)bʰ- !! *-(n)dʰ- !! *-(n)gʰ- !! *-(n)gʷʰ- 
|-
! Latin{{sfn|Stuart-Smith|2004|p=53}}
| f- || f- || h- || f- || -b-<br/>-mb- || -d-{{efn|Also -b- in certain environments.}}<br/>-nd- || -h-<br/>-ng- || -v-<br/>-ngu-
|-
! Faliscan{{sfn|Stuart-Smith|2004|p=63}}
| f- || f- || h- || ? || -f- || -f- || -g- || ?
|-
! Umbrian{{sfn|Stuart-Smith|2004|p=115}}
| f- || f- || h- || ? || -f-<br/>-mb- || -f-<br/>-nd- || -h-<br/>-ng- || -f-<br/>?
|-
! Oscan{{sfn|Stuart-Smith|2004|p=99}}
| f- || f- || h- || ? || -f- || -f- || -h- || ?
|-
| colspan=9| {{notelist}}
|}
The voiceless and plain voiced stops (*p, *t, *k, *kʷ; *b, *d, *g, *gʷ) remained unchanged in Latin, except for the minor shift of *gʷ > /w/. In Osco-Umbrian, the labiovelars *kʷ and *gʷ became the labial stops /p/ and /b/, e.g. Oscan ''pis'' 'who?' (cf. Latin ''quis'') and ''bivus'' 'alive (nom.pl.)' (cf. Latin ''vivus'').{{sfn|Meiser|2017|pp=749}}

=== Grammar ===
{{more citations needed section|section|date=January 2021|find=Grammar of Romance languages}}
In grammar there are basically three innovations shared by the Osco-Umbrian and the Latino-Faliscan languages:
*A suffix in the [[imperfect]] [[subjunctive mood|subjunctive]] ''*-sē-'' (in [[Oscan language|Oscan]] the 3rd person singular of the imperfect subjunctive ''fusíd'' and [[Latin]] ''foret'', both derivatives of ''*fusēd'').{{sfn|Vine|2017|p=786}}
*A suffix in the [[imperfect]] [[realis mood|indicative]] ''*-fā-'' (Oscan ''fufans'' 'they were', in Latin this suffix became ''-bā-'' as in ''portabāmus'' 'we carried').{{sfn|Rix|2002|p=3}}
*A suffix to derive [[gerundive]] adjectives from verbs ''*-ndo-'' (Latin ''operandam'' 'which will be built'; in Osco-Umbrian there is the additional reduction ''-nd-'' > ''-nn-'', Oscan ''úpsannam'' 'which will be built', Umbrian ''pihaner'' 'which will be purified').{{sfn|Vine|2017|pp=795–796}}

In turn, these shared innovations are one of the main arguments in favour of an Italic group, questioned by other authors.{{who|date=August 2023}}

=== Lexical comparison ===
{{more citations needed|section|date=January 2021|find=Comparative Romance grammar}}
Among the Indo-European languages, the Italic languages share a higher percentage of lexicon with the Celtic and the Germanic ones, three of the four traditional "[[centum and satem languages|centum]]" branches of Indo-European (together with Greek).

The following table shows a lexical comparison of several Italic languages:
{|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
! rowspan=2|Gloss
! colspan=3|[[Latino-Faliscan languages|Latino-Faliscan]]
! colspan=2|[[Osco-Umbrian languages|Osco-Umbrian]]
! rowspan=2|[[Proto-Italic language|Proto-<br />Italic]]
! rowspan=2|[[Proto-Celtic language|Proto-<br />Celtic]]
! rowspan=2|[[Proto-Germanic language|Proto-<br />Germanic]]
|-
! [[Faliscan language|Faliscan]] !! [[Old Latin|Old<br />Latin]]!! [[Latin|Classical<br /> Latin]]
! [[Oscan language|Oscan]] !! [[Umbrian language|Umbrian]]
|-
| '1' ||  || *ounos || ūnus
| *𐌖𐌉𐌍𐌖𐌔<br />*uinus || 𐌖𐌍𐌔<br />uns || *oinos || *oinos || *ainaz
|-
| '2' || du || *duō || duō
| 𐌃𐌖𐌔<br />dus || -𐌃𐌖𐌚<br />-duf || *duō || *dwāu || *twai
|-
| '3' || tris ||  || trēs (m.f.)<br />tria (n.)
| 𐌕𐌓𐌝𐌔<br />trís || 𐌕𐌓𐌉𐌚 (m.f.)<br />𐌕𐌓𐌉𐌉𐌀 (n.)<br />trif (m.f.)<br />triia (n.) || *trēs (m.f.)<br />*triā (n.) || *trīs || *þrīz
|-
| '4' ||  ||  || quattuor
| 𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌖𐌓𐌀<br />𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌕𐌉𐌖𐌓<br />petora<br />pettiur || 𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌖𐌓<br />petur || *kʷettwōr || *kʷetwares || *fedwōr
|-
| '5' || *quique ||  || quinque
| 𐌐𐌏𐌌𐌐𐌄-<br />pompe- || *𐌐𐌖𐌌𐌐𐌄<br />*pumpe || *kʷenkʷe || *kʷenkʷe || *fimf
|-
| '6' || śex || *sex || sex
| *𐌔𐌄𐌇𐌔<br />*sehs || 𐌔𐌄𐌇𐌔<br />sehs || *seks || *swexs || *sehs
|-
| '7' || *śepten ||  || septem
| 𐌔𐌄𐌚𐌕𐌄𐌍<br />seften ||  || *septem || *sextam || *sebun
|-
| '8' || oktu ||  || octō
| *𐌖𐌇𐌕𐌏<br />*uhto ||  || *oktō || *oxtū || *ahtōu
|-
| '9' || *neven ||  || novem
| *𐌍𐌖𐌖𐌄𐌍<br />*nuven || *𐌍𐌖𐌖𐌉𐌌<br />*nuvim || *nowen || *nawan || *newun
|-
| '10' ||  ||  || decem
| 𐌃𐌄𐌊𐌄𐌍<br />deken || *𐌃𐌄𐌔𐌄𐌌<br />*desem || *dekem || *dekam || *tehun
|}
The asterisk indicates reconstructed forms based on indirect linguistic evidence and not forms directly attested in any inscription.

[[File:Centum Satem map.png|thumb|305px|Map showing the approximate extent of the ''centum'' (blue) and ''satem'' (red) [[Areal feature|areals]]]]
From the point of view of Proto-Indo-European, the Italic languages are fairly conservative. In phonology, the Italic languages are [[centum and satem languages|centum language]]s by merging the palatals with the velars (Latin ''centum'' has a /k/) but keeping the combined group separate from the labio-velars. In morphology, the Italic languages preserve six cases in the noun and the adjective (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative, vocative) with traces of a seventh (locative), but the dual of both the noun and the verb has completely disappeared. From the position of both morphological innovations and uniquely shared lexical items, Italic shows the greatest similarities with Celtic and Germanic, with some of the shared lexical correspondences also being found in Baltic and Slavic.{{sfn|Mallory|Adams|1997|pp=316–317}}

=== P-Italic and Q-Italic languages ===

Similar to [[P-Celtic and Q-Celtic languages|Celtic languages]], the Italic languages are also divided into P- and Q-branches, depending on the reflex of Proto-Indo-European *''kʷ''. In the languages of the Osco-Umbrian branch, *''kʷ'' gave ''p'', whereas the languages of the Latino-Faliscan branch preserved it (Latin ''qu'' {{IPA|[kʷ]}}).<ref>{{Cite book |last=Whatmough |first=Joshua |date=2015 |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315744810/foundations-roman-italy-joshua-whatmough |title=The Foundations of Roman Italy |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781315744810 |location=London |pages=276–277|doi=10.4324/9781315744810 }}</ref>