Yahoo Web Search

  1. Old Latin - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Old_Latin

    Old Latin, also known as Early Latin or Archaic Latin ( Latin: prīsca Latīnitās "the Latinity of the ancients") was the Latin language in the period before 75 BC, i.e. before the age of Classical Latin.

    • Praeneste Fibula

      The Praeneste fibula (the "brooch of Palestrina") is a...

    • Philological constructs

      The concept of Old Latin is as old as the concept of...

    • Corpus

      Old Latin authored works began in the 3rd century BC. These...

    • Script

      Old Latin surviving in inscriptions is written in various...

    • Orthography

      Some differences between old and classical Latin were of...

    • Phonology

      Old Latin is thought to have had a strong stress on the...

  2. Vetus Latina - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Vetus_Latina

    Vetus Latina ("Old Latin" in Latin), also known as Vetus Itala ("Old Italian"), Itala ("Italian") and Old Italic, and denoted by the siglum, is the collective name given to the Latin translations of biblical texts (both Old Testament and New Testament) that preceded the Vulgate (the Latin translation produced by Jerome in the late 4th century).

  3. People also ask

    What is old in Latin?

    What is late in Latin?

    What is the modern Latin alphabet?

    What is the history of Latin?

  4. Latin - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Latin

    The Old Latin diphthong ai and the sequence āī became Classical ae . Old Latin oi and ou changed to Classical ū , except in a few words whose oi became Classical oe . These two developments sometimes occurred in different words from the same root: for instance, Classical poena "punishment" and pūnīre "to punish". Early Old Latin ei usually ...

  5. Classical Latin - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Classical_Latin

    Thus Old Latin, Classical Latin, Vulgar Latin, etc., are not considered different languages, but are all referred to by the term, Latin. This is an ancient practice continued by moderns rather than a philological innovation of recent times. That Latin had case endings is a fundamental feature of the language.

  6. Talk:Old Latin - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Talk:Old_Latin
    • Early Comments
    • Orthography
    • Borrows from Greek
    • Instrumental Case
    • Please Expand
    • Not Much Proof of Inflection ...
    • The Oversimple Grammar and Morphology
    • One Paradigm?
    • Old Latin Form of The Names
    • Imperatives

    How come the old latin third declension is identical to the classical? - Christopher19:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 1. It isn't, at least in the version as of today. Note the changes e/i and o/u between OL and CL. 194.80.32.922:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Shouldn't the vocative singular of the 2nd declension be -e? Vegfarandi19:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 1. Only in Classical Latin. Old Latin had -ō instead. Then this shortened to -ŏ which shifted to Classical -ĕ. Ciacchi22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Should the ordering of the cases be the same as in the Latin declension article? Or is there some reason why it is different here 24.205.91.16223:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 1. 1.1. Don't take any of these answers seriously. I don't know why non-Latinists were working on this article. Sheer bravado I guess. If you don't know anything, don't guess, find out.Dave (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    It looks like there was no interword separation in this era? Was there punctuation? Was the text direction always boustrophedon? -- Beland18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 1. If you look at the picture, there appears to be three-dotted lines between several letters, similar to an interpunct. (Theyre hard to spot at the photo of the inscription, though...) 惑乱 分からん * \\)/ (\\ (< \\) (2 /) /)/ * 12:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1.1. I'm glad you mentioned those things even though almost two years ago. They are more than I got in mind at the moment but they should be in there somewhere. I believe the script is a different topic and you appear to be aiming at the script. It evolves out of the Etruscan alphabet of course. So, there should be an initial section on the script, followed by the spelling, the phonetics, morphology and of course syntax, which isn't even dreamed of yet in our philosophy Horatio. That seems to be a good plan.Dave (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    I read somewhere that the Old Latin endings -os and -om (later Latin -us and -um), as well as the diphthongs such as oi and ei (later Latin ū or oe, and ī) are obvious borrows from Greek. Can anyone give a source on that? Helladios08:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 1. Not true. They are common inheritances in Greek and Latin from Proto-Indo-European. (It's not exactly surprising that the further back you go in either Greek or Latin, the more similar to one another they become.) 194.80.32.922:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 1. 1.1. Yes, it is true: the Archaic Latin, i.e. the earliest recorded Latin, found in inscriptions from the beginning of the sixth century BC,borrowed some endings from Greek. See for example the nominative singular -OS , the accusative singular -OM, and the dative singular –OI, which in classical Latin became respectively -US , –UM, -O. As a source, I can suggest an inscription on a gold brooch,the Fibula Praenestina (ca. 600 BC) discovered in Palestrina (ancient ancient city of P...

    I read in the *History of Latin* page that *Vestiges of the instrumental case may remain in adverbial forms ending in -ẽ*. I couldn't find any other information on it. Should it be included here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.36.129 (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC) 1. Sure, if it can be referenced to a reliable source. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC) 1.1. Hello, hello. The instrumental had already merged with the ablative in Old Latin; that is, they had the same endings by then so for this set of endings, some uses were in fact instrumental. To find out when the merger probably took place you'd have to do a lot of non-original research on any sources you can find to find the guru of the merger. I pass, not relevant to this article.Dave (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 1.2. PS. The ablative is the biggest source of adverbs; sometime it is called "the adverbial case." I didn't check your source but as quoted it is oversimple...

    This article does nothing more than point out a few differences between Old Latin and Classical Latin. I would think that a more complete article on Old Latin would require sections on Classification/Relation to other Indo-European Languages of the era, possible ancestor/influencing/sub-strata languages, etc.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs18:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 1. Actually, I just found much of what I was looking for at History of Latin. However, as this article is the oldest form of the language for which Wikipedia has an article, some of the History article should be integrated into this article. I will try to do so this week.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 18:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 1.1. Hello William. I am glad you found what you want. Actually, Old Latin is not another language, it is the same Latin as classical Latin. Analogy: you wouldn't treat Elizabethan English as a new language you had to specify from the beginning. You would just give the Elizabethan forms....

    "There is not much actual proof of the inflection of Old Latin verb forms ". One has to be careful how to take this. By default, if there is no evidence, the inflection of Old Latin words is the inflection of classical Latin words. Classical Latin had to come from somewhere, right? What is the point of calling Old Latin Old "Latin" if classical Latin is not from Old Latin? So, in order to say that Old Latin varies, you first have to have evidence of its variance. No evidence, no variance. Old Latin is not a different language and that approach in this article is wrong. I note the author claims to be putting in "reconstructed" forms by "scholars" but he gives no scholars or references on the supposed reconstructions. How are we to know they are not his reconstructions? This will have to be checked out and I suppose I will work on that since I am here for the time. I suspect there are no reconstructed forms. Certainly they would have to be carefully distinguished from the ones that ar...

    Just when I thought I was more or less done I gave the grammar and morphology a good look. As usual incomprehensible because oversimple. It didn't, for example point out that these are paradigms, so it has some poor student running around looking for the locative of puella. Locative indeed! Don't you wish it, students. I've had some run-ins with some of us about the length and complexity of articles. I find that their oversimplification of the material denudes it beyond the point of comprehensibity. To you I say, if you are gong to be that way about it, forget Wikipedia; following your policies, it is completely worthless. For one thing this is encyclopedic. If the reader is not prepared to study compacted statements let him go to a textbook not an encyclopedia. Wiki does textbooks but I've never tried to use any. For another thing, the original Wikipedia had severe space constraints similar to what you see in Britannica or Encarta online. I don;t know how he did it but Wales seems...

    In classical Latin, which has a lot of text to support it, you can pick a noun stem, any stem, and add the endings appropriate to the declension with the justified expectations that, somewhere is all those millions of words, are a certain number of instances of the paradigm. You can't do that in Old Latin, there are too many variations and not enough text. You might find one ending in the early part of the period and another in the later. Some words are never used with some endings. It makes me wonder if a single paradigm is really useful the way it is for classical Latin, or does it give the wrong idea? Most of the forms in the paradigm were never attested. These thoughts nag at me as I work on the tables. I wonder if it might not be better just to list different attested words for each case of each paradigm. If anyone has a sincere opinion, why not share it with us?Dave (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    For example, Romulus must be Romolos... What else? There must be a list about Old Latin forms of the names.... Böri (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC) 1. Is Romolos actually attested, or just reconstructed? +Angr14:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC) 1. Good question, but I'm asking the same question. In Greek, it is Ρωμύλος (Romylos)...The names of Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius, etc. were not like that in Old Latin. How can we find the Old Latin forms? Böri (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC) 1. & Poplios Valesios = Publius Valerius, see Lapis Satricanus article Böri (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

    In Cato's De Re Rustica (chapter 156), I find many forms like esto/comesto (eat); facito (make); statuito (set); demittito (sink); conicito (throw together); contundito (macerate); exurgeto (squeeze); etc. These are all translated as imperatives (plural?) in the Loeb Classical Library. Can we formulate a general rule for imperatives in Old Latin? Was there a vowel shift from -o to -e? Peter Chastain (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC) 1. These are future imperatives. If necessary they can be translated "you shall eat", "you shall make" etc., but in practice there's very little semantic difference between a present imperative and a future imperatives. Imperatives are by their nature future, as it doesn't usually make sense to tell someone to do something they're already doing (unless you're saying "keep doing that", I guess, but even then you're saying "continue doing that into the future"). Angr (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC) 1.1. I guess there could be a difference between...

  7. Old Latin - Wiktionary

    en.wiktionary.org › wiki › Old_Latin

    Apr 26, 2021 · The Latin language in the period before the age of Classical Latin; that is, all Latin before 75 BC

  8. Category:Old Latin language - Wiktionary

    en.wiktionary.org › wiki › Category:Old_Latin_language

    Jan 01, 2021 · This is the main category of the Old Latin language . It is an extinct language that was formerly spoken in Italy . Information about Old Latin: Category:Old Latin entry maintenance: Old Latin entries, or entries in other languages containing Old Latin terms, that are being tracked for attention and improvement by editors.

    • Old Latin
    • Archaic Latin, Early Latin, Pre-Classical Latin, Ante-Classical Latin
    • itc-ola
    • Italic
  9. Tridentine Mass - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Tridentine_Mass

    Language. In most countries, the language used for celebrating the Tridentine Mass was and is Latin. However, in Dalmatia and parts of Istria in Croatia, the liturgy was celebrated in Old Church Slavonic, and authorisation for use of this language was extended to some other Slavic regions between 1886 and 1935.

  10. color - Wiktionary

    en.wiktionary.org › wiki › color

    Jul 20, 2021 · From Old Galician and Old Portuguese color, alternative form of coor, perhaps from an older forms collor (compare Asturian collor and color), from Latin color, colōrem. Pronunciation . IPA : [ˈkoloɾ] Noun . color f (plural colores) color, hue. 1295, R. Lorenzo, La traducción gallega de la Crónica General y de la Crónica de Castilla ...

  11. People also search for