Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-th4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T11:57:48.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relation of Latin and Osco-Umbrian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Madison S. Beeler
Madison S. Beeler*
Affiliation:
University of California
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discussion during the last twenty-five years has made the relation of Latin to Osco-Umbrian a problem, where none had previously existed. Until about that time, the assumption of a unity later than West Indo-European—Uritalisch or Proto-Italic—from which both Latin and Osco-Umbrian were derived, was universally accepted; it is still the doctrine to be found in the standard handbooks of Indo-European. During the last quarter-century, however, this hypothesis has been repeatedly called in question by Italian and German linguists, and there are now many who regard Latin and Osco-Umbrian as essentially two separate branches of the Indo-European family. Since this problem, so far as I know, has not been the subject of a full-length treatment in any American journal, a review and an evaluation of the recent arguments may be of interest.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 28 , Issue 4-Part1: October-December , December 1952, pp. 435 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © 1952 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Die umbrischen Sprachdenkmäler 1 (1849).

2 Unteritalische Dialekte 101 (1850).

3 Bopp, Vgl. Gramm. (transl. Bréal) 1.vii (1865).

4 Gdr.2 1.10 (1897).

5 Altitalisches Wörterbuch v (1926).

6 Ascoli memorial volume 239–40 (1929).

7 Gli antichi Italici 51–2 (1931); cf. also Storia della lingua di Roma 59–69 (1940).

8 Rivista indo-greco-italica 16.88 (1932).

9 Glotta 30.136 (1943); cf. 21.124 (1932).

10 Die Indogermanisierung Griechenlands und Italiens 40 (1949).

11 Esquisse d'une histoire de la langue latine5 48 (1948).

12 Word 6.188 (1950).

13 Lg. 27.82 (1951).

14 See Bach, Gesch. d. deutschen Sprache4 63–6 (1949).

15 E.g. Senn, On the degree of kinship between Slavic and Italic, Slavonic and East European review 20.251–65 (1941); Trautmann, Die slavischen Völker and Sprachen 13–5 (1947); Fraenkel, Die baltischen Sprachen 73–123 (1950).

16 Über älteste sprachliche Beziehungen zwischen Italikern und Celten.

17 Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 3.241 ff. (1929).

18 Pisani, Rivista indo-greco-italica 16.88 (1932).

19 Italische Gräberkunde (1924).

20 Esquisse d'une histoire de la langue latine2 72 (1931).

21 Frings, PBB 63.1–116 (1939). See now also Joos, Lg. 28.222–31 (1952).

22 E.g. Whatmough, Lg. 27.82 (1951).

23 See Buck, Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian (rev. ed.) 195–224.

24 For these examples and many more, see Bach, Deutsche Mundartforschung2 259–60 (1950); cf. Moulton, Swiss German dialect and Romance patois 45–6 (Lang. Diss. No. 34, 1941).

25 See Bach, Gesch. d. dt. Spr.4 87.

26 See Von Wartburg, Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachräume 110–4 (1950).

27 Transactions of the Philological Society 1950.60–87.