Re: Proto-Latin or Italic

On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Mike Adams wrote:

>I wonder how much of the pre-Roman lingos had to influences the
>classical into vulgar, and then into the seperate lingos.. I know much
>if Italy even after the end of the Roman empire still had residuals of
>the pre-Roman Italic lingos..
Palmer's "The Latin Language" [I'm sure someone will correct me if
I have got the title wrong _this_ time!] gives several (nonexhaustive)
lists of words thought to derive from the nonlatin languages around.
Certainly Etruscan and Gaulish provide a goodly amount of vocabulary.

As for nonlatin languages still spoken; certainly Etruscan lasted a
good while. Oscan/Umbrian also lasted a while. And Greek, apparently.

Padraic.

>So was the changes really a shift, or was it the locals trying to shape
>vulgar latin to their own dielect or lingo, so therefore in ways vulgar
>latin in the area was more a creole/pidgin, than became the new lingo,
>post-roman romance lingo?
>
>Mike