|
Post by Tautamo on May 24, 2005 10:03:15 GMT -5
of france and italy? what are your thoughts and if you have anything good on them please post it.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 24, 2005 10:14:10 GMT -5
The pre-Indo-European Ligurians were probably West Mediterraneans.
|
|
|
Post by Tautamo on May 24, 2005 10:27:15 GMT -5
The pre-Indo-European Ligurians were probably West Mediterraneans. they are thought to be proto basque (whatever that means) or even iberians
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on May 26, 2005 17:28:05 GMT -5
I remember reading an old Italian book on etnology written in those days when the cephalic index ruled, it might have even been Sergi's on mediterraneans. The point was that this crania was noticed to be dolicocephalic. A few ligurian words have survived in modern Italian, I don't remember them at the moment
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 27, 2005 11:49:56 GMT -5
Their still around,Liguria and Genoa in Italy..They where probably just a proto-Italic people who just spoke a different language like the Etruscans.
Some idea's that they may have been Etruscan,or came out of the levant region..But liquistic's isnt all that accurate,they may turn out to be just Italic.
They werent Basque's or Iberians.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 27, 2005 11:53:51 GMT -5
I doubt they were Italic because they apparently spoke an non-Indo-European language. Unless you know something the rest of us don't.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 27, 2005 12:05:55 GMT -5
Look the basque's are Eurpoean DNA wise,despite them not speaking a Indo-Europan language..language doenst mean all that much when it comes to race as some would like to believe.
Just like Semitic is not a race its a language.
The ligurian language is " believed"(keyword) to be non-indo-European.
From what I read of them tney have been in southern-eastern France and but mainly in Northern Italy for over 2,000 years.They where deffinitly a Proto-Italic people.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 27, 2005 12:07:33 GMT -5
Yes, but Italic is still a linguistic category. The Ligurians were early Italians, yes, but I wouldn't call them Italic unless they spoke an Indo-European Italic language. In the same vein the Etruscans weren't Italic, either.
Only the Oscans, Volscians, Umbrians, Faliscans, and Latins, and related peoples deserve to be called Italic.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 27, 2005 12:10:16 GMT -5
<<The Etruscans weren't Italic, either. >>
Yes they where!
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 27, 2005 12:11:09 GMT -5
They didn't speak an Indo-European Italic language. Therefore they weren't Italic. Simple as that. Unless you mean something else when you say Italic.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 27, 2005 12:45:57 GMT -5
Italic as Italian People from italy,doenst only mean language.
The Etrucans lived in Italy,was an early Italian kingdom and contributed and still continues to tribute Italian Culture. The modern Italian language has its roots to tuscany.So they are Italic people.
Look if you want to get into a drawn out bebate on who's or whats Italic and whats not,it should be noted that Sicily,and Italy(north or South) are genetically identical to the Greeks. Most if not all Italians where no doubt Greeks at one point.
Point is,all the migrants started out as foreigners at one time.Whether Etruscan or Greek they became known as Italic cause they formed the nation of Italia.
The name Italy gets its name form the Sicel(Sicilian) king Italus.The Sicels where the pre-Greek people of Sicily and Italy,some of, if not the earliest inhabitants of the Peninsula.
The Elmyians of Sicily who also supposedly spoke a non-Indo-European language and said to be from Anantola and accoding to ancient accounts where Tojans.Now the Elymian language is said to be related to the Lingurian and Anatolian languages.(Their was also Greek people anatolia)
Now with regards to languages no body knows,they constantly change..The whole human origin thing is still all a mystery. I dont have the answers,nobody does.
BTW: modern Ligurian is considered a Romance language.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 27, 2005 12:47:30 GMT -5
Sure, but it's still semantics. I'm not the only one to make a distinction between Italians and Italics. Italian is ethnic, cultural, and describes a nationality. Italic is mostly linguistic. Neither of the two terms are racial, as Italy is made up of many different types, the Mediterranean, Alpine, and Dinaric being the most important.
In the same vein, I could say the Minoans and Pelasgians were Greeks, but I wouldn't call them Hellenes because they didn't speak Hellenic languages. They're Greeks because their genetic and cultural legacy survived in the ancient Greeks and is still present in modern ones. Sorry to be a technicality monster.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 27, 2005 12:58:24 GMT -5
Nah I think your the one argueing semantics...Their still a Italic People even if they didnt speak a so-called Italic language . Italic languages themselves show influence from Etruscan and but more from the ancient Greek languages. Its that simple. Your placing far to much value in language alone.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 27, 2005 13:00:58 GMT -5
Alright, I'll give you the last word only because you're Italian.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 27, 2005 13:11:06 GMT -5
Look man,your arguement is kinda like claiming for example: I'am not of Italic(latin) origin/blood cause I dont' speak an Italic language. I speak only English,though I'am 100% Sicilian by blood,3rd generation full blooded Italian-American.
The same where you where saying before with the Minoans....they where perhaps the earliast greek people,until their civilization and language and what have you was different and was displaced by the Mycenaean or Achaean's migrations-invasions,which brough a different language ect.
But language like i was saying earliar ,is always changing and adopting new elements,like the Greeks borrowed from the non-indo european Phoenciens to create there own alphabet..Dont put to or look to much into it,their are other factors.
|
|