| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aequian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
To be considered for inclusion edit
"There are no records about the language spoken by the Aequi before the Roman conquest; however, since the Marsi, who lived farther east, spoke in the 3rd century BC a dialect closely akin to Latin, and since the Hernici, their neighbours to the south-west, did the same, it is most likely that all three tribes belonged to the Latian group. From the presence of the "q" letter in their name and the supposed relation between its shorter and its longer form (note that the "i" in the word Aequiculus is long -Virgil, Aen. vii. 744 - which seems to connect it with the locative of aequum ("a plain", so that it would mean "dwellers in the plain", although in the historical period they certainly lived mainly in the hills), they could be grouped with the so-called "q" or the "p" dialects: the former includes Latin, which preserved an original q, while the latter include the dialect of Velitrae, commonly called Volscian (the Volsci were the constant allies of the Aequi), on the other hand, in which, as in the Iguvine and Samnite dialects, an original "q" is changed into "p". There is no decisive evidence to show whether the "q" in Latin aequus represents an Indo-European "q" as in Latin quis, Umbro-Volsc. pis, or an Indo-European "k + u" as in equus, Umb. ekvo-. The derivative adjective Aequicus might be taken to range them with the Volsci rather than the Sabini, but it is not clear that this adjective was ever used as a real ethnonym; the name of the tribe is always Aequi, or Aequicoli."
This section is from Britannica 1911 and was in the Aequi article. As long as this language article exists, it does not belong there. There is a question of how valid this material now is. Frankly I would guess, not too. However I do not wish to toss anything away without checking it out. Even in 1911 it would have been questionable. However in those days they had some theories that went out the window in the late 20th century. They believed, for example, and I was originally trained to believe, that Celtic and Latin were closely related and you could insert Celtic etymologies into Italic ones. Not so. So, all this business about the lack of records and the p and q look suspiciously like the old Celtic-Italic game (along with phlogiston and the force of gravity). I wouldn't trust it unless you can find a modern linguist who espouses it.Dave (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Inscriptions edit
The first ALBSI PATRE should obviously be interpreted as Albensi patri not Albano patri. Cf. Festus sv. albesia and note in 1700 Dacier's editon. There were 2 Albae, one in Latium and the other on the Fucinus in Marsian territory (Alba Fucens) and the people from the 1st were named Albani, from the 2nd Albenses.
The other is pure Latin, no trace of any Aequian...Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)