Talk:Faliscan language

Contradiction

The article says this is written in Old Italic script, but the infobox says Roman script... which one is correct? -- Prince Kassad (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Errors

The article is full of errors and verges on the ludicrous. Cf. the exhaustive work by Bakkum Faliscan inscr.: 150 years of studies 2009, available online.

1. The Early Faliscan inscriptions are dated to the VII century B.C. and are famous among glottologists (e.g. the Ceres inscr.): dozens of works by the most eminent scholars of the field have been published.

2. Early Faliscan was written in Etruscan charachters. Falerii was an isle surrounded by Etruscans, part of its territory such as Narce was Etruscised.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed what seemed to me the most obvious errors; I didn't read your note here until I'd done. I'll take a look at Bakkum's work; mind you, if you don't already know it - and you probably do - please be warned, linguistics are not my forte, so I'd much appreciate your checking what little I've done here. Haploidavey (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Just found Bakkum. Fabulous stuff; I'll add it to the bibliography. Haploidavey (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess some of the article errors/conflicts arise from use of Conway's 1898 Italic tongues (apparently also the source for the 1911 EB entry). Anyhow, I reckon a complete overhaul's in order. Haploidavey (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You have already done most of the job, as usual very well. Me too I am no glottologist, but basing on Bakkum smth. else could be added. I am sorry to see that Fortson is very out of date on the Ceres inscr.: cf. Bakkum p. 393 ff. As it is a highly technical topic I shall have to bear in mind the limits of WP. Vetter translated it as: "Far is to be offered to Ceres and honeyed wine to Loufir", of which most scholars now reject the possibility of reading Loufir.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Pity about Fortson's outdated reading, as his seemed an otherwise nice little summary; but I've had to remove it as misleading with respect to the Ceres dedication and the number of inscriptions. The only part that seems universally agreed is Ceres|far - which of course has been useful for the Ceres article, pretty well useless as positive evidence for Liber, and probably irrelevant to Bacchus, who is to have his own Roman-based article at some point. I was even wondering if this very important inscription deserved an article in its own right. Btw, I've assumed the orthography as typically Etruscan/Faliscan, rather than very archaic Latin, but only because Bakkum doesn't say otherwise. "Dextroverse" surprised me, so I looked carefully but I might easily have missed something. Haploidavey (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, and I agree Fortson seemed useful too. The inscription is indeed dextroverse. It is a really difficult task trying to interpret it. I think in the first line vinum is pretty certain too, perhaps roufum vinum as proposed by Radke sounds attractive. So in the end it may well be connected to Bacchus, but this is just speculation. About the orthography I am no authority to judge it, but the language looks a bit different from Latin. An article on this inscription would be an even more difficult job than one on the duenos inscription.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked and roufum vinum is a restoration proposed by Radke , with Herbig and Jacobssohn. Interesting would have been the reading -zom proposed by Vetter. M[ol]zom !?Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

Deleted outdated remarks on Faliscan phonology of f: cf. Joseph&Wallace 1991 and 1993 and Bakkum 2009 all available online.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Italian" remarks

The remarks about perceived similarities between Faliscan and Italian are I: competely irrelevant and II: unscientific because they give the impression that there is some sort of connection between Faliscan and Italian, especially with wordings sucha as the one about the Milanese dialect "following" Faliscan, as if there was some sort of relationship. This is completely erroneous. The ancestor of Italian is Latin, and Faliscan had died out long before Italian came into being. These sentences should be deleted ASAP. Objections? --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree and have removed them. Sprocedato (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Phonetic characteristics

Not actually phonetic characteristics so much as a brief comparison to Latin. Can we either come up with some phonetic characteristics or edit the text to make this clearer. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

/foied uino pipafo/

i just want to add that our transcription of the first three words as foied uino pipafo is correct, as can be verified by looking at an image of the original inscription. This seems to be very commonly misspelled as foied uino pipato, perhaps because the form they used for the letter /f/ looks much like a t and -ato is a common ending in modern Romance languages. —Soap— 23:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Sample text" and translations

I've reverted the text back to the 4 march 2021 version, immediately before a "Sample text" section was added. Everyone who has edited the article since then has, I'm very sure, done so in the best of faith and (I must admit) from a far more secure knowledge base than I. The advantages of having such a section are obvious BUT unless we can agree on what does and what doesn't constitute an accurate gloss, that isn't going to happen. Better no translated example section than original research or (come to that) a copyvio. At first glance, the most recent edits (added by User:148LENIN) looked fine to me; so did the source, which seems remarkably cautious and thorough, and takes into account some of the most reputable scholarship on Falsican and Oscan dialect over the last 150 years. Then I noticed the publishing house (academia.edu) and the author, whose work in this area is available online only, and is cited and reviewed nowhere on google scholar, or at least not as a specialist in Faliscan. He may or may not be the same Donald O'Brien who is very productive in the field of medicine and medical physics: User:148LENIN has edited in all these fields. Academia.edu puts both O'Briens on the same author page; nothing new there, I guess. Any opinions on this would be very welcome. Haploidavey (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Most recent:

Aha. It's "based on Bakkum" (see way above), whose major review is published by the University of Amsterdam and hugely cited: see [1]

References

simpler solution to f & h

The last paragraph says that "While the change from f to h was taking place and awareness of the correct forms was being lost, some speakers started restoring f even when it was not etymologically appropriate." which, frankly, seems daft considering the much simpler & more historically precedented that f & h were merging & so speakers used the letters for these identical sounds interchangeably. 50.200.223.190 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)