Talk:Punic language

Africa: Tunisia Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (assessed as Low-importance).

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Phoenicia Top‑importance

	Phoenicia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cause of Extinction

Is it safe to say that the Roman conquest of Carthage and the Romanization of former Punic speakers is what led the language becoming extinct? If so, how many years or generations did it take from the time Rome conquered Carthage to the time Punic became a dead language? This article doesn't really clarify. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it didn't got extinct per say

It's more like it continued to evolve in contact of other languages over time, and ended up giving today what is known as the Maghrebi Arabic dialects or languages (Moroccan arabic, Algerian arabic, Tunisian Arabic, Malti and Libyan Arabic). This was quite foreseeable actually considering the multiple sources, about the way the people there speak and the relative deep propagation of punic among pre-islamic berbers and the survival of many punic town little or unromanised after Carthage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exacrion (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it did not. It survives only in the influence it has had on the Arabic that replaced it. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing discussion as stale, no clear consensus. -- Debate 木 07:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a separate language, then it should have its own separate page. But I agree that this article needs to be fleshed out; can anyone add anything more to it? Shanoman 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. It deserves its own article if it was a separate language. Tim Q. Wells 00:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what evidence is there that it was a different language, and not just an alternative name for a different dialect of the same language? FilipeS 15:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are endeavouring to add as much content as possible based in so far as we can on evidence from Punic sources rather than generalising on 'Canaanite' sources which are better documented through history. Purely Roman sources have to be treated with a degree of blue pencil for the obvious propoganda/political motives of their era. Most languages have developed from a dialect of an earlier tongue and whilst there can be little doubt that Punic was born of the antecedent Phoenician, prolonged contact with Tyre would seem far less likely than several hundred years direct development in north Africa. It is not to be forgotten that the very word we currently use to describe this language (PUNIC) has its origins in roman derogatory and is not even a 'punic' term.

lammech ibarcu 17:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC) lammech ibarcu 17:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's much better if this article is simply deleted. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I change my mind, see below for the reason – I instead agree that a merger is a good idea. Said: Rursus ☻ 14:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Today's updates

This page was kind of a mess. :( I cleaned it up, added some tags and links and generally made it at least look better. I don't really any information on the language itself to add, but at least it's nicer to see. :) Wilybadger 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is tidier and more user friendly. Your contribution is appreciated 15:32, 13 September 2007 Barcaloner 15:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)lammech ibarcu

The link to the film starring Vin Diesel to be released in 2008 has been temporarily removed (it would be better under the general Punic article). It has yet to be verified as using actual Punic conversation. This page really should concentrate on the language and not necessarily on historical figures and their exploits. 19:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)lammech ibarcu

Signing the Article

Lammech Ibarcu, you shouldn't keep putting your name on the actual page. You can put it into here like this Wilybadger 04:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC) but you shouldn't sign the article itself. Wilybadger 04:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed these from the article because it is needless clutter. -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 01:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problems with this article

It is my (non-expert) understanding that virtually nothing is actually known of the Punic language (other than its relationship to Phoenician). This article appears to have very serious issues, and may indeed be mostly nonsense.--Pharos (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No expertize needed to see that much of this article is bogus, see below! Said: Rursus ☻ 13:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Punic sample in Poenulus Plauti as the article claims, and so I added an external link. I redraw my bogus claim and now claim that only the old Norse sample is obvious bogus. Said: Rursus ☻ 14:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this??

Article says:

A further documentation attributes this oath to Barcid family leaders:

hialpi mer sva Melqart, ok Eschmoun, ok hin almattki an Tanit.

!!! Did the Carthagines speak old Norse? It sounds exactly (except the names) like a rune stone inscriptiom and should mean:

help me so Melqart, and Eschmoun, and the almighty an Tanit.

where only "almighty" = "almattki" must be explained by some sound laws, such as ht > tt (right ~ rätt), and +ki as a fast-speach contraction of +igi, a masculine ending of ending counterparting English +ish such as in "red" ~ "reddish". Said: Rursus ☻ 13:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To stress it: that old Norse is from around 900-1100 AD, while Punic is from the antiquity. Exactly that claimed Punic seems to suffer from a sever anachronism – the other one I cannot analyze yet, since my old semitic is decidedly lacking. Said: Rursus ☻ 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the origin of that inscription or where it was found. But i know that Carthaginians used to trade a lot with scandinavians and norsics in their time and that the fuutark is actually the punic alphabet, that the norsic assimilated for trade purpose. (thus its secret power). Some of them learnt punic for that same reason and it is not impossible that norsics where themeselve at some degree punicised, far before the Romans (or Catholics) came, a millenia latter. We can still found that the norsic languages are of the semitic languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exacrion (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading that, I decided to go through all your edits to see which needed to be reverted. You might want to provide a ref, because it sounds like utter bullshit (though it would be fantastic if true). — kwami (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! There is a time difference of 500-1000 years between the old Norse and the Punic, old Norse being the later. At the time of the inscription, Scandinavian ought to have spoken some proto-Norse, which is very different in character. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 04:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gesenius

Can anyone please take a look at my question at Talk:Wilhelm Gesenius?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Punic language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923054701/http://www.akkademjatalmalti.com/page.asp?p=9023 to http://www.akkademjatalmalti.com/page.asp?p=9023

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bce or ce

i undid myself with regards to that Iterresise (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlstak: your edit summary states: "centuries AD are often written without the "AD", but inserting it here for clarity". do you mean that without writing "AD" centuries are understood as "AD"?Iterresise (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is customary in general academic usage. The WP Manual of Style says at MOS:ERA:

"In general, omit CE or AD, unless to avoid ambiguity or awkwardness" Carlstak (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5th century

The claim that Punic was spoken during Saint Augustine's time is disputed and doesn't hold much water. It cannot be stated as a fact in the article. For now, I'm leaving here this source about the meaning of "Chenani" that was mentioned by Augustine and will add more sources later on. M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Phoenicians - Cunning Seafarers

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CunningSeafarerWS (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CunningSeafarerWS (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]