The Proto-Italic language is the ancestor of the Italic languages, most notably Latin and its descendants, the Romance languages. It is not directly attested in writing but has been reconstructed to some degree through the comparative method. Proto-Italic descended from the earlier Proto-Indo-European language.
History Although an equation between archaeological and linguistic evidence cannot be established with certainty, the Proto-Italic language is generally associated with the Terramare (1700–1150 BC) and Proto-Villanovan cultures (1200–900 BC).
On the other hand, work in glottochronology has argued that Proto-Italic split off from the western Proto-Indo-European dialects some time before 2500 BC. It was originally spoken by Italic tribes north of the Alps before they moved south into the Italian Peninsula during the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. Linguistic evidence also points to early contacts with Celtic tribes and Proto-Germanic speakers.
Development A list of regular phonetic changes from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Italic follows. Because Latin is the only well-attested Italic language, it forms the main source for the reconstruction of Proto-Italic. It is therefore not always clear whether certain changes apply to all of Italic (a pre-PI change), or only to Latin (a post-PI change), because of lack of conclusive evidence.
Obstruents Palatovelars merged with plain velars, a change termed centumization: *ḱ > *k, *ǵ > *g, *ǵʰ > *gʰ Sequences of palatovelars and *w merged with labiovelars: *ḱw, *ǵw, *ǵʰw > *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ Perhaps *ke > *ka, or, in other words, *e > *a in front of pure velars. Given the existence of Oscan and Umbrian beside Latin ("flesh, meat"), this sound change may date back to Proto-Italic. The linguist Peter Schrijver also explains Latin ("an evil deed") as a derivative of a root , which would indicate that this sound change predated the loss of laryngeals between a consonant and a vowel, in which case the development would still be early. De Vaan, however, alternatively reconstructs the root of as , arguing that the reconstruction preferred by Schrijver is unjustified. *p...kʷ assimilates to *kʷ...kʷ, a change also found in Celtic. It is possibly an Italo-Celtic development, or perhaps an independent innovation. The development of ("an oak"), which reflects PIE , appears to showcase that the assimilation of to precedes the development of to . Alternatively, it is possible that the dissimilation of to was already a PIE development, in which case Italic must have regularly undergone the assimilation in the oblique cases (i.e. gen.sg. ), which then spread analogically to the other case forms. If this theory is accepted, then this particular lexical item provides no information regarding the relative chronology of these sound changes. Two adjacent dentals become two adjacent sibilants (TT > TsT > ss). Obstruent consonants become (unaspirated) voiceless before another voiceless consonant (usually *s or *t). > . This development appears in both Latin ("sign") and Oscan ("statues"). Possible development of > before an obstruent, followed by the loss of the nasal before the fricative and compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. As an example of this development, Meiser cites Oscan ("sacred"), Umbrian , and ("sacred"). According to Meiser, these terms reflect a pre-form , which developed into . Alternatively, the linguists Alessandro De Angelis and Annamaria Chilà reconstruct a development of > , adducing as evidence certain dialectal Latin terms that appear to showcase the loss of , such as , which is attested in Minturnus. However, according to the linguist Ollie Sayeed, South Picene forms such as showcase that spirantization must postdate Proto-Italic. Moreover, Sayeed argues that the lengthening must have operated after the Common Italic period, as otherwise it would have been affected by Osthoff's Law, and also since—according to Sayeed—terms such as ("to breathe out") show that it must postdate the specifically Latin -weakening. Sayeed further notes that the spirantization rule operates in different conditions within the various Italic languages: In Sabellic, for instance, sequences are affected (e.g. Umbrian beside ), whereas in Latin the development exclusively applies to sequences. Moreover, a change of and to and would then require a subsequent shift of and back to and in Latin.
> word-medially. The existence of Sabellic forms such as Oscan ("sanctuary") indicates that this development was shared between Latin and Osco-Umbrian, implying that it occurred at an early date. In Latin, the suffix was later modified by epenthesis, producing (e.g. , "a race"). This development, however, may not have occurred in Venetic, where forms such as perhaps shows the unchanged suffix , in contrast to the Italic languages. The Etruscan form is probably related to Latin ("drinking cup"), from which it may have been borrowed, though it is also possible that it more specifically derives from an unattested equivalent word in another Italic language. In any case, the Etruscan form appears to have been borrowed at a stage prior to the shift of *tl > *kl. Final *t became *d. Bakkum posits that this development occurred prior to the apocope of final . Thus, the PIE secondary ending became Proto-Italic , but the primary ending became Proto-Italic . Initial > . CCCC > CaCCC. This development did not apply to word-initial position, as indicated by the development of PIE to Latin ("rain") not . Chronologically, it must have occurred after the vocalization of the syllabic resonants, as otherwise PIE ("silver") would have yielded , which should have produced Latin instead of the attested form ("silver"). Nevertheless, the *ə that emerged from the vocalization of syllabic nasals would still develop into *a when followed by three consonants, thus PIE > > Latin ("to meet with"). The sound law also must have occurred after the shift of CRHC > CRəHC, thus explaining the development of PIE ("begotten") to ("born"). Additionally, it must postdate the development of CRHTC > CRaTC, as otherwise PIE would have yielded , which would have produced instead of ("smooth"). In any case, Schrijver suggests that the was probably not phonemic until after the vocalization of *CHC > *CaC.
Fricatives
Voiced aspirates become fricatives. Word-initially, they become voiceless, while they are allophonically voiced word-medially. The PIE voiced aspirates became voiceless fricatives in both Latin and Sabellic, but voiced stops in Latin and voiced fricatives in Sabellic, which is explained by a reconstructed Proto-Italic system of initial voiceless fricatives and internal voiced fricatives. Word-initial developments: *bʰ > *pʰ > *f. See Latin ("brother") and Umbrian , from Proto-Italic , from . Venetic may also show evidence of the same sound change, such as perhaps in the form , a personal name that may reflect PIE ("to flee"). *dʰ > *f. See Latin ("to make") and Oscan , both from Proto-Italic , from PIE . This sound change also likely occurred in Venetic, as indicated by forms such as (, "offered"). De Vaan suggests that served as a temporary intermediary between and . *gʰ > *h. For evidence of this sound change, see Latin ("to encourage") and Oscan , from PIE . This same PIE root perhaps also yielded Venetic ("congratulating, glad"?). *gʷʰ > *f Word-medial developments: *bʰ > *β. For evidence of this sound development, see Latin ("white") and Umbrian , from PIE . *dʰ > *ð. For evidence of this sound development, see Latin ("middle") and Oscan , from PIE . *gʰ > *ɣ *gʷʰ > *ɣʷ Development of > > . According to Schrijver, this sound change must predate the shift of to in open syllables, so as to explain the development of PIE to , which then evolved into , whence ultimately Latin . According to De Vaan, PIE yielded pre-Latin , which later became , before eventually undergoing the regular deletion of accompanied by the compensatory lengthening of a preceding vowel. De Vaan postulates this development to explain Latin ("to trust"), which reflects PIE ("to believe, trust").
Sibilants was possibly allophonically voiced to in intervocalic position. The usually—with only a select few apparent exceptions—underwent rhotacism in Latin, though the original nonrhotic forms are preserved in Old Latin inscriptions, such as , an archaic variant of ("to confirm formally"). Rhotacism also occurred in Umbrian and Faliscan, also indicating the existence of a voiced in the prehistory of these languages that would have served as the first stage of the sound change. Such a development did not occur in Oscan, where the appearance of forms such as indicates that only the voicing of had been completed during the phase of Italic unity, followed by later rhotacism in some of the daughter languages. Other linguists have expressed doubts regarding the Proto-Italic nature of the development—the linguist Gabriel Bakkum, for instance, argues that intervocalic voicing is a common phenomenon crosslinguistically, allowing for the possibility that these sound changes occurred independently in the various Italic languages rather than at the Proto-Italic stage itself. According to another philologist, Nicholas Zair, though it is possible for the voicing to have occurred independently, there is still no particular reason why it cannot belong to an early period. Weiss argues that Latin ("highest") implies that intervocalic remained unvoiced at the time of certain Latin syncopations, provided that this term had emerged from earlier . Weiss does also mention the possibility of a development > > . Nevertheless, on the basis, Weiss argues that the voicing was probably not a Proto-Italic sound change, but instead an independent innovation that spread across multiple languages. Fortson accepts this line of reasoning, stating that Weiss is "probably right," though Schrijver dismisses his arguments as "uncompelling," stating that could easily have become provided that still "had a wide allophonic spectrum." Weiss would later specify that must have remained to trigger the devoicing of to , thereby showcasing that the voicing of intervocalic must have occurred after the syncope of . However, according to the linguist Teigo Onishi, phonemic was phonetically realized as , but—following the syncope of —the underlying was realized as phonetically, thereby allowing for the same devoicing to occur within Latin. Weiss notes that voicing of intervocalic is always, at least to his knowledge, accompanied by the voicing of in postvocalic and presonorant position. There is evidence for such a development in Oscan, where the form ("," "of bronze") might reflect . According to Onishi, may not just have already been realized as before in Proto-Italic, but also before any liquid or nasal (i.e. , , , were realized as , , , ), though he notes that there is little evidence available to allow an assessment of and sequences in Proto-Italic. There was a development within Latin whereby word-medial was lost before , , or , followed by the compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. Weiss more specifically connects this development to the loss of a putative voiced in these sequences. Thus, according to Weiss, a pre-form yielded Latin ("white"), which is cognate with Paelignian . Onishi, likewise, accepts this sound change, arguing—for instance—that a pre-form yielded Proto-Italic , which eventually produced Latin ("first") and Paelignian . However, Onishi also suggests that this compensatory lengthening does not require as an intermediary stage, and therefore cannot be used as definitive evidence to support the existence of voiced in this position at the Proto-Italic level.