Talk:Aequian language

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"There are no records about the language spoken by the Aequi before the Roman conquest; however, since the

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)[reply]

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)[reply]