Yes, in my opinion. On the central Italian peninsula, and in certain pockets such as Sardinia. But I doubt Paradox will put them on the map.
Should there be Roman culture on the map in the new DLC?
- Thread starter Joemit
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes, in my opinion. On the central Italian peninsula, and in certain pockets such as Sardinia. But I doubt Paradox will put them on the map.
Well, this thread has already become 11 pages long, the longest among the non-official ones after the announcement of Charlemagne. Our guys have always listened to popular demands.
Plus, they will also realize themselves how the cultural setup in the Italian Peninsula that they showed us in that first screenshot is... problematic, to say the least.
.png){kind=avatar}
What would Italo-Roman names even be like? When and why was -us dropped for -o and -e in names?
It was a gradual process that started at the time of the Empire - if not earlier: final consonants are always prone to fall in highly vocalic and melodic languages. Official names, at least those that we have recorded from that time, were written in plain Latin.
The names in -e derive from the names of the third declension with the accusative form in -em, by the way.
Ablatives, in other words. 
it's also seen in the fifth declension, but I've never heard of a name being put in that declension.
it's also seen in the fifth declension, but I've never heard of a name being put in that declension.
Common nouns from the fifth declension are very rare, people's names are non-existent I think. Similarly for the fourth. The few words that were retained from the fifth declension either became irregular forms (el dia, il dì, both masculine words in Castilian and Italian for dies, "day") or became assimilated to the third declension (la fede from fides, "faith" in Italian; here Castilian becomes irregular with la fe).Ablatives, in other words.
The general pattern in the evolution from Latin to the Romance languages is that nouns derive from the accusative form. For example, in Castilian, el lobo ("wolf") becomes los lobos in the plural form ("wolves"), respectively from lupum and lupos (accusative for lupus and lupi, respectively). In some valleys of northern Spain, where allegedly the language originated, old people still say el lobu. Italian is an exception in that some people believe their names derived from the accusative in the singular and from the nominative in the plural: il lupo, i lupi. However this is disputed, for it is a general feature of italic languages that the -s at the end of the word and preceded by a vowel becomes -i and then assimilates the or to the preceding vowel: an example is the archaic Latin expression pater familias which became pater *familiai in the later Republic and eventually pater familiae in Classical Latin.
Right, but wouldn't il lupo come from the ablative lupo (which matches what happens with third declension words) rather than lupum?
That's what I thought when I originally learned Latin: I eventually came to the conclusion that this is just a mistake caused by phonetical and orthographic illusion (the Italian nouns, when singular, look like the ablative for all the three main declensions). However, it does not match several facts: in particular, it does not explain why the plural forms of the ablative have no results in Romance languages.
In reality, the "accusative theory" matches all we know about the phonetic and grammatical evolution of Romance languages. The accusative was chosen because it was not only the most used case, but also because it took both the role of subject and object in many dependent clauses in the complex syntax of the language.
I'd argue for Latium the heart of roman rural and urban culture, perhaps Corsica and sardina if there was going to be roman/Latin culture. Ravenna given the history seems like it be Byzathine influenced but Byzathine Roman rather than Byzathine Greek culture. I'd also suggest perhaps Venice as roman as well given it was settled by Roman Refugees.
Rather than making regions Roman a player who controls the Western empire and has certain traits (maybe scholarly?) should have the option to convert to Roman culture, with vassals perhaps having a trigger to do the same if their opinion with you is high enough and you control Italy and France (the regions where "Latin" cultures exist in game)
Perhaps also if this is done there could be an increased likelihood of Roman descendants, like the Iberians and Italians, to convert to Roman culture as well. The provinces I mean, increased chances of them to culture flip to Roman in the event that a toga-wearing Latin-speaking Frank decides he's Roman now.
Hmm, so by 769 AD, it could be said the common folk would be called Aurelio and Petro rather than Aurelius and Petrus, for example?
IIRC, while names may have been written as, say, Petrus, the pronounciation had switched to Petro by the 6th century (or maybe earlier). Not too much of a stretch to say that the written format had also changed except in formal Latin.
Although I wonder how in the world that Ioannes transforms into John or Juan.
Ioannes is a long name, and I suspect that people got used to shortening it to "Ion" just like Michael became Mike and Robert became Bob.
Then Ion (which remains in Romanian btw) morphed into John and Juan by following the changing pronunciation habits of England and Iberia.
Juan probably came to be through Ioan(nes), with the o closing into a u; in Italian it both collapsed into non-existence (Gianni), and it was preserved so fiercely that a phantom v appeared and consolidated between o and a (Giovanni).
'Ioan', also a current form in some areas, is another intermediate stage in the phonetic change - as are of course many other instructive examples from Catalan, Venetian dialect, and Galician. It may be noted that the Venetian form, Zuan, and its feminine form Zuana are a good example of the variety of Italian outcomes. The initial vowel, already in antiquity prone to be pronounced in a more consonantal [j]-like fashion, continued the consonantization and emerged in written varieties of Italian either as 'gi-[V]' as in Gian/Giovanni (the latter of these possibly influenced as a some kind of popular analogy by the word giovane 'young man' from Latin iuvenis) or 'z-V' as in Zuan.
Linguistics terrifies me.
I guess it just showcases that people were just as lazy with preserving words as they are today.I wonder what "John" will sound like in 200 years...maybe shortened to "Jon" or something.
Now that is an eminently quotable phrase there.
"Jon" sounds like a plausible inheritor. Especially with the boost that GRRMartin is giving it at this very moment. And phonetically speaking the 'h' in it is superfluous anyhow.
