Latin never was the spoken language in Rome/Pompeii

[Mick Harper]

I entirely agree with this analysis. They got incorporated into Indo-European for political reasons. Everyone was trying to draw England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland into one entity at the time. If they had been spoken in, say, Hungary or Finland or the Basque region, they would, as you say, be described as 'isolates'. This tells you all you need to know about how 'scientific' the study of linguistics actually is.

 

[GGuilliman]

I'll make a draft first and plan on expanding it on 3-4 levels, language, mythology, customs and of course my own speculation in the end of it.

Nice, I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on it! Really rare to have Albanians to share such things as well so yeah I'm all ears!

So many of these discussions on language are purely theoretical, and attempts to assist us to make some sense of our Tower of Babel. If only paper and papyrus kept alittle better and weathered the test of time, perhaps we'd have a better idea. This for sure, people use language as a power tools.

I personally don't subscribe to the Indo-European theory myself too much since we have seen for one that Latin and perhaps, as some posters suggest, Greek were more or less constructed languages. It also seems that the whole theory hinges too much on documents that cannot be accurately dated such as some Indian pieces; if anything it makes it more difficult to determine who built the stone buildings. For instance, the Japanese are rarely counted as Indo-Europeans and yet we see that Japan also contains the same kind of masonry as we find in Europe. Yet their current language is definitely not Indo-European and their previous language as seen in the maps seems fully alien to me; hence the Indo-European theory fails to describe the Japanese problem well imo.

The "Celtic" languages are isolates and not Indo-European in my opinion, because so many of their features are completely atypical of IE languages such as VSO word order, complex consonant mutations, broad/slender consonant distinction, verbs often conjugated by altering the start of the verb rather than the end, they have many IE loan words but the core native vocab shows little affinity with IE. None of these features exist in pretty much any other IE language.

Academia only classifies them as IE languages to fit the theory of a much wider Celtic culture in Europe, it's part of their agenda.

Yep and it was even acknowledged that Celtic languages contained vowels and sounds that aren't found anywhere else in the other "PIE" languages. Academics called those laryngales and said something along the lines of "these three sounds probably existed in THE original Indo-European language but fell out of use", which sounds a bit like clinging too much to a poor theory.

This speak of latin makes me wonder. If latin is a magical language or infact an evil language. One specifically designed for binding or control either through naming or through decree. Is logography the counterance to it? Did the ancient egyptians and even the cunieform writing mesopotamians actually write in these ways because a language such as latin was present and logography was the only way to write without any fear of obfuscation or hidden meaning? can glyphs have dual meaning in the same way for example as some english words and leagalease have?

About the glyphs and the question of whether the pyramids are ancient, I can recommend this Napoleon thread to you. Personally, I think it's a little bit suspicious that this Champollion fellow goes 700 IQ mode and beats all researchers of those glyphs after being taken along to Egypt by Napoleon. So in a sense I do think that those who are related to these pyramids understood Latin, that much is certain. The language definitely does go way back imo but I'm not sure about how accurate this decryption of the glyphs was.

 

[Gabriel]

Where are however, if I may ask, material that was famous among the lower classes such as comedy, Roman theatre plays, smut or most importantly, books to learn Latin written by ancient Romans?

I see what you are saying. I am glad Petronius was mentioned because The Satyricon is a prime example of the unusual circumstances of the so-called primary sources of the Romans. By the way, the short version of the Satyricon I read is disgusting, but I wouldn’t let that serve as proof of “mass media”. Apart from an honest summary by Wikipedia admitting the book was found in the 17th century, they also disclose the subjective nature of dating

“The date of the Satyricon was controversial in 19th- and 20th-century scholarship, with dates proposed as varied as the 1st century BC and 3rd century AD.[11] A consensus on this issue now exists. A date under Nero (1st century AD) is indicated by the work's social background[12] and in particular by references to named popular entertainers.[13][14]

Evidence in the author's style and literary concerns also indicate that this was the period during which he was writing. Except where the Satyricon imitates colloquial language, as in the speeches of the freedmen at Trimalchio's dinner, its style corresponds with the literary prose of the period. Eumolpus' poem on the Civil War and the remarks with which he prefaces it (118–124) are generally understood as a response to the Pharsalia of the Neronian poet Lucan.[14][15]
." Source.

The Etruscan and Sardinian languages seem to me like the prime candidates as the forerunner to Latin, more do to their proximity and antiquity. But, Etruscan is read right-to-left and overlaps with hebrew, as does ancient Greek. I don’t know what came first, but PaleoGreek, PaleoHebrew and Etruscan have many similarities, more than Each other than with Latin. There are several books on this overlap by Saul Levin and Yahuda, and one Out of print, evaluating Etruscan as a semitic language and contrasting it with Hebrew by Sevini. Here is the rationale behind that claim:

This paper briefly discusses some major similarities and differences between Latin and Etruscan. Of note, the greatest similarity not shared with another language in the region is the numbering system, characterised by “counting by subtraction” (eg. IV instead of IIII).

 

[Mick Harper]

Celtic languages contained vowels and sounds that aren't found anywhere else in the other "PIE" languages. Academics called those laryngales and said something along the lines of "these three sounds probably existed in THE original Indo-European language but fell out of use", which sounds a bit like clinging too much to a poor theory.

If true, this would be an example of an academic paradigm theory with a get-out-of-jail clause that ensures its own immortality. If anything either fits or, if it doesn't, is evidence that it used to fit, then nothing can ever come along to disturb the theory. Anybody over the age of six would say, "You mean, with the single exception of the Celtic branch, the same three sounds dropped out of every IE language despite IE language branches being separated by tens of thousands of miles?"

 

[emerald]

At school when I learnt Latin, we were told the that the Romans wrote in Latin and spoke Greek...very odd anyway...

 

[busy.baci]

There are several books on this overlap by Saul Levin and Yahuda, and one Out of print, evaluating Etruscan as a semitic language and contrasting it with Hebrew by Sevini. Here is the rationale behind that claim

Sir you was right right in describing those Sardinian and Etruscan languages as primate candidates for the basis of roman language. But I do not in any way come to accords with your insight that the Etruscans were using a Semitic base language as their daily driver. And your link to Sevini's claims is nothing more than a 3 sentences paragraph leading to nowhere except Jewish propaganda.
More likely were the Jews that incorporated other peoples folklore, customs, mythology, language and history into their own to make it appear as they had one.
But they didn't had any of these, they were casts out from many societies in Europe exactly because they had nothing of the sort.

 

[Gabriel]

Sevini's claims is nothing more than a 3 sentences paragraph leading to nowhere except Jewish propaganda.

There is little I can find for Etruscan and Hebrew overlap, but on page 789 of Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol VIII, (1958), “The Etruscans used a form of alphabet that was a variant of one of the early Greek Alphabets.”

Hebrew, Greek, and arabic have many similar word stems, and the similarities between Hebrew and Greek are documented and acknowledged. So for myself, I will look into this potential connection without summarily dismissing it as propaganda. If you know with certainty that something is propaganda I genuinely would like to know so I can save myself the trouble.

Below are two tables arranged to show the similarities between Phoenician, Ancient Hebrew, Greek, and a comparison on the far right with Etruscan and Latin. What this shows is that the languages are very similar. I am sure in depth study will expand on their similarities.

 

[Safranek]

Isn't it easier to say that Greeks always spoke the Demotic Greek they speak today and Minoan Greeks, Mycenaean Greeks and Classical Greeks invented various phonetic versions and wrote it in various phonetic alphabets? That's what the evidence, such as it is, shows.

It may be easier for you (and some others) to say this, but there is evidence that points to the contrary:

Some quotes from the source mentioned below:

While both Minoans and Mycenaeans had both “first farmer” and “eastern” genetic origins, Mycenaeans traced an additional minor component of their ancestry to ancient inhabitants of Eastern Europe and northern Eurasia. This type of so-called Ancient North Eurasian ancestry is one of the three ancestral populations of present-day Europeans, and is also found in modern Greeks.

Minoans, Mycenaeans, and modern Greeks also had some ancestry related to the ancient people of the Caucasus, Armenia, and Iran. This finding suggests that some migration occurred in the Aegean and southwestern Anatolia from further east after the time of the earliest farmers,” said Lazaridis.

Our mitochondrial DNA analysis shows that the Minoans’ strongest genetic relationships are with these Neolithic humans, as well as with ancient and modern Europeans.

When plotted geographically, shared Minoan mitochondrial DNA variation was lowest in North Africa and increased progressively across the Middle East, Caucasus, Mediterranean islands, Southern Europe, and mainland Europe.

Source:

Minoans, First Advanced European Civilization, Originated From Europe Not Africa Ancient DNA Reveals

So if they were genetically similar, would it not allow for stemming from a common culture? Of course it would. So there is a high probability that what they spoke was likely the language of their original culture, and give that its evidently partly European and partly Eurasian, this would put them in relation with not onlly the Scythian but with the Celtic groups.

"That's what the evidence, such as it is, shows."

Are these the 'Celtic' languages that once covered most of Europe, disappeared for no particular reason, only to pop up in west Wales, northern Scotland, and bits of Ireland and Brittany? Come on, please.

They didn't disappear, they either systematically evolved or devolved depending on the amount of linguistic destruction they encountered.

As shown in my previous post, languages and alphabets don't just disappear, alphabets can be 'burned by iron and fire'. Languages can be forcibly distorted through generations of 'religious education', which is what I suspect happened to not only to Proto-European languages but all over the world where the Vatican installed their Judeo-Christian 'education system' which is still indoctrinating the masses today in the guise of 'scientific' research, analysis and 'education'.

According to currently accepted belief, Latin started with Old Latin, then Classical Latin, then Vulgar Latin and on to Medieval Latin. No sense naming the rest as by then they have been thoroughly 'updated' by the 'Roman conquerors'.

If we check Old Latin, it is acknowledged that it was written using the Etruscan alphabet. So was it a spoken language separate from Etruscan without it's own alphabet? This is either the case or the whole language itself was derived from and became a modified Etruscan. Thereby, there is no evidence that Latin existed as a language at the time the Etruscans, Mycaeaneans, etc. already had confirmed alphabets and languages.

There is little I can find for Etruscan and Hebrew overlap, but on page 789 of Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol VIII, (1958), “The Etruscans used a form of alphabet that was a variant of one of the early Greek Alphabets.

Personally, I think Mario Alinei's research on the Etruscan language comes closest to reality and he doesn't mention Hebrew. Mainstream does not agree with him, but their efforts to disprove him have not been successful, linguistically speaking.

Mario Alinei - Wikipedia

The Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm - Texts on line (list per subject)

 

[busy.baci]

There is little I can find for Etruscan and Hebrew overlap, but on page 789 of Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol VIII, (1958), “The Etruscans used a form of alphabet that was a variant of one of the early Greek Alphabets.”

Hebrew, Greek, and arabic have many similar word stems, and the similarities between Hebrew and Greek are documented and acknowledged. So for myself, I will look into this potential connection without summarily dismissing it as propaganda. If you know with certainty that something is propaganda I genuinely would like to know so I can save myself the trouble.

Below are two tables arranged to show the similarities between Phoenician, Ancient Hebrew, Greek, and a comparison on the far right with Etruscan and Latin. What this shows is that the languages are very similar. I am sure in depth study will expand on their similarities.

View attachment 19440​

Sir, you keep not wanting to understand my point. As I said before the Jews were notoriously known into appropriating and internalizing language and customs from their host nations which were they were hosted.
A alphabet means nothing, it's just a construct of letters for the purpose of forming words and sentences.
But the meaning of those words is attributed to a specific culture and mindset.
It's like saying that mathematics brings forth the same formulae and theories just because different cultures use the same roman numbers in their calculations. Which is obviously false.
Different cultures have different ways of expressing their knowledge in mathematics and their appliances through numbers and calculations.
Just like people have a tendency to use different alphabets but to form the same phonetic words and meanings to them in accordance with the new alphabet.
I'm sorry but your reasoning is lacking into this directions and if you persist, that means that you took it too seriously.

 

[GGuilliman]

I see what you are saying. I am glad Petronius was mentioned because The Satyricon is a prime example of the unusual circumstances of the so-called primary sources of the Romans. By the way, the short version of the Satyricon I read is disgusting, but I wouldn’t let that serve as proof of “mass media”. Apart from an honest summary by Wikipedia admitting the book was found in the 17th century, they also disclose the subjective nature of dating

“The date of the Satyricon was controversial in 19th- and 20th-century scholarship, with dates proposed as varied as the 1st century BC and 3rd century AD.[11] A consensus on this issue now exists. A date under Nero (1st century AD) is indicated by the work's social background[12] and in particular by references to named popular entertainers.[13][14]

Evidence in the author's style and literary concerns also indicate that this was the period during which he was writing. Except where the Satyricon imitates colloquial language, as in the speeches of the freedmen at Trimalchio's dinner, its style corresponds with the literary prose of the period. Eumolpus' poem on the Civil War and the remarks with which he prefaces it (118–124) are generally understood as a response to the Pharsalia of the Neronian poet Lucan.[14][15]
." Source.

The Etruscan and Sardinian languages seem to me like the prime candidates as the forerunner to Latin, more do to their proximity and antiquity. But, Etruscan is read right-to-left and overlaps with hebrew, as does ancient Greek. I don’t know what came first, but PaleoGreek, PaleoHebrew and Etruscan have many similarities, more than Each other than with Latin. There are several books on this overlap by Saul Levin and Yahuda, and one Out of print, evaluating Etruscan as a semitic language and contrasting it with Hebrew by Sevini. Here is the rationale behind that claim:


View attachment 19404
This paper briefly discusses some major similarities and differences between Latin and Etruscan. Of note, the greatest similarity not shared with another language in the region is the numbering system, characterised by “counting by subtraction” (eg. IV instead of IIII).

Personally I think that Petronius is incredibly fake because our man Poggio seems to be behind it and that name should ring major alarm bells. So yeah that disgusting work is indeed not much proof of any kind of "mass media" and I also doubt the Romans would read it because it would be considered disgusting nowadays even by Rule 34's standards I am not really sure however what the origin of these Etruscans are because I think that any serious discussion of them should take the fact into account that a single Italian family is very invested in Etruscans.

If true, this would be an example of an academic paradigm theory with a get-out-of-jail clause that ensures its own immortality. If anything either fits or, if it doesn't, is evidence that it used to fit, then nothing can ever come along to disturb the theory. Anybody over the age of six would say, "You mean, with the single exception of the Celtic branch, the same three sounds dropped out of every IE language despite IE language branches being separated by tens of thousands of miles?"

Exactly! Much science is like that unfortunately, we aren't allowed to do any real science.

It may be easier for you (and some others) to say this, but there is evidence that points to the contrary:



Source:

Minoans, First Advanced European Civilization, Originated From Europe Not Africa Ancient DNA Reveals

So if they were genetically similar, would it not allow for stemming from a common culture? Of course it would. So there is a high probability that what they spoke was likely the language of their original culture, and give that its evidently partly European and partly Eurasian, this would put them in relation with not onlly the Scythian but with the Celtic groups.

"That's what the evidence, such as it is, shows."



They didn't disappear, they either systematically evolved or devolved depending on the amount of linguistic destruction they encountered.

As shown in my previous post, languages and alphabets don't just disappear, alphabets can be 'burned by iron and fire'. Languages can be forcibly distorted through generations of 'religious education', which is what I suspect happened to not only to Proto-European languages but all over the world where the Vatican installed their Judeo-Christian 'education system' which is still indoctrinating the masses today in the guise of 'scientific' research, analysis and 'education'.

According to currently accepted belief, Latin started with Old Latin, then Classical Latin, then Vulgar Latin and on to Medieval Latin. No sense naming the rest as by then they have been thoroughly 'updated' by the 'Roman conquerors'.

If we check Old Latin, it is acknowledged that it was written using the Etruscan alphabet. So was it a spoken language separate from Etruscan without it's own alphabet? This is either the case or the whole language itself was derived from and became a modified Etruscan. Thereby, there is no evidence that Latin existed as a language at the time the Etruscans, Mycaeaneans, etc. already had confirmed alphabets and languages.



Personally, I think Mario Alinei's research on the Etruscan language comes closest to reality and he doesn't mention Hebrew. Mainstream does not agree with him, but their efforts to disprove him have not been successful, linguistically speaking.

Mario Alinei - Wikipedia

The Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm - Texts on line (list per subject)

Sir, you keep not wanting to understand my point. As I said before the Jews were notoriously known into appropriating and internalizing language and customs from their host nations which were they were hosted.
A alphabet means nothing, it's just a construct of letters for the purpose of forming words and sentences.
But the meaning of those words is attributed to a specific culture and mindset.
It's like saying that mathematics brings forth the same formulae and theories just because different cultures use the same roman numbers in their calculations. Which is obviously false.
Different cultures have different ways of expressing their knowledge in mathematics and their appliances through numbers and calculations.
Just like people have a tendency to use different alphabets but to form the same phonetic words and meanings to them in accordance with the new alphabet.
I'm sorry but your reasoning is lacking into this directions and if you persist, that means that you took it too seriously.

Also guys, I think that the discussion is getting a bit sidetracked towards the Etruscans' origins. Whether they are jews or not, please explain how this relates to it being the true language of Rome. Just to stay on topic.

 

[busy.baci]

Also guys, I think that the discussion is getting a bit sidetracked towards the Etruscans' origins. Whether they are jews or not, please explain how this relates to it being the true language of Rome. Just to stay on topic.

I did promised you that I'll provide some explanations about the Pelasgians and the Etruscan origins leading towards the Latin language. And I'm working on it, but there is nowhere to be found about the Italian peninsula to be influenced by the Jews culture and language. There is more to come. Cheers.

 

[Gabriel]

Also guys, I think that the discussion is getting a bit sidetracked towards the Etruscans' origins. Whether they are jews or not, please explain how this relates to it being the true language of Rome. Just to stay on topic.

There are many theories as to the true language of Rome. The timeline for the beginning of the Roman Empire does vary somewhat, but it overlaps partly with the Etruscan territory.

Etruscan civilization, 750-500 B.C.E. (CC BY-SA 3.0), NormanEinstein - based on a map from The National Geographic Magazine Vol.173 No.6 (June 1988)
So, if Latin is not the true language of the Romans, it probably was Etruscan, atleast for a short while, but that is what this has to do with your discussion.

Now, for the second part. The Hebrew origin is not the most important aspect, it is the Semitic aspect. There is a very short list of languages written right to left today. Etruscan happens to be written right to left for the most part. Is Etruscan, inter alia, the Roman Language, based on a Semitic language (Yes there are many theories.)? There are some people pushing this theory, I am just exploring it.

"The few Etruscan-Latin bilingual inscriptions, all funerary, have some limited importance with respect to improving our knowledge of Etruscan. However, the inscribed gold plaques found at the site of the ancient sanctuary of Pyrgi, the port city of Caere, provide two texts; one in Etruscan and the other in Phoenician, of significant length (about 40 words) and of similar content. They are the equivalent of a bilingual inscription and thus offer substantial data for the elucidation of Etruscan by way of Phoenician, a known language. The find is also an important historical document, which records the dedication to the Phoenician goddess Astarte of a "sacred place" in the Etruscan sanctuary of Pyrgi by Thefarie Velianas, king of Caere, early in the 5th century BC. "
source

"The Etruscan language comes from the territory of Syria and contains a significant amount of ancient Eastern Semitic borrowings..." [Latypov F.R., 1994a]. source

 

[heretolearn]

About the glyphs and the question of whether the pyramids are ancient, I can recommend this Napoleon thread to you. Personally, I think it's a little bit suspicious that this Champollion fellow goes 700 IQ mode and beats all researchers of those glyphs after being taken along to Egypt by Napoleon. So in a sense I do think that those who are related to these pyramids understood Latin, that much is certain. The language definitely does go way back imo but I'm not sure about how accurate this decryption of the glyphs was.

Thank you for the recommended reading and the insight you shared it was really helpful. Having read the thread. I can offer an alternative approach to those findings. My theory and model have always been based off the concept this cycle began in around 1550ad as indicated by the work of george dodwell. More recently I have been inclined to believe it began in rome specifically. I think its likely that those who came back upon the restart of this cycle were the lineage of what was essentially the romans of the byzantine empire (352-1550) in the form of their heirs and succesors. Having resettled there they accessed the informations held within what is the vatican today which was left by their forefathers likely maps and documentation. I think as the thread suggests these people never went to egypt and never actually observed the pyramids or sphinx. What they did do however was see the pyramid of cestius in rome, read of the location in egypt and create maps and images with the notion all pyramids were akin in design to the one in rome.

The maps are considered to be of 1575 this is shortly after their reintroduction here, not a long enough time frame to go and see the pyramids especially considering that they had a new world to establish. As the thread indicates they had modern day issues to deal with the past was likely rather inconsequential. But the really telling thing is when Hieroglyphica is written in 1556. Six years to document what they found written within the vatican vaults is feasible. six years to perform on the ground research in egypt is highly unlikely. again the thread states they didnt have an english word for hieroglyphics till 1590 I would argue this is backwards. and its backwards because they were give the information without having any idea of its context other than perhaps locational information. but this is where your thread holds real merit. The wiki of the Etymology states "The word hieroglyh comes from the GREEK adjective ἱερογλυφικός (hieroglyphikos)." I think they recived the information in GREEK form in the vatican, in rome shortly after they arrived in 1550ad. The time frames of the documents they produce after this point all seem to indicate this. The written language of the records held there is likely to have been Greek. This is a strong indication that Greek is the written language that was used in rome and by what we call the byzantine empire during the prior cycle which Dodwells research indicates took place between 352ad and 1550ad.

Likely if you havent read my original work you will think this to be absurd but the premise is simply that between 1549 ending and 1550 beggining the localised sun left this area of a larger earth traversed around the other areas of the larger earth and returned again to this location at the point that 1550ad began. Historical evidence suggests that everytime this occurs the controllers continue on with the sun for those theoretical 3594 years till the cycle begins again in this area that we call Earth. I have been unable to tie in the greeks to this puzzle until your work highlighted that latin is the red herring. greek language and writings as your work suggests are what was spoken and writen in rome. The napoleon aspect is intersting also. I have been focusing on the other end of the timeline attempting to learn and translate cuneiform which has been tedious. But in regards to napoleon all I had gathered about this end of the timeline. is that napoleon was a reset. upon the cycle beginning the holy roman empire was composed of two aspects, the vatican to rule through law and faith and the old bloodlines to rule through monarchy. its been well documented that freemasonry is an extension of the vatican. napoleon was a freemason and more importantly a roman catholic. he acted under the popes orders to remove francis 2 as the holy roman emperor and reestablish new and submissive assets in certain places. He essentially took out those monarchs and took the role for himself or gave it to a vatican puppet. Ironically the one that goes under the radar in most research is his creation of the confederation of the rhine. the family houses in this area go on to form most of the remaining royal houses of europe today. Saxe coburg and saxe gotha go on to be the hannoverian english monarchs after the glorious revolution of william the orange. Then there is also the oldenburgs who form links to today though the greek and scandenavian monarchy. Then there are the wettins who run germany until its alteration in wwi.

So essentially napoleon was a weapon by which the vatican removed the old holy roman empire and layed the ground work for what we have in control today which is a puppet of the vatican as opposed to its counter balanced equal. That is as far as I got with napoleon though royal family deep dives are soul destroying. One thing to note I think the Habsburg family who decend from the roman emperors of byzantine and beyond are still very prominent in what is occuring today. they are prominent in the european parliment and I think still hold some kind of controlling stake in affairs all be it a less direct stake than their ancestry. Apologies for the essay.

I definately think greek is the written language the controllers recieved upon their return. is it possible they also discovered latin at that same point in the vatican vaults? did they weaponised it to create what we call the romans and roman language today? perhaps in an attempt to disguise themselves and their roles both past and present? Do you think its possible napoleons role in egypt was similar to his role in the rhine and they had to create or change the egyptian narrative with the intent to hide their past ties to it? My research into babylon which doesnt extend as far back as the ancient egytian is leading me to believe this controlling factor was present as a dynasty at that point and its likely they were in control during the egyptian dynasties as well. Do you think its significant that latin seems to always go hand in hand with every example of slavery? both in the historical sense and also in the modern day as well. Thank you again for your time and your thread its truely inspiring and really thought provoking.

 

[Safranek]

Let me guys hear your thoughts about this theory and what the most spoken language in Rome was according to you!

In the OP you ended with this question.

Also guys, I think that the discussion is getting a bit sidetracked towards the Etruscans' origins. Whether they are jews or not, please explain how this relates to it being the true language of Rome. Just to stay on topic.

IMO the two main candidates would be Greek and Etruscan, as mentioned by others in response to your question. I would rule out German only because I have not seen any linguistic evidence regarding that option.

The question you asked is to do with linguistics, languages and cultural ties which inspires them. As the two main candidates are quoted above, and languages don't just pop up over a few hundred years (unless created for a purpose by those capable of doing just that), pointed the origin of those languages to determine who the 'plebs' may have been during that era, which would give a clue to what language(s) they spoke.

This is what I attempted to do in my previous posts and to show how languages can be destroyed, modified and eventually even erased, all starting with the changing of an alphabet. Hence the reason for a Roman alphabet to be exported everywhere to replace the originals.

I could have given you a one-word answer like 'Etruscan' or 'Latin' or 'Greek' but I thought you actually wanted to dig into the subject to find out what culture they were originally from as their language had to derive from that.

The language called Ancient Greek came from the Mycenaean culture which came from the Minioan culture which seems to have come from the European culture while the Etruscan culture seems to also have come from the European culture. Thereby we can draw the conclusion that the inhabitants of Rome likely spoke dialects of Etruscan and Ancient Greek as named currently, but when looking into their roots via linguistics and genetics, we essentially have migrated Europeans and Eurasians.

 

[Skylark]

This gives me another idea to consider--the proletariat may not all be the "unwashed' and uneducated... just not educated in the secret language of the elite

 

[EUAFU]

Here in Brazil they say that the Portuguese language is the last flower of the Lácio. In short, the last language derived from Latin. A tremendous nonsense.

I am with Mick Harper. People spoke the languages they still speak today, with the variations that always occur over time of course.

Latin served more to hide the knowledge of the lower classes and was the easiest way for the different elites to communicate without problems of dubiety.

Italian and Spanish are easy languages to read and understand for Portuguese speakers. And French is not so complicated either. Quite different from learning German or Russian for example.

But I may be saying something totally wrong here.

 

[fabiorem]

I think the language of Rome was romanian.
Romanian is much more guttural than the other romance languages. It looks more primitive, with less elements added by other languages.
Latin was developed in Occitania, as a sacred, or patrician, language. It was never meant to be used by the common people.
Both greeks and vlachs called themselves "romans" in the middle ages. The seljuks also called themselves "romans", before the conquest of Constantinople. If anything, we need to move roman history to the east, and treat the city of Rome as a offshoot from roman migration, reflected in phantom history as the migration of Aeneas of Troy, and the ostrogoths incursions into Italy. In fact, there is a article in this site which tells the romans and goths (or getae) were the same people.

 

[GGuilliman]

Etruscan civilization, 750-500 B.C.E. (CC BY-SA 3.0), NormanEinstein - based on a map from The National Geographic Magazine Vol.173 No.6 (June 1988)
So, if Latin is not the true language of the Romans, it probably was Etruscan, atleast for a short while, but that is what this has to do with your discussion.

Now, for the second part. The Hebrew origin is not the most important aspect, it is the Semitic aspect. There is a very short list of languages written right to left today. Etruscan happens to be written right to left for the most part. Is Etruscan, inter alia, the Roman Language, based on a Semitic language (Yes there are many theories.)? There are some people pushing this theory, I am just exploring it.

Well I mean if the reports about Etruscans are to be trusted, they are supposed to have been excellent "merchants" so I wouldn't be very surprised by their roots being Semitic . As I have written in BusyBaci's thread, something that is rather odd about research into Etruscan is that there are at least four different explanations of where this language should be placed today. This makes the odds of at least one theory being well poisoning shoot up, for instance it is odd that Albanian, Tamil and languages of Semitic origin are linked to it; if all these three are genuine theories then we pretty much found "the" Indo-European language. Personally, I lean towards things being somewhat more complicated. As related to the thread, I definitely don't write off Etruscan entirely but as I indicated in my initial post, I would expect Etruscan or in this case Semitic languages to have a more profound language on what is spoken nowadays in case there really was an empire or even a large province with the city currently called Rome as its capital.

The wiki of the Etymology states "The word hieroglyh comes from the GREEK adjective ἱερογλυφικός (hieroglyphikos)." I think they recived the information in GREEK form in the vatican, in rome shortly after they arrived in 1550ad. The time frames of the documents they produce after this point all seem to indicate this. The written language of the records held there is likely to have been Greek. This is a strong indication that Greek is the written language that was used in rome and by what we call the byzantine empire during the prior cycle which Dodwells research indicates took place between 352ad and 1550ad.

That is quite an interesting insight; hieroglyph does indeed come from Greek and I do consider this language as a likely possibility indeed. About the Vatican itself, I am not sure exactly whether many artifacts in the Vatican's possessions are written in Greek and how many of those are genuine. As it appears from Piranesi's works, pyramids in general seem to have been common structures that showed up in more places than just Egypt, therefore I do not think that they "read about the pyramids in Egypt" as that would not be a thing worthy of reporting, at least before the Napoleon reset. This because Google Ngram shows "Great Pyramids" only popping up after Napoleon went there, so that would leave us with roughly 200 years during which the Vatican disclosed some information on there being pyramids in Egypt and didn't follow up on it.

So essentially napoleon was a weapon by which the vatican removed the old holy roman empire and layed the ground work for what we have in control today which is a puppet of the vatican as opposed to its counter balanced equal.

Although the Vatican is quite important I think that we simply do not have enough information to determine who or what causes all these resets to happen, it could be the Vatican alone but I think that at the very least there are two or three other stakeholders to consider and as outsiders it is futile to try and determine which is the "strongest" one. Similarly it is difficult to determine how much autonomy the Jesuits have for example and how much permission they need from the Vatican. And who is this "Vatican" anyways, if they were the ones controlling the resets, do you think that once you are part of the true elite, you get involved in the Vatican or that those that get involved in the Vatican become part of the true elite? If it is the former then there are other fish around as well.

I definately think greek is the written language the controllers recieved upon their return. is it possible they also discovered latin at that same point in the vatican vaults? did they weaponised it to create what we call the romans and roman language today? perhaps in an attempt to disguise themselves and their roles both past and present?

I am not sure how long ago Latin was discovered; it is at least something that they don't care concealing in particular(or they cannot). My personal guess would be that the language definitely goes back at least one reset and more or less is something spoken in the courts. Is it weaponised? I definitely think so to a degree, in the sense that Will Scarlet brought up: inventions/objects that are explained to laymen always tend to get a Latin name even in this day and age. However I am not sure if their disguise is lifted for someone who understands a thing or two about the Roman Empire as we can only guess at the motive for why they would conceal the true language with Latin. Though, qui bono?

Do you think its significant that latin seems to always go hand in hand with every example of slavery? both in the historical sense and also in the modern day as well. Thank you again for your time and your thread its truely inspiring and really thought provoking.

It is definitely a language used by the "masters" but it is also used for other purposes I think. Thank you a lot for the kind response and I was glad that I could help you out! Sure make a thread explaining how my post ties into your research, I would read it! And dw about it being an essay, read all of it mate!

 

[Safranek]

I would expect Etruscan or in this case Semitic languages to have a more profound language on what is spoken nowadays in case there really was an empire or even a large province with the city currently called Rome as its capital.

I think that due to the deception in linguistics and the orchestrated destruction of ancient cultures, the profound effect you're expecting is all around you in plain sight.

Based on many recent genetic studies, we can say that Europeans come from a common stock.

Needless to say that the Proto-European language they likely all used has been drastically altered (Latinized) into distinct and separate groups within Europe, not to mention the alphabet(s) they used (Runic scripts) in no way resembled Latin (in fact the Latin alphabet derived from them), they were closer at first glance to so-called Sumerian, Egyptian, Phoenician, Sanskrit, Aramaic, or even current Japanese or Chinese.

Now, Europeans all write using the 'Roman' alphabet, their ancient documents systematically destroyed along with their alphabet and their speech, both drastically modified by the Latin influence of Jesuit-trained linguist monks who first wreaked havoc through Europe via the Vatican, while simultaneously making headway into the so-called 'Slavic' territories via the Eastern Orthodox Church. The only two languages remaining without similar influence that stick out like a sore thumb are Basque and Magyar, both only spoken by a proportionally small group of Europeans.

That's not enough of an impact for you?

 

[GGuilliman]

I could have given you a one-word answer like 'Etruscan' or 'Latin' or 'Greek' but I thought you actually wanted to dig into the subject to find out what culture they were originally from as their language had to derive from that.

The language called Ancient Greek came from the Mycenaean culture which came from the Minioan culture which seems to have come from the European culture while the Etruscan culture seems to also have come from the European culture. Thereby we can draw the conclusion that the inhabitants of Rome likely spoke dialects of Etruscan and Ancient Greek as named currently, but when looking into their roots via linguistics and genetics, we essentially have migrated Europeans and Eurasians.

The main non-linguistic reasons for my consideration of German, or at least some kind of Nordic language, are the following:
a) Greek/Etruscan are things that wouldn't be too far off the current narrative. Suppose they spoke Greek in Rome. Why would they need to censor this fact so much and invent such forgeries as the graffiti to make sure that people don't look too much into it? I do acknowledge that a simple answer would be that they simply needed an area to pin Latin on so as to have an easy explanation but they could also have made a timeline around Latin being a dialect of Italian that was common among the nobility; this would probably be closer to the truth but how would it damage the commonly established chronology? Just thinking aloud here, I mean there could be some very weird implications for Rome being a Greek-speaking city that don't immediately come to (my) mind.
b) The Micean theory is something that follows the "10.000 years ago..." line of reasoning. In my opinion, it is dangerous to follow the established chronology straight away and for example say that Etruscan artifacts have to predate the ones from the "Roman Empire". Now I'm sure that they are pretty ancient but the Mycean buildings seem for instance typical mudflooded structures that may be found in Mongolia as well for instance. Pretty much everything in the Minoan/Mycean area is subject to carbon dating and Linear A/B in particular are more or less shady as the guy who deciphered Linear B, Michael Ventris, is a member of the "chosen tribe".

Linguistically speaking though, I do not see any way to prove that German was indeed related to Rome or that there are any such traces present today so that does weaken the case for it considerably. The linguistic evidence for Greek for instance is quite a bit higher indeed.

However my main goal was to figure out which language was spoken through both linguistic and non-linguistic analysis. Judging purely by linguistics and all the other arguments provided, I would say that Greek or even Albanian are very likely candidates. Judging overall, I still tend to think that something really weird is going here and that the true language has to be something that people wouldn't consider even after thinking about the topic for many years, therefore something more like Albanian or German comes to mind. Essentially something that doesn't belong to "antiquity".

I will use the next days to see if I can find something to back up the German theory with linguistically as I agree that it is currently not on solid footing.