Sabellian languages

Subgrouping in the Sabellian branch of Indo‐European

“…Among the minor dialects of the Oscan group the same change appears to have taken place: in Marrucinian, for example lixs ‘law’ ( nom . sg ) < *lēg‐ , but in Paelignian inherited *ē is normally represented by the letter e : fesn(am) ‘shrine’ < *d h ēsnā‐ (Oscan in native alphabet fíísnú ), upsaseter ‘it should be made’ < *op(e)sāsēter (or perhaps *ōp(e)sāsēter to explain the initial u, see Wallace : 88; Rix : 335). The representation of inherited short *i in Paelignian is normally with i , but occasionally with e (see further Jiménez Zamudio : 122).…”

“…Writing before the majority of South Picene texts had been published, Wallace attempted to sort out the subgrouping of the minor Sabellian langauges, that is the inscriptions found in the area between the Umbrian and Oscan (Wallace ). Wallace's conclusions are worth repeating at length here (Wallace : 142): ‘it seems impossible to recognise a clearcut dialectal division. Rather, it appears that we must recognise, at least in the pre‐historic period, a dialect continuum for the Oscan‐Umbrian languages.…”

“…However, despite these discoveries, reconstructing the detailed family tree of the Italic languages has remained controversial. Although scholars agree that it is possible to identify a Sabellian branch of the Italic subgroup of Indo‐European, comprising South‐Picene, Oscan, Umbrian and the ‘minor dialects’ of central Italy (see further below for these languages), there is still uncertainty about the internal relationships within Sabellian (see for example, Coleman ; Meiser ; ; Adiego Lajara ; ; Rix ; ; Wallace ; ).…”

“…Durante (: 816) also saw a similar three‐fold division, but before the full texts of the South Picene inscriptions were fully known. For earlier divisions of the Sabellian groups, see Wallace (: 123–124).…”

“… Rix was not the first to see the uer sacrum as of importance for the history of the Sabellian langauges, see for example Durante (: 815), Wallace (: 10–11). …”