Why is Italy never in Civ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
i think there is some kind of hatred against italy in this thread
some of you say italy wasn't there at venetians time etc etc. well, there was no germany neither since very late, there was prussia, bavaria etc, right? italian is a term to combine each city-state which has its history very old. so italy was there since romans.

italy is a union of medieval age city-states and has combined their culture normally.
so everything you count venezia, florence, rome, naples are italian values. refusal of this is funny.
italy is the same italy since the greek colonization which goes back to thousands years ago.

same guys live in the peninsula for thousands of years. no chinese man came and settled, u know. so you cannot deny italy's past.

rome was hellenic heavily in the beginning and some celts and germans also came and settled during huns' era.
 
@civ_king

Hm, are we speaking of the same Italy? The one that beat all other countries by Unesco entries? There is much more than churches and the like. Still, you're right in giving the Catholic church a lot of influence on italian culture.

It proved useful to me to just look to some other countries to finally undestand how... void they feel. America is a wasteland in comparison - albeit I like some of it's architecture. If any of you visit Italy, please do not visit only famous places, try to enter small towns, or take different roads. You will discover hidden gems. Or marvelous concrete jungles build in the '60. Or both. It's a roulette! Just do not try this in dangerous places, ok? :)



Yet, in conclusion, I have little trouble admitting that Italy turism is highly underveloped. Most people looks more intrested in "not having nuisance" than "spill the last bloody Euro from those visitors". There's a whole lot of hidden monuments that even people that live in the same city don't even know they exists.

Don't get me wrong, most mediterranean contries can stand fair comparison. I really like how Greece keep intact some of their monuments. Italy usually patch them with concrete, as France does sometimes. They say that it is to make the original part stand out on the new part. I say it is because it's cheap and I would like to discuss this with them - and a trusty chainsaw :P
 
sköldpadda;9012266 said:
[note: quote cherrypicked from a larger post]

A large portion of Europe (and actually, the world) is carrying on a linguistic continuation of the Roman empire.

Part of my point. Italy wasn't uniquely more Roman than any other part under the Roman Empire. Latin was an international language of Europe, but vernacular Italian dialects fit in the same category as French and Spanish. In fact, England could be better argued. They at least used Latin for the language of their court into the Renaissance.
 
AFAIK, italian is the language most similar to original latin.
spanish is close to italian anyway.
french has many grammatic differences. i don't know much about portugal and romania languages.
 
AFAIK, italian is the language most similar to original latin.
spanish is close to italian anyway.
french has many grammatic differences. i don't know much about portugal and romania languages.

Portuguese and Spanish are mutually intelligable(Standard Portuguese anyway). I can vouch for Italian also being mostly intelligable with Spanish, seeing as how I learn Italian in my free time.
 
Supposedly, Romanian is pretty close. None of these languages can be very close without declensions, however. Spanish and Italian have marked differences from Latin and certain parts are similar (not always the same parts). I've studied a little Latin and it's not that close to Italian. English's borrowing of Latin vocab sometimes seems closer to the original Latin than the corruption of these words in Italian.

Here's an example. Latin: Dies, Spanish: Dia, English: Day, Italian: Giorno (I realize there's probably a similar Latin word this had a root from, but this definitely shows that, as far as common use went, Italian isn't more Latin).
 
Supposedly, Romanian is pretty close. None of these languages can be very close without declensions, however. Spanish and Italian have marked differences from Latin and certain parts are similar (not always the same parts). I've studied a little Latin and it's not that close to Italian. English's borrowing of Latin vocab sometimes seems closer to the original Latin than the corruption of these words in Italian.

Here's an example. Latin: Dies, Spanish: Dia, English: Day, Italian: Giorno (I realize there's probably a similar Latin word this had a root from, but this definitely shows that, as far as common use went, Italian isn't more Latin).
i was talking about grammary, not vocabulary.
especially french is very different however i can understand some french sentences (i'm learning italian, not finished all levels yet)
i suppose italian should be the most similar one to latin.
anyway, you said linguistically, italy isn't close to rome more than other european countries, even england. i consider this an exagguration.
you said that, that's why i talked about italiano.


and about vocabulary, there are some similarities as well. 2 verb examples, with their conjugation

bere: to drink
comes from "bevere" in latin. and what is strange is that, bere is conjugated as if it is still bevere (bevo, bevi, beve etc.)

dire: to say
comes from "dicere" in latin. it is conjugated as if it is still "dicere" (dico, dici, etc.)
 
@civ_king

Hm, are we speaking of the same Italy? The one that beat all other countries by Unesco entries? There is much more than churches and the like. Still, you're right in giving the Catholic church a lot of influence on italian culture.

It proved useful to me to just look to some other countries to finally undestand how... void they feel. America is a wasteland in comparison - albeit I like some of it's architecture. If any of you visit Italy, please do not visit only famous places, try to enter small towns, or take different roads. You will discover hidden gems. Or marvelous concrete jungles build in the '60. Or both. It's a roulette! Just do not try this in dangerous places, ok? :)



Yet, in conclusion, I have little trouble admitting that Italy turism is highly underveloped. Most people looks more intrested in "not having nuisance" than "spill the last bloody Euro from those visitors". There's a whole lot of hidden monuments that even people that live in the same city don't even know they exists.

Don't get me wrong, most mediterranean contries can stand fair comparison. I really like how Greece keep intact some of their monuments. Italy usually patch them with concrete, as France does sometimes. They say that it is to make the original part stand out on the new part. I say it is because it's cheap and I would like to discuss this with them - and a trusty chainsaw :P

stay away from Sicily? Yes, Italy has a lot more cultural heritage then the US because the landscape has been inhabited more than 10 times as long
 
Supposedly, Romanian is pretty close. None of these languages can be very close without declensions, however. Spanish and Italian have marked differences from Latin and certain parts are similar (not always the same parts). I've studied a little Latin and it's not that close to Italian. English's borrowing of Latin vocab sometimes seems closer to the original Latin than the corruption of these words in Italian.

Here's an example. Latin: Dies, Spanish: Dia, English: Day, Italian: Giorno (I realize there's probably a similar Latin word this had a root from, but this definitely shows that, as far as common use went, Italian isn't more Latin).

Fair point perhaps, but bad example. English "day" comes from Old English dæġ, Germanic *dagas (from which modern German tag). They are connected by a common proto-IE root, but English didn't borrow this from Latin.

Latin and Italian actually are just different chronological stages of the same language. Once a linguist masters the rules of change from Latin to modern Italian, it's pretty easy to understand as much Italian as one knows of Latin. Similar points for Spanish, Portuguese, Sardinian, Catalan and Occitan. French and Romanian having more diverse influences are less like this (Slavic, Germanic and Celtic influences comparable with Norman French's impact on early Middle English), but it is still the case with them.
 
i was talking about grammary, not vocabulary.

Yeah, when you have to change the ending of the noun "farmer" depending if it is a subject, object, if you're saying "of the farmer", then you can argue they're similar.

bere: to drink
comes from "bevere" in latin. and what is strange is that, bere is conjugated as if it is still bevere (bevo, bevi, beve etc.)

Spanish:

Beber
Bebo, Bebes, Bebe, Bebemos, Bebeis, and Beben

dire: to say
comes from "dicere" in latin. it is conjugated as if it is still "dicere" (dico, dici, etc.)

Latin: Dicere
Spanish: Decir
Digo, Dices, Dice, Decimos, Decis, Dicen

The main Latin verbs are the common irregular verbs in Romance languages. Certainly Spanish and Italian fit this, but so does Portuguese. Italian isn't unique here and all of them are still very different from Latin.
 
stay away from Sicily? Yes, Italy has a lot more cultural heritage then the US because the landscape has been inhabited more than 10 times as long

I have friends of sicilian origins and this will probably be wrong to their land. Mafia-driven blocks are dangerous, yes, but not for robbery or the like. More because one could take a bullet NOT aimed to him. The closest thing one could say about those places is that there's a civil war running.

Also, all kind of criminal cartels exists, not only in the south and not only the world-known "mafia". Northern ones are simply more shadowly driven, with more enphasis on corruption.


I disagree that the problem of america, US in particular, is about the time they were inhabited [by westerns, at least] and thus "build less stuff" because it take a lot of turns and hammers :P. Tocqueville in 1800's wrote about a whole culture of small, wooden, white-washed ghost towns. My opinion is that the US where - are - a young civilization with strong migration component. Only well radicated cultures usually build something "that last". On the other side, this sometimes make US culture more vibrant [vain, an european might say].

If you look on central-south america, that usually received migrants only from a few selected places, culture is somewhat "older" and radicated. That's even slightly true for the southern part of the US.

US citizen are used to a different concept of space, time and travel compared to those of europeans. As you might know, in Europe is VERY STRANGE to get a work in a city more far than, say, a hundred kilometers than the one you were born. And in those couple of Kms a LOT will change. To have the same effect in the US one need to travel much more.

Luckly, in Europe people started migrating up and down again, which is good to counter stagnation.


Another minor thing that make me think about causes is religion and concept of state. First, protestantism [all form of it] is more work-driven than catolicism. This increase wealth and industrialization but decrease art, usually. Art, in any form, is for people that like to waste their time and money. Lazy people: art cost time and resources but produces nothing tangible. This goes not well with a religion that say that you must be dutyful and just and restrain yourself. And no, I don't know a single catholic that really belives in that.

On the other hand, US are born out of a culture much more democratic that the european one [I'm not speaking of actual years, so political debate about the "right now" it's irrelevant]. Again, democracy have little time to waste, because it takes already a LOT of energy to drive a proper one. Usually art is for a few, rich, bored people which want to prove they are better than the ones they feel as lesser. That include other rich people and end in a race to the most luxurious/mecenatic one.







On the language discussion:

Italian is an artificial language and a young one. Remember that it is born from a few [thousand :P] intellectuals that built it from scratch for litterary pourpose. Then it became a national language because one couldn't understand another if he was born more than a hundred km away. Literaly, you will not understand a single word. I'm from piedmont [NW Italy] and there are more chanches that a french will understand my dialect than a venetian [NE], or latian [centre]. Then again I sometimes understand souther dialects [spare words] because of the french influence on their culture.

Sources from our language changes from latin to french, to deutch, to spanish and in the late years from english. A more deep example: french people uses their own therm for every single new concept [and could be very irrational with it]. Italians will use the foreign one and be fine with that [remind, we DO NOT have a strong sense of nation, as a nation :P].

This make the roots of our words a mess.


As a rule of thumb, latin is the basic for grammar. Italian is a latin language similar to spanish, french, romanian [I never really undestrood HOW they managed to keep the latin intact in a slavic millennia. Probably low profile domination? No domination at all?]. Many words from those languages are interchangable at some point. Italians, kidding, say that they could speak spanish simply putting a "s" at the end of every word.

Yet, there are differences: spanish is influenced by moorish and goth domination. French is born from a totally different path from the mediterranean "offsprings", the langue d'oil, and out of Frank's.

This cause a lot of trouble with some words, but it's a lot easier than with anglosaxon languages. I think I've deleted a couple of words in this message because they were NOT what I was thinking they meant :P Could only guess about the ones I have missed.

And then one discover celtic languages and goes all like "where are gone all the vocals?". They probably changed them with a bunch of Ls. :crazyeye:
 
How did this turn from a discussion about whether Italy was important enough for civ into whether Italian is more related to Latin than other languages?
 
I have friends of sicilian origins and this will probably be wrong to their land. Mafia-driven blocks are dangerous, yes, but not for robbery or the like. More because one could take a bullet NOT aimed to him. The closest thing one could say about those places is that there's a civil war running.

Also, all kind of criminal cartels exists, not only in the south and not only the world-known "mafia". Northern ones are simply more shadowly driven, with more enphasis on corruption.


I disagree that the problem of america, US in particular, is about the time they were inhabited [by westerns, at least] and thus "build less stuff" because it take a lot of turns and hammers :P. Tocqueville in 1800's wrote about a whole culture of small, wooden, white-washed ghost towns. My opinion is that the US where - are - a young civilization with strong migration component. Only well radicated cultures usually build something "that last". On the other side, this sometimes make US culture more vibrant [vain, an european might say].

If you look on central-south america, that usually received migrants only from a few selected places, culture is somewhat "older" and radicated. That's even slightly true for the southern part of the US.

US citizen are used to a different concept of space, time and travel compared to those of europeans. As you might know, in Europe is VERY STRANGE to get a work in a city more far than, say, a hundred kilometers than the one you were born. And in those couple of Kms a LOT will change. To have the same effect in the US one need to travel much more.

Luckly, in Europe people started migrating up and down again, which is good to counter stagnation.


Another minor thing that make me think about causes is religion and concept of state. First, protestantism [all form of it] is more work-driven than catolicism. This increase wealth and industrialization but decrease art, usually. Art, in any form, is for people that like to waste their time and money. Lazy people: art cost time and resources but produces nothing tangible. This goes not well with a religion that say that you must be dutyful and just and restrain yourself. And no, I don't know a single catholic that really belives in that.

On the other hand, US are born out of a culture much more democratic that the european one [I'm not speaking of actual years, so political debate about the "right now" it's irrelevant]. Again, democracy have little time to waste, because it takes already a LOT of energy to drive a proper one. Usually art is for a few, rich, bored people which want to prove they are better than the ones they feel as lesser. That include other rich people and end in a race to the most luxurious/mecenatic one.







On the language discussion:

Italian is an artificial language and a young one. Remember that it is born from a few [thousand :P] intellectuals that built it from scratch for litterary pourpose. Then it became a national language because one couldn't understand another if he was born more than a hundred km away. Literaly, you will not understand a single word. I'm from piedmont [NW Italy] and there are more chanches that a french will understand my dialect than a venetian [NE], or latian [centre]. Then again I sometimes understand souther dialects [spare words] because of the french influence on their culture.

Sources from our language changes from latin to french, to deutch, to spanish and in the late years from english. A more deep example: french people uses their own therm for every single new concept [and could be very irrational with it]. Italians will use the foreign one and be fine with that [remind, we DO NOT have a strong sense of nation, as a nation :P].

This make the roots of our words a mess.


As a rule of thumb, latin is the basic for grammar. Italian is a latin language similar to spanish, french, romanian [I never really undestrood HOW they managed to keep the latin intact in a slavic millennia. Probably low profile domination? No domination at all?]. Many words from those languages are interchangable at some point. Italians, kidding, say that they could speak spanish simply putting a "s" at the end of every word.

Yet, there are differences: spanish is influenced by moorish and goth domination. French is born from a totally different path from the mediterranean "offsprings", the langue d'oil, and out of Frank's.

This cause a lot of trouble with some words, but it's a lot easier than with anglosaxon languages. I think I've deleted a couple of words in this message because they were NOT what I was thinking they meant :P Could only guess about the ones I have missed.

And then one discover celtic languages and goes all like "where are gone all the vocals?". They probably changed them with a bunch of Ls. :crazyeye:

Italy has a sense of community, extreme vanity and individualism to the point of stupid are extremely common in the US, no one cares about their neighbors, in fact in the US it is possible to have the same neighbors for 10 years and not know them...

Yes, Catholics believe that art is good, Protestants not so much, in the US for many years it was punishable to be Catholic or Jewish,

The traveling long distances is common where I live (California), it is common to travel an hour to work,

The US it not very democratic, the rich control very much of the country and the poor have little, but the middle class have it much worse
 
... in the US for many years it was punishable to be Catholic or Jewish,

Maybe from private individuals, but freedom of religion has always been a hallmark of US society and government. There has never been any political punishment for being members of either of those religions. It would be completely contrary to the Constitution.
 
Maybe from private individuals, but freedom of religion has always been a hallmark of US society and government. There has never been any political punishment for being members of either of those religions. It would be completely contrary to the Constitution.

:lmao: you don't get it do you, in the beginning Freedom of religion was a farce, Massachusetts had a state religion until ~1838... religious freedom only existed for Protestants...
 
This is like asking why Greece and Egypt never have for their leaders those after their ancient eras. It's just the simple reality that their ancient eras defined those two civilizations, and Roman Republic and Empire, whether you like it or not, will always define Italy and its culture, when you look at it cumulatively in the context of looking back, in an omniscient point of view, into history.
 
This is like asking why Greece and Egypt never have for their leaders those after their ancient eras. It's just the simple reality that their ancient eras defined those two civilizations, and Roman Republic and Empire, whether you like it or not, will always define Italy and its culture, when you look at it cumulatively in the context of looking back, in an omniscient point of view, into history.

uh, Greece and Egypt are in as Greece and Egypt...
 
How did this turn from a discussion about whether Italy was important enough for civ into whether Italian is more related to Latin than other languages?

I find this good! It started as a pretty sterile thread and is going on with much more articolated debates on language, culture and so on.

Italy has a sense of community, extreme vanity and individualism to the point of stupid are extremely common in the US, no one cares about their neighbors, in fact in the US it is possible to have the same neighbors for 10 years and not know them...

Yes, Catholics believe that art is good, Protestants not so much, in the US for many years it was punishable to be Catholic or Jewish,

The traveling long distances is common where I live (California), it is common to travel an hour to work,

The US it not very democratic, the rich control very much of the country and the poor have little, but the middle class have it much worse

The neightbourhood fact you pointed out is intresting. However, I find most Italian to have very little intrest in their neightbours, they are often seen as a nuisance. Wait, they often ARE a screaming nuisance in the middle of the night. Italians are true to their neightbours, usually, only where there is a strong sense of comunity: among elders, "true" catholics or poor classes, but the latter only if they are farmers. Most of the italian low and middle class is very hostile to his perception of "outside".

I suspect this is because social iteration in my country is having a period of contraction after a long time of expansion and strong social activity. I'm influenced as well: I really love to have discussion and good friends around [and to friend gossip. never heard of an italian hostile to petty gossip], but I became irrational in presence of more than, say, 10 persons all thogether [a little agoraphobia? ;)]


About the rich-poor dilemma on democracy: that's why I said "not current situation" in my previous post. You have [had] a very good constitution, that influenced our own, and a very strong start on that path, with negotiation between every faction, included non-democratic ones.

In italy we switched to democracy at american gunpoint. I'm glad they did it overall, but that killed the spontaneous process. People do not understand WHY democracy is important and like to give up their vote to the first, strong-willed, charismatic madman that come around [and no, it's not simply berlusconi, it's every single damn politician we have].

That's why I'm still in this old, rotten, corrupted, and stupid country. As far as I dislike our political personalities, the political debate is open in every person, every day of the year. And local powers are still, somewhat, related to popular will. About national ones, you could figure it yourself.
 
:lmao: you don't get it do you, in the beginning Freedom of religion was a farce, Massachusetts had a state religion until ~1838... religious freedom only existed for Protestants...

While it's certain that discrimination against Catholics did exist, I'm not aware of any laws against being Catholic. Unless you have a link to back that up or the name of such a law and which state (or federal government) enacted it?

In italy we switched to democracy at american gunpoint. I'm glad they did it overall, but that killed the spontaneous process. People do not understand WHY democracy is important and like to give up their vote to the first, strong-willed, charismatic madman that come around [and no, it's not simply berlusconi, it's every single damn politician we have]

Italy didn't switch to a democracy because of America. They abandoned the monarchy because of its support of fascism after Mussolini had been discredited. And, of course, it was a constitutional monarchy because most nationalistic movements started off as democratic movements before monarchs (Victor Emmanuel II and Wilhelm I) took advantage of the situation.
 
I wouldnt mind seing Italy in, but they are just another ottomans (although obviously more civilized) a power of medium significance. Rome was the superpower of its day.
As for Greece being in twice, as Greece and the Byzantine Empire, well it was twice a superpower, whereas Italy was one only as Rome :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom