Luthic

Luthic
Lúthica
Flag of the Luthic-speaking Ravenna
Pronunciation	[ˈluː.ti.kɐ]
Created by	Lëtzelúcia
Date	2023
Setting	Alternative history Italy
Native to	Ravenna; Ferrara and Bologna
Ethnicity	Luths
Native speakers	249,500 (2020)
Language family	Indo-European Italic Latino-Faliscan Italo-Western Gotho-Romance Italo-Luthian Romance Luthic
Early forms	Proto-Luthic Gotho-Luthic Mediaeval Luthic Late Mediaeval Luthic
Standard form	Standard Ravennese Luthic (Lúthica)
Writing systems	Latin Braille
Official status
Recognised minority language in	Italy (recognised by the Luthic Community of Ravenna) Brazil (recognised in São Paulo)
Regulated by	Council for the Luthic Language
Language codes
CLCR	qlu
BRCL	luth
The areas where Luthic (red and orange) is spoken.

Luthic (/ˈluːθ.ɪk/ LOOTH-ik, less often (/ˈlʌθ.ɪk/ LUTH-ik; also Luthish; endonym: Lúthica [ˈluː.ti.kɐ]​ or Rasda Lúthica [ˈraz.dɐ ˈluː.ti.kɐ]​) is an Italic language spoken by the Luths, with significant East Germanic influence. Unlike other Romance languages, such as Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Occitan, and French, Luthic preserves a substantial inherited vocabulary from East Germanic, instead of only proper names that survived in historical accounts, and loanwords. About 250,000 people speak Luthic worldwide.

The emergence of Luthic was shaped by prolonged contact between Latin speakers and East Germanic groups, particularly during the Gothic raids towards the Roman Empire and the emanation of Romano-Germanic culture following the Visigothic control over the Italian Peninsula. Later, sustained interactions with West Germanic merchants and the influence of Germanic dynasties ruling over former Roman territories and the Papal States further contributed to its development. This continuous linguistic exchange led to the formation of an interethnic koiné—a common tongue facilitating communication between Romance and Germanic speakers—which eventually evolved into what is now recognised as Luthic. Despite its clear Latin heritage, Luthic remains the subject of linguistic controversy. Some philologists classify it as essentially Romance with heavy Germanic adstrate influence, while others argue for its status as a mixed Italo-Germanic language. Within the Romance family, it is often placed in the Italo-Dalmatian group, under a proposed Gotho-Romance branch, reflecting its distinctive development.

The earliest waves of Goths who entered Italy and took part in the sack of Rome, later remembered as the Luths, created a brief context of bilingualism, the Vulgar Latin ethnolect (named Proto-Luthic by Lúcia Yamane) spoken by the early Luths bridged communication gaps and proved instrumental during the Gothic advance. Favoured by their military contribution, they briefly formed an elite under the first Ostrogothic reign, which granted their speech a status uncommon among non-Roman groups. This early prestige, combined with its flexibility in interethnic contexts, allowed Luthic to persist for centuries as a regional koiné in Ravenna. It was only with Þiuþaricu Biagchi’s Luthicæ (1657) that the language acquired a fully standardised form, securing its survival thereafter as a marker of Ravennate tradition, culture, and identity.

Structurally, Luthic shares core features with Italo-Dalmatian, Western Romance, and Sardinian, but diverges markedly from its relatives in phonology, morphology, and lexicon due to its Germanic inheritance. Its status as the regional language of Ravenna, reinforced by a language academy, has strengthened its autonomy vis-à-vis Standard Italian, its traditional Dachsprache. While sharing some typological traits with central and northern Italian dialects, Luthic maintains a distinct character shaped by centuries of sustained Germanic contact.

Luthic is an inflected fusional language, with four/five cases for nouns, pronouns (comitative forms), and adjectives (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative); three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter); and three numbers (singular, dual in personal pronouns, and plural).

Etymology

The ethnonym Luths remains one of the most debated issues in both Germanic and Romance philology. The earliest attestation appears in Greco-Roman authors of the 6th century, who mention the Lūthae (alternatively Lūthī) as one of the new barbaric peoples of Ravenna. This is usually traced back to a Gotho-Luthic lūþiks—although many scholars consider this to be a scribal error, a “correction” of *lūhtiks after influence from Latin lūthicus.

In the Gotho-Luthic language, the Luths referred to themselves collectively as the *Lūþiþiuþa “Luth people”—likely a compound of an unattested *Lūþus and þiuþa, attested as genitive plural Lūþiþiuþārum.

It is generally accepted that the Gothic letter ⟨𐌸⟩ (romanised as ⟨þ⟩) used in Gotho-Luthic represented a range of sounds, most likely both /θ/ and /tʰ/. Such ambiguity in transcription helps explain the divergent traditions in later manuscripts. A consensus has emerged that this orthographic uncertainty persisted until the so-called Luthic Reform (riforma lúthica), when spelling was standardised and the Gothic script itself gradually gave way to the Greek alphabet.

The ethnonym Lūthus appears to derive from the Gothic liuts, meaning “hypocritical” or “dishonest,” likely reflecting the disdain the Greco-Romans felt toward the barbarian kingdom and its plebeian rulers. Among the Luths themselves, however, a folk etymology emerged. They associated the name with Latin lūx, adding the common augmentative suffix -cus/-ticus to form lūcticus. This was later misinterpreted and spirantised by Gothic scribes as *lūhtiks, giving rise to the attested forms lūþiks, lūthicus and Lūthae. This folk etymology may have emerged alongside the Roman use of the term vespertīnī to describe the barbarian peoples living west of Rome—literally “toward the setting sun.” The latter, being a relational adjective to the evening, semantically changed to mean “people of the sunset” or “sunset people,” was subsequently associated with the notion of “light,” further reinforcing the Luths’ own reinterpretation of their ethnonym.

The study of Luthic

The earliest varieties of Luthic, collectively known as the Gotho-Luthic Continuum (continuo gotholúthico), emerged from sustained contact between Vulgar Latin dialects—those that would later develop into Italo-Romance varieties—and the East Germanic languages. Over the course of roughly five centuries, a significant amount of East Germanic vocabulary was absorbed into Luthic. Comparative linguistic analysis and historical records suggest that approximately 1,200 uncompounded words can be traced back to Gothic, and ultimately to Proto-Indo-European. These borrowings predominantly consist of nouns (~700), verbs (~300), and adjectives (~200), showing how East Germanic influence reached the core lexical categories. In addition, Luthic incorporated numerous loanwords from West Germanic languages during the Early Middle Ages.

The philologist Aþalphonsu Silva divided the history of Luthic into three chronological phases, collectively termed Old Luthic (500–1740):

• Gotho-Luthic — Gotholúthica (500–1100)
• Mediaeval Luthic — Lúthica mezzevale (1100–1600)
• Late Mediaeval Luthic — Lúthica siþumezzevale (1600–1740)

Later, Lúcia Yamane proposed an even earlier stage, Proto-Luthic (oslúthica), dated to c. 325–500 AD. She argued that Proto-Luthic was not yet a distinct language, but rather a Vulgar Latin ethnolect spoken by Roman and Gothic communities during their prolonged coexistence in the Empire. No texts from this phase survive—if they ever existed, they were likely lost during the Gothic War (376–382) and the sack of Rome (410). As a linguistic construct, Proto-Luthic highlights the role of sociohistorical contact in shaping Luthic, moving beyond a model of simple divergence from Latin.

The surviving Gotho-Luthic corpus is very limited and fragmentary, insufficient for a full reconstruction. Most of the extant material consists of translations or glosses of Latin and Greek texts, and thus carries the imprint of foreign linguistic influence. Even so, Gotho-Luthic was likely very close to Gothic itself, the best-documented East Germanic language, preserved most extensively in the Codex Argenteus (a 6th-century copy of a 4th-century Bible translation). For Gotho-Luthic, these are the primary sources:

• Codex Luthicus (Ravenna), two parts: 87 leaves

Contains scattered passages from the New Testament (including portions of the Gospels and the Epistles), selections from the Old Testament (Nehemiah), and several commentaries. Later copyists almost certainly modified parts of the text. It was written in the Gothic alphabet, originally devised in the 4th century AD by Ulfilas (*𐍅𐌿𐌻𐍆𐌹𐌻𐌰, *Wulfila), a Gothic preacher of Cappadocian Greek descent, specifically for the purpose of translating the Bible.

• Codex Ravennas (Ravenna), four parts: 140 leaves

A civil code enacted under Theodoric the Great. While nominally covering the entire Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy, its focus was Ravenna, Theodoric’s favored capital. The Codex Ravennas was also written in the Gothic alphabet and, like the Codex Luthicus, shows signs of later scribal modification. It includes four additional leaves containing fragments of Romans 11–15, presented as a Luthic–Latin diglot.

During the mediaeval period, Luthic gradually diverged from both Latin and Gothic, taking shape as a distinct language. Latin remained the dominant written medium, but the limited Luthic texts that survive from this era were already transcribed in the Latin alphabet. Between the 7th and 16th centuries, Luthic underwent profound change under sustained contact with Old Italian, Langobardic, and Frankish.

The Carolingian conquest of the Langobards (773–774) brought northern Italy under Frankish rule, cementing Frankish influence. Charlemagne’s renewal of the Donation of the Papal States further bound the region to the papacy, reinforcing Frankish as a prestige language. Yet, as Middle Francia fragmented, the authority of Lothair I became largely nominal, and the Middle Frankish Kingdom declined in importance.

Following this collapse and the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, the conquest of Bari by Louis II in 871 strained relations with the Byzantine Empire. Consequently, Greek influence on Luthic diminished. Around this same time, the Gothic alphabet was abandoned in favor of the Latin script. However, the Latin alphabet of the 9th century lacked several symbols present in the Gothic system—such as ⟨j⟩ and ⟨w⟩—and did not yet differentiate ⟨v⟩ from ⟨u⟩. By the early 9th century, Luthic orthography began to shift. Around the 810s, the character ⟨þ⟩ was introduced, largely through contact with Old Norse and Old English, and replaced earlier symbols ⟨θ⟩ and ⟨ψ⟩, previously used interchangeably for /θ/. Some manuscripts of this era also attest to the use of ⟨y⟩ for both /v/ and /β/, likely under the influence of the Gothic letter ⟨𐍅⟩. These innovations continue to shape modern Luthic orthography, which still lacks ⟨j⟩, ⟨k⟩, and ⟨w⟩.

The first complete Luthic Bible translation marked a turning point: Luthic became a language of religion, administration, and public discourse. By the late 17th century, scholars began to codify its grammar. The most influential work was Þiuþaricu Biagchi’s De studio linguæ luthicæ (1657), a two-volume grammar written in Neo-Latin. It was granted imprimatur by Pope Alexander VII in 1656 and published on 9 September 1657.

Biagchi’s Luthicæ is widely regarded as foundational in Luthic linguistics. Beyond grammar, it addressed the relationship between Latin and the vernacular languages of Italy—an uncommon theme at the time—and introduced innovations such as diglot lemmata, enabling direct comparison of Latin and Luthic. His perspective was deeply influenced by Dante Alighieri, particularly Dante’s rejection of language as a fixed entity. Like Dante, Biagchi argued for a historical and evolutionary view of language, a principle that shaped both his scholarship and the subsequent development of Luthic.

By the early 18th century, Luthic had undergone substantial changes in vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and orthography. Around 1730, a standardised written form began to emerge, enriched by abstract vocabulary borrowed directly from Mediaeval Latin. This process culminated in the 1750s with the spread of printed prayer books and liturgical texts, which cemented Standard Ravennese Luthic as the prestige variety.

The study of the Luthic language as an academic discipline can be traced back to Þiuþaricu’s pioneering work. Before Luthicæ, there had been no systematic attempt to analyse the language’s structure, history, and relationship with Latin and the Germanic languages. His writings laid the foundation for future scholarship, shaping the way Luthic was understood both in linguistic and cultural contexts.

In the decades following the publication of Luthicæ, scholars and clerics expanded upon Þiuþaricu’s framework, producing additional grammars, lexicons, and comparative studies. By the late 18th century, Luthic philology had become a recognised field, with academic circles debating its classification within the broader Indo-European family. Early scholars such as Marco Vegliano and Otfrid von Harenburg sought to reconcile its Romance and Germanic elements, leading to competing theories regarding its origins and evolution.

Throughout the 19th century, the formalisation of historical linguistics provided new tools for analysing Luthic. Comparative methodologies, inspired by the works of philologists such as Franz Bopp and August Schleicher, were applied to Luthic studies, further refining the understanding of its phonological and morphological shifts. By the early 20th century, Luthic linguistics had matured into a structured academic field, with dedicated university departments, linguistic societies, and journals exploring its diachronic development.

Place within the Indo-European languages

Adapted from Mandrak 2008.

The precise classification of Luthic within the Indo-European family has long been contested. While its earliest stages display strong Gothic influence, particularly in phonology and orthography, its vocabulary and syntax reveal deep affinities with Romance, especially the Italo-Dalmatian branch. As a result, Luthic is generally regarded as a transitional language, straddling the boundary between the Gallo-Romance and East Germanic groups.

In the genealogical diagram above, Luthic is placed under the Italo-Western subgroup of Romance, alongside Italo-Dalmatian, but with a distinct Gotho-Romance layer, reflecting its mixed heritage. Some scholars, however, argue for a separate Gotho-Romance clade, encompassing both Luthic and certain extinct Gothicised dialects of northern Italy.

This hybrid status reflects the unique historical environment of Ravenna and the Po Valley: centuries of Ostrogothic rule, continued Byzantine presence, and sustained contact with both Langobardic and Frankish settlers. The resulting linguistic amalgam produced a language that cannot be reduced to either branch alone. Modern scholarship tends to describe Luthic as a Romance language with a Germanic superstratum, though a minority position still views it as a relic East Germanic tongue with heavy Romance relexification.

Anglic languages

  English

  Scots

within the Anglo-Frisian languages, which also include

  Frisian (West, North, Saterland);

within the North Sea Germanic languages, which also include

  Low German/Saxon;

within the West Germanic languages, which also include

  Dutch in Europe and Afrikaans in Africa

...... German (High):

  Central; in Lux.: Luxembourgish

  Upper

...... Yiddish;
within the East Germanic languages, which also include

  Luthic

The map above situates Luthic within the geographical framework of the Germanic languages, highlighting it as a possible survival of the East Germanic branch. Although this hypothesis is minor compared to the Gotho-Romance interpretation defended throughout this work, it is relevant because it suggests that Luthic might represent a missing link between Gothic and the other eastern dialects, whose early extinction left significant gaps in the reconstruction of early Germanic.

This Germanic map should not be read as a categorical definition, but as an alternative representation: a way of visualizing how different classificatory frameworks can shed light on distinct aspects of European linguistic history.

Chart of Romance languages based on structural and comparative criteria, not on socio-functional ones. FP: Franco-Provençal, IR: Istro-Romanian (adapted from Koryakov 2001).

The Romance chart illustrates the general Romance linguistic landscape, foregrounding Gotho-Romance as a distinct group, though still closely related to Western Romance. Lexical differentiation, however, played a crucial role in the emergence of an independent regulatory framework for Luthic. Historically, multiple attempts were made to assimilate Luthic into the Italian dialect continuum, particularly as intermediate dialects between major Romance languages have declined over the past centuries. This shift was largely driven by speakers adopting varieties closer to prestigious national standards, contributing to the near-extinction of many regional languages.

This phenomenon has been particularly pronounced in France, where the government’s refusal to recognize minority languages has accelerated their disappearance. For decades following Italy’s unification, the Italian state adopted a similar approach toward its own ethnolinguistic minorities. Among the most notable efforts to assimilate Luthic was the so-called “Italianised Luthic Movement” (Luthic: Muovimento Lúthice Italianeggiate; Italian: Movimento per il Lutico Italianeggiato). This movement aimed to italianise Luthic’s vocabulary, systematically replacing inherited Germanic lexicon with Italic equivalents in an attempt to reinforce Luthic’s classification as an Italian-derived language. Consequently, modern Luthic orthography was significantly shaped by this initiative.

Nearly all Romance languages spoken in Italy are native to their respective regions. Apart from Standard Italian, these languages are commonly referred to as dialetti (“dialects”), both in colloquial and scholarly contexts, although alternative labels such as “minority languages” or “vernaculars” are also used in certain classifications. Italian was officially declared the national language during the Fascist period, specifically through the R.D.L. decree of 15 October 1925, Sull'Obbligo della lingua italiana in tutti gli uffici giudiziari del Regno, salvo le eccezioni stabilite nei trattati internazionali per la città di Fiume. According to UNESCO’s Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, Italy is currently home to 32 endangered languages.

Lexis

It is generally estimated that Luthic comprises around 260,000 words—or about 380,000 when obsolete forms are included—and roughly 4 million if declined and conjugated variants are taken into account. Nevertheless, 98% of contemporary Luthic usage relies on only 3,600 words. A 2016 study by Lúcia Yamane, based on a corpus of 2,581 words selected according to frequency, semantic richness, and productivity, also incorporates lexical items formed within the Luthic territory. This study provides the following percentages:

• 723 words inherited from Gothic;
• 594 words inherited from Latin (those are not limited to the Italic lexis, including Etruscan, Greek and Celtic loanwords present in Latin);
• 335 words borrowed from Neo Latin for academic reasons (which may also include Greek loanwords);
• 310 words borrowed from Italian (which are not limited to the Italian lexicon, including also other Romance loanwords within the Italian language, such as French);
• 233 words borrowed from West Germanic languages, such as Langobardic, Frankish, Old High German, modern include Standard High German, Austrian High German and English;
• 206 words of uncertain or other origins;
• 103 words formed in Luthic;
• 77 words borrowed from Greek.

Luthic has approximately 1,300 uncompounded words inherited from Proto-Indo-European. These were inherited via:

• 44% Italic, Romance;
• 41% Germanic
• 7% Celtic;
• 2% Hellenic;
• 6% Uncertain.

A single etymological root appears in Luthic in a native form, inherited from Vulgar Latin, and a learned form, borrowed later from Classical Latin. The following pairs consist of a native noun and a learned adjective:

• finger: ditu / digitale from Latin digitus / digitālis;
• faith: fé (stem fed-) / fidele from Latin fidēs / fidēlis;
• foot: pié (stem pied-) / pedale from pēs / pedālis.

There are also noun-noun and adjective-adjective pairs with slightly different meanings:

• thing / cause: cosa / causa from Latin causa;
• bull / calf: toru / tauru from Latin taurus;
• chilled / frozen: freddu / frigidu from Latin frīgidus.

Highly preserved Germanic lexis is also visible in Luthic:

Gothic	Old Norse	Old High German	Crimean Gothic	Luthic	English
ahtau	átta	ahto	athe	attuo	eight
augō	auga	ouga	oeghene	uogo	eye
barn	barn	barn	baar	barno	ba(i)rn
brōþar	bróðir	bruoder	bruder	broþar	brother
handus	hǫnd	hant	handa	andu	hand
haubiþ	hǫfuð	houbit	hoef (*hoeft)	uoveþo	head
hlahjan	hlæja	hlahhēn	lachen	chiaire	laugh
qiman	koma	quëman	kommen	qemare	come
wair	verr	wer	fers	veru	wer

Discussions address the different versions of Busbecq’s account, noting scribal alterations, printing errors, and subsequent corrections. His transcription and interpretation of Crimean Gothic were likely shaped by his Flemish linguistic background and perhaps also by his knowledge of German. Busbecq’s information came from a Crimean Greek informant proficient in Crimean Gothic, who was either ethnically Greek or more comfortable in Greek than in his native Gothic, though still competent in the latter. In either case, the pronunciation conveyed to Busbecq was probably influenced, at least in part, by the phonetics of contemporary Greek spoken in the region. For more, vd. Stearns Jr 1978, which is my main resource for Crimean Gothic and its corpora displayed here.

Luthic also inherited a few words, likely from Frankish, Langobardic and Old High German, which are mostly archaic, although still used in literally Luthic:

Old High German	Old English	Modern German	Modern English	Luthic
Adalheid	*Æþelhæþ	Adelheid	Adelheid	Adelaida
amara	amore	Ammer	ammer	amara
amsala	ōsle	Amsel	ouzel	asala
blāo	blāw	blau	blow	biau
ecka	ecġ	Ecke	edge	ecca
eiscōn	āscian	heischen	ask	aiscore
kamb	camb	Kamm	comb	cambu
mahhōn	macian	machen	make	maccore
swert	sweord	Schwert	sword	sverta

From a historical perspective, the lexical evolution of Luthic reflects the dynamics of contact-induced change. Its early development, shaped by the interaction between Vulgar Latin, Gothic, and other local varieties, produced a highly permeable vocabulary, with significant borrowing and substrate influence. Over time, however, the language underwent a process of stabilisation, whereby external input decreased and internal mechanisms of lexical renewal (such as derivation and compounding) became dominant. Thus, contemporary Luthic is characterised not by openness to extensive borrowing, but by the consolidation of a relatively stable lexicon, which nonetheless bears the traces of its interethnic koiné origins.

The tables below present the lexical similarity coefficients of Luthic with both Germanic and Romance languages. The analysis was carried out by Lúcia Yamane in collaboration with the Department of Linguistics of Ravenna University, drawing on a comparative study of the 110-item Swadesh list. Each item was examined according to semantic equivalence, etymological cognacy, and phonological correspondence.

Lexical similarity coefficients (Germanic)

	English	Icelandic	German	Norwegian	Gothic
Luthic	50,45%	51,13%	53,15%	54,05%	62,16%

These findings align with the hypothesis that Luthic occupies an intermediate position between the Romance and Germanic spheres, preserving features of both while maintaining a distinct lexicon. The relatively high affinity with Gothic is particularly noteworthy, as it reinforces the interpretation of Luthic as either a remnant of the East Germanic continuum or a contact-induced hybrid closely aligned with it.

Lexical similarity coefficients (Romance)

	French	Latin	Spanish	Romanian	Portuguese	Sardinian	Italian
Luthic	43,24%	44,14%	46,84%	47,74%	47,74%	48,64%	53,13%

Based on the 110-word list provided by the Global Lexicostatistical Database (cf. Starostin 2016a, 2016b, 2019; Kassian, Starostin, Dybo, Chernov 2010); German Swadesh list adapted from Wunderlich 2015. Adapted for the purposes of the Ravenna University project.

Comparison

Language	Text
English	The cold winter is near, a snowstorm will come. Come in my warm house, my friend. Welcome! Come here, sing and dance, eat and drink. That is my plan. We have water, beer, and milk fresh from the cow. Oh, and warm soup!
Dutch	De koude winter is nabij, een sneeuwstorm zal komen, Kom in mijn warme huis, mijn vriend. Welkom! Kom hier, zing en dans, eet en drink. Dat is mijn plan. We hebben water, bier, en melk vers van de koe. Oh, en warme soep!
German	Der kalte Winter ist nahe, ein Schneesturm wird kommen. Komm in mein warmes Haus, mein Freund, Willkommen! Komm her, sing und tanz, iss und trink. Das ist mein Plan. Wir haben Wasser, Bier und Milch frisch von der Kuh. Oh, und warme Suppe!
Frisian	De kâlde winter is nei, in sniestoarm sil komme. Kom yn myn waarme hûs, myn freon. Wolkom! Kom hjir, sjong en dänsje, yt en drink. Dat is myn plan. Wy ha wetter, bier, en molke farsk fan de ko. Och, en waarme sop!
Norwegian	Den kalde vinteren er nær, en snøstorm vil komme. Kom inn i mitt varme hus, min venn. Velkommen! Kom her, syng og dans, et og drikk. Dette er min plan. Vi har vann, øl og melk fersk fra kua. Åh, og varm suppe!
Icelandic	Kaldi veturinn nálgast, snjóstormur mun koma. Komdu inn í hlýja húsið mitt, vinur minn. Velkominn! Komdu hingað, syngdu og dansaðu, borðaðu og drekktu. Það er planið mitt. Við höfum vatn, bjór, og mjólk ferska úr kúnni. Ó, og volga súpu!
Luthic	So caldo ventru è vicinu, iena snievosturma qemerà. Qema þa mina rasna varma, fregiondu minu! Bieneqemutu, ar qema, seggua gio danza, mangia gio dregca. Esso è so minu pianu. Vi abbiamu vato, biure, gio melucu frescu þamma vacce. Oh, gio zuppa varma!

Language	Text
Portuguese	Este é um magnífico palácio real. Parti, peão ignorante! Somente os elites respeitáveis em política, ciência, cultura e arte são autorizados a entrar. Retornai imediatamente à vossa fazenda miserável, e pagai a taxa, ou os guardas exterminarão a vossa família.
Italian	Questo è un magnifico palazzo reale. Partite, pedone ignorante! Solo le élite rispettabili in politica, scienza, cultura e arte sono autorizzate a entrare. Tornate immediatamente alla vostra misera fattoria e pagate la tassa, o le guardie stermineranno la vostra famiglia.
Spanish	Este es un magnífico palacio real. ¡Partí, peón ignorante! Sólo las élites respetables de la política, la ciencia, la cultura y el arte están autorizadas a entrar. Regresá inmediatamente a vuestra miserable hacienda y pagá la tasa, o los guardias exterminarán a vuestra familia.
French	C'est un magnifique palais royal. Partez, paysan ignorant ! Seules les élites respectables en politique, science, culture et art sont autorisées à entrer. Retournez immédiatement à votre misérable ferme. Et payez la taxe, ou les gardes extermineront votre famille.
Romanian	Acesta este un palat regal magnific. Îndepărtați-vă, țăranule ignorant! Doar elitele respectabile din politică, știință, cultură și artă sunt autorizate să intre. Întoarceți-vă imediat la ferma voastră mizerabilă. Și plătiți taxele, altfel gărzile vă vor extermina familia.
English	This is a magnificent royal palace. Depart, ignorant peasant! Only respectable elites in politics, science, culture and art are authorised to enter. Return immediately to your miserable farm. And pay the tax, or the guards will exterminate your family.
Luthic	Esto è ‘no magnifico palazzo reale. Partite, pedone ignorante! Sole þi eliti rispettavoli in politica, scienza, coltura gio cratte autorizzanda entrare. Tornate immediatamente aþþana vostro misero gardo gio pagate þa tassa, eþþuo sterminerano þe vargie þa vostra famiglia.

Language	Text
PIE	*kʷós túH h₁ési? h₁ésmi swépnos téwe témHesi nékʷti. h₁n̥gʷním dédeh₃mi téwe ḱrdéy, todéh₂ h₁wikwoph₂tḗr deywós túH h₁ési.
Sanskrit	Kaḥ tvám ási? Ásmi svápnaḥ táva támasvatyām náktau. Agním dadaú táva hṛdé, tadā́ viśvapitā́ deváḥ tvám ási.
Lithuanian	Kàs tù esì? Esù sãpnas tàvo tamsiojè naktyjè. Ùgnį daviaũ tàvo širdyjè, tadà visatė́vas diẽvas tù esì.
Greek	Tís sú eî? Eimí húpnos seî skoteinêi nŭktí. Pûr dídōmĭ sōî kêri, tóte păntós patḗr zeús sú eî.
Gothic	ƕas þū is? Im slēps riqizeinai naht þeinai. Fōn gaf hairtin þeinamma, þan allis fadar teiws þū is.
Latin	Quī tū es? Sum somnus tenebrosā nocte tuā. Ignem dedī cordī tuō, tum omnis pater deus tū es.
Luthic	Vo þú bii? Bio somnu tenebrose natte þine. Egne gevai erti þina, þan alli faþar tivu þú bii.
English	Who thou art? (I) am (a) sweven (in) thy dark night. (I the) fire gave (to) thy heart, then (the) father (of) all, tiw, thou art.

Distribution

“Languages spoken alongside Luthic”

Luthic is spoken mainly in Emilia-Romagna, Italy, where it is primarily spoken in Ravenna and its adjacent communes. Although Luthic is spoken almost exclusively in Emilia-Romagna, it has also been spoken outside of Italy. Luth and general Italian emigrant communities (the largest of which are to be found in the Americas) sometimes employ Luthic as their primary language. The largest concentrations of Luthic speakers are found in the provinces of Ravenna, Ferrara and Bologna (Metropolitan City of Bologna). The people of Ravenna live in tetraglossia, as Romagnol, Emilian and Italian are spoken in those provinces alongside Luthic.

Luthic regional distribution

According to a census by ISTAT (The Italian National Institute of Statistics), Luthic is spoken by an estimated 250,000 people, however only 149,500 are considered de facto natives, and approximately 50,000 are monolinguals.

It is also spoken in South America by the descendants of Italian immigrants, specifically in Brazil, in a census by IBGE in collaboration with ISTAT, Luthic is spoken in São Paulo by roughly 5,000 people and some 45 of whom are monolinguals, the largest concentrations are found in the municipalities of São Paulo and the ABCD Region.

Luthic worldwide distribution

As in most European countries, the minority languages are defined by legislation or constitutional documents and afforded some form of official support. In 1992, the Council of Europe adopted the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages to protect and promote historical regional and minority languages in Europe.

Luthic is regulated by the Council for the Luthic Language (Luthic: Gaforþe folla Rasda Lúthica) and the Luthic Community of Ravenna (Luthic: Gamenescape Lúthica Ravenne). The existence of a regulatory body has removed Luthic, at least in part, from the domain of Standard Italian, its traditional Dachsprache, Luthic was considered an Italian dialect like many others until about World War II, but then it underwent ausbau.

Luthic is recognised as a minor language in Ravenna. Italy’s official language is Italian, as stated by the framework law no. 482/1999 and Trentino Alto-Adige’s special Statute, which is adopted with a constitutional law. Around the world there are an estimated 64 million native Italian speakers and another 21 million who use it as a second language. Italian is often natively spoken in a regional variety, not to be confused with Italy’s regional and minority languages; however, the establishment of a national education system led to a decrease in variation in the languages spoken across the country during the 20th century. Standardisation was further expanded in the 1950s and 1960s due to economic growth and the rise of mass media and television (the state broadcaster RAI helped set a standard Italian).

Code-switching between Luthic, Emilian dialects and Italian is frequent among Luthic speakers, in both informal and formal settings (such as on television).

Luthic lexicon is discrepant from those of other Romance languages, since most of the words present in Modern Luthic are ultimately of Germanic origin. The lexical differentiation was a big factor for the creation of an independent regulatory body. There were many attempts to assimilate Luthic into the Italian dialect continuum, as in recent centuries, the intermediate dialects between the major Romance languages have been moving toward extinction, as their speakers have switched to varieties closer to the more prestigious national standards. That has been most notable in France, owing to the French government’s refusal to recognise minority languages. For many decades since Italy’s unification, the attitude of the French government towards the ethnolinguistic minorities was copied by the Italian government. A movement called “Italianised Luthic Movement” (Luthic: Muovimento Lúthice Italianeggiate; Italian: Movimento per il Lutico Italianeggiato) tried to italianase Luthic’s vocabulary and reduce the inherited Germanic vocabulary, in order to assimilate Luthic as an Italian derived language; modern Luthic orthography was affected by this movement. Almost all of the Romance languages spoken in Italy are native to the area in which they are spoken. Apart from Standard Italian, these languages are often referred to as dialetti “dialects”, both colloquially and in scholarly usage; however, the term may coexist with other labels like “minority languages” or “vernaculars” for some of them. Italian was first declared to be Italy's official language during the Fascist period, more specifically through the R.D.l., adopted on 15 October 1925, with the name of Sull'Obbligo della lingua italiana in tutti gli uffici giudiziari del Regno, salvo le eccezioni stabilite nei trattati internazionali per la città di Fiume. According to UNESCO's Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger, there are 31 endangered languages in Italy.

Luthic is classified as Vulnerable by the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger.

Spoken Luthic within Ravenna.

Most of the Luths also speak Italian, this is commoner for Luth elders, and most of the Luth elders may speak only Italian because of the influence from the Fascist period, as the Fascist government endorsed a stringent education policy in Italy aiming at eliminating illiteracy, which was a serious problem in Italy at the time, as well as improving the allegiance of Italians to the state. The Fascist government’s first minister of education from 1922 to 1924 Giovanni Gentile recommended that education policy should focus on indoctrination of students into Fascism and to educate youth to respect and be obedient to authority. In 1929, education policy took a major step towards being completely taken over by the agenda of indoctrination.> In that year, the Fascist government took control of the authorization of all textbooks, all secondary school teachers were required to take an oath of loyalty to Fascism and children began to be taught that they owed the same loyalty to Fascism as they did to God. In 1933, all university teachers were required to be members of the National Fascist Party. From the 1930s to 1940s, Italy’s education focused on the history of Italy, displaying Italy as a force of civilization during the Roman era, displaying the rebirth of Italian nationalism and the struggle for Italian independence and unity during the Risorgimento. In the late 1930s, the Fascist government copied Nazi Germany’s education system on the issue of physical fitness and began an agenda that demanded that Italians become physically healthy. Intellectual talent in Italy was rewarded and promoted by the Fascist government through the Royal Academy of Italy which was created in 1926 to promote and coordinate Italy’s intellectual activity.

Phonology

Luthic phonology is defined by a comparatively simple vocalic system and a consonantal inventory that varies across regional varieties. The standard form, in its most complete form, counts up to eight oral vowels, five nasal vowels, two semivowels, and twenty-six consonants, though certain dialects show a more reduced consonant set alongside an expanded vowel space. Vowels are regularly lowered and retracted before /w/ (e.g. [ë̞, o̞, æ̈, ʌ, ɒ, ɑ]) and raised and fronted before /j/ (e.g. [u, e̟, o̟, ɛ̝, ɐ̝, ɔ̝, ä̝]). In areas under strong Gallo-Italic influence, particularly Lombard and Piedmontese, rounding before /w/ produces additional allophonic series ([ø, o, œ, ɐ͗, ɔ, a͗] → [ø̞̈, o̞, æ̹̈, ɔ, ɒ, ɒ]). These patterns account for the perception of “more vowels and fewer consonants” in some varieties. Historically, this phonological profile crystallised in Ravenna, where Gothic, Frankish, Langobardic, Lepontic, and Cisalpine Gaulish elements were absorbed into the local Vulgar Latin. By the 6th century, Luthic had already become the vernacular of Ravenna, its conservative base providing the foundation for the modern system described below.

Consonant phonemes

	Labial	Dental/ alveolar	Post- alveolar/ palatal	Velar
Nasal	m	n	ɲ
Stop	p b	t d		k g
Affricate		t͡s d͡z	t͡ʃ d͡ʒ
Fricative	f v	s z	ʃ
Approximant			j	w
Lateral		l	ʎ
Trill		r

Nasals:

• /n/ is laminal alveolar [n̻]. Some dialects register a palatalised laminal postalveolar [n̠ʲ] before /t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ/.
• /ɲ/ is alveolo-palatal and always geminate when intervocalic.
• /ŋ/ is pre-velar [ŋ˖] before [k̟, ɡ̟] and post-velar [ŋ˗] before [k̠, ɡ˗]; it may also be described as an uvular [ɴ].

Plosives:

• /p/ /b/ are purely bilabial.
• /t/ and /d/ are laminal denti-alveolar [t̻, d̻].
• /k/ and /ɡ/ are pre-velar [k̟, ɡ̟] before /i, e, ɛ, j/ and post-velar [k̠, ɡ˗] before /o, ɔ, u/; which may also be described as uvulars [q, ɢ]​.

Affricates:

• /t͡s/ and /d͡z/ are dentalised laminal alveolar [t̻͡s̪, d̻͡z̪].
• /t͡ʃ/ and /d͡ʒ/ are strongly labialised palato-alveolar [t͡ʃʷ, d͡ʒʷ].

Fricatives:

• /f/ and /v/ are labiodental.
• /s/ and /z/ are laminal alveolar [s̻, z̻].
• /ʃ/ is strongly labialised palato-alveolar [ʃʷ] and geminate when intervocalic.

Approximants, trill and laterals:

• /r/ is alveolar [r].
• /l/ is laminal alveolar [l̻], some dialects register a palatalised laminal postalveolar [l̠ʲ] before /t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ/.
• /ʎ/ is alveolo-palatal and always geminate when intervocalic; in many accents, it is realised as a fricative [ʎ̝].

Luthic oral vowels.

Luthic nasal vowels.

Vowel Phonemes of Luthic

	Front		Central		Back
	oral	nasal	oral	nasal	oral	nasal
Close	i	ĩ			u	ũ
Close-mid	e	ẽ			o	õ
Open-mid	ɛ		ɐ	ɐ̃	ɔ
Open			a

• Vowels are lengthened under primary stress in open syllables, though vowel length is not phonemically distinctive. Under secondary stress in open syllables, vowels are often realised as half-long. Vowels in auslaut and nasal vowels are not affected.

• When the mid vowels /ɛ, ɔ/ precede a geminate nasal or a nasal followed by a fricative, they are realised as closer nasal vowels [ẽ] and [õ], rather than [ɛ̃] and [ɔ̃].

• All vowels tend to be lowered and retracted before /w/, yielding variants such as [ɪ, u̞, ë̞, o̞, æ̈, ʌ, ɒ, ɑ].

• Before /j/, vowels are generally raised and advanced, producing [u, e̟, o̟, ɛ̝, ɐ̝, ɔ̝, ä̝].

• In areas under stronger Gallo-Italic influence (e.g. Lombard and Piedmontese), vowels may also undergo rounding before /w/, resulting in forms like [ø̞̈, o̞, æ̹̈, ɔ, ɒ, ɒ].

• /i/ is close front unrounded [i]. F1 = 300 Hz, F2 = 2500 Hz.
• /ĩ/ is close front unrounded nasal [ĩ]. F1 = 320 Hz, F2 = 2450 Hz.
• /e/ is close-mid front unrounded [e]. F1 = 500 Hz, F2 = 2200 Hz; before /j/: F1 = 480 Hz, F2 = 2300 Hz; before /w/: F1 = 520 Hz, F2 = 2100 Hz.
• /ẽ/ is close-mid front unrounded nasal [ẽ]. F1 = 520 Hz, F2 = 2150 Hz.
• /ɛ/ is open-mid front unrounded [ɛ̝]. F1 = 600 Hz, F2 = 2000 Hz; before /j/: F1 = 580 Hz, F2 = 2100 Hz; before /w/: F1 = 620 Hz, F2 = 1900 Hz.
• /u/ is close back rounded [u]. F1 = 300 Hz, F2 = 900 Hz; before /j/: F1 = 280 Hz, F2 = 950 Hz.
• /ũ/ is close back rounded nasal [ũ]. F1 = 320 Hz, F2 = 880 Hz.
• /o/ is close-mid back rounded [o]. F1 = 500 Hz, F2 = 1100 Hz; before /j/: F1 = 480 Hz, F2 = 1150 Hz; before /w/: F1 = 520 Hz, F2 = 1050 Hz.
• /õ/ is close-mid back rounded nasal [õ]. F1 = 520 Hz, F2 = 1080 Hz.
• /ɔ/ is open-mid back rounded (slightly fronted) [ɔ̟]. F1 = 600 Hz, F2 = 1200 Hz; before /j/: F1 = 580 Hz, F2 = 1250 Hz; before /w/: F1 = 620 Hz, F2 = 1150 Hz.
• /ɐ/ is near-open central unrounded [ɐ]. F1 = 650 Hz, F2 = 1600 Hz; before /j/: F1 = 630 Hz, F2 = 1650 Hz; before /w/: F1 = 670 Hz, F2 = 1550 Hz.
• /ɐ̃/ is near-open central unrounded nasal [ɐ̃]. F1 = 670 Hz, F2 = 1550 Hz.
• /a/ is open front/central unrounded [a~ä]. F1 = 700 Hz, F2 = 1700 Hz; before /j/: F1 = 680 Hz, F2 = 1750 Hz; before /w/: F1 = 720 Hz, F2 = 1650 Hz.

It has been observed that word-final /i, u/ are raised and end in a voiceless vowel: [ii̥, uu̥]. These voiceless vowels may sound almost like [ç] and [x], particularly around Lugo, and are sometimes transcribed as [ii̥ᶜ̧, uu̥ˣ] or [iᶜ̧, uˣ]. In the same region, interconsonantal lax variants [i̽, u̽] are common, often accompanied by a schwa-like off-glide [i̽ə̯, u̽ə̯], which can be further described as an extra-short schwa-like off-glide [ə̯̆] ([i̽ə̯̆, u̽ə̯̆] or [i̽ᵊ, u̽ᵊ]). The status of [ɛ] and [ɔ] remains debated. It is often suggested that the long vowel phonemes present in Gothic developed into schwa-glides [ɛə̯̆, ɔə̯̆], or even into quasi-diphthongs [ɛæ̯̆, ɔɒ̯̆]. For simplicity, these are henceforth written as ⟨[ɛ, ɔ]⟩ due to their uncertain phonemic status.

In addition to monophthongs, Luthic has diphthongs. Phonemically and phonetically, these are simply combinations of other vowels. None of the diphthongs are considered to have distinct phonemic status, as their constituents behave the same as when occurring in isolation—unlike diphthongs in languages such as English or German. While grammatical tradition distinguishes “falling” from “rising” diphthongs, rising diphthongs consist of a semiconsonantal sound [j] or [w] followed by a vowel and therefore do not constitute true diphthongs.

Diphthongs and Glides

Vowel	/j/	/w/
/a/	/aj/ /ja/	/aw/ /wa/
/ɐ/	/ɐj/ /jɐ/	/ɐw/ /wɐ/
/ɛ/	/ɛj/ /jɛ/	/ɛw/ /wɛ/
/e/	/ej/ /je/	/ew/ /we/
/i/	Ø	/wi/
/ɔ/	/ɔj/ /jɔ/	/ɔw/ /wɔ/
/o/	/oj/ /jo/	/ow/ /wo/
/u/	/uj/ /ju/	Ø

• /uj/ and /wi/ are largely in free variation. However, /wi/ occurs primarily in auslaut and inlaut positions, while /uj/ is generally found in anlaut position. The sequence /iw/ is no longer productive.

Triphthongs and Complex Sequences

		j		o	ɔ
j	jaj~jɐj	jej~jɛj	joj~jɔj	jwo	jwɔ
w	waj~wɐj	wej~wɛj	woj~wɔj

• Within triphthongs, vowel quality is mostly in free variation, except in /jwo/ and /jwɔ/, where the quality is more stable. In regions influenced by Gallo-Italic languages, these clusters in /jw/ may also be reduced to [ɥ].

Phonotactics

Luthic allows up to three consonants in syllable-initial position, although there are some restrictions. Its syllable structure can be represented as (C)(C)(C)V(C)(C)(C). As in English, many words begin with three consonants. Luthic lacks true bimoraic vowels; what appear as diphthongs are actually sequences of a semiconsonantal glide [j] or [w] plus a vowel.

Phonotactics

C1	C2	C3
s	p k	r j
s	f t	r
z	b	r j
z	d g	r
z	m v n d͡ʒ r l	—
p b f v k g	r j	—
t d p g	r	—
m n ɲ r l ʎ t͡s d͡z t͡ʃ d͡ʒ ʃ	—	—

CC

• /s/ + any voiceless stop or /f/;
• /z/ + any voiced stop, /v d͡ʒ m n l r/;
• /f v/, or any stop + /r/;
• /f v/, or any stop except /t d/ + /j/;
• /f v s z/, or any stop or nasal + /j w/;

CCC

• /s/ + voiceless stop or /f/ + /r/;
• /s/ + /p k/ + /j/;
• /z/ + /b/ + /j/;
• /f v/ or any stop + /r/ + /j w/;
• /f v/ or any stop or nasal + /w/ + /j/.

Vowel Phonotactics

V1	V2	V3
a ɐ e ɛ	i [j] u [w]	—
o ɔ	i [j]	—
i [j]	e o	—
i [j]	ɐ ɛ ɔ	i [j]
i [j]	u [w]	o
u [w]	ɐ ɛ ɔ	i [j]
u [w]	e o	—
u [w]	i [j]	—

Prosody

Luthic is quasi-paroxytonic, meaning that most words receive stress on the penultimate syllable. Monosyllabic words generally lack stress unless emphasised or accentuated. Enclitic and other unstressed personal pronouns do not affect stress patterns. Some monosyllabic words may carry natural stress, though it is weaker than the stress found in polysyllabic words.

• rasda [ˈraz.dɐ];
• approssimativamente [ɐp.pros.si.mɐ.ti.vɐˈmen.te].

Compound words have secondary stress on their penultimate syllable. Some suffixes also maintain the suffixed word secondary stress.

• panzar + campu + vagnu > panzarcampovagnu [ˌpan.t͡sɐrˌkam.poˈvaɲ.ɲu];
• broþar + -scape > broþarscape [ˌbroˑ.dɐrˈska.pe].

Orthography

Luthic has a shallow orthography, meaning that spelling is highly regular and corresponds almost one-to-one with sounds. In linguistic terms, the writing system is close to a phonemic orthography. The most important exceptions are the following:

• ⟨ph, th, ch⟩ are Greco-Roman digraphs that remain productive, irregularly corresponding to /f, t, k/.
• ⟨c⟩ corresponds to /k/ in auslaut and before ⟨a, o, u⟩; before ⟨e, i⟩, it represents /t͡ʃ/.
• ⟨ch⟩ is used to represent /k/ before ⟨e, i⟩.
• ⟨g⟩ corresponds to /ɡ/ in auslaut and before ⟨a, o, u⟩; before ⟨e, i⟩, it represents /d͡ʒ/. Furthermore, before ⟨c, g, q⟩, it corresponds to /ŋ/.
• ⟨gh⟩ is used to represent /ɡ/ before ⟨e, i⟩.
• ⟨n⟩ is inserted before ⟨c, g⟩ when those consonants are palatalised, as in ogghia [ˈoŋ˖.ɡ̟jɐ] vs angio [ˈan̠ʲ.d͡ʒo].
• ⟨sc⟩ is realised as /sk/ before ⟨a, o, u⟩ and as /ʃ/ before ⟨e, i⟩; in intervocalic position, it is always geminate.
• ⟨ci, gi⟩ are realised as /t͡ʃ/ and /d͡ʒ/ before ⟨a, o, u⟩, without any /i~j/ glide. For /t͡ʃi.V/ and /d͡ʒi.V/, ⟨cï, gï⟩ are used, e.g., pharmacïa [fɐr.mɐˈt͡ʃiː.ɐ] and biologïa [bjo.loˈd͡ʒiː.ɐ].
• ⟨gl, gn⟩ correspond to /ʎ, ɲ/. In some cases, due to historical spelling, ⟨gli, gni⟩ are used instead, e.g. pugnu [ˈpuɲ.ɲu] (from Latin pugnus) and meraviglia [me.rɐˈviʎ.ʎɐ] (from Latin mī̆rābilia).
• ⟨s⟩ corresponds to /s/ at the onset of a syllable before a vowel, when clustered with a voiceless consonant (⟨p, f, c, q⟩), or when geminate (⟨ss⟩). It corresponds to /z/ when occurring between vowels or when clustered with voiced consonants.
• ⟨þ⟩ behaves like ⟨s⟩, corresponding to both /t d/ and voicing to /d/ in the same contexts.
• ⟨z⟩ undergoes irregular voicing due to historical phonological processes, as in mezzu [ˈmɛd.d͡zu] (from Latin medius), ziu [ˈt͡siː.u] (from Latin thius), and -zzone [-tˈt͡soː.ne] (from Latin -tiōnem).
• Length is distinctive for all consonants except for /d͡z/, /ʎ/, /ɲ/, which are always geminate intervocalically; and /z/, which is always single.
• Both acute and grave accents are used over a vowel to indicate irregular stress. ⟨á, é, í, ó, ú⟩ are realised as [ˈa ˈe ˈi ˈo ˈu], and ⟨è, ò⟩ are realised as [ˈɛ ˈɔ].

The Luthic alphabet is considered to consist of 22 letters; j, k, w, x, y are excluded, and often avoided in loanwords, as tassi vs taxi, cenophobo vs xenofobo, gine vs jeans, Giorche vs York, Valsar vs Walsar. Loanwords are also changed to fit into regular declension patterns, as seen in gine.

Alphabet

Letter	Name	Historical name	IPA	Diacritics
A, a	a [ˈa]	asgo [ˈaz.go]	/ɐ/ or /a/	á
B, b	bi [ˈbi]	berca [ˈbɛr.ke]	/b/	—
C, c	ci [ˈt͡ʃi]	cosmo [ˈkoz.mo]	/k/, /t͡ʃ/	—
D, d	di [ˈdi]	dagu [ˈdaː.g-u]	/d/	—
E, e	e [ˈɛ]	ievu [ˈjɛː.vu]	/e/ or /ɛ/	é, è
F, f	effe [ˈɛf.fe]	fièu [ˈfjɛː.u]	/f/	—
G, g	gi [ˈd͡ʒi]	geva [ˈd͡ʒeː.ve]	/g/, /d͡ʒ/ or /ŋ/	—
H, h	acca [ˈak.ke]	aghiu [ˈaː.gju]	Ø	—
I, i	i [ˈi]	issu [ˈis.su]	/i/ or /j/	í, ï
L, l	elle [ˈɛl.le]	lagu [ˈlaː.g-u]	/l/	—
M, m	emme [ˈẽ.me]	manno [ˈmẽ.no]	/m/	—
N, n	enne [ˈẽ.ne]	nuoþu [ˈnwoː.du]	/n/	—
O, o	o [ˈɔ]	oþalo [oˈdaː.lo]	/o/ or /ɔ/	ó, ò
P, p	pi [ˈpi]	perþa [ˈpɛr.te]	/p/	—
Q, q	qi [ˈkwi]	qoppa [ˈkwɔp.pe]	/kw/	—
R, r	erre [ˈɛr.re]	rieþa [ˈrjɛː.de]	/r/	—
S, s	esse [ˈɛs.se]	sòila [ˈsɔj.le]	/s/ or /z/	—
T, t	ti [ˈti]	tivu [ˈtiː.vu]	/t/	—
Þ, þ	eþþe [ˈɛt.te]	þornu [ˈtɔr.nu]	/t/ or /d/	—
U, u	u [ˈu]	uru [ˈuː.ru]	/u/ or /w/	ú
V, v	vi [ˈvi]	vugnia [ˈvuɲ.ɲe]	/v/	—
Z, z	zi [ˈt͡si]	zetta [ˈt͡sɛt.te]	/t͡s/ or /d͡z/	—

Letters not used in Luthic have a conventional name in modern Luthic.

Additional Letters

J, j	K, k	W, w	X, x	Y, y
giotta	cappa	doppiu vi	isse	i grieca
[ˈd͡ʒɔt.te]	[ˈkap.pe]	[ˌdop.pju ˈvi]	[ˈis.se]	[ˌi ˈgrjɛ.ke]

Grammar

This section provides a concise introduction to Luthic grammar, outlining the fundamental features that shape its structure. It is not intended as an exhaustive treatment, but rather as a summary of the most salient aspects of morphology and syntax. Readers without prior knowledge of Luthic may find this overview a useful foundation. Those already familiar with these concepts may consider the section optional, as its purpose is to establish the essentials before addressing the historical and etymological developments of Luthic morphophonology in later chapters.

Nouns

Nouns inflect for case—ordered as nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative in Luthic grammar—, as well as for number, and are classified into three grammatical genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter). Number is expressed through singular and plural in nouns, while the dual survives only in the personal pronominal system. Luthic nouns are grouped into five main declensional classes:

• 1. masculine, ending in -u;
• 2. feminine, ending in -a;
• 3. neuter, ending in -o;
• 4. masculine and feminine, ending in -e;
• 5. masculine, feminine and neuter, ending in -u.

Class 1

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-u	-i
gen.	-i	-i
acc.	-o	-e
dat.	-a	-a

• Examples: domnu “lord, sir” m, figliu “son” m.

Class 2

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-a	-e
gen.	-e	-o
acc.	-a	-i
dat.	-e	-o

• Examples: geva “gift” f, mesa “table” f.

Class 3

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-o	-a
gen.	-i	-i
acc.	-o	-a
dat.	-a	-a

• Examples: agrano “fruit” n, bello “war” n.

Class 4m.

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-e	-i
gen.	-i	-i
acc.	-e	-i
dat.	-a	-i

• Examples: staþe “place” m, amore “love m.

Class 4f.

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-e	-i
gen.	-e	-o
acc.	-e	-i
dat.	-e	-i

• Examples: qene “wife” f, ette “property” f

Class 5m.

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-u	-iu
gen.	-i	-evi
acc.	-u	-i
dat.	-uo	-o

• Examples: þornu “thorn” m, portu “port, harbor” m.

Class 5f.

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-u	-iu
gen.	-i	-evo
acc.	-u	-i
dat.	-uo	-o

• Examples; andu “hand” f, ieþu “manner” f.

Class 5n.

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-u	-ua
gen.	-i	-evi
acc.	-u	-ua
dat.	-uo	-o

• Examples: fièu “wealth” n, cornu “horn (musical instrument)” n

There are a few minor classes, inherited directly from Gothic, called n-stems, which have four regular classes

• 1n. masculine, ending in -o;
• 2n. feminine, ending in -o;
• 3n. neuter, ending in -o;
• 4n. feminine, ending in -i;
• 1r.  masculine and feminine, ending in -ar.

Class 1n.

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-o	-e
gen.	-i	-ani
acc.	-a	-e
dat.	-i	-a

• Examples: biomo “flower” m, gomo “man” m.

Class 2n.

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-o	-i
gen.	-i	-ono
acc.	-o	-i
dat.	-o	-o

• Examples: toggo “tongue” f, aglo “trouble” f.

Class 3n.

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-o	-ona
gen.	-i	-ani
acc.	-o	-ona
dat.	-i	-a

• Examples: uogo “eye” n, erto “heart” n.

Class 4n.

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-i	-i
gen.	-i	-ino
acc.	-i	-i
dat.	-i	-i

• Examples: froþi “wisdom” f, ieþi “mother” f.

1r.m.

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-ar	-riu
gen.	-ri	-ri
acc.	-re	-ri
dat.	-er	-ro

• Examples: faþar “father” m, broþar “brother” m.

1r.f.

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-ar	-riu
gen.	-ri	-ro
acc.	-re	-ri
dat.	-er	-ro

• Examples: dottar “daughter” f, svestar “sister” f.

A last irregular class is derived from Latin, namely the suffix -tās, which is classified as Class 4d.

Class 4d

Case	sg.	pl.
nom.	-tá	-tadi
gen.	-tadi	-tado
acc.	-tade	-tadi
dat.	-tada	-tadi

• Examples: fregiatá “freedom” f, magetá “ability” f.

Adjectives

Adjectives may occur either before or after the noun. The default, unmarked position is postnominal. In prenominal, the adjective can also convey nuances of meaning, such as restrictiveness or contrastive emphasis.

• Unmarked: ienu buocu rossu “a red book”;
• Marked: ienu rossu buocu “a book that is red”.

Adjectives inflect for case, gender, and number, following paradigms that are formally identical to those of nouns. They are distributed across Classes 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Luthic marks comparison through two grammatical constructions: comparative and superlative, typically formed with the suffixes -esu and -íssimu (declined in Classes 1, 2 and 3 according to the gender), respectively. A number of irregular forms also occur, mostly due to suppletion.

• Comparative: ienu buonu dagu “a good day” > ienu bateso dagu “a better day”;
• Superlative: rasna varma “warm house” > sa rasna varnissima “the warmest house”.

Superlative forms always take a definite article. Furthermore, Luthic adjectives have a weak declension inherited from Gothic, which occurs after a demonstrative or a definite article, and is identical to Classes 1n, 2n and 3n. There are no weak forms equivalent to comparative and superlative. Comparative is also declined like Classes 1n, 2n and 3n.

Pronouns

Pronouns in Luthic form a distinct subsystem of the grammar, preserving both archaisms inherited from Indo-European and introducing unique innovations. They inflect for case, number, and (in most forms) gender. Unlike nouns and adjectives, however, the first- and second-person personal pronouns retain the dual number, which otherwise survives only in this domain. The pronominal system comprises personal, possessive, demonstrative, relative, interrogative, and indefinite forms, each with its own declensional patterns and functions. First and second personal pronouns also have a special comitative form.

Personal pronouns

The subject pronoun is typically omitted, since distinctive verb conjugations make it redundant. When expressed, subject pronouns carry emphatic force.

1st person

Case	sg.	du.	pl.
nom.	ec	ve	vi
gen.	mina	ogcara	nostra
acc.	mec	ogche	noi
dat.	me	ogche	noi
com.	meco	usco	nosco

The dual number in Luthic, as mentioned before, is restricted to first- and second-person pronouns. It specifically denotes “we two” or “you two,” contrasting with the plural forms that refer to three or more. The following examples illustrate the difference between omitted and emphatic subject pronouns, as well as the special addressee function of the dual:

• (no pronoun) rogio. → I speak.
• (emphatic) ec rogio. → I speak (indeed) / It is I who speak.
• (no pronoun) qeþi. → We two (without clusivity distinction) talk.
• (emphatic) ve qeþi. → We two (inclusive pronoun) talk.
• (no pronoun) andiamu. → We all go.
• (emphatic) vi andiamu. → We (restricted to our group, not others) go.

2nd person

Case	sg.	du.	pl.
nom.	þú	gio	giu
gen.	þina	egqara	vostra
acc.	þuc	egqe	voi
dat.	þu	egqe	voi
com.	þuco	isco	vosco

3rd person sg.

Case	m.	f.	n.
nom.	e	gia	eta
gen.	e	esi	e
acc.	ena	gia	eta
dat.	emma	emma	emma

3rd person pl.

Case	m.	f.	n.
nom.	i	gi	gia
gen.	esi	eso	esi
acc.	i	gi	gia
dat.	i	i	i

Possessive pronouns

Possessive pronouns in Luthic agree with the possessed noun in gender, number, and case, much like adjectives, and can appear either before or after the noun they modify. Their primary function is to indicate ownership or close association, and in most cases they behave morphologically as regular adjectives. Possessive pronouns lack a weak form.

"my"

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	minu	mina	mino
gen.	mini	mine	mini
acc.	mino	mina	mino
dat.	mina	mine	mina
Plural
nom.	mini	mine	mina
gen.	mini	mino	mini
acc.	mine	mine	mina
dat.	mina	mino	mina

Notoriously, all possessive constructions take the definitive article, which also agrees in gender, number and case. Some examples include:

• (masculine) so minu broþar. → My brother.
• (feminine) sa mina rasna. → My house.
• (neuter) þata mino agrano. → My fruit.

"your, thy"

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	þinu	þina	þino
gen.	þini	þine	þini
acc.	þino	þina	þino
dat.	þina	þine	þina
Plural
nom.	þini	þine	þina
gen.	þini	þino	þini
acc.	þine	þine	þina
dat.	þina	þino	þina

In Luthic, the third-person possessive pronouns “sinu, sina, sino” are used universally for “his,” “her,” “its,” and “their,” without distinction of gender or number in the possessor. This pattern parallels Romance languages such as Italian, where “suo, sua” likewise serve multiple functions depending on context.

"his, her, its, their"

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	sinu	sina	sino
gen.	sini	sine	sini
acc.	sino	sina	sino
dat.	sina	sine	sina
Plural
nom.	sini	sine	sina
gen.	sini	sino	sini
acc.	sine	sine	sina
dat.	sina	sino	sina

Examples include:

• (his) sa sina moþar. → His mother.
• (her) so sinu vagnu. → Her car.
• (their) sa sina famiglia. → Their family.

"our two"

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	ogcru	ogcra	ogcro
gen.	ogcri	ogcre	ogcri
acc.	ogcro	ogcra	ogcro
dat.	ogcra	ogcre	ogcra
Plural
nom.	ogcri	ogcre	ogcra
gen.	ogcri	ogcro	ogcri
acc.	ogcre	ogcre	ogcra
dat.	ogcra	ogcro	ogcra

Some examples include:

• Þe ogcri tue buochi. → Our two books (two books that belong to us two).
• Þe ogcri figlii. → Our two children (the children that belong to us two).

Note that in Luthic the possessive dual specifies both the two possessors and, in some contexts, the exact quantity of what is possessed. In the first example, the phrase denotes exactly two books belonging to us two (one for each). In the second, the number of children is unspecified, but they are understood as belonging to a couple.

"your two"

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	egcru	egcra	egcro
gen.	egcri	egcre	egcri
acc.	egcro	egcra	egcro
dat.	egcra	egcre	egcra
Plural
nom.	egcri	egcre	egcra
gen.	egcri	egcro	egcri
acc.	egcre	egcre	egcra
dat.	egcra	egcro	egcra

Some examples include:

• Þi ogcre tue tazze. → Your two cups (two cups that belong to you two).
• Þe ogcri fregiondi. → Your two friends (friends that you two have).

Note that in this example the possessive dual veve specifies that the cups belong to “you two.” A natural context would be three friends drinking coffee, when one points to the cups of the other two and says: “your two cups.” Here the dual makes explicit that the possession is limited to exactly those two people and each having a cup, distinguishing it from a plural form that might include others. In the second phrase, the number of friends of the two listeners is not specific.

"our"

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	nostru	nostra	nostro
gen.	nostri	nostre	nostri
acc.	nostro	nostra	nostro
dat.	nostra	nostre	nostra
Plural
nom.	nostri	nostre	nostra
gen.	nostri	nostro	nostri
acc.	nostri	nostre	nostra
dat.	nostra	nostro	nostra

"your"

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	vostru	vostra	vostro
gen.	vostri	vostre	vostri
acc.	vostro	vostra	vostro
dat.	vostra	vostre	vostra
Plural
nom.	vostri	vostre	vostra
gen.	vostri	vostro	vostri
acc.	vostri	vostre	vostra
dat.	vostra	vostro	vostra

Demonstrative pronouns

The Luthic demonstrative system distinguishes three degrees of distance: proximal, referring to entities near the speaker; medial, for entities closer to the listener; and distal, for entities far from both speaker and listener.

Proximal

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	este	esta	esto
gen.	esti	este	esti
acc.	esto	esta	esto
dat.	esta	este	esta
Plural
nom.	esti	este	esta
gen.	esti	esto	esti
acc.	esti	este	esta
dat.	esta	esto	esta

The proximal refers to entities near the speaker. In temporal contexts, it refers to the present.

• (space) este è so minu buocu. → This (the book the speaker holds) is my book.
• (time) esta veca è folla. → This (current) week is packed.

Medial

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	esse	essa	esso
gen.	essi	esse	essi
acc.	esso	essa	esso
dat.	essa	esse	essa
Plural
nom.	essi	esse	essa
gen.	essi	esso	essi
acc.	essi	esse	essa
dat.	essa	esso	essa

The medial refers to entities near the listener. In temporal contexts, it refers to the near past or near future.

• (space) essa tazza è þina? → Is that cup (near the listener) yours?
• (time) esso domnico andraggio. → I’m going this Sunday.

Distal

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	gienu	giena	gieno
gen.	gieni	giene	gieni
acc.	gieno	giena	gieno
dat.	giena	giene	giena
Plural
nom.	gieni	giene	giena
gen.	gieni	gieno	gieni
acc.	giene	giene	giena
dat.	giena	gieno	giena

The distal refers to entities far from the speaker and the listener. In temporal contexts, it refers to the distant past and distant future.

• (space) sevisti gieno ondo? → Did you see that dog?
• (time) gieno attomo giero fú buono. → This last year was good.

Relative pronouns

Luthic uses distinct relative pronouns depending on the type of antecedent. For people or things, the quasi-indeclinable pronoun í is used, with the genitive form ei serving as “whose.” For places, the relative pronoun var is employed, while van is used to refer to time. These pronouns consistently introduce relative clauses and do not change according to number or case.

• S’ondu, í ar stava è fiú carinu. → The dog that was here is very cute.
• Adelaida è sa ragazza, meþ í aþþa Francia vratoraggio. → Adelaida is the girl with whom I will travel to France.
• Este è so manno, ei sunu ieri qemé. → This is the man whose son arrived yesterday.
• È ‘na segguatrice, ei þ'arvèþe ammiro. → She is a singer whose work I admire.
• So staþe var buo è ferra sa mina ufficia. → The place where I live is far from my office.
• Andavo sa mina ieþi van so minu faþar arrivò. → I was walking with my mother when my father arrived.

When using the relative pronoun í and its genitive variation for people or things, the relative clause is set off by a comma.

Interrogative pronouns

Interrogative pronouns in Luthic are used to form questions about persons, objects, or qualities.

what

Case	m.	f.	n.
nom.	vo	va	vata
gen.	ve	vesi	ve
acc.	vana	va	vata
dat.	vamma	vamma	vamma

• (interrogative) who, what.
• (interrogative, in genitive) whose.
• (interrogative, in accusative and dative) whom.
• (interrogative, in dative) with whom, with what, how, in what way.

which

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	vaie	vaia	vai
gen.	vaie	vaisi	vaie
acc.	vaiana	vaia	vai
dat.	vaiamma	vaiamma	vaiamma
Plural
nom.	vaie	vaii	vaia
gen.	vaisi	vaiso	vaisi
acc.	vaie	vaii	vaia
dat.	vaie	vaie	vaie

Indefinite pronouns

Indefinite pronouns in Luthic express general or nonspecific reference to persons, objects, or quantities. They include forms equivalent to someone, something, anyone, nothing, and so on.

• (some) ieni, iene, iena (Classes 1, 2 & 3 plurale tantum);
• (all) alli, alle, alla (Classes 1, 2 & 3 plurale tantum);
• (each) almanno (Class 1n);
• (any) ullu (Class 1);
• (something) vocosa (Class 2);
• (nothing) necosa (Class 2);
• (everything) alcosa (Class 2);
• (anything) ulcosa (Class 2);
• (someone, somebody, anyone, anybody) vomanno (Class 1n), persona (Class 2);
• (none, no one, nobody) nemanno (Class 1n);
• (everyone, everybody) manne (Class 1n plurale tantum);
• (anyone, anybody) vogqa (Class 2);
• (nowhere, anywhere, somewhere, everywhere) varogqa (Class 2).

Articles

Articles in Luthic function as markers of definiteness and indefiniteness. As in the Romance languages, they agree with the noun in gender and number. The definite article is obligatory before possessives and many other noun phrases, while the indefinite article is used primarily in the singular.

the

Case	m.	f.	n.
Singular
nom.	so, s’	sa, s’	þata, þat’
gen.	þe	þesi	þe
acc.	þana, þan’	þa, þ’	þata, þat’
dat.	þamma, þamm’	þamma, þamm’	þamma, þamm’
Plural
nom.	þe	þi	þa
gen.	þesi	þeso	þesi
acc.	þe	þi	þa
dat.	þe	þe	þe

Some examples include:

• (masculine) so ragazzu. → The boy.
• (feminine) sa ragazza. → The girl.
• (neuter) þata lico. → The body.
• (elision) þat’uoveþo. → The head.

Before vowels, the article undergoes elision, resulting in the contracted form l’, which attaches directly to the following word. This process reflects the general tendency in Luthic to avoid hiatus.

a(n)

Case	m.	f.	n.
nom.	ienu, ien’	iena, ien’	ieno, ien’
gen.	ieni	iene	ieni
acc.	ieno, ien’	iena, ien’	ieno, ien’
dat.	iena	iene	iena

• (initial elision) essa è ‘na rasna. → This is a house.
• (terminal elision) ien’uovo. → An egg.

Verbs

Verbs in Luthic form the backbone of sentence structure, expressing actions, states, and processes through a richly inflected system. They conjugate for person, number, tense, mood, and voice, with endings that vary according to conjugational class.

Present

The present tense in Luthic is employed not only to describe actions taking place at the moment of speaking, but also to express habitual activities, ongoing states or conditions, and actions planned to occur in the near future. The four classes of verbs (conjugation’s patterns) are distinguished by the infinitive’s endings form of the verb:

1st conjugation: -are (þorvare); 2nd conjugation: -ere (credere); 3rd conjugation: -ore (olore); 4th conjugation: -ire (dormire).

Indicative active

ind.act.	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
ec	-o	-o	-o	-o
þú	-i	-i	-i	-i
e	-a	-e	-o	-i
ve	-i	-i	-i	-i
gio	-aze	-eze	-oze	-ize
vi	-iamu	-iamu	-iamu	-iamu
giu	-ate	-ete	-ote	-ite
i	-ano	-ono	-ono	-ono

In the default active voice, the grammatical subject is the agent performing the action. Conversely, the passive voice is a construction used to shift the focus of the sentence to the patient (the receiver of the action), which then functions as the grammatical subject. The original agent, if expressed, is typically relegated to an oblique phrase. In a notable archaism, Luthic preserves a fusional passive voice. Unlike the analytical passive of modern Romance, the Luthic passive is not formed with an auxiliary verb. Instead, it is marked by a distinct set of inflectional endings applied directly to the verb stem.

Indicative passive

Indicative passive	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
ec	-ara	-era	-ora	-ira
þú	-asa	-esa	-osa	-isa
e	-aþa	-eþa	-oþa	-iþa
ve	-anda	-enda	-onda	-inda
gio	-anda	-enda	-onda	-inda
vi	-anda	-enda	-onda	-inda
giu	-anda	-enda	-onda	-inda
i	-anda	-enda	-onda	-inda

In addition to the indicative mood, which is used for factual statements and objective realities, Luthic employs a distinct subjunctive mood. The subjunctive is primarily used to express subjectivity, uncertainty, or irrealis. It typically appears in subordinate clauses, often following verbs of opinion, desire, or necessity.

Subjunctive active

Subjunctive active	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
ec	-i	-a	-i	-a
þú	-i	-a	-i	-a
e	-i	-a	-i	-a
ve	-i	-a	-i	-a
gio	-iaze	-iaze	-iaze	-iaze
vi	-iamu	-iamu	-iamu	-iamu
giu	-iate	-iate	-iate	-iate
i	-ino	-ano	-ino	-ano

Subjunctive passive

Subjunctive passive	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
ec	-iruo	-aruo	-iruo	-aruo
þú	-isuo	-asuo	-isuo	-asuo
e	-iþuo	-aþuo	-iþuo	-aþuo
ve	-induo	-anduo	-induo	-anduo
gio	-induo	-anduo	-induo	-anduo
vi	-induo	-anduo	-induo	-anduo
giu	-induo	-anduo	-induo	-anduo
i	-induo	-anduo	-induo	-anduo

The conditional mood in Luthic is used to express actions that are contingent upon a condition, often hypothetical or unreal. Its primary functions include:

• Expressing hypothetical outcomes, typically in the apodosis of a conditional sentence;
• Indicating the future from a past perspective (futūrum in praeteritō);
• Softening requests or statements to convey politeness;
• Conveying conjecture or probability concerning past events.

Conditional active

Conditional active	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
ec	-erebbi	-erebbi	-orebbi	-irebbi
þú	-eresti	-eresti	-oresti	-iresti
e	-erebbe	-erebbe	-orebbe	-irebbe
ve	-erebbi	-erebbi	-orebbi	-irebbi
gio	-ereze	-ereze	-oreze	-ireze
vi	-eremmu	-eremmu	-oremmu	-iremmu
giu	-ereste	-ereste	-oreste	-ireste
i	-erebberono	-erebberono	-orebberono	-irebberono

Unlike in other tenses, the conditional passive is not formed with specific inflectional endings. Instead, it is constructed analytically, using the conditional present tense of the auxiliary verb ‘to be’ combined with the past participle of the main verb. The participle, in this periphrastic construction, agrees in gender and number with the grammatical subject.

• (active) geverebbi þana buoco. → I would give the book.
• (passive) so buocu sarebbe gevatu mina. → The book would be given by me.

Imperfect

The imperfect is a past tense in Luthic characterised by its imperfective aspect. It stands in direct contrast to the preterite, which presents past events from a perfective viewpoint (i.e., as completed, single occurrences). The imperfect, instead, describes past situations or actions without reference to their beginning or end. Its principal functions are:

• Descriptive: To set the scene or describe states and characteristics in a narrative.
• Habitual: To express actions that were repeated or customary in the past.
• Durative: To depict an ongoing action in the past, often providing a temporal frame that is interrupted by another event (typically expressed in the preterite).

The difference between imperfective and perfective aspects can be illustrated clearly with the verb vetare. The imperfect expresses being in possession of knowledge in the past, while the perfective expresses the moment of acquiring the knowledge.

• (imperfective) vetavo þa treggua. → I knew the truth.
• (perfective) vetai þa treggua. → I found out the truth.

Indicative active

Indicative active	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
ec	-avo	-evo	-ovo	-ivo
þú	-avi	-evi	-ovi	-ivi
e	-ava	-eva	-ova	-iva
ve	-avi	-evi	-ovi	-ivi
gio	-avaze	-evaze	-ovaze	-ivaze
vi	-avamu	-evamu	-ovamu	-ivamu
giu	-avate	-evate	-ovate	-ivate
i	-avano	-evano	-ovano	-ivano

Indicative passive

Indicative passive	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
ec	-avara	-evara	-ovara	-ivara
þú	-avasa	-evasa	-ovasa	-ivasa
e	-avaþa	-evaþa	-ovaþa	-ivaþa
ve	-avanda	-evanda	-ovanda	-ivanda
gio	-avanda	-evanda	-ovanda	-ivanda
vi	-avanda	-evanda	-ovanda	-ivanda
giu	-avanda	-evanda	-ovanda	-ivanda
i	-avanda	-evanda	-ovanda	-ivanda

Imperfect subjunctive active

Subjunctive active	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
ec	-asse	-esse	-osse	-isse
þú	-assi	-essi	-ossi	-issi
e	-asse	-esse	-osse	-isse
ve	-assi	-essi	-ossi	-issi
gio	-assize	-essize	-ossize	-issize
vi	-assimu	-essimu	-ossimu	-issimu
giu	-assite	-essite	-ossite	-issite
i	-assino	-essino	-ossino	-issino

The imperfect subjunctive mirrors the conditional mood in its passive formation, being constructed analytically. The participle, along with the imperfect subjunctive of the auxiliary verb ‘to be’, agrees in gender and number with the subject.

• (active) sole si so þiuþanu þ’ordene gevasse. → Only if the king gave the order.
• (passive) sole si s’ordene þamma þiuþana gevata fosse. → Only if the order were given by the king.

Perfect

The perfect tense in Luthic is characterised by a split morphological formation that depends on its grammatical voice. In the active voice, the perfect is a fusional tense, using a distinct set of endings applied directly to the verb stem. Conversely, in the passive voice, it is constructed analytically, with the present indicative of the auxiliary verb ‘to be’ combined with the past participle.

The perfect tense covers the semantic range of the preterite (a completed action in the past) and the present perfect (a past action with present relevance), the distinction is not marked morphologically and is instead determined by the context.

• (preterite active) rogí vacosa. → He said something.
• (perfect active) rogí vacosa. → He has said something.
• (preterite passive) vacosa è rogita e. → Something was said by him.
• (perfect passive) vacosa è rogita e. → Something has been said by him.

Indicative active

Indicative active	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
ec	-ái	-éi, -etti	-ói	-íi
þú	-asti	-esti	-osti	-isti
e	-ò	-é, -ette	-ò	-í
ve	-íi	-íi	-íi	-íi
gio	-aze	-eze	-oze	-ize
vi	-ammu	-emmu	-ommu	-immu
giu	-aste	-este	-oste	-iste
i	-arono	-erono	-orono	-irono

In addition, an optional analytic construction also exists, mirroring the compound past tenses of other Romance languages. This form is constructed using the present indicative of the auxiliary verb ‘to have’ followed by the past participle.

Pluperfect

The pluperfect is used to express a “past-in-the-past.” Its function is to denote an action that had already been completed before another past event or a specific point in time, thus placing it further in the past than an action expressed by the perfect tense.

Similar to the perfect tense, the pluperfect’s passive voice is formed by an auxiliary verb. This construction combines the imperfect tense of the verb ‘to be’ with the past participle of the main verb.

• (active) arrivammu van sa þiuþana þa lettera segelara. → We arrived when the queen had sealed the letter.
• (passive) sa lettera vá segelata þesi þiuþane van arrivammu. → The letter had been sealed by the queen when we arrived.

Indicative active

Indicative active	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
ec	-aro	-ero	-oro	-iro
þú	-ari	-eri	-ori	-iri
e	-ara	-era	-ora	-ira
ve	-ari	-eri	-ori	-iri
gio	-araze	-eraze	-oraze	-iraze
vi	-aramu	-eramu	-oramu	-iramu
giu	-arate	-erate	-orate	-irate
i	-arano	-erano	-orano	-irano

Like the perfect, pluperfect has an optional analytic counterpart. This alternative form is constructed with the imperfect indicative of the auxiliary verb ‘to have’ combined with the past participle of the main verb.

Future

The future tense expresses an action that will take place at a point subsequent to the moment of speaking. It can also be used to convey probability or conjecture about the present.

Its endings are a historical development from the agglutination of the verb’s full infinitive form with the present tense endings of the auxiliary verb ‘to have’, a process common throughout the Romance languages. This has resulted in a single, unified set of endings that attaches to the infinitive for all regular verbs.

Indicative active

Indicative active	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
ec	-eraggio	-eraggio	-oraggio	-iraggio
þú	-erái	-erái	-orái	-irái
e	-erá	-erá	-orá	-irá
ve	-erí	-erí	-orí	-irí
gio	-ereze	-ereze	-oreze	-ireze
vi	-eremu	-eremu	-oremu	-iremu
giu	-erete	-erete	-orete	-irete
i	-erano	-erano	-orano	-irano

Passive forms follow the regular analytical construction:

• (active) dregcheraggio þata vino. → I will drink the wine.
• (passive) þata vino sará dregcatu mina. → The wine will be drunk by me.

In addition, Luthic has a modal future formed with the present tense of the modal auxiliary verb scolare followed by the main verb’s infinitive. It is used to express a higher degree of certainty, obligation, or determination about a future event. It carries a sense of inevitability or obligation (deontic modality):

• (future) bugiraggio. → I will buy (forecast).
• (deontic) schio bugire. → I shall buy (obligation).

It is often accompanied by a temporal adverb:

• (future) bugiraggio crai. → I will buy tomorrow (forecast for tomorrow).
• (deontic) schio bugire crai. → I shall buy tomorrow (obligation for tomorrow).

Future perfect

The future perfect is a compound tense used to describe an action that will have been completed before another point or event in the future. In the active voice, it is constructed with the future tense of the auxiliary verb ‘to have’ followed by the past participle of the main verb. In the passive voice, it employs a distinct periphrastic construction: the future tense of the auxiliary ‘to be’ is combined with the past participles of both the auxiliary ‘to have’ and the main verb.

• (active) avrá togitu. → It will have done.
• (passive) sará avutu togitu. → It will have been done.

It should be noted that the paradigms presented in this section apply to regular verbs. Luthic also possesses a number of irregular verbs, whose forms often preserve unique historical developments. A comprehensive treatment of these verbs is beyond the scope of this introductory grammar and will be addressed in the later chapters on historical morphology.

Imperative

The imperative mood is used to issue direct commands, requests, and prohibitions. In Luthic, its formation is distinct for affirmative and negative commands and is productive only in the second person.

• Affirmative imperative: the affirmative command has specific forms for the second-person singular, dual and plural, which are derived from the verb stem.
• Negative imperative (prohibition): negative commands are formed periphrastically. The prohibition is expressed by the negative particle followed by the verb’s full infinitive form. This same construction is used for both singular, dual and plural addressees.

• (prohibition) non rogire! → Do not speak!

Affirmative imperative

Affirmative	-are	-ere	-ore	-ire
þú	-a	-e	-o	-i
gio	-aze	-eze	-oze	-ize
giu	-ate	-ete	-ote	-ite

Non-finite forms

In addition to its finite forms, which are marked for tense and person, Luthic possesses four non-finite verb forms: the infinitive, the gerund, the present participle, and the past participle. These forms do not conjugate for person and typically function as verbal nouns or adjectives.

• Infinitive

• The infinitive is the base form of the verb, functioning as a verbal noun that names the action. As previously established, it is the form used for dictionary entries and is marked by one of the four thematic endings that define the verb's conjugation class: -are, -ere, -ore, and -ire.

• Participles

Luthic has two participles that function as verbal adjectives, agreeing in gender, case, and number with the nouns they modify.

• Present participle: describes an ongoing action. It is formed by adding -ante on -are verbs, -ente on -ere and -ire verbs and -onte on -ore verbs. Declinable as Classes 4m and 4f.
• Past participle: describes a completed action. Its endings are -atu, -utu, -otu, and -itu, respectively, for each conjugation class (Classes 1, 2 & 3 adjectives). As shown, the past participle is the fundamental component for forming all compound tenses and analytic passive voices.

• Gerund

The Luthic form ending in -andu, -endu, or -ondu (depending on conjugation class) serves a dual role as both a gerund and a gerundive, a distinction inherited from Classical Latin.

• As a gerund, it functions as an Class 3 verbal noun or adverb to name an action or to express the manner of an action.
• As a gerundive, it functions as a declinable Classes 1, 2 & 3 verbal adjective, expressing necessity, obligation, or fitness.

Auxiliary verbs

Following the discussion of compound tenses and voice, the full paradigms for the two primary auxiliary verbs, ‘to be’ and ‘to have’, are presented below. Although irregular, their foundational role in the verbal system warrants their inclusion in this section. For the sake of simplicity, compounded forms are skipped.

Non-finite forms

Infinitive	vesare
Past participle	vesatu
Present participle	vesante
Gerund	vesandu

Indicative active

Person	Present	Imperfect	Perfect	Pluperfect	Future
ec	bio	vó	fui	foro	saraggio
þú	bii	ví	fosti	fori	sarái
e	è	vá	fú	fora	sará
ve	segi	ví	fui	fori	sarí
gio	segize	vesaze	foze	foraze	saraze
vi	siamu	vesamu	fummu	foramu	saremu
giu	siete	vesate	foste	forate	sarete
i	seno	vesano	furono	forano	sarano

Subjunctive & Conditional

Person	Subj. Pres.	Subj. Imp.	Cond. Pres.
ec	sia	fosse	sarebbi
þú	sia	fossi	saresti
e	sia	fosse	sarebbe
ve	sii	fossi	sarebbi
gio	siaze	fossize	sareze
vi	siamu	fossimu	saremmu
giu	siate	fossite	sareste
i	siano	fosseno	sarebberono

Imperative

Person	Affirmative	Negative
þú	vesa	non vesare
gio	vesaze	non vesare
giu	vesate	non vesare

• The verb vesare lacks a passive voice. This is because vesare is an intransitive copular verb; its function is to link a subject to a predicate, not to transfer an action onto a direct object. Since the passive construction requires promoting a direct object to the subject role, it is grammatically inapplicable to vesare.

Non-finite forms

Infinitive	avere
Past participle	avutu
Present participle	avente
Gerund	avendu

Indicative active

Person	Present	Imperfect	Perfect	Pluperfect	Future
ec	aggio	avevo	ebbi	ebbero	avraggio
þú	ái	avevi	avesti	ebberi	avrái
e	á	aveva	ebbe	ebbera	avrá
ve	abbi	avevi	ebbi	ebberi	avrí
gio	aveze	avevaze	aveze	ebberaze	avreze
vi	abbiamu	avevamu	avemmu	ebberamu	avremu
giu	avete	avevate	aveste	ebberate	avrete
i	ano	avevano	ebberono	ebberano	avrano

Indicative passive

Person	Present	Imperfect
ec	avara	avavara
þú	avasa	avavasa
e	avaþa	avavaþa
ve	avanda	avavanda
gio	avanda	avavanda
vi	avanda	avavanda
giu	avanda	avavanda
i	avanda	avavanda

Subjunctive & Conditional active

Person	Subj. Pres.	Subj. Imp.	Cond. Pres.
ec	abbia	avessi	avrebbi
þú	abbia	avessi	avresti
e	abbia	avesse	avrebbe
ve	abbii	avessi	avrebbi
gio	abbiaze	avessize	avreze
vi	abbiamu	avessimu	avremmu
giu	abbiate	avessite	avrete
i	abbiano	avessino	avrebberono

Subjunctive passive

Person	Present
ec	abbiruo
þú	abbisuo
e	abbiþuo
ve	abbinduo
gio	abbinduo
vi	abbinduo
giu	abbinduo
i	abbinduo

Imperative

Person	Affirmative	Negative
þú	ave	non avere
gio	aveze	non avere
giu	avete	non avere

Adverbs

Adverbs in Luthic are generally categorised into three main types based on their formation:

• Inherited irregular adverbs: a number of adverbs are directly inherited from Latin and Gothic. These forms are often irregular and do not follow a productive pattern. Examples include:

ondar “under”, èr “early”, sí “so”, sva “thus”, contra “against.”

• Adverbs in -e: a large class of regular adverbs is formed by attaching the suffix -e, a feature inherited from Latin, for instance:

fregionde “friendly”, rette “right.”

• Adverbs in -mente: following a pattern common to most Romance languages, another class of regular adverbs is formed by attaching the suffix -mente to the feminine form of an adjective, e.g.:

fragcamente “frankly”, angiamente “finally.”

Prepositions

Prepositions are used to specify the relationship between nouns, pronouns, and other parts of a sentence, particularly in spatial, temporal, or logical contexts. In many instances where a preposition might be used, Luthic employs a specific noun case instead. However, prepositions are used for clarity and to express nuances that cases alone cannot convey. Most prepositions govern a specific case, meaning the noun that follows must be inflected accordingly.

• Accusative: usually denote movement towards something, specially a destiny or a target. Examples include:

for “for”, þèr “through”, contra “against.”

• Dative: typically indicate static location, accompaniment, instrument, or beneficiary. Such as:

meþ “with”, fra “from”, neva “near.”

• Genitive: typically those expressing a position relative to a boundary such as ‘beyond’ and ‘outside’. For instance:

endana “beyond”, ovaro “over (moving across)”, otana “outside.”

A special class of locational prepositions, particularly those expressing in ‘in’, ana ‘on; at’, can govern two different cases. The choice of case is determined by the semantic distinction between motion and static location.

These prepositions govern the accusative case when expressing motion towards a destination (answering the question “where to?”). They govern the dative case when expressing a static, unchanging location (answering the question “where at?”).

• (motion, accusative) gaggo neþana staþe. → I go into the place.
• (location, dative) bio neþamma staþi. → I am in the place.

The preposition ‘in’ is subject to sandhi, where its final nasal consonant assimilates to the place of articulation of the following sound. This results in four allomorphs, which are reflected in the orthography:

• im is used before labial consonants (e.g., p, b, v, f);
• ig (pronounced [iŋ]) is used before velar consonants (e.g., c, g);
• in is used before any vowel or any dental consonant (e.g. t, d);
• i is used before sonorants, such as m, n, r and l.

A key feature is the mandatory contraction of certain prepositions with the definite article that follows them. These articulated prepositions merge the two words into a single form. The resulting form depends on the specific preposition and the gender, number, and case of the article.

Prepositional articles

	m.sg.	f.sg.	n.sg.	m.pl.	f.pl.	n.pl.
a	aþþana	aþþa	aþþata	aþþe	aþþi	aþþa
di	deþana	deþa	deþata	deþe	deþi	deþa
du	doþamma	doþamma	doþamma	doþe	doþe	doþe
for	foþþana	foþþa	foþþata	foþþe	foþþi	foþþa
fra (acc.)	fraþana	fraþa	fraþata	fraþe	fraþi	fraþa
fra (dat.)	fraþamma	fraþamma	fraþamma	fraþe	fraþe	fraþe
in (acc.)	neþana	neþa	neþata	neþe	neþi	neþa
in (dat.)	neþamma	neþamma	neþamma	neþe	neþe	neþe
ana (acc.)	naþana	naþa	naþata	naþe	naþi	naþa
ana (dat.)	naþamma	naþamma	naþamma	naþe	naþe	naþe
meþ	meþþamma	meþþamma	meþþamma	meþþe	meþþe	meþþe

Conjunctions

Conjunctions are invariable words that link other words, phrases, or clauses. Luthic distinguishes between two main classes of conjunctions: coordinating and subordinating, based on the grammatical relationship they establish between the elements they connect. Coordinating conjunctions connect grammatically equal elements. Luthic possesses a nuanced system where the choice of conjunction often depends on the context of polarity (affirmative vs. negative) and contrast.

• gio and -vu (and): the primary conjunction for simple addition is gio. For contexts involving a binary contrast, Luthic employs the enclitic suffix -vu, which attaches to the second element to link it with the first, often carrying a slightly adversative nuance.
• eþ, aþþa, ac and òc (but): the choice of the adversative conjunction depends on the polarity of the first clause. “Ac” is used after a negative statement to introduce a correction or a mutually exclusive alternative. “Òc” is used after an affirmative statement to introduce a simple contrast. “Eþ, aþþa” are used when the clause (usually the first) is adversative and/or there is no polarity before.
• eþþuo and neþþa (or/nor): for alternatives, eþþuo is the general conjunction ‘or’ used in affirmative contexts. In negative contexts, neþþa is used to link negated alternatives.
• þuo (than): it is used in comparisons, to introduce the basis of the comparison, usually seeking to measure the force of an adjective or similar description between two predicates.

Subordinating conjunctions introduce a dependent (or subordinate) clause and connect it to an independent (main) clause. They establish a specific relationship between the clauses, such as time, cause, or condition. Many of these conjunctions, particularly those introducing clauses of purpose, condition, or other non-factual events, require the verb of the subordinate clause to be in the subjunctive mood. Subordinating conjunctions can be grouped by their function:

• Complementiser: í is used to introduce a noun clause that functions as the subject or object of a verb. This form is identical to the relative pronoun í.
• Conditional: the conditional conjunction is giavè “if”. Unreal or hypothetical conditions require the subjunctive mood.
• Causal: the causal conjunctions are þande “because, since” and svi “as”, which introduces a clause that provides the reason or cause for the action in the main clause.
• Temporal: van “when” and mentre “while” introduce temporal clauses; van specifies the point in time of an action, while mentre is used to indicate a simultaneous, ongoing action.
• Purpose: the primary conjunction of purpose is forvo “so that, in order that”, which introduces a clause stating the goal of the main action. The verb in a purpose clause is typically in the subjunctive mood, as it expresses a desired, non-factual outcome.
• Concessive: sibbiene “although, though” introduces a clause that presents an obstacle or a counter-argument to the main clause. The following verb is always in the subjunctive mood.

Numerals

Luthic distinguishes between cardinal numerals (answering ‘how many?’) and ordinal numerals (answering ‘which in order?’).

Cardinals

#	Form
1	ienu, iena, ieno
2	tue, tui, tua
3	þrei, þrei, þregia
4	feddor
5	fife
6	sè
7	siu
8	attuo
9	niu
10	ziu

The Luthic word for 0 is zephero, a regular Class 3 neuter noun. While ienu, iena and ieno follows a regular Class 1, 2 & 3 declension, tui, tue, tua and þrei have irregular plurale tantum paradigms. Other numbers are indeclinable.

tue

Case	m.	f.	n.
nom.	tue	tui	tua
gen.	tuaggi	tuaggio	tuaggi
acc.	tue	tui	tua
dat.	tue	tue	tue

11–19

#	Form
11	ellefe
12	tuolefe
13	þriziu
14	feddorziu
15	fifeziu
16	seziu
17	siuziu
18	attoziu
19	niuziu

Tens

#	Form
20	venta
30	þrinta
40	feddoranta
50	fifanta
60	sessanta
70	siunta
80	attanta
90	niunta
100	ondo

Combinations of a decade and a unit are constructed in a regular way: the decade comes first followed by the unit. No spaces are written between them. Vowel collision triggers an interpunct. For example:

• 28 venta·attuo;
• 73 siuntaþrei;
• 81 attanta·ienu.

The numeral ondo (100) functions as a regular Class 3 neuter noun. Because it is a noun itself, it does not agree in gender with the noun it quantifies. The higher hundreds are pluralia tantum formed by compounding the base numeral with -(o)nda, the plural form of ondo.

200–1000

#	Form
200	tuonda
300	þrionda
400	feddoronda
500	fifonda
600	seonda
700	siunda
800	attonda
900	niunda
1000	mille

Combinations of a hundred and a lower number are expressed by just placing them together, with the hundred coming first:

• 111 ondo·elfe;
• 164 ondosessantafeddor;
• 788 siunda·attanta·attuo.

Mille is a regular Class 4 noun. Combinations of a thousand and a lower number are expressed by placing them together, with the thousand coming first. A space is written between them:

• 1 066 mille sessantasè;
• 9 011 niumilli ellefe;
• 61 500 sessanta·ienomilli fifonda;
• 123 456 ondoventaþreimilli feddorondafifantasè.

For numerals of one million (millione Class 4) and above (milliarde Class 4), Luthic employs the long scale system, common throughout continental Europe.

• millione: 10⁶ (one million);
• milliarde: 10⁹ (one thousand million);
• billione: 10¹² (one million million);
• billiarde: 10¹⁵ (one thousand million million).

Luthic’s ordinals, besides a few irregular suppleted forms, use the suffix -þo or -to before fricatives (Class 1n). The historic cluster -fto resulted in -tto.

1st–10th

#	Form
1st	fromo (Class 1n)
2nd	aþaru
3rd	þriþo
4th	fedorþo
5th	fitto
6th	sesto
7th	siuþo
8th	attuþo
9th	niuþo
10th	ziuþo

Ordinals agree in gender, acting as Class 1, 2 & 3 adjectives. Zephero becomes zepheroþo.

11th–1000th

#	Form
11th	elletto
12th	tuoletto
13th	þriziuþo
14th	feddorziuþo
15th	fifeziuþo
16th	seziuþo
17th	siuziuþo
18th	attoziuþo
19th	niuziuþo
20th	ventaþo
30th	þrintaþo
40th	feddorantaþo
50th	fifantaþo
60th	sessantaþo
70th	siuntaþo
80th	attantaþo
90th	niuntaþo
100th	ondoþo
200th	tuondaþo
300th	þriondaþo
400th	feddorondaþo
500th	fifondaþo
600th	seondaþo
700th	siundaþo
800th	attondaþo
900th	niundaþo
1000th	milleþo

Multiple numbers only take the suffix in the last element:

• 123 ondoventaþriþo;
• 2011 tuemilli elletto.

Bigger numbers follow the same logic:

• millionth millioneþo;
• billionth milliardeþo.

Syntax

The fundamental principle of clause structure is the Verb-Second (V2) word order. This rule dictates that in any declarative main clause, the finite (conjugated) verb must always appear in the second position. The first position is occupied by the sentence’s topic, which can be the subject or another element (such as an adverb or object) moved to the front for emphasis. When a non-subject element occupies the first position, the subject must be inverted and placed after the verb.

dregco þata vato.

dregc-o þata vat-o

drink-1SG the water

“I drink the water.”

þata vato dregco.

þata vat-o dregc-o

the water drink-1SG

“The water is what I drink.”

bii liuvalicu.

bi-i liuv-a-lic-u

be-2SG adorable

“You are adorable.”

liuvalicu bii

liuv-a-lic-u bi-i

adorable be-2SG

“Adorable is what you are.”

In contrast, subordinate clauses (introduced by conjunctions like í, ei, si, or þande) follow a strict Verb-Final (VF) word order, where the finite verb is placed at the very end of the clause.

galuovo í, betese sarebbe si eta

ga=luov-o í betes-e sar-ebb-e si eta

think-1SG that better be-COND.3SG if it

crai togissimu.

crai tog-iss-imu

tomorrow do-SUBJ.IMPF.1PL

“I think that it would be better if we did it tomorrow.”

Yes/no questions and direct commands use a Verb-First (V1) word order. Questions with an interrogative pronoun (e.g., vata) maintain the V2 structure, with the interrogative pronoun in the first position.

gai þú snele?

ga-i þú snel-e

walk-2SG you fast

“Do you walk fast?”

togi þú svasvi qeþo!

tog-i þú svasvi qeþ-o

do-IMP.2SG you as say-1SG

“Do as I say!”

vata togi þú?

vata tog-i þú

what do-2SG you

“What are you doing?”

Non-finite verb forms (infinitives, participles) and separable verb particles are placed at the end of the main clause.

Sa mina fregionda è aþþa festa anaqemando.

s-a min-a fregi-ond-a è aþ=þa festa ana=qem-and-o

the my friend is to=the party on=come-GER

“My friend is arriving (oncoming) at the party.”

sa mina fregionda qemò aþþa festa ana.

s-a min-a fregi-ond-a qem-ò aþ=þa fest-a ana

the my friend came to=the party on

“My friend arrived (came on) at the party.”

As a rule, the subject pronoun is omitted unless it is expressed for emphasis, clusivity or clarity. Double emphasis can be used.

snele bii þú.

snel-e bi-i þú

fast be-2SG you

“Fast is what you really are.”

Case usage

The primary function of the accusative case is to mark the direct object of a transitive verb, indicating the patient or receiver of the action. In addition to this role, the accusative is used in a variety of adverbial contexts, often without a governing preposition. These functions include expressing:

• Extent of space: qervò þri chilometri. “He walked three kilometres”
• Duration of time: non bidò ieno dago. “He didn’t wait for one day”
• Place when: þana staþe. “In/on this place”

• Sometimes prepositional: neþþana staþe. “id.”

• Time when: gieno ventru. “In/at/during that winter”
• Within which: licchie ore schia svoltare. “Within a few hours he shall die”

A preposition is typically required for these temporal and locative uses only when the accusative form of the noun is identical to its nominative form (i.e., with feminine, neuter, and all plural nouns) in order to avoid ambiguity.

The main function of the dative case is to mark the indirect object of a verb, typically indicating the recipient, beneficiary, or the entity affected by the action. Beyond this core role, the dative has a wide range of adverbial and instrumental functions. It is used to express:

• Purpose: manne non obbia, òc goþa toginda. “Humans are not made for evil, but for good”
• Action for: þu schio elpare þi fregionde þine. “I must help your friends for you”
• Purpose for action for: qeno nasini bio. “I am the (cause of) salvation for women”
• Action against: þamma þina fregiatada schio duoþare þuc. “Against/in opposition to your freedom I shall kill you”
• Purpose for action against: manne duoþa bio. “I am the (cause of) death for men” (affects negatively)
• Concerning: vata þú me schia togire? “What will you do for me (expressing the speaker being especially interested in what the other is doing for him or her)?”
• Instrument: screvo penna. “I write with a pen”
• Means: sevo uogona. “I see with the eyes”
• Impersonal agent: gaduoþaþa coltella velvi. “He was killed by the knife of the robber”
• Manner: fregio þuc manage fregiaþþe. “I love you with many affection”

• Prepositional if with no adjective: fregio þuc meþ fregiaþþe. “I love you with affection”

• Accompaniment: schio qemare fregionda. “I shall come with friends”
• Sometimes prepositional: schio qemare meþ fregionda. “id.”
• Degree of difference: alþeso iena giera. “He is older by a few years”
• Quality: ienu vieru summa onestada. “A man of highest honesty”
• Separation: schio copire þan’ovelo þu. “I shall keep the evil away from you”
• Motion away (prepositional): giupa Ravenna du America furondo. “They went from Ravenna to America”
• - Comparison (adjectival): qeno scuonesa. “More beautiful than women”
• Cause: greto ira gio agi. “I cry with anger and fear” (marks the reason)

The dative also serves a special grammatical function as the impersonal agent in passive constructions, where it marks an inanimate tool or force.

The genitive case primarily expresses possession. However, its functions extend to several other important relational and descriptive roles:

• Material: sa celecna stieni. “The tower made of stone”
• Author/creator or personal agent: sa celecna togiþa andevi mino. “This tower was built by my hands”
• Behaviour: molle vati. “Soft like water”

• Often displaced by the relative adverb: molle svasvi vato. “Soft like water”

Research

Luthic is a well-documented language, supported by numerous academic departments in Italy devoted either specifically to Luthic or to linguistics more broadly, many of which maintain active research programs on the language. Ravenna serves as a major center of study, particularly through institutions such as the Linguistic Circle of Ravenna (Luthic: Crizzo Rasdavetascapetico Ravenne; Italian: Circolo Linguistico di Ravenna) at Ravenna University. A wide range of lexicographical and technological resources has been developed to support Luthic studies, and the language council Gaforþe folla Rasda Lúthica regularly publishes research at both national and international levels. Scholarly descriptions of the language appear in Luthic, Italian, and English, reflecting the interdisciplinary and multilingual character of current research. The most comprehensive grammar to date is Grammatica le Lúthice Rasde (“Grammar of the Luthic Language”) by Alessandru Fiscar and Luca Vagnar, written entirely in Luthic and spanning more than 600 pages. Several corpora are also available, including the Luthic Online Dictionary Project, which offers a curated lexicon of over 35,000 entries.

The Ravenna School of Linguistics emerged around Giuvanni Laggobardi and his evolving theory of language within the framework of structuralist linguistics. Together with Sognafreþu Rossi, Laggobardi founded the Circle of Linguistics of Ravenna in 1964, modeled after the Prague Linguistic Circle. Beginning in 1970, Ravenna University introduced courses in languages and philosophy; however, students were required to complete their final examinations at the Accademia della Crusca in order to graduate. In 1990, the Ravenna University Circle of Phonological Development (Luthic: Crizzo Sviluppi Phonologici Ieniversitadi Ravenna) was established, though research on the earliest stages of Luthic phonological history remains limited. A decade later, in 2000, the Ravenna University Circle of Theology (Luthic: Crizzo Thiulogie Ieniversitadi Ravenna) was founded in collaboration with the Ravenna Cathedral, officially the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Luthic: Cathedrale metropolitana deþe Ostassi Nostri Signori Giesuo Christi; Italian: Cattedrale metropolitana della Risurrezione di Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo; commonly referred to as the Duomo di Ravenna).

Phonological development

Research on the earliest stages of phonological development in Luthic has focused on how infants acquire the ability to organize sounds into meaningful linguistic units. Phonological development refers here to the gradual process by which children, during early growth and language acquisition, establish a phoneme inventory and internalize the phonotactic constraints of the language.

• Phoneme inventory and phonotactics

In the initial stages of word production, word-final consonants are rarely realised; consonants occur primarily in word-initial or intervocalic positions. By around six months of age, infants show sensitivity to the prosodic features of the ambient language, which allows them to segment continuous speech into meaningful units. At this stage, they are also able to distinguish stressed from unstressed syllables, reflecting an emerging awareness of the rhythmic and intonational properties of spoken Luthic.

• Around 10 months

Most consonants occur only in word-initial position, notably the voiced stops /d/ and /b/ and the nasal /m/. Voiceless stops /t/, /p/, and, less frequently, /k/ are also attested, sometimes functioning as allophones. A clear preference for front places of articulation is observed. Clicks may occur, primarily in the context of imitative behaviors (e.g., suckling, raspberries). Babbling becomes more structured, shifting from earlier vocal play to canonical reduplicated babbling (CVCV). Consonant clusters remain absent. First words usually emerge around 12 months, commonly in a CVCV format, such as mama (“mother”), papa (“father”), and dada (“give me!”).

• 21 months

The phonetic inventory expands to include the nasal /n/, the voiceless affricate /t͡ʃ/ (an allophone of /t ~ d/, since voicing is not yet contrastive), and the liquid /l/. The preference for anterior articulation persists, often resulting in palatalisation.

• 24 months

Additional fricatives appear, including /f ~ v/ and /s/, which may undergo palatalisation to /ʃ/, typically in intervocalic positions. Voicing begins to function as a contrastive feature. Onomatopoeic expressions become increasingly common (e.g., /aw aw/ for dog barking, /ow/ or more typically /aj/ for pain). Trisyllabic words emerge, generally following a C₁VC₂VC₃V pattern. Consonant clusters are now attested and frequently show consonant harmony (e.g., -mb-, -nd-, -dr-), although voiced–voiceless clusters such as -mp- and -tr- remain rare.

• 30 months

At this stage, children produce approximately equal numbers of phones in both word-initial and intervocalic positions. The voiced stop /ɡ/ and additional consonant clusters are introduced. Coarticulated segments, including labio-velar plosives, begin to occur. Alveolar and bilabial articulations dominate, while labiodental and postalveolar usage increases and velar production declines. Luthic-specific lenition processes become evident, characterised by a rise in fricatives and approximants. Children display greater awareness of syllabic segmentation than of phonemic segmentation.

• Word processes

These phonological processes may happen within a range of 3 to 6 years.

Nasal assimilation: Non-nasal segments assimilate to a neighboring nasal (e.g., [ˈrɛn.dɐ] → [ˈnen.nɐ]).

Weak syllable deletion: Unstressed syllables, particularly in initial or final positions, are omitted (e.g., [bɐˈnaː.nɐ] → [ˈna.nɐ]).

Coda deletion: Final consonants or codas are omitted (e.g., [vɐr] → [vɐ]; [ˈbroː.dɐr] → [ˈbro.dɐ] or [ˈbro]).

Consonant harmony: One consonant assimilates to another within the word (e.g., [vɐn] → [vɐɱ]; [ˈstɛk.kɐ] → [ˈstɛt.tɐ]).

Coalescence: Adjacent consonants merge into one with shared features (e.g., [ˈzbaf.fu] → [ˈvaf.fu], realised as [ˈva.fu]).

Cluster reduction: Consonant clusters are simplified (e.g., [oˈrek̟.k̟jɐ] → [oˈrej.jɐ] or [ˈre.jɐ]).

Velar fronting: Velar plosives are replaced with alveolars before front vowels (e.g., [ki] → [ti] or [t͡ʃi]).

Stopping or affrication: Fricatives are replaced by stops or affricates near front vowels (e.g., [si] → [ti] or [t͡ʃi]).

Gliding: Liquids and taps are replaced by glides (e.g., [ˈkaː.ru] → [ˈka.wu]; [ˈaʎ.ʎo] → [ˈaj.jo]).

• 6 years

By this stage, children typically command an adult-like phonemic inventory. Their ability to produce complex phonotactic sequences and multisyllabic lexical items is largely established, though refinement continues throughout middle childhood.

Typology

Luthic has right symmetry, as do other VO languages (verb before object) like English.

Typological correlations

Correlation	VO language	Examples
Adposition type	prepositions	of..., than..., on...
Order of noun and genitive	noun before genitive	father + of John
Order of adjective and standard of comparison	adjective before standard	taller + than Bob
Order of verb and adpositional phrase	verb before adpositional phrase	slept + on the floor
Order of verb and manner adverb	verb before manner adverb	ran + slowly
Order of copula and predicative	copula before predicate	is + a teacher
Order of auxiliary verb and content verb	auxiliary before content verb	want + to see Mary
Place of adverbial subordinator in clause	clause-initial subordinators	because + Bob has left
Order of noun and relative clause	noun before relative clause	movies + that we saw

Sample text

Sacavano so vendu norde þata sòilo·vu, vaiu so forteso vá, van ienu pellegrinu, þamma acchia varma avviluppatu, anaqemò.

sac-av-ano so vend-u nord-e þata sòil-o=vu vai-u so fort-es-o vá van ien-u pellegrin-u þamma acchi-a varm-a avvilupp-at-u ana-qem-ò.

dispute-IPFV-3PL DEF.NOM.M.SG wind-NOM.SG north-NOM.SG DEF.NOM.N.SG sun-NOM.SG=CONJ which-NOM.SG DEF.NOM.M.SG strong-CMPR-NOM.M.SG be.PST.3SG when INDF.NOM.M.SG traveler-NOM.SG. DEF.DAT.M.SG cloak-DAT.SG warm-DAT.SG wrap-PTCP-NOM.M.SG on-come-PRF.3SG.

Disputed the North Wind the Sun-and, which the stronger was, when a traveler, (in) the cloak warm wrapped, arrived.

Sammirano i í, vaiu fromo þan’acchio þe pellegrini rimuovere magassi, so forteso þamm’aþera duomitu sarebbe.

samm-irano i í vai-u from-o þan=acchi-o þe pellegrin-i rimuov-ere mag-ass-i so fort-es-o þamm=aþer-a duom-it-u sar-ebbe.

agree-PRF.3PL 3PL.NOM COMP REL-NOM.SG. first-ADV DEF.ACC.M.SG=cloak-ACC.SG DEF.GEN.M.SG traveler-GEN.SG remove-INF able-IPFV.SBJV-3SG DEF.NOM.M.SG strong-CMPR-NOM.SG DEF.DAT.SG=other-DAT.SG judge-PTCP-NOM.M.SG be-COND.3SG.

Agreed they that, who first the cloak of-the traveler to-remove might/could, the stronger than-the other considered would-be.

Þan soffiò so vendu norde ardumente í, mageva, ac þan miese soffiava, þan miese servò so pellegrinu þan’acchio bi se.

Þan soffi-ò so vend-u nord-e ard-u-mente í mag-ev-a ac þan mies-e soffi-av-a þan mies-e serv-ò so pellegrin-u þan=acchi-o bi se.

then blow-PRF.3SG DEF.NOM.M.SG wind-NOM.SG north-NOM.SG hard-THM-ADV COMP able-IPFV-3SG but the more-ADV blow-IPFV-3SG the more-ADV fold-PRF.3SG DEF.NOM.M.SG traveler-NOM.SG DEF.ACC.M.SG=cloak-ACC.SG around REFL.DAT.

Then blew the wind north hard-ly as able-was, but the more blew, the more folded the traveler the=cloak around himself.

Gio angiamente aggevò so vendu norde þana sforzo. Þan scinò þata sòilo varmamente, gio immediatamente rimuové so pellegrinu þan’acchio.

Gio angi-a-mente aggev-ò so vend-u nord-e þana sforz-o þan scin-ò þata sòil-o varm-a-mente gio immediat-a-mente rimuov-é so pellegrin-u þan=acchi-o

and end-THM-ADV give.up-PRF.3SG DEF.NOM.M.SG wind-NOM.SG north-ADJ DEF.ACC.M.SG effort-ACC.SG then shine-PRF.3SG DEF.NOM.N.SG sun-NOM.SG warm-THM-ADV and immediate-THM-ADV remove-PRF.3SG DEF.NOM.M.SG traveler-NOM.SG DEF.ACC.M.SG=cloak-ACC.SG

And finally gave-up the wind north the effort. Then shone the sun warm-ly, and immediately removed the traveler the=cloak.

Sva obbligatu fú so vendu norde ad andetare í, þata sòilo so forteso tuaggi vá.

Sva obblig-at-u fú so vend-u nord-e ad andet-are í þata sòil-o so fort-es-o tu-aggi vá.

thus oblige-PTCP-NOM.M.SG be.PRF.3SG DEF.NOM.M.SG wind-NOM.SG north-ADJ to confess-INF COMP DEF.NOM.N.SG sun-NOM.SG DEF.NOM.M.SG strong-CMPR-NOM.SG two-GEN.PL be.PST.3SG

Thus obliged was the wind north to confess that, the sun the stronger of-two was.

See also

• Geats
• Gutes
• Gutones
• List of Germanic languages
• Romance languages
• Modern Gutnish
• Name of the Goths
• Old Gutnish
• Grimm’s law
• Verner’s law
• Thurneysen’s law
• Runic epigraphy
• Latin epigraphy
• Gothic runic inscriptions
• Gothic Bible

Bibliography

Adams, D.Q.

• 1984 The Position of Tocharian among the Other Indo-European Languages. Journal of the American Oriental Society 104: 395-402.
• 1988 Tocharian Historical Phonology and Morphology. (American Oriental Series, 71.) New Haven, American Oriental Society.
• 2013 A Dictionary of Tocharian B.: Revised and Greatly Enlarged. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi.

Adams, D.Q. & Mallory, J.P.

• 1997 Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.
• 2006 The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alkire, T. & Rosen, C.

• 2010 Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Allen, W.S.

• 1978 Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 1987 Vox Graeca: The Pronunciation of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alquen, R.J. de

• 1974 Gothic ai and au: A Possible Solution. In Volume 151 of Janua Linguarum. Series Practica. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Anthony, D.W.

• 2013 Two IE Phylogenies, Three PIE Migrations, and Four Kinds of Steppe Pastoralism. Journal of Language Relationship 9.

Antonsen, E.

• 1975. A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Arndt, W.W.

• 1959 The performance of glottochronology in Germanic. Language, 35, 180–192.

Balg, G.H.

• 1889 A comparative glossary of the Gothic language with especial reference to English and German. New York: Westermann & Company.

Batllori, M. & Roca, F.

• 2011 Grammaticalization of ser and estar in romance. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.

Beech Stave Press

• 2018 Farnah: Indo-Iranian and Indo-European Studies, in Honor of Sasha Lubotsky. Beech Stave Press.

Beekes, R.S.P.

• 1969 The development of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Greek. The Hague.
• 1972 Germanic Verschärfung and no laryngeals. Orbis 21.327–36
• 1985 The Origins of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection, Innsbruck.
• 1988a A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan. Leiden—Boston: Brill.
• 1988b PIE RHC- in Greek and other languages. Indogermanische Forschungen 22-45.
• 1995 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, An Introduction, Amsterdam – Philadelphia.
• 1998 The origin of Lat. aqua and of *teutā ‘people’, Journal of Indo-European Studies 26, 459-466.
• 2003 Historical Phonology of Classical Armenian. In: F. Kortlandt, Armeniaca: comparative notes. With an appendix on the historical phonology of Classical Armenian by Robert S.P. Beekes, 133-2 11. Ann Arbor.
• 2010 Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden—Boston: Brill.
• 2011 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd edition, revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bennett, W.H.

• 1980 An Introduction to the Gothic Language. New York: Modern Language Association of America.

Bergsland, K. & Vogt, H.

• 1962 On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology, 3, 115–153.

Bomhard, A.

• 2019 The Origins of Proto-Indo-European: The Caucasian Substrate Hypothesis. Journal of Indo-European Studies, 47.

Boutkan, D.F.H.

• 1995 The Germanic ‘Auslautgesetze’. Amsterdam.

Boutkan, D.F.H. & Siebinga, S.M.

• 2005 Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden—Boston: Brill.

Brotle, C.D.

• 2011 The role of mnemonic acronyms in clinical emergency medicine: A grounded theory study (EdD thesis).

Bruckner, W.

• 1895 Die Sprache der Langobarden. Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Culturgeschichte der germanischen Völker. Vol. LXXV. Strassburg: Trübner.

Buck. C.D.

• 1904 A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian, Ginn & Co.
• 1933 Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Burney, C.A.

• 2004 Historical Dictionary of the Hittites. Scarecrow Press.

Bussche, H. van den

• 1985 Proto-Romance inflectional morphology. Review of Proto-Romance morphology by Robert Hall. Lingua. 66.

Calabrese, A.

• 1998 Some remarks on the Latin case system and its development in Romance, in J. Lema & E. Trevino, (eds.), Theoretical Advances on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• 1999 Metaphony Revisited. In Rivista di Linguistica.
• 2005 On the Feature and the Evolution of the Short High Vowels of Latin into Romance. Connecticut: University of Connecticut
• 2011 Metaphony in Romance. In C. Ewen; M. & Oostendorp; B. Hume (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Wiley-Blackwell.

Carling, G. & Pinault, GJ.

• 2023 Dictionary and Thesaurus of Tocharian A. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Carlson, N.

• 2010 Psychology the Science of Behavior. Pearson Canada, United States of America.

Cercignani, F.

• 1979 The Development of the Gothic Short/Lax Subsystem. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung. 93 (2): 272–278.
• 1986 The Development of the Gothic Vocalic System. In Brogyanyi, Bela; Krömmelbein, Thomas (eds.). Germanic Dialects: Linguistic and Philological Investigations. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. pp. 121–151.

Cheung, J.

• 2007 Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. Leiden—Boston: Brill.

Contini, M.

• 1987 Etude de géographie phonétique et de phonétique instrumentale du sarde. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.

Cowgill, W.

• 1965 EVIDENCE IN GREEK. Evidence for laryngeals, edited by Werner Winter, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 142-180.

Crawford, J.

• 2012 Old Norse-Icelandic (þú) est and (þú) ert. Los Angeles: University of California.

Crystal, D.

• 2008 A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Wales: Bangor.

Danilevitch, O.

• 2019 Logical Semantics Approach for Data Modeling in XBRL Taxonomies. Minsk: Belarusian State Economic University.

Davis, J.C.M.

• 2017 The Semantic Difference Between Italian vi and ci. CUNY City College of New York.

Delbrück, B.

• 1909 Zu den germanischen Relativsätzen. Abhandlungen der Königlich-Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 19. Leipzig: Teubner.

Demiraj, B.

• 1997 Albanische Etymologien: Untersuchungen zum albanischen Erbwortschatz. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi.

Derksen, R.

• 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden—Boston: Brill.
• 2011 The relative chronology of East Baltic accentual developments. In: Roman Sukač (ed.), Papers on Baltic and Slavic accentology (Potsdamer Linguistic Investigations 7), 17-22. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
• 2015 Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden—Boston: Brill.

Dickhoff, E.

• 1913 Der Unterschied im Gebrauch von gotisch uns und unsis. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 54.466–74.

Dobrovolsky, M.; Katamba, F. & O'Grady, W.

• 1996 Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction. Harlow, Essex: Longman.

Dybo, Y.A.

• 2002 Balto-Slavic accentology and Winter's law. Studia Linguarum 3/2, 295-515.

Ebbinghaus, E.A.

• 1976 THE FIRST ENTRY OF THE GOTHIC CALENDAR. The Journal of Theological Studies, 27, 140–145. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ernout, A. & Meillet, A.

• 1985 Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots. Paris: Klincksieck.

Feist, S.

• 1939 Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache. Mit Einschluss des Krimgotischen und sonstiger zerstreuter überreste des Gotischen. Leiden—Boston: Brill.

Ferguson, T.

• 1976 A history of the Romance vowel systems through paradigmatic reconstruction. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Fortson, B.W.

• 2004 Indo-European Language and Culture : An Introduction. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics.

Fritz, M. & Meier-Brügger, M.

• 2021 Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.

Fulk, R. D.

• 2018 A Comparative Grammar of Early Germanic Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gamillscheg, E.

• 2017 Die Ostgoten. Die Langobarden. Die altgermanischen Bestandteile des Ostromanischen. Altgermanisches im Alpenromanischen. Romania Germanica. Vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Goebl, H.

• 1984 Dialectology. Quantitative Linguistics, Vol. 21. Bochum: Brockmeyer.

Grandgent, C.H.

• 1907 An introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.
• 1927 From Latin to Italian: An Historical Outline of the Phonology and Morphology of the Italian Language. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Grekyan, Y. H.

• 2023 By God's Grace: Ancient Anatolian Studies Presented to Aram Kosyan on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday.

Guitel, G.

• 1975 Histoire comparée des numérations écrites. Paris: Flammarion.

Gumperz, J.J. & Cook-Gumperz, J.

• 2008 Studying language, culture, and society: Sociolinguistics or linguistic anthropology?. Journal of Sociolinguistics.

Gusmani, R.

• 1980 Lydisches Wörterbuch. Ergänzungsband, Lieferung 2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Gvozdanović, J.

• 1991 Indo-European Numerals. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Hall, R.A. Jr.

• 1983 Proto-Romance Morphology. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Haller, H.W.

• 1999 The other Italy: the literary canon in dialect. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Hamp, E.P.

• 1965a EVIDENCE IN ALBANIAN. Evidence for laryngeals, edited by Werner Winter, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 123-141.
• 1965b EVIDENCE IN KELTIC. Evidence for laryngeals, edited by Werner Winter, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1965, pp. 224-235.

Hockett, C.F.

• 1958 A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.

Hoenigswald, H.M.

• 1965 INDO-IRANIAN EVIDENCE. Evidence for laryngeals, edited by Werner Winter, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 93-99.

Hoff, E. & Wagner, L.

• 2009 Language development. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Hogg, R.M.

• 1992. A grammar of Old English, I: phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hogg, R.M. & Fulk, R.D.

• 2011 A grammar of Old English, II: morphology. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Holt, D.E.

• 2003 The emergence of palatal sonorants and alternating diphthongs in Hispano-Romance. In D.E. Holt (ed.), Optimality Theory and Language Change. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 285–305.
• 2016 From Latin to Portuguese: Main Phonological Changes. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Irslinger, B.; Schneider, C. & Wodko D.S.

• 2008 Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.

Jasanoff, J.

• 1978a Stative and middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck.
• 1978b Observations on the Germanic Verschärfung. MSS 37.77–90
• 1989 Language and gender in the Tarim Basin: the Tocharian 1 sg. pronoun. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 3, 125-148.
• 2003 Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 2022 The Origin of the Latin Gerund and Gerundive: A New Proposal. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Kapović, M.

• 2017 Proto-Indo-European Morphology from: The Indo-European Languages Routledge.

Klein, J.; Joseph, B.; Fritz, M. & Wenthe, M.

• 2017a Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics (Vol. 1). Berlin: De Gruyter.
• 2017b Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics (Vol. 2). Berlin: De Gruyter.
• 2018 Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics (Vol. 3). Berlin: De Gruyter.

Kloekhorst, A.

• 2004 The Preservation of *h₁ in Hieroglyphic Luwian: Two Separate a-Signs, Historische Sprachforschung 117, 26-49.
• 2006 Initial Laryngeals in Anatolian, Historische Sprachforschung 119, 77-108.
• 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden—Boston: Brill.
• 2009 Studies in Lycian and Carian Phonology and Morphology. Kadmos: Zeitschrift für vor- und frühgriechische Epigraphik, 47, 117-146.
• 2012 The Phonological Interpretation of Plene and Non-Plene Spelled e in Hittite, The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics (edd. B. Nielsen Whitehead et al.), 243-261.
• 2018 Anatolian evidence suggests that the Indo-European laryngeals *h₂ and *h₃ were uvular stops. Indo-European Linguistics 6, 69-94.
• 2019 Kanišite Hittite: The Earliest Attested Record of Indo-European. Leiden—Boston: Brill.
• 2022 Evidence for a phonemic glottal stop in Hittite: a reassessment. Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics 133 (2020), 111-143.
• 2023 New interpretations in Lydian phonology, New approaches on Anatolian linguistics (eds. J.V. García Trabazo, I.-X. Adiego, M., B. Obrador-Cursach, S. Soler) (= Barcino. Monographica Orientalia 22; Series Anatolica et Indogermanica 4), 115-133.

Kloekhorst, A. & Pronk, T.

• 2019 The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European: The Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic Hypotheses. Leiden—Boston: Brill.

Kortlandt, F.

• 1979 Three problems of Balto-Slavic phonology. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 22/2, 5 7-63.
• 1980 More evidence for Italo-Celtic. Ériu 32,1-22.
• 1985 Long vowels in Balto-Slavic, Baltistica 21, 112-124.
• 1991 Kluge’s Jaw and the rise of Proto-Germanic geminates. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 34, 1–4.
• 1994 From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 22, 91-112.
• 1997 Labials, velars and labiovelars in Germanic. North-Western European Language Evolution 30.45–50.
• 2001 The origin of the Goths. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 55.21–5.
• 2003 Indo-Uralic consonant gradation. Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen [Fs. Koivulehto] (Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 2004), 163-170.
• 2004 Initial Laryngeals in Anatolian, Orpheus 13-14, Memorial Volume to Georgi Rikov, 9-12.
• 2006 Germanic *ē₁ and *ē₂ North-Western European Language Evolution 49, 51-54.
• 2007 Gothic gen. pl. -e. Historische Sprachforschung 120.237–40.
• 2012 Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops: The evidence revisited. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 71/1 (2018), 147-153.
• 2016 More evidence for Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 71/1 (2018), 153-158.

Koryakov, Y.B.

• 2001 Atlas of Romance languages. Moscow: Moscow State University.

Krahe, H.

• 1957 Die althochdeutsche Personalendung -mēs. Indogermanische Forschungen 63. 55-60.

Krahe, H. & Meid, W.

• 1969 Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. 3 vols. Berlin.

Kristiansen, K. & Kroonen, G. & Willerslev, E.

• 2023 The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited: Integrating Archaeology, Genetics, and Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kroonen, G.

• 2013 Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden—Boston: Brill.

Kurzová, H.

• 1993 From Indo-European to Latin. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lass, R.

• 1998 Phonology: An Introduction to Basic Concepts. Cambridge, UK; New York; Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Lauttamus, T.

• 1992 Grimm’s law: a functional-structuralist approach to the first German consonant shift. In Studia linguistica Careliana, ed. J. Niemi, 51–78. Joensuu

Lehmann, R. & Lehmann, W.P.

• 1975 An Introduction to Old Irish. New York: Modern Language Association of America.

Lehmann, W.P.

• 1952 Proto-Indo-European phonology. Austin.
• 1965 GERMANIC EVIDENCE. Evidence for laryngeals, edited by Werner Winter, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1965, pp. 212-223.
• 1986 A GOTHIC ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY, Based on the third edition of Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Gotischen Sprache by Sigmund Feist, with Bibliography Prepared Under the Direction of H.-J.J. Hewitt, BRILL.

Leumann, M.

• 1977 Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. München: C.H. Beck.

Lloyd, P.M.

• 1987 From Latin to Spanish. Volume I: Historical Phonology and Morphology of the Spanish Language. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.

Lubotsky, A.M.

• 1988 The System of Nominal Accentuation in Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European. Leiden—Boston: Brill.

Lühr, R.

• 1978 Die Kontinuante der urindogermanischen Medialflexion im Germanischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 37, 109–20.

Maiden, M.

• 1995 A linguistic history of Italian. London: Longman.

Mallory, J.P.

• 2010 Bronze Age Languages of the Tarim Basin. Expedition Magazine. Vol. 52, no. 3. Penn Museum. pp. 44–53.

Martirosyan. H.K.

• 2009 Etymological dictionary of the Armenian inherited lexicon. Leiden—Boston: Brill.

Matasović, R.

• 2009 Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic. Leiden—Boston: Brill.
• 2011 Addenda et corrigenda to Ranko Matasović's Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic (Brill, Leiden 2009).

Mayrhofer, M.

• 1898 Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen (A concise etymological Sanskrit Dictionary). Amsterdam.

McGregor, W.B.

• 2015 Linguistics: An Introduction (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

McManus, D.

• 1983 "A chronology of the Latin loan-words in Early Irish", Ériu, 34, Dublin: Royal Irish Academy: 21–71.
• 1991 "A Guide to Ogam", Maynooth Monographs, no. 4, Maynooth: An Sagart.

Melchert, H.C.

• 1983 Pudenda Hethitica. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 35, 137-145.
• 1989 New Luvo-Lycian isoglosses. Historische Sprachforschung 102.23–45.
• 1993a Lycian Lexicon. Lexica Anatolica Volume 2. Chapel Hill, N.C.
• 1993b Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon. Lexica Anatolica Volume 2. Chapel Hill, N.C.
• 1994 Anatolian Historical Phonology (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 3). Amsterdam – Atlanta.
• 2003a Prehistory, The Luwians (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One, Near and Middle East Volume 68) (ed. H.C. Melchert), Leiden—Boston, 8-26.
• 2003b Language, The Luwians (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One, Near and Middle East Volume 68) (ed. H.C. Melchert), Leiden—Boston, 170-210.
• 2004 A Dictionary of the Lycian Language, Ann Arbor – New York
• 2008a "Luvian". In Roger D. Woodard (ed.). The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor. Cambridge University Press. pp 31-40.
• 2008b "Palaic". In Roger D. Woodard (ed.). The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor. Cambridge University Press. pp 40-46.
• 2008c "Lycian". In Roger D. Woodard (ed.). The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor. Cambridge University Press. pp 46-56.
• 2008d "Lydian". In Roger D. Woodard (ed.). The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor. Cambridge University Press. pp 56-64.
• 2008e "Carian". In Roger D. Woodard (ed.). The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor. Cambridge University Press. pp 64-69.
• 2012 The Indo-European Verb: Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles, 13-15 September 2010. Reichert, Wiesbaden.

Miller, D.G.

• 2019 The Oxford Gothic Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Müller, S.

• 2007 Zum Germanischen aus laryngaltheoretischer Sicht: mit einer Einführung in die Grundlagen der Laryngaltheorie. Berlin.

Nair, R.D. & Lincoln, N.B.

• 2007 Cognitive rehabilitation for memory deficits following stroke. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Noreen, A.

• 1894 Abriss der urgermanische Laulehre. Strassburg.
• 1913 Geschichte der nordischen Sprachen. Trübner: Straßburg. Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter Berücksichtigung des Urnordischen. Halle (Saale): Max Niemeyer.
• 1970 Altnordische Grammatik, I: Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik. 5th, unrev. ed. (rpt. of 4th ed. of 1923). University, Ala.

Olander, T.

• 2022 The Indo-European Language Family - A Phylogenetic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Onishi, T.

• 2022 Pronominal Clitics in Tocharian: A Study in the Morphology-Syntax Interface. Los Angeles: University of California.

Osthoff, H.

• 1884 Zur Geschichte des Perfects im Indogermanischen. Strassburg.

Orel, V.

• 1998 Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden—Boston: Brill.
• 2000 A concise historical grammar of the Albanian language. Leiden—Boston: Brill.
• 2003 A Handbook of Germanic Etymology. Leiden—Boston: Brill.

Ottenheimer, H.J.

• 2006 The Anthropology of Language. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Payne, A.

• 2012 Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Society of Biblical Literature.

Pellegrino, F. & Coupé, C. & Marsico, E.

• 2011 Across-language perspective on speech information rate. Paris: French National Centre for Scientific Research.

Peyrot, M.

• 2008a Variation and Change in Tocharian B. (Leiden Studies in Indo-European, 15.). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• 2008b More Sanskrit-Tocharian bilingual Udānavarga fragments. Indogermanische Forschungen, 113: 83-125.

Pinault, G.J.

• 2002 “Tocharian and Indo-Iranian: Relations between two linguistic areas.” In Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, pp. 243-284, ed. Nicholas Sims-William (Proceedings of the British Academy, 116.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2020 New material extracted from revised Tocharian A texts. Leiden University, CIEL, EPHE, PSL.

Piqueron, O.

• 2015 Yextis Keltikā: Précis de Gaulois Classique. Société Belge d’Études Celtiques.

Pokorny, J.

• 1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, I. Band, Tübingen – Basel.

Polomé, E.C.

• 1968 The Indo-European Numeral for ‘five’ and Hittite panku- ‘all’, Pratidānam, Indian, Iranian and Indo-European Studies Presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his Sixtieth Birthday (edd. J.C. Heesterman e.a.), The Hague – Paris, 98-101.

Prokosch, E.

• 1939 A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Connecticut: The Linguistic Society of America for Yale University.

Puhvel, J.

• 1965 EVIDENCE IN ANATOLIAN. Evidence for laryngeals, edited by Werner Winter, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1965, pp. 79-92.
• 1984a Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Words beginning with A, Volume 1, Mouton, Foreign Language Study.
• 1984b Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Words beginning with E and I, Volume 2, Mouton, Foreign Language Study.
• 1984c Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Words beginning with H, Volume 3, Mouton, Foreign Language Study.
• 1984d Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Words beginning with K, Volume 4, Mouton, Foreign Language Study.
• 1984e Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Words beginning with L, Volume 5, Mouton, Foreign Language Study.
• 1984f Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Words beginning with M, Volume 6, Mouton, Foreign Language Study.
• 1984g Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Words beginning with N, Volume 7, Mouton, Foreign Language Study.
• 1984h Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Words beginning with PA, Volume 8, Mouton, Foreign Language Study.
• 1984i Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Words beginning with PE, PI, PU, Volume 9, Mouton, Foreign Language Study.
• 1984j Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Words beginning with SA, Volume 10, Mouton, Foreign Language Study.
• 1984k Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Words beginning with SE, SI, SU, Volume 11, Mouton, Foreign Language Study.

Rasmussen, J.E.

• 1999 Determining Proto-Phonetics by Circumstantial Evidence: The case of the Indo-European laryngeals. Selected Papers on Indo-European Linguistics. Copenhagen: Museum of Tusculanum Press.

Renzi, L.

• 1994 Nuova introduzione alla filologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Ringe, D.A.

• 1996 On the Chronology of Sound Changes in Tocharian: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Tocharian. University of Virginia - American Oriental Society.
• 2006a From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Linguistic history of English, v. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 2006b A sociolinguistically informed solution to an old historical problem: the Gothic genitive plural. Transactions of the Philological Society.

Risch, E.

• 1984 Gerundivum und Gerundium. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Schaffner, S.

• 2001 Das Vernersche Gesetz und der innerparadigmatische grammatische Wechsel des Urgermanischen im Nominalbereich. Innsbruck.

Schmidt, G.

• 1978 Stammbildung und Flexion der indogermanischen Personalpronomina. Wiesbaden.

Schrijver, P.

• 1991 The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin, in Leiden Studies in Indo-European, Volume: 2.
• 1997 Studies in British Celtic historical phonology. Amsterdam - Atlanta. Schrijver, P. 1997.
• 1999 Vowel rounding by primitive Irish labiovelars. Ériu 50, 133-137.

Seebold, E.

• 1984 Das System der Personalpronomina in den frühgermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen.

Sheila, E.

• 1992 Historical Linguistics: Mathematical concepts. In W. Bright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics.

Sihler, A.L.

• 1995 New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, H.L. Jr.

• 1941 The Verschärfung in Germanic. Language 17, 93-9.

Snædal, M.

• 2011 "Gothic <ggw>". Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis. 128: 145–154.
• 2015a Gothic contact with Greek: Loan translations and a translation problem. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• 2015b Gothic contact with Latin: Gotica Parisina and Wulfila's Alphabet. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Staaij, R. van der

• 1995 A Reconstruction of Proto-Italic. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.

Stearns Jr, M.D.

• 1978 Crimean Gothic: Analysis and Etymology of the Corpus. Stanford: Anma Libri.

Stewart, W.A.

• 1968 A Sociolinguistic Typology for Describing National Multilingualism. In Fishman, Joshua A (ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.

Sturtevant, E.H.

• 1932 The Ablative in Indo-European and Hittite. Language 8, 1 - 10. Linguistic Society of America.
• 1944 Hittite verbal nouns in -ātar and the Latin gerund. Language 20. 206-211.

Sütterlin, L.

• 1894 Etymologisches Allerlei. Indogermanische Forschungen 4, 1. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Swadesh, M.

• 1950 Salish Internal Relations. International Journal of American Linguistics. 16: 157–167.

Tagliavini, C.

• 1948 Le origini delle lingue Neolatine: corso introduttivo di filologia romanza. Bologna: Pàtron.

Thurneysen, R.

• 1883 Urspr. dn tn en im lateinischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 26, 301-314.
• 1946 A Grammar of Old Irish, Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

Torp, A.

• 1888 Beiträge zur Lehre von den geschlechtlosen Pronomen in den indogermanischen Sprachen. (Christiania Videnskabs-Selskabs Forhandlinger 1888,11. Christiania).

Trask, R.L.

• 2007 Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts. Taylor & Francis.

Treffers-Daller, J.

• 2009 Code-switching and transfer: An exploration of similarities and differences. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press.

Uhlenbeck, C.C.

• 1906 Aanteekeningen bij Gotische etymologieën. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 25. Amsterdam University Press.

Vaan, M.A.C. de

• 2003 The Avestan Vowels. Amsterdam.
• 2004 ‘Narten’ roots from the Avestan point of view, Per Aspera Ad Asteriscos, Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV (edd. A. Hyllested e.a.), Innsbruck, 591-599.
• 2008 Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Leiden—Boston: Brill.

Vine, B.

• 2012 “PIE mobile accent in Italic: Further evidence”, in Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander, Birgit Anette Olsen, and Jens Elmegård Rasmussen, editors, The Sound of Indo-European: Phonetics, phonemics, and morphophonemics, Museum Tusculanum Press.

Voyles, J.B.

• 1992 Early Germanic Grammar. San Diego: Academic Press.

Vries, J. de

• 1977 Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Wagner, M.L.

• 1951 La lingua sarda: Storia, spirito e forma. Berne: Francke.

Watkins, C.

• 1965a EVIDENCE IN BALTO-SLAVIC. Evidence for laryngeals, edited by Werner Winter, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 116-122.
• 1965b EVIDENCE IN ITALIC. Evidence for laryngeals, edited by Werner Winter, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 181-189.

Weiss, M.L.

• 2009 Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Beech Stave Press.

Wiener, L.

• 1915 Commentary to the Germanic laws and mediaeval documents. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Winter, W.

• 1965a ARMENIAN EVIDENCE. Evidence for laryngeals, edited by Werner Winter, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 100-115.
• 1965b TOCHARIAN EVIDENCE. Evidence for laryngeals, edited by Werner Winter, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1965, pp. 190-211

Wright, J.

• 1910 Grammar of the Gothic Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Zoëga, G.T.

• 1910 A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

External links

• Wulfila Bible (full text)
• Gotica (Gothic) (small fragments)
• The latin library, ancient Latin books and writings (without translations) ordered by author
• LacusCurtius, a small collection of Greek and Roman authors along with their books and writings (original texts are in Latin and Greek, translations in English and occasionally in a few other languages are available)
• Eu Rune Pietroassa

Conlang status

Luthic Lûthica
Progress: 96%
Type
Fusional
Alignment
Nominative–accusative
Head direction
Initial	Mixed		Final
Primary word order
Verb-second
Tonal
No
Declensions
Yes
Conjugations
Yes
Genders
3
Nouns decline according to...
Case		Number
Definiteness		Gender
Verbs conjugate according to...
Voice		Mood
Person		Number
Tense		Aspect