I'm making a map of Italic tribes before Roman expansion started truly kicking off outside of Latium (c. 400-350 BC), and I've decided, for immersion's sake, to translate even the key, not just toponyms, to Latin. It shouldn't be a problem for any reader who speaks Western languages, as most of the terms are easily recognizable from our languages, and those that aren't, are readily translatable on the internet. However, I'm having a problem with proper grammar, and I'm not sure I've actually understood how to form the correct grammatical forms using wiktionary. I'd appreciate help checking the phrases:
"Tribes of Italy" - either "Nationes Italicae" or "Gentes Italicae". Are they grammatically correct, and which of them is a more appropriate translation (think of tribes like Latini, Falisci, Umbri, Sidicini, Marsi..., not "greater tribes" like the Etruscans, Samnites or Greeks)?
For languages of the tribes - "Linguae Sabellicae" (not the most widespread term for Osco-Umbrian, but I think it captures the essence of the languages lying on a continuum, and not being two clearly differentiated Oscan and Umbrian laguages) "Lingua Latina/Lingua Latina et Falisca" "Lingua Sicula" (Sicel)
And as for cities and towns, could even smaller (but still important) cities/towns like the chief towns of tribes, or all of the towns in the Etruscan league, be considered "Urbs" in ancient Latium, or would it just refer to truly major cities like Rome, Syracuse and Carthage? If so, would the phrase for "large city" be "Urbes magnae" and for "other cities" be "Alias urbes"? As for towns, I assume the term "Oppida" is the way to go.
Thanks for help!