|
Post by terroreign on Jan 31, 2011 19:03:17 GMT -5
I suggest you avoid latching on to one source if you want an accurate depiction of Albanian origins. (Btw couldn't open it). There's nearly 0% chance modern Shqip descends from Illyrian.
|
|
|
Post by ushtari on Jan 31, 2011 19:05:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 31, 2011 20:13:32 GMT -5
As an outlandish illustration, let's say that there is a race of aliens on a spaceship cruising the Milky Way Galaxy, it is entirely reasonable for them to say "we know there is a planet full of idiots in that solar system we but can't pinpoint exactly which of the 9...er,8 planets they are on". That is again logical deduction derived from someones foreknowledge. They have been informed that there is such a planet but have not educated themselves enough to know which one precisely. Its like a student taking an exam and knowing the the correct response to a particular question is either option A or B. he knows one of these are the correct answers cause he studies somewhat at least. Comparison due to foreknowledge does not stand. When the police are on a manhunt, it's ok for them to say "we know the suspect is in this neighborhood but we can't pinpoint exactly in which house he's hiding out". That is again logical deduction derived from someones foreknowledge. Suspect run towards the particular area and now they assume that is where he is considering the direction in which he was running and time that elapses since such consideration. Comparison due to foreknowledge does not stand. When you go to the doctor and they do a screening test, it's normal for them to say "we can tell you have a cancer (non-specific tumor markers) but we can't tell you exactly where". That is again logical deduction derived from someones foreknowledge. They have gone to educational facility where they acquired knowledge about medicine and now they conducted an examination on a particular patient. The patient is diagnosed with cancer cause his body has it (whether specific area like pancreatic cancer or another kind widespread across body like leukemia). Again the body has it so the cancer is contained within such body without any doubt. Comparison due to foreknowledge does not stand. So, you see, in any situation from the large to the small, it's acceptable to say that something is certainly located in a large area but can't pinpoint the exact location. Not one of these comparisons works due to the factor of previous foreknowledge and therefore the comparison does not stand. No one knows of any Albanians in pre-Norman times. It is only within last 100 years that such considerations have been made about Albanians and this is way after the fact. Not one of them are based on anything logical. No remains of Thracian, Illyrian or Dacian language remains and what connects to them (Greek remains, Phrygian, Venetic and Messapian language --->not one connects to Albanian). Albanian might be part of Balkan linguistic union but so are Romanian (Latin) and Bulgarian (Slavic) and neither is language which belongs to linguistic groups derived from Balkans. (Thracian) An ancient language of Southern Balkans, belonging to the Satem group of Indo-European. This language is the most likely ancestor of modern Albanian (which is also a Satem language), though the evidence is scanty. 1st Millennium BC - 500 AD. linguistlist.org/forms/langs/LLDescription.cfm?code=txh%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&CFTREEITEMKEY=txh+++++++++++++++scant/skant/ Adjective: Barely sufficient or adequate. Verb: Provide grudgingly or in insufficient amounts dictionary.reference.com/browse/scant
|
|
|
Post by ushtari on Jan 31, 2011 20:23:04 GMT -5
What part of "Albanian share cognates with paleo-balkan words" do you not understand? You base your whole theory on the world "Albania", well, do i have to enlight you that our language contradicts your stupid statements? Why dont you read my sources wich CLEARLY disprove all your statements? Austrian study about the Albanian language: "The researchers are following various leads which suggest that Albanian played a key role in the Balkan Sprachbund. For example, it is likely that Albanian is the source of the suffixed definite article in Romanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian, as this has been a feature of Albanian since ancient times." www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/press/pv200805-en.htmlI dont know what you are trying to prove by linking the same bullshit to us wich clearly claim what we have said all the time, ie that its still being discussed from what paleo-balkan language albanian is developed from.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 31, 2011 20:25:49 GMT -5
Don't worry most real Serbian academics agree Albanians are native. Albanians could be an Illyrian tribe, Dardanianian, Thracian, an eventual conglomerate of several paleo-Balkanic tribes speaking a similar language. Either way they are autochthonous. Albanian language both has support (eg Balkan Sprachbund and Latin derivations) as Balkanic and also disagreement (eg small amount of Greek loanwords). What I want to point out now is that if we take Albanian as an independent Balkan language considering its independence from Greek perhaps this would also encourage the possibility that slavic was a native tongue in the Balkans. These 'academics' are basing this on absolutely nothing concrete and make conclusive statements with absolute certainly without having absolutely nothing concrete to back it up with. That sounds like a propaganda derived statement with some sort of agenda (just like conclusively connecting Slavs with anything native in Balkans is fully baseless and it would be a propaganda). Slavs can perhaps only connect anthropologically to the ancient Balkanian Danubian type as one of main two types that made Neo-Danubian type (in basically pre-historic times). Balkan Sprachbund contains within it Romanian (Latin) and Bulgarian (Slavic). I am not saying Balkans did not influence Albanian linguistic ethnogenesis but it doesn't seem to be dominant aspect and same appears finalized conclusively with Normans. Admin, this is what I would put my efforts into searching for if I was you. You have to realise that a lot of people are ignoring you because you really are unconvincing. You are all over the shop and don't seem to realize your own inconsistencies and contradictions. Most people here (you included) are nationalists and very emotional about such subjects such as people here telling me that there is a established location but the place can not be pinpointed and this being based on absolutely no foreknowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 31, 2011 20:29:35 GMT -5
What part of "Albanian share cognates with paleo-balkan words" do you not understand? You base your whole theory on the world "Albania", well, do i have to enlight you that our language contradicts your stupid statements? Which part of no remains from Illyrian, Thracian and Dacian remain to even make such a statement. Albanians as different ethnicity in the same area (and in history ...period) appear with Normans ...full stop. "The researchers are following various leads which suggest that Albanian played a key role in the Balkan Sprachbund. For example, it is likely that Albanian is the source of the suffixed definite article in Romanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian, as this has been a feature of Albanian since ancient times." Leading role in what exactly? Something that left no remains? Romanian (Via Romanized natives) and Bulgarian clearly predate historically Albanians and such statement is laughable at best.
|
|
|
Post by ushtari on Jan 31, 2011 20:45:27 GMT -5
Which part of no remains from Illyrian, Thracian and Dacian remain to even make such a statement. Albanians as different ethnicity in the same area (and in history ...period) appear with Normans ...full stop. I have already proven this for you. How many times do i have to repost this until your brain gets it? "First, the 'substratum' of Romanian ( that is, the language spoken by the proto-Romanians before they switched to Latin) must have been similar to Albanian; and secondly, there must have been close contact between Albanians and early Romanian-speakers over a long period, involving a shared pastoral life. ( Some key elements of the pastoral vocabulary in Romanian are borrowed from Albanian.)" www.scribd.com/doc/8699791/Noel-Malcolm-Origins-Serbs-Albanians-and-Vlachswww.promacedonia.org/en/nm/kosovo.htmlOh i forgot, AAdmin is a graduate in Balkan history, he is also a well known linguists so such claims must be bulls**t if he says so... Dude, stop embarrassing yourself...
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 31, 2011 21:26:13 GMT -5
ushtari, I've read the source you given me and it doesn't give any substantiative facts. It simply displays the ongoing debate over where the Alb language's origins lie-one group of linguists claiming thracian, the other Illyrian, and some with Armenian even. He actually f's up his whole thesis when he sets "Durres" as an example. Citing that Slavic "Drac" is an older toponym than Albanian Durres which derived from the Italian "Durazzo".
|
|
|
Post by ushtari on Jan 31, 2011 21:27:58 GMT -5
ushtari, I've read the source you given me and it doesn't give any substantiative facts. It simply displays the ongoing debate over where the Alb language's origins lie-one group of linguists claiming thracian, the other Illyrian. He actually f's up his whole thesis when he sets "Durres" as an example. Citing that Slavic "Drac" is an older toponym than Albanian Durres which derived from the Italian "Durazzo". Ofc it doesn't, if that would be the case this debate would be over long time ago. But still, as you probably saw for your self, Albanian being developed from either Illyrian, Dacian or Thracian is a commonly known fact. Btw, no one claim it derives from Armenian, but they simply explain that there are similarities.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 31, 2011 21:33:29 GMT -5
^I also forgot to mention the author brings up proponents of an Armenian-connection ;/
And it being a 'commonly known fact' is just as factual as the theories he's fighting to work out here. You should be more critical of the text, it'd do you more good than harm.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 31, 2011 21:37:56 GMT -5
(About another Linguist's theory) "Without entering into his arguments in detail-for I find their longer range aspects unconvincing, and his safer observations of concordances no advance over those earlier workers-Baric plumps for an Albanian-Armenian relationship, with Thracian as an intermediate. More precisely, he would posit an Albanian-Thracian-Armenian continuum."
|
|
|
Post by ushtari on Jan 31, 2011 21:42:24 GMT -5
Yes, that is a theory, but i consider it quite far fetched. But again, it still does not move Albanian from Balkan.
|
|
|
Post by ushtari on Feb 1, 2011 7:34:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by EriTopSheqeri on Feb 1, 2011 13:52:46 GMT -5
Ushtari, you must be new here on IP. Look, you won't get anywhere with this kind of "debates." These primitive retards are not sure what they are themselves. Rest assured they haven't read a single book in their entire lives.
|
|
|
Post by la3ar on Feb 1, 2011 16:30:22 GMT -5
ushtari, so your standing by the term "probably" connection to Illyrians?
Albanians have been said to be "probably" derived from many areas and cultures.
|
|
|
Post by ushtari on Feb 1, 2011 16:56:10 GMT -5
ushtari, so your standing by the term "probably" connection to Illyrians? Albanians have been said to be "probably" derived from many areas and cultures. I dont know how many times i have explained this for you now, but all modern historians/linguists familiar with the subject agree that Albanians have their original home in Balkan, whats being discussed is from what particular paleo-balkan people Albanians are descendents of. Did it went into your brain this time?
|
|
|
Post by la3ar on Feb 1, 2011 19:39:14 GMT -5
You have proved nothing, just regurgitated what other people have implied. There's the same amount of resources dis-crediting everything you are saying.
Get it? You cant win this.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Feb 1, 2011 19:56:47 GMT -5
Lets assume in the next 1000 years following things happen;
01-During the weak stages western scavengers nibble at Balkans. 02-During the nibble scavengers bring subjects collected from far. 03-Large segment of the Islamic world unites and takes over Balkans. 04-Subjects from various places settle and fuse with locals into one. 05-New ones serve Islamic masters against other locals. 06-New ones have no identity other then Islamic one. 07-Islamic power finally fades and new ones are left alone. 08-Scavengers eye again the Balkans. 09-Scavengers take lesson from Romans to devide and conquer. 10-Scavengers focus on new ones and invent stories about them. --(stories distributed by their media and colleges as new gospel) 11-Stories that new ones are really old ones --(stories distributed by their media and colleges as new gospel) 12-Stories that they are local but from nowhere exactly. --(stories distributed by their media and colleges as new gospel) --(generations later new ones are convinced they are old) --(generations later new ones argue what can not be argued)
It happened before why not again.
|
|
|
Post by crnogoracilir on Aug 10, 2011 15:29:13 GMT -5
Yugoslavs are majority Illyrians that is Fact.
|
|