|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 5, 2012 8:06:11 GMT -5
^ Serbs are those Slavs who arrived in Albania at an earlier time than BuLgari. The BuLgari came as an empire for the first time after 300 to 400 years.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 5, 2012 8:48:08 GMT -5
"That's why the argument for a founder effect exists. Albanians either represent those populations who retreated up into the mountains or that had already lived there. They were therefore isolated from the outside and managed to keep their identity." Retreated up in the mountains, oh c'mon Groet, this is the most stupidest theory l have ever encountered. The Albanians had a look out man for Slavs, then rushed up into the mountains for 500 to 600 years, and when they left, the Albanians came down from those mountains LMAO Slavs NAMED all your Mountains, Albanians USE Slavic names for MOUNTAIN FLORA"That's what they didn't. Albanian mountain-related terminology is quite pure; this is what linguists postulate. The problem here is your own knowledge." Wiki for instance: "The Slav loans in Albanian suggest that contacts between two populations took place when Albanian dwelt in forests 600–900 metres above sea level."Robert Elsie (Albanologist) for instance: "Latin terms are indeed common for lowland trees, Slavic loans are noticeably common for highland trees, in particular for pines.""No. The Latin terms come from sources other than Slavs, this doesn't make any sense. The Latin in Albanian comes from ***drumroll*** Latins." No Groet, l was mocking the stupidity of it all. "Yet we know that Albanians were there before 1000 A.D. Some Slavic loanwords in Albanian predate a certain soundshift that happened long before 1000 A.D." HOW DO WE KNOW 100% ALBANIANS WERE IN THE BALKANS BEFORE 1000AD? Bulgarians/Serbs/Fyromians/Montenegrins/Bosnians/Croatians and Slovenians were speaking pretty much the same language with minimal differences up until the 12th century, actually, Slavic was just a single language mass from Novgorod to Thessaloniki. "Your argument isn't worth much if it relies solely on the fact that there are no Slavic recordings of Albanians, that could just be the inability of said Slavs to record." Lets take your point, if there was the inability to record, then why didn't they record orally (Stories, Songs). Byzantines never made mention of Shqiptars until the late 11th century, why? Besides, Slavs did have a writing script before the advent of Cyrillic. "There is a reference to Albanians before the date you put by a Bulgarian text, however. Going by that record, it seems like there existed some knowledge on Albanians, at least on the Bulgarian side. That would be perfectly normal as they were the rulers of Albania." Isn't it interesting because its about the same time they are mentioned by Byzantines, in the 11th century. The Bulgars occupied the region, in the 11th century, wow. "Furthermore, there is never any mention of any invasion or intrusion by Albanians. The Byzantines only recorded that which was important to them politically, and the first Byzantine record of Albanians is from 1079, which is about the Albanian participation in a rebellion against Constantinople in 1043 and another rebellion in 1078. Ironically, a lot of Serbian Internet warriors think that the Albanians started to exist in 1079 because of that record, even though it refers to them as taking part in said rebellion in 1043. Interestingly, that record refers to Albanians as Albanoi and Arbanitai. The Albanoi were an Illyrian tribe mentioned in the 2nd century by Ptolemy and the Arbonites were mentioned in he 6th century by Stephanus. The latter can even be pushed farther back in time because Stephanus bases himself on texts from a Greek writer from the 2nd century. Moreover, Albanoi and Arbanitai are old Greek terms for Albanians and Illyrians that are curiously similar to modern Greek terms for Albanians: Alvanoi/Alvanos and Arvanit. The only difference is the shift in sound from b to v." "The first undisputed mention of Albanians in the historical record is attested in Byzantine source for the first time in 1079-1080, in a work titled History by Byzantine historian Michael Attaliates, who referred to the Albanoi as having taken part in a revolt against Constantinople in 1043 and to the Arbanitai as subjects of the duke of Dyrrachium. It is disputed, however, whether the "Albanoi" of the events of 1043 refers to Albanians in an ethnic sense or whether "Albanoi" is a reference to Normans from Sicily under an archaic name (there was also tribe of Italy by the name of "Albanoi").[28] However a later reference to Albanians from the same Attaliates, regarding the participation of Albanians in a rebellion around 1078, is undisputed.[23] At this point, they are already fully Christianized, although Albanian mythology and folklore are part of the Paleo-Balkan pagan mythology,[29] in particular showing Greek influence.[30]"
Sources:
^ The wars of the Balkan Peninsula: their medieval origins G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series Authors Alexandru Madgearu, Martin Gordon Editor Martin Gordon Translated by Alexandru Madgearu Edition illustrated Publisher Scarecrow Press, 2008 ISBN 0-8108-5846-0, 9780810858466 It was supposed that those Albanoi from 1042 were Normans from Sicily, called by an archaic name (the Albanoi were an independent tribe from Southern Italy), p. 25 ^ Bonnefoy, Yves (1993-05-15). American, African, and Old European mythologies. University of Chicago Press. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-226-06457-4. books.google.gr/books?id=GYjc5POw....dition&f=false. Retrieved 24 December 2010. ^ Mircea Eliade, Charles J. Adams, The Encyclopedia of religion, Macmillan, 1987, ISBN 978-0-02-909700-7, p. 179.Try and disprove what has been bolden! GOOD LUCK LMAO
|
|
rex362
Senior Moderator
Pellazg
PELASGIANILLYROALBANIAN
Posts: 19,058
|
Post by rex362 on Jun 5, 2012 9:43:59 GMT -5
yea you got us bro ....but after and only after you show us something bolden about recorded history of us arriving into the Balkans GOOD LUCK LMAO thank you and it better not be anything from highdukes web site either
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 5, 2012 18:18:29 GMT -5
^ Rexy you still getting nightmares from Highduke LMAO....l thought you would had been getting OVAH it by now?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 5, 2012 18:23:12 GMT -5
Don't you guys realise that historians are mocking you by saying DWELT IN MOUNTAINS and LIVED IN FORESTS, it gives the impression you guys are some un-civilised pygmy tribe LMAO
|
|
atdhetar
Amicus
tonight we dine in hell!
Posts: 3,124
|
Post by atdhetar on Jun 6, 2012 4:09:24 GMT -5
you ever heard of slavic shower? drinking loads of water so the body warms it up and then pissing on one another, they used to put leafs over the eyes so it wouldn't sting and that's how your incestial predecessors used to bathe, piss is also anti septic so it was good for killing germs
|
|
|
Post by groet on Jun 6, 2012 4:12:26 GMT -5
Retreated up in the mountains, oh c'mon Groet, this is the most stupidest theory l have ever encountered. The Albanians had a look out man for Slavs, then rushed up into the mountains for 500 to 600 years, and when they left, the Albanians came down from those mountains LMAO You have already set a standard where you're not going to want to have a normal discussion. What I said has little to do with what you just said. You really are retarded, aren't you? The same wiki article says the exactly opposite of that some 2 lines above your Wikiquote. It doesn't even insinuate anything about mountains, it specifically says this happened in forests. Most countries are some 100meters above sea level, that's averages. Don't talk about things you don't understand, ok? This is the whole quote: "The place where the Albanian language was formed is uncertain, but analysis has suggested that it was in a mountainous region, rather than in a plain or seacoast. While the words for plants and animals characteristic of mountainous regions are entirely original, the names for fish and for agricultural activities are generally assumed to have been borrowed from other languages. The Slav loans in Albanian suggest that contacts between two populations took place when Albanian dwelt in forests 600–900 metres above sea level.[6] The overwhelming number of mountaineering and shepherding vocabulary, coupled with the extensive influence of Latin makes it likely that the Albanians originated north of the Jireček Line, further north and inland than the current borders of Albania suggest." I think you just lack any arguments whatsoever, but call it what you will. Because there was a certain shift in sounds in Slavic languages that had happened before 1000, Albanian retains the original pre-shift form of some of these words. What kind of question is that? Are you asking me why they didn't record any history, when I asked the same, and you're using it as an argument against me? Oh wow. Anyway, Slavs weren't recording history through written language until late. Because they probably weren't considered a threat until then, Byzantines only recorded what they had interests in or what was a threat. Recordings aren't very important though. It could just be due to the failure to record, the loss of such records, etc. and the fact that there was no record before that date proves little other than that there was no record before that date. It's quite irrelevant. You and your ilk confine with logical fallacies so there's not much more to expect. There's actually no substantial proof of that currently, just a possibility. But if it was anything, it was a primitive form of writing, like runes and such. Most important, it's not something that can have been widespread among Slavs or even used. It was in the early 11th century although it came under Byzantine rule again quickly. Or were it Serbs? Not really that interesting though, it was before the Byzantines mentioned them and it's a record. You fail to make any point whatsoever - again.[/quote] Normans never went under the name "Albanoi", it clearly isn't a reference to Normans. I don't know why Attaliates would refer to Normans as Albanoi (something never done before or later) because of the fact that there was some ancient Italian tribe called Albanoi when Normans had nothing to do with them. It's a very poor attempt at casting doubt at this, the connection is very weak. Albanoi is much more likely to be a reference to Albanian. Your quotes from poor material doesn't prove anything else to be true.
|
|
atdhetar
Amicus
tonight we dine in hell!
Posts: 3,124
|
Post by atdhetar on Jun 6, 2012 4:23:58 GMT -5
groet, do yourself a favor and stop indulging dumb novi, can you not tell he is obviously challenged?
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jun 6, 2012 7:59:41 GMT -5
Novi embodies the anithesis of anything intellectual and academic, his argumentation is in line with that of Pyrros; inconsistent and prone to unfalsifiability and above all self-serving. Combine this with a total lack of knowledge in any of the relevant scientific fields of this discussion, in particular historical linguistics, as well as his proverbial stubbornness, and you have a brick wall that's incapable of processing anything.. other than what "it" wants to hear. At its best, this is done through a sloppy work of selective quotations, like that of Eric Hamp .. who never entertained the "theory" of our arrival as late as the 11th century. At its worst, he does it with completely unsubstantiated claims such as "we named all of your mountains and rivers"..
Novi is a member since day one, and he hasn't learned anything, quite the contrary, he's gotten dumber. He is incapable of mentioning any credible and non-partial source that currently supports the Caucasian theory of our origins. It's because a Western "conspiracy" has hijacked the local discourse and brainwashed everyone. That sums everything about Novi, possible the dumbest creature to ever visit these forums. The likes of axristo could atleast excuse themselves with their poor command of the English language. Novi is a monoglot, he only knows English and doesn't have this excuse.
In conclusion, my suggestion is we stop conversing with this fool because there is no point. Save the arguments for someone that actualy listens.
|
|
|
Post by groet on Jun 6, 2012 8:29:32 GMT -5
I agree. Arguing with someone like Novi is to spend useful time and to tire oneself pointlessly.
If I know Novi right, this will be a testimonial to our inability to argue against him. He was right from the start off in his own mind and nothing can ever disprove him.
|
|
atdhetar
Amicus
tonight we dine in hell!
Posts: 3,124
|
Post by atdhetar on Jun 6, 2012 8:55:16 GMT -5
i do not waste time with feeble minded creatures like novi, uz, picko, kurvo....you take your time to compile a carefully thought out response, citing authors and quoting sources only to have a zombie like uz shut it down with his trademark halfwitted logic, and how can a person talk to a revolting degenerate like picko?
do you gus really think idiots let a thing like reason to get in their way?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 6, 2012 21:04:27 GMT -5
"You really are retarded, aren't you? The same wiki article says the exactly opposite of that some 2 lines above your Wikiquote. It doesn't even insinuate anything about mountains, it specifically says this happened in forests. Most countries are some 100meters above sea level, that's averages. Don't talk about things you don't understand, ok?" I'm retarded and the Illyrian theory isn't? Most countries are 100m above sea level but they arn't 900m above sea level, those numbers are HIGHLAND FIGURES, so it just disproves Albanians were NOT ISOLATED from Slavs, up in the highlands nor mountains. "I think you just lack any arguments whatsoever, but call it what you will." Wishful thinking Groet. "Because there was a certain shift in sounds in Slavic languages that had happened before 1000, Albanian retains the original pre-shift form of some of these words." So now Shqiptare has ancient Slavic vocabulary pre 1000AD, eventhou they were ISOLATED up in the forests/highlands/mountains at 2000m above sea level, chit thats something new Groet. "Because they probably weren't considered a threat until then, Byzantines only recorded what they had interests in or what was a threat. Recordings aren't very important though. It could just be due to the failure to record, the loss of such records, etc. and the fact that there was no record before that date proves little other than that there was no record before that date. It's quite irrelevant. You and your ilk confine with logical fallacies so there's not much more to expect." Yeah sure, hidden up in the mountains from Slavs, the Byzantines thought they were extinct....THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN....Albanians are used in the Byzantine army during the 11th century against Serbs. Groet, what is so freaken hilarious now, Albanians go on about being North of Jirechek line, while the Illyrian Albanoi tribe of whom the Austrians named you guys were south of it. Now you mention above there were plenty of Illyrian tribes INLAND and that is your reasonings why modern Shqiptare lacks maritime vocabulary (heavily borrowed from Slavic). Groet, Illyrian tribes had intermingled, loved, hated, fought and shared, so this reasoning is stupidity at its best. These contradictions show Shqiptars (Albanians) arn't native and original inhabitants of Shqiptaria. Most likely arrived to the region in the 11th century
|
|
|
Post by albpaion on Jun 7, 2012 5:42:37 GMT -5
Yeah sure, hidden up in the mountains from Slavs, the Byzantines thought they were extinct....THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN....Albanians are used in the Byzantine army during the 11th century against Serbs. You know next to nothing about early Medieval Balkans. There are just a few sources pertaining to this period. From 3 century A.D down to 9th century A.D, Byzantine chroniclers were not really interested on western part of Balkans, nor in its mountains areas. The continuous upheavals of Goths, incursions of Huns, Avars and later of Slavs got the main attention of Byzantines. With the arrival of Slavs, Byzantines were encountered with the need to recognize their political entities of Croatians, Bulgarians and Serbs. After 9th century A.D, when it appears some tranquility (in the sense that there were no migrations), Byzantine sources notice again the presence of some non-assimilated pockets, which kept intact their identity. With the re-assertion of Byzantine empire towards, Western Balkans, sources recognize the existence of both Albanians and Vlachs. Had it been Albanians or even Vlachs newcomers in Balkans, then Byzantines would notice their arrival. Let me break it down for you: Byzantine chroniclers seem to cease from mentioning Illyrians around 7th century A.D. They were mentioned for the last time in the Miracula Sancti Demetrii during the 7th century. During this time, Illyrians got territorially contracted into remote areas of Albania, where they managed to preserve their identity. The case of Basques or Welsh in Britain is telling. Give me a break, man! Without buffoons like you the world would not be as nearly interesting. I wonder how on earth come that a population who peacefully practiced transhumance succeeded in subduing a vast territory stretching from Herzegovina all the way to Corinth gulf? I also wonder how could these "ignorant" peasants bore cultural resemblance, harking back to pre-Greek period? Their unique culture, songs, traditions and customs are basically the same with those practiced in early antiquity. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, the supposed lack of maritime terminology is the weakest point on the arguments against Illyrian ancestry of Albanians. Yet Albanian has some original words relating to nautical and maritime world.
|
|
albascorp
Amicus
wahwhahehoehaboe
Posts: 1,248
|
Post by albascorp on Jun 7, 2012 6:20:00 GMT -5
"Romans strictly prohibited Illyrians from utilizing their sea" C'mon man, this is just as silly as the mountain theory. We've had Illyrian tribes living at the sea before Roman occupation, so your telling me they simply....FORGOT them? "One is tempted to mention a handful words, such as: valë, guaskë, zall, fushnjezë, etc, etc" Vale is actually a Slavic word for Wave. "With the collapse of the Roman empire and the Slav invasions both Latin and Illyrian speakers would have retreated to the hills and obscurity" So up in isolation from Slavs they learnt all the slavic names for mountain vegetation, then coming back down to assimilate their Slavs (Serboi) they learnt from them Vulgar Latin terms for lowland vegetation, makes sense. "With the reassertion of Byzantine authority at this time both groups enter history again;and chroniclers now talk of Vlachs and Albanians." They were mentioned for the first time in 1079, 11th century, some 500 years after Slavs. We Slavs did not see any Albanian in the lowlands nor in the highlands when we gave names to every river, towns, mountains, beaches etc....If we did, it would have been recorded by us, as did Serbian Emperor Dushan in the 14th century. how can any word actually be slavic taken by an illyrian when nowhere in history slavs existed before 6 century for dumb people under us it means you could say slavs never exited before middle ages so they must be some bastards rapers murders thiefs and other criminal who decided to call them slavs so slav means another word for bastard-criminal-murder-thief-rape- so everytime you say you are a slav you are offending yourself its de seed and and dept your annchestory reserverd for you you slavs are just couple thousend years to late
|
|
|
Post by albpaion on Sept 19, 2012 6:19:11 GMT -5
It appears that Novi Pazar vanished into thin air without leaving any conclusive answer to his ludicrous claims.
|
|