|
Post by terroreign on Apr 11, 2008 17:10:10 GMT -5
Novi - Serbs first came to the balkans in the 7th century, that's what history dictates.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 12, 2008 18:54:02 GMT -5
^ and Albanians came in 11th century, so what!.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 12, 2008 19:55:32 GMT -5
The following will be taken from: Jirechek, Paul Joseph Schafarik, Marin Drinov, A.Ischirkov, Jakob Pillipp Fallmerayer, V Jagich, Vladimir Corovich, Fran Grivec, M Murko, P.A Lavrow, Ferdo Shshic, Stojanovich, Leonard Schultze-Jena, V.N. Zlatarski, Dimitri Obolensky.
The following will be about the arrival of Slavs in the Balkans
On their arrival in the Balkans the Slavic tribes began to settle, among other places, in the area of what is now Macedonia. Opinions are divided on the questions when and in what numerical relationship these tribes first began to cross the Danube and where and how they originally settled. In many cases, these views are completely irreconcilable. The Polish historian Surowiecky asserted that the Slavic tribes did not cross the Danube until after the collapse of the Hunnic state-that is, not before the last two or three decades of the fifth century. Paul Joseph Schafarik, for long an authority on this question, shared the same view: "There is no doubt," he wrote, "that the Slavs penetrated beyond the Danube into Moesia and Pannonia before the middle of the sixth century, although we have no direct evidence of this, Byzantine sources speak of Slavic inroads into Moesia and Thrace in the years 527, 533 and 546; similarly, there is frequent mention of mercenary troops (in the years 537, 540, 547, 555 and 556) in the service of Byzantium. On the other hand, history makes no mention of the *peaceful occupation* of the lands south of the Danube, although this must in any case have begun in the late fifth or early sixth century." Later, Marin Drinov maintained that the settlement of the Slavs in the Balkans took place over a prolonged period-at least three centuries-and that it began *before* the transmigration of peoples, being completed in the seventh century. Jirechek regarded this view of Drinov's as the more accurate one, and emphasized that "in the fifth century the Slavs were far from being unknown in the [Balkan] Peninsula: they were fairly numerous and influential people, although their colonies appear to have been pretty widely scattered." He goes on to say that Slavic colonization began in the third century and was carried out gradually: "At the end of the fifth century," he says, "armed migration began on a massive scale." This would be the second and final phase in this movement, which likewise took place over a prolonged period. We also know that Emperor Justin 1 (518-27) and his nephew Justinian 1 (527-65) were of Slavic origin. At a later date, there were even Slavs among the patriarchs of Byzantium. Their numbers were considerable in Justinian's army. Among Justinian's commanders, we find mention of Dobrogost, Svegrd and Svarun, who in 555 distinguished themselves in the war against the Persians. Similar cases could be quoted in plenty, all of which show that the first Slavs to arrive in the Peninsula had begun to merge on a large scale with the indigenous population and had become civilized and converted to Christianity before fresh waves of Slavic tribes crossed the Danube. On their arrival in the Balkans, these Slavs preserved their tribal organiszation and old way of life as far as circumstances permitted-for it was inevitable that they should mix to some extent with the indigenous population. As regards the distribution of the various tribes in the peninsula, there is much that is still obsure: we only know for certain the names of some of them and the areas that they occupied. The Severjani or Severci, settled in what is now Dobruja, the Timochani in the region of the Timok, and the Moravljani on the Morava River; the Brsjaci, a people which still exists under the same name, occupied the area around Prilep, Veles, Bitolj and Tikvesh; nothing more than their names is known about the Smoljani and the Rinhini: Jirechek remarks that their habitation and the origin of their names are obscure; the Sagudati inhabited the plain of Salonica; one part of the very important tribe known as the Dragovich settled in the western valley of the Vardar River, and the other in the western Rhodope Mountains; the Velesich or Velegostich, occupied Thessaly, the Vojnich Epirus and the Milinci the Taygetus plateau, while the Jezerani descended as far as the Gulf of Laconia. The name of the seven Slavic tribes that Asparuch was the first to subdue are still unknown. "History," says Dr. Ischirkov, "speaks of the Serverci and of seven other Slavic tribes in what is now eastern Bulgarian whose names are unknown to us." Schafarik was of the opinion that the members of these tribes were peaceful tillers of the soil: on the arrival of the Bulgars, some of these tribes, or at least part of them, migrated to regions which remained under Byzantine rule.
It is generally recognized that these Slavic migrations, on account of their scale, completely changed the ethnic character of this region. "From Cape Matapan to the Dalmatian ports and the Danube estuary, there was not a single district without its Slavic colonies." Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer made an especial study of the question how far south these colonies penetrated, and discovered that they streched as far as the southern Pelopennese. "These primitive Slavs of the sixth century," he says, "are the authentic ancestors and kinsmen of the modern Greek peasants in Macedonia, Thesaly, Hellas and the Pelopennese. For over nine hundred years, the population of these districts spoke both Greek and Slav......It is only during the last four centuries that the Slav lanuage died out as a spoken lanuage on the territory of ancient Greece, with the exception of the northern tip of Acarnania." Even Carl Hopf, who on many points strongly disagreed with Fallmerayer, did not dispute this view in essence; while accepting the "irrefutable fact that the Pelopennese was for long inhabited by Slavs, he queried the assertion that Athens was sacked, that the ancient Greekscompletely disappeared and that the modern Greeks were connected with the Hellenes by nothing more than the language which they had inherited."
Continues with my next post.........
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 12, 2008 22:01:15 GMT -5
continuing with my last post......
This widespread diffusion of the Slavs in the Balkans, particularly in the region of ancient Macedonia, explains why this region was called "Slovinia" in Byzantine sources. Before the arrival of the Bulgars, Moesia was known by the same name. Referring to this name, Schafarik says: "It was used in two senses: in the one sense, it was applied to all Slav lands under Bulgarian domination, i.e., to upper and Lower Moesia, together with Dardania, and in the other it referred to a smaller area which, in my opinion, should be sought in Macedonia and on the frontiers of Albania and Thessaly." The Emperor Justinian 2 Rhinotmetus (686-87) conducted a military campaign against the Bulgars and the "land of the Slavs." In 758, the Emperor Constantine Copronymus attacked the "Slavic land that was situated in Macedonia" and carried off many slaves. When Niciphorus (802-10) disbanded his army, he indicated the "land of the Slavs" to his soldiers as their future abode. It was reported of the Bulgarian khan Krum that 813 he strengthened his army with recruits "from all the Slavic lands." Thus it is with justification that Jirechek states that the "local name of 'Slovjenin,' in the plural 'Slovjene,' was known from the sixth century on in neighboring areas to the west and south......This name is to be found, not only in the area of Salonica and in Dalmatia, but also in the eastern Alps and Western Carpathians, among the Polabian Slavs and in the area of Novgorod." Vatroslav Jagich also pointed out that foreigners gave the name "Slavs" to all those tribes which, after crossing the Danube, pressed toward the south and west. He added that this common name did not "designate a single tribe or homogenous people, but a whole mass, from the sixth century on, moved across the Danube from what is now the plain of Bessarabia and Rumania." Although, in opposition to Kopitar and Mikloshic, he maintained that the Macedonian Slavs were neither of the same tribe as the Pannonian nor spoke the same dialect, he took due account of the fact that the lanuage of the Dalmatian Croats, like that Neretvljani, was for long called Slav, and that, after the Serbs and Croats had finally settled down, there were areas between them which were termed"Slavic lands," as, for example, Slavonia. According to Corovich, many Western writers applied the name "Slavonia" or "Sclavinia" to the entire area from Istria to the Bojana and from the Dalmatian coast to the Danube. Even in Dubrovnik and Kotor, during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Slavonia was often identified with Serbia. In the fourteenth-century chronicle of Koporin, it is stated that King Milutin's good name had spread "over all the Greek and Slav land." The chronicle of Pech later corrected "Slav" to "Serbian." The Slavs inhabiting the Balkan Peninsula referred to themselves as "Sloveni" (Slavs). Corovich states that it is unlikely that at that time there were any definite frontiers dividing them. Their individual tribal names tended more and more to give way to this common appellation, which was applied to them, as to single entity, by outsiders. It was thought at one time that the Balkan Slavs received this name from a tribe which came to the Peninsula and settled near Salonica. "In these lands, called Slovinia." says Schafarik, "there settled that well-known Slavic tribe which by its deeds became known in history before all others, and whose lanuage was adopted by Constantine and Methodius, who had learnt it in their childhood in Salonica, for their translation of the Bible, by means of which a noble culture was made accessible to one half of the Slavic nation. It was after these Slavs [Sloveni] that Constantine named his alphabet, and the lanuage which he used, 'Slav' [slovenski]." Whether this be so or not, it is known that Constantine (i.e, Cyril) and Methodius adopted the lanuage of the Macedonian Slavs as their written lanuage. In the Life of Methodius, it is stated that the Emperor Michael 3, having summoned St. Cyril to entrust him with the task of working among the Slavs, commanded him to take Methodius and go with him to Moravia. "You are from Salonica," he said, "and all the people of Salonica speak pure Slav." In the Lives of Cyril and Methodius-the first original South Slav literary compositions-it is stated that the former was "the first teacher of the Slavic nation" and that he taught "Slavic pupils," while Methodius is describe as having had a "Slavic principality" under his direction. This refers to the time when Methodius, whose secular name has not come down to us, was a highly placed official in the Imperial service and was in charge of a theme (i.e, province) in the Balkans. It was perfectly reasonable that the Slavs' first literary lanuage should be called "Slav." After much research, Mtija Murko came to the conclusion that it is incorrect to call this lanuage Bulgarian. "It is unhistorical and even more dangerous," he says, "to use the term 'Old Bulgarian,' since this latter was the Turkish lanuage." P.A. Lavrow drew attention to the fact that in the "Pannonian legends"-as the lives of Cyril and Methodius were called-the expressions B'lgarian b'lgarsk are not be to found- a circumstance which distinguishes the legends significantly from Greek Vita Clementi. From this one might infer that Clement was of Macedonian origin, since at that time these expressions were not used in Macedonia. In the early redactions of his writings, therefore, Clement is more accurately described as being "slovensk," i.e, Slav. It cannot, moreover, have been fortuitous that Emperor Simeon, in 893, appointed him as the first Slav bishop. Ferdo shishich states that, at the beginning of the tenth century, Slav figured as a literary lanuage side by side with Greek and Latin. "It is known," he says, "that this lanuage flourished in the tenth century in Macedonia and Bulgaria and that from there it began to spread toward the West, where a separate literary center came into being in Croatia and maintained its existance despite all difficulties." During the following centuries, we find a living Slavic tradition among writers in this region, even though they lived and worked within the Bulgarian state. In the manuscript by the Exarch Jovan, which dates from the late eleventh or early twelfth century, there occur the expressions "slovensk" (Slav) and "slovensk jazik" (Slavic lanuage), while the priest Grigorije has "slovenski jazik"; "Russkaya pravda" (1020) contains the word "Slovenin" (Slav), while in the writings of the monk Hrabar (of the tenth or eleventh century) we find the expressions "slovenska rech" (Slavic speech), "rod slovensk" (Slavic people) and "pismena slovenska" (Slavic characters). In the Prologue to some Lives of the Saints dating from the thirteenth century, there occur the forms "slovensku jeziku," "slovenskih knjig," "slovenski ucheniki," etc. It is also of interest that in an inscription of 1295 in the Krmchija it is stated that "the rules emerged into the light of the Slavic language." The translator of Dionysius the Areopagite, in a manuscript of Bulgarian recension, calls the Slav lanuage "our" lanuage, and, comparing it with Greeks, says that it was also created by God and found good, but that it lacks the wealth of expression and nuances that Greek has. With refrence to a collection of sermons dealing with the Gospels, it is stated that they were translated from Greek into Slav. In view of all these facts, Dr Leonard Schultze-Jena was mistaken in his assertion that we have "no information on the nationality of those Slavs who had inhabited Macedonia for three centuries before it was conquered by the Bulgars and later by the Serbs." Apart from everything that occurred subsequently, we know that these Slavs constituted a large ethnic mass which, in spite of attested tribal differences, became more and more compact: blood relationship and exrtaneous circumstances accelerated this tendancy. Although, as Jagich has pointed out, there were certain dialectal differences, the written Slav lanuage became a unifying force.
continues next post......
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 12, 2008 23:18:16 GMT -5
continues on from previous post....
The acceptance of Christianity also made its contribution: through the Church tribal differences were attenuated, and a keener sense of the community was developed than had hitherto existed. In general, Christianity made Slavs more domesicated, bound them more closely to the land they had occupied and reduced their aggressiveness toward Byzantium. Matej Sokolov pointed out that Christianity had a curbing infleunce upon other barbarians in the Roman Empire. St. Jerome, a fourth-century writer, observed that as soon as the barbarians became Christianized, they ceased waging war against "the Romans." The tenth-century writer Kamenijat expressly states the same thing of the Slavs: since they had accepted Christianity, they had ceased threatening Salonica. The Christianization of the Balkans Slavs took place gradually. When Cyril and Methodius first began their work, they had been, in the formal sense, more or less converted. It has been established that they were Christianized long before the Bulgars, whose official conversion dates from 861 or 862. It may be said that the Balkan Slavs did not begin to play a part in history until they had acquired a literary lanuage and a clergy of their own. Tired of a life of constant raids and warfare, they were inspired by Christianity in the form in which it was brought to them by Cyril and Methodius and their disciples, by their pastoral and cultral work and by the powerful religious and literary stimulus that this work supplied. Through the Christian religion, which began to grasp the essence of power and to menace the non-Christian way of life of the agents of this power. Nowhere did the concept of the Church, inculcated into the minds of the people by the disciples of Cyril and Methodius and their successors, come into more direct conflict with that of the state, which (in this case) was nationally alien to them and predatory in its practices. In general, they seem to have displayed a definite antipathy toward the state: their frequent revolts against the Bulgarian state spring, as we shall see, from this cause. "United," says corovich, "in a powerful ethnic community, they exerted a certain opposition toward Bulgaria, where ethnic heterogeneity was evident and where the Bulgars held the most important positions." The Slavic tribes settled in the territory of Macedonia were united by the Orthodox religion. In it they, so to speak, discovered their true selves. People of humble origins bbecame priests, preachers and anchorities. It was not foruitous that during these troubled times there were increasing numbers of hermits, who became the spirtual torchbearers of the districts in which they lived. Through the Church, by the efforts and achievements of the clergy, a newly-formed people was entering the world of literature and working out a cultural and spirtual individuality of its own; through the Church it began to catch up with Byzantium, with which the ideal of the Church bound it ever more closely. "The very appearance of a Slavic liturgy," says Corovich, "was everywhere received with joy and immediately felt as a mark of ethnic individuality. This was the first exchange of influences among the Slavs in the cultural sphere. Slavs from Macedonia, together with their teachers, went to work among the Pannonians and Moravians, and the Moravians, in their turn, after they had been driven out, came southward to continue their work. There were no frontiers between them: they passed from Macedonia to Moravia and from Moravia to Pannonia as though that sort of thing could be taken for granted. They were united and felt themselves to be united, both in the north against the Germans when they persued them, and in the south vis-a-vis the Greeks, from whom they separated their fellow Slavs. Each made his contribution to this process of consciously creating an indepandant Slavic culture." In spite of all that we know of the origins and first flowering of South Slav culture in the region of ancient Macedonia, decades of laborious and united effort on the part of its first inhabitants remain for us a closed book. Who first, before the arrival of the disciples of Cyril and Methodius, aroused the Slavs' cultural and political consciousness; who first preached the Gospel in the lanuage of the people; where, and under what conditions, the Slavic liturgy was first performed in the south; who were the first Slav hermits: all these questions, and many more beside, remain unanswered, or, at least, without a satisfactory answer. Our curiosity is particularly understandable in view of the fact that many of these things must undoubtedly have taken place before the appearance of Cyril and Methodius and their disciples: when they began their work of translating, the Slav lanuage had already attained a degree of richness and development which, despite all errors to be found in the earliest translations, fills us with astonishment. To translate from the Greek used by the early Church is a difficult and laborious task even today: at that time the performance of this feat must indeed have demanded a great knowledge of languages and spirtual aptitude for a task. The wealth of ideas and expressions emplyed in these Slav translations is considerable. They must have been taken from somewhere-and where but from the people, from the accumulated fruits of its mature spiritual experience? The labors of the disciples of Cyril and Methodius-not only those we know, after the death of Methodius in 855, to have turned their attention to the lands then belonging to Bulgaria (i.e., Clement, Naum and Andjelar), but also those whose names have not come down to us-lent a new impetus to the work that had begun. Ascetics and workers of no ordinary caliber, Clement and Naum were missionaries in the best tradition of Byzantine Orthodoxy. Presecution in Moravia, conflicts with anti-slav and anti-orthodox circles in the lands where they had worked and the numerous humiliations to which they had been exposed raised them above the common run of men. After all that they had gone through, the country to which their work now brought them was at the same time fruitful and rewarding and also undermined by considerable heresy and underground movements. V.N. Zlatarski truly says that for many centuries Macedonia was the chief center and springboard for all the heresies in the Balkan Peninsula. Moreover, according to the results of modern research, the Macedonian land and people had become the cradle of the Bogomil movement. "Macedonia," says Dmitri Obolensky, "in the tenth century the centre of opposition to the Bulgarian state and the refuge of all who were malcontents against the government, and thus a particularly fertile ground for antiecclesiatical movements." In this atmosphere, both the religious work of Clement and Constantine and their ecclesiatico-administrative orientation (Zlatarski assumes that Constantine was the first Slav bishop for northeastern Bulgaria) showed a steady and pronounced bias in favor of Byzantium. For both of them the patriarchate of Byzantium was nearer than Simeon's empire: with their entire being they were bound up with Byzantium, which they regarded as the source of pure Orthodoxy. Their connection with the Bulgarian state was far more tenuous one. Clement considered himself as an apostle of the Slavs, not as a champion of the Bulgarian state. Undoubtedly, he had much in common with the Emperor Simeon as a member of the Orthodox Church, as a devoted supporter of the faith and of the cause of promoting a Slav literature; but Simeon's desire to become Emperor and to establish a patriarchate failed to arouse his symmpathies. We know that Clement opposed this desire right up to his death in 916, and that it was his determined opposition in 915 which prevented Simeon temporarily from proclaiming the Bulgarian Church an independant patriarchate. Two years after Clement's death, Simeon nevertheless issued a proclamation to this effect, and Obolensky rightly declares that this deed Simeon "betrayed the work of St.Clement." The assertion, persistently made by Bulgarian historians, that Cyril and Methodius and their disciples were Bulgars is devoid of historical foundation. Jagich stated firmly that not only they, but even the Slavic population of Macedonia among Clement and Naum worked was not Bulgarian. "At the beginning of the tenth century, not to mention earlier times," he says, "the ethnic composition of the Bulgarian state was heterogenous even within the frontiers of Bulgaria proper, let alone Macedonia, where Clement's activities were mostly concentrated. Here there lived a Slavic people free from non-Slav Bulgarian elements, whose speech corresponded in the main to the Church Slavonic of Cyril and Methodius, which, in my opinion, Clement also regarded from childhood on as his native tongue. The lanuage which he employed in his writings was therefore pure Old Slavonic which neither he nor his contemporaries called Bulgarian."
continues next post......
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 13, 2008 0:07:21 GMT -5
so it continues.......
The cause to which Clement devoted his energies was that of Orthodoxy among the South Slavs. Even before this, the Bulgarian state had made great efforts to identify this cause with its own interests. Drawn toward the Church, the Slavic population within its frontiers tended more and more to shun the state. The ascetic zeal which at that time was especially lively in the west has also permeated the Slavic population in the Balkans, which regarded the ecularization of the Church with indigignation. What inspired both Church and people was not the brilliance and splendor, the power and wealth, or the cruetly and despotism, which the state had to offer, but the urge toward perfection, toward that which shines in the Christian religion like an inextinguishable torch. If, among leading circles in the Church, Byzantinized elements, in the pejorative sense of the word, could occasionally be found, both the hermits, whose numbers continued to increase, and the people in general displayed a zealous spirit reminiscent of that of the earliest generations of monks. This orientation toward the Church, together with the consiousness that the Bulgarian state was an alien force, led to an evident antipathy toward the state and complete indifference to its fate. This state of affairs was advantageous for the Bogomil movement. In it, says Zlatarski, the people expressed their protest, not only against Church and state, which, by virtue of their structure, were alien to popular conceptions, but in general against moral decay and the adherence to everything non-Bulgarian provoked by the alien and, for the state, disastrous influence of Byzantium. Tired as they were of war, the masses of the population were nevertheless restless. Beneath the cloak of resignation there lurked the specter of revolt: throughout the length and breath of the Slav lands, which were just awakening to consciousness, fanatical sects and heretics were at work, summoning the people to rebel against the state and against the Church, which was becoming a tool for the state. The people's religious fervor and their longing for an ideal world enabled the Bogomils to make great progress among the Slavic population of Macedonia. Exacting in their demands upon themselves and strict observers of the hermitic way of life, they were severe in their judgement of those who ruled in Church and state and complaisant in their attitude toward the little man, who was, as ever, thirsting for justice. Thus the preachers of Bogomilism vigorously prepared the people for rebellion; they succeeded in creating a serious threat to the Bulgarian state from within and in accelerating its fall. In the Nemanja state, just the opposite occurred: here Bogomilism was uprooted and rendered incapable of further threatening the development of the state. Referring to the Bogomils in Bulgaria, the priest Kozma says: "They preach disobedience to authority, anathematize the rich, pour scorn on the military, abuse the boyars, declare the servants of the Emperor and his officials to be scorned before God and forbid slaves to work for their masters." Murko interpreted all this as a protest against the feudal state of Bulgaria, which was becoming increasingly Byzantinized. It is an inescapable fact that this protest was much more pronounced in the regions between Ohrid and the Vardar, where the Bogomil faction of the Dragovich was particularly strong, than in the eastern regions, where the authority of the Bulgarian state was more firmly established. Ivan Sakazov pointed out that social persecution was rife in Bulgaria right up to the end of the Emperor Peter's reign (927-69). In connection with Bogomils, it is noteworthy that, according to Obolensky, Reinerius Sacchoni, at one time himself a supporter of this heresy, in the chapter on the Cathar churches contained in his work Summa de Catharis et Leonistis (written in 1250), "gives a list of sixteen heretical 'churches' or communities of the Cathars, at least five of which were situated in the Balkans. The last two 'churches' in Reinerius' list, the 'Ecclesia Bulgariae' and the 'Ecclesia Dugunthiae,' were considered in his time to be the original source of all others." Reinerius mentions a "Slavic church" near the "church or the Drugovich": Franjo Rachki was of the opinion that this "Slavic church" was in Bosnia. Thus the Balkan Slavs were passing through an extremely complex stage in their political, spiritual and cultural development. They were not to be easily fused with the Greeks-although this did occasionally occur-nor did they willingly reconcile themselves to Bulgarian rule. From the ethnographic point of view, their Bulgarian conquerors did, indeed, become engulfed in the Slavs masses of the population, since they formed but a small percentage of the whole, but they nevertheless remained for a long time the ruling caste and did not easily land themselves to Slavonicization. Within the Bulgarian state, the conflict between Slav and Bulgarian elements was to last for many centuries.
|
|
|
Post by PrijesDardanian on Apr 13, 2008 6:29:13 GMT -5
^ and Albanians came in 11th century, so what!. you mean serbs (avaro-slavs)? and invaded native people like Albanians.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Apr 13, 2008 10:56:30 GMT -5
Novi, this "source" is pure brainwashing and serb propaganda. It deminishes the role the Bulgarians played into the Ohrid school of Kliment. U say Kliment "felt like..". Were u there to record how he felt? Well The Greeks were and they call him Bulgarian. In the end Macedonia was part of Bulgaria and he was sent by the Bulgarian king. Also, u say that Macedonia was the land that opposed the Bulgarian state. Wishful thinking and not a single source to back it up. In a way in those period it was craddle of Bulgaria.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 13, 2008 18:34:33 GMT -5
^ Ioan, those people have said this and not me, if you think its brainwashing, tell them this for they were the historians who have come to that conclusion regarding the peoples of Aksios.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 13, 2008 18:41:26 GMT -5
"you mean serbs (avaro-slavs)? and invaded native people like Albanians." Yes the Albanians are the natives to the Balkans, l'm surprised how its lanuage evolved from centum to satem
|
|
|
Post by plisbardhi on Apr 13, 2008 20:58:20 GMT -5
That's unfounded speculation Novi, the Illyrian laguage did not survive in its ancient form for us to study today. What we do have is the Albanian language which either means Illyrian transformed into satem or was never centum to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 13, 2008 22:19:16 GMT -5
^ well with the words they have found they have come to the conclusion that it was centum and possibly Hellenic as well.
|
|
|
Post by plisbardhi on Apr 13, 2008 22:43:32 GMT -5
BS. It is with the words they found that the Albanian continuation theory has a strength. A name like Gentius or Alexandros only shows the influence of their higher cultured neighbors.
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Apr 13, 2008 23:35:00 GMT -5
And who is to tell that Illyrian was centum? And who is not to tell that Albanian may be one of the Illyrian tribes survived? And who is to explain the words (old Greek) in Albanian vocabulary if Albanians arrived in 11th century? And who can explain the Latin words in Albanian vocabulary? And who is to tell the details (thus historical proves) when and how Albanians arrived in Balkans? And how (surprisingly ) it escaped to the historians of the 11th century the arrival of Albanians? The arrival of a new population....in the Balkans...in Bysant...such an uninterested event of the time indeed, to go forgotten and not to be taken any notes!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 14, 2008 1:34:12 GMT -5
^ teuta, look around you, people who are experts are claiming that illyrian is a centum lanuage like Greek, whereas Shqipetar is satem like slavic, persian, urdu etc....
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Apr 14, 2008 1:41:23 GMT -5
Novi what is centurm, satem? Anyways there are much more similarities between latin-germanic-slav-greek than any combination of alb with one of the 4 aforementioned tangs.
Albies are by far the most primitive nation of the "white" family of mankind (although half of them are black).
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 14, 2008 1:58:00 GMT -5
Centum and satem LanguagesDeborah Anderson Department of Linguistics University of California, Berkeley
In a lecture given in 1786, Sir William Jones, Chief Justice of India and founder of the Royal Asiatic Society, noted the strong relationship in verbal roots and the grammatical forms of Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin. This similarity, he remarked, could not have been produced by accident; these languages must have originated from a common source. He added that Gothic, Celtic, and Old Persian may have come from the same origin. Others had also noted the similarity between Sanskrit and other languages by comparing words from different languages. Though he was not the first, Jones is often credited with the birth of Indo-European linguistics by eloquently stating that a common source, later to be identified as Proto-Indo-European, was the ancestor of these related languages. The discovery of sound laws in the 1860's helped to establish the foundation of comparative Indo-European linguistics. It is upon such regularly occurring sound laws that allowed comparisons to be made; exceptions to the laws needed to be explained. Today the study of IE linguistics draws on work done in phonetics, dialectology, typology, and other fields but the basis of comparison still rests on the set of correspondences between the languages.
An important Indo-European isogloss By examining the words for hundred from various Indo-European languages an important pattern can be observed:
Lang. Family Language Word for 'hundred' ___________________________________________________________________________
Indo-Iranian Sanskrit satam [acute on s and last a] Avestan satem [e is upside down] Baltic Lithuanian simtas [hacek on first s, squiggly line above m] Slavic Old Church Slavic suto [short mark above u]
Italic Latin centum Greek Greek hekaton [acute on o] Celtic Old Irish cet [long mark over the e] Welsh cant Germanic English hund-red (Note: original k-sound becomes a sound represented here by an h via a regular process in Germanic) Tocharian Tocharian kant [umlaut over a]
In Sanskrit, Avestan, Lithuanian, and Old Church Slavic the initial consonant appears as an s- (or sh-) sound (a sibilant), whereas Greek, Latin, Old Irish, Welsh, English, and Tocharian have a k- sound (a velar or a palato-velar). This correspondence, mirrored in many other word sets, was identified as an important Indo-European isogloss (a boundary line that can be drawn based upon a particular linguistic feature): Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, and Armenian have a sibilant for PIE *k' whereas Greek, Latin, Celtic, Germanic and Tocharian maintain the k- sound. Those languages with the s- (sh-) sound are classified satem (after the 'hundred' word in Avestan), those which have a k- sound are the centum languages (after the Latin word).
Note that Tocharian, found in far western China, is a centum language as is Hittite (found in Anatolia) so that a strict satem = east, centum = west rule-of-thumb doesn't work.
The original form of the word for 'hundred' in Proto-Indo-European was *(d)kmtom [k with an acute above it or k' can be used; dot under m; acute on o], which shows that the centum group has actually retained the original sound of the velar but the satem group has changed the sound; it moved the articulation forward in the mouth.
The satem/centum grouping holds fairly well for the outcomes of other dorsals (that is, all kinds of k-sounds) in Indo-European. The example above demonstrates the outcome for PIE *k' [k with an acute above it or k' can be used]. By looking at various correspondences, a table can be created showing the various outcomes in the different languages (adapted from Beekes 1995: 110). The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form is on the left, the outcomes which appear in cognate words to the right. (The variant outcomes listed below depend largely upon preceding or following sounds or position in a word, particularly initial position. For details on the particular environments, compare Beekes).
Series One: Velars / Palato-velars S A T E M C E N T U M PIE Skt Av OCS Lith Arm Toch. Hitt. Greek Latin OIr Gothic *k' s! s s s/ s k, s/ k k c c h, g *g' j z z z/ c k, s/ k g g g k *g'h h z z z/ j, z k, s/ k kh h, g g g
A second series has been postulated, the plain velars. However, no IE language clearly retains all three series. (There is some debate about whether Albanian retains all three.) As reflected in the chart below, satem has either a velar or sibilant, centum has either a velar (or palato-velar) or labiovelar. The plain velars occur only in certain environments, i.e., only after *u and *s and before *r and *a, so they appear to be conditioned variants of the other series.
Series Two: Plain Velars S A T E M C E N T U M PIE Skt Av OCS Lith Arm Toch. Hitt. Greek Latin OIr Gothic *k *g outcomes as below outcomes as above *gh (labiovelars) (velars / palato-velars)
A third series is well attested, the labiovelars, which combine the velar with a labial element (represented by the superscripted w). Note that in the satem languages, the labial element is lost. Once again, the satem languages differ from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European forms in having lost the labializing element..
Series Three: Labiovelars S A T E M C E N T U M PIE Skt Av OCS Lith Arm Toch. Hitt. Greek Latin OIr Gothic *kw} k,c k,c k,c/,c k k' k,s/ ku b,d,g gu,g,v b q *gw} g,j g,j g,z/,dz g k k,s/ ku p,t,k qu,c c hw *gw} h gh,h g,j g,z/,dz g g,j/ k,s/ ku ph,th,kh gu,g,v,f- g,gw,w
[' Acute on previous letter; / is hacek on previous letter; } superscript previous letter.]
The satem/centum distinction is evident in the outcomes listed above and is an important isogloss. What does it indicate in terms of IE origins and IE distribution? As observed above, the centum languages retain the PIE articulation better than the satem group: the velars (/palato-velars) in the centum group did not become sibilants and the labial element was retained. In dialect geography, the more conservative elements are retained in the geographic periphery, away from the central area where innovation is taking place (in this case, where the satem languages are). Using the satem/centum isogloss as a guide, Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Armenian, and Albanian serve as one central area. However, it is important to also take into consideration other isoglosses in arriving at an adequate model for the PIE situation.
© 1998 by Deborah Anderson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For further information:
Beekes, Robert S.P. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: an introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995. [A useful handbook now out in paperback. Centum / satem discussion is found on pages 109-113 and 129.]
Sihler, Andrew L. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. [This topic is discussed on pages 7, 151-154.]
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 14, 2008 18:40:03 GMT -5
"Stefan Dushan was 3/4 Bulgarian."
Yes thats true.
|
|
|
Post by plisbardhi on Apr 14, 2008 21:54:40 GMT -5
Serbs and legit scholarship just do not mix. Illyrian was thought to have been centum because it was thought that it was related to Venetic, a theory discarded for a while now. Now just because Illyrian was once theorized to be centum makes it centum in Serb minds just to suit their agenda.
“We lie to deceive ourselves, to console others, we lie for mercy, we lie to fight fear, to encourage ourselves, to hide our and somebody else’s misery. We lie for love and honesty. We lie because of freedom. Lying is a trait of our patriotism and the proof of our innate intelligence. We lie creatively, imaginatively and inventively." - Dorbrica Cosic
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Apr 14, 2008 22:12:48 GMT -5
That's a very powerful quote, it should be tattooed onto the foreheads of all serbs.
|
|