tyson
Amicus
Posts: 1,256
|
Post by tyson on Jan 14, 2008 20:05:09 GMT -5
the ragusans spoke the dalmatian latin language. not the vlach/romanian style latin.
to refer to ragusans as vlachs is ignorant. vlachs were a different tribe of lain speakers, and its not right to bunch all latin speakers together as the same thing. its like saying french are the same as italians. they're both latin derived languages. i think that if you told french and italians that they are the same, they would find that quite offensive.
grouping people together as te same thing is what racists do.
dont be ignorant.
ragusans and vlachs are not the same
|
|
tyson
Amicus
Posts: 1,256
|
Post by tyson on Jan 14, 2008 20:26:16 GMT -5
In that case, the founders of Ragusa were most probably Vlach (i.e. Latin speakers). To my knowledge, they preserved their Latin idiom and identity with much pride for quite some time. Though I wonder when Slav replaced the original tongue as the dominant language. In Kosova, there is a small Croatian community centered in Janjeva (Srb.Janjevo), near Prishtina. They descend from Ragusan traders who settled Kosova in the 15th century or so. They're Slavophone of course, though I wonder if this is the result of them being in contact with Serbs. Afterall, they speak the same Torlak dialect as the other southern Serbs. Studying their dialect would be of interest, to try and find Latin influences. actually, i'm pretty sure the albanian way they say janjevo is janjev e. yes i'm aware of the croat villages of janjevo, and letnica, and other smaller croat villages centred around letnica like vrnavokol. they have torlak influence in their dialect, but they still speak the dubrovnik style stokavski ijekavica dialect, with torlak borrowings. their decendants come from ragusa republic, but then other waves of croats came later from BiH, and also some albanian families were absorbed into the croat communty there. croats were in ragusa more or less in the begining of its existance. the aristocrasy/ruling class were the latin speaking locals, but alot of their citizens were croats. it wasnt some change from latin to slavic. both languages were spoken there. latin was used officially, but croatian was used by most of the citizens in everyday use . ragusa took on more of a croatian influence when it bought land from neighboring zahumlje and travunija which were settled by catholic croats. when traders and merchants from dubrovnik set up colonies in kosovo from the invitation of raska king stevan nemanja, to work in the mines, they already were speaking a slavic tongue. that was their mother tongue. latin was spoken more by ragusa's citizens near its begning, but the latin language eventually was spoken only by the ruling class of ragusa, becuase of the rising number of its citizens being croats who had a slavic mother tongue.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jan 14, 2008 22:35:30 GMT -5
to refer to ragusans as vlachs is ignorant. [...] ragusans and vlachs are not the same Take it up with the 13th century Bosnian ruler, Ban Matej Ninoslav, who made this agreement with the Republic of Ragusa: In the name of the father, son and the holy ghost! I, God's slave, Matej, branch of Ninoslav, great Bosnian ban, swear unto the prince of Dubrovnik, Dubrovnik's Žan Dandole (Gianni Dandolli) and all the regions of Dubrovnik. I swear just as Ban Kulin swore before me: For the Vlachs to walk freely as they did in the time of Ban Kulin, freely without deceit and evil...thus if a Vlach deceives a Serb, may he be held in the Ban's court. Here's the Cyrillic original: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matej_NinoslavOn the same topic, ever wonder what Vlaska Ulica in Zagreb refers to?
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 15, 2008 1:55:28 GMT -5
Dinnie, I think Aadmin confuses between being Hellenic and being exposed to Hellenism. Unfortunatelly, I don't know much about these Illyrians and what they were, but to call Romanization for a foreign culture is offensive. You don't say that about other people who adopted Hellenism as their culture, like Petra.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 15, 2008 7:53:08 GMT -5
Agree.
Could you be more explicit?
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 15, 2008 8:59:12 GMT -5
Well, I was replying to Aadmin's statement about Romanization being a foreign culture. Historians tend to group the Graeco-Roman culture as one. Romans spread Hellenism in their own kind of way, just like Alexander did, so I don't understand what the Serb is crying about.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 15, 2008 9:02:54 GMT -5
Oh, ok. In that case I agree. Only language was the major difference. Much of Roman mythology and architecture was borrowed from the Greeks, or from the Greeks via the Etruscans. Together they were the "non-barbarians" as opposed to the rest of the humankind who were "uncultivated barbarians". While Rome conquored Greek territory, Greek culture conquored the Romans.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 15, 2008 9:09:55 GMT -5
I think they viewed the Egyptians as cultivated people, yet as barbarians. That term was mostly used to design foreign people speaking a foreign language, but they could not apply such a term to the Greeks. Anyway, I posted a good link to you, in the Alb forum (Skanderbeg thread).
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 15, 2008 13:31:53 GMT -5
1st only remains are in Hellenic thus I see nothing else but Hellenic to define this culture according to the link I posted. This is not just the case being exposed to Hellenism but being fully Hellenic in government structure (Homeric like kingdoms), culture, language, style you name it. All of this at the time when Ionian Greeks were only setting colonies in Adriatic thus not enough time to Hellenize anyone much less powers that were threatening these very colonies. Also Strabon mentions people in southern Illyria and vicinity (Epirus and Macedonia) being of similar language, culture and religion. Language was homeric like Greek akin to Phrygian that would also explain if certain dialects would not exactly be understand by another area. Nonetheless were Greek (such big difference also means a long time span needed to create the distance giving Greek language a very old age by that time). ------ 2nd I will say that Annitas is right and that Roman culture is just another extension of Hellenic culture irregardless of the fact that another language was used (Latin, which appears to be a fused Greek-Italic-Celtic language, as a new language that was used to more easily absorb Celtic speakers into being romanized as initial language used by romans appears to be greek also while its upper class uses Greek while lower classes are Latin speaking). Thus these Illyrians were Hellenic from the very beginning and their Hellenism was even more cemented via another Hellenic cultural offspring Romans who tried to at least emulate everything Hellenic. Therefore again Hellenism would appear as the defining culture for Illyria as being romanized just means hellenized (and why follow a copy when there is a original). Also, according to legend bellow early Romans were Trojan by origin (thus Greek) and early language they used was Greek. www.exovedate.com/ancient_timeline_one.htmlThe Life of Romulus: by Plutarch 753 BCE || Legendary Founding of Rome
Others, that at the taking of Troy, some few that escaped and met with shipping, put to sea, and driven by winds, were carried upon the coasts of Tuscany, and came to anchor off the mouth of the river Tiber, where their women, out of heart and weary with the sea, on its being proposed by one of the highest birth and best understanding amongst them, whose name was Roma, burnt the ships.
Greek words at that time not being as yet overpowered by Italian. classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jan 15, 2008 14:08:33 GMT -5
Also, according to legend bellow early Romans were Trojan by origin (thus Greek) and early language they used was Greek. www.exovedate.com/ancient_timeline_one.htmlThe Life of Romulus: by Plutarch 753 BCE || Legendary Founding of Rome
Others, that at the taking of Troy, some few that escaped and met with shipping, put to sea, and driven by winds, were carried upon the coasts of Tuscany, and came to anchor off the mouth of the river Tiber, where their women, out of heart and weary with the sea, on its being proposed by one of the highest birth and best understanding amongst them, whose name was Roma, burnt the ships.
Greek words at that time not being as yet overpowered by Italian. classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.htmlI'm not aware of any evidence that the Trojans were Greek. www.thetroyguide.com/id7.htmlCulture in the Mediterranean region arose much earlier than the arrival of the Greeks. That is not to take away anything from their magnificent poetry, science, philosophy, theater, architecture, sculpture, and the activity that made it all possible: commerce.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 15, 2008 14:27:35 GMT -5
Troy had the same language, culture and religion as other Hellenes and the Trojan war was nothing more then a war of Hellenic unification where Troy wanted to remain independent rather then be controlled by Agamemnon, the ruler of remaining unified Hellenes. Legendary Troy According to Greek mythology the Trojans were the citizens of the ancient municipality of Troy in the Troad region of Anatolia. Troy is presented anachronistically in legend as if it were part of the Greek culture of City states. Since the entire state comprised more than the city of Troy itself, anyone from its jurisdiction, which was mainly the Troad, might be termed "Trojan" in ancient literature.[2] An alternative classical Greek and Latin term was "Teucrians", a name taken from an ethnicity of the south Troad. Troy was known for its riches gained from port trade with east and west, fancy clothes, iron production, and massive defensive walls. The major language spoken there and the derivative cultures remain uncertain. Legend for the most part ignores language and makes the presumption that Trojans had no problem understanding Greek.
The Trojan royal kinship, in Greek eyes, traced its descent from the Pleiad Electra and Zeus, the parents of Dardanus. Dardanus, according to Greek myths was originally from Arcadia but according to Roman myths was originally from Italy, having crossed over to Asia Minor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TroyPlutarch in the link I posted is referring to the Trojans (Roman progenitors) as Hellenes whose language was still Hellenic and not yet Italized. I posted it above. Unless there is another older source stating otherwise these Romans were Hellenic in origin (Trojans) that got italized later on. No wonder they loved Hellenic culture to the extent that they did and that their upper classes always spoke Hellenic (as the rulers were Hellenes).
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jan 15, 2008 15:38:40 GMT -5
I see that the link I gave above wasn't enough. ;D Let me quote from it: Because the lliad was written in Ancient Greek and all the names of the persons and gods were Greek names, many people think that the Trojans and the Greeks were the same people and they spoke the same people and they spoke the same language. The abundance of the Mycenaean type of ceramics which were found during the excavations also strengthens this opinion. But according to the latest research of linguists, the Trojans spoke an Indo-European language which was widely spoken in different part of Anatolia, called Luvian.Prof. Calvert Watkins, a specialist in Indo-European languages, explains the abundance of Mycenaean ceramics as due to trade and claims that during this trade two different languages were used. It is clearly understood from the lliad that the Trojans had a close relationship with the Greeks. Equally they had similar relationships with the Hittites as well. As a matter of fact there is a resemblance between the marriage traditions of the Trojans and the Hittites. For example: According to a Hittite law "if a man has a wife and the man dies, his brother takes his wife". Take Trojans had exactly the same law. The legend tells us that after the death of Paris his brother Deiphobos married Helen. [...] Obviously the Trojans had connections both with east and west. But who were thay? It would probably be easier to answer this question if a few written tablets had been unearthed during the excavations. But no tablets have been found so far. However the Hittites in central Anatolia used both Hierogliphics and Cuneiform, around the second millennium B.C. This is why the linguists are searching the Hittite sources and trying to find something about Troy.
At a Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College in October 1984 linguist Prof. Watkins suggests that "Steep Wilusa", a city mentioned on a Hittite tablet which was written in Luvian, could well be "Steep llios" of the lliad. "Priya-Muwas" sounds very much like "Priamos". The Luvian "Aleksandus" may well be "Aleksandros", the second name of the Trojan prince Paris.How can we ignore these reseblences? Especially if Homer tells us in the lliad that the Trojans and their allies spoke different languages and dialects."Hector, I urge you above all to do as I say. In his great city, Priam has many allies. But these foreigners all talk different languages. Let their own captains in each case take charge of them, draw up their countrymen, and lead them into battle. (lliad II. 800-805) "...Such was the babel that went up from the great Trojan army, which hailed from many parts, and being without a common language used many different cries and calls. (lliao IV. 437-439) That means the Trojans and their allies were certainly not Greek-speaking people. The names of many heroes mentioned in the lliad were local Anatolian names. Those which sound Greek were either adopted or made up. For example "Astyanax", son of Hector, was a Greek name, but Hector would call him "Skamandrias". "Hector" too could well have born a real local Anatolian name. Although not proved, we shall go on believing that the Trojans were "native people of Anatolia" until archaeologists find tablets in future proving to the contrary. www.thetroyguide.com/id7.htmlAs to Plutarch, he wrote in the first century AD. That's 13 centuries after Homer's Troy. Besides, where does Plutarch say what the Trojans spoke to each other?
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jan 15, 2008 15:58:28 GMT -5
(Latin, which appears to be a fused Greek-Italic-Celtic language, as a new language that was used to more easily absorb Celtic speakers into being romanized No linguist has claimed that Latin derives from Greek, let alone that it's a fusion of Greek, Italic and Celtic. No historian has said that the Romans initially spoke Greek.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 15, 2008 16:43:54 GMT -5
All I am seeing is recent gossip without any ancient sources quoted. So there is some cultural similarities between certain people in terms of who the wife is marrying after her husbands death and this means what that they are related. Also I have heard of similar traditions not long ago in certain parts of Balkans also. Where are the remains of this seperate Trojan language? If there is not any then why all this effort from certain western so called scientists to try so hard to prove that their language (of which there is no seperate remains, in fact there is no remains of Troy at all and its current so called location is only a guess at best) is not Greek but related to people who are far more removed from their world in terms of distance and culture even if they are in Hellespond. ""...Such was the babel that went up from the great Trojan army, which hailed from many parts, and being without a common language used many different cries and calls." Common language means common intelligible language which say Athenian and Peonian were not although both are Greek dialects. Thus this does not prove that there were different languages either in a sense of fully being non-related. Also from what I can deduce the owner of the site www.thetroyguide.com is Turkish with clearly anti-greek bias as can be seen from bellow quote. "That means the Trojans and their allies were certainly not Greek-speaking people. The names of many heroes mentioned in the lliad were local Anatolian names. Those which sound Greek were either adopted or made up. For example "Astyanax", son of Hector, was a Greek name, but Hector would call him "Skamandrias". "Hector" too could well have born a real local Anatolian name. Although not proved, we shall go on believing that the Trojans were "native people of Anatolia" until archaeologists find tablets in future proving to the contrary."
------ Prof. Calvert Watkins, a specialist in Indo-European languages, explains the abundance of Mycenaean ceramics as due to trade and claims that during this trade two different languages were used. again I explained that this doesn't mean a non-hellenic language. ------- This is why the linguists are searching the Hittite sources and trying to find something about Troy. Really means that they found nothing. _______________________ Thanks but no thanks, I will with stick with Plutarch and Iliad (certainly there is no translators employed between Trojans and Acheans and culture and religion are the same). Also as far as Troy goes there are not even sure as to where it was. Another theory is that Troy is in todays Hercegovina (ancient Dalmatia). Much more believable theory personally as there has not been any movement of people from direction of Anatolia after that war which would have been devastating. At the same time there is also major movement in western Balkans (Dorian Invasion of Greece), Illyrian movements in western Balkans and Adriatic Italy (close to Rome). Trojans called themselves Dardans (and there is Dardanians later near by in todays Kosovo). One of their major allies are Peonians who would move troops far easier/safer over the Dinaric mountains then over Aegean (controlled by Acheans) to assist Trojans. The only major movement towards Anatolia many centuries later are Phrygians but there is no movement in reverse in that time frame of during and after Trojan war (~ 12cent. BC). www.troya.com.mx/
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 15, 2008 16:48:22 GMT -5
No linguist has claimed that Latin derives from Greek, let alone that it's a fusion of Greek, Italic and Celtic. I didnt not say derived. Plutarch said they still spoke Greek before being Italized. No historian has said that the Romans initially spoke Greek. Plutarch did. I posted it.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jan 15, 2008 17:32:13 GMT -5
No linguist has claimed that Latin derives from Greek, let alone that it's a fusion of Greek, Italic and Celtic. I didnt not say derived. Plutarch said they still spoke Greek before being Italized. No historian has said that the Romans initially spoke Greek. Plutarch did. I posted it. Maybe you could post a quote where Plutarch says the Romans initially spoke Greek. If you did, I couldn't find it. But whatever Plutarch had to say about the legend of Aeneas, he said it 13 centuries after the time of Homer's Troy. Since no records exist about the language of the Trojans, he could only have surmised. Modern Western historians lean towards a non Greek Troy. There are many books on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 16, 2008 1:24:43 GMT -5
Aadmin, stop trolling. Thanks.
C0gnate, I have sent you a PM. Have a look at that article.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 16, 2008 3:08:43 GMT -5
I saw the link of the so called 'evidence' of Troy being located in Herzegovina as opposed to Anatolia. I saw nothing of convincing nature there. Infact, I am currently reading the Iliad. There's atleast one or two references to the Hellespont which is located near Troy in the epic. It is located in modern day Turkey, Anatolia, known today as the Dardanelles.
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 16, 2008 3:26:53 GMT -5
1. Plutarch had no way of knowing what the Romans spoke in 300 BC let alone in a mythological period where we dont even have any real dates. The first Roman histories begin in the 3rd century, following the Punic Wars. 2. The Romans always spoke Latin and their ancestry from Troy is a myth, its not real. In fact, most scholars place its origin (of the myth) in the 3rd century. 3. Romans of the Second and Third centuries could barely even read their archaic (500 B.C. or so language) because it had changed so much(according to Polybius). By the 2nd century AD, and I doubt Plutarch(whose Latin was no where near perfect) actually went to these tablets and saw them. We have an archaic Roman inscription and we have yet to fully decipher it.
Plutarch's remark is mythologically based.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 16, 2008 4:36:09 GMT -5
If Aadmin confused between being a Hellene and Hellenism, I'm sure he can do the same between history and mythology...lol. Aadmin, did you really believed the history of Aeneas? It was made up to comfort the Romans, who were having a complex about their Greek counterparts and their rich herritage. They wanted to be a part of the gang, just like you do when you promote your Hellenism.
|
|