paul
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by paul on Mar 26, 2012 4:57:06 GMT -5
I see a lot of people here claiming this, or that Albanian comes from Thracian or Pelasgian. Is somebody able to provide evidence of this? I am only interested in actual examples of vocabulary and grammar, so please no nationalistic trash. From reading about the Illyrian and Thracian languages it looks like they are more similar to Slavic than Albanian, but i have only just started to read about this and have not made a conclusion yet.
|
|
paul
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by paul on Mar 26, 2012 7:49:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by realitydysfunction on Mar 26, 2012 9:01:57 GMT -5
Paul, yours is a question with no clear answer because of scant evidence and with no satisfactory answer because of politico-ethnic considerations. There is no total agreement among linguists whether Albanian is purely Illyrian or Thracian or a synthesis of Illyro-Thrakian or Thrako-Dacian. When people who's life work is the professional study of languages cannot agree, then I doubt I can shed any more light, no matter how flashy my presentation. Although this may not be exactly what you were looking for, some relevant ideas have been discussed in these threads I can think of, and I am sure there may be others if you search. illyria.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=shqiperiaalbania&action=display&thread=34899illyria.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=shqiperiaalbania&action=display&thread=35267EDITED TO ADD: From the same link you posted above, indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/balk/albanian.html"First Albanian texts date back to the 15th century, though the people of Albania had lived there for quite a long time. Albanian is a descendant of ancient Paleo-Balkan languages, Illyrian, Messapic and Thracian." "Albanian is genetically connected with Illyrian and Messapic languages, there are also Thracian elements in it. In the Middle Ages Albanian was situated within the Balkan language unity and generated significant features characteristic for all tongues of the peninsula. Most contacts took place with Bulgarian, Greek, Turkish, Romanian." "Albanian develops an analytical structure of the verb. Its complex system of moods (6 types) and tenses (3 simple and 5 complex constructions) is distinguishing among other languages of the Balkans. There are two general types of conjugation."
|
|
paul
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by paul on Mar 26, 2012 11:50:32 GMT -5
It looks like there is no solid evidence for one or the other yet Albanian is still automatically assumed to be derived from one or both, hard to make sense of it. I think its possible that Albanian was shaped in the Balkans, but that doesn't necessarily mean it derived directly from Illyro-Thracian.
In this link and the others you provided there are sources which mention Albanian deriving from Illyrian or Thracian, but still the problem is that there are no examples. The glossary on the link does provide examples and they show Slavic as much closer. There needs to be a reason for this.
|
|
|
Post by realitydysfunction on Mar 26, 2012 13:10:13 GMT -5
It looks like there is no solid evidence for one or the other........................... Incorrect. There is not enough evidence to wholly confirm one hypothesis or the other to everyone’s satisfaction. That is not the same as saying “there is no solid evidence for one or the other”. There are good reasons why the case can be made for one or the other, and there also reasons that go against either case (but without denying its essential ancestral native Balkan characteristics). ............. yet Albanian is still automatically assumed to be derived from one or both, hard to make sense of it........... If as you say, “yet Albanian is still automatically assumed to be derived from one or both” there is good reason for it. Accepting the fact that Albanian is a unique language of the Indo-European family tree and by looking at the ancient language groups spoken in Balkan what else could it be? It is not Greek, which sits on its own unique branch. It is not Slavic, obviously. It is not Latin or Romance, although it shows early influences these. So, having disqualified these language groups known in the area, we are left to consider the Illyrian, Thracian or we may go as far as Dacian languages. Yes, there is something curious and enigmatic that we cannot pinpoint it with much greater precision, but those are the options and that’s the nature of the beast. I think its possible that Albanian was shaped in the Balkans, but that doesn't necessarily mean it derived directly from Illyro-Thracian....... What exactly make you think it’s impossible for Albanian to have been “shaped in the Balkans”? I’ll just go along with the part of your thoughts that deems it possible. A natural question for you to answer would be then when and where did it possibly take shape. And if it developed outside of Balkans, then where did this happen and what else is it related to? And, since I notice that you have a predilection for examples of glossaries and such, then what evidence is there to bring to bear that it did indeed develop outside of Balkan. There need to be reasons for these things, as you yourself said. As for Slavic being more closely related to Thracian – according to you, that does not take away from the fact the Albanian language might be related to Thracian also. Both, Albanian and Slavic languages have diverged from something else that came before, something they both had in common. Although, I won’t say that this is the case here with Thracian.
|
|
|
Post by groet on Mar 26, 2012 13:41:40 GMT -5
If Albanian doesn't stem from either Thracian or Illyrian, then what paleo-Balkan language would it stem from? I also fail to understand what makes either Illyrian or Thracian closer to Slavic, based on the little evidence there is, which doesn't point to that.
I wouldn't rely on that link to make any conclusions, it fails to mention several cognates, for example the first Thracian word 'achel' is a cognate with Albanian 'akull' (ice), Thracian 'bend' and Albanian 'bind' (convince), Thracian 'pinon' and Albanian 'pi' (drink), Thracian 'sula' and Albanian 'Pyll' (forest), Thracian 'tund' and Albanian 'tund' (shake) etc. It could have been better, and you might as well conclude that Thracian was closer to Germanic, Iranic, Latin etc. as well. It's sloppy work imo.
However, I think it's clear that Albanian doesn't stem from Thracian/Dacian because of the basic structure:
|
|
atdhetar
Amicus
tonight we dine in hell!
Posts: 3,124
|
Post by atdhetar on Mar 26, 2012 14:44:36 GMT -5
no matter how you slice it, not matter how you cut it, either by logical deduction or process of elimination, the albanian language is a derivation of illyrian with influences from thracian, dacian and later on greek and latin.
|
|
paul
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by paul on Mar 26, 2012 21:45:58 GMT -5
Reality Dysfunction/ If it is incorrect then what is the solid evidence for one or the other?
What are the good reasons? What are the ancestral native Balkan characteristics? It is one thing to keep saying this but another to actually show it. That is why I asked for example so there can be a discussion based on something more than just opinions.
I know that Albanian is a unique language, but that alone doesnt mean it is descended directly from Illyro-Thracian. Its uniqueness could be because it is a hybrid language which makes it difficult to connect to other languages. It is also unique because some Albanian characteristics are not common for balkan languages. Some balkan connection for Albanian cant be ruled out, but i cant see how Albanian is only descended from Illyro-Thracian.
I dont think its impossible, but also dont think that all of the elements which shaped Albanian originated in the Balkans.
As should anybody else that wants to be taken seriously.
I agree with you and as i read more i will let you know what i think, i am not here to deny the heritage of Albanians, my interest is only linguistic.
Not according to me, according to the evidence. I didnt create the Thracian glossary.
Why not?
groet/
That is only a few and not several. The Thracian glossary covers most cognates and if you compare them all the only other languages as close as Slavic are Baltic. The amount of Germanic, Iranic, Latin or Albanian cognates dont come close. Count them if you dont believe me. Yes i agree.
atdhetar/
Thanks for the input and feel free to add something useful next time.
|
|
|
Post by realitydysfunction on Mar 27, 2012 0:32:14 GMT -5
|
|
paul
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by paul on Mar 27, 2012 1:17:12 GMT -5
Thracian should be ruled out based on the small number of cognates when comparing to other languages and structural differences with Albanian, aside from the possibility of loanwords. If there is a lack of solid evidence that Albanian is Thracian, then there is even less that it is a Illyro-Thracian mixture imo. There are lot of opinions in the links but there are some examples with Illyrian which i will check out, thanks for that.
|
|
paul
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by paul on Mar 27, 2012 2:31:25 GMT -5
What do you think bout the Illyrian onomastics metu-barbis, sal-apia and mess-apia? They have the same Thracian structure like the bessa-para which makes it impossible for Albanian to descend from it. In Albanian sal-apia "salt water" is ujë i kripur and not kripur-ujë like "peter's city" is qytet i pjetrit and not pjeter-qytet, is that right?
|
|
|
Post by groet on Mar 27, 2012 8:46:50 GMT -5
I noticed more Baltic-Thracian cognates than Slavic-Thracian. The Albanian-Thracian cognates I mentioned amount to being several, and I only mentioned some of those cognates that I noticed weren't accounted for.
Those are suffixes rather than conjoinments of units I think. Suffixes and conjoinments should be differentiated, suffixes are common in Albanian toponyms etc. as well and they perform roles, -aj and -i being examples. Still, that's not conjoinment rather than they're simply suffixes, Thracian put two words together, rather than having suffixes. I don't know about sal-apia meaning water, would be weird considering that those words are not among the few Illyrian words that are known.
|
|
atdhetar
Amicus
tonight we dine in hell!
Posts: 3,124
|
Post by atdhetar on Mar 27, 2012 13:32:04 GMT -5
atdhetar/ Thanks for the input and feel free to add something useful next time. i found your insighful thesis into the akinness of slavic languages to thracian particularly compelling, it is truly a testament to how well informed you seem to be on the matter...i stand back in awe of your lingustic pedigree
|
|
|
Post by valmir on Mar 27, 2012 17:40:50 GMT -5
ILIRIA!
POSHT SLLAVIZMI!
|
|
paul
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by paul on Mar 27, 2012 19:47:51 GMT -5
groet/ Yes, but this shouldnt be a suprise, 2000 years ago Slavic and Baltic would have been very similar because they come from the same ancestor that distinguishes them from other indo european languages. They still hardly compare to Slavic and are dwarfed if compared to a combined Slavic and Baltic share of the 230 words or so in the glossary. They arent inflectional suffixes, theyre actual words joined to other words to make compounds. If theyre inflections its not the same thing. It is among them and known as an Illyrian river name indoeuro.bizland.com/project/glossary/illy.html atdhetar/ It is not my thesis. Are you being sarcastic because of my different opinion and the information given to support it or is it just this discussion thats enough to shake your fragile sense of identity? Get a grip of yourself. valmir/ Poshtë racistët. Dont put nationalistic trash here.
|
|
atdhetar
Amicus
tonight we dine in hell!
Posts: 3,124
|
Post by atdhetar on Mar 28, 2012 3:22:27 GMT -5
atdhetar/ Are you being sarcastic because of my different opinion and the information given to support it or is it just this discussion thats enough to shake your fragile sense of identity? Get a grip of yourself. you are yet to post anything to support your incoherent, disjointed and heavily biased opinions, fuelled by a hidden agenda i am sure...at least have the balls to reveal your true identity and not hide behind an unassuming name, so far we have had the privilege of your personal insight so if you have anything of value to contribute pls feel free to do so, otherwise spare us your run-of-the-mill mindless drivel, kind regards, atdhetar.
|
|
paul
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by paul on Mar 28, 2012 4:27:05 GMT -5
Read the links i gave, I am not biased just giving examples of other possibilities.
There is no agenda just came to talk about linguistics.
I dont care who or what you are and im not interested in exchanging details with you. You dont know anything useful bout this topic and youve done nothing but talk crap for 3 posts. I have not insulted anybody or culture here so go and waste somebody elses time and leave it for informed Albanians to respond.
|
|
|
Post by groet on Mar 28, 2012 5:12:56 GMT -5
Yes, but this shouldnt be a suprise, 2000 years ago Slavic and Baltic would have been very similar because they come from the same ancestor that distinguishes them from other indo european languages. Well, I wouldn't say that they stem from the same linguistic ancestor. It seems like Baltic and Slavic became closer over time instead of going further apart from each other, probably due to contact. There was even one linguist pointing this out, and in his theory, Slavic is basically Balticized Albanian. What matters is that they're not the same, it seems like you're trying to prove a Thraco-Slavic relationship more so on the basis of Baltic-Thracian linguistic similarity than Slavic-Thracian linguistic similarity. Yes, but that's still a rather short list of words. Drawing conclusions like this on the basis of a short list of words is basically like arresting someone while having very little evidence, even though there's a lot of evidence that could prove someone else guilty. As I said earlier: you might as well conclude that Thracian was closer to Germanic, Tocharian, Indo-Iranian, Latin etc. going by that list because the list shows more cognates between Thracian and the aforementioned languages than with Albanian. And even more in line with your arguments, these languages are descended from Thracian, or more likely to be so, than Albanian. Ok. Though something I forgot to mention is that the conjoinments of words not being possible only works when there's a possessive, meaning that ujëkrypur is possible, just like ujëvara to use an example, while possessives would always have 'of' in it. So, conjoinments of two words is perfectly fine, while possessives aren't, which is why putting two words like bessa-para doesn't work; there's an insinuation of one thing belonging to another, which in Albanian always needs to be denoted by 'e' or 'i' like 'of' in English. Besides, you're mentioning the combination of two words - which isn't impossible in Albanian structuring - even though it was not even typical of Illyrian placenames, which even the author above mentions. Furthermore, that author argues against the possibility of Thracian-Albanian continuation due to the structural principles of the language, yet he doesn't argue against Illyrian-Albanian linguistic continuation, actually, he thinks this only strengthens that possibility. Even that glossary is flawed, again it fails to mention cognates with Albanian, of which there are of than those mentioned. Interestingly, it seems like the toponyms and hydronyms mentioned by you are Messapian and not Illyrian. Most linguists, historians etc. treat Messapian and Illyrian the same way they do with Illyrian and Venetic; they see them as unrelated languages now, while they thought them to be related earlier.
|
|
paul
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by paul on Mar 28, 2012 9:01:10 GMT -5
Few serious scholars that have studied the similarities would disagree that Baltic and Slavic come from the same ancestor. The further back you reconstruct Slavic the closer it gets to Baltic. The grammar is also very similar, there is just too much for it to be just contact. Theres no evidence for that.
Even on its own Slavic is more similar than Albanian. The strong Thracian ties to Baltic and Slavic isnt new to thracologists.
It is not a complete dictionary thats for sure but a couple of hundred words isnt a little amount either for an extinct language. And when most of these words have a Slavic and Baltic connection it must mean something.
That would be the wrong conclusion because like i said before even if you combine all of those languages together on the one hand they still don’t compare in amount of Thracian cognates as Slavic and Baltic on the other hand, that is a fact and should be accepted. It doesnt deny an Albanian connection to a balkan language, but it does point to Thracian as a language closely related to Slavic and Baltic around 2000 years ago. Your right, also the second part of compound words in Thracian structure is the first part of the compound in Albanian, so even if it was ujëkrypur it couldnt be krypurujë, just like para-bessa couldnt be bessa-para in Albanian.
I dont think that strengthens the possibility on its own, but if Albanian does have some roots in a balkan language it would more likely be Illyrian.
That is very small glossary and it fails to mention cognates with many languages. I only mentioned it mainly for the sal-apia name. But the Thracian glossary has lot more info. Do you think Messapian is not related to Illyrian too?
|
|
|
Post by realitydysfunction on Mar 28, 2012 11:03:20 GMT -5
OK, Paul, here's the thing None of us are professional linguists here. We all have various degrees of understanding on the subject. In the end I have to rely on the published works of linguistic scholars, just like I have to rely on published papers on quantum physics to tell me about the underlying nature of reality. In other words, it’s not the province of amateurs and dilettantes but the preponderance of professional evidence and work that lies closer to the “truth”. So, if I wanted to do the topic justice I would refer to scholars like Cimochowski en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wac%C5%82aw_Cimochowski , Norbert Jokl en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Jokl , Gustav Meyer, and countless other scholar and publications on the Albanian language. www.degruyter.com/view/j/zcph.1982.39.issue-1/zcph.1982.39.1.205/zcph.1982.39.1.205.xmlwww.annualreviews.org/eprint/XSjPvRI56Wjc6Ma8gsxs/full/10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085156www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/409733?uid=3739600&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698813735397openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/2881/344_105.pdf?sequence=1I don't mean to stifle free discussion but keep in mind that we are secondary sources at best, the primary work being done by scholars in the field. On the other hand, I won’t say you have an agenda, but it seems you do have a preconceived set in mind. I would leave the relationship between Thrakian and Slavic out of the conversation for the moment, as it doesn’t contribute to answering your original question which was “Is the Albanian language really Illyrian”? And you’ve dropped heavy hints that Albanian developed outside the Balkans, or that is a language cannibalized from neighboring Balkan languages. It’s easy enough to shoot darts at someone else’s theory while you stay safe by offering nothing substantial of your own. So, let’s just have it out in the open, tell us what you think and why think that (the evidence) with regards to Albanian, and let us take a stab at it and be done with it. Did google translate that for you? I have the feeling a real Albanian would have written that as "Posht rracistët".
|
|