The Albanian language

Status
Not open for further replies.
what is the root of the word "louese"?

laheshe - means "you washed"
root in Alb is: laj - wash

Laj is pronounced as the English word: lie


virb present
active λουω fut λουσω λουζω
passive λου-ομαι ( I am washing my shelf, I am having a bath)
second person present Λουεσαι -louese, Luese

the case of Lysios river , Lydias river, show that in early Greek it was λυομαι (short ou)
similar is Celtic Lindos = beautifull, attractive
so the most ancient root in Greek is Λυ a sound among li and lu

I do not know the *PIE form
 
virb present
active λουω fut λουσω λουζω
passive λου-ομαι ( I am washing my shelf, I am having a bath)
second person present Λουεσαι -louese, Luese

the case of Lysios river , Lydias river, show that in early Greek it was λυομαι (short ou)
similar is Celtic Lindos = beautifull, attractive
so the most ancient root in Greek is Λυ a sound among li and lu

I do not know the *PIE form

PIE root is *lewh₃-
 
Yetos, I still haven't figured out what you're tryin' to prove or say but the sun cannot be covered with hay. It is as clear as it can get that Arvanitika is an Albanian dialect. Only cause these Arvanits are ashamed (or think to high of themselves) to be of Albanian origin does not mean they are not. The truth is the truth, ugly or beautiful it is what it is.
 
Yetos, I still haven't figured out what you're tryin' to prove or say but the sun cannot be covered with hay. It is as clear as it can get that Arvanitika is an Albanian dialect. Only cause these Arvanits are ashamed (or think to high of themselves) to be of Albanian origin does not mean they are not. The truth is the truth, ugly or beautiful it is what it is.


ok lets see another phrase

nte tsi throuim nte i tate

but I am afraid of your father.
 
"throuim" is supposed to be "trembi"? looks like a fusion between "trembi" and "trauma"

semi correct trembi and tromos τρομος (terror-fear)
what about tate = dead?
 
ok lets see another phrase

nte tsi throuim nte i tate

but I am afraid of your father.

no such a word as "throuim" exists, it's just the rendering of the Alb/Arvanite word "turpem" by a person who does not understand Albanian language.

nte tsi throuim nte i tate - Arvanite
(por) qi turperm nga yt ate -Albanian
(but) that I am ashamed/afraid of your father - English

Albanian "turp" means=shame
In Arvanite it also means "fear, shame"

Being that Arvanite is Albanian language, Arvanite is NOT mutually understandable by both Greeks and Albanians. A Greek can understand only the Greek words used by Arvanites in their speech or words shared by both Greek/Alb language.

Let me go back to the first phrase that Yetos brought.

ljiaese na perguljia - how a Greek writes a sentence heard from an Arvanite speech
laheshe ne pjergulla - how an Albanian renders what he hears from an Arvanite speech
louse ? ? - how a Greek can understand from this sentence, assuming that he may mistake the Alb word "laheshe" with the Greek "louse" due to similarity (though the two are different words)
 
semi correct trembi and tromos τρομος (terror-fear)
what about tate = dead?

Where have you found "tate" as dead?

In that sentence, where "tate" means "father", Albanian words for "father" would be "baba", "atë" and "tate" (written exactly as you have written the Arvanit word).

This is a song were the word "tate" is used so many times (meaning father) that you have to be deaf not to notice it.


So Yetos, I'm asking you again, what are you tryin' to say (or prove)? It is clear that Arvanit is Albanian.
 
Most of the sentences brought by Yetos are taken from a well known song in Arvanite but popular with Albanians too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXvtLb7GkOQ

Here are the lyrics (they may change slightly with the different versions of the song, some phrases added some omitted)

Do ta pres do ta pres – I will cut
(Do ta pres do ta pres - Alb)
Do ta pres kocidhete – I will cut your pony tail (kocidhete –Greek word for Alb “gershet”-pony tail)
(Do ta pres gershetin - Alb)
Do ta pres kocidhete – same
Do ta rrevit ga s’gjindete – I will throw where it cannot be found
(Do ta vervit nga s'gjindet) - Alb

Do ta pres do ta pres - I will cut
Do ta pres kocidhete t’gljate – I will the long pony tail
(do ta pres gershetin e gjate-Alb)
Por qe trupem nga it ate – but I am afraid of your father
(por qe turpem/trembem nga yt ate-Alb)

Do ta pres do ta pres – I will cut
Do ta pres kocidhe zi – I will cut the black pony tail hair
(Do ta pres gershetin e zi -Alb)
Do ta pres kocidhe zi - same
Le te vete filaki – though I will go to prison (filaki Greek word for prison)
(le te vete ne burg-Alb)

Shkova nje me nat atje – One night I went there
(shkova nje nate atje-Alb)
Ljahjeshe ne pergule – you were washing (taking a bath) under the pergola
(laheshe ne pjergulla-Alb)
Ljaheshe dhe krihjeshe – washing and combing your hair
(laheshe dhe kriheshe-Alb)
Ljaheshe dhe krihjeshe-same
Me tat eme ziheshe – with your mother you were fighting
(me tet eme ziheshe-Alb)

Ziheshe ? - you fought and ? (I don’t get the word used here)
Se doje te martoneshe – cause you wanted to get married
(se doje te martoheshe-Alb)
 
Last edited:
Which brings the next question...Yetos, where did you find the text you wrote cause honestly it seems like you heard the song (or different songs) and tried to write what you heard, using Greek equivalent letters. If you used Greek equivalent letters instead of Albanins, you should have told us that they were the Greek equivalent, and not let us reading the Greek equivalent letters like in Albanian, cause on offense, how the hell you ended up from this:

"Por qi trupem nga it atë" to this "nte tsi throuim nte i tate" and in this case "i tate" is "it atë(yt atë, northern Tosk, it atë Southern Tosk (Gjirokastër, Cham and Arvanitika)".

No offense but your knowledge in Albanian are basically, basic. I cannot figure out how you take the courage to discuss, and in this case write in an language you don't even know about, even more in dialect which needs a near mother tongue level of comprehension and difference of the sounds (if you wrote the text, if not please provide us with a link of the site you found them, preferably the site to be in English too)

To me, that song, hearing it for the first time, besides the end, where i think he spoke or said Greek words, was totally understable in 99%, in contrast to your text which seemed like a "Alien Language".
 
I've been giving some thought on the origin and development of Albanian. Apart from the Centum/Satem question, the greatest obstacle in regard for an Illyrian origin of the Albanian language is the fact that the ancient Illyrians had a sophisticated naval culture (and a tradition of piracy in the Adriatic sea) which stands quite in contrast with what the Albanian language itself tells us. I think that one can make two conclusions from this: either the Albanian language actually has an inland origin, or, the Albanian language survived in an inland area. Given huge modifications that Albanian has, especially in terms of vocabulary: it is one thing that Albanian has a lot of Latin loanwords (after centuries of Roman dominance on the Balkans, this is to be expected). But this isn't all: in one of the first posts I mentioned that Albanian has lost most of the family kinship terms of Proto-Indo-European. Everything would pinpoint in the direction that perhaps at a point (likely during the turmoil of the migration period), there were only fairly small number of speakers of Albanian survived in mountainous areas, and this would have promoted the considerable changes of the language.

In that context, another aspect that should be brought up here is that we probably have somewhat false expectations of what ancient Albanian looked like. Some examples include:

- modern Albanian "gj" and "q" reflects an earlier *g and *k, respectively (except where "gj" derives from an earlier *s).
- the vowels of Albanian were completely reworked.
- Albanian lost the final syllables in many positions.

Additionally, there's other problems identifying ancient Albanian in Greek/Roman sources:

- The standard Albanian orthography that is in use today is an invention of the 20th century. Ancient Greek/Roman writers would have written words completely differently.

- we must expect that ancient Albanian had PIE-derived words which are lost in modern Albanian, and that they made up a substantial amount of the ancient Albanian vocabulary.
 
Taranis, lets assume that in fact at some point in history, Albanian was spoken only by a very small number of persons in the mountainous area.

Illyrian was spoken roughly until around 400-500 AD? Albanian was spoken from at least 1200-1300AD (at least since the Principality of Arbër). Lets say it had about 700-800 years to spread and develop.

Now how could this small number of persons, spread this language, from Tivar to Epir, passing from one another, making all the population of these regions adopt that language between the strong influence of Latin, Byzantine Greek, Bulgarian in middle and southern Albania and Serbian in northern Albania, taking into consideration that there were no state policy to impose this language or schools to learn it correctly so all these other people, took this language as their own and above all they all learned it the same with very little changes,even today Gheg and Tosk differences mutually tangible and both speakers cna understand each other very well which means that at the time we're speaking they all speaking the same language even though this language was not imposed and was spoken only by a small number.

How could that have happened? Even today, with state policies, schools and everything else it would be very, very difficult to make a large number of people speak the language of few, and further more in an homogeneous form.

I find it sorta hard to believe it Taranis...
 
Taranis, lets assume that in fact at some point in history, Albanian was spoken only by a very small number of persons in the mountainous area.

I have to admit that my previous post was hypothetically speaking. And also, I find that your scepticism is more than justified, and I wish to elaborate more on that. Also, I didn't specify how small the population of speakers actually was.

Illyrian was spoken roughly until around 400-500 AD? Albanian was spoken from at least 1200-1300AD (at least since the Principality of Arbër). Lets say it had about 700-800 years to spread and develop.

The key issue about Albanian is, regardless of the ancient language it's actually descended from, that it is a statement in itself that the Albanian language survived the Classical period at all. After all, the Roman Empire incorporated a very large area in which in pre-Roman times dozens of different languages were spoken, and it is exceptional that Albanian survived because almost all of the others (Etruscan, Gaulish, Iberian, Lusitanian, Oscan, Umbrian, etc. etc.) did not. So there must be a reason why the Albanian language survived when all these others did not, must it not?

The situation gets further exacerbated by the fact that the Albanian language clearly were also able to survive the migrations period, including both the Goths and far more importantly, the Slavs. After all, much of the Balkans speaks a Slavic language today.

Now how could this small number of persons, spread this language, from Tivar to Epir, passing from one another, making all the population of these regions adopt that language between the strong influence of Latin, Byzantine Greek, Bulgarian in middle and southern Albania and Serbian in northern Albania, taking into consideration that there were no state policy to impose this language or schools to learn it correctly so all these other people, took this language as their own and above all they all learned it the same with very little changes,even today Gheg and Tosk differences mutually tangible and both speakers cna understand each other very well which means that at the time we're speaking they all speaking the same language even though this language was not imposed and was spoken only by a small number.

How could that have happened? Even today, with state policies, schools and everything else it would be very, very difficult to make a large number of people speak the language of few, and further more in an homogeneous form.

Yes, I agree that it sounds unlikely that a small rural population could force a language upon a relatively greater area. But, I have to add, perhaps it is best to look at the other cases where other pre-Roman languages survived within the boundaries of the Roman Empire (at least in the western part, where Latin was the dominant language, in the east, with Greek as the lingua franca, the situation looks quite a bit different): the only other examples would be Basque and the Brythonic languages (Breton, Cornish and Welsh), and in my opinion neither case is really that well comparable to the situation on the Balkans.

I find it sorta hard to believe it Taranis...

Well, I agree, and I think I deserve fire for that post. :embarassed: But as I pointed out, there must be an explanation here. The alternative is that we say that the Albanians originated somewhere inland and then migrated towards their modern location during the Migration Period. The problem with that is: Albanian is not descended from Dacian, even though Albanian is similar, and the Albanians clearly had contact with the Dacians at some point in history. Albanian is not descended from Thracian either. Where was ancient Albanian spoken then?
 
The situation gets further exacerbated by the fact that the Albanian language clearly were also able to survive the migrations period, including both the Goths and far more importantly, the Slavs. After all, much of the Balkans speaks a Slavic language today.Well, I agree, and I think I deserve fire for that post. :embarassed: But as I pointed out, there must be an explanation here. The alternative is that we say that the Albanians originated somewhere inland and then migrated towards their modern location during the Migration Period. The problem with that is: Albanian is not descended from Dacian, even though Albanian is similar, and the Albanians clearly had contact with the Dacians at some point in history. Albanian is not descended from Thracian either. Where was ancient Albanian spoken then?
Well, it is time to "free your mind and the rest will follow" ;). The best results are achieved if all the wildest ideas/possibilities are kept on the table and discussed, otherwise it is impossible to reach the plausible answer. History and linguistics have to start thinking differently (as the physics has to understand the quantum) and have a lateral thinking approach.
 
I have to admit that my previous post was hypothetically speaking. And also, I find that your scepticism is more than justified, and I wish to elaborate more on that. Also, I didn't specify how small the population of speakers actually was.



The key issue about Albanian is, regardless of the ancient language it's actually descended from, that it is a statement in itself that the Albanian language survived the Classical period at all. After all, the Roman Empire incorporated a very large area in which in pre-Roman times dozens of different languages were spoken, and it is exceptional that Albanian survived because almost all of the others (Etruscan, Gaulish, Iberian, Lusitanian, Oscan, Umbrian, etc. etc.) did not. So there must be a reason why the Albanian language survived when all these others did not, must it not?

The situation gets further exacerbated by the fact that the Albanian language clearly were also able to survive the migrations period, including both the Goths and far more importantly, the Slavs. After all, much of the Balkans speaks a Slavic language today.



Yes, I agree that it sounds unlikely that a small rural population could force a language upon a relatively greater area. But, I have to add, perhaps it is best to look at the other cases where other pre-Roman languages survived within the boundaries of the Roman Empire (at least in the western part, where Latin was the dominant language, in the east, with Greek as the lingua franca, the situation looks quite a bit different): the only other examples would be Basque and the Brythonic languages (Breton, Cornish and Welsh), and in my opinion neither case is really that well comparable to the situation on the Balkans.



Well, I agree, and I think I deserve fire for that post. :embarassed: But as I pointed out, there must be an explanation here. The alternative is that we say that the Albanians originated somewhere inland and then migrated towards their modern location during the Migration Period. The problem with that is: Albanian is not descended from Dacian, even though Albanian is similar, and the Albanians clearly had contact with the Dacians at some point in history. Albanian is not descended from Thracian either. Where was ancient Albanian spoken then?

The albanians, as I read recently, have basically 4 avenues of where they are from.
1 - Once said that they where illyrians is now dispensed with considering recent finds of , (a) hellenic and illyrians did not have a border with each other , in between where the epirote people, (b) archeology finds inland are epirote.
2 - Some keep saying they are ancient Pelagisians who became Epirotes.
3 - They where are sarmatian tribe that migrated on the tail of the gothic migrations which is why there where no albanians in greek or roman literture until these migrations.
4 - They originated from a branch or armenians in the caucasus ( of which there are still albanian people there today) and migratedto there present area.

book is a bit old, but has relevent articles which still hold true
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=IJ2s9sQ9bGkC&pg=PA79&dq=ancient+albanians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GBONT5_vHITImAWo4a2RDA&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=pelasgians&f=false


http://books.google.com.au/books?id...apZWhDA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=ancient albanians&f=false

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...apZWhDA&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=ancient albanians&f=false
see page 10 onwards


http://books.google.com.au/books?id...Zq92wDA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=ancient albanians&f=false
 
The albanians, as I read recently, have basically 4 avenues of where they are from.
1 - Once said that they where illyrians is now dispensed with considering recent finds of , (a) hellenic and illyrians did not have a border with each other , in between where the epirote people, (b) archeology finds inland are epirote.
2 - Some keep saying they are ancient Pelagisians who became Epirotes.
3 - They where are sarmatian tribe that migrated on the tail of the gothic migrations which is why there where no albanians in greek or roman literture until these migrations.
4 - They originated from a branch or armenians in the caucasus ( of which there are still albanian people there today) and migratedto there present area.

Honestly, nothing of this makes really sense:

1) I have elaborated the problems/obstacles associated with the hypothesis that the Illyrian language was the ancestor of Albanian.

2) The whole "Pelasgian" idea for Albanian has no basis at all, and it's based on what I perceive as a fallacy: the term in the ancient Greek sources refers to the purportedly first inhabitants of Greece, and in Linguistics, the term has been applied to non-PIE-derived elements that are found in Greek. There is no evidence whatsoever that these words have anything to do with Albanian, and most of them do not have an Indo-European etymology, for example Greek "chrysos" is a Semitic loanword (compare with Akkadian "Hurasu"). There's also the possibility that some Pelasgian" words may be of Minoan origin, but we know too little about the language.

Granted, the modern population of the Balkans (including the Albanians) is without a doubt descended to a degree from the Neolithic population, but there's no (demonstrable) linguistic continuity between the Neolithic languages of the Balkans and Albanian. If you look in Antiquity, Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian etc. were all Indo-European languages.

The sole reason that the word 'Pelasgian' keeps popping up in discussions about Albanian is because the term was hijacked by Albanian nationalists, but there absolutely no scientific basis. I'm sorry to say it that way, but it's true.

3) Why in the world should they have been Sarmatians? The Sarmatians spoke an Indo-Iranic language (the closest living relative is Ossetian), which is a completely different branch of Indo-European from Albanian. This makes as much sense as claiming the Albanians derive from Celts. Or Tocharians.

4) A connection with Armenian makes just as much sense a connection with the Sarmatians (read: it doesn't). The Caucasian Albanians didn't speak an Indo-European language at all, but a Northeast Caucasian one, (ie, related with Chechen).
 
Honestly, nothing of this makes really sense:

1) I have elaborated the problems/obstacles associated with the hypothesis that the Illyrian language was the ancestor of Albanian.

2) The whole "Pelasgian" idea for Albanian has no basis at all, and it's based on what I perceive as a fallacy: the term in the ancient Greek sources refers to the purportedly first inhabitants of Greece, and in Linguistics, the term has been applied to non-PIE-derived elements that are found in Greek. There is no evidence whatsoever that these words have anything to do with Albanian, and most of them do not have an Indo-European etymology, for example Greek "chrysos" is a Semitic loanword (compare with Akkadian "Hurasu"). There's also the possibility that some Pelasgian" words may be of Minoan origin, but we know too little about the language.

Granted, the modern population of the Balkans (including the Albanians) is without a doubt descended to a degree from the Neolithic population, but there's no (demonstrable) linguistic continuity between the Neolithic languages of the Balkans and Albanian. If you look in Antiquity, Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian etc. were all Indo-European languages.

The sole reason that the word 'Pelasgian' keeps popping up in discussions about Albanian is because the term was hijacked by Albanian nationalists, but there absolutely no scientific basis. I'm sorry to say it that way, but it's true.

3) Why in the world should they have been Sarmatians? The Sarmatians spoke an Indo-Iranic language (the closest living relative is Ossetian), which is a completely different branch of Indo-European from Albanian. This makes as much sense as claiming the Albanians derive from Celts. Or Tocharians.

4) A connection with Armenian makes just as much sense a connection with the Sarmatians (read: it doesn't). The Caucasian Albanians didn't speak an Indo-European language at all, but a Northeast Caucasian one, (ie, related with Chechen).

So what is your opinion then, I would really like to know? What is according to you a "fitting" theory. Let us see if you can brake the walls of the "scientific" meme and think outside of the box/frame. It is almost impossible, since there is such a strong meme created about Albanians as a lesser nation that nothing that makes them worthy is acceptable. So until this meme (which in this case is prejudice) is replaced (even though a lot of international historians tried to break it) you/we will not find the answer. It is like living in two dimensional capacity in the three dimensional world (please do not understand it as an insult since we are all meme driven).
 
Taranis, I'm gonna pose the question like these:

Albanian is clearly an Balkanic language but it isn't either (as you say) Illyrian, Dacian or Thracian. If it isn't neither of this 3, what other balkanic language could it be (?) since there isn't another recorded Balkanic language.
 
Honestly, nothing of this makes really sense:

1) I have elaborated the problems/obstacles associated with the hypothesis that the Illyrian language was the ancestor of Albanian.

2) The whole "Pelasgian" idea for Albanian has no basis at all, and it's based on what I perceive as a fallacy: the term in the ancient Greek sources refers to the purportedly first inhabitants of Greece, and in Linguistics, the term has been applied to non-PIE-derived elements that are found in Greek. There is no evidence whatsoever that these words have anything to do with Albanian, and most of them do not have an Indo-European etymology, for example Greek "chrysos" is a Semitic loanword (compare with Akkadian "Hurasu"). There's also the possibility that some Pelasgian" words may be of Minoan origin, but we know too little about the language.

Granted, the modern population of the Balkans (including the Albanians) is without a doubt descended to a degree from the Neolithic population, but there's no (demonstrable) linguistic continuity between the Neolithic languages of the Balkans and Albanian. If you look in Antiquity, Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian etc. were all Indo-European languages.

The sole reason that the word 'Pelasgian' keeps popping up in discussions about Albanian is because the term was hijacked by Albanian nationalists, but there absolutely no scientific basis. I'm sorry to say it that way, but it's true.

3) Why in the world should they have been Sarmatians? The Sarmatians spoke an Indo-Iranic language (the closest living relative is Ossetian), which is a completely different branch of Indo-European from Albanian. This makes as much sense as claiming the Albanians derive from Celts. Or Tocharians.

4) A connection with Armenian makes just as much sense a connection with the Sarmatians (read: it doesn't). The Caucasian Albanians didn't speak an Indo-European language at all, but a Northeast Caucasian one, (ie, related with Chechen).

I would agree, but I posted as this is what I recently read. I still maintain 2 scenarios for what I think.

1 - they migrated from somewhere,

2 - my preferred. - They where always there but under a different name. History tells us there where 14 Epirote tribes and 8 Dardanian tribes, not including macedonians or paeonians.
History also says the illyrians clashed with triballi ( thracians ) , macedonians and epirotes as they moved slowly south, but NO mention of albanians. If and when the illyrians conquered parts of the northern epirote tribes like the Enchelees no mention of albanians where found
The epirote alliance mentions tribes , that where epirote both coastal and inland but still NO albanian name.
The macedonians took all of epirote under theire rule under Philip II, still no albanian names under macedonian archives.
The Romans conquered the Macedonians under Philip V in 194BC and took all epirote, macedonian, montengrian and greek lands and still NO albanian names.
ONLY in 100AD was the first named albanian tribe appear in old Epirote lands and later ( modern times) the area has Epirote archeological finds.

If there was no migration for the albanians then clearly it would be a name change similar to the naming of vlachs for Romani ( thracians) . Besides most of the Archeological finds in albanian areas inland have been epirote.
IIRC Hans Hahn ( if I spelt it correctly) had a very good version of how the albanian issue arose.

From the ottomans to the turkish way of thinking - in Turkey the Epirotes used to be called Albanians because they knew the Albanian language." If the Epirotes provoked other Greeks they might also be called "Albanians" because, to the Greek, that was an expression of contempt.
 
So what is your opinion then, I would really like to know? What is according to you a "fitting" theory. Let us see if you can brake the walls of the "scientific" meme and think outside of the box/frame. It is almost impossible, since there is such a strong meme created about Albanians as a lesser nation that nothing that makes them worthy is acceptable. So until this meme (which in this case is prejudice) is replaced (even though a lot of international historians tried to break it) you/we will not find the answer. It is like living in two dimensional capacity in the three dimensional world (please do not understand it as an insult since we are all meme driven).

Wait, what? This discussion isn't about "lesser" or "worthy" and it certainly isn't about prejudice. These are emotional words, which have no room in a scientific discussion. Talking in the context of languages about "worthiness" is silly in my opinion. I do not appreciate you implying that I am biased about the Albanian language.

Taranis, I'm gonna pose the question like these:

Albanian is clearly an Balkanic language but it isn't either (as you say) Illyrian, Dacian or Thracian. If it isn't neither of this 3, what other balkanic language could it be (?) since there isn't another recorded Balkanic language.

My opinion is that there is no fully satisfying answer (yet). What I mean is, yes, Albanian is without a doubt related to the Paleo-Balkan languages (Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian), but I find none of them suitable as the ancestor of modern Albanian:

- Albanian is a Satem language (unlike Illyrian, which appears to be a centum language - despite all the similarities with Albanian).
- Albanian appears to be a language originally spoken in a mountainous inland, unlike Illyrian. However, if we ignore the Centum/Satem issue mentioned above, we could conceive Illyrian as the ancestor of Albanian, but this would require that the language somehow was forced away from the coast (my personal bet would be during the Roman and Migration periods), only to adopt foreign maritime terminology later.
- Albanian is not descended from Dacian (despite all the similarities) because there are Dacian loanwords in Albanian, which suggests that at the time these Dacian words entered into Albanian, Dacian and Albanian were already distinct languages.
- Albanian appears to have been spoken north of the so-called Jireček Line which during the Roman period divided the Balkans in a Greek-speaking and a Latin-speaking part (this makes a Thracian origin unlikely). The Albanians obviously had contact with the Greeks, but this was clearly in the pre-Roman period.
- On the flip side, Albanian was clearly spoken inside the boundaries of the Roman empire (as is backed up by the large amount of Latin loanwords), and this in my opinion decisively rules out the hypothesis that the Albanians are descended from the "free" Dacians that lived beyond the boundary of the Roman Empire and only moved to the location of Albania during the Migration Period.

As you can see, none of the scenarios is genuinely satisfying, and you are absolutely correct to argue that saying that ancient Albanian was a distinct, unattested language that was separate from Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian is not particularly reasonable to argue for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 295669 times.

Back
Top