Yeah, I know there are some words from that era in Albanian language. I just wonder, if we know that Latin was not vastly used in 1000 BC, and you claim that Albanians were always there speaking the same language, why didn't you propose more logical theory that Romans borrowed those words from Albanian? It fits your theory better.
Latin evolved alongide Albanian. They have been in continuous contact. They've evolved together. And why do you fabricate what I've said? When have I ever claimed such thing? When have they ever been
my theories when I clearly posted links and quotes.
Anyways, since we have no proof of Albanian continuity, I will propose another theory. When Albanians came to Balkans, the indigenous people who lived in the mountains and spoke some form of Thracian language that included terms from Augustus Latin were not Albanized throughly.
I posted the proof, you choose to ignore it for no reason other than didn't like it. It's called cherrypicking.
As for the rest of your hypothesis, don't call it theory, it's not a theory, it can esly be disproved by genetics.
Something posted here in Eupedia before and you made a mess in :
This suggests that a reasonable proportion of the ancestors of modern-day Albanian speakers (at least those represented in POPRES) are drawn from a relatively small, cohesive population that has persisted for at least the last 1,500 years.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555
Also:
Computing the frequency of common point mutations of the present-day European population with the Thracian population has resulted that the Italian (7.9%), the Albanian (6.3%) and the Greek (5.8%) have shown a bias of closer genetic kinship with the Thracian individuals than the Romanian and Bulgarian individuals (only 4.2%)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/326027/Paleo-mtDNA-analysis-and-population-genetic-aspects-of-old-Thracian-populations-from-South-East-of-Romania
Interesting how open minded you are. Kopitar says something 200 years ago, and it's now closed chapter in 21st century. Since when is Kopitar expert for Albanian or Latin, anyways?
The source I gave It was published in 2000, written by Russian linguist Vladimir Orel. Kopitar was simply the first to noticed it and has been proven since then. 200 years since proven and fringe theories still persist. But Orel's books the first thing a linguist should read for understanding Albanian. And you don't devalue a scientist's work just because it's old. Newton wrote on the theory of gravity 400 years ago, we still use it today. This is what's good about sciences, there's fixed rules to abide to and linguistics is a science too. History is not a science though. Every day new things are discovered some of them disprove earlier assumptions and the entire scholarship changes.
In History just because something cannot be found, it doesn't mean it doesn't has never existed. It means it has not been found. In order to fill gaps, History always relies in other sciences. For example, historians have needed the help of geologists to understand what caused the Bronze Age collpase. It was a volcano in Thera (Santorino). Just because they didn't see the explosion or had documets of it, it doesn't mean it's refusable. It's a fact they don't need documents to accept it. It's accepted because science says so. Linguistics too is a science.
All I see is Albanians pushing all possible theories from Illyrian, Dardanian, Thracian, Pelasgian, Dacian and Macedonian continuity. Even in their school books. With no evidence. That alone says a lot ....Macedonian
This is the part wher linguists disagree and let me explain you why. Dacian, Thracian, "Illyrian", Dardanian are all people of the Balkans. Since it was proven Albanian was a langauge steming from the Balkans, theories started on finding out where. The problem is the Balkans was a melting pot of cultures, where borders did not exist.
Dardania is often referred to either Thracian , Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian and later even a group of their own, because it's difficult to classify them. Illyrians lived in Dardania, and so did Thracians. And other minor tribes not belonging to either group.
So was Illyria. Once the term Illyria referred to pretty much the entire Western Balkans. now we know there's at least distincively different groups there and the term Illyrian generally now refers to those who lived in modern day Montenegro and Albania only, the southern most ones. The rest have different names.
1)"Propi Dictii" meaning proper Illyrians, (the Southern-most ones) 2)Delmetae 3)Liburni (Veneti) 4)Japodes 5)Pannonians (the northen most ones), numerous minor tribes unrelated to the big five, and Dacian colonies too. Different langauges, different people, one great territory.
Macedonian were an weird group as well. But at least we we know something more conclsuive about them. "Macedonia" it's an umbrella term for many tribes during the Argeads rule and the terriory corresponing to Maceonia has expanded and shrinked over time. Rulers of Macedonia though, lived in Lower Macedonia where there was a large Greek population alongside a large Thracian population.
Greeks from Greece (not a nation in Ancient times, just the comparable territory today) barely accepted the Macedonian rulers as Greeks, but they were accepted nevertheless. Lower Macedonia was populated by Greeks and Thracian mostly, while Upper Macedonia was a mess of people. Upper Macedonias did whatever they wanted despite being part of Lower Macedonia's rule. Lower Macedonia didn't care. I like this relationship, really.
You see why there are so many theories?
Because the Balkans were not homongenous, the people were extrmely spread out and did not correspond tor Roman drawn territories.
Nice theory. So, in the same period Illyrians spoke pre-IE language, but Albanians who lived there spoke IE language, and all before arrival of IE into Europe? This is your proof? Autochthonous Balkan Albanian IE language?! Shouldn't that mean that all IE languages stem from Balkans?
That was a quote from the link I just gave. I gave the quote, hence it was in a quotebox, and then the link beside it. Here's the link again
http://books.google.com/books?id=MF...lear that Albanian was an independent&f=false
It was not my theory, it was written by the author of the book, Olga Mišeska Tomić, a linguist specialized in the Balkan languages. It also talks about other langauges of the Balkans, it's a book about the Balkan sprachbund after all. Do not insult her hard work. Read it instead.
OMG, now I see my reply to your your first quote... so that is where you're taking this. That the Romans really did borrow those terms from Albanian, and not the other way around, and that Albanians WERE the first IE people. Do you also thinks there is striking similarity between a(r)banian and aryan?
Aryan means noble in Iranian, what does this have to with Arbania in the Middle Ages? Beside, Albanian /r/ or /l/ in /rj/ (/ry/ in this case) or /lj/ give /j/ in modern Albanian, not /b/. It appears in certain dialects after /m/ giving /mb/ and no other case. In other cases, it's voiced /p/. In no way goes from /rj/ to /rb/. There's no relation between Aryan and Arbanian.
Again just because you don't understand what I say, it doesn't make me wrong. I know it seems like you will appear smart by repeating arguments I have
never made, purpously misinterpreting them as
my conclusions because it makes it easier to attack me directly. And that's what you're doing. You're attacking me directly to make yourself seem smart instead and me dumb. It doesn't make you smart, it just means you're out of arguments against me but refuse to give up. You cherrypick whatever you want to make me seem cluless and unreliable and you're completely derialing the topic. Mentioning of Albanian langauge in a Dacian topic is neccesary, as the two have been theorized before of being related. Albanain language is not off topic in a Dacian thread.
You're wasting your time,
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
