The Albanian language

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hal Fao said:
Please, be sure that the only "violation" is that I have taken into account the Albanian too.
Specifically, some times ago we debated on the Albanian word "krye"(head), in Gheg dialect "kre" (head), def. "krea" (the head) and the correlation "krye" (head) - "kryej" (do consciously) - "krijoj"(create).
This correlation is unique in all IE languages​​, classical and modern (except the Sanskrit language which is found in the format "shirah" -"kri" - "srijati").
While the word "krea" (the head) is attested only in modern Albanian, its derivatives are found in classical Greek, in Latin, and in almost all modern European languages​​. When I say that the etymology of these derivatives is the word "krea" it does not mean that these derivatives are borrowed from modern Albanian. No, it’s borrowed from ancient one, i.e. from Etruscan, Illyrian, Thracian or Dacian. Even I’ve found out that Etruscan word for “head” is “cle” /kle/, def. “clea” /klea/ (compare with Gheg Albanian “cre”/”crea” = “head”/“the head”).
And it’s quite understandable.
On the other hand, the presence of such unique words in Albanian should be considered and studied seriously by linguists.

There is no doubt that all of them (as well as Albanian too) are descended from a common PIE root.
But there is no doubt too that Albanian is closer to PIE than everyone else.
In my opinion, whatever that Albanian is spoken by a relatively small number of speakers, offers some extraordinary surprises to the linguistics.
Now let’s come back to my last post:


What do you think is a nonsense in my above post:
Do you consider as a nonsense my explanation of how Albanian words “ter” and “terr” are wordformed; or simply the fact that a modern Albanian word can not be taken as etymology for a Latin one?
Do you think that Albanian “err” cognates with English “err”?
Does it give you any impression that Gheg Albanian “tu err” (to darken/to obscure” phonetically is quite similar with English “to err” which means “to mistake” or sth like “to sin” (note that the particle “tu” (to) is present in Gheg Albanian too)?
Do you think Gheg Albanian “tu” (to) is borrowed from English “to” or vice versa?
It survives only in English and in Gheg Albanian (if I’m not wrong).
There is another Albanian word (a verb) that is wordformed by Albanian “të err” (or just “t’err”):
Ther = 1- cut down (a human or animal body); slaughter; 2- cut (a human or animal body) just like a surgery operation (compare these meanings with English “to err”);
Theror (n) = sanctuary sacrifice.
Can you realize now that Albanian “ther” is the real wordroot of “terror”? (thus it’s not true that the etymology of “terror” be the PIE *tre- ).
Although Albanian “ther” is a (modern) Albanian word, its derivatives can be found in Latin and in many other modern European languages too.

And now sth for “therapy” (it’s just a guess):
Ther-ap (ther-hap), which literally means “cut-open”.
So, the first meaning of “therapy” would have been “surgery” (mind you, in the meaning of simple surgery for skin wounds).

Albanian, like all other languages, does have borrowings. Anyway, you’re looking at it from the outside and just as you’re taught to. Try to see with your own eyes and to think with your own mind.
Click to expand...



well just to remind you Therion and Mega therion (Θηριον) (Eng tear) (killing animal)
Καρα κρανιον for head-sculp (head-bones) and i think armenian also has similar

and therapy has nothing to do with surgery, but with medical treatment
Θεραπενις is the nurse, cognates with either warm either heal, but i can not certify

err as dark might not be IE since we consider it Pelasgic erevos = dark, erebu in semitic, and might have not IE roots
 
Hal Fao said:
Please, be sure that the only "violation" is that I have taken into account the Albanian too.
Specifically, some times ago we debated on the Albanian word "krye"(head), in Gheg dialect "kre" (head), def. "krea" (the head) and the correlation "krye" (head) - "kryej" (do consciously) - "krijoj"(create).
This correlation is unique in all IE languages​​, classical and modern (except the Sanskrit language which is found in the format "shirah" -"kri" - "srijati").
While the word "krea" (the head) is attested only in modern Albanian, its derivatives are found in classical Greek, in Latin, and in almost all modern European languages​​. When I say that the etymology of these derivatives is the word "krea" it does not mean that these derivatives are borrowed from modern Albanian. No, it’s borrowed from ancient one, i.e. from Etruscan, Illyrian, Thracian or Dacian. Even I’ve found out that Etruscan word for “head” is “cle” /kle/, def. “clea” /klea/ (compare with Gheg Albanian “cre”/”crea” = “head”/“the head”).
And it’s quite understandable.
On the other hand, the presence of such unique words in Albanian should be considered and studied seriously by linguists.

There is no doubt that all of them (as well as Albanian too) are descended from a common PIE root.
But there is no doubt too that Albanian is closer to PIE than everyone else.
In my opinion, whatever that Albanian is spoken by a relatively small number of speakers, offers some extraordinary surprises to the linguistics.
Now let’s come back to my last post:


What do you think is a nonsense in my above post:
Do you consider as a nonsense my explanation of how Albanian words “ter” and “terr” are wordformed; or simply the fact that a modern Albanian word can not be taken as etymology for a Latin one?
Do you think that Albanian “err” cognates with English “err”?
Does it give you any impression that Gheg Albanian “tu err” (to darken/to obscure” phonetically is quite similar with English “to err” which means “to mistake” or sth like “to sin” (note that the particle “tu” (to) is present in Gheg Albanian too)?
Do you think Gheg Albanian “tu” (to) is borrowed from English “to” or vice versa?
It survives only in English and in Gheg Albanian (if I’m not wrong).
There is another Albanian word (a verb) that is wordformed by Albanian “të err” (or just “t’err”):
Ther = 1- cut down (a human or animal body); slaughter; 2- cut (a human or animal body) just like a surgery operation (compare these meanings with English “to err”);
Theror (n) = sanctuary sacrifice.
Can you realize now that Albanian “ther” is the real wordroot of “terror”? (thus it’s not true that the etymology of “terror” be the PIE *tre- ).
Although Albanian “ther” is a (modern) Albanian word, its derivatives can be found in Latin and in many other modern European languages too.

And now sth for “therapy” (it’s just a guess):
Ther-ap (ther-hap), which literally means “cut-open”.
So, the first meaning of “therapy” would have been “surgery” (mind you, in the meaning of simple surgery for skin wounds).

Albanian, like all other languages, does have borrowings. Anyway, you’re looking at it from the outside and just as you’re taught to. Try to see with your own eyes and to think with your own mind.
Click to expand...

Hal Fao, I noticed that you cleared out the bolded parts of my past reply. I don't know if that's intentional or not, but much of what you claimed is essentially already answered in the post below:

Let me say this, I do not reject these ideas because I have some personal animosity towards or something like that, far from it. The reasons for my rejection are otherwise: the first is that what you propose and believe is in gross violation of all linguistic methodology, as well as all the research into Indo-European languages that has been developed over the past 150 years. The second is that it requires (from my point of view) is that I find it presumptous and assuming to have "it all figured out" and to assume that everything turns and moves about the Albanian language.
Click to expand...
There's also something else. It's called Occam's Razor.

Yes, I've stated that the root is constructed as *ters-. This is also backed up by various cognates in other branches of IE.

- Celtic has "tír" in Irish, and "tir" in Welsh.
- Germanic has for example English "thirst" and German "Durst".
- Classical Greek "tersomai" ("to dry").
- Sanskrit has "tṛṣyati" ("to thirst").

Classical Greek, Latin and Sanskrit are all ancient languages, and although Irish/Welsh and English/German are modern languages respectively, in both cases they are descended from ancient languages (Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic), and one has to assume that the root word was already present in the ancestor language. Thus, what is more likely? That Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Indo-Iranic and Italic borrowed this root from a (modern) Albanian word, or that they are descended from a common PIE root?

Well, from the above, I can tell you that this is complete nonsense. As I said, why do you think that everything has to revolve around modern Albanian? Why and how can you be so presumptuous and assume that, what you perceive as internal word formation in Albanian was purportedly the basis of ancient words (mind you, I've shown you that the word has cognates in Celtic, Germanic, Greek and Indo-Iranic)?

Well, I've shown plenty of examples in this thread (especially the treatment of loanwords) that clearly show that Albanian has made substantial changes over the centuries, and it would be unreasonable to assume anything else. I mean, it's not just the vocabulary, but also the grammar. I've stated earlier in that compared to ancient Indo-European languages (notably Sanskrit), Albanian has a fairly simplified grammar.

Well then, how do you consider this statement:

In the above example you acknowledge on the one hand that Thracian and Dacian are close relatives of Albanian (which is also what mainstream linguistics think, but which indeed requires the Albanian language to have substantially changed, and I gave a good example of that, especially the fact that Albanian possesses a few native words alongside with Dacian loanwords). On the other hand you keep claiming that Etruscan and Raetian are related with Albanian, and from what you've shown me of your "translations", you're basically assuming that these ancient Etruscan inscriptions (which clearly represent a non-Indo-European language, and as I have stated, it's easily possible to verify the non-Indo-Europeanness of Etruscan due to the fact that bilingual inscriptions exist) are supposed to represent essentially modern Albanian, which is also only contradicting the above.

To get back to the example of the Latin word "terra", you essentially assume that the ancient Romans borrowed a word from modern Albanian (or vice versa, that virtually unchanged modern Albanian was spoken in ancient times by the Etruscan), which is, as I have stated, not only incredibly presumptous, but also completely unscientific.
Click to expand...

 
Taranis said:
Hal Fao, I noticed that you cleared out the bolded parts of my past reply. I don't know if that's intentional or not, but much of what you claimed is essentially already answered in the post below:
Click to expand...

I do not understand, why you'r trying to foregoing my question (of course there is nothing cleared out in your past reply, it is quite verifiable).
My simple question is: do you accept my proposal that the real etymology for “creare”, “create” … etc. be the Gheg Albanian word “crea” (the head)?
Hal Fao said:
Even I’ve found out that Etruscan word for “head” is “cle” /kle/, def. “clea” /klea/ (compare with Gheg Albanian “cre”/”crea” = “head”/“the head”).
Click to expand...
Can’t you realize that Etruscan “clea” /klea/ (the head) be the real etymology for English “clear” (as well as for many Latin words which contain *cle-, *clea- or *clar-)?
 
Hal Fao said:
I do not understand, why you'r trying to foregoing my question (of course there is nothing cleared out in your past reply, it is quite verifiable).
Click to expand...

The re-read my post.

My simple question is: do you accept my proposal that the real etymology for “creare”, “create” … etc. be the Gheg Albanian word “crea” (the head)?

Can’t you realize that Etruscan “clea” /klea/ (the head) be the real etymology for English “clear” (as well as for many Latin words which contain *cle-, *clea- or *clar-)?
Click to expand...

No, obviously not. It's complete nonsense because ancient languages cannot borrow from modern ones (the Etruscan word does not count here, because I'm pretty sure that is just another word of unknown meaning that you took out of the context, and I've demonstrated a long time ago that it's a non-Indo-European language, and I'm still willing to put that to the test via the bilingual Pyrgi Tablets).

I must say that I find the example "clear" particularly educative though, because it shows that you want to be completely ignorant of the fact that languages have a history because you want to tie things with modern Albanian. The English word "clear", for your information, is a loanword derived from Latin "clarus". Have you ever taken a look at the Anglo-Saxon language? Your whole 'system' revolves around superficial similarity, without any form of regularity behind it. To take an example from your previous post, you randomly equate Albanian *t and *th (θ) with Greek *t and *th (*θ, but *tʰ in Classical Greek).
 
All I'm gonna do is Quote Robert Eisle. When asked by a journalist about Albanology and if there are any good researchers about it, he responded: Well, yes there are people who with hard work and passion achieve smth and reach real scientific conclusion but then there are also charlatans who with albanology have nothing to do yet claim to be so and sell their works as real scientific studies.

Now, Hal Fao why do you make reference to this charlatans or even become one your self. I think, from what i've read that comparing albanian to etruscan is charlatanism. Is like going through the Chinese dictionary and finding some word similar to Albanian and sayin' that the Chinese borrowed that word from us or us from them.

For gods sake stop this nonsense.
 
Endri said:
All I'm gonna do is Quote Robert Eisle. When asked by a journalist about Albanology and if there are any good researchers about it, he responded: Well, yes there are people who with hard work and passion achieve smth and reach real scientific conclusion but then there are also charlatans who with albanology have nothing to do yet claim to be so and sell their works as real scientific studies.

Now, Hal Fao why do you make reference to this charlatans or even become one your self. I think, from what i've read that comparing albanian to etruscan is charlatanism. Is like going through the Chinese dictionary and finding some word similar to Albanian and sayin' that the Chinese borrowed that word from us or us from them.

For gods sake stop this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Well said, Endri. At this point, I would like to reiterate that I've tried my best in this thread to tackle the Albanian language in an objective and factual matter.

Regarding the Etruscan language, in the past (in particular the 19th century, and even earlier), there have been all kinds of attempts to link it with other known language (including, for example, the Semitic languages and Old Egyptian), all which ultimately failed. There was one person, a certain Zecharia Mayani, who proposed that Etruscan was related to Albanian, but it was generally rejected as "wildly speculative".

As a matter of fact, Albanian is known since the late 19th century to be an Indo-European language. Etruscan, without any doubt, isn't Indo-European. I've stated this before, and I certainly won't get tired of mentioning it, there exists a bilingual inscription with Etruscan, the Pyrgi Tablets, which include one part in Etruscan, the other part in Phoenician.

EtruscanLanguage2.JPG

The Phoenician language is a Semitic language, very closely related with Hebrew, and as such can be readily deciphered. This means the content of the inscription is known, and one can be certain that the Etruscan part of the inscription must have the same content (even if not literally) as the Phoenician inscription. So unless all Semitologists are also completely wrong about Phoenician language and cannot read it either, there's no way how the interpretation that mainstream scholars have about Etruscan (that it is a non-IE language) could be wrong.
 
The so-called "translation" of Pyrgi's tablets is nothing more than fantasy.
It is based on the assumption that both texts (Phoenician and Etruscan) should have the same content (or similar), but as a matter of fact, no one on earth knows for sure there is the same content on both inscriptions .
The "text" turns out to be an amorphous set of "words" without organic connection, missing important parts of speech such as articles, conjunctions, pronouns, particles, etc.. with which are invented different "words" needed for the mythical fancied content.
Even the name VELIANAS when mentioned for the second time turns to be VELIIUNAS.
This is the text that is offered as a rough translation, which you believe as a true one, simply ‘cause it’s realized by an “Etruscan scholar” (note that the Author himself does not believe on his translation, that’s why he has called it a rough one)!
 
Thought some belive that etruscan is distantly related to indoeuropean family languages, as well as some belives that etruscan is related to Minoan

from wikipedia:

The majority consensus is that Etruscan is related only to other members of what is called the Tyrsenian language family which is an isolate family, that is, unrelated to other language groups by any known relationship (see Language isolate). Since Rix (1998), it is widely accepted that Tyrsenian is composed of Rhaetic and Lemnian together with Etruscan.

Another Aegean language which is possibly related to Etruscan is Minoan. The idea of a relation between the language of the Aegean Linear scripts was taken into consideration as the main hypothesis by Michael Ventris before discovering that in fact the language behind the more modern Linear B script was Mycenean, a Greek dialect.Giulio Mauro Facchetti, a researcher who has dealt with both Etruscan and Minoan put forward again this hypothesis, comparing some of the Minoan words of known meaning with some similar Etruscan words

Some modern scholars[7] assert that the Tyrsenian languages are distantly related to the Indo-European family. More specifically, Frederik Woudhuizen suggests a relation to the Anatolian branch of the family. Woudhuizen revived a conjecture to the effect that the Tyrsenians came from Anatolia, including Lydia, whence they were driven by the Cimmerians in the early Iron Age, 750–675 BC, leaving some colonists on Lemnos. He makes a number of comparisons of Etruscan to Luwian and asserts that Etruscan is modified Luwian. He accounts for the non-Luwian features as a Mysianinfluence: "deviations from Luwian ... may plausibly be ascribed to the dialect of the indigenous population of Mysia."[8] According to Woudhuizen, the Etruscans were colonizing the Latins. The Etruscans brought the alphabet from Anatolia.

More recently, Robert S.P. Beekes presented a similar case, but argued that the people later known as the Lydians and Etruscans had originally lived in northwest Anatolia, with a coastline to the Sea of Marmara, whence they were driven by the Phrygians c. 1200 BC, leaving a remnant known in antiquity as the Tyrsenoi. A segment of this people moved south-west to Lydia, becoming known as the Lydians, while others sailed away to take refuge in Italy, where they became known as Etruscans. The Etruscan language could therefore have been related to a non-Indo-European substratum ofLydian.[

Another proposal, currently pursued mainly by a few linguists from the former Soviet Union, suggests a relationship with Northeast Caucasian (or Daghestanian) languages.[


Thyrsenian languages in antiquity
Tyrsenian_languages.png
 
Hal Fao said:
The so-called "translation" of Pyrgi's tablets is nothing more than fantasy.
It is based on the assumption that both texts (Phoenician and Etruscan) should have the same content (or similar), but as a matter of fact, no one on earth knows for sure there is the same content on both inscriptions .
Click to expand...

Given how the three plates have the same shape and appearance and were found together, and given how identical names occur in both the Phoenician and the Etruscan text, I would say this is an absolutely reasonable assumption.

ʕštrt - astres (the goddess Astarte)
tbrjʔ wlnš - θefariei welianas ("Tiberius Welianias")
krr - χurwar ("Churwar" - a month name)

What should be added is that the name kjšrjʔ is not found in the Etruscan part of the inscription, but there's a reason for this: it is the name of the town (Caere/Cisra), where the inscription was found. It should be further added that Tiberius Welianias is refered to in the Phoenician inscription as "malik" (king) of Caera/Cisra (or "king of the Caerites"). It's also sensible to assume that Etruscan "unial" (consider that it says "unialastres" in the Etruscan part) is a title, mirroring Phoenician "lady Astarte" or "great Astarte". So we have a lot of information that we can be certain the Etruscan text must also contain. So the assumption that the content should be the same (or even if it is not word-by-word, at least similar) is basically correct.

The "text" turns out to be an amorphous set of "words" without organic connection, missing important parts of speech such as articles, conjunctions, pronouns, particles, etc.. with which are invented different "words" needed for the mythical fancied content.
Click to expand...

I think you have a lot of false assumptions about the language. It's also clearly not an amorphous set of words since there's clearly dots to distinguish different words from another.

Even the name VELIANAS when mentioned for the second time turns to be VELIIUNAS.
This is the text that is offered as a rough translation, which you believe as a true one, simply ‘cause it’s realized by an “Etruscan scholar” (note that the Author himself does not believe on his translation, that’s why he has called it a rough one)!
Click to expand...

Well, I'm pretty sure it's impossible to come up with a better assumptions, especially the above objections considered regarding names that appear in both words.
 
So to be back to the actual albanian language...

I was viewing a sorta of documentary about the Albanian minority in Ukraine (near Odessa). Just for the record, they settled there during the first years of the 1800 after having left Albania cause of the pression from the Ottoman Empire. They were from the area of Korça (at least this is what they claim) and first settled in Bulgaria then when Tsar Ekaterina II (if i'm not mistaken) offered them some land near Odessa they moved from Bulgaria and when to Ukraine then part of the Russian Tsardom. Anyway done the preview or the historical facts lets pass to linguistic.

You, Taranis if i'm not mistaken said that were not clear why we, Albanians, called ourselves Shqiptars and why the rest of the "world" called us Albanians. Well we know that Albanians comes from the Illyrian tribe of Albanoi who lived in the lands behind Durrës and that medieval Albanians called themselves "Arbër"....ect. history at this point, you were not clear how did we end up with the name of "Shqiptarë".

Well i was not clear either but as i was watching this documentary, the Albanians of Ukraine (which speak a sort of archaic Albanian, not influenced by the whatever influenced our language from the end of 1700 and the start of 1800) the word "shqipton", which we Albanians of Albania translate as "Albanian" (as the language), they used it in the meaning of "understand".

Exp: With the expression "A shqipton si ne" they do not mean as in modern Albanian would had been translated "Do you pronounce it as us" they mean "Do you understand me?/Do you speak my language?".

Which means that the meaning of the word "Shqiptar" is "He who understands (albanian)" and "I am Albanian", "Unë jam Shqiptar" once meant "I understand your language/I'm the same as you".

I hope i've been clear and not written non-sense lol
 
I'm not even remotely accustomed with Albanian, but this makes a lot of sense, and most likely is right Endri. We can find parallel of this verbal logic with Slavs. They call themselves "Slovianie" (the ones who know words), and they call Germans "Niemci" (the ones who don't speak).
I think it was a brilliant observation Endri!
 
Endri said:
So to be back to the actual albanian language...
Click to expand...

Yes, my apologies. The discussion of Etruscan certainly doesn't belong here, but since the issue keeps popping up, it needed to be addressed.

I was viewing a sorta of documentary about the Albanian minority in Ukraine (near Odessa). Just for the record, they settled there during the first years of the 1800 after having left Albania cause of the pression from the Ottoman Empire. They were from the area of Korça (at least this is what they claim) and first settled in Bulgaria then when Tsar Ekaterina II (if i'm not mistaken) offered them some land near Odessa they moved from Bulgaria and when to Ukraine then part of the Russian Tsardom. Anyway done the preview or the historical facts lets pass to linguistic.

You, Taranis if i'm not mistaken said that were not clear why we, Albanians, called ourselves Shqiptars and why the rest of the "world" called us Albanians. Well we know that Albanians comes from the Illyrian tribe of Albanoi who lived in the lands behind Durrës and that medieval Albanians called themselves "Arbër"....ect. history at this point, you were not clear how did we end up with the name of "Shqiptarë".
Click to expand...

Indeed, I brought up the case of "Albanian" vs. "Shqiptars" as a quite typical case of an exonym (designation by foreign peoples) vs. endonym (self-designation of a people). I also made the point that the Albanians in Antiquity most likely have designated themselves by a different name. Since there is no equivalent of "Shqiptar" attested (I'd expect a latinized "Scipteri" or a hellenized "Σκιπτεροι"), this seems likely. Of course, if the old Albanians refered to themselves as something akin to "Arbër", this may indeed be the source of the name "Albanoi" recorded in Antiquity.

Well i was not clear either but as i was watching this documentary, the Albanians of Ukraine (which speak a sort of archaic Albanian, not influenced by the whatever influenced our language from the end of 1700 and the start of 1800) the word "shqipton", which we Albanians of Albania translate as "Albanian" (as the language), they used it in the meaning of "understand".

Exp: With the expression "A shqipton si ne" they do not mean as in modern Albanian would had been translated "Do you pronounce it as us" they mean "Do you understand me?/Do you speak my language?".

Which means that the meaning of the word "Shqiptar" is "He who understands (albanian)" and "I am Albanian", "Unë jam Shqiptar" once meant "I understand your language/I'm the same as you".

I hope i've been clear and not written non-sense lol
Click to expand...

I'd like to second what LeBrok said, I think that this explanation really makes sense, especially if you draw the parallels to the dichotomy between 'those who speak' and 'those who don't speak' in Slavic.
 
There is even a book about the differences between the Albanian spoken in Albania and the one spoken by the Albanians in Ukraine. This book was made by an scholar/academic/linguistic (i do not know exactly what he was), Selim Islami, published in 1955 from a visit he made there in autumn 1949 with an Soviet ethnografist, named "Material Gjuhësor nga kolonitë Shqiptare të Ukrainës" (eng:Linguistic material from the Albanian colonies in Ukraine) where he also points the matter of the origin of the name "Shqiptar" and it's possible meaning as the one i explained above (my previous post).

If it's of any importance here is the "documentary" (It's in 2 videos, in Albanian)



PS:This documentary was shoot like 5-6 years ago and the people there still use the expression "A shqipton si ne" or "A po më shqipton" as "Do you understand me".
 
Diurpaneus said:
Here is a list of Romanian-Albanian similar words(starting from page 4)

http://www.comunique.ro/img_editor/userfiles/file/KKycyku_Cuvintele_comune_alb_rom.pdf
Click to expand...

Interesting links, thanks for sharing that. One problem with the former list is that it seems to attempt to include all common words of Albanian and Romanian. But, the problem is that this also includes Latin-derived terms (since Romanian is obviously Romance language, and Albanian has a large share of Latin loanwords) such as "plumb" (Latin plumbum), "victorie"/"fitore" (victory), etc. and also words like mascara, minaret, magazine, etc. - this makes the list less useful, because only a part of the words in this list are of Dacian origin (such as "ţap"/"cjap"). Nontheless, this is a good basis for assembling a list.

Also about the connection between Latin "Sclavus", Romanian"Schiau" and Albanian"Squip".

http://www.unibuc.ro/uploads_en/29535/28/Slavs_Marginalia_EN.pdf

Romanian - English
ş sh
ce,ci che,chi
che,chi ke,ki
ţ tz
ă e from "longer"
Click to expand...

Without going into detail, let me say that I will get back to this paper.
 
Not to be a party breaker or smth but the majority of those words in Albanian are either of Latin (aer-ajër ; infern – ferr) or Turkish (agă - aga ; işala! - ishalla!) origin.

Also this words are funny: ssst! - shshsht! ; hura! - urra! ; lele! - olele!
Not to mention the numerals: şapte - shtatë (7), şaptezeci - shtatëdhjetë (70)

I do not know what this guy (the one who wrote that study or whatever it can be called) is trying to prove cause this list of common names makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
A very strange thing in albanian:
-in albanian you have a letter , dh which is pronounced as th in the english word the
http://mylanguages.org/albanian_alphabet.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_alphabet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dh_(digraph)#D
In icelandic you have a letter for this sound,some kind of D written as Ð ð and which is pronounced as english th in english the.
To make even more weird:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eth
"Eth (Ð, ð; also spelled edh or eð) is a letter used in Old English, Icelandic, Faroese (in which it is called edd), and Elfdalian. It was also used in Scandinavia during the Middle Ages, but was subsequently replaced with dh and later d, except for Iceland where it survives."

How can this be explained?
 
mihaitzateo said:
A very strange thing in albanian:
-in albanian you have a letter , dh which is pronounced as th in the english word the
http://mylanguages.org/albanian_alphabet.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_alphabet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dh_(digraph)#D
In icelandic you have a letter for this sound,some kind of D written as Ð ð and which is pronounced as english th in english the.
To make even more weird:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eth
"Eth (Ð, ð; also spelled edh or eð) is a letter used in Old English, Icelandic, Faroese (in which it is called edd), and Elfdalian. It was also used in Scandinavia during the Middle Ages, but was subsequently replaced with dh and later d, except for Iceland where it survives."

How can this be explained?
Click to expand...

PIE g*h has turned into albanian dh...whats to explain?

Can you please not ruin this thread with your senseless theories like the one Taranis closed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 302189 times.

Back
Top