The Albanian language

[Zeus10]

I agree that we do not know if these really were the actual phonetic values. There are some other possibilies, for instance what is often suggested is that the palatovelars were actually plains velars and that the series normally reconstructed as plain velars was actually uvular. The Glottalic Theory poses that the voiced series was actually one of ejective stops.Since evidently, Proto-Indo-European was spoken long before being recorded, we do not know which scenario for reconstruction is correct. But, no matter which scenario we use we must justify how we end up with the respective reflexes in the daughter languages.

I know this, and I am aware of the many scenarios the supporters of the PIE theory have to assume, to cover the numerous weaknesses of this theory, which has been built not in a solid ground, but through empiricism only.

As for syllable structure, let me pick a different example: why does for instance Basque have so many words with a VCV structure? We do not know. Conjecturally, I would say it has something to do with the prehistory of the language.

I think, it must be you answering the question, since you are a supporter of the theory, which accepts c-v-c structure predominantly.

 

[Zeus10]

Since you evidently seem to know more than you claim, I'd like to ask you how you would reconstruct PIE instead, and I'd like to hear the arguments that you bring forth to justify it.

I actually created a list with PIE roots for Albanian language, strictly following the standard procedure and "surprisely" they are nowhere alike, other correspondants already reconstructed based on other languages.

 

[Zeus10]

Because to me, it doesn't make sense semantically for the word "tooth" to derive from the word for "to hurt"?

Semantically it makes a lot more sense to me, a painful part of our body, to be named by the usuall feeling we experience in it, than by a "feelingless" word like 'gombh'.

 

[Zeus10]

I'm not playing dumb with you. The textbook example for the Centum/Satem split is the word "hundred" (after which, atfer all, it is named), but my point is that there's many other examples that you can pick to show wether an Indo-European language can be described as "Centum" or "Satem".

The word "hundred" criteria, is more than just a textbook example, but was the principle the Satem-Centum theory is based on. The problem is that I know no other example in Albanian you can pick, to describe it as "Satem". If you know one let us know.

 

[MOESAN]

answering to Taranis [...be so "weird" to give a dental stop as a product of a velar one? Who did suggest that, you?]

I admit it amazed me the first time I saw this phonetic correlation between a /dh/ and a /k/ or /g/ sound - but after I looked ar romance languages and I remember the castillan evolution of the previous latin /-ti-/ where 'i' is unaccentued:
/-ti-/ >> /-tj'/ >> /-tch-/ >> /-ts-/ >> /-th-/ !
knowing that a /ki-/ can evolve like that: /ki-/ >> /kj-/ >> /tch-/ >> /ts-/ I am no more so amazed, even if I suppose this took sometime (centuries?)


No of course, but Albanian is one of the few, not saying the only Europian language, which shaped its phonetical system and its lexicon in the family hearth, otherwise from other "strong" languages, which are cleary inherited through scholasticism, and they wermit e invented, developed and used by the theocrats on the first place.

the official and scholasticic languages as you say have a popular basis as a whole, even if some words were "unnaturally" forged - they have more exceptions to the phonetic rules than dialects because sometimes some minor dialect words were received into them -



You know very well that I am talking about the velars used on the word 'hundred'

the numbers are not so reliable: they show often forms derogative to the common rule of the language: effect of dominent trade partners??? why not? see the germanic numbers... ('fore', 'five' in place of *'hwore', *'hwink' or somethings like that)




You yourself proved that Albanian can not qualify as Satem language but as Centum one, but then:
trying to escape the truth, you came up with the"rescue boat" of the "loanword". What does it make "pretty clear", that Albanians had to wait for stangers arrival, to create the term for their dogs?

languages can loan words even when they have yet proper words to express the concerned meaning - snobism is not new in case of prestige differences - sometimes the loan words are specialized for some "nuances", sometimes they drop the genuine word off - (in dominated ethnies: in breton: 'kon' ("dogs", "hounds") >> 'chas' from french 'chasse': "hunting" - 'sivi' ("strawberry") >> 'fres'(from french 'fraise') : sometimes it is by the way of trading, when a peculiar stuff is exchanged at a big scale, and the market dominated by someone... a latin loan by albanese by instance is not so impossible even if not expected for "dog"...

 

[Zeus10]

Well, I'm not actually escaping any truth here: nobody said that the Albanian language did not have a different ("native", if you will, in the sense of "native to the language") word for "dog". It merely got replaced by the Latin loanword. In a very similar fashion, English has replaced many "native" Germanic words in it's vocabulary with Latin and Romance ones.

Latin(and its early Eastern form, the so called "Greek") language is a language of scholasticism, which was built on the first place for liturgical and writing purposes, and 'borrowed' lexicon from natural languages in abundance, recycling back to the original languages terminology of development, liturgical, scientific and technological character, but NOT basic words, and especially not totally replacing the native words of the everyday life. The word "qen" in Albanian, is one of them, and was in existencelong before the creation of two forms of the sacred language: Eastern Roman(Greek) and Wester Roman(Latin). Apperantly it is the other way around, an early form of a similar language like Albanian, furnished the "Lingua Franca" with natural words on the first place, and to me the word 'qen' is one of them.

 

[Zeus10]

Most notably, you have to bear in mind that the reconstruction is not only based on modern language (it would be a lot more difficult to do that), but also on ancient languages, to mention a few ones, notably Classical Greek, Mycenaean Greek, Avestan, Sanskrit and Hittite.

If you are implying that these hieroglyphes:

whose decipherement, transcription and transliteration and translation is ridiculous, were used to reconstruct the PIE language, then I will not take you seriously.

 

[Taranis]

Latin(and its early Eastern form, the so called "Greek") language is a language of scholasticism, which was built on the first place for liturgical and writing purposes, and 'borrowed' lexicon from natural languages in abundance, recycling back to the original languages terminology of development, liturgical, scientific and technological character, but NOT basic words, and especially not totally replacing the native words of the everyday life. The word "qen" in Albanian, is one of them, and was in existencelong before the creation of two forms of the sacred language: Eastern Roman(Greek) and Wester Roman(Latin). Apperantly it is the other way around, an early form of a similar language like Albanian, furnished the "Lingua Franca" with natural words on the first place, and to me the word 'qen' is one of them.

No offense, I really do not know where you got that from but it is complete nonsense. And, I can easily demonstrate you why:


- You should be aware that there were other languages in Pre-Roman Italy that were related with Latin, such as Oscan and Umbrian - which share commonalties with Latin (hence they are grouped together as Italic languages) which are different from Greek but share common innovations with Latin.


- Latin preserves Proto-Indo-European *kw, whereas Greek has shifted it to *p (for example, Latin "equus" versus Greek "hippos").

- Greek has a set of complex sound shifts involving the PIE clusters with *j, which in turn are absent in Latin.

- Latin preserves Indo-European initial *s- whereas Greek shifted it to *h- (a development which, by the way, happened independently in a rather similar fashion the Iranic languages as well as in the Brythonic languages (for example, Latin "septem" vs. Greek "hepta").


- Latin shifts initial *bʰ-, *dʰ-, *gʰ- to *f-, *f-, *h- and medial to *b, *d, *g, respectively, whereas Greek shifted them to *pʰ, *tʰ, *kʰ regardless of position.


- I could go on with this list. You claim that Latin is a descendant of Greek. Now you have to remember that sound laws have no memories. So, if you have a shift from *A and B to C, and then later to D, it's irrelevant if C previously came from A or B - the language has no memory of that. So in this case, the developments that would be necessary to get from Greek to Latin are basically impossible. The only way this works out is that Greek and Latin, who knew, are separate branches of Indo-European.

- The rest of your statements regarding Greek and Latin as purportedly "artifical" and "scholastical" languages are prettymuch impossible (in fact, it sounds like a flimsy invention that was ad-hoc postulated as a justification for for the perceived 'specialness' of the Albanian language). To pick up the word "qen" again, it's very obvious that this is evident of a sound shift from *k > *c (written as "q" in Albanian orthography) is a relatively late development in Albanian. Notably, Latin loanwords are subject to this. Even if we disregard the notion that they are loanwords (which is kind of irrelevant for the sake of my argument) but just treat them as cognates alone, then this gets apparent:

- Latin "civitas" vs. Albanian "qytet" (also compare Spanish "ciudad").
- Latin "caelum" vs. Albanian "qiell" (also compare Spanish "cielo").

Thus, the statement that the word "qen" existed in Albanian long before is absolutely impossible. The ancestral form in Albanian would have been something akin to *ken. Since we established that PIE *k´ should be reflected as a dental fricative (you asked me to show you more examples of that, and I promise I will get back to that and type them down later), it's clear that the word cannot be native and, if it's indeed a cognate with the word for "dog" in the other Indo-European languages mentioned earlier, must be assumed to be borrowed.

In regard for Mycenaean Greek, I would like to point out two things: the first issue is that the language was only deciphered a good century after the foundationwork for Indo-European linguistics was already layed. But, the critical point is that Mycenaean represents an earlier, more primitive form of Greek that shows that many of the innovations found later in Greek are not apparent yet (for example, Mycenaean retains PIE *gw and *kw where Classical and later Greek has *b and *p respectively). But, even if we had no evidence for Mycenaean Greek, it would change absolutely nothing about the concept of IE itself. The second issue to be considered regarding Mycenanean Greek is that the writing system (Linear B) was rather unsuited for writing Greek, as the parent script (Linear A) was developed for the Minoan language, which is presumed to have been non-Indo-European.

The critical point is that the comparative method in linguistics does not only work for Indo-European languages. It was pioneered for Indo-European, yes, but, it was also used in the establishment of many other language families, and is continued to used so for languages in other parts of the world, such as the native languages of New Guinea or Native American languages. So, you could go ahead now say "the comparative method is all nonsense and sound laws are all nonsense" to 'save' your ideas about Albanian, but I'd like to inform that in that case, no offense, you might as well claim that Albanian is an Algonquian language, or possibly a dialect of Chinese, or quite possibly Martian - and it would be just as credible.

 

[Zeus10]

No offense, I really do not know where you got that from but it is complete nonsense. And, I can easily demonstrate you why:


- You should be aware that there were other languages in Pre-Roman Italy that were related with Latin, such as Oscan and Umbrian - which share commonalties with Latin (hence they are grouped together as Italic languages) which are different from Greek but share common innovations with Latin.

The Romans were known as the greatest persecutors of Christianity until in AD 313 when the religion was legalized by Emperor Constantine, BUT even before that date, these rulers were worshiping Jesus. Inscription found in Israel inside a heavily fortified border garrison town that was home to thousands of Roman soldiers. All the inscriptions are in """Greek""" though:

Inscription dedicating to “God Jesus Christ”

Even when the inscriptions were not dedicated to Jesus, but writings/inscriptions about everyday life, they were always in ""Greek"". The following one has been written 1800 years ago by another roman consul.
His name was Lucius Septimius Flavianus Flavillianus and he was a champion at wrestling and pankration, and the inscription was dedicated to his fame.

A new inscription reveals that a Roman city in Turkey, Oinoanda, turned to a mixed martial art champion named Lucius Septimius Flavianus Flavillianus to recruit and deliver soldiers for the empire’s army. It is written in Greek.


For at least 300 hundred years the same "Romans", continued to write in the so called "Greek" until the language was legalized:

Transcription:
επι φλ-
παλλαδιου
πορφυρου
του μεγαλοπρε
R ηγεμονος
το εργον της στοας
μετα και της
ψηφωσεως
εγενετο

Translation : "The work of the stoa along with the mosaic was done in the time of Flavius Palladius son of Porforius the magnificent leader."

We find these inscriptions in "Greek" exactly where Roman armies stepped in.

The numerous "Greek" inscriptions especially all over Mediterranean, are not activities result of an ethnos called Hellenes, but they are thanks to the Roman THEOCRACY.

 

[Zeus10]

- Latin preserves Proto-Indo-European *kw, whereas Greek has shifted it to *p (for example, Latin "equus" versus Greek "hippos").

- Greek has a set of complex sound shifts involving the PIE clusters with *j, which in turn are absent in Latin.

- Latin preserves Indo-European initial *s- whereas Greek shifted it to *h- (a development which, by the way, happened independently in a rather similar fashion the Iranic languages as well as in the Brythonic languages (for example, Latin "septem" vs. Greek "hepta").


- Latin shifts initial *bʰ-, *dʰ-, *gʰ- to *f-, *f-, *h- and medial to *b, *d, *g, respectively, whereas Greek shifted them to *pʰ, *tʰ, *kʰ regardless of position.


- I could go on with this list. You claim that Latin is a descendant of Greek. Now you have to remember that sound laws have no memories. So, if you have a shift from *A and B to C, and then later to D, it's irrelevant if C previously came from A or B - the language has no memory of that. So in this case, the developments that would be necessary to get from Greek to Latin are basically impossible. The only way this works out is that Greek and Latin, who knew, are separate branches of Indo-European.

- The rest of your statements regarding Greek and Latin as purportedly "artifical" and "scholastical" languages are prettymuch impossible (in fact, it sounds like a flimsy invention that was ad-hoc postulated as a justification for for the perceived 'specialness' of the Albanian language). To pick up the word "qen" again, it's very obvious that this is evident of a sound shift from *k > *c (written as "q" in Albanian orthography) is a relatively late development in Albanian. Notably, Latin loanwords are subject to this. Even if we disregard the notion that they are loanwords (which is kind of irrelevant for the sake of my argument) but just treat them as cognates alone, then this gets apparent:

- Latin "civitas" vs. Albanian "qytet" (also compare Spanish "ciudad").
- Latin "caelum" vs. Albanian "qiell" (also compare Spanish "cielo").

Thus, the statement that the word "qen" existed in Albanian long before is absolutely impossible. The ancestral form in Albanian would have been something akin to *ken. Since we established that PIE *k´ should be reflected as a dental fricative (you asked me to show you more examples of that, and I promise I will get back to that and type them down later), it's clear that the word cannot be native and, if it's indeed a cognate with the word for "dog" in the other Indo-European languages mentioned earlier, must be assumed to be borrowed.

In regard for Mycenaean Greek, I would like to point out two things: the first issue is that the language was only deciphered a good century after the foundationwork for Indo-European linguistics was already layed. But, the critical point is that Mycenaean represents an earlier, more primitive form of Greek that shows that many of the innovations found later in Greek are not apparent yet (for example, Mycenaean retains PIE *gw and *kw where Classical and later Greek has *b and *p respectively). But, even if we had no evidence for Mycenaean Greek, it would change absolutely nothing about the concept of IE itself. The second issue to be considered regarding Mycenanean Greek is that the writing system (Linear B) was rather unsuited for writing Greek, as the parent script (Linear A) was developed for the Minoan language, which is presumed to have been non-Indo-European.

The critical point is that the comparative method in linguistics does not only work for Indo-European languages. It was pioneered for Indo-European, yes, but, it was also used in the establishment of many other language families, and is continued to used so for languages in other parts of the world, such as the native languages of New Guinea or Native American languages. So, you could go ahead now say "the comparative method is all nonsense and sound laws are all nonsense" to 'save' your ideas about Albanian, but I'd like to inform that in that case, no offense, you might as well claim that Albanian is an Algonquian language, or possibly a dialect of Chinese, or quite possibly Martian - and it would be just as credible.

I can not agree more with you, but differently from you I use the comparative method, in a very convincing and reliable way than these weird theories with strange sound shifts. This is the real path:

 

[Yetos]

I can not agree more with you, but differently from you I use the comparative method, in a very convincing and reliable way than these weird theories with strange sound shifts. This is the real path:

the think that you missing is mycenean word was ικκος similar with Latin
while Greek ιππος is simmilar with Gaulish or a paraCeltic word,
the missing thing is that IE languages except Satem and Centum got also a transormation of Q/P
both in Celtic and Greek,

now if a language has 3 synomyns with other 3 languages which is more possible?
your example is saying that Albanian gave different words to all 3 nearby languages?

to lend 3 different words to 3 other languages?
or to import at least 2 even to its own vocabulary?

it more possible that all 3 are loans to Albanian language that to give each time a different one to a neighbor country,


to expand more,
in modern Greek we say να καβαλησω το αλογο, to mount-ride the horse, (na kavalliso to alogo)
but we know that word kavalliso καβαλλησω is imported to Greek from west, mainly at midlle-late Byzantine times, the Greeκ word is ιππευσω, so word cavallo is imported in modern Greek.
cause all extracts are based in ιππος ippos

 

[Endri]

I can not agree more with you, but differently from you I use the comparative method, in a very convincing and reliable way than these weird theories with strange sound shifts. This is the real path:

Idk if you know Albanian or not but

"me u çu", "me kalu" and "me hip", do not have the same meaning. "Me u çu", the 'paskajore' (I don't know the word in english) form of the verb "çoj/çohem" in this case means to stand up on the horse, like on your feet and undermeans that you already have mounted the horse since you're able to stand on it on your feet. "Me kalu", form of the verb "kaloj", in this case means to get over the horse, like pass over him or smth like that. "Me hip" is the only one that means "to mount the horse".

Now idk what sort of ancient, mystical meaning you're giving to these words but unless you have ancient texts that use this expressions under this meaning I'm gonna stick to my everyday modern Albanian meaning.

And btw Latin and Greek are not the same language. If they are so are Umbrian, Toscan and all the other "dialects". You must be insane to think of that.

 

[Yetos]

The Romans were known as the greatest persecutors of Christianity until in AD 313 when the religion was legalized by Emperor Constantine, BUT even before that date, these rulers were worshiping Jesus. Inscription found in Israel inside a heavily fortified border garrison town that was home to thousands of Roman soldiers. All the inscriptions are in """Greek""" though:

Inscription dedicating to “God Jesus Christ”

Even when the inscriptions were not dedicated to Jesus, but writings/inscriptions about everyday life, they were always in ""Greek"". The following one has been written 1800 years ago by another roman consul.
His name was Lucius Septimius Flavianus Flavillianus and he was a champion at wrestling and pankration, and the inscription was dedicated to his fame.

A new inscription reveals that a Roman city in Turkey, Oinoanda, turned to a mixed martial art champion named Lucius Septimius Flavianus Flavillianus to recruit and deliver soldiers for the empire’s army. It is written in Greek.


For at least 300 hundred years the same "Romans", continued to write in the so called "Greek" until the language was legalized:

Transcription:
επι φλ-
παλλαδιου
πορφυρου
του μεγαλοπρε
R ηγεμονος
το εργον της στοας
μετα και της
ψηφωσεως
εγενετο

Translation : "The work of the stoa along with the mosaic was done in the time of Flavius Palladius son of Porforius the magnificent leader."

We find these inscriptions in "Greek" exactly where Roman armies stepped in.

The numerous "Greek" inscriptions especially all over Mediterranean, are not activities result of an ethnos called Hellenes, but they are thanks to the Roman THEOCRACY.

It is well known that Roman-Latin language did not manage to expell Hellenistic from the omonymous kingdoms

in the photo the only change is the latter S->C κοππα σε C, letter qouoppa which in Greek sounded like S Σ and not like Q,

that is a vocabulary mainly created in areas who were heavily Roman and Christian occupied,
the Father of Byzantine alphabet, and Cyrillic.


That is the prove that Romans occupy Greece and Hellenistic Kingdoms but not Greeks
the language as you see is Koine 2,3 and is pure Greek except the transormation of letter S, which was forbiden in Christians due to looks like a serpent (Devil) so they change it with ς and sometimes with c

Finnaly let me remind you the Greek colonizations all over meditterenean, Magna Grecia, and kingdoms of Epigoni who pushed Greek language,

may I remind you that para-Greek (Greco-Aryan) is still spoken in Hindokush, was it due to lingua Franca?

I agree that many written were not by Greeks, but they use Greek due to was already expanded, and Greeks deny Roman-Latin language,

But how many of them are true Greek? have you ever thought?


I still don't understand your way of thinking


what connection may have a description in Jerusalem with the Greek language as daughter of IE languages?
and what if Greek become an elite language like today English at Hellenistic times with the Greek language her shelf

modern Greek is the Thracian idiom (dialect) of Constantinoupolis as was spoken in 1880-1920
is the exelixis of ancient Mycenean through time and after some Latin-Celtic and Slavic influences
a good example of Greek language is the rumeyika that were spoken at mountains of Pontus which still uses 4 infinitives like ancient Greek and Grico in Magna Grecia which still uses many times syntax and grammar of ancient Greek even to modern Italian.


can you be more specific?

 

[Zeus10]

To pick up the word "qen" again, it's very obvious that this is evident of a sound shift from *k > *c (written as "q" in Albanian orthography) is a relatively late development in Albanian. Notably, Latin loanwords are subject to this. Even if we disregard the notion that they are loanwords (which is kind of irrelevant for the sake of my argument) but just treat them as cognates alone, then this gets apparent:

- Latin "civitas" vs. Albanian "qytet" (also compare Spanish "ciudad").
- Latin "caelum" vs. Albanian "qiell" (also compare Spanish "cielo").

Thus, the statement that the word "qen" existed in Albanian long before is absolutely impossible. The ancestral form in Albanian would have been something akin to *ken. Since we established that PIE *k´ should be reflected as a dental fricative (you asked me to show you more examples of that, and I promise I will get back to that and type them down later),

Once again, Latin language is relatively a new language. It takes much credit because it has been a written language on the first place. And since you came up with the so called cognates caelum(lat)--ciello(it)----qiell(alb-tosk)----çiell(alb-geg), I have to say that this one, like proven thousands times, Albanian language has the "back bone" behind, a verb of c-v-c structure, which in this case is :
çel--open
and it goes like this:

çel--------> çiell-qiell= sky

the other synonym:

hap-------> hapesire=space

where usually sky~=space

(you asked me to show you more examples of that, and I promise I will get back to that and type them down later),

Bring them in and I promise you I will find that genuine Albanian "back bone" on every single of them.

 

[Taranis]

I can not agree more with you, but differently from you I use the comparative method, in a very convincing and reliable way than these weird theories with strange sound shifts. This is the real path:

Well, I do have the following questions:

- How presumptuous do you have to do be to believe that the Albanian language was unchanged over 2000+ (or 2500+, or 3000+ for that matter) years? Given how vividly changes in language are documented and attested over the past 1000, 1500 or 2000 years in various branches, I find such a belief quite a stretch at best.


- Likewise, how presumptuous do you have to be that this unchanging, or perhaps I should say, "undying" Albanian language was apparently the ancestor language of all Indo-European languages that there ever were? I think it is utterly untenable if one doesn't have the ad-hoc assumption that Albanian "must be" the ancestor language - and that is not scientific at all.


- You consider the sound changes "weird theories", I would like to remind you that they are the foundationwork of modern linguistics and that they were responsible in the reconstruction work any language family. Your system revolves only around Albanian, modern Albanian, which you consider as the pivotal point and central hub of your whole system. I'd like to see your method be applied to Native American languages, or Caucasian languages or maybe dialects of Chinese. The beautiful thing about the comparative method is that it works for all of these.


- According to you, Latin "equus" and Greek "hippos" are derived from different roots. How about attempting to include other words for horse in the following Indo-European languages:


- Old Irish "ech"
- Scottish Gaelic "each"
- Gaulish "epos"
- Breton "ebeul" ("foal")
- Welsh "ebol" ("foal")
- Gothic "aihws"
- Lithuanian "ašva"
- Avestan "aspa"
- Kurdish "esp"
- Persian "asp"
- Sanskrit "asvah"
- Hindi "asv"
- Tocharian B "yakwe"


- what I might add here is, I know that you don't believe that Linear B depicts an earlier form of Greek, but for the sake of an argument, the word is attested as "I-Qo" in Linear B.

 

[Zeus10]

the think that you missing is mycenean word was ικκος similar with Latin
while Greek ιππος is simmilar with Gaulish or a paraCeltic word,
the missing thing is that IE languages except Satem and Centum got also a transormation of Q/P
both in Celtic and Greek,

now if a language has 3 synomyns with other 3 languages which is more possible?
your example is saying that Albanian gave different words to all 3 nearby languages?

to lend 3 different words to 3 other languages?
or to import at least 2 even to its own vocabulary?

it more possible that all 3 are loans to Albanian language that to give each time a different one to a neighbor country,

Apparently you have understood nothing. Albanian doesn't have 3 different synonyms for the word 'horse', but just one and that one is 'kalë' which derives from the verb of the c-v-c structure 'kal-oj'.

 

[Yetos]

Once again, Latin language is relatively a new language. It takes much credit because it has been a written language on the first place. And since you came up with the so called cognates caelum(lat)--ciello(it)----qiell(alb-tosk)----çiell(alb-geg), I have to say that this one, like proven thousands times, Albanian language has the "back bone" behind, a verb of c-v-c structure, which in this case is :
çel--open
and it goes like this:

çel--------> çiell-qiell= sky

the other synonym:

hap-------> hapesire=space

where usually sky~=space



Bring them in and I promise you I will find that genuine Albanian "back bone" on every single of them.

I don't understand you again the Greek words for collours of the sky are Γαλλαν-ο ( whallan -o llight blue white) and κυανουν (cyan kuan-un Dark blue)
as you see in many words Greek Γ or K in latin goes C and Greek -on goes to -um, these are transformation that indicate a common origin language a mother language to both.

consider Greek βασσιλικη basiliki in latin goes Bassilica so a mother language had a sound simmilar to Γ Κ C that goes to daughter languages according the sound they like to hear or pronounce

 

[Zeus10]

Well, I do have the following questions:

- How presumptuous do you have to do be to believe that the Albanian language was unchanged over 2000+ (or 2500+, or 3000+ for that matter) years? Given how vividly changes in language are documented and attested over the past 1000, 1500 or 2000 years in various branches, I find such a belief quite a stretch at best.
.

Nobody is saying that Albanian has never changed. What I am saying is that Albanian being a 'family hearth' spoken language, evolved naturally preserving better than any other language its natural DNA that distinguishes the vernacular languages from the scholastical and vehicular ones.

- Likewise, how presumptuous do you have to be that this unchanging, or perhaps I should say, "undying" Albanian language was apparently the ancestor language of all Indo-European languages that there ever were? I think it is utterly untenable if one doesn't have the ad-hoc assumption that Albanian "must be" the ancestor language - and that is not scientific at all.

Albanian is not the ancestor language for the other ones, but It preserved better than any other language the original lexical features of the natural proto-language.

- You consider the sound changes "weird theories", I would like to remind you that they are the foundationwork of modern linguistics and that they were responsible in the reconstruction work any language family. Your system revolves only around Albanian, modern Albanian, which you consider as the pivotal point and central hub of your whole system. I'd like to see your method be applied to Native American languages, or Caucasian languages or maybe dialects of Chinese. The beautiful thing about the comparative method is that it works for all of these.

I won't disscuss about the sound shifting rules for a language that I don't know thoroughly.

- According to you, Latin "equus" and Greek "hippos" are derived from different roots. How about attempting to include other words for horse in the following Indo-European languages:

Yes they have different ancestors.
- Old Irish "ech"
- Scottish Gaelic "each"
- Gaulish "epos"
- Breton "ebeul" ("foal")
- Welsh "ebol" ("foal")
- Gothic "aihws"
- Lithuanian "ašva"
- Avestan "aspa"
- Kurdish "esp"
- Persian "asp"
- Sanskrit "asvah"
- Hindi "asv"
- Tocharian B "yakwe"


- what I might add here is, I know that you don't believe that Linear B depicts an earlier form of Greek, but for the sake of an argument, the word is attested as "I-Qo" in Linear B

We can open a new thread, where we can discuss about this and I can prove that both Ventris and especially Chadwick were big speculators.

 

[Endri]

Once again, Latin language is relatively a new language. It takes much credit because it has been a written language on the first place. And since you came up with the so called cognates caelum(lat)--ciello(it)----qiell(alb-tosk)----çiell(alb-geg), I have to say that this one, like proven thousands times, Albanian language has the "back bone" behind, a verb of c-v-c structure, which in this case is :
çel--open
and it goes like this:

çel--------> çiell-qiell= sky

the other synonym:

hap-------> hapesire=space

where usually sky~=space

As a starter, could i get like a single text of Gheg Albanian, pre-WWII (or after) text where qiell is written as çiel? I'd like to see that...

Next according to your theory from "çel" aka sky we have expression like "çeli lulja" or "çeli veza" or "çeli dita" which I'd love you to explain.

Anyway the point is "çel" is not connected to "qiell" (sky) whether "çel" is more like "to be born/to blossom/to be reborn/fresh/bright ect".

Is actually pretty easy in forums as such in matter regarding Albanian to confuse other people cause few (mostly none) know the language and this is dual from Albanians and non-Albanians.

 

[Taranis]

Nobody is saying that Albanian has never changed. What I am saying is that Albanian being a 'family hearth' spoken language, evolved naturally preserving better than any other language its natural DNA that distinguish the vernacular languages from the scholastical and vehicular ones.

Albanian is not the ancestor language for the other ones, but It preserved better than any other language the original lexical features of the natural proto-language.

You're implying that it has never changed because you have the ad-hoc assumption that it is more representative of the original condition than any other Indo-European language, and as far as I understand it, your main argument for it is that that you label Albanian a "family hearth" language and contrast it with ever other Indo-European language (which label as "scholastical" or "vehicular"). This is, from my impression, an arbitratry decision rather than based on any solid arguments. On the contrary, your hypothesis is untestable: you imply that all languages with a long literacy tradition are essentially falsified while Albanian (which has a much shorter literacy tradition) is unfalsified. However, the latter claim is obviously untestable because Albanian is unattested before the 14th century. This means, in essence, your whole argument principally circles around your own presumptuous declarations rather than any other arguments.


The comparative method assumes that the we do not know the original ancestral language. The very idea of a proto-language is that all of the known (or presumed) daughter languages must be derived via regularly-conditioned changes. If Albanian was particularly representative in any way of Proto-Indo-European (which you imply), then it would be logical that, assuming we had absolutely no knowledge of Albanian that we should end up with a reconstructed proto-language that is astonishingly similar to modern Albanian. This being obviously not the case (at least, that's the general consensus of the Indo-Europeanists), leaves us with two possibilities:


1) either the comparative method is fundamentally flawed. In this case I would seriously recommend ditching all other established concepts of language families in the world as they were based on the very same method used for reconstructing Indp-European. However, given however how well the method works for so many different language families all around the world, I consider this unlikely.


2) your hypothesis is plain and simply completely wrong.

I won't disscuss about the sound shifting rules for a language that I don't know thoroughly.

Honestly, I do not wish to sound dismissive, but either your methodology works universally, regardless of the language family in question, or it's simply flawed.

We can open a new thread, were we can disscuss about this and I can prove that both Ventris and especially Chadwick were big speculators.

Well, for the sake of an argument, please forget Chadwick, Ventris and Linear B for a moment. Indo-Europeans made well without it for 140 years. Leaving out Linear B of the above list changes nothing about the validity of my arguments.