Thracians spoke Balto Slavic language

[h=3]Ancient Thracian mtDNA[/h]

The presentation of the results isn't very clear. From a cursory comparison of the results listed in the text with the Genographic project list of motifs, at least the following seem represented in the ancient Thracian individuals:

  • 1 individual seems to be 16129A 16223T
  • 1 individual seems to be 16145A
  • 1 individual seems to be 16186T 16190C (however, this looks like 16189C in Fig. 4, 186T and 189C are found in haplogroup T1)
  • 1 individual seems to be 16193T 16283C (16193T is found in J2, which also carries 16069T (beyond the region sequenced) 16126C (in the region sequenced but not found).
  • 1 individual seems to be 16311C
  • 2 individuals seems to be 16362C which in West Eurasia seems to be found in R0a and R6

http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2008/07/ancient-thracian-mtdna.html
 
I’m really surprised how some of the words share so much similarity between Lithuanian and Thracian languages.
Having said that, we cannot rule out a possibility that languages in time import and export some of the words.
The idea of common roots between Balto-Slavic languages is being contested.
For example, Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns thought, that any similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages were a result of an intensive language contact, i.e., that they were not genetically related and that there was no common Proto-Balto-Slavic language.
It’s like French and English languages. They’ve got different roots, but today both languages share so many words.
Antoine Meillet , the distinguished French Indo-Europeanist, in reaction to a second simplified theory of Schleicher's, propounded a view according to which all similarities of Baltic and Slavic occurred accidentally, by independent parallel development, and that there was no Proto-Balto-Slavic language.
Although other theories support idea of proto Balto-Slavic language development.

Old Church Slavonic or Old Church Slavic was first Slavic literary language, standardized in 9th century from Byzantine Greek missionaries Saints Cyril and Methodius. They took the language of Slavic people in Thessalonica (in Greece), the closest this language are Old Serbian and Old Bulgarian.

Serbs can understand a lot of words of this language but it is interesting, some words of Old Church Slavonic are more like Lithuanian than Serbian (I would like Bulgarians to take participation).

For example:

Alkati (Old Church Slavonic), alkti (Lithuanian), hunger (English)
Azŭ, aš, I
Varda, vardas, name
Visi, visi, all
Nyn’ja, nunai, now
Prežde, prieš, before
Ic, iš, out of
Uzĭrěti, žiūrėti, see
Imŭ, imti, take
Sĭ, šis, this
Mĭněti, manyti, think.
 
Well since both are Satem language and the paternal lines and autosomal genetics are so closed,between North Eastern Slavs and Lavtians and Lithuanians (I mean people from Belarus,North Russia) ,I doubt that these languages are not coming from a common root.
They are not equally satemized. Some centum words in Slavic languages have very similar satemized cognates in Baltic languages example: Pol. gwiazda; Lit. žvaigždė; Eng. star. Baltic and Slavic seem to be very similar but they have some old independent changes, which contradict theory of proto-Balto-Slavic. The other way to explain similarities between Baltic and Slavic is that they were close neighbors for long time. Genetic similarity is because, before Slavic expansion area of Belarus and central Russia was settled by Baltic tribes.
 
There is lots of vaporized peoples,kokki!
"People do not go away"-a quote from the movie "CSI." Tribes, yes, melted into new alliances. The Thracians lived in small communities / mountainous and hilly / and "do not recognize the authority of their own leaders' / Herodotus / See how many tribes are mentioned by ancient authors.
Abreteni
Agri
Aedi
Almopi
Aodi
Apsinti
Argeadi
Aretuzi
Artak
Asti
Bant
Benny
Bebriki
Bessie
Bisaltae
Bistoni
being
Bleguri , Balagrii
Botiei
Brent
Brigitte
Brink
Brisei
silkworm
Byusnei
Vasanisi
Gareski
gaiters
Gondry
Dacians
Datulepti
Dardanians
SIPA , good cheer, gullies
Datulepti
Denteleti
Deroni
Desi
Digeri
Dizori
Dee
Diobesi
Dionisiuses
Doberan
Dolonki
Dolioni
Droi
Edonoi
d ual
Entribi
Eordensii
blackened
Zera
Idomenensi
Ihnei
Kabileti
Kavkonensi
Karbilesi
Carpi
Kebra
Kenny
giggle
Clary
Koylaleti (large )
Koylaleti (small )
Corals , Korea
Corp.
Kostoboki
Krestoni
Crobyzi
Cruz
Xanthi
Laei , Leei
Linkesti
Maduateni
Mariandini
Medi
Medovitini
Melanditi
Melinofagi
MeOH
Mayo
Migdol
pot
dear
Mori
Morris
Nipsei
Odomanti
Odon
Odrysaeans
Olympus
Oreski
Otrionei
Paiti
Panay
Parorei
Peony
Peopli
Pierrot
Pirogeri
Priyanti
Rondei
swords
Saboki
Sapelli ( Sai )
Sarapari
satri
selenium
Serdi
Sikaboi
Sinti
Sindonei
Siri
Siropeoni
sieve
SKY
Scythian
Skaugdi
Skirmiadi
Staleti
Tevkri
Tilatei
Timak
Tirageti
Tisageti
Tralee
Travsi
Tranipsi
tribals
Trispli
troglodyte
Tyuni
Frigo
Halibi
Even Odrysian kingdom is loose confederation. They have no cities ,are not affected by the plague and other disasters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian. It is logical to assume that at some point, interact with the Slavs / almost 100% farmers / who settled in plains. Particularly in strengthening the power and trade in the new Slavic-Bulgarian state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Culture_of_the_First_Bulgarian_Empire.png
 
books say difference about thracian language

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...id alexander speak thracian languages&f=false

Thracian and greek where similar but had difference
Macedonian was completely different from greek and Thracian

Anyway Greek is Centum while Thracian is said to have been Satem.
Besides,there were 3 waves of different Greeks that have came in Greece,no one knows if they were speaking exactly same language,closed languages or different languages,no one knows what kind of genetics these waves of Greeks had and so on.

EDIT:
Now I could read and I do not see where is told at that link that Thracian was closed to Greek language,since is not said such a thing there.
 
The easiest way to discredit someone with sharp words. But open forum requires dialogue. Everyone is free to present arguments. Linguistic science says that Satem and Centum are mutually exclusive. Who thinks differently to some arguments based on solid foundations, not ideology. Science and research are based on facts, without facts is futile belief.
That's why I sugest you read more. There are languages that are not clear case. Albanian can be clasified as both centum and and satem. There is not written or spoken Illyrian language to compare to. There are few toponims in latin scripts refering to Illyria. Stop propoganda camuflaged as science. If you want to know: The strongest argument of Illyrian connection of albanian language is present day albanian language. 50% of our vocabulary comes from prechristian latin. The only territor conquered at that time by Romans was Illyria. No matter how much smoke serbian propoganda trys to create that fact is a mountain.
 
That's why I sugest you read more. There are languages that are not clear case. Albanian can be clasified as both centum and and satem. There is not written or spoken Illyrian language to compare to. There are few toponims in latin scripts refering to Illyria. Stop propoganda camuflaged as science. If you want to know: The strongest argument of Illyrian connection of albanian language is present day albanian language. 50% of our vocabulary comes from prechristian latin. The only territor conquered at that time by Romans was Illyria. No matter how much smoke serbian propoganda trys to create that fact is a mountain.

Science is not propaganda.

Do you really think that respectable world scientists are Serbian propagandists?

Colin Renfrew, Archaeology and Language, Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 107

http://books.google.rs/books?id=R64...rchaeology and Language" Satem Centum&f=false

Western group (centum)

Germanic
Venetic
Illyrian
Celtic
Italic
Greek

Eastern group (satem)
Baltic
Slavic
Albanian
Thracian...

*
If you like theme about propaganda, Albanian communist leader Enver Hoxha and his party insisted on connection/continuity between Albanians and Illyrians:


Parts of these ideologies were adopted during the Socialist People's Republic of Albania (1945–1991), which was more focused on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity issue[8] and appropriating Ancient Greek history as Albanian.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_nationalism

*
Past in many aspects is not known and we here trying to take reasoned debate, whereby scientific papers and books are guiding.
 
Science is not propaganda.

Do you really think that respectable world scientists are Serbian propagandists?

Colin Renfrew, Archaeology and Language, Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 107

http://books.google.rs/books?id=R64...rchaeology and Language" Satem Centum&f=false

Western group (centum)

Germanic
Venetic
Illyrian
Celtic
Italic
Greek

Eastern group (satem)
Baltic
Slavic
Albanian
Thracian...

*
If you like theme about propaganda, Albanian communist leader Enver Hoxha and his party insisted on connection/continuity between Albanians and Illyrians:


Parts of these ideologies were adopted during the Socialist People's Republic of Albania (1945–1991), which was more focused on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity issue[8] and appropriating Ancient Greek history as Albanian.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_nationalism

*
Past in many aspects is not known and we here trying to take reasoned debate, whereby scientific papers and books are guiding.

Well maybe most of Romanian language is than inherited from Illyrians,who were conquered by Dacians (Balto-Slavic speaking people).
According to some well known Romanian linguist,Albanian is not very far from Slavic and he was not biased in neither direction.
I am still wondering from where is most genetics of Romanians from South Romania plains.
They are very short people but they are not Turkic people,not even 1 in 100 got epicantic fold,which is a sign of having East,Central or North Asian admixture.
Moldovans are ,I think,most closed to Eastern Slavs .
As for people from Transylvania,same weird thing again,very short people,lots of them.
Think they also have some Celtic heritage,but is not possible that Celts/Gauls were so short people.
Now,is pretty clear that Moldavia have mostly Eastern and South Slavic paternal lines,as for South Romania,Balkanics and South Slavic paternal lines are making most of the ancestry.
 
Well maybe most of Romanian language is than inherited from Illyrians,who were conquered by Dacians (Balto-Slavic speaking people).
According to some well known Romanian linguist,Albanian is not very far from Slavic and he was not biased in neither direction.
I am still wondering from where is most genetics of Romanians from South Romania plains.
They are very short people but they are not Turkic people,not even 1 in 100 got epicantic fold,which is a sign of having East,Central or North Asian admixture.
Moldovans are ,I think,most closed to Eastern Slavs .
As for people from Transylvania,same weird thing again,very short people,lots of them.
Think they also have some Celtic heritage,but is not possible that Celts/Gauls were so short people.
Now,is pretty clear that Moldavia have mostly Eastern and South Slavic paternal lines,as for South Romania,Balkanics and South Slavic paternal lines are making most of the ancestry.
Romanian language is a creole of latin+dacian. Today's Romanian vocabulary is consistent with after Christ Latin vocabulary. In other words, latin in Romania was borrowed after christ, which is consistent with the time Romans invaded Dacia. So see the difference: Albanian latin borrowings are consistent with prechrist latin (Time when Illyria was invaded), Romanian latin borrowings with afterchrist latin( time when Dacia was invaded). I don't know much about Romania. One thing is clear that today's Romania has absorbed a lot of slavic genes and language.
 
Science is not propaganda.

Do you really think that respectable world scientists are Serbian propagandists?

Colin Renfrew, Archaeology and Language, Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 107

http://books.google.rs/books?id=R645AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=Renfrew,+%22Archaeology+and+Language%22+Satem+Centum&source=bl&ots=ec0-PA6d6f&sig=ZUpghqXEjiDbAKxq-sCoFDQKydU&hl=sr&sa=X&ei=smPQUrzUAobh4wSJhYCoCg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Renfrew%2C%20%22Archaeology%20and%20Language%22%20Satem%20Centum&f=false

Western group (centum)

Germanic
Venetic
Illyrian
Celtic
Italic
Greek

Eastern group (satem)
Baltic
Slavic
Albanian
Thracian...

*
If you like theme about propaganda, Albanian communist leader Enver Hoxha and his party insisted on connection/continuity between Albanians and Illyrians:


Parts of these ideologies were adopted during the Socialist People's Republic of Albania (1945–1991), which was more focused on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity issue[8] and appropriating Ancient Greek history as Albanian.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_nationalism

*
Past in many aspects is not known and we here trying to take reasoned debate, whereby scientific papers and books are guiding.

No surprise here. The person you are quoting could be a psudo scientist, or he might have a valid point. But for historical facts, linguistic or other' a wide consensus among scientists of the field is needed. That consensus regarding Albanian language being satem or centum does not exist. They are split right in the middle. When the hard facts( written evidence) about Illyrian language do not exist then speculators take over. You belong in that group of speculators. It's not that speculators triumph but they can temporarily confuse readers. Close this topic please, again you appear deeply uninformed about the topic you are disscussing. You could be a lot more helpful to disscus Serbian language for instance. Or discuss topics like onother Serbian of this forum was disscussing that Serbs tribes are Germanic extract. It could be a lot more entertaining.
 
There is not written or spoken Illyrian language to compare to.
When the hard facts( written evidence) about Illyrian language do not exist then speculators take over.
It's idiotic to claim Illyrian and albanian belong to different families.
The strongest argument of Illyrian connection of albanian language is present day albanian language.

It's kinda like jumping into your own mouth. Chill out dude.
 
Romanian language is a creole of latin+dacian. Today's Romanian vocabulary is consistent with after Christ Latin vocabulary. In other words, latin in Romania was borrowed after christ, which is consistent with the time Romans invaded Dacia. So see the difference: Albanian latin borrowings are consistent with prechrist latin (Time when Illyria was invaded), Romanian latin borrowings with afterchrist latin( time when Dacia was invaded). I don't know much about Romania. One thing is clear that today's Romania has absorbed a lot of slavic genes and language.

Well you do not even know basic history.
A part of Dacia was under Roman Empire,but only for 125 years.
A much larger of Dacia was under Goths,Ostrogoths etc for a longer period,but Romanian barely has any borrowings from East Germanic languages.
How this can be explained?

And 2nd ,as number of words common with other languages,in Romanian,are Slavic languages,especially Bulgarian.
At least 20% of the words from Romanian are common with some Slavic language.
But it seems that if you also take Old Slavic and common words with South Slavic dialects,like Macedonian,is even more.
Romanian also have some cognates with Albanian,that are not common with Latin or Slavic,about 300 or towards 500 words.

Now coming back to the Roman conquest of Dacia,areas like Moldavia were never conquered by Roman Empire,however,those people are speaking Romanian with a little different accent.
And they (Moldovans,not matter if they are from Bessarabia or from Moldavia from Romania) have a lot of I2A and 2nd R1A1.And most are wide faced,which is common with Eastern Slavs and Baltids,not with any Balkanic people,for your info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_province_of_Dacia_(106_-_271_AD).svg
As you can see the people inhabiting that area,during Roman Empire conquest,are still called Daci,Carpi (which was a Dacian tribe),Sarmatae (which were Iranic people,or proto-Slavic people,or mixture of both,anyway,Satem speakers,most blue eyed and light haired) and Bastarnae.
Bastarnae are not known what they are,if they were Celtic or Scytho-Sarmatian people.
Not to mention Romanian sonority is quite unique in Europe,sharing some letters/sounds with Eastern Slavs,which are not present in any other language from Europe and have plenty of other harsh sounds as Z,J etc which were not found in Latin and are not found in any Romance language either.
(except French,but this is not really Romance,more like Gallo-Romance).
So is clear that Romanian have plenty of words common with Romance languages,not only Italian but also lots with French,but how does this makes these words borrowed from Latin?
I do not understand why this theory,which says,Spanish,French,Portuguesse,are coming from Latin?
I think this theory (even if very supported) have same logic as saying that Swedish/Norwegian/Danish,English,Dutch etc all are coming from German.
I think is much more logic to suppose it existed a proto-Romance language from which Latin,Italian,Romanian,Spanish etc split.
And would be quite logical that Illyrians were speaking some kind of proto-Romance,since they were living very closed to Italy.
 
Well you do not even know basic history.
A part of Dacia was under Roman Empire,but only for 125 years.
A much larger of Dacia was under Goths,Ostrogoths etc for a longer period,but Romanian barely has any borrowings from East Germanic languages.
How this can be explained?

And 2nd ,as number of words common with other languages,in Romanian,are Slavic languages,especially Bulgarian.
At least 20% of the words from Romanian are common with some Slavic language.
But it seems that if you also take Old Slavic and common words with South Slavic dialects,like Macedonian,is even more.
Romanian also have some cognates with Albanian,that are not common with Latin or Slavic,about 300 or towards 500 words.

Now coming back to the Roman conquest of Dacia,areas like Moldavia were never conquered by Roman Empire,however,those people are speaking Romanian with a little different accent.
And they (Moldovans,not matter if they are from Bessarabia or from Moldavia from Romania) have a lot of I2A and 2nd R1A1.And most are wide faced,which is common with Eastern Slavs and Baltids,not with any Balkanic people,for your info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_province_of_Dacia_(106_-_271_AD).svg
As you can see the people inhabiting that area,during Roman Empire conquest,are still called Daci,Carpi (which was a Dacian tribe),Sarmatae (which were Iranic people,or proto-Slavic people,or mixture of both,anyway,Satem speakers,most blue eyed and light haired) and Bastarnae.
Bastarnae are not known what they are,if they were Celtic or Scytho-Sarmatian people.
Not to mention Romanian sonority is quite unique in Europe,sharing some letters/sounds with Eastern Slavs,which are not present in any other language from Europe and have plenty of other harsh sounds as Z,J etc which were not found in Latin and are not found in any Romance language either.
(except French,but this is not really Romance,more like Gallo-Romance).
So is clear that Romanian have plenty of words common with Romance languages,not only Italian but also lots with French,but how does this makes these words borrowed from Latin?
I do not understand why this theory,which says,Spanish,French,Portuguesse,are coming from Latin?
I think this theory (even if very supported) have same logic as saying that Swedish/Norwegian/Danish,English,Dutch etc all are coming from German.
I think is much more logic to suppose it existed a proto-Romance language from which Latin,Italian,Romanian,Spanish etc split.
And would be quite logical that Illyrians were speaking some kind of proto-Romance,since they were living very closed to Italy.

I would not be surprised if the illyrians spoke some form of celto-raetic-luburdian language because celtic culture in eastern austria was created with the illyrians/nori in noricum. centuries later the illyrians moved/invaded south balkans with the celts following .
i just wonder if pannonian whic was illyro-thraci language was involved as well
 
Well you do not even know basic history.
A part of Dacia was under Roman Empire,but only for 125 years.
A much larger of Dacia was under Goths,Ostrogoths etc for a longer period,but Romanian barely has any borrowings from East Germanic languages.
How this can be explained?

And 2nd ,as number of words common with other languages,in Romanian,are Slavic languages,especially Bulgarian.
At least 20% of the words from Romanian are common with some Slavic language.
But it seems that if you also take Old Slavic and common words with South Slavic dialects,like Macedonian,is even more.
Romanian also have some cognates with Albanian,that are not common with Latin or Slavic,about 300 or towards 500 words.

Now coming back to the Roman conquest of Dacia,areas like Moldavia were never conquered by Roman Empire,however,those people are speaking Romanian with a little different accent.
And they (Moldovans,not matter if they are from Bessarabia or from Moldavia from Romania) have a lot of I2A and 2nd R1A1.And most are wide faced,which is common with Eastern Slavs and Baltids,not with any Balkanic people,for your info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_province_of_Dacia_(106_-_271_AD).svg
As you can see the people inhabiting that area,during Roman Empire conquest,are still called Daci,Carpi (which was a Dacian tribe),Sarmatae (which were Iranic people,or proto-Slavic people,or mixture of both,anyway,Satem speakers,most blue eyed and light haired) and Bastarnae.
Bastarnae are not known what they are,if they were Celtic or Scytho-Sarmatian people.
Not to mention Romanian sonority is quite unique in Europe,sharing some letters/sounds with Eastern Slavs,which are not present in any other language from Europe and have plenty of other harsh sounds as Z,J etc which were not found in Latin and are not found in any Romance language either.
(except French,but this is not really Romance,more like Gallo-Romance).
So is clear that Romanian have plenty of words common with Romance languages,not only Italian but also lots with French,but how does this makes these words borrowed from Latin?
I do not understand why this theory,which says,Spanish,French,Portuguesse,are coming from Latin?
I think this theory (even if very supported) have same logic as saying that Swedish/Norwegian/Danish,English,Dutch etc all are coming from German.
I think is much more logic to suppose it existed a proto-Romance language from which Latin,Italian,Romanian,Spanish etc split.
And would be quite logical that Illyrians were speaking some kind of proto-Romance,since they were living very closed to Italy.
I am not a linguist. I don't know if you are. If you are not, every discussion about languages is waste of time, is like two deaf people talking.
 
It's kinda like jumping into your own mouth. Chill out dude.
I don't get your point. I don't know where you get the information about Albanian language. I am a native speaker of that language and I know what am I talking about. If you have entertaining porpuse in your mind keep doing what you doing.
 

This thread has been viewed 149530 times.

Back
Top