Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis

[Sile]

Lyginus river,battle of Lyginus 335 B.C between the Triballians and Alexander the Great.

Lyginus-from "Liga" Lyga meaning "slimy" slippery,muddy present day name Rositsa name from Rosa "dew" especialy in the morning,which is pretty much connected with wetness,nowadays the word "Lyga" is mostly shifted for drool,is used to desrcibe slimy species such are the slug,it is used to describe wetness but we preffer other words mostly.

The Tribalians(exonym used for the Serbs) were defeated in this battle.
Will use some older Historian of our,who collected their history mostly from the epic poetry such are the "guslars" where this battle and prior are recorded.

Kačić Miošić,he was Francisian from his mid 10 who began and ended his career in the monastery of Zaostrog.In 1756 and 1759 he published in Venice two editions of his "Pleasant conversation of the Slavic people" (Naroda Slovinskoga)his years are a bit mixed but we are talking about oral sources.

He had the king Bradilo (Slovinac) fighting in a vicious war against Phillip of Macedonia which Bradilo has won forcing tribute upon Phillip.However Bradilo son's and succesors were subdued by Alexander the great.

History that we know;In 339 BC, when Philip II of Macedon was returning from his expedition against the Scythians, the Triballi refused to allow him to pass the Haemus unless they received a share of the booty. Hostilities took place, in which Philip was defeated and wounded by a spear in his right thigh,but the Triballi appear to have been subsequently subdued by him.

After the death of Philip, Alexander the Great passed through the lands of the Odrysians in 335-334 BC, crossed the Haemus ranges and after three encounters (Battle of Haemus, Battle at Lyginus river, Battle at Peuce Island) defeated and drove the Triballians to the junction of the Lyginus at the Danube. 3,000 Triballi were killed, the rest fled. Their king Syrmus (eponymous to Roman Sirmium) took refuge on the Danubian island of Peukê, where most of the remnants of the defeated Thracians were exiled.

Odrysians are noted as the proper thracians, more so than the Triballi, Bessi, Moesians, Dacians and Getae

 

[Taranis]

In records from Bithynia in the year 680, the city of Gordoservon or Gordoserbon (Greek: Γορδόσερβον, Proto-Slavic: *Gordŭ Sĭrba, Serbian: Srbograd, Grad Srba, Гордосервон) was a Byzantine city inhabited by Serbs.
Around the year 1200 AD this city is mentioned as Servochoria (Greek: Σερβοχώρια, "Serbian habitations"). The city was situated where the Phrygian kingdom once had been.
Should we say that this city was Phyrgian cause contain the "Gord" if actually that meant fortress to them like to Slavic speaking people Grad-fortress,we know this from their prior Gordium,or Greek cause has the later "Choria" just interested? i don't claim that the name Serb was carried by Slavic speakers only if we can not confirm this,similar names or toponyms were widely distributed where IE people were,why you picked that toponym i haven't even look at them.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that Slavic "gord" (town, settlement) must be a Germanic loanword, by the phonetic evolution (see post #176). The word would derive from an earlier form *gard. You can compare it with Lithuanian "gardas" (fence, enclosure). If you compare that with related words in other Indo-European branches, it becomes clear that the *d in Balto-Slavic is unexpected: Old Irish has "gort", Latin has "horta" (compare modern Spanish "huerta"), Greek has "chortos" (χορτος). The ancestral form would have been *ghort- (PIE *gh- regularly becomes *h- in Latin, and *χ in Greek, while *g in Celtic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic). However, PIE *t stays *t in Balto-Slavic. The only way you get a *d there is via the effects of Grimm's Law and Verner's Law in Germanic. Which is why Balto-Slavic *gardas must be a borrowing from Germanic (e.g. "Holmgard" - Viking name for old Novgorod, or "Asgard", in Norse mythology the abode of the Aesir). For the sake of completeness I should mention that in modern German, earlier Proto-Germanic *d became *t (e.g. modern German "Garten", or the place name "Stuttgart").

Lyginus river,battle of Lyginus 335 B.C between the Triballians and Alexander the Great.

Lyginus-from "Liga" Lyga meaning "slimy" slippery

It is impossible that Ancient Greek /y/ derives from an earlier /i/. In archaic Greek, the letter Upsilon (Υυ), the letter represented /u/, while in Koine Greek, it represented an /y/ (as for example, "ü" in modern German or Turkish), while by the Middle Ages, it became /i/ (which is also the pronounciation in modern Greek). The name would have been pronounced as something like /luginos/ in archaic Greek.

I might add that ancient Macedonian was (obviously, and quite uncontroversially, I should ay) a dialect of Greek, although an aberrant one, where *φ *θ *χ were *b, *d, *g. A good example is the place name "Berenike" (Βερενικη), now Benghazi in Libya, which means "bearer of victory" ('to bear' is "φερω" in modern Greek). Its possible that speakers of other dialects in ancient Greek had trouble understanding Ancient Macedonian, as for example "hard" dialects at the opposing ends of contemporary German (say, East Frisia versus Bavaria) are practically not mutually intelligible. I recommend that you should take a look at the Pella curse tablets, as well as at Hesychius' Greek dictionary, which includes ancient Macedonian entries.

 

[Милан М.]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that Slavic "gord" (town, settlement) must be a Germanic loanword, by the phonetic evolution (see post #176). The word would derive from an earlier form *gard. You can compare it with Lithuanian "gardas" (fence, enclosure). If you compare that with related words in other Indo-European branches, it becomes clear that the *d in Balto-Slavic is unexpected: Old Irish has "gort", Latin has "horta" (compare modern Spanish "huerta"), Greek has "chortos" (χορτος). The ancestral form would have been *ghort- (PIE *gh- regularly becomes *h- in Latin, and *χ in Greek, while *g in Celtic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic). However, PIE *t stays *t in Balto-Slavic. The only way you get a *d there is via the effects of Grimm's Law and Verner's Law in Germanic. Which is why Balto-Slavic *gardas must be a borrowing from Germanic (e.g. "Holmgard" - Viking name for old Novgorod, or "Asgard", in Norse mythology the abode of the Aesir). For the sake of completeness I should mention that in modern German, earlier Proto-Germanic *d became *t (e.g. modern German "Garten", or the place name "Stuttgart").



It is impossible that Ancient Greek /y/ derives from an earlier /i/. In archaic Greek, the letter Upsilon (Υυ), the letter represented /u/, while in Koine Greek, it represented an /y/ (as for example, "ü" in modern German or Turkish), while by the Middle Ages, it became /i/ (which is also the pronounciation in modern Greek). The name would have been pronounced as something like /luginos/ in archaic Greek.

I might add that ancient Macedonian was (obviously, and quite uncontroversially, I should ay) a dialect of Greek, although an aberrant one, where *φ *θ *χ were *b, *d, *g. A good example is the place name "Berenike" (Βερενικη), now Benghazi in Libya, which means "bearer of victory" ('to bear' is "φερω" in modern Greek). Its possible that speakers of other dialects in ancient Greek had trouble understanding Ancient Macedonian, as for example "hard" dialects at the opposing ends of contemporary German (say, East Frisia versus Bavaria) are practically not mutually intelligible. I recommend that you should take a look at the Pella curse tablets, as well as at Hesychius' Greek dictionary, which includes ancient Macedonian entries.

That's according to the dogma you follow,according to others is tottaly different,let's take Quentin Atkinson Anatolian hypothesis or some others,Germanic split from Balto-Slavic?first in the Balkans,too many things aren't answered yet to prolong something like axiom here,thank you very much,im not linguistic specialist,if you take the Greek pantheon half is Thracian,Pelasgian in origin,the battle of Lyginus was written by Arrian of Nicomedia (c. 86/89 – c. after 146/160 AD).Pela Curse Table discovered in 1986,where?Doric dialect,Ancient Macedonian,we will also wait Bylazora excavations,why would Macedonian kings centered in Paeonian,Thracian lands to have more knowledge on their history.Homer speak that Thracian and Pelasgians are prior the Greeks there,thank you again.

 

[Taranis]

That's according to the dogma you follow,according to others is tottaly different,

Pardon, but I'm not dogmatic. I'm merely insisting on the scientific methods.

let's take Quentin Atkinson Anatolian hypothesis or some others,

First, the Anatolian hypothesis was originally forwarded by Colin Renfrew, and second, I would like to know how that hypothesis has anything to do with what I said? I'm talking about sound changes that occured in historic times,

Germanic split from Balto-Slavic actualy,first in the Balkans, too many things aren't answered yet to prolong something like axiom here,thank you very much,if you take the Greek pantheon half is Thracian,Pelasgian in origin,the battle of Lyginus was written by Arrian of Nicomedia (c. 86/89 – c. after 146/160 AD).Homer speak that Thracian and Pelasgians are prior the Greeks there,thank you again.

Baltic languages and Germanic languages are originally found near the Baltic Sea. By what token would Slavic (or Balto-Slavic) have originally been located on the Balkans?

The only thing I see is that you're a resident of Macedonia, and for some reason you want to project the ethno-linguistic identity of your own present-day country into a glorious far past that never existed. But I will tell you what: that is not science, that's nationalist dogma. But don't worry, not alone. There's Albanians who will say that ancient Pelasgians or Etruscan spoke Albanians. There's Slovenians who will say that the ancient Veneti (including the Veneti of Gaul) spoke Slavic. And everyone of the adherents of these ideologies who's wandered here have accused me of being a demagogue for following the evil, oppressive dogma of mainstream science.

 

[Милан М.]

Pardon, but I'm not dogmatic. I'm merely insisting on the scientific methods.



First, the Anatolian hypothesis was originally forwarded by Colin Renfrew, and second, I would like to know how that hypothesis has anything to do with what I said? I'm talking about sound changes that occured in historic times,



Baltic languages and Germanic languages are originally found near the Baltic Sea. By what token would Slavic (or Balto-Slavic) have originally been located on the Balkans?

The only thing I see is that you're a resident of Macedonia, and for some reason you want to project the ethno-linguistic identity of your own present-day country into a glorious far past that never existed. But I will tell you what: that is not science, that's nationalist dogma. But don't worry, not alone. There's Albanians who will say that ancient Pelasgians or Etruscan spoke Albanians. There's Slovenians who will say that the ancient Veneti (including the Veneti of Gaul) spoke Slavic. And everyone of the adherents of these ideologies who's wandered here have accused me of being a demagogue for following the evil, oppressive dogma of mainstream science.

Not true at all,never i claim history of anyone in my comments,especialy not of Macedonia,they have right on that as much the other side of Macedonia has,at least to use that name,im not Macedonian,although i am interested,why i should not be,generaly i am interested in history,to speak that some people came from Carpathians but brought nothing with them,and their folklore,oral epics,no culture change at all.To be honest not many believe here in the migration but consider it an invention,like Curta currently wrote,the invention of the Slavs or making them,nowhere here is written such thing until 19th century,like "Illyrians" are invented,those are exonyms given by outside observers in different period of time,for whatever was their reason,if we follow exonyms then Serbs should be Triballians,Bulgarians Moesians,Montenegrins Docleatae and so on,cause they still continued to be called as such by their Byzantine neighbors,currently science try to see the differences among let's say Illyrians,doesn't consider them one people like in the 19th century,plus i am following current researches,which nowhere i wrote anything like Veneti are Slovenes,Macedonian are Slavs,Albanians are Pelasgians,we all have right to do research.

 

[arvistro]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that Slavic "gord" (town, settlement) must be a Germanic loanword, by the phonetic evolution (see post #176). The word would derive from an earlier form *gard. You can compare it with Lithuanian "gardas" (fence, enclosure). If you compare that with related words in other Indo-European branches, it becomes clear that the *d in Balto-Slavic is unexpected: Old Irish has "gort", Latin has "horta" (compare modern Spanish "huerta"), Greek has "chortos" (χορτος). The ancestral form would have been *ghort- (PIE *gh- regularly becomes *h- in Latin, and *χ in Greek, while *g in Celtic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic). However, PIE *t stays *t in Balto-Slavic. The only way you get a *d there is via the effects of Grimm's Law and Verner's Law in Germanic. Which is why Balto-Slavic *gardas must be a borrowing from Germanic (e.g. "Holmgard" - Viking name for old Novgorod, or "Asgard", in Norse mythology the abode of the Aesir). For the sake of completeness I should mention that in modern German, earlier Proto-Germanic *d became *t (e.g. modern German "Garten", or the place name "Stuttgart").

Nah, you are wrong there...
Original Balto-Slavic form has D. Žardas Lithuanian, Zārds Latvian. See, here for Dārzs:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dārzs#Latvian

But it lacks G. Instead uses predicted Z/Ž.

Although wiktionary says this as well:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/gardaz
"Cognate with Proto-Balto-Slavic *gardas ‎(“enclosure”)."

So, were there two words? One with g that underwent Satemization and one with other type of g which did not?

 

[Taranis]

Not true at all,never i claim history of anyone in my comments,especialy not of Macedonia,they have right on that as much the other side of Macedonia has,at least to use that name, im not Macedonian,although i am interested,

If you claim you're not Macedonian, could you tell us why your location does say that you're posting from Macedonia?

why i should not be,generaly i am interested in history,to speak that some people came from Carpathians but brought nothing with them,and their folklore,oral epics,no culture change at all.To be honest not many believe here in the migration but consider it an invention,like Curta currently wrote,the invention of the Slavs or making them,nowhere here is written such thing until 19th century,like "Illyrians" are invented,currently science try to see the differences among them,doesn't consider them one people like in the 19th century, plus i am following current researches,which nowhere i wrote anything like Veneti are Slovenes,Macedonian are Slavs,Albanians are Pelasgians,we all have right to do research.

Slavic languages are spoken by some 300 million native speakers. And that's not an invention of the 19th century. And, the migration period is decidedly not an invention. If I were to follow your train of thought, I should probably argue that Alemannic German was always spoken in Alsace, Bavarian was always spoken in southern Bavaria, or Breton was always spoken in Brittany, and Gaelic was always spoken in Scotland. Oh, and Hungarian was always spoken in Hungary and Turkish was always spoken in Anatolia. :grin:

Nah, you are wrong there...
Original Balto-Slavic form has D. Žardas Lithuanian, Zārds Latvian. See, here for Dārzs:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dārzs#Latvian

But it lacks G. Instead uses predicted Z/Ž.

Although wiktionary says this as well:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/gardaz
"Cognate with Proto-Balto-Slavic*gardas ‎(“enclosure”)."

So, were there two words? One with g that underwent Satemization and one with other type of g which did not?

Like the Slavic languages, Latvian also exhibits palatalization in addition to Satemization. A good example is the word for 'iron': Latvian "dzelezs" (also, compare Polish "zelazo") versus Lithuanian "geležies". With *gardas, the expected regular form in Proto-Balto-Slavic would be *gartas. I'm not opposed to the idea that this is an early Germanic loanword in Balto-Slavic, but this can't be a "native" reflex of Balto-Slavic, because the *p, *t, *k from PIE are regularly reflected as *p, *t, *k in Balto-Slavic (*ḱ is palatalized, because we're talking about Satem languages). That is why a *t in Balto-Slavic should correspond regularly with a *t in Italic, Celtic and Greek. As the Neogrammarian hypothesis states, sound laws are always regular, apply to all words of the vocabulary, and have no exceptions.

 

[Taranis]

plus i am following current researches,which nowhere i wrote anything like Veneti are Slovenes,Macedonian are Slavs,Albanians are Pelasgians,we all have right to do research.

By the way Milan, you actually did exactly that, earlier in this thread, in post #124:

Macedonian question


To prove the Slavic character of the Macedonians, Pribojevic's first step was to prove
that their language is not same as that of the Greeks. To achieve this, he used an
anecdote found in History of Alexander the Great by Quintus Curtius Rufus.
According to the story told by Rufus (and retold by Pribojevic), when Philotas son of
Parmenio was put on trial in front of the Macedonian army (large part of which were
the Greeks), Alexander asked him, "Philotas, the Macedonians are going to judge
you, state whether you will use your mother- tongue in front of them." Philotas
answered that he will not, because not everyone will be able to understand him,
which provoked Alexander to respond, that Philota hates his mother-tongue.^"*^


The conclusion Pribojevic draws from this short story is that Philotas decided not to
speak his native language (Macedonian) in front of the army because it was a
different one from the common language of the entire army (Greek). Since the
Macedonians and Greeks did not speak the same language, they can not be
considered the same people. So Hvar Dominican argues:
it has become the custom of old, that the unity of the descent is proved by unity of the
speech, and thus we consider as the members of the same kin, only those who have in
tender age together with the mothers milk, also mothers-tongue received.'^'
This, for him proves that the Macedonians have always, as today, spoke only the
Slavic language, and are therefore Slavs.

 

[Милан М.]

By the way Milan, you actually did exactly that, earlier in this thread, in post #124:

Before i started that i wrote this;
Vinko Pribojević (Latin: Vincentius Priboevius mid-15th century - after 1532) was a Venetian Slavic historian and ideologue, best known as the founder of the pan-Slavic ideology.He was one of the most important Croatian and global Latinists who created the ideological molds of the future, is also the ancestor of the Croatian Illyrian movement of the 19th century which was supressed by Yugoslavism later and of the pan-Slavic ideology that was embraced by all Slavic peoples.I don't post this text for nationalistic agendas,but it was written once uppon a time and this oratio ,his speech, most probably made in Venice in 1525, left a deep impression on theVenetians, who published it in Latin and Italian several times over the following years.

Also this;
First Pribojevic claims, relying on Strabon, that the Thracians use the same language
as Mysians. Second, according to Appian from Alexandria, the Myssians are
considered to be lllyrians, and that is why the Romans considered the Thracian and
lllyrian language as one and the same. Furthermore the "Gets who are later called the
Goths" (according to Isidore of Seville, St. Antonin etc.), use the same language as
the Dacians and Myssians, as confirmed by Strabon again. From here Pribojevic
draws the obvious conclusion: the Myssians, lllyirians, Dacians and Gets are all
descendants of the Thracians, and thus of Thyras, son of Japhet son of Noah.^^^
From here, Pribojevic, continues to use similar arguments (analysis of which is
subject of next chapter), and thus adding many others to the list of Slavic peoples:
the Macedonians, Istrians and Vandals, completes his long lists of ancient nations he
declared Slavs.
After successfully creating such a "pseudo-historical framework, Pribojevic unfolds
his narrative and presents to his readers the glorious deeds of the Slavs. Things set as
they were, made Pribojevic's job an easy one. He does not have a problem with the
lack of sources or materials, now, at his hand are the masterpieces of classical
literature and historiography. Where once was emptiness and silence, now hundreds
of voices shouted.
I quote him along with the one that deny his ideas Domagoj Madunic anyway i took the text from there.

 

[Милан М.]

If you claim you're not Macedonian, could you tell us why your location does say that you're posting from Macedonia?


I can live anywhere but doesn't mean that i am that by nationality,also i think my location should be private,we should not discuss that in the thread.

 

[Милан М.]

Invention in terms of history,common homeland and cohesion in that given period of time,following ones exonyms given by outsiders and looking for homeland for them in the 19th century National Romaniticism time,anyway that homeland is invented never was found neither archeologicaly nor anything and never will be found,as i said if we follow exonyms Serbs should be Tribalians,Bulgarian Moesians and so on..however the name Sclavenes (Sklavenoi) the rebels that destoyed the Roman empire from Padova to Peloponese to Constantinople, came to existance again in the Balkans and Danube basin,the name shifted later from Byzantine to Carolingian empire,Slavic language is spoken by 400 milion people indeed,why we use the name Slavic because we speak English now,you might say now you are a Slav,but i will not say that about me,so you see it is used by outside observers.

 

[Sile]

Invention in terms of history,common homeland and cohesion in that given period of time,following ones exonyms given by outsiders and looking for homeland for them in the 19th century National Romaniticism time,anyway that homeland is invented never was found neither archeologicaly nor anything and never will be found,as i said if we follow exonyms Serbs should be Tribalians,Bulgarian Moesians and so on..however the name Sclavenes (Sklavenoi) the rebels that destoyed the Roman empire from Padova to Peloponese to Constantinople, came to existance again in the Balkans and Danube basin,the name shifted later from Byzantine to Carolingian empire,Slavic language is spoken by 400 milion people indeed,why we use the name Slavic because we speak English now,you might say now you are a Slav,but i will not say that about me,so you see it is used by outside observers.

your theory is silly
Since the triballi spoke ancient thracian and later some slavs around 500AD made a union with them to form a populace and with that the language of these triballi eventually became slavic does not mean that these ancient triballi where always slavs since the creation of the triballi.
Language does not change an ethnicity, ......if you believe it does, ......then Europe will be all English people in 100 years

 

[LeBrok]

Before i started that i wrote this;
Vinko Pribojević (Latin: Vincentius Priboevius mid-15th century - after 1532) was a Venetian Slavic historian and ideologue, best known as the founder of the pan-Slavic ideology.He was one of the most important Croatian and global Latinists who created the ideological molds of the future, is also the ancestor of the Croatian Illyrian movement of the 19th century which was supressed by Yugoslavism later and of the pan-Slavic ideology that was embraced by all Slavic peoples.I don't post this text for nationalistic agendas,but it was written once uppon a time and this oratio ,his speech, most probably made in Venice in 1525, left a deep impression on theVenetians, who published it in Latin and Italian several times over the following years.

If you were Albanian or Greek posting your ideas I would believe that you don't have nationalistic agenda in it. However you are a Balkanian Slav, who against everything we know about history and archeology, claims that Slavs always lived in Balkans. Agenda, agenda, agenda.
Unless it is just your belief that you don't have an agenda, as you strongly believe that Slavs always lived in Balkans. Now we are talking about new religion.

 

[arvistro]

If
Like the Slavic languages, Latvian also exhibits palatalization in addition to Satemization. A good example is the word for 'iron': Latvian "dzelezs" (also, compare Polish "zelazo") versus Lithuanian "geležies". With *gardas, the expected regular form in Proto-Balto-Slavic would be *gartas. I'm not opposed to the idea that this is an early Germanic loanword in Balto-Slavic, but this can't be a "native" reflex of Balto-Slavic, because the *p, *t, *k from PIE are regularly reflected as *p, *t, *k in Balto-Slavic (*ḱ is palatalized, because we're talking about Satem languages). That is why a *t in Balto-Slavic should correspond regularly with a *t in Italic, Celtic and Greek. As the Neogrammarian hypothesis states, sound laws are always regular, apply to all words of the vocabulary, and have no exceptions.

Do you think zārds is not a cognate to Gardaz? Meaning is ~ same semantically, z corresponds to g as in number of other cognates.
What makes you think it was not D originally? Wiktionary works from PIE version with D...

Edit: deletd portion of Taranis quote to keep only the points I refered.

Edit2: Latvian palatization is "deep in the forest" for this case. For many reasons, starting from Lithuanian version with ž - žardas, which so nicely is followed by Latvian z zārds. As in numerous examples, žansis - zoss - goose, etc.

 

[Милан М.]

If you were Albanian or Greek posting your ideas I would believe that you don't have nationalistic agenda in it. However you are a Balkanian Slav, who against everything we know about history and archeology, claims that Slavs always lived in Balkans. Agenda, agenda, agenda.
Unless it is just your belief that you don't have an agenda, as you strongly believe that Slavs always lived in Balkans. Now we are talking about new religion.

It's old "new" religion,prior 19th century was common thing majority Slavs claimed ancestry from here back then,was they always in Balkans or not i don't know,depends for what we are talking about,language,culture,genetics,but i don't see any agenda in it,to represent theory which even many scholars support,cause you are Polish a Baltic Slav? i see agenda in much of Polish researchers cause they wish to claim to be motherland of "Slavs" although we don't know what kind of language was spoken in Poland until 9th-10th century from her creation,we were sending alphabets,popes and so on up north,which culture give rise to Russian state and civilization,but we are happy for that,Great Moravia would do the same but was destroyed,later Bohemia and Poland were created by Holy Romans,if "we" indeed knew everything about archeology of South East Europe you will see that such thing as proof doesn't exist,even Marija Gimbutas which i see her theories of IE are the most accepted has said this,as for history we can be interpreted the way we like.

 

[Милан М.]

your theory is silly
Since the triballi spoke ancient thracian and later some slavs around 500AD made a union with them to form a populace and with that the language of these triballi eventually became slavic does not mean that these ancient triballi where always slavs since the creation of the triballi.
Language does not change an ethnicity, ......if you believe it does, ......then Europe will be all English people in 100 years

You haven't even understand what i wrote.

 

[Taranis]

Invention in terms of history,common homeland and cohesion in that given period of time,following ones exonyms given by outsiders and looking for homeland for them in the 19th century National Romaniticism time,anyway that homeland is invented never was found neither archeologicaly nor anything and never will be found,

That's just your own declaration, and here, you're ignoring the evidence. I've mentioned before in this thread, both the Chernoles culture and the Milograd culture lend themselves as viable original Slavic "homelands", compatible with the linguistic evidence.

as i said if we follow exonyms Serbs should be Tribalians,Bulgarian Moesians and so on..however the name Sclavenes (Sklavenoi) the rebels that destoyed the Roman empire from Padova to Peloponese to Constantinople, came to existance again in the Balkans and Danube basin,the name shifted later from Byzantine to Carolingian empire,Slavic language is spoken by 400 milion people indeed,why we use the name Slavic because we speak English now,you might say now you are a Slav,but i will not say that about me,so you see it is used by outside observers.

No, what you're doing there is randomly take ethnic names from the past and attach the "Slavic" (or outright Serbian) label to them, wether it makes sense or not. The linguistic definition of a "Slav", especially in the historic context, is "anybody who speaks a Slavic language". Proto-Slavs, by the same definition, are the people who spoke the (reconstructed, prehistoric) language that was ancestral to all modern Slavic languages. You haven't given any thought into the linguistic arguments I brought up, nor did you consider the methods. For you, the be-all, end-all, the "measurement of all things" is the Balkans and that the Slavs have "always" been on the Balkans. That's not science, that's not genuine curiosity of the past, that, in my opinion, is dogmatism. As I said before, if I were to go about the Germanic languages the way that you go about the Slavic languages, I should insist that Alemannic German was "always" spoken in Alsace and Switzerland. Don't you think that would be very wrong?

I would also re-affirm what LeBrok pointed out, namely that your discussion is heavily centered around the Balkans, ignoring the origin of the West Slavic and East Slavic peoples. When I pointed out that there are still Slavic peoples today in the area of the Milograd culture (the Belorussians), your response was this:

i guess maybe Slavic came from the Arctic and all of a sudden half Europe spoke Slavic,

Further, I would like to comment on this:

although we don't know what kind of language was spoken in Poland until 9th-10th century from her creation,

For the record, we do know what language was spoken in the area of modern Poland in the 1st-2nd century AD. It was mostly Germanic (tribes like the Burgundians and the Goths). And as I pointed out multiple times in this thread, we do know what languages were spoken on the Balkans in the same time frame (hint: Slavic wasn't amongst them).

 

[Милан М.]

That's just your own declaration, and here, you're ignoring the evidence. I've mentioned before in this thread, both the Chernoles culture and the Milograd culture lend themselves as viable original Slavic "homelands", compatible with the linguistic evidence.



No, what you're doing there is randomly take ethnic names from the past and attach the "Slavic" (or outright Serbian) label to them, wether it makes sense or not. The linguistic definition of a "Slav", especially in the historic context, is "anybody who speaks a Slavic language". Proto-Slavs, by the same definition, are the people who spoke the (reconstructed, prehistoric) language that was ancestral to all modern Slavic languages. You haven't given any thought into the linguistic arguments I brought up, nor did you consider the methods. For you, the be-all, end-all, the "measurement of all things" is the Balkans and that the Slavs have "always" been on the Balkans. That's not science, that's not genuine curiosity of the past, that, in my opinion, is dogmatism. As I said before, if I were to go about the Germanic languages the way that you go about the Slavic languages, I should insist that Alemannic German was "always" spoken in Alsace and Switzerland. Don't you think that would be very wrong?

I would also re-affirm what LeBrok pointed out, namely that your discussion is heavily centered around the Balkans, ignoring the origin of the West Slavic and East Slavic peoples. When I pointed out that there are still Slavic peoples today in the area of the Milograd culture (the Belorussians), your response was this:

Further, I would like to comment on this:



For the record, we do know what language was spoken in the area of modern Poland in the 1st-2nd century AD. It was mostly Germanic (tribes like the Burgundians and the Goths). And as I pointed out multiple times in this thread, we do know what languages were spoken on the Balkans in the same time frame (hint: Slavic wasn't amongst them).

In my opinion they are not valuable since many questions are unanswered since that idea was established,failed to answer many things,i wrote that because Slavic "homeland" was always pushed as far away from Europe can be and smaller place can be for the biggest lingustic group in Europe, never ignored anyone,but i was attacked here for my comments,like it's heresy for some reason,you are wrong on the name Slav,
the name Sclavene(Sklavenoi,Sklabenoi and many other forms)from where today English word has it roots Slav,back then did not mean speaker of Slavic,it were many tribes rendered under one name,we have the Antes next to them,we consider them Slavic speakers but they was not called Sclavenes by the Romans simple because they were their allies,in context of Roman given "ethnic" name had to with their political narratives,in the West the Franks called their neighboring Slavs-Wends,later the word Sclavene enter in Carolingian empire from Byzantines,the Arabs borrowed the same word from Byzantines in form of Saqaliba,they were calling various other people under that name,had nothing to do with Slavic language but political narratives,today the word Slav mean speaker of Slavic but we don't interpret history that way,i dont see the cohesion here from the very begining,also i would like more people to post their ideas from among other Slavic countrues,the thread somehow went arround Balkans,i insist in comments about that,but they deal rather who is Balkan,Baltic or whatever Slav,the thing because i post more about this area is because i know the history,traditions and culture better there,maybe someone will consider me anti Slavic for my ideas but not at all,should have start my thread about South Slavs instead,but can not change it now.

 

[Милан М.]

Taranis here are some common Slavic-Latin words that i collect today,might you can explain wheter they were borrowings,proto-indo european,cause some are find in ancient Greek.

Lat (domi) Slav (doma) Eng (home)
Lat (ros) Slav (rosa) Eng(dew)
Lat(oves) Slav(ovca) Eng(sheep)
Lat (balnea) Slav(banja) Eng(bath tube)
Lat (cattus) Slav(kot) Eng (cat)
Lat (piper) Slav(piper) Eng(pepper)
Lat (Judaeus) Slav(židovinu,židov) Eng(Jew)
Lat(lucerna) Slav(luster-chandelier) Eng(light, lamp, glim, candle-light)
Lat(machaera) Slav(mach) Eng(sword)
Lat(castaneis) Slav(kesten) Eng(chestnut)
Lat(cerasus) Slav(cresnja) Eng(cherry)
Lat(avenas) Slav(oves) Eng(oat)
Latin(seco) Old.Slav(seko) Eng (cut)
Latin(subseco)Slav(saseći) Eng(cut down)
Latin(reseco) Slav(raseći) Eng(cut back, cut off, prune, diminish)
Latin(compater) Slav(kum,earlier *kъmotrъ) Eng(godfather)
Lat (pullum) Slav(pile) Eng (chicken) Pule is also often use to describe small animals or small donkey.
Latin(sedis) with meaning (throne, abode, SEAT, chair, Bench, stool) Slav-sedi,sedis (verb* seat down,seat)
Latin-nebula(cloud, mist, fog, vapor, smoke, haze) Slav-nebo(sky, heaven, heavens, blue, canopy, sphere)

 

[Милан М.]

Some common Slavic-Latin-Ancient Greek words,some are only distributed among Souther Slavic area.

Old.Ch.Slav ‎(ognĭ) Latin(ignis) Eng(flame,fire)
Old.Ch.Slav-bones ‎(kostĭ) Latin-rib (costa)
Slav (Kit) Anc.Greek (ketos) Eng(whale) Ketos sea monster in Greek mythology.Probably pre-Greek word.
Slav (blato) Greek (valto) Eng(mud) often considered an Illyrian substratum word due to the fact that most of the cognates are restricted to the Balkan peninsula, or its surroundings.
Srb-Croat-wave (Talas) Greek-sea(Thalassa) pre Greek origin.
Slav(korab) Greek(karabos) Lat(carabus) Eng(ship) origin unclear,proposed ancient Macedonian (the suffix -bos is not Greek)
Slav(ratar )Lat (arator) Eng(plowman) From Proto-Indo-European *h₂erh₃- ‎(“to plough”). Cognates include Ancient Greek ἀρόω ‎(aróō), Old Church Slavonic орати ‎(orati), Lithuanian arti, and Old English erian (archaic English ear)
Slav(kamata) Anc.Greek (kamatos) Eng(finance-interest)
Slav(klisura) Anc.Greek (kleisoúra) Eng(narrow pass, defile)
Anc.Greek(lamia) Slav(lamnja) in mythology is considered to be fabulous monster said to feed on man's flesh,among South Slavs some can say today "you eat like Lamnja" which mean you eat to much.
Slav-wage(plata)pay(plati) Anc.Greek-god of wealth or wealth (ploutos) this could come from same roots or is just coincidence.
Ancient Greek ‎(kókkalos)Slav(kokala,koska)Eng(bone)