Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 269

Thread: Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis

    Original home and migrations

    There are two mostly debated theories in regard to the original home of the Slavs.One theory considers the region of the Danube as the original home of the Slavs,they spread northeast over the Carpathians as far as the Volga River, Lake Ilmen. The other theory regards the districts between the Vistula and the Dnieper as their original home they spread southwest over the Carpathians to the Balkans and into the Alps, and towards the west across the Oder and the Elbe.


    • Milograd culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs (or Balto-Slavs) were the bearers of the Milograd culture (7th century BC to 1st century AD) of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus.
    • Chernoles culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs were the bearers of the Chernoles culture (750–200 BC) of northern Ukraine, and later the Zarubintsy culture (3rd century BC to 1st century AD).
    • Lusatian culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs were present in north-eastern Central Europe since at least the late 2nd millennium BCE, and were the bearers of the Lusatian culture (1300–500 BC), and later the Przeworsk culture (2nd century BC to 4th century AD).
    • Danube basin hypothesis: postulated by Oleg Trubachyov; sustained at present by Florin Curta, also supported by an early Medieval Slavic narrative source – Nestor's Chronicle

    The meaning of the term Slav depends upon the context in which it is used. This term refers to a culture (or cultures) living north of the River Danube, east of the River Elbe, and west of the River Vistula during the 530s CE. In addition, Slav is an identifier for the common ethnic group.Furthermore, Slav denotes any language with linguistic ties to the modern Slavic language family (which has no connection to a common culture or shared ethnicity).Despite the various notions of Slav, it is unclear whether any of these descriptions add to an accurate representation of that group's history, since historians, such as George Vernadsky, Florin Curta, and Michael Karpovich have called into question how, why, and to what degree the Slavs were cohesive as a society between the 6th and 9th centuries.When discussing the evidence that specialists use to construct a plausible history of the Slavs, the information tends to fall into three avenues of research: the archeological, the historiographic, and the linguistic.

    The Russian primary Chronicles were perhaps some of the older texts where Eastern Slavs themselves write about "their homeland" will post the text regarding the "Slavic homeland" on the Danube Laurentian text:
    Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs,parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats,the Serbs, and the Carinthians. For when the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence, the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula, and were then called Lyakhs.Of these same Lyakhs some were called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians. Certain Slavs settled also on the Dnieper, and were likewise called Polyanians. Still others were named Derevlians, because they lived in the forests. Some also lived between the Pripet' and the Dvina, and were known as Dregovichians. Other tribes resided along the Dvina and were called Polotians on account of a small stream called the Polota, which flows into the Dvina. It was from this same stream that they were named Polotians. The Slavs also dwelt about Lake Il'men', and were known there by their characteristic name. They built a city which they called Novgorod. Still others had their homes along the Desna, the Sem', and the Sula, and were called Severians. Thus the Slavic race was divided, and its language was known as Slavic.
    This text might be Anacrhonistic it is ascribed to monk Nestor,starting with the Biblical land like in the Bible something and then Slavs settled on the Danube,my sources treat them this way,his goal was clearly not just to link the Slavic Rus’ to the lands where the Slavs had received the Word in their own language(Church Slavonic became sacred language after Greek,Latin,Hebrew) but also to advance the idea of a new Chosen People,when writing that with the Russian Primary Chronicle another story begins, namely that of the«national» use of the Slavs «for claims to ancestry.

    Florin Curta archeologist in South East Europe further argue that the Balkans witnessed sharp demographic decline in 6th-7th century and that the Sclavenes were the product of Justinian fortification plan on the Danube limes,reffering to the traditionalist theory he adds Cultures as one archeologist noted do not migrate. It is often only a very narrowly defined, goal-oriented subgroup that migrates. “To speak of the Prague culture as the culture of the migrating Slavs is therefore a nonsense. earliest archaeological evidence of settlement assemblages postdating the general withdrawal of Roman armies from the Balkans. This suggests that there was no “Slavic tide” in the Balkans following the presumed collapse of the Danube frontier. In addition, the archaeological evidence confirms the picture drawn from the analysis of written sources, namely that the “Slavs” were isolated pockets of population in various areas of the Balkans, which seem to have experienced serious demographic decline in the seventh century. The discussion in Chapter has been based on the concept that the disintegration of the military system in the Balkans, which Justinian implemented the result not so much of the destruction inflicted by barbarian invasions, as of serious economic and financial problems caused both by the emperor’s policies elsewhere and by the impossibility of providing sufficient economic support to his gigantic building program of defense. This conclusion is substantiated by the analysis of sixth-century Byzantine coin hoards, which suggest that inflation, not barbarian raids, was responsible for high rates of non-retrieval.Johanna Nichols not long ago placed the locus of the Slavic language in the vicinity of the Western Danube plain.Oleg Trubachev had similar proposals,Sclavenes had their power base in the Danube and Pannonia none wrote they came from somewhere else whoever they might be in Procopious eyes,Byzantines reffered to Avar military elite as Sclaveni with Slavic "lingua franca" which according to Horace Lunt further spread Slavic,however Sclaveni or Sklabenoi the original Greek word is not cognate with the Slavic word "Sloveni" and is not self designation word of "Slavic tribe" has a different meaning,many times missinterpreted in historical usage,while in the Western sources they were dealing with Wends.

    Traditional Scenario:The Globular Amphora culture stretches from the middle Dnieper to the Elbe in the late 4th and early 3rd millennia BCE. It has been suggested as the locus of a Germano-Balto-Slavic continuum (compare Germanic substrate hypothesis), but the identification of its bearers as Indo-Europeans is uncertain. The area of this culture contains numerous tumuli – typical for IE originators.The Chernoles culture (8th to 3rd centuries BC, sometimes associated with the "Scythian farmers" of Herodotus) is "sometimes portrayed as either a state in the development of the Slavic languages or at least some form of late Indo-European ancestral to the evolution of the Slavic stock.The Milograd culture (700 BCE – 100 CE), centered roughly on present-day Belarus, north of the contemporaneous Chernoles culture, has also been proposed as ancestral to either Slavs or Balts. The ethnic composition of the bearers of the Przeworsk culture (2nd century BC to the 4th century AD, associated with the Lugii) of central and southern Poland, northern Slovakia and Ukraine, including the Zarubintsy culture (2nd century BCE to the 2nd century CE, also connected with the Bastarnae tribe) and the Oksywie culture are other candidates.The area of southern Ukraine is known to have been inhabited by Scythian and Sarmatian tribes prior to the foundation of the Gothic kingdom. Early Slavic stone stelae found in the middle Dniester region are markedly different from the Scythian and Sarmatian stelae found in the Crimea.The Wielbark Culture displaced the eastern Oksywie part of the Przeworsk culture from the 1st century AD. While the Chernyakhov culture; 2nd to 5th centuries CE leads to the decline of the late Sarmatian culture in the 2nd to 4th centuries, the western part of the Przeworsk culture remains intact until the 4th century, and the Kiev culture flourishes during the same time, in the 2nd to 5th centuries AD. This latter culture is recognized as the direct predecessor of the Prague-Korchak and Pen'kovo cultures (6th–7th centuries AD), the first archaeological cultures the bearers of which are indisputably identified as Slavic.Proto-Slavic is thus likely to have reached its final stage in the Kiev area; there is, however, substantial disagreement in the scientific community over the identity of the Kiev culture's predecessors, with some scholars tracing it from the Ruthenian Milograd culture, others from the "Ukrainian" Chernoles and Zarubintsy cultures and still others from the "Polish" Przeworsk culture.
    Migrations
    According to eastern homeland theory, prior to becoming known to the Roman world, Slavic-speaking tribes were part of the many multi-ethnic confederacies of Eurasia – such as the Sarmatian, Hun and Gothic empires. The Slavs emerged from obscurity when the westward movement of Germans in the 5th and 6th centuries CE (thought to be in conjunction with the movement of peoples from Siberia and Eastern Europe: Huns, and later Avars and Bulgars) started the great migration of the Slavs, who settled the lands abandoned by Germanic tribes fleeing the Huns and their allies: westward into the country between the Oder and the Elbe-Saale line; southward into Bohemia, Moravia, much of present day Austria, the Pannonian plain and the Balkans; and northward along the upper Dnieper river. Perhaps some Slavs migrated with the movement of the Vandals to Iberia and north Africa.Around the 6th century, Slavs appeared on Byzantine borders.After a military movement even the Peloponnese and Asia Minor were reported to have Slavic settlements.This southern movement has traditionally been seen as an invasive expansion. By the end of the 6th century, Slavs had settled the Eastern Alps regions.
    What is your opinion what happened in Europe from 6th to 9th century when Roman empire was crumbling transforming in Byzantine and new countries,empires and elite emerged,when look up also in genetics?
    Last edited by Милан М.; 18-06-15 at 01:45.

  2. #2
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,331
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Milan, did you write this yourself or you copy/past it from somewhere else? If it is copied please post a link, giver credit to the author, otherwise it is plagiarism and will need to be deleted.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14042a.htm
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,119
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Milan, did you write this yourself or you copy/past it from somewhere else? If it is copied please post a link, giver credit to the author, otherwise it is plagiarism and will need to be deleted.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14042a.htm
    Looks like Curta's work.
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Milan, did you write this yourself or you copy/past it from somewhere else? If it is copied please post a link, giver credit to the author, otherwise it is plagiarism and will need to be deleted.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14042a.htm
    Majority is copy past and i gave authors names for example:
    Last edited by Милан М.; 17-06-15 at 10:14.

  5. #5
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Милан М. View Post



    • Milograd culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs (or Balto-Slavs) were the bearers of the Milograd culture (7th century BC to 1st century AD) of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus.
    • Chernoles culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs were the bearers of the Chernoles culture (750–200 BC) of northern Ukraine, and later the Zarubintsy culture (3rd century BC to 1st century AD).
    • Lusatian culture hypothesis: The pre-Proto-Slavs were present in north-eastern Central Europe since at least the late 2nd millennium BCE, and were the bearers of the Lusatian culture (1300–500 BC), and later the Przeworsk culture (2nd century BC to 4th century AD).
    • Danube basin hypothesis: postulated by Oleg Trubachyov; sustained at present by Florin Curta, also supported by an early Medieval Slavic narrative source – Nestor's Chronicle
    Of these, the Danube basin hypothesis makes the least sense. In the antiquity, the area was predominantly Celtic and Iranic (plus others, Dacian, at least in the eastern parts of the basin), and there is no evidence for Slavic names in that area. Personally, I find Curta's hypothesis completely hair-raising, because it is ignorant of all the linguistic evidence that we do have from the Pannonian basin from Antiquity. The Lusatian culture makes also little sense to me because its way too far in the west, far away from the Baltic coastal area that was recorded to have been inhabited by Baltic tribes (Galindians, Sudovians) in Antiquity. As inside Indo-European, the Slavic languages are most closely related with the Baltic languages, it would make sense if the Proto-Slavic homeland wasn't too far away from the Baltic-speaking areas. The bearers of the Lusatian culture were more likely to have been Centum speakers (early Celtic, perhaps? After all, Lusatian culture is associated with the Urnfield complex). There's also the issue that we do have names from the formerly Lusatian area from the Antiquity, and they are overwhelmingly Germanic, as well as vestigially Celtic (the Cotini of the western Carpathians, in particular). The Slavic languages are also rich in loanwords from the Germanic languages, and in my opinion its plausible that the Proto-Slavs absorbed large numbers of Germanic-speakers during the Migration period. If we say the Lusatian culture was the original, early Slavic homeland, we're reversing the expansion direction of the Slavic languages against the evidence that we have from the languages themselves. For me, both the Chernoles and Milograd culture hypotheses seem viable, in terms of what we have of linguistic knowledge about the Slavic homeland. I'm personally more in favour of the Milograd culture, since it fits decisively better with the evidence.

    Having said this, I'm not ruling out the possibility (rather the opposite: I think its quite likely) that modern inhabitants of Slavic countries (above all else, the West Slavic-speaking countries) have a fair deal of genetic continuity with the bearers of the Lusatian culture. Its just that their language probably didn't originate with these peoples.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Of these, the Danube basin hypothesis makes the least sense. In the antiquity, the area was predominantly Celtic and Iranic (plus others, Dacian, at least in the eastern parts of the basin), and there is no evidence for Slavic names in that area. Personally, I find Curta's hypothesis completely hair-raising, because it is ignorant of all the linguistic evidence that we do have from the Pannonian basin from Antiquity. The Lusatian culture makes also little sense to me because its way too far in the west, far away from the Baltic coastal area that was recorded to have been inhabited by Baltic tribes (Galindians, Sudovians) in Antiquity. As inside Indo-European, the Slavic languages are most closely related with the Baltic languages, it would make sense if the Proto-Slavic homeland wasn't too far away from the Baltic-speaking areas. The bearers of the Lusatian culture were more likely to have been Centum speakers (early Celtic, perhaps? After all, Lusatian culture is associated with the Urnfield complex). There's also the issue that we do have names from the formerly Lusatian area from the Antiquity, and they are overwhelmingly Germanic, as well as vestigially Celtic (the Cotini of the western Carpathians, in particular). The Slavic languages are also rich in loanwords from the Germanic languages, and in my opinion its plausible that the Proto-Slavs absorbed large numbers of Germanic-speakers during the Migration period. If we say the Lusatian culture was the original, early Slavic homeland, we're reversing the expansion direction of the Slavic languages against the evidence that we have from the languages themselves. For me, both the Chernoles and Milograd culture hypotheses seem viable, in terms of what we have of linguistic knowledge about the Slavic homeland. I'm personally more in favour of the Milograd culture, since it fits decisively better with the evidence.

    Having said this, I'm not ruling out the possibility (rather the opposite: I think its quite likely) that modern inhabitants of Slavic countries (above all else, the West Slavic-speaking countries) have a fair deal of genetic continuity with the bearers of the Lusatian culture. Its just that their language probably didn't originate with these peoples.
    Curta is archeologist and historian for Middle Age South-East Europe not Lingustic,he rather propose that the idea of "migrationism" doesn't make sense in his own archeology research,he also argue that the name Sclavene was missused and raised a lot of questions rightly so,the migration period is not supported today like before unless we base the same 'Slavic" migration on gigantic genocide of half Europe which doesnt make a lot of sense,we could see archeological proves mostly,could be linguistic spread whatever else or homogenity whilst their language was strengthen from 6th-9th century,Balto-Slavic or Slavic is in Europe we see that on toponyms,also Thracian toponyms are striking similar and some same, Baltic is maybe even more similar with Thracian then Slavic and one are living on the Baltic sea the others were living on the Aegan,regardless time span languages change trough history,Germanic loanwords are mostly by the neighboring Slavs with Germans,we don't have any linguistic knowledge in any of those areas and cultures until 10th century were they Slavic speaking or not,if we speak for a proves but we can raise hypothesis.However Slavic infiltration wasn't first in the 6th century in Pannonia based on written sources-Byzantine ambassadors were offered a drink called medos (Proto-Slavic medǎ ‘drink produced with honey”) the Byzantine ambassadors directed to the court of Attila (king of the Huns), and that a part of the funeral rituals for Attila’s death was called strava (medieval name of a Slavic funeral ritual),only biased reader could say otherwise,Hungarian place names, in Pannonia and on the Tisza, are Slavic, as J. Stanislav has demonstrated. The region’s river names, such as Tisza (Rum. Tisa, Germ.Theiss, to be compared with Plinius’ place name Pathissus, composed with the Slavic prefix po-; Maros (Rum. Mureú, in Herodotus Máris, from PIE *mori ‘sea’, but with aSlavic suffix); the suffix -s, common to river names such as Szamos (Rum. Someú) and Temes, certainly derives from a Slavic suffix -sjo.The Slavo-Latin isoglosses, appearing in the social sphere (Lat. hospes ~ Slav.*gospodƱ, Lat. favere ~ Slav. *govČti), in the construction terminology (Lat. struere ~Slav. *strojiti), in that of landscape (Lat. paludes ~ Slav. *pola voda); of agriculture(Lat. pomum < *po-emom ~ Slav. *pojmo (Russ. pojmo ‘handful’) (idem, 216. And seealso 217: gǎrnǎ, kladivo, molty)The Slavo-Illyrian isoglosses (Doksy, Czech place name, Daksa, Adriatic island, and Hesichius’ gloss: Epirotic dáksa; Dukla, mountain pass in the Carpatians, Duklja in Montenegro, Doklea (Ptolemy); Licicaviki, Polish tribal name, to be compared to Illyr.*Liccavici (Illyr. anthroponym Liccavus, Liccavius) and Southern Slavic place name Lika (Trubaþev 1985, 217-8)Thracia and in Illyiria-Vulka, Vrbas, Tsierna e Pathissus,
    Last edited by Милан М.; 17-06-15 at 18:52.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Of these, the Danube basin hypothesis makes the least sense. In the antiquity, the area was predominantly Celtic and Iranic (plus others, Dacian, at least in the eastern parts of the basin), and there is no evidence for Slavic names in that area. Personally, I find Curta's hypothesis completely hair-raising, because it is ignorant of all the linguistic evidence that we do have from the Pannonian basin from Antiquity. The Lusatian culture makes also little sense to me because its way too far in the west, far away from the Baltic coastal area that was recorded to have been inhabited by Baltic tribes (Galindians, Sudovians) in Antiquity. As inside Indo-European, the Slavic languages are most closely related with the Baltic languages, it would make sense if the Proto-Slavic homeland wasn't too far away from the Baltic-speaking areas. The bearers of the Lusatian culture were more likely to have been Centum speakers (early Celtic, perhaps? After all, Lusatian culture is associated with the Urnfield complex). There's also the issue that we do have names from the formerly Lusatian area from the Antiquity, and they are overwhelmingly Germanic, as well as vestigially Celtic (the Cotini of the western Carpathians, in particular). The Slavic languages are also rich in loanwords from the Germanic languages, and in my opinion its plausible that the Proto-Slavs absorbed large numbers of Germanic-speakers during the Migration period. If we say the Lusatian culture was the original, early Slavic homeland, we're reversing the expansion direction of the Slavic languages against the evidence that we have from the languages themselves. For me, both the Chernoles and Milograd culture hypotheses seem viable, in terms of what we have of linguistic knowledge about the Slavic homeland. I'm personally more in favour of the Milograd culture, since it fits decisively better with the evidence.

    Having said this, I'm not ruling out the possibility (rather the opposite: I think its quite likely) that modern inhabitants of Slavic countries (above all else, the West Slavic-speaking countries) have a fair deal of genetic continuity with the bearers of the Lusatian culture. Its just that their language probably didn't originate with these peoples.
    Mario Alinei Specialist in Geo-Lingusitics proposal-Thracian problem and hypothesis:Herodotus was calling Thracians second most numerous in the world after the Indians,we can advance hypothesis that Thracians was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, owing to the fact the Thracians were one of the most powerful and representative elites of Eastern Europe,seen with Herodotus’ inevitably colonialist eyes. In a first approximation, then, the Thracians would appear to be a Southern Slavic geo-variational group, out of which came a Bronze age elite, first dominating then extinguished. This hypothesis could be further developed and refined in the light of the results of research on the Thracian language which, with the caution due to the scarcity of materials, can be so summarized:
    (1) Thracian is an IE satem language, like Baltic and Slavic;
    (2) as discovered by Trubachev (see above), Thracian place names show a surprising
    similarity with the Baltic ones;
    (3) in some cases, however, Thracian affinities seem stronger with Slavic: the Thr.
    place-name suffix -dizos e -diza, for example, to which the meaning of ‘fortress’ has
    been attributed on the basis of the comparison with Gr. teƭkhos ‘wall’ (IEW 244), has a
    much closer counterpart in the metathetic forms of OSl. ziždom, zydati ‘to build’ zydǎ,
    zidǎ ‘wall’, than in the Baltic ones (also methatetic), meaning ‘to form’. And the
    vocalism of the Thr. river name Strymon and place name Stryme seems closer to Pol.
    strumien ‘brook’ and OSlav. struja ‘stream’ than to Latv stràume ‘stream’ (IEW 1003).
    The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of
    Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern
    Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts. Following the geolinguistic
    well-known rule, according to which the center innovates (Danube basin) and the periphery preserves.
    The areal asymmetry of the Slavic areal distribution As a specialist in geolinguistics, I have always been surprised by the fact that Slavic specialists have failed in noticing or appreciating the extraordinary diagnostic value – from a geolinguistic point of view – of the asymmetric configuration of the Slavic area. Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a single unit, but each of its two branchings – the Western and the Eastern – shares different features with Southern Slavic. Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison d’etre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,245
    Points
    42,170
    Level
    63
    Points: 42,170, Level: 63
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 780
    Overall activity: 29.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Милан М. View Post
    Mario Alinei Specialist in Geo-Lingusitics proposal-Thracian problem and hypothesis:Herodotus was calling Thracians second most numerous in the world after the Indians,we can advance hypothesis that Thracians was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, owing to the fact the Thracians were one of the most powerful and representative elites of Eastern Europe,seen with Herodotus’ inevitably colonialist eyes. In a first approximation, then, the Thracians would appear to be a Southern Slavic geo-variational group, out of which came a Bronze age elite, first dominating then extinguished. This hypothesis could be further developed and refined in the light of the results of research on the Thracian language which, with the caution due to the scarcity of materials, can be so summarized:
    (1) Thracian is an IE satem language, like Baltic and Slavic;
    (2) as discovered by Trubachev (see above), Thracian place names show a surprising
    similarity with the Baltic ones;
    (3) in some cases, however, Thracian affinities seem stronger with Slavic: the Thr.
    place-name suffix -dizos e -diza, for example, to which the meaning of ‘fortress’ has
    been attributed on the basis of the comparison with Gr. teƭkhos ‘wall’ (IEW 244), has a
    much closer counterpart in the metathetic forms of OSl. ziždom, zydati ‘to build’ zydǎ,
    zidǎ ‘wall’, than in the Baltic ones (also methatetic), meaning ‘to form’. And the
    vocalism of the Thr. river name Strymon and place name Stryme seems closer to Pol.
    strumien ‘brook’ and OSlav. struja ‘stream’ than to Latv stràume ‘stream’ (IEW 1003).
    The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of
    Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern
    Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts. Following the geolinguistic
    well-known rule, according to which the center innovates (Danube basin) and the periphery preserves.
    The areal asymmetry of the Slavic areal distribution As a specialist in geolinguistics, I have always been surprised by the fact that Slavic specialists have failed in noticing or appreciating the extraordinary diagnostic value – from a geolinguistic point of view – of the asymmetric configuration of the Slavic area. Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a single unit, but each of its two branchings – the Western and the Eastern – shares different features with Southern Slavic. Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison d’etre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense.
    hmm

    NO,
    Thracian vocabulary by the little we know seems also to be connected with East languages, even Celtic and Scottish
    no matter many Slav linguists try to 'show' it as a Baltic language, they did not manage
    in fact might be older than Baltic and surely older than Slavic, even older than Celtic for me since is connected with Cotofeni in Arsenic bronze road (yamnaa to Vucocar)
    Thracian tomps also shown some H Hg!!!
    so it is more possible that Balts and Slavic sprunk from Thracian, possible after Scythian entrance
    in Yamna Hypothesis for me Thracian is the oldest IE language in Europe,
    known even to Egypt, where they consider it as the oldest language in the world!!!
    ΟΘΕΝ ΑΙΔΩΣ OY EINAI
    ΑΤΗ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
    ΥΒΡΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΑΤΑΙ
    ΝΕΜΕΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣΗ ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΣΙ ΔΕ

    When there is no shame
    Divine blindness conquers them
    Hybris (abuse, opprombium) is born
    Nemesis and punishment follows.

    Εχε υπομονη Ηρωα
    Η τιμωρια δεν αργει.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    hmm

    NO,
    Thracian vocabulary by the little we know seems also to be connected with East languages, even Celtic and Scottish
    no matter many Slav linguists try to 'show' it as a Baltic language, they did not manage
    in fact might be older than Baltic and surely older than Slavic, even older than Celtic for me since is connected with Cotofeni in Arsenic bronze road (yamnaa to Vucocar)
    Thracian tomps also shown some H Hg!!!
    so it is more possible that Balts and Slavic sprunk from Thracian, possible after Scythian entrance
    in Yamna Hypothesis for me Thracian is the oldest IE language in Europe,
    known even to Egypt, where they consider it as the oldest language in the world!!!
    EHHH Celtic is Centum-Thracian Satem.Mario Alinei wrote the PCT theory of IE,he is not Slavic lingustic,really Balts and Slavs sprunk from Thracian,first time i hear this but let it be this way,and what if they prove otherwise the sun still will shine in Greece.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,245
    Points
    42,170
    Level
    63
    Points: 42,170, Level: 63
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 780
    Overall activity: 29.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Милан М. View Post
    EHHH Celtic is Centum-Thracian Satem.Mario Alinei wrote the PCT theory of IE,he is not Slavic lingustic,really Balts and Slavs sprunk from Thracian,first time i hear this but let it be this way,and what if they prove otherwise the sun still will shine in Greece.
    either this either that Sun always shine when is not cloudy,

    you can search Duridanov's work and Georgiev's, Itrust them a lot,
    I could also give you some Greek thracologist, who search Thracian in Greek language, but these 2 are enough,
    anyway I wrote in many previous threads about, so i am not going to repeat,
    by the little true Thracian we know, they even are connected with Armenian and Scottish,
    the myth of Balto-Slavic origin of Thracian seems anachronistic, they are either brother languages or sprunk from Thracian
    it is rather the oposite,
    in Fact sometimes I believe that even Gothic/Germanic sprunk from Thracian, but many linguists in forum show me not

    remember thracian was spoken even in Kaspian sea and minor Asia as historians say

    Tios Bakchos (Phrygian Thracian) become Θεος compined with Dios, and Bog
    Thracian Muca = tribe Scottish Mac = clan Slavic Muscι Μuscarat = man Iran Muka =son
    bekos = food Bread goes peka pekara in Slavic
    mezena horseman exists only in Albanian Romanian
    ostas river water Bulgarian uostije
    saldas gold Slavic Zalta Zlata
    as you see you can not put Thracian in modern, or connected with just one group,
    they are even connected with Avestan Homeric and Indian

  11. #11
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    What about genetics,what we can construct out of that?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-04-10
    Posts
    337
    Points
    15,798
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,798, Level: 38
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 652
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: Serbia



    With each new development in the field of genetics that has connection with the topic of this thread, there is more and more evidence that I2a-CTS10228, R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 were not present in Southeast Europe 2000 years ago. When people recognize that, it will be much easier to discuss about "Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis".

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,245
    Points
    42,170
    Level
    63
    Points: 42,170, Level: 63
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 780
    Overall activity: 29.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Shetop View Post
    With each new development in the field of genetics that has connection with the topic of this thread, there is more and more evidence that I2a-CTS10228, R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 were not present in Southeast Europe 2000 years ago. When people recognize that, it will be much easier to discuss about "Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis".
    How sure you are?

    do you know about R1a combined with HBO arab? considering the inner mariagge in a tribe seems like more possible to be more than 3500 in Rodope mt
    exists in South Balkans, mountains Greece and Bulgaria and surely is older than 2000 years for most, where is the highest HBO in area and surely pre-Slavic, since HBO arab is not common in North of Istros
    search mountain Pomak populations, they have their own language, which for some is pure Thracian, although looks like today as a mix of an ancient language, Bulgarian and little Greek,
    in fact due to that some claim that R1a came in Balkans from elsewhere, from East not from North,
    strange is n't it, what possibilities we can extract by crossing 2 variants, although are possibilities, right?

  14. #14
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Shetop View Post
    With each new development in the field of genetics that has connection with the topic of this thread, there is more and more evidence that I2a-CTS10228, R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 were not present in Southeast Europe 2000 years ago. When people recognize that, it will be much easier to discuss about "Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis".
    When people realize that Slavic is lingustic group and that there was no "Slavic tribe" conquering most of Europe in 100 years without proves whatsoever it will be easier for them to distinguish certain things.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-04-10
    Posts
    337
    Points
    15,798
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,798, Level: 38
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 652
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: Serbia



    Quote Originally Posted by Милан М. View Post
    When people realize that Slavic is lingustic group and that there was no "Slavic tribe" conquering most of Europe in 100 years without proves whatsoever it will be easier for them to distinguish certain things.
    Do you actually know what I2a-CTS10228 is ? Plus, I did not mention Slavic tribe in my post...

  16. #16
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Shetop View Post
    Do you actually know what I2a-CTS10228 is ? Plus, I did not mention Slavic tribe in my post...
    So what did you mentioned how did you explain the developments,I do know but go ahead tell me what you mean by I2a-CTS10228?
    Last edited by Милан М.; 15-06-15 at 15:14.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-04-10
    Posts
    337
    Points
    15,798
    Level
    38
    Points: 15,798, Level: 38
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 652
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: Serbia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Милан М. View Post
    So what did you mentioned how did you explain the developments,I do know but go ahead tell me what you mean by I2a-CTS10228?
    I2a-CTS10228 is:
    - haplogroup found in Eastern Europe only (if we exclude modern day migrations)
    - haplogroup which has highest frequency in the Balkans compared to other haplogroups
    - its older branches and closest relatives are found in Northern Europe only (NOT in the Balkans)
    - closest ancient DNA haplogroups were found in Northern Europe only (NOT in the Balkans)
    - frequency of this haplogroup in Italy can be neglected, and at the same time there is a great similarity in distribution of other haplogroups in Italy compared with Southeast Europe (E-V13, R1b-L23, J2, G2a)
    - TMRCA of that haplogroup is estimated to be very young compared to other haplgroups in Southeast Europe

    What I've learned is that when I write conclusions, they are rarely taken as they are. So maybe it is better if I leave it to you to make some conclusion based on the points from above.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Shetop View Post
    Do you actually know what I2a-CTS10228 is ? Plus, I did not mention Slavic tribe in my post...
    From where does it come from?
    Last edited by Милан М.; 15-06-15 at 16:44.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697
    Points
    2,968
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,968, Level: 15
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Poland



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Милан М. View Post
    Lyakhs
    No! No! No!

    Lyakh it is russian innovation.
    Oryginally was Lęch what gives polish name Lech, and tribal names Lechites.
    In south slavic languages should be the same.

  20. #20
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Милан М. View Post
    Curta is archeologist and historian for Middle Age South-East Europe not Lingustic,he rather propose that the idea of "migrationism" doesn't make sense in his own archeology research,he also argue that the name Sclavene was missused and raised a lot of questions rightly so,the migration period is not supported today like before unless we base the same 'Slavic" migration on gigantic genocide of half Europe which doesnt make a lot of sense,we could see archeological proves mostly,could be linguistic spread,elite dominance whatever else or homogenity whilst their language was streghten from 6th-9th century,
    You're missing my point entirely of what the problem with Curta is: Curta is completely ignorant of the linguistic situation in the Pannonian basin in Antiquity. There's no possibility that the Slavic languages evolved in the Pannonian basin - or on the Balkans - because we have plenty of evidence that the ethnolinguistic makeup of the Pannonian basin was a completely different one. The Slavic languages were introduced from somewhere else. It should also be noted that some of the key sound changes (notably Balto-Slavic *a to Slavic *o) are found amongst Latin loanwords (a good example is the word for donkey, Russian "osel" or "осел", from Latin "asellus"), and including Latin place names on the Balkans (for example "Tragurium" > "Trogir"). The only way for this to work out is that Slavic languages were introduced as a newcomer on the Balkans during the Migration Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Милан М. View Post
    Mario Alinei Specialist in Geo-Lingusitics proposal-Thracian problem and hypothesis:
    Mario Alinei is an emeritus professor of the university of Utrecht, and he's the proponent of the so-called "Paleolithic Continuity Theory", which posits that the Indo-European languages are native to Europe since before agricultural revolution (amongst other things) which is a fringe position that does not hold water as it applies that the key items of Proto-Indo-European that even the Anatolian hypothesis concedes are reconstructable (common words for domesticated animals like "cow" or "ewe"), which Paleolithic Europeans didn't have. In his scenario, of course Alinei requires the Slavic languages to be present on the Balkans (just like Germanic languages in southern Germany, Proto-Italic in southern France, and Etruscan in Italy - the underlying idea is extreme language immobility ), but unless you buy into that hypothesis, there's no reason to bring in the Thracians here.

    There's another argument to dismiss the Balkans homeland: how do explain that the Proto-Slavic language had to the word for "beech" from a Germanic source (Russian "buk" or "бук" - compare German "Buche", Swedish "bok", but also Gaulish *bāgo-, Latin "fāgus" and Greek "phēgos"), if beeches actually grow on the Balkans? Conversely, and this should be a giveaway, beeches do not grow in the area that was occupied by the Milograd culture.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    You're missing my point entirely of what the problem with Curta is: Curta is completely ignorant of the linguistic situation in the Pannonian basin in Antiquity. There's no possibility that the Slavic languages evolved in the Pannonian basin - or on the Balkans - because we have plenty of evidence that the ethnolinguistic makeup of the Pannonian basin was a completely different one. The Slavic languages were introduced from somewhere else. It should also be noted that some of the key sound changes (notably Balto-Slavic *a to Slavic *o) are found amongst Latin loanwords (a good example is the word for donkey, Russian "osel" or "осел", from Latin "asellus"), and including Latin place names on the Balkans (for example "Tragurium" > "Trogir"). The only way for this to work out is that Slavic languages were introduced as a newcomer on the Balkans during the Migration Period.



    Mario Alinei is an emeritus professor of the university of Utrecht, and he's the proponent of the so-called "Paleolithic Continuity Theory", which posits that the Indo-European languages are native to Europe since before agricultural revolution (amongst other things) which is a fringe position that does not hold water as it applies that the key items of Proto-Indo-European that even the Anatolian hypothesis concedes are reconstructable (common words for domesticated animals like "cow" or "ewe"), which Paleolithic Europeans didn't have. In his scenario, of course Alinei requires the Slavic languages to be present on the Balkans (just like Germanic languages in southern Germany, Proto-Italic in southern France, and Etruscan in Italy - the underlying idea is extreme language immobility ), but unless you buy into that hypothesis, there's no reason to bring in the Thracians here.

    There's another argument to dismiss the Balkans homeland: how do explain that the Proto-Slavic language had to the word for "beech" from a Germanic source (Russian "buk" or "бук" - compare German "Buche", Swedish "bok", but also Gaulish *bāgo-, Latin "fāgus" and Greek "phēgos"), if beeches actually grow on the Balkans? Conversely, and this should be a giveaway, beeches do not grow in the area that was occupied by the Milograd culture.
    Curta is archeologist not linguistic,don't know why you bring him into question,so called "migration" period has not much support in anything today to begin with,you prolong something that we have no knowledge on any Slavic in that region,neither in toponyms,neither in names until late 10th century,not Balkan homeland,the Danube basin or else wider area,that culture seem the less possible could be periphery with Iranic speakers at that time,isolated Slavic speaking groups could be in the Balkans,what's so weird about it?Trogir was build by Greek colonists on the Adriatic what name you expect,plus Balkans were dominated since Roman conquest with Latin as administrative language,i should ask what BylaZora-white dawn in Slavic,ancient Paeonia,Serbinum in Pannonian plain mentioned by Ptolemy and later authors derrived from the tribe Serboi etc, doesn't make sense, Pannonia was mixed heritage in antiquity,you wanna say that you know all the languages spoken there,or it was Celtic,Germanic really?i gave you written sources,place names,could you do the same with Milograd culture,i guess maybe Slavic came from the Arctic and all of a sudden half Europe spoke Slavic,the interaction between people wasn't same in every region,why you take Russian as example,we don't use Latin for donkey,the best is to look in the OCS if you want to reconstruct Proto-Slavic language.English word-book from Slavic Bukva spelling Bookva meaning letter and for this you say it has cognate in beech cause PIE people wrote on beech very possible lol Buk is not derrived from Germanic,in the Balkans the tree Bukva or Buk grows actually and we use that word it's a Slavic word,or the word Land in the Germanic languages from Slavic Ledina,if this site support Kurgan hypothesis of IE doesn't mean you are right all other lingustics wrong,Marija Gimbutas wasn't so bright either,why should we dismiss Thracian if we find the best comparison in Balto-Slavic or Baltic and Slavic languages? every other language push it back to proto-whatever and we can't compare similar language to ours and most probably same family.
    Last edited by Милан М.; 22-06-15 at 12:53.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    You're missing my point entirely of what the problem with Curta is: Curta is completely ignorant of the linguistic situation in the Pannonian basin in Antiquity. There's no possibility that the Slavic languages evolved in the Pannonian basin - or on the Balkans - because we have plenty of evidence that the ethnolinguistic makeup of the Pannonian basin was a completely different one. The Slavic languages were introduced from somewhere else. It should also be noted that some of the key sound changes (notably Balto-Slavic *a to Slavic *o) are found amongst Latin loanwords (a good example is the word for donkey, Russian "osel" or "осел", from Latin "asellus"), and including Latin place names on the Balkans (for example "Tragurium" > "Trogir"). The only way for this to work out is that Slavic languages were introduced as a newcomer on the Balkans during the Migration Period.



    Mario Alinei is an emeritus professor of the university of Utrecht, and he's the proponent of the so-called "Paleolithic Continuity Theory", which posits that the Indo-European languages are native to Europe since before agricultural revolution (amongst other things) which is a fringe position that does not hold water as it applies that the key items of Proto-Indo-European that even the Anatolian hypothesis concedes are reconstructable (common words for domesticated animals like "cow" or "ewe"), which Paleolithic Europeans didn't have. In his scenario, of course Alinei requires the Slavic languages to be present on the Balkans (just like Germanic languages in southern Germany, Proto-Italic in southern France, and Etruscan in Italy - the underlying idea is extreme language immobility ), but unless you buy into that hypothesis, there's no reason to bring in the Thracians here.

    There's another argument to dismiss the Balkans homeland: how do explain that the Proto-Slavic language had to the word for "beech" from a Germanic source (Russian "buk" or "бук" - compare German "Buche", Swedish "bok", but also Gaulish *bāgo-, Latin "fāgus" and Greek "phēgos"), if beeches actually grow on the Balkans? Conversely, and this should be a giveaway, beeches do not grow in the area that was occupied by the Milograd culture.
    Another evidence that no Slavs migrated from Milograd culture or any of that region.
    Much has been made of Slavic influence upon Romanian.But,if anything the linguistcis evidence contradicts the idea of migration of the Slavs from their Urheimat in Galicia(Western Ukraine) to the Balkans.Indeed,it has been noted that if speakers of Slavic came from some territory to the north east of what is today Romania one would expect a strong influence of East Slavic upon Romanian.This would be true even if "East Slavic" may not have existed at the time of supposed migration.Speakers of Slavic choosing to stay north of the Danube,instead joining the immigrants leaving for the Balkans,would remain in contact with the Urheimat and as a consequence their language would have been affected by changes most typical of East Slavic dialects.This would in turn show up in Slavic loans and various other features of the Slavic influence upon Romanian.But place and river names of Slavic origin in Romania overhelmingly point to a Southern not a Eastern influence,most Slavic loans in Romanian are of Balkan origin.
    Last edited by Милан М.; 17-06-15 at 20:10.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    How you explain this,if Slavic came from so far and so late:Balkanic Sprachbund locally or as place names,magula or tumba in Greece, mogila in Bulgaria, gòmila/mògila in Serbia,gamúle/mágule in Albania. But the word, with the meaning of ‘tumulus’, ‘tumb’, is diffused also in the rest of the Slavic area slava (Russ. mogíla, Ukr. mohýáa, Slovn.gomíla, Czec. Slovk. mohyla, Pol. mogiáa) and in Romania (Rum. măgură).Unfortunately, its etymology is not certain. But given its areal distribution, Vasmer’s proposal to connect it with Proto-Slavic *mogo, in the sense of ‘dominating site’ Tell are, of course, prehistoric sites of exceptional importance, not only for the significance of their stratigraphies, but also as signs of an uninterrupted continuity, both cultural and ethnic (Lichardus-Lichardus 1985, 229).While tells are very common in the Near and Middle East, where Neolithic cultures have an extraordinary and well-known duration and stability, in Europe they appear only in the Balkans, and only to the South of the Danube,and thus only in the Greek, Albanian and Southern Slavic area.

  24. #24
    Banned Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-12-11
    Location
    Bărăgan
    Posts
    249
    Points
    5,213
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,213, Level: 21
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 337
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Argeș(~SER+MAC)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    Walati(Vlachs)

    Ethnic group
    Thraco-Roman
    Country: Romania



    Quote Originally Posted by Милан М. View Post
    How you explain this,if Slavic came from so far and so late:Balkanic Sprachbund locally or as place names,magula or tumba in Greece, mogila in Bulgaria, gòmila/mògila in Serbia,gamúle/mágule in Albania. But the word, with the meaning of ‘tumulus’, ‘tumb’, is diffused also in the rest of the Slavic area slava (Russ. mogíla, Ukr. mohýáa, Slovn.gomíla, Czec. Slovk. mohyla, Pol. mogiáa) and in Romania (Rum. măgură).Unfortunately, its etymology is not certain. But given its areal distribution, Vasmer’s proposal to connect it with Proto-Slavic *mogo, in the sense of ‘dominating site’ Tell are, of course, prehistoric sites of exceptional importance, not only for the significance of their stratigraphies, but also as signs of an uninterrupted continuity, both cultural and ethnic (Lichardus-Lichardus 1985, 229).While tells are very common in the Near and Middle East, where Neolithic cultures have an extraordinary and well-known duration and stability, in Europe they appear only in the Balkans, and only to the South of the Danube,and thus only in the Greek, Albanian and Southern Slavic area.

    "Magura"(large hill) clearly underwent rhotacization, a process that affects only the words of Latin and "autochthonous" origin;in other words,Slavic wasn't its source,nor Greek.

    It doesn't seem Latin either,they have tried to derive it from "macula",but it's a long shot.

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...wed_in_frame=0

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/macula#Latin

    "Thus, Latin caelum (meaning 'heaven' or 'sky') became Romanian cer, Latin fenestra (meaning 'window') becomes Romanian fereastră, and Latin felicitas (meaning 'happiness') Romanian fericire."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotacism#Linguistics



    Albanian maguLe,Romanian maguRa

    Albanian modhuLLe(pea), Romanian mazaRe

    Albanian vjedhuLLe(badger), Romanian viezuRe



    related terms:


    PIE root: muk-,a heap,etc.

    O.Ice. mugi, mugr “heap, bulk, mass"
    O.E. muga m. “(corn, grain-)heap
    Nor. dial. mukka “heap, bulk, mass”, M.H.G. mocke m. “clump, gobbet “
    M.L.G. muke, Dutch muik, M.H.G. muche, Ger. (half nd.)
    Mauke f., b O.Ir. (genuine hochd.) Mauche “ hunch, outgrowth"(Pokorny)


    mogul (n.2)
    "elevation on a ski slope," 1961, probably [Barnhart] from Scandinavian (compare dialectal Norwegian mugje, fem. muga, "a heap, a mound"), or [OED] from southern German dialect mugel in the same sense.

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...wed_in_frame=0

  25. #25
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    30-05-15
    Posts
    247
    Points
    1,402
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,402, Level: 10
    Level completed: 26%, Points required for next Level: 148
    Overall activity: 44.0%


    Country: Yugoslavia



    Quote Originally Posted by Diurpaneus View Post
    "Magura"(large hill) clearly underwent rhotacization, a process that affects only the words of Latin and "autochthonous" origin;in other words,Slavic wasn't its source.

    It doesn't seem Latin either,they have tried to derive it from "macula",but it's a long shot.

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...wed_in_frame=0

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/macula#Latin

    "Thus, Latin caelum (meaning 'heaven' or 'sky') became Romanian cer, Latin fenestra (meaning 'window') becomes Romanian fereastră, and Latin felicitas (meaning 'happiness') Romanian fericire."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotacism#Linguistics



    Albanian maguLe,Romanian maguRa

    Albanian modhuLLe(pea), Romanian mazaRe

    Albanian vjedhuLLe(badger), Romanian viezuRe



    related terms:


    PIE root: muk-,a heap,etc.

    O.Ice. mugi, mugr “heap, bulk, mass"
    O.E. muga m. “(corn, grain-)heap
    Nor. dial. mukka “heap, bulk, mass”, M.H.G. mocke m. “clump, gobbet “
    M.L.G. muke, Dutch muik, M.H.G. muche, Ger. (half nd.)
    Mauke f., b O.Ir. (genuine hochd.) Mauche “ hunch, outgrowth"(Pokorny)


    mogul (n.2)
    "elevation on a ski slope," 1961, probably [Barnhart] from Scandinavian (compare dialectal Norwegian mugje, fem. muga, "a heap, a mound"), or [OED] from southern German dialect mugel in the same sense.

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...wed_in_frame=0
    As far i am aware Latin is not autochtounous in the Balkans neither any Romance,in Balto-Slavic or Thracian we seem to explain most of the settlements in large area of the Balkans,we are talking about languages here not about any "migrations" this word couldn't enter Slavic like many others if the same language came there in the 6th century with a cultures long gone,this are old research which you post,many words couldn't be explained cause they push Slavic to be very young and actualy it isn't.
    Last edited by Милан М.; 22-06-15 at 12:55.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •