Illyrian and Albanian - a linguistic approach

[LABERIA]

He demonstrates unknowingness, but you can see, they put many things and nobody has time to answer for every term, notion, issues.

For example:



According him, Ulcinj is Albanian word, derived from Albanian word ulk, ujk.

But Albanian ulk, ujk (wolf) is borrowed from Slavic vlk. Pra-Slavic vlk is English/German wolf.

There are many and many geographical names in Slavic countries with root vlk.

For example Vlkyňa (South. Slav. Vlkinja), village and municipality in Slovakia.

We can see according grammar rules:

k -> c

v -> u

and a disappeared in the end

Vlkinja = Ulcinj

According it Ulcinj can be Slavic name with Slavic root vlk (wolf).

If Ulcinj is Illyrian name it means that some Slovenian (also some Bosnian and Croatian) researchers can be right, but officialy it is Greek name by origin.

It means I don't say that Ulcinj by origin is Slavic name. Officialy name Ulcinj is derived from Greek tribe Kolhidians, and it was Kolhinijum, it is possible that Slavs adapted this name to something that they knew. But nothing to do with Albanian, what is false.

I think, this can help better the serb members here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jovan_I._Deretić

Deretić is an engineer by training, but is mainly noted for his historical theories.^[2] He is the proponent of an alternative history of the Serbian people that asserts a larger role in ancient history than described by most Western historians.
He is sometimes confused with distinguished literary historian Jovan Deretić.^[3]
According to Deretić, prior to the conquests of Alexander the Great, there lived an even more-accomplished conqueror named Serbon Makeridov:

That Serbon, father of all nations, was a Serb. That is to say, all of his descendants, or rather all known peoples, have Serbian origin.^[4]
​

Ancient peoples such as ancient Greeks and Celts are therefore claimed to be Serbian.

 

[Garrick]

I think, this can help better the serb members here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jovan_I._Deretić

Wrong.

I don't use Serbian sources what everyone can see.

I have a lot of reasons why I think many Serbian sources are not appropriate but it is not for this threads.

 

[LABERIA]

Wrong. I don't use Serbian sources what everyone can see. I have a lot of reasons why I think many Serbian sources are not appropriate but it is not for this threads.

From my post:

https://books.google.al/books?id=O9...fsI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y Migrations and Invasions in Greece and Adjacent Areas Albanian Ethnogenesis The gap between Ptolemy and Acropolites is bridged by the mention of "Ducagini d'Arbania" in a seventh-century document at Ragusa (Dubrovnik). These Ducagini instigated a revolt against Byzantine rule in Bosnia and in particular at Ragusa, but they had to submit after the second unsuccessful intervention at Ragusa, to which they were said to have come "de terra ferma," i.e overland (15). The name 'Ducagini' is evidently derived from the Latin 'dux' and the common Albanian name 'Ghin'; indeed an Albanian chieftain in 1281 was referred to as "dux Ginius Tanuschus"(16). Moreover, the leading family of northern Albania from the thirteenth century to the Turkish invasion in the fifteenth century was called 'Dukagjin' (Lek Dukagjini the codifier was one of them), and their properties lay between Lesh (Lissus) and the bend of the Drin. It is here then that we should put the ‘Arbania' of the seventh century. The conclusion that 'Albanians' lived there continuously from the second century to the thirteenth century becomes, I think, unavoidable (17).

The source of Hammond was:
(15) Published by V. Makusev, Pamiatniki Dubrovnika (Petrograd, 1867), pp. 307 and 373.
I don`t intend to spend my time in long discussions with you. Because you are not here to make discussion but for other aggendas. I have an simple question for you. In the seventh century when Albanians had noble with the title of DUX, where were your ancestors? This can explain everything.

 

[Sile]

From my post: The source of Hammond was:
(15) Published by V. Makusev, Pamiatniki Dubrovnika (Petrograd, 1867), pp. 307 and 373.
I don`t intend to spend my time in long discussions with you. Because you are not here to make discussion but for other aggendas. I have an simple question for you. In the seventh century when Albanians had noble with the title of DUX, where were your ancestors? This can explain everything.

I do not know what you mean ?

do you mean the earliest Albanian ancestors are from the 7th century?

 

[ukaj]

He demonstrates unknowingness, but you can see, they put many things and nobody has time to answer for every term, notion, issues.

For example:



According him, Ulcinj is Albanian word, derived from Albanian word ulk, ujk.

But Albanian ulk, ujk (wolf) is borrowed from Slavic vlk. Pra-Slavic vlk is English/German wolf.

There are many and many geographical names in Slavic countries with root vlk.

For example Vlkyňa (South. Slav. Vlkinja), village and municipality in Slovakia.

We can see according grammar rules:

k -> c

v -> u

and a disappeared in the end

Vlkinja = Ulcinj

According it Ulcinj can be Slavic name with Slavic root vlk (wolf).

If Ulcinj is Illyrian name it means that some Slovenian (also some Bosnian and Croatian) researchers can be right, but officialy it is Greek name by origin.

It means I don't say that Ulcinj by origin is Slavic name. Officialy name Ulcinj is derived from Greek tribe Kolhidians, and it was Kolhinijum, it is possible that Slavs adapted this name to something that they knew. But nothing to do with Albanian, what is false.

every word i post you try derrive slav with albanian..we didnt derrive ulk from slav.Everything i posted you ignored an disagree even though it is infront of your eyes.You post albanians in satem when infact no one really has put our language with satem as it is to hard to split.In your posts you try to distant my people from balkans as much as you can.indo iranian is not even close to be related to albanians language since many changes has gone through our language you cant decide what group it belongs to..If albanian was nearly a romance language but stopped short an latin was centum you all make no sense.The thing is albanian could be centum an satem you cant really put it on one branch as both are in the language

 

[Garrick]

every word i post you try derrive slav with albanian..we didnt derrive ulk from slav.Everything i posted you ignored an disagree even though it is infront of your eyes.You post albanians in satem when infact no one really has put our language with satem as it is to hard to split.In your posts you try to distant my people from balkans as much as you can.indo iranian is not even close to be related to albanians language since many changes has gone through our language you cant decide what group it belongs to..If albanian was nearly a romance language but stopped short an latin was centum you all make no sense.The thing is albanian could be centum an satem you cant really put it on one branch as both are in the language

Ukaj, you can read everywhere Albanian is classified as Satem.

We can discuss about Albanian ulk and Slavic vlk, but they are very close words, no doubt.

 

[ukaj]

Ukaj, you can read everywhere Albanian is classified as Satem.

We can discuss about Albanian ulk and Slavic vlk, but they are very close words, no doubt.

yes i see this but it is not complete their was to much influece from others to put them along satem,,you can also read everywhere it stems from its own branch,An also be both cantem an satem,

 

[ukaj]

As i said bro it is not official because they dont know where to put this language as it is of own branch.what im trying to say is proto people are not all one people from same branch both can have Centum and Satem it looks to me albanian was cetum but phased into satem because of the borrowing from the baltic slavs an other people it is not completely satem.this is why it is hard to put albanians in satem,That is all personally i dont care what branch we are from.But one thing for usre is indo iranian is rubbish as because of the baltic loans we ave had from the slavs,turkish etc can easly change what group we do belong to.proto albanians were nearly latinised completely but it stopped.what influence we have before that no one will really know.

 

[Garrick]

proto people are not all one people from same branch both can have [/COLOR]Centum and Satem it looks to me albanian was cetum but phased into satem because of the borrowing from the baltic slavs an other people it is not completely satem.this is why it is hard to put albanians in satem,That is all personally i dont care what branch we are from.But one thing for usre is indo iranian is rubbish as because of the baltic loans we ave had from the slavs,turkish etc can easly change what group we do belong to.proto albanians were nearly latinised completely but it stopped.what influence we have before that no one will really know.

Ukaj, don't waste time. Linguists classify Albanian is Satem.

For example, Dr Warsi: Hystorical Linguistics Genealogical classification of Language

Dr Baugh & Dr Cable: A History of the English Language

Satem group: Indian, Iranian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic and Albanian.

Do you want more?

 

[LABERIA]

I do not know what you mean ?

do you mean the earliest Albanian ancestors are from the 7th century?

You don't know? It's not something new for me. But you can ask Garrick, he can explain you.

 

[Abeis]

Dear Eupedians,

This will be my last message because there is not much left to discuss. When I first opened this thread, I've expected scholarly feedback. Once the thread got littered by run-of-the-mill drivels, my interest waned once for all. I am astounded that all my sincere efforts to incite a serious debate were in vain. Moderators are nowhere near to establish an order which is why ignorance is at its nadir. Why should I waste further my time dealing with halfwitted one-liners of Garrick-the-ultimate-Serbian-Chetnik:

Gray & Atkinson can be criticized, they have supporters and critics, and it's good for science.

I read the first line and my headache flared up by the poor usage of words, skewed logic and sheer ignorance. Its glaringly obvious that this wanker is not adept to talk on tantalizing matters of linguistics, let alone to dissect any argument. Hence it's no wonder why he ends up in this miserable level:

Albanian word dardhë is not origin Albanian, it is borrowed, it derived from the Greek word ἄχερδος (wild pear).

No sound linguists would consider alb. dardhë as a mere borrowing of Gr. akherdos. They are doubtless cognates which presumably sprung from a common root but the idea of a borrowing has no legs to stand on. Phonetic rules governing Albanian preclude such a possibility because its outcome would have been *kerdhë (k reflecting *kh, rdh < rd).

Centum and Satem are two world different.

First off, do you even fathom what is centum/satem division of IE languages? Do you still believe that this division carry any diagnostic value in determining the origin of languages? Can you outline a brief development of c-languages? Where did satemization took place for the first time?

For Messapin is proved that it is Centum language.

Messapin? hahahaha give me a break!? I am all ears whether you can bundle any centum evidence on Messapic?!

One Albanian told me that Northern Illyrian was Centum but Southern Illyrian was Satem

you despicable liar, you never fail to crack me up. One Albanian told me, another Kurd told me, a Bulgarian once said to me... the Romanian kebab vendor said...does their testimony carry any relevance?

Albanians can be Free Dacians, as some Romanian scientists.

Come again? Albanians descent from some mysterious troglodytes who used to live beyond Hyperborea, as some noted Serbian writers asserted after their exhausting research.

 

[Garrick]

proto albanians were nearly latinised completely but it stopped.what influence we have before that no one will really know.

Ukaj, do not despair because Albanian is not fully Latinized, otherwise it would be the same as the Romanian.

What we should understand, a big part of Balkans was romanized. Of course we can follow Jirecek line which divide Greek and Latin zone.

Romanization of Balkans started in 2 century BC. In 168 BC Romans conquered Illyria and they established the province Illyricum. Romans conquered the rest of Central Serbia in 75 BC establishing Moesia. Conquest of Dacia was completed by emperor Trajan in 106 AD when king Decibalus was defeated. From that time Dacia was a province of Roman Empire till 275 AD. From 2nd BC till 3rd century in the Balkans took place Romanization of people, in parts of Balkans which are kept by the Romans. People lost their language and culture and they adopt Latin. This applies to all who lived in the area, certainly the Dacians and Illyrians who according Wilkes dissapeared in Roman Empire. However Free Dacians have not fallen under Roman rule. Therefore tribes that maked free Dacans to some extent have been able to preserve their language.

Someone can see map of Roman Dacia and areas where lived Free Dacian tribes:

Carpi and some other tribes were beyond of Roman Dacia!

And Carpi successfully resisted Romanization!

...
People who lived in Illyricum and Roman Dacia are Romanized, they lost their language and they spoke Latin.

Only Free Dacian could save their language, and today some authors claim Carpi and it is possible members of some others Free Dacian tribes, spoke Albanian. They spoke and they saved in extent in which it was possible receiving Latin, Balto-Slavic etc in some extent. Due to invasion of the Huns, tribe Carpi and it is possible some other tribes or parts of tribes, moved toward south of the Danube. They could pass Danube, and probably over today's Bulgaria and Macedonia they arrived to today's Albania. It is possible first settlement in Albania was area Mat and arrounding. It is important that Free Dacian tribes, in the first place Carpi, were able to preserve own languge in extent that it was possible.

 

[ukaj]

Ukaj, do not despair because Albanian is not fully Latinized, otherwise it would be the same as the Romanian.

What we should understand, a big part of Balkans was romanized. Of course we can follow Jirecek line which divide Greek and Latin zone.

Romanization of Balkans started in 2 century BC. In 168 BC Romans conquered Illyria and they established the province Illyricum. Romans conquered the rest of Central Serbia in 75 BC establishing Moesia. Conquest of Dacia was completed by emperor Trajan in 106 AD when king Decibalus was defeated. From that time Dacia was a province of Roman Empire till 275 AD. From 2nd BC till 3rd century in the Balkans took place Romanization of people, in parts of Balkans which are kept by the Romans. People lost their language and culture and they adopt Latin. This applies to all who lived in the area, certainly the Dacians and Illyrians who according Wilkes dissapeared in Roman Empire. However Free Dacians have not fallen under Roman rule. Therefore tribes that maked free Dacans to some extent have been able to preserve their language.

Someone can see map of Roman Dacia and areas where lived Free Dacian tribes:

Carpi and some other tribes were beyond of Roman Dacia!

And Carpi successfully resisted Romanization!

...
People who lived in Illyricum and Roman Dacia are Romanized, they lost their language and they spoke Latin.

Only Free Dacian could save their language, and today some authors claim Carpi and it is possible members of some others Free Dacian tribes, spoke Albanian. They spoke and they saved in extent in which it was possible receiving Latin, Balto-Slavic etc in some extent. Due to invasion of the Huns, tribe Carpi and it is possible some other tribes or parts of tribes, moved toward south of the Danube. They could pass Danube, and probably over today's Bulgaria and Macedonia they arrived to today's Albania. It is possible first settlement in Albania was area Mat and arrounding. It is important that Free Dacian tribes, in the first place Carpi, were able to preserve own languge in extent that it was possible.

Its pointless to talk with you.you dont understand what i mean.an no not all linguists say it is a satem language.It is hard to speak with someone who only has one agenda.as i said over an over again,albanian shows signs of setem borrowed from baltic slavs.as for romanians romanians language comes from prto albanians but split..

 

[ukaj]

Ukaj, do not despair because Albanian is not fully Latinized, otherwise it would be the same as the Romanian.

What we should understand, a big part of Balkans was romanized. Of course we can follow Jirecek line which divide Greek and Latin zone.

Romanization of Balkans started in 2 century BC. In 168 BC Romans conquered Illyria and they established the province Illyricum. Romans conquered the rest of Central Serbia in 75 BC establishing Moesia. Conquest of Dacia was completed by emperor Trajan in 106 AD when king Decibalus was defeated. From that time Dacia was a province of Roman Empire till 275 AD. From 2nd BC till 3rd century in the Balkans took place Romanization of people, in parts of Balkans which are kept by the Romans. People lost their language and culture and they adopt Latin. This applies to all who lived in the area, certainly the Dacians and Illyrians who according Wilkes dissapeared in Roman Empire. However Free Dacians have not fallen under Roman rule. Therefore tribes that maked free Dacans to some extent have been able to preserve their language.

Someone can see map of Roman Dacia and areas where lived Free Dacian tribes:

Carpi and some other tribes were beyond of Roman Dacia!

And Carpi successfully resisted Romanization!

...
People who lived in Illyricum and Roman Dacia are Romanized, they lost their language and they spoke Latin.

Only Free Dacian could save their language, and today some authors claim Carpi and it is possible members of some others Free Dacian tribes, spoke Albanian. They spoke and they saved in extent in which it was possible receiving Latin, Balto-Slavic etc in some extent. Due to invasion of the Huns, tribe Carpi and it is possible some other tribes or parts of tribes, moved toward south of the Danube. They could pass Danube, and probably over today's Bulgaria and Macedonia they arrived to today's Albania. It is possible first settlement in Albania was area Mat and arrounding. It is important that Free Dacian tribes, in the first place Carpi, were able to preserve own languge in extent that it was possible.

gee i dont need to read anymore history im dacian hahah oh my friend enough with rubbish,albanian language has gone through changes you can not say we are related to the pre indo iranian.This is why many people reject it to be satem.modern vowels etc have been borrowed from baltic slav.an other people who migrated to balkans..as for carpathian this is wher servs came from behind the carpathian mountains.proto albanians were from the area of north albania this is been proven Dr Michiel de Vaan
I really wonder why we borrowed form people in balkans,croatian,bosnian.macedonian,serbian bulgarian slovenian.. all satem if you belive albanian didnt borrow from countrys that border us then wow,you really are going our of your way..borrowing from other language changed a big part of your language thats for all languages..so listen..If albanian language was say centum an a many people came to balkans that were satem do you think albanian people wont borrow from them?albanians are surrounded mby satem language thier is no doubt we going to borrow..

 

[Sile]

You don't know? It's not something new for me. But you can ask Garrick, he can explain you.

yes, you are right.

The finale conclusion is that Albanians should not claim they are from Illyrian descent when they have less than 10% of illyrian lands, the Montenegrins, Croatians, Bosnians and Slovenians have more % of lands and descent from Illyrian tribes.

Garrick direction of free-dacian ( the Carpi ) with his dates between trajan and Roman historians first mention of Albani is about only 40years..............enough time to resettle tribes who entered the Roman empire to seek a haven from the barbarians

 

[Ike]

It means I don't say that Ulcinj by origin is Slavic name. Officialy name Ulcinj is derived from Greek tribe Kolhidians, and it was Kolhinijum, it is possible that Slavs adapted this name to something that they knew. But nothing to do with Albanian, what is false.

Since we know from Pliny that Colchis>Colchinium>Olcinium>Ulcinj, if we look at the map, it can still be some Albanian cousin settlers... It would mean that they entered the area in BC era.
It also gets us back to Kartvelian-Albanian link hypothesis.

 

[LABERIA]

yes, you are right.

The finale conclusion is that Albanians should not claim they are from Illyrian descent when they have less than 10% of illyrian lands, the Montenegrins, Croatians, Bosnians and Slovenians have more % of lands and descent from Illyrian tribes.

Garrick direction of free-dacian ( the Carpi ) with his dates between trajan and Roman historians first mention of Albani is about only 40years..............enough time to resettle tribes who entered the Roman empire to seek a haven from the barbarians

How can you make a final conclusion about Albanians? You don't know nothing about Albanians. You don't know elementary things. You are an ignorant about Albanians. And to fight the ignorance, the best way is to start to read.

P. S.
Don't run with your conclusion, new theories are coming from Ike.

 

[Sile]

How can you make a final conclusion about Albanians? You don't know nothing about Albanians. You don't know elementary things. You are an ignorant about Albanians. And to fight the ignorance, the best way is to start to read.

P. S.
Don't run with your conclusion, new theories are coming from Ike.

:annoyed: because you keeping bringing up Albanian material 700 years after the illyrians had disappeared from history ................that's why Albanian connection with Illyrian is wrong.

Bosnians, Croatians and Montenegrins have 100 time more claim on illyrian descent than the Albanians .................that's the Final conclusion

Because I said I made my final conclusion .............that's the end of the discussion ..........have a good year

 

[LABERIA]

:annoyed: because you keeping bringing up Albanian material 700 years after the illyrians had disappeared from history

What Albanian material are you talking? Can you quote me pls?

 

[ukaj]

How can you make a final conclusion about Albanians? You don't know nothing about Albanians. You don't know elementary things. You are an ignorant about Albanians. And to fight the ignorance, the best way is to start to read.

P. S.
Don't run with your conclusion, new theories are coming from Ike.

hahah propaganda at its best vlla.two funny with these guys,