Four questions for those who still believe in prehistoric Slavs and other fairy tales

[Milan]

Wends terminology was first used ~700AD in reference to the Veleti tribe of modern Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, ......and, was not sclavenes older or young than the year 700AD ??
The Veleti (German: Wieleten; Polish: Wieleci) or Wilzi(ans) (also Wiltzes; German: Wilzen) were a group of medieval Lechites tribes within the territory of modern northeastern Germany; see Polabian Slavs. In common with other Slavic groups between the Elbe and Oder Rivers, they were often described by Germanic sources as Wends.

Where are you getting these fantasy stories from?

Wends (Old English: Winedas, Old Norse: Vindr, German: Wenden, Winden, Danish: vendere, Swedish: vender, Polish: Wendowie) is a historical name for Slavs living near Germanic settlement areas. It does not refer to a homogeneous people, but to various peoples, tribes or groups depending on where and when it is used.
In the Middle Ages the term "Wends" often referred to Western Slavs living within the Holy Roman Empire, though not always. Mieszko I, the first historical ruler of Poland, also appeared as "Dagome, King of the Wends" (Old Norse: Vindakonungr). The name has possibly survived in Finnic languages (Finnish: Venäjä, Estonian: Vene, Karelian: Veneä) denoting Russia.

You can read Chronicle of Fredegar from 7th century or go in the Making of the Slavs you can find all references to them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Fredegar

This are not fantasies as i do not write history myself but historicaly written sources and when did the ethnonym Slav appear prior or later?
Do you have any evidence of the ethnonym Slav prior than this being used there? if you have please send me.

 

[Sile]

Wends (Old English: Winedas, Old Norse: Vindr, German: Wenden, Winden, Danish: vendere, Swedish: vender, Polish: Wendowie) is a historical name for Slavs living near Germanic settlement areas. It does not refer to a homogeneous people, but to various peoples, tribes or groups depending on where and when it is used.
In the Middle Ages the term "Wends" often referred to Western Slavs living within the Holy Roman Empire, though not always. Mieszko I, the first historical ruler of Poland, also appeared as "Dagome, King of the Wends" (Old Norse: Vindakonungr). The name has possibly survived in Finnic languages (Finnish: Venäjä, Estonian: Vene, Karelian: Veneä) denoting Russia.

You can read Chronicle of Fredegar from 7th century or go in the Making of the Slavs you can find all references to them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Fredegar

This are not fantasies as i do not write history myself but historicaly written sources and when did the ethnonym Slav appear prior or later?

don't associate Poland with wends as only 10% of Poland was in the Holy Roman Empire, so clearly the term wends does not refer to west-slav poles , does it!

 

[Milan]

don't associate Poland with wends as only 10% of Poland was in the Holy Roman Empire, so clearly the term wends does not refer to west-slav poles , does it!

I do not know,seems how Germanic and other people use to call their Slavic neighbors,maybe someone from those areas can help better.
We was called also Illyrians,Moesians etc,this exonyms won't help however.
Perhaps historians group them this way Antes (East Slavs) and Wends (West Slavs) Sclavenes(South Slavs) because of Jordanes.

 

[Milan]

Milan, the problem really is: you claim that Curta isn't South Slavic centric, but I will ask you: does his model explain - or predict - in any shape way or form where the West Slavic and East Slavic language areas come from? I give Curta credit in so far as that for the South Slavic peoples, his model of elite prominence is somewhat compelling, it also goes along relatively well with the linguistic backdrop (Romance substrate on the Balkans). However, his model does not address (nor predict) the existence of the West Slavic and East Slavic peoples. Where are the Obodrites and the Ilmen Slavs, to pick two examples, in this view (hint: "Making of the Slavs" doesn't mention them with a single word)? As long as that is unaddressed, I cannot take him (fully) seriously, and I have to dismiss him as having a clearly limited, South Slavic centric view of the Slavic origin.

I for one do not believe that Proto-Slavic was a "conlang" (akin to Klingon or Sindarin ) that was invented in the 500s, nor do I believe that the Proto-Slavic elite (if we again follow Curta's idea of elite dominance) were invaders from the steppe: you can make this case very clearly for the Magyars, since the Uralic languages that Hungarian is most closely related with (Khanty and Mansi) are spoken today in the Urals region of Russia. But the closest relatives of the Slavic languages are the Baltic languages.

The Dacian language is not explainable as a "Slavic dialect" because, even though it was a "Satem" language, it had a more conservative vowel system than the Balto-Slavic languages.

He use every relevant source addressing Slavs there,from Byzantine to Frankish/Germanic sources.
In the Fredegar chronicles for example have much about West Slavs which is to be found there.

Taranis neither i want to convince you in something or similar,i do read multiple sources but the "great migration" never made sense to me,which in fact turned up that no "great migration" took place.No great population replacement,which also archeology doesn't show signs.
It is not that what he talk is holy scripture.
Since you are interested in languages,this is what he say about Bohemia,short quote from him;

All places and river names mention in ninth or tenth century are pre-Slavic.By contrast all dukes and princes have typical Slavic names ending in -Slav an indication of political authority in question.Judging by this evidence which of course have it's own problems,Slavic was in use especially among members of the elite.
How much outrage i can recieve now from someone for saying this? :disappointed:

 

[Taranis]

He use every relevant source addressing Slavs there,from Byzantine to Frankish/Germanic sources.
In the Fredegar chronicles for example have much about West Slavs which is to be found there.

Taranis neither i want to convince you in something or similar,i do read multiple sources but the "great migration" never made sense to me,which in fact turned up that no "great migration" took place.No great population replacement,which also archeology doesn't show signs.
It is not that what he talk is holy scripture.
Since you are interested in languages,this is what he say about Bohemia,short quote from him;

All places and river names mention in ninth or tenth century are pre-Slavic.By contrast all dukes and princes have typical Slavic names ending in -Slav an indication of political authority in question.Judging by this evidence which of course have it's own problems,Slavic was in use especially among members of the elite.
How much outrage i can recieve now from someone for saying this? :disappointed:

From my perspective, the migration scenario is a logical necessity that makes a lot of sense: if in the same areas where South Slavic and West Slavic were spoken by the Middle Ages were previously demonstrably non-Slavic in the Roman period, then the Slavic languages must have been introduced new to these areas from somewhere else. Even if you're vehemently opposed to the concept of a "migration", you still have to talk about an expansion. An expansion has to come from somewhere. Curta traces the Byzantine "Sklavenoi", but its very clear that at best, his acculturation could only account for the South Slavic speakers.

The West Slavic peoples were never orthodox (the Church of the Byzantine Empire), as LeBrok mentioned, they adopted Catholicism from the Holy Roman Empire. Before that, and this is an important point to make, they were polytheistic. If you disregard the South Slavic speakers, we're talking about a language area that is basically entirely outside the borders of the former Roman Empire. This is why this Byzantine-centric point-of-view and Balkans-centric approach to Slavic ethnogenesis that Curta favours makes absolutely no sense.

If you compare these two maps (the first shows the distribution of the Slavic languages, including former and extinct ones, while the second shows the Roman Empire around the height of its expansion in the 2nd century AD), the problem becomes very apparent:

 

[Milan]

From my perspective, the migration scenario is a logical necessity that makes a lot of sense: if in the same areas where South Slavic and West Slavic were spoken by the Middle Ages were previously demonstrably non-Slavic in the Roman period, then the Slavic languages must have been introduced new to these areas from somewhere else. Even if you're vehemently opposed to the concept of a "migration", you still have to talk about an expansion. An expansion has to come from somewhere. Curta traces the Byzantine "Sklavenoi", but its very clear that at best, his acculturation could only account for the South Slavic speakers.

The West Slavic peoples were never orthodox (the Church of the Byzantine Empire), as LeBrok mentioned, they adopted Catholicism from the Holy Roman Empire. Before that, and this is an important point to make, they were polytheistic. If you disregard the South Slavic speakers, we're talking about a language area that is basically entirely outside the borders of the former Roman Empire. This is why this Byzantine-centric point-of-view and Balkans-centric approach to Slavic ethnogenesis that Curta favours makes absolutely no sense.

If you compare these two maps (the first shows the distribution of the Slavic languages, including former and extinct ones, while the second shows the Roman Empire around the height of its expansion in the 2nd century AD), the problem becomes very apparent:

I'm affraid we are in a bit of shism here West vs East,Byzantine(Roman) vs Frankish,this should not concern historiography or to attack a person ethnicity.
Migration scenario make sense because otherwise you could not explain the change that took place in Europe and also in the Roman empire.What i think you forget is the Avar kingdom,that for good time had hegemony over parts of Central Europe for example,where Sklavenoi played role in fact,also that Slavic language was established in the same khaganate over time,whoever they might be Turkic or Iranic or whatever priorly.Some linguist like Horace Lunt ,Omeljan Pritsak,then take Johanna Nichols were looking for some clues here,however..
Now if we are to post maps from the early middle ages of course you wouldn't see countries like they are today,likewise the spread of languages.

This is Europe at the Death of Charlemagne,note that Croatia and Slovenia are in the Frankish empire,the vast steppe were yet Turkic.

Some accepted misions some did not,but i think even in the Catholic West some countries were allowed to hold mass in the Slavic language,i'm not familiar much with this church issues,some might help better,but Slavic language after it's recognition gained more importantance,which for example the Rus followed suit.

This is for example Bulgarian empire under Simeon I (893-927) under whom the Slavic literacy flourished.

The Slavic tribes,classified as West,East,South.

Of course all this has it's own problems,but the migration scenario also have it's problem's which are addressed in the thread at the begining.

 

[Korbyn]

Are you saying that Slavs were always there in Western Balkans, but somehow Roman and Greek historians completely missed them?

Methinks these Slavic people are Dacians and Thracians! The Western Slavs were taken by Sarmatians (Indo-Iranian/Scythians et al.), which is why R1a peaks around 60% in Poles and Sorbs.

 

[Korbyn]

Are you saying that Slavs were always there in Western Balkans, but somehow Roman and Greek historians completely missed them?

What if I told you the Albanians may have come from Anatolia, and were actually Phyrgians or related? Maybe the Slavs are actually Dacians and Thracians? And the Illyrians were merely Celts like Greek mythology seems to say:

If Greeks and Romans can document the Scythians, Persians, Celts and Germans. Why did they not document the Slavs and Albanians? But the Phyrgians and Thracians magically disappeared...while the Slavs arrived out of nowhere. There is a flaw in logic here..

 

[Milan]

If Greeks and Romans can document the Scythians, Persians, Celts and Germans. Why did they not document the Slavs and Albanians? But the Phyrgians and Thracians magically disappeared...while the Slavs arrived out of nowhere. There is a flaw in logic here..

The name Slav(Sclavene),wasn't applied by Romans in the sense we today use.Today constitute all the Slavonic speakers at the begining however group of people was labeled as such by the early authors.
I have stated what Theohylact had to say about this people and their earlier name,he is one of the earliest authors on the Slavs,he say they were previously called Getae,Thracians.This was questioned by some historians but many just want to close their eyes in front of his two quotes about Sclavenes-Getae.
Good to mention that many times the Greeks north of them described everything as Thracian, people who were similar in customs and alike.
Herodotus "father of history" as we call him mention them as most numerous people in Europe the Thracians and second in the world only outnumbered by Indians.
Pliny the Elder say that "it is reckoned Thracians are most powerful people in Europe.
We all want to close our eyes in front of this,while we label the Thracians to the small province of Thrace as Romanized peasants,there is many questions,which need to be answered.
Since we have a historical legacy from the 19th century,scholarly endeavor based on nationalism and forging national identities.

 

[Taranis]

What if I told you the Albanians may have come from Anatolia, and were actually Phyrgians or related? Maybe the Slavs are actually Dacians and Thracians? And the Illyrians were merely Celts like Greek mythology seems to say:

If Greeks and Romans can document the Scythians, Persians, Celts and Germans. Why did they not document the Slavs and Albanians? But the Phyrgians and Thracians magically disappeared...while the Slavs arrived out of nowhere. There is a flaw in logic here..

From a linguistic perspective, all of these claims are absurd. For sure, even though they are Satem languages, neither Dacian nor Thracian was the ancestor of the modern Slavic languages. The Illyrian languages were likewise distinct from the Celtic languages. On the other hand, Dacian (or some of the Illyrian languages) may be related with Albanian, but the data is too scant on the issue to say this for sure. Furthermore, you talk about 'flawed logic' and invoke Greek mythology as a viable source for ethnography, seriously?

Also, the Phrygians did not 'magically disappear'. They were hellenized first and absorbed into the general population of Byzantine Anatolia. Later on, Anatolia was turkicized.

 

[Korbyn]

From a linguistic perspective, all of these claims are absurd. For sure, even though they are Satem languages, neither Dacian nor Thracian was the ancestor of the modern Slavic languages. The Illyrian languages were likewise distinct from the Celtic languages. On the other hand, Dacian (or some of the Illyrian languages) may be related with Albanian, but the data is too scant on the issue to say this for sure. Furthermore, you talk about 'flawed logic' and invoke Greek mythology as a viable source for ethnography, seriously?

Also, the Phrygians did not 'magically disappear'. They were hellenized first and absorbed into the general population of Byzantine Anatolia. Later on, Anatolia was turkicized.

Occam's razor would say that I am closer to correct. What is your explanation for the Slavic people? How do you explain the Y-DNA differences in Balkanic South Slavs and with Sorbian and Polish (Western Slavs)? Sorbs/Polish are abundant in R1a (almost 60%) while in South Slavs Dinaric I2 is almost 60-70%. In the Polish and Sorbians it is at least less than 6% on average.

Also, I don't think I remember saying Phrygians magically disappeared. I wanted an explanation why they disappeared. To say they were Hellenized is only ONE easy answer. They could have easily assimilated or even evolved into Albanians quite easily; or even assimilated into Southern Slavs. Which, if that is the case, it shows evidently why there is small correlation with Southern Slavs and Albanians, rather than the rest of Europe.

And, also, as I stated before, in another thread;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_languages#External_influences

Why do supposed archaic Illyrian names have more Celtic borrowings than Thracian or even Greek? Why are there no documented words in Albanian of Celtic origin? We can find Turkic words from the Ottomans, even in Serbian; but Celtic is very low. There even traces of Celtic borrowings in Hungarian. So why none or almost none in Albanian? While Illyrian external influences seem to show the most Celtic names.

"Invading Celts" could just be as relevant as "invading Gauls".

"Furthermore, you talk about 'flawed logic' and invoke Greek mythology as a viable source for ethnography, seriously?"

No. Are you serious? The Greeks and mythology could be clues or a metaphor. Why is it not, in any way, a viable source?

And, there is loads of proof that Hungarians, Western Slavs and even Balts, may be Indo-Iranians. (most of them Scythians)

Here is an ancient language spoken in Hungary related to Ossetian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jassic_dialect

You seem to be the one who is not able to understand the reality, here.

Also, do you realize the first Bulgarians spoke a Turkic language? The Slavic language was not taken until recently. Bulgarians were actually European Turks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire

Language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgar_language

Until replaced by Old Church Slavonic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic

 

[Korbyn]

From a linguistic perspective, all of these claims are absurd. For sure, even though they are Satem languages, neither Dacian nor Thracian was the ancestor of the modern Slavic languages. The Illyrian languages were likewise distinct from the Celtic languages. On the other hand, Dacian (or some of the Illyrian languages) may be related with Albanian, but the data is too scant on the issue to say this for sure. Furthermore, you talk about 'flawed logic' and invoke Greek mythology as a viable source for ethnography, seriously?

Also, the Phrygians did not 'magically disappear'. They were hellenized first and absorbed into the general population of Byzantine Anatolia. Later on, Anatolia was turkicized.

I'm not really arguing for, or against.

View attachment 7847

As we can observe here quite clearly the Sarmatians already penetrating into Ukraine and gradually settling around the Carpathians. We also encounter Dacians on the map, interestingly. "Balto-Slavs" is non-existent. Scythians and Indo-Iranians as well as Indo-Aryans were believed to carry the highest amount of R1a. No doubt in my mind that Western Slavs are Indo-Iranians on the paternal side. Perhaps even Balts. How these Indo-Iranians took these languages, is a mystery. Hungarian isn't even native to the Carpathians or even Indo-European, and neither is Turkic. But we find the Jassic dialect of Alanian (modern Ossetian) right there in Hungary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jassic_dialect

 

[LeBrok]

What if I told you the Albanians may have come from Anatolia, and were actually Phyrgians or related? Maybe the Slavs are actually Dacians and Thracians? And the Illyrians were merely Celts like Greek mythology seems to say:

There are few Dacian and Thracian words existing in old scripts. They are not Slavic.

If Greeks and Romans can document the Scythians, Persians, Celts and Germans. Why did they not document the Slavs and Albanians?

Perhaps they knew them earlier by an exonym? Perhaps they have spread rather late from relatively small area beyond Roman Empire? I'm sure Roman and Greek historians didn't wander around to find every ethnic group in vast NW forests.

But the Phyrgians and Thracians magically disappeared...while the Slavs arrived out of nowhere. There is a flaw in logic here..

Same as magically Romans, Anatolians, Vandals, Aquitanians, Goals disappeared. There are many examples of cultures and languages going extinct. Most people of these cultures survive and take part in new cultures and speak new languages. You are a student of history, you should know that.

 

[Milan]

From a linguistic perspective, all of these claims are absurd. For sure, even though they are Satem languages, neither Dacian nor Thracian was the ancestor of the modern Slavic languages.

We can not speak here of ancestor of modern Slavic languages,but you obviosly deny the close similarities between them,if you find and read a Germanic language from 5.B.C or even place names with perhaps much earlier dates,of course you can find cognates with other languages(just as we does today) even though will be most close to Germanic,however we can always find a way to dismiss that.
This is what Duridanov had to write,since both Illyrian and Thracian were disscused here;

2.9. Thracian and Illyrian


The old notion of a supposedly close relation between Thracian and Illyrian has been already overcome. The new studies (Vl. Georgiev) showed that the differences between these languages are significant and that they cannot be put together in a common 'Thraco-Illyrian' group.

The number of Thraco-Baltic (resp. Thraco-Balto-Slavic) parallels is impressive. Some isoglosses show Thracian was also related to German, on one hand, and to Indo-Iranian, on the other hand. Similar relations to "Pelasgian" (pre-Greek) can be only supposed on the basis of phonetic similarities.
in earlier times – probably in the III-th millennium BC, and before the realisation of the aforementioned sound shifts, – the Thracian language formed a close group with the Baltic (resp. Balto-Slavic), the Dacian and the "Pelasgian" languages. More distant were its relations with the other Indo-European languages, and especially with Greek, the Italic and Celtic languages, which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities with Thracian; the Tokharian and the Hittite were also distant.

There will be much more studies in future,archeology as well give us many new names and understandings from the Thracian language recently.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Great Moravia by the way, was south of Hungary, in modern-day Serbia according to Constantine VII, unless Pannonia was in South Poland and Lusatia or something.
And the term 'Great' is misleading. The Greek term means also big. So, there might have been a (relatively) Big Moravia in the South and a smaller one in Czech Republic.
I believe that South-Slavic-centrism is far less common than its opposite.

 

[Taranis]

We can not speak here of ancestor of modern Slavic languages,but you obviosly deny the close similarities between them,if you find and read a Germanic language from 5.B.C or even place names with perhaps much earlier dates,of course you can find cognates with other languages(just as we does today) even though will be most close to Germanic,however we can always find a way to dismiss that.
This is what Duridanov had to write,since both Illyrian and Thracian were disscused here;

Here's your problem: there's a strong agreement that within the Indo-European languages as a whole, the Slavic and Baltic languages are most closely related. There's a lot of common sound laws that these two have in common, which is why we speak of Balto-Slavic languages. Apart from being an Indo-European language, and a Satem language too, Thracian does not share any of these sound changes. Notably, Thracian did not make the merger *o > *a (which is an areal feature that Balto-Slavic shares with Germanic, by the way). In my opinion, the relationship of Thracian (and/or Dacian) with Balto-Slavic is not any closer than the relationship of Balto-Slavic with Armenian or Indo-Iranic. What close similarity is there, phonologically speaking?

The Proto-Balto-Slavic homeland would have been a continuous area, and as far as I know, the Baltic languages are unattested outside of the area of the Baltic. In my opinion, the Slavic homeland must have been located in relative vicinity of the Baltic language area. We would not expect it anywhere near the southern Balkans.

The alternative (if you genuinely want to argue that Thracian and Slavic are somehow more closely related) is that you somehow invoke a (non-existent) migration from the Balkans into the Baltic. Good luck finding that.

2.9. Thracian and Illyrian

The old notion of a supposedly close relation between Thracian and Illyrian has been already overcome. The new studies (Vl. Georgiev) showed that the differences between these languages are significant and that they cannot be put together in a common 'Thraco-Illyrian' group.

The number of Thraco-Baltic (resp. Thraco-Balto-Slavic) parallels is impressive. Some isoglosses show Thracian was also related to German, on one hand, and to Indo-Iranian, on the other hand. Similar relations to "Pelasgian" (pre-Greek) can be only supposed on the basis of phonetic similarities.
in earlier times – probably in the III-th millennium BC, and before the realisation of the aforementioned sound shifts, – the Thracian language formed a close group with the Baltic (resp. Balto-Slavic), the Dacian and the "Pelasgian" languages. More distant were its relations with the other Indo-European languages, and especially with Greek, the Italic and Celtic languages, which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities with Thracian; the Tokharian and the Hittite were also distant.

There will be much more studies in future,archeology as well give us many new names and understandings from the Thracian language recently.

I was not making the connection between Illyrian languages (plural) and Dacian, I made the connection (of whatever nature, note that I do not necessarily mean a genetic relationship) between modern Albanian and Dacian. Big difference. There was no single Illyrian language, and the Liburnian language (northern Illyria) for sure was a Centum language related with the Italic languages.

Also, Pelasgian, really? Unless you're talking about substrate languages that contributed to Greek, Pelasgian is complete nonsense. If you claim that there's a single Pelasgian language you're automatically moving yourself into fairytale country.

 

[Milan]

Here's your problem: there's a strong agreement that within the Indo-European languages as a whole, the Slavic and Baltic languages are most closely related. There's a lot of common sound laws that these two have in common, which is why we speak of Balto-Slavic languages.

And who deny this?

Apart from being an Indo-European language, and a Satem language too, Thracian does not share any of these sound changes. Notably, Thracian did not make the merger *o > *a (which is an areal feature that Balto-Slavic shares with Germanic, by the way). In my opinion, the relationship of Thracian (and/or Dacian) with Balto-Slavic is not any closer than the relationship of Balto-Slavic with Armenian or Indo-Iranic. What close similarity is there, phonologically speaking?

If you compare the similarity of Thracian with Balto-Slavic in same way with Armenian even? or Indo-Iranic i must say you know very little about the language itself,I quoted you Thracologist Ivan Duridanov just now and Vladimir Georgiev you can read them thought and see what do they share.

The Proto-Balto-Slavic homeland would have been a continuous area, and as far as I know, the Baltic languages are unattested outside of the area of the Baltic. In my opinion, the Slavic homeland must have been located in relative vicinity of the Baltic language area. We would not expect it anywhere near the southern Balkans.

The alternative is that you somehow invoke a (non-existent) migration from the Balkans into the Baltic. Good luck finding that.



I was not making the connection between Illyrian languages (plural) and Dacian, I made the connection (of whatever nature, note that I do not necessarily mean a genetic relationship) between modern Albanian and Dacian. Big difference. There was no single Illyrian language, and the Liburnian language (northern Illyria) for sure was a Centum language related with the Italic languages.

Also, Pelasgian, really? Unless you're talking about substrate languages that contributed to Greek, Pelasgian is complete nonsense. If you claim that there's a single Pelasgian language you're automatically moving yourself into fairytale country.

I am not invoking any migration,and don't know why you speak migrations all the time?
That was Duridanov and he wrote "Pelasgian" languages,he took place names and compare them with Thracian,here for example;
[SIZE=+1]2. Lexical similarities[/SIZE] 2.1. Thracian and "Pelasgian" (pre Greek)
There are many phonetical similarities between Thracian and pre Greek but, still, almost no lexical analogies between them were found. The proposed parallels include:
– the Thracian river name Asamus and the Pelasgian asáminthos 'a (stone) bath' from the stem asam- 'of stone' < IE *ak'am.
– the Thracian tribal name Astai (in Strandzha) and country name Astik and the pre Greek ásty 'a town', but there are also similar Messapian vastei (dat.) 'a town', the Old Indian 'vástu-' 'a house', etc. words.
– the Thracian tribal name Apsinthioi, Apsynthioi (north of Thracian Chersones), the river and village name Apsynthos, and the botanical name apsínthion 'a wormwood, a mugwort', but there is also another etymology proposed for the Thracian Apsynthos.


I guess you create your own picture and think you know everything and the most not only from Florin Curta(archeology) itself but also even from Thracologist.

 

[Taranis]

And who deny this?

If you compare the similarity of Thracian with Balto-Slavic with Armenian even? or Indo-Iranic i must say you know very little about the language itself,I quoted you Thracologist Ivan Duridanov just now and Vladimir Georgiev you can read them thought and see what do they share.


I am not invoking any migration,and don't know why you speak migrations all the time?
That was Duridanov and he wrote "Pelasgian" languages,he took place names and compare them with Thracian
2. Lexical similarities 2.1. Thracian and "Pelasgian" (pre Greek)
There are many phonetical similarities between Thracian and pre Greek but, still, almost no lexical analogies between them were found. The proposed parallels include:
– the Thracian river name Asamus and the Pelasgian asáminthos 'a (stone) bath' from the stem asam- 'of stone' < IE *ak'am.
– the Thracian tribal name Astai (in Strandzha) and country name Astike and the pre Greek ásty 'a town', but there are also similar Messapian vastei (dat.) 'a town', the Old Indian 'vástu-' 'a house', etc. words.
– the Thracian tribal name Apsinthioi, Apsynthioi (north of Thracian Chersones), the river and village name Apsynthos, and the botanical name apsínthion 'a wormwood, a mugwort', but there is also another etymology proposed for the Thracian Apsynthos.

In that case (bolded part) you would have a sound change common between Thracian and Greek, by which earlier *w > Ø. However, this was not the case in Mycenaean Greek (or some archaic dialects of classical Greek), which preserved *w. Either way, this, q.e.d., does not put Thracian close to Balto-Slavic.

I guess you create your own picture and think you know everything and the most not only from Florin Curta(archeology) itself but also even from Thracologist,damn,interesting.

Sorry Milan, you should at least have read my post more thoroughly before disliking it. If you're of the opinion that Thracian material is closer to Balto-Slavic than anything else, be our guest and post it here.

As for Pelasgian, this doesn't belong here at all. Languages that could be called "Pelasgian" would be the following:
- Minoan (the language of Linear A), and (possibly its descendant), Eteocypriot.
- Lemnian (the Etruscan-ish language from the island of Lemnos in the Aegaean).
- Anatolian languages (there's a fair share of Anatolian loanwords in Greek).
- a Semitic language (Semitic loanwords in Greek, but this may be also explained to trade contact from the Bronze Age).

With exception of Anatolian, these languages / language families are all non-Indo-European, and entirely in the Mediterranean.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

No language can be called Pelasgian. Basically it's wrong to assume that all or most people labeled 'Pelasgians' spoke non-Greek languages. 'Barbarian' when used for a language didn't mean non-greek necessarily but incomprehensible. They didn't check genetic relationship. So, Aeolic was a barbarian language for someone who spoke Attic, for example, because these languages were significantly different.

'Eteocretan' is supposed by some to be descendant of 'Minoan'. That's extremely speculative because it isn't even certain if Homer's Eteocretans spoke that language. So the guy who coined the name was a joke scientist. The term 'Eteocypriot' is similarly and even more flawed, because they can't prove if the people who spoke that particular non-Greek language were there before Greek speakers. Arcadocypriot is more 'Eteocypriot'.

The mainstream scholars use the term 'pre-Greek', which has it's problems but it's overall better.

The language(s) of Linear A were Indo-European according to Georgiev (Greek and Anatolian). I personally believe they are unclassifiable and they should remain so like Eteocretan. The number of proposals which have been made proves how speculative some of these things are.

It's amazing how scholars can build whole theories on no evidence.

 

[Taranis]

No language can be called Pelasgian. Basically it's wrong to assume that all or most people labeled 'Pelasgians' spoke non-Greek languages. 'Barbarian' when used for a language didn't mean non-greek necessarily but incomprehensible. They didn't check genetic relationship. So, Aeolic was a barbarian language for someone who spoke Attic, for example, because these languages were significantly different.

'Eteocretan' is supposed by some to be descendant of 'Minoan'. That's extremely speculative because it isn't even certain if Homer's Eteocretans spoke that language. So the guy who coined the name was a joke scientist. The term 'Eteocypriot' is similarly and even more flawed, because they can't prove if the people who spoke that particular non-Greek language were there before Greek speakers. Arcadocypriot is more 'Eteocypriot'.

The mainstream scholars use the term 'pre-Greek', which has it's problems but it's overall better.

The language(s) of Linear A were Indo-European according to Georgiev (Greek and Anatolian). I personally believe they are unclassifiable and they should remain so like Eteocretan. The number of proposals which have been made proves how speculative some of these things are.

It's amazing how scholars can build whole theories on no evidence.

I would actually agree that the term 'pre-Greek' as a whole is better (and I would also agree with your point that the labelings of "Eteocretan" and "Eteocypriot" are fairly arbitrary, but then again, note how technically the names "Hittite" and "Tocharian" are just as arbitrary), but that proves my point: there was no homogenous pre-Greek language.