Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 812
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
The author you used as a reference stated that Romanian IS a Thraco-Illyrian language. Absolute nonsense. Also, no, there is no consensus at all among linguists that Dacian or Thracian or Illyrian come from the Italo-Celtic family. I'd be glad if you could provide at least some other sources that can indicate there is a "consensus" about this hypothesis, especially since the source you provided is loaded with fanciful statements like that of the "Thraco-Illyrian origin of Romania".
But as far as I know, actually quite to the contrary, most linguists consider that at least Daco-Thracian, which were probably their own language family, was much closer to Balto-Slavic than to Italo-Celtic, and about Illyrian we simply do not know enough, but if Albanian is related to it then the answer is also no, that Illyrian definitely did not come from Italo-Celtic and was more closely related to Hellenic, Balto-Slavic and Germanic.
Also, I definitely don't see any linguistic proof from the fact that Illyrians probably lived close to Italic and Celtic tribes early in the Iron Age (we definitely do not have any proof for Illyrian presence or lack thereof in the Bronze Age). Different language groups live side by side many times even for several centuries without merging and without necessarily being directly related (e.g. Romance/Germanic in Belgium, Slavic/Germanic in Poland, Romance/Finno-Ugric in Romania, and so on).
We need to look at the languages, what their lexical and phonological origins tell us about their origins, and not to geography or even to history, because languages don't necessarily accompany people who migrate or are displaced. It's seriously misguiding to make any conclusion about language affinities based on geographical closeness or distance, or even based only on common/similar cultural aspects which may spread easily as any material innovation and new good without the need for people to shift or merge their languages.
In any case, the few Illyrian remnants that we have (and if we also assume that possibly Illyrian languages like Messapic in fact were as such), then there is no striking similarity with Italic at all, just the usual cognates and sound changes common to Western/European IE. I can definitely see Illyrian branching of together with Italo-Celtic and maybe others, like Germanic, very early on and remaining under mutual influence afterwards, but definitely not as a branch of Italo-Celtic still closely related to Italic languages, as that study you mentioned purports.
But as far as I know, actually quite to the contrary, most linguists consider that at least Daco-Thracian, which were probably their own language family, was much closer to Balto-Slavic than to Italo-Celtic, and about Illyrian we simply do not know enough, but if Albanian is related to it then the answer is also no, that Illyrian definitely did not come from Italo-Celtic and was more closely related to Hellenic, Balto-Slavic and Germanic.
Also, I definitely don't see any linguistic proof from the fact that Illyrians probably lived close to Italic and Celtic tribes early in the Iron Age (we definitely do not have any proof for Illyrian presence or lack thereof in the Bronze Age). Different language groups live side by side many times even for several centuries without merging and without necessarily being directly related (e.g. Romance/Germanic in Belgium, Slavic/Germanic in Poland, Romance/Finno-Ugric in Romania, and so on).
We need to look at the languages, what their lexical and phonological origins tell us about their origins, and not to geography or even to history, because languages don't necessarily accompany people who migrate or are displaced. It's seriously misguiding to make any conclusion about language affinities based on geographical closeness or distance, or even based only on common/similar cultural aspects which may spread easily as any material innovation and new good without the need for people to shift or merge their languages.
In any case, the few Illyrian remnants that we have (and if we also assume that possibly Illyrian languages like Messapic in fact were as such), then there is no striking similarity with Italic at all, just the usual cognates and sound changes common to Western/European IE. I can definitely see Illyrian branching of together with Italo-Celtic and maybe others, like Germanic, very early on and remaining under mutual influence afterwards, but definitely not as a branch of Italo-Celtic still closely related to Italic languages, as that study you mentioned purports.