Albanian lexemes and their presence in the other languages

[Zeus10]

The red is enough

Now you come to my words,

you can say λεγω
you can say ομιλω
you can say Αγορευω

IN THE EARS AND IN LEXICON MAY BE THE SAME
BUT NOT IN THE MOUTH OF THE SPEAKER

So If you search lexicon for Νερο they say Water
But does mean water but Fresh

so USING SCOTT LEXICON IS NOT A PROVE

As for the matrix
Plz Fill it,
cause if it does then I suggest go Publish
and stop running to blogs
If does NOT
then that L in GREEK ALBANIAN AND ENGLISH IS DUE TO IE.

it is simple test your method with non IE languages,
If it is correct then it would apply to other non IE languages,

I am calm,
Hope you are also.

Plz search word ΝΕΡΟ at LEXICONS
and then you realize the correct meaning
and not the Lexicon meaning

It's hard for me to fill a chart, for non-IE languages lexicon, which I basically know nothing. But from a quick search, in Hungarian I notice a striking behavior similarity in "l" motion and fluidity onomatopoeic property occurrence:

play---- előad --- luaj(Alb)
fly, flight-------repülés----fluturim, fluturoj(Alb)
pass, move, go----halad----luaj, leviz, kaloj(Alb)
fluid-----folyadék-----leng, fluid(Alb)
let, release----ledobás-----le, leshoj(Alb)
flow----folyam----rrjedh, kalon, kullon(Alb)
language----nyelv---gluhe, gjuhe(Alb)
speak(eng)-----szól----parla(it)-----leo(gr)----flas(Alb)
lake---lakk------lago(it)-------liqen(Alb)
wash, flush---lemos----lava(it)---λούω(gr)---laj(Alb)

This is not a coincidence, it means a lot.
but being a non IE language, doesn't obey the Grimm's law for sound shifting, which frequently happens within the IE family, example.
flotation(eng-lat)----επί-πλευση(gr)---pluskim(alb)

• bʰ > b > p > ɸ
• dʰ > d > t > θ
• gʰ > g > k > x
• gʷʰ > gʷ > kʷ > xʷ

PS-Hungarian words are positioned second.

 

[Ygorcs]

Hahahaha so it is so simple. You have a "la", "le" or even "lo" in any word of any language, you can somehow, even if in totally indirect ways, link this to some kind of sense of "flow" - and voila, here are some new "totally proven" and perfectly methodic and systematic demonstrations of other connections of many languages with the milennia-old divine force of Albanian. Oh my god, I will avoid laughing because this is not a joke, this is more probable to be just a very serious, even worrisome condition. But let's not be so shy and stop this method so early. Why don't we associate the l- fluidity stems with so many other words? Let's play.

Lábio (pt.), labbro (it.), lips (eng.) >>> l-, la-, li- >>> you let your mouth out, you let it move >>> Obviously and clearly deriving from Albanian
Livro (pt.), libro (it.) >>> li- >>> fluid pages, pages flowing one after the other >>> Of course, derived from Albanian!
Lixo (pt.), "trash" >>> li- >>> you let unused and old things out, you let them go >>> Of course, more definite and undeniable proofs of the Albanian origins of Portuguese
Lust (eng.), luxúria (pt.) >>> let your desires and pleasures out, let them flow, let your desires flow freely >>> The ubiquitous and multipurpose le- Albanian strikes again, and we prove once and for all the divine powers of the Albanese speakers!
Lança (pt.), "spear", Luta (pt.), "fight" >>> la-, lu- >>> the spear is thrown and flows in the air to strike the enemy >>> Of course, the relation between this word and the Albanian lexeme is perfect! Another proof of the Albanian origins of European languages!

Honestly, this kind of pseudo-science is indeed a bit remarkable in its creativity and imagination. You can't create something so unbelievably fanciful without some very good ideas. If only they were used where they belong, in the fiction section of literature. I bet these wild hypotheses would fit a very fascinating - but still frankly totally unrealistic - conlang for some sort of Albanian Middle Earth.

 

[Ygorcs]

Depends, because every language, is a very complex structure. Within a language, there are different ways, to express something.
For example , to express a motion action you can use:

He walked away

but also you can say:

he left

this is the same in Albanian too, you can say:

ai u largua

or you can say:

ai iku

Notice, the second word is not including the "l" sound, because it uses a different consonant, which carries different sound perceptive properties, using different approach to reach the same meaning. In this case, the sound "k", is an ideo-sound~ideogram for a physical property. Its presence in the word, means something physical is mirrored from the reality, and combined with the initial vowel "i", it means: 'that physical thing is no longer there'=left.
i---> serves as a privative(ex. i-rational)
k--->representing smth physical

In Albanian, k is present in every body part word:

kerme---carcass
koke---head
kembe---foot, leg
kurriz----back
kraharor--chest
krah----arm
kellqe--hip
kerthize---belly button, navel
kocke---bone
kafke---skull
kar--dick
kyç---wrist
kerci--fibula
kofshe--thights
koqe--testicle

etc etc

Every, you mean, EVERY body part? Very interesting. Then why do these links lie using so many words without k- for body parts in Albanian? They are soooo misleading to us... :-O

http://polymath.org/albanian_body.php

Head[FONT=&quot]: kokë[/FONT]
Hair[FONT=&quot]: flöke[/FONT]
Eye[FONT=&quot]: sy[/FONT]
Face[FONT=&quot]: fytyrë[/FONT]
Cheek[FONT=&quot]: faqe[/FONT]
Mouth[FONT=&quot]: gojë[/FONT]
Nose[FONT=&quot]: hundë[/FONT]
Ear[FONT=&quot]: vesh[/FONT]
Neck[FONT=&quot]: qafë[/FONT]
Arm[FONT=&quot]: krah[/FONT]
Hand[FONT=&quot]: dorë[/FONT]
Belly[FONT=&quot]: bark[/FONT]
Leg[FONT=&quot]: këmbë[/FONT]
Feet[FONT=&quot]: këmbët[/FONT]
Knee[FONT=&quot]: gju[/FONT]
Elbow[FONT=&quot]: bërryl[/FONT]
Fingers[FONT=&quot]: gishtat[/FONT]

Mouth: Gojë-a

Nose: Hundë-a

Tongue: Gjuhë-a

Teeth: Dhëmbët

Ear: Vesh-i

Eye: Sy-ri

Face: Fytyrë-ra

Head: Kokë-a

Neck: Qafë-a

Arm: Krah-u

Shoulder: Sup-i

Chest: Kraharor-i

Back: Kurriz-i

Fingers: Gishtat

Feet: Këmbët

Hair: Flokët

Hand: Dorë-ra

Heart: Zemra

Leg: Këmbë-a

Stomach: Stomak-u

 

[Jovialis]

@Zeus10

Delete the foul word you have used in your post #19, or I will give you an infraction for using inappropriate language.

 

[Zeus10]

The body as a whole "kerma"(alb) contains 6 major 'parts': head, chest, arms, back, legs and bones, and they all in Albanian starts with "k". We cant consider the eyebrow as a body part, and the mouth, is not quite a part. Most of the names on your list are features and subfeatures, starting with first 7, which all belong to the head which has 3 synonyms: koke, kaptine, krye, which all start with a "k". For the stomach, heart and every other internal organ, they don't stand out so visibly as body parts. As for the fingers and the hand, they are just extension of the arm and the knees part of the legs. You get the point although your observation is not important to dismiss the validity of the linguistic argument on the first place.

 

[Zeus10]

@Zeus10

Delete the foul word you have used in your post #19, or I will give you an infraction for using inappropriate language.

What foul word ? I can't stop you giving totally unjustified abusive infraction, like you did before 2 times in a row, but I can call your consience, to be fair because the virtual world where you have some powers, is not so important.

 

[Jovialis]

You have chosen to be banned.

Accumulation of infractions:

• Insulting another member in another thread.
• Insulting a moderator in another thread.
• Non respect for moderator's warning in this thread.

Therefore, you are banned for the next 10 days.

 

[Ygorcs]

The body as a whole "kerma"(alb) contains 6 major 'parts': head, chest, arms, back, legs and bones, and they all in Albanian starts with "k". We cant consider the eyebrow as a body part, and the mouth, is not quite a part. Most of the names on your list are features and subfeatures, starting with first 7, which all belong to the head which has 3 synonyms: koke, kaptine, krye, which all start with a "k". For the stomach, heart and every other internal organ, they don't stand out so visibly as body parts. As for the fingers and the hand, they are just extension of the arm and the knees part of the legs. You get the point although your observation is not important to dismiss the validity of the linguistic argument on the first place.

You're contradicting yourself here. Why on earth would "dick" and "testicle" be legitimate 'body parts' in your list, but not "eyebrows", "shoulder", "eye" and "mouth"? Why would heart and stomach be held as "invisible internal organs that don't stand out so visibly", but bones and fibula are not internal parts only directly visible within our flesh?

As I said before and again, your reasoning is totally unsystematic and without any consistent method.
You just discard for any reason (not even the same one, definite, invariable reason) the words that do not fit in your hypothesis and only accept the words that help confirm what you already previously wanted to say. This is not how things work in any science or even any formation of knowledge. First you observe, then you analyze the observation and only then reach a conclusion about them. You don't come up with the results that you want and only then go search for premises that can corroborate them.

P.S.: With all that said, for the sake of impartiality and justice, I'll just say that I don't think it is fair to rebuke the user Zeus for using "inappropriate language". He used the term in its objective meaning, and informal, even colloquial sexual terms like "dick" are a part of anyone's language, and a relevant one at that even for discussions on linguistics. There must be some difference between using a usually "vulgar" term as a neutral object to be observed and analyzed in a given hypothesis, and using it unnecessarily and really meaning it. The language used must be appropriate, but appropriate to each circumstance and context. It is unfair to apply any rule "a priori" without taking into consideration the purpose and specific situation in question. Just my two cents.

 

[Jovialis]

You're contradicting yourself here. Why on earth would "dick" and "testicle" be legitimate 'body parts' in your list, but not "eyebrows", "shoulder", "eye" and "mouth"? Why would heart and stomach be held as "invisible internal organs that don't stand out so visibly", but bones and fibula are not internal parts only directly visible within our flesh?

As I said before and again, your reasoning is totally unsystematic and without any consistent method.
You just discard for any reason (not even the same one, definite, invariable reason) the words that do not fit in your hypothesis and only accept the words that help confirm what you already previously wanted to say. This is not how things work in any science or even any formation of knowledge. First you observe, then you analyze the observation and only then reach a conclusion about them. You don't come up with the results that you want and only then go search for premises that can corroborate them.

P.S.: With all that said, for the sake of impartiality and justice, I'll just say that I don't think it is fair to rebuke the user Zeus for using "inappropriate language". He used the term in its objective meaning, and informal, even colloquial sexual terms like "dick" are a part of anyone's language, and a relevant one at that even for discussions on linguistics. There must be some difference between using a usually "vulgar" term as a neutral object to be observed and analyzed in a given hypothesis, and using it unnecessarily and really meaning it. The language used must be appropriate, but appropriate to each circumstance and context. It is unfair to apply any rule "a priori" without taking into consideration the purpose and specific situation in question. Just my two cents.

There's non-vulgar versions of the word that could have been used in it's place. Among the list of words, it was the only vulgar term, which stood out; It was not used as a neutral object. I gave him an opportunity to change it. Also, he did not receive an infraction for that. He got one for non-respect for moderator's warning for his rude response.

 

[Ygorcs]

There's non-vulgar versions of the word that could have been used in it's place. Among the list of words, it was the only vulgar term, which stood out; It was not used as a neutral object. I gave him an opportunity to change it. Also, he did not receive an infraction for that. He got one for non-respect for moderator's warning for his rude response.

Yes, I see, but I wrote my post before you gave him the infraction after his 2nd answer, though this post of mine somehow appeared only later.

 

[LABERIA]

Hahahaha so it is so simple. You have a "la", "le" or even "lo" in any word of any language, you can somehow, even if in totally indirect ways, link this to some kind of sense of "flow" - and voila, here are some new "totally proven" and perfectly methodic and systematic demonstrations of other connections of many languages with the milennia-old divine force of Albanian. Oh my god, I will avoid laughing because this is not a joke, this is more probable to be just a very serious, even worrisome condition. But let's not be so shy and stop this method so early. Why don't we associate the l- fluidity stems with so many other words? Let's play.

Lábio (pt.), labbro (it.), lips (eng.) >>> l-, la-, li- >>> you let your mouth out, you let it move >>> Obviously and clearly deriving from Albanian
Livro (pt.), libro (it.) >>> li- >>> fluid pages, pages flowing one after the other >>> Of course, derived from Albanian!
Lixo (pt.), "trash" >>> li- >>> you let unused and old things out, you let them go >>> Of course, more definite and undeniable proofs of the Albanian origins of Portuguese
Lust (eng.), luxúria (pt.) >>> let your desires and pleasures out, let them flow, let your desires flow freely >>> The ubiquitous and multipurpose le- Albanian strikes again, and we prove once and for all the divine powers of the Albanese speakers!
Lança (pt.), "spear", Luta (pt.), "fight" >>> la-, lu- >>> the spear is thrown and flows in the air to strike the enemy >>> Of course, the relation between this word and the Albanian lexeme is perfect! Another proof of the Albanian origins of European languages!

Honestly, this kind of pseudo-science is indeed a bit remarkable in its creativity and imagination. You can't create something so unbelievably fanciful without some very good ideas. If only they were used where they belong, in the fiction section of literature. I bet these wild hypotheses would fit a very fascinating - but still frankly totally unrealistic - conlang for some sort of Albanian Middle Earth.

I agree with the member Zeus only in one thing, that i disagree with his theory.
But i am curious and i want to ask you something. If you consider all his theory a pseudoscience, why do you continue to discuss with him?

 

[LAB]

@Yorcs

Don't try to count how many words start with *K and how many don't, you're loosing the point.. ,compare those starting with *K with other IE languages,
From the list below Greek has 8/14 words starting with *K while in Latin and English *k have become *c.
Since Greek is the oldest attested living language then the shift is k>c and not vice versa. The root then becomes the language with most words starting with *K.
Voila !

kërmë (alb) κορμος (gr) corpus (lat) corpse (eng)

kokë (alb) κεφαλή (gr) caput (lat)

kafkë, krye (alb) καυκαλο,κρανιο (gr ) cranium (lat)

krah (alb) ακρο, βραχιων (gr)

kurriz (alb) πλατη (gr) rücken (germ) ridge (eng)

kraharor (alb) στηθος (gr) brust (germ)

kërbishtë (alb) κοκκυξ (gr) kreuzbein (germ) coccyx (eng)

kockë (alb) κοκκαλο (gr) knohha (old germ)

kar (alb) πεος (gr) tarse (mid eng) *tersaz (pro-germ)

kofshë (alb) μηρος (gr) coxa (lat) coapsa (roma)

këmbë (alb) ποδι (gr) scanca (old germ) crus (lat)

kërcij (alb) κνημη (gr) tibia (lat)

kyç (alb) κλειδα (gr) clavis (lat) clavicle (eng)

&

kap (alb) καππεσε (hom gr) catch (eng)

 

[Ygorcs]

I agree with the member Zeus only in one thing, that i disagree with his theory.
But i am curious and i want to ask you something. If you consider all his theory a pseudoscience, why do you continue to discuss with him?

You already answered it: because it is pseudosciene, and much like fake news the darkness and danger of pseudo-science is fought exactly how? By enlightening the situation with the truth. I find it baffling that this is the 2nd or 3rd time I have to say that of course the mere fact that some theory is being proposed as very consistent and rational when it is actually full of holes and downright fantasies is more than reason enough to expose its weaknesses and discuss about it. Do you think human knowledge evolves only through academic discourse among serious thinkers and scholars? Not at all. Fighting information that one knows is false should be one's duty.

 

[Ygorcs]

@Yorcs

Don't try to count how many words start with *K and how many don't, you're loosing the point.. ,compare those starting with *K with other IE languages,
From the list below Greek has 8/14 words starting with *K while in Latin and English *k have become *c.
Since Greek is the oldest attested living language then the shift is k>c and not vice versa. The root then becomes the language with most words starting with *K.
Voila !

kërmë (alb) κορμος (gr) corpus (lat) corpse (eng)

kokë (alb) κεφαλή (gr) caput (lat)

kafkë, krye (alb) καυκαλο,κρανιο (gr ) cranium (lat)

krah (alb) ακρο, βραχιων (gr)

kurriz (alb) πλατη (gr) rücken (germ) ridge (eng)

kraharor (alb) στηθος (gr) brust (germ)

kërbishtë (alb) κοκκυξ (gr) kreuzbein (germ) coccyx (eng)

kockë (alb) κοκκαλο (gr) knohha (old germ)

kar (alb) πεος (gr) tarse (mid eng) *tersaz (pro-germ)

kofshë (alb) μηρος (gr) coxa (lat) coapsa (roma)

këmbë (alb) ποδι (gr) scanca (old germ) crus (lat)

kërcij (alb) κνημη (gr) tibia (lat)

kyç (alb) κλειδα (gr) clavis (lat) clavicle (eng)

&

kap (alb) καππεσε (hom gr) catch (eng)

No, I got that, what I think is that YOU missed my point.

My point is that there is no use in pretending that you already have a good scientific hypothesis because you noticed that some sound appears repeatedly in several semantically related words (the la-, le- case is actually much more problematic than this k- one, especially because the semantic relationships there are much, muuuuch more distant and indirect). You need to substantiate it, to explain why it is so, to demonstrate that it can't be just sheer coincidence (yes, I know this sucks, but in fact there is real coincidence in a lot of things in this world, so not every correlation has any scientific meaning whatsoever, especially if, as in the case of this k- root, it is clearly not consistently and categorically appearing in all body parts related words, just in some - even if a suspiciously high proportion of them).

Again, I say that you can't consider some scientific hypothesis seriously if it comes up with an interesting "what" but has no systematically demonstrated "how". You can't just say "look, there are too many words with a k- for it to be just a coincidence!" and then say that k- means "physical property" or something like that. It's up to you to explain how and why is that so, and also demonstrate that it is a pattern that repeats itself consistently with exceptions that can also be consistently explained. Until then, it is all just, as Yetos said previously, "pub science".

 

[LABERIA]

You already answered it: because it is pseudosciene,

I didn`t said this. I said: i disagree with his theory.Please, don`t put in my mouth words that i have never said. It`s not serious.

and much like fake news the darkness and danger of pseudo-science is fought exactly how? By enlightening the situation with the truth. I find it baffling that this is the 2nd or 3rd time I have to say that of course the mere fact that some theory is being proposed as very consistent and rational when it is actually full of holes and downright fantasies is more than reason enough to expose its weaknesses and discuss about it. Do you think human knowledge evolves only through academic discourse among serious thinkers and scholars? Not at all. Fighting information that one knows is false should be one's duty.

So, you are following here in this forum your personal crusade against the false information. I appreciate your intention, but i find difficult because there are too many pseudoscientific theories here in this forum. And, if you want to have success, first of all you need to have some knowledge, but after reading some of your posts my impression is that you are not the right person for this kind of holy mission.

Oh, dear, you don't really know me. What personal nationalist interest can I, a mixed-race African-Portuguese-Amerindian Brazilian living 8,000 km away, have in the petty little discussions among Balkanic nationalists? Simply put, I couldn't care less about who is the real owner of this or that land (what a ludicrous discussion at least from the point of someone who lives in a former colony and of course understands very well how humans historically "acquired" their homelands) and who is the real owner of this or that civilization or language. My interest is in history as it was, period. The world out there is sooooo larger than your nationalist narratives seem to grasp. The same way, the real complexity and unsurprising lack of too many fanciful big stories in science is out of reach for people who need to cling to their delirious nationalism to feel "proud" of something that, even if it were true, happened thousands of years ago and had nothing to do with them living in the 21st century AD.

How do you know that the theory of Zeus is product of Albanian nationalism? Can you explain this?
And second, what is your opinion about this:

I would say that any etymology is speculative. However, I would like to make two points regarding the name "Illyria". The first issue is that Classical Greek "y" represents an earlier /u/ sound (in modern Greek, the letter is pronounced as /i/). This gives us a stem "illur". The other issue is the geminated "ll", which to me suggests that you have an earlier different consonant (an "s", for example). So the original stem would have been maybe *islur- (certainly not *ilir-).

Do you consider scientific this two points about the etymology of name Illyria?

 

[Ygorcs]

I didn`t said this. I said: i disagree with his theory.Please, don`t put in my mouth words that i have never said. It`s not serious.

Calm down, man. I was referring to this part of your answer: "If you consider all his theory a pseudoscience, why do you continue to discuss with him?" You already told the reason why I continue to discuss with him: I consider all his theory a pseudoscience. Next time improve your interpretation skills before you make harsh posts, okay? It'll be better for your credibility and reputation.

Seriously, doesn't the idea that Albanian is, in its modern form, the origin of the most basic semantic and phonetic roots of the roots of Indo-European languages and even some non-IE languages like Hungarian - all of which developed thousands of years ago but never mind, somehow Albanians magically preserved their "pure" original language for milennia -, and the idea that Albanian has a "divine force" that makes its speakers supremely more resistant against assimilation and foreign oppression, doesn't all of that strike you as a bit nationalistic or ethnocentric? Honestly? Oh, probably not, you're Albanian yourself and you, as I noted in other posts, are not used to self-criticism about your own people and country. It's difficult for some to accept that there are some unhealthy dose of delusions of grandeur and fantasy in all strands of nationalism everywhere. It's an unavoidable collateral damage of that ideology. So leave it at that. You don't need to shake your dear beliefs about your motherland to see the obvious delirious nationalism/ethnocentrism in Zeus' views.

 

[Ygorcs]

I didn`t said this. I said: i disagree with his theory.Please, don`t put in my mouth words that i have never said. It`s not serious.


So, you are following here in this forum your personal crusade against the false information. I appreciate your intention, but i find difficult because there are too many pseudoscientific theories here in this forum. And, if you want to have success, first of all you need to have some knowledge, but after reading some of your posts my impression is that you are not the right person for this kind of holy mission.

How do you know that the theory of Zeus is product of Albanian nationalism? Can you explain this?
And second, what is your opinion about this:

Do you consider scientific this two points about the etymology of name Illyria?

I don't know if it is scientifically true, but, yes, it comes off to me as at least plausible as a scientific hypothesis because it's based on objective and consistent reasoning like the demonstration of (supposed) regular sound change rules. Being "scientific" is not being "right". It is about having a regular and solid method and a systematic line of reasoning, nothing else. It can even be a complete scam, but you must at least try to disguise it under a good scientific presentation.

 

[LAB]

[/QUOTE]

No, I got that, what I think is that YOU missed my point.

My point is that there is no use in pretending that you already have a good scientific hypothesis because you noticed that some sound appears repeatedly in several semantically related words (the la-, le- case is actually much more problematic than this k- one, especially because the semantic relationships there are much, muuuuch more distant and indirect). You need to substantiate it, to explain why it is so, to demonstrate that it can't be just sheer coincidence (yes, I know this sucks, but in fact there is real coincidence in a lot of things in this world, so not every correlation has any scientific meaning whatsoever, especially if, as in the case of this k- root, it is clearly not consistently and categorically appearing in all body parts related words, just in some - even if a suspiciously high proportion of them).

Again, I say that you can't consider some scientific hypothesis seriously if it comes up with an interesting "what" but has no systematically demonstrated "how". You can't just say "look, there are too many words with a k- for it to be just a coincidence!" and then say that k- means "physical property" or something like that. It's up to you to explain how and why is that so, and also demonstrate that it is a pattern that repeats itself consistently with exceptions that can also be consistently explained. Until then, it is all just, as Yetos said previously, "pub science".

When an Albanian tries to demonstrate something unconventional that apart from science works also for his supposed nationalistic ideas he will automatically get the tag of nationalist because in the eyes of the public it seems clearly that he's trying to do propaganda in favor of his country's history.
No matter if he's right or wrong he won't be accepted by the science society only because of that, and when non-Albanians in the past wrote books claiming that Albanian is the oldest IE language and probably mother of other IE languages they also got expelled from the science society, and we don't consider their work as scientific.
There has to be a different approach from non-Albanians in this topic if they truly want to understand, and probably help because these kind of 'hypothetical' claims will never end. Of course the above goes for anyone not only Albanians.

Why and how this occurs in the language in my opinion is related with common sense, we could simply suppose that the words of human body are 'grouped' through letter *K because they all have relevant meaning, >human body<, there are numerous examples of 'grouped' (not sure if this is right term to use) words,
another one was presented by Zeus earlier with 2 words 'dhëmbë' (tooth) & 'dhëmb' (pain) =relevant meaning

another one is 'diell' (sun) & 'qiell' (sky), in Latin 'caeli' (sky) ki> q >c ?

Could 'KI' of proto-Alb have become 'Q' ? That adds 2 more words on the human body group starting with *K

(q)erpikë (eyebrows) & (q)afë (neck)

 

[Ygorcs]

When an Albanian tries to demonstrate something unconventional that apart from science works also for his supposed nationalistic ideas he will automatically get the tag of nationalist because in the eyes of the public it seems clearly that he's trying to do propaganda in favor of his country's history.
No matter if he's right or wrong he won't be accepted by the science society only because of that, and when non-Albanians in the past wrote books claiming that Albanian is the oldest IE language and probably mother of other IE languages they also got expelled from the science society, and we don't consider their work as scientific.
There has to be a different approach from non-Albanians in this topic if they truly want to understand, and probably help because these kind of 'hypothetical' claims will never end. Of course the above goes for anyone not only Albanians.

Why and how this occurs in the language in my opinion is related with common sense, we could simply suppose that the words of human body are 'grouped' through letter *K because they all have relevant meaning, >human body<, there are numerous examples of 'grouped' (not sure if this is right term to use) words,
another one was presented by Zeus earlier with 2 words 'dhëmbë' (tooth) & 'dhëmb' (pain) =relevant meaning

another one is 'diell' (sun) & 'qiell' (sky), in Latin 'caeli' (sky) ki> q >c ?

Could 'KI' of proto-Alb have become 'Q' ? That adds 2 more words on the human body group starting with *K

(q)erpikë (eyebrows) & (q)afë (neck)

I don't know the propositions of those other Albanian scientists, but I can understand why they were so immediately rebuked and rejected by non-Albanian scientists if their hypothesis used similar suspicious or downright improbable arguments like those that have been written in this forum and which deny very basic premises of linguistics, such as:1) that Albanian, even 5,000 years later, still preserves the original IE language, can be used a perfect proxy for lexemes spoken thousands of years ago and is somehow "the mother language" of all other existing and extinct IE languages; 2) that Albanian possess something inherent in its sounds and structures that is a "divine force"; 3) that you can prove that by simply looking at words with similar syllables in other languages, without any consideration for the many sound changes throughout several milennia, as if lexemes would've been entirely preserved and still clearly discernible after thousands of years with no need for reconstruction of past sound rules; 4) that Albanian is "oldest" than other IE languages even though all linguists of course know that all languages that are still "alive" are equally old because that means that they always derive from an unbroken chain of languages that changed into other languages, and that the best we can scientifically establish is if a language is more phonetically and/or gramatically conservative than others. If Albanian linguists proposed theories that directly confronted basic premises of linguistics and even common sense (who on earth, if not for a very strong personal or collective cause, would try to deny that all languages including his own change a lot and become irrecognizable over time?), I can see why all of those theories were discarded as mere nationalist delusion.

 

[Yetos]

Do you consider scientific this two points about the etymology of name Illyria?

let me answer you,

1rst do not mix modern Greek with Ancient/classic Greek and with Homeric

They are same language, but tottaly different,
as Latin with Italian
as Francais with Celtic,

so you must know the age of the word,

2nd
Κρατινος an Athenean writer writes

προβατον Βη Βη
αιγα μηκαται
αγελας μυκαται,

in English is like this with modern Greek pronouncation first, with classical second

sheep vivi mpee mpee
goat mimi mee mee
cow mimi mu mu NOT mou mou (ou = μακρον long u, u=ψιλον psilon short ou)

so we are CERTAIN THATIN ATTIC DIALECT
ancient Greek B = b (mp*)
ancient Greek η = ee or ii always Long sound
ancient Greek υ = ου but short, very short alone, changes with ι α ε etc etc
example Urban with Greek letters sound would be OYΡΒΑΝ Not YΡΒΑΝ
but word mouse would be μα/υ/ς !!!! compare Greek ΜΥΣ μυς

we do not know when Greek change to modern,
and there are different opinions,
but surely first changes may start from Alexandreia or Syrria Hellenistic kingdoms and continue changing through Byzantine era,
many say it is due to Christianity that change, BUT SURELY IS AFTER Jesus.
Other due to Slavic,
for me some changes starts from RomanoLatin like B->V Βαινω - Veni modern Greek Bαινω -> veno
etc etc,

SO Yes

Ιλλυρια as sound of classical Greek should sound ill(ου)ria , But very short ou
to understand the difference yell word HUMUS and word SOUND

u=ou u=i SHORT ALWAYS ALONE BUT WITH O->OY =LONG
compare Difficult with Difficillis

Erasmian Greek (Erasmus) have solve enough the problem
but not always, and in some created problems


AND THAT IS THE BEAUTY,
LANGUAGE CHANGE
BUT NOT THE MARKS,
SO WE KNOW ENOUGH THE PAST,

Just think word Μωυσης Moses
in full time sound Μoo-υ-sees or Mooisiis or Mou-u-sees (ω can transform to ou sometimes)
these are strange laws that has to do with evolution of a language
for example foot = ποδι but the brake is τροχοπεδησις ο-.>ε both βραχεα and is common