Illyrian-Albanian Continuity

[gyms]

History Research 2013; 1(2): 5-24
15
•
There are indications that the Albanians, who are living today on the territory of ancient
Illyria, came there from the territory of the Roman Province of Moesia Superior (in the present-day
Serbia) and especially from the valley of the River of Morava which is now the territory of the Eastern
Serbia – i.e., the ancient Illyrians cannot be the ancestors of the present-day Albanians.
The last point deserve more attention. As the territory of the Province of Moesia Superior was in the ancient
times the zone of Dacian ethnicity, the modern Albanians can be only of the Dacian ethnical origin, but not of the
Illyrian one. In this case, however, the Albanians are of the same ethnical origin like the modern Romanians. Such conclusions
are supported by the following facts: 1) Illyrian toponyms from the time of ancient Greeks and Romans are not in accordance with the Albanian phonetic laws;
2) most ancient Latin loanwords in the Albanian language have the phonetic form of the eastern Balkan type of the Latin
language that is showing that the Albanians are descendent from the ancient Dacians; 3) the most part of terminology
in the Albanian language, which is in connection to the expression of littoral terms, is borrowed from different
languages what suggests that the Albanians have not been originally a coastal people; 4) only a few ancient
Greek loanwords exist in modern Albanian language; if Albanians of Illyrian origin were really indigenous population in
Epirus region there should be much more loanwords from the ancient Greek language; 5) there is no any reference to
the Albanians on the present-day Albania’s territory in any medieval historical source before the 9th century 54 ; and 6)
around one hundred words from the Romanian language are similar only to the words from the Albanian language. It
suggests that the Albanians came to the present-day Albania either from the present-day Romania or from the territory
of Serbia that is close to Romania.
55
54
Similarly, the Hungarian historians and linguists are stressing that the Romanian theory of Romanian ethnical origin from the ancient Dacians is
unjust. The Hungarians are arguing that the Vlachs (or the Romanians as it is regarded in Romanian historiography) arrived in the 12th century when
the name of Vlach was mentioned for the first time in historical sources.
This opinion is primarily based on “the highly ideological Gesta Hungarorum
of the unknown cleric Anonymus three-hundred years after the events recorded [i. e., the Magyar settlement in the Pannonia and Transylvania] splendid victories over fictitious chiefs of the peoples ‘found here’ by the Magyars, actually projecting the twelfth-century status quo onto the ninth” [Kontler L., Millenium in Central Europe. A History of Hungary, Budapest: Atlantisz Publishing House, 1999, p. 43]. Contrary to their Hungarian colleagues, the Romanian historians and linguists developed the “Dacian-Vlach” theory of Romanian ethnical origin suggesting that the ancient Dacians were proto-Romanians. As a result, the modern Romanians are considered as original settlers in Transylvania and they have stronger historical rights to this territory than the Hungarians who came there just in the 10th century (for example, see: [Bolovan I. and others, A History of Romania, Iaşi, 1996, pp. 46–63]).
55
The Romanian philologist Vasila Parvan launched a hypothesis in 1910 that the proto-Albanians left their original territories in the Carpathians between the 3rd and the 6th century A.D. and moved to the Balkans through Transylvania.

This is the latest and most exact conclusion from 2013 on where the Albanians originated from .............Vasila Parvan would seem to be the closest to the truth.
Albanians, taking refuge in Roman lands from northern Dacian/Carpathian area at a time when the "barbarians" where moving against the Romans from the east.

Interesting hypothesis.Who is Vasile Parvan?

 

[Taranis]

Continuity between Illyrian which was Centum language and Albanian which is Satem language,that is just an absurdity.

Yes, and no. The problem is that there was not "one" Illyrian language but more probably languages. One of these languages certainly was Centum (Liburnian), and related with the (Adriatic) Venetic language, and with the Italic languages (including Latin) of Italy.

The origin of both Slavic and Albanian language is in Scytho-Sarmatians language.

This is incorrect. While both Albanian and the Slavic languages are Satem languages, they have nothing (directly) to do with the Scytho-Sarmatian languages. These are a branch of the Iranian languages (such as Pashtoo, Persian and Kurdish), in turn of the Indo-Iranic languages, which also includes Indic (Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu) and the Nuristani languages. There is exactly one living Scytho-Sarmatian language, Ossetian.

You also forgot about the Baltic languages (Latvian, Lithuanian, and the extinct Old Prussian language), which are all closer related with the Slavic languages (together they form the Balto-Slavic languages).

Slavic suffered more influences from Eastern Germanic.

"Suffer" is the wrong word. The speakers of Proto-Slavic had prolonged linguistic contact with Germanic-speaking peoples (first Proto-Germanic, later East Germanic), and presumably later absorbed a large number of Germanic-speaking peoples during the Migration Period (the areas that became to be inhabited by West Slavic speaking tribes during the Migration Period were Germanic-speaking before the Migration Period). You are correct that Albanian also picked up a few loanwords from East Germanic, probably during the Migration Period when the Goths and associated East Germanic tribes were on the Balkans, but this is relatively negligible (by far most loanwords in Albanian are from Latin).

As a proof to this are the words which are cognates between Iranian and Slavic and the words that are cognates between Albanian and Iranian .Romanians,which also have lots of Scytho-Sarmatian genetics,have cognates with Iranian language.
Sure,Thracian also had influence in Slavic and Albanian.
Anyone thought at the possibility that Albanians are also a Thraco-Scytho-Sarmatian people,but who moved to Balkans more earlier than their Slavic brother moved?
Do you think is possible to be such a resemblance between Montenegrins and Albanian highlander males,but some are speakers of Albanian and others are speakers of Serbo-Croatian,if they are not having not far common genetic origins?

If we're talking about continuity this can here only mean linguistic continuity. Evoking any argument about genetics to me seems entirely pointless, because Albanian and Serbia, Montenegro etc. are all neighbouring countries.

The question really is: could any one one of the ancient languages of the Balkans have been the ancestor of modern Albanian? Maybe. Liburnian certainly was not the ancestor of Albanian, but Dalmatian (note: I am not talking about the Romance language here, but the language of the pre-Roman tribe of the Dalmatae) may have been.

 

[Sile]

Interesting hypothesis.Who is Vasile Parvan?

see the last sentence

more:
The Albanian language was passing through the process

of development during the 4th, 5th, and 6th

centuries - the time when the proto-Romanian language was formed.

According to some scholars, the Romanian language should

be seen as the Romanized Dacian-Moesian language, while

the Albanian language is a semi-Romanized Dacian-Moesian language.

56
It has to be said that the arguments for the Dacian origin

of the Albanians have strong points and they deserved to be

seriously taken into consideration by the scholars.The

Albanians did not have a single ancestor in some of the pre-

South Slavic Balkan peoples. The present-day Albanians,

likewise other modern Balkan peoples, are ethnically mixed

and composed by an admixture of their main ancestor with

the ancestries of the modern South Slavic, Greek and

Romanian people. The pivotal purpose of supporters of the

Illyrian theory of Albanian ethnical origin was to underline

that the Albanian historical rights in the Balkansare the

oldest and strongest ones in comparison with their
neighbors: the Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonian Slavs and

Greeks. However, either the Dacian theory, or the theory of

admixture of Albanian ethnical roots, argues that Albanian

historical rights in the Balkans are not older than historical

rights of their neighbors.

However, referring to the linguistic evidences some

scholars defend the thesis that the Albanians are
descendants of the ancient Dacians who have been
inhabiting and the lands south of the River of Danube (the

Roman Provinces of Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior)
and migrating south-west to the territory of the present-day Albania.
Some serious indications refer Albanian ethnical
origin to the Dacian-Moesian root. On the first place it is

Albanian name for them – the Shqiptars,
the word of Dacian-Moesian origin, which means the “highlanders”.

 

[ukaj]

Well done,i agree 100%.

 

[ukaj]

I've been wanting to make this thread for a while, and now I have some free time. Please, if you have a strong nationalistic bias, don't even bother commenting. If you have a slight bias, be careful of what you say. I don't want to turn this into a stupid 13 year old keyboard warrior convention. Both Yugoslavians and Albanians have a right to call Illyrians their ancestors in my opinion, if they want to that is.

I'm going to try to establish this continuity on a linguistic/historical basis. I'll also look at some counter-arguments as well.

Reason #1 The Tosk-Gheg split

This dialect split predates the slavic migrations in the balkans, and the river Shkumbin (central Albania) acts as the the divisive line. The reason why it predates it, is because both dialects deal differently with foreign borrowings, especially slavic words. (I'll leave it to whoever wants to research it). Illyrian is thought to have gone extinct at the same time this split happened. So one can establish that proto-Albanian and Illyrian were spoken roughly at the same place and time, making it difficult to call them different languages.

Reason #2 Latin Borrowings

A great number of borrowed latin words, PREDATE the christian era. Illyrians were the only tribes in the Balkans to be conquered by the Roman Empire before the year 0. Thracians and Dacians were invaded around 100 AD. The only explanation for these pre 0 AD, words is that they were passed down from the Illyrians when they were first invaded around 3-200 BC.

Reason #3 Greek Borrowings

The same argument goes for borrowings from DORIC greek, which mean Illyrians/Albanians were living near northwestern Greece since times of antiquity. P.S. Remember while Epirus and Macedonia were Greek states, only the ruling class were greek, the rest of the population were of Illyrian/Macedonian stock.(I'm uncertain whether the two had any relationship)

Reason #4 No records of Migrations

The Byzantines documented all significant migrations in the Balkans, none are mentioned regarding Albanians arriving to this modern region.


Arguments against

Let me talk about the main "historian" who contradicts this theory, Georgiev. I wanted to establish his own pro-Bulgarian bias, by quoting from one of his books where he talks about Thracians and Illyrians being these Greco-Germanic tribes who derived from the Pelasgians. Lunatic? Yes, very much so. But I have been searching for an hour and I cant find it. IF SOMEONE CAN, PLEASE POST A LINK! He makes very vague claims and assumptions, and his interpretations in grey areas are definitely biased driven.

#1 - He says Illyrians were coastal people, while Albanians are mountainous since they LACK maritime vocabulary.

First of all, even the word for sea in Albanian is det, which is original, although derived from PIE be it. Second of all, Albania/Southern Illyria is about 70-80% mountains, right next to the coast. You can be a mountainous AND coastal people due to the proximity of the mountains and sea in the Adriatic coast. There's also loads of other sea-animal names completely native to Albanian, such as gaforre (crab) which Leibniz said is related to the word fork.

#2 - Eastern Balkan Romance words

This is definitely from contact with Romanians, although it doesnt make Albanians automatically Dacian, they are simply borrowings. And again there's a lot words in Albanian of Latin origin before the year 0 AD, before the Romans even invaded Dacia and Thracia.

#3 - Centum/Satem Theory

This is quite an interesting one. Albanian is established as Satem, while Illyrian might have been Centum, but there is not enough evidence. First of all, let me start by saying that NO LANGUAGE IS 100% Centum and Satem. All IE languages have features from both, although some an amount of overwhelming more examples than others. For example while one language can have 85% words with Centum features it might also have another 15% with Satem.

Second of all, Tocharian pretty much shattered this theory. Although there is undeniably a shift that has undergone from PIE, no one knows how this shift took place. The best guess would be areal contact, rather than a Proto-Satem Proto-Centum theory, although even that is just a guess. So we can't use this theory, until we know more about this shift to deny that one language is Centum and it cannot be derived from Satem. In French, the word cent is pronounce so, a satem feature derived from a centum language. There's another linguist (too lazy to look him up, its on wiktionary I think) that supports the argument that one cannot use this pseudo-theory to determine if a satem/centum can develop into a centum/satem, since all languages share features from both.

Illyrian has examples of Satem features as well. For example the name Gentius is found in 2 forms, Gentius and Zanatis which both derived from PIE gen.


My fingers are tired of typing, so Ill stop now. Theres also a ton of other arguments, I just chose to adress the main ones. I might add new stuff later. Feel free to disagree/agree with me, BUT PLEASE LEAVE YOUR BIAS OUT THE DOOR. If you have one that is.

WELL DONE FINALISE..You are very much right about the latin,,As we albanians are the only people of balkans whom use old latin,,

 

[ukaj]

ok From what i have learned proto romanians have borrowed from proto albanians as many of the old latin albanians do have is very much older form of the latin that of romanian do have,yes i agree romanian an albanians did live close together as did illyrians an thracians,as for borrowing words from other languages an the most from other language around world or balkans is rubbish,,did you know without being racist or rude that the greek language has borrowed over 11 thousand turkish words from the ottmoman times,you can except this as a insult but i am not insulting just using facts,,If you do not belive me i can post nearly 11 thousand of them,every language has borrowed from eachother, due to communicate with eachother for trade or other means,,

 

[gyms]

it is irrelevant whether one or the other theory is the right one, because the whole complex of proofs point out in a definitive manner to the area of present-day Albania and surrounding territory as the birthplace of the early Romanians and not the eastern side of the Balkans ‒ even if the Albanians would not be autochthonous but coming from any other place, it is in the area they live today where both peoples met and not elsewhere. A further factor is that there is not any historical record attesting any hypothetic migration of Albanians from Dacia (and there is not any vestige of their presence in that land), while there are many documents proving that the Vlach people lived since the early centuries by the southern Adriatic coastland ‒even before the Roman occupation of Dacia!‒ and as a matter of fact, there are still historic Romanian communities (Aromanians) living there.
Linguistic research has determined that most of the words shared by Romanian and Albanian are not loans from one tongue to the other but have a common origin in the substratum, before than these two languages began to be distinguished from each other. Romanian terms that are similar to Albanian mainly regard primary elements like body parts, names of animals and plants, and words specifically related with the pastoral life. It is significant that such vocabulary in Romanian is not found in Slavic or any other language spoken in the Balkans but only in Albanian.
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

 

[Ike]

The question really is: could any one one of the ancient languages of the Balkans have been the ancestor of modern Albanian? Maybe. Liburnian certainly was not the ancestor of Albanian, but Dalmatian (note: I am not talking about the Romance language here, but the language of the pre-Roman tribe of the Dalmatae) may have been.

There is also a chance that Dalmatae were Illyrians and were bordered on the south by various tribes that were speaking some other langauge/s. Due to the prolonged contact (thousands of years) they exchange certain parts of vocabulary. When Romans struck they wiped out Illyrian cultural sphere, but southern tribes (including ancestors of todays Albanians) manage to escape to the mountains. There they've been subjected to a 1000 years of Greek, Latin and Slavic culture, and although they all may have been of different ancestry, they are left with one common denominator - a language substract that is related to Dalmatian or Illyrian.

It is also a different possibility of the similar modus - that arhaic part of language is not even original to the Albanian people, but was incorporated into Albanian cultural sphere with some other tribes from the enormous list of tribes that inhabited Balkans BC.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Albanian have lots of cognates with current Farsi/Iranian language.
I even saw in some part of Iran a folk costume which was almost identical with Albanian highlanders folk costume.
People here are over-looking too easy the fact that Sarmatians were in this area,a lot of time.
As for Scythian - Slavic connection,is quite common sense.
Coming back to Baltic languages,these languages were influenced by proto-Slavic,since is clear Scythian people conquered Balts and not reversed.
I think are also plenty of cognates between Baltic and Finnic languages.
As a proof,average Baltic people has about 5% Balkanic admixture,which shows that the Slavic people conquered from South to North and not reversed.

 

[mihaitzateo]

it is irrelevant whether one or the other theory is the right one, because the whole complex of proofs point out in a definitive manner to the area of present-day Albania and surrounding territory as the birthplace of the early Romanians and not the eastern side of the Balkans ‒ even if the Albanians would not be autochthonous but coming from any other place, it is in the area they live today where both peoples met and not elsewhere. A further factor is that there is not any historical record attesting any hypothetic migration of Albanians from Dacia (and there is not any vestige of their presence in that land), while there are many documents proving that the Vlach people lived since the early centuries by the southern Adriatic coastland ‒even before the Roman occupation of Dacia!‒ and as a matter of fact, there are still historic Romanian communities (Aromanians) living there.
Linguistic research has determined that most of the words shared by Romanian and Albanian are not loans from one tongue to the other but have a common origin in the substratum, before than these two languages began to be distinguished from each other. Romanian terms that are similar to Albanian mainly regard primary elements like body parts, names of animals and plants, and words specifically related with the pastoral life. It is significant that such vocabulary in Romanian is not found in Slavic or any other language spoken in the Balkans but only in Albanian.
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

Dacian people were Satem speakers.
The language of Vlach/Romanian people you mention here I think is the language that the people from Romania were speaking,before Dacians came.
Only the language was preserved in Romania,but with strong Slavic influences.genetic is even more Slavic that the genetics of South Slavs,with Moldovans being as Slavic as Ukrainians are.
EDIT:
The document is quite non-sense,when it tells that Romanians speakers came from the land near Adriatic sea,not possible,because average Romanian scores much lower than even Balkanic South Slavs,on Southern admixture.
As you move to Moldavia,people there are almost same in genetics with Ukrainians.
Culturally Romanians are clustering with either South Slavic or Ukrainian people,while Hungarians are not clustering with Ugric people,on folk costumes and music,but with Slavic people.

 

[Nobody1]

Jordanes ROM. CLXXX
But the Illyrians, that is the Veneti or Liburni, dwell in the extreme ends of the Alps between the Arsia and Titus rivers, strewn far and wide along the whole coastline of the Adriatic Sea. - Illyres autem, id est Veneti, seu Liburnes sub extremis Alpium radicibus agunt inter Arsiam Titulumque flumen longissimae per totum Hadriani maris litus effusi.

Strabo VII/V
as, for example, among the Galatae the Boii and the Scordistae, and among the Illyrians the Autariatae, Ardiaei, and Dardanii, and among the Thracians the Triballi;

The area of Teuta/Τεύτα and Gentius/Γένθιος was the core Illyrian area of the Piracy and Power (3rd/2nd cen BC) and later of the direct Roman contact; So these Illyrians of the Autariatae, Ardiaei,and Dardanii could very well be the Indo-European ancestors of the Albanians;

It might all be a split between the southern-Adriatic (Balkan) realm and the northern-Adriatic (Alpine/Balkan) realm; With the southern-Adriatic realm being the proper satem Illyrians (akin to Thracians) and expanding to the northern-Adriatic realm the hybrid (Keltic/Italic) centum Illyrians (as such in clear case with the Iapodes - also the case Veneti/Liburni/Genauni/Breuni - and also in parts Scordisci);

 

[gyms]

Dacian people were Satem speakers.
The language of Vlach/Romanian people you mention here I think is the language that the people from Romania were speaking,before Dacians came.
Only the language was preserved in Romania,but with strong Slavic influences.genetic is even more Slavic that the genetics of South Slavs,with Moldovans being as Slavic as Ukrainians are.
EDIT:
The document is quite non-sense,when it tells that Romanians speakers came from the land near Adriatic sea,not possible,because average Romanian scores much lower than even Balkanic South Slavs,on Southern admixture.
As you move to Moldavia,people there are almost same in genetics with Ukrainians.
Culturally Romanians are clustering with either South Slavic or Ukrainian people,while Hungarians are not clustering with Ugric people,on folk costumes and music,but with Slavic people.

Do not confuse culture an genetics!

The group of the old style, the oldest known Hungarian peasant music ...
The salient characteristics of these songs are the followings: "The descending melodic structure "The large proportion of parlando-rubato rhythm against tempo giusto "Smaller compass "The four isometric text lines of twelve, eight, six, seven, eleven, ten or nine syllables. (The twelve, eight and six syllable parlando tunes are the oldest) "The original main caesura "b3" "The dominant pentatonic scale "The non-architectural structures of the four isometric lines like A-B-C-D or resulting A5-B5-A-B (or A5-A5v-A-Av) sructure by the repetition of the first phrase (1-2 lines) at the fifth below ["A5" = the line A but a fifth interval higher; "Av" = variant of line A] "Intricate ornamentation. The old style tunes seem purely Hungarian creations so far as we know nothing similar in style and character to be found in any other country.
http://www.indiana.edu/~iuihsl/1thesis7.htm

http://www.passiondiscs.co.uk/articles/laszlo_kelemen.htm

Although the pentatonic scale can be found in the music of practically every people, this melodic repetition at the interval of the perfect fifth is found mainly in areas of Hungary. Already a half century ago the idea emerged that this type of melody has its closest link with the melodies of the Mari (Cheremiss) people living in the Soviet Union. Often the similarity is so great that it is almost impossible to differentiate Hungarian and Cheremiss songs. This melodic form has also been found among the Chuvashes, where similarly it represents the oldest layer. Related forms occur even in Mongolia, so that this style can rightly be called Central Asian. We know what a great influence the Bulgaro-Turkish people, who spoke the language of the Chuvashes, exerted over the Hungarian language in the 7th to 8th centuries, and we have to suppose that musical connections also originate from this period.
http://mek.oszk.hu/02700/02790/html/121.html

 

[Ike]

Dacian people were Satem speakers.
The language of Vlach/Romanian people you mention here I think is the language that the people from Romania were speaking,before Dacians came.
Only the language was preserved in Romania,but with strong Slavic influences.genetic is even more Slavic that the genetics of South Slavs,with Moldovans being as Slavic as Ukrainians are.
EDIT:
The document is quite non-sense,when it tells that Romanians speakers came from the land near Adriatic sea,not possible,because average Romanian scores much lower than even Balkanic South Slavs,on Southern admixture.
As you move to Moldavia,people there are almost same in genetics with Ukrainians.
Culturally Romanians are clustering with either South Slavic or Ukrainian people,while Hungarians are not clustering with Ugric people,on folk costumes and music,but with Slavic people.

You have to keep in mind that this is the score of today. We don't know if the score would be same 3000-4000 years ago.


Anyway, as Romanian you could know more about this?

"It is entirely natural that the verb ‘to fall’ has given rise to the word for snow. In Albanian, for example, don’t the words reshën and dëborë similarly come from verbs meaning ‘to fall’?3 But precisely this analogy with Albanian on one hand, and the absence in the Slavonic languages of a word zăpadă in the sense ‘snow’ on the other, has resulted in some linguistic misunderstandings which one ought to dispel.

Sextil Pușcariu, in reconciling these two facts, has developed the hypothesis that the word zăpadă belonged to the language of the Slavs who once inhabited Dacia, north of the Danube, and it was calqued, just as the corresponding words in Albanian, on some autochthonous language of the Balkans."

http://www.christopherculver.com/languages/romanian-snow.html

Jordanes ROM. CLXXX

The area of Teuta/Τεύτα and Gentius/Γένθιος was the core Illyrian area of the Piracy and Power (3rd/2nd cen BC) and later of the direct Roman contact; So these Illyrians of the Autariatae, Ardiaei,and Dardanii could very well be the Indo-European ancestors of the Albanians;

Then how do you explain extremely low count of maritime terms in Albanian language?

 

[mihaitzateo]

Do not confuse culture an genetics!

The group of the old style, the oldest known Hungarian peasant music ...
The salient characteristics of these songs are the followings: "The descending melodic structure "The large proportion of parlando-rubato rhythm against tempo giusto "Smaller compass "The four isometric text lines of twelve, eight, six, seven, eleven, ten or nine syllables. (The twelve, eight and six syllable parlando tunes are the oldest) "The original main caesura "b3" "The dominant pentatonic scale "The non-architectural structures of the four isometric lines like A-B-C-D or resulting A5-B5-A-B (or A5-A5v-A-Av) sructure by the repetition of the first phrase (1-2 lines) at the fifth below ["A5" = the line A but a fifth interval higher; "Av" = variant of line A] "Intricate ornamentation. The old style tunes seem purely Hungarian creations so far as we know nothing similar in style and character to be found in any other country.
http://www.indiana.edu/~iuihsl/1thesis7.htm

http://www.passiondiscs.co.uk/articles/laszlo_kelemen.htm

Although the pentatonic scale can be found in the music of practically every people, this melodic repetition at the interval of the perfect fifth is found mainly in areas of Hungary. Already a half century ago the idea emerged that this type of melody has its closest link with the melodies of the Mari (Cheremiss) people living in the Soviet Union. Often the similarity is so great that it is almost impossible to differentiate Hungarian and Cheremiss songs. This melodic form has also been found among the Chuvashes, where similarly it represents the oldest layer. Related forms occur even in Mongolia, so that this style can rightly be called Central Asian. We know what a great influence the Bulgaro-Turkish people, who spoke the language of the Chuvashes, exerted over the Hungarian language in the 7th to 8th centuries, and we have to suppose that musical connections also originate from this period.
http://mek.oszk.hu/02700/02790/html/121.html

Do not confuse culture an genetics!

The group of the old style, the oldest known Hungarian peasant music ...
The salient characteristics of these songs are the followings: "The descending melodic structure "The large proportion of parlando-rubato rhythm against tempo giusto "Smaller compass "The four isometric text lines of twelve, eight, six, seven, eleven, ten or nine syllables. (The twelve, eight and six syllable parlando tunes are the oldest) "The original main caesura "b3" "The dominant pentatonic scale "The non-architectural structures of the four isometric lines like A-B-C-D or resulting A5-B5-A-B (or A5-A5v-A-Av) sructure by the repetition of the first phrase (1-2 lines) at the fifth below ["A5" = the line A but a fifth interval higher; "Av" = variant of line A] "Intricate ornamentation. The old style tunes seem purely Hungarian creations so far as we know nothing similar in style and character to be found in any other country.
http://www.indiana.edu/~iuihsl/1thesis7.htm

http://www.passiondiscs.co.uk/articles/laszlo_kelemen.htm

Although the pentatonic scale can be found in the music of practically every people, this melodic repetition at the interval of the perfect fifth is found mainly in areas of Hungary. Already a half century ago the idea emerged that this type of melody has its closest link with the melodies of the Mari (Cheremiss) people living in the Soviet Union. Often the similarity is so great that it is almost impossible to differentiate Hungarian and Cheremiss songs. This melodic form has also been found among the Chuvashes, where similarly it represents the oldest layer. Related forms occur even in Mongolia, so that this style can rightly be called Central Asian. We know what a great influence the Bulgaro-Turkish people, who spoke the language of the Chuvashes, exerted over the Hungarian language in the 7th to 8th centuries, and we have to suppose that musical connections also originate from this period.
http://mek.oszk.hu/02700/02790/html/121.html

Did you ever went to a house of a peasant from Moldavia and a house from a peasant from Ukraine,traditional houses?
Let me give you a clue,the carpets on the wall,the colors etc are similar.
So I think actually Romanian language is most closed to Old Illyrian (maybe Romanian elite,after Dacians were conquered,was mostly Romance speaker - some kind of Illyrian,but note that Romanian is Balkanic language,being most closed as lots of aspects in grammar with Bulgarian and not with Latin.).
I think you are mistaking language with culture,if Romanians are speaking a Romance language,that does not means as culture,we are as Italians or Romance people.
Look at the definite article,Romanian words are having the definite article linked to them,as only Scandinavian,Bulgarian and some Macedonian dialects also have.
So Balkanic language,in lots of aspects of grammar,but with lots of cognates to Romance languages,is not an Illyrian language?
But you are clearly using very flawed judgements,if ruling class was Illyrian or a closed to Illyrian speaking,that does not means the mass of Romanians came from South of Danube,they were here,long before Hungarians rulers came,which is attested by genetics and culture.
Just for your info,Hungarians are a mixture which is comprised from mostly Eastern Germanics tribes,this is what genetic testing is saying.
Rest,is native people from the there,mixed with Scytho-Sarmatian-Thracian people (call them Slavs).Hungarians,speakers of Ugric language,were just leading class,which conquered and imposed the language to the people there.
But it was not about Hungarians ,which ancestors settled there after Hunnic invasion,after the battle from Catalunian plains,where is clearly said,that the defeated people were settled in Pannonia.Which were mostly East Germanic tribes,lead by Hunns.After,there was another miss-understanding between Germanic tribes and Hunns,which resulted in a battle,in which most Hunns were exterminated.But the Eastern Germanic tribes from there kept the language.
Which no one knows if it was East Germanic,or some kind of mixture .
On k36,Hungarians if I am not wrong got some Uralic admixture,but almost 0 East Asian.
After when Hungarians came,they imposed a new Uralic language.But population remained mostly same.
As for spreading of the people speaking a Romance language,before Satem speakers (Thracian,Sarmatians,Scythians) conquered the area,even in Ukraine so called "Italic admixture" is found.
Even in Hungary,this admixture is found.Did Roman Empire ever brought colonists to Hungary?
As for the clear proof that Albanian is a language brought by some Satem speakers rulers to Balkans,Goths never settled in Albania,but Albanian have cognates with Gothic language.
Romanian have also a few cognates with Gothic language,but has more cultural influences,in our folk traditions.
After all,things in Balkans,Romania and Hungary are very mixed,you can not say a nation from here formed only from one people,same about languages.

 

[mihaitzateo]

You have to keep in mind that this is the score of today. We don't know if the score would be same 3000-4000 years ago.


Anyway, as Romanian you could know more about this?

"It is entirely natural that the verb ‘to fall’ has given rise to the word for snow. In Albanian, for example, don’t the words reshën and dëborë similarly come from verbs meaning ‘to fall’?3 But precisely this analogy with Albanian on one hand, and the absence in the Slavonic languages of a word zăpadă in the sense ‘snow’ on the other, has resulted in some linguistic misunderstandings which one ought to dispel.

Sextil Pușcariu, in reconciling these two facts, has developed the hypothesis that the word zăpadă belonged to the language of the Slavs who once inhabited Dacia, north of the Danube, and it was calqued, just as the corresponding words in Albanian, on some autochthonous language of the Balkans."

http://www.christopherculver.com/languages/romanian-snow.html





Then how do you explain extremely low count of maritime terms in Albanian language?

Zapada is clearly taken from Dacian/Proto-Slavic speakers because Romanian have also striking cognates with Old Russian,as for example,how you call Christmas,is almost same as in Old Russian,market,is same and so on.
Albanians are missing maritime terms,because as I already said,they are some kind of Sarmatians or so,who came there,settled and conquered and imposed most of the language.
They were known in Romania as being great warriors,boyars /nobles were hiring them as mercenaries.
I said in the thread with Thracians who were speaking some kind of proto-Slavic when some Romanians from South Romania fled fearing the incoming Turkish tribes,they went to Slovakia and Poland and not to Italy.
Why?
No idea.
That happened around 1000-1200 AD,when Romanian language was not far from what we are speaking now.

 

[gyms]

[FONT=ArialNarrow,Italic][FONT=ArialNarrow,Italic]In this study of theoritical character, the sight is set on the most typical similtudes between Albanian and Romanian
observed in the entire language subsystems. There turn out to be common features only for these two languages which
are different from overall Balkan features (Balcan shpracbund). This article points out not only the parallelisms
previously noticed by many linguists over centuries during the evolution of these two languages independently of each
other, but also the latest common points recently observed. The causes of these phenomena are given at the end of
the article.Similarties between Albanian and Romanian languages come as a result of Illyrians and Trachians being in
contact for centuries before Slavs were established in Balkans.


The similarities between the Albanian and Romanian languages are acknowledged by all researchers focusing on this

topic. The ethnogenesis of the Albanian language cannot be completely clarified without having a close approach to the

same problem in Romanian. To be able to explain ancient language formations in Albanian, there has to be firstly an
internal comparison and afterwards as a helping element, an external comparios particularily with Romanian. Making

clear the origin of these similarities might help resolve the ethnogenesis issue of the two nations and not further blur it.


http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/viewFile/203/188



[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[vetus]

@vetus
I have been doing research for a long time now of the names that refer to Albanians (us). What I have found out is that all the names have one same meaning - "people of the highland". Alp - is mountain, Alb - mountain. "Albanian" has nothing to do with white, that is a too simplistic and nonscientific explanation. Old Albanian name, the endonym, was Arben in Gheg dialect. Albanian has some celtic influences and I found out that "ben" in celtic means mountain, like Ben Nevis. So Arben is Highlander. Dalmatia, I consider that is an old predecessor of Albanian version, again in Gheg, Malcia. Mat, matia, mal, malcia, has the same meaning in different local dialects of Albanian. So Albanians called themselves people of the heights, highlanders. Now the endonym Shqiptar is of a recent history that started to be used after Scanderbegs death. It can be due to the flag, and it is convenient since the eagle lives in the mountains, so it was an "evolution" in the memory of Scanderbeg.

For the record, I am not a professional linguist.

Alb does not mean mountain. Alb comes from the latin word albus which means white. You can ask any scholar who knows latin about this. My answer is not simplistic and its 100% scientific. Old albanian name was not arben. Arben is simply a man's name. I know albanian 100%. Arben does not mean highlander or mountain. In albanian the word for highlander is malsor

 

[ukaj]

tung

it is irrelevant whether one or the other theory is the right one, because the whole complex of proofs point out in a definitive manner to the area of present-day Albania and surrounding territory as the birthplace of the early Romanians and not the eastern side of the Balkans ‒ even if the Albanians would not be autochthonous but coming from any other place, it is in the area they live today where both peoples met and not elsewhere. A further factor is that there is not any historical record attesting any hypothetic migration of Albanians from Dacia (and there is not any vestige of their presence in that land), while there are many documents proving that the Vlach people lived since the early centuries by the southern Adriatic coastland ‒even before the Roman occupation of Dacia!‒ and as a matter of fact, there are still historic Romanian communities (Aromanians) living there.
Linguistic research has determined that most of the words shared by Romanian and Albanian are not loans from one tongue to the other but have a common origin in the substratum, before than these two languages began to be distinguished from each other. Romanian terms that are similar to Albanian mainly regard primary elements like body parts, names of animals and plants, and words specifically related with the pastoral life. It is significant that such vocabulary in Romanian is not found in Slavic or any other language spoken in the Balkans but only in Albanian.
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

I agree 100% with what you wrote,But hen you have to think how did albanian language come incontact with the other language such as thracians,ilyrians etc,,montenegro albanians from tribe sof hoti an kelmendi malesia seperate this word,MAL I ZI AN THIS ALSO IS A WORD USED TO DESCRIBE A PLACE IN MONTENEGRO,,Its part of malesia,,i asked this question long time ago,,an aswered was african,,lol..it means black forrest,it is pure thracian words.an is aso shared with romanians,,So how do we have this words an no there does other than romanians,,Also NIS IN SERVIA,Nis means beginning,it is a latin word but uses long time any slavnic migration,nisuss,then we have word like [FONT=arial, sans-serif]malesia>>>> [/FONT]e madhe<<<<anyone know the name of macedonia before it was called macedonia?EMATHIA.DOES ANYONE KNOW THE WORD BEFORE MACEDONIA? SAMADH DOES ANY ONE IN THIS LOBBY STUDIE NASAL VOWELS,OBJECTIVES,STRESSES IN ALBANIANS LANGUAGE? lol maybe use should learn about the pre indo nasal vowels they use,,,its a little strange that albanians language is seen in old times around balkans,,

 

[FBS]

Alb does not mean mountain. Alb comes from the latin word albus which means white. You can ask any scholar who knows latin about this. My answer is not simplistic and its 100% scientific. Old albanian name was not arben. Arben is simply a man's name. I know albanian 100%. Arben does not mean highlander or mountain. In albanian the word for highlander is malsor

Arben is Gheg version of Arbër. If you know Albanian, as you claim, you would know the difference between the two due to rhotacism in Tosk dialect.
Arben or Arbër is used as a personal male name among Kosovars same as Serbs use the name Srbislav for e.g.

 

[ukaj]

Albanian have lots of cognates with current Farsi/Iranian language.
I even saw in some part of Iran a folk costume which was almost identical with Albanian highlanders folk costume.
People here are over-looking too easy the fact that Sarmatians were in this area,a lot of time.
As for Scythian - Slavic connection,is quite common sense.
Coming back to Baltic languages,these languages were influenced by proto-Slavic,since is clear Scythian people conquered Balts and not reversed.
I think are also plenty of cognates between Baltic and Finnic languages.
As a proof,average Baltic people has about 5% Balkanic admixture,which shows that the Slavic people conquered from South to North and not reversed.

That is so not true from south upwards to bosnia,croatia etc,the biggets slav migration came strait to bosnia,herzgovinia an croatia,,i have read that slavs migrated from behind the carpathian mountains,even from upwards of slovinia etc,,slavs came in 3 waves,it is documented by the romans an greeks,,http://www.ancient.eu.com/Migration_Age/Then i found this map that i find very interesting,,http://www.ancient.eu.com/uploads/images/581.png..http://www.ancient.eu.com/uploads/images/326.jpg this is a interesting picture of dacia an lands,