Paleo Balkan Languages

[LABERIA]

Thank you for introducing a little sanity here. If a Greek dares to agree with the academic consensus, it's because of an agenda? Then the scholars who arrived at the consensus all also have an anti-Albanian agenda? These Austrian linguists at the University of Vienna are perhaps secretly Greek, or at least have an anti-Albanian agenda?

By the way, their main point is that Albanian affected other Balkan languages. Is that such a bad thing?

https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-i...ld-albanian-living-legacy-of-a-dead-language/

I don`t think that exist this supposed consensus, there is no interest first of all:

It's been published, apparently there's no international interest hence no translation yet:

https://www.albanologie.uni-muenche...matzinger_nov_2016/muenchen_2_ethnogenese.pdf
https://www.albanologie.uni-muenche...inger_nov_2016/matzinger-mu_nchen30112016.pdf

 

[Yetos]

TO END THIS MISUNDERSTANDING,

the languages of Brygian Illyrian Pannonian Thracian Celtic etc
are known that were spoken in Aimos at 100 AD,

The Map of Smerdaleos is not at first sight,
Simmilar maps provided many other searchers, specially Katicic,

Lazarides in his tweet, simply provides a proposal of paleo-balkans languages, based on a work of another, a linguist,

The map does not mean Illyrian proprie = Albanian continuity
neither Illyrian#Albanian not continued

ANY EFFORT TO COMBINE THE MAP, WITH MODERN BOUNDAIRIES,
OR MODERN HYPER-NATIONALISM OR CLAIMS
Has nothing to do with a map about 100 AD, when almost under Roman occupation,

I myshelf also have some precautions, especially about Celtic in Balkans
But that does not mean I did not search what the posts provides, about true or correct, and the oposite.

I suggest read the work,

AND IF you can not, I will translate some,
Although I do not have any rights.


AND TO ALL

BEFORE THROW STONES READ CLaude BRIXHE

 

[Johane Derite]

• Teuta, Teutana: IE *teuta- "people";

cf. Lith. tauta "people",
Germ. Deutsch "German",
Old Eng. theod "people",
Gaul. teuta "tribe",
Old Ir. túath "clan",
Umbrian tota "people",
Oscan touto "city",
Hitt. tuzzi "army";
cf. Alb. (northern Albanian, or Gheg dialect) Tetanë "all" (possible archaic Albanian synonym for "people").​


"The Illyrians, or Liburnians, live at the very root of the Alps, between the rivers Arsia and Titius, extending far over the whole coast of the Adriatic. This people, in the reign of a queen named Teutana, not content with depredations on the Roman territory, added an execrable crime to their audacity. For they beheaded our ambassadors, who were calling them to account for their offences; and this death they inflicted, not with the sword, but, as if they had been victims for sacrifice, with the axe; thy also burnt the captains of our ships with fire. These insults were offere, to make them the more offensive, by a woman. The people were in consequence universally reduced to subjection, by the efforts of Cnaeus Fluvius Centimalus; and the axe, descending on the necks of their chiefs, made full atonement to the manes of the ambassadors."

 

[Ownstyler]

It's been published, apparently there's no international interest hence no translation yet:

https://www.albanologie.uni-muenche...matzinger_nov_2016/muenchen_2_ethnogenese.pdf
https://www.albanologie.uni-muenche...inger_nov_2016/matzinger-mu_nchen30112016.pdf

Those are just working papers, not published, peer-reviewed research. Although these would have been much better than that newspaper article he quoted. Anyway, my point remains, even if we take the "paper's" argument for granted, there is a huge leap from that to a migration from the north.

 

[markod]

Those are just working papers, not published, peer-reviewed research. Although these would have been much better than that newspaper article he quoted. Anyway, my point remains, even if we take the "paper's" argument for granted, there is a huge leap from that to a migration from the north.

We're talking about linguistics here ...

Orel, the author of the Leiden dictionary, puts the early Albanians in the same region.

 

[Ownstyler]

We're talking about linguistics here ...

What do you mean? There are plenty of scientific journals with peer review procedures. I'm sure even these guys will go through that once they're done.

Orel, the author of the Leiden dictionary, puts the early Albanians in the same region.

What other people have said on the issue is irrelevant. I am not challenging anyone's arguments, I'm saying Lazaridis jumped a step or two, inexplicably. If he had done this in a paper, he would not have been published. Of course, its Twitter, but it shows bias.

 

[markod]

What do you mean? There are plenty of scientific journals with peer review procedures. I'm sure even these guys will go through that once they're done.



What other people have said on the issue is irrelevant. I am not challenging anyone's arguments, I'm saying Lazaridis jumped a step or two, inexplicably. If he had done this in a paper, he would not have been published. Of course, its Twitter, but it shows bias.

The main takeaway from the piece and the reaction to Lazaridis' posting of it should be that for some reason many Albanians get irrationally mad at the mere questioning of their national myth.

 

[Ownstyler]

The main take away from the piece and the reaction to Lazaridis' posting of it should be that for some reason many Albanians get irrationally mad at the mere questioning of their national myth.

People getting mad about this is to be expected but you can't hold people responsible. He is a professional, he should be the responsible one. Anyway, it's just an illogical twitter post, not the end of the world, but I value him less as a scientist now.

 

[LABERIA]

It's been published, apparently there's no international interest hence no translation yet:

https://www.albanologie.uni-muenche...matzinger_nov_2016/muenchen_2_ethnogenese.pdf
https://www.albanologie.uni-muenche...inger_nov_2016/matzinger-mu_nchen30112016.pdf

If there is no interest for their research why you continue from months using their work as the ultimate truth? Why we are here discussing about an article published in a media of George Soros. It's an article that can be debunked with a single question. You have created this storm in a glass of water from different months.

 

[gidai]

Unsubscribe

 

[LABERIA]

The main takeaway from the piece and the reaction to Lazaridis' posting of it should be that for some reason many Albanians get irrationally mad at the mere questioning of their national myth.

You know what is a national myth? This is a national myth:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ave-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals
And it's exactly Lazaridis, the last name in a long list who is trying to create this myth.

 

[LABERIA]

Location in 1st Century BC

I have a question for people with more knowledges in this forum. There is a problem with the map of this smerdalos. If we accept his/their map as correct, how did we arrived at the situation described in the maps below:

Praetorian prefecture of Italy

The praetorian prefecture of Italy (Latin: Praefectura praetorio Italiae, in its full form (until 356) praefectura praetorio Italiae, Illyrici et Africae) was one of four Praetorian prefectures into which the Late Roman Empire was divided. It comprised the Italian peninsula, the Western Balkans, the Danubian provinces and parts of North Africa. The Prefecture's seat moved from Rome to Milan and finally, Ravenna.

Praetorian prefectures of the Roman Empire in 395 AD.


Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum

The praetorian prefecture of Illyricum (Latin: praefectura praetorio per Illyricum; Greek: ἐπαρχότης/ὑπαρχία [τῶν πραιτωρίων] τοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ, also termed simply the Prefecture of Illyricum) was one of four praetorian prefectures into which the Late Roman Empire was divided.
The administrative centre of the prefecture was Sirmium (375-379), and, after 379, Thessalonica.^[1][2] It took its name from the older province of Illyricum, which in turn was named after ancient Illyria, and in its greatest expanse encompassed Pannonia, Noricum, Crete, and most of the Balkan peninsula except for Thrace.

The praetorian prefecture of Illyricum (375-379)

I have another question, always for people with more knowledges in this forum.
We all know who the ancient Greeks were, there is no need to repeat things that are common knowledge. Looking at this scientific masterpiece of this map published in the OP, prepared by this / these bloggers / s with the intention to demonstrate the preponderance of the Greek language, a question came to my mind. How is it possible that we do not have a family of Greek languages? I mean, we have today, for example, a family of Latin or Slavic languages, etc. How do these people explain this? How does Lazapidis explain it through genetics?

 

[Yetos]

If there is no interest for their research why you continue from months using their work as the ultimate truth? Why we are here discussing about an article published in a media of George Soros. It's an article that can be debunked with a single question. You have created this storm in a glass of water from different months.

are you talking to this?

 

[Ygorcs]

Except it does not explain the presence of Albanian in Alcmans works (1), it doesn't explain albanoid words in ancient pre-phillip Macedonia and Epirus (2). These falsify such a late entry, and from north east solely.

The Dardanians and other Illyrian like people in the Moesia region would also have been Albanoid speaking, and them being pushed down and contributing more "moesian" spectrum like
features to Albanian does not indicate that Illyria was a terra desserta. Its just a poor argument, that is invalidated by having western romance features at all:

Accentual Stratification of Ancient Greek Loanwords in Albanian by Martin Huld

"It is well known that Albanian possesses two strata of Romance loans clearly distinguished by the treatment of the consonant groups ct and x. 1) Due to the large number of Romance loans in Albanian, the data are abundant and well-documented (eg Meyer-Lübke 1904—06; 1054—55). A western or Dalmatian strain is attested by i drejtë 'straight, right-handed' < Lat diréctum (cf Vegliotic drat but Rum dreapt 'on the right side) and i shtrenjté (Gheg shtréjt with a nasalized vowel) dear, expensive' < *strinctum < Lat strictum, contaminated by the present tense of the finite verb, stringo, (cf Vegl stratbut Rum strimt).

Other loans, ascribable to the eastern or Dacian strain, are luftë fight' < *lucta (cf Lat luctätio*wrestling match' and Rum luptä'a war) and kofshé 'hip' < Lat coxa (cf Rum coapsä).

The most western illyrians would have been more pressured to become romanised first, and until 200 years ago there were still Dalmatian speakers. I dont doubt at all that under their latin, the substrate of Dalmatian
would have been Albanoid.

1

2

Well, but an Albanoid language family spoken in an extensive area 2000 years ago is not the same as the direct ancestor of Albanian at that same time. Those are two different issues. If a language directly connected to the eventual Albanian language was indeed spoken in or near Makedonia, and an Albanoid (descended from Proto-Illyrian? Probably) language family was spoken from Ukraine to Northern Albania as per the sources you posted, then the hypothesis that the specific proto-Albanian language was spoken in and around Moesia (basically modern Kosovo, south Serbia and northeast Albania), just north of Macedonia and right between the probable pre-Slavic extent of Western Proto-Romance and Eastern Proto-Romance, cannot be discarded for now, even if it does not necessarily mean that other sibling languages closely related to Albanian were also spoken in a much wider area in present-day Albania and elsewhere.

Albanian might well be the result of the superimposition of an Illyrian language moving southward over another Illyrian language already spoken there. I find it very unlikely that a homogeneous language was spoken from Epirus to Macedonia and to Dalmatia . A language family, okay, but not one indistinct language. The direct link between an ancient language and modern Albanian must be found in some more specific area.

 

[Ygorcs]

I have another question, always for people with more knowledges in this forum.
We all know who the ancient Greeks were, there is no need to repeat things that are common knowledge. Looking at this scientific masterpiece of this map published in the OP, prepared by this / these bloggers / s with the intention to demonstrate the preponderance of the Greek language, a question came to my mind. How is it possible that we do not have a family of Greek languages? I mean, we have today, for example, a family of Latin or Slavic languages, etc. How do these people explain this? How does Lazapidis explain it through genetics?

That's an easy one. It's all a matter of history. 1) There IS a Hellenic language family, consisting at least of Modern Greek and Tsakonian, and several "outlier" dialects like Pontic Greek and Cappadocian Greek could well be considered distinct languages (if even Galician and Portuguese can be regarded as different languages, then there is no reason, but political and ideological ones, that that those dialects couldn't be regarded as distinct languaes); 2) virtually all the dialects of Ancient Greek died off and were replaced by Koiné Greek, an Attic-based lingua franca that really spread and dominated over all the others only in the early Middle Ages with the Byzantine Greek language, so actual Modern Greek dialects do not descend directly from Ancient Greek, but from a language (Koiné-based Byzantine Greek) not any older than the Iberian group of Romance languages; 3) the territorial and populational extent of the Greek language was severely diminished during the Middle Ages (unlike that of Common Slavic for instance), so of course that prevented the further development of local Koiné Greek dialects into new but closely related languages; 4) Modern Greek is a modern creation based on one dialect, and most Greek speakers went to live in mainland Greece (especially in the 20th century), so of course all of it must've caused re-convergence of regional dialects back into a more homogeneous language, instead of a trend towards linguistic divergence.

As for the maps you posted, honestly they mean nothing. Roman authorities were interested in political and administrative matters, not on ethnic affiliations and accurate national representation in their administrative districts, and of course they changed the political divisions of their empire, their borders and their names multiple times along the history of the empire. The region of the Prefecture of Illyricum had been divided in multiple different ways, with varying borders. There is probably a Roman Empire map for every tastes and sides in these "ethno-cultural wars" of the Balkans. ;-D

Finally, if I were you and Lazaridis I wouldn't look for answers to those questions in genetics, especially when you're talking about essentially the same language family continuing over time (Hellenic). Languages do not change, diverge, converge or whatever following genetics strictly, especially if what happened was not about a major linguistic change from one language family to another one.

 

[blevins13]

Greeks find continuity while Albanians are lost for words.....Dna has no say here....even for Lazaridis that now becomes linguistic considering that his beginnings he was an IT guy.....


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Johane Derite]

Well, but an Albanoid language family spoken in an extensive area 2000 years ago is not the same as the direct ancestor of Albanian at that same time. Those are two different issues. If a language directly connected to the eventual Albanian language was indeed spoken in or near Makedonia, and an Albanoid (descended from Proto-Illyrian? Probably) language family was spoken from Ukraine to Northern Albania as per the sources you posted, then the hypothesis that the specific proto-Albanian language was spoken in and around Moesia (basically modern Kosovo, south Serbia and northeast Albania), just north of Macedonia and right between the probable pre-Slavic extent of Western Proto-Romance and Eastern Proto-Romance, cannot be discarded for now, even if it does not necessarily mean that other sibling languages closely related to Albanian were also spoken in a much wider area in present-day Albania and elsewhere.

Albanian might well be the result of the superimposition of an Illyrian language moving southward over another Illyrian language already spoken there. I find it very unlikely that a homogeneous language was spoken from Epirus to Macedonia and to Dalmatia . A language family, okay, but not one indistinct language. The direct link between an ancient language and modern Albanian must be found in some more specific area.

Excuse me, but what you find unlikely is of no matter. You are an amateur that has almost no exposure to the paleo-balkan languages prior to your engagements with us on eupedia. You aren't exposed to even the most
basic Albanian history and yet you posture and present yourself as an authority on these matters.

Firstly, Huld is Paraphrasing Eric Hamp there, he is not ENDORSING him or agreeing with him entirely. He points out that other people are picking up on the Albanoid group being larger than people assumed.

Secondly, this is from Martin Huld placing the Albanian language as CONFIRMED on:

"The presence of ancient West Greek loans in Albanian implies that in classical antiquity the precursors of the Albanians were a Balkan tribe to the north and west of the Greeks. Such people would probably have been 'Illyrians' to classical writers. This conclusion is neither very surprising nor very enlightening since the ethnographic terminology of most classical authors is not very precise. An Illyrian label does little to solve the complex problems of the origins of the Albanian language.

The Makedonian nature of these loans is supported by the geographical distribution Of classical place-names that show the same effects of the Albanian accent rule:
8) Niš (Alb Nish) < ad Naissum, Ναϊσσός,
9) Rusc (in Bogdan, modern *Rush, present-day Dubrovnik) <
ad Rugúsās,
10) Štip (Alb Shtip) < "Aotlßov and
11) Vloré (Gheg Vloné) < Αυλώνα.



Vlora is a city in the utmost of South Albania. See unlike for you, every word and city name analysed here means something for us, we already know it intimately as you would your own country and language, yet you honestly believe yourself to be this genius that is enlightening us all. Go google where Vlora is.

Albanian language was spoken in ancient times in Epirus, Macedonia. That is confirmed by Huld. As simple as that. There has been no rebuttal or debunk of this by matzinger or orel.

And i'll comment this, you haven't read matzinger either, so why do you posture as if you understand this moesia argument as being stronger. I have read matzinger. His argument is extremely weak.

Firstly, he argues that Illyrian doesn't have enough inscriptions to the similarity to Albanian names could be coincidental (wow nice, doesn't seem to be too little to go saying things like "complete opposite" in tabloids though).

Secondly, his argument about Albanian location isn't even linguistic. His main argument about albanians location is based on many ancient toponyms and todays toponyms not following sound change laws since antiquity, and thus no continuity.

Historically this is an entirely invalid hypothesis. Im from kosovo and the last 100 years every toponym was serbian in official douments despite the population being 90 percent albanian. The political turbulence of the balkans is too high to base your argument on toponyms not enduring 2000 years. Linguists should stay out of the domain of historiography.

We know that main cities were captured by normans, goths, slavs, byzantines, etc. How can this honestly be the argument he uses to try claim that Albanians can't have been there.

Also, lets make this clear, the opposite does not hold true. Since its possible that a different language or people captures an area and changes toponyms, this doesn't mean that Albanians aren't still living in the population, whereas if we do find toponyms like the Vlora one above, which have continuity since antiquity, this confirms directly and FALSIFIES entirely the presence of the Albanian language in DEEP SOUTH ALBANIA (EPIRUS) since antiquity.

I will say it again, non-albanian toponyms DONT falsify Albanian presence as they simply could not have been in power. Strabo mentions macedonia being POLYGLOT. Strabo mentions the Epirote LANGUAGE.

I'm sick of you using Matzinger and Orel as arguments without even reading them, and yet you don't grasp why their arguments dont make sense. Because we have concrete evidence of the Albanian language in places where they say they cant have been.

We have concrete evidence of Albanian haplogroups where they say Albanians couldn't have been. Honestly i'm tired and losing my patience with this Gaslighting treatment from you people.

Go read about the fascist greek North Epirus movement that wants to ethnically cleanse south albania and take the territory. One of their main tactics they use is by justifying it through Archeology as being "their property".

To do this , they must obviously erase and deny any Albanian presence from the past in epirus also.

 

[Johane Derite]

And another history lesson for why greeks manipulate and weaponise archeology:

Greece is legally still in a State of War with Albania. This gives their military and intellgence legal right to carry out all sorts of psychological warfare, propaganda, and other territorial operations that would otherwise be illegal.

 

[Nik]

Well, but an Albanoid language family spoken in an extensive area 2000 years ago is not the same as the direct ancestor of Albanian at that same time. Those are two different issues. If a language directly connected to the eventual Albanian language was indeed spoken in or near Makedonia, and an Albanoid (descended from Proto-Illyrian? Probably) language family was spoken from Ukraine to Northern Albania as per the sources you posted, then the hypothesis that the specific proto-Albanian language was spoken in and around Moesia (basically modern Kosovo, south Serbia and northeast Albania), just north of Macedonia and right between the probable pre-Slavic extent of Western Proto-Romance and Eastern Proto-Romance, cannot be discarded for now, even if it does not necessarily mean that other sibling languages closely related to Albanian were also spoken in a much wider area in present-day Albania and elsewhere.

Albanian might well be the result of the superimposition of an Illyrian language moving southward over another Illyrian language already spoken there. I find it very unlikely that a homogeneous language was spoken from Epirus to Macedonia and to Dalmatia . A language family, okay, but not one indistinct language. The direct link between an ancient language and modern Albanian must be found in some more specific area.

Brother I always liked your posts and you are also right in this one, despite the misunderstanding you're having with the Albanian members. Everything you said in this post is 100% logical.

What you're not aware of (and the majority of members) is that Albanian is still nowadays not a "single language" and the differences between the so-called Albanian dialects are way bigger than those between Italian with Neapolitan and Sicilian languages, yet they're called languages while the Albanian versions are called dialects. For those knowledgeable on the Neapolitan, it has always amazed me how similar is to Albanian (especially Gheg) and I always thought as if Albanians came to South Italy, took the Italian language, "butchered" it in their own way and created Neapolitan.

The Moesian theory is not wrong at all as there was indeed a migration from there which affected many local variants to different degrees, either mostly replacing them, creating a hybrid version, of simply influencing them. But no way it spread the actually Albanian language to local Latin and Greek speakers as many areas maintained their characteristics up to these days. So you end up with regions far away with each other which share some very peculiar features despite the "Moesians" coming in the middle and dividing them for centuries.

 

[Johane Derite]

The Moesian theory is not wrong at all as there was indeed a migration from there which affected many local variants to different degrees, either mostly replacing them, creating a hybrid version, of simply influencing them. But no way it spread the actually Albanian language to local Latin and Greek speakers as many areas maintained their characteristics up to these days. So you end up with regions far away with each other which share some very peculiar features despite the "Moesians" coming in the middle and dividing them for centuries.

What are you talking about. There is no such medieval Moesian migration ever document or theorised about. Albanian is not a "hybrid" or creole language. Its possible that some vocabulary was added from a small group of moesians, if we ever have any evidence of such a migration, but not that some "hybridization" happened, which is linguistically fantastical. There is no tradition or argument on which to base the theory that Albanian comes from medieval Moesians.


How are any of you guys deeming yourself fit to speak on the history of paleo balkan languages of the first century with such glaring contradictions and straight up ignorance on the only surviving paleo balkan language?

Most hypocritical thing is to use matzinger without even reading him. How come in his papers (they are either in Albanian or German) he says that no conclusive remarks can be made about Illyrian since we have no inscriptions
and some uncertain glosses only? How come in the Tabloids he is making bombastic closed case statements about Albanian being a "polar opposite".

This is a screenshot from his paper:

later in the page he re-iterates:

"– Es gibt keine illyrische Inschrift. Eine früher fälschlich für illyrisch gehaltene Inschriftaus Nordalbanien hat sich als christliche byzantinische Inschrift herausgestellt."

Google translate of this is:

- - There is no Illyrian inscription. An earlier mistaken for Illyrian inscription
from northern Albania has proved to be a Christian Byzantine inscription.



Honestly, of the tiny few illyrian names we have like "Bardhylis" we have (Also Messapic "Bardulos) the connections with the Albanian male name "Bardhi" are well established. This name is documented in
use since ages ago. Bardh means white in albanian as in, the white one.

Lazaridis supporting medieval entry of Albanians is honestly a big dissapointment and makes no sense whatsoever.