The Albanian language!

Wow, so many threads on the Albanian language...

One interesting fact I learned is that the name Dalmatia is almost certainly linked etymologically to the Albanian word for sheep: "delmja." That tells me that the lost Illyrian language was probably ancient Albanian.

There are only a handful of surviving Illyrian words recorded by Romans or Greeks. I seem to recall another one: "rhinos," which meant fog. I have noticed that in modern Albanian "re" means cloud and "ajros" means air/ventilate.


it has been centuries and they cannot find illyrian language...because there was no illyrian language...all tribes under the geographical term "illyrian" spoke a different language.......we have seen liburnian language , ............messapic ( most likely a mix with local italic tribes )

scholars have been looking for centuries for something which does not exist

We have a list of Illyrian personnel names from Noricum ( which is East Austria )

one of five pages


.............................................

I cannot believe how silly people are in thinking that a huge area like Illyria had one language..............there is no place in the world in ancient or modern times that had one language for such a vast area
 
Wow, can't remember the last time someone called me silly, and in bold text too... thanks for that, it made me chuckle at what poor etiquette you have.

Arguing which groups among the Iapodes, Liburnians, Histrians and Delmatoi should be considered Illyrian and which should not is frivolous. I'm not going to play labelling games. There were "many languages" in the same way that there are "many languages" today in Papua New Guinea. In reality mutually intelligible dialects. Obviously Illyrians did not all speak the exact same language, stop being pedantic. From now on we have to all say "Illyrian group of languages"? The region of Illyria was defined differently by Greeks and Romans, changing over time as well. This plasticity much like the dialectic continuum is a pointless technicality to the broader question.

The Illyrians were a primitive people with no written language. The region was one of the first to be conquered by the Romans and thereafter spoke Latin. Obviously it is not going to be found now and no one is looking for it.

For anyone else who thinks that the term Illyrian language is a useful heuristic, consult the "silly" mainstream wikipedia article entitled "Illyrian language." Now, back to the focus of this thread, the Albanian language.
 
Last edited:
Wow, can't remember the last time someone called me silly, and in bold text too... thanks for that, it made me chuckle at what poor etiquette you have.
Arguing which groups among the Iapodes, Liburnians, Histrians and Delmatoi should be considered Illyrian and which should not is frivolous.  I'm not going to play labelling games. There were "many languages" in the same way that there are "many languages" today in Papua New Guinea. In reality mutually intelligible dialects. Obviously Illyrians did not all speak the exact same language, stop being pedantic. From now on we have to all say "Illyrian group of languages"? The region of Illyria was defined differently by Greeks and Romans, changing over time as well. This plasticity much like the dialectic continuum is a pointless technicality to the broader question.
The Illyrians were a primitive people with no written language. The region was one of the first to be conquered by the Romans and thereafter spoke Latin. Obviously it is not going to be found now and no one is looking for it.
For anyone else who thinks that the term Illyrian language is a useful heuristic, consult the "silly" mainstream wikipedia article entitled "Illyrian language." Now, back to the focus of this thread, the Albanian language.
The naming of tribes in the ancient world up to medieval times was based the language differences that had with each other ...........Dalmatians and Liburnian, Japodes, Venetic, Ligurian , etruscans etc etc have different names because they spoke different languages .............there is no Illyrian language, there never was and it will never be found ...........every tribe in the geographical area the Romans called Illyriucum spoke a different language.
The romans even divided the land " illyria" to govern separately as they where too different from each other

what do you mean primitive and no written language ..............everyone had writings , they traded with each other , there have been interpreters since the beginning of man .
Wikipedia value is only in the links in each page......what is written is based on people own scenario they either fabricated or other
I have even seen on Wikipedia.......a scientic DNA study which had noted a certain Ydna ...and someone decided they did not like it and changed the Ydna on Wiki....they could not changed the scientic attached papers
The term Illyrian is based on a geographical area....it is the same as the term Scandinavian, Iberia or British .........it does not mean the same people
 
I simply have to admire the confidence with which you assert your claims. What self-appointed expertise you wield. You can stop using bold font and repetitiveness in your text, I have no problems understanding your argument.

Ligurians and Etruscans have nothing to do with Illyria, but I can see why you would mention them to try and make Illyria seem more cosmopolitan. The limiting factor to tribal and regional names was geographical and political. The realm of a strongman's rule. You can post all the maps you want... polities are categorical but language distribution is spectral. You really think on either side of a boundary they spoke a different language? Moreover, these borders were constantly shifting due to power struggles and conquest, but language was relatively stable.

The names of tribes and nations in antiquity derived from a multitude of sources, sometimes their rulers, sometimes geographical features like rivers, sometimes social traits. It's a complex nexus that can work in both directions. I've already showed that it's highly likely the Dalmatians were named after the word for sheep, because they were pastoralists. Tribes split, merged and migrated, the idea that this necessitated a language change each time is absurd. There are plenty of historical records of people encountering foreigners from far-flung lands who nevertheless "spoke the same tongue." They understood the difference between a very similar tongue and a very different one. Historians like Jordanes and Pliny had a racial model for language and new that a conglomerate of tribes could share the same general language.

Illyrians were absolutely primitive and had no written language. Their gravestones (stećci) had pretty low-grade artwork with child-like depictions lacking bodily proportion. You would think they might carve the names of the deceased or some other wording if they had written language, but they didn't. Roman accounts of Illyrians described their general appearance as haggard, with unkempt hair and poor hygiene. They were also said to be highly superstitious; it was forbidden to look at the moon for fear of instant death, while during eclipses people would leap to their death because they thought it was the end of the world. Sounds pretty primitive to me. The West Balkans was sparsely populated, mountainous, underdeveloped in terms of agriculture... why you think it would have been a hotbed of linguistic diversity or a magnet for various cultures to settle is beyond me.

As for the terms Scandinavian, Iberian and British, by your logic it makes no sense to talk about the historical language of these regions. And yet we know that in Denmark and Southern Sweden they would have spoken virtually the same language back then, Old Norse. We know that pre-Anglosaxon Britain spoke a Celtic language. You really think the Welsh, Scots and Bretons in Northern France would not have spoken a mutually intelligible language back then? Large geographical area...trivial distinction.

I can see you have made pretty much the exact same posts elsewhere on this forum under the account name "Sile." Not sure why you have more than one account, or why you are so inclined to be pedantic on a narrow definition of language, at the expense of a common-sense survey of language distribution in antiquity. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 1 tribe = 1 language? Ok pal, you said it.
 
I simply have to admire the confidence with which you assert your claims. What self-appointed expertise you wield. You can stop using bold font and repetitiveness in your text, I have no problems understanding your argument.

Ligurians and Etruscans have nothing to do with Illyria, but I can see why you would mention them to try and make Illyria seem more cosmopolitan. The limiting factor to tribal and regional names was geographical and political. The realm of a strongman's rule. You can post all the maps you want... polities are categorical but language distribution is spectral. You really think on either side of a boundary they spoke a different language? Moreover, these borders were constantly shifting due to power struggles and conquest, but language was relatively stable.

The names of tribes and nations in antiquity derived from a multitude of sources, sometimes their rulers, sometimes geographical features like rivers, sometimes social traits. It's a complex nexus that can work in both directions. I've already showed that it's highly likely the Dalmatians were named after the word for sheep, because they were pastoralists. Tribes split, merged and migrated, the idea that this necessitated a language change each time is absurd. There are plenty of historical records of people encountering foreigners from far-flung lands who nevertheless "spoke the same tongue." They understood the difference between a very similar tongue and a very different one. Historians like Jordanes and Pliny had a racial model for language and new that a conglomerate of tribes could share the same general language.

Illyrians were absolutely primitive and had no written language. Their gravestones (stećci) had pretty low-grade artwork with child-like depictions lacking bodily proportion. You would think they might carve the names of the deceased or some other wording if they had written language, but they didn't. Roman accounts of Illyrians described their general appearance as haggard, with unkempt hair and poor hygiene. They were also said to be highly superstitious; it was forbidden to look at the moon for fear of instant death, while during eclipses people would leap to their death because they thought it was the end of the world. Sounds pretty primitive to me. The West Balkans was sparsely populated, mountainous, underdeveloped in terms of agriculture... why you think it would have been a hotbed of linguistic diversity or a magnet for various cultures to settle is beyond me.

As for the terms Scandinavian, Iberian and British, by your logic it makes no sense to talk about the historical language of these regions. And yet we know that in Denmark and Southern Sweden they would have spoken virtually the same language back then, Old Norse. We know that pre-Anglosaxon Britain spoke a Celtic language. You really think the Welsh, Scots and Bretons in Northern France would not have spoken a mutually intelligible language back then? Large geographical area...trivial distinction.

I can see you have made pretty much the exact same posts elsewhere on this forum under the account name "Sile." Not sure why you have more than one account, or why you are so inclined to be pedantic on a narrow definition of language, at the expense of a common-sense survey of language distribution in antiquity. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 1 tribe = 1 language? Ok pal, you said it.


names of tribes was basically linguistic based......if it was a ruler, then did the tribal name change for every new ruler ! ..............language division was the only way on why a tribe was named as it was and why it lasted with that name for centuries

Illyria, Illyricum was a geographical term for an area ................if you want to use Strabo and an other roman historian and claim Illyrians , then the Rhaeti are Illyrians according to them, let me know.

coastal illyria and interior illyria .............all Illyrians tribes according to your theory

have your pick ...............Illyria a geographical term or one tribe split into many groups..............careful what you wish for, Rhaeti, Liburnian, Histrians, Nori , Pannonian, Vindelici there are many

............................
tribes named after sheep, eels, making pots, or whatever is besides the point...........they where separated due to language differences , they spoke different languages.


..............................
Pity my Sile account got corrupted, I would still be using it ....................any I felt funny using my sons account, so had no choice but make a new one.................I do not have more than 1 account for any site
 
Wow, so many threads on the Albanian language...

One interesting fact I learned is that the name Dalmatia is almost certainly linked etymologically to the Albanian word for sheep: "delmja." That tells me that the lost Illyrian language was probably ancient Albanian.

There are only a handful of surviving Illyrian words recorded by Romans or Greeks. I seem to recall another one: "rhinos," which meant fog. I have noticed that in modern Albanian "re" means cloud and "ajros" means air/ventilate.

Dal in Gaelic means people, tribe etc etc. for example Dal'Riata. What matia means I'm unsure.

Del/Dal also features among other IE languages so I don't think Dalmatia has quite the etymology as what Wikipedia states.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 26941 times.

Back
Top