Where does the Albanian language come from? [VIDEO]

[exercitus]

Well i mean onomastics like these:
https://i.imgur.com/7MRwosu.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/dFftTBH.jpg

 

[Johane Derite]

Well i mean onomastics like these:
https://i.imgur.com/7MRwosu.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/dFftTBH.jpg

Yes, like i said, the linguistic part has a phonology, morphology, and etymology part. It is way more cautious than the old 20th century ones.

For example:

Bardus, Bardulis, ScenoBardus, he argues that if it were related to Albanian. Bardhë, should have been Barzus, Barzulis, ScenoBarzus at this stage, instead it is possible these words were related to Old High German. Bart, Latin. Barba (meaning Beard) and the name ScenoBARBUS which is documented in a latin inscription gives support that these names were related to "Beard" (like Lombards for example) and not white as in Messapic. Barzidihi, Romanian. Barza (which shows that at the time of Albanian romanian contacts Bardhë was Barz-).

Likewise he mentions the example of the Illyrian mountain "Bora" that is etymologised as being descended from the same IE root that gave Slavic. Gora (mountain), Albanian. Gur (rock), Old Indian. Giri (Mountain).

Before you argue this is related to Albanian. Borë, borë comes from proto-Albanian ber-. So this is just two pages, I am trying to post as much from the book as I can, but it is not that expensive to buy online also. Computer version is available likewise.

 

[Thrako_Illyrian]

So apparently this Matzinger guy after I read him a bit more does not say that Albanian is not Illyrian, in fact he admits we don't know enough about Illyrians, but he claims Albanian is related to it. He seems to of abandoned the whole Thracian/Bessi theory which he claimed before I remember when I read him.

He simply now argues that Albanian only developed in Dardania and not modern Albania/Montenegro but of course there are many things wrong with these kind of claims. Who is to say that Inland Albania and Inland Montengro was not inhabited by an Albanian population for example ? Baric argues Albanians moved early out of Dardania and preceded the Slavs in the Malesi but even this claim is dubious. It still does not prove that inland Albania and inland Montenegro was not an Albanian home supposedly. Coastal areas were Romanized anyway. It's merely what survived as Illyrians turned into Albanian and not that proto-Albanians had never lived a coastal life or in any other area. But it would of naturally survived through contraction.

Some parts from Eric Hamp

Çabej points out that villages in the Balkans are generally of recent date and changeable settlement. Hence for the study of toponyms city names and rivers are best. If we inspect such names attested by ancient sources, we find that many follow Albanian phonological development: Scardus > Shar, with no metathesis, as in Scardona > Skradin. Scodra > Shkodër; Çabej remarks that sk- > h- belonged to the pre-Balkan period, and compares (VII Congresso internazionale 244), for phonology, shkamb < scamnum and kulshedër < chersydrus. (Rogame is a recent suffixation in -ame of rëge, and therefore no problem because of the medial -g-.) Barbanna > Buenë is regular, as shown by Jokl (IF 1932: 50.33 ff.), Slavia (1934-1935:13.286 ff.), Glotta (1936:25.121 B.). Lissus > Lesh (cf. missa > meshë, etc.); Çabej points out (VII Congresso intemazionale 245) that Latin + CC is regular, a statement I can neither affirm nor control at the moment. Dyrrachium > Durrës, Isamnus > Ishm, Drivastum > Drisht show, as Krahe claims, the Illyrian initial accent. Shkum(b)î < Scampinus is regular in the Central Albanian dialect, where pretonic ë > u and mb > m are expectable (VII Congresso internazionale 246). Aulwn > Vlorë may perhaps involve a Slavic intermediary. Thyamis > Çamëria, as Leake saw in 1814, is accepted by Çabej; however, one might expect s < t(cf. pus 'well' < Lat. puteus). Arachthos > Arta is supposedly better explained by Albanian than by Greek; but, apart from the surprising syncope, kt should yield ft or jt, and not t, from that time level. Ragusium (Ragusa) is Rush in Bogdan (1685).

Most Albanian-Rumanian correspondences come from borrowings by Vulgar Latin (as precursor of Rumanian) in Dardania from an Illyrian substrate. Then, we suppose, pre-Rumanian moved north of the Danube and merged with a Daco-Romance dialect, which contained Thracian elements showing correspondences with Armenian (allegedly a sound shift, and certain affixes dealt with in Rom. Jb. 9; for details, see below).

Albanian toponyms known from antiquity do not show Albanian phonological development. That should not be surprising; from the end of the tenth century the whole of southern Albania was overrun by Bulgarians. But that does not necessarily mean that there were no Albanians anywhere in Albania.

Old loans in Rumanian from Albanian and shared Albanian-Rumanian developments from Latin point to an eastern origin. But the nomadic habits of the Vlachs and the herding culture of the Albanians would have brought them into contact for perhaps long periods in the past. Moreover, granting that the Albanians may well have had eastern contacts, we still do not know exactly where the Illyrian-Thracian line was, and NaissoV (Nish) is regarded by many as Illyrian territory.

From these observations Cimochowski concludes only that the south of Albania, the north around Shkodër, and the Adriatic seacoast are excluded as earlier Albanian territory; but this does not prove a Thracian relationship. There then follows a long discussion of the evidence for an Illyrian relationship, which will be taken up in part below, after which Cimochowski concludes, with Stadtmüller, that the home of the Albanians was somewhere in the vicinity of the Mat, stretching to Nish.

It has long been recognized that there are two treatments of Latin loans in Albanian. Bari sets forth (LS 27-28, and Godinjak, Balkanoloki Institut, Sarajevo 1.1-16 [1957], esp. 7-11) a very convincing looking solution for this duality. Latin ct, cs gives Albanian ft, f(luftë 'war', kofshë 'thigh'), which matches Rumanian lupt, coaps; these would easily represent sound substitutions after IE *kt had become *t. (One problem I see in this is ftua 'quince' < cotónum, which would have to have become *ct- almost immediately to avoid falling in with këta 'this [n.], these [m.]'.) This group also includes Albanian traftr < tract-. On the other hand, we have in derjt 'straight' < d(i)rectus and trajtonj a different outcome, which matches Old Dalmatian traita < tract-. Similarly, there are both Albanian a and e as reflexes of Latin a, which match Rumanian and Dalmatian developments. These, then, would look back to two chronological and geographical layers, one an "inner Balkan" and the other a "coastal Adriatic." Bari(Godinjak 13) considers that since Rumanian has loans from Albanian, but Albanian has practically none in the opposite direction, these Rumanian shapes must all be "Restwörter," not "Lehnwörter"; but, as Reichenkron (above) takes into account, the loan situation may easily be more complex than this.

Of course then we have the Gheg-Tosk split, according to some it is old

The dialectal split into Gheg and Tosk happened sometime after the region become Christianized in the fourth century AD; Christian Latin loanwords show Tosk rhotacism, such as Tosk murgu "monk" (Geg mungu) from Lat. monachus."

The Greek and Latin loans have undergone most of the far-reaching phonological changes which have so altered the shape of inherited words while Slavic and Turkish words do not show those changes. Thus Albanian must have acquired much of its present form by the time Slavs entered into Balkans in the fifth and sixth centuries AD"

From Hamp:

The isogloss is clear in all dialects I have studied, which embrace nearly all types possible. It must be relatively old, that is, dating back into the post-Roman first millennium. As a guess, it seems possible that this isogloss reflects a spread of the speech area, after the settlement of the Albanians in roughly their present location, so that the speech area straddled the Jireček Line.

 

[exercitus]

Ah ok, i got it, Smerd style (!), but please tell me how can Smerd and Matzinger establish with sufficient precision the chronological phonetic development of g* >*dz >*d > dh, i.e. how do they know that in the II century BC the local 'Illyrian' pronounce it as *z/dz instead of *d !?
How do they know that the proto-romanians heard it as *dz and not *d !?

How can they explain the coexistence of Messapian Barzidihi and Bardulos (refering to a color!):

Bardylis: (Diodorus , Book XVI, chap. 4 , § 3) , or 'Bardyllis ' (Plutarch , Pyrrhus, chap . 9) is related to the word 'bardulos' meaning grey in the Messapian language.
???

How can they explain the term Bardocucullus which originated in Illyria!?

How do they know that every 'Illyrian' name with the root 'bard' means beard/bearded (while there exist whatsover no reference to such etymology !!) !?

We are all capable to speculate, but we need facts not fancy theories!!

 

[Johane Derite]

Ah ok, i got it, Smerd style (!), but please tell me how can Smerd and Matzinger establish with sufficient precision the chronological phonetic development of g* >*dz >*d > dh, i.e. how do they know that in the II century BC the local 'Illyrian' pronounce it as *z/dz instead of *d !?
How do they know that the proto-romanians heard it as *dz and not *d !?
How can they explain the coexistence of Messapian Barzidihi and Bardulos (refering to a color!):
Bardylis: (Diodorus , Book XVI, chap. 4 , § 3) , or 'Bardyllis ' (Plutarch , Pyrrhus, chap . 9) is related to the word 'bardulos' meaning grey in the Messapian language.
???
How can they explain the term Bardocucullus which originated in Illyria!?
How do they know that every 'Illyrian' name with the root 'bard' means beard/bearded (while there exist whatsover no reference to such etymology !!) !?
We are all capable to speculate, but we need facts not fancy theories!!

The chronology is established by loans into romanian from proto-Albanian.

Romanian Barza from Albanian Bardhë
Romanian Zala from Albanian Dhallë

So obviously the logic goes that it must have been *bardz at this point in proto-Albanian.

But again these are all cautious, i have personally wondered whether delta may have sometimes been used to represent *dz and Matzinger writes a couple of times that we dont know about such possibilities. But we still have to move forward.

But one thing which bothers me is that you never apply this type of scrutiny to arguments you like. It is so hypocritical.

 

[exercitus]

Do not mention me the hypocrisy, you confused the 'adress'!
I repeat my question:
How do they know that the proto-romanians heard it as *dz and not *d !?

This is not a reply:
Romanian Barza from Albanian Bardhë
Romanian Zala from Albanian Dhallë

Even the Turks used both Bard and Barz for the Albanian name/word Bardh, while they hear it for the first time after the XIV century !!
How can you explain it !?

No one has a clue how proto-Albanians pronuonced the modern word/name Bardhe in the V century AD (when likely the proto Romanians took it), also how can you explain the two versions Vjedulle/Vjedhulle which was adopted as Viezure in Romanian/Vlach !?

 

[Johane Derite]

Do not mention me the hypocrisy, you confused the 'adress'!
I repeat my question:
How do they know that the proto-romanians heard it as *dz and not *d !?
This is not a reply:
Romanian Barza from Albanian Bardhë
Romanian Zala from Albanian Dhallë
Even the Turks used both Bard and Barz for the Albanian name/word Bardh, while they hear it for the first time after the XIV century !!
How can you explain it !?
No one has a clue how proto-Albanians pronuonced the modern word/name Bardhe in the V century AD (when likely the proto Romanians took it), also how can you explain the two versions Vjedulle/Vjedhulle which was adopted as Viezure in Romanian/Vlach !?

Keep on pissing in the wind then

 

[exercitus]

No i prefer pissing in the appropriate target: n'hale!!

 

[Fustan]

You literally have not addressed a single point I brought up. How in good conscience does someone perform detailed linguistic analysis on an exonym?

It's like me trying to analyze where the word "Austria" comes from. "Oh, it ends in -ia, that must be an Eastern Latin place. I think "Aust" is related to the "Austerity""

Nevermind that the locals call it "Osterreich". But yeah, let's perform letter-by-letter analysis on a butchered exonym.

Completely agree. I get the same impression, that they're basically using the same logic as nationalistic Balkan YouTube commenters. I think studying Albanian in itself and it's relation to say Latin, Aromanian, Greek or even Slavic is way more useful than comparing it to some dubious reconstructed Illyrian language.

 

[Hawk]

Completely agree. I get the same impression, that they're basically using the same logic as nationalistic Balkan YouTube commenters. I think studying Albanian in itself and it's relation to say Latin, Aromanian, Greek or even Slavic is way more useful than comparing it to some dubious reconstructed Illyrian language.

More and more facts that E-V13 Z5018 was the progenitor of Proto-Albanoids. Very likely one of the languages of Gava/Channeled-Ware people.

 

[Thrako_Illyrian]

The suffix -um happens in many Albanian words actually as does the suffix -on. It is something that is actually typical in Albanian when expressing something in plural form. Suffix -um is actually a typical trait of Albanian at least in terms of plural form. We also have the suffix of -e . The suffix of -ai which possible turned to -aj.

There is also the suffix of -os which in Albanian has turned possibly into -osh.

This is something that I am pretty sure can also be lost in a language since based on my time learning Italian I noticed the structure of Albanian has been influenced by Latin. These type of suffixes are also easier lost than what Noel Malcolm claims which I quoted above which he claims is not as easy lost.

While -um were also typical of Illyrian place names they do not happen in all Illyrian place names some actually follow typical modern Albanian suffixes.

The dozzen of Illyrian place names explained in the Albanian language can also not be ignored.

But I have to admit it was a good observation made by Matzinger.

 

[Thrako_Illyrian]

I also agree that this is something that should be looked more into and I definitely will. But suffix -um in Gheg plural form for example is typical. Maybe it does not happen in place names today but this is a typical trait in plural form. If this is what he means. He seems to agree that it's not Dacian or Thracian yet his claim of a relationship with Messapian and Albanian and a contact zone in the Western Balkans while at the same time not Illyrian but ''unattested'' seem extremely dubious. It is also possible that Albanian changed since Illyrian times would be a more logical conclusion. Since we know some of the Messapians definitely came from the Western Balkans based on their names at one point and contact with Albanian possibly happened there. A lot of Illyrian place names also are explained in Albanian with a similar Illyrian origin for example.

I will look more into this guys claims.

I am also not sure how quick the structure of a language can change but in a lot of cases the structure of Albanian reminds me of Latin/Italian a lot. Such as the ''e'' which is used.

 

[enter_tain]

The suffix -um happens in many Albanian words actually as does the suffix -on. It is something that is actually typical in Albanian when expressing something in plural form. Suffix -um is actually a typical trait of Albanian at least in terms of plural form. We also have the suffix of -e . The suffix of -ai which possible turned to -aj.

There is also the suffix of -os which in Albanian has turned possibly into -osh.

This is something that I am pretty sure can also be lost in a language since based on my time learning Italian I noticed the structure of Albanian has been influenced by Latin. These type of suffixes are also easier lost than what Noel Malcolm claims which I quoted above which he claims is not as easy lost.

While -um were also typical of Illyrian place names they do not happen in all Illyrian place names some actually follow typical modern Albanian suffixes.

The dozzen of Illyrian place names explained in the Albanian language can also not be ignored.

But I have to admit it was a good observation made by Matzinger.

The -um suffix is a Latin suffix, and -on is a Greek suffix. They added this to cities all throughout. Nothing to do with Illyrians. You have Delminium and Delminion in both languages. It's like saying Albanopolis. The -polis was added by the Greeks. Nothing to do with the inhabitants.

This is something a child would spot.

 

[enter_tain]

Do not mention me the hypocrisy, you confused the 'adress'!
I repeat my question:
How do they know that the proto-romanians heard it as *dz and not *d !?

This is not a reply:
Romanian Barza from Albanian Bardhë
Romanian Zala from Albanian Dhallë

Even the Turks used both Bard and Barz for the Albanian name/word Bardh, while they hear it for the first time after the XIV century !!
How can you explain it !?

No one has a clue how proto-Albanians pronuonced the modern word/name Bardhe in the V century AD (when likely the proto Romanians took it), also how can you explain the two versions Vjedulle/Vjedhulle which was adopted as Viezure in Romanian/Vlach !?

Like I said, this guy is creating a ghost population with undocumented major migrations and unattested language. The ultimate hoaxer.

 

[Thrako_Illyrian]

Ok. So I have now sent an email to at least Noel Malcolm to see what he thinks about this guys claims. I hope he replies back. I also linked his book. Maybe he will read it. I hope he gets my email. Maybe I will send to some more historians and linguists. I am really curious to see what they think of this guy.

It's also not the first time this guy has changed his mind. First he claimed Albanians from the Bessi, then he seemed to of changed his mind, then he claimed Messapian is related to Illyrian then he changed his mind now again. Apparently in a writing from 2016 he linked Messapian to Illyrian for example.

The suffix -um does not happen in Dardania for example based on the toponyms we have neither does the combination of two place names like in Thracian for the most part. This type of combination can only be seen among Thracian and Dacian for the most part AFAIK. Nor does the suffix -um in all Illyrian place names occur. Dardania was described by many as Illyrian territory. I find it dubious that they were not Illyrian but a branch of their own like supposedly Messapian which seemed to of had lots of influence from Illyrian.

Anyway, I really think what this guy claims is actually something that can be lost from developing different. But we will see. And some of the things he claims are dubious. But lets see further.

 

[broder]

It's good mental exercise playing around with linguistic theories especially when we are dealing with renown serious linguists, so no need to get emotional about it.

Anyway, regardless of what linguists say, we now have genetic evidence that can not be brushed off that links Iapygians (Daunians), Illyrians and Albanians - at least through L283 lineages. Possibly even through Z2103 considering one of the Daunian samples was Z2103+. A stew that most likely started brewing during early bronze age in cultures like Maros where we find L283 coexisting with Z2103 descendants (like Z2108, Z2110 and CST7556).

How other linages like V13 and PF7563 fit in this puzzle and what their linguistic implications are, is yet to be determined me thinks. This coming paper with samples from Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro etc will most definitely shed some light.

 

[Johane Derite]

For the hundredth time. It is not about the "um" suffix, but about the reflex of the syllabic resonants: /r̩/ /l̩/ /m̩/ /n̩/


In Albanian, /n̩/ gave /a/ for example: Indo European. *mn̩ti- gave Albanian. Mati whereas in Illyrian, this would be Munti.


Matzinger never supported the Bessi hypothesis, so you guys probably haven't even read his work but other people's misinterpretations.

 

[Johane Derite]

After removing all possible contaminations (i.e. Dardanus, even Gentios as possible Celtic influence) these are the names he is left with as being properly "Illyrian"

Abozika
Adana
Amyra
Andena
Bardylis
Billena
Birkenna
Koreta
Etleva
Ettuta
Ettritos
Glavus
Grabos
Grabon
Kona
Langaros
Laudos
Lydra
Madena
Mallika
Mannikos
Monounios
Pinnes
Plassus
Pleuratos
Preurat/dos
Skeneta
Temus
Titos
Trauzos
Trauzina
Verzan
Verzas
Khaka
Khortas
Zaimina
Zaimios
Zanatis


Google translate:



(a) In fact, single-part personal names predominate, compound nouns, on the other hand, are receding (see above).

(b) After weeding out all personal names that are certainly of foreign origin (Greek, Celtic, etc.), or for which such a foreign origin must be discussed, the following names remain from the synopsis given above, which have so far only been are documented in the Illyrian area, or for which there is no reference to a possible foreign name:

(c) In the case of single-part personal names, it can be seen that some, such as personal names, which cannot be directly identified as Illyrian personal names, are formed with certain suffixes that typically appear in local personal naming and are therefore referred to here as local suffixes (cf. already Krahe 1929, 145-150 according to the outdated concept of Illyrian naming, but above all in de Simone 1993, 42-54 including the name material from Dyrrhachion and Apollonia; the designation 'local suffixes' refers to the fact that these pictorial means are typically in the personal naming of the Illyrian area, which does not rule out that some of these suffixes can also be found in other Indo-European languages). These local suffixes include e.g. B.


It is noticeable that the suffixes -éna- and -eta- are used in women's names and therefore may have been used specifically to derive women's names, while other suffixes may have a patronymic function or to form hypocoristics (short names or Pet names) were used (considerations on the possible functions of these suffixes for de
Simone 1993, 44).


(d) In contrast to the toponyms of the Illyrian area, a certain systematics can be recognized in anthroponymy, as just shown, since in addition to synchronously opaque personal names there are also names that are formed with specifically local suffixes, whereby it is possible that then specifics of derivation in the area of ​​anthroponymy of Illyrian as a sub-area of ​​the general word formation of this language could be identified.


(e) In Papazoglu 1979 an attempt was made to identify special local name clusters within the personal name areas. New discoveries and technically improved search options create the basis for investigating this question again in a future analysis, which has yet to process the anthroponymy of the Illyrian area in terms of geographical and, above all, chronological evidence.


With regard to the distinction between three distinctly different personal name areas in the Western Balkans, it is finally important to note that this does not necessarily mean different languages ​​or language areas.


It is conceivable that personal name areas can also be distributed among variants or varieties of a language. However, due to the lack of linguistic data, no statements can be made about such varieties or dialect differences (> Section C.1). On the other hand, personal name areas are often correlated with individual language (areas), or as Katiéié 1976, 183 describes it:


"Onomastic systems are no languages ​​and cannot therefore be automatically equated with them, but a certain correlation between both can be expected to exist, especially in primitive society where no superethnic cultural structures were formed".

 

[Hawk]

How other linages like V13 and PF7563 fit in this puzzle and what their linguistic implications are, is yet to be determined me thinks. This coming paper with samples from Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro etc will most definitely shed some light.

PF7563 already is rumoured in Early Bronze Age Albania, so a remnant of Yamnaya very likely, which Balkan IE, unable to determine.

E-V13 so far is the confirmed South-Eastern Urnfield lineage (Gava descended people, scattered in 4 different Hallstatt La Tene sites, although minimal but present), and from historical population it is the Geto - Thracians that carried en mass. I expect Dardanians, Paeonians, Enchelei, and Iron Age Greeks to carry as well.

If Illyrian was East Alpine Block language it's not a language derived from Yamnaya, but from Bell-Beakers, that's a simple math.

What Matzinger is leaving blank is what is the relationship of Greek, Thracian, Phrygian, Albanian, Messapian if they are Balkan IE. Are they all Yamnaya derived, or some of them came during LBA?

 

[Johane Derite]

For the hundredth time. It is not about the "um" suffix, but about the reflex of the syllabic resonants: /r̩/ /l̩/ /m̩/ /n̩/


In Albanian, /n̩/ gave /a/ for example: Indo European. *mn̩ti- gave Albanian. Mati whereas in Illyrian, this would be Munti.


Matzinger never supported the Bessi hypothesis, so you guys probably haven't even read his work but other people's misinterpretations.

To further illustrate the point, if all other factors the same, these toponyms Petuntium and Diluntum in Albanian would be Petatium and Dilatum while in Messapic would be Petantium and Dilantum because of the difference in reflexes