Talk:Messapic language

message: Some of the few words presented here are very similar to presentday Albanian.
Aran - arën, the (cultivated) field (as accusative object)
Aprodita - afërdita, the dawn, also used as a girls' name
Klauhi - quaj, call
Mazzes - (i) madh, big
More about the relations between Messapian and Albanian in this site:
http://www.gjuha-shqipe.com/english/content/about_albanian/history.html
LM 217.209.140.193 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed from the Albanian language because the source was not given and the IP contributed a text with numerous errors:
Messapian Proto-Albanian Albanian meaning 
bili(v)a birlā bijë, bilë daughter 
brendon "deer" brina bri, pl. brirë horn, antler 
grahis, graiva grāwā grua, pl. gra woman, wife 
klaohi "listen" klāusnja quaj, quej to call 
kos kusa kush who 
skero (Salentine Greek) skirā hirrë whey 
veinam "self" swam > wa u reflexive clitic pronoun 
 swaja vehte self 
venas wana uri, û (Gheg dial. unja) hunger  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa the Sociopath (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I want to know how come is written that Messapic is Centum while seeing the sources (not the ones on the article because there are not) and the phonetic rules it looks like a satem language?. Aigest (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centum or Satem 

message: I read sources years ago saying that this passage is probably mostly names: I will bold at least some of them that look like names to me: 
klohi zis (=Zeus?) thotoria marta pido vastei basta veinan aran in daranthoa vasti (?) staboos xohedonas (?) daxtassi (?) vaanetos (Venetic v.a.nt.s, name) inthi trigonoxo a staboos xohetthihi dazimaihi beiliihi inthi rexxorixoa kazareihi xohetthihi toeihithi dazohonnihi inthi vastima daxtas kratheheihi inthi ardannoa poxxonnihi a imarnaihi 
---I will find more info showing why I think those are names, but I want to find the sources that I remember so I can source it in the article. I am so sure that the observation that is is mostly names is agreed upon, I will add that info ahead of time. Alex (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you come across studies of Venetic/Messapic names in common, add that to the article. Besides those in common three ways (Mess.; Illyr.; Venet.), I've noticed some that I can't find in Illyrian: Mold- (Venetic Moldo, Moldonkeo, etc/Messapic Moldahtas), V.an.t.s/Vaanetos etc. Alex (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This passage

message: Above Brundis is even bilia (daughter) connected to Alb bir(son) (while Old Alb bila) as Hamp here  Aigest (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaving here an article on another Messapic word, possible cognate to Menzanas: Meudler Marcel. Mézence, un théonyme messapien ?. In: Revue des Études Anciennes. Tome 105, 2003, n°1. pp. 5-15. [DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/rea.2003.5647] [www.persee.fr/doc/rea_0035-2004_2003_num_105_1_5647]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5CE7:8E72:EC12:30AF:8230:EF8C (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messapic cognates 

message: The text below was added by an anonymous editor, & lacks citations -- or even a clear point for inclusion. -- llywrch (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: , , or any contributor watching this page,
could you help me adding one or several pictures of Messapic inscriptions from this page? I'm not sure which license tag I must use or if I have the right to do so. Thank you, sincerely, Azerty82 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The content of the website hosting those images appears to have been copyrighted since 2008. It doubt the images can be used per WP:FAIRUSE either. Krakkos (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought (although the website is not at the origin of the picture; it's probably a decade-old one featured in the Monumenta Linguae Messapicae), thank you for the feedback, Azerty82 (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding pictures of inscriptions

message: :I propose renaming the article from 'Messapian' to 'Messapic', since the latter is clearly the main denomination used by scholars. See the footnotes in the article.
:The new lede would be:  Azerty82 (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I support renaming the article, but I don't see the need to edit the lede, that is currently fully sourced.--3knolls (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Iapygian' is added in the lede to reflect the section /* name */, but it could probably be better worded ('Messapic' is abusively used to refer to the 3 languages spoken in Apulia). Azerty82 (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: just a precision, the above-written proposition is not the full lede, just the beginning until  The rest of the lede will remain untouched Azerty82 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I support it. – Βατο (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messapian > Messapic 

message: I don't have much time to contribute to the article for now. Matzinger has written an interesting article (in Italian).
:PDF: http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/idomeneo/article/download/15282/13278 
:DOI: 10.1285/i20380313v19p57 (http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/idomeneo/article/view/15282)
:Azerty82 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , there is also: Matzinger, Joachim (2005): Messapisch und Albanisch (in German), in International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 2, 2005, pp. 29-54. – Βατο (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also available on-line: Matzinger (2014): Einführung ins Messapische. A recent book is Matzinger (2019): Messapisch ISBN 3954903989. – Βατο (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matzinger (2015) 

message: :Hi, congrats all for the great work on this article!
:Would you be interested in improving the articles on Iapygians, Messapians, Peucetians & Daunians? I've also been thinking about improving Illyrian languages and Illyrians for the last couple of weeks. What do you think? Choose what you prefer, I'm open to new projects ;-) Azerty82 (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, as you probably already know, Illyrian stuff is the most important, and also the most difficult. Guess it just depends how big a challenge you want :). --Calthinus (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the biggest challenge, so we'll work on Illyrians (in a draft or directly in the article?). (I had already worked with Βατο and other contributors on Illyrian mythology). Azerty82 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , what do you think? Do you prefer working on Illyrians or Illyrian languages? Azerty82 (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same, both are equally complicated subjects as there is very little information about "Illyrian" that can be considered widely accepted by scholars, moreover there are no recent publications that can provide more clarifications on it, but we can try. – Βατο (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm going to work on Illyrian languages. As you pointed out, the current field of research has been settled by Stipčević in the 1970s, superseding the older (and outdated) Krahe's theory. But as for Illyrian mythology, many recent sources have complemented Stipčević's theories on precise points. How do you access Stipčević's The Illyrians: history and culture? Via Google Books' snippet view or do you have a link? If so, can you send my an email? PS: See my (very short) draft (or you can use my note page to follow what I'm currently working on in general) Azerty82 (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I access it via Google Books' snippet view. I think that Katičić's works are also important, but except for Ancient Languages of the Balkans (1976), I don't have access to them. Also Balkan Languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian) (1982) by Edgar C. Polomé can be helpful. A recent work is Die Altbalkanischen Sprachen (2016) by Matzinger, which is available online, but it is in German.– Βατο (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Katičić is more important than Stipčević regarding the language. I just meant that the latter highlighted the fact that Illyrians were not a uniform group as Krahe initially thought. I also have Katičić's Ancient Languages. Other books are also available as pdfs, but they're in Croatian. I'll keep you in touch when I begin working on Illyrian languages. Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: New projects?

message: Klein/Fritz/Joseph explicitly say, in the second sentence of Alphabet that eta was "consonantal, not ē". I appreciate we have "heta". How should this be handled? --Calthinus (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification to this -- De Simone makes it pretty clear -- the "main" Messapic alphabet (Laconian-Tarentinian) uses eta as h, but in Apulian, it is /ē/. This is a relevant distinction. --Calthinus (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Also -- forgive my redundant citation of KFJ on top of de Simone who is the chapter author. I lack access to exact pages at the moment. I will have access soon. --Calthinus (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like if possible to put in some footnotes into the alphabet section as this may be the "neatest" way to do it. There is a lot of uncertainty about the values of various graphemes that the table alone is not capturing. But I'm not quite sure how to fix it.--Calthinus (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty is (1) Marchesini and De Simone are contradicting each other (2) the alphabet is given in a "synchronic" way while the letters and sounds changed over time. Marchesini gives eta /ē/, while De Simone notes that it was an aspirate ((h)eta was an aspirate in some Greek dialects). De Simone notes that the sound /u/ was absent, while Marchesini gives a /u/ sound from Greek upsilon. Azerty82 (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: , if you send me an email via my profile, I'll send you the three volumes of the handbook as searchable PDFs ;) Azerty82 (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this source: Matzinger (2014): Einführung ins Messapische can help for further clarification. I can't read it as it is in German. – Βατο (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Βατο, I'll look into it. Azerty82 (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would venture to say Marchesini is relying not on the Tarentinian, but on the Apulian alphabet. --Calthinus (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonetic value of eta 

message: The Eteocretan theory is mentioned by historian Gustave Glotz, in a 1925 source (WP:AGEMATTERS). It's an old source, and the historian (not linguist) mentions the connection in passing, without giving any evidence (WP:FRINGE). Eteocretan is unclassified, and it is not regarded as related to Messapic today, while Messapic is considered Indo-European, and connected to the ancient I-E languages of the Balkans in current scholarship. Find better sources, and add information complying with WP:DUEWEIGHT, please. – Βατο (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a historical hypothesis, just like Oscan theory: no reason for removing one of them. However, Messapic is not sure to be an Illiric language, and this is stated in the other source I added.--3knolls (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

text: .--3knolls (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Eteocretan is not even an Indo-European language. The article can not give equal space to outdated theories which are not supported today. It is commonly accepted that Messapic came from the Balkans and that before its migration it was very close to Illyrian. Durraz0 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the fact that no one knows whether Eteocretan was an IE language or not (and apart from the fact that the space dedicated to that historical theory is minimal), but please carefully read the book "Foundation of Latin" by Philip Baldi (2018) p. 150: "Now demonstrateted to be an independent IE language, Messapic was for some time connected by scholars with Illirian".--3knolls (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And Baldi also says there that "Evidence for Messapic connections with Illyrian are particularly strong, or at least as strong as anything related to Illyrian can be". That Messapic was an independent IE langauge and not a dialect of Illyrian is not sth new. The very first sentence of the article says that. And do not mistake the Illyrian language with the concept of Illyrian languages. Illyrian ("proper Illyrian") was spoken in southern Illyria, while Illyrian languages were a group of languages and dialects spoken in or originating from Illyria that were similar/closely connected with Illyrian. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read also : "The interpretation of the extant Messapic inscriptions is too unclear to warrant the inclusion of Messapic in any Indo-European subfamily. There are obvious onomastic links with other Italic languages and possible lexical ties with Albanian, but Messapic offers no independent evidence for words of PIE origin." As far as I can see, only Wikipedia states that Messapic is "an independent Illyrian language", whereas nearly all modern reliable sources state it "is an independent Indo-European language".--3knolls (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't say that Messapic is an independent Illyrian language. Proto-Messapic diverged from the same language or language branch as Balkan Illyrian in the LBA and Messapic was a distinct/independent language 500 years after the Iapygian migrations. All groupings which have been proposed about Messapic include Illyrian to an "upstream" or as phyloequivalent, hence 1)"Messapo-Illyrian" which is further grouped with Albanian under "Adriatic Indo-European"  or  2)"General Illyrian" or 3)"Western Paleo-Balkan".--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours are nothing but mere hypotheses. Please carefully read this source instead: : "As far as we can tell from the scanty textual remains of these languages, most were independent branches of IE and not part of a sub-group. Lusitanian is one example of such a language, and Messapic provides another. (...) Like Lusitanian, it is generally recognized to be IE, but is not securely associated with any branch of IE language. (...) The language shows significant divergences from the IE branches which are attested closest to it: Greek, Latin and Sabellian languages of Italy, and Albanian." Is it adequately clear now that Messapian is to be considered a very independent IE language? Yet although several reliable sources state that, every time I try to add this sentence with the sources, you keep removing both the contribution and the sources without any cause.--3knolls (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Messapic is of Balkan origin. It's not a hypothesis. The Archaeology of South-East Italy in the First Millennium BC has an extensive analysis about the Iapygian migrations. The article calls Messapic an independent language in the first paragraph. You can file a discussion at WP:RFC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 3knolls, your sources say that "The interpretation of the extant Messapic inscriptions is too unclear to warrant the inclusion of Messapic in any Indo-European subfamily" and that "and Messapic provides another. (...) Like Lusitanian, it is generally recognized to be IE, but is not securely associated with any branch of IE language" The Illyrian languages are not an Indo-European subfamily or a branch of IE language. They are just a group of languages and dialects that originated in what was known in the ancient Greek and Roman world as Illyria, and had good similarities with each other (judging mostly based on toponymy and onomastics, ofc). That is all the point of this. Linguists know next to nothing about these languages, Messapic itself included. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

text: @3Knolls Philip Baldi's work was published in 1998, it's not so recent, but it does not contrast more recent publications. The Balkan regional origin of Messapic is different from the alleged regional origin of the other I-E languages you listed above (Oscan, Umbrian, Latin and Faliscan), because Messapic, before migrating to Italy, is considered to have been originally part of an ancient sprachbund of the Balkans, regardless of its genetic affiliation to the other languages like Albanian (most likely according to current scholarship) or "Illyrian" (which is difficult to establish because of its scarse attestation). The Paleo-Balkan languages are particularly relevant for the classification of Messapic. – Βατο (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Βατο I obviously agree that Messapic is not an Italic language, but we can't categorize it as an "Illyrian language", because four recent reliable sources (which are all cited in this talk page) clearly state that Messapic is an independent IE language. I don't understand why you totally opposed my edits, even though I only used those sources (except for the old Eteocretan theory, which –just like the Oscan theory– is still historically relevant though). If you want to correct my contributions, you are welcome; but the article must be neutral and verifiable, and you cannot delete well sourced content.--3knolls (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

text: PS And here is a fifth, very recent source:  It cites Messapic "with uncertain Italic or Albanian connections".--3knolls (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced "Category:Illyrian languages" with "Category:Paleo-Balkan languages". The article clearly states that Messapic is distinct from Illyrian, although related (either by language contact or genetically) to Illyrian, in agreement with current linguistics (see inline citations). For the Eteocretan fringe theory there is no place, you added it based on a century ago source, and much research has been carried out in the last decades analysing new inscriptions, no wonder the alleged Eteocretan relation is never mentioned in current scholarship. – Βατο (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I removed also the template:Illyrians, and pulled out the Iapygian tribe from this. I actually found no current scholarship mentioning Eteocretan theory, but the other modern sources I cited in this discussion are very reliable, and I'll use them for improving this article; however, I'm not minded to remove any existing content and, if you need clarification, we will talk about it here. Thanks, 3knolls (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Illyrian tribes and Iapygian tribes are historically, archaelogically, genetically, and culturally related. Do not remove that template without consensus. – Βατο (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I will start a discussion as soon as possible, but first please @Maleschreiber @βατο can you clarify if your accounts are somehow related or not?--3knolls (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  you are free to start a discussion. I reworded some parts adding also De Vaan (2018). And no, I am not related to User:Maleschreiber, is your allegiation based on the reverts of your massive removal of templates and categories from several articles without discussing it before? – Βατο (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  3knolls should get an overview of bibliography and avoid questions which can be construed as WP:ASPERSIONS.  you are arguing for a position which is indefensible. The Iapygians did move to Italy from the Balkans in the LBA/EIA. This movement has been investigated and verified at every level - archaeological, historical, anthropological, genetic and linguistic.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The template 'Illyrians' is not about Illyrians proper, but about everything concerning the ancient peoples and tribes of the western Balkans that have been associated with the term "Illyr-/ioi/-ii/-is/-icum" by ancient authors and by modern scholars, and Iapygian peoples are enough related in many aspects to be included in that tamplate. I think the links of the tribes and their cultural elements can stay, while the links of the settlements can be removed adding them into a new template specifically about Iapygians. – Βατο (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Eteocretan