Talk:Thracian language

message: To do: besides rewriting/improving some sections: add images of the inscriptions; put the Thracian lexical elements in Greek script for those that are from Greek texts, etc., indicate primary sources, etc., add a ==Reference== section. A language map showing distribution would also be useful. IPA for PIE reconstructions. 07:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoken prior to the beginning of the Middle Ages, appx. 560 A.D.  50.111.29.1 (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The article says: Excluding Dacian, whose status as a Thracian language is disputed1, and the footnote says that This is confirmed among others by Benjamin W. Fortson in his Indo-European Language and Culture, when he states that "all attempts to relate Thracian to Phrygian, Illyrian, or Dacian ... are ... purely speculative" (p. 90). "Confirmed among other by..." Who are the others that state that? Is the Romanian and undoubtably 99% of the foreign historiography wrong, and has been wrong for decades now in clasifying Dacian as a Thracian language? And what is with this tone: "whose status as a Thracian language is disputed" Disputed? Disputed by whome? By two nerdy wikipedia editors? Greier 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disputed by those mentioned. U have to understand that you cannot push your POV. find sources and add them, for Christ's sake! btw, in the past Albanian was considered as a Hellenic language... And even further back in time, Latin was considered a Hellenic dialect. so, do not present past theories as if they are still right.... Same times they may be not. Hectorian 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A nerd and a dork is one who barges into the article and starts screwing things up based on his prejudices. In this case, my opinion or your opinion is not the issue. A survey of the literature will show the situation. My opinion? Possibly Dacian and Thracian were close enough that in retrospect they can be viewed as one language. Conversely, they may have been quite different. And something that hasn't been covered in this article yet because we need sourced information: it may be that what we now think of as the "Thracian language" was a number of distinct languages that have been lumped together. There was probably a lot of language interference between several Indo-European languages, as well as non-Indo-European languages in ancient Thrace and its environs. 69.106.206.100 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: However, while Dacian and Thracian are commonly treated as separate languages (though sometimes as dialects), I think it is fair to say those who think that Dacian and Thracian were not closely related are currently a small minority? 69.106.206.100 01:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thracian and Dacian

message: Unless they are exclusive to Bulgarian or whatever Slavic language is the case, place the Proto-Slavic cognate. For example, "ostru" is also in Slovak, "ostry", etc. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulgarian cognates

message: Is poltyn attested or is that extracted from Poltymbria? Till I find that out I removed poltyn from the list. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poltyn

message: «ROLISTE NEAS NERENEA TILTEAN ES KOAR AZEADOME ANT ILEZ UP TAMIĒ ERA ZELTA»
Can be reconstructed such:
«RULLISTE NIES NEREŅA TILTAN, IZ KUR ĀZIEDAMI ANT ĪLES UPI, TAMĪ IRA ZELTA»
Knowing Latvian and Curonian, we can see understandable words:
roliste = rulliste! - 'roll!' > 'go/ride!'
neas = nies - 'down'
nerenea = Nerenis - the bridge name, 'Nere' - the river name, nerti - 'to dive'
tiltean = tiltan - 'bridge'
es = iz - 'from'
koar = kur/kura - 'where/which'
azeadome = āziedami/aiziedami - 'going behind/from'
ant = ant - 'to/till'
ilez = Īles - Yle - the river name
Up = upe - 'river'
tamiē = tamī - 'there/in it'
era = ira - 'is'
zelta = zeltan - 'gold'
So, the full translation could be:
«Go down till Nerena bridge, going from which till Yle river, there (in it) is gold»
Roberts7 19:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a few linguists are indeed intrigued by the apparent Balto-Thracian correspondences, even speculating a large Balto-Thracian linguistic continuum from Baltic to Balkans, only later taken over by a new, more advanced dialetc - Slavic. Hxseek (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I cannot see why someone would put such a thing on a ring, but we are not here to judge the possibilities. If you have a reference for that translation please include it, otherwise we cannot simply add it like that. Fkitselis (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inscription translation 

message: I've just marked as original research a new addition made by Tsiringanos (talk · contribs). It admits to being by an 'independent researcher' and is not followed up with a reference. It's style is clearly non-academic. I'll inform the user, and see if we can shed some light on it. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the section since the editor has in fact identified it as original research. Mr. Tsiringanos should tell us where his independent study has been published before it is added again. Aramgar (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsiringanos

message: ::The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries BC by John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, E. Sollberger, and N. G. L. Hammond ,,1992,page 612: "According to Strabo(vii.6.1cf.st.Byz.446.15) the Thracian -bria word meant polis but it is an inaccurate translation"Megistias (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bria not polis 

message: Why do we state "indo-european" if we don't know enough of this language. Why do we link Thracian to Dacian? is there any proof? If we know such few things about Thracian (hydronims, kings names and few words) why don't we just state that PROBABLY this is an "indo-european" language PROBABLY linked to Dacian? Abdulka (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sticking to the facts 

message: This word is interesting.In modern Greek there is the word βουνό vuno', which means mountain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsof (talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Linguists would have to find it interesting to be significant.  There are all kinds of modified loanwords and coincidences in languages. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually HammerFilm, my apologies: this is what the Thracologist actually says: Βασίβουνον Beševl. PKN p.139: pentru prima parte, Βασί-, majoritatea cercetătorilor propun numele latin Bassus, deşi transcrierile procopiene ale numelor latine respectă consoanele duble(v. infra Βασσίδινα Exemple). Ne-am putea gândi şi la un *Βουσί-(v. Βουσίπαρα) cu confuzia α/ου. Al doilea formant este cel mai probabil grecul(=trac?) βούνον "măgură,deal". Nelocalizabil.---I'll translate: βούνον is a Greek word, attested in Greek pretty well, there is even a Greek mythological figure named Bounos. Olteanu ventures a suggestion, not a commitment or an etymological study, that the word may also be Thracian, maybe even of Thracian origin. I have seen proposed etymologies of βούνον that do not mention Thracian as the source. Possible Thracian origin, but there is no real evidence yet for a Thracian origin for βούνον besides two Thracian toponyms in Procopius: Βασίβουνον and Kasibonon. There is also the possibility that the word was part of a Balkan sprachbund. 76.208.172.115 (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree with Kitsof. βουνό is a very common word denoting smaller mountains, while for high mountains the word όρος is used. I have never taken a closer look to this, but I am sure someone has written something about it. Otherwise, I would say it is a weird miss. 
Fkitselis (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word 'bounos',hill,mound 

message: An image used in this article, File:Ezerovo ring.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It just needs a fair use rationale added to it. --Codrin.B (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ezerovo ring.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Some sources as Horace  Horace, "Odes" I, 20.,Ovid  Ovid - Trist, II, 188 - 189 and Sextus Rufus   Sextus Rufus, Breviarium, C. VIII, cf. Bocking Not, Dign. II, 6  showed similarities between Latin and Thracian.
They were in contact with thracians and exposed their opinions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.18.215 (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please be more specific about those similarities? From the scarse material and onomastics, there's absolutely no similarity to Latin, apart from their common Indo-European background. Fkitselis (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thracian and Latin 

message: Shouldn't the Celtic word briga be listed as a cognate for bria, "town" or "settlement"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.19.86 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic briga 

message: At the "wild pumpkin"...the romanian (but also bulgarian and serbian) word for watermellon is a bustrofedon: "lubenița”.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian language... 

message: Some cognates to the Thracian lexical items are not correct (for instance "manteia" wrongly connected to German "Mandel", which comes from Late Latin "amandula", itself from Ancient Greek αμύγδαλη. The same word gives "almond" in English, "mandle" in Czech, "миндаль" in Russian) and the situation with some cognates is a bit absurd, this is particularly true for Slavic cognates. Sometimes 3-4 different Slavic languages are mentioned for the same word without a good reason, sometimes only Serbian and/or Bulgarian are given for a common slavic root (this can be misleading, since it gives the idea that they're substrate words); I'd propose to put just the Old Church Slavonic word or the proto-Slavic one, adding specific Slavic language, when they're more interesting or they're true substrate words. --*Weyd-tor (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrational/wrong cognates 

message: The Thracian linguistic territory and toponym "para" occupied northeastern Serbia, see page 90, 91--130.204.227.29 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: How absurd and crazy it sounds I can not even imagine, yet 80% of this article is based on his imagination from the year 1992. Also this theory is based on less extreme theory formed in 1969 by Ivan Duridanov. Long before proper DNA tests on haplogroups and aDNA and mtDNA were done. Those were the times of pure speculations and wishful thinking in science of populations and migrations. Anyway if there was a BALTO-SLAVIC group or even Indo-European or Satem group in Dacia or Thracia then claiming it for yourself as Slavic or Baltic is senseless, because if there are both Slavic and Baltic cognate words in Thracian then it could simply mean that it was closer to those languages than it was for example to Germanic languages and simply proves that it was an Indo-European language. Saying that it was for sure Baltic and to prove it start making new scientific theories about some Albanian slaves is truly psychotic mania. He literally wrote: 
"Some of these items are Thracian and Dacian words which the ancestors of the Albanians learned from their Baltoidic Thracian and Dacian masters."
"The emasculated nature of Slavic from the viewpoint of old Indo-European vocabulary, that is, the lack in Slavic of words like vyras, aner 'man' and smakras, the old masculine word for "beard," attests to the servile status of their ancestors, the Albanoidic Pre-Slavs"
"Assuming all this to be true, the dearth of ancient Albanoidic place names, be they Illyrian, Albanian, or Slavic, is no surprise. Surely Pre-Slavs and possibly early Slavs escaped from Baltoidic masters where and when they could as did their Southern Albanoidic cousins from Dacians and Thracians. And these runaways were not likely to give names to prominent geographic features which might aid their Baltoidic captors in finding them. It is ironic that now the dominant languages in both the Balkans and the Baltic has for the last 300 years tended to be Slavic, that is, Albanoidic rather than Baltoidic. In the Balkans, since approximately the seventh century, A.D., Baltoidic Thracian and Dacian even ceased to exist while Non-Baltoidic Albanian still survives only because the ancient prehistoric ancestors of the people who speak it managed to escape and stay free from their form Baltoidic masters."
 
The only source given for this is just ONE link in the article: http://www.lituanus.org/1992_2/92_2_02.htm 
Nelias (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltic theory created by a [[Chauvinism|chauvinist]] who sees Slavic people as slaves and Albanoidic in origin!!!