Talk:Origin of the Albanians/Archive 1

message: There's not much  evidence in the Albanian language of ancient Greek contact (yet there are some interesting cognates between Albanian and ancient Greek and Romanian which I'm looking into). This argues for Albanian origins in regions outside of Greek influence. The problem is, no one knows exactly the extent of ancient Greek influence in what is now the interior of Northern Albania.
: Western Moesia (now South-Eastern Serbia) was "well outside" Greek influnce. The current Albania was most likely assimilated by the Greeks.
In my opinion, based on research, Albanians might be descended from the Paeonians or some other group, but they are not linguistically descended from those whom the ancients referred to as Thracians or Dacians. 
: Post the arguments in here, if you have any. We need more facts, fewer opinions. :) Bogdan | Talk 10:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Messapians were called Illyrians by modern scientists, based on archeological finds: similar tombs and personal names as found in Illyria. Bogdan | Talk 10:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The oldest church in Caucasian Albania is in the town of Kish. The modern Albanian word is "kisha".
There's also a city of Kish  in Sumer. Maybe the Albanians are the descendents of Summerians ;-) That is most likely a coincidence. Bogdan | Talk 10:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Discussion 

message: Albanau's additions should be in the article (under another section), yet they don't quite establish a link between Albanians and Illyrians. They show: the earliest mentions of Albanians in the region. There is still a gulf from Illyrians<--->Albanians that needs to be filled. Decius 06:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: First, let me clear this up: in no way do I support the Serbian nationalist view that Albanians are not native to the Balkans. Yet with that said, it doesn't mean that I will let Albanau add sentences that shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article: this is the sentence that I'm talking about and I've italicized the biased part: "We first learn of Albanians in their native land ..." and so on. That does not belong in a Wikipedia article. I'm erasing that phrase: this does not mean that I won't consider the idea that Albanians are native to Albania: I'm just sticking to facts. Decius 04:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanau's additions 

message: : Albanian shares over 1800 common words with Romance languages. Albanian have more ancient words then slavic and turkish.
That is indeed, true. However, it has nothing to do with the ancestors of Albanians being Illyrians. Thracians could have borrowed Latin words, too. Bogdan | Talk 09:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Common words

message: : Albanian shows exceedingly traces of contact with ancient Greek. The language retains some very old verb system traits (as Greek does) so its recognizably that Albanian language have been spoken for a very long time.
Yes, Albanian was indeed spoken for a long time. But this has nothing to do with the place where it was spoken. Bogdan | Talk 09:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoken for a very long time

message: * the Albanian city names mentioned in ancient times that were kept do not follow the Albanian sound change laws, suggesting that they were late borrowing from an intermediary language (most likely Romance or Slavic), rather than inherited (for example ancient Aulona should have been inherited in modern Albanian as Alorë instead of Vlorë).
The modern Albanian versions of Illyrian placenames are difficult to recognise, e.g. Aulona > Tosk Vlorë.
Tosk - Vlora, Geg - Vlona
Now, as far as I know "u" and "v" were many times confused specially in
Latin scripts.
There is no wonder that the script "Aulona" might have been spelled
"Avlona" or even "Vlona" as today.
In these cases today´s Vlona (Geg) is a good preservation if initial name
a-vlona.
--Albanau 10:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ancient Aulona 

message: * The words borrowed from Latin had their origin in the proto-Romanian language, not Dalmatian. These words include idiomatic expressions and meaning changes that are not found in other Romance languages, such as kuvend/cuvant > conventus, mergoj/merge > mergo; urrej/uri > horrere, etc.
This is a good argument that shows that Albanian could not have developed in Dalmatia or lands immediately adjacent, but it is not quite an argument for the "Dacian/Thracian origin" of Albanians. The proto-Albanians may have been Illyrians or Paeonians or Dardans who lived for a long time adjacent (in a disputed location or locations) to early Romanians, and they thus acquired these early Romanian words. I don't see how that fact can be strictly used as an argument for the Dacian/Thracian origin of Albanians. I'm going to move this argument to another place in the article. Decius 03:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument under Dacian/Thracian origin 

message: I'm not hiding anything. The linguistic community, from what I've seen, does not usually acknowledge contacts between early Albanians and ancient Greeks. Most examples are considered to be from New Greek, after the 11th century. So, unless you can find linguists that back up the ancient Greek language influence, it can't really be used as an argument. But maybe there are some linguists who back up that idea: I haven't checked all the current opinons. Somebody should check the sources. Decius 18:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue 

message: : modern Albanians still use the vigesimal numeric system of ancient Illyrians.
How do we know that the Illyrians used the vigesimal numeric system ? I would like a reference to a study that concluded that. Bogdan | Talk 09:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vigesimal numeric system 

message: : evidence of ancient Greek influence, for example agro, field and in Albanian ar or 'arrë.
Ar could be derived "ager" (same meaning as Greek "agro"). How do we know that it is not derived from Latin ? Bogdan | Talk 09:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient Greek word

message: There was certainly more than one stage of the "Balkan language union": the hypothetical ancient stage was what I was referring to (Daco-Thraco-protoAlbano-Greco), not the dark age or medieval period. But okay, since I haven't yet found a linguistic reference that affirms an ancient Balkan linguistic union, the removal was fair. Decius 11:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balkan Language Union 

message: Some people have a habit of adding unsupported statements into the text. I have a habit of removing unsupported statements from the text. Decius 11:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious claims 

message: I certainly question the factual accuracy of this article as long as unsupported claims are presented as facts. Yet as the article is at the present moment, it's fine, and I can't say I quite dispute it, though I'm sure others do. There is nothing that I dispute in the article now. Decius 04:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Read this, by a well-known linguist, Mario Alinei:  Read pages 49, 50, and 51. He says what I was saying, that the Balkan language union originates from language interactions that went on long before the arrival of the Slavs, and that it dates back to Neolithic times ("the middle ages"? not quite). I'm putting my statement back in the article. Decius 02:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balkan Language Union 

message: Whoever's interested in learning more about the ancient Illyrians should read Appian's Illyrike. In that work, Appian recounts an interesting legend, that sought to explain the bewildering mass of disparate tribes that once lived in the lands we now call Albania and Macedonia, besides the Illyrians that everyone always mentions: the Enchelees, the Autaries, the Dardani, the Partheni, the Dassereti, the Daorsii, the Maedans, the Taulantii, the Perrhaebi, the Paeonians. None of these tribes are specifically Thracian. Nor are all of these tribes "Illyrian tribes". These are just some of the many tribes, and many ethnicities, and many languages, that once existed in the Balkans. The only reason many Albanians began to pick up on the "descended from Illyrians" idea is that the "Illyrians" have an alluring name and an air of mystery, and they are more well-known. But reasonably speaking, there is absolutely nothing that indicates that Albanians are descended from Illyrians, and not from some other group that lived further inland: the Maedans, the Paeonians. We don't know how many different language-groups existed in the Balkans around 100 ad, for instance. Decius 23:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illyrike 

message: * the texts written in Messapian (generally considered an Illyric language) found in southern Italy are very different from modern Albanian, and may indicate that Illyrians appertain to another Indo-European branch.
The Illyrian people were divided into Indo-European and not-Indo-European. 
: What do you mean ? Their Indo-European origin is quite clear to linguists. If there is another point of view, give a reference.
Albanian language shows indeed traces of messapic language. Albanau 20:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I never heard of these traces. You should say who's research gave different results? Bogdan | Talk 20:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Messapian

message: There is no evidence and no indication that Modern Albanian is an older language than Ancient Greek or Ancient Latin, and in fact that's impossible: because the Albanian dialects spoken today are not the same Albanian (or proto-Albanian) languages that were spoken in ancient times. And the idea that Albanian is especially close to proto-Indo-European is false, which is obvious to anyone who has compared Albanian words to the Proto-Indo-European roots. Albanian as a rule shows very derived (mutated) forms when compared to the roots. That's why it took so long to even confirm that Albanian was Indo-European. Decius 01:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's older than Who 

message: The Slav invasion began in the 6th century. If there were still Illyrian speakers in the Balkans when the Slavs arrived (and even that is not known, they might have been Romanized), then yes they would have come face to face with Slavs. Some Illyrians would have been assimilated. Some would have fought, would have killed some Slavs, and some would also have been killed by Slavs. Others would have resettled. Assuming for the sake of argument that in the 5th or 6th century groups of Illyrian speakers still existed, and assuming they settled in present Albania, there is still no proof that they survived into the 9th, 10th, or 11th centuries. It's even possible that the last Illyrian speakers survived the Slav invasion, but were then finally killed off by the Albanians who came upon them. That would be quite ironic. Your argument was a statement of the theory, not an argument. An argument would be more like: "There is evidence that Illyrian was still being spoken in Albania as late as the (state the century)century". That still wouldn't be a strong argument for the Albanian-Illyrian language connection, but it would be something. Decius 02:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slav invasion 

message: So far, only the two 'Arguments for' that currently are in the article are real arguments, though the one about possible Illyrian-Albanian cognates had listed Thracian words instead of Illyrian words as examples, but these cognates can be removed and replaced by actual Illyrian examples without changing the argument (though the argument is greatly weakened because I've seen those "Illyrian-Albanian cognates" and they are mostly lameducks, such as dardan=dardhe, 'pear'; and anyway that is a Dardan not Illyrian comparison, if you want to be specific). The others were not real arguments, because they were either logically unsound, or unsupported by evidence or references. Decius 02:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for 

message: Here is my reference, John Wilkes, The Illyrians, Blackwell Books, 1992, pg. 73: "There is no evidence that Illyrian in fact belongs to the satem group, but the argument that it does is crucial to the case that modern Albanian is descended from Illyrian. So far no satisfactory sheme for the analysis of Illyrian names has been proposed."---There is no 'satisfactory scheme' for determining whether Illyrian was centum or satem, so there is no consensus, and neither view is really more popular than the other in the scholarly community. The Albanian language, as we know, is predominantly Satem, if not completely Satem, and it is classified almost always as Satem (never as Centum); though there is evidence that it is not as Satem as the other Satem languages. Decius 03:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illyrian Centum 

message: The argument that most Albanian places-names don't follow indigenous sound-change rules is probably legitimate, and it should go back in the article, though I guess the Aulona>Vlore example can't be used, because of the dialectical Vlone. Decius 04:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place names 

message: I was going to point this out immediately after Albanau first added those possible Albanian cognates to 'Illyrian' words, but I didn't want to add more twigs to the feeble fire that attempts to link Albanians to Thracians: but business comes first: ALL (yes, every single one) of those words are listed as Thracian words, and they are listed on the Thracian glossary provided by Geocities: . If I'm not mistaken, none of those words are stated as being Illyrian words in any authoritative source that I've seen---though 'buris' seems to be found in Illyrian names as 'barus' (that's my own observation, and it's not quite definite) and 'tan' (not 'datan', AFAIK) is an Illyrian toponym suffix (cf. Dimallitan). I'll check up on this. For now, look at this Illyrian glossary, containing some of the cited Illyrian words (rinos=fog, sybina=spear; etc.), plus Messapian words and conjectured Illyrian words:. A cited Illyrian word not shown is saba (a type of Illyrian beer), and perhaps more. Decius 04:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look At This 

message: From what I've seen, everything on the neutral or 'opposing' side (as opposed to "the Albanian language equals Illyrian language" side) is backed up by scholarship, or otherwise by logic. Dori back in October or November had some problems with the Place of Origin part of the article, but in defense of that section (originally and mostly written by Bogdan) here is a reference, the same book by Wilkes that I quoted before, pgs. 278-279: "In the Albanian vocabulary it is possible to detect something of the physical, social, and economic conditions prevailing at the time of its formation, through the evidence of borrowing from other languages, including Latin and Slavic. Those from Latin relate to city-life, family structure, agriculture, plants and fruits of the plains and marshlands. The smaller number of Slav loans relate to dwellings, agriculture, and cattle-rearing. Plant names of Slav origin suggest that contacts took place when Albanians dwelt in the forest zone between 600 and 900 meters in altitude, while the words relating to the products of higher altitudes, including milk, are Albanian." Same statements we find in other sources, including  reference to the fact that words relating to the seacoast and to maritime subjects are borrowed. There is no "original research" (and of course there should not be) in the Place of Origin section, and sticking any closer to the references would have been plagiarism. Decius 09:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back It Up 

message: Do we both then agree with this sentence, John Wilkes, Illyrians, 1992, pg 73: "In the end the strongest evidence for the connection between Illyrian and Albanian must be the few direct correspondances of vocabulary often cited." If that is the strongest evidence, then the case is weak, and will remain so unless some new evidence comes up. You can concoct arguments all day, or pull crank arguments off of nationalist websites, but in the end there is no known solid evidence for the idea that the Albanian language is an Illyrian language. Decius 07:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Evidence 

message: That is not "a scientific comparison", and the tree is not even an accurate representation of the Indo-European language family. I'll find actual linguistic trees and arrangements for you to look at. That tree is wrong in many places: Celtic (centum) is for no reason placed on one side between Hellenic (centum) and Indian (satem): Celtic is in fact close to Italic and Germanic. Germanic (centum) which is extremely different from Albanian is for no reason placed above Albanian (satem). The Italic branch (which has very many old IE roots, close to the roots, and many roots in common with Sanskrit) is for no reason placed at the top, and it incorrectly places Italian on the opposite side from Romanian, and places Romanian next to Portugese for no reason (Spanish is the one close to Portugese). In fact, Romanian and Italian are both East Romance languages, and all the others shown are West Romance languages. Hittite and Tocharian are not even shown, and Dacian, Thracian, Phrygian, and Illyrian are neglected. To sum up, that tree is sh*t, and it is about as scientific as a scribbling on a piece of wallpaper. Don't make yourself look more and more foolish by presenting such items as "scientific references". Decius 16:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Twisted Tree 

message: : The evidence of place-names shows that Albanian-Slav contacts in northern Albania must have happened before 900 at the latest. 
No, the Slavic place-names show that the Slavs lived in Northern Albania before 900. The Albanian presence was not really necessary for the Slavs to name their places. :)
:A vowel shift in the Slav language took place at the end of the 9th century, and some Albanian borrowings from Slav preserve the preshift form of the vowel.
At that time, there were Slavs in all the Balkans and in Transylvania. It's not a valid argument. Bogdan | Talk 20:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanian-Slav contacts 

message: It often surprises me that many people don't realize that there was more than just "Illyrians, Thracians, and Greeks" in the ancient Balkans. Now that the Paeonian article is available, you can begin to see the actual situation, and understand why the arguments specifically for the Illyrian-Albanian idea must be precise and logical, and not just some teenager-style argument. When I say "I seriously doubt that the Albanian language is an Illyrian language", it doesn't mean I'm saying "Albanians are not from the Balkans, they invaded". I'm tired of having to repeat this over and over. I have seen not a shred of evidence that indicates that Albanian is an Illyrian language, rather than a Paeonian or Maedan language (Paeonians and Maedans were Balkan people) for example. Think before you post an argument, and aim at establishing specifically an Albanian-Illyrian language connection, and don't waste time making vague statements about "how old" the Albanian language is or isn't, because that doesn't prove what you're trying to prove in the real world. Decius 12:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many peoples 

message: :opponents say that many of these toponyms, hydronyms and names are Hellenized and Romanized
Indeed they were Romanized/Hellenized, but we should still be able to guess the roots. They usually adapted only the names to Latin/Greek grammar and phonetics. Bogdan | Talk 11:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanized/Hellenized 

message: Albanau, provide a current scholarly reference that affirms that any of those Illyrian Albanian names were not just lately reintroduced. I've seen it discussed that these names were all lately reintroduced. If no reference is provided within a few days, the argument will be erased. In fact, it may be erased now, then it can go back when a reference is provided. Decius 13:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  current Scholarly reference 

message: :the Albanians were not mentioned in Byzantine chronicles until 1043, although Illyria was part of the Byzantine Empire.
We cannot be sure that any of them actually called themself Illyrians: in the case of most of them it is near certain that they did not. Illyria was only a geographic conception that comprise a area inhabited by different tribes of Illyrian stock. The geographic conception Illyria was abandoned and later on most of the Illyrians called themself for Romans, Greeks or something els. --Albanau 02:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delated by Albanau 

message: :Paeonian origin is also possible, the Paeonians being differentiated from Thracians and Illyrians in ancient sources... Paeonian, or Thracian tongues, making it difficult to match Albanian with any of them.
Decius, stop posting your theorys on the articles. If you wan't to argue that Albanians are actually descand from the Paeonian discuss it here in the discussion page and don't writte in on the article if you don't have any support from schoolars which you dont. Albanau
Hey, I got no problems with that idea being removed from the article, because the people are still free to read it on this discussion page. And trust me, it is much more likely than the "Illyrian-Albanian" idea, because though there isn't much evidence for my idea, there is no evidence that contradicts it, while the Illyrian-Albanian idea runs up against a Mountain of problems. And scholars don't dismiss it or support it---they just haven't thought about it. Decius 22:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Albanians are descand from the Paeonian theory invented by Descius, delated

message: Substituted at 21:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment