Talk:Paleo-Balkan languages

message: Added Paionian since it was IE: as indicated by classical references that connect the language to various Anatolian languages; and as stated by such linguists as Ivan Duridanov: . He shows some Paionian sound-changes from PIE (according to him, at least). Also, Pelasgian can certainly be considered Paleo-Balkan, though it's pre-IE, not IE (we assume). Alexander 007 20:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Phrygian, and possibly Armenian, should be included, since they are related, never mind that they were no actually spoken in the Balkans. dab (ᛏ) 14:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion

message: Why is it that Greek isn't listed as one of the Paleo-Balkan languages? User:68.42.227.229
I'm not sure. Maybe Paleo-Balkan languages is reserved for extinct languages? Ancient Greek is not exactly extinct, because it survives in changed form as Modern Greek and Tsakonian, etc. Alexander 007 00:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that a language being extinct or not is not a criterion. I really can't say why we should exclude Ancient Greek. Alexander 007 03:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think Phrygian + Greek dialects should not be listed under proto-Greek, because Phrygian is not proto-Greek. The correct should be a Greco-Phrygian group where Greek dialects and Phrygian (and Mysian?) should be listed. fkitselis  —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Greek? 

message: Since the issue of Armenian currently is turning into a rather silly edit war, could someone come up with comments on whether Armenian fits or not, or how to describe its position vis-a-vis the other proposed Paleo-Balkan languages, in a sufficient manner? Does the anonymous editor have a point, which he very sloppily imposes, or is it just some kind of personal agenda and/or ethnic pride? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I readded info because it was removed without explanations, that shouldn't be done. As far as I know Armenians is considered related to Greek (probably through Phrygian as explained in article) so that would qualify it for this status of "Paleo-Balkan language", however I'm not a specialist in this field, actually my knowledge is very limited, but I want to explanations when info is removed from an article (especially when that comes from anon ip addresses or from new users) for further consideration: Graeco-Armenian hypothesis-- AdrianTM 18:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, at least s/he finally managed to get rid of that sloppy sentence breach. What are the main scholarly viewpoints in the matter? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I don't know, in Graeco-Armenian language page there are references, but I have no idea what weight they have, however "Greeks migrated from Anatolia, and not the other way around, all major linguists agree" summary edit, make me doubt the accuracy of the edit. I will leave that for other, more knowledgeable people to decide. -- AdrianTM 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I't rather silly for me to respond to this so late and without being a logged in member. But to be blunt, there are significant holes in our understanding of the Indo-European language family when it comes to Europe. The Indo-European language family has a bunch of independent languages or branches in Europe and the Near East. Living examples include Greek, Armenian, and Albanian. Extinct examples include but are probably not limited to, Ligurian, Thracian, Dacian, Illyrian, Paeonian, Messapian, and Phrygian. So why is this a problem? It is a problem because Indo-European languages are universally recognized as being originally non-native to most of Europe. Therefore it would seem rather strange that the center of diversity of the Indo-European language family would be in Southern Europe. Hence to get around this problem various different branches of the Indo-European language family have been proposed over the years such as Italo-Celtic, Graeco-Phrygian, Graeco-Armenian, Daco-Thracian, and Thraco-Illyrian. So where does all of this speculation seem to be headed? Well on the surface it appears, to be going nowhere. As I stated below you need hard evidence when classifying languages and organizing them, and given that most of the languages we are talking about have been extinct for a long time such hard evidence is very difficult, if not impossible to come by. Below the surface however, it would appear to me that when taking into account all of the the hypothetical branches of the Indo-European family we come up with three basic ones: a Paleo-Balkan branch, a Graeco-Phrygian branch, and an Italo-Celtic branch. Are these scientific conclusions? Of course not, for I am not a trained linguist. But nevertheless it does not take a professional sailor to see which direction a boat in front of them is going. I can and will tell you why I came to these conclusions. Firstly a Paleo-Balkan branch. Currently the term "Paleo-Balkan languages" is a purely geographical term used to describe a bunch of mostly Indo-European ancient languages in the Balkans. The three most well known of these are Thracian, Illyrian and Dacian. Now it is believed that the modern language of Albanian descends from one of these three (with most people preferring Illyrian). However not only has Albanian been linked with all three of those languages by linguists, but many of those ancient languages have been linked with each other! Therefore it would not surprise me in the least if I were to learn that all four of those languages (among others) are related to one another and form there own branch of the Indo-European family. Let's move on to the Italo-Celtic branch. This hypothetical branch was created due to the fact that many of the unclassified Indo-European languages in western Europe  appear to have features common to both the Italic branch and the Celtic branches of the Indo-European language family. Given that those two branches due have features shared with are unique to only them and given that some of those unclassified languages are out of place to merit language contact as a hypothesis some linguists (as shown by the page) propose an Italo-Celtic branch. Lastly a Graeco-Phrygian/Graeco-Armenian branch; so not only have Greek and Armenian been connected to each other, but Greek and Phrygian are also connected to each other and that is important because Armenian is often connected to Phrygian, hence the hypothesis that Greek, Phrygian and Armenian form there own branch together. But I digress, so what is my business here? Simply put, these various different hypothetical branches are important even if they are unproven due to the literal lack of hard evidence. They are important because of the fact which I mentioned above: it makes no sense for a language family to have it's greatest diversity in an area where it did not actually originate.            — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.11.49 (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenian

message: The following implicit statements are too speculative to be used as a basis for an article:
* that there was a Thraco-Illyrian language group,
* that the Illyrians is an extant language group (Albanians ~?~ Illyrian),
* that the Thraco-Illyrian language group, if it existed, and if Dacian was part of it, is extinct (Albanians ~?~ Carpi/Free-Dacians).
... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculative

message: That is a fine example of anachronism. When the early Turkic tribes such as Huns, Avars, Bulghars arrived in the Balkan Peninsula, so-called Paleo-Balkan languages had already been extinct for more than one thousand years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.25.36 (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be right. I've removed it. --JorisvS (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Due to Turkicization too? 

message: This article is not very clear. At begin it says that Greek is a descendant of this branch, but then the article lists languages and there is not any mention to Greek or to the sometimes used Hellenic branch (That include Greek and Macedonian). But then Macedonian appears in the list with an (?).
If this article talk only about the ancient Balkan languages and modern Albanian, what is the relation with Greek/Hellenic that is considered a independent branch by most linguistics?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haitike (talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned in an above comment, this term "Paleo-Balkan" is currently a geographic term that refers to a bunch of living and extinct Indo-European languages from the Balkans that don't seem to fit into any branch of the Indo-European language family. Since Greek is spoken in the Balkans and doesn't fit in any IE branch it is often referred to as a Paleo-Balkan language in the geographic sense of the term. But whereas Albanian has been hypothesized as being related to more than one of the extinct Paleo-Balkan languages (which may logically suggest the existence of a Paleo-Balkan branch of the Indo-European language family), Greek is seen as being unrelated to any of them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.237.112 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about this articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paleo-Balkan languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916055123/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/general/ie-lg/Albanian.html to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/general/ie-lg/Albanian.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I wonder what makes this one [] reliable per wp:HISTRS. 'Traditional style medicine and botanology' is an interesting topic, but irrelevant with linguistics and historical scholarship on the field [].Alexikoua (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not add this. However, the names of plants -- specifically whether or not they are native -- are of critical importance in establishing a language's geographic history. They play a major role in discussion of Proto-Albanian, Proto-Slavic, Proto-Indo-European, and many other hypothetical scenarios.--Calthinus (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where and how has it been used? I can't find it in the article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find it anywhere in this page's history either ...... mysterious....--Calthinus (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added  by  and then replaced by them with another source. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, thanks. I guess we can all agree it wasn't a useable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Works about traditional healing

message: Who started citing that infamous Quiles ref ("Grammar of Modern Indo-European") again on this page? Has it still not become common knowledge among editors here that it's a sham? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I do not have the time to check who added Quiles, but together with that source you also removed Wilkes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, sorry, that was a mistake. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quiles ref 

message: To explain this  revert: I think there are multiple reasons why that sentence in the lead, and especially the footnote in that form, was unsatisfactory:
# The whole sentence gives improper weight to the Albanian issue in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary, but the treatment of Albanian in the lead paragraph was now longer and more detailed than the actual "Albanian" section further down.
# Curtis is a PhD thesis about a topic that is not centrally related to this article, and the passage cited is merely from a routine state-of-the-art report in its background section. Its value as a reliable source for our purposes is therefore limited. I'm not saying it's unuseable, but we ought to be able to do better.
# The quoted passages are poorly selected and misleading. While it's true that he says on p.18 that , he also says earlier (p.15) that  – so he's not really challenging the Paleo-Balkan connection as such, but merely reiterates that it's unclear which of the candidates should be picked. (He also, on p.17, tentatively opines in favour of Illyrian: ).
# It's also extremely poor style to have those citations-within-a-citation in our quote (), since we are not accounting for what those works actually say or even what works they are.
# The second quoted passage () is quite off-topic (what does the time of the Slavic migrations have to do with anything here?), and it presents a sentence fragment as if it were an (ungrammatical) sentence.
# The quoted passage was also wrongly cited: there are no quote marke around the word "remains" in the original.
# Finally, nobody ever bothered to copy the actual bibliographic information into the references section, so the Harvard ref "Curtis 2012" was hanging in the air. (For the record, it's: Curtis, Matthew Cowan (2012) "Slavic-Albanian Language Contact, Convergence, and Coexistence". PhD dissertation, Ohio State University ).
This is what happens when people first cite Google snippets without digesting the actual literature and then start mechanically copying over alleged refs from one article to the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay this is well reasoned and I agree. But I still think we should find a way to include in the lede a sentence -- without mentioning Albanian in fact, so we don't unduly focus on it -- that internal relations between Thracian, Dacian, Illyrian etc are also unclear at the moment.--Calthinus (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes sense, no problem as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curtis ref 

message: It seems like the colored areas on this map are unsourced and thus WP:OR. Another map should be made and this one should be  removed.  since you have edited this page multiple times and seem to have knowledge about the subject, maybe you could help out with making a new map? Ahmet Q. (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map