Talk:Origin of the Albanians/Archive 1

Untitled

This article is nothing but speculation. I would say it's not encyclopedic, and I am contemplating whether I should list it for VFD.

Do you think that "Origin of Albanians" is not worthy of having an article, especially when it is such a disputed matter ? Why ?

No, we could have such an article if it could be done fairly, and I doubt it as there isn't enough evidence to do it. You could have an article that says so and so says so and so (which this isn't even that), but it would not be very encyclopedic IMO. Dori | Talk 17:39, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

It has the tone of an essay, but without the sources that usually go with such essay. IMO it is within the original research bound, and it doesn't have the sources to back even that up, making it downright conjecture. Dori | Talk 17:04, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

What are you exactly disputing ? Wikipedia does not currently require a reference for each sentence. The "Place of origin" and "Ethnic origin" information can be found in any extensive description of these languages. And I can find references for each argument in the Illyrian/Thracian origin, if you want them. Bogdan | Talk 17:26, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No Wikipedia doesn't usually require references, because most articles are just facts accepted by everyone. Where references become necessary is in articles that are likely to be the source of many arguments.

For example: "

"The place where Albanian was formed is also disputed" - fine, I doubt anyone could dispute the dispute

", but by studying the language we can learn that Albanian was formed in a mountainous region rather than plain or seacoast" - who's we, where do these assertions come from, this is where you need a reference as it's not widely accepted by any means.

"while the words for plants and animals that are characteristic of the mountainous regions are entirely original, the names for sea-fishes and those for agricultural activities, (such as ploughing) are borrowed from other languages." - again, who says that, who's the authority behind it and why are we accepting it? If this doesn't sound like original research, then I don't know what does. You don't even give an example there, let alone explain such open ended statements as "entirely original."

Chapter 2 in Noel Malcolm's Kosovo, a short history (Macmilan, London, 1998, p. 22-40), link that can be found in the External links section. It has for each affirmation, a reference. Bogdan | Talk 17:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is just an example of one sentence. It could be done for most of the article. Like I said, it sounds like an essay to me. As I said, for most articles we don't require references, and we just trust the editors. It's not that I don't trust you in this case, you're a very good editor, it's that I don't trust your sources necessarily, and that you might have used sources skewing a particular way. If you mention them, then the reader can at least decide. Dori | Talk 17:42, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

---

I am not sure I understand this sentence:

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)

What do you mean? Dori | Talk 18:14, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Every language changes as people start pronouncing differently the sounds of the language, so words follow a sound change. They follow a set of rules, that is specific to each language and to each age of a language. Sometimes, these can modify the word beyond obvious recognition, but the rules are generally strict. For example lat. somnus -> alb. gjumë. Pre-Albanian initial "s" always turns into modern Albanian "gj" (lat. sinus -> alb. gji; lat. serpens -> alb gjiarpër).

As for the city, the Albanian sound changes say it should be derived as: Illyrian. Awlona (spelled Avlona) -> proto-alb. Alonë -> alb. Alorë. The alternatve would be Romanized Illyrian Awlona -> Slavic Vlona -> alb. Vlorë (gheg Vlonë). Bogdan | Talk 18:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

cf. lat. Avrum [Awrum] -> alb. Ar (gold)

Quick Discussion

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)

I won't go into a comprehensive argument here, but I'll offer this: Dacian & Thracian toponyms show no relation at all to Albanian, & furthermore Albanian does not allow for such two-word compound toponyms as Arge-Dava, Capi-Dava, or Bessa-para. Dacian names show no exclusively Albanian affinity, as far as I've seen (the Thracian name Drenis, connected to an Albanian word, may not have been found among the Dacians; I'll check). As for "the phonetics of Dacian language are close to Albanian" this, while possibily true to a degree, can be easily explained by: 1)the Balkan language interactions which, according to the renowned linguist Mario Alinei, may date back to Neolithic times [1]. The possibility that Dacian and Albanian had phonetic similarities doesn't necessarily imply that the languages were on the same IE branch: Dacians and proto-Albanians, though linguistically on different branches, came to influence each other's phonetics through long contact, parallel to what happened between Romanian & Slavic. Similarities in phonetics does not prove relation at base, all it shows is that there was long contact between the groups.

In any case, I challenge the methods and motives of the linguist(s) who first proposed these phonetic similarities between Dacian and Albanian. I discussed on another talk page that this Daco-Albanian theory was first promulgated by Bulgarian nationalist linguists, such as Vladimir Georgiev, later by Ivan Duridanov, following Georgiev. I explained the ulterior motive behind their arguments, the motive being to separate Dacian from Thracian, so they could seperate Romanians from Thracians: so they can then be free to claim that Bulgarians are "more Thracian" somehow than Romanians, which is a fantasy that some Bulgarians have (not many maybe, but some do dream of that). Georgiev and Duridanov are so suspect that I caution all people before they accept that 'Daco-Albanian' hypothesis. While 1+1 definitely equals 2, it is not definite that Dacian & Albanian had "many" phonetic similarities (some phonetic similarites, perhaps, due to contact). Also, it is not definite that Dacian was a satem, as opposed to a Centum, language (even with Thracian it is not definite that it was exclusively satem). We've seen in the past how linguistics has been twisted by ideology, and even today Serbian and Albanian "linguists" make contradictory statements about the same body of data. Georgiev was doing his work firmly in the Communist era, & back then there was a Soviet policy to fabricate and exaggerate the role of Slavs in history, and there was also a Soviet policy to concoct relations between Slavs and Thracians. Georgiev's work is outdated, suspicious, and it is not reliable. (Decius)

Vladimir Georgiev had two main aims here: 1)to disconnect Dacians/Romanians from Thracians; 2) to disconnect Albanians from the southern balkans and to suggest that they migrated from Dacia. Both of those ideas are false. The truth is: 1) Dacians and Thracians were kindred people who spoke kindred languages or dialects, as ancient authors make clear. Albanians are not descended from Dacians or Thracians. Albanians are most likely from south of the Danube, and were probably living in Moesia, Northern Macedon, and eastern Thrace. Paeonian or Maedan origin is more likely for Albanians. (Decius)

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)

I notice at the end of the article there is a sentence "The oldest church in Caucasian Albania is in the town of Kish. The Albanian word is Kisha." This is an interesting note, but whoever wrote it needs to expand on that instead of leaving the sentence dangling. I understand that some researchers see a number of such connnections between caucasian Albania & balkan Albania. I haven't researched that yet, but if someone has, they should add some of their findings to this discussion. (Decius)

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 [2] in Sumer. Maybe the Albanians are the descendents of Summerians ;-) That is most likely a coincidence. Bogdan | Talk 10:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are some correspondences between some Albanian words (but words can be borrowed, & I beleive these different languages borrowed from each other)and some Thracian words: [http://geocities.com/indoeurop/project/glossary/thrac.html}. Yet these are sporadic, not the vast majority. And here I agree with Georgiev that these cognates between Albanian & Thracian are not strong or numerous enough to indicate that Thracian was proto-Albanian or related to Albanian. But Georgiev shows his bias because there is no reason to assume that (despite some alleged correspondences in phonetics, not correspondances in words or names) Dacian was related to Albanian. But his aim was to disconnect Dacian from Thracian & connect it to Albanian. I keep bringing this up because I'm tired of seeing Georgiev's claims echoed in this article, and in some other Wikipedia articles. His work is so transparent, & so obviously influenced by a Bulgarian nationalism that wishes to connect Bulgarians as much as possible to the ancient Thracians.(Decius)

The sentence "The Pelasgans were the people living in the Balkans before Indo-European arrival" may need to be revised, because 1) The Pelasgans may have spoke an Indo-European language or languages, thus they would not be before IE arrival, they would be before Hellenic arrival 2)The ancient writers, not always being accurate, may have lumped very different groups together as Pelasgians---as memories & facts became distorted. Some Pelasgians may have been IE, some may not have been IE. (Decius)

I've been reading the Serb nationalist view concerning Albanian origins, presented by such Serbs as Prof. Djordje Jankovic of Belgrade University. Their idea is that Albanians are not native to the Balkans, that in fact they migrated from the area of Azerbaijan between the 7th---10th centuries. In my opinion, Jankovic & others like him are definitely wrong, because the Albanian language to me looks very much like a Balkan language (an Indo-European language, not a Caucas language; closer to satem group than to centum group):there are too many Balkan features to trace them to the Caucas region. But it's possible that Albanian was once an Anatolian language, because the Balkan & Anatolian regions were very close geographically, culturally, linguistically---look at a Phrygian glossary & you'll agree. Yet Anatolian origin is unlikely. The 'Anatolian world' extended into the southern caucas region, but caucas origin is even more unlikely. Balkan (or Carpathian) origin is the most possible because: I see some cognates between Albanian & Latin, not just Romance. That indicates presence of Shqip in Balkans (but not necessarily in Albania, and most likely not in Albania) around Roman times.

So what I'm saying is: the Dacian and Thracian languages were not proto-Albanian languages, and they were not on the same branch as Albanian. The Daco-Thracians and proto-Albanians were distinct yet adjacent peoples who spoke IE languages that were on different branches. Decius 08:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Additions

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)

Albanau's additions

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)

I put the historical citations under a different heading: they are the earliest mentions of Albanians in Albania in historical sources: they are not arguments for Illyrian descent or Illyrian origin, and if you want to present these arguments as your "proof", then this indicates there is no real proof. Somebody should go look on the net and see if there's any actual argument for Illyrian origin that can be posted. Decius 04:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is meant by the phrase "Illyrian Origin" must be defined: Do you mean "native to the land once known as Illyria" or do you mean "descended from Illyrians" or both? If "Illyrian origin"="descended from Illyrians", then those citations are not evidence at all. If "Illyrian origin"= "have been living in Illyria since ancient times", then the citations are still not real evidence: but forget about evidence, they are not even real arguments. Decius 04:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Common words

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)

Spoken for a very long time

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)

The possible links between Albanian and Ancient Greek though are very relevant and need to be reexamined: I think there are more links than is generally beleived. If some linguist can make a good case showing evidence of Albanian contact with Ancient Greek, then in the future that could be used as an argument for Albanians originating from Illyria, and being linguistically and genetically descended from Illyrians who lived in the upper elevations of northern Macedon or northern Albania. But so far as I know, linguists haven't found many such Albanian/ancient Greek cognates: that doesn't mean they are not there. Decius 05:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The south Illyrians were Hellenize, or were heavy influence by the Greek. It's a big difference between them in historical development. The north and the south Albania have also had a big difference on the historical development. Also toska which is spoken in the south have heave ancient Greek influence. Albanau 10:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but is it ancient Greek influence or new Greek influence? If it is new Greek influence, then the influence could have come after the 11th century. Linguists must prove or make a good case for ancient Greek influence going back to Illyrian times, if such a case can be made. Decius 03:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slavs

Slavs came to Balkan 570- 600 A.D. and reached Albania first 1200 A.D., the Albanians were never assimilated with them like many other Illyrians.

Yes, Albanians were not assimilated by the Slavs. Again, the Albanians could have been not assimilated in Transylvania instead of Albania. Bogdan | Talk

ancient Aulona

• 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)

Argument under Dacian/Thracian origin

• 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)

I've incorporated the argument into the Place of Origin section, but I've left out the specific examples. I think it is quite likely in fact that Albanians may be descended from ancient Balkan groups not even discussed here: Paeonians, for example, who are always differentiated from Thracians in ancient sources ('Paeonian' is spelled 'Paionion' in Anc. Greek). The Paeonians lived in Northern Macedon, in Dardania, and probably in southern Moesia. The Paeonians are mentioned in the Iliad, and they fought in the Trojan war. Paeonian origin is probably the most likely for the Albanians. Paeonian origin explains the general lack of ancient Greek influence, explains why coastal terms were borrowed (the Paeonians were inland people), explains why the Albanians were not mentioned in Illyria before the 11th century---because they were in Moesia, in the mountains.Decius 05:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These Paeonians, living in Moesia, would have encountered early Romanians, and they would have picked up Romanian words---but the Paeonians were not Thracians or Dacians, so the fact that Albanian has Latin words derived from Romanian is not a fact that necessarily implies that Albanians are descended from Thracians or Dacians. Information on the Paeonians is also found in the History of Herodotus and the Peloponessian War of Thucydides. On the other hand, one can argue that some Illyrians who were not hellenized or Romanized left Illyria and settled in Moesia, picked up Romanian words, then returned to Illyria as the Albanians. Decius 05:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If Albanians are descended from Paeonians, then many of the NON-Romance words common between Romanian and Albanian may be explained by lexical interactions between ancient Daco-Thracians and Paeonians, exchange going both ways, going back to the Bronze Age or even before, so we get words like Romanian 'mazare' and Albanian 'modhulle', which are too different to suppose borrowing in post-Roman times---but not too different to exclude borrowings in the Bronze Age, for instance. Such Romanian words would be inherited from Daco-Thracians, and the corresponding Albanian words would be inherited from the Paeonians. There is no real proof that such words "had" to come down from PIE for both groups. I don't see why such cognates necessarily imply that Dacians or Thracians spoke "proto-Albanian" languages. The fact that the words are also often found in Ancient Greek (Rom. taraboi; Albanian therboj; anc. Gr. thorubos) shows that Daco-Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, and ancient Greeks had lots of words in common, so no need to put Dacians or Thracians on the proto-Albanian branch. Decius 05:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a map that shows where Paeonia was located, immediately north of Macedon and right next to Albania: [3] Because it was inland, away from the shore, and because Macedon was a buffer in the south, Paeonia was not hellenized to a sizable extent, and probably not heavily Romanized, and autochthonic peoples could have easily maintained their language in the area, especially in the upper elevations. Yet keep in mind that the Paeonians were not Thracians or Dacians, though they may have been related to Illyrians. Decius 06:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, none of this is definite, and it's still possible that the Albanians might be from North of the Danube---from the Carpathian heights maybe, and from there they migrated. In the absence of real evidence, all kinds of scenarios can be proposed. Decius 09:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Issue

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)

Those Albanian words you mentioned may as well be from the Latin word ager, agri, which meant 'field', 'cultivated field', 'land', hence we get the Latin word 'agricola', meaning 'farmer'. The Latin and the Greek words are cognates, but the Albanian word might be from Latin or from early Romance, not from Greek. Use an example that is not also found in Latin, because trust me, most people will say it is from Latin, even if it's supposedly found mostly in the south. Also, use an example that is not found in New Greek. Decius 20:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are also the Latin words arvum (a ploughed field), arvus (ploughed), aro/arare (to plough, farm, cultivate), aratio (a ploughed field). The Latin word 'Ager' of identical meaning as Greek 'Agro', is not a word that the Latins "borrowed" from the Greeks: all linguistic references state that the Latin word independently was inherited from the same IE root as the Greek word, the root Agro- 'field'. The Latins had this word for a long time and used it to the fullest extent, so it could well have entered Albanian from Latin. Decius 20:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to the world-famous linguist Julius Pokorny (whose work on Indo-European linguistics was used as a Bible till recently by the linguistic community), the Albanian words 'ar' and 'arre' may not have been borrowed from Greeks or Latins. He said the Albanian words may have come down from the IE root Are-, 'to plow'. If so, then they are totally unrelated to the Greek word 'agro' and the Latin word 'ager', which are from another root, Ag-/Agro-. The Albanian words 'ar' and 'arre' would thus be from the same root (Are-) as the Latin words 'arare', 'aro', and 'aratio', which I mentioned before. In any case, the etymology of the Albanian words is unclear, and they are hardly sound evidence for "ancient Greek influence". Decius 07:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vigesimal numeric system

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)

Ancient Greek word

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)

Balkan Language Union

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)

Spurious claims

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)

References

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)

Balkan Language Union

Read this, by a well-known linguist, Mario Alinei: [4] 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)

This lends much support to what I've been saying all along: that the "common words" between Romanian and Albanian in no way imply that the Dacians spoke a "proto-Albanian" language. The Albanians are not Dacians. The Albanians are Albanians (descended from Paeonians or Maedans or some other group, I'm not sure). Decius 10:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If words were being exchanged in Neolithic times, and articles and parts of speech, then so could have phonetic elements. Whatever "phonetic similarities" existed (and since Georgiev was an idiot, I doubt there even were any dramatic phonetic similarities) could easily be explained by Dacians interacting for centuries upon centuries with proto-Albanians. Decius 10:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Illyrike

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)

There is no way to tell which of these tribes were "Illyrian" and which weren't. The legends are unreliable. According to one legend, Polyphemus had three sons: Illyrius, Celtus, and Galas, from whom were descended the Illyrians, the Celts, and the Galatians: these legends are nonsense. We can throw a dart at random and say the Albanians are descended from the Maedans, and that statement would be as good as the claim of Illyrian descent, a claim that became popular about a century ago. Decius 00:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The point here is that, when I first came across the Origin of Albanians article, what I saw was basically an "either, or" situation: "either Albanians are descended from Illyrians, or they are descended from Daco-Thracians". Those are not the only options. And I'm not trying "to demean" the Albanians by saying they might not be Illyrians: for all we know, the Maedans or the Paeonians might have been better people than the Illyrians: what if tomorrow we find out that the Illyrians were originally snake-worshippers who ate human beings at their festivals and had no literature? What if we find out that the Paeonians or Maedans had a great culture and they wrote epic poems as great as the Iliad, let's say, and the manuscripts are found in a sealed jar. Who would you want to be descended from then? The point is, there are other possibilities. I'm not trying to change the article either, just want to point this out in case people haven't given it thought. And yes, I realize that the person who first put this article together was not an Albanian, and I'm not blaming anybody. Other people might not think this distinction of tribes is important, but it is. Decius 07:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Messapian

• 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)

I never heard of these traces. You should say who's research gave different results? Bogdan | Talk 20:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This Messapian argument is stated in skeptical NPOV terms, so Albanau shouldn't have a problem with it. This argument is used by a number of actual scholars, so it's legit. And even if the argument wasn't stated by scholars, it's a logical step because many scientists connect Messapian to Illyrian. Erasing this argument is a sign of frustration and an attempt to "hide the truth" (or possible truth). Decius 05:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Messapic and Albanian, which affinity would also be clear from linguistic fact (for ex: for both have a common transition of indoeuropean o to a), would in this way reperesent the ancient south Illyrian, while the northillyric were represented of venetic.

The language Illyrian is possibly a ancient relative to modern Albanian, whose country, Albania, have it geograpic possition which comes into question.

Their is not much known of Illyrian language, so their cannot be a strong evidence for or against that it relates to Albanian. Personally i beleive Albanian language orginates from Illyrian language since their is no evidence that Albanian language orginates from elswhere but its a balkan language. --Albanau 18:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here is my opinion on the Messapian issue, an opinion that I formed before I ever heard of Wikipedia: the Messapians once lived perhaps in Illyria in ancient times, but were eventually driven out by the invading Illyrians. The Messapians were probably Indo-European, but they probably spoke a language on a seperate branch from Illyrian. While the Messapians and Illyrians co-existed in Illyria, there was an exchange of culture, and an exchange of names, and that explains the similarities seen. The Illyrian language itself was somewhat close to the Italic branch and was Centum, as the evidence indicates. I never really accepted the Messapian=Illyrian idea, but it is possible, and it is a legitimate argument used by many scientists, so it should remain in the article until archeaologists or linguists disprove it. Decius 06:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who's older than Who

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)

Good luck convincing schoolars! Sorry but the fact remains, and by many authors and greek akademic this is what they have come up to after researches. It has scientific support. I trust on schoolars on this and not wikipedians. Language comes from latin lingua its comes from the Albanian, "lind", give life to, "gua" tongue. --Albanau 17:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what "scholars" you've been reading: make sure they are actual scholars. The Latin word 'lingua' (tongue) is from the Indo-European root *Dnghu, meaning 'tongue', and in fact there is proof of that because there is an Old Latin text that has the spelling dingua. Every scholarly source states that 'lingua' is from *dnghu, and that is the Truth. Whoever told you the other derivation was a fool, and you shouldn't beleive everything you read on nationalistic propaganda sites. 'Lingua' is not a compound and it has nothing to do with Albanian. The idea that modern Albanian is an "older language" than ancient Greek or ancient Latin is not accepted by the linguistic community, so I don't have to convince anybody, you do. Albanian has some archaic features: so what, so do other languages, such as the Baltic languages, which in terms of vocabulary are much closer to Proto-Indo-European than Albanian. In terms of vocabulary, Albanian is extremely distant from Proto-Indo-European: and like I said, that is why at first they couldn't even tell whether Albanian was an Indo-European language. It is so different, the connection with Etruscan (a non-Indo-European language) and Pelasgian (considered non-Indo-European) even popped into some peoples' heads. Look at the way the majority of Albanian words are very different from the IE roots. So what are you saying. Decius 05:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Albanian word "gua" for "tounge" is related with the Indo-European root "dnghu". The explanation in Albanian is more understandable, "lind gua" means "give life to tounge". "te lind gua" we Albanian still use it and it means "to speak". --Albanau 10:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that dingua (tongue) is attested in Old Latin disproves that idea you just mentioned. Decius 14:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slav invasion

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)

It was not a organized invasion, but more a infiltration. (Albanau)

I didn't say it was "an organized invasion", when I said 'invasion', I meant 'invasion, incursion, infiltration, migration', et cetera. Decius 07:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slavic farmer moved, and settle them self in new places. New mixture of people arose but all spoked slavic language. The invasion was from north, and the slavs moved more south and pushed the illyrian population to a place which is present Albania. Read book "Albanska frågan/Albanian question", page 2- 3, author; balkanexpert Örjan Sturesjö. --Albanau 19:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Illyrian speakers (if they were still around) may have been pushed south into Albania by the Slavs. I already discussed that hypothetical scenario. It is still not an argument for Illyrian-Albanian language idea, because there is no proof it actually happened, and even if it did, that is not an argument that they survived into the 9th or 10th centuries, that they are the early Albanians, or that their language was proto-Albanian. Like I said, the last Illyrians in Albania might have been killed off by Albanians. Decius 05:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the last Illyrians in Albania might have been killed off by Albanians... Based on what facts and what for scientific support do you have for this...

That was a hypothetical scenario, and I am not presenting it as a fact. I'm just showing alternate possibilities, rather than simplistic scenarios that make too many assumptions. In the first place, you are assuming that there still were groups of Illyrian speakers in Albania in the late Dark Age period. That's not proven. Decius 11:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you want to prove that Illyrians are not ancetors of the Albanians, you must then prove that Albanians originate from els where and not Balkans.

What I have a problem with is the claim that the Albanian language is descended from Illyrian. The question of partial genetic descent from Illyrians doesn't bother me, because it doesn't contradict any evidence. And I don't have to prove that Albanians are not from the Balkans, because in ancient times the Balkans was home to more ethnicities than you assume: Thracians, Paionians, Maedans, Greeks, Dacians, Illyrians, Liburnians, and so on. Albanians could be from the Balkans. It doesn't mean they speak an Illyrian language. Decius 11:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Albanian language is a Indo-European language and have a distinctive vocabulary, morphology and phonology. Albanians are not- Slavic, Greek or Turish people. Like most of the Balkan nations, the Albanians, too, have a multifold and complex identity, as well as their own contradictory and difficult historical fate. The modern Greek state, take it as example, was created so late as 1830 and does not have much incommon with ancient Greece. The country is placed strategic between east and west and unite elements from the Balkans, Middle East and from the Mediterranean sea., Albania comes from alb/alp "mountain" people, its how they keept their identity. Albanian history is tight with the Illyrian history, it's a structure question and without it Albanian history becomes more complex, both socialculture and religious. I think many of the population somewhere between 1100- 1200 in Balkans where of Serbian-Illyrian blood and who became Albanian or Southslave depended much if they where of favour for the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church.

History,

The period of the Roman domination, the 2nd-4th centuries A.D., marked the beginning of a major differentiation, effective throughout the Albanians' historical development, in the processes taking place in the North and in the South. The population in the more backward North succumbed to assimilation and lost its language and its Illyrian identity awareness. On the contrary, owing to their higher level of development and cultural and ethnic distinction, the Illyrians in the South could keep their identity even under the Roman Empire and its strong civilisation pressure.

Part of the population, which lived in the high inland country and was organised in its majority in some kind of cattle-breeding or village communities, preserved for a long time its tribal characteristics, being only nominally subject to the Roman rule. To obtain their subordination, Rome passed special laws. The legal status of these tribes was one of free people, but in the social hierarchy they held a place between the Romans enjoying civil rights, and the multitude of slaves, who had no rights at all.

In the course of over a century seven Illyrian-born emperors ruled in succession. One of them, Emperor Diocletian, carried out an administrative reform in the Roman Empire by constituting prefectures, dioceses and provinces. In conformity with this reorganisation, the Albanian territory was divided into three provinces: Praevalitana, with Shkodra (Shkodër) as its administrative centre, Epirus Nova, Dyrrachium as its capital, and Epirus Vetus, with its central city at Nikopois. The latter two were part of the Macedonian diocese. The dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia were constituent parts of the prefecture of Illyricum, which comprised the entire Balkans.

In the 7th century the tides of Avars and Slavs flooded the Peninsula and closed in on the imperial capital of Constantinople. In the course of nearly two centuries, Southeastern Europe was inaccessible to Byzantium's control. When in 800 the Byzantine counteroffensive got underway, the progressing ethnic changes were already a reality, and difficult to revise.

One of the key directions for expansion of the Bulgarian kingdom at the time of its efflorescence in the 9th-10th centuries, was southwestwards. Then not only Macedonia, but also Albania, became an object of rivalry between Byzantium and Bulgaria. Thus, for a comparatively long period of time, between 851 and 1018, the present-day territory of Albania was under Bulgarian authority.

In the middle of the 11th century the official split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church became a reality. When their spheres of influence were fixed, the dividing line ran across today's Albanian lands granting the Roman Catholic Church authority over their northern parts. During this period the Eastern Orthodox Church still dominated because of the long-lasting influence of Byzantium and Bulgaria.

Late in the 12th century, the first independent principality of Albania (Arbania) was established on the territory of present-day central Albania, having its capital at Kruja (Krujë). In the sources, the princes, who stood at the head of the small formation, are referred to as Arbëreshes (Arbanians), and so is the population under their rule. With its gradual expansion, the principality clashed with the Byzantine and the Slav feudal lords. --Albanau 10:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for

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)

According to Papazogulos, Darda-n comes from the Albanian dardh- ën "pear" because their was a large of cultivation of pears in that region. --Albanau 17:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to Julius Pokorny, who is a more renowned linguist, Dardan comes from the Indo-European root Der-, 'to flay, to destroy, to tear'. He makes an excellent case for it, gives many cognates, and I agree with Pokorny. His idea is older than the 'pear' idea, if I'm not mistaken, so his idea wasn't "a response" to the Albanian connection. And Pokorny is not anti-Albanian, because he always speaks good of the Albanians in his book. Pokorny was probably right: though Papazogolos might have been right. So, 'dardhe' can be listed in the article as an Albanian-Illyrian cognate, because it is possible, even though it is Dardan specifically, not Illyrian, and nobody is sure whether the Dardans were Illyrians. Decius 06:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Illyrian Centum

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)

Not any book can be used as a reference. The book I have cited is a scholarly work, and it is one of the major books on the subject available in the West. Decius 03:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't yet know the names of the linguists who beleive Illyrian was centum, or how many of them there are, but I have seen their arguments mentioned in that book. The definitely Illyrian name Epicadus (a common Illyrian name) is one of the possible indications of Illyrian=Centum, because the 'cad-' in Epicadus is traced by some to the IE *kad, which if true shows preservation of 'k' sound. There are other data cited as evidence. By the way, 'Epi-' is definitely an Illyrian prefix and is found in many Illyrian names, so this prefix was part of their language. As far as I know, there is no such prefix in Albanian, though the exact same prefix is found in Ancient Greek. Decius 03:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added some Illyrian names to the Illyrian language article. At least two of those indigenous Illyrian names have been connected by many linguists to Latin words: Gentius to Latin gentis (ancestor, kin, begetter, son) and gens (=kin, race, tribe; an appropiate name considering Gentius was the name of some Illyrian kings, a king being a leader of one's tribe) and Bato to Latin Batuo (=to strike; 'Bato' may have meant 'fighter', 'striker'). Gentius is known to date back before Roman conquest times, so it is not a Roman name; I don't know how far Bato dates back, but it is not a name native to Romans. I have personally connected the Illyrian (and Pannonian, Moesian, Dalmatian) name Verzo to Romance verde and to Latin viridis, though that is original research. Decius 03:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is also a reference from the book The Illyrians, by John Wilkes "The strongest evidence for the connection between Illyrian and Albanian must be the few direct correspondeces of the vocabulary often cited.", If you have the book Decius, go somewhere to the last chapter that saids- Illyrians were a mixture of Indo-European and not Indo-European people. --Albanau 18:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that sentence, on pg. 73 in my book. And let's examine the sentence: 'the strongest evidence for'---in other words, from the evidence that exists, which is not strong, those possible correspondances are the strongest evidence. He is not saying that the evidence is strong. And if that is the strongest evidence that exists (which is not that strong if you really consider it), you can see why I am skeptical. The last chapter in my book is 'Imperial Illyrians'---what page is that reference on? Decius 06:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And just to let you know, I long ago considered that in 500 bc, let's say, Illyria might have been home to non-Indo-European tribes, who lived adjacent to Indo-European Illyrians. I usually consider all kinds of scenarios, even if I only talk about a few. Yet there is no proof that non-Indo-Europeans were living in large numbers in Illyria around 500 bc, for instance. I've also discussed the possibility (in fact, it's perhaps certain, though there is no solid evidence) that there was more than one branch of the Indo-European language spoken among the natives in Illyria. It's possible that in addition to Illyrians, for instance, there were some mountain tribes in Northern Albania who spoke an Indo-European language on a seperate branch from Illyrian---and these might have been the Albanians, in which case the Albanian language is not an Illyrian language, though the Albanians would be native to Albania. What page is that reference on. Decius 06:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look somewhere in the last three chapters.., I cannot find it right now. --Albanau 10:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Place names

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)

"sound-change rules?"

Wrong, don't forgett that the place-names are hellenized and latinzied because the place-names were written in Greek and Latin, Illyrian was not used as written system. Example Albanoi is hellenized, because -oi is used in Greek for plural, it means "Albanians" while in Greek "Albanian" ends with -os which is singular. The Illyrian place-names are in Greek and Latin text and theirfore they are in the Greek-Latin variant.

Albanian language have preserve many of the place-names, for example- Scupi-Shkupi, Scodra-Shkodër, Lissus-Lezha, Dyrracium-Durrës, Drinus-Drini, Mathis-Mat, Ulipiana- Lipjan, Nassius- Nis, Dulcingo, Ulqini. Dulcingo might be Greek or Latin variant because the place name was not written in Illyrian so we dont know its original variant "the illyrian variant". The city Brindisi for example is the Italian variant, Brentésion in greek and in Latin Brundisium. I don't know the Messapic variant. But most place-names in Illyria are preserved in Latin and Greek variant and not Illyrian variant, the original. --Albanau 18:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many of them are somewhat Hellenized and Romanized, I know that. We have the same case with Dacian and Thracian toponyms (cf. Salmuris in Dobrudja, influenced by Greek 'Halmuris'). If the examples you give are correct, then that argument against can't really be used as it was, so you may be right in this case. And I said the argument is "probably legitimate" because I myself haven't been able to verify that argument, and I thought Bogdan had a reliable reference for it (?). Scupi is considered by almost all scholars to be a Thracian town-name, not Illyrian. Decius 06:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Ulipiana' is actually 'Ulpiana' which was named after the Roman Emperor, Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus, commonly known as Trajan. He was not Illyrian, and 'Ulpius' is not an Illyrian name, it is a Roman name. The city was founded in the 2nd century Ad during the reign of Trajan. The city was the center of the province of Dardania. The name was maintained by intermediary populations, and it's been passed down to Albanians who have it as 'Lipjan', the original name being 'Ulpiana', 'Ulpinium', et cetera. 'Lipjan' is not in any way evidence for what you intended. It would be better for everybody involved if you did more research. Decius 08:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Naissus is in Moesia, pretty far from Albania. Dulcingo probably entered Albanian through intermediaries (cf. Italian 'Dulcigno'; or Slav), the original name as we have it was Ulcinium or Olcinium, a pre-Roman Illyrian name (with a Romanized suffix, '-ium'). Decius 08:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The following text must be erased:

• Illyrian toponyms, hydronyms, names, and words have not been shown to be related to Albanian, and they do not indicate that Illyrians spoke a proto-Albanian language.

--Albanau 10:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The statement is true, so it must not be erased. Most Illyrian toponyms, hydronyms, names and words have not been shown to be related to Albanian. Just a few have possible Albanian correspondences. Most don't. So the sentence is true. You are misrepresenting the text: MOST is the key word. Decius 10:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could it be that most of the Illyrian toponyms, hydronyms and names could have been Slavized in the ninth century by the salvs?

With the penetration of the Slav tribes, however, in the main starting from the fifth century AD, Slav toponyms spread more and more, reaching also to the south of the Balkans. By the ninth century, a great part of present day Albania was already covered with Slav, mostly Serbian, toponyms. We will show the extent and duration of this phenomenon according to the results of our investigations which demanded much patience but which enabled us to gather an imposing number of several hundred Slav toponyms in Albania from maps (scale 1:100,000 & 1:200,000) of the 1920s and 1930s. We rejected all those toponyms which underwent linguistic change, that is, Albanization, whereby the Slav form was altered in its outward expression. In order to avoid any confusion we have retained only those names whose form still shows today their origin and there are over three hundred of these "pure" toponyms

--Albanau 09:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are limits to how much you can use such evasive arguments: for example, the old Illyrian city of Dyrrhachium was said to have been founded by a figure named Dyrrhachus. Now, yes, the spelling of the name 'Dyrrhachus' is the spelling that we find in Latin and Greek writings; and yes, 'Dyrrhachium' has a Romanized suffix (-ium): yet, the fact is that the actual Illyrian name was not reasonably far from the form 'Dyrrhachus': Dyrrhachos, Dyrrhache, Dyrrhachis, Dyrrhacha, Dyrrhach, Durrhache, Derrhache, Durrhachus: something like that should have been the actual form. The Latin/Greek spelling was probably quite a close approximation. As far as I've seen, none of those spellings I've given brings us close to an Albanian word that makes sense. The argument becomes even weaker in the case of Illyrian names that are from Illyrian insciptions on tombs written by Illyrians themselves: the name Verzulus, for instance. Now, the Illyrians were using Roman letters (Albanian also uses Roman letters, modified) and were spelling it as they themselves thought it should be spelled: yet 'Verzulus' and most other such Illyrian names have not been given Albanian explanations. Such names are not Roman or Greek names, and there is no evidence that such names are even Romanized or Hellenized, because we find the names in Illyrian inscriptions. There is a very large corpus of such Illyrian names taken from inscriptions, and how many have been definitely connected to Albanian? None. Decius 08:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's true that most of these Illyrian inscriptions incorporate Latin phrases and abbreviations (because Illyrians were Romanized), yet it is not proven that the names themselves (I'm talking about the names from Illyrian inscriptions) have been Romanized or Hellenized. Those names are Illyrian names. Decius 09:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As a somewhat parallel example for what may have happened with the Illyrian name 'Dyrrhachus'(from Latin/Greek writings), look at how "Boris Nikolaivich Yeltsin" is transliterated into different languages in this article transcription (linguistics). It changes, but it doesn't change that much, does it. The big changes usually happen when names pass from extremely different languages (ex: chinese>renaissance italian), but since Illyrian, Latin, and Greek were all Indo-Europeans in close contact with each other, you shouldn't expect a huge difference. And with names in Illyrian inscriptions you shouldn't expect any difference except that Roman letters don't always accurately represent certain specific sounds. Decius 12:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Illyrian language was divided in to a number of dialects and was in a development process. If I'm sure those who use the spooken language much more then the written language their language develop much faster and learn to distinguish foreign words with the their own words. This was the case for many of the Illyrians.

All Illyrian place-names etc. mention in Greek and Latin text are Hellenized and Romanized. Those place names perhaps became slavized later and in the end albanized. Although it is not sure that the Albanian language was derived from the ancient Illyrian language or any other one of that group, its geographical position urges us to place it there.

Iliria, Illyria is both the Albanian spelling. Iliria is in gega and Illyria is in toska, as for Shqiperia in gega and Shqyperia in toska. I personaly that Iliri comes from the Albanian "ilik, a type of eagle". --Albanau 12:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look At This

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: [5]. 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:[6]. A cited Illyrian word not shown is saba (a type of Illyrian beer), and perhaps more. Decius 04:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Back It Up

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)

On the other hand, 90% of what has been written "in defense" of the Illyrian origin theory was mish-mash and horsesh*t. Decius 09:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Evidence

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)

Here is a look at some of those Illyrian-Albanian correspondences, compiled by semi-scholarly sources and listed by Albanau: [7]. Some of those might be right (and some are right, I'll explain), yet many are wrong or may be wrong. So the case is not strong. Decius 07:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One of them is correct for sure, yet it is not exclusively Albanian by any means: Enchela (found in the name of the Illyrian tribe of Enchelees) for sure meant 'eels', and the Ancient Greek word for 'eel' was 'enchelus'. The Albanian word is a cognate, and is spelled 'ngjala'. The Latin word for 'eel' was 'anguilla'. The IE root is *Anghwi, which meant 'eel', 'snake'. The Illyrian tribe Chelidones likewise probably meant 'snails' and it is certain the name Illyri meant snakes, and I'll explain this later. Decius 08:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Decius I agree with the sentence. Then we both can agree that it is likely possible that the Albanian language deriveds from the Illyrian language due to the fact that little is unknown about the Illyrian language and they only are suggestion to if Illyrian is centum or kentum.

The Illyrian language, supposedly, falls into two groups: the Venetic (supposedly spoken by the northern Illyrians) and the Messapic (supposedly spoken by the southern Illyrians). Albanian language have shown to be relative to the messapic, the southern, and it haves the geograpic possition which comes into question.

Regarding the etymology "Epirus" I suggest It's a Illyrian/Latin word. "E pirë" is a word borrowed by the ancestors of the Albanians from Latin "Ebrius, intoxicated, drunk". Or Latin borrowed it from Illyrian, however. I suggest Epirus comes from the Latin "Ebrius" and not from the Greek "epieros" which mean "mainland" or "continent". The term "ebriosus, drink-loving" has a fascinating explanation.

here is a few sentence from the book; The Illyrians, author; John Wilkes.

To the Greek world the Illyrians appeared heavy drinkers, from the drinking bouts of the Ardiaei from which intoxicated men were conveyed home by their women, who had also participated, to the overindulgence of their kings Agron and Gentius.

St. Jerome whose home lay among the northwestern Illyrians on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia, tells about the ordinary man's beer called sabaium, made from barley. Late in the fourth century the emperor Valens ( AD 364-378 ) , who came from a Pannonian family of peasant origin, was fond of his native brew that he gained the nicname "sabaiarius".

OPA!--Albanau 11:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's possible that Albanian is an Illyrian language, but there should be more correspondances between them. There are some, but not that many, so that's why I'm skeptical. Decius 12:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you want to prove that Albanian language, culture, and traditions have no links with the Illyrians then you must prove that all this things orginates els where. Because of the Illyrian language is allmost unknown you can't say that Albanian language orginates or don't orginates from that language. So either way you cannot claim that Albanian is or isin't an Illyrian language. Albanau

In the article itself, no, I can't state that and I wouldn't, until definite evidence disproves the idea. What can be stated in the article are truthful arguments against "the Illyrian languages equals Albanian language" idea, and that's what is being stated: Arguments Against. If the arguments are mere propaganda, of course you should remove them, but none of the 'arguments against' in the article right now are propaganda, and each one is backed up, and none can fairly be removed. Decius 14:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see that you've quoted Wilkes. It is slightly rephrased so I guess it's alright. Decius 14:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is, the name for the tribe Epirus is not Greek but Latin/Illyrian. And the name Dardania is Albanian. A Boue and von Hahn have indicated that it comes from the word Dardhe = pear. And it has been remarked that in the area pear-trees abound. --Albanau 09:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The etymology of Epirus is unclear: it could be from ancient Greek, and I think it is from ancient Greek. There is the extremely remote possibility, I suppose, that it might be Illyrian. The connection between 'Dardan/Dardania' and Albanian 'dardhe' (pear) is possible, but at least two things need to be verified: do more pears grow in the area than in other nearby areas; did pears grow there in large numbers in ancient times. Decius 10:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I say "needs to be verified", I mean "in order to be more scientifically acceptable". I don't mean that they need to be more verified to go in the article. Wikipedia is a free Encyclopedia, and as long as you have scholarly sources for each Illyrian-Albanian correspondance you mention in the article, there is no problem. I erased the other ones because they were all Thracian words. Dardanian words/names can be included, because some scholars beleive they were Illyrian, while most beleive they were Illyrian-Thracian. Decius 10:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A Twisted Tree

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)

If you want to, you can post the link on this Talk Page. In any case, that is not even an argument for the Illyrian-Albanian idea. Decius 16:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In case you think these are my own observations, let me let you know that what I have said is what is actually accepted in linguistics by real scholars as any real reference will tell you, and the bullsh*t you thought represented what "schoolars" beleive is in fact not what real scholars beleive, and it is only what Albanian nationalists beleive, and they are the ones who have to convince "schoolars!". You should look at how mutated Albanian words are when compared to the roots: remember, the roots are actually the words of the old Proto-Indo-European language, and the sentences were formed with those words (roots): so the Proto-Indo-European language was very far from Albanian (and Armenian is even more far away), and that is the truth. Of course, just because Albanian is not very close to Proto-Indo-European doesn't make it inferior or superior, just different; the Germanic languages, in my opinion, are also very far from Proto-Indo-European.Decius 16:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a scholarly site that shows some reconstructed sentences in Proto-Indo-European, as close as linguists have been able to reconstruct the language, based on a comparison of all Indo-European languages: [8]. Decius 16:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no time to discuss so much about this issue so I just want to say;

Albanian Language belongs to the family of Indo-European Languages and it constitutes a separate branch in this family of languages and is not originally associated to any of the modern Indo-European languages. A tree of Indo-Europian languages was designed in 1974 from the Institution of Languages in Sweden, that claims the Albanian language is the oldest Indo-European idiom. The tree was republished in the World Book in 1975 and a similar tree was published in 1999 by an Italoalbanian historian in Greece and the Greek Academy of Science accepted the tree. --Albanau 04:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two facts: the tree you showed is not accepted at all in linguistics, it is erroneous; 2) the argument that Albanian is or isn't a very old language is not an argument that Albanian is or isn't an Illyrian language: you don't seem to get that point, because you keep trying to use the possible ancientness of the Albanian language as an argument. Decius 06:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to many swedish linguistics Albanian language is older then old Greek and Latin. Albanau

Albanian-Slav contacts

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)

Many peoples

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)

Romanized/Hellenized

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)

Exactly, and I tried to point that out to Albanau using my Dyrrhachus example---even though the name is slightly Romanized/Hellenized, it is not a dramatic change. Decius 13:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Decius and Bogdangiusca stop trying to falsificate your own arguments. And Dyrrachium was a Greek city and a name given by Greeks so it does not have any thing to do with the Illyrian language what we know. --Albanau 23:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dyrrhachium was held to have been founded by Dyrrhachus, who was a barbarian of Illyria with a barbarian name: Appian, Civil War, 2.39: "A barbarian (not Greek) king of the region (Illyria), by the name of Epidamnus, built a city on the coast and named it after himself. Dyrrhachus, the son of his daughter, added a harbor which was named Dyrrhachium." Dyrrhachus is not a Greek name, it is Illyrian. There are an overwhelming number of other examples. Decius 12:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Give more examples! --Albanau 02:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is not my burden to give more examples, what I am saying is what scholars who have studied the names say. The burden is on those who wish to connect the Albanian language with the Illyrian language. So you give more examples. Decius 10:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The name Dyrrhachus is record in Latin script, the name is a verison of Romanized Illyrian. The real verison was perhaps Dyrrhac. Albanau

Yeah, I already cut off the suffix and broke down the name to its stem (Dyrrhach, Dyrrhac) earlier on this page, and it still has no Albanian cognate---if it does, mention it. And of course, if you want I can shoot a ton of illyrian names at you from my fully automatic clip, and still there wouldn't be any Albanian resonances, except for "those few correspondances often cited". Decius 22:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

current Scholarly reference

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)

the Illyrian-Albanian dictionary

Yes, and what's that supposed to show? It's a link to Julius Pokorny's work on Indo-European linguistics, that includes the etymology of Thracian words/names, Illyrian words/names, and Albanian words/names. And that work was published in 1959 as Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (Bern), so I don't know why somebody on the message board is saying "it's finally here". It's not an "Illyrian-Albanian dictionary", it's a work on "Indo-Germanic" linguistics, and as you can see from the use of the erroneous/outdated term "Indo-Germanic" (instead of Indo-European, which is correct), the work is old and outdated (many errors, yet many correct etymologies; you can say that it is basically sound, yet in error when he links Illyrian and Albanian). I don't see anything there that proves that name-claim. Decius 12:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Julius Pokorny, as late as the 60's and 70's, was used as a basis in a lot of Indo-European linguistic references. But in recent decades, his many errors have reduced his reliability. Decius 12:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to mention his definite errors here (besides linking Illyrian to Albanian), but here is a possible error: he beleived that Albanian 'gjarpe' (snake) was inherited from PIE and not borrowed from Latin. He had a habit of making those kinds of assumptions. And proving once again that linguists are barely scientists, Pokorny was a German nationalist and a Celtomaniac who wrote propaganda in favor of celts and germans. So put a question mark on a lot of his work. Decius 12:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delated by Albanau

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)

You missed the point of the sentence: it describes the fact that Albanians were not mentioned in Byzantine chronicles until 1043 even though Illyria was a Byzantine province of long-standing, and the last mention of Illyrians was many centuries before, so no grounds to erase it. Albanians, whether Illyrians or not (not), were not mentioned until 1043, which is strange considering that if Albanians were living there since Illyrian times, they should first be mentioned so late in the day. There are two basic options: 'Albanians' was a newly adopted term; 'Albanians' weren't yet in Illyria, so they would not have been mentioned. Decius 10:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arberia/Arbania/Albania is just likely to be the name of a district - the plain of the Mat has been suggested - rather than particular place. The term 'Albanian' gradually came to be applied to the surviving Illyrians and most likely many other balkan people assimilated with them till what became the Albanians, Albanian language, culture etc. Albanau

Albanians are descand from the Paeonian theory invented by Descius, delated

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Origin of the Albanians/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A "high B" as of March 2007. Might be worth a push to "good article" status.

Last edited at 17:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)