Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Average Member Andreas Kyropoulos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    9

    Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    The tripartition of the Proto-Slavic world is usually dated to the 9th century AD, when the process known as the Liquid Metathesis (LM) separated common Slavic into the 3 main branches: south, west and east.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_metathesis

    LM involves the fate of the proto-slavic structures CoRC/CerC (C= any consonant, R = liquid resonant R/L).

    1) West Slavic operated metathesis without lengthenment: CoRC> CRoC, CeRC>CReC
    2) East Slavic operated polyphony: CoRC> CoRoC, CeRC> CeReC/CoRoC
    3) South Slavic operated lengthened metathesis: CoRC> CRōC~ CRaC, CeRC > CRēC ~ CRěC

    The south slavic cases show that when the LM was occuring proto-slavic had still the long vowels, because the new long vowels that were produced by the process followed the same evolution as the inherited ones.

    Examples:

    1) Evolution of long vowels inherited from PIE:

    Root *g'enh3- "know" > zero grade *g'n.h3- ~ *g'nō- (cf. Greek γιγνώσκω, Latin cognōscō) > Slavic znati

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Append...o-Slavic/znati

    Root *deh3- ~ dō- "give" (cf. Greek δῶρον , Latin num) > Slavic dar

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Append...avic/dar%D1%8A

    2) Evolution of the new south slavic long vowels:

    PIE root *gherdh- "to fence" (cf. English gird) > noun *ghordhos ("fenced/wall settlement") > Balto-Slavic *gardas > late proto-slavic gordŭ > South slavic grōdŭ > gradŭ

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Append...vic/gord%D1%8A

    South Slavic grad, Vlah
    East Slavic gorod/horod, Voloh/Valah
    West Slavic grod/hrod, Vloh (Vlochy = Italy in Polish)

    Similarly, the root *h2melg- "to milk" gave proto-Germanic *meluks (the ancestor of english milk and german milch), which was borrowed into proto-Slavic as *melko:

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Append...o-Slavic/melko

    South Slavic: *melko > OCS mlěko > modern SSlv variants mleko,mlyako,mljeko etc.
    West Slavic *melko > mleko/mloko etc.
    East Slavic *melko > moloko/malako

    In this way, a Bulgarian, for example, can translate germanic "gastarbeiter" in bulgarian using the same IE roots as "gost rabotnik".

    Since the Old Church Slavonic (OCS) was codified in the second part of the 9th century AD and it shows the SSlv LM, most linguists agree that most of the LM process had been concluded during the period 750-850 AD.

    The question is, for how much longer have the South Slavs operated the LM? That is which was the real terminus ante quem of this linguistic process?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminus_ante_quem

    I have found 3 examples that show that LM was still operative after 1000 AD.

    1) The Serbian name Raban for Arbanon:

    The first reference to Albanians as historical people comes from an Old Bulgarian document written around 1010 AD possibly in Ohrid, where the "Arbanasi" are mentioned as one of the "half-believers" (Christians but not Orthodox):

    http://www.albanianhistory.net/en/te...99/AH1000.html
    It can be seen that there are various languages on earth. Of them, there are five Orthodox languages: Bulgarian, Greek, Syrian, Iberian (Georgian) and Russian. Three of these have Orthodox alphabets: Greek, Bulgarian and Iberian. There are twelve languages of half-believers: Alamanians, Franks, Magyars (Hungarians), Indians, Jacobites, Armenians, Saxons, Lechs (Poles), Arbanasi (Albanians), Croatians, Hizi, Germans.
    This form is in agreement with the earliest Greek name «Αρβανίται» for the Albanians. In Greek, «Αρβανίτης» literally means "inhabitant of Arbanon", just like Latin Arbanensis/Albanensis > Italian Albanese.

    Arbanon was the original Albanian nucleus from where the Albanians begun gradually to spread and is commonly equated with the tableland around the river Mat north of Kruja:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbanon#Arbanon

    In the Serbian poetry of the Ottoman period the form Arbanasa = "Albanian" is attested as the ethnikon of the legendary thief Musa.

    However, in a Serbian document dating around 1200 AD, the region Arbanon is called Raban showing south slavic metathesis.



    2) The "ping-pong" Bulgarian-Tosk Albanian toponym Labėria:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labs_(people)

    The region Labėria is usually etymologized from Greek Αλβανία (Albania) where:
    i) The Bulgarians have operated the LM Albania > Labania and the Tosk Albanians have operated the rhotacism of intervocalic -n->-r- Labania > Labėria as in Avlona > Vlonė > Vlorė.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlor%C3%AB#Etymology

    So far so good. But the problem is that in order for the Greeks to call the place "Albania" in the first place, there must be Albanians living there and no historian admits that there were Albanians in what is modern south Albania before 1100 AD.

    So the south slavic LM has occured sometime after 1100 AD.

    3) The Macedonian word dlabok = "deep"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dlaboka_Reka

    The adjective dlabok = deep is related to serbo-croat dubok:

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dubok

    and derives from proto-slavic *dъlbokъ.

    Now we do know that the yers were still present in OCS and that around 1000 AD most south Slavs were pronouncing the word as *dl.bokъ with a liquid resonant l. as in vl.kъ = "wolf" and pl.nъ = "full".

    So the subsequent Serbo-Croat evolution was full vocalization and loss of the l (l.>u): dubok, vuk, pun, meanwhile the Macedonian evolution was l.>ol: *dolbok, volk, polno.

    Both evolutions had certainly occured after 1000 AD.

    But in order to go from *dolbok to dlabok we need the south slavic Liquid Metathesis. This means that the LM in this example has occured much later than 1000 AD.

  2. #2
    Progressing Member Kafir Bey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    You made some good remarks though your elaboration is greatly hampered by your poor command of English. Your cited examples to sustain that metathesis of liquids has lasted even after 12th century A.D are very tenuous, so to speak. Accordingly, this is not an easy topic to nail down with some superfluous examples lacking from any skilful investigation. Indeed a more exhaustive and professional study is required, all the more so when metathesis of liquids - though not in great proportion - is attested even in Albanian. Truth be told, I am more inclined to believe that proto-Albanian (i. e the transitional stage from its Illyrian predecessor) was affected by such linguistic phenomenon at this time. So can anybody clear up for me to what extent took place this phenomenon in Albanian? If my memory serves well, in Albanian metathesis of liquids occurred in some words where the vocal is in the unstressed position (which is not the case with Slavic). The metathesis of liquids is best exemplified by the following examples mainly Latin borrowings: krasun > kėrcu; fricare>fėrgoj, etc. Whereas the name of medieval capital of Serbia, Raska features a pertinent phenomenon where Albanian has mediated from its pristine form ARSA (as it is attested in Procopius writings) through the regular evolution /s/>/sh/ as well as the Slavic metathesis a – r > r – a. It would not be amiss to surmise that proto-Albanian groups were quite dominant in these areas as to affect Slavic in some scale.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    the region Labėria is usually etymologized from Greek Αλβανία (Albania) where:
    i) The Bulgarians have operated the LM Albania > Labania and the Tosk Albanians have operated the rhotacism of intervocalic -n->-r- Labania > Labėria as in Avlona > Vlonė > Vlorė.
    I wholly agree with your analysis. To my humble opinion, the same phenomenon has taken place also in Labunishtė (an Albanian village in nearby of Struga), where a metathesis from a previous *alb to LAB is quite likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    But the problem is that in order for the Greeks to call the place "Albania" in the first place, there must be Albanians living there and no historian admits that there were Albanians in what is modern south Albania before 1100 AD.
    hmmm...you just go off at half-cock without taking into account additional proofs. The claim that Albanians trickled in great numbers in Epirus is untenable at best as it falls short of convincing for a myriad of reasons. Thus it is a skewed logic to assume that Albanians came out of the blue in Epirus by changing drastically its previous ethnic make-up. A more clear-eyed investigation would surely reveal that some proto-Albanian pockets were to be found in Byzantine Epirus much earlier than it is admitted. Your source clearly stated that:

    This Arbanon, the Raban of the Life of Stefan Nemanja, was a land without direct access to the sea, even though the coasts of Epiros, despite their control by Serbs and Greeks, remained primarily inhabited by Albanians, as did the mountain areas which rose above the eastern shore of Lake Shkodėr (Scutari), in Latin Polatum, in Slavonic Pilot.

    The so called Jirecek line where allegedly all areas south of Shkumbin River were Greek-speaking is a gross oversimplification. Several studies which dwell on that problem hammered home the same conclusion that Epirus populace has dwindled away since 168 B.C. The Byzantine Greek-speaking element out there jumped up especially after 1204 A.D when Constantinople was captured by Latins. It is not unlikely to assume that a large chunk of Epirotic population which found asylum in the mountains of Albania, with the drift of time was creeping in its previous homeland. A startling evidence is to be found in the place-name Σχόδρα in NW of Jannina as it has been noticed by Georgacas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    So the south slavic LM has occured sometime after 1100 AD.
    Not so, amigo! It is patently obvious that a certain ARBANIA existed out there much earlier than 12 century. What matters the most is that the region in vicinity of Vlora was called by its inhabitants as ARBERIA and it would not be a misnomer to state that the old Bulgarian document meant exactly the inhabitants of this region of Epirus which was left out of the Bulgarian orthodoxy.


  3. #3
    Sr. Member Zeus10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    147

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post

    So far so good. But the problem is that in order for the Greeks to call the place "Albania" in the first place, there must be Albanians living there and no historian admits that there were Albanians in what is modern south Albania before 1100 AD.
    And saying this, your automatic presumption is that this presence came as the result of the "massive native Greek population" displacement, then how do you explain this "cataclysmic" event, went unmentioned by these very same "sensitive" historians? By the way, were these "Greeks", the same Hellenes we have been already acknowledged.

  4. #4
    Average Member Andreas Kyropoulos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    9

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Kafir Bey View Post
    You made some good remarks though your elaboration is greatly hampered by your poor command of English.
    Well, I guess if I was a pechalbar in Australia or Canada I would certainly have spoken it better. Anyway as long as you understand me I think that we're ok.

    Now, Albanian is not Illyrian and it certainly is not native in the region of Albania.

    Most of the Scholars now seenm to agree that Albanian is a Daco-Moesian dialect and that the linguistic ancestors of the Albanians have moved in the region sometime around 500-600 AD possibly pushed by the descending Slavs.

    Watch for example the linguist John Bassett Trumper who studies the albanian language for some 30 years now.



    The "prince of albanology" (as the albanian linguists call him) Eric Hamp after some 50 years studying the albanian language has concluded that the ancestors of the Romanians spoke proto-Albanian before their latinization, and they were Daco-Moesian speakers not Illyrian speakers.



    And the same opinion is expressed by Vladimir Orel in his Albanian Etymological dictionary, where he identifies the albanian urheimat with Dacia Ripensis and the Carpathian mountains.



    Andre Du Nay in his "the Origins of the Rumanians" has the same opinion and identifies Eastern Serbia and NW Bulgarian as the common urheimat of both Albanians and Rumanians.

    Now, to the other thing that you've mentioned. If you read the 14th century sources that are contemporary with the albanian southward migrations (Cantakouzenos and the venetian Marino Sanudo) they speak of "massive and disatrous migrations".

    For example, their arrival in the region of Berat and the reactions of the pre-albanian population (Greek, Bulgarian and Vlach) is described by Kantakouzenos here:

    http://www.albanianhistory.net/en/te...99/AH1328.html

    It is a bit naif to think that there were Albanians in a Bulgarian region that celebrated it's orthodoxy (Glavinica, south Albania) from the 9th century and that the same Bulgarians 2 centuries later would describe the Arbanasi as "half believers" (catholics).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballshi_Inscription

    The known Serbian Historian Sima Ćirković explains the Old Bulgarian text refering to the catholic Arbanasi at 1010 AD, by saying that the Albanians who at that time were still living in Arbanon (Kruja/Mat) had devenoled relationships with the Catholic bishopric of Antivari (Bar) rather than the orthodox metropolis of Dyrrachium or the orthodox archbishopric of the Bulgarian hinterland.



    o by the 11th century, we can say with certaintly that the Albanians were still relatively isolated in Arbanon (Kruja-Mat region).

    The Byzantine authors mentions relatively frequently the region of south Albania in the 11th and 12th centuries. None mentions Albanians there, or use the name Albania to describe it. For example, Theophylact of Ohrid, around 1100 AD, in his life of St Clement (who was from what is now south Albania) still uses the term Kutmichevitsa to describe the region and Skylitzes writing around 1090 AD notes that there lived only Romans (Greeks), Bulgarians, Armenians and mentions the nomadic Vlachs who killed Tsar Samuel's brother "somewhere between Prespa and Kastoria in a place called "Good Oaks" (probably Dambeni).

    One thing that I forgot to mention about the map that you've presented. Arbanon was not south of Tirana and the river Shkumbini, but north of them (Kruja-Mati region):



    The region south of the Shkumbin and SW of Ohrid is costantly called Διάβολις-Devol/Kutmichevitsa long before any Albanian was mentioned there.


  5. #5
    Progressing Member Kafir Bey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    Now, Albanian is not Illyrian and it certainly is not native in the region of Albania.
    That Albanian represent a continuation of an Illyrian dialect is settled beyond any doubt. I have no intention – nor energy – at this stage to outline the enormous evidences which bespeak favorably on the Illyrian parentage of Albanian. All foreign linguists meddling with Albanian have saliently argued that Albanian stem directly from a southern Illyrian dialect, a fact which is further bolstered by pertinent phonological commonalities. Our knowledge to Illyrian is sparse given that all what is left from this language consist of a handful of glosses, personal names and place-names as well. Thus the reconstruction of its phonological and morphological system at its entirety is is hampered by the small proportion of material at our disposal. However, many of Illyrian vestiges have been linked with Albanian. Numerous historical evidences make the Illyrian theory an unavoidable conclusion. A massive migration of proto-Albanians into modern Albanian is hardly plausible. It is hardly conceivable that a whole people sneak in undetected and go past the watchful eyes of Romans. We know pretty well that Byzantines consolidated their western provinces in order to thwart any possible incursion from sea, so it follows as a logical assumption that proto-Albanians to be able to assimilate the illyrians they would have to be at least 3 times the present Illyrian population, but this can be ruled out as such a number of people would have been noticed and caused confrontation. A more inquisitive mind might discover that the population of modern Albania (the Roman provinces of Prevalitania and Epirus) kept intact its distinct identity concealed beneath a thin veneer of Romanization and Hellenization. Moreover, archaeologists have yielded ample evidences which point out to a distinct culture known as ''Komani-Kruja'' culture. Its carriers were admittedly Illyrian who reasserted their identity in a time when Balkans was jeopardized by drastic changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    Most of the Scholars now seenm to agree that Albanian is a Daco-Moesian dialect and that the linguistic ancestors of the Albanians have moved in the region sometime around 500-600 AD possibly pushed by the descending Slavs.
    You're awfully wrong as Dacian hypothesis has found little support among current historians. Highly acclaimed linguists like Pokorny, Pedersen, Budimir, Cimochowski, Rosseti, Crossland, Polome, Mallory-Adams opt for the Illyrian theory as the most plausible one. The ill-fated and bewildering hypothesis, according to which proto-Albanians used to live north of Danube, is embraced chiefly by Romanian linguists who are covetous to ascertain their ''immemorial presence'' in Transylvania during their political squabbles with Hungarians. According to this view, Albanians (as non-Romanized Dacians) shifted south of Danube, while the rest remained out there and later emerged as Romanians. But this claim has little to go on for all linguists (apart from Romanian ones) acknowledge the region of Dardania as the very ancient seat of proto-Romanian. It seems not unwarranted that Romanian was coalesced in a region where Albanian-speakers were prevalent (that is the territory of ancient Dardania). It is worth of noting that Romanian lack of Gothic loans, which is perhaps an additional evidence of their south-Danubian origin. Had it been permanently in Romania, Romanian would have already been soaked with early Germanic borrowings, but this is not the case! Considering that most of pre-Latin words are merely loaned from Albanian, it follows as logical assumption that proto-Romanians used to live in a territory where the Albanian elements were prevalent and quite powerful as affect so profusely their speech. Last but not least, any migration of Dacians would not have gone unnoticed and it requires a rich creative imagination to make some tiny wandering tribes of Dacia as a powerful horde to impose itself over a vast territory jutting from Nis (Serbia) all the way to Epirus ???.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    The "prince of albanology" (as the albanian linguists call him) Eric Hamp after some 50 years studying the albanian language has concluded that the ancestors of the Romanians spoke proto-Albanian before their latinization,
    Yet he avoid from ascribing Dacian as the predecessor of Albanian because he is too circumspect to pluck hypothesis out of thin air. Hamp is doubtless one of the best researchers of Albanian language, whose work is appreciated in all eminent universities. In recent years, he pursued the path of post-modernism which tend to obfuscate the traditional knowledge. His reluctance to admit Illyrian as the ancestor of Albanian surely comes from the paucity of Illyrian material and Hamp opined that Illyrian may have been like “Indian” to many Americans or “aborigine” to many Australians. Nonetheless, Hamp has enriched greatly our knowledge to the earlier stages of Albanian by offering some startling evidences in favor of Illyro-Albanian connection. For instance, he make an interesting case when it comes the origin of word ,,thikė'' (knife) likening it to ,,sica'', which he sees as a borrowing from Illyrian in Latin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    and they were Daco-Moesian speakers not Illyrian speakers.
    he redundant term ''Daco-Moesian'' was coined by the Bulgarian linguist, Vladimir Georgiev who opined that Dacian has been spoken in the province of Moesia (?). He conjectured that Albanian and Romanian derived from a common stock which he loosely called as ''Daco-Moesian'', although the evidence is frustratingly exiguous to establish any far-reaching conclusion. His main arguments that Albanian does not cohere with Illyrian are not convincing, while the preposterous claim that Albanian has no original nautical and maritime vocabulary must be dismantled altogether. Georgiev, however, did not rule out the possibility that Albanian has a good deal of Illyrian elements but he went without further ado because it would have greatly weaken his entire hypothesis. The Bulgarian linguist himself appeared ill at ease with his ill fated hypothesis, but at least he was correct enough as to remark that:

    "We are, of course, still unable to determine exactly the beginning of the proto-Albanian infiltration into ancient Illyria"

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    Vladimir Orel in his Albanian Etymological dictionary, where he identifies the albanian urheimat with Dacia Ripensis and the Carpathian mountains
    The Russian linguist, Vladimir Orel, whose work is really an impeccable contribution which cast a much-needed light on Albanian, has mustered all Albanian words which have been tentatively likened to ancient idioms of Balkans. If you stumbled upon his books, you will find plenty of Illyrian elements inherited by Albanian. He endeavored to pinpoint the early seat of proto-Albanians in the foothills of Carpathian mountains, a claim which flies in the face of all available evidences at our disposal. Though the etymology of Καρπάτῆς and Bieskidy appears to be correct (linked with Alb. ,,karpė'' and ,,bjeshkė'' respectively), there is no reason to believe that Albanian might have been coalesced out there. Yet both toponyms seems to have been Illyrian, especially the latter is possibly derived from Illyr. *biz-kit (forest).

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    Andre Du Nay in his "the Origins of the Rumanians" has the same opinion and identifies Eastern Serbia and NW Bulgarian as the common urheimat of both Albanians and Rumanians
    For heaven's sake, don't twist Nay's position concerning Albanian urheimat! > He clearly stated that “The ancestors of the Albanians lived mainly east of Albania, in Macedonia and in parts of Serbia".(Transylvania and the Rumanians, 1997). The location of proto-Albanians into territory of ancient Dardania and Paionia does not rule out the Illyrian origin as both regions had a well-established Illyrian populace. In many respects, the ''Dardanian'' theory is a compromise one between Illyrian and Dacian which decimate any form of historical accuracy in exchange for "appeasing" a particular group(s). I stand firm to my position that there is no compelling reason to conclusively preclude modern Albania's territory from primeval seat of Albanian language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    So by the 11th century, we can say with certaintly that the Albanians were still relatively isolated in Arbanon (Kruja-Mat region).
    The fact is that proto-Albanians occupied a territory way larger than Arbanon. Their first mention in Arbanon indicate plainly that certain parts of proto-Albanians lifted up precisely in the city (or better region) known as Arbanon. It is very possible that large amounts of Albanians which were under the sway of either Byzantines or Slavic entities were actually labelled as Romei, Epirotans, Bulgarians, etc. But when Albanians of other regions namely Epirus received a kind of political autonomy by wielding additional powers, Byzantine chroniclers felt a need to describe them distinctly from the rest of their subjects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    None mentions Albanians there, or use the name Albania to describe it.
    Why would they mention Albanians (who were well-integrated within Byzantine framework)? Their attention was shifted to the marauding onslaughts of either Bulgarians or Serbs into Byzantine territories, so there was no apparent reason to conduct any insightful research over its loyal subjects. It is very telling the fact that Albanians and Vlachs got mention when the Bulgarian threat has gone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    Well, I guess if I was a pechalbar in Australia or Canada I would certainly have spoken it better. Anyway as long as you understand me I think that we're ok.
    The overriding problem of yours is not the woeful English but your tireless persistence to make the most absurd and surreal things seem normal. Perhaps the fatal curse of the Balkans is that everyone with a f**king laptop and access to the web claims they're accomplished academics on every subject ;D.

  6. #6
    Average Member Andreas Kyropoulos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    9

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Kafir Bey View Post
    That Albanian represent a continuation of an Illyrian dialect is settled beyond any doubt.
    Dude get out from the Vukojebina you live in. I will not lose my time in explaining to you how things are. However, if this interests you a banal examination of the relationship between Albanian and the so-called Dacian substratum of Romanian will convince you. A well respected Arbereshe (Italian Albanian) professor of Albanian language in the university of Calabria, Gianni Belluscio, states clearly that Illyrian could just be theoretically one of the many possible ancestors of Albanian, but nothing certain can be told.



    He even thinks that the Albanians were "well integrated" in the Byzantine society, when they were not even Orthodox and they allied themselves with the Normans in almost every Byzantino-Norman war.

    Some centuries later, the "Albanian-Slayer" Thomas Preljubović Palaiologos, was punishing with "rhinotmesis/rhinotomy" (nose cut) every Vlach or Bulgarian who would ally himself with the Albanian besiegers of the city of Ioannina. The Greek inhabitans of the city clearly write that thye "loathed" these albanian "pigherders" and they describe them with every possible insult they can come up with ... and this "arnavut damari" here thinks that they were "well integrated".

    For the record:










    Out of curiosity, are you going also to claim your Vlach ancestors as "native" south Illyrians? Because, when they first arrived around 680 AD from Sirmium/Srem to the "Keramisian" Plain (Pelagonian plain, since Keramiai was the ancient name of Prilep) the Byzantines called them "Sermesiani" ("men from Sirmium") and the Kosovo Slavs calledd them "Sremljane Vlasi". Their leader, Mauros was nicknamed "the Bessian" ("Bessus" signifying Daco-Thracian in late latin). The Byzantine commander of the Theme of Hellas, Kekaumenos, stated around 1040 Ad that the Vlachs of Hellas, Epirus and Macedonia were Dacians and Bessi originally living aroundthe rivers Danube and Sava "where the Serbs now live". So I ask you, are you going to try to make your Vlach ancestors as "indigenous" inhabitants of Macedonia too?


  7. #7
    Progressing Member Kafir Bey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    A well respected Arbereshe (Italian Albanian) professor of Albanian language in the university of Calabria, Gianni Belluscio, states clearly that Illyrian could just be theoretically one of the many possible ancestors of Albanian, but nothing certain can be told.
    I don’t know how much Albanian you know but the Arbėresh scholar did not subscribe even remotely to Dacian hypothesis. He just belaboured the work of a amateur scholar who went as far as to claim links between Albanian and ancient Egyptian (lol). Thus, Belluscio rightfully advised to read Hamp’s articles because they achieve all required standards. It’s up to you to explain which modern scholar endorse explicitly this view and for what earthly reasons. Last but not least, I would like to cite Izzo’s conclusion on all this vexed problem:

    “The more important matter is that Romanian shares some very significant traits with Albania (which many consider to be a survival of the ancient Illyrian language), and nobody thinks that Albania was ever spoken in Dacia. It appears that the two languages must have been in contact for some time and that the contact must have taken place south of the Danube” (Herbert J. Izzo ‘On the History of Romanian’ in The LACUS Forum, Volume 12, Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, Hornbeam Press, 1985, p. 144)
    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    get out from the Vukojebina you live in.
    hahahahah keep at it! You're just pissing against the wind you laughable stock ;D. Our Greek friend has a bad case of simples. After all that I have written, this is the best he can come up with. Pathetic! Because of his inability to hold a civilized discussion, he jumps on his usual getting-nowhere mindless drivel. As soon as his claims are in tatters, he just goes away with his tail between his legs . But this the traditional way of Greeks to handle their opponents. I’ve already said: due to the poor command of English, he is virtually incapable of processing anything worthy . At its best, all he can do is a sloppy work of selective quotes which suits to what he wants to hear. It is patently obvious he has not the slightest idea of what he’s talking about; all the time he went off the rails skipping centuries and ages like he is skipping ad breaks off a movie recorded in tivo. He quite inexplicably introduces terms he has not the flimsiest idea what they mean; yet he has the audacity to speak of Albanian origin despite he has only a smattering of Albanian.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    After 50 years working on the Albanian language, the "prince of albanology" has concluded that the linguistic ancestors of the Romanians spoke proto-albanian before their latinization in the banks of the Danube.
    You were sniffing cocaine when you wrote this because you know deep down the position of Eric P. Hamp regarding the origin of Albanian 8). You misguided tit, Hamp wrote his incisive work ''Albanian and Messapic'' where he unraveled several commonalities between them, while in meantime he wrote numerous articles likening certain Illyrian words with Albanian

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    He even thinks that the Albanians were "well integrated" in the Byzantine society, when they were not even Orthodox and they allied themselves with the Normans in almost every Byzantino-Norman war.
    Giving you a shovel to dig holes is dangerous to society, let alone to allow you to spout off bogus claims like that 8). I shall cite again from your source the part which is intentionally left unnoticed:



    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    The Greek inhabitans of the city clearly write that thye "loathed" these albanian "pigherders" and they describe them with every possible insult they can come up with
    Oh another nerve-wracking ordeal, you just never fail to crack me up ! You're a bottomless pit of a proper English education since you proved time and time again your inability to grasp what's actually written in your sources. B. Oswald stated that only Byzantine aristocracy despised the Albanian insurgents, while there is virtually no evidence of any noticeable revolt of Janina's citizens against them:





    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    is Theophylact of Ohrid right or wrong when he describes guys like him as "sheep-pelt stinking dirty and nasty barbarians" who are even worst that the "Heathen Cumans" who at that time were besieging Vidin:
    Give yourself a pat on your back, you despicable ignorant :P. When I read your unmitigated nonsenses riddled by your twisted logic, two questions spring to mind: 1) is there no bounds to this imbecile's stupidity? and 2) why do all stupid people have such a self-assured conviction? You disgruntled Greek, you take some chronicles at their face's value although all sound historians warn us to use them with a pinch of salt. It's evident that self-conceited Byzantines had a feeling of cultural superiority over the rest. The utmost contempt against anti-Byzantine insurgents was used with the sole purpose to vilify opponents and relegate their political demands:



    Epirus received a large influx of Byzantine aristocracy. They fled from Constantinople to escape from Latin infidels as Byzantines were deeply embedded with Orthodox ideology as no amount of no amount of education could disabuse them of it. Therefore, these self-conceited Byzantine aristocrats aimed to restore their rule upon the capital. This is why they tried to downplay the Albanian insurgents who hindered their ambitious plans:



    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    And our "arnavut damari" here is certain that Albanian descends from Illyrian
    Give me a break, you pea-brain ! Go back to the sewer you crawled out and practice your profession you're good at. That's the extent of your contribution to humanity .







    I can just see Ace's heart just breaking up into a thousand pieces everytime he looks at the sources and its a foreign author , pulling his hair out screaming No! No! No! and then kneeling in dejection looking at the heavens and crying 'God, why, why, why!!!!!!!!!!!' , looking at the countless numbers of sources in disbelief and exasperation

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    Arnavut damari"
    You self-loathed Greek, keep babbling on because I doubt anyone would piss on you if you were on fire. You simple-minded Greeks have an uncanny ability to deceive in your cunning ways. You should light hundreds of candle to these ''Arnavut damaris'' because they made Greece when the situation was in shambles. From 1453 onward, you self-conceited Byzantines have always been at the fringe of anything significant :. You never featured in anything worth mentioning, except deceiving which was your forte. Mark Twain during his visit in Constantinople grimmaced in disgust when he met Greeks:

    "Everybody lies and cheats----everybody who is in business, at any rate. Even foreigners soon have to come down to the custom of the country, and they do not buy and sell long in Constantinople till they lie and cheat like a Greek. I say like a Greek, because Greeks are called the worst transgressors in this line." :'( (The Innocents Abroad, p. 212)
    So go ahead, Ace, lie and cheat like a true Greek! ;D

  8. #8
    Average Member Andreas Kyropoulos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    9

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    A normal human immediatelly understands that albanian cannot descend from Illyria just from 2 reasons:

    1) Illyrian preserved the cluster *sk before voiced stops (b,d,g), resonants (m,n,l,r), semivowels (j,w) and if no consonants at all followed.

    Proto-albanian, on the other hand in all those positions has made the transition *sk>ks>h and there are 2 examples of the Dacian substratum of Romanian showing the same process. So Illyrian has for instance the toponyms Scardona (modern Skradin),Skodra, Skardus, the personal names Skerdilaidas, Skerviaedus and the tribal name Skirtari. In all this positions the ancestor of Albanian would have made the transition *sk>ks>h.

    I will not reply to all your usual Albanian vomit ... just to show you how idiot and ignorant you are, I will only comment before I go to sleep on the hypothesis that the ancient Taulanti derive their name from "Dallėnsyshe":



    I am sorry that the page shows like this, that's how the Ebook is. The word dallyndyshe, my dear Albanian is a relatively recent compound formation according to Orel. Go figure how stupid it is to project it in ancient Illyrian.

    BTW, from the same source that we have both used:



    so long my dear Albanian "arnavut damari".

  9. #9
    Progressing Member Kafir Bey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    I sense you are going to be a peculiar nuisance in this forum, I say going to be, you're well on your way. I am just weeping at your unbridled stupidity. You have gone nuts to become the most talked about member in these boards, for that I praise thee

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    I will not reply to all your usual Albanian vomit ..
    You're getting riled up as soon as Illyrian theory is being mentioned by highly acclaimed scholars. This is why you left most of my remarks without any response running with tail between legs. How pitiful!!! Stop thumbing your chest because you reared your ugly head by proving your utter ignorance on all subjects. It is so easy to piss you off the minute I mention Illyrian theory as an unavoidable conclusion embraced by all foreign scholars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    The word dallyndyshe, my dear Albanian is a relatively recent compound formation according to Orel.
    If Taulanti were somewhere in Dacia, you would have gleefully admit its Albanian etymology . Get a grasp of what Orel meant because your incompetence in Albanian makes you look like a fool . When Orel spoke of a ''relatively recent compound '' he actually meant of the compound ''dysh'' given that swallows have tails parted in two and ''dysh' in Albanian means ''two''. Certain linguists have painstakingly revealed a *taulant - or even *daulant - as a prototype of dallėndyshe:



    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    Go figure how stupid it is to project it in ancient Illyrian.
    Do you even know the magnitude of stupidity oozing out of you? I implore you to stop participating on this subject as you are completely out of your element and you go off on a different tangent all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    A normal human immediatelly understands that albanian cannot descend from Illyria just from 2 reasons: Illyrian preserved the cluster *sk before voiced stops (b,d,g), resonants (m,n,l,r), semivowels (j,w) and if no consonants at all followed. Proto-albanian, on the other hand in all those positions has made the transition *sk>ks>h and there are 2 examples of the Dacian substratum of Romanian showing the same process.
    Don't talk such a drivel. Some minor phonological differences do not preclude the possibility that Albanian sprung from Illyrian:



    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    BTW, from the same source that we have both used
    What a desperate plea for attention, you slimy little weasel! It is not surprise at all when a disgruntled Greek struggles desperately to promote that Albanians ain't Illyrian but cant even find a single source to back his claim up . You tried to counter the commonly-held view of Illyrian origin of Albanians with some vague references on some Serbian scholars . Do you even figure out the weakness of your awkward position? It's getting tiresome to point their obscene bias, let alone their doubtful methodology when it comes the ethnogensis of Albanian. Milutin Garasanin was one of those scholars who tried either to trivialize or belittle as much as possible the Illyrian origin of Albanians, yet he could not produce anything of worth against Illyrian theory and continued to clutch at straws. Garasanin led a symposium held in Belgrade whose primary aim was to relegate the enormous evidences yielded by foreign scholars who opted for the Illyrian origin of Albanians. It should be noted that this symposium was held in a time when nationalist crescendo in Serbia was on rise. Garasanin abandoned his earlier position (see the following citation) and dropped some preposterous remarks which did not add up anything of worthy. He outraged his colleagues when he asserted that: "... Albanians, whose paleo-Balkan origin cannot be doubted". All Serbian historians roared angrily scratching their heads in disbelief. Later, Ljubomir Kljakic in the book Oslobodjenje istorije (The liberation of history) stated:

    "the basic problem of the series 'the Illyrians and the Albanians' lies in the fact that this edition, in spite of its declared intention, in fact approves and strengthens that against which it was conceived. Thus Garasanin explicitly tells us that the 'paleo-Balkan' origin of the Albanians cannot be doubted".

    http://www.kosovo.net/history/kosovo..._chapter3.html
    It must be noted that Garasanin before the rise of Serbian nationalism, was mildly supportive to the Illyrian theory. Here is what he stated:

    If one bears in mind the fact that a certain continuity of the paleo-Balkan population could have existed in out-of-the-way mountain regions and the fact that Albanians are recorded in the middle ages primarily as stock breeders whose movements were connected with their occupation.

    Consequently, there is no evidence at the beginning of the middle ages either in Albania or Dardania of the continuance of the old, indigenous population as a compact, ethnically conscious community or entity. Nevertheless, in view of a certain continuity of old ethnic elements during the late classical period, one cannot dispute the possibility of their partial maintenance and participation in the formation of the Albanian people, as Fanula Papazoglu says of the Dardanians, underlining that the name Dardanians disappeared at the end of classical antiquity. One can reckon, in particular, with the survival of these elements in the outlying mountain regions difficult of access (p.35).

    ...the remains of the romanized population of the mountain regions who had withdrawn there as stockbreades at the time of the migrations of peoples and Slav settlement, the Albanians orginated from the remnants of the non-Romanized paleo-Balkan population of those regions among whom were surely remnants of Illyrians and...(p.37)

    Milutin Garasanin ''Illyrians and Albanians'' in Kosovo-past and present, Gordana Filipović, Review of International Affairs, 1989, pp. 35-37
    In the same token, even Sima Cirkovic at this time butted himself over the quell to pinpoint the origin of Albanians. While in his recent book, he was conceded to assert that:



    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    so long my dear Albanian "arnavut damari"
    Have a nice day on your psyche ward, Andreas Kyropoulos! Your assumptions seem to be a direct adaption from Lord of the Ring which is way more believable than your Dacian hypothesis

  10. #10
    Average Member Andreas Kyropoulos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    9

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    Ok "Arnavut Damari", here we go

    One thing that you must learn when you post your pages is to present the author. For example, by quoting isolating paragraphs from John Wilkes (where he presents various linguist hypotheses, which he does not accept or deny, because he's no linguist), you must also present his main thesis in his book that he finds your nationalist ideology as "highly improbable" and that he does not even accept that you were the native population of Arbanon of the Kruja-Mati region, where you first emerge in the 11th century.

    If you consider yourself a honest person and not a rustler you should at least quote that.

    Your basic nationalist obsession with Illyrian continuity is articulated in your thesis that the 6th-9th Kruja-Komani culture (or Arber/Arben culture as you call it) represents a surviving local Illyrian element, from where the later historical Albanians have emerged.

    Non Albanian archaeologists of course have a very different opinion as does the albanian archaeologist Etleva Nallbani (who currently works on the site which was her PhD subject in France) who has recently rejected the idea of the Kruja-Komani culture as a proto-albanian culture.

    I will provide you the opinions on the matter by William Bowden (an expert in Late Antiquity archaeology of Epirus), John Wilkes from his "Illyrians", Florin Curta, Alexandru Madgearu and, of course, of Etleva Nallbani.

    The objections in the albanian thesis are multiple:

    1) The archaeological evidence seems to indicate that the inhabitans of the Kruja-Komani culture were not native in this region, but rather a recent arrival from the north (possibly romanized Illyrians).

    2) The interpretation of the inhabitants of Kruja-Komani as proto-Albanians is also disputed, with Wilkes and Popović opting for latin speakers (because of the large number of latin toponyms that are associated with the areas of this culture).

    3) Both Madgearu and Nalbani have rejected the connection of the Kruja-Komani people with Albanians, because the former show certain urban material elements, that it would be preposterous to attribute to the mountain pastoral Albanians.

    Let's see them one by one:

    A) William Bowden:







    B) John Wilkes:







    C) Florin Curta:







    D) Magdearu and Nallbani:

    Alexandru Madgearu gives his own assessment of the "Kruje-Komani" culture along with those of the Serbian Archaeologist Vladislav Popović, the Albanian archaeologist Etleva Nallbani and the British archaeologist William Bowden in pages 148-149 of his book "the Wars of the Balkan Peninsula: their medieval origins" (Scarecrow,2008):

    As concerns the Komani-Kruje culture, the situation is more complicated than Albanian historians believe. Serbian archaeologist Vladislav Popović supposed that this culture was created by a Roman and urban population, which cannot be identified with the Proto-Albanians. According to him, this culture belonged to the Roman population living along the Via Egnatia. This area remained until the seventh century-eighth centuries under a strong Byzantine influence. The area of this culture is nearly the same as that where Latin was spoken in antiquity (defined on the basis of inscriptions). The region was Romanized. On the other hand, in the same area many present place-names of Latin origin of known. It is therefore possible that the Komani-Kruje culture was the archaeological expression of a Roman, not Proto-Albanian, population.

    This theory was of course rejected by the official Albanian archaeologists, but their arguments are not convincing. They cannot explain the large amount of Byzantine and Christian objects in the environment of this culture. A pastoral population like the Albanians was not able to create a culture of Byzantine urban fashion. The assertion that Albanians developed an urban civilization in the early Middle Ages and that they peopled the late Roman fortified settlements is fanciful.
    In 2002, the young Albanian archaeologist Etleva Nallbani received from the Sorbonne her PhD for a dissertation entitled "La civilization de Komani de l'antiquitč tardive au haut Moyen Age: etude du mobilier mčtallique" (not yet published). The main ideas were summarized in two short studies (one of them published in a Croatian scientific journal). She has abandoned the traditional theory put forward by Albanian archaeology, that the Komani-Kruje culture is Proto-Albanian. Instead, she emphasizes the integration in the Byzantine civilization and the urban roots of this civilization. This new approach is shared by British archaeologist William Bowden, who concludes that the archaeological evidence does not support a single ethnic identification.
    Another serious linguistic fact that argues against the "autochthony" of Albanians in south and central Albania: the scarce ancient Greek loanwords than proto-albanian has absorbed when compared to the latin loanwords. Every linguist is adamant that proto-Albanian was spoken somewhere north of the Jireček line, where latin and not Greek was the lingua franca of communication

    If we want to make a numerical comparison: Proto-Albanian has absorbed some 10 ancient Greek loanwords (and in some of them we cannot determine if they were borrowed directly or through latin intermediation) and in the same time it has absorbed 636 Latin loawords (!!!), a number comparable to the number of latin loanwords found in Welsh and Basque.

    This means that for every 1 ancient Greek loanword proto-albanian has taken 63 latin loanwords. This situation obviously cannot have happened neither south of the Jireček line nor to the immediate north of it (where we would expect an almost 1:1 distribution, say 1:2 in favour of latin, not the 1:60 that albanian shows).

    Proto-Albanian has evolved in an area where Greek had insignificant effects. On the other hand, we do know from Strabo (1st ce. BC) that the southern most Illyrian tribes living near to the Epirotans and the Macedonians were already bilingual (diglossoi) in both Illyrian and Greek.

    Their subsequent evolution was naturally towards full scale linguistic hellenization as it happened with all the non Greek speakers living in the pars Graeca of the Roman empire.

    I quote Strabo [7.7.8]:

    But some go so far as to call the whole of the country Macedonia, as far as Corcyra, at the same time stating as their reason that in tonsure, language, short cloak, and other things of the kind, the usages of the inhabitants are similar, although, they add, some speak both languages. But when the empire of the Macedonians was broken up, they fell under the power of the Romans. And it is through the country of these tribes that the Egnatian Road runs, which begins at Epidamnus and Apollonia. Near the Road to Candavia are not only the lakes which are in the neighborhood of Lychnidus,5 on the shores of which are salt-fish establishments that are independent of other waters, but also a number of rivers, some emptying into the Ionian Gulf and others flowing in a southerly direction—I mean the Inachus, the Aratthus, the Acheloüs and the Evenus (formerly called the Lycormas);
    The same holds true for the Taulantians living in the hinterland of Dyrrachion. How can they have resisted hellenization being so close all these centuries to a major Greek city?

    How can all those heavily hellenized ancient Illyrian tribes evolve a language that would have only 10 ancient Greek loanwords and 636 Latin ones?



    This tribe had become bilingual being under the effects of an early Hellenisation. They obviously do not fit the profile for albanian ancestors.


  11. #11
    Progressing Member Kafir Bey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    Andreas Kyropoulos

    You're bigger fool than I thought. You know deep down the weakness of your position, yet you're trying desperately to escape by introducing peripheral arguments, uncorroborated claims and a plethora of half truths and faint facts to match a wished-for conclusion. Things like that give me a pain in the butt

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    For example, by quoting isolating paragraphs from John Wilkes (where he presents various linguist hypotheses, which he does not accept or deny, because he's no linguist
    A blatant example of pot calling the kettle black. For the life of me I don't get why such lousy efforts of yourself to murky the truth. You keep spewing your usual run-of-the-mill mindless drivel, yet you fall short to offer one single coherent thought or provide any conclusive argument that backs up your distorted views. Most of your cited sources provide exactly the opposite of what you claim, but you shamefully repeatedly turn a blind eye to. When you're pressed hard to explain your position, you emit a high pitched squeal with your usual condescending remarks that stray away from the topic. It's so obnoxious, isn't?

    You keep citing Wilkes book (that you don't even possess), by blatantly truncating things out of their context. The gist of Wilkes stance regarding the culture of Komani is that its carriers might have been Latin-speakers (or even bilinguals) whose main pattern was seasonal migration in the outskirt areas mainly because they were engaged in pastoral activities:



    While Mark Whittow stated that certain groups of Albanian transhumants exploited the high pastures of Western Balkans being not far from Roman holdings and this territory roughly coincide with modern Albania, Kosovo, Western Macedonia and parts of mountainous Epiros:



    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    the albanian archaeologist Etleva Nallbani (who currently works on the site which was her PhD subject in France) who has recently rejected the idea of the Kruja-Komani culture as a proto-albanian culture.
    This thing about denying everything and making excuses is getting tiresome. It is patently obvious you have not read a single page from Nallbani's work. This is dreadfully nerve-wracking!

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    I will provide you the opinions on the matter by William Bowden (an expert in Late Antiquity archaeology of Epirus), John Wilkes from his "Illyrians", Florin Curta, Alexandru Madgearu and, of course, of Etleva Nallbani.
    Andreas Kyropoulos opens his mouth and then hilarity ensues...Bowden said nothing whether the Comani culture bearers were proto-Albanians or not as he solely endeavored to reassess this question by introducing post-modernist approaches regarding ethnic identity:



    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    The interpretation of the inhabitants of Kruja-Komani as proto-Albanians is also disputed, with Wilkes and Popović opting for latin speakers
    I desperately tried to infer any discernible point or meaning from that incoherent semi literate post, what is your point anyway? The Romanization never made any major influence upon mountainous Illyrian communities who reasserted their identity more and more, a process which is traceable to the conscious policies of local groups to express their distinct identity within political Roman framework. It's not unwarranted to surmise that Illyrians who used to live in Albania received a thin veneer of Romanization. The existence of seemingly Latin names means little as it is quite possible to talk of names as a kind of cultural layer beneath of which stands one's ethnic identity.



    Local communities easily escaped from Romanization as a part of them were engaged into pastoral activities.








    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    Note how he's unable to understand that the Albanian evolution Skodra>Shkoder, Scampinus > Shkumbin indicate that the terms were treated by the proto-Albanians as loanwords and not as genuine proto-albanian words.
    Another inept remark! The shift from sk>h is not compelling nor conclusive. From the garnered evidences, it strikes as apparent that this phonological feature is more perplexing than it appears at first blush.





    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    the scarce ancient Greek loanwords than proto-albanian has absorbed when compared to the latin loanwords.
    The question of Doric loans in Albanian is still a subject to many reproaches. Most of them, if not all entered in it since proto-Albanians were in the nearby of Hellenic centers of Adriatic and Ioanian sea. Keep in mind also that those colonies never held any domination over local Illyrians and their influence was greatly limited by new emerging situations. If Albanian was coalesced somewhere north of Danube, then how come that Romanian did not share these Doric loans?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    This means that for every 1 ancient Greek loanword proto-albanian has taken 63 latin loanwords.
    Take a seat and read a book and not don`t jerk your chin at me. Illyrian could not thrive in its entirety because it has long been wedged by a mammoth civilization like Roman one that cast a big shadow upon local peculiarities. Being so, it is expected to receive more loans from Latin rather than any other language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    They obviously do not fit the profile for albanian ancestors.
    and then you cite J.A. Fine by underlining some paragraphs which suits to you. But if you're so fond of his book, it would be better to pay attention to some other passages as well:




  12. #12
    Sr. Member Zeus10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    147

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    Although Albanian and Illyrian have little or nothing in common, judging from the handful of Illyrian words that archeologists have retrieved, the Albanian link has long been cherished by Albanian nationalists.
    Can you please elaborate this, since they are just a handful of words, let's have a look, and compare to each-other.

  13. #13
    Average Member Andreas Kyropoulos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    9

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeus10 View Post
    Can you please elaborate this, since they are just a handful of words, let's have a look, and compare to each-other.
    I don't know where to begin with. I've read a lot of stuff on this matter because I possess many books and I am entitled to speak on this subject more than anyone else. For instance, Illyrian toponym Siscia (IE <*si-sk-us ,,dry'') if Albanians were really Illyrian, they would have retain the initial *s which Albanian has definitively lost. If we pursue phonetic laws governing Albanian, the expected form would have been *Jihja and then *Gjihja (for *s yields to *j and then to *gj, while the consonant cluster *sk turns to /h/. So no obvious relation between Albanian and this particular toponym!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeus10 View Post
    then how do you explain this "cataclysmic" event, went unmentioned by these very same "sensitive" historians?
    but proto-Albanians when they came to settle on Byzantine areas, they were coming as nomads so the urban areas were kept intact. they felt no need to describe Albanians.

  14. #14
    Sr. Member Zeus10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    147

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    I don't know where to begin with. I've read a lot of stuff on this matter because I possess many books
    Since you have read a lot of staff, and you possess many books, I believe you will pick the right item out of your extensive knowledge to start with

    and I am entitled to speak on this subject more than anyone else
    This is debatable, but let's ignore this for now

    For instance, Illyrian toponym Siscia
    Here you go, you already figured out, what to start with, and you picked a toponym, a name of a remote place in the limits of the Illyrian World, an entity you know absolutely nothing about, its origin, or if we are dealing with an exonym or an endonym.

    (IE <*si-sk-us ,,dry'')
    well ... you mean PIE, right, shouldn't be it *dreug-? And you don't know for a fact, if that word had the same meaning in Illyrian, if it had a meaning at all in that particular language.


    if Albanians were really Illyrian, they would have retain the initial *s which Albanian has definitively lost. If we pursue phonetic laws governing Albanian, the expected form would have been *Jihja and then *Gjihja (for *s yields to *j and then to *gj, while the consonant cluster *sk turns to /h/. So no obvious relation between Albanian and this particular toponym!
    I am sorry to say, you have no idea what are you talking about. An asterisk is used to mark reconstructed PIE words, and all the above 'reasoning' is a senseless babbling.


    but proto-Albanians when they came to settle on Byzantine areas, they were coming as nomads so the urban areas were kept intact they felt no need to describe Albanians.
    Proto-Albanians and Byzantines are too distant in time. The Proto-Albanian arrival is a remote unknown history for the Byzantine historians. It will make much more sense to say that for the time the Byzantine writers, wrote their histories, the Albanians were just the indigenous people, inhabiting rurally what are usually acknowledged as Epirus, Illyria, Macedonia and Greece, and colonists from various ethno-religious entities were sporadically temporarily populating urban areas, as it happened randomly during Mediaeval times, when the mono-ethnic states were not established yet. The Byzantines were simply too young, to speak about Ancient Albanians. And that was the reason Albanian "arrival" was never documented, so was the allegedly "displacement" by them of the rural "original" population.

  15. #15
    Progressing Member Kafir Bey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43

    Re: Terminus ante quem of the South Slavic Liquid Metathesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas Kyropoulos View Post
    I don't know where to begin with. I've read a lot of stuff on this matter because I possess many books and I am entitled to speak on this subject more than anyone else. For instance, Illyrian toponym Siscia (IE <*si-sk-us ,,dry'') if Albanians were really Illyrian, they would have retain the initial *s which Albanian has definitively lost. If we pursue phonetic laws governing Albanian, the expected form would have been *Jihja and then *Gjihja (for *s yields to *j and then to *gj, while the consonant cluster *sk turns to /h/. So no obvious relation between Albanian and this particular toponym!
    Knock it off, Kyrpopulous you nitwit. Your long-winded replies are mortifiyingly dull without any iota of sense. While the common etymology of alb. thaj (dehydrate) (<*saus-ni̯o-) has becoming a widespread assertion amongst linguists, one has to sketch some considerations:

    The initial *s is one of the most tantalizing facets of Albanian phonology because it gives a panoply of reflexes. Vladimir Orel holds that Proto-Albanian retained the initial *s because its presence account for the current forms of certain words (cf. *sū > shi, *sūs > thi etc). The Illyrian place-name Siscia might be harked back to *si-sk-iya, so we are justified to envisage an Illyrian word for ,dry' which most likely was *sek-. This urges us to compare if PAlb. *saus with some Illyrian toponymes which contain the very same root. The more we delve upon it, the more feasible the link with Illyrian get. Its tempting to analyze the name of island Sazan whose earlier form was Sasan. The Illyrian form exhibits the same phonetic rules agreeing with Albanian saus-ni̯o where the diphtong -au gets simplified in -a while the following sibilant in Late Albanian -s yields in /-j/.

    Andrea's reasoning is a twisted one because he's asking why Albanian did not turn Siscia as *Gjihja had the Albanians been descended straight-forward from the Illyrians. This city has been thoroughly ravished because of barbarian onslaughts as its populace was either driven out or killed, so it finally became Slavic. And then how on earth could Albanian-phonetic laws be applicable in a region where no Albanian-speakers are to be found?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •