Illyrian and Albanian - a linguistic approach

[Abeis]

This thread purports to give a detailed overview on Albanian as being the sole survivor of Illyrian language(s). Much ink has been spilt in pinpointing the predecessor of modern Albanian. While there is an ongoing debate, I myself hold the view that Albanian is quite likely stemmed from Illyrian, regardless that this language is not definable yet. While explicit material on Illyrian is nearly wanting, nonetheless it does exist an enormous material consisting personal and place-names as well as glosses. Its beyond any cavil that Illyrian is an IE language, standing closer to satem-like languages such as (Daco)Thracian. Some linguists lightly lumped it on centum languages, yet there is a chain of linguists who asserts the contrary: numerous evidences bespeak rather for a satem-like language. It seems mighty reasonable to assume that a satem layer is to be found in certain southern regions which coincide with modern area of Albanian, while centum layer preponderates further north comprising even Venetic and Liburnian. In following, I shall set down some overwhelming evidences which account for Illyrian ancestry of Albanian:

§ While the direct evidence is nearly wanting, lllyrian is only known to us through a couple of glosses that display certain features, the principal being the conversion of voiced aspirated to unaspirated voiced stops. At this point, Illyrian goes along with Albanian. Thus we have the following set bʰ > b; dʰ > d, gʰ > g as it is best exemplified by numerous examples like PIE *bhrā́ter- ,,brother'' is being reflected in Illyrian gloss βρα· ἀδελφοί, ὑπὸ Ἰλλυρίων; illyr. Δάλμιον < cfs. dʰēl-ma; cf. alb. dele ,,sheep''; illyr. Δαύνιοι <*dʰau-non.

§ Another common feature in terms of vocalism is provided by IE <*o which turns regularly in /-a/ illyr. Λάγγαρος : lat. longus; illyr. Trita-nerus : greq. e vjet. τρίτο-ς, etj ; Illyr. Malontum, alb. mal < *mol-, etc.

§ The aspirated voiced velar /*ǵʰ/ gives a dental. The ancient name Δαρδανία (whereby the main tribe got his name) is admittedly compared with alb. dardhë (pear). We can safely envisage a common root <*h₂ǵʰord- as its source. The same pattern is evidenced by alb. dimën ,winter', whose origin hark back to IE <*ǵʰei-m-.

§ The alternation of bilabials b : m cf. Illyr. Σαπαιχη : Σαμαιχη and Σαπαιοι : Σαμος, this set of examples demonstrate clearly the alternation of bilabials on inlaut position while Albanian provides the same feature: karpë : karmë.

§ The assimilation rn > rr coincides on both Illyrian and Albanian. Illyr. Carnuntum might be well compared with several Illyrian names containing -carr. In Albanian we find a panoply of words demonstrating this phenomenon: alb. furrë < lat. furnus, alb. kërrutë < lat. cornutus, alb. luqerrë < lat. lucerna, alb. taverrë < lat. taverna.

§ The retention of IE *s on the initial position. Many Illyrian names retain the initial prevocalic s, such as Senta, Sextus, Sexticus, Sexto, Salvia which have every appearance of possessing IE *s. The initial s- in Albanian is very ambiguous because it shows a panoply of reflexes depending on specific environments. While Late Albanian has lost the initial prevocalic *s, it is held that proto-Albanian retained it on the initial position.

§ The reduction of consonant cluster kt > t, cf. Illyr. Sestenius < *sektos-, a development also shared by the Albanian, cf. alb. natë < *nokt-s.

§ Common satem-like reflexes. The long-held idea that Illyrian goes with centum-like languages must be dismantled altogether because recent meticulous research discerned some counter-evidences which are serious enough to warrant a clearly satem-like character of Illyrian:

• Oseriates or Asseriates (an Illyrian tribe in Pannonia) provides a solid evidence matching with satem developments because we can trace it to *h₂ǵʰer- "lake" where the voiced aspirated palato-velar ǵʰ > s.

• Illyrian place-name Birziminium comes probably from *bher(e)ǵh- demonstrating a shift from ǵ > z.

• Illyrian personal name Lukkeios (a king of Peonia) might be harked back to PIE *lukʷo- "wolf'', demonstrates another feature of satem-like languages where the labiovelar kʷ merged with a plain velar kʷ > k.

This development match both Illyrian and Albanian because it seems very likely that they underwent the same characteristics (innovations).

 

[Sile]

Liguistics state that the old scripts ( bronze-age ) came from euboean greek alphabet
The italic scripts, like venetic, camunic, raetic, liburnic , picane, illyric, messapic etc etc are also from euboean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_script

Euboean below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Greek_alphabets#Euboean

messapic language come via northern illyrian Iapedes ( japodes ) tribe, who are inland from the liburnians, they too use the Euboean via italic script

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapian_language


Is it not logical that any changes to the areas you refer to, means a mixing of the "indigeous" language of non-greek balkans with the "greek" Euboen script as per venetic, camunic, raetic, liburnic , picane, illyric, messapic etc, so any affiliation between the two is minimal ?

 

[Abeis]

Any feedback? Taranis's insightful take would be more than welcomed

 

[LeBrok]

Any feedback? Taranis's insightful take would be more than welcomed

PM him, please.

 

[Abeis]

PM him, please.

Yes, I did but got no response yet.

 

[Taranis]

Sorry for the delayed reply, I've been very busy lately, so I can't give as much time to reply in full in here, but I'll try to summarize my points:

- In my opinion, Illyria (Roman Illyria, I should specify) did not speak a homogenous language. Therefore, to say Illyrian was a language (singular) is wrong, and it would be better to speak of Illyrian languagues. One of these Paleo-Balkan languages was the ancestor of Albanian, for sure, but which one it was is impaired on the one hand by the sparse material of the Paleo-Balkan languages, and on the other hand, by the large amounts of loanwords in Albanian (by far the most are from Latin, but there's also a share of ancient Greek, migration-period-era Germanic, medieval Slavic and most recently, Ottoman Turkish), which means the corpus of native (Proto-)Albanian words is relatively small.

For the ancient Paleo-Balkan languages, I would say this:
- Liburnian in my opinion, for sure, was a Centum language aligned with the Italic languages (the sound shift *bh-, *dh-, *gh- to *f-, f-, h- is attested).
- I agree that the development *bh > *b, *dh > *d, and *gh > *g does not rule out the ancestry of Albanian, but it also doesn't narrow it down, for such a development occurs also in Celtic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic.
- the idea that *d- in ancient names represents a dental fricative (reflex of palatovelars in Albanian) has a merit, in my opinion.
- the *n > *r sound shift (a type of rhotacism) does only occur in Tosk Albanian, not in Gheg Albanian, and it must be a relatively late development, because clearly Latin loanwords are subject to it (femina > femër, vinum > verë). In my opinion, the *n > *r rhotacism can't be a feature of original Proto-Albanian.

That's all for the moment.

 

[DuPidh]

Sorry for the delayed reply, I've been very busy lately, so I can't give as much time to reply in full in here, but I'll try to summarize my points:

- In my opinion, Illyria (Roman Illyria, I should specify) did not speak a homogenous language. Therefore, to say Illyrian was a language (singular) is wrong, and it would be better to speak of Illyrian languagues. One of these Paleo-Balkan languages was the ancestor of Albanian, for sure, but which one it was is impaired on the one hand by the sparse material of the Paleo-Balkan languages, and on the other hand, by the large amounts of loanwords in Albanian (by far the most are from Latin, but there's also a share of ancient Greek, migration-period-era Germanic, medieval Slavic and most recently, Ottoman Turkish), which means the corpus of native (Proto-)Albanian words is relatively small.

For the ancient Paleo-Balkan languages, I would say this:
- Liburnian in my opinion, for sure, was a Centum language aligned with the Italic languages (the sound shift *bh-, *dh-, *gh- to *f-, f-, h- is attested).
- I agree that the development *bh > *b, *dh > *d, and *gh > *g does not rule out the ancestry of Albanian, but it also doesn't narrow it down, for such a development occurs also in Celtic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic.
- the idea that *d- in ancient names represents a dental fricative (reflex of palatovelars in Albanian) has a merit, in my opinion.
- the *n > *r sound shift (a type of rhotacism) does only occur in Tosk Albanian, not in Gheg Albanian, and it must be a relatively late development, because clearly Latin loanwords are subject to it (femina > femër, vinum > verë). In my opinion, the *n > *r rhotacism can't be a feature of original Proto-Albanian.

That's all for the moment.

Correct! Romans and Greeks of antiquity were stupid!
They thought even though people spoke different languages they belonged to the same ethnicity!
That's why they called the whole area Illyria!
Keep up the good work!

 

[Abeis]

Point taken, Taranis!

In meanwhile, I am going to set out some arguments of mine regarding the vexed problem of Illyrian:

We should be overly cautious to not take for granted 'Illyrian' as it covered a diverse area jutting from Ister river all the way to Epirus. Some researches are prone to believe that 'Illyrian', sensu stricto, must be narrowed down in the areas once entitled as being inhabited by Illyrii Proprie Dicti. The Croatian linguist, Radoslav Katicic has mapped out a truly promising work: according to his view, Illyrian area must be divided into certain onomastic zones overlapping with one another. One must tackle the problem of Illyrian in a broader sense: its main phonetic peculiarities bespeak rather for an distinct idiom from the rest. The idea which envisaged a 'Thraco-Illyrian' group has little to go by because it hinges purely on some eye-catching onomastic similarities while the phonetic system is entirely different. Whether Illyrian shows the same treatment of PIE dorsals as does Dacian and Thracian, this carry no weight when it comes to its origin. The only conclusion one can infer from 'satem' is that at a certain period, both languages underwent the same innovation, most likely in territory of present Ukraine. Even, satem evidence is hardly diagnostic because not all dorsals became spirants at the same time. If we delve into pre-history of IE dialectology, there is some evidence to ascribe the antecedents of Illyrian and Dacian as NW languages, standing in nearby of (proto)Baltic and (proto)Iranian. In this light, we are fully justified to believe that the delabialization of IE /o/ > /a/ and deaspiration of stops account for a period when all of them occupied a contiguous area (after they broke off from PIE).

§ Dacian

It's rather a commonly-held view that Dacian appertains to satem type of languages given that IE palatovelars *ḱ and *ǵ yield on either spirants or affricates. However, Dacian provides startling onomastic evidences which seems to reveal an ostensibly Centum-feature: Anguron (<*ang'-), argilos (<*arg'), Decebalus, Dekaineos (<*dek'm), Peuci, Peukē, Pecetum (<*peuk'-), Trikornion (<*k'orn-) and so forth. This idea was first broached by the Italian level-headed linguist, Vittore Pisani who noticed *gʷ > b and k̑ > k evince an obvious centum feature. This is best exemplified by Dacian river-name Calabaeus, namely its second compound which stretch its origin back to *akʷa- (river); the same root is reflected in Apos (a Dacian river) likewise. This remark is very important to notice certain abberations within a predominately satem zone. Its worth noting that Illyrian (specifically a layer into south-west of Balkans) and proto-Albanian underwent depalatalization of palato-velars before resonants. Therefore it's of utmost importance to define if Dacian divorces from this innovation: if this is confirmed, it follows as logical to preclude Dacian from the antecedent of Albanian. The most palpable evidence which defies Dacian hypothesis is the very fact that no major Dacian migration into south has been recorded. As far as historical chronicles go, there is not an ounce of evidence for any major Dacian movement fleeing into modern-Albanian territories. Some phonetic commonalities, observed by Vladimir Georgiev, are also evidenced in Illyrian.

§ Venetic

The most prevalent view is that which sees Venetic as entirely different from Illyrian on both phonetic and morphological grounds. The old-fashioned idea which recognized Venetic as a northern Illyrian dialect is dismantled altogether. A more balanced view would be if we consider Venetic as an idiom between Illyrian (in south), Germanic, Italic and Celtic. Venetic shares with paleo-Balkan idioms the assimilation of syncope /kt/ > /t/. For instance, Venetic goddess Rehtia stems from an older form Rectia; cf. alb. natë < *nokt. In addition with this, the accusative singular termination also, in -n for older -m, connects the Venetic dialect with Albanian. Another isogloss consists of Venetic selboi selboi 'for himself' which is similar with OHG selbo selbo and maybe alb. vetë-vete. Apart from these considerations, Venetic evince more commonalities with Italic and Celtic.

 

[LeBrok]

Correct! Romans and Greeks of antiquity were stupid!
They thought even though people spoke different languages they belonged to the same ethnicity!

Isn't it like all ethnic groups in Mexico are called Mexicans? Even the ones who still speak their native languages.

 

[DuPidh]

Isn't it like all ethnic groups in Mexico are called Mexicans? Even the ones who still speak their native languages.

Yep, but Mexicans speak Spanish as the first language, with no exception. Why should Illyrians have spoken different languages.?
Don't forget Mexicans were not Mexicans until Europeans set foot. Europeans made them Mexicans!

 

[Garrick]

Albanian and Illyrian two different worlds, no links, no proofs, only imagination.
...

Point taken, Taranis!

§ Dacian

It's rather a commonly-held view that Dacian appertains to satem type of languages given that IE palatovelars *ḱ and *ǵ yield on either spirants or affricates. However, Dacian provides startling onomastic evidences which seems to reveal an ostensibly Centum-feature: Anguron (<*ang'-), argilos (<*arg'), Decebalus, Dekaineos (<*dek'm), Peuci, Peukē, Pecetum (<*peuk'-), Trikornion (<*k'orn-) and so forth. This idea was first broached by the Italian level-headed linguist, Vittore Pisani who noticed *gʷ > b and k̑ > k evince an obvious centum feature. This is best exemplified by Dacian river-name Calabaeus, namely its second compound which stretch its origin back to *akʷa- (river); the same root is reflected in Apos (a Dacian river) likewise. This remark is very important to notice certain abberations within a predominately satem zone. Its worth noting that Illyrian (specifically a layer into south-west of Balkans) and proto-Albanian underwent depalatalization of palato-velars before resonants. Therefore it's of utmost importance to define if Dacian divorces from this innovation: if this is confirmed, it follows as logical to preclude Dacian from the antecedent of Albanian. The most palpable evidence which defies Dacian hypothesis is the very fact that no major Dacian migration into south has been recorded. As far as historical chronicles go, there is not an ounce of evidence for any major Dacian movement fleeing into modern-Albanian territories. Some phonetic commonalities, observed by Vladimir Georgiev, are also evidenced in Illyrian.

Albanians probably were some of Free Dacian tribes (Karpi, Kostoboci etc.), some Romanian scientists gave proofs, I wrote about it a lot and I don't want repeat.

It is reason why Albanian has large similarity with Romanian, thousands and thousands words.

And in Moldavia, East Romania and Southern Ukraine (areas where some Free Dacian tribes Albanian origin lived) there are a lot of Albanian toponimes.

And someone in Wikipedia read what I wrote about Albanian and Dacian and experts for Wikipedia found Albanian and Dacian words:

List of reconstructed Dacian words

Reconstruction from Romanian and Albanian words

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reconstructed_Dacian_words

Dacian and Albanian yes it is good path for research.

Illyrian and Albanian no it is empty talk and a waste of time.

 

[LABERIA]

The written ancient sources tell us the Illyrians, which were one of the biggest people of the peninsula, inhabited the western part of the Balkans in olden times. The northern border of the Illyrians extended up to the branches of the Danube, the Sava and the Drava. To the south, including the territory of pre-historical Epirus, it ran up to the Bay of Ambrakia (Preveza). The Morava and the Vardar rivers were its natural borders to the east and the coasts of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas were its western boundaries.
So, from today Austria to the Bay of Ambrakia (Preveza).
In the east the illyrians had common borders with dacians. This also explains some common words between, Romanian and Albanian.
Later came the Slavs that were introduced between the two peoples.

 

[Abeis]

Albanian and Illyrian two different worlds, no links, no proofs, only imagination

I'll take the bait.

When pieced together results from all fields of inquiry, Illyrian theory appears as the only reasonable conclusion. Comparative linguistics and archaeology as well unravel the same pattern: Albanian emerged from the remnants of non-romanized natives who used to live in Western Balkans. Illyrian tribes, be they pastoral or urban, never succeeded to Romanization. Certain areas of Western Balkans received Romanism only superficially; archaeology yields a preponderance of ostensibly non-Roman cultures in western Balkans; the most notable case is doubtless Komani culture. An inquisitive analysis upon these remnants would reveal all changes that took place at that time: this local culture displays a panoply of forms which evince no obvious connection with the rest of Roman Empire; Christian artifacts indicate that urban society of modern Albania was at the edge of embracing Christianity while Avar objects reflects the general unrest in Balkans which followed barbaric onslaughts. Without going too far, I'd like to emphasize a plain fact: urban areas in what is now Albania underwent no disruption, making the continuity alternative fairly plausible.

Albanians probably were some of Free Dacian tribes (Karpi, Kostoboci etc.),

Ahhh the half-baked hypothesis of Russu! Truth be told, I keep wondering how this groundless hypothesis is still being promoted, although it's long dismantled for the simple reason: there is not an iota of evidence to suggest any arrival of proto-Albanians into their current territories. no major migration from Dacia has been recorded as far as historical sources are concerned. One might wonder how could a population slip under the watchful eyes of Byzantines and sneaked unnoticed in the heart of Byzantine-controlled area? Our learned friend, Henrik Baric believed that proto-Albanians were profoundly nomadic society, so their movement did not bother at all urban settlements. But this line of reasoning falls short of convincing for myriad of reasons. Without going too far, one might wonder how could this nomadic population succeed in subjugation Byzantine subjects: "Romanized" and "Hellenized" Illyrians? Why there is no historical inkling to any confrontation if this scenario really took place? I am inclined to believe that a large section of Illyrian tribes were compelled to shift in east because of Roman inroads. When Macedonia became a Roman province, large chunks of Dardanian population were driven further north where they sought aslyum. If my memory serves well, a certain passage point out their presence somewhere in Morava valley, very far from their historical territory. But when Dacia was subdued, this paved the way for thousands of Illyrians to settle out there. I've read a large amount of articles which bespeak of Ilyrian settlements all over Dacia. Dacian population has already dwindled away because of Trajan's harsh expeditions, so the Illyrian element could easily impose itself upon Dacian remnant. So far so good, I mean the following scenario is very likely all the more so that Dacian and Illyrian tribes intermingled to the point of becoming one.

Romanian scholars

Come again? Their bias when it comes to pinpoint the ethnogenesis of Romanian and Albanian is so obvious. 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.

“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 Albanian 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

And in Moldavia, East Romania and Southern Ukraine (areas where some Free Dacian tribes Albanian origin lived) there are a lot of Albanian toponimes.

When tackling the notorious problem of Dacian, there seems to be virtually no evidence which speak for any kind of proto-Albanian community in eastern slopes of Carpathian mountains. Most of place-names lying in present-day Romania (which coincides with proper Dacia) were lost with the drift of time, so any survival of Carpi Dacians is very unlikely. From what is handled down to us, Dacian material is frustratingly exiguous to allow us any far-reaching conclusion: Dacian has some considerable centum accretions (unlike proto-Albanian); its phonetics does not reconcile at all with that of Albanian. Its main proponent, Vladimir Georgiev, 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"

It is reason why Albanian has large similarity with Romanian, thousands and thousands words.

In no way! At most, Albanian-Romanian common words items reach 140; apart from shared Latin words, they have in common considerable pre-Roman words, stemming either from Illyrian or from common substrate (of Dardania or Moesia). The rest were intruded when proto-Romanian was coalesced into a predominantly Albanian-speaking environment.

Dacian and Albanian yes it is good path for research.

You ain't adept to speak neither for Dacian nor for Albanian. Apart from some obvious lexical items, Albanian shares with Illyrian certain phonetic patterns: one of them consists of assimilation of syncope /kt/ > /t/; other notable parallels are the same outcomes of sonorant liquids /*r̥/, /*l̥/, /*m̥/, /*n̥/ or the same suffixes, stems and endings.

 

[LeBrok]

Yep, but Mexicans speak Spanish as the first language, with no exception. Why should Illyrians have spoken different languages.?
Don't forget Mexicans were not Mexicans until Europeans set foot. Europeans made them Mexicans!

How about 100 or 200 years ago. What percentage of Mexicans spoke Spanish?

 

[Sile]

I'll take the bait.

When pieced together results from all fields of inquiry, Illyrian theory appears as the only reasonable conclusion. Comparative linguistics and archaeology as well unravel the same pattern: Albanian emerged from the remnants of non-romanized natives who used to live in Western Balkans. Illyrian tribes, be they pastoral or urban, never succeeded to Romanization. Certain areas of Western Balkans received Romanism only superficially; archaeology yields a preponderance of ostensibly non-Roman cultures in western Balkans; the most notable case is doubtless Komani culture. An inquisitive analysis upon these remnants would reveal all changes that took place at that time: this local culture displays a panoply of forms which evince no obvious connection with the rest of Roman Empire; Christian artifacts indicate that urban society of modern Albania was at the edge of embracing Christianity while Avar objects reflects the general unrest in Balkans which followed barbaric onslaughts. Without going too far, I'd like to emphasize a plain fact: urban areas in what is now Albania underwent no disruption, making the continuity alternative fairly plausible.

.

Illyrian theory for Albania is wrong.

The only Pure Illyrians are the Delmatae and Panonnii tribes. They where the only ones to go on a 4 year revolt against the Romans and then they got annihilated.
The initially did not live on the coast and the Delmatae ( modern dalmatians ) only arrived on the adriatic coast and created a new capital called Salona between the 2nd and 3rd century BC.
Before this there lands covered covered mostly modern Bosnia dn inland croatia and SE austria. They where also in Carinthia in the late bronze-age but got "kicked out " by the celts in the iron-age.

The Liburnians are a sub Illyrian-Venetic-Histri people who colonised the modern croatian coast plus north picene in italy. The neighbours the Japodes migrated from the north Adriatic sea to Apulia to become the messapics

Albanians are mostly Dardanians with an Epirote mix which is why your language , albanian has a Hellenic twang ........or is it because it is mainly Tosk

 

[Garrick]

I'll take the bait.

When pieced together results from all fields of inquiry, Illyrian theory appears as the only reasonable conclusion. Comparative linguistics and archaeology as well unravel the same pattern: Albanian emerged from the remnants of non-romanized natives who used to live in Western Balkans. Illyrian tribes, be they pastoral or urban, never succeeded to Romanization. Certain areas of Western Balkans received Romanism only superficially; archaeology yields a preponderance of ostensibly non-Roman cultures in western Balkans; the most notable case is doubtless Komani culture. An inquisitive analysis upon these remnants would reveal all changes that took place at that time: this local culture displays a panoply of forms which evince no obvious connection with the rest of Roman Empire; Christian artifacts indicate that urban society of modern Albania was at the edge of embracing Christianity while Avar objects reflects the general unrest in Balkans which followed barbaric onslaughts. Without going too far, I'd like to emphasize a plain fact: urban areas in what is now Albania underwent no disruption, making the continuity alternative fairly plausible.

And again empty talk. Because you can speak to infinity in this way, without one proofs.

Illyrian language, Illyrian words, are different than Albanian and Albanian linguists know it.

I gave Illyrian words in this forum, every can read them.

About Centum - Satem it has been said all you need.

Albanian = Satem; Illyrian = Centum, two different world.


If someone wants about Illyrian, Bosnians and Dalmatians are the best candidates for descendants of Illyrians.

Ahhh the half-baked hypothesis of Russu! Truth be told, I keep wondering how this groundless hypothesis is still being promoted, although it's long dismantled for the simple reason: there is not an iota of evidence to suggest any arrival of proto-Albanians into their current territories. no major migration from Dacia has been recorded as far as historical sources are concerned. One might wonder how could a population slip under the watchful eyes of Byzantines and sneaked unnoticed in the heart of Byzantine-controlled area? Our learned friend, Henrik Baric believed that proto-Albanians were profoundly nomadic society, so their movement did not bother at all urban settlements. But this line of reasoning falls short of convincing for myriad of reasons. Without going too far, one might wonder how could this nomadic population succeed in subjugation Byzantine subjects: "Romanized" and "Hellenized" Illyrians? Why there is no historical inkling to any confrontation if this scenario really took place? I am inclined to believe that a large section of Illyrian tribes were compelled to shift in east because of Roman inroads. When Macedonia became a Roman province, large chunks of Dardanian population were driven further north where they sought aslyum. If my memory serves well, a certain passage point out their presence somewhere in Morava valley, very far from their historical territory. But when Dacia was subdued, this paved the way for thousands of Illyrians to settle out there. I've read a large amount of articles which bespeak of Ilyrian settlements all over Dacia. Dacian population has already dwindled away because of Trajan's harsh expeditions, so the Illyrian element could easily impose itself upon Dacian remnant. So far so good, I mean the following scenario is very likely all the more so that Dacian and Illyrian tribes intermingled to the point of becoming one.

Not only Russu, more Romanian scientists.

One Albanian told me, if Albanians were not Dacians, how they could be Dacians.

But what is interesting Free Dacian tribes were not Dacians (term Free Dacian does not signify a nation). A lot of Free Dacian tribes were members of different people/nations, among them there were Albanians, probably from all Free Dacian tribes probably Carpi, and Costoboci and possible some else were ancestors of Albanians.

Originally ancestors from this Albanian tribes came from Caucasus or any area about Caspian Sea.

Come again? Their bias when it comes to pinpoint the ethnogenesis of Romanian and Albanian is so obvious. 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.

You read Hungarian sources but they were written only because of rivarly towards Romanians.

When tackling the notorious problem of Dacian, there seems to be virtually no evidence which speak for any kind of proto-Albanian community in eastern slopes of Carpathian mountains. Most of place-names lying in present-day Romania (which coincides with proper Dacia) were lost with the drift of time, so any survival of Carpi Dacians is very unlikely. From what is handled down to us, Dacian material is frustratingly exiguous to allow us any far-reaching conclusion: Dacian has some considerable centum accretions (unlike proto-Albanian); its phonetics does not reconcile at all with that of Albanian. Its main proponent, Vladimir Georgiev, 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:

Carpathian is Albanian word, carpë is rock in old Albanian. And I gave a lot of Albanian toponimes in East Romania, Moldavia and South Ukraine, my Romanian friends helped me.

In no way! At most, Albanian-Romanian common words items reach 140; apart from shared Latin words, they have in common considerable pre-Roman words, stemming either from Illyrian or from common substrate (of Dardania or Moesia). The rest were intruded when proto-Romanian was coalesced into a predominantly Albanian-speaking environment.

A lot more.

And what is interesting, Latin influence over Albanian is from eastern Balkan - Romanian, not from western Balkan - Dalmatian, it means Albanians lived somewhere with Dacians, not with Dalmatians or Bosnians.

Albanian costumes are similar with Romanian but no similarities with Dalmatian, Bosnian and another Illyrian areas.

...
What some Albanians told me that Albanian is similar to both Tracian and Illyrian. But it is nonsense because Tracian and Illyrian are dissimilar.

And that Illyrian origin from Pelasgian, but it is another nonsense Pelasgian no link with Illyrian, Pellasgian is probably Proto-Kartvelian.

Albanian no link with Illyrian, and Albanian no link with Pelasgian.

If we pull aside myths and propaganda we have what reputable scientists told for Albanian: No one can say for sure.

But today we know that Albanian has similarity with Dacian, Armenian, Iranian, Slavic, Baltic etc. (all Satem) as Albanian is Satem and there is area where we can search origin and base of Albanian.

...
Illyrian is total different story.

 

[Drac II]

Yep, but Mexicans speak Spanish as the first language, with no exception. Why should Illyrians have spoken different languages.?
Don't forget Mexicans were not Mexicans until Europeans set foot. Europeans made them Mexicans!

About 6% of people in Mexico still speak their native languages. Some of them do not even know any Spanish.

 

[Drac II]

How about 100 or 200 years ago. What percentage of Mexicans spoke Spanish?

In 1812 only about 35% of the Mexican population spoke Spanish. 200 years later over 90% of the Mexican population speaks Spanish.

Source (page 134):

https://books.google.com/books?id=u...of the total population spoke Spanish&f=false

 

[Abeis]

Garrick,

I'll be damned, after all I've written, this illiterate post riddled with your twisted logic is all you can come up with. For the life of me I don't get your reluctance to apprehend numerous palpable evidences that you've been given. It went all like water off a duck's back because you pretend to outsmart us by dropping some condescending remarks. For crying out loud, try to employ some logic and reach some conclusions on your own. I won't tire myself trying to hold a discussion with an oddball like you who hardly can grasp what's being said all over these boards. Illyrian, as construed by Milan Budimir, Antun Mayer, Radoslav Katicic, shows an impressive ingredient of satem-like developments. Even the depalatalization, an aberrant phenomenon among S-languages, is well-evidenced in Illyrian. Moreover, Messapic, southern Illyrian and parts of Dacian, in all probability, formed a chain of closely related languages. This is, more or less, what Eric P. Hamp, one of the most renowned linguists in IE studies, calls as 'ALBANOID' territory which stretches from Ukraine all the way to Albania. But I'm not willing to discuss with you because you ain't eligible to grasp linguistics at its entirety. Due to your poor command of English, you can't proceed anything worthy. When you grow up and broaden your knowledge, we will be even to discuss these tantalizing matters. Until then, everything you say causes everyone to yawn. I rest my case with you!

 

[Taranis]

Correct! Romans and Greeks of antiquity were stupid!
They thought even though people spoke different languages they belonged to the same ethnicity!
That's why they called the whole area Illyria!
Keep up the good work!

Yeah, that's why the Romans made their boundaries between Gallia Aquitania and Gallia Lugdunensis at the river Loire. Because that marked a significant ethno-linguistic boundary. And we all know that 19th century Europeans were very wise and foresightful when they drew borders onto the map for Africa (which is why the Touaregs today live in over half a dozen countries). The same applies for the Entente powers that drew the countries of Syria and Iraq onto the map after World War One. We all know that was completely logical and worked out perfectly well!