Origjina Dako-Trake e shqiptarëve

[alibaba]

Scodra 'Scutari' (Shkodër)

Me fakte pro, ai po mundohet të faktojë kundër. Çfarë budallëku është ky?

Skutari është shprehja që përdornin memecët sllavë dhe të tjerë. Ne nuk kemi punë me skutar.

Emri i lashtë ilir është SKODRA, që do të thotë KODËR, emri evoloi në SHKODRA sipas ligjeve të shqipes.

that there is no demonstrated old maritime vocabulary

Ka "maritime vocabulary" madje sa të duash: "See above", postimin tim.

Ni < Naíssos, with development as in pyll 'forest' < *pëýll < *padle(m) : paldem (Jokl, Albaner §5). ''

Nais, Nis, Nish, shumë e thjeshtë, nuk po dokumenton asgjë nga ato që thotë ai.

Pyll nuk ka kurrëfarë lidhje me PALUD, madje as kuptimin nuk e kanë të njëjtë.

PYLL rrjedh nga BYLIS, BYL => PYL => PYLL

Gjithashtu mbi mungesen e fjalorit grek (qe detyrimisht e vendoz gjenezen shqiptaret larte vijes se Jirecekut).

Neve nuk na nevojitet fjalori grek. Jemi ne ata që pollëm greqishten.

Gjithashtu prezenca e fjaleve gote.

Ishin Gotët ata që kaluan nëpër Ballkan, pikërisht nëpër Shqipëri. Shikoji pak hartat.
Po kjo tirq a me doe mos u dashka të jetë fjalë shqipe me prejardhje gote? Apo mos gotët e morën nga ne??

[Kreksi]

Po origjina e njerezimit? Po me te c'u vendos? Nga majmuni apo nga Zoti?
Meqe per ne nuk ka vertetime, deri ne prove te kundert ne jemi autoktone

Kete nuke e luan as Topi....

Mbasi ky malo nuke paska fakte se nga kemi ardhur e per te tjeret dihet se nga kan ardhur atehere s'ka as nje dyshim se Shqiptaret jane Autokton, kjo pra ka rendesi, si e tha edhe Hyj-Njeri, s'ka rendesi a ishim ilire, thrake apo pellasgo etruske kryesorja per neve eshte vertetuar se kami jetuar gjithemon vetem ne keto toka qe jetojmi edhe sot e besa edhe me tej....

Ju pershendes

[malo666]

Teza e Gjorgjievit (teza daco-moese)

marr nga he Slavonic and East European Review 44, no. 103, 1960, pp. 285-297

pra dhe ai si shume te tjere thote qe shqiptaret nuk jane autokton ne shqiperi.

''Whether the Albanians are the successors of die Illyrians or the Thracians is a problem that has long been debated. Today the Albanians dwell in a region that was known in antiquity as Illyria. For that reason the Albanians have often been regarded as the heirs of the ancient Illyrians, although there are no other data supporting such a claim. In the same way, the Bulgarians might be considered as Thracians if the other Slavonic peoples and languages were not known.

But many linguists and historians, e.g. H. Hirt, V. Pârvan, Th. Capidan, A. Philippide, N. Jokl, G. Weigand, P. Skok, D. Detschew, H. Baric', I. Siadbei, etc. have put forward very important considerations indicating that the Albanians cannot be autochthonous in the Albania of today, that their original home was the eastern part of Mysia Superior or approximately Dardania and Dacia Mediterranea, i.e. the northern central zone of the Balkan Peninsula, and part of Dacia. ''

argumentet e tjera te sjellura me pare ne fillim te temes:

1. The Illyrian toponyms known from antiquity, e.g. Shköder from the ancient Scodra (Livius), Tomor from Tomarus (Strabo, Pliny, etc.), have not been directly inherited in Albanian: the contemporary forms of these names do not correspond to the phonetic laws of Albanian. The same also applies to the ancient toponyms of Latin origin in this region.

2. The most ancient loanwords from Latin in Albanian have the phonetic form of eastern Balkan Latin, i.e. of proto-Rumanian, and not of western Balkan Latin, i.e. of old Dalmatian Latin. Albanian, therefore, did not take its borrowings from Vulgar Latin as spoken in Illyria.

3. The Adriatic coast was not part of the primitive home of the Albanians, because the maritime terminology of Albanian is not their own, but is borrowed from different languages.

4. Another indication against local Albanian origin is the insignificant number of ancient Greek loanwords in Albanian. If the primitive home of the Albanians had been Albania itself, then the Albanian language would have to have many more ancient Greek loanwords.

Pra fjalet latine ne shqip nuk e kane origjinen nga latinishtja e damacise po nga latinishtja vulgare, ajo e rajonit daco-moesi. Ja si e shtjellon Gjeorgjievi:

5. The Albanians are not mentioned before the 9th century a.d., although place names and personal names from the whole region of Albania are attested in numerous documents from the 4th century onwards.

6. The old home of the Albanians must have been near to that of the proto-Rumanians. The oldest Latin elements in Albanian come from proto-Rumanian, i.e. eastern Balkan Latin, and not from Dalmatian, western Balkan Latin that was spoken in Illyria. Cf. the phonetic development of the following words:

Vulgar Latin caballum 'horse' Rum. cal, Alb. kal
Vulgar Latin cubitum 'elbow' Rum. cot. Alb. kut
Vulgar Latin lucta 'struggle, fight' Rum. lupt, Arum. luft, Alb. luftë

Therefore Albanian did not take shape in Illyria. The agreement in the treatment of Latin words in Rumanian and in Albanian shows that Albanian developed from the 4th till the 6th century in a region where proto-Rumanian was formed.

Ngjashmerite unike me rumanishten:

7. Rumanian possesses about a hundred words which have their correspondences only in Albanian. The form of these Rumanian words is so peculiar (e.g. Rum. mazre = Alb. modhullë 'pea(s)') that they cannot be explained as borrowings from Albanian. This is the Dacian substratum in Rumanian, whereas the Albanian correspondences are inherited from Dacian.

Gjithshtu sipas Gjeorgjievit, evolimet fonetike ne Shqip kane shume ngjashmeri me ato ne gjuhe Dako-Moese:

The most typical features of the historical phonology of Albanian are attested in Daco-Mysian. Besides, in Daco-Mysian there also appear the intermediate phonetic changes that explain the peculiar phonetic development of Albanian. Here are some samples:

IE Daco-Mysian Albanian
e ie je
() > > o o
> o o
> ö > e e
> ü y, i
ew e e
aw a a
ri ri
a a

Examples:

IE e > D.-M. ie:
a Dacian tribe is named , but a Thracian one .
Dacian PN Diegis from IE dhegwwh-.
Dacian river name from IE *erðs-.
Dacian word dielina 'Bilsenkraut' from IE *dhel-.

IE > D.-M. > > o:
IE *dhw > D.-M. dva > dva > dova, cf. Pulpudeva (4th century b.c.), Buridava (1st century a.d.), Pelendova (after the 4th century a.d.).

IE > oi > ö > e:
Salmor-ude 'Salt Water', a salt lake in Scythia Minor, in Greek called 'Salt (Lake)' and in Latin palus Salameir; Dacian ude from IE *udo(r) 'water'.
(2nd century a.d.) > Pelendova (after the 4th century a.d.) from *pl-m *dhew 'Stutt-gart', cf. Alb. pelë 'mare'.

IE > oi (= ü) > ü (i):
, Moesi, Mysi.

In this way it has been definitively proved that Albanian is descended from Daco-Mysian. Therefore the primitive home of Albanian is a Daco-Mysian region, probably Mysia Superior (Dardania, Dacia Mediterranea) or western Dacia. This fact enables us to explain the numerous typical agreements between Albanian and Rumanian.

Rumanian and Albanian took shape in the Daco-Mysian region;

Rumanian represents a completely Romanised Daco-Mysian and Albanian a semi-Romanised Daco-Mysian. [4]

[alibaba]

E qartë dhe mjaft e besueshme. Fisi ilir që quhej ALBANOI paska jetuar në Daki.

Kushedi si paska gabuar kaq keq Ptolemeu.

[malo666]

Pra sic mundet te shikoni, pothuajse te gjithe historianet neutral, perendimor, i permbahen tezes se formiit etnik shqiptare jashte shqiperise se sotme, qofshin keto perkrahes te tezes ilire apo dako-trake, apo trako-ilire. pra kudoqofte qe jane formuar proto-shqiptaret, ky vend ka qene ne dardani-moesi, ose ne dacine prendimore, dhe jo ne shqiperine e sotme.

Te vetmit historian/filolog qe propagandojne per autoktonin 3000 vjecare te shqipetareve ne shqiperi, jane ato shqiptare. Sidoqofte, nje gje eshte e vertetueshme ketu, qe ne nuk do dime asnjehere preardhjen tone. pra nuk do kete asnjehere konsensus akademik, te pakten me keto fakte qe jane zbuluar deri tani.

Gjithashtu, asnje historian serioz, qofte shqiptar apo cfaredotjeter, nuk propagandon me tezat, pellazgjike, apo etruske, apo ku ta di une...dhe gjithashtu, asnje nuk ka thene qe etrusket, venetet, mesapet, dako-traket, dhe iliret flisnin te njejten gjuhe.

[BARAT]

Pervec prejardhjes ilire, kjo eshte e vetmja hipotize mbi origjinen e shqipetareve qe konsiderohet si e vertete nga filologe dhe historiane serioz.

Pra shkurt, ndryshe nga hipoteza ilire kjo i ben shqipetaret si jo autokton ne tokat tona. Proto-shqiptaret, jane formuar diku ne Kosoven verore dhe Serbine lindore, dhe nga dyndjet sllave kane emirgruar ne shqiperine e sotme, fillimisht ne veri te shqiperise dhe me vone gjate shek. 13 dhe 14 ne shqiperine e jugut dhe me vone deri ne Poleponez te Greqise. Por gjitashtu ka dhe historiane te tjere, si psh. Noel Malcolm, qe etno-gjenezen shqiptaret e vejne diku ne zonene e kosoves, shqiperine veriore dhe herzegovine (pra kjo pak a shume na ben ne autoktone ne shqiperi).

Kjo hipoteze ka marre perkrarjen e historianeve per faktin se ne shqipen e sotme mungon fjalori detar, gjithashtu edhe ai fushor (ketu pothuajse te gjitha emrat e veglave i kemi marre nga sllavet), dhe mbi te gjitha fjalet latine e kane origjinen nga latinishtja vulgate, jo ajo qe eshte perdorur ne dalmaci dhe shqiperi. Gjithashtu, gjuha Shqipe nga shume ngjashmeri me substratumin e Rumanishtes (qe mendohet te kete qene Dako-Trak) dhe ka shume fjale qe i kemi te perbashketa (fjale jo-sllave, dhe jo-latino, po Trake,nqs. pranojme kete hipoteze ose Ilire).

Keto fakte u sollen fillimisht nga Veigandi, dhe u zhvillua me vone nga Gjorgjievi, qe konkludoi se shqiptaret ishin faktikisht Trake, dhe jo Ilir.

Po nuk duhet te harrojme qe njesoj me hipotezen Ilire edhe ketu politika ka luajtur rolin e saj. Psh. origjina ilire morri mbeshtetje te madhe tek rilindasit the historianet shqiptare sepse na bente autoktone ne shqiperi.

Por gjithastu edhe origjina dako-trake permbysh interesat nacionaliste te rumunve, qe kerkojne moedomos te jene autokton ne transilvani. Hungarezet nga ana tjeter shtjellojne se rumunet si popull e kane pasur origjinen nga iliret te latinizuar (ose vllehet) ne shqiperi (pra poshte danubit dhe jashte transilvanise) dhe kane ardhur ne rumanine e sotme dikur ne shek. 11-te. Koincidentalisht, kjo eshte edhe data kur vllehet (bashke me shqipetaret) permenden per here te pare ne mesjete.

Nje harte e marre nga Wikipedia.

Mire qe eshte mare nga wiki, po shih c thote:
------
This is a map of the general areas in which ethnogenesis of the Romanian people is believed to have occured. It was drawn by me, User:Ryanaxp, on July 31, 2005, and is hereby released into the public domain.
---------
Futjuni punes dhe ju te tjeret dhe le te hapet konkursi
KUSH BEN HARTEN ME TE BUKUR

Here here ne vend te vesh vetulla nxjerr syte, po ka raste te tjera qe syte nxirren qellimisht. Nese eshte rast i tille, atehere Napolon Bonapartovic paska qene njeri i madh me origjine Etruskovic

[malo666]

une s'po merrem me amatoret e wikipedias, po te jap referenca direkte nga autoret ne diskutim, ajo harte i perputhet teorive qe kam sjellur ketu, c'rendesi ka se kush e ka bere. Konkretisht, nga Jokl deri tek Malcolmi, teza eshte qe shqiptaret jane formuar po ne ate zone, nga popuj ilire apo ilire e trake, etj, etj.

[Kreksi]

Mesia apo Moesia eshte mesi i trojeve shqiptare, ky fakt tregone pra edeh gjuhtarishte se kur nje vend ka mes atehere rrethe e rrotull eshte e banuar po me te njejtin popull...
http://www.forumishqiptar.com/showthread.php?t=93455

Poashtu edhe Franca ka krahinen e vete qendrore qe quhet Midi (do thote në mes) te vendit, e une nuke po e kuptoj se ku ju dhembe juve nese shqiptaret e shqiperise na qenkan formuar ne kete Mesin e ilirisë ? ...ne te kundert gezohemi se shiperia po na rrjedhka nga zemra e ilirisë...

malo 666 na sjelle edhe nje tez edhe me te fort tani, bukur shumë ore, ke edhe tjera apo ??...

[labi i maleve]

O malo.............. nga do qe te jemi nje gje eshte e sigurt................ ne jemi me te lashtet ne Ballkan,para grekeve,para romakeve,para sllaveve,para turqve e para kujdo qe perpiqet te marre autoresine!

[GL_Branch]

Pra sic mundet te shikoni, pothuajse te gjithe historianet neutral, perendimor, i permbahen tezes se formiit etnik shqiptare jashte shqiperise se sotme, qofshin keto perkrahes te tezes ilire apo dako-trake, apo trako-ilire. pra kudoqofte qe jane formuar proto-shqiptaret, ky vend ka qene ne dardani-moesi, ose ne dacine prendimore, dhe jo ne shqiperine e sotme.

Te vetmit historian/filolog qe propagandojne per autoktonin 3000 vjecare te shqipetareve ne shqiperi, jane ato shqiptare. Sidoqofte, nje gje eshte e vertetueshme ketu, qe ne nuk do dime asnjehere preardhjen tone. pra nuk do kete asnjehere konsensus akademik, te pakten me keto fakte qe jane zbuluar deri tani.

Gjithashtu, asnje historian serioz, qofte shqiptar apo cfaredotjeter, nuk propagandon me tezat, pellazgjike, apo etruske, apo ku ta di une...dhe gjithashtu, asnje nuk ka thene qe etrusket, venetet, mesapet, dako-traket, dhe iliret flisnin te njejten gjuhe.

1) Qka flet o injorant? te gjithe perendimoret? tash pse 5 vetem historian e mbeshtesin kete teze (qe i bjen 0.5-1.0 % e gjithe historianeve perendimore) ti e quan shumice?

2) Prej kurit Ruset, bullgaret dhe rumunet qenkan Perendimor?...ti paske probleme me gjeografine..... me thuaj nje perendimor qe e mbeshtet kete teze?

[GL_Branch]

Te vetmit historian/filolog qe propagandojne per autoktonin 3000 vjecare te shqipetareve ne shqiperi, jane ato shqiptare. Sidoqofte, nje gje eshte e vertetueshme ketu, qe ne nuk do dime asnjehere preardhjen tone. pra nuk do kete asnjehere konsensus akademik, te pakten me keto fakte qe jane zbuluar deri tani.

Ke lexuar ti ndonjehere historine e shqiptarve? prejardhja ilire e shqiptare eshte bere kryesisht prej Perendimoreve ....97% e akademikeve/historianeve Perendimor e me gjere mbeshtesin tezen ilire.

3% jane qe e mbeshtesin tezen thrake, daciane, greke dhe maqedonase.

Dhe ti del ketu dhe thua qe kjo eshte bere nga shqiptaret ti qenke totalisht debil, si ka mundesi kendej sjell historian Rus dhe Bullgar qe mbeshtesin tezen Daciane (qe eshte me se veshtiri me gjet internet) e anen tjeter qe ka me mijera historian prej perendimoreve e deri te kroat,bosnjak,bullgar, bullgar etj qe mbeshtetin tezen ilire e ti ketu na del thua qe nuk ka te huaj......

[D@mian]

Edhe nje here, diskutoni ne menyre dinjitoze!
Flm!

[BARAT]

Pra sic mundet te shikoni, pothuajse te gjithe historianet neutral, perendimor, i permbahen tezes se formiit etnik shqiptare jashte shqiperise se sotme, qofshin keto perkrahes te tezes ilire apo dako-trake, apo trako-ilire. pra kudoqofte qe jane formuar proto-shqiptaret, ky vend ka qene ne dardani-moesi, ose ne dacine prendimore, dhe jo ne shqiperine e sotme.

Te vetmit historian/filolog qe propagandojne per autoktonin 3000 vjecare te shqipetareve ne shqiperi, jane ato shqiptare. Sidoqofte, nje gje eshte e vertetueshme ketu, qe ne nuk do dime asnjehere preardhjen tone. pra nuk do kete asnjehere konsensus akademik, te pakten me keto fakte qe jane zbuluar deri tani.

Gjithashtu, asnje historian serioz, qofte shqiptar apo cfaredotjeter, nuk propagandon me tezat, pellazgjike, apo etruske, apo ku ta di une...dhe gjithashtu, asnje nuk ka thene qe etrusket, venetet, mesapet, dako-traket, dhe iliret flisnin te njejten gjuhe.

666: pothuajse te gjithe historianet neutral, perendimor i permbahen tezes se formiit etnik shqiptare jashte shqiperise se sotme

Pothuajse? heheehhe...sa ka te beje ajo fjala POTHUAJSE aq sa ka te beje edhe kur thuhet se greket ishin POTHUAJSE NEGROIDE.
Ose ose kur thuhet se serbet jane POTHUAJSE TROJANET E VERTETE DARDANE (Akademia Serbe)
Ose ose kur thuhet shqiptaret jane POTHUAJSE ARJANE
Pse te mos thuhet u formuam etnikishte PTHUAJSE ne te tere BALLKANIN, por duhet te thuhet se SHQIPERIA E TANISHME nuk ka pasur POTHUAJSE asnje shqiptar deri sa erdhen nga nje vend kushedi se ku (c thote Akademia Serbe per kete gje?! )

666: Sidoqofte, nje gje eshte e vertetueshme ketu, qe ne nuk do dime asnjehere preardhjen tone. pra nuk do kete asnjehere konsensus akademik, te pakten me keto fakte qe jane zbuluar deri tani.

Ne nuk do dime prejardhjen ASNJEHERE?
KONSESIUS AKADEMIK (me ke akademi me ate serben qe thote se etrusket dhe Napoloni jane Serbe looool )
Normal qe ky konsesnsius do te mungoje per shume kohe.

Ti thua jane zbuluar fakte? Po kur zbulohen fakte afrohesh te e verteta nuk largohesh. Atehere pse thua qe ASNJEHERE nuk do dime prejarfhjen.
Ta them une pse.
Sepse nuk ka prejardhje ka AUTOKTONI. Ne nuk erdhem. NE ISHIM KETU...ne ishim sipas atyre qe merreshin me shkrime sipas te kenduarve "PROSELINOI"

Hajt, pra daku

[Kreksi]

malo66,

Aty kur thua se Shkodra nuke eshte emer shqipe ju jeni shume gabim...
Se pari shkodra njihet qysh nga antikiteti i hershem po me te njejtin emer Skodra, qe eshte fjale shqipe por e lakuar ne dy vende; një qytet ilire ne Adriatikë quhej Adera, me vone quhet Zara pastaj sllavet e quajn Zadar, pra A Dera do thote se ky qytete ishte i madh dhe kishte portin detar kurse Shkodra edhepse afer detit nuke kishte porte detar dhe quhej Ska Der e me vone ndryshon ne Shkoder...
Po edhe per detin qe thua shqiptaret nuke kane njohuri, a nuke mjaftone Deti Jonë ?

Kurse Skutari, ky emer vjen nga bizantinet se edhe atje perballe detit Marmara kemi nje qytet me kete emer qe ka kuptimin e nje "qyteti te fshehur" qe nuke duket lehtë...mirepo si do te sillesh Shqiptaret dhe iliret ishin gjithnje zot te ketije vendi...

...hulumto hulumto se do e gjejshe...

[Zëu_s]

ne shqipen e sotme mungon fjalori detar, gjithashtu edhe ai fushor (ketu pothuajse te gjitha emrat e veglave i kemi marre nga sllavet), dhe mbi te gjitha fjalet latine e kane origjinen nga latinishtja vulgate, jo ajo qe eshte perdorur ne dalmaci dhe shqiperi.

A eshte e vertet kjo a ?

apo ndoshta eshte e kunderta ...

Gjithashtu, gjuha Shqipe nga shume ngjashmeri me substratumin e Rumanishtes (qe mendohet te kete qene Dako-Trak) dhe ka shume fjale qe i kemi te perbashketa (fjale jo-sllave, dhe jo-latino, po Trake,nqs. pranojme kete hipoteze ose Ilire).

Kete e dijme te gjith, dhe shihet shum kjart mosaftesia e rumunve te shqiptojne fjalet shqipe qe permbajne shkronjat TH, DH etj. atehere kur ne jua kemi sjelluar atyre ato fjale shqipe qe ata deshirojne te na ishin fjale rumune.

[malo666]

Me poshte vijon permbledhja e teorive te origjinave te shqiptareve nga prof. dr. Xhevat LLoshi.


a. The Pelasgian hypothesis. Albanian is the continuation of the language of an
ancient people called Pelasgians, a hypothesis rather diffused in the 19th century. J.G. von
HAHN (1854) formulated in a strict manner the hypothesis that the Albanians are direct
descendants of the Illyrians, Macedonians, and Epirotes, and that in the remotest times they
formed a united race together with the Latins and the Hellenes called Pelasgians, with their
language, the Pelasgian. A. SCHLEICHER gave full authority to this theory of Pelasgian
origin with his family tree of languages. Today this is considered a groundless idea.

b. The Thracian (Dacian) hypothesis. Albanian is the continuation of the
Thracian language. This thesis, implying an Albanian-Rumanian symbiosis, is supported by
students of Rumanian: H. HIRT, K. PAUL, G. WEIGAND, H. BARIC, I. POPOVIC, and
I. I. RUSSU. Only scant remains of Thracian exist, but HIRT saw Albanians as descendants
of the Thracians. This means that in the early Middle Ages the Albanians moved westward
from the central part of the Balkans, but there are no historical records of such a massive
migration. To BARIC Albanian is an Illyricized Thracian dialect.

c. The Illyrian-Thracian hypothesis. Albanian is derived from a mixture of
Illyrian and Thracian. N. JOKL supported the idea of an intermediate position between
Illyrian and Thracian. However, Thracian is not better known than Illyrian, and it is difficult
to distinguish their specific elements, or to trace a dividing line between Illyrian and Thracian.
For JOKL the Albanians are probably the descendants of the Illyrian tribe of Dardanians,
living in the interior of the Balkan peninsula, who migrated westward some time in the late
Roman period.


d. The Daco-Moesian hypothesis is sustained by the Bulgarian academician V.
GEORGIEV.

e. The independent hypothesis. H. KRAHE affirms that Albanian presents an
independent Indo-European language. The vast work of Prof. E. ÇABEJ on Albanian
etymology (1976), an unrivaled synthesis of everything known in this field, refers to remote
periods of Albanian as an Indo-European language, without considering the Illyrian
language. Following a strict method, the Albanian etymologies would go back to Illyrian
forms, which in turn would be traced back to Indo-European roots, like the Italian
etymologies going back to Latin forms. E. HAMP (1972) states: "Albanian shows no
obvious close affinity to any other Indo-European language; it is plainly the sole modern
survivor of its own subgroup".

The whole question of origin is closely connected to the question of the area where
the Albanian was formed, and of the place where its transformation ocurred...
The Illyrian language is only known from certain words reported by ancient writers,
from a few rare inscriptions and, to a gretaer extent, from surviving names of persons and
places. Despite remarkable studies by H. KRAHE, A. RIBEZZO, A. MAYER, and others,
the question of the place that the Illyrian occupies in the Indo-European family is still
debatable. Most German, Austrian and Italian historians and linguists, such as: G. MEYER,
F. MIKLOSISCH, H. PEDERSEN, P. KRETSCHMER, V. PISANI, W.
CIMOCHOWSKI, and others have supported the Illyrian kinship of the Albanian.

Albanian linguists in general - E. ÇABEJ, S. RIZA, M. CAMAJ, SH. DEMIRAJ,
M. DOMI, A. KOSTALLARI - advocate the Albanians’ autochthony and the Illyrian
filiation of the Albanian language. Albanian was formed through the gradual evolution of a
group of south-western Illyrian dialects during the period between the final stage of the
intensive influence of Latin upon Illyrian and the arrival of the Slavs. This rather long and
complicated process occurred in the first centuries A.D. The linguistic arguments put
forward by the opposers of the Illyrian origin of Albanian cannot resist criticism. SH.
DEMIRAJ (1988): "The Albanian language was formed precisely in the regions of the
eastern Adriatic and Ionian seas inhabited in ancient times mostly by Illyrian tribes".

Pra sic mundet te shikoni nuk ka konsensus akademik per origjinen e shqiptareve. Dhe gjithashtu vetem akademiket shqiptare propagandojne per vazhdimesi iliro-shqiptare brenda ne shqiperi. Te tjeret si Jokl (mbeshtetes i tezes ilire) e vendos kete vazhdimesi ne kosov/serbi jugore/moesi.

[labi i maleve]

O malo po nuk ka popull qe te mos diskutohet per sa i perket prejardhjes,megjithate shumica e studiuesve kane arritur ne perfundimin se shqiptaret derivojne nga iliro-epirotasit dhe jo nga thrakasit apo skithianet,edhe pse kane qene popuj qe kane patur lidhje etno kulturore.
Ne e dime shume mire qe per greket nje pjese e mire e historianeve bien dakord per sa i perket prejardhies se tyre megjithate ka shembuj plot qe kundershtojne ate cka besohet dhe thone se ata erdhen nga azia dhe afrika dhe nje nga me te rrendesishmit e kesaj teze dhe jo pak i njohur eshte Kordati i cili jep nje gjeneze egjiptiane te grekeve........... e di qe dola pak jashte teme por ajo qe po them eshte se nuk mund te egzistojne teori te padiskutueshme por megjithate per baze meret shumica e infomacionit,nga e anon peshoren dhe nxirret nje perfundim pastaj ato qe mbeten jane thjesht per tu shfrytezuar politikisht ne momente te caktuara por nuk mund ta ndryshojne historine ama.

[GL_Branch]

Pra sic mundet te shikoni nuk ka konsensus akademik per origjinen e shqiptareve. Dhe gjithashtu vetem akademiket shqiptare propagandojne per vazhdimesi iliro-shqiptare brenda ne shqiperi. Te tjeret si Jokl (mbeshtetes i tezes ilire) e vendos kete vazhdimesi ne kosov/serbi jugore/moesi.

Se pari na jep linkun (se e di qe e ke marr nga wikipedia), teza ilire e shqiptarve ka filluar nga historianet/shkenctaret Gjerman, Austriak, Hungarez per here te pare ne vitin 1770 kurse daco-thrake pas 1900 kryesisht historian jo-neutral me tendenca politiike (pra ato serbo-greke).

I ke pyet veten pse insistojne kete teori vetem historian bullgare (pakica), rus dhe Rumun???

Vetem historian/akaedemik kroat qe jane me dhjetra e mbeshtesin prejardhjen ilire qe nga henrik Baric, Stipcevic, Milan Sufflaj, baros etj. (edhe pse kroatet nuk ndjehen mire nese jemi pasardhes ilir) e mos te flas me qindra Gjerman ose Italian e me gjere...e ti del ketu na thua qe nuk ka akademik te huaj? ore mos u be plehre i ndyre ose fol realisht ose mos fol me tendenca sllavo-greke...aty jane me mijera historian/akademik perendimore qe kane studiar dhe kane konkluzion mbi prejardhjen ilire qe nga viti 1770 (qe perben mbi 97% e gjithe historianeve)...e ti ketu del na thua te kunderten...

Ta preferoj ta lexosh pse insistojne/propagandojne per teorine daciane nga Akademiku/ilirilogu i njohur kroat Dr. Aleksander STIPCEVIC

THE QUESTION OF ILLYRIAN-ALBANIAN CONTINUITY AND ITS POLITICAL TOPICALITY TODAY

http://www.alb-net.com/illyrians.htm

pastaj eja ketu prap.

[GL_Branch]

Une mund te jap edhe shume akademik qe tallin loqet me lloje-lloje hipoteza, ja kete hipoteze qe te pakten e mbeshtesin 4-5 akademik (gjerman, lituanez dhe bullgar), dhe ja cfare thojne:

gjuha sllave eshte gjuhe bastare lituaneze e shqiptarizua (ose ilirizuar) dhe Dacianet dhe Thraket jane nje gjake me Lituanezet kurse Iliret, Venediket, Messapet, Sllavet Jugore dhe Romaket jane pasardhesit e shqiptarve qe u quajne Albaniace ose Pre-Albanian.....hajde tash dal edhe une te them gjithe akademiket mbeshtesin qe ne jemi stergjysha te sllavo-jugorve, Romakeve, Ilireve etj kurse Daciant dhe Thrakianet jane Lituanez ...si pune jote qe pretendon si ****! 1% e konsideron shumice haha

LITHUANIAN QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Volume 39, No.2 - Summer 1993
Editor of this issue: Robertas Vitas, Lithuanian Research & Studies Center
ISSN 0024-5089
Copyright © 1993 LITUANUS Foundation, Inc.
Lituanus

SLAVIC, A BALTICIZED ALBANIAN?
http://www.lituanus.org/1993_2/93_2_05.htm

Volume 37, No.1 - Spring 1991
Editor of this issue: Antanas Klimas, University of Rochester
ISSN 0024-5089
Copyright © 1990 LITUANUS Foundation, Inc.
Lituanus

TOKHARIAN AND BALTIC VERSUS SLAVIC AND ALBANIAN
http://www.lituanus.org/1991_1/91_1_03.htm

HARVEY E. MAYER
Defense Language Institute

Dr. Harvey E. Mayer, February 1999:
http://members.tripod.com/Groznijat/thrac/h_mayer.html

[GL_Branch]

SLAVIC, A BALTICIZED ALBANIAN?

Harvey E. Mayer

Hamp (1984) in his criticism of my article (Mayer 1981), after his inaccurate comment that Iranian, because of its vowel system, 'can surely be classified only with Indic',1 makes statements about Albanian which stimulate major investigation.

He says: 'It can be said to be related more closely to Baltic and Slavic than to anything else, and certainly not to be close to Thracian.'2

I ask: If so, is Albanian more closely related to Slavic than to Baltic? And if it is, was Pre-Slavic originally so closely tied with Pre-Albanian in Late Dialectal Indo-European times that both represented very minor variations of the same dialect as opposed to other dialects like Pre-Baltic, Pre-Iranian, Pre-Germanic, etc.?

Martynov (1981) says that Proto-Slavic is Italicized Proto-Baltic while Common Slavic is Iranicized Proto-Slavic. This is all based on lexicon. My suggestion that Slavic mainly reflects in its essence an original Pre-Albanian variant both phonologically and lexically with a huge superimposed Baltic lexical influence now extending into morphology rests on a broader and deeper linguistic base. With this, it offers some answers to some vexing questions.

Phonologically, Slavic and Albanian have the following notable ancient ties: 1. Th, TH to T, 2. Dh, DH to D (T = voiceless stop, D = voiceless stop, h = aspiration, H = laryn-geal), 3. s alternating with h (not true of Baltic), 4. reflexes of k' (g'(h) kept separate from those of the ruki law (not true of Baltic), 5. ks- to h- (not true of Baltic), a special, exclusive Albanian-Slavic reflex, 6. more cases of k', g'(h) to k, g than other satem languages including Baltic which shows sibilants instead (Shevelov 1965 for the Slavic).

Lexically, Slavic and Albanian correspondences minus Baltic ones outnumber Baltic and Albanian correspondences minus Slavic ones.3 This is striking when we consider that the opposite is true for Hittite and Tokharian.

Viewing (Pre-)Slavic as a variant of (Pre-)Albanian, considering their relative geographic positions as a constant, makes it easy for us to see just how Martynov's comments about Italic and Iranian influences can apply not only for Slavic, but for Albanian as well. Note that North Iranian contacts apparently influenced Slavic while South Iranian contacts apparently influenced Albanian.4

This (Pre)-Slavic-(Pre) Albanian view allows us also to suggest an answer to the question mentioned by Trubačev (1981) of Common Slavic's absence from the region of Old European hydronomy in which Baltic plays an important role, possibly even that of the center of its radiation. He says, "... and this is very odd because it contradicts the supra-language and supra-dialect character of the named hydronymic region and also contradicts all the old ties of Common Slavic with other Indo-European languages of Europe, and finally contradicts the theory of departure of Common Slavic from the heart of Common Baltic or its western branch.' This (Pre-)Slavic (Pre-)Albanian view might also allow us to state with considerable assurance our answer to the question of the origins of Albanian, especially since a similar problem with ancient Albanian place names in Albania occurs. The answer to both questions is probably that the (Pre-)Slavs and (Pre-

The possibility of special, close aboriginal (Pre-)Slavic-(Pre)Albanian dialectal ties indicates the Carpathians as a common ancestral home for (Pre-)Slavs and (Pre-)Albanians where they led a pastoral, migratory existence. This location surely originally put them out of reach of contact with Pre-Baltic.

This is evidenced by two ancient phonological differences: 1. Slavic's and Albanian's reflexes of k', g'(h) separate from those of the ruki law versus Baltic's early immediate merger of them into š/s, ž/z, 2. The special Slavo-Albanian reflex of ks-to h-: Russian dialect xinit' 'to condemn', Russian xilyj, xiloj 'sickly'; Albanian (h)unj, Shkoder ulj, ulem 1 belittle' where h-is from ks- if not kh- (Fasmer 1973; 236-8)5 versus Baltic's metathesis of original ks- to sk-t an ancient change predating the ruki law: Lithuanian skaudus 'painful' versus Slavic xudu 'bad' (Stang 1965:95).

It is significant that wherever original sk-/ks- occurs, Baltic has sk-, Slavic has reflexes of either, while Albanian, where anti-Baltic drift is the strongest, has h- from an original ks- or, I believe, from a ks- via metathesis from an original sk- before a back vowel as in he from skoia 'shadow' (Fasmer 1973:602).

My present view of Slavic as a heavily Balticized Albanian, I believe, helps make my answers to all of Hamp's objections to my previous article's position against a Balto-Slavic protolanguage cogent despite the 'evidence' he cites for it including 'syllabic contrast between long and short or acuted and circumflex',6 'the remarkable agreement of Baltic and Slavic in the incidence of a double reflex of the Indo-European syllabic sonants,7 and in the lengthening of syllables before Indo-European mediae,8 and in the derivational vrddhi affecting i's and u's developed in Baltic and Slavic analyzed so fully by Leskien, and in several basic formational features of the verbal system.' In the end all of this involves borrowing, calking, and otherwise favoring of morphemes, even those occurring as doublets, of one sort (words) or another (affixes) over others via dialect or language clustering contact.

With Pre-Slavs seen as originally basically nomadic northern Pre-Albanian descending northward from the Carpathians into regions with sedentary, most likely, technically superior Baits, we can expect their dialect to have been strongly influenced by Baltic. A further sign of this ancient situation is the much greater degree of homogeneity of Slavic than of Baltic where more anciently sedentary dialects tend to show far less homogeneity than migratory ones. Albanian, with more homogeneity than Slavic, shows an even later onset of sedentary habits of its speakers who, having moved south, characteristically, seem to have replaced one mountainous region (the Carpathians) with another (the Balkans) to continue an earlier, somewhat migratory, nomadic type of living before finally becoming sedentary.

I am grateful to Hamp for his remarks about Albanian. They helped me identify Pre-Slavic as a variant of Pre-Albanian and support the notion that it was originally significantly different from Pre-Baltic under whose influence it later fell. In a way, Slavic resembles English, a powerfully Romanized Germanic language. But where the situation with English has been relatively easily identifiable, the analogous situation with Slavic has been very elusive. This is not surprising. The influence of conservative Baltic gave Slavic a conservative appearance. The influence of innovative neighboring dialects and languages (Celtic, for example) on Albanian gave it a much changed appearance. The immediate reaction has been: Albanian and Slavic look so different while Baltic and Slavic seem so much alike.

To counter this, I provide the reminder that the proposed Slavic-Albanian linguistic unity ended a long time ago, when Indo-European syllabic nasals n, m, n, m became vowels plus nasals. Before this, Pre-Slavic and Pre-Albanian had had different new neighbors. For, perhaps, centuries before this Pre-Slavic, and not Pre-Albanian, had had Pre-Baltic and Pre-Germanic, and for, perhaps, millennia after this Slavic, and not Albanian, had Baltic and Germanic as neighbors.

References

Fasmer, Maks. 1964-1973. Etimologičeskij slovar' russkogo jazyka, tr. by O. N. Trubačev. Vote. 1-4. Moskva: Izdatelstvo 'Progress'.
_. 1973. (Volume 4 of the above) 236-8, 253, 602.
Fraenkel, Ernst. 1962-1965. Litauisches etymologisches Worterbuch, Vote. 1,2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hamp, Eric P. 1980. Thracian, Dacian and Albanian-Romanian Correspondences. Actes du IIe Congres international de thracologie. Vol. 3, 57-60. Bucuresti.
_. 1984. On Myths and Accuracy. General Linguistics. 24.4.238-9.
Martynov, V.V. Balto-slavjano-iranskie jazykovye otnošenija. Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija 1980, 16-26. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka'.
Mayer, Harvey E. 1981. Two Linguistic Myths: Balto-Slavic and Common Baltic. Lituanus. 27.1.63-8.
_. 1983. Zum Lexikon und der balto-slavischen Frage. San Antonio: Defense Language Institute. /To appear in Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie./
_. 1987. Prussian, an Aboriginal a-Language? Lituanus. 35. 5. 66.
Shevelov, George Y. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic: The Phonology of Common Slavic, 139-49. New York-Morningside Heights: Columbia University Press.
Stang, Chr. S. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen, 95. Oslo-Bergen-Tromso: Universitetsforlaget.
Trubačev, O.N. 1981. Replika po balto-slavjanskomu voprosu. Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija 1980, 4. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo 'Nauka'.
Winter, Werner. 1978. The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. esti: vesti: mesti and OCS jasti: vesti: mesti in Baltic and Slavic Languages. Trends in Linguistics 4. Recent Developments in Historical Phonology, ed. by J. Fisiak, 431-46. The Hague-Paris-New York: Mouton.

Notes

1 Indie and Iranian once had five vowel systems of a, e, i, o, u, with e reconstructible from a in ca, ja from ke, ge, short o restorable by Brugmann's law of oR + vowel to aR + vowel, and long o retraceable from long a in formations alternating with those with a demonstrable erstwhile short o. With short o merging with short a before the merger of their long counterparts in Iranian, we arrive at the vowel system of a, e, i, o, u which I proposed for a conceivable Late Central Indo-European dialect including Iranian.
2 Hamp (1980) says that in Pre-Roman times palatalization of Indo-European labio-velars before front vowels occurred in Albanian but not in Thracian which proves Albanian could not have been Thracian. But can we be sure that the Latin and Greek symbols used circa Roman times represented unpalatalized velars? Note also that Hamp surely classifies
Lithuanian as dose to Latvian despite Lithuanian's kelti, kilti, gyvas, geltonas, etc. without the palatalizations Latvian shows in celt, cilt, dzivs, dzeltans ('raise, rise, alive, yellow'), etc.
3 In an article (Mayer 1987) I mention that examination of Fasmer 1964-1973 and Fraenkel 1962-1965 indicates that Slavic-Albanian-minus-Baltic native cognate roots outnumber Baltic-Albanian-minus-Slavic ones by approximately 1/3. Since we expect languages of long separation to match better in original lexicon with more conservative Baltic, this opposite situation with Albanian indicates special ties with Slavic as a unit separate from Baltic.
4 For Indo-European k', g'(h) North Iranian and Slavic coincide with s, z while South Iranian and Albanian coincide with th, dh.
5 This is less likely from kh. Note k, not h, in theke 'tip' from a possible kh.
6 In an article (Mayer 1983) and again in another (Mayer 1987) I explain the opposition in Baltic and Slavic of circumflex versus acute which replaced that of short versus long in tautosyllables as having arisen from a process of affixation initiated in one dialect or language and later spread to the others via calking. In these positions I saw long syllables arising from infixed vowel morphemes homophonous with already present root vowels, e.g., *varn- 'raven': *va-a-rn- 'crow'. Here, by analogy with long root vowels inherited from Indo-European as the long o in *do- 'give' the new long vowels arising through contraction were acute. The same sort of new long vowels in affixes were circumflex as the e, (e/ė) in Old Church Slavonic neseaste: Lithuanian nešėte 'you carried'. This new long-vowel-creating process involving positioning of morphological elements was syntactic and, therefore, as easily calked as lexicon. In origin it was not at all phonetic.
7 Evidence from Indie (r, ur, ir) indicates three possible reflexes of an Indo-European syllabic resonant (R):1. neutral R which later became aR in many dialects and daughter-languages, 2, labialized uR, and 3. palatalized iR. Where o tended to become a, labialized uR and/or palatalized iR tended to be generalized for morphological purposes to avoid confusion of TR(T) and ToR(T) reflexes, now both TaR(T). Through dialect and language clustering influences (calking, etc.), uR was stabilized as the reflex of R was stabilized as an alternate reflex of R in satem palatalizing Baltic and Slavic.
8 This lengthening of syllables before Indo-European mediae mentioned by Winter (1978) was not phonetic, but morphological in origin. Thus we find long e in Baltic and Slavic sed- 'sit down' matched by the same in Gothic setun 'they sat'. Short vowels occur in the same morpheme with shifts in meaning in Gothic sitan 'to sit' and Slavic šid- 'having gone', xod- 'going'. (Fasmer 1973:253 for the etymological connection.) Also, note the additional exceptions with (originally) short vowels: Slavic voda 'water', koza 'goaf, ogni 'fire', čeznoti 'to disappear', kogutu 'claw', stogu 'stack', stirženi 'pivot'; Old Russian: mulzu 'I churn butter'; Russian lizat' 'to lick'; Lithuanian: laigonas 'brother-in-law', luba 'ceiling board'.