Talk:Albanian language - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aigest (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 4 February 2013 (→h4, here we go again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:48, 4 February 2013 by Aigest (talk | contribs) (→h4, here we go again)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Languages High‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Albania Top‑importance

	Albanian language is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Kosovo Top‑importance

	Albanian language is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albanian language received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The Gheg vocative

I noticed on the grammar section that a statement is made that the vocative is rare in Albanian. I think that they mean it is rare in the Tosk dialect, but in a number of Geg Albanian varieties it is distinct to the nominative, although a form identical to it can also be used. for example: consider the word djal, 'boy', which is nominative indefinite. A father could call his son "djalo" or "djala", dependent on dialect.--68.194.250.198 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard the "djala". The "Djalo" is also in the Tosk dialect with the particle "o" :-" O djalë". The particle "o" is placed before the noun or with the forms ending in -o. "O djalë" and "djalo" are the same. There are a lot of other forms such as: "or djalë", "ore djalë", "more djalë", "moj vajzë", etc. The "moj" has nothing to do with "moy" of Russian. "moj" could be called every girl,or woman and has the same function that the particles "o", "or", "more", "ere" have 67.167.88.58 (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to correct you; -o is the Tosk Albanian vocative (it could be Gheg as well, I do not know) that didn't enter the standard language and now is only dialectal. Much like old locative case -ët. Senshi 01:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clausangeloh (talk • contribs)

Proto-Albanian, Proto-Slavic possible relation

By the Lithuanian Research & Studies Center http://www.lituanus.org/1993_2/93_2_05.htm Has references, notes, seems OK to me. It's just a hypothesis, should it be added to the (Old) Albanian section? 69.136.155.232 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

http://linguisticglob.blogspot.com/2012/09/anatolian-language.html 67.167.88.58 (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The view that Slavic languages are Balticized Albanian languages is so weird and fringe. It should not enter here. Read wiki policies on that. Aigest (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand it looks weird (and I agree), but it's neutral , at least it's not something that either forcefully pushes Albanians to Illyrians. The author has been credited before in this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Ruki_sound_law . Also the http://en.wikipedia.org/Lithuanian_encyclopedias have been credited as well The sound shifts are explained here http://www.lituanus.org/2003/03_3_07.htm . So it shouldn't be here? Should it be in another page then? Just asking, don't start flaming. 69.136.155.232 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not entering in the Illyrians or whatever ancestral debate. Just out of curiosity if you read this author he does believe that the "Albanian is the descendant of Illyrian more than Messapic..".

I am speaking about the overwhelming consensus among linguists that Slavic languages are family on their own and do not derive from Albanian language. In fact the general consensus is Balto-Slavic composes a single language group (see Balto-Slavic languages article). What this guy is proposing is very fringe and contradicts with core PIE linguistic general knowledge. Also what he is proposing is considered racist see what he says in the same article (in the link above) "..My experience with certain "scholars" has shown that it will be easier, though not much easier, to get acceptance for my definition here of "Baits" than of "Carpathians". Here "Baits" include Prussians, Latvians, and Lithuanians in the broad sense of Baits proper (including Selonians, Curonians, etc.) and Baits by extension, Dacians and Thracians, all of whom I once called "Baltoidics", that is, peoples who have spoken some Baltoidic language (see Mayer, 1992). Here "Carpathians" include not only "Albanoidics" that is, peoples whom I have previously designated as having spoken some "Albanoidic" language (see Mayer, 1992) equally designatable as "Slavoidic" (see Mayer, 1995), that is, Albanians, Illyrians, Messapians, and Slavs, but also Rumanians. Essentially, I believe that Baits in this larger sense in early times had a certain dominance over the Carpathians. This explains why the ancestors of the Rumanians so quickly and thoroughly Romanized. It was political. It was to gain Roman protection against former Baltic masters.... Romanians embraced Latin to escape from Baltic masters?! Apart from the total fringe and pseudoscience issues, that view is a little bit off the line of a normal linguist and enters into a political and racist agenda, as such it should not enter in this article. Anyway if you are really interested this author personal views, might enter into an article about him. Regards Aigest (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's seems fair. I guess there's nothing to do here anymore 69.136.155.232 (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Spelling-to-sound: ‹r›

Shouldn't ‹r› actually be /ɽ/? It does not sound like an alveolar tap, but like a retroflex flap.

Spelling-to-sound: ‹r›

Shouldn't ‹r› actually be /ɽ/? It does not sound like an alveolar tap, but like a retroflex flap.

Unnecessary?

This is mentioned in the section Gothic Loans: "The earliest accepted document in the Albanian language is from the 15th century AD. The earliest reference to a Lingua Albanesca is from a 1285 document of Ragusa. This is a time when Albanian Principalities start to be mentioned and expand inside and outside the Byzantine Empire. It is assumed that Greek and Balkan Latin (which was the ancestor of Romanian and other Balkan Romance languages), would exert a great influence on Albanian. Examples of words borrowed from Latin: qytet < civitas (city), qiell < caelum (sky), mik < amicus (friend). After the Slavs arrived in the Balkans, the Slavic languages became an additional source of loanwords. The rise of the Ottoman Empire meant an influx of Turkish words; this also entailed the borrowing of Persian and Arabic words through Turkish. Surprisingly the Persian words seem to have been absorbed the most. Some loanwords from Modern Greek also exist especially in the south of Albania. A lot of the borrowed words have been resubstituted from Albanian rooted words or modern Latinized (international) words" I don't know how this has something to do with Gothic loans. Also some information given seems to contradict the sourced information in the rest of the page. Another thing is the Persian words part. I don't seem to find that anywhere and I've checked.69.136.155.232 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point, but as I'm not fit to answer it I just wanted to bring forth that one commonly used albanian word I think is derived from persian is the "xhenaze". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.252.13 (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Meaning? Sorry but I've never heard of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.155.232 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

and <Gj> ?_?-2013-01-19T03:52:00.000Z">

They don't sound like voiceless/voiced palatal plosives, but more like voiceless/voiced alveolo-palatal affricates to me. Can anybody confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.155.232 (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)_?"> _?">

The one time I listened to Albanian examples, I could not hear a difference between the pairs q/ç and gj/xh. That means one of two things: the speaker in question did not distinguish them, or a difference exists but somehow I couldn't hear it. That would pretty much have to mean (a) the recording was bad, and (b) the sounds are indeed alveopalatal not palatal. I would suspect that the speaker didn't distinguish them at all, probably not the speaker you heard either. Benwing (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. See the note I added. The ref's abstract at least can be found online. Benwing (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Luciano Canepari called them voiced/voiceless palatal affricates, but I can't find the original source. There is the difference between gj/xh , ç/q but not the ones described in the main page. 69.136.155.232 (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There may be a difference for you, but clearly not for all speakers. That's what the reference unambiguously says. Benwing (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

h4, here we go again

Sorry, but almost no Indo-Europeanist accepts the existence of h4 these days. So the claim that "h4 produced h" or whatever can't be allowed to stand without major hedging. Note also that even in one of the few sources accepting this laryngeal, it does not say that "h4 produced h". It says "a few people claim that h4 produced h" which is way different.

Furthermore, I know that the claim that k', k and kw all have separate reflexes in Albanian is highly disputed. Plenty of Indo-Europeanists (though not the consensus) doubt that there even was a k separate from k' and kw, and the claim about a triple reflex in Albanian is not generally cited even by those (e.g. Ringe) who explicitly defend the triple PIE series and explicitly cite the Luvian triple reflex. The times I've seen this claim about Albanian, like the previous one, it's usually described as doubtful or unproven. Benwing (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Usually the case for three series of velars comes from Albanian and Luwian. For those Indoeuropean linguists who know Albanian that is a proven case. But there are some difficulties in getting wide approval by other linguists (who don't know Albanian) as described by Fortson, (see below). However most agree that Albanian shows three series of velars, (just make a Google check on it):

The traditional tripartition of the 'gutturals'—into palatals (k', g', (k'h), g'h), velars (k, g, (kh), gh), and labiovelars (kw, g”, (kwh), g'”h)—is based on the data from Albanian, which is the only language to have three distinct series of reflexes...The New Sound of Indo-European: Essays in Phonological Reconstruction Volumul 41 din Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs Editor Theo VennemannEditor Walter de Gruyter, 1989 ISBN 3110857340, 9783110857344 page 184
The Proto-Albanian velars retained an important tertiary opposition-that of "pure" velars, palatal velars and labiovelars (the later are differentiated from other velars before front vowels but merge with pure velars elsewhere). In this sense, the proto-Albanian sustem of occlusives supports thge Luwian evidence that Proto-Indo-European possesed three distinct velar oppositions....A Concise Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language: Reconstruction of Proto-Albanian Author Vladimir Ė. Orel Editor BRILL, 2000 ISBN 9004116478, 9789004116474 page 66
Due to the existence of remnants of all three original dorsal consonant series of the proto- language, i.e. palatals, velars, and labiovelars, Albanian can also be claimed to belong to a separate third group of Indo-European... Mood in the Languages of Europe Author Björn Rothstein, Rolf Thieroff Editor Björn Rothstein, Rolf Thieroff Editor John Benjamins Publishing, 2010 ISBN 9027205876, 9789027205872 page 447
The preservation of a triple reflex of the PIE velar series is accepted by most Albanologists, but have never been fully embraced by general Indo-Europeanists. The reasons are understandable: asside form the near absence of any branch that uncontroversially preserves reflexes of all three series, Albanians is not attested until very late and a great deal of its anterior history has been obscured, with often very few examples of e given sound change surviving. However the examples in this case are not beset with too many difficulties - their etymologies and morphology are for the most part non-controversial - and the evidence for three velar series series in Albanian is not much vorse than the evidence in Luvian. As with so many disputes however where the evidence is not absolutely overhelming, the matter may never be definitively settled to everyone's satisfaction Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics Author Benjamin W. Fortson, IV Editor John Wiley & Sons, 2011 ISBN 1444359681, 9781444359688 page 450

For more technical discussion of series of velars in Albanian, you can see Pedersen, Jokl, Hamp, Kortlandt etc.Aigest (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for quoting all of this, I had not realized that so many Albanologists had come to accept the triple reflex. Based on this evidence I will accept what Fortson says: "'The preservation of a triple reflex of the PIE velar series is accepted by most Albanologists, but have never been fully embraced by general Indo-Europeanists." I would suggest you put this statement in, or something similar. The current statement simply asserting a triple reflex, without any hedging, isn't acceptable because this isn't the PIE consensus. The statement about h4 is even worse; I'd suggest you remove this entirely, since it appears that the existence of h4 is distinctly a minority position, and the supposed evidence for it comes largely from Albanian in any case AFAIK, which makes it have almost no explanatory power at all. Benwing (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes we can quote Fortson on that since it better explains the situation (although there are other non Albanologists who also embrace the three series case).

As for the h4 I think it also is accepted by IndoEuropean scholars, since it is used in reconstructions. Another example of h4 use in reconstruction and the Albanian case reference also comes from Mallory-Adams 2007.

Of the laryngeals presented, *h1 leaves an adjacent vowel unchanged while an *h3 will change an adjacent *-e- to an *-o-, e.g. *dideh3- > Greek dı´do¯mi ‘I give’. Both *h2 and *h4 change an adjacent *-e- to*-a- (e.g. *peh2s- ‘protect’> Latin pa¯sco¯ ‘I protect’ and *h4elbho´s ‘white’ > Latin albus ‘white’ and Hittite alpa¯ - ‘cloud’). Only word initially can we distinguish *h2 and *h4, and then only when we have an Anatolian cognate. For *h2ewe have ha- in Hittite harkis ‘white’ (cf. Greek argo´s ‘bright’), for *h4e- we have a- (as in alpa¯ -). (Some have suggested that initial *h4 is preserved in Albanian as h-, e.g. herdhe ‘testicle’ from *h4orgˆhiyeha- beside Hittite ark- ‘mount sexually’). Where we cannot distinguish between *h2 and *h4 we will use the symbol *ha-. In some instances where a laryngeal is posited but we are uncertain which laryngeal should be indicated we will employ *hx to indicate the unknown laryngeal. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World Authors J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams 2007 ISBN 0-19-928791-0 978-0-19-928791-8 (HB) 0-19-929668-5 978-0-19-929668-2 page 55. Aigest (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories: