Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bogdangiusca (talk | contribs) at 10:31, 1 November 2004 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example: "

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

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

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

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

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

I am not sure I understand this sentence:

the Albanian city names mentioned in ancient times that were kept do not follow the Albanian sound change laws, suggesting that they were late borrowing from an intermediary language (most likely Romance or Slavic), rather than inherited (for example ancient Aulona should have been inherited in modern Albanian as Alorë instead of Vlorë)

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

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

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

cf. lat. Avrum -> alb. Ar (gold)

I just want to add my thoughts on the question of Albanian origins. First of all, it is very curious that there is no evidence in the Albanian language of ancient Greek contact. I've checked this myself as well. This argues for Albanian origins well outside Greek influence. 'Well outside' needs to be defined.

Western Moesia (now South-Eastern Serbia) was "well outside" Greek influnce. The current Albania was most likely assimilated by the Greeks.

In my opinion, based on research, Albanians are not descended from those whom the ancients referred to as Thracians or Dacians.

Post the arguments in here, if you have any. We need more facts, fewer opinions. :) Bogdan | Talk 10:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another thing about the Dacians, Thracians, & Illyrians: the ancient writers very often jumbled distinct peoples together only because they lived in the same area. Many have pointed this out. I beleive it's very possible that lumped within Illyrian & Thracian were groups that were not Illyrian or Thracian at all. For example, the Messapians have been called "Illyrians";

They were called Illyrians by modern scientists, based on archeological finds: similar tombs and personal names as found in Illyria. Bogdan | Talk 10:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the ancient Dalmatians were sometimes referred to as "Illyrians"; now, many point to the Albanians as an "Illyrian" people. Who then were the 'true' Illyrians? Connecting Albanians with Illyrians is to connect Albanians with something we know very little of. Inscriptions that scholars have identified (problem of identification) as Illyrian do not show Albanian elements. It's possible the ancestors of Albanians were not exactly Illyrians, but ethnically distinct neighbors of Illyrians. This is supported by the fact that proper Illyrian culture was Hellenized & Romanized. Though it's possible the proto-Albanians were 'cousins' of the proper Illyrians. Cousins who chose to live in isolated mountain regions; though it seems hard to beleive that these mountain Illyrians would be so isolated from lowland Illyrians. As for Albanians being descened from the Dardanians, again that is pointing at something little known. I support the article's position on the origin of the Albanians---Albanians can't expect people to just accept their claims (I'm generalizing;I'm sure some Albanians have other ideas)of Illyrian descent without that claim going under the microscope.(Decius)

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

The oldest church in Caucasian Albania is in the town of Kish. The modern Albanian word is "kisha".

There's also a city of Kish in Sumer. Maybe the Albanians are the descendents of Summerians ;-) That is most likely a coincidence. Bogdan | Talk 10:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)