Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex '05 (talk | contribs) at 09:08, 6 December 2004. 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 (yet there are some interesting lexical cognates between Albanian and Greek and Romanian which I'm looking into). This argues for Albanian origins outside of Greek influence. 'Outside of' 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)

I won't go into a comprehensive argument here, but I'll offer this: Dacian & Thracian toponyms show no relation at all to Albanian, & furthermore Albanian does not allow for such two-word compound toponyms as Arge-Dava, Capi-Dava, or Bessa-para. Dacian & Thracian names show no Albanian affinity. The Thracian tribe of the Bessi came to be called Vlachs in Byzantine sources---since Thrace was never Romanized, it may well be that they spoke a Latin related language before Roman colonization---not a proto-Albanian language. I can post more. As for "the phonetics of Dacian language are close to Albanian" this, even if true, can be easily explained by two points: 1)the Balkan common language features, that don't necessarily imply that the languages were on the same IE branch; 2) the possibility that Dacians & proto-Albanians, though linguistically on different branches,came to influence each other's phonetics through long contact, parallel to what happened between Romanian & Slavic. Similarities in phonetics does not prove relation at base. Also, I challenge the linguists who first proposed these phonetic similarities. I discussed on another talk page that this Daco-Albanian theory was first promulgated by Bulgarian nationalist linguists, such as Vladimir Georgiev, later by Ivan Duridanov, following Georgiev. I explained the ulterior motive behind their arguments.In fact, their background makes them so suspect that I would add a caution after that sentence---I think you should add "this is according to certain linguists,notably Vladimir Georgiev", etc. etc. Some sort of qualification that lets a person know that the statement is not definite. While 1+1 definitely equals 2, it is not definite that Dacian & Albanian had MANY phonetic similarities (SOME phonetic similarites, I'll agree). Also, it is not definite that Dacian or Thracian were satem, as opposed to centum, languages. We've seen in the past how linguistics has been twisted by ideology. Also, note that Georgiev was doing his work firmly in the Communist era, & back then there was a Soviet policy to deemphasize & denigrate Romanian heritage, so that they could further slavicize us & make the hold of soviet power stronger. You follow Georgiev at your own risk. Look at the "scholars" who are now "authorities" on Thracian studies---most of them are slavs. Albanians are themselves aware of how slavic scholars twist their work when it comes to Illyrian history. A slav scholar says one thing, an Albanian scholar says another. (Decius)

Messapians 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)

I notice at the end of the article there is a sentence "The oldest church in Caucasian Albania is in the town of 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)

To be fair, there are SOME correspondences between SOME Albanian WORDS (but words can be borrowed, & I beleive these different languages borrowed from each other)and SOME Thracian or Illyrian personal names, toponyms, and words (example: Albanian 'Mez'<>Thracian 'Mezenai'<>Romanian 'Manz'). I have to be fair & mention that, but these are the exception to what we see, not the vast majority. And here I agree with Georgiev that these cognates between Albanian & Thracian are not strong or numerous enough to indicate that Thracian was proto-Albanian or related to Albanian. But Georgiev shows his bias because there is no reason to assume that (despite some loose correspondences in phonetics, not words or names) Dacian was related to Albanian. But his Bulgarian nationalist aim was to disconnect Dacian from Thracian & connect it to Albanian. I keep bringing this up because I'm tired of seeing Georgiev's claims echoed in these Misplaced Pages articles. His work is so transparent, & so obviously influenced by a Bulgarian nationalism that wishes to connect bulgarians as much as possible to the ancient Thracians.(Decius)

The sentence "The Pelasgans were the people living in the Balkans before Indo-European arrival" may need to be revised, because 1) The Pelasgans may have spoke an Indo-European language or languages, thus they would not be before IE arrival, they would be before Hellenic arrival 2)The ancient writers, not always being accurate, may have lumped very different groups together as Pelasgians---as memories & facts became distorted. Some Pelasgians may have been IE, some may not have been IE. (Decius)

I've been reading the Serb nationalist view concerning Albanian origins, presented by such Serbs as Prof. Djordje Jankovic of Belgrade University. Their idea is that Albanians are not native to the Balkans, that in fact they migrated from the area of Azerbaijan between the 7th---10th centuries.IMO, Jankovic & others like him are definitely wrong, because the Albanian language to me looks like a Balkan language (an IE language definitely;closer to satem group than to centum group):there are too many Balkan features to trace them to the Caucas region. But it's possible that Albanian was once an Anatolian language, because the Balkan & Anatolian regions were very close geographically, culturally, linguistically---look at a Phrygian glossary & you'll agree. Though note that the 'Anatolian world' extended into the southern caucas region. But Balkan origin is more likely because: I see some cognates between Albanian & Roman Latin, not just Romanian or Romance. That indicates presence of Shqip in Balkans around Roman times.

Caution: The ISP 198.81.26.48 used by this anonymous correspondent is a consistent source of vandalism. Contributors who log in tend to be taken more seriously. --Wetman 14:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism? Well, it wasn't from me. Please give me an example of the vandalism. Whenever I edit articles or discussion pages, I do so carefully. So what are you talking about. If indeed the vandalism is coming from this adress, it might be an acquaintance(s) who shares the same isp, but AFAIK, they don't even know about Misplaced Pages. Or, it could be a hacker using my isp. Actually, in any case, from now on I'M GOING TO SIGN ON every time I contribute. So forget about it.(Decius)

I'm not sure what to beleive about the claim that Albanians are descended from Illyrians. They might be. They might not be. The evidence is not that good either way. Yet I am quite sure that the Dacians did not speak a proto-Albanian language. The main thing I was arguing here is that Dacians were not proto-Albanians. Dacians and proto-Albanians were neighboring peoples who spoke IE languages that were on different branches. (Decius)