Classify 4 illyrians 2.0

[Ushtari]

Classify em

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1585/adscn1189.jpg
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4233/adscn1233.jpg
http://www.shkollat.org/tunelipare/images/adscn1548.jpg
http://www.shkollat.org/tunelipare/images/adscn1538.jpg

[aherne]

They all look Romanian (guy #3 less so). If they were "illyrian" they would look like Yugoslavs, so I believe these guys represent the Dacian component.

[Ushtari]

They all look Romanian (guy #3 less so). If they were "illyrian" they would look like Yugoslavs, so I believe these guys represent the Dacian component.
Romanians are Romanized illyrians, dacians and thracians, ie a mix of different paleobalkan people.

Albanians are illyrians.
http://i54.tinypic.com/9l90gk.jpg

[Rocket]

Albanians are Illyrians, Vardaskans are Macedonians, Bulgarians are Thracians, Romanians are Dacians. Now, they might miss the language and the evidence but that's not a big problem for the balkanoids.

[Ushtari]

Albanians are Illyrians, Vardaskans are Macedonians, Bulgarians are Thracians, Romanians are Dacians. Now, they might miss the language and the evidence but that's not a big problem for the balkanoids.
Albanians miss the language?

[Rocket]

Albanians miss the language?
Do you have any evidence about the Illyrian language? Don't throw me few words (that might be common in many IE languages anyway).

[Ushtari]

Do you have any evidence about the Illyrian language? Don't throw me few words (that might be common in many IE languages anyway).
It is commonly known that Albanian is either developed from illyrian or thracian, though most probably from illyrian.

[aherne]

Romanians are Romanized illyrians, dacians and thracians, ie a mix of different paleobalkan people.
And where did you got this "original thought" from. If I remember well, the only remnants of Romanized Illyrians were the Dalmatians and Dalmatian language is no less different from Romanian than Italian or Spanish (totally nonintelligible). Actually, Albanians are MOSTLY a mix of dacians/thracians and native Illyrians and Romanians are MOSTLY Thracian (thus very similar to Bulgarians), although both nations incorporate many more elements.

Linguists have long before demonstrated that Thracian and Illyrian were totally distinct languages, no more similar than Celtic and Germanic (all similarities dating back to common Aryan parent language). All linguistic evidence indicates Romanian substrate was same or closely related to Albanian language ancestor. Thus, either BOTH peoples descend from Illyrians or BOTH peoples descend from Thracians. To make Romanians native of modern day Yugoslavia (later displaced by Slavs into their current location) is an incredible stretch of imagination...

[Hess]

Silly Ushtari, thinking he can win an argument against an Aryan Warrior...

[Panopticon]

1. CM+Alpine I think
2. Dinarid
3. Dinarid+CM
4. Dinaro-Alpine

I don't believe I'm too accurate.

[Ushtari]

And where did you got this "original thought" from. If I remember well, the only remnants of Romanized Illyrians were the Dalmatians and Dalmatian language is no less different from Romanian than Italian or Spanish (totally nonintelligible).
Romanians are descendants of Roman colonizers who assimilated the indigenous people, ie illyrians, dacians and thracians.



Actually, Albanians are MOSTLY a mix of dacians/thracians and native Illyrians and Romanians are MOSTLY Thracian (thus very similar to Bulgarians), although both nations incorporate many more elements.
The original home of Albanians is considered to be northern Albania, stretching to Nish in modern serbia. And what people dominated in these areas? thats right, illyrians.



Linguists have long before demonstrated that Thracian and Illyrian were totally distinct languages, no more similar than Celtic and Germanic (all similarities dating back to common Aryan parent language).
Impossible to know since we dont have any writings, though many do indeed believe it, but in the same time, there are those who believe that illyrian and thracian were closely related.



All linguistic evidence indicates Romanian substrate was same or closely related to Albanian language ancestor. Thus, either BOTH peoples descend from Illyrians or BOTH peoples descend from Thracians.
Yes thats right.

One can not know exactly, since Thracians lived in the so called illyrian areas to. There was no boundaries, all lived with each other. In Albania for example, lived the Thracian bryges tribe. In kosovo(dardania) there was a lot of thracians also, together with Illyrians. So everything was mixed, therefor the whole thing is very unclear. Mayby we are Thracians who lived in illyria, not impossible, but still harder to argument for. Thats exactly whats being discussed today, ie wich balkan people is the ancestors of Albanians, and majority says Illyrians while others say Thracians/dacians. No one can prove, but all agree that the original home of Albanians is somewhere between Nish(moesia) - Dardania and northern Albania. Then if we are descendants of the illyrians or thracians/dacians who lived around these areas is still a riddle, wich i think will never be solved, nor disproved.

[Panopticon]

Albanian didn't derive from Thracian, grammatical features of Thracian were different from Albanian. Thracian placenames often ended with -para which is believed to have meant fortress, city or something like that. This is similar to German -burg, Serbian -grad and etc. In Albanian this however doesn't work. A city like Bessapara would have been para e Besseve in Albanian not Bessapara.

[Agrippa]

Dinaro-Alpinoid/Dinaro-Cromagnoid for the most part.

[Nurzat]

„romanians” is a big word... eastern, southern and western romanians have mostly different ancestors and the genetic testing let alone history proves it.

we can divide romania by the phenotypes and overall style of many cultural aspects as follows:
Central European - Crișana, Maramureș, Bucovina, Transylvania, Banat, Szekler Land
Eastern European - Moldavia, Northern Dobrudja
Balkanic - Oltenia, Muntenia, Central Dobrudja


Y chromosome analysis reveals a sharp genetic boundary in the Carpathian region.
Stefan M, Stefanescu G, Gavrila L, Terrenato L, Jobling MA, Malaspina P, Novelletto A.

Based on the affinities between populations in terms of haplogroup frequencies, this work identified the geographical region of the Carpathians as a break point in the gene geography of Eastern Central Europe, providing a finer definition of one of the possible sharp genetic changes between Western and Eastern Europe. [...] Our data indicated a low but not null rate of the homoplasic appearance of the DYZ3 (-) allelic state. All other markers confirmed the previously proposed phylogeny.

European Journal of Human Genetics 2001 Jan;9(1):27-33.

that DYZ3 (-) is a mongolic marker but at low frequency and only in Moldova (both the region in Romania and the country by the same name)

[aherne]

Romanians are descendants of Roman colonizers who assimilated the indigenous people, ie illyrians, dacians and thracians.
This is obviously incorrect, a lucridous argument invoked by 19th century nationalist "historians", the very same who polluted our language with French words (replacing already existing Slavic and even Latin stems). Their motivation was an inferiority complex (they wanted to import France into Romania), while the scientific quality of their history is so low that it has been rightfully mocked by nationalist Hungarian historians (who were at least competent in what they wrote).

How the most numerous people in Balkans rose will simply never be known, because no reliable source during proto-Romanian time-frame (500AD-1000AD) gives any hint of their presence. Latinate toponyms haven't survived neither North, nor South of Danube. Old placenames or river names are either Slavic or have been modified by Slavic speakers on BOTH sides of Danube, so it cannot be invoked as proof for either of the arguments. One notable exception the very river Danube, for which we have retained a native (probably Dacian), strongly indicating our place of birth was somewhere near that river.

The original home of Albanians is considered to be northern Albania, stretching to Nish in modern serbia. And what people dominated in these areas? thats right, illyrians.
This map indicates this is not true:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Paeonia%26Environs.jpg
In Drina river basin, Illyrians strongly predominated. In Danube (east of Morava) and Upper Vardar river basins, Thracians strongly predominated. The ethnic boundary was pretty clear. So the territory you are invoking was a mixed region.


Impossible to know since we dont have any writings, though many do indeed believe it, but in the same time, there are those who believe that illyrian and thracian were closely related.
Actually, there are surviving texts in Messapian language (spoken by Illyrians in Italy), which bares no more resemblance to Albanian than Irish:) This clearly indicates Albanian does not derive from Illyrian.

[Loki]

Albanians are illyrians.
http://i54.tinypic.com/9l90gk.jpg

This text is really interesting. Where is it from?

[Ushtari]

This is obviously incorrect, a lucridous argument invoked by 19th century nationalist "historians", the very same who polluted our language with French words (replacing already existing Slavic and even Latin stems). Their motivation was an inferiority complex (they wanted to import France into Romania), while the scientific quality of their history is so low that it has been rightfully mocked by nationalist Hungarian historians (who were at least competent in what they wrote).

How the most numerous people in Balkans rose will simply never be known, because no reliable source during proto-Romanian time-frame (500AD-1000AD) gives any hint of their presence. Latinate toponyms haven't survived neither North, nor South of Danube. Old placenames or river names are either Slavic or have been modified by Slavic speakers on BOTH sides of Danube, so it cannot be invoked as proof for either of the arguments. One notable exception the very river Danube, for which we have retained a native (probably Dacian), strongly indicating our place of birth was somewhere near that river.
The original home of Romanians is not their present territory, but further south where they also had contact with proto-Albanians. Romanians are descendants of those who got Romanized, and most probably a mix of illyrians, thracians and dacians, simple as that.



This map indicates this is not true:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Paeonia%26Environs.jpg
In Drina river basin, Illyrians strongly predominated. In Danube (east of Morava) and Upper Vardar river basins, Thracians strongly predominated. The ethnic boundary was pretty clear. So the territory you are invoking was a mixed region.
Interesting choice of source, but how about we look at what scholar says about this.
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/337/coastd.jpg
http://books.google.com/books?id=5pCBRsfJMv8C&lpg=PP1&dq=ancient%20indo%20european&pg=PA105#v=snippet&q=dardania&f=false


Actually, there are surviving texts in Messapian language (spoken by Illyrians in Italy), which bares no more resemblance to Albanian than Irish:) This clearly indicates Albanian does not derive from Illyrian.
Wrong, Messapian has been proven to not be related to illyrian.


"Other linguistic arguments which have been deployed in this Illyrian versus Thracian debate are more technical. Much ink has been spilt, for example, on the question of whether Illyrian was a satem language or a centum language. This is a traditional classification of all Indo-European languages according to their underlying patterns of consonant development. (The labels are taken from the Old Iranian and Latin for 'a hundred'.) Albanian is a satem language, and Thracian is thought to have been one too.Most scholars believed that Illyrian was a satem language, until linguists analysed the surviving inscriptions in Venetic, a language of north-eastern Italy which was assumed (on the authority of ancient authors) to be related to Illyrian. This turned out to be definitely centum, and persuaded some experts that the whole Illyrian group must therefore have been centum too - in which case Albanian could not have come from Illyrian. [43] However, more recent research has shown that Venetic had nothing to do with Illyrian. [44] (Similar problems caused by another language thought to be related to Illyrian, the Messapian language of southern Italy, have also been resolved in the same way.) [45] Illyrian was probably satem after all."
http://www.promacedonia.org/en/nm/kosovo.html




This text is really interesting. Where is it from?
From the book "Mountains of Giants: A Racial and Cultural Study of the North Albanian Mountain Ghegs" by Carleton S. Coon.

[Nurzat]

i share the same opinion - the romanians (vlachs) formed north and south of the danube, between the apuseni mountains and macedonia in greece. they later occupied present south-east, east, central and north romania and the assimilation was mostly linguistic in the east and the north

[aherne]

The original home of Romanians is not their present territory, but further south where they also had contact with proto-Albanians. Romanians are descendants of those who got Romanized, and most probably a mix of illyrians, thracians and dacians, simple as that.
This is an argument that used to be invoked by Hungarian nationalists. It is possible, but nothing more than pure speculation:
1. there is no proof of large scale migration from Moesia to Dacia during Dark Ages. Also this migration would have made little sense: semi-civilized people living as Roman or later Byzantine subjects moving amidst savage barbarians.
2. there is no greater concentration of latinate toponyms/rivernames south of Danube. The few opposite examples (Durmitor << Dormitor, Visitor << Vazator) can be answered with 10x as many examples North of Danube. Plus they all (both North and South of Danube) date back to ROMANIAN and were NOT transmitted from Roman times. What is abundantly clear is that Slavs forced their own namings upon up (regardless where we came from).

To be continued...

[Ushtari]

This is an argument that used to be invoked by Hungarian nationalists. It is possible, but nothing more than pure speculation:
1. there is no proof of large scale migration from Moesia to Dacia during Dark Ages. Also this migration would have made little sense: semi-civilized people living as Roman or later Byzantine subjects moving amidst savage barbarians.
2. there is no greater concentration of latinate toponyms/rivernames south of Danube. The few opposite examples (Durmitor << Dormitor, Visitor << Vazator) can be answered with 10x as many examples North of Danube. Plus they all (both North and South of Danube) date back to ROMANIAN and were NOT transmitted from Roman times. What is abundantly clear is that Slavs forced their own namings upon up (regardless where we came from).

To be continued...
Yes To be continued

[aherne]

So the main argument is that there is no real proof either for or against that Romanians came from Moesia. Even if that is true, Romanians are still a mixture of Dacians and Slavs. Placing their ancestry further away is very unlikely:
- Before Slavs came, Thrace & Macedonia was Greek speaking mainly even though Thracian was still spoken (as proven by the fact Slavs took the Thracian name of Pulpudeva instead of Greek Phillipollis, and the old name wasn't in official use since a long long time).
- Before Slavs came, Illyria was Romance speaking (as a matter of fact the most intensely Romanized province outside Italy: main authorities on Illyrian such as Jirecek and Russu agree on this) with very likely NO remnants of Illyrian speakers. Romanians keep a native name for Danube, which would make them descendants of... Pannonians. Highly unlikely and there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

Compared to other Romance peoples, Romanians kept the greatest amount of substrate (Dacian) words and strong Dacian influence in phonology and grammar. This is all because the short period of Romanization in Moesia (300 years), not to speak of Dacia (of which only half was under Roman rule and for only 170 years). Dalmatian, on the other hand was, excluding Yugoslav influence, purely Romance in vocabulary, phonology AND grammar.

As for Albanians, the highest probable alternatives is that they descend from Dardanians, who were mostly THracians (but with illyrian elements within) which also fits the fact that Slavs took names of Nish, Skopje, Shtip through Albanian.

[Ushtari]

So the main argument is that there is no real proof either for or against that Romanians came from Moesia. Even if that is true, Romanians are still a mixture of Dacians and Slavs. Placing their ancestry further away is very unlikely:
Romanians most probably lived further to the south earlier, where they had contact with proto-Albanians.

http://i54.tinypic.com/swbog4.jpg
http://books.google.com/books?id=5pCBRsfJMv8C&lpg=PP1&dq=ancient%20indo%20european%20dialects&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false


Only the remnants of a Latin-speaking population survived in parts of the central and west-central Balkans; when it re-emerges into the historical record in the tenth and eleventh centuries, we find its members leading a semi-nomadic life as shepherds, horse-breeders and travelling muleteers. These were the Vlachs, who can still be seen tending their flocks in the mountains of northern Greece, Macedonia and Albania today. [14] The name 'Vlach' was a word used by the Slavs for those they encountered who spoke a strange, usually Latinate, language; the Vlachs' own name for themselves is 'Aromanians' (Aromani). As this name suggests, the Vlachs are closely linked to the Romanians: their two languages (which, with a little practice, are mutually intelligible) diverged only in the ninth or tenth century. [15] While Romanian historians have tried to argue that the Romanian-speakers have always lived in the territory of Romania (originating, it is claimed, from Romanized Dacian tribes and/or Roman legionaries), there is compelling evidence to show that the Romanian-speakers were originally part of the same population as the Vlachs, whose language and way of life were developed somewhere to the south of the Danube. Only in the twelfth century did the early Romanian-speakers move northwards into Romanian territory. [16]
http://www.promacedonia.org/en/nm/kosovo.html




Compared to other Romance peoples, Romanians kept the greatest amount of substrate (Dacian) words and strong Dacian influence in phonology and grammar. This is all because the short period of Romanization in Moesia (300 years), not to speak of Dacia (of which only half was under Roman rule and for only 170 years). Dalmatian, on the other hand was, excluding Yugoslav influence, purely Romance in vocabulary, phonology AND grammar.
There is no proof of the substratum in Romanian being Dacian.




As for Albanians, the highest probable alternatives is that they descend from Dardanians, who were mostly THracians (but with illyrian elements within) which also fits the fact that Slavs took names of Nish, Skopje, Shtip through Albanian.
The original home of Albanians is considered to be northern Albania stretching to Nish, in southern Serbia. And in these areas illyrians were dominating. Besides, Dardania was a mix of thracians(in the east) and illyrians(in the west), with the latter dominating.

http://i53.tinypic.com/14ki3kp.jpg
http://books.google.com/books?id=5pCBRsfJMv8C&lpg=PP1&dq=ancient%20indo%20european%20dialects&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false

[poiuytrewq0987]

Classify em

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1585/adscn1189.jpg




One of my relatives look EXACTLY like him! :rotfl:

[aherne]

http://books.google.com/books?id=5pCBRsfJMv8C&lpg=PP1&dq=ancient%20indo%20european%20dialects&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false
Interesting. You are intellectually dishonest though. You automatically assume Albanians were native to the region they currently inhabit, thus Romanians HAD TO come from somewhere else. I can just as well claim the contrary. This is BY NO MEANS established. The very same article you have quoted also lists those following views:

[aherne]

The thing is, considering Romanians are six times more numerous than Albanians, their mass migration could not have escaped Byzantine sources. To account for their numbers, a WHOLE PROVINCE had to be emptied. No peasants to provide bread, no taxes, surely this would HAVE TO had a major impact upon Byzantines, who would not have allowed such a move anyway. Even if the whole of Moesia would have moved northwards (which is lucridous), the numbers would have been insufficient to Romanize the Dacian-Slavic population already present.

[Ushtari]

Interesting. You are intellectually dishonest though. You automatically assume Albanians were native to the region they currently inhabit, thus Romanians HAD TO come from somewhere else. I can just as well claim the contrary. This is BY NO MEANS established. The very same article you have quoted also lists those following views:
What you fail to understand(not that strange considering you havent read the book) is that Eric Hamp(the author) goes through different theories from various schoolars. And as you could see in the text, both Cimochowski and Stadtmüller have concluded that the original home of Albanians is somewhere between mat in northern Albania, stretching to Nish in southern Serbia. And as you also could have seen Cabej also agree with them and he also claim that Albanians continued the habitat of illyrian(supported by various scholars).

Besides, the text you referred to does by no means contradicts what we already know, on the contrary it only tells us what we know, ie that the Home of Albanians is somewhere in the Illyrian-Thracian contact zone(Dardania), stretching to northern Albania.

Other sources wich confirms this:


""What it suggests is that the Kosovo region, together with at least part of northern Albania, was the crucial focus of two distinct but interlinked ethnic histories: the survival of the Albanians, and the emergence of the Romanians and Vlachs.""
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8699791/Noel-Malcolm-Origins-Serbs-Albanians-and-Vlachs
http://www.promacedonia.org/en/nm/kosovo.html

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/49/sdawesese.jpg
http://books.google.com/books?id=XFtbEd1ojBsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+modern+grammar+of+indo+european&hl=en&ei=rO-2TaDfNYnQ4wag6oX6Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/4594/secondj.jpg
http://books.google.com/books?id=XFtbEd1ojBsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+modern+grammar+of+indo+european&hl=en&ei=rO-2TaDfNYnQ4wag6oX6Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Ushtari]

As for Albanians, the highest probable alternatives is that they descend from Dardanians, who were mostly THracians (but with illyrian elements within) which also fits the fact that Slavs took names of Nish, Skopje, Shtip through Albanian.
Really? all sources that i have read tells me that Dardania was pred. Illyrian with thracian elements, and not the other way around.


(Kosovo itself was part of the tribal land of the Dardanians, who almost certainly belonged to the Illyrian grouping.)[36]

36. Stipcevic, Iliri, p. 30 and n.; Mirdita, Studime dardane, pp. 7-46; Papazoglu, Central Balkan Tribes, pp. 210-69. As Papazoglu notes, most ancient sources classify Dardanians as Illyrians. Her reasons for rejecting this identification in a later essay, 'Les Royaumes', are obscure. There were Thracian names in the eastern strip of Dardania, but Illyrian names dominated the rest; Katicic has shown that these belong with two other Illyrian 'onomastic provinces' (see his summary in Ancient Languages, pp. 179-81, and the evidence in Papazoglu, 'Dardanska onomastika').

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/nm/kosovo.html#36.

[aherne]

What you fail to understand(not that strange considering you havent read the book) is that Eric Hamp(the author) goes through different theories from various schoolars. And as you could see in the text, both Cimochowski and Stadtmüller have concluded that the original home of Albanians is somewhere between mat in northern Albania, stretching to Nish in southern Serbia. And as you also could have seen Cabej also agree with them and he also claim that Albanians continued the habitat of illyrian(supported by various scholars).

Other "various scholars" support the opposite view (even in this pro-Albanian source of yours). Strangely missing in the list of scholars treating Albanians' ethnogenesis is Vladimir Georgiev, the greatest Thracologist who ever lived and certainly the most unbiased, whose arguments I hold in highest regard because everywhere I see utmost respect for reality and also no agenda to validate. He considers Albanians the living descendants of Dacian people.

Vladimir Georgiev (La toponymie ancienne de la péninsule Balkanique et al thèse méditerranéenne):

Whether the Albanians are the successors of the 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.

Now, however, when it is clear that Daco-Mysian and Thracian represent two different IE languages, the problem of the origin of the Albanian language and the Albanians themselves appears in quite a new light. The most important facts and considerations for determining the origin and original home of the Albanians are the following.

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.

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.

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. mazare = 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.

The above arguments are well known, but they have not been regarded as sufficient for a definitive solution of the problem. The most important fact to be revealed has been the separation of Daco-Mysian from Thracian. It has thus been established that the phonemic system of Albanian is descended directly from the Daco-Mysian.

Let us consider some examples. 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]


Contrast this flawless argumentation to your "source", where Romanians migrated from Moesia (in order to account Middle-Bulgarian borrowings) to Dardania (in order to explain "Albanian borrowings", even though these "borrowings" show a sound pattern that clearly dates back to a period BEFORE ROMANIZATION when ancestors of both peoples spoke dialects of one language). Using the same argument, since 19th century they have lived in France, to account for the massive borrowings in Modern Romanian:)

One easy way to prove authors' lack of credibility is their basic ignorance of Romanian history:
- Bulgarian has been official language in Romanian countries up until 16th century and its influence dates back to 8th century, when the whole of Romania was conquered by Bulgarian tsars. Wherever Romanians lived or used to live (Transcarpatia) one finds "Bulgarian" toponyms (bistrita) side by side with Romance (repedea, alba, neagra) and Dacian (magura, bucura, chicera). There are several layers of Bulgarian influence in Middle Romanian, most coming from the long period of coabitation between Romance and Slavic speakers. They have proven most difficult to eradicate by Latinist purifiers, because their history is as old as our people. The other layer dates back to influences of Church Slavonic via the church or the administration. They have been swept away most easily, because they were seldom used. Continuing Bulgarian influence in Romanian is natural given that Danube became a clear ethnic border only by 16th century and needs no other explanation.

[Ushtari]

I have now provided different sources, all claiming the same thing, ie that the original home of Albanians is somewhere between northern albania, stretching to nish(serbia), wich was pred. Illyrian. Yet you think you know better and keep telling yourself that somehow its different?

And Georgiev think that our original home is the Dardanian region, wich again, according to most scholars was pred. illyrian.

[Ushtari]

Eric hamp :


Eric hamp he indicates there are words that follow Dalmatian phonetic rules in Albanian giving as an example the word drejt 'straight' < d(i)rectus matching Old Dalmatian traita < tract….
there are more examples of plausible links between Illyrian names and Albanian words than there are in the case of Thracian (though there are some of both, and some names were common to the two ancient languages). Most of these relate to place-names in the area of central and northern Albania, such as the river Mat (Alb.: mat, river-
bank) or the town of Ulqin or Ulcinium (Alb.: ujk or ulk, wolf), or indeed the early name for the Kosovo area, Dardania' (Alb.: dardhe, pear).

the towns of Shkodra, Drisht, Lezha, Shkup(Skopje) and perhaps Shtip (Stip, south-east of Skopje) - follow the pattern of continuous Albanian development from the Latin… Noel malcom, eric hamp.
Its true that Albanian mostly have loans from innerland latin, rather then coastal latin(dalmatian). But did illyrians only lived at the coast? did Dardanians lived at the coast? Noel Malcolm gives an logic explenation wich contradicts your(aherne) statement:


"A pastoral population might have lived only 50 miles inland in the Albanian mountains without having any contact
with fishing or sailing; it is not necessary to push its location eastwards all the way to Thrace. Of course Illyrians did once live on the coast, and would presumably have had their own maritime vocabulary. But if Illyrian survived as Albanian, it did so only by means of physical contraction, withdrawal and isolation, which naturally would have taken place in mountain terrain. This is why the purest element of Albanian vocabulary refers to mountains, high-altitude plants and shepherding: the point is not that the proto-Albanians had never lived any other sort of life, but that the only ones who survived as Albanian-speakers did so precisely because that was the sort of isolated and independent life they led, probably for several centuries. The Illyrians who lived on the coastal plains were Romanized, like the ones on the Dalmatian coast and indeed in most areas of Yugoslavia. By the time the Slavs began arriving in the sixth century, there were only scattered pockets of speakers of the old 'barbarian' languages left anywhere in the Balkans, and all of them were in mountainous regions."
http://www.promacedonia.org/en/nm/kosovo.html


You must understand that illyrians did not only lived at the coast. Illyrian tribes streched all the way to Nish, and there are no coast there, right? neither Nish or Dardania. In these areas innerland Latin was spoken and these areas were inhabited with illyrians, dacians and thracians. The kosovo region specifically and serbia was the area were logically, proto-albanians have had contact with proto-romanians. And thats the place were they lived before the slavic expansion. And as i have said earlier, there is no proof of the substratum in Romanian being Dacian, why cant you understand it? both you and i knows this. Also, none of us can know certainly what connection Dacian, thracian and illyrian had. Related languages?


The book "A Grammar of Modern Indo-European, Second Edition: Language and Culture "

arcaoelogy has more cinvicingly point province of praevitania modern northern albania wich shows an area where primarily shpherding, transhumance population of illyrians retained their culture.

This study http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/press/pv200805-en.html

says:

According to the central hypothesis of a project undertaken by the Austrian Science Fund FWF, Old Albanian had a significant influence on the development of many Balkan languages. Intensive research now aims to confirm this theory.
The researchers are following various leads which suggest that Albanian played a key role in the Balkan Sprachbund. For example, it is likely that Albanian is the source of the suffixed definite article in Romanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian, as this has been a feature of Albanian since ancient times.

This further reinforce that proto-albanian have been spoken in a much larger geographical area, since we have influenced other languages.

[Panopticon]

Also, Shkodër from Scodra does seem to follow Alb. Phonetics. Scupi became Shkupi, the Latin word for fish "Piscis" became "Peshk". As a rule Sc- became either Shk- or Sh-. Shk- as proved by Scodra-Shkodër, Scupi-Shkupi and Piscis-Peshk, Sc-Sh proven by the mountain range in Macedonia the Sharr mountains, which came from Scodrus. The South-Slavic also call it Sharr, however this does not follow their phonetic laws as Scodra became Skadar, proving that they took "Sharr" from us and that this fits Albanian phonetic laws very well.

There is also certain Albanian similarities with Dalmatian and Hercegovinian words that are most likely from the same source (Dalmatia itself is related to the Albanian word for Sheep "delm", as we know the Dalmatians were known as shepherds). Kanga and ganga both stem from Latin "Canticum" meaning song, these are closer to each other than Romanian cântec. They also use the word Kalce for horses related to Albanian "Kal" as far as I know. You guys should check up Ganga btw, very similar to Albanian polyphonic singing.

[aherne]

Also, Shkodër from Scodra does seem to follow Alb. Phonetics. Scupi became Shkupi, the Latin word for fish "Piscis" became "Peshk". As a rule Sc- became either Shk- or Sh-. Shk- as proved by Scodra-Shkodër, Scupi-Shkupi and Piscis-Peshk, Sc-Sh proven by the mountain range in Macedonia the Sharr mountains, which came from Scodrus. The South-Slavic also call it Sharr, however this does not follow their phonetic laws as Scodra became Skadar, proving that they took "Sharr" from us and that this fits Albanian phonetic laws very well.

There is also certain Albanian similarities with Dalmatian and Hercegovinian words that are most likely from the same source (Dalmatia itself is related to the Albanian word for Sheep "delm", as we know the Dalmatians were known as shepherds). Kanga and ganga both stem from Latin "Canticum" meaning song, these are closer to each other than Romanian cântec. They also use the word Kalce for horses related to Albanian "Kal" as far as I know. You guys should check up Ganga btw, very similar to Albanian polyphonic singing.
Your arguments are not bullshit, but Georgiev as well as other sources clearly speak of several levels of Romance influence. The oldest one is proto-Romanian: (lucta >> RO: lupta, AL: luftë). The following one is Dalmatian (directum >> RO: drept, AL: dreit). Sound laws always follow a consistent pattern: pt cannot both become "ft" and "it", so either:
1. Albanian was initially in Illyro-Roman realm and then came under strong Thraco-Roman influence. Very unlikely hypothesis, not shared by any historian.
2. Albanian was initially in Thraco-Roman realm and then came under strong Illyro-Roman influence. Very likely hypothesis because even historians who argue Albanians' home are the Gheg mountains admit that maritime lowlands were Dalmatian speaking.

Thus, assuming your argument is correct, why would the Illyro-Romance from Gheg mountains have proto-Romanian features, whereas the Illyro-Romance from Gheg plains have proto-Dalmatian features? Substratum has been the driving influence in creating distinctions between Latin-derived languages, because natives always had to approximate Latin to their own language up until they spoke a corrupted form of Latin. Why would the same substratum yield languages as distinct as Romanian and Dalmatian, who were as different as Romanian and Italian and totally unintelligible? This alone speaks of different substrata, plus the fact that Romanians have always been found in THRACIAN former territory. As with other facts, this undeniably indicates Albanians' home was further east, within Thraco-Romance, then penetrated westwards within Illyro-Romance.

[Ushtari]

This alone speaks of different substrata, plus the fact that Romanians have always been found in THRACIAN former territory. As with other facts, this undeniably indicates Albanians' home was further east, within Thraco-Romance, then penetrated westwards within Illyro-Romance.
Are you illiterate?(yes im dead serious)

The fact that Albanian and Romanian share similarities speaks for a close contact, wich must have happened in Dardania-Moesia, wich stretch from Kosovo-Serbia. This does not mean Albanians didn't live in Albania, but simply lived in a much larger geographical area, since we have influences from Dalmatian Latin and earlier from Doric Greek.

I want you to take a close look into the following text wich suggest that proto-Albanian was spoken in a much larger geographical area.


However, they can also shed light on the reciprocal relationship between Albanian and its neighbouring languages. The researchers are following various leads which suggest that Albanian played a key role in the Balkan Sprachbund. For example, it is likely that Albanian is the source of the suffixed definite article in Romanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian, as this has been a feature of Albanian since ancient times.
http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/public_relations/press/pv200805-en.html


I have provided Several (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=398903&postcount=26) sources confirming the home of Albanians is northern Albania + Dardanian region, yet you keep telling yourself its different?


Need i continue?

[Siginulfo]

1 = Robust Alpinoid+Dinarid (Carpathid approximation).
2 = Robust Dinarid+Med.

I don't see the other two.

[Amun]

1. Dinarid/Alpine
2. Dinarid/CM

i can't see the rest of the photos