[tied] Re: illyrian lexicon or inventory

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> 15-11-03 01:25, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
>
> > No we don't. But, it is not a reason to not treat Illyrian as

satem,

> > or Albanian, or Slavic languages, isn't it?
> > At least, this problem was solved, concerning Illyrian, thanks to
> > Cimohowsky (see message "Illyrian as satem").
>
> Albanian is Satem, because *k^ becomes <th> and *g^(H) becomes <dh>

also

> in non-palatalising environments. Cimochowski didn't "solve"

anything as

> regards the status of Illyrian. There's so little data that the

very

> term "Illyrian" is almost devoid of any concrete meaning. If

Messapic

> was a form of Illyrian, well, then Illyrian wasn't Satem, and it

wasn't

> a close cousin of Albanian. If Illyrian was something else, we

don't

> know what it was. We have a handful of proper names without a

certain

> etymology. The identification of Illyrian with Proto-Albanian has

no

> factual basis -- it's just an exercise in wishful thinking.
>
> Piotr

************
The non-identification of Illyrian with Proto-Albanian, as Radoslav
Katichich claims, is just a scientific excursion.

Konushevci