Re: Dacian - /H/ -> seems possible

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

> 07-12-03 05:17, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
>
> > I think that Albanian-Romanian concordances are misused, mostly

by

> > political reasons, to deny the autochtony of Albanians in today
> > territories and of the Romanians in their territories too. Such
> > misuse is present even today.
>
> Look 'ere, Abdullah. It's one thing to disagree with somebody

because

> you prefer a different interpretation of the linguistic evidence,

and

> it's a different thing to insinuate that you opponent has political
> motives. It's the favourite stratagem of all autochthonists when

they

> run out of other arguments. Thus, anyone who doesn't believe that

PIE

> was spoken in the Indus Valley will be called a "Eurocentrist" or

an

> "Aryan invasionist" by Indian autochthonists (and Roger Pearson's
> neo-Nazi sympathies will of course be dragged out of the closet).

Since

> charity begins at home, I should perhaps mention those Polish
> autochthonists who might call me a black sheep and a puppet of

German

> revanchists for not thinking Poland was the Proto-Slavic homeland.
>
> As it happens, it's precisely this irrational obsession with

autochthony

> that prevents people from thinking rationally and nourishes

political

> propaganda. No linguist worth the name would want to "deny" the
> Albanians anything or, for that matter, "grant" them anything just

to

> please them. I don't care a brass farthing about any nation's
> autochthony since time out of mind, since I'm just a historian of
> language and have no political agenda to promote. Aggressive

nationalism

> is disgusting and defensive nationalism is embarrassing; both are
> foolish. Very few languages are spoken nowadays in exactly the same
> areas where their ancestral stages were spoken twenty centuries

ago --

> and who should care anyway? If you think I have some kind of

political

> bias, I'm interested to know what on earth it might be. I'm not

aware of

> any such bias myself.
>
> As a matter of fact, I don't even deny the autochthony of Albanians

(not

> since time immemorial, to be sure, but since the Roman period) in

areas

> that are now Albanian-speaking, irrelevant as this autochthony is

to

> modern political disputes. For example, I include at least parts of
> Kosovo, Macedonia and perhaps northeastern Albania in the

approximate

> area where Proto-Albanian developed (in linguistic symbiosis with
> Proto-Balkan Romance). That won't satisfy you, I suppose, since you
> insist on the full identification of Proto-Albanian with Illyrian

and on

> Albanian autochthony all along the Adriatic coast -- something

that's

> hard to accept for linguistic reasons.
>
> > V. Georgiev's theory is outdated, as you may see from many

messages

> > also in Cybalist.
>
> Just for the record, I'm not a disciple of Georgiev's. Georgiev is
> simply wrong on many counts. For example, his theory that Etruscan

was

> an IE language closely related to Luwian and Lydian is absolutely
> untenable. Many of his Balkan etymologies and toponymic analyses

are

> arbitrary and fanciful. While all that is true, I think his

argument

> about Albanian being related to Dacian rather than Illyrian is

basically

> sound.
>
> > I think that as was Albanian and Romanian close related, also
> > Illyrian and Dacian was too, even we know so little about both of
> > them.
> > There are much arguments in favor of Albanian as dialect of

Illyrian.

> > But, it's up to you do you accept it or not.
>
> Where are those arguments? So far, you've only given us an

alphabetic

> list of ancient "Illyrian" placenames, showing that their

phonological

> form has been transformed by Albanian sound changes. Well, that's

what

> we should expect anyway, since the sound changes in question are
> post-Roman and would have affected any word borrowed during the

early

> Middle Ages. Some of the most celebrated placename studies

allegedly

> demonstrating the Illyrian-Albanian continuity (Dyrrachium,

Ulcinium

> etc.) are so flawed that they can actually be used as arguments
> _against_ such continuity.
>
> Piotr

************
Look here, Piotr. You like to accuse me and any linguist who think
like me that we like to enforce Illyrian-Albanian continuum as,
probably, nationalist, autochthonist or the hell know what not just
to cut off every discussion about this issue, without giving any
sound counterarguments.
I claim, based in facts, that in Albanian is common, to not say,
proverbial, aphaeresis of unstressed vowels at the beginning of the
words and I based it in many examples:

Lat. amicu > Alb. mik `friend',
Lat. Apriles > Alb. prill,
Lat. Augustus > Alb. gusht `august',
Lat. avunculs > ungj `uncle'
Greek anaphora > naforë `communion bread', etc.

Based in those arguments, I claim also that this is too
characteristic on place names, probably of Illyrian origin:

AVLONA > Alb. VLONA/VLORA (form Avlona is attested in first Osmanish
documents, written, for important cities, by very high Persian
educated scholars, based probably in much older Byzantine scripts.
Interested ones may found this also in the Goggle, noted by Halil
Inalcik, one of the best scholar of Osmanish). It is in use by non-
Albanians also romanised form Valona. I think that this place name
also could be explained by Albanian appellative <i ul-të> `low' (cf.
<ul-të-sinë> `lowland, valley') , derived from PIE *aulos `tube,
hole'. Indeed form its zero-grade form *ulos-. And Valona/Vlora is
really posited in the lowland, in the valley and through it goes one
of most strategic and important channel in the Mediterranean Sea -
Otranto.

For the same reason, we may claim that also attested city name
ASTIBOS get its name SHTIP through aphaeresis of unstressed /a/ and
through evolution /st/ > /sht/ charcteristic for Albanian.

This force me to claim too that also AENONA (today) > NIN and OSINIUM

> SINJ have these forms due to Albanian soundlaw. About treating the –

ona element by Slavic language as –IN, see: NARONA > Norin, SKARDONA

> Skradin, SALONA > Solin, etc. Collective plural –INI- in OSINIUM is

also present in: Olc-INI-on/Ulc-INI-um, Rhiz-INI-on (also Rhizana),
Germ-INI-um, Delm-INI-on, etc.

And which are your linguistic objections?

Konushevci