Re: [tied] Re: Albanian origins and much more

--- alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>
>
> What I found strange is that somebody arrives in
> an interview and
> make some assertions without any argument...

*****GK: Newspaper interviews aren't exactly the best
venue for scientific arguments. What you usually get
are assertions and if you're lucky some reference to
sources or authorities that back them up. So there's
really nothing suprising here.****

>
> On the other side we have some clear linguistic
> facts:
>
> 1. Older Greeks Loans in Albanian (Like: Doric
> Greek a: > Alb o
> similar with PAlb a: > Rom. a <-> Alb o) shows an
> Older treatement
> than the Albanian treatement of the Latin Loans
> (Lat. a: > Alb a).
> This is a fact: so is above all doubts. Based on
> it we can easy
> assert that (sorry that I repeat this but reading
> such assertions as
> above is better to repeat it 100 times if needed):
> Albanians was in contact with Greeks before
> Latin Arrival in
> Balkan.

****GK: All you can really say is that whatever
language borrowed from Greek (or was closely related
thereto) and subsequently evolved into an aspect of
Albanian did the "borrowing" before the Latin
influence arrived. The problem here is that you can't
say with certainty that it is constituted "Albanians"
who contacted in this way, rather than some substrate
component later adopted by Albanians.******

Where this contact with Greeks before 'Roman

> arrival in
> Balkans' could take place? In Transylvania? Of
> course, not.
> This clear shows us that Albanians ancestors
> were nearby Greek's
> borders in sec. III BC (because in 165 BC the Romans
> already occupied
> Skodra).

******GK: Again, this might be an argument for the
substrate component, but I don't think anybody would
deny that some BC populations of the Balkans were
absorbed into the later Albanian ethnicity.******

>
> 2. Dacian - Albanian similarities are more than
> simple
> coincidences:

*****GK: Which suggests that Dacian would have been an
important substrate component of Albanian. Dacian, of
course, did not border on Greek.*****

> Note: We have a 'Thermidava' attested by Ptolemeu
> at 10 km nearby
> Skodra.

*****GK: This proves nothing, as earlier pointed out
(and can be pointed out 100 additional times if
necessary)******

> In conclusion: is very probable that Albanian
> represents a Dacian
> Dialect (with an Illyrian Substratum) and also is
> almost sure that
> Albanians arrives nearby Greek' borders at least in
> sec. III B.C.

*****GK: What is your argument for an "Illyrian"
substratum, rather than something else? I wouldn't
deny an Illyrian component on historical grounds (Or
Paeonian, or Epirote). Dacian is certainly in the
picture. But on what basis does one definitively
decide which was more important?*****




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com