[tied] Re: Albanian origins and much more

>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.******

What you said here is something like this:

"Some Albanian wordloans (I supposed:showing a:>o?) were loaned
Only by the Albanian Substratum (when this later one was independent:
so it was a distinct Language) other Loans were loaned (I supposed:
showing Lat a:>Alb.a?) by the Albanian Main Layer ..."

But with this explanation you ignore the FACT that we have BOTH
Pre-Romanian a:>Alb.o and Doric Grk. a:> Alb.o and Pre-Romanians
wasn't placed nearby Greeks (based on the number of Old Greek Loans
in Romanian) -> so the PAlb transformation a:>o cannot be Linked ONLY
to a 'supposed' Albanian Substratum (place on the Greek borders)
because it Applies either to Pre-Romanian words('ra:tsja','ma:dzula')
as to the Greeks loans too (and Pre-Romanians and Greeks wasn't
neigboors (based on the number of Old Greek loans in Romanian)...

So your assertion is false related to PAlb a:>o transformation,
and my argumentation showing that Albanian ancestors was nearby Greek
borders before Roman arrival in Balkans is true.

Only The Best,
Marius

P.S. I understood that you "don't like" my conclusion, but you need
to add arguments to sustain your opposite idea otherwise these kind
of assertions remain only : a "wishfull thinking"...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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