Re: Dnghu.org and "Modern" Indo-European

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Abdullah Konushevci schrieb:
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you explain your ideas on Illyrian?
> > > Was it closely related to Dacian &/or Thracian?
> > > Or is enough known to tell?
> > > Do you see Dacian and Thracian as very close or not?
> > > What is the consensus on Macedonian? Closer to Greek?
> > > or to Illyrian? or Thracian/Dacian?
> > ************
> > My view about Illyrian was firstly based on Cimochowski's and this
> > issue was thoroughly discussed on Cybalist. So, I think that Illyrian,
> > like Albanian, was satem language with centum characteristics: same
> > treatment of palatals before liquids and nasals and before *u/*i >
> > s/z, same outcomes of long and short voweles: *o > a, *o: > e, *a > a,
> > *a: > o etc.
> > If Thracian is fully satem language without any centum
> > characteristics, I think that they are related just on this aspect,
> > but otherwise not, even according to Paliga we could talk about
> > Illyro-Thracian branch.
> > Due to many Albanian-Romanian isoglosses, that predate Greek and Latin
> > loans in Albanian, I think that Dacian was Illyrian dialect, till
> > Macedonian was partly or fully Helenized.
> >
> > Konushevci
>
> if Dacian was an Illyrian dialect, then there is a big wonder why
> the Dacian names do not follow the Illrian way of nomina. There is a
> big difference between the not compounded antoroponims of the
> Illirian and the compounded one of the Dacians and of the Thracians.
> We see there is a difference in composita and the Dacian/Thracian
> appears to haven an another structure as the Illyrian ( I want to
> remember we know the therm "Illyrian" is pretty confuse here).
> to make it short:
> - Illyrian appears to be different from Dacian/Thracian
> - Romanian and Albanian have a certain number of common lexica
>
>
> how can one know if the common words are Illyrian or of
> Dacian/Thracian origin? So far I know there is still a lot of
> darkness in this part of the story.
>
> Alex

************
Yes, there is a little darkness in this part of the story, till you
read carefully "An Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Indo-European
Language', revised version of "Indogermanisches
EtymologischesWörterbuch" by Pokorny. I hope you will read it once and
probably you will have much clear vision.
As you know from my posts in Balkanika, there is not only a huge
amount of common isoglosses, but as well of hydronyms and toponyms.
Furthermore, exactly in compounds I saw unbroken syntax.
If you agree that basic words for 'head, neck', 'lips', 'throat',
'gullet' can't be a loans from Albanian, then you may came as well to
same conclusion.

Konushevci