"Moreover, you scorned our people, and compared the Albanese to sheep, and according to your custom think of us with insults. Nor have you shown yourself to have any knowledge of my race. Our elders were Epirotes, where this Pirro came from, whose force could scarcely support the Romans. This Pirro, who Taranto and many other places of Italy held back with armies. I do not have to speak for the Epiroti. They are very much stronger men than your Tarantini, a species of wet men who are born only to fish. If you want to say that Albania is part of Macedonia I would concede that a lot more of our ancestors were nobles who went as far as India under Alexander the Great and defeated all those peoples with incredible difficulty. From those men come these who you called sheep. But the nature of things is not changed. Why do your men run away in the faces of sheep?"
Letter from Skanderbeg to the Prince of Taranto ▬ Skanderbeg, October 31 1460

Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallakast)

Në këtë nën-frorum do të hidhen të gjithë ato artikuj apo shkrime që marrin në analizë historine kulturën dhe gjuhën tonë. Në të nuk do të mungojnë dhe shkrime të tjera lidhur me aspekte te tjera të jetës dhe botës qe na rrethon.

Moderator: Hymniarber

User avatar
ALBPelasgian
Galactic Member
Galactic Member
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Prishtinë (Prima Justiniana)
Contact:

Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallakast)

#1

Post by ALBPelasgian » Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:43 pm

Pershendetje vellezer,

Me nje vonese ndoshta te pafalshme, po e hedh shkrimin qe e pata premtuar kahere per t'i dhene fund keqkuptimeve te qellimshme rreth origjines se shqiptareve e shqipes. Nji kujdes te vecante i kam kushtuar shkaterrimit te hipotezes dake - qe meton t'i beje shqiptaret si ardhes te njekohshem ne Shqiperi me sllavet.

Materiali eshte ne anglisht, meqe i drejtohet nje audience anglishtfolese. Nje lajm i gezueshem eshte fakti qe kam arritur ta funksionalizoj faqen time http://www.albpelasgian.com, me ç'rast do t'i mbledh shkrimet e dikurshme, si dhe do te shtoj shkrime te reja. Shkrimin metoj ta mbareshtroj ne forme dekonstruktimi ku si titull ka ''frequently asked questions for Albanians''. Sidoqofte, une po e hedh draftin e pare te shkrimit. Mund te kete gabime drejtshkrimore, por me to do te merrem me vone. Do te doja qe ky shkrim te plotesohet nga ju ne vendet ku ka me shume nevoje. Rolin e Mallakastriotit e shoh ne plotesimin me te dhena e verejtje te ndryshme ne rastet kur permenden burimet e para per shqiptaret, ceshtjet qe kane te beje me toponimin dhe etnonimin Arber/Arberi. Rolin e Zeusit e gjej ne elaborimin e karakterit centum/satem te shqipes, perderisa Bardus mund te jap kontribut te disa perkime fonetike mes ilirishtes dhe shqipes (shih pjesa te Krechmeri) si dhe te ceshtja e shnderrrimit te shumeperfolur sk>h.


What are the main theories regarding the origin of Albanians?

The origin of Albanians has given rise to a good deal of discussion. Indeed there is a proliferation of studies meddling with certain issues on modern Albanians. Unfortunately, many writers tend to obscure a pivotal aspect - that of Albanian ethnogensis. Ever since XVIII-th century, the origin of Albanians has been on the center of attention of researchers. Many theories henceforth have been put forth regarding the possible predecessors of Albanians. The most long-standing theory is the Illyrian one, according to which Albanians are the direct offspring of Illyrians, who used to live in the northern fringes of ancient Greek world. Some scholars took as their point of departure the very fact that no major migration has been noticed in the territories seated by the antecedents of Albanians. As a matter of fact, many scholars have long sniffed that Albanians primarily sprung from the ancient Illyrians who did not succumb either to alieniation. The first known proponents of Illyrian theory were Th. Kavaliotis (1790), followed by the Thumman, then a historian of highest standing. Both of them alike contended that Albanians stretch their origin back to Illyrians who were sheltered in the remote and rugged mountains of modern Albania.


Did Illyrians vanish from the historical scene?


The great uphavel which tormented most of Balkans during the decline of Roman Empire, surely affected the demography of Balkans. Since IIIth century A.D, marauding tribes of Germanic speaking family appeared in the nearby of northerly frontiers of Byzantium. The gradual weakeness of Byzantium further increased the incursions of Gothic tribes which spilled into Byzantine controlled areas. Byzantine armies could not handle the warlike Gothic groups. However, the most devastating campaign was that of Hunic tribes who ravaged most of Illyria, Thrace as far as Hellas. A powerful stream of indigenious population who once used to live in Danube areas was propelled to migrate further in south. The Byzantine cities of western Adriatic received large influxes of Illyrians who were driven by Huns. Another stream of refugees found aslyum in the city of Thessalonica. Slavic tribes put an end to the process of migrations: indeed their settlements were the most enduring of all which in turn switched drastically the ethnic make-up of Balkans. The authority of Byzantium ceased in most of Balkans which was engulfed by slavic settlements. Byzantine sources have detailed this situation pretty accurately: Slavic tribes established their Sklavinoi mainly in the lands of disposed Illyrians. It is particularly important to note that the proportion of the Slavic incursion was not nearly so great as to replace the original population which fled in south. When the Byzantine authority was reasserted in western Balkans, it may be safely stated that the Illyrian element remerged from the turbulence of VI-VII centuries quite stabilized throughut western Balkans in terms of numbers and cultural cohesion. The wholesale displacement of Illyrians from northern areas contributed to restitution of more Illyrian character of south-easten Balkans which was kept by the cities and immediate mountanious regions occupied by chiefly pastroal Illyrian population. It may be stated that even the Justinian's fortress buliding program was responsible for the salvation of Illyrian preeminence of Western Balkans. Judging from the place-names as well as other linguistic vestiges, it seems likely that Dardania, Prevalitania, Epirus Nova and Epirus Vetus were the least affected by the Slavic outporing. Though a part of Illyrians was superficially veneered with Roman culture, as time went by the veneer tended to disappear. Both archeologists and historians have observed that Illyrian population reasserted its distinct identity in a time when Roman authority was greatly weakened. The Illyrian theory laid its foundation on the seemingly irrefutable premises:

1. There was no major migration towards southern Illyrian lands;
2. There was not any wholesale replacment of population;
3. A seemingly non-Romanized and non-Slavizied ethnic group survived and kept alive its distinct language.

How is Albanian linked with ancient tongues spoken in Balkans?

The Danish historian and geographer, Conrad Malte Brun has the merit for enriching the evidences which seem to make the Illyrian theory very plausible. He went on to explain a good deal of ancient geographical names of Balkans with Albanian. Brun held that Dardani, Parthini, Delmati may be linked with alb. ,,dardhe'' (pear), ,,bardhe'' (white), ''delme'' (sheep) and so on. Such etimologies were well-received by later researchers who further enriched this list. The most detailed account on Illyro-Albanian connection is that of storied Austrian scholar, J von Hahn. His incisive work ''Albanische Studien' offers an insightful take on the history of Albanians by scrutinizing linguistics, ethnology, anthropology as well as historical sources. Being well-versed with ancient Greek and Roman sources, Hahn averred that Illyrians never ceased their existence. A part of them known as Albanoi kept intact their identity. These Albanoi was first recorded by the Claudi Ptolemy - an Alexandrine geographer - who placed them n the nearby of Dyrachium. He corroborated the very fact that Byzantine sources mentioned Arbanitai in the same areas, a fact which amount to the continous existence of Illyrians in modern day Albania.

IS there any archaeological evidence to support the Illyrian theory?

However, the Illyrian studies were on stand-still down to the XX-th century when first systematic archaeological campaigns begun. Archaeoligsts have yielded an abudance of material evidences which enabled historians to reconstruct a more satisaftorily theoritical framework on Illyrians and devise some general patterns. In the late XIX-th century, in northern Albania was discovered a distinct type of cultures named conventionally as ''Komani culture'' (according to its main location in Puke region/modern northern Albania). From the archaeological remains on cemetries, burial practices as well as material artefacts and the type of settlements, it followed that Illyrians were least tarnished by the outside influences. However, their identity acquired new elements as a result of Christianization which in turn brought a new perception of local Illyrians. Nonetheless, many questions were left unanswered. While the majority of scholars were inclined to accept the carriers of this culture as being Illyrians, the linguistic affinities of them have long tantalized their focus. A hypothesis had that these Illyrians were profusely Romanized long before Slavs crept in Balkans. This view was later amplified by some scholars who drew the attention to the chronicle of Byzantine Emperor, Constandine Porphyrogenitus who dealt also with the impact of Slavic settlements in western fringes of Byzantine Empire. He devised the term ''Romani'' (as descendants of migrants which were brought from Rome by Diocletian). According to him, ''Romani'' once used to live as far as Danube but as the time went on, they were driven in coastal cities of Dalmatia. He further mentioned ''Romania'' - a thoroughly Roman stronghold in western Balkans. If that hunch is correct, then the claim of Romanized population of northern Albania would be fully justified. However, a more clear-eyed investigation might clarify many things. First and foremost, Porphyrogenitus did not define the boundaries of this ''Romania'', which apparantely was far away from present Albanian territory. He said nothing of their ethnic affinities, though it may be rightly surmised that many of them were bilinguals. Noel Malcolm, a prominent scholar, has argued that the proof of Roman names of individuals doesn’t indicate any ethnic identity. He goes unto to say that it’s quite possible to talk of names as kind of cultural layer beneath of which is concealed one’s ethnic identity. Wilkes who has pored some doubt if Comani-Kruja Culture represents a truly non-Romanized Illyrian community, asserted that “the persistence of native names and other traditions tends to be judged as an indication of the superficiality and weakness of Roman influence”. Thus, the argument of Romanization of southern Illyrians falls short of convincing. Wilkes also underscores the importance of fact that ‘Roman influence was not present when there is no evidence of this sort, and many Illyrian communities fall into this category”.

What are the main linguistic arguments which support the Illyrian thesis?

Paul Kretchmer was the first linguist who established a well-principled stance on Illyrian affiliation of Albanian. In his impeccable book ''Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache'', he built his claims not on scattershot resemblances but on consistent patterns of linguistic transformation. The German linguist was firm on believing that ‘die albanesische Sprache die jungste Phase des Altillyrischen oder’’. He reiterates the importance of national name of Albanians – Albanoi who were placed by Claudi Ptolemy in the nearby of Macedonian cantons of Almopia and Orestia. Kretchmer place a special emphasis on the very fact that the name ‘Arbenia’ was applied by the Byzantines for the same areas. Some bearing on this discussion had also the inscriptions of the Illyrian tribe in southern Italy – Messapi. It is already settled down that Messapic might be well classified as Illyrian considering linguistic and archeological links with Illyria. Given that its vestiges are numerous, linguists pointed out several features which speak favourably on its relation with Albanian. Kretchmer asserted that both Messapian and Illyrian converge on the treatment of diphthong /-au/ which in turn yields in /-a/. His assertion was corroborated by numerous examples such as the city Basta from Βαῦστα (Ptolem. III 1, 76), etc. Another pertinent common feature is the treatment of palatals between Albanian and Messapian. He exemplified his point with Barzidihi, to whom he compared with alb. Bard-i (white). Accordingly, the mess. z stands for Illyr. and Alb. D. Kretchmer mention also some lexical corrospondences between Alb. And Messapian such as: mess. Βρένδιον ‘χεφαλή τοῦ έλάφου’ = alb. bri-ni (horn); Menzana = alb. Mes, fem. Meze, roman. Manz. Some scholars feigned agnosticism regarding the Illyrian ancestry of Albanian. They averred that the evidence of Illyrian is frustratingly sparse as no written document has come to the limelight. Much of what is left from Illyrian consists of a handful of glosses and numerous personal and place-names. This onomastic material, though insufficient, enabled linguists to put beyond any doubt the fact that Albanian represents a neo-Illyrian dialect. Wilkes contented that “the strongest evidence for the connection between Illyrian and Albanian must be the few direct correspondences of vocabulary often cited”. A good deal of Illyrian personal names as well as toponyms have their likely etymologies in Albanian: the name of Dardania is linked with alb. Dardhë (pear), which in turn derive from *Heg’hord- through the phonetic change -g’h- > -d- from full-grade*g’hord- and Greek άχερδοσ ‘wild pear’ (Papazoglu 1978: 261). This name is definitely Illyrian and was spread all over Thrace during the migration of Dardani towards Minor Asia. It’s worth of mentioning the toponym Δαρδαπαρα, from IE *g’hera: cf. Alb. Dardhë, ‘pear’ and IE. *bora, "pond, stream" (Georgiev, Izv.na Inst.za bulg.ezik 9 (1962). This etymology of this phitonym is bolstered by the fact that small wild pear-trees grow with some frequency in what must have been the southern portion of the Dardanian territory. Many Albanian place-names as Dardhë, Dardhishtë were thus conceived from the pear-trees. A very interesting case poses the name of sub-tribe of Dardanians, Galabroi (Strab. Geog. VII, 3.180. The second part of the name ‘abroi’ is likely derived from *abhor (strong, mighty). This root *ab-/*ap (water, river) might be matched with alb. amë (river, water spring) through -bn-/-mn- mutation. Other likely etymologies is that of Dalmatia (=delme, sheep), Ulcinium (=ulk, wolf), etc.

Are Albanians of Dacian origin?

Scholarly attention was first piqued from an article of Bulgarian linguist, Vladimir Georgiev. He found the Illyrian hypothesis as unlikely for major place-names in modern Albania do not follow the phonetic rules of Albanian. In the heart of his arguments stand the assumption that Albanian might have been spoken in central Balkans. Georgiev assumed that Albanian might derive from a language which has presumabely been spoken in the province of Mysia. He saw this region as being peopled by the Dacians and thus he conceived the term ‘Daco-Mysian’. Georgiev drew his point of departure on the fact that Albanian and Romanian share many phonetic commonalities which amount to a common cradle of both languages. Georgiev’s assumptions lack of any historical source for he appeared ill at ease with the fact that no major migration has been recorded in Albania from Dacia. The Bulgarian linguist stated that Dacian has been spoken in Dardania without further ado. His hypothesis would hold more sway if there were any historical source which speaks of any migration of Dacians towards modern Albanian lands. Later, this hypothesis was embraced by certain Romanian and Serbian scholars who tended to displace the origin of Albanians further north. The region of Carpathian mountains, Dacia Rispensis, Upper Mysia alike have been proposed as the early seats of proto-Albanians. The Dacian hypothesis is particularly interesting for the nationalist Romanian historiography. Most of Romanian scholars opt for the Dacian hypothesis in order to back up their immemorial presence in the region of Transylvania. According to this warped hypothesis, Albanians as lightly Romanized Dacians were branched off by the main body and thus dispersed into Byzantine held territories, while the majority of Dacians who were profoundly Romanized remain in what is now Romania. However, this claim is hardly plausible for all linguists consider that proto-Romanian has been spoken in south of Danube, most likely in a section of Dardania. The Albanian-speakers were prevalent as they could profoundly affect the ancestors of modern-day Romanians.

Does Albanian have any relation with Dacian?

Dacian as other Paleo-Balkan languages is poorly known. From what is left is fairly difficult to obtain any far-reaching conclusion. Ancient writers considered it merely Thracian dialect. Modern research has, however, detached Dacian from genuine Thracian noting some peculiarities. Albanian etymologies have been proposed for certain Dacian place-names: ,,mal’’ (mountain), ,,abur(e)’’ (steam, vapour), ,,balta’’ (swamp), ,,balaur’’ (dragon, monster), etc. It must be remarked that the above-mentioned examples are not good basis to establish any strict connection between Albanian and Dacian. Most of the cited names are to be found in Illyrian likewise: ,,mal’’ (Maluntum, Dimallum, etc), Balta (Dalmatia), ‘Balaur’ (whose name recalls Bolouros, an Illyrian city), etc. It’s beyond any cavil that Romanian has borrowed hundreds of words. The attempts of some scholars to assume these common words as being derived from the so-called Dacian are futile. One should not fail to remark that linguistic similarity between Albanian (Illyrian) and Romanian is better explained by contact rather than an arbitrary mutual ethnic origin. Many words ascribed as Dacian are nothing else but Illyrian. This gives some room to surmise that Illyrian exerted some influence over Dacian mostly in Roman period, when a number of Illyrian tribes were settled in southern Dacia.

Illyrian language vanished during roman period?

The proponents of Dacian origin of Albanians point out that Illyrian has ceased from being spoken in late antiquity. There is not a scrap of evidence which would indicate that Illyrian was entirely replaced by Latin. It’s beyond any doubt that certain Illyrian communities were profusely assimilated: this alienation was most poignant in coastal cities as well in cross-road regions. The claim of profound Romanization of Illyrians is invalidated by the case of Dardani. While Roman authority showed its first signs of decay, a separate province of Dardania was created in the fourth century A.D as a result of the growth of Dardania independence. At the very same time, the indigenous Illyrian populace of Dardania reasserted its distinct identity which is evidenced by the absence of Roman elements. Papazoglu in her incisive work regarding Dardanians, hold that Dardania was the least Romanized province all over Balkans. There are numerous sources which indicate that indigenous idioms continued to be spoken even during V-VII centuries. Thus St. Jerome referred to Illyrian-speakers in Dalmatia or Pannonia in the fifth century. There were only scattered pockets of speakers of old languages, mostly in mountainous regions. When tackling all sources, it seems very feasible that Albanian is the recent phase of old Illyrian.

Albanian lacks of maritime terminology? (te plotesohet me verejtje nga Zeus dhe bardus...)

This is one of the most repeated arguments of those who rule out the Illyrian origin of Albanian. It was Gustav Weigand, who averred for the first time the so-called absence of original maritime terminology. According to him, most of nautical terms in Albanian are borrowed either from Latin or Slavic. The absence of original words relating to sea infers that proto-Albanians have lived far away from Adriatic, most likely in a territory with Dacian preponderance. Nonetheless, this argument proves little to nothing that Albanians lived far away from Adriatic. It must be emphasized that the long supremacy of Greek colonies through Adriatic and Ionian has affected to a certain scale the Illyrian maritime terminology. The same goes also for the Roman period when Illyrians were prohibited from utilizing their sea. Yet Albanian contain a certain maritime and nautical terms that are basically Albanian on the ground they have no parallels to the neighboring languages. One is tempted to mention a handful words, such as: anije, guaskë, zall, fushnjezë, etc. At the same token, even the Scandinavin languages contain a range of commercial and nautical terms from Low German, which date from the supremacy of Hanseatic cities in the late Middle Ages. Another possibility is that local Illyrian population was propelled to shelter in the more mountainous regions and led a pastoral way of life which might have greatly reduced its maritime vocabulary.

Albanians are mentioned very lately? (te plotesohet nga Mallakastrioti...)

This is another argument which has been deployed very often. The Illyrians were last mentioned as such in Miracula Sancti Demetri (7th century AD), after which there is no other record of the name. Whereas Albanians as a distinguishable ethnic group are mentioned in a concise manner in 1000-1018 by an anonymous author in a Bulgarian text. Known as Arbanasi, they are described as ‘’half-believers’’ – a reference most likely to their non-Orthodox adherence. The Byzantine historian, Michael Attaliates mentioned twice Albanoi as participants on a revolt against Constandiople and of the Arbanitai as subjects of the theme of Dyrachium. The late mentioning of Albanians has no relevance in the defining their ethnogenesis. If Albanians went unmentioned for some centuries, this in no way suggests that they were not present into their historical areas. Indeed the period spanning from VIIth century down to IVth has a few sources. The Eastern Roman Empire, during this period, was wrought by civil wars and external enemies. It would follow as logical that a population in the western fringe of the empire which was fully integrated within Empire, did not attract any specific mention. Indeed the absence of the name of Albanians is best explained by the fact that no such distinction was necessary during this period. With the collapse of the Roman empire and the Slav invasions both Latin and Illyrian speakers would have retreated to the hills and obscurity. Focuse was mostly shifted towards the external invaders, like the Slavs who established their separate & independent political entities (zupanije) within Byzantine territory. There was no interest in conducting an ethnocultural study of your own citizens. At least not as far as we know. Albania was a part of the Byzantine empire, from whence the empire drew recruits for the army, officers, generals, clergies, emperors even. And the population was Orthodox -- Orthodox crucifixes have been found even in Mirdite, the heartland of Albanian Catholicism. What became different in the 1000s AD? Well whatever the reasons for it, whether the interruption came as a natural result of the changed political climate after the Slav invasions, the Albanians of "Arvanon", roughly corresponding to the Mati region of today, received a certain political autonomy. During this period, the Albanians started to manouvre independently from Constantinople, and thus a reason to actually describe the Albanians as a separate entity,"disloyal" to Byzantium, was born. Prior to that, an Orthodox population which was integrated within the Byzantine Empire was not so important to write about as it became later, when we started to win greater autonomy from Byzantium and become a political factor to reckon with.



Albanian is satem while Illyrian is centum? (...te plotesohet nga Zeus)

Albanian is divorced from Illyrian from the treatment of sk>h? (..te plotesohet nga Bardus)
Ne sot po hedhim faren me emrin Bashkim,
Qe neser te korrim frutin me emrin Bashkim!

User avatar
Zeus10
Grand Fighter Member
Grand Fighter Member
Posts: 4156
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: CANADA
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#2

Post by Zeus10 » Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:44 pm

Considering that the Albanian language lacks maritime terminology as the Albanian words for fish (peshk), oar (lopatë) and barge (barkë) are loaners from Latin, Slavic, and Greek respectively,

E gjithe teza per mungesen e terminologjise detare, eshte ndertuar mbi bazen e vetem ketij gjykimi aspak racional. Do ti pergjigjem kesaj, me nje arsyetim te thelle kur te kem kohe te premtoj.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

User avatar
Zeus10
Grand Fighter Member
Grand Fighter Member
Posts: 4156
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: CANADA
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#3

Post by Zeus10 » Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:11 pm

Albpelasgian, e shkrova pergjigjen vetem ne shqip. Mendoj se nuk perben problem perkthimi i saj ne anglisht dhe kur te kem kohe, do te shkruaj dhe per hipotezen centum-satem. Ndekohe per kete te fundit ti mund te mbledhesh ato qe kemi shkruar ne forume te tjera ne anglisht, apo ketu ne shqip.
 
Considering that the Albanian language lacks maritime terminology as the Albanian words for fish (peshk), oar (lopatë) and barge (barkë) are loaners from Latin, Slavic, and Greek respectively,
Qe te pranosh nje teze te tille, duhet te pranosh, qe shume gjera kane ndodhur gati ne kufijte e se pamundures. Qe shqiptaret te mos kene pasur nje leksik te tyrin per termat detare si peshk, anije dhe varke duhet, qe dhe baballaret e tyre dhe baballaret e baballareve te tyre, e deri tek protoshqiptari, te mos kishin dijeni per to. Duket gati si me deshire, qe gjenerata te tera shqiptaresh ishin vene ne pritje, per te "huazuar" nga "popujt e prane detit", te ndryshem nga iliro-epirotet(nese keta nuk jane vete shqiptaret), termat per peshkun, anijen dhe barken dhe gjate udhetimit te tyre per ne territoret ku jetojne sot, kaperxyen nga mali ne mal dhe nga kodra ne koder, hapesira te medha, qe nga Karpatet deri ne Adriatik dhe çuditerisht duke mos ndeshur asnje nga gjithe liqenet, pellgjet e lumejte e shumte qe pershkrojne keto vende.
Sigurisht, qe dhe sikur ky udhetim i gjate te kete ndodhur vertete, shqiptaret nuk mund ti shmangnin lumejte ne te, por perkundrazi do te ishte shume e arsyeshme te mendonim, qe ata ti kene shfrytezuar ato per ate qellim, por perseri kjo hipoteze do na bente pranonim, qe per disa arsye te çuditshme, peshqit e shumte te ketyre burimeve ujore, i shpetuan vemendjes se tyre, ose shqiptaret injoruan te vinin nje emer per ta, derisa te hynin ne kontakt me latinet, greket apo sllavet.
Qe te pranosh nje teze te tille, jo vetem duhet te pranosh, qe leksiku i shqiptareve, ishte plot me mungesa, si termi peshk (qe kerkush nuk mendon qe gjendet vetem ne dete), apo per objekte, qe njerezit me primitive i kane perdorur historikisht, si barkat, por ne menyre te cuditshme duhet te pranosh, qe shqiptaret , ne menyre selektive, i huajten keto terma, nga popuj qe ju perkasin periudhave historike aq te ndryshme, sa jo dekada por shekuj dhe mijevjecare i ndajne shfaqjes se tyre dhe gjuhes qe flisnin.
Edhe sikur te pranojme, qe shqiptaret e hershem erdhen prej Karpateve dhe per nje arsye ose nje tjeter, ata dhe paraardhesit e tyre, nuk kishin ndeshur asnjehere ne ndonje peshk, anije apo qofte dhe barke dhe per kete arsye, keto terma i mungonin plotesisht gjuhes te tyre, atehere kjo teori do na detyroj te besojme, qe shqiptari malesor hyri ne kontakt me pare me helenet, latinet dhe sllavet, para se te takonte iliret qe ishin detare te famshem, nese keta te fundit mos qenkeshin vete shqiptaret. Por kjo hipoteze, do te na vinte ne veshtiresi me te medha, sepse do na duhej te pranonim, qe gjate nguljes perfundimtareve, te shqiptareve ne tokat e ilireve dhe epiroteve, te zhvendosnin ne menyre te shpejte, kete popull te madh autokton, qe do te rezultonte me zhdukjen e menjehershme dhe zevendesimin e tyre, prej shqiptareve. Por ky event do te kishte nje impakt te painjorueshem ne histori dhe kronikanet e vemendshem, greke, latine dhe sllave, popujt prej te cileve gjasme shqiptaret huajten perkatesisht 3 shprehjet barke, peshk dhe anije, do ta rregjistronin ne kronikat e tyre "shfarosjen" e menjehershme te ilireve prej shqiptareve. Fakti qe "historia" hesht rreth nje eventi te tille, do te thote vetem nje nga tre mundesite e meposhtme eshte e vertete:

1 Shqiptaret nuk zevendesuan ne menyre imediate iliro-epirotet, por nje popullsi te ndermjetme post iliro- epirote
por historia jo vetem qe nuk njeh nje popull misterioz te tille, por ashtu si dhe ne rastin e ilireve, nuk ka rregjistruar ndonje ngjarje te permasave dramatike, te zevendesimit te menjehershem te nje populli te madh nga nje popull tjeter. Mundesia tjeter do te ishte:

2. Shqiptaret zevendesuan ne menyre graduale iliret dhe epirotet, duke u perzier me ta dhe duke huajtur prej tyre ne menyre te pashmangshme, termat qe supozohet i mungonin gjuhes se tyre.
por kjo do te rrezonte kete teori qe ne krye te heres, sepse dhe nese nuk e kishin terminologjine detare qe ne fillim, do ta huazonin ate nga iliro-epirotet, shume perpara se te binin ne kontakt me "popujt e pranedetit", latine, greke dhe sllave.Atehere ngelet per shqyrtim vetem teza e fundit:

3. Shqiptaret jane vete iliret dhe epirotet
nje teze, qe pershkruan shume realisht, zhdukjen " pa gjurme" dhe "pa zhurme" te iliro-epiroteve. Ceshte e verteta emri epirot, eshte emri qe shoqeron shqiptaret pergjate gjithe historise se permendjes se tyre. Ai eshte sinonim i emrit alban-on qe nga ana e tij identifikon rendom shqiptaret, qe ne rastin e pare kur ata permenden ne histori, per ironi, pikerisht prane detit.
Hipoteza, qe shqiptaret kane fjalor te varfer detar dhe per kete vihet si evidence prezenca e vetem 3 fjaleve, qe paskan ngjashmeri me 3 terma korrespondues ne 3 gjuhe te ndryshme duket shume e pamundur. Shume me e pranueshme, eshte hipoteza qe keto tre gjuhe si gjuhe te elites qe ne krye te heres, te kene huajtur keto dhe me shume terma, nga gjuha vernakulare e popullit me te madh te Ballkanit ne periudhen parahistorike iliro-epirote-shqiptare. Shqiptaret jane popull me histori te gjate etnike, fakti qe ata permenden vone me emrin e njojtur te tyre, eshte shume domethenes, sepse me i riu nuk ka se si te deshmoje historine e te vjetrit dhe ne rastin e sllavo-greko-latineve ata jane munduar bile ta fshijne ate.
Fakti eshte, qe ne jemi ketu ku jemi. Vellazerite tona fillojne prane detit dhe perfundojne ne malet me te larte, qe kane qene streha jone kur ambicia e huaj behej e fuqishme dhe kerkonte te na shfaroste. Per sa kohe qe nuk provohet e kunderta, asnje teori "shkencore", nuk mund te na detyroj te harrojme, vendin e te pareve tane.
Zeus10 09.02.2014  
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

User avatar
ALBPelasgian
Galactic Member
Galactic Member
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Prishtinë (Prima Justiniana)
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#4

Post by ALBPelasgian » Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:53 pm

Te falemnderit Zeus. Une po e marr persiper ta perkthej aq sa mundem. E hedh menjehere versionin e pare si ta kem perfunduar...
Ne sot po hedhim faren me emrin Bashkim,
Qe neser te korrim frutin me emrin Bashkim!

User avatar
Zeus10
Grand Fighter Member
Grand Fighter Member
Posts: 4156
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: CANADA
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#5

Post by Zeus10 » Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:33 pm

Do ndalem pak dhe tek shprehja oar=remus(lat)=eressein(greek)=remë(alb)
row (v.) Look up row at Dictionary.com"propel with oars," Old English rowan "go by water, row" (class VII strong verb; past tense reow, past participle rowen), from Proto-Germanic *ro- (cf. Old Norse roa, Dutch roeien, West Frisian roeije, Middle High German rüejen), from PIE root *ere- (1) "to row" (cf. Sanskrit aritrah "oar;" Greek eressein "to row," eretmon "oar," trieres "trireme;" Latin remus "oar;" Lithuanian iriu "to row," irklas "oar;" Old Irish rome "oar," Old English roðor "rudder").
Qe te gjitha jane qartesisht adoptime te fjales shqipe reme. Gjuha shqipe ka krijuar latinishten, prandaj na duket sikur kemi marre shume huazime latine. Albanezet(shqiptaret) jane pasardhes se alban-ve ""romake"", jane ata qe pushtuan Boten, kurse ne jemi ajo qe ka mbetur prej tyre.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

User avatar
ALBPelasgian
Galactic Member
Galactic Member
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Prishtinë (Prima Justiniana)
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#6

Post by ALBPelasgian » Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:38 am

Tung Zeus,

Provova ta perktheja sa me besnikerisht, por nuk arrita. Kete do ta bente vetem nje anglishtfoles i lindur. Megjithate, heren e dyte provova ta pershtatja tekstin, duke ruajtur te paprekura argumentet tuaja te mbrehta e me plot logjike. Ja dhe teksti. Lirisht perpunoje me tej kudo qe e sheh te nevojshme...
  It would be a bit of a stretch to assume that Albanian has no original nautical vocabulary. In the same vein, it’s very unlikely that proto-Albanians loaned from another language the elementary terms of maritime sphere (words for ‘fish’, ‘boat’, ‘oar’ etc).

Even if the Dacian scenario was true – where allegedly nomadic tribes pushed gradually in south – it is hardly possible that proto-Albanian had not nautical terms of its own (terms for rivers and lakes). It does seem quite unlikely that proto-Albanians were quite unfamiliar with rivers and lakes, so they need to borrow such elementary words from other languages. Historical sources as well as archaeological findings have proved quite convincingly that Illyrians were a skilled sea-faring people. Thus the Liburni tribe maintain its ascendancy over Adriatic for some centuries until their domination came to an end once the Greek colonization has commenced. The Illyrian supremacy was reasserted when the Illyrian state headed by the king Agron, became the most powerful naval force in Adriatic.

The Dacian scenario does not offer a satisfactorily answer on how some wandering pastoral tribes succeed on subjugation of certain well-established Greek colonies, Roman cities and numerous Illyrian tribes who used to live in modern Albania. Such a hypothetical event did never happen because in all probability the Albanians were one of the indigenous Illyrian tribes. The assertion that Albanian lacks of maritime terminology laid its foundation upon three words which have their possible cognates in other languages. A more likely assumption would be that both ancient Greek and Latin borrowed a good deal of words from Illyrian all the more so when taking in account several examples.  
Ne sot po hedhim faren me emrin Bashkim,
Qe neser te korrim frutin me emrin Bashkim!

User avatar
Zeus10
Grand Fighter Member
Grand Fighter Member
Posts: 4156
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: CANADA
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#7

Post by Zeus10 » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:11 pm

Alb, une e perktheva vete shkrimin(pjeserisht, nuk ka shume per te perfunduar) dhe me duket sa ka dale I goditur. Ka vetem nevoje per ta redaktuar, sepse nuk pata kohe ta rishikoja(jam ne pune). Kam perdorur nje gjuhe te thjeshte dhe jo nje pershtatje totale, sepse I druhesha mundesise per ndryshimin e thelbit:
 
Qe te pranosh nje teze te tille, duhet te pranosh, qe shume gjera kane ndodhur gati ne kufijte e se pamundures. Qe shqiptaret te mos kene pasur nje leksik te tyrin per termat detare si peshk, anije dhe varke duhet, qe dhe baballaret e tyre dhe baballaret e baballareve te tyre, e deri tek protoshqiptari, te mos kishin dijeni per to. Duket gati si me deshire, qe gjenerata te tera shqiptaresh ishin vene ne pritje, per te "huazuar" nga "popujt e prane detit", te ndryshem nga iliro-epirotet(nese keta nuk jane vete shqiptaret), termat per peshkun, rremen dhe barken dhe gjate udhetimit te tyre per ne territoret ku jetojne sot, kaperxyen nga mali ne mal dhe nga kodra ne koder, hapesira te medha, qe nga Karpatet deri ne Adriatik dhe çuditerisht duke mos ndeshur asnje nga gjithe liqenet, pellgjet e lumejte e shumte qe pershkrojne keto vende.
To accept such a thesis, you at the same time, have to accept, that all the events would occur to the edge of impossibility. That Albanians in the first place, have not had their own lexicon, for the maritime terms like fish, oar and boat, would mean that their father and their grandfathers going back to the Proto-Albanian, had no idea at all about them. It seems like, the Albanians, generations after generations, voluntarily choose to stand by waiting to loan those words, from nations “close to the sea”, who paradoxically happened to be anything but illyrians-epirots(in case they are not the Albanians themselves), and at the same time they choosed to take a very strange course in their alleged trip from Carpates to the Adriatic, jumping from a top of a mountain to another, and from a top of a hill to another, going through enormous territories, and strangely not encountering none of the uncountable lakes, pools or rivers permeating this vast lands.
Sigurisht, qe dhe sikur ky udhetim i gjate te kete ndodhur vertete shqiptaret nuk mund ti shmangnin lumejte ne te, por perkundrazi do te ishte shume e arsyeshme te mendonim, qe ata ti kene shfrytezuar ato per ate qellim, por perseri kjo hipoteze do na bente pranonim, qe per disa arsye te çuditshme, peshqit e shumte te ketyre burimeve ujore, i shpetuan vemendjes se tyre, ose shqiptaret injoruan te vinin nje emer per ta, derisa te hynin ne kontakt me latinet, greket apo sllavet.
Of course, even if we assume that long voyage really happened(from Capates to Adriatic only, and not otherwise -haha- ), the Albanians simply could have not avoided numerous rivers encountering in their way, but on the contrary, it would have been very reasonable to assume, they must have exploited the rivers for their movement, but again this thesis would have put us in the position to accept, that for some strange reasons, the uncountable fish of this aquatic resources, have escaped their attention, or they, the Albanians have ignored to name this very popular animal, until they contacted the Latins, Greeks and Slavs who presumably taught them along with the name, how to use the fish as a food, for the first time in Albanian history.
Qe te pranosh nje teze te tille, jo vetem duhet te pranosh, qe leksiku i shqiptareve, ishte plot me mungesa, si termi peshk (qe kerkush nuk mendon qe gjendet vetem ne dete), apo per objekte, qe njerezit me primitive i kane perdorur historikisht, si barkat, por ne menyre te cuditshme duhet te pranosh, qe shqiptaret , ne menyre selektive, i huajten keto terma, nga popuj qe ju perkasin periudhave historike aq te ndryshme, sa jo dekada por shekuj dhe mijevjecare i ndajne shfaqjes se tyre dhe gjuhes qe flisnin.
To accept such a thesis, not only you should bent to admit, that Albanian lexicon was full of “gaps”, like the word fish(which I don’t know why this thesis require us to find only in the seas) or for objects like the boat, which have been used even from the primitive people since remote times, and again strangely we are required to accept that Albanians, selectively loaned these words from nations belonging to historical periods, who distanced from each-other not by decades but by centuries and millennia. By the way the main use in Albanian for the word oar, is not ‘lopatë’ but the word ‘remë’, which happens to be similar to the correspondent Classical Latin “remus” and Classical Greek ‘eretmon’ .
Edhe sikur te pranojme, qe shqiptaret e hershem erdhen prej Karpateve dhe per nje arsye ose nje tjeter, ata dhe paraardhesit e tyre, nuk kishin ndeshur asnjehere ne ndonje peshk, anije apo qofte dhe barke dhe per kete arsye, keto terma i mungonin plotesisht gjuhes te tyre, atehere kjo teori do na detyroj te besojme, qe shqiptari malesor hyri ne kontakt me pare me helenet, latinet dhe sllavet, para se te takonte iliret qe ishin detare te famshem, nese keta te fundit mos qenkeshin vete shqiptaret. Por kjo hipoteze, do te na vinte ne veshtiresi me te medha, sepse do na duhej te pranonim, qe gjate nguljes perfundimtareve, te shqiptareve ne tokat e ilireve dhe epiroteve, te zhvendosnin ne menyre te shpejte, kete popull te madh autokton, qe do te rezultonte me zhdukjen e menjehershme dhe zevendesimin e tyre, prej shqiptareve. Por ky event do te kishte nje impakt te painjorueshem ne histori dhe kronikanet e vemendshem, greke, latine dhe sllave, popujt prej te cileve gjasme shqiptaret huajten perkatesisht 3 shprehjet barke, peshk dhe anije, do ta rregjistronin ne kronikat e tyre "shfarosjen" e menjehershme te ilireve prej shqiptareve. Fakti qe "historia" hesht rreth nje eventi te tille, do te thote vetem nje nga tre mundesite e meposhtme eshte e vertete:
Even if we shall accept, for the sake of this thesis, that the ancient Albanians came from Carpates(abusively limiting the habitat of great Dacian nation, only at the peaks of those mountains) and for one reason or another, they and their ancestors, were not aware about the existence of an animal like fish, or even about the oar and boat, and for this reason they were missing the respective words in their language, then this theory forces us to believe that the mountainous Albanian contacted the people “near the sea” Hellenes, Latins and Slavs prior to Illyrian although we already assumed for the sake of this theory that the Albanian voyage was entirely through mountains. Of course we also are now ignoring the fact that the Illyrians, were as much skillful and knowledgeable about the sea as above “near to sea” abovementioned people, if we have to assume that Illyrians and Epirots were different people from Albanians. But this theory would have put us in a great difficulty, because would have forced us to accept, that during the Albanian establishment in the Illyrian’s and Epirot’s land, they immediately displaced those native great nations , therefore would have result in a quick extermination of the Illyrians and Epirots , and a quick unbelievable their replacement by Albanians. But the impact of such an event would have been totally not ignorable in this “loud” part of the World, and the attentive Greek, Latin and Slavic chronicle writers , belonging to the aforementioned nations, whose Albanians allegedly borrowed respectively the three famous “missing” words, fish, boat and oar, would have had registered an event of such catastrophic proportion such as the immediate extermination of the Illyrians by Albanians, if it really took place. The mere fact that the history is silent about this event, means only one out of the following three possibilities is true:
1 Shqiptaret nuk zevendesuan ne menyre imediate iliro-epirotet, por nje popullsi te ndermjetme post iliro- epirote
por historia jo vetem qe nuk njeh nje popull misterioz te tille, por ashtu si dhe ne rastin e ilireve, nuk ka rregjistruar ndonje ngjarje te permasave dramatike, te zevendesimit te menjehershem te nje populli te madh nga nje popull tjeter. Mundesia tjeter do te ishte:


1. The Albanians didn’t immediately replaced the Illyro-Epirot nation, but an intermediate historical one.
This is extremely unlikely because the history not only doesn’t recognize a mysterious nation like this, but again like in the reasoning above when we talked about the Illyrians, the same history has not recorded such a dramatic event like the immediate displacement of a big nation by another one. The other possibility is:
2. Shqiptaret zevendesuan ne menyre graduale iliret dhe epirotet, duke u perzier me ta dhe duke huajtur prej tyre ne menyre te pashmangshme, termat qe supozohet i mungonin gjuhes se tyre.
por kjo do te rrezonte kete teori qe ne krye te heres, sepse dhe nese nuk e kishin terminologjine detare qe ne fillim, do ta huazonin ate nga iliro-epirotet, shume perpara se te binin ne kontakt me "popujt e pranedetit", latine, greke dhe sllave.Atehere ngelet per shqyrtim vetem teza e fundit:

2.Albanians gradually replaced the Illyrians, intermingling with them and inevitably borrowing from them , the alleged missing maritime terms.
The above explanation will make the theory null in the first place, because it is the Illyrians who would furnish their alleged “invalid” language, with the terminology Albanians were “waiting” for, and not the Greeks, Latins or anyone else who logically would have had a later cultural interaction with the fresh “newcomers” .We have to mention here, that even if this option really occured, the peaceful integration of the both martial races, native Illyrians and presumed stranger Albanians would have been very strange, unless Albanians were a new wave, racially the same with Illyrians, which will bring us inevitably to the third and evidently the only option:
3. Shqiptaret jane vete iliret dhe epirotet
nje teze, qe pershkruan shume realisht, zhdukjen " pa gjurme" dhe "pa zhurme" te iliro-epiroteve. Ceshte e verteta emri epirot, eshte emri qe shoqeron shqiptaret pergjate gjithe historise se permendjes se tyre. Ai eshte sinonim i emrit alban-on qe nga ana e tij identifikon rendom shqiptaret, qe ne rastin e pare kur ata permenden ne histori, per ironi, pikerisht prane detit.


3.Albanians are the Illyrians and Epirotes themselves.
This hypothesis, goes in a smooth accordance with the known historical facts: the “silent” and “untraceable” disappearance of Illyrians and Epirots. For the sake of the truth, the name Epirots is the name accompanying Albanians even after, along their entire history since they are mentioned for the first time. That name is the synonym to albanon(arbon), which is the well-known identification name for the Albanians and as an irony its first implication was close to the sea.


The hypothesis, that Albanians lacks maritime terminology, and to prove that are put forward only three words, which have similarity to 3 their analogs in three other different languages seems to me quite impossible and senseless. The opposite might work quite well, that the languages like Greek, Latin and Slavic being the languages of a small elite in the first place, have loaned these and more other words, from the vernacular language of the Balcan greatest nation during prehistoric period.Albanians are a nation with a long ethnic history, and the fact their name has been mentioned for the first time relatively late is meaningful, a youngster cannot witness an elder’s youth, he simply has not been around, and in the case of the Greeks, Latins and Sllavics, they are trying to wipe out any evidence that will connect Albanians to their elders. The fact is we are here. Our native brotherhoods limits, start from the seacoast and continues all the way up to the highest mountain peaks, finding shelter in them, when the strangers ambition has become violent looking to wipe us off. As long as otherwise is not proven, no “scientific” theory like this, will force us to forget our forefathers land.  
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

User avatar
ALBPelasgian
Galactic Member
Galactic Member
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Prishtinë (Prima Justiniana)
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#8

Post by ALBPelasgian » Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:48 pm

Te falemnderit Zeus! Kjo pjesa ku dekonstruktohet 'mungesa e termave detare'' ne shqip eshte e shkelqyeshme. Thjesht ja kemi dale qe me logjike te hedhim poshte nje pretendim te tille abuziv.

Pres edhe nga Bardus te hedh ndonje radhe sa i perket ceshtjet diskutabile sk>h, perderisa edhe cashtja satem/kentum e shqipes mund te permblidhet shkoqitur nga ju, Zeus.

Poashtu marr persiper qe te perfundoj edhe shkaterrimin e pretendimit tjeter se ''shqipja ka mungese huazimesh dorike'', duke e ilustruar me dhjetera (nga mijera shembuj qe kemi gjetur) huazime jo nga dorishtja ne shqip, po prej shqipes ne dorisht.
Ne sot po hedhim faren me emrin Bashkim,
Qe neser te korrim frutin me emrin Bashkim!

User avatar
Zeus10
Grand Fighter Member
Grand Fighter Member
Posts: 4156
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: CANADA
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#9

Post by Zeus10 » Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:03 pm

Falemnderit Alb qe na shkunde pak nga "ndryshku". Do mbaroj dhe pjesen e mbetur sot ose neser dhe do ta hedh ne forum.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

amathia
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:59 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#10

Post by amathia » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:36 am

Tu nghatet ieta o Albpelasg,

Due me t'pergxue e me t'urue tana t'mirat p'r nerin e munin ci ie tu ba p'r guen e lasht scype.

Kishe qenisur s'bukuri at paracitje n"www.albpelasgian.com"...

T'lumt o ghak scype e t'rrnosh sa malet e arbenis,

Ner t'tiera kisha me t'kergue ci me pas ni dritare ku i paracet pamiet e vjetra t'shcypnis..

T' falem nerit,

User avatar
Zeus10
Grand Fighter Member
Grand Fighter Member
Posts: 4156
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: CANADA
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#11

Post by Zeus10 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:44 pm

E mbarova komplet Alb, version I plote ne anglisht si me poshte:
#1 - Illyrians were coastal people, while Albanians are mountainous since they LACK maritime vocabulary.
#2 - Eastern Balkan Romance words. Some scholars believe that the Latin influence over Albanian is of Eastern Romance origin, rather than of Dalmatian origin, which would exclude Dalmatia as a place of origin. Adding to this the several hundred words in Romanian that are cognate only with Albanian cognates (see Eastern Romance substratum), these scholars assume that Romanians and Albanians lived in close proximity at one time. The areas where this might have happened is the Morava valley in eastern Serbia

To accept such a thesis, you at the same time, have to accept, that all the events would occur to the edge of impossibility. That Albanians in the first place, have not had their own lexicon, for the maritime terms like fish, oar and boat, would mean that their father and their grandfathers going back to the Proto-Albanian, had no idea at all about them. It seems like, the Albanians, generations after generations, voluntarily choose to stand by waiting to loan those words, from nations “close to the sea”, who paradoxically happened to be anything but illyrians-epirots(in case they are not the Albanians themselves), and at the same time they choosed to take a very strange course in their alleged trip from Carpates to the Adriatic, jumping from a top of a mountain to another, and from a top of a hill to another, going through enormous territories, and strangely not encountering none of the uncountable lakes, pools or rivers permeating this vast lands.

Of course, even if we assume that long voyage really happened(from Capates to Adriatic only, and not otherwise -haha- ), the Albanians simply could have not avoided numerous rivers encountering in their way, but on the contrary, it would have been very reasonable to assume, they must have exploited the rivers for their movement, but again this thesis would have put us in the position to accept, that for some strange reasons, the uncountable fish of this aquatic resources, have escaped their attention, or they, the Albanians have ignored to name this very popular animal, until they contacted the Latins, Greeks and Slavs who presumably taught them along with the name, how to use the fish as a food, for the first time in Albanian history.

To accept such a thesis, not only you should bent to admit, that Albanian lexicon was full of “gaps”, like the word fish(which I don’t know why this thesis require us to find only in the seas) or for objects like the boat, which have been used even from the primitive people since remote times, and again strangely we are required to accept that Albanians, selectively loaned these words from nations belonging to historical periods, who distanced from each-other not by decades but by centuries and millennia. By the way the main use in Albanian for the word oar, is not ‘lopatë’ but the word ‘remë’, which happens to be similar to the correspondent Classical Latin “remus” and Classical Greek ‘eretmon’ .

In addition to that this theory is based on the assumption that nowadays Romanian language, is the linear descendant of the Dacian one. But the Dacian language is as much unknown as the Illyrian one. When comparing the similarities between Romanian and Albanian, Georgiev takes for granted that the Dacian language is the ancestor of the Romanian, although he doesn't put forward any argument for that, but he doesn't use the same standards when it comes to the relationship between Albanian and Illyrians. This chauvinistic double-standard position although been supported from John V. A. Fine and John Van Antwerp, has been easily exposed and dismantled.

Even if we shall accept, for the sake of this thesis, that the ancient Albanians came from Carpates(abusively limiting the habitat of great Dacian nation, only at the peaks of those mountains) and for one reason or another, they and their ancestors, were not aware about the existence of an animal like fish, or even about the oar and boat, and for this reason they were missing the respective words in their language, then this theory forces us to believe that the mountainous Albanian contacted the people “near the sea” Hellenes, Latins and Slavs prior to Illyrian although we already assumed for the sake of this theory that the Albanian voyage was entirely through mountains. Of course we also are now ignoring the fact that the Illyrians, were as much skillful and knowledgeable about the sea as above “near to sea” abovementioned people, if we have to assume that Illyrians and Epirots were different people from Albanians. But this theory would have put us in a great difficulty, because would have forced us to accept, that during the Albanian establishment in the Illyrian’s and Epirot’s land, they immediately displaced those native great nations , therefore would have result in a quick extermination of the Illyrians and Epirots , and a quick unbelievable their replacement by Albanians. But the impact of such an event would have been totally not ignorable in this “loud” part of the World, and the attentive Greek, Latin and Slavic chronicle writers , belonging to the aforementioned nations, whose Albanians allegedly borrowed respectively the three famous “missing” words, fish, boat and oar, would have had registered an event of such catastrophic proportion such as the immediate extermination of the Illyrians by Albanians, if it really took place. The mere fact that the history is silent about this event, means only one out of the following three possibilities is true:

1. Albanians didn’t immediately replaced the Illyro-Epirot nation, but an intermediate historical one.
This is extremely unlikely because the history not only doesn’t recognize a mysterious nation like this, but again like in the reasoning above when we talked about the Illyrians, the same history has not recorded such a dramatic event like the immediate displacement of a big nation by another one. The other possibility is:

2. Albanians gradually replaced the Illyrians, intermingling with them and inevitably borrowing from them , the alleged missing maritime terms.
The above explanation will make the theory null in the first place, because it is the Illyrians who would furnish their alleged “invalid” language, with the terminology Albanians were “waiting” for, and not the Greeks, Latins or anyone else who logically would have had a later cultural interaction with the fresh “newcomers” .We have to mention here, that even if this option really occured, the peaceful integration of the both martial races, native Illyrians and presumed stranger Albanians would have been very strange, unless Albanians were a new wave, racially the same with Illyrians, which will bring us inevitably to the third and evidently the only option:

3. Albanians are the Illyrians and Epirotes themselves.
This hypothesis, goes in a smooth accordance with the known historical facts: the “silent” and “untraceable” disappearance of Illyrians and Epirots. For the sake of the truth, the name Epirots is the name accompanying Albanians even after, along their entire history since they are mentioned for the first time. That name is the synonym to albanon(arbon), which is the well-known identification name for the Albanians and as an irony its first implication was close to the sea.

The hypothesis, that Albanians lacks maritime terminology, putting forward only three words to prove it, which have similarity to 3 their cognates in three other different languages seems to me quite impossible and senseless. The opposite might work quite well, that the languages like Greek, Latin and Slavic being the languages of a small elite in the first place, have loaned these and more other words, from the vernacular language of the Balcan greatest nation during prehistoric period.Albanians are a nation with a long ethnic history, and the fact their name has been mentioned for the first time relatively late is meaningful, a youngster cannot witness an elder’s youth, he simply has not been around, and in the case of the Greeks, Latins and Sllavics, they are trying to wipe out any evidence that will connect Albanians to their elders. The fact is we are here. Our native brotherhoods limits, start from the seacoast and continues all the way up to the highest mountain peaks, finding shelter in them, when the strangers ambition has become violent looking to wipe us off. As long as otherwise is not proven, no “scientific” theory like this, will force us to forget our forefathers land.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

User avatar
ALBPelasgian
Galactic Member
Galactic Member
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Prishtinë (Prima Justiniana)
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#12

Post by ALBPelasgian » Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:51 pm

Te falemnderit Zeus,

Ja dhe une po e hedh pjesen ku demantohet pretendimi se 'Albanian has few Doric borrowings'. Fillimisht e bera nje hyrje te thukte ne problem, duke parashtruar disa premisa.
  The meagerness of written Albanian has greatly hampered the progress of revealing the relation between ancient Greek and Albanian. The claim that Albanian has exceedingly few borrowings from Doric Greek is altogether groundless. The proponents of this claim have argued that proto-Albanian has been spoken in a region which was less tarnished by the Greek influence of coastal colonies. They firmly precluded the possibility that Albanians have occupied from the onset the coastal Albania. However, detailed investigations have shown that Albanian has heaps of Doric borrowings which may be contextualized on the pre-Roman period when indigenous Illyrian population had intense contacts with Doric colonies. One is tempted to mention a couple of significant examples like: mokër, mokën ''millstone, grindstone" < machana (Ionian-Attic mechane), drapën 'sickle' < *drapanon, mollë 'apple' < malon. Its very plausible that such loans penetrated into the Illyrian language through the early Corinthian solonies of the seventh to fourth centuries B.C, along the Ioanian and Adriatic coastline. The number of loans may be way larger than that because other loans may well have been asked by an absorption into Albanian phonology. In this case it would be extremely difficult to distinguish genetic cognates from loans (Bernal 2006: 178). There only few studies which meddle extensively with the relation between ancient Greek and Albanian. Many scholars have pointed out that northern dialects of ancient Greek are fraught with several Illyrians loans. The Illyrian influence over Greek is attributed to the X-IXth century B.C where Illyrian migration swamped all over Greece. Such a migration is best evinced by certain place-names which are recognizably Illyrian. Thus, J. Wilkes is mildly supportive to the view that Illyrian has exerted some noticeable influence over Greek for he held that "the linguistic evidence for Illyrians in Greece, Asia Minor and Italy is yet to be interpreted" (1995:39). Some startling examples which seem to wholly confirm the idea that Illyrians crept in midst of Greece, are:

(....) ketu ua le zeusit, bardusit dhe anetareve te tjere qe te zgjedhin disa shembuj sa me bindes e sa me perfaqesues te gjithe atyre perkimeve qe kemi gjetur ne greqishten e vjeter.  
Ne sot po hedhim faren me emrin Bashkim,
Qe neser te korrim frutin me emrin Bashkim!

User avatar
Zeus10
Grand Fighter Member
Grand Fighter Member
Posts: 4156
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: CANADA
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#13

Post by Zeus10 » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:46 pm

Ka nje problem te madh argumentimi me siper Albpelasgian. Ai I sheh iliret dhe doret si dy etnose te ndryshme, qe vecse huajne nga njeri -tjetri. Une do thosha me bindje, qe doret te pakten, jane grupi me cilesi etnike me te ngjashme me iliret, se cdo grup tjeter. Kjo gjithmone nese marrim per te mireqene, "historite" e shkruara.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

User avatar
rrëqebull
Grand Star Member
Grand Star Member
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:29 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#14

Post by rrëqebull » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:31 pm

Pokorni wrote:the ancient Dorian tribe that overrun Mycenaean civilization was of Illyrian origin. Their name meant `river people' since they spread very rapidly traveling on fast river boats. Their migration took Mycenaean cities by surprise. The Dorian expansion was similar to the Viking rapid expansion hundreds of years later.

User avatar
ALBPelasgian
Galactic Member
Galactic Member
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Prishtinë (Prima Justiniana)
Contact:

Re: Arberiaonline kunderpergjigjet (per Zeus, Bardus, Mallak

#15

Post by ALBPelasgian » Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:38 pm

Zeus10 wrote:Ka nje problem te madh argumentimi me siper Albpelasgian. Ai I sheh iliret dhe doret si dy etnose te ndryshme, qe vecse huajne nga njeri -tjetri. Une do thosha me bindje, qe doret te pakten, jane grupi me cilesi etnike me te ngjashme me iliret, se cdo grup tjeter. Kjo gjithmone nese marrim per te mireqene, "historite" e shkruara.
Verejtje me vend. I bera nje retushim formes se meparshme, duke shtuar disa verejtje te reja:
  The meagerness of written Albanian has greatly hampered the progress of revealing the relation between ancient Greek and Albanian. The claim that Albanian has exceedingly few borrowings from Doric Greek is altogether groundless. The proponents of this claim have argued that proto-Albanian has been spoken in a region which was less tarnished by the Greek influence of coastal colonies. They firmly precluded the possibility that Albanians have occupied from the onset the coastal Albania. However, detailed investigations have shown that Albanian has heaps of Doric borrowings which may be contextualized on the pre-Roman period when indigenous Illyrian population had intense contacts with Doric colonies. One is tempted to mention a couple of significant examples like: mokër, mokën ''millstone, grindstone" < machana (Ionian-Attic mechane), drapën 'sickle' < *drapanon, mollë 'apple' < malon. Its very plausible that such loans penetrated into the Illyrian language through the early Corinthian solonies of the seventh to fourth centuries B.C, along the Ioanian and Adriatic coastline. The number of loans may be way larger than that because other loans may well have been asked by an absorption into Albanian phonology. In this case it would be extremely difficult to distinguish genetic cognates from loans (Bernal 2006: 178). There only few studies which meddle extensively with the relation between ancient Greek and Albanian. Many scholars have pointed out that northern dialects of ancient Greek are fraught with several Illyrians loans. The Illyrian influence over Greek is attributed to the X-IXth century B.C where Illyrian migration swamped all over Greece. Such a migration is best evinced by certain place-names which are recognizably Illyrian. Thus, J. Wilkes is mildly supportive to the view that Illyrian has exerted some noticeable influence over Greek for he held that "the linguistic evidence for Illyrians in Greece, Asia Minor and Italy is yet to be interpreted" (1995:39). Some startling examples which seem to wholly confirm the idea that Illyrians crept in midst of Greece, are: the Illyrian tribe of Μεσσάπιοι is found in Locris, Boeotia, Laconia, Aetolia, Elis and even in Crete and Caria; the name of Aphrodite at Syracuse, according to Hesychius, was βαιῶτις which is generally regarded as Illyrian. Once Kretchmer opined that tribal name of Βοιωτός was of Illyrian origin. He took his point of departure on the Illyrian personal name Boios. The attention of varied linguists has been captivated by the analogy of Gr. γυναιχί (woman) with gunakhai (Messapic dative, gun-akhai). A. Mayer went even further and suggested that gunakhai was a purely Illyrian form, a dat. from IE. *gunakoi. It must be emphasized that Dorians might have been Illyrian as the very ancient seat of them resided within Illyrian territory before they shifted in the general movement which took place ever since XIIth century B.C. It would not be amiss to surmise that primeval Dorians were responsible for the spread of numerous Illyrian place-names across Greece.  
Ne sot po hedhim faren me emrin Bashkim,
Qe neser te korrim frutin me emrin Bashkim!

Post Reply

Return to “Arberiaonline, artikuj dhe analiza”