"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

HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

Diskutim profesional për gjuhën.

Moderators: Mallakastrioti, bardus

User avatar
Orakulli
Star Member
Star Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:40 am
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#31

Post by Orakulli » Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:45 am

Peter Hill, author of the section "Macedonians" in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, The Australian People (perhaps 200,000 Macedonians live in Australia), writes:

What is certain is that Alexander's mother tongue was not Greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes.

Like Hill, E. Badian refutes the assumptions that a nation is essentially defined by a language and that a common language implies a common nationhood. He argues that this latter idea is patently untrue for the greater part of human history and to a large extent even today. The formal written language of ancient Macedonians was inevitably Greek, as was the case for various other ancient peoples. There was really no alternative. However, this in no way assures good relations between peoples, nor does it necessarily show any consciousness of a common interest. What is of greater historical interest, Badian says, is the documented evidence that Greeks and Macedonians regarded each other as foreign.

The use of the Macedonian language by Alexander's infantry. The Macedonian kings, Philip and Alexander, favored Hellenization and encouraged the use of Attic Greek in their administrations, but the use of this foreign tongue was not foisted upon ordinary Macedonians. Although at least some of Alexander's Greek companions knew the Macedonian language, having come to Macedonia at an early age, Alexander never tried to impose Greek on his Macedonian infantry or to integrate this infantry with Greek units or Greek "foreign" individuals. Alexander's infantry continued to use the Macedonian tongue even late into his Asian expeditions. Badian describes some convincing cases in which Macedonian troops could not follow commands in Greek. For instance, during his argument with Clitus, which led to his good friend's death, at the end Alexander is said to have called for his guards in Macedonian when he felt his life threatened. Badian rejects the idea that this was a reversion to a more primitive part of his psyche, under stress. He prefers the simpler explanation that Alexander used the only language in which his guards could be addressed.

To establish his case, Badian quotes a surviving papyrus fragment that seems to be the only good source to reveal the facts of the infantry use of Macedonian. This fragment tells of a battle, early in 321 B.C., in which the Greek commander Ambiance faced the Macedonian Neoptolemus with his Macedonian phalanx. Wanting to have the Macedonians join him rather than fight him, Ambiance needed to convince them of his superior position. The story continues:

When Eumenues saw the close-locked formation of the Macedonian phalanx ... he sent Xennias once more, a man whose speech was Macedonian, bidding him declare that he would not fight them frontally but would follow them with his cavalry and units of light troops and bar them from provisions.

Badian tells us that Xennias' name reveals him to be a Macedonian. Since he was with Ambiance he was probably a Macedonian of superior status who spoke both standard Greek and his native language. Ambiance needed this interpreter to transmit his message. This means that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian if they were going to understand. Ambiance did not address them himself, although this was the common way for leaders of the time, nor did he send a Greek. Badian concludes that Greek was a foreign tongue to the Macedonians. Similarly, Alexander used Macedonian to address his guards because it was their normal language, and he had to be sure he would be understood. It also seems clear that educated Greeks did not speak the Macedonian language unless (presumably) they had grown up with Macedonians and learned it from their childhood friends, as some of Alexander's Greek companions must have.

Other facts are consistent with this argument. Philip II seems not to have used any Greek commanders for his Macedonian troops. Presumably, the first generation Greek immigrants into his cities had not learned the language. It is also a fact that Ambiance, the commander in the story above, was notorious for the trouble he repeatedly had in getting Macedonian infantry to fight for him, even though he was an able leader. His problem was probably not simply his troops' antagonism to the fact that he was Greek. His problem was that he could not directly communicate with Macedonian soldiers. In the end this defect cost him his life.
Image

User avatar
Orakulli
Star Member
Star Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:40 am
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#32

Post by Orakulli » Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:19 am

The linguistic character of ancient Macedonia.
Arnold Toynbee asserts that the Macedonians of all ancient historical periods spoke Greek. He argues firstly that "they (the Makedones) were already Greek speaking 150 years to 200 years earlier than Augustus' time." This observation would seem to be of little weight in the present discussion since we have already noted the increasing, and deliberately chosen, use of Attic Greek by the Macedonian nobility. The use of a language from a distant location by a limited number of noble families tells us nothing about the native tongue of the Macedonians of the fourth century B.C., the Anglo-Saxons of thirteenth century England, or the Prussians of early eighteenth century Germany.

Toynbee presents other arguments based on linguistic analysis to support his contention that the Macedonians were native Greek speakers. He asserts that Macedonian is Greek based on the "Greekness" of the word "Makedones" and its variant "Makednoi," Macedonian place names, the names of the members of the Argead house, all recorded Macedonian personal names, the names of Macedonian from Upper Macedonia, the names of the Upper Macedonian cantons, the names of the Macedonian months, the majority of which he claims as Greek. Though at first glance this kind of analysis seems weighty, the counter-arguments are at least as powerful.

An issue that we have to deal with here is what constitutes a "Greek name." It is generally accepted that Indo-European Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians and others settled in the Balkan Peninsula in the fourth, third, and second millennium B.C. As we will see later in more detail, it has been argued that only 40 to 50 percent of the vocabulary of Greek is Indo-European in origin and that 80 percent of its proper names cannot be explained as Indo-European.9 At least two possibilities might explain the presence of such linguistic forms in ancient Greek. One is that pre-Hellenic cultures were non-Indo-European and that the Greek newcomers adopted many proper names and other words from those peoples. Alternatively, the words might have been introduced by conquerors and settlers from the Levant and from Egypt in the second millennium B.C. In either case it is quite possible that such words came into Macedonian and other Balkan languages in the very same way. Thus both languages might have borrowed from others. If we favor the modern view that the pre-Hellenic influences in Greek are non-Indo-European, and we take into account the observed fact that place names often tend to last through conquest and assimilation, its would be reasonable to assume that some of the supposed "Greek" place names found in the "Macedonian" language are in fact pre-Hellenic names.

It is easy to find modern examples of the same phenomenon. Both France and Germany have many Celtic place names yet do not speak a Celtic language, or even the same language. The people of England are "British," a name based on a Latin word formerly applied to a Celtic-speaking people and now referring to an Anglo-Saxon people. A study of the word "British" does not help us to determine what language the British speak. It is certainly not Latin, yet there is historical evidence about the use of Latin in Britain, the same kind of evidence that is trotted out to prove that the Macedonians were Greek. For instance, since English coins have Latin on them, we might conclude that the British speak Latin, following the argument that it would not make sense to use a language no one could read on such common items. Similarly, many English parish churches have collections of epitaphs in Latin, dating from the Middle Ages. Classicist Andy Fear points out that most of the population of medieval England could not even read English, let alone Latin. Obviously, the significance of surviving Greek texts from Macedonia must be treated with caution. Fear notes, too, that Greek inscriptions from ancient Macedonia are in a mixture of Greek dialects. It is much easier to believe that this could occur if Greek was alien to Macedonia, instead of the common language. If the latter were the case, we might expect to see a consistent form employed.If we study the month names used in England and France, we can see that they resemble each other. This is not a basis for concluding that French and English are the same language. All one can reasonably conclude is that there has been similar heavy influence across these two languages. To say, for such superficial reasons, that Greek and Macedonian are the same language is to make far too much of a little thing. We must remember also that much of the history about ancient Macedonians that is passed on to us comes through Greek sources, and names are likely to have been shaped into Greek forms for a myriad of reasons, including the likelihood that Greek writers may not have been able to pronounce other tongues. A modern analogy would be to think that France is a German-speaking country because when reading a German textbook one comes across the name "Frankreich" ruled by, say, Karl rather than Charles. It is easy enough to find English forms of foreign place names that look far removed from their native form; Florence for Firenze, and so on.

In his essay "Linguistic Problems of the Balkan Area in Late Prehistoric and Early Classical Periods,"o R.A. Crossland directly addresses the issue of the linguistic character of ancient Macedonian. Crossland points out that the principal languages of the Balkan region in question* appear to have been Illyrian or an Illyrian language group; Thracian or Thraco-Dacian; and Macedonian. When it comes to the language of the Macedonians, Crossland takes a position very different from modern Greek writers. He rejects the idea that the Macedonians and their language were of Mycenaean origin. Then he goes on to consider linguistic and archeological evidence about the possible origins of Macedonian and in so doing directly contradicts Toynbee.

Crossland points out that the territory of the Macedones at the beginning of the fifth century B.C. seems to have lain between Tymphaea in the west, Pelagonia in the north and the river Axius in the east, but so far no category of place-names that we can identify as "Macedonian" has been identified in this area, and no inscription in Greek earlier than the late fourth century B.C. has been found in any part of Macedonia. Thus we have no substantial evidence about the nature of the Macedonian language in the time that it was most exclusively used (before the fifth century B.C.), but neither do we have evidence of any Greek language being in use at that point in history. The use of Greek came later.

Crossland says that the names of Macedonians mentioned in fifth- and fourth-century sources are almost all either certainly or possibly Greek, but he argues that this is not significant, since members of one people often borrow names from another whom they regard as culturally superior. Certainly the Macedonian craze for things Greek, including Greek education for the children of the upper classes, suggests such an attitude.

Next, Crossland points out that the ancient writers of the time gave imprecise information about the language of the Macedonians. None of the ancient Greek writers gives a detailed statement about the language that the Macedones spoke. The limited evidence that remains consists of words preserved by Greek lexicographers, especially Hesychius, from about the fifth century A.D. According to Crossland, these words were listed as "used by the Macedonians" or "used in Macedonia" without any indication of the origins of the words. Crossland also cites several other authorities who confirm his conclusions.

Regarding the ancient writers' capacity to recognize significant linguistic features, Crossland agrees with Toynbee in pointing out that when language and speech seemed very different the ancient writers might have had difficulty in making correct classifications. We do not have an understanding of the details of their systems for classifying language. However, we need to remember that only in very recent times have linguists recognized the many languages that make up the Indo-European group. Crossland says that it is difficult to know whether one group of Greek speakers, say the Athenians, would have been able to recognize really different dialects of Greek, or whether they would have been influenced by differences of culture to classify such dialects as barbarian.

Crossland says that the evidence available is too sparse and unsatisfactory to tell us conclusively whether Macedonian was a dialect of Greek or a distinct language. He notes that another authority, N. Hammond, has actually concluded that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek, based on interpretations of information in ancient sources about the status and use of Macedonian under Alexander the Great and his successors. However, Crossland is skeptical of Hammond's reasoning and says that better evidence would come from comparative linguistic study.

Crossland says that two kinds of evidence would help us to conclude that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek. Firstly, we would have to be able to observe or reconstruct its sound system and morphology in a way that would reveal any similarities to recognized ancient Greek dialects, and any contrasts to other Indo-European languages. Secondly, we would have to know whether speakers of most of those Greek dialects could understand and be understood by Macedonians. But none of the necessary evidence is available. The lexical items thought to be Macedonian are too few and uncertain for any useful reconstructions of the language's sound system or morphology, and no Greek writer of the fifth or fourth century B.C. states explicitly whether Greek speakers such as the Athenians could understand the native speech of the Macedonians. Crossland says that these Greeks seemed to have had no difficulty in communicating with the Macedonian court, but this is probably because the royal family of Macedonia, and perhaps most of the nobility, spoke Attic Greek fluently. At home with their families or with their own clansmen they probably used their native tongue, Crossland believes.

We do not know either what form of "international" Greek speech might have been used in Macedonia since there are no substantial inscriptions in Greek from Macedonia earlier than the third century. The Greek speech used might have been Attic or an early form of the koine deriving from it that was already spoken even more widely in the Balkans before Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire.

The information about supposedly Macedonian words given by ancient lexicographers may not be very reliable. Along with words that were a part of the real Macedonian tongue in the fourth century B.C., they might have listed words and usages typical of the variety of Greek that was used in Macedonia from the third century onwards. They may also have included words that were special to the Macedonian armies. Some Greeks in the early Hellenistic period may even have regarded as Macedonian words that belonged to the koine as a whole, but not to Attic. We have no way of knowing the underlying basis for classifying words as belonging to one language or another.

Crossland is very critical of Kalleris, a Greek writer who tries to make a case from a linguistics standpoint for Macedonian being a Greek dialect. It is worth looking at this material in detail because of its apparent thoroughness, and because of its relevance to Toynbee's arguments.

In an examination of the 153 words that are described as Macedonian in ancient sources, Kalleris considers that well over three-quarters of these words are Greek. Crossland finds this quite unconvincing. First, he says, a third of these words have no satisfactory etymology. Second, he says that a further 44 items should be disregarded as being false forms in the sources from which they came. They are simply adjectives of Greek formation based on place-names. Although these words seem to be Indo-European, they could belong to an Indo-European language other than Greek. Some of them might be military or technical terms which are Attic in form and were borrowed from Attic Greek in the fifth or fourth century.

Third, Crossland argues, if Macedonian was a dialect of Greek it is extremely unlikely that it would have been similar to Attic Greek. The original Macedonians did not come from the area of Athens and share no history with the Athenians. This means that the Attic words are a false lead, just late borrowings from Greek. It would be much more convincing, perhaps crucial, to find Macedonian words that were not specifically Attic but which occurred either in a considerable number of Greek dialects or in some of the dialects that were spoken in areas adjacent to Macedonia. Kalleris gives fifty-one words of this kind. Many of these words occur in Doric or other West Greek dialects or resemble words in these dialects. However, it is quite possible that these words were borrowed from West Greek dialects or from Thessalian, particularly since all except eighteen of them are the sort of words which the Macedonians might well have borrowed from their neighbors. They include titles of gods, names of festivals and months of the year, military terms, and names of objects that they might have learnt from neighbors to make and use. Such words are often borrowed from neighboring groups, so their existence in Macedonia is not convincing evidence that they were originally Macedonian.

Fourth, the remaining eighteen words, none of which corresponds exactly in meaning or form with Greek words, seem insufficient to make a case for classifying Macedonian as Greek. Once again there is the possibility that the words were borrowed from neighbors. At the western and southern borders of Macedonia were tribes speaking different Greek dialects, and we know that the Macedonians were in contact with these peoples. The Thessalians to the south are particularly likely to have been influential since they were culturally and politically more advanced than the Macedonians before the fifth century. They are likely to have influenced the Macedonians particularly strongly until the growth of Athenian influence. Herodotus reports on traditions in the same period of close contact between the Macedonians and the Dorians before the latter were supposed to have migrated southward.

Finally, though again it is hardly sufficient basis for any conclusion, there is one language feature evident in the surviving "Macedonian" words that points to the idea of a separate language. Macedonian seems to have had a phonological feature that marks it as different from Greek dialects. This is the correspondence of a sound written with B, to Ph in Greek. For instance, this would appear as something like Bilippos in Macedonian, and Philippos in Greek. Crossland says that this change puts Macedonian closer in phonology to Illyrian and Thracian than to Greek, but it does not mean that Macedonian was a dialect of either language.

Crossland is not convinced by claims that comments from writers such as Arrian and Plutarch in the first to second centuries A.D. (e.g. Plutarch, Ant. 27) show that Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek as their native tongue. He says they are inconclusive since the expressions used are vague and might be referring to a "Macedonian style" rather than a "Macedonian language" or "dialect." These descriptions would be just as likely if Macedonian was a distinct language as they would be if it was a dialect of Greek. Crossland points out that it is possible that Macedonian kings and their courts, soldiers and colonists might have continued to speak a second language in their homes and among themselves for some generations even though they spoke Greek for most practical purposes. After all, it is easy to think of examples of this kind of thing in more modern times. Crossland notes that Gaelic was used alongside English for generations by Scots who emigrated to America. It is still used in this way in some small communities in North America. Similarly, although English was used as the language of command and administration in British army regiments recruited predominantly in Wales, the Welsh language was still used privately.

Like historians who have examined this question, Crossland suggests that Alexander may have required Macedonians in his armies to use Greek as the language of command, just as he required many Persians to learn it (Plut. Alex. 43.7), because it was efficient, and because he thought it the language best suited to serve as the common medium of communication among the peoples of his empire. This kind of strategic decision does not require that Macedonian should have been similar to the new "international" language.
In summing up, Crossland says again that the evidence does not indicate convincingly that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek rather than a separate Indo-European language. Even Toynbee, who is persuaded in the opposite direction by the very flimsy evidence we have considered above emphasizes that the evidence is "fragmentary, ... confused and self-contradictory." In practical terms this suggests that modern Greeks may have to look elsewhere for convincing evidence that ancient Macedonians were Greek.
Image

User avatar
ALBPelasgian
Galactic Member
Galactic Member
Posts: 2112
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Prishtinë (Prima Justiniana)
Contact:

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#33

Post by ALBPelasgian » Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:18 pm

Punë e vyer Orakulli!

Po e shtoj edhe këtë:

In 3200 BC, there were many, many languages spoken besides Sumerian and Egyptian, but they weren't fortunate enough to have a writing system. These languages are just as old. To take one interesting case, the Albanian language (spoken north of Greece) was not written down until about the 15th century AD, yet Ptolemy mentions the people in the first century BC.* The linguistic and archaeological evidence suggests that Albanians were a distinct people for even longer than that. So Albanian has probably existed for several millennia, but has only been written down for 500 years. With a twist of fate, Albanian might be considered very "old" and Greek pretty "new".

http://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/oldest.cfm
Ne sot po hedhim faren me emrin Bashkim,
Qe neser te korrim frutin me emrin Bashkim!

User avatar
ALBPelasgian
Galactic Member
Galactic Member
Posts: 2112
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Prishtinë (Prima Justiniana)
Contact:

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#34

Post by ALBPelasgian » Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:44 pm

Edhe kjo tjetra është një bombë e vërtetë:

The ancient Macedonians were Illyrians just like the ancient Thracians.
90 years Greek ethnic cleansing of Bulgarians in Aegean Macedonia - Stoyan G. Bojadjiev. 1996, pg.59
Ne sot po hedhim faren me emrin Bashkim,
Qe neser te korrim frutin me emrin Bashkim!

User avatar
ALBPelasgian
Galactic Member
Galactic Member
Posts: 2112
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Prishtinë (Prima Justiniana)
Contact:

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#35

Post by ALBPelasgian » Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:49 pm

Ja dhe konteksti më i gjërë:

It has been proved that the Macedonian Kingdom began with the reign of Perdikas in 700 BC and was politically independent until AD 148 when it became part of the Roman Empire. The question is now raised as to the ethnic identity of the people that founded the Macedonian State.
According to Toukidid, one of most prominent ancient historians, the Macedonians were people different from the Athenians and he calls them ..barbarians" /Toukidid - 2.80.82/. In a manuscript by an unknown author preserved since the end of the 5th and the beginning of 4th century BC called ..Peri Politeias" the Macedonians are treated as something quite different from the Greeks and are also called ,,barbarians". We should also mention the irrefutable proof given by Demosthenes one of the most prominent figures in antiquity. In the renowned ..Selected Speeches of Demosthenes" /Bulgarian edition 1982/ one can read the famous diatribes against Philip II, the predecessor of Alexander the Great /336 - 323 BC/. The third diatribe reads as follows: ,,But Philip and his crimes are not treated like this any more. Not only is he no Hellene and has nothing in common with the Hellenes but he also has nothing in common with the foreigners of whom we speak with respect. He is an unworthy Macedonian, a country from which one cannot buy a single industrious slave" /p. 67/. His conviction that the Macedonians have no kinship with the Greeks is expressed by Demosthenes in his speech entitled ..About the Wreath". In it the calls on the listeners to read the inscription on the gravestone of the killed Athenian soldiers. The inscription reads: ,,They fought in order to free the Greeks from the burden of slavery and from the hateful impudence of the foreigners" - so it proves in an indisputable way that the Macedonian ruler Philip and therefore the Macedonians are not Hellenes which means that the name ,,Macedonia" originating from a ..barbarian tribe" cannot be subject of any claims on the part of present-day Greece.
The ancient Macedonians were Illyrians just like the ancient Thracians. And when later in the 5th century the Slavs invaded the Balkan peninsula and settled there /including Macedonia/, the national composition of the country was completely changed and that is why the Romans called Macedonia "Slavinia terra" /Slav land/.


http://www.promacedonia.org/en/am/brief.html
Ne sot po hedhim faren me emrin Bashkim,
Qe neser te korrim frutin me emrin Bashkim!

User avatar
ALBPelasgian
Galactic Member
Galactic Member
Posts: 2112
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Prishtinë (Prima Justiniana)
Contact:

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#36

Post by ALBPelasgian » Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:14 pm

Fenomenale!

When he talks of the ethnic background of the Macedonians, Jouguet acknoweldges claims that they were Illyrians or Epeirots, or a mixture of Greek, Albanian and Thraco-Ilyrian elements.

http://books.google.com/books?id=InyEqB ... ly&f=false
Ne sot po hedhim faren me emrin Bashkim,
Qe neser te korrim frutin me emrin Bashkim!

User avatar
ALBPelasgian
Galactic Member
Galactic Member
Posts: 2112
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Prishtinë (Prima Justiniana)
Contact:

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#37

Post by ALBPelasgian » Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:59 pm

Image
Ne sot po hedhim faren me emrin Bashkim,
Qe neser te korrim frutin me emrin Bashkim!

User avatar
Orakulli
Star Member
Star Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:40 am
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#38

Post by Orakulli » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:58 pm

Gjuha shqipe e ka historine e saj ne njesite e saj.Cdo njesi e saj tregon sa e vjetr dhe njekohesisht jep ne menure shume te qarte kodet ndertimore se si eshte ndertuar gjuha ne pergjithesi.Kjo eshte shume e dukshme ne kete gjuhe.Pikerisht kete duan te fshehin kur thone qe gjuha shqipe vjen nga Ilirishtja dhe trakishtja duke e ditur shume mire qe ato nuk kane lene libra te shkruar.
Gjuha shqipe eshte perdorur per te ndertuar gjuhet e europes duke filluar me gjuhen greke te vjter,gjuhen latine,gjuhet sllave ,gjuhet anglosaksone,gjuhet nordike.Deri reth shekullit te 10 pas eres sone ,ka shume mundesi qe shumica e popujve te europes kishin si gjuhe te folur,gjuhen shqipe.Ekstiston nje dallim i madh midis gjuhes se folur dhe gjuhes se shkruar.Gjuha e shkruar i perket elitave.Gjuhet e shkruara te vjetra nuk jane perdourur aspak nga popujt deri vone reth shekullit te 14.Ato ishin gjuhe artificilae qe ndertoheshin ne baze te kombineve te njesive te gjuhes se folur,gjuhes shqipe.Gjuha shqipe ka qene e shkruar shume e shume kohe me pare para tyre.Psi u studjua dhe u kopjua teresisht,librat e saj u zhduken,o dogjen si libra paganesh e arsy et tjera,qe nuk po ip permendim ketu.Librat e kesaj gjuhe jane perdorur per te ndertuar deri ne gjuhen sanskrite dhe ato aziatike.Kjo e vertete e madhe eshte fsheur ne menyre sistematike nder shekuj nga kishat,xhamite,sinagogat dhe fete etjera si veda,budistet..sepse perdorem koceptet fetare te kesaj gjuhe dhe i konvertuar sipas qejfit te tyre te zot,allah...Duheshin zhdukur faktet e shkruara qe vertetonin te kunderten dhe tregonin genjeshtren e madhe te diktatoreve&mbret&zot.
Gjuha shqipe shpetoi vetem nga karakteristikat e kesaj race.Kjo race ka nje luan te madh perbrenda.Kjo race ka drejtuar shtetet kryesore qe nga Faraonet e Egjyptit,perandoria e Romes,Bizantine deri ne perandorine e fundit Osmane.Hostorine e saj e eleminoi vetem Kisha dhe Xhamia per interesat e tyre fetare.
Gjuha e Maqedonise dhe Ilire eshte lidhur me gjuhen greke aq sa eshte e lidhur gegerishtja me Tzamerishten,te cila perbejne ne te vertete,respektivisht gjuhen Ilire_Maqedonase-Thrake(gegerishtja) dhe gjuhen greke (tTamerishtja).Gjuha Helene ka qene gjuha e kohes kur midis gegerishte dhe tzamerishtes nuk kish filluar carje fonetike dhe alfabetike(alfabeti "grek" dhe "latin",te cilet jane alfabetet e dy dialekteve me te medha te gjuhes shqipe).Gjuha shqipe ka filluar te shkruhet me shkrimet Vinka,me vone mikenase,egjyptian,grek,latine.Fundi i ciklit te zhvillimit te kesaj gjuhe ka qene shekulli i 6 pas eres sone.Aty ka ndaluar zhvillimi i kesaj gjuhe madheshtore.Ka ndaluar pikerisht kur elitat e kesaj race u shkeputen perfundimisht nga populli dhe filluan t'perdornin gjuhen e re,te ndertuar nga te paguarit e tyre(prifterinte)i.Ata kishin ekonomin ne dore dhe mund ta benin lehtesisht nje gje te tille,por vetem shqiptaret,nuk e ndryshuan gjuhen e folur deri ne ditet tona.Kjo skeme vazhdoi deri ne shekullin e 19.Popujt filluan te shkruaje ne fund te atij shekulli dhe ne gjate shekullit te 20.Gjate procesit te shkrimit te gjuheve Europiane,i filluar 6 shekuj me pare Kleriket dhe aristokratet filluan mesim me detyrim te gjuheve shume te reja te ndertuar ne laboratoret e kishave per reth 1000 vjet,dhe kjo solli percarjen e madhe te qellimshme te gjuhes se folur.
Image

User avatar
IllyrianLegend
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:55 pm
Gender: Male

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#39

Post by IllyrianLegend » Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:02 pm

Zeus10 wrote:
ALBPelasgian wrote:Zeus shpjegimi i U.Wilcken (një historian reputativ) Edesën, dmth këtë toponim e përafron me ilirishten duke nënkuptuar 'qytet uji':

The name Edessa was ascribed an Illyrian origin by U. Wilcken, in his biography of Alexander the Great (noted by Walter Bauer 1934; 1971; ch. 1), the "town of the waters", due to its copious water resources and its tourist attraction of the waterfalls, located in the actual town center. The Ancient Macedonian name "Edessa" was commemorated by Seleucus I Nicator in refounding an ancient city in northern Mesopotamia: see Edessa, Mesopotamia. The name of the city in Slavic is "Voden/Воден" (derived from voda/вода, i.e. water), in Turkish the city can be known as either "Edessa" or "Vodine", and in Aromanian the city can be known as either "Edessa" or "Vudena", which comes from an alternative Greek name for the city Βοδενά Vodená.

The Cambridge ancient history

John Bagnell Bury, Stanley Arthur Cook, Frank ... - 1939
The existence of people formerly speaking an Anatolian language can be seen in place-names like Edessa, and in the name of the national weapon, the sarissa; the original name of Pella, Bounomos, is probably Illyrian; many Thracian ...


Sllavët kur e pushtuan Maqedoninë e kovertuan këtë emër në Воден (Voden) pra Ujë. Më intereson në këtë rast, cila bazë e fjalës EDESSA është përkatësja ilirishte për ujë?
Asnje filolog mesjetar apo modern nuk ka njohurite minimale per gjuhen e ilireve. Mesa duket disa prej tyre i nxjerrin kuptimin e fjaleve duke u nisur nga greqishtja:

Image

Une personalisht mendoj qe kjo nuk eshte shume e gabuar. Une mendoj qe iliret kane folur te njejten gjuhe me "greket" pa qene greke. Pra ajo qe ne e quajme greqisht ka qene gjuha e gjithe races ballkanike.
Po perse eshte perdorur termi "barbar" ndaj disa fiseve? A nuk u perdor ky term per ata qe kan folur nje gjuhe jo-helene?

User avatar
Zeus10
Grand Fighter Member
Grand Fighter Member
Posts: 4135
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: CANADA
Contact:

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#40

Post by Zeus10 » Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:24 pm

IllyrianLegend wrote:
Po perse eshte perdorur termi "barbar" ndaj disa fiseve? A nuk u perdor ky term per ata qe kan folur nje gjuhe jo-helene?
Sepse une mendoj dhe jam plotesisht I bindur, qe barbar aplikohet per te gjithe religjionet pagane politeiste, kurse helenet ishin monotheist.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

User avatar
IllyrianLegend
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:55 pm
Gender: Male

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#41

Post by IllyrianLegend » Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:34 pm

Zeus10 wrote:
IllyrianLegend wrote:
Po perse eshte perdorur termi "barbar" ndaj disa fiseve? A nuk u perdor ky term per ata qe kan folur nje gjuhe jo-helene?
Sepse une mendoj dhe jam plotesisht I bindur, qe barbar aplikohet per te gjithe religjionet pagane politeiste, kurse helenet ishin monotheist.
Si mund te ishin monotheist ata duke besuar ne Athenen, Zeusin, Apollon etj ? Si je bind qe ishte term per fe te paganve?

User avatar
Zeus10
Grand Fighter Member
Grand Fighter Member
Posts: 4135
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: CANADA
Contact:

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#42

Post by Zeus10 » Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:50 pm

IllyrianLegend wrote:
Zeus10 wrote:
IllyrianLegend wrote:
Po perse eshte perdorur termi "barbar" ndaj disa fiseve? A nuk u perdor ky term per ata qe kan folur nje gjuhe jo-helene?
Sepse une mendoj dhe jam plotesisht i bindur, qe barbar aplikohet per te gjithe religjionet pagane politeiste, kurse helenet ishin monotheist.
Si mund te ishin monotheist ata duke besuar ne Athenen, Zeusin, Apollon etj ? Si je bind qe ishte term per fe te paganve?
Po te veshtrosh me vemendje, vetem Apolloni eshte Hyu origjinal i heleneve, qe nuk ishin nje etni por nje theokraci, gjithe te tjeret ishin hyjni pellazge, bile helenet nuk mund te shkelnin ne tempujt kushtuar atyre. Mesa duket keto perendi u adoptuan ne panteonin e besimit helenik dhe filluan te adhuroheshin dhe prej tyre.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

User avatar
IllyrianLegend
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:55 pm
Gender: Male

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#43

Post by IllyrianLegend » Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:01 am

Zeus10 wrote:
ALBPelasgian wrote:Zeus shpjegimi i U.Wilcken (një historian reputativ) Edesën, dmth këtë toponim e përafron me ilirishten duke nënkuptuar 'qytet uji':

The name Edessa was ascribed an Illyrian origin by U. Wilcken, in his biography of Alexander the Great (noted by Walter Bauer 1934; 1971; ch. 1), the "town of the waters", due to its copious water resources and its tourist attraction of the waterfalls, located in the actual town center. The Ancient Macedonian name "Edessa" was commemorated by Seleucus I Nicator in refounding an ancient city in northern Mesopotamia: see Edessa, Mesopotamia. The name of the city in Slavic is "Voden/Воден" (derived from voda/вода, i.e. water), in Turkish the city can be known as either "Edessa" or "Vodine", and in Aromanian the city can be known as either "Edessa" or "Vudena", which comes from an alternative Greek name for the city Βοδενά Vodená.

The Cambridge ancient history

John Bagnell Bury, Stanley Arthur Cook, Frank ... - 1939
The existence of people formerly speaking an Anatolian language can be seen in place-names like Edessa, and in the name of the national weapon, the sarissa; the original name of Pella, Bounomos, is probably Illyrian; many Thracian ...


Sllavët kur e pushtuan Maqedoninë e kovertuan këtë emër në Воден (Voden) pra Ujë. Më intereson në këtë rast, cila bazë e fjalës EDESSA është përkatësja ilirishte për ujë?
Asnje filolog mesjetar apo modern nuk ka njohurite minimale per gjuhen e ilireve. Mesa duket disa prej tyre i nxjerrin kuptimin e fjaleve duke u nisur nga greqishtja:

Image

Une personalisht mendoj qe kjo nuk eshte shume e gabuar. Une mendoj qe iliret kane folur te njejten gjuhe me "greket" pa qene greke. Pra ajo qe ne e quajme greqisht ka qene gjuha e gjithe races ballkanike.
"58. But the Hellenic stock, as to me seems clear, has ever used the same language since its beginning; yet being, when separated from the Pelasgians, but few in number, they have grown from a small beginning to comprise a multitude of nations, chiefly because the Pelasgians and many other foreign peoples united themselves with them. Before that, as I think, the Pelasgic stock nowhere increased greatly in number while it was of foreign speech." -
Herodotus, The Persian Wars p.65

Me sa duket paska pasur nje dalim gjuhesh ne kete Gadishull?

User avatar
Zeus10
Grand Fighter Member
Grand Fighter Member
Posts: 4135
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: CANADA
Contact:

Re: HAJGARE INDO-EUROPIANE DHE E VERTETA MBI FILIPIN

#44

Post by Zeus10 » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:09 am

IllyrianLegend wrote:
"58. But the Hellenic stock, as to me seems clear, has ever used the same language since its beginning; yet being, when separated from the Pelasgians, but few in number, they have grown from a small beginning to comprise a multitude of nations, chiefly because the Pelasgians and many other foreign peoples united themselves with them. Before that, as I think, the Pelasgic stock nowhere increased greatly in number while it was of foreign speech." -
Herodotus, The Persian Wars p.65

Me sa duket paska pasur nje dalim gjuhesh ne kete Gadishull?
Ndryshimi midis fjales 'gjuhe' dhe 'dialekt', eshte i brishte. Ne kete arsyetim , futet dhe gjykimi subjektiv i autoreve te lashte per te ndare nje gjuhe te huaj nga dialekti, pa folur per faktin qe ne gjuhen e vjeter greke, me dialektos kuptohej fjala gjuhe, sic kuptojme ne sot nje gjuhe te huaj.
Por po, ka pasur disa gjuhe, qe megjithese gjithe filologjia moderne kembengul te kene qene gjuhe te popujve, une kembengul qe kane qene gjuhe te feve, qe ju dhane emer dhe popujve.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Post Reply

Return to “Linguistikë”