Paleo-Balkan & Balto-Slavic - Common Proto Language

[Liberator of Makedonija]

You are speaking of the Balkan sprachbund

[Soldier of Macedon]

I haven't had a chance to go through all of this thread but I like linguistics! I am wondering, after a quick search, the suggestion is that the only surviving Paleo Balkan languages are Greek and Albanian. But not Macedonian, which I assume should be in the Balto-Slavic group?

Any theory that only Greek and Albanian have a claim to Paleo-Balkan ancestry is ubsurd. At the very least, ALL modern Balkan languages would possess at least some Paelo-Balkan features; common history and shared space demands it

In my view, the Paleo-Balkan languages can be classified into two categories, broadly based on the centum-satem divide. One of them is represented by anc. Greek, which is a hybrid of an Indo-European language and a non-IE substrate. Its IE element derives from the centum branch of Proto-Indo-European, which means Greek, at its core, is more akin to the Italic and Celtic languages in the west of Europe than it is (or was) to the adjacent languages in southeast Europe. Due in no small part to a level of stability its predecessor achieved through its continued use as a literary or administrative language (questions about the extent of its use as a primary spoken tongue aside), mod. Greek is a clear and identifiable descendant of the centum category of Paleo-Balkan. The satem category of Paleo-Balkan is represented by the non-Greek languages, such as Thracian. Based on little more than conjecture, it has become fashionable to propagate the claim that Albanian descended from one or more of these languages. Whilst Albanian may be spoken in a part of what was once Illyria, it also happens to be one of the most bastardised languages in the world. Like Greek, it may be treated as an IE isolate, but unlike mod. Greek, it cannot be clearly identified with a specific ancestor, Paleo-Balkan or otherwise. This ambiguity is beneficial for proponents of Albanian indigeneity, as it is often used to evade any kind of methodical scrutiny.

There are other languages that are just as adulterated, but their provenance is not in dispute because they have sister languages with a partially shared lexis or long histories of literature to compare with. One could, therefore, advance the argument that if there was only more evidence of Paleo-Balkan languages, it would reveal the missing link with regard to Albanian. However, despite its relatively poor attestation, a decent number of Thracian words are known from historical accounts and inscriptions, and their affinity with Albanian is comparatively negligible. Thus, there are some crucial questions that remain unanswered. For example, did Albanian begin as an intrusive language, or a group of intrusive languages, that adopted and adapted the vocabulary from multiple Romance, and to a lesser degree, Paleo-Balkan and other languages? If so, when and where did the amalgamation occur? Or were the Paleo-Balkan languages so thoroughly diluted through drastic changes and admixture over time that the “original” component of Albanian has been reduced to irrelevance? If the latter is true, why do some of the languages it purportedly descends from have more in common with the supposedly “foreign” Slavic languages and their geographically distant Baltic relatives? The last question is particularly important, as much of the same territory where the satem category of Paleo-Balkan languages were once spoken is occupied by the southern part of the Balto-Slavic group. Within that framework, some notable observations can be made.

First, Balto-Slavic is also from the satem branch of PIE and shares some of the same sound changes that were common in Thracian and its counterparts. Second, both Baltic and Slavic (more so the former) share close and relatively unique cognates with Thracian, and in several cases, Baltic is practically identical to Thracian. Third, Baltic vocabulary is often more archaic than Slavic, so the further back one reconstructs certain Slavic words, the more they resemble their Baltic (and Thracian) equivalents. Albanian also shares some sound changes and cognates with Thracian, but the latter has far more in common with Balto-Slavic than any other modern language group. That is not just a mere coincidence. Thracian was spoken well into the 6th century and its disappearance has a direct correlation with the appearance of Slavic. There are those in mainstream scholarship who limit the relevance of this fact, because if they afford it the appropriate attention, they may also need to consider the likely existence of a common language group that was bounded by Baltic to the north and Thracian to the south, putting a significant dent in the improbable “Slavic migration” theory. That is why Florin Curta, as a reputable and published historian, is of a difference. He has no dog in this fight and the very fact he is so vehemently opposed by certain scholars who have spent their careers endorsing outdated concepts serves to highlight their insecurities.

In his recent book, Curta strips away the poisonous politics that have plagued studies on this topic for years and opens the path for a more rational conclusion, namely, that somewhere within the space of this Baltic-Thracian landscape, in an area that was more susceptible to foreign influences, a convergence of related dialects occurred, resulting in the creation of a simplified koine, i.e., Slavic. Whereas variations were already present, the outcome of these events led to some of the key attributes that further differentiate Slavic from Baltic and Thracian, such as the changes in certain grammatical features and the greater incorporation of Iranian and Germanic loanwords. Such a sequence is not without parallel and one need only look to the history of the English language for a suitable analogy. Anglo-Saxons were speaking Old English when Viking settlers brought Old Norse to Britain. Although both languages were Germanic, certain differences meant the two communities found it difficult to communicate efficiently. One of the ways they overcame this challenge, at least in part, was to simplify the grammar. Factor in the abundance of loanwords that came with the invading Normans, and the end result was the eventual disappearance of Old Norse and the transition from Old English to Middle English, which was noticeably different from its predecessor. In both cases, Middle English and Slavic represent important stages of development within their respective language groups, which set them on a different course. Today, mutual intelligibility between English and other Germanic languages (with the possible exception of Scots) is extremely limited to non-existent. The average English-speaker will find the Old English vernacular used in Caedmon's Hymn or Beowulf slightly familiar, but largely incomprehensible. In fact, a German-speaker may find those works easier to learn (but not to immediately understand) due to some of the vocabulary and grammar.

Similar circumstances apply to Macedonian, which is a contemporary Balto-Slavic language. Whilst there are degrees of mutual intelligibility based on proximity with other Slavic languages, there is little to none with the Baltic side of the family. The average Macedonian-speaker would find a number of Thracian words to be somewhat familiar, but would struggle to comprehend a reconstructed sentence in that language. A Lithuanian-speaker, on the other hand, is likely to understand more of it. As for the question about whether or not Macedonian has a link to Paleo-Balkan languages, the delineation of the latter should be taken into account. It has already been established that Thracian was historically spoken on both sides of the Danube. If, for example, the earlier ancestor of mod. Macedonian was developed in the northern part of the Thracian linguistic sphere before being adopted by people who spoke related dialects south of the river, does it make it any less Paleo-Balkan? Does the fact that the forerunners to this ancestor sounded much more like Baltic, and therefore like Thracian, not count for anything? I would argue that it does. Although several Baltic-Thracian cognates cannot be found in contemporary Slavic languages, they must have existed in some of the dialects that formed their Slavic predecessor. The fact that Baltic shares so many similarities with Thracian yet is clearly part of the same family as Slavic, suggests that the relationship between the three is indeed phylogenetic. Unfortunately, research in this field has been stunted by individuals who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Fortunately, scientific perspectives continue to evolve and with more people like Curta taking an objective and open-minded approach, it is only a matter of time before this topic, traditionally (but unfairly) characterised as a “fringe” theory, receives the attention it deserves.

[Karposh]

I find it hilariously sad that there are people out there so invested in discrediting any potential theory or school of thought that goes against the accepted narrative regarding Macedonia and Macedonians that they actively spend every waking moment of their lives seeking out and trying their best to shut down such theories. The so-called Slavic migration theory is a good example of this. For many, it seems, it is their mission in life to try and maintain the status quo regarding this theory and any opposing view that suggests otherwise such as the existence of a proto-Slavic Balkan homeland must be shut down immediately. Attitudes such as these do nothing more than reveal the insecurities of these people and their paranoia about anything that might connect the ethnogenesis of the ancient Macedonians with something other than the ancient Greeks.

Florin Curta’s views may not be mainstream but they are by no means less valid. Shutting down a theory because it goes against the accepted mainstream view is not the scientific approach. It never is. It’s very similar to the derogatory accusation used today to describe anyone who does not agree with the latest Covid rules and advice as “going against the science”. Yet, we’ve all seen how that Covid advice is constantly being updated and corrected. Scientific research, by its very nature, is all about research and experimentation. Well, that’s how it was back in the day anyway. It has now become a religion and you can no longer question the dogma. Climate change is another good example of this.

Here are two idiots, one of them, Politis, a very familiar name on anything Macedonian-related, giving their 2 cents worth on Florin Curta’s Wikipedia Talk page:

This article reads like self-promotion. I am not saying it was written by the person concerned in the article, but it reads as such. There is nothing to warrant a Wikipedia article of Mr Cuta. Politis (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree- I don't see anything here notable enough for an article and research is coming up with nothing. I am nominating this article for deletion per WP:Notability Sesamehoneytart 00:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding ancient geographical place names and personal names, there are quite a few that have been uncovered on various inscriptions on the territories of modern Macedonia and Bulgaria that are unique and cannot possibly be classed as being Greek. The Greeks themselves admit this. The name of the ancient Paeonian city of Bilazora (i.e., bela zora or white dawn) immediately comes to mind as does the personal female name of Zaika – from the root Macedonian word for rabbit or hare - Zajak. The name Bilazora, by the way, has been dismissed as an anomaly and a complete coincidence by historians and linguists. Of course they would say that. Anything less would go against the status quo. Not sure if they have also dismissed the personal name Zaika as a coincidence as well. The name Zaika was found inscribed in the village of Vitolishte (Republic of Macedonia) as well as the village of Otishtino in Pirin Macedonia. Other interesting ancient Macedonian personal names that have been discovered include Dida, Doula/Doule, Kopria, Lyka, Moma, Momo, Manta, Nana, Sita, Tata, etc.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The name Zaika was found inscribed in the village of Vitolishte (Republic of Macedonia) as well as the village of Otishtino in Pirin Macedonia. Other interesting ancient Macedonian personal names that have been discovered include Dida, Doula/Doule, Kopria, Lyka, Moma, Momo, Manta, Nana, Sita, Tata, etc.

Karposh, notwithstanding the likely relation between various Paleo-Balkan languages, those names appear to be common among Thracians and Illyrians. Are you suggesting they were anc. Macedonian personal names because they were found inscribed in Macedonia or because they were tied to known Macedonian personalities?

[Karposh]

Karposh, notwithstanding the likely relation between various Paleo-Balkan languages, those names appear to be common among Thracians and Illyrians. Are you suggesting they were anc. Macedonian personal names because they were found inscribed in Macedonia or because they were tied to known Macedonian personalities?

Hey SoM. They are just some of the names that have been found inscribed at various archaeological sites throughout what was once the ancient geographical region of Upper Macedonia as outlined in Nade Proeva's book Studies of the Ancient Macedonians, more specifically, in Chapter VI "Epihorski Iminja vo Gorna Makedonija". I think I merely singled out these names in particular (amongst the many others in the book) because of their very non-Hellenic sounding origins. In her book, Proeva does ascibe Thracian or Illirian origins to some of these names as you correctly point out but, to me, they sound very slavic-like. That is, from a purely phonetic point of view. Doule, for example, is a common Balkan male name to this vary day and can easily be found not only in Macedonia but in Serbia and Bulgaria as well. Moma and Momo have obvious etymological connotations to today's standard Macedonian word for young lady / girl / maiden. And the others just sound like they can pass as normal modern Macedonian personal names.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Hey SoM. They are just some of the names that have been found inscribed at various archaeological sites throughout what was once the ancient geographical region of Upper Macedonia as outlined in Nade Proeva's book Studies of the Ancient Macedonians, more specifically, in Chapter VI "Epihorski Iminja vo Gorna Makedonija". I think I merely singled out these names in particular (amongst the many others in the book) because of their very non-Hellenic sounding origins.

That's fair enough. I agree with your earlier inference. Contrary to the aristocratic elite, it's likely that many of the commoners in Macedonia had such (or similar) names, even if they are often attributed to people from Thrace and Illyria. I do find that some scholars are too eager to treat supposedly distinct onomastic areas as “evidence” of significant linguistic differences. Some names may be common or exclusive to a particular region, but it doesn’t mean they weren’t used or understood outside of it. Further, there are several signs that point to a language continuum in a large part of the (non-Greek) Paleo-Balkan sphere.

In her book, Proeva does ascibe Thracian or Illirian origins to some of these names as you correctly point out but, to me, they sound very slavic-like. That is, from a purely phonetic point of view. Doule, for example, is a common Balkan male name to this vary day and can easily be found not only in Macedonia but in Serbia and Bulgaria as well. Moma and Momo have obvious etymological connotations to today's standard Macedonian word for young lady / girl / maiden. And the others just sound like they can pass as normal modern Macedonian personal names.

You’re right, there are Paleo-Balkan names that resemble Slavic from a phonetic standpoint. Some, however, may also be deceiving. Take the Illyrian name Glavus as an example. There is a clear likeness to Slavic glava (head). Glavaš and Glavan are contemporary surnames in Croatia, in what was once Illyria. Yet, before reaching its current form, the Slavic word underwent a process known as metathesis, where the consonants *r and *l shifted from after to before the vowels (cf. Baltic galva). It is assumed these changes only occurred in the late 8th century. Given the time difference, therefore, the name Glavus may have meant something else, unless Illyrian itself went through a partial process of metathesis that predated Slavic. As for Dule, it’s a modern nickname for the proper name Dušan. Although not impossible, it's hard to imagine such a nickname would be in continuous use over such a long period of time. That said, I do find the Illyrian name Dussona interesting.