The Illyrians

[Sovius]

One of the greatest movie scene of all time. I can watch it over and over and laugh just as hard every time.

Now, there is a consensus!

[George S.]

where's he gone hes missing in açtiion.AWOL.

[Constellation]

No pun intended, but I'm going to go out on a limb and side with Bill on this one, PhD or not.

From the same paper:

Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a single unit, but each of its two branchings – the Western and the Eastern – shares different features with Southern Slavic.

Citation Number 3:

In more general terms, Mallory admits that “A long geographical stasis for the Slavs [...] is probably the model that would be most readily accepted by linguists who see in the Slavic language group little reason to assume that they have moved much since their development from Proto-Indo- European” (Mallory 1989, 81)2.

Doctor J.P. Mallory is Professor Emeritus at Queen's University in Belfast, if memory serves.


As of 2010 there were approximately 5,379 linguists in the world according to some guy who actually took the time to count every single one of these folks, without using a calculator or even his fingers, I might add. 1989 was prior to the developments that have occurred in the field of population genetics. A small minority? An implied "controversial" notion? A PhD no less?


Let's just move on.

Let's not. I contacted a number of professors of prominent universities. I was told by one that she was not qualified to answer. A second professor said she forwarded my questions to another person more qualified to answer these questions. I'm still waiting for a response from other universities, but for now I have only one professional's opinion. For the record, I do not necessarily agree or disagree with what this PhD in Slavic languages, Literature, and Linguistics wrote.

But here is an excerpt of sorts nonetheless:

This is what he wrote:

In response to this statement:

There is no ‘northern Slavic language’, it is rather only a variant of the southern Slavic…

This response was rendered:

That statement is, frankly, astonishingly ignorant, partially for reasons that I will go into later in this email and partially because it implies a distinctly warped conception of subdivisions within linguistic families.

In response to these statements:

Slavic languages have also a unique, asymmetric areal distribution: while Southern Slavic languages (Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian and
Bulgarian) form a homogeneous bloc, sharing several common features, for
Northern Slavic languages it is necessary to distinguish between a Western
branch (including Czech, Sorbian and Polish), and an Eastern one (including
Russian, Ucrainian and Belo-Russian), as each of the two branches shares
different features with Southern Slavic.

I received this response:

This is a textbook example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. The traditional division of Slavic is indeed into East, West, and South Slavic. However, there are some major problems with Alinei's presentation of the matter. For the time being, let me just say that South Slavic is not homogeneous. There is a major bundle of isoglosses dividing East South Slavic (Macedonian and Bulgarian) and West South Slavic (Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian), including several that are quite old and including several that are usually included as diagnostics for the sub-grouping of Slavic (e.g. jer reflexes, nasal vowel reflexes, etc.). Moreover, and I think even more strikingly, there are some very old isoglosses characteristic of Slovenian and/or Bulgarian, but not the rest of South Slavic (these predominantly have to do with prosody).

The sub-classification of Slavic is undoubtedly messy, but it is not asymmetric in the way that Alinei implies. There are serious reasons to think that the messy sub-classification of Slavic has to do with the fact that during the expansion of Slavic, innovations radiated from the center out to the periphery to varying extents, but that this dynamic was obscured by the fact that Hungarian and Romanian later broke up the unimpeded Slavic speech community that was present in the 500-900 AD range. I would point you in the direction of Henning Andersen's work on this topic. Moreover, West Slavic can be split into Lechitic and non-Lechitic; there is also some suggestive work indicating that non-Lechitic W Slavic (Czech and Slovak) shared some innovations with Slovene via the Slavic varieties that were earlier spoken in what is now Hungarian territory. I would point you in the direction of Marc Greenberg's work on this (see references from this paper).

When asked whether it is a plausible hypothesis that Slavic originated in the Balkans, and spread north, the following response was made:

No, it is not a plausible hypothesis, for at least the following reasons.

1. You would have to explain away all the arguments made by reputable linguists such as Golab, Nichols, and virtually everyone who has ever seriously studied the prehistory of the Slavs from a linguistic perspective. Summarizing their arguments would take longer than I have right now, but suffice it to say that while there is some disagreement among the edges, there are strong empirical reasons for thinking that Slavic originated elsewhere. By the way, note that I did not include Curta in that list.

2. If Slavic were to have originated in the Balkans, we would expect some positive evidence to indicate that. There is no such evidence, full stop. Some things we might look for would include...

(a) Toponyms. Ancient toponyms in the Balkans are clearly not Slavic. Slavic toponyms begin to occur around 800-1000 AD -- i.e., right when Slavic moved into the area.

(b) Lexical borrowings into Slavic. It is possible to work out the relative chronology of lexical borrowings with considerable precision, and in many cases certain points in relative chronology can be correlated with absolute time depth. There are no borrowings from Greek and Latin in Slavic that predate the early medieval period. Please keep in mind that lexical borrowing is a basic and effectively universal consequence of language contact.

(c) Lexical borrowings from Slavic. A happy accident (in this context) of the history of Albanian phonology is that loanwords can be dated relatively securely vis-a-vis the Latin presence in the Balkans. The oldest Slavic loanwords in Albanian are medieval, e.g. after the period of heavy Latin influence.

(d) No Balkan substrate vocabulary. Leaving aside the question of substrate vocabulary in Greek as being too ancient (perhaps?) to be of direct relevance here, note that Albanian and Balkan Romance share a few dozen words that appear to be due to a northern Balkan substrate, e.g. Albanian bukur 'beautiful ~ Romanian bucur 'happy' (note its presence in the city name of Bucharest (= Bucureşti in Romanian), where it probably has more of the sense of 'beautiful') and several others. None of this is found in Slavic.

(e) More direct attestation. There *is* actual information out there, including scanty attestations, about the languages of the ancient Balkans. To put it mildly, the study of the ancient languages of the Balkans does not suffer from an overabundance of data, but there is nothing even remotely pointing to the presence of Slavic.

I will publish more later.

What do you people think about this? Any counter information. This is all very fascinating.

[George S.]

what studies and conclussions one get?? The Slavic hordes invaded other countries in the Balkans.But question at what levels as they were an illiterate people and they adopted the Macedonian language.This has been known for quite a while also question that it was ever a Slavic migration it was not.??

[Sovius]

What do you people think about this?

Seeking the guidance of an idiot is like drinking water out of a toilet. Yes, it is possible, but should you do so?

You're presenting outdated opinions and conclusions formed during a period in time when the Slavic Migration Myth was erroneously touted as a scientifically relevant occurrence. Genetic evidence alone has made these assaults on people's intelligence irrelevant. Conclusions and opinions based on this assumption were derived from a circular logic, like a dog chasing it's own tail and were never of any consequence. e.g. If this event occurred then this is the reason we see this in that language and that in this language. If the event never occurred then the conclusions were never relevant to begin with.

Provide a document or evidence that demonstrates that there was a mass extinction of the languages spoken in the region during the 6th Century AD, or a mass migration of a people known as the Slavs, or admit that you're not here for an intelligent discussion and can only bring weak phantoms of a dead theory to the table. I presented you with evidence and you have returned with opinions and speculation that you're touting as if they carried some kind of weight.

Here's a few bones, while you go out and prove the impossible:

From the South:

'Bylazora', land where the dawn is white and the people spoke an early form of a language that came to be formally reclassified as Slavic after the Renaissance Period.

"(a) Toponyms. Ancient toponyms in the Balkans are clearly not Slavic. Slavic toponyms begin to occur around 800-1000 AD -- i.e., right when Slavic moved into the area."

Whoever you asked, obviously knows very little about what he or she is talking about, a Greek professor with an ingrained political bias, perhaps? Clearly, a bold word choice, if I do say so myself.


One of my favorites:

From the Western Balkans/South Central Europe:

During the 4th Century AD, St Jerome commented on the name of Tychicus who, along with Trophimus, travelled with St. Paul for a leg of his Journey from Macedonia to Jerusalem.

"Tychicus enim silens interpretatur" / "Tychicus actually means silent."

This was written in Commentary to Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians

(Patrilogiae latinae tomus XXVI; Commentar. in Epist, ad Ephes. Liber III, cap. IV, Migne edit. 1866)


'Tih' continues to mean silent in the modern Slovenian language, as well as, the modern Croatian language. St. Jerome was from Noricum. Yes, he wrote in the Western Roman language, but he was also a speaker of the Venetic language. The modern Slovenian language represents the continuation of the Venetic language. Score another point for Vinko. Nowhere did St. Jerome use the term Sklavus. Where did this historical figure acquire such a appellation? Macedonia, perhaps?

"There are no borrowings from Greek and Latin in Slavic that predate the early medieval period."


This is called an assumption presented as a statement and offers nothing but an illusion to someone who doesn't have the time to research things further. The Odyssey/Oditsi Proof has been known for many, many years now and the empirical evidence still stands. Odyssey meant a long stupid journey made by some long winded Greek, while 'oditsi' simply meant and means to 'walk away'. Look up the "Slav" word for foot and go ask your so-called experts which one is simpler in meaning and what word 'oditsi' would have most likely evolved out of. Now, provide your "learned" colleagues with the following question. What word was in use first, 'odyssey' or 'oditsi'? Was 'odyssey' based on 'oditsi' or was 'oditsi' based on 'odyssey'? Please keep genetic evidence in mind.

Lexical borrowings from Slavic. A happy accident (in this context) of the history of Albanian phonology is that loanwords can be dated relatively securely vis-a-vis the Latin presence in the Balkans. The oldest Slavic loanwords in Albanian are medieval, e.g. after the period of heavy Latin influence.

Another opinion masquerading as a statement of fact based on the migration assumption. Captain Super Genius actually has it backwards. Albanian toponyms are of a Caucasian origin and appeared long after the indigenous populations of the region settled in for the long haul. Please ask the Captain to provide evidence of a massive Alabanian migration to the Caucus region.

1. You would have to explain away all the arguments made by reputable linguists such as Golab, Nichols, and virtually everyone who has ever seriously studied the prehistory of the Slavs from a linguistic perspective. Summarizing their arguments would take longer than I have right now, but suffice it to say that while there is some disagreement among the edges, there are strong empirical reasons for thinking that Slavic originated elsewhere. By the way, note that I did not include Curta in that list.


Again, no evidence, nothing of substance, only the prejudice of the German Empire to carry you from post to post.

If Slavic were to have originated in the Balkans, we would expect some positive evidence to indicate that. There is no such evidence, full stop. Some things we might look for would include...

If you would bother to volunteer for the experiment I developed just for you a few posts back, you will see what an asinine statement this parrot has made. It's been over a decade now since the genetic results were first presented. There's no excuse for this kind of ignorance anymore.

This is a textbook example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

This is a textbook example of you being and idiot and still not providing any sort of evidence to back up anything you have presented as if it had some kind of merit. Nasal vowel reflexes? What do South Slavs sneeze differently than North Slavs? Provide evidence, not just the threat of evidence.

Produce a Renaissance Period document recalling this Slavic migration event you keep using as if it was an actual historical occurrence. If there was a massive wave of language replacement there had to have been documentation to the effect. Anything from 600 AD? 700AD? Prove that you have the right to use this notion of yours in your argument. You have chosen the way of the Slav, now provide proof of what evidence has long demonstrated to be a figment of the imagination.

[Constellation]

Here is another excerpt:

In regard to this quote:

As a specialist in geolinguistics, I have always been surprised by the fact that Slavic specialists have failed in noticing or appreciating the extraordinary diagnostic value –from a geolinguistic point of view – of the asymmetric configuration of the Slavic area. Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a single unit, but each of its two branchings – the Western and the Eastern – shares different features with Southern Slavic. Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible[...]

I received this answer:

For what it's worth, "geolinguistics" is not generally recognized as a specialty per se (i.e., with its own rigorous and predictive methodological standards) by linguists - including linguists like myself who research language variation in space and time. Alinei's statement here implies that the principles of "geolinguistics" are scientifically sound enough to serve as a primary basis for deduction, and that is simply not even close to the case. This passage is more reminiscent of a conspiracy theorist than a scholar, both in tone and content.

For a more data-grounded approach to something that could be called geolinguistics, I would suggest Johanna Nichols's "Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time."

[Sovius]

Here is another excerpt:

In regard to this quote:



I received this answer:

Looks more like you made up this "response". For what it's worth, If you really did contact an actual linguist, please inform him or her that he or she is even more of a truth dodging lunkhead than you are. Could you at least attempt to respond to one my requests?

http://www.geo-linguistics.org/index.html

UNESCO recognition isn't good enough for the Greek Nationalist Institute of Greek Nationalist Science? We're talking about an organization that is also a full member of the CIPL, the Comité International Permanent des Linguistes. The SIDG's journal is highly regarded by the European Science Foundation. Does your professor need help putting together a constructive argument?

Oh! Look what it says here,

"The first President of our society was Professor Mario Alinei, Italy,*who acted in this capacity until 1997 when Vice-President Professor Wolfgang Viereck was elected his successor."

That would make him like the George Washington of geolinguistics, wouldn't it?

[Constellation]

Looks more like you made up this "response". For what it's worth, If you really did contact an actual linguist, please inform him or her that he or she is even more of a truth dodging lunkhead than you are. Could you at least attempt to respond to one my requests?

http://www.geo-linguistics.org/index.html

UNESCO recognition isn't good enough for the Greek Nationalist Institute of Greek Nationalist Science? We're talking about an organization that is also a full member of the CIPL, the Comité International Permanent des Linguistes. The SIDG's journal is highly regarded by the European Science Foundation. Does your professor need help putting together a constructive argument?

Oh! Look what it says here,

"The first President of our society was Professor Mario Alinei, Italy,*who acted in this capacity until 1997 when Vice-President Professor Wolfgang Viereck was elected his successor."

That would make him like the George Washington of geolinguistics, wouldn't it?

Sovius, I assure you these are real quotes from a real PhD in this field. He is not Greek. From his last name, he is Polish.

I hope to have new information soon.

[Sovius]

Sovius, I assure you these are real quotes from a real PhD in this field. He is not Greek. From his last name, he is Polish.

I hope to have new information soon.

Someone who holds a PhD in linguistics who can't even understand the significance of a fundamental observation regarding the Slavic languages that isn't even based on geolinguistic research attempting to discredit geolinguistic research? You believe that what this idiot has to say is going to somehow change the significance of the evidence? This is the beautiful thing about evidence, it doesn't give a flying expletive about prior conclusions and conclusions based on prior conclusions that were incorrect to begin with. Have Squirrel Brain address the evidence with evidence. His opinions are irrelevant as are yours. Show me this supposed evidence so that I can discredit it. Thank you.

Definition of Evidence:

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

[Sovius]

While on the topic of evidence:

Prior to being referred to as Slavs during the Nationalist Era, Serbians were referred to as Triballians, which is an anchored ethno-linguistic designation that carried over from the Ancient Period through to the Middle Ages.

Wikipedia's been updated with these historical and scholarly sources for further research.
*
1. *JSTOR: The English Historical Review, Vol. 53, No. 209 (Jan., 1938), pp. 129-131
2. *Mehmed II the Conqueror and the fall of the Franco-Byzantine Levant to the Ottoman Turks*Page 65, 77: "Triballians = Serbs"
3. The letters of Manuel II Palaeologus*Page 48: "The Triballians are the Serbs"
4. The Journal of Hellenic studies*Page 48: "Byzantine historians [...] calling [...] Serbs*Triballians"
5. Studies in late Byzantine history and prosopography*Page 228: "Serbs (were) Triballians"
6. Anne Comnene, Alexiade (Regne de L'Empereur Alexis I Comnene 1081-1118) II, pp. l57:3-l6; 1.66: 25-169. Texte etabli er traduit par B. Leib t. I-III (Paris, 1937-1945).


Section of interest:

Triballians

The*Triballi*(Greek:*Τριβαλλοί,*Bulgarian,*Serbian :*Трибали/Tribali) were an ancient*Thracian*tribe whose dominion was around the plains of southern modern Serbia[16][17]*and west Bulgaria, at the*Angrus*andBrongus*(the*South and West Morava) and the*Iskur River, roughly centered where Serbia and Bulgaria are joined.[17]

This Thracian tribe has*etymologically*been connected with the Serbs,[18][19]*as many medieval Byzantine historians referred to the Serbs as the Triballians[20]*(Serbian name for Triballians is "Srblji/Србљи", Thracians is*rašani*- the first Serbian state was*Rascia, present-day*Serbia).*Trebinje, a present city of*Herzegovina*and historical Serbian principality (Travunija, sometimes rendered as*Triballia) has also been connected with this tribe.

From the 11th century until the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Serbs were called*Triballians*in Byzantine works.[21][22][23][24][25]*For example in the works of historian*Niketas Choniates*(1155–1215), EmperorManuel II Palaiologos*(1391–1425), it is explained that Triballians are synonymous with Serbs.





If Serbians were identified as Triballians and not Sarmatians, Slavs or Scythians during the Middle Ages, this means that any population migrations were treated as insignificant by Eastern Roman populations. Wouldn't the Triballians have been referred to in the past tense, if there was a population replacement? Wouldn't there have been some memo reminding future Romans that the new language that was now being spoken throughout Triballia was the language of the infernal Slav menace from the North?

Falsification of a people's history is a form of ethnic cleansing. Where are the documents recounting the massive waves of Slavs pouring in to the Eastern Empire from the Middle Ages or the Renaissance Period? An event so grand as to supposedly transform the linguistic structure of an entire section of a continent in less than a century would have had to have been recorded in multiple sources one would think. If there is no evidence, why treat a dead German imperialist's assumption as if it were worthy of even being entertained? It is and always has been a word game. If "The Slavs" came from the East, why don't Serbians speak a language derived from the Eastern Bloc? If they came from Sarmatia, why aren't they speaking a variant of Polish or Czech mixed in with something that would clearly be distinguishable from these languages? It is the lack of major divergence that is evidence for a non-intrusive migration of the languages now spoken. For evidence of intrusive linguistic amalgamation events, Western European languages are an excellent place to start, although the Ancient Achaean Creole language is also a good candidate, maybe too good. J.P. Mallory discusses Western European linguistic intrusion a bit in his book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans for people who don't want to fall asleep studying a more technical discussion of the phenomena.


Steven Bird's paper regarding Thracian DNA in what would become known as Britain:

This ties in with Constellation's recent posting of the Pathan population and, of course, Vinko's invaluable contribution to future Thracian generations, as well. It should be noted that people carrying P37.2 and R1a DNA were also present in Southeastern Europe in the exact same location at this time, as well.

http://www.jogg.info/32/bird.pdf

Interesting excerpt:

Moesia Superior was roughly rectangular in shape, with the Danube River forming a northern border between it and the ancient kingdom (and later, Roman Province) of Dacia (Mócsy, 1974, Fig. 60). The Moesi, a tribe for whom the province of Moesia was named, were conquered by Marcus Licinius Crassus in 29 BCE (Cary, 1917). The neighboring region of Dardania was subsequently conquered in 28 (Mócsy, 1974, p. 24). This Thracian-speaking region included the cities of Scupi (Skopje) and the Roman colonia of Ulpianum (immediately south of the modern city of Priština). The Roman province of Moesia was created out of these combined areas in CE 6 by Augustus. Domitian reorganized the province in CE 86 into Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior (known also as Ripa Thracia).22 With regard to the tribal identity of the natives of Upper Moesia, Mócsy (1974) has stated, based largely on archaeological evidence: . . . a general conclusion may be permitted, that the original inhabitants of Moesia Superior were in the main Thracian, but had been exposed to Illyrian influence from the west, with the result that the Dardanian area in particular emerges as the contact zone between the Illyrian and Thracian languages. The inhabitants of Scupi probably spoke Thracian, as a Roman soldier born there in the third century considered himself a Bessus. In late antiquity Bessus was the normal term applied to Thracian-speaking inhabitants of the empire; the lingua Bessica was Thracian.

There's some Soviet era opinions from Georgiev that were thrown in there that are no longer of any importance, but, as with any study, the facts are more important than the opinions.

No Slavs in this paper either. If there were no Slavs, why use a term that has no real value as far as carrying any sort of significance in terms of meaning to describe the past or the present? I'm quite certain the goal of real scholarship is the opposite of confusion.




Triballian and Serbian are ethno-linguistic classifications. Sclaveni was a generalization that was first used in a derogatory manner by Eastern Roman chroniclers and carries no significant historical value at all whatsoever when discussing ethnicity, language or other aspects of culture.

[Risto the Great]

Triballian and Serbian are ethno-linguistic classifications. Sclaveni was a generalization that was first used in a derogatory manner by Eastern Roman chroniclers and carries no significant historical value at all whatsoever when discussing ethnicity, language or other aspects of culture.

And nothing has changed.

Thanks Sovius, very interesting reading.

[George S.]

As i said before constellation have you enjoyed the ride as you are going around in circles.
THe word SLAV has been determined in australia to by courts of law be a degenerate term referring to macedonians as slav is a degenerate word and using slav term would be insulting to macedonians THe fact you are bringing up your slav questions is deniigrating to us macedonians.

[Constellation]

George, your comments are misplaced.

What I find somewhat suspect is the lack of knowledge and response thus far. I have contacted a number of Slavic departments.

I have heard from two people. One said she was not qualified to answer these questions. I find this very odd.

And the second referred me to another person.

No one else has responded.

The fact that only two people have responded, and neither were willing or able to formulate a response, is somewhat surprising.

[Gocka]

It's not surprising at all. I have studied a few universities here in the USA, one of them a quite large on in California. I can say with certainty that 90% of professors just come in to regurgitate whats in a text book and go home. Very few actually do independent research. Not to mention when it comes to "Slavic" studies. Its always been very difficult to change the status quo even when you can prove that it is blatantly wrong. We are talking about centuries of arrogance and prejudice being perpetuated by academia, you don't just ask a question and reverse all that. Educated folk are quite arrogant and it is near impossible to make them admit they were wrong. There has been a dramatization of everything Greek for like 800 years now, that doesn't change overnight, but I can tell you for sure that more and more people are revisiting things that we always took as fact and finding that things weren't as we have always assumed they were. Things are changing and its exciting how much it has changed in the last 10 years alone.

George, your comments are misplaced.

What I find somewhat suspect is the lack of knowledge and response thus far. I have contacted a number of Slavic departments.
I have heard from two people. One said she was not qualified to answer these questions. I find this very odd.

And the second referred me to another person.

No one else has responded.

The fact that only two people have responded, and neither were willing or able to formulate a response, is somewhat surprising.

[Kalle]

It's not surprising at all. I have studied a few universities here in the USA, one of them a quite large on in California. I can say with certainty that 90% of professors just come in to regurgitate whats in a text book and go home. Very few actually do independent research. Not to mention when it comes to "Slavic" studies. Its always been very difficult to change the status quo even when you can prove that it is blatantly wrong. We are talking about centuries of arrogance and prejudice being perpetuated by academia, you don't just ask a question and reverse all that. Educated folk are quite arrogant and it is near impossible to make them admit they were wrong. There has been a dramatization of everything Greek for like 800 years now, that doesn't change overnight, but I can tell you for sure that more and more people are revisiting things that we always took as fact and finding that things weren't as we have always assumed they were. Things are changing and its exciting how much it has changed in the last 10 years alone.

Things are changing? Really! Where? The last year i have seen several books written about , lets say it gently, about the attempt to rewrite history from the people of rom (mainly the diaspora) and also about their interpretation of DNA studies. I have not seen a single historian supporting the attempt to rewrite 4000 years of history.

Also the diaspora from Australia has been involved in all those creative ideas about the new history. But the truth has not even reached the wiki page about their own people. Is that progress? For me it looks more like several steps backwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Australian