Possible Etymology of Alexander

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • spitfire
    Banned
    • Aug 2014
    • 868

    Something resembling Slavic? Before the slavic languages came to the place? You pointed that earlier in one of your posts.
    Or do you mean that slavic originate from that resembling slavic? Or slavic is close related to that?
    And what is the meaning of "a" in aleksandar? What does "a" mean in macedonian?

    You understand of course that your suggestions resemble someone trying to go from let's say Thessaloniki to Skopje through... New York!

    However, I am reading your posts out of curiosity for the linguistic part.

    Comment

    • spitfire
      Banned
      • Aug 2014
      • 868

      Philosopher, what do you think of this approach?

      Dar/-dar/dar-/där/дар/gift
      and
      dan/дан
      Old Church Slavonic: darъ

      Well known slavonic names:
      Božidar/Божидар/Bojidar/Bozhidar
      Bogdan/Bohdan/Богдан

      Cognitives of Dar:
      Latin Dare/to give
      Greek doron/δώρον/gift

      Well Known Greek names:
      Theodoros-Dorotheos, Theodora-Dorothea

      Another point, to the babylonians, dar has a completely different meaning. I'm not so familiar with languages of those places but in hebrew there is darya/דַּרְיָהּ which means god living inside a person. In persian Darya means the sea or the ocean.
      Last edited by spitfire; 09-24-2014, 08:00 PM.

      Comment

      • Philosopher
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2008
        • 1003

        Originally posted by Spitfire
        Something resembling Slavic? Before the slavic languages came to the place? You pointed that earlier in one of your posts.
        Some Macedonians believe that the ancient Balkan people (Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians, et al) spoke a proto-Balkan/Slavic language. Some historic writers (Pribojevic, Orbini, et al) of the 16th and 17th centuries believed Slavic originated in the Balkans. This idea has existed for some time by different authors in different times.

        I use the expression “resembling Slavic” because the language spoken by the ancient Macedonians may have been Slavic or a proto type of language that later was identified as Slavic.

        Or do you mean that slavic originate from that resembling slavic? Or slavic is close related to that?
        The idea is that Slavic, a very early form of it, originated in the south, in the Balkans, not in the north.

        And what is the meaning of "a" in aleksandar? What does "a" mean in macedonian?
        Not sure. It could be just an “a”. It is just a letter. It could mean “a gift of healing”.

        The problem is that the ancient Macedonians left very little in the way of written words. The words that have survived, according to Eugene Borza, appear to be part of a separate indo European language. Separate from Greek.

        You understand of course that your suggestions resemble someone trying to go from let's say Thessaloniki to Skopje through... New York!

        However, I am reading your posts out of curiosity for the linguistic part.
        Consider it a form of brainstorming. You and I were raised with the same historical interpretation:

        Slavs and Slavic entered the Balkans in the 6th century. If this is true, then trying to use a language that first came to the Balkans many centuries after the fact to interpret the etymology of Alexander makes no sense.

        The purpose of this thread is to understand the etymology of Alexander. It starts with the evidence that the Babylonians used “Aleksaandar”, and not his Greek name, and that this name may be his original name, and that it may be understood in modern day Macedonian, and that the Greek name “Alexandros” is a different name that the Greeks called Alexander.

        Another point, to the babylonians, dar has a completely different meaning. I'm not so familiar with languages of those places but in hebrew there is darya/דַּרְיָהּ which means god living inside a person. In persian Darya means the sea or the ocean.
        I do not believe anyone has argued or is arguing that the Babylonians used “dar” because in their language it has something to do with a gift. The argument is that, possibly, the Babylonian scribes transliterated Alexander's original name (Aleksandar) into cuneiform. If this is the case, the rendering they gave “Aleksaandar” makes sense. It is nearly identical to the modern Macedonian name.

        This is a theory.

        Philosopher, what do you think of this approach?
        What are you suggesting? That the Slavic “Dar” and “Dan” derive from Latin and Greek?

        Comment

        • spitfire
          Banned
          • Aug 2014
          • 868

          Originally posted by Philosopher View Post

          Not sure. It could be just an “a”. It is just a letter. It could mean “a gift of healing”.
          "a gift" is in english. How is it in macedonian? How do you say "a gift" in macedonian?

          Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
          I do not believe anyone has argued or is arguing that the Babylonians used “dar” because in their language it has something to do with a gift. The argument is that, possibly, the Babylonian scribes transliterated Alexander's original name (Aleksandar) into cuneiform. If this is the case, the rendering they gave “Aleksaandar” makes sense. It is nearly identical to the modern Macedonian name.

          This is a theory.
          In their language it has to do with the sea or the ocean or of something divine.

          This is a theory also. I am not familiar with these languages. I gave two examples of languages of the area.

          Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
          What are you suggesting? That the Slavic “Dar” and “Dan” derive from Latin and Greek?
          They are cognitive, therefore we follow the time line macedonian>slavic>old church slavonic>latin>greek. From what we know so far that is, since we don't know or have any remainings of the ancient macedonian language, as you said.

          One thing I forgot, in english these are cognates too. Donor and donate .
          Last edited by spitfire; 09-24-2014, 08:57 PM.

          Comment

          • Philosopher
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 1003

            Originally posted by spitfire View Post
            They are cognitive, therefore we follow the time line macedonian>slavic>old church slavonic>latin>greek. From what we know so far that is, since we don't know or have any remainings of the ancient macedonian language, as you said.
            Spitfire, any search you do online about the Slavic language will start with the Slavic Migration Theory. If you start with this premise, and the premise that the "Greek" brothers Saints Cyril and Methodius were the authors of Church Slavonic, you will always find cognates from modern day Macedonian words to Latin/Greek.

            You are free to do this. However, if you do, it negates the speculative discussion of this thread.

            Here are some links to consider:

            The purpose of this thread will be to explore the possibility of a common linguistic branch that split from Proto Indo-European around the time of the satem sound change, which came after the commencement of the centum sound change. This branch would include the (Paleo-)Balkan and Balto-Slavic language families, and for the




            After stumbling upon the Proto-Bulgarian script I noticed how similar some letters are to the Glagolitic alphabet: So I did a comparison (I also compared it to Hebrew): The only two letters I'm definitely sure Constantine created (or his students or brother) were the "I" and "S". These two when used


            In the meantime, I am going to do some more research into the etymology of Alexander and see what I can unearth.

            Comment

            • spitfire
              Banned
              • Aug 2014
              • 868

              Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
              Spitfire, any search you do online about the Slavic language will start with the Slavic Migration Theory. If you start with this premise, and the premise that the "Greek" brothers Saints Cyril and Methodius were the authors of Church Slavonic, you will always find cognates from modern day Macedonian words to Latin/Greek.

              You are free to do this. However, if you do, it negates the speculative discussion of this thread.
              I don't think it negates the speculative discussion. Your examples produced more questions from me. So to this point this is working alright. It gave us the Vasil and Dar so far, let it give us more.
              I didn't search on line everything I say. I give a lot of examples on my own when it comes to greek.
              It is easy for me because in greek the correlation between the signifier and signified is very apparent. Not to me alone, but to most greeks.
              In other words greek doesn't require a lot of digging when it comes to that specific point. It's all there and they shout it.

              Comment

              • Philosopher
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2008
                • 1003

                Spitfire, since we are on the subject of linguistics, I would like to ascertain your opinion on another issue.

                In Macedonian, we have a word called "odi". The word literally means "to go". As you know, Homer is reported to have written the "Odyssey". The central character is "Odysseus". In English, we say an Odyssey is basically a type of journey.

                Some Macedonians have speculated that the word "Odyssey", etymologically speaking, derives from Macedonian. In Macedonian, "odi" means "to go", which is the root concept of traveling and journeying.

                Odi is the basis of other words in Macedonian. "Voda", for example, means water (because water streams).

                Does the word "Odyssey" have etymological meaning in Greek?

                Also, have you reached any conclusions on the words "Vasil" and "Vasileus"? Do you believe there is a connection?
                Last edited by Philosopher; 09-25-2014, 11:28 AM.

                Comment

                • Amphipolis
                  Banned
                  • Aug 2014
                  • 1328

                  Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                  Does the word "Odyssey" have etymological meaning in Greek?

                  Also, have you reached any conclusions on the words "Vasil" and "Vasileus"? Do you believe there is a connection?
                  Sorry to intervene. There's a thread about the etymology of Odyssey, started by you

                  The word Odyssey, used as the appellation of Homers Epic, is defined by Oxford as a long eventful journey. Websters defines it as a long wandering or voyage usually marked by many changes of fortune. The question is: what is the etymology of the word Odyssey that Homer used? There is nothing in the word Odyssey or


                  There's a thread about the etymology of Basileus, started by you also

                  Perhaps someone, Greek or Barbarian, can help me out hither. What is the origin of the name Basileus? Well, it depends on who you ask. I know Westerners want to ascribe everything that is un-intelligible as “it’s all Greek to me,” but being an educated man, and one who does not buy into the philosophy of


                  Since you said you can read Greek, this is a 38 pages discussion about the etymology of Basileus from a Greek forum called phorum.gr (!) which is long and for the most part of good quality (the discussion, not the whole forum).

                  Comment

                  • spitfire
                    Banned
                    • Aug 2014
                    • 868

                    Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                    Spitfire, since we are on the subject of linguistics, I would like to ascertain your opinion on another issue.

                    In Macedonian, we have a word called "odi". The word literally means "to go". As you know, Homer is reported to have written the "Odyssey". The central character is "Odysseus". In English, we say an Odyssey is basically a type of journey.

                    Some Macedonians have speculated that the word "Odyssey", etymologically speaking, derives from Macedonian. In Macedonian, "odi" means "to go", which is the root concept of traveling and journeying.

                    Odi is the basis of other words in Macedonian. "Voda", for example, means water (because water streams).

                    Does the word "Odyssey" have etymological meaning in Greek?

                    Also, have you reached any conclusions on the words "Vasil" and "Vasileus"? Do you believe there is a connection?
                    Vasil was covered wasn't it? It is clear that regardless of any etymology in greek there is no other use of the word in macedonian, other than the name, whereas in greek there is.

                    Now I'm striked! How come there isn't a thread that gives odyssey it's real name? That of odyssev? Since that's how it is in greek "Odissefs" like "Vasilefs" and the Alexandrov since we find that the possesive case ends in -ou in greek.

                    This is not linguistics Philosopher. This is speculation. I read the thread about odyssey. Just an addition to it would be that odevo (οδεύω) in greek means I'm on my way and comes from odos (οδός) which means way.
                    From there you have quite a lot of words.
                    Last edited by spitfire; 09-25-2014, 02:30 PM.

                    Comment

                    • Philosopher
                      Senior Member
                      • Sep 2008
                      • 1003

                      Originally posted by Spitfire
                      Vasil was covered wasn't it? It is clear that regardless of any etymology in greek there is no other use of the word in macedonian, other than the name, whereas in greek there is.
                      We are concerned with etymology only, not how often or how many uses a word may have in a language. Etymologically, there appears to be no meaning to Vasileus in Greek. In fact, it appears to be a borrowed word from a foreign language. The Macedonian word “Vasil” appears to be much more etymologically sound than does Vasileus.

                      Just because Greeks incorporated this word in their language and use it in a number of ways does not make it indigenous to Greek. It is still a borrowed word no matter how often it is used.

                      This does not mean that the Greek Vasileus comes from the Macedonian Vasil. There are many problems and questions with this hypothesis.

                      Now I'm striked! How come there isn't a thread that gives odyssey it's real name? That of odyssev? Since that's how it is in greek "Odissefs" like "Vasilefs" and the Alexandrov since we find that the possesive case ends in -ou in greek.

                      This is not linguistics Philosopher. This is speculation. I read the thread about odyssey. Just an addition to it would be that odevo (οδεύω) in greek means I'm on my way and comes from odos (οδός) which means way.
                      From there you have quite a lot of words.
                      It is not linguistics to who? We are not professional linguists. All I'm doing is applying a novel approach to words with the premise that some of these “Greek” words may not be Greek and may in fact be more etymologically more sound in Slavic.

                      It is speculation. But this is how humans learn. We speculate, hypothesize, and make tests.

                      Comment

                      • spitfire
                        Banned
                        • Aug 2014
                        • 868

                        Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                        We are concerned with etymology only, not how often or how many uses a word may have in a language. Etymologically, there appears to be no meaning to Vasileus in Greek. In fact, it appears to be a borrowed word from a foreign language. The Macedonian word “Vasil” appears to be much more etymologically sound than does Vasileus.

                        Just because Greeks incorporated this word in their language and use it in a number of ways does not make it indigenous to Greek. It is still a borrowed word no matter how often it is used.

                        This does not mean that the Greek Vasileus comes from the Macedonian Vasil. There are many problems and questions with this hypothesis.



                        It is not linguistics to who? We are not professional linguists. All I'm doing is applying a novel approach to words with the premise that some of these “Greek” words may not be Greek and may in fact be more etymologically more sound in Slavic.

                        It is speculation. But this is how humans learn. We speculate, hypothesize, and make tests.
                        Look at these two statements. You say that we are concerned with etymology only but you conclude that learning is speculation, hypothesis and tests.

                        I don't follow. Which way is it? This one in greek is called "Kolotoumba" a slang term for inconsistency.

                        Let's clarify something, Greek did not come from... God. They cognate to other pre-historic languages. They had to be formed somehow.

                        And another Kolotoumba is that these words used in an era and place prior to slavs, are slavic and not greek. And you are trying to show that through the use in macedonian.

                        As I said before, you are going from Thessaloniki to Skopje through New York.
                        There is no linearity to all this, that's for sure.

                        Comment

                        • Philosopher
                          Senior Member
                          • Sep 2008
                          • 1003

                          Originally posted by Spitfire
                          Look at these two statements. You say that we are concerned with etymology only but you conclude that learning is speculation, hypothesis and tests.

                          I don't follow. Which way is it? This one in greek is called "Kolotoumba" a slang term for inconsistency.
                          Not so Spitfire. We are concerned with etymology only. The speculation is not the etymology. The speculation consists of:

                          1. Assuming Slavic or an early form of Slavic existed in the ancient Balkans.
                          2. Assuming that the ancient Macedonians spoke this language.
                          3. That this language has been preserved to the present in modern Macedonian.
                          4. That we can apply modern Macedonian to ancient Balkan words.

                          There is no speculation what “Vasil” means. It means “a person in power”, which is the basic root of someone in government (prince, king, et al).

                          Let's clarify something, Greek did not come from... God. They cognate to other pre-historic languages. They had to be formed somehow.
                          No disagreement.

                          And another Kolotoumba is that these words used in an era and place prior to slavs, are slavic and not greek. And you are trying to show that through the use in macedonian.
                          Not so. The problem here is that you are starting with the premise that this is a fact. I am working on the premise that the Slavic Migration Theory may not be fact. There are good and solid reasons to question it.

                          If the Slavic Migration Theory is a fact, then yes it would not make sense to interpret ancient words with Slavic if Slavic was not present at the time. However, if the Slavic Migration Theory is not true, then it would make sense, assuming the language spoken by the ancient Balkan people is still fairly discernible in modern Macedonian.

                          This is the speculation aspect.

                          When we speculate about these things, we do so based on evidence. This evidence comes in the form of genetic studies, ancient history, linguistics, and a variety of other data.

                          I can, for example, confidently confirm that today's Macedonians are indigenous to the southern Balkans.

                          As I said before, you are going from Thessaloniki to Skopje through New York.
                          There is no linearity to all this, that's for sure.
                          You are entitled to your opinion. On this forum, there is no sacred cow. We question everything.
                          Last edited by Philosopher; 09-25-2014, 04:55 PM.

                          Comment

                          • spitfire
                            Banned
                            • Aug 2014
                            • 868

                            Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                            Not so Spitfire. We are concerned with etymology only. The speculation is not the etymology. The speculation consists of:

                            1. Assuming Slavic or an early form of Slavic existed in the ancient Balkans.
                            2. Assuming that the ancient Macedonians spoke this language.
                            3. That this language has been preserved to the present in modern Macedonian.
                            4. That we can apply modern Macedonian to ancient Balkan words.

                            There is no speculation what “Vasil” means. It means “a person in power”, which is the basic root of someone in government (prince, king, et al).
                            No it's not, you are avoiding any other use other than the name, such as a verb an adjective etc. And the basis of all this consists in Va and Sil together which is something you presume. This is speculation. On the other hand none of the greek words that use Vasilias are speculated on this. And that's a fact.



                            Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                            No disagreement.
                            Thank God.



                            Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                            Not so. The problem here is that you are starting with the premise that this is a fact. I am working on the premise that the Slavic Migration Theory may not be fact. There are good and solid reasons to question it.

                            If the Slavic Migration Theory is a fact, then yes it would not make sense to interpret ancient words with Slavic if Slavic was not present at the time. However, if the Slavic Migration Theory is not true, then it would make sense, assuming the language spoken by the ancient Balkan people is still fairly discernible in modern Macedonian.

                            This is the speculation aspect.
                            No I am not. I'm not speculating, you are speculating about slavic migration.
                            How is it fairly discernible? Based on a few words that are not so clear in etymology?
                            Is there such a thing as perfection? No there's not. If let's say you found 3 words that are not as clear (they are more clear in greek than in macedonian however) that doesn't mean a thing.

                            Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                            When we speculate about these things, we do so based on evidence. This evidence comes in the form of genetic studies, ancient history, linguistics, and a variety of other data.

                            I can, for example, confidently confirm that today's Macedonians are indigenous to the southern Balkans.
                            Which is it again? Speculation or evidence? I still don't follow. Can you confirm it? Not speculate it, confirm it. Show us how. I'd be very interested.

                            Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                            You are entitled to your opinion. On this forum, there is no sacred cow. We question everything.
                            Yes, of course, however this is like saying that you prove the existence of something based on its non existence.
                            I hope you see the leap in logic here.
                            Last edited by spitfire; 09-25-2014, 06:40 PM.

                            Comment

                            • Philosopher
                              Senior Member
                              • Sep 2008
                              • 1003

                              Originally posted by Spitfire
                              No it's not, you are avoiding any other use other than the name, such as a verb an adjective etc. And the basis of all this consists in Va and Sil together which is something you presume. This is speculation. On the other hand none of the greek words that use Vasilias are speculated on this. And that's a fact.
                              It is not something I presume. That is the name in Macedonian: Vasil. It is composed of two words, similar to how “Bozihdar” and “Georgios” is composed of two words. There is no speculation here. We have already gone over this Spitfire. The issue here is not how one word or name is used or how often. The issue is strictly etymological. Vasileus may be used in a hundred words in Greek. It matters nothing because this word has no etymological meaning in Greek. It is imported. The Macedonian name “Vasil” is not imported. It is composed of two Macedonian words. The word is indigenous to Macedonian. This is a fact.

                              For the life of me, I do not understand why this is difficult.

                              No I am not. I'm not speculating, you are speculating about slavic migration.
                              When I wrote “this is the speculation aspect”, that statement was not directed towards you.

                              In addition, you preclude the possibility that some words that are identified as “Greek” may be Slavic because Slavic was not in the Balkans at that stage of history.

                              This is what you wrote earlier:

                              Originally posted by Spitfire
                              And another Kolotoumba is that these words used in an era and place prior to slavs, are slavic and not greek. And you are trying to show that through the use in macedonian.
                              This is the point of contention. You believe or accept the traditional construction of history that Slavs migrated to the Balkans in the 6th century and onwards. You are entitled to believe this.

                              What I am arguing is if this construction of history is correct, then it would not make sense to reinterpret some “Greek” words using Slavic. If this construction of history is not correct, then it would make sense to reinterpret some “Greek” words using Slavic. Vasileus would be such a word.

                              Originally posted by Spitfire
                              How is it fairly discernible? Based on a few words that are not so clear in etymology?
                              Is there such a thing as perfection? No there's not. If let's say you found 3 words that are not as clear (they are more clear in greek than in macedonian however) that doesn't mean a thing.
                              It is discernible based on the words left to history from the ancient Balkan people, including the Thracians. There is a thread on this forum that exams the ancient Balkan languages. The evidence presented in that thread suggests that the ancient Balkan languages appear similar to modern day south Slavic, including Macedonian. This evidence does not rest on three words Spitfire. You are welcome to read the thread and make up your own mind.

                              In regard to these two words, it cannot be denied that “Vasil” and “odi” are etymologically Macedonian.

                              The purpose of this thread will be to explore the possibility of a common linguistic branch that split from Proto Indo-European around the time of the satem sound change, which came after the commencement of the centum sound change. This branch would include the (Paleo-)Balkan and Balto-Slavic language families, and for the


                              Which is it again? Speculation or evidence? I still don't follow. Can you confirm it? Not speculate it, confirm it. Show us how. I'd be very interested.
                              In context, this is what I wrote:

                              Originally posted by Philosopher
                              If the Slavic Migration Theory is a fact, then yes it would not make sense to interpret ancient words with Slavic if Slavic was not present at the time. However, if the Slavic Migration Theory is not true, then it would make sense, assuming the language spoken by the ancient Balkan people is still fairly discernible in modern Macedonian.

                              This is the speculation aspect.

                              When we speculate about these things, we do so based on evidence. This evidence comes in the form of genetic studies, ancient history, linguistics, and a variety of other data.
                              The traditional construction of history places Slavs and the Slavic language outside of the Balkans until about the 6th century AD. The traditional construction of history has modern Macedonians descending from migrating Slavs. The logical inference is that modern Macedonians and our language are complete outsiders of ancient Macedonia and the ancient Balkans.

                              Speculate is another word for theorize or hypothesize and we theorize and hypothesize that the traditional construction of Balkan history is wrong. A theory or hypothesis without evidence, however, is just a theory or hypothesis. The theory that modern day Macedonians are indigenous to the Balkans requires evidence. That evidence comes from genetic studies. When we speculate that our language may have been in the Balkans in ancient history, we do so based on historical documents and linguistic studies of ancient Balkan words.

                              Yes, of course, however this is like saying that you prove the existence of something based on its non existence. I hope you see the leap in logic here.
                              I'm not sure what your statement has to do with what I wrote.

                              Comment

                              • spitfire
                                Banned
                                • Aug 2014
                                • 868

                                Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                                It is not something I presume. That is the name in Macedonian: Vasil. It is composed of two words, similar to how “Bozihdar” and “Georgios” is composed of two words. There is no speculation here. We have already gone over this Spitfire. The issue here is not how one word or name is used or how often. The issue is strictly etymological. Vasileus may be used in a hundred words in Greek. It matters nothing because this word has no etymological meaning in Greek. It is imported. The Macedonian name “Vasil” is not imported. It is composed of two Macedonian words. The word is indigenous to Macedonian. This is a fact.

                                For the life of me, I do not understand why this is difficult.
                                The compose of these two words is something you presume mate. Etymologically speaking. And to this no other use as a verb or adjective etc. is added.


                                Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                                When I wrote “this is the speculation aspect”, that statement was not directed towards you.

                                In addition, you preclude the possibility that some words that are identified as “Greek” may be Slavic because Slavic was not in the Balkans at that stage of history.

                                This is what you wrote earlier:


                                This is the point of contention. You believe or accept the traditional construction of history that Slavs migrated to the Balkans in the 6th century and onwards. You are entitled to believe this.
                                No I don't quite believe this nor have I ever stated this exactly, you'll get it in a moment.


                                Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                                What I am arguing is if this construction of history is correct, then it would not make sense to reinterpret some “Greek” words using Slavic. If this construction of history is not correct, then it would make sense to reinterpret some “Greek” words using Slavic. Vasileus would be such a word.
                                The construction of history tells us when the slavs came and when the slavic was used in the area. It does not tell us about the people who spoke it, how was it that they came to speaking it. This is what you keep misunderstanding with my points.

                                Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                                It is discernible based on the words left to history from the ancient Balkan people, including the Thracians. There is a thread on this forum that exams the ancient Balkan languages. The evidence presented in that thread suggests that the ancient Balkan languages appear similar to modern day south Slavic, including Macedonian. This evidence does not rest on three words Spitfire. You are welcome to read the thread and make up your own mind.

                                In regard to these two words, it cannot be denied that “Vasil” and “odi” are etymologically Macedonian.

                                The purpose of this thread will be to explore the possibility of a common linguistic branch that split from Proto Indo-European around the time of the satem sound change, which came after the commencement of the centum sound change. This branch would include the (Paleo-)Balkan and Balto-Slavic language families, and for the
                                Not quite, again. You are repeating the arguments on these threads and they are not found evedently true. The same with odysseas.

                                Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                                In context, this is what I wrote:

                                The traditional construction of history places Slavs and the Slavic language outside of the Balkans until about the 6th century AD. The traditional construction of history has modern Macedonians descending from migrating Slavs. The logical inference is that modern Macedonians and our language are complete outsiders of ancient Macedonia and the ancient Balkans.

                                Speculate is another word for theorize or hypothesize and we theorize and hypothesize that the traditional construction of Balkan history is wrong. A theory or hypothesis without evidence, however, is just a theory or hypothesis. The theory that modern day Macedonians are indigenous to the Balkans requires evidence. That evidence comes from genetic studies. When we speculate that our language may have been in the Balkans in ancient history, we do so based on historical documents and linguistic studies of ancient Balkan words.
                                Theory and hypothesis are also greek. I gave the explanation of theory, now let me give you the explanation of hypothesis. It's under the thesis, so yes it is speculation. A thesis would be something more confident at least.

                                What you fail to understand and thus you fall into the trap of antiquity is that regardless when macedonian populations started to speak slavic, this does not inflict their origin. It's dead simple yet you keep not grasping it.
                                Slavs and slavic from the 6th century is not a proof of being a macedonian or slavic or whatever because this is based on language alone..
                                Last edited by spitfire; 09-25-2014, 08:22 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X