Paleo-Balkan & Balto-Slavic - Common Proto Language - Page 13

Delodephius · 07-06-2011, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Wouldn't there have been at least some Old Macedonian influence in Croatia given their use of the Glagolitic script? Or did they receive it through another means?

Right, but Glagolitic was used on the Adriatic coast, in Dalmatia and Istria. The Chakavian or Old Croatian was influenced, but the language of the Croats in Zagorie and Slavonia was perhaps only indirectly.

vojnik · 07-06-2011, 10:04 AM

As far as I know there is no such thing as an "ancient macedonian alphabet" I have been to various archaelogical digs around Macedonia and prior the the Glagolic alphabet the Koine alphabet was used adopted first by the Anceint Macedonian court as the official language used for billateral dealings this alphabet was adopted by most ancient civilisations. What is known is that the Ancient Macedonians had no alphabet of there own which was unique to others but it did have a unique language. It was not until Kiril i Metodij do we see a unique Macedonian Alphabet which was only invented in order to create a new standardized alphabet for Christian military work. What the disciples Naum and Kliment found was the local populations and others found it difficult to learn this alphabet so for the first time they used mostly Greek with a few Hebrew letters to create an Alphabet which could be used to write down the Macedonian language

Delodephius · 07-06-2011, 04:33 PM

I agree, Macedonians did not have an alphabet in the ancient period. The first Macedonian script was the Glagolitic alphabet which was invented by Cyril and Methodius. After that Clement of Ohrid created the Cyrillic alphabet (sometimes also called the Clementine alphabet) by adopting and expanding the medieval Greek alphabet.

Below is a table that depicts the origin of the Cyrillic alphabet.
1. In the blue are the letters that were directly adopted from the Greek alphabet that was used in the 9th century;
2. in the pink are the letters taken from the Hebrew alphabet;
3. in the green are letters made from other Cyrillic letters, i.e. by merging or modifying exiting one;
4. and finally in yellow are the letters that are of unknown origin though they might have derived from the Glagolitic alphabet.

Soldier of Macedon · 07-07-2011, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Is it possible that some dialects retained this Proto Slavic feature as Common Slavic began to spread out, hence the reason why they retained the "a" instead of adopting the "o"?

Slovak, can you share your opinion on the above?

The reason I ask is because if the word was already in existence, then they wouldn't necessarily have to adopt the Common Slavic variant.

Delodephius · 07-08-2011, 08:35 AM

I am unsure SoM. I don't think it's very important because both Common Slavic and Proto-Slavic are reconstructed languages. Aren't they the same actually? As far as I know there is only Praslověnski in the works of Slavic scholars. On Wikipedia it says that Common Slavic is a later stage of Proto-Slavic. To me it only makes sense if it means that Proto-Slavic was the language spoken in the hypothetical Slavic Urheimat and when it started to spread from there it evolved into a form called Common Slavic. Since the hypothesis of a Slavic Urheimat is now considered obsolete I would say that there was no Proto-Slavic or that Proto-Slavic and Common Slavic are one and the same language, which was formed from various dialects of PBPBS.

And to my knowledge, although I would need to check my books at home to confirm if I remember correctly, the alternations between A/O exist in all Slavic language groups. I remember that the prefix raz-/roz- existed in both South and West Slavic languages during the OCS period, and one form or another was present in the different dialects of these groups. There was no rule that roz- belong to West Slavic and raz- to South Slavic or vice versa. Both forms appear in both groups.

Soldier of Macedon · 07-09-2011, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delodephius

I don't think it's very important because both Common Slavic and Proto-Slavic are reconstructed languages. Aren't they the same actually?

In my opinion, Common Slavic developed from one or more Proto Slavic dialects and became a lingua franca north of the Danube by the 6th century, and south of the Danube also thereafter. Proto Slavic was formed when it split from Proto Balto-Slavic, while the latter further split into West Baltic and East Baltic. Proto Balto-Slavic was akin and contemporary to the Paleo-Balkan languages. The stage earlier than that would then be Proto Balto-Slavic-Balkan (perhaps 1000BC), which may have been closely linked to Proto Indo-Iranian during an even earlier stage.

Delodephius · 07-09-2011, 06:46 AM

Well that makes sense. Except in Slavic literature there is only Proto-Slavic and I always assumed that Common Slavic was the same as Proto-Slavic. In my opinion I thought that Common Slavic emerged as a language directly from the Proto-Balto-Slavic group.

Soldier of Macedon · 07-09-2011, 07:28 AM

That is possible also, and only a minor variation. When do you think Proto/Common Slavic (which, in that case should simply be called 'Slavic') West Baltic and East Baltic broke off from Proto Balto-Slavic respectively? Do you think the establishment of the Danube as a northern frontier of the Romans initiated a widening gap between Paleo-Balkan and Balto-Slavic?

Delodephius · 07-09-2011, 07:03 PM

Due to lack of written evidence I don't think we can reliably conclude which language split from the whole and then formed its own group. There are four scenarios I imagine were possible:
1. Proto-Baltic, Proto-Slavic and Palaeo-Balkan all split at the approximately same time;
2. Proto-Baltic splits;
3. Proto-Slavic splits;
4. Palaeo-Balkan splits.
So each of the groups could have split and leave the whole which than later splits into the other two. We could assume that it was Proto-Slavic that split first since Thracian as a Palaeo-Balkan language shows a higher degree of similarity with the Baltic languages rather than Slavic. Or it could be that Proto-Baltic split since Proto-Slavic/Common Slavic spread into Palaeo-Balkan area and mixed there and not in the Baltic area which means it was more similar to Palaeo-Balkan.

Furthermore, we shouldn't also ignore the possibility that other PBPSB languages existed outside of the Baltic, Slavic and Balkan areas. Look on the map I posted, between Slavic and Germanic areas in what is now Poland, Bohemia and East Germany, what languages were spoken there? Slavic was present there in the time of Charlemagne (8-9th century AD) and more than half of what is Germany as far as Rhine in some cases was inhabited by Slavic speakers. Could it just be that Slavic speakers settled in these lands because they were poorly settled in the first place (mostly forests)? Or was it that certain non-Germanic languages were spoken there that were close enough to Slavic to merge with it? Were these peoples the Wends/Vandals who adopted the Slavic language but their name remained in their neighbours' languages?

Soldier of Macedon · 07-09-2011, 08:06 PM

Many of the conclusions are based on probability and logical interpretation, and will remain tentative. However, the same could be said for several other topics in fields concerning history and linguistics. With regard to the development of Balto-Slavic languages, I think it is a worthy exercise trying to determine what is possible and likely and what is not, so a balanced assessment can be made of the overall picture, and so we can reach a point of consistency in our views concerning the development of our languages.

From the research that we have both done, there can be no doubt that Balto-Slavic and Paleo-Balkan come from the same pool of languages, and looking at the map you provided, it could almost even be said that the ancestor-tongue of these languages was like a Proto East European. So, relative to your question above, I would agree that large swathes of what is now Germanic-speaking territory was once inhabited by Slavic-speakers (or PBSB-speakers). I don't think they settled there, but rather, the other way around - the expansion of Germanic-speakers eastward came at the expense of existing Slavic-speakers (or PBSB speakers) who lost ground in those areas.

With regard to Baltic languages, I have read that some consider them to be sufficiently different from each other (West Baltic & East Baltic) that they actually form two distinct group on par with Slavic - all three of which split from Proto Balto-Slavic. Do you agree with this? Or do you think that West/East Baltic are close enough to constitute a single group on par with Slavic?

07-06-2011, 04:33 PM	#123
Delodephius Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Petrovecz Baciensis, Res Publica Iazygia Posts: 736	I agree, Macedonians did not have an alphabet in the ancient period. The first Macedonian script was the Glagolitic alphabet which was invented by Cyril and Methodius. After that Clement of Ohrid created the Cyrillic alphabet (sometimes also called the Clementine alphabet) by adopting and expanding the medieval Greek alphabet. Below is a table that depicts the origin of the Cyrillic alphabet. 1. In the blue are the letters that were directly adopted from the Greek alphabet that was used in the 9th century; 2. in the pink are the letters taken from the Hebrew alphabet; 3. in the green are letters made from other Cyrillic letters, i.e. by merging or modifying exiting one; 4. and finally in yellow are the letters that are of unknown origin though they might have derived from the Glagolitic alphabet. __________________ अयं निज: परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम्। उदारमनसानां तु वसुधैव कुटुंबकम्॥ This is mine or (somebody) else’s (is the way) narrow minded people count. But for broad minded people, (whole) earth is (like their) family.

07-08-2011, 08:35 AM	#125
Delodephius Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Petrovecz Baciensis, Res Publica Iazygia Posts: 736	I am unsure SoM. I don't think it's very important because both Common Slavic and Proto-Slavic are reconstructed languages. Aren't they the same actually? As far as I know there is only Praslověnski in the works of Slavic scholars. On Wikipedia it says that Common Slavic is a later stage of Proto-Slavic. To me it only makes sense if it means that Proto-Slavic was the language spoken in the hypothetical Slavic Urheimat and when it started to spread from there it evolved into a form called Common Slavic. Since the hypothesis of a Slavic Urheimat is now considered obsolete I would say that there was no Proto-Slavic or that Proto-Slavic and Common Slavic are one and the same language, which was formed from various dialects of PBPBS. And to my knowledge, although I would need to check my books at home to confirm if I remember correctly, the alternations between A/O exist in all Slavic language groups. I remember that the prefix raz-/roz- existed in both South and West Slavic languages during the OCS period, and one form or another was present in the different dialects of these groups. There was no rule that roz- belong to West Slavic and raz- to South Slavic or vice versa. Both forms appear in both groups. __________________ अयं निज: परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम्। उदारमनसानां तु वसुधैव कुटुंबकम्॥ This is mine or (somebody) else’s (is the way) narrow minded people count. But for broad minded people, (whole) earth is (like their) family.

07-09-2011, 06:46 AM	#127
Delodephius Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Petrovecz Baciensis, Res Publica Iazygia Posts: 736	Well that makes sense. Except in Slavic literature there is only Proto-Slavic and I always assumed that Common Slavic was the same as Proto-Slavic. In my opinion I thought that Common Slavic emerged as a language directly from the Proto-Balto-Slavic group. __________________ अयं निज: परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम्। उदारमनसानां तु वसुधैव कुटुंबकम्॥ This is mine or (somebody) else’s (is the way) narrow minded people count. But for broad minded people, (whole) earth is (like their) family.

07-09-2011, 07:28 AM	#128
Soldier of Macedon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Macedonian Outpost Posts: 13,660	That is possible also, and only a minor variation. When do you think Proto/Common Slavic (which, in that case should simply be called 'Slavic') West Baltic and East Baltic broke off from Proto Balto-Slavic respectively? Do you think the establishment of the Danube as a northern frontier of the Romans initiated a widening gap between Paleo-Balkan and Balto-Slavic? __________________ In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

07-09-2011, 07:03 PM	#129
Delodephius Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Petrovecz Baciensis, Res Publica Iazygia Posts: 736	Due to lack of written evidence I don't think we can reliably conclude which language split from the whole and then formed its own group. There are four scenarios I imagine were possible: 1. Proto-Baltic, Proto-Slavic and Palaeo-Balkan all split at the approximately same time; 2. Proto-Baltic splits; 3. Proto-Slavic splits; 4. Palaeo-Balkan splits. So each of the groups could have split and leave the whole which than later splits into the other two. We could assume that it was Proto-Slavic that split first since Thracian as a Palaeo-Balkan language shows a higher degree of similarity with the Baltic languages rather than Slavic. Or it could be that Proto-Baltic split since Proto-Slavic/Common Slavic spread into Palaeo-Balkan area and mixed there and not in the Baltic area which means it was more similar to Palaeo-Balkan. Furthermore, we shouldn't also ignore the possibility that other PBPSB languages existed outside of the Baltic, Slavic and Balkan areas. Look on the map I posted, between Slavic and Germanic areas in what is now Poland, Bohemia and East Germany, what languages were spoken there? Slavic was present there in the time of Charlemagne (8-9th century AD) and more than half of what is Germany as far as Rhine in some cases was inhabited by Slavic speakers. Could it just be that Slavic speakers settled in these lands because they were poorly settled in the first place (mostly forests)? Or was it that certain non-Germanic languages were spoken there that were close enough to Slavic to merge with it? Were these peoples the Wends/Vandals who adopted the Slavic language but their name remained in their neighbours' languages? __________________ अयं निज: परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम्। उदारमनसानां तु वसुधैव कुटुंबकम्॥ This is mine or (somebody) else’s (is the way) narrow minded people count. But for broad minded people, (whole) earth is (like their) family. Last edited by Delodephius; 07-09-2011 at 07:11 PM.

07-06-2011, 10:04 AM	#122
vojnik Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 307	As far as I know there is no such thing as an "ancient macedonian alphabet" I have been to various archaelogical digs around Macedonia and prior the the Glagolic alphabet the Koine alphabet was used adopted first by the Anceint Macedonian court as the official language used for billateral dealings this alphabet was adopted by most ancient civilisations. What is known is that the Ancient Macedonians had no alphabet of there own which was unique to others but it did have a unique language. It was not until Kiril i Metodij do we see a unique Macedonian Alphabet which was only invented in order to create a new standardized alphabet for Christian military work. What the disciples Naum and Kliment found was the local populations and others found it difficult to learn this alphabet so for the first time they used mostly Greek with a few Hebrew letters to create an Alphabet which could be used to write down the Macedonian language

07-09-2011, 08:06 PM	#130
Soldier of Macedon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Macedonian Outpost Posts: 13,660	Many of the conclusions are based on probability and logical interpretation, and will remain tentative. However, the same could be said for several other topics in fields concerning history and linguistics. With regard to the development of Balto-Slavic languages, I think it is a worthy exercise trying to determine what is possible and likely and what is not, so a balanced assessment can be made of the overall picture, and so we can reach a point of consistency in our views concerning the development of our languages. From the research that we have both done, there can be no doubt that Balto-Slavic and Paleo-Balkan come from the same pool of languages, and looking at the map you provided, it could almost even be said that the ancestor-tongue of these languages was like a Proto East European. So, relative to your question above, I would agree that large swathes of what is now Germanic-speaking territory was once inhabited by Slavic-speakers (or PBSB-speakers). I don't think they settled there, but rather, the other way around - the expansion of Germanic-speakers eastward came at the expense of existing Slavic-speakers (or PBSB speakers) who lost ground in those areas. With regard to Baltic languages, I have read that some consider them to be sufficiently different from each other (West Baltic & East Baltic) that they actually form two distinct group on par with Slavic - all three of which split from Proto Balto-Slavic. Do you agree with this? Or do you think that West/East Baltic are close enough to constitute a single group on par with Slavic? __________________ In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)