#431227

Anonymous
Quote:
Now, Albanian is not Illyrian and it certainly is not native in the region of Albania.

That Albanian represent a continuation of an Illyrian dialect is settled beyond any doubt. I have no intention – nor energy – at this stage to outline the enormous evidences which bespeak favorably on the Illyrian parentage of Albanian. All foreign linguists meddling with Albanian have saliently argued that Albanian stem directly from a southern Illyrian dialect, a fact which is further bolstered by pertinent phonological commonalities. Our knowledge to Illyrian is sparse given that all what is left from this language consist of a handful of glosses, personal names and place-names as well. Thus the reconstruction of its phonological and morphological system at its entirety is  is hampered by the small proportion of material at our disposal. However, many of Illyrian vestiges have been linked with Albanian. Numerous historical evidences make the Illyrian theory an unavoidable conclusion. A massive migration of proto-Albanians into modern Albanian is hardly plausible. It is hardly conceivable that a whole people sneak in undetected and go past the watchful eyes of Romans. We know pretty well that Byzantines consolidated their western provinces in order to thwart any possible incursion from sea, so it follows as a logical assumption that proto-Albanians to be able to assimilate the illyrians they would have to be at least 3 times the present Illyrian population, but this can be ruled out as such a number of people would have been noticed and caused confrontation. A more inquisitive mind might discover that the population of modern Albania (the Roman provinces of Prevalitania and Epirus) kept intact its distinct identity concealed beneath a thin veneer of Romanization and Hellenization. Moreover, archaeologists have yielded ample evidences which point out to a distinct culture known as ''Komani-Kruja'' culture. Its carriers were admittedly Illyrian who reasserted their identity in a time when Balkans was jeopardized by drastic changes.

Quote:
Most of the Scholars now seenm to agree that Albanian is a Daco-Moesian dialect and that the linguistic ancestors of the Albanians have moved in the region sometime around 500-600 AD possibly pushed by the descending Slavs.

You're awfully wrong as Dacian hypothesis has found little support among current historians. Highly acclaimed linguists like Pokorny, Pedersen, Budimir,  Cimochowski, Rosseti, Crossland, Polome, Mallory-Adams opt for the Illyrian theory as the most plausible one. The ill-fated and bewildering hypothesis, according to which proto-Albanians used to live north of Danube, is embraced chiefly by Romanian linguists who are covetous to ascertain their ''immemorial presence'' in Transylvania during their political squabbles with Hungarians. According to this view, Albanians (as non-Romanized Dacians) shifted south of Danube, while the rest remained out there and later emerged as Romanians. But this claim has little to go on for all linguists (apart from Romanian ones) acknowledge the region of Dardania as the very ancient seat of proto-Romanian. It seems not unwarranted that Romanian was coalesced in a region where Albanian-speakers were prevalent (that is the territory of ancient Dardania). It is worth of noting that Romanian lack of Gothic loans, which is perhaps an additional evidence of their south-Danubian origin. Had it been permanently in Romania, Romanian would have already been soaked with early Germanic borrowings, but this is not the case! Considering that most of pre-Latin words are merely loaned from Albanian, it follows as logical assumption that proto-Romanians used to live in a territory where the Albanian elements were prevalent and quite powerful as affect so profusely their speech. Last but not least, any migration of Dacians would not have gone unnoticed and it requires a rich creative imagination to make some tiny wandering tribes of Dacia as a powerful horde to impose itself over a vast territory jutting from Nis (Serbia) all the way to Epirus ???.

Quote:
The "prince of albanology" (as the albanian linguists call him) Eric Hamp after some 50 years studying the albanian language has concluded that the ancestors of the Romanians spoke proto-Albanian before their latinization,

Yet he avoid from ascribing Dacian as the predecessor of Albanian because he is too circumspect to pluck hypothesis out of thin air. Hamp is doubtless one of the best researchers of Albanian language, whose work is appreciated in all eminent universities. In recent years, he pursued the path of post-modernism which tend to obfuscate the traditional knowledge. His reluctance to admit Illyrian as the ancestor of Albanian surely comes from the paucity of Illyrian material and Hamp opined that Illyrian may have been like “Indian” to many Americans or “aborigine” to many Australians. Nonetheless, Hamp has enriched greatly our knowledge to the earlier stages of Albanian by offering some startling evidences in favor of Illyro-Albanian connection. For instance, he make an interesting case when it comes the origin of word ,,thikë'' (knife) likening it to ,,sica'', which he sees as a borrowing from Illyrian in Latin. 

Quote:
and they were Daco-Moesian speakers not Illyrian speakers.

The redundant term ''Daco-Moesian'' was coined by the Bulgarian linguist, Vladimir Georgiev who opined that Dacian has been spoken in the province of Moesia (?). He conjectured that Albanian and Romanian derived from a common stock which he loosely called as ''Daco-Moesian'', although the evidence is frustratingly exiguous to establish any far-reaching conclusion. His main arguments that Albanian does not cohere with Illyrian are not convincing, while the preposterous claim that Albanian has no original nautical and maritime vocabulary must be dismantled altogether. Georgiev, however, did not rule out the possibility that Albanian has a good deal of Illyrian elements but he went without further ado because it would have greatly weaken his entire hypothesis. The Bulgarian linguist himself appeared ill at ease with his ill fated hypothesis, but at least he was correct enough as to remark that:

"We are, of course, still unable to determine exactly the beginning of the proto-Albanian infiltration into ancient Illyria"

Quote:
Vladimir Orel in his Albanian Etymological dictionary, where he identifies the albanian urheimat with Dacia Ripensis and the Carpathian mountains

The Russian linguist, Vladimir Orel, whose work is really an impeccable contribution which cast a much-needed light on Albanian, has mustered all Albanian words which have been tentatively likened to ancient idioms of Balkans. If you stumbled upon his books, you will find plenty of Illyrian elements inherited by Albanian. He endeavored to pinpoint the early seat of proto-Albanians in the foothills of Carpathian mountains, a claim which flies in the face of all available evidences at our disposal. Though the etymology of Καρπάτῆς and Bieskidy appears to be correct (linked with Alb. ,,karpë'' and ,,bjeshkë'' respectively), there is no reason to believe that Albanian might have been coalesced out there. Yet both toponyms seems to have been Illyrian, especially the latter is possibly derived from Illyr. *biz-kit (forest). 

Quote:
Andre Du Nay in his "the Origins of the Rumanians" has the same opinion and identifies Eastern Serbia and NW Bulgarian as the common urheimat of both Albanians and Rumanians

For heaven's sake, don't twist Nay's position concerning Albanian urheimat! >:( He clearly stated that “The ancestors of the Albanians lived mainly east of Albania, in Macedonia and in parts of Serbia".(Transylvania and the Rumanians, 1997). The location of proto-Albanians into territory of ancient Dardania and Paionia does not rule out the Illyrian origin as both regions had a well-established Illyrian populace. In many respects, the ''Dardanian'' theory is a compromise one between Illyrian and Dacian which decimate any form of historical accuracy in exchange for "appeasing" a particular group(s). I stand firm to my position that there is no compelling reason to conclusively preclude modern Albania's territory from primeval seat of Albanian language.

Quote:
So by the 11th century, we can say with certaintly that the Albanians were still relatively isolated in Arbanon (Kruja-Mat region).

The fact is that proto-Albanians occupied a territory way larger than Arbanon. Their first mention in Arbanon indicate plainly that certain parts of proto-Albanians lifted up precisely in the city (or better region) known as Arbanon. It is very possible that large amounts of Albanians which were under the sway of either Byzantines or Slavic entities were actually labelled as Romei, Epirotans, Bulgarians, etc. But when Albanians of other regions namely Epirus received a kind of political autonomy by wielding additional powers, Byzantine chroniclers felt a need to describe them distinctly from the rest of their subjects.

Quote:
None mentions Albanians there, or use the name Albania to describe it.

Why would they mention Albanians (who were well-integrated within Byzantine framework)? Their attention was shifted to the marauding onslaughts of either Bulgarians or Serbs into Byzantine territories, so there was no apparent reason to conduct any insightful research over its loyal subjects. It is very telling the fact that Albanians and Vlachs got mention when the Bulgarian threat has gone.

Quote:
Well, I guess if I was a pechalbar in Australia or Canada I would certainly have spoken it better. Anyway as long as you understand me I think that we're ok.

The overriding problem of yours is not the woeful English but your tireless persistence to make the most absurd and surreal things seem normal.  Perhaps the fatal curse of the Balkans is that everyone with a f**king laptop and access to the web claims they're accomplished academics on every subject  ;D.