Talk:Thracian language

Comments

To do: besides rewriting/improving some sections: add images of the inscriptions; put the Thracian lexical elements in Greek script for those that are from Greek texts, etc., indicate primary sources, etc., add a ==Reference== section. A language map showing distribution would also be useful. IPA for PIE reconstructions. 07:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is in serious need of references, that is why the phrases "Some scholars" "some Thracologists" are common: i don't have their names. 12:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Spoken in ancient times" - what does this mean? --217.22.89.209 00:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Kate

Spoken prior to the beginning of the Middle Ages, appx. 560 A.D. 50.111.29.1 (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thracian and Dacian

The article says: Excluding Dacian, whose status as a Thracian language is disputed1, and the footnote says that This is confirmed among others by Benjamin W. Fortson in his Indo-European Language and Culture, when he states that "all attempts to relate Thracian to Phrygian, Illyrian, or Dacian ... are ... purely speculative" (p. 90). "Confirmed among other by..." Who are the others that state that? Is the Romanian and undoubtably 99% of the foreign historiography wrong, and has been wrong for decades now in clasifying Dacian as a Thracian language? And what is with this tone: "whose status as a Thracian language is disputed" Disputed? Disputed by whome? By two nerdy wikipedia editors? Greier 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed by those mentioned. U have to understand that you cannot push your POV. find sources and add them, for Christ's sake! btw, in the past Albanian was considered as a Hellenic language... And even further back in time, Latin was considered a Hellenic dialect. so, do not present past theories as if they are still right.... Same times they may be not. Hectorian 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A nerd and a dork is one who barges into the article and starts screwing things up based on his prejudices. In this case, my opinion or your opinion is not the issue. A survey of the literature will show the situation. My opinion? Possibly Dacian and Thracian were close enough that in retrospect they can be viewed as one language. Conversely, they may have been quite different. And something that hasn't been covered in this article yet because we need sourced information: it may be that what we now think of as the "Thracian language" was a number of distinct languages that have been lumped together. There was probably a lot of language interference between several Indo-European languages, as well as non-Indo-European languages in ancient Thrace and its environs. 69.106.206.100 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

However, while Dacian and Thracian are commonly treated as separate languages (though sometimes as dialects), I think it is fair to say those who think that Dacian and Thracian were not closely related are currently a small minority? 69.106.206.100 01:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it certainly is not "fair to say those who think that Dacian and Thracian were not closely related are currently a small minority", on the contrary, saying that those who doubt this affirmation are currently a small minority is fair to say. Why? Simply compare the Aromanian dialects and Romanian, and you will see a common trunk of language that is not to be explain solely by the roman influence. The connection predates romanization. But more important so, doubt should be injected into the minds of historians who lightheartedly mix "languages" and "population groups". Reality is that little is known about the akinness of the two. Example? Celts were in Ireland, Celts reached all the way to Dalmatia and the Panonic plains. ALL KINDS of Celts, they had their own names in ancient sources, then they were described as Celts - but all the written data we have hardly helps one give an answer to the question whether there was something that one may describe as THE Celtic language? Considering reminiscents of Celtic, from Irish to Welsh and the strongly romanized Romansch - all in the western part of Celtic civilization, one must certainly doubt the unity of these language. The next question to ask is whether a Thracic tribe living next to the Boii - one of the East-most Celts - spoke a language more distant from the one of the Boii, then the Celts in Ireland spoke? You see the problem I hope!! Indeed, the concept of thracian language cannot be defined more accurately than saying that it was a common pattern of the languages or dialects spoken by tribes which were described as Thracic. After comming down to earth in this way, it becomes obvious that those who deny to the "Dacian language" the attribute of be one aspect of "thracian language" cannot do this for other reason than personal taste. Why? Because, so far we have north of Rome and Greece only these two major GROUPS of people: Thracian and Celts (the Ilyrians are admitted to be some relatives of the Thracians too, which is the reason why they are not Greek). So the question is then: do we introduce an additional group for the Dacians, to honnour them? Or for the political interests of some small states? It is certainly not in the interest of understanding or knowledge. In lack of better, I erase the confusing phrase.PredaMi (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would add that Boia is an isolated recent historian, of good culture but explicite tendency to go own ways. I would take his writings more as an abrupt countering to possibly narrow views about Romanian history in his own country: an exagerated polemic thus, which may have its value precisely for opposing some exagerated position in the opposite direction. But this makes is by far not a theory yet. In lack of something better, forget it.PredaMi (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Bulgarian cognates

Unless they are exclusive to Bulgarian or whatever Slavic language is the case, place the Proto-Slavic cognate. For example, "ostru" is also in Slovak, "ostry", etc. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Poltyn

Is poltyn attested or is that extracted from Poltymbria? Till I find that out I removed poltyn from the list. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Inscription translation

«ROLISTE NEAS NERENEA TILTEAN ES KOAR AZEADOME ANT ILEZ UP TAMIĒ ERA ZELTA»
Can be reconstructed such:
«RULLISTE NIES NEREŅA TILTAN, IZ KUR ĀZIEDAMI ANT ĪLES UPI, TAMĪ IRA ZELTA»
Knowing Latvian and Curonian, we can see understandable words:
roliste = rulliste! - 'roll!' > 'go/ride!'
neas = nies - 'down'
nerenea = Nerenis - the bridge name, 'Nere' - the river name, nerti - 'to dive'
tiltean = tiltan - 'bridge'
es = iz - 'from'
koar = kur/kura - 'where/which'
azeadome = āziedami/aiziedami - 'going behind/from'
ant = ant - 'to/till'
ilez = Īles - Yle - the river name
Up = upe - 'river'
tamiē = tamī - 'there/in it'
era = ira - 'is'
zelta = zeltan - 'gold'
So, the full translation could be:
«Go down till Nerena bridge, going from which till Yle river, there (in it) is gold»
Roberts7 19:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few linguists are indeed intrigued by the apparent Balto-Thracian correspondences, even speculating a large Balto-Thracian linguistic continuum from Baltic to Balkans, only later taken over by a new, more advanced dialetc - Slavic. Hxseek (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see why someone would put such a thing on a ring, but we are not here to judge the possibilities. If you have a reference for that translation please include it, otherwise we cannot simply add it like that. Fkitselis (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Tsiringanos

I've just marked as original research a new addition made by Tsiringanos (talk · contribs). It admits to being by an 'independent researcher' and is not followed up with a reference. It's style is clearly non-academic. I'll inform the user, and see if we can shed some light on it. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section since the editor has in fact identified it as original research. Mr. Tsiringanos should tell us where his independent study has been published before it is added again. Aramgar (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bria not polis

The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries BC by John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, E. Sollberger, and N. G. L. Hammond ,ISBN 0521227178,1992,page 612: "According to Strabo(vii.6.1cf.st.Byz.446.15) the Thracian -bria word meant polis but it is an inaccurate translation"Megistias (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

More sticking to the facts

Why do we state "indo-european" if we don't know enough of this language. Why do we link Thracian to Dacian? is there any proof? If we know such few things about Thracian (hydronims, kings names and few words) why don't we just state that PROBABLY this is an "indo-european" language PROBABLY linked to Dacian? Abdulka (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.58.11.183 (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

because there are evidences that Thracian language was Indo-European and not Semitic.

The relationships between Thracian and Dacian languages are not clear. Some authors have accepted the idea, that both languages were closely related and formed a dialect continuum. Another group of scientists does not share this view. Because of that in Wikipedia is an distinct article about the Dacian language, where this problem has been discussed. This article was created with the idea to view only the Thracian dialect. Jingby (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a language continuum makes logical sense. The ideea of declaring distinctions between languages, at the luck and pleasure of some researcher with political agenda does not. Why? Simply because at the level of close to zero knowledge about the (to present knowledge) unwritten languages of Europe two milenia ago does not suffice to make any distinctive statement in addition to what we know from ancient sources - and the ancient sources made certain attribution of long lists of TRIBES to larger FAMILIES. These families are, roughly speaking Thracians and Celts - the Dacians being often enough referred to as relative to Thracians, having also participated in common unions of tribes, e.g. under Buerebista and, it is really absurd to decide to split out a Dacian language. Are you aware of how little we know about Celtic languages, where every western sage assumes to know a lot? Do we know at all if the Boii spoke "Celtic", or were much better at ease discussing with some near by Dacian then with a Gaul, for instance? So what IS language (unwritten) 2000 years ago, is the first question to ask, before making up splittings.PredaMi (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The word 'bounos',hill,mound

This word is interesting.In modern Greek there is the word βουνό vuno', which means mountain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsof (talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Linguists would have to find it interesting to be significant. There are all kinds of modified loanwords and coincidences in languages. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Actually HammerFilm, my apologies: this is what the Thracologist actually says: Βασίβουνον Beševl. PKN p.139: pentru prima parte, Βασί-, majoritatea cercetătorilor propun numele latin Bassus, deşi transcrierile procopiene ale numelor latine respectă consoanele duble(v. infra Βασσίδινα Exemple). Ne-am putea gândi şi la un *Βουσί-(v. Βουσίπαρα) cu confuzia α/ου. Al doilea formant este cel mai probabil grecul(=trac?) βούνον "măgură,deal". Nelocalizabil.---I'll translate: βούνον is a Greek word, attested in Greek pretty well, there is even a Greek mythological figure named Bounos. Olteanu ventures a suggestion, not a commitment or an etymological study, that the word may also be Thracian, maybe even of Thracian origin. I have seen proposed etymologies of βούνον that do not mention Thracian as the source. Possible Thracian origin, but there is no real evidence yet for a Thracian origin for βούνον besides two Thracian toponyms in Procopius: Βασίβουνον and Kasibonon. There is also the possibility that the word was part of a Balkan sprachbund. 76.208.172.115 (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I will agree with Kitsof. βουνό is a very common word denoting smaller mountains, while for high mountains the word όρος is used. I have never taken a closer look to this, but I am sure someone has written something about it. Otherwise, I would say it is a weird miss.

Fkitselis (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Ezerovo ring.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ezerovo ring.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyone that has a photo personally taken? It is really pity not to have a picture of the ring. Fkitselis (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It just needs a fair use rationale added to it. --Codrin.B (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thracian and Latin

Some sources as Horace ,Ovid and Sextus Rufus showed similarities between Latin and Thracian. They were in contact with thracians and exposed their opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.18.215 (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about those similarities? From the scarse material and onomastics, there's absolutely no similarity to Latin, apart from their common Indo-European background. Fkitselis (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fkitelis, you realize that your question goes in the wrong direction! The latins mentioned talk about paesants that speak a hard to understand vulgar latin, but with whom they could lead conversations - while they were speaking their own language. Prior to romanization. To my knowledge they do not give lists of words as you would wish, since their thinking was different from ours - they did not look at themselves as scientists leaving linguistic material to posterity, but as living trustable humans who express their experience. Of course, historians of today who do not like the kind of conclusions that may be drawn from these contemporary testimonies - intelligent, very alive people speaking to other living people - find all reasons to denigrate the trustability of the source. But they would not mention the fact that, compared to those living testimonies, the knowledge base for their own deductions and theories is at least as adventurous. Take it or leave it - however, if you leave it, you must have a good ground!PredaMi (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

References

THRACIANS SPOKE A GREEK DIALECT.

THRACIANS SPOKE A GREEK DIALECT...IF YOU KNOW EVEN MODERN GREEK...YOU CAN UNDERSTAND MOST OF THE THRACIANS WORDS THAT ARE DISCRIBED IN THIS WIKI.

ANCIENT GREEK WORDS WORDS THAT MOST ARE USED EVEN TODAY IN GREECE. alopekis = ΑΛΩΠΕΚΙΣ = ΚΑΡΑΦΛΟΣ kalamindar = ΚΑΛΑΜΙΔΑ manteia = ΜΑΝΤΕΙΑ pera = ΠΟΛΙΣ = ΑΚΟΜΑ ΣΤΗΝ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥΠΟΛΗ ΥΠΑΡΧΕΙ Η ΠΕΡΙΟΧΗ ΠΕΡΑ. rhomphaia = ΡΟΜΦΑΙΑ = ΤΟ ΞΙΦΟΣ ΠΟΥ ΚΡΑΤΑΝΕ ΟΙ ΑΓΓΕΛΟΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΙΑ ktistai = ΚΤΙΣΤΑΙ

ETC...ETC...AND THE RESTS WORDS ARE ANCIENT GREEK WORDS. CONCLUSION...OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE THE GREEKNESS OF THRACIANS OR BE BLIND FOR EVER...

REALLY...DID THE CURENCY OF THRACIANS WHICH IS THE ...DRACHMA... (TETRADRACHMON = 4 DRACHMAS) REMINDS SOMETHING TO ANYONE?.... OH YES....THE GREEK DRACHMA.... WELL...DIONYSOS...THE GREEK GOD OF THRACIANS...REMINDS SOMETHING TO SOMEONE? ΓΕΙΑ ΣΑΣ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.236.134 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No need to shout please. You have to understand that many Indo-European languages are reminiscent of each other which is normal. Thracian sometimes might remind of Greek, but in many cases it doesn't. The personal names of Thracians are completely different than standard Greek names. Fkitselis (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

greek made borrowings from many languages, they borrowed the thracian gods.. proto indo european languages went feom ukraine-romania-bulgaria-greece and yugoslavia. its a migratory progression which the early indo europeans took and their languages are condemned to be similar, as romanian has some 100-300 basic words which are in albanian and they are 100% certified to be of dacian/thracian origin

also ancient authors talk about dacian and thracian speaking a mutually inteligeble language

we know also that many mercenaries in the Alexander Macedons army were thracian.. and we know he settled at the end of his conquest with his soldiers in norht pakistan, from which 4000 tracian mercenaries. and now the Burushashy language as its spoken there has hunderds of romanian words same meaning and pronunciations, which in romanian they are classified as unknown origin. its 100% sure that those are of the dacian/thracian group. the word for example "Fulg" meaning snowflake

studies on this burushasky language are a novelty that was discovered in 2019 and bulgarian linguist + a romanian linguist (Mihai Vinereanu, professor of linguistics at new york) study it.. 2A02:2F0F:B014:FF00:4889:975A:3E07:58D (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Celtic briga

Shouldn't the Celtic word briga be listed as a cognate for bria, "town" or "settlement"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.19.86 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Romanian language...

At the "wild pumpkin"...the romanian (but also bulgarian and serbian) word for watermellon is a bustrofedon: "lubenița”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC) At the „bolinthos”...the romanian word ”bolund/bolând” (meaning ”wild crazy”) is an anthonym for ”blând” (meaning ”gentle”/calm”), and is considered similar with hungarian ”bolond”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs) 00:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Irrational/wrong cognates

Some cognates to the Thracian lexical items are not correct (for instance "manteia" wrongly connected to German "Mandel", which comes from Late Latin "amandula", itself from Ancient Greek αμύγδαλη. The same word gives "almond" in English, "mandle" in Czech, "миндаль" in Russian) and the situation with some cognates is a bit absurd, this is particularly true for Slavic cognates. Sometimes 3-4 different Slavic languages are mentioned for the same word without a good reason, sometimes only Serbian and/or Bulgarian are given for a common slavic root (this can be misleading, since it gives the idea that they're substrate words); I'd propose to put just the Old Church Slavonic word or the proto-Slavic one, adding specific Slavic language, when they're more interesting or they're true substrate words. --*Weyd-tor (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Map

The Thracian linguistic territory and toponym "para" occupied northeastern Serbia, see page 90, 91--130.204.227.29 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Baltic theory created by a chauvinist who sees Slavic people as slaves and Albanoidic in origin!!!

How absurd and crazy it sounds I can not even imagine, yet 80% of this article is based on his imagination from the year 1992. Also this theory is based on less extreme theory formed in 1969 by Ivan Duridanov. Long before proper DNA tests on haplogroups and aDNA and mtDNA were done. Those were the times of pure speculations and wishful thinking in science of populations and migrations. Anyway if there was a BALTO-SLAVIC group or even Indo-European or Satem group in Dacia or Thracia then claiming it for yourself as Slavic or Baltic is senseless, because if there are both Slavic and Baltic cognate words in Thracian then it could simply mean that it was closer to those languages than it was for example to Germanic languages and simply proves that it was an Indo-European language. Saying that it was for sure Baltic and to prove it start making new scientific theories about some Albanian slaves is truly psychotic mania. He literally wrote:

"Some of these items are Thracian and Dacian words which the ancestors of the Albanians learned from their Baltoidic Thracian and Dacian masters."

"The emasculated nature of Slavic from the viewpoint of old Indo-European vocabulary, that is, the lack in Slavic of words like vyras, aner 'man' and smakras, the old masculine word for "beard," attests to the servile status of their ancestors, the Albanoidic Pre-Slavs"

"Assuming all this to be true, the dearth of ancient Albanoidic place names, be they Illyrian, Albanian, or Slavic, is no surprise. Surely Pre-Slavs and possibly early Slavs escaped from Baltoidic masters where and when they could as did their Southern Albanoidic cousins from Dacians and Thracians. And these runaways were not likely to give names to prominent geographic features which might aid their Baltoidic captors in finding them. It is ironic that now the dominant languages in both the Balkans and the Baltic has for the last 300 years tended to be Slavic, that is, Albanoidic rather than Baltoidic. In the Balkans, since approximately the seventh century, A.D., Baltoidic Thracian and Dacian even ceased to exist while Non-Baltoidic Albanian still survives only because the ancient prehistoric ancestors of the people who speak it managed to escape and stay free from their form Baltoidic masters."

The only source given for this is just ONE link in the article: http://www.lituanus.org/1992_2/92_2_02.htm Nelias (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Section on "Remnants" Riddled with Errors

Where do the etymological explanations in the "Remnants" section come from? They are highly erroneous. And where they are not, they are heavily idiosyncratic. Almost no Devanagari string is even correct. Casually, a connection is made between Hittites (Nešili), the Nāsatyas and then "Nāsatya" is written "nasataya" in Devanagari. "vala" is written "vaḹ" in devanagari and then casually linked with Veles or a nonsense root "vo (wo)". Whoever wrote this, has no knowledge of any kind of linguistic detail. I suggest this be largely removed.

Duridanov's table is seriously flawed and this article needs a lot of work

Okay, so this is a pick-one's-battles sort of post because this entire article is just deeply bad. I read through several of the referenced articles (Witczak 2012, Panagiotis 2022) and it seems like none of them have a single clue what they're doing when it comes to Indo-European linguistics and I feel like there's a reason that no article on Thracian has been published in any mainstream journal. Aside from the fact that we don't have enough evidence to even come close to listing the sound changes from PIE or the sound correspondences between Thracian and other languages, nothing much can be said about Thracian for the time being. But Duridanov's table is...just a different level of horrible. Much of the information on there is objectively wrong and can be contested by looking at a dictionary of any of the languages in question or any of the four major textbooks of Indo-European. Some of the biggest issues: Tocharian collapsed voiceless, voiced, and voices aspirates into voiceless stops; Armenian doesn't have aspirated voiceless stops (but rather ejective); Germanic didn't epenthesise -t- into *sr- clusters; the anaptyctic vowels of Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Italic that developed from syllabic resonants are all different (but are shown as being the same because the table is badly constructed and whoever constructed it doesn't seem to understand that -oR- does not equal -uR-(!)); we absolutely know what happened with the dental clusters medially in Hittite and it's -zz-; we literally don't have a single datum for Pelasgian and that thing shouldn't even be on there. There are numerous other issues with this page and it should probably just be deleted and started over to say "we don't have enough data to draw any reasonable conclusions," and that's it. Again, I'm trying to pick my battles here but I'm going to start going to work trying to update this article to the modern era of Indo-European scholarship.

Vindafarna (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Vindafarna, you added several unsourced statements in the article. Feel free to update and edit the article with information from new sources, but don't add WP:original research. – Βατο (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Bato, I'm sorry but I think original research is defined as "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Every single thing I've added in this article can be found in one textbook or another. I.e., the things that we read when we do our PhDs in Indo-European linguistics. I'll start adding the sources today for absolutely every statement I made, but people who actually work in this field know that what I'm saying is generally the communis opinio and effectively unimpeachable in our field nowadays.

Vindafarna (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vindafarna: as I saw your additions, many were not sourced. If reliable sources support them, then citations should be added as per WP:citing sources. But take your time, you can edit the article and add the sources later. As for the article's very dubious information, the "Pelasgian" content in the table, for instance, is pure speculation based on nothing. So in such cases, instead of keeping them by adding explanations about how inaccurate those unsourced or poorly sourced speculations are, I would suggest to completely remove them from the article. Anyway, updating from a researcher in linguistics like you is very welcome. Cheers. – Βατο (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Bato. I'm concerned though, that in doing something like removing Pelasgian entirely from the table, it is misrepresenting just how truly terrible Duridanov's work was. Moreover, there are some grave concerns with some of the alleged sources for this article. The Duridanov 'articles' seem not to be articles at all, and rather the work of a dilettante who does not quite seem to understand historical linguistics. It is not in a peer-reviewed journal or book but rather just self-published on a website. And one of the links is entirely broken and leads to a Chinese text that says something about panic and knives(???) -- this one: Duridanov, I. (1976). The Language of the Thracians (An abridged translation of Ezikyt na trakite, Ivan Duridanov, Nauka i izkustvo, Sofia, 1976. (c) Ivan Duridanov). So I feel like it may be warranted to simply remove anything and everything that uses Duridanov as a source in this article. I don't know what to do about the Mayer article because as someone above mentioned, it's entirely flawed and deeply racist upon further reading. I don't think I can find a specific source that clarifies that, but simply reading the article should be sufficient to recognise that it appears nationalist in origin and deeply flawed in nature. Articles like that, which unfortunately are published in peer-reviewed journals (I think?) should be entirely discounted (in a perfect world) but since it is technically published, there's not much that can be done about it. The entire table with the toponyms and their 'cognates' in Baltic should be removed entirely as it's based on the Duridanov webpage and consequently should not be interpolated into a Wikipedia article. The Baltic 'cognates' are also fraught with errors and there does not even seem to be an attempt at finding and adducing sound correspondences within it, so I think it should just be removed entirely, but I would very much appreciate someone to agree with that before I go ahead and remove it.

Vindafarna (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm replying to my own comment here but I also wish that there was someone who could check my work on Albanian. Unfortunately, Albanian is the only IE language I have not had the pleasure of studying in a university course and I'm embarrassed to say that I have only a very cursory knowledge of the languages (Gheg and Tosk (and Arberesh?)) and their phonological development from PIE, but I think that PIE *d/*d^h become -dh- in Albanian intervocalically, and I believe that PIE *l̥ > Early Proto-Albanian (EPA) *il, *ul, and PIE *r̥ > EPA *ir, *ur, which then metathesised in Modern Albanian, e.g., Alb. dritë 'light, pupil (of an eye) < EPA *driktā < PIE *dr̥któs 'seen' but I just don't know enough about Albanian to check the answers mentally for what I read about it in the textbooks.

Vindafarna (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vindafarna:, the site that hosted Duridanov's book listed that the book was not self-published, but by Издателство Наука и Изкуство, which is a Bulgarian publisher of academic books.

There is also a link with a translation of Duridanov's book and sound changes from PIE to Thracian. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth I've taken a longer look at that book and the proposed sound changes an I have to say that even for something published in 1976, the text is outdated by about 100 years. Duridanov doesn't reconstruct laryngeals and is consequently 'flying blind' when it comes to reconstruction. Moreover, he reconstructs the schwa Indo-Iranicum which is a practice that has been outdated since the 1920s. I don't quite know Duridanov's history, but it seems that he doesn't have a clue what he's doing and just about any modern text on IE studies (see bibliography below) would be sufficient to demonstrate the truly vast number of errors contained in Duridanov's work. My issue is that I want to get rid of the table at the bottom and I don't know what the best way to do that is. The data on that table are not supported by any modern research on Thracian and there are numerous, blatant issues with the Baltic 'cognates', not the least of which, the guiding principle of reconstructive and historical linguistics, the regularity of sound change, or the Ausnahmslosigkeit der Lautgesetze is just completely disregarded in the 'cognates' section where there seems to not even be an attempt at establishing systematic sound correspondences. I feel like I may need to justify my reasoning for deletion here, and I would point readers to any of the sections on Thracian in modern IE textbooks (Fortson 2004:404, Klein et al. 2018 (HCHL):1850-4 by R.S.P. Beekes, Beekes 2011:23, etc.) that simply indicate that we have no understanding of anything in Thracian and we aren't really even sure that it was a singular language. We really only have very very few glosses from Gk or Lat sources that may reflect Thracian. Furthermore, that entire table at the bottom is based on a fringe belief that Baltic and Slavic are unrelated and do not constitute a Balto-Slavic clade, which is a first-order branch from PIE. This notion has been consistently denied by any of these aforementioned beginner IE textbooks, and further reading can be found in HCHL:1966 by Daniel Petit and Arumaa 1964:18, 19-23 both with references. I think that, perhaps, with these references, it may be enough to demonstrate that the table does not reflect the current state of Thracian studies (if we can even call it that), and that the table should simply be removed entirely.

Bibliography:

Arumaa, Peeter. 1964. Urslavische Grammatik: Einführung in Das Vergleichende Studium Der Slavischen Sprachen, Band I: Einleitung • Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Beekes, R.S.P. 2011. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Amsterdamn: John Benjamins.

Forston, Ben. 2004. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

HCHL = Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, edited by Jared S. Klein, Brian D. Joseph, and Matthias Fritz. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Vindafarna (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vindafarna:: Yes! You go ahead with fixing the article. And thanks for the feedback. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see that now, you're right. But still, the link is broken, the theories within it are truly terrible, and the table you mentioned should be erased as there is really no evidence whatsoever than any of those toponyms are Thracian in origin. I don't think there is any legitimate reason to retain that table. I can go through it one-by-one and reconstruct the Proto-Balto-Slavic forms based on the Lithuanian and Old Prussian forms, cross-reference it with Derksen 2015 and Stang 1966 and show that the sound correspondences wouldn't be able to match what is posited for the Thracian, but that would take a long time and I think the table should just be removed, period because it's highly speculative and there is almost no consensus on what toponyms should be regarded as Thracian (if any...).

Vindafarna (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vindafarna: I could check the information about Albanian. In the table of the "Thracian" lexical items the two Albanian words that are linked with Thracian seem to be accurately described, indeed, shkallmë and shpâ(ni), if Indo-European, cannot be inherited words in Albanian, they must be loanwords because IE *sk and *sp in Albanian became h and f, respectively. The info provided by Witczak about σπίνος, τίτανος/κίττανος, and shpâ(ni), is in accordance with current linguistics. Albanian shkallmë clearly evolved from σκάλμη (skálmē), because in Proto-Albanian *sk became shk and *l became ll, while a was retained, hence, if originally "Thracian", it can easly be explained as a loanword from antiquity. A Thracian term that clearly finds an Albanian correspondence is ῥομφαία rhomphaia, related with Albanian rrufe, but I don't know if it finds correspondence in other Indo-European languages. – Βατο (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bato, thank you very much! I was under the impression that PIE *l > Alb ll / V_V only (Orel 2000:51f., Fortson 2004:394), cf. ballë 'forehead' (Skt bhāla, OPruss ballo both ' id ') < EPA *balā, mëllenjë 'blackbird' (Gk μέλαινα id, Skt maliná- 'dirty', Latvian męl̃s 'black') < EPA *melanjā < PIE *melh₂nyeh₂(?) (but I don't know if this is a secure etymon); but cf. also Alb miell 'flour, powder' < PAlb *melwa < PIE *melh₂wom (PGmc *melwą > OE melu, ON mjǫl, etc.) according to Schumacher and Matzinger (2013:218, see also pp. 229-31). So I think it would have to develop from a form *skala-, with the -më as a secondary formation of sorts? Unless we want to posit that there was a special development *l > ll / _[+labial]. I don't really even know the sources well -- Orel is...decent, sometimes, but he's also written a lot of stuff that makes me think he's way too speculative and I think his historical grammar of Albanian isn't widely respected (as seen by its omission from most of the bibliographies of the other sources). I think Shaban Demiraj's Historische Grammatik der Albanischen Sprache is the standard resource for a historical grammar, and not Orel, but our university library doesn't seem to have it so I'm stuck with the sources I listed. I've requested, through inter-library loan, a copy of Demiraj, so I can take a look at what's going on there.

Vindafarna (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I can't find examples showing the development *l > ll / _[+labial] in Albanian. Even the Albanian kallm 'reed, straw' is from Latin calamus (Kaczyńska 2016, p. 155), hence the ll in shkallmë could not have developed from l before labial, so your explanation makes sense. – Βατο (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vindafarna:, that table with the toponyms is indeed terribly inaccurate, and none of the sources I've perused to try to improve it delved into the particularities of a Thracian-Baltic connection, only that a connection was presumed. Another thing that must be noticed, through the edit history of the article, is that someone was pushing a link between Thracian and Polish, by adding several Polish place names and elaborating on a connection that no serious article on the topic has done before. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sentence about menzenai is based on an article not about Thracian, but rather Messapic and has been removed

There was a sentence:

"The word mezenai is interpreted to mean 'Horseman', and a cognate to Illyrian Menzanas..."

which has been removed because the reference was not to an article about Thracian, but rather to Messapic, and thus, even though it was sourced with many articles, the entire foundation upon which that section was built was faulty.

Vindafarna (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Vindafarna (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vindafarna:, to be honest with you, I was the one who edited in the interpretation of the ring and Mezenai, although based on published sources. The previous version (before I tried to fix the article to the best of my ability) was a strange reading with no credible source, as far as I know. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@KHR FolkMyth Not to worry, I'm working at it. I think it may be prudent to simply remove the translation because there is no general agreement on decipherment aside from the agreement that we simply don't know what any of the inscriptions are saying. The bigger issue with the mezenai thing is that there is no evidence for such a root in the IE lexicon and it may simply be a Wandelwort in the Balkan Sprachbund. What really scares me is that people seem to have made entire careers on 'Thracology' when it simply doesn't even really exist. It's as if someone (legitimately) claimed to be an alien researcher. Like, there may be aliens; there may even be a necessity for an 'alien researcher' one day. But in today's day and age there is no agreement on aliens or even their existence, and claiming to be an 'alien researcher' is akin to being a 'vampirologist' or a 'zombification specialist'. Those may even exist, but they'll certainly get nothing more than weird looks from the mainstream scientific community.

Vindafarna (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with you Vindafarna about the above comment. We know that Indo-European idiom(s) was/were spoken by the Iron Age people of Thrace, who were referred to as "Thracians" in ancient sources. Despite the poor evidence, the existence of the Thracian language(s) is not questionable (also reflected by the toponyms with the ending -dava/-para/-bria/-diza etc.), absolutely not comparable with the question of the existence of aliens as you did in the comment above. Concerning the root menz-/mez-/mend(z)-, what you're worried about seems to be the hypothesis of a Proto-Indo-European origin, but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that the root meaning "horse/foal" is widely found among the Palaeo-Balkan peoples and among the Iapygians of Italy, also of Palaeo-Balkan provenance. This is widely accepted in high quality academic sources. So the relevant information is to be restored into the article. Concerning the study of Thracian language ("Thracology"), I agree that there is not sufficient evidence to consider it a separate branch of lingusitics, indeed such branch is mainly based on speculative or baseless reconstructions. Nevertheless, comparative linguistics applied to ancient languages that neighbored with each other has some scholarly value. – Βατο (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Βατο Hi Bato, thanks, but I think maybe you missed the point of the removal. The removal was due to the original article being about Messapic and not Thracian (and not including anything about Thracian in it either). The Mezenai thing should be included somewhere here as it is found in certain Paleo-Balkan languages, but I am trying to find a better source. If you know of one, I would appreciate it. I think the Kaluzhskaya article may be okay and I'll also take a look through Krahe's Die Sprache der Illyrier to see if maybe he's commented on it there. I am just trying desperately here to have sources that are not minority or fringe views (or in this case, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand). Vindafarna (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Vindafarna, Oreshko (2020) cited in the article is talking about the Thracian inscription as well. The content I restored is sourced and so far uncontroversial. The fact that the Duvanli ring depicts a horseman provides further evidence to support such link. – Βατο (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Βατο Bato, what do you think of adding the Mezenai word to the list of words/cognates? I don't see why it should have a separate status from the other words and I think, for the sake of accuracy (or perhaps uniformity), it should be added to the word/cognate list. Vindafarna (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vindafarna: I agree with your proposal. – Βατο (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

References