This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added Paionian since it was IE: as indicated by classical references that connect the language to various Anatolian languages; and as stated by such linguists as Ivan Duridanov: [1]. He shows some Paionian sound-changes from PIE (according to him, at least). Also, Pelasgian can certainly be considered Paleo-Balkan, though it's pre-IE, not IE (we assume). Alexander 007 20:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Phrygian can be included, since it appears that they once lived in Thrace/Macedon before migrating to what became Phrygia, and also because the language was part of the Balkanic "mix". Yet Phrygian can also be left out, and classed as a language of Anatolia. Alexander 007 21:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is it that Greek isn't listed as one of the Paleo-Balkan languages? User:68.42.227.229
I'm not sure. Maybe Paleo-Balkan languages is reserved for extinct languages? Ancient Greek is not exactly extinct, because it survives in changed form as Modern Greek and Tsakonian, etc. Alexander 007 00:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This shouldn't matter. Would you remove Illyrian if it was unambiguous that Albanian is descended from it? The point is that Greek and Phrygian were exported from the Balkans, and are only attested after the speakers had left the region. I do still think that Phrygian and (early! Proto-) Greek should be included in the group. (modern Greek doesn't have too much in common with Mycenaean, so for all practical purposes, Mycenaean Greek is just as extinct asw Phrygian) dab (ᛏ) 15:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Since the issue of Armenian currently is turning into a rather silly edit war, could someone come up with comments on whether Armenian fits or not, or how to describe its position vis-a-vis the other proposed Paleo-Balkan languages, in a sufficient manner? Does the anonymous editor have a point, which he very sloppily imposes, or is it just some kind of personal agenda and/or ethnic pride? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Now the edit explanation says: "Greeks migrated from Anatolia, and not the other way around, all major linguists agree" -- I never heard of this before, I doubt there's any consensus that Greeks migrated from Anatolia (at least not direct from there and not separate from other Balkanic people), if you read the link about Graeco-Armenian language you'll see that there is at least a theory that Armenian is related to Greek. -- AdrianTM 05:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The following implicit statements are too speculative to be used as a basis for an article:
... said: Rursus ( bork²) 07:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the purpose of this article? As it is written now it makes the impression that this is a branch of the IE language family, and when one looks at the edits been made there is discussions concerning the internal classification of this and that language within this so called subgroup. On other articles (I came here via one of them, but saw it on others) these languages are listed as members of the paleo-balkan subgroup of IE languages, which definitely not reflects the view in current IE scholarship. Moreover this article lists only one source, please read it everyone, because that source is an article on the tense relationship between the modern states of Greece and Macedonia and the very word "language" occurs only three times in the entire article! I don't know who put it there, but it is ridiculous. I would suggest that the entire article is deleted unless someone digs up a source, preferably by some historical linguist, that actually discusses this topic. Amilah ( talk) 20:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
That is a fine example of anachronism. When the early Turkic tribes such as Huns, Avars, Bulghars arrived in the Balkan Peninsula, so-called Paleo-Balkan languages had already been extinct for more than one thousand years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.25.36 ( talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This article is not very clear. At begin it says that Greek is a descendant of this branch, but then the article lists languages and there is not any mention to Greek or to the sometimes used Hellenic branch (That include Greek and Macedonian). But then Macedonian appears in the list with an (?).
If this article talk only about the ancient Balkan languages and modern Albanian, what is the relation with Greek/Hellenic that is considered a independent branch by most linguistics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haitike ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paleo-Balkan languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
This language was kept as a separate entity here not without my help. More, the 2 sources supporting the view it was a separate language were added by me. However, because its status is uncertain, there is a question mark at its end. Please, do not delete it. Jingiby ( talk) 12:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I wonder what makes this one [ [2]] reliable per wp:HISTRS. 'Traditional style medicine and botanology' is an interesting topic, but irrelevant with linguistics and historical scholarship on the field [ [3]]. Alexikoua ( talk) 11:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Who started citing that infamous Quiles ref ("Grammar of Modern Indo-European") again on this page? Has it still not become common knowledge among editors here that it's a sham? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
To explain this [5] revert: I think there are multiple reasons why that sentence in the lead, and especially the footnote in that form, was unsatisfactory:
there is simply insufficient evidence to connect Illyrian, Thracian, or Dacian with any language, including Albanian, he also says earlier (p.15) that
It is generally accepted that Albanians continue one of the ancient languages of the Balkans– so he's not really challenging the Paleo-Balkan connection as such, but merely reiterates that it's unclear which of the candidates should be picked. (He also, on p.17, tentatively opines in favour of Illyrian:
the negative stance towards Proto-Albanian’s connection to Illyrian and placement in the Western Balkans is likely unwarranted, given the linguistic evidence).
Fortson 2004: 390; Katičić 1976: 184–188; Fine 1983: 11), since we are not accounting for what those works actually say or even what works they are.
Although the Slavs’ migration to the Balkans brought them into contact with the native populations of the Balkans, including ancestors of the Albanians along with Greeks and Balkan Romance speakers) is quite off-topic (what does the time of the Slavic migrations have to do with anything here?), and it presents a sentence fragment as if it were an (ungrammatical) sentence.
This is what happens when people first cite Google snippets without digesting the actual literature and then start mechanically copying over alleged refs from one article to the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems like the colored areas on this map are unsourced and thus WP:OR. Another map should be made and this one should be removed. @ Future Perfect at Sunrise: since you have edited this page multiple times and seem to have knowledge about the subject, maybe you could help out with making a new map? Ahmet Q. ( talk) 00:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added Paionian since it was IE: as indicated by classical references that connect the language to various Anatolian languages; and as stated by such linguists as Ivan Duridanov: [1]. He shows some Paionian sound-changes from PIE (according to him, at least). Also, Pelasgian can certainly be considered Paleo-Balkan, though it's pre-IE, not IE (we assume). Alexander 007 20:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Phrygian can be included, since it appears that they once lived in Thrace/Macedon before migrating to what became Phrygia, and also because the language was part of the Balkanic "mix". Yet Phrygian can also be left out, and classed as a language of Anatolia. Alexander 007 21:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is it that Greek isn't listed as one of the Paleo-Balkan languages? User:68.42.227.229
I'm not sure. Maybe Paleo-Balkan languages is reserved for extinct languages? Ancient Greek is not exactly extinct, because it survives in changed form as Modern Greek and Tsakonian, etc. Alexander 007 00:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This shouldn't matter. Would you remove Illyrian if it was unambiguous that Albanian is descended from it? The point is that Greek and Phrygian were exported from the Balkans, and are only attested after the speakers had left the region. I do still think that Phrygian and (early! Proto-) Greek should be included in the group. (modern Greek doesn't have too much in common with Mycenaean, so for all practical purposes, Mycenaean Greek is just as extinct asw Phrygian) dab (ᛏ) 15:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Since the issue of Armenian currently is turning into a rather silly edit war, could someone come up with comments on whether Armenian fits or not, or how to describe its position vis-a-vis the other proposed Paleo-Balkan languages, in a sufficient manner? Does the anonymous editor have a point, which he very sloppily imposes, or is it just some kind of personal agenda and/or ethnic pride? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Now the edit explanation says: "Greeks migrated from Anatolia, and not the other way around, all major linguists agree" -- I never heard of this before, I doubt there's any consensus that Greeks migrated from Anatolia (at least not direct from there and not separate from other Balkanic people), if you read the link about Graeco-Armenian language you'll see that there is at least a theory that Armenian is related to Greek. -- AdrianTM 05:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The following implicit statements are too speculative to be used as a basis for an article:
... said: Rursus ( bork²) 07:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the purpose of this article? As it is written now it makes the impression that this is a branch of the IE language family, and when one looks at the edits been made there is discussions concerning the internal classification of this and that language within this so called subgroup. On other articles (I came here via one of them, but saw it on others) these languages are listed as members of the paleo-balkan subgroup of IE languages, which definitely not reflects the view in current IE scholarship. Moreover this article lists only one source, please read it everyone, because that source is an article on the tense relationship between the modern states of Greece and Macedonia and the very word "language" occurs only three times in the entire article! I don't know who put it there, but it is ridiculous. I would suggest that the entire article is deleted unless someone digs up a source, preferably by some historical linguist, that actually discusses this topic. Amilah ( talk) 20:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
That is a fine example of anachronism. When the early Turkic tribes such as Huns, Avars, Bulghars arrived in the Balkan Peninsula, so-called Paleo-Balkan languages had already been extinct for more than one thousand years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.25.36 ( talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This article is not very clear. At begin it says that Greek is a descendant of this branch, but then the article lists languages and there is not any mention to Greek or to the sometimes used Hellenic branch (That include Greek and Macedonian). But then Macedonian appears in the list with an (?).
If this article talk only about the ancient Balkan languages and modern Albanian, what is the relation with Greek/Hellenic that is considered a independent branch by most linguistics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haitike ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paleo-Balkan languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
This language was kept as a separate entity here not without my help. More, the 2 sources supporting the view it was a separate language were added by me. However, because its status is uncertain, there is a question mark at its end. Please, do not delete it. Jingiby ( talk) 12:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I wonder what makes this one [ [2]] reliable per wp:HISTRS. 'Traditional style medicine and botanology' is an interesting topic, but irrelevant with linguistics and historical scholarship on the field [ [3]]. Alexikoua ( talk) 11:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Who started citing that infamous Quiles ref ("Grammar of Modern Indo-European") again on this page? Has it still not become common knowledge among editors here that it's a sham? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
To explain this [5] revert: I think there are multiple reasons why that sentence in the lead, and especially the footnote in that form, was unsatisfactory:
there is simply insufficient evidence to connect Illyrian, Thracian, or Dacian with any language, including Albanian, he also says earlier (p.15) that
It is generally accepted that Albanians continue one of the ancient languages of the Balkans– so he's not really challenging the Paleo-Balkan connection as such, but merely reiterates that it's unclear which of the candidates should be picked. (He also, on p.17, tentatively opines in favour of Illyrian:
the negative stance towards Proto-Albanian’s connection to Illyrian and placement in the Western Balkans is likely unwarranted, given the linguistic evidence).
Fortson 2004: 390; Katičić 1976: 184–188; Fine 1983: 11), since we are not accounting for what those works actually say or even what works they are.
Although the Slavs’ migration to the Balkans brought them into contact with the native populations of the Balkans, including ancestors of the Albanians along with Greeks and Balkan Romance speakers) is quite off-topic (what does the time of the Slavic migrations have to do with anything here?), and it presents a sentence fragment as if it were an (ungrammatical) sentence.
This is what happens when people first cite Google snippets without digesting the actual literature and then start mechanically copying over alleged refs from one article to the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems like the colored areas on this map are unsourced and thus WP:OR. Another map should be made and this one should be removed. @ Future Perfect at Sunrise: since you have edited this page multiple times and seem to have knowledge about the subject, maybe you could help out with making a new map? Ahmet Q. ( talk) 00:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)