Paleo-Balkan & Balto-Slavic - Common Proto Language

[Soldier of Macedon]

Appreciate the kind words, Pelister. Of course, some of the conclusions are tentative, but I am gradually building up a case based on fact, probability and corroboration.


Here is something I was looking at recently. The word ezero, which is a cognate in mod. Macedonian for the Illyrian word osseria, shows that the ss is rendered as a z in the former. Similarly, the mod. Macedonian words zlato and zemja have Thracian cognates in salta and semla, which show the devoiced fricative s instead of voiced z. While these are not exclusive characteristics, they are common.

If the above principles were applied to the ancient Macedonian word for a fighting spear, which was sarissa, the word in mod. Macedonian would be rendered as zariza. I found this result interesting, particularly because of the below words present in mod. Macedonian (and other Slavic languages).

zarez - cut, incision
zaraz(a) - to infect, to set in

Also interesting are the Slovak words zaraz and zarazen, which mean to be 'struck by' and 'cut short' respectively. All of the above is an observation that I have not seen made before.

[Delodephius]

A few months ago I came to a similar conclusion as SoM. It became obvious that Balto-Slavic and Palaeo-Balkan languages belonged to a single language group some -2000 years ago. The main reason is that in order for the Common Slavic language to spread over such a wast are it had to be introduced into regions where the natives already spoke a sufficiently similar language for the language hybridization to occur. The same thing happened with Latin when it spread into Gaul and Iberia. The languages of these regions were sufficiently similar to Latin. They are therefore referred to as Celto-Italic languages. Dacian could also be more similar to the Italic languages, or it may have been an Italic language, the fact that it became Romanized instead of Slavicized. Romans conquered many lands, but their language stuck only there where the majority spoke an Italic-like language. The same happened with Arabic which spread into other Afro-Asiatic speaking regions, in North Africa where Berber and Egyptian was spoken, and Mesopotamia where Aramaic was dominant. It didn't spread into Iran for example, because Persian is an Indo-European language.

Thus taken from experience we can conclude that the same holds for Slavic. It must have spread into regions where Slavic-like languages were already spoken. The only exception would be Russian which spread north-east into scarcely populated Uralic speaking regions, and many of the Uralic languages are still spoken there, even around the capital Moscow. Some scholars made poor claims that Balkans was Romanized and Hellenized, but this was true only for the cities, while the people in the countryside spoke their native language. Another claim is that Balkans was underpopulated, that the Goths and the Huns destroyed and killed everything and everyone. But this would again be true only for the cities, not the poor countryside, which had little to no luxury to give and a lot of supplies to provide.

Read more about the Continuity/Hybridization theory and plenty more here:

http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/2008/10/expansion-of-arabic.html

http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/2008/09/romance-languages-before-romans.html

[Delodephius]

One problem is the name of this language group, the common Palaeo-Balkan and Balto-Slavic. Slavic languages emerged out of this group so including the name Slavic in it is out of the question. Latin is an Italo-Faliscan language, but Italian is a Romance or sometimes called a Latin language. So only modern Slavic languages can be said to belong to a Slavic language group, but not Common Slavic. It has to belong to a language group who's name will not cause confusion about its origin. Due to a lack of a proper name I referred to this group simply as Baltoidic, the idea coming from a Lithuanian scholar who noted the similarities between Baltic and Thracian and hence referred to Thracian as a Baltoidic language. Or something more complex could be used, like Balkan-Baltic languages, or Aegean-Baltic languages, like Indo-European is used to denote languages from India to Europe, in the past also called Indo-Germanic to point out the two geographic extremes of this language group, from India to Iceland. However including the name Baltic could also cause confusion because the Baltic languages also evolved out of this group. So we need a neutral name, something like Balkan-Transcarpathian language group. Too long? :-D

[Dimko-piperkata]

brief remark

"Slavs have been known by many names during the historical period. However, genetically they are descendents of populations that sought refuge in the Balkans and Ukraine during the Last Glacial Maximum approx. 20,000 years ago. In the attachments (marked ITEM 2) is an article which will appear in the Sept/Oct issue of 'The Voice of Canadian Slovenians/GLASILO kanadskih slovencev', which shows a genetic continuity between Veneti and the people in the Balkans. Also included in the attachments (marked ITEM 1) is a letter to Prof. Curta who is of the opinion, that Slavs are a 6th century invention."

(J. Skulj)

[Soldier of Macedon]

One problem is the name of this language group, the common Palaeo-Balkan and Balto-Slavic. Slavic languages emerged out of this group so including the name Slavic in it is out of the question. Latin is an Italo-Faliscan language, but Italian is a Romance or sometimes called a Latin language. So only modern Slavic languages can be said to belong to a Slavic language group, but not Common Slavic. It has to belong to a language group who's name will not cause confusion about its origin. Due to a lack of a proper name I referred to this group simply as Baltoidic, the idea coming from a Lithuanian scholar who noted the similarities between Baltic and Thracian and hence referred to Thracian as a Baltoidic language. Or something more complex could be used, like Balkan-Baltic languages, or Aegean-Baltic languages, like Indo-European is used to denote languages from India to Europe, in the past also called Indo-Germanic to point out the two geographic extremes of this language group, from India to Iceland. However including the name Baltic could also cause confusion because the Baltic languages also evolved out of this group. So we need a neutral name, something like Balkan-Transcarpathian language group. Too long? :-D

Good point, that is why (earlier in the thread) I suggested the acronym BSB, representing Balkan-Slavic (or Scythian)-Baltic respectively. The reason for this is because this sub-family of IE languages can be identified as belonging to 3 distinct but overlapping 'spheres'.

Dacian could also be more similar to the Italic languages, or it may have been an Italic language, the fact that it became Romanized instead of Slavicized.

I have never given such a proposal any consideration because of the sheer distance from traditional Latin-speaking territories. However, going by the example you suggested with regard to Gaul and Iberia in which the commonalities between Celtic and Italic allowed for hybridisation, I would probably be more inclined to think that the Dacians were a mixed Paleo-Balkan (or BSB)/Celtic group. At least in that way a parallel could be demonstrated, increasing the plausability of such a suggestion.

[Pelister]

Appreciate the kind words, Pelister. Of course, some of the conclusions are tentative, but I am gradually building up a case based on fact, probability and corroboration.


Here is something I was looking at recently. The word ezero, which is a cognate in mod. Macedonian for the Illyrian word osseria, shows that the ss is rendered as a z in the former. Similarly, the mod. Macedonian words zlato and zemja have Thracian cognates in salta and semla, which show the devoiced fricative s instead of voiced z. While these are not exclusive characteristics, they are common.

If the above principles were applied to the ancient Macedonian word for a fighting spear, which was sarissa, the word in mod. Macedonian would be rendered as zariza. I found this result interesting, particularly because of the below words present in mod. Macedonian (and other Slavic languages).

zarez - cut, incision
zaraz(a) - to infect, to set in

Also interesting are the Slovak words zaraz and zarazen, which mean to be 'struck by' and 'cut short' respectively. All of the above is an observation that I have not seen made before.

This is quite brilliant SoM. A few more 'connections' like this one between Macedonian today and ancient Thracian, and a few comparisons with other 'Slavic' languages thrown in, and I think you have the basis of demonstrating that our Macedonian language is not only very ancient, but also 'local' to the region it is now spoken in. On that basis alone, we have more of a claim to the ancient people of the region than anyone else and that linguistic cultural continuity isn't a fiction as it is in the case of the 'Greeks', but a scientific reality for us Macedonians.

[osiris]

the most interesting and yet disturbing thing i have heard is that there are many thracian inscriptions locked away in greek and bulgarian museums. what a pity its politics that determies what should be seen and heard and not a sincere search for historical truth.

the fact the inscriptions are unavailable makes me think they would destroy much of the neo greek german origin view of the past. i am of the same view as som and slovak and believe the thracian languages were related those we know call slavic.

when referring to rumanian lest not forget modern rumanian is a language cleansed of over half of its 19th century vocabulary. there is no doubt that whats left is latin but it doesnt mean the original langauge of dacia was latin we only need to look at spain portugal and france to see how completely unrelated ancient languages were replaced by latin.

latin was a language spoken widely throughout the balkans for more than 500 years and a version of it still is by vlachs and rumanians.

i have also heard it said that macedonian may be referred to as a latin language with a slavic vocabulary because of the "latin" nature of macedonian grammar.

this would also support the view that macedonian is an indigenous balkan language and not one introduced to the balkans after the demise of the roman empire, but it existed as a living local language during the hey day of the roman empire and subsequently influenced the grammar of the language we speak today

[Soldier of Macedon]

........we only need to look at spain portugal and france to see how completely unrelated ancient languages were replaced by latin.

Osiris, that is not exactly correct. In Gaul and Iberia the Celtic languages became a substratum that was dominated by Latin, much like what took place with the Paleo-Balkan languages and the more dominant Common Slavic. However, in both cases, the local and intrusive languages were related more to each other than to other IE languages. When Proto Indo-European began to branch out, it did so in phases. So, for arguments sake, initially there would have been something like a Proto Anatolian, Proto Italo-Celtic, Proto Balto-Balkan-Slavic-Aryan, etc, then there would be Proto Italic, Proto Celtic, Proto Balto-Balkan-Slavic, Proto Indo-Aryan, etc.

It is important to keep in mind that Celtic languages have historically existed on both sides of the Danube, and alongside Paleo-Balkan languages such as Thracian and Illyrian. This co-existence produced hybrid tribes such as the 'Scordisci', who were part Celtic and part Illyrian; the same could have happened in some areas of Dacia. It can therefore be deduced that Vulgar Latin remained dominant mainly in Dacia (present-day Romania) as a result of pre-existing commonalities with the local Celtic language(s). The same, however, could be argued in support of the historical presence of Slavic-speaking peoples in the same region, as a result of pre-existing commonalities between Dacian/Thracian and Common Slavic.

[osiris]

I'm not an expert son. But I haven't heard of a relationship between Celtic and Latin. I also don't know if the Iberian languages were Celtic . I was under the impression that Latin was the language the romance languages originate from without much non Latin input.

[Delodephius]

Osiris, here are some examples of how similar Latin and Gaulish were:

http://www.orbilat.com/Encyclopaedia/G/Gaulish_language.html

Gaulish - Latin - English
-cue - -que - and
es - ex - out of
are - ante - before
ver - super - over
allos - alius - second
tarvos - taurus- bull
tri - tres, tria - three
more - mare - sea
rix - rex - king

Also:

http://indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/celt/gaulish.html

Celtic peoples were called different names: Gauls in France, Belgae in Northern France, Galates in the Balkans and numerous tribal names everywhere. But there is no doubt that they all spoke one language, or similar varieties of the same one. This comes from town names, inscriptions and Celtic words written down by Greek and Roman authors. Their language system is what is called "Classical Celtic": it was very close to the Italic group of tongues, and Julius Caesar even had to write his letters to his legates in Greek for Gaulish leaders not to be able to read them if they might happen to gain hold of these missives. He did so because Latin could be understood by Celts quite well without having had to study it.

[osiris]

Thank u Slovak couldn't similar comparisons be made between Slavic and German or Greek or even Latin. I thought the Celtic Latin link was a theory only. What about Celtic and German . All indo European languages have similarities but I would have thought the Thracian Slavic one is more obvious than the italo Celtic one. I will have a look T the link thanks again.

[Delodephius]

Well, the Continental Celtic languages are similar to Italic languages, but not so much the Insular Celtic (Irish, Scottish, Welsh) and some scholars insist they are two separate language groups, calling the first simply Celtic or Italo-Celtic, and the other Brythonic or simply British.
Germanic languages however show more similarity with Balto-Slavic than Celtic.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here is a suggestion on how PIE may have branched out at different phases. Initially, Proto Anatolian marked the first departure from PIE, and after that the centum sound-shift emerged, which marked the second departure, this time from Proto Italo-Celtic. That left Proto Balkan-Slavic-Baltic-Aryan which underwent the satem sound-change some time later, and marked the last departure from PIE. In areas where centum and satem reflexes were present in neighbouring languages, it is likely that they competed. So, at this point, the following exist:

- Proto Anatolian Group
- Proto Italo-Celto Group
- Proto Balto-Slavic-Balkan-Aryan Group

I will leave aside Anatolian from here. As it was still in the early phases, the different groups would still be sharing significant similarities, so it is possible that Proto Germanic, for example, came about as a result of a hybrid between Proto Italo-Celtic and Proto Balto-Slavic-Balkan-Aryan, or it may have just branched off from one of the previous groups and then had intense interaction with other languages during the early period immediately after. Proto Hellenic and Proto Armenian may also be considered in a similar way, or perhaps they themselves formed Proto Armeno-Hellenic which belongs to the list above (but this would mean that Armenian was once centum and now satem). Either way, at this point there were probably:

- Proto Italic
- Proto Celtic
- Proto Hellenic
- Proto Armenian
- Proto Balto-Slavic-Balkan
- Proto Aryan (Indo-Iranian)
- Proto Germanic

At some point afterwards those groups split into the IE sub-families know today, but there was still yet another language to come about, and that is Proto Albanian, which must have derived its core IE vocabulary from a combination of two or more of the above groups.

This is just a suggestion but it seems to make sense.

[Onur]

I haven't heard of a relationship between Celtic and Latin. I also don't know if the Iberian languages were Celtic . I was under the impression that Latin was the language the romance languages originate from without much non Latin input.

On the contrary, Latin was largely derived from other languages. For example, what we call as "Latin script" today, is actually the Etruscan script except only 3-4 letters which itself related with Greek script. Also large part of Latin vocabulary comes from Etruscan and ancient Greek languages. Etruscan wasn't even an Indo-European but an agglutinative language. It`s widely believed that the heavy suffix usage in Latin is the result of the influence from Etruscan language. Already, none of the languages in the world develops by on its own. All of them gets effected from each other by various degree, some more and some less.


Btw, Celts had settlements in central Anatolia too. They came from Balkans and there are several tombs and castles in Turkey today which remained from the galatians, celts. AFAIK, they eventually assimilated among various peoples of Anatolia and disappeared after Roman rule.

[Delodephius]

It`s widely believed that the heavy suffix usage in Latin is the result of the influence from Etruscan language.

That's not true. All Indo-European languages were heavily suffixed. Slavic and Baltic languages are still so. It was a common stage in their development, not a thing in Latin specifically.