Talk:Paleo-Balkan languages

Old discussion

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)

I think Phrygian, and possibly Armenian, should be included, since they are related, never mind that they were no actually spoken in the Balkans. dab (ᛏ) 14:22, 5 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)

No Greek?

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)

You're right that a language being extinct or not is not a criterion. I really can't say why we should exclude Ancient Greek. Alexander 007 03:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Phrygian + Greek dialects should not be listed under proto-Greek, because Phrygian is not proto-Greek. The correct should be a Greco-Phrygian group where Greek dialects and Phrygian (and Mysian?) should be listed. fkitselis —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

Armenian

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)

I readded info because it was removed without explanations, that shouldn't be done. As far as I know Armenians is considered related to Greek (probably through Phrygian as explained in article) so that would qualify it for this status of "Paleo-Balkan language", however I'm not a specialist in this field, actually my knowledge is very limited, but I want to explanations when info is removed from an article (especially when that comes from anon ip addresses or from new users) for further consideration: Graeco-Armenian hypothesis-- AdrianTM 18:04, 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)

Well, at least s/he finally managed to get rid of that sloppy sentence breach. What are the main scholarly viewpoints in the matter? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't know, in Graeco-Armenian language page there are references, but I have no idea what weight they have, however "Greeks migrated from Anatolia, and not the other way around, all major linguists agree" summary edit, make me doubt the accuracy of the edit. I will leave that for other, more knowledgeable people to decide. -- AdrianTM 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Speculative

The following implicit statements are too speculative to be used as a basis for an article:

• that there was a Thraco-Illyrian language group,
• that the Illyrians is an extant language group (Albanians ~?~ Illyrian),
• that the Thraco-Illyrian language group, if it existed, and if Dacian was part of it, is extinct (Albanians ~?~ Carpi/Free-Dacians).

... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Purpose for article?

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)