Talk:Paleo-Sardinian language

Languages Start‑class

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Italy Start‑class

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Nuragic languages" page

Right on the infobox about the classification of the Nuragic language it says "Nuragic languages". Now I know that there is a hypothesis stating that there might have been more than just one language but I think that there should be a different page containing hypotheses of either different dialects of the language or an extinct language family or different languages from each other which are characterized with the "geographical term Nuragic languages".

Borrowed from macedonian?

The "borrowed from macedonian" part must be a joke.

Modern macedonian and bulgarian are 88% the same language. Both in the slavic language group. Bulgarian has a lexical distance to albanian > through modern macedonian. Interesting: Articles are not a typical "slavic trait", almost all slavic languages do NOT have articles. The definite article as a suffix is typical albanian and romanian. Which is also found in only two slavic languages; modern macedonian, bulgarian. We are talking about slavophon ppl surrounded by non-slavophon ppl. It's quite obvious that bulgarians, modern macedonians adopted foreign grammar. Now tell me how "pure" "macedonian" vocabulary is... I cannot take this "borrowed from macedonian" mess serious. ILYHDRAB (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reasons for the idea that there can be *no* loanwords from Bulgarian in Albanian? It at least appears you are saying that "Bulgarian borrowed from other Balkan languages, so it's impossible for Balkan languages to have borrowed even a single word from them"? Languages borrow from each other at a small scale all the time, and it's much more complex than some simplistic one-way picture: English has borrowed from many languages and many languages have borrowed from English, for example. Greek and Latin eventually borrowed from each other, even if Latin borrowed more from Greek to start with. It is more likely to happen when speakers of one language have power over another (at the height of the Bulgarian empire, Bulgarian did, and we can call the older Bulgarian spoken nearer Albanian "Macedonian" if we like), but this isn't necessary. Sure, there was a Balkan language area that influenced all of them (whether 'foreign' or a substrate is another matter, though Byzantine Greek is a very likely candidate in most cases of the Balkan Language Area, and some argue for Illyrian or Thracian) - this isn't *necessarily* relevant to a particular loanword. I don't know about this case with lloç, I can't find any firm evidence, but here's a source that tries to discuss it:

http://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/A1051/pdf Harsimaja (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]