Jump to content

Talk:Illyrian language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Illyrian languages)

Extinction

[edit]

I am puzzled by the infobox - in what sense are the Illyrian languages considered to be not extinct. If Albanian is a language of the Illyrian family then I can accept that but the article seems to say that is is probably not, in that case Illyrian would definitely be extinct. Who can help me with this seeming paradox ? Jembana (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Jembana (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

illyrians, in the common usage, weren't a only one people but a geographical label for all the different peoples of former Yugolsavia in the classical time
in a strict and original sense, early Greece, they were a small nation/tribe living in the territory of present day Albania - but no one knows if modern albanians are their descendants as a nation or more recent immigrants, a part of course albanian nationalists
just before really historically documented periods and the roman conquest the small illyrian tribe had spread and "conquered" the whole region of former Yugoslavia who was then known by the romans as Illyria
no one really knows what language or languages the different illyrian peoples spoke - or the exact nature of that/those language/s (once a time it was postulated also an illyro-daco-thracian-phrygian unity but it is now disputed or wholly refuted) - the balkanic languages are now considered very different as a whole
in the indo-european studies around 1850-1950 and particularly under the national socialist historical science of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler spread the so called Illyro-mania, a theory who claimed everything indoeuropean not clearly ascribed to historically well known indo-european groups was illyrian and the illyrians a sort of indo-european uber-race second only to the germans, a thesis still very appreciated by modern albanian nationalists
those who think albanians and albanese are the direct descendants of the ethnic illyrians and of the illyrian language then state that the iIllyrian languages must considered to be not extinctCunibertus (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I see - I have seen some of the Albanian nationalist videos on YouTube and wondered what the story was. Thanks very much for the detailed explantion - your reply is much appreciated. Jembana (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much agree with Cunibertus on this. Scholars pretty much have not reached a consensus on whether the Illyrians are the ascendants of the Albanians or not and whether the Illyrian language is an old form of Albanian or not. Since little is known, they say, no conclusions can be drawn. We are certain that Latin as a language is extinct because we have a huge information on it and that the vulgar Latin somehow got transformed into the Romance languages, Italian in primis, but as far as Illyrian-Albanian continuity, we know too little to opine. This is pretty much what scholars say, and that's what we have to reflect in Wikipedia. --Sulmues (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very little evidence makes it hard - it used to be said that the Messapic language was the best attested Illyrian language since there are inscriptions in it - what happened to that idea. Is Messapic now considered an IE language family by itself ? ...or something else maybe - Klohi sounds almost Gaelic for "Hear me" and then there's Gallipoli, Galatina and Galatone in Apulia - could the Messapic family be closer to Celtic perhaps. Jembana (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything has been discovered in the last 10 years on Messapic, still considered an Illyrian language too by scholars. --Sulmues (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallipoli means (Kallí Pólis or Kallípolis) the beautiful city and there are at least two (Italy and Turkey), Galatina is probably a medieval name (byzantine) related to the personal name "Galatos" (who is effectively linked to Galazia in Asia Minor as also to Saint Paul/Saul, the local saint), Galatone is possibly the greek or illyric "galà", milk, or again the personal name "Galatos"Cunibertus (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, it is not proven that Illyrian is not related to Albanian. So propaganda of other nationalist circles should also be disregarded. This is simply something that we do not know. Illyrian might be extincted, maybe Illyrians as a group were not homogeneous, maybe only a certain tribe is what derived the Albanian language. In the sens of the last idea. If a group of heterogeneous tribes with different languages were called Illyrians; And one of those tribes came to form what is today known as Albanian ethnicity and culture; Can we call Albanian language descendant of Illyrian? —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can say that that with the due wording, as soon as someone of us will buy, read, and properly cite and quote Shaban Demiraj, an excellent and contemporary expert on Illyrian language and Albanian language. The majority of the scholars endorse that hypothesis but there are others that contradict it or have other hypothesis. --Sulmues (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the book of Demiraj and used its arguments a little bit here and a little bit in Origin of Albanians, according to their context. Or do you have in mind something else? Aigest (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction vs Descendance

[edit]

We know that Albanian might derive from Illyrian, either anyone likes it or not, that is an existing hypotheses, so the term extinction might not look appropriate in this case. Take a look at the following scholars from different decades:

2000s' Other surviving groups are Armenian, Celtic, Illyrian (modern Albanian).. Concise Encyclopaedia of World History Author Carlos Ramirez-Faria Publisher Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, 2007 ISBN 8126907754, 9788126907755 page 345

1990s' The apparent survival of (Indo-European) Illyrian as modern Albanian seems to be due partly to the Albanians' isolation... A history of the Byzantine state and society History e-book project Author Warren T. Treadgold Edition illustrated Publisher Stanford University Press, 1997 ISBN 0804726302, 9780804726306 page 921

1980s' Illyrian in the view of most scholars survives in the shape of Albanian to the present day...Greece old and new Authors Tom Winnifrith, Penelope Murray Editors Tom Winnifrith, Penelope Murray Contributor Penelope Murray Edition illustrated Publisher Macmillan, 1983 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Oct 26, 2006 ISBN 0333278364, 9780333278369 page 73 and in the other book The Vlachs: the history of a Balkan people, Volume 1987, Part 2 The Vlachs: The History of a Balkan People, T. J. Winnifrith Author Tom Winnifrith Edition 2, illustrated Publisher Duckworth, 1987 ISBN 0715621351, 9780715621356 page 60

1970s' Illyrian has survived for as long as Greek within our area. Geography has played a large part in that survival; for the mountains of Montenegro and northern Albania have supplied the almost impenetrable home base of the Illyrian-speaking peoples. They were probably the first occupants, apart from nomadic hunters, of the Accursed Mountains and their fellow peaks, and they maintained their independence when migrants such as the Slavs occupied the more fertile lowlands and the highland basins. Their language may lack the cultural qualities of Greek, but it has equalled it in its power to survive and it too is adapting itself under the name of Albanian to the conditions of the modern world...Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas Author Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond Edition illustrated Publisher Noyes Press, 1976 ISBN 0815550472, 9780815550471 page 163

1960s Albanian is undoubtedly the old native language of the Illyrians...The decline of the ancient world General history of Europe Ghe Series Author Arnold Hugh Martin Jones Publisher Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966page 347

thus the previous version was ok according to various scholar claims. Some see it as extinct (regardless if Albanian might be considered as its descendant), some regard Albanian as its modern representative claiming that it can not be said that Illyrian is extincted since Albania represents it nowadays(see claims above) Aigest (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Even if Albanian descends from Illyrian, Illyrian would still be extinct because they would be separate languages. It's like Latin and Italian. Italian descends from Latin, but Latin is nonetheless a dead language (actually, quite a few people are fluent in Latin, in contrast to "Illyrian", about which we know next to nothing). Now, since from past experience I don't expect to get anywhere with this discussion, I refer this dispute to WP:FTN and let the community decide. Athenean (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect Hammond, Treadgold, and others works to be called fringe. That's how they see the matter. Just think of the fact that the Illyrian language and Illyrians of 6th century AD were very different from the Illyrian language and Illyrians of 6th century BC when Greeks had first contacts with Illyrians in Dyrrachium and Apolonia. There were some 1200 years of distance between them and in the case of a non written language you can expect a lot of changes, and that is the same for the people especially after 800 years of Roman rule. IMO, the above mentioned scholars express their view because their reasoning is that, just like Illyrian changed from 6th century BC to 6th century AD, that was the case with its modern form of Albanian, thus it can not be called extinct, because it has survived in the form of Albanian. That's not a matter of fringe theories but a matter of POV. Some see it differently the others no. Aigest (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts on this are at the bottom of WP:FTN. Briefly put, would removing the foolish box itself not be an improvement on the ludicrous status quo? Moreschi (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • briefly put, in my opinion the best improvement of the ludicrous status quo would be to make a point of ignoring and reverting all editors who are here to point their nationalist ideology. I am simply not willing to read any discussion about Albanian on this page other than a brief statement that some people have claimed a connection. Anything else goes on Albanian language since it is not this article's topic. --dab (𒁳) 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that nationalist ideology editors are much more about Greek and Latin, which are a big falsification of Churches. Albanian is a natural language that need to be studied and not to mix up with nationalist and anti-nationalist superpositions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.93.207 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

Alleged etymologies are in heavy need of references, deriving deuádai ("satyrs") from "he shakes", "to rage, seethe", "sulfur vapor", "foolish", "Dionysos", "to rage", "wild animal", "to perish, die (animals)", "to gasp" doesn't seem reasonable. Something relating to "devas", "deus" or some such would IMHO be more plausible (just an example). Each etymology needs its own reference. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


One possibility that leapt right out at me regarding the etymology chart was "sika" for "curved knife" - this clearly seems to be etymologically related to the English word "sickle," of whose provenance I am unclear. Could any Illyrian scholar please shed light on this example? Thanks! Kevinkeithgillette (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, I should have picked up on this one as well: What about "lougeon" as a marshy area? Again, the obvious cognate (at least IMHO), and closely related to the Latin, is the English "lagoon," or Spanish "lago"; consider the latter example with perhaps a phonotactically-constrained ending (or case marking) that gives it a distinctly Greco-Balkan look and feel. I'm not a professional linguist nor an anthropologist, so my assertions in this example may be "all wet" (please pardon the pun). Kevinkeithgillette (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed - nonsense - Original Research

Vescleves is probably Višeslav. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.86.41 (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting infos

[edit]

Hi, I just added some infos which could be of interest and helpful to find a connection of Illyrian names and words with other Balkan languages (particularly Albanian) but they have been all deleted. Can I please know the reasons? Etimo (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is clearly stated at the removal: WP:OR. The Banner talk 10:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You again eh, what proof do you need for a name this time? It's like requesting proof that Jürgen or Siegfried are German names, or Henry and William are English ones. All I did is to point out that many Illyrian names clearly are still present in Balkanic languages, or might be easily explained through those. It's just a theory, not a fact. I don't see why it should be deleted. Etimo (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Indo-European languages it is very easy to assume what things mean or that they are related with a word in a specific language (especially conservative ones like Lithuanian, Latvian, Sanskrit or Greek). It is correct to request a source on this. I was checking Orels work on proto-Albanian were he does mention some Illyrian-Albanian cognates. However, I didn't see your connections there and there must be a reason. Fkitselis (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true what you say, but Orel's work (in my experience the most quoted one on Albanian etymologies, although being not the most important) is far from complete and also contains etymologies now considered obsolete or simply incorrect (e.g. Alb.fjalë<Lat.fabula, çerdhe<South Slavic cerda etc). Besides, there is no explanation in Orel's work how he managed to connect the Albanian names with the Illyrian ones apart from his hunches, simply because there isn't a direct one. And secondly, it is impossible to assume that Orel's knowledge of Albanian language was at a native level. All we got are assumptions and hunches (unfortunately there is no Illyrian literature), but, considering the context and their meaning, the name similarities are so striking that, in my opinion, we can try a similar approach as Orels. For example, it is certainly not a long shot to relate the Thracian horse god Menzana to Alb. mëz and Rom. manz 'horse', or the water god Bindus (Lat. Fons Bandusiae) with Alb. Për-bindësh (also in Pokorny) 'mythical creature, monster'. It is quite obvious that they have the same form and meaning. I think it is plausible to try a similar approach with the other names, especially if they are preserved almost unchanged in the Balkan languages. Following the same logic as above, in my opinion, we can try to relate Illyrian names as Andis with Alb. Andi (from andë-joy, pleasure), Ballaios with Alb. Ballosh (from ballë-forehead), Bora with Alb. Bora (snow) etc.,of course, stressing that these are only assumptions. Many etymologists have done the same in the past, as much as their knowledge of the language allowed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etimo (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the edits are sourced you're going to be fine.Fkitselis (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More ?

[edit]

Why Languages ? Illyrian was only one language.--92.226.43.53 (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably not, Illyrians had lived for a very long time but never left any written source (unless you consider Messapian as Illyrian too). A language that was mostly spoken for centuries in such a large area (from Pannonia to Albania) would inevitably split into many languages. We don't have written sources but since we know that the Illyrians were a tribal population and were invaded more than once (Greeks, Macedonians, Celts and lastly Romans), they were so divided that their original (proto-?) language must have split. ALBA-CENTAURI (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible relation to Albanian

[edit]

"Scholars" whose connection to linguistics is debatable are added in the list. There is a difference having a linguist making that statement, compared to having an ethnographer, enthusiast or writer of the 18th century. We should keep only linguists who support that idea. It makes a weird impression (in terms of reliability) to the reader who first reads there is too little data available and then definite statements made on a language that we simply know close to nothing about. I am not suggesting that Albanian which is spoken in the same geographic region should have no connection to Illyrian, but at this moment the article looks like a mix of texts from moderate authors and authors who are "over exhited" so to say. Fkitselis (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the research and the findings of over 60 authors conclude that the Albanian language is a descendent of Illyrian, then I believe it is a closed debate. Since most other wiki articles are written based on only a handful of sources, in this case of abundant evidences we should simply state "The Albanian language is a descendant of the Illyrian language [sources list with over 60 references]". I understand that some Serbian and Greek nationalists might believe in theories that Albanians and Illyrians have no connection, but unfortunately the serious scientific research studies backs up the Illyrian-Albanian continuity. 95.90.207.180 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illyrian 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plural "languages"?

[edit]

Ever since this article was created as an unsourced stub in 2002, it's been under the pluralized title Illyrian languages and has presented the topic as a "group of languages". This seems to have never been questioned here in talk. But I can find absolutely no sourcing for it. All the reliable sources I remember seeing seemed to be talking of Illyrian in terms of "a language". Evidently, we simply do not know whether whatever internal differentiation existed would have been sufficient to constitute a split into several "languages".

Any objections if I move the page to Illyrian language? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrians were a group of heterogeneous elements, no wonder the term "Illyrians" is an exonym. Is there a source claiming that those tribes spoke a coomon language?Alexikoua (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are sources (the large majority of reputable reference works as far as I can see, including Woodard's Ancient Languages of Europe or Mallory & Adams' Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture) that speak of "Illyrian" in the singular as a matter of course. The burden really is on you to demonstrate that others don't. If the summary of the works cited in our article is correct, then not even Katicic, who was most explicitly researching the varieties within Illyrian, claimed separate language status for any of them; indeed, according to the claim that the observed differencces "are not sufficient to show that two clearly differentiated dialects of Illyrian were in use" (i.e. in the two main geographical divisions within Illyria he posited), there's not even clear evidence of "dialects", let alone separate languages. – Whether this posited Illyrian language was spoken by all groups that were, at one time or another, identified by the exonym "Illyrians" by some outsiders or whether they were a heterogeneous bunch that might have included speakers of other languages as you argue, is a question quite orthogonal to this and really quite irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those editors who believe that works of authors who decided to declare Serb ethnicity are not reliable, here is another example: Sedlar, Jean W (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500. University of Washington Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-295-97291-6. .... Illyrian tribes, whose languages--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, great, the travelling circus has arrived. Well, neither of the two sources you just quoted speaks of "Illyrian languages" in the plural. Just as off-topic as Alexikoua's argument above. Antidiskriminator blatantly distorted the second one; what it actually says is: "Thracian and Illyrian tribes, whose languages..." (i.e. the plural "languages" refers to Thracian and Illyrian; nothing is implied about them being subdivided into more than just these two languages.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you do not allow me to comment on your talkpage I will write this here. With your comment you misused article talkpage to write unjustified accusations against me. That is something you do for almost ten years, since I started editing wikipedia. For all this years you managed to present only one single diff to justify your accusations, and that single diff was swiftly refuted by another admin. Please stop with your hostile behavior against me. This simple dispute over one s at the end of language simply does not deserve such hard artillery against me.
  • I presented two sources to prove my point. You completely ignored first source and "refuted" my position because you think I misinterpreted the second one. I apologize if I am wrong, but I think that in sentence "Thracian and Illyrian tribes, whose languages..." the plural "languages" refers to tribes. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Future Perfect has not made the case. Plenty of sources elaborate about "Illyrian languages", including:
  • Kulundžić, Zvonimir (1957). Knjiga o knjizi. NIP. p. 594. quote=quote=Nasuprot upravo pobrojanim narodima, koji su preuzeli etrursko pismo, a koji su govorili ilirskim jezicima.... {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |quote= (help)
  • Zadarska smotra. Matica hrvatska, Ogranak Zadar. 2006. p. 181. U ruskoj enciklopediji možemo pročitati sažetak onoga što ruski jezikoslovci znadu o "ilirskim jezicima". Tu možemo pročitati: Proučavanje drevne toponomastike ukazuje na ilirsko podrijetlo zemljopisnih naziva duž prostora od J-Z
  • Rasprave Zavoda za jezik Institut za filologiju i folkloristiku. Zavod. 1984. p. 38. ... istočnojadranskog primorja i unutrašnjosti, koja se ne mogu protumačiti grčkim i latinskim jezičnim sredstvima, moguće je s prilično vjerojatnosti i po njihovu opetovanju i po njihovu razmještaju pripisati tadašnjim ilirskim jezicima kao npr.
  • Šimunović, Petar (1986). Istočnojadranska toponimija. Logos. p. 18. Toponimi kao Soča (Sontius), Trst (Tergeste), Arsia (Raša), Omiš (Almissia), Kotor (Kattaros), Risan (Rizon), Ulcinj (Ulkinion), Labin (Albona), Mn (Aenona), Skradin (Scardona) itd. pripadaju paleobalkanskim najvjerojatnije ilirskim jezicima ...
  • Filologija. Izdaje Jugoslovenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Odjel za filologiju. 1963. p. 44. odakle izilazi da je svakako dolaskom Slovena na Balkan još uvek postojao neromanizovani etnički elemenat koji je govorio keltskim i ilirskim jezicima.
  • Ladan, Tomislav (2006). Etymologicon. Masmedia. p. 29. ISBN 978-953-157-488-4. Kod grč. oblika hipposAkkos ide se tako daleko te se pretpostavlja kako je posrijedi posudbenica iz nekog od ilirskih jezika.
  • Bernal, Martin (1987). Black Athena: The linguistic evidence. Rutgers University Press. p. 231. ISBN 978-0-8135-3655-2. ... and link it to bauria a word for "house" in the Messapian language of Apulia, which was linked to the Illyrian languages
Ilirskim jezicima means Illyrian languages. Plural.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's mainly Serbo-Croatian language sources. In English ???Resnjari (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first editor who replied to this RM request explained that Illyrians were a group of heterogeneous elements, no wonder the term "Illyrians" is an exonym. Here is a source which directly supports this assertion. (Lichnofsky, Claudia; Pandelejmoni, Enriketa; Stojanov, Darko (4 December 2017). Myths and Mythical Spaces: Conditions and Challenges for History Textbooks in Albania and South-Eastern Europe. V&R unipress GmbH. p. 43. ISBN 978-3-7370-0811-2. the term 'Illyrian' .... was probably an exonym used by either the Greeks or Romans to refer generally to a number of different tribes located all the way from Danube to the Gulf of Ambracia)
  • I presented a source which clearly says that Illyrian tribes did not have common language and I presented multiple sources that refer to Illyrian languages as plural, based on the request of FutPerf. I even presented translation for sources which are not on English language. As far as I understand Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement this counts as explicit refutal of the central point of FutPerf.
  • Without valid counterarguments the renaming party retorted to uncivil tag teaming accusations or (in your case) rascial based arguments. I am familiar with rascial based position of small group of wikipedia editors who share the same POV that authors of certain ethnicities are inherently not reliable. Unless you can point to consensus reached at WP:RSN that your position is valid, it should be consider as POV disruption. In this case, your rascial based disruption directly refuted position of FutPerf which is based on Radoslav Katičić. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of citing half-digested Google snippets out of context, from works that mention Illyrian only in passing, you'd need to cite dedicated, reputable reference works that provide a substantial treatment of Illyrian, at least on a par with the two I cited above. And if those reference works propose to treat Illyrian as more than a single language, I'd expect them to do the obvious thing: name and define at least some of its daughter languages, and describe their defining differences. You see, this is not the article about "any languages spoken by people who were called Illyrians". It's the article about "Illyrian" as a linguistic unit. Sure, this unit might conceivably have been a family or bundle consisting of several sub-varieties with separate language status. But as long as linguists don't have the data necessary to isolate and distinguish those subvarieties and assess the distance between them, they won't posit such a group but continue to treat it as a single language. Of course, that terminological practice doesn't entail a claim that no such subdivisions existed; it merely means that nothing about them is known. Finally, the question to what extent this assumed linguistic unit "Illyrian" is coextensive with the historical ethnic exonym "Illyrian", i.e. whether there may have been "Illyrian" tribes who spoke something else entirely, is (as I said earlier) entirely orthogonal to this issue and doesn't affect the definition of this page's topic at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your citing half-digested Google snippets out of context snide comment is outrageous. It is you whose position is based on the singular use in sources and it is you who insisted on finding sources that use Illyrian languages in the plural if somebody wants to contradict your pov (There certainly are sources .... that speak of "Illyrian" in the singular as a matter of course. The burden really is on you to demonstrate that others don't). Now when I presented a long list of sources that don't speak of Illyrian in the singular but plural, you accused me for citing half-digested Google snippets out of context.
  • Any source I presented here is much more reliable for this issue and deals with the subject of this dispute much deeper than the tertiary source your presented. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture shortly presents only basic informations about Illyrians and their language(s) on less than two pages of 778 pages long Encyclopedia. The other source you presented does not confirm your position but says that there are no evidence for the opposite.
  • The topic of this article are languages spoken by ancient tribes in Illyria. Those languages were not written. Nobody knows much about them. That is why they are grouped in this article and should remain grouped until some new discoveries are made.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator, have a breather and stay on topic. No need for other commentary about administrators as its uncalled for. A retraction by you about accusing an admin of being "snide" would be appropriate. (see wp:civil).Resnjari (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography appears divided on the use of the plural or singular form. Since Illyrian left no traces its place inside the IE family is a matter of dispute. Some sources that prefer to use plural form:
  • The Indo-European Languages, Routledge in p. 5 in the same fashion the author mentions Sandinavian, Baltic languages, while in p. 555-556 there is some detail about the possible connection of Illyrian to other neighboring languages.
  • A Grammar of Modern Indo-European, Indo-European Association in p. 122-123: Some sound-changes and other language features are deduced from what remains of the Illyrian languages, but because no writings in Illyrian are known, there is not sufficient evidence to clarify its place within the Indo-European language family aside from its probable centum nature.
I can't neglect that a variety of scholars prefer the singular form though.Alexikoua (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Matzinger's conclusion about the linguistic status of Illyrian seems quite interesting [[1]]: Ob diese Stämme auch eine sprachliche Einheit gebildet haben, lässt sich nicht feststellen. Aus diesem Grund darf der Begriff ‘Illyrer’ und ‘illyrisch’ primär nur als Sammelbegriff verstanden werden.Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the other sources yet, but please don't cite Quiles' Grammar of Modern Indo-European. People editing in this field should know by now that it's a horribly unreliable amateur work cobbled together from plagiarized Wikipedia articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Future Perfect at Sunrise I don't know you if you recognized this, but the only English source Antidiskriminator pulled was Martin Bernal's Black Athena -- a poster case of Afrocentrist "scholarship" -- which is recycling the Black Egyptian hypothesis to claim that "Western civilization" was invented by people "akin" to African Americans-- would be nice especially to handle real issues of racism, but what about the evidence? It has received a rather ... cold... reception, to put it lightly. More harshly, it was called by a topical scholar "so glaringly unsupported by evidence that it is likely to pass without leaving a trace." If Antid is making a point based on Serbian works plus a fringy Afrocentrist who doesn't have the least bit of specialization in Paleo-Balkan linguistics, that is quite... disappointing.--Calthinus (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, indeed, I was sort of waiting to see if Alexikoua would notice it, before mentioning it myself ;-) Bernal is usually quite unpopular among the Greek-oriented section of our editor base... Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise We should not let this discussion go unresolved after a year. Should it be moved or not? As it stands Alexi never !voted but did bring forth some sources; I would disregard Antid's sources which are based in Yugoslav historiography supplemented by colorful Afrocentrism, on the other hand there are those that explicitly use the singular. One might say its a moot point because we actually have no idea what clumsy Roman "ethnographers"' referents were when they said "Illyrian", which could have been a dialect, a group of related languages, a language, a group of unrelated languages, etc -- perhaps the best and least presumptuous way to handle this would be to simply title the page Illyrian and make clear that it is a poorly understood and very likely originally rather clumsy Roman concept and not actual ethnography defined by modern scholarship (cf also "Germani" originally meaning East-Rhiners, continuing debate over "Belgae" and "Getae", etc.) --Calthinus (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main points I tried to make in the discussion above are these: (1) it doesn't matter what the ethnographic situation behind the historical term "Illyrians" is. What matters is what modern linguistics understands by the language name "Illyrian". This article is about "Illyrian" as a linguistic unit, not about "any and all languages spoken by people that may have been identified as Illyrians by the Romans or whoever else". The latter may very well have been several langauges; the former is nevertheless still one unit, and as long as we can't pinpoint its internal differentiation, it remains – for all practical linguistic purposes – a single language. (2) Therefore, it doesn't really matter whether this or that book uses the name in the singular or in the plural, in passing. What matters is that in historical linguistics, you cannot posit the existence of a "group" of languages, much less of a "family" of languages, if you aren't specifying what languages were part of that group and what their defining linguistic characteristics are. Any source that just mentions "Illyrian languages" in passing without providing such a specific, concrete list of member (or "daughter") languages, simply isn't relevant for our purposes. In this sense, I still propose moving to the singular title, unless the "citation needed" tag I added the other day is resolved in the near future. And none of the sources named in the discussion above would be sufficient to resolve it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the reader at present is able to realize that the scope of hte page is "what modern linguistics understands of the linguistic system referred to by Latin Illyrica", but that is a content issue I think. I'd support at present a move to Illyrian language -- this is the best way to draw out contradictory sources and even if there ends up being more deliberation, the page will be made better in the long run by inducing that. Honestly you should just go ahead and move it. --Calthinus (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands Alexi never !voted but did bring forth some sources; I would disregard Antid's sources which are based in Yugoslav historiography... Calthinus If you are discussing another editor on a talk page it makes sense not to do so behind that editor's back. If you really believe that people of certian ethnicity are unable to write relaible sources go to RSN and gain consensus there. Until such consensus is reached, your position: No sources no problem violates at least two pillars of wikipedia. Not to mention other policies and guidelines. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator There has never been a need for me to talk about you behind your back, when all that is necessary for collegial work is to discuss your behavior in front of your face (i.e. on a public talk page) when you use wild fringe sources and scholarship of a certain nationality, not ethnicity, which was produced under a political shadow extensively identified and described by RS (Albanian communist and pre-communist historiography has its own issues that are also acknowledged), and even with those based your arguments on passing mentions not actual statements. Of course your contributions to our shared project are appreciated nonetheless, and even more so when you don't compare editors to Stalin with your subtle hyperlink. Cheers and have a nice day! --Calthinus (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly advise not to engage Antidiskriminator in any discussion whatsoever. The only reasonable way of dealing with him is to ignore him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When they ignore books, they will in the end also ignoring people.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point to dozens of works that refer to this languages in plural, as "Иллирийские языки". Its easy to go to Google Books and perform a simple search. Provided that authors of Russian nationality should not be ignored too.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]. As for work done in the USSR, it cannot be ignored and is very important for the area of IE studies in general as well as various Balkan languages -- but at the same time we must acknowledge this aspect too, which for the most part does not effect the current discussion.--Calthinus (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I also checked Spanish sources. Many of them refer to "Lenguas ilirias". Here is, for example, what Mr Villar says: Villar, Francisco (2011). Lenguas, genes y culturas en la prehistoria de Europa y Asia suroccidental. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. p. 751. ISBN 978-84-7800-135-4. En los Balcanes noroccidentales, donde tampoco hay un predominio cla-ro de ninguno de los dos haplogrupos, se asentaban las lenguas ilirias habla-das por una serie de tribus distintas. Los esfuerzos de muchos estudiosos del tema para establecer si el ilirio pertenecía al grupo centum o al satem han tenido como resultado la recopilación de un manojo de rasgos contradicto-rios, algunos de los cuales parecen apuntar en una dirección y otros en la contraria. En realidad no hay otro fundamento que su vecindad geográfica para suponer que todas las lenguas habladas en esa zona de los Balcanes pertenecieran a un mismo grupo dialectal. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) I used google translate but somebody who speaks Spanish could help what does Mr Villar say about this languages? Does he support main hypothesis All the reliable sources I remember seeing seemed to be talking of Illyrian in terms of "a language". Evidently, we simply do not know whether whatever internal differentiation existed would have been sufficient to constitute a split into several "languages".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is translation provided (diff): In the northwestern Balkans, where none of these haplogroups ever clearly predominated, the Illyrian languages spoken by a series of distinct tribes took root. Much study expended on the question of whether Illyrian belongs to the centum or satem group has resulted in collecting a batch of contradictory features, some of which appear to point one direction and others the other. In reality, there is no basis other than common geography to suppose that all the languages spoken in this zone of the Balkans belong to the same dialectal group. The author is scholar specialized in the subject. This quote refutes main point about "a language" split into several "languages" because of some internal differentiation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Antidiskriminator and Future Perfect at Sunrise: I personally have not brought forward yet any sources here, because every single source I have ever read on my life on the topic, whether using singular or plural (I've seen singular much more, as simply "Illyrian") never actually address the question of internal unity, they just say the term, whether plural or singular, in passing. I don't think sources that simply say "Illyrian language" or "languages" in plural are actually addressing this question -- especially when that is not the topic. Answering the question of Illyrian internal unity is mostly based on speculation; there are still debates over whether Thracian and Dacian were distinct, whether Messapian/Iapygian might in fact by an Illyrian dialect, whether the Illyrians of northern regions were related at all to those of southern regions, etc etc. If someone actually has an RS source explicitly stating and motivating the current consensus on the matter, that would be of great use.--Calthinus (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. As far as I can see, pretty much nobody actually talks much about unity or internal differentiation, because everybody in the literature basically agrees we don't have enough data to decide anything. So the terminological preferences in using singulars or plurals basically just boil down to a difference in perspective. Which of the two assumptions do you consider the weaker, and therefore more responsible, "default" perspective? Do you assume unity as a default, as the simpler, "Occam's razor" view, as long as you don't have evidence for differentiation? Or do you assume differentiation as the default as long as you don't have evidence of unity? – In any case, I'm going to have a look at Katicic's 1976 book tomorrow, as he's typically quoted among the standard works on what little we do know. I'll probably do some rewording of the lede after that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a specialist in linguistics and I prefer leaving this to you Calthinus and Future Perfect to proceed as you think is best. I was just wondering if both views ("Illyrian language" and "Illyrian languages") should be explained somewhere in the article. As it stands now, the article is at the very least confusing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi991 It's an issue of sourcing not linguistics. The problem with discussing either "view" is that our sourcing for either is ... nothing. No source that we have gleaned so far explicitly states a view that there was one or more Illyrian language(s). Mentioning the term in singular or plural does not count as taking a stance. I'd very much like us to have an RS we could lean on, and even better if we had RS for multiple views. We have RS for zero views.--Calthinus (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Got hold of Katicic now. Interesting reading. Should work as a basis for a somewhat tweaked lede, but I'll need a bit of time for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Idk if this source is of help but take a look at it. Discussing the geography of Illyrian and relations with other languages, it says that "It appears that the Illyrians spoke a single language and that it was certainly not a dialect of Greek". Do what you think is best. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, the Cambridge Ancient History can certainly be used here too, even though its focus may be historiographical rather than linguistic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That tombstone picture

[edit]
Tombstone with inscription "Tritos Platoros"

I'll need a bit of time to collect the refs, but that picture is actually quite pertinent. It says "Tritos Platoros", and both "Tritos" and "Plator" are frequently mentioned as characteristically Illyrian names in the literature (and are listed as such in our article too). This particular inscription (under its catalog title "IG X Appolonia 159"[2]) is mentioned in a couple of works as a pertinent example. This kind of inscription is also quite characteristic of the type of onomastic evidence the section discusses. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise, Nertian Ceka, an Albanian archeologist who did excavations at Apollonia says this about that exact konisk in the picture. In his book [3] Apollonia: History and Monuments (2005) on page 19: "In the third-second centuries BC, a number of Illyrians, including Abrus, Bato, and Epicardus, rose to the highest position in the city administration, that of prytanis. Other Illyrians such as Niken, son of Agron, Tritus, son of Plator, or Genthius, are found on graves belonging to ordinary families (fig.7). Illyrian names are often used alongside Greek names, as in the case of the Illyrian women's name Bostro, used by a rich Hellene family." I hope this assists.Resnjari (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Came across this German scholarly source that discusses these names and Apollonia [4].Resnjari (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The specific name was also found in Bylis and in other Greek inscriptions on the Dalmatic coast (Hatzopoulos).Alexikoua (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, but that is about Bylis, not Apollonia. As for Hatzopoulos??? (book/journal article ? page ?)Resnjari (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the whole point about "Tritos" and "Plator" is that they are common throughout the region, that's exactly why they are assumed to have been typical Illyrian names, isn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Future Perfect at Sunrise, not sure if you have read this, but here is a link [5] to the book by John Wilkes on the Illyrians. It covers names like Plator (p.271) and all that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both names are Illyrian (Tritos&Plator). Scholarship is in full agreement.Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source misuse

[edit]

I just reverted [6] edits by User:Alexikoua that inserted the statement that "Both ancient and modern authors refer to 'Illyrian' in a generic fashion to point to a variety of non-Greek languages in the broader area of western Balkans", sourced to this book source. While there is a sentence in a footnote in that book that supports something of the sort ("Note here, though, that 'Illyrian' is occasionally used as a 'cover term'…"), this statement was seriously taken out of context the way it was inserted here. It's a disclaimer added (with "though") after a whole passage that is clearly speaking of Illyrian proper in the sense of one, clearly identifiable, and single, language (e.g. by speaking of the "relationship between the two languages", i.e. between Greek and Illyrian, where it is evidently presupposed that Illyrian is one.)

I haven't yet had an opportunity to check the other source cited in those edits, the sentence that "No large-scale frequency in specific toponyms and hydronyms has been found in the Illyrian area" sourced to Georgiev. This was inserted as if to imply that there was no onomastic evidence of specifically Illyrian material at all, but that is clearly untrue – the evidence just happens to be not in toponyms and hydronyms but in anthroponyms, and those are in fact both frequent and specific. I therefore must expect that sentence was equally ripped out of context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Bibliography should be used in the context its author(s) intended it to be used. There's also the issue of using outdated bibliography. Georgiev (1966) was written long before most modern archaeological expeditions in possible/probable Illyrian sites. Bibliography in wikipedia often seems to be used as if all authors wrote with access to the same data and as if no evolution in research ever occurred. For example, Krahe (1955) is used as a citation to refer to numismatic data but most digs which unearthed hoards with valuable information happened ~15-20 years later. I also wanted to ask a question about the lead section. Just be be clear here, my specific field is not in linguistics so my take is informed by literature that has to do more with material culture studies. The article has a tag which disputes Illyrian being a group of languages but modern bibliography treats it as a single language, so how should the lead be reworked?--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence could just be changed to "Illyrian was a language or cluster of languages spoken in..." or something of the sort. We can then clarify that the majority of modern literature (following Katicic and others) assumes there was something linguistically coherent in at least one core area that can legitimately be referred to as "the" Illyrian language in the singular, or Illyrian proper, while other areas in what is geographically/historically known as "Illyria" may have spoken something else, but that this article here is primarily about that assumed actual Illyrian language. We were discussing this last year but never got round to actually solving it in the article because the usual POV warriors were all lining up along the usual team lines. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Modern theories of Illyrian are not based on dialectal areas but onomastic areas. From De Simone (2017):
...there are areas where the relevant names are predominantly or only attested; thus, these names are to be considered characteristic for these regions. If other ono- mastic taxa collectively show the same mostly matching areal distribution, we may then speak of a complex “onomastic area.” (...) It must be emphasized that the identification of an onomastic area is a predominantly “aseptic” operation, which in itself, strictly speaking, does not allow a historical-comparative re- construction on an etymological basis. The fact is that one cannot state a priori that a certain onomastic area necessarily corresponds to a historically attested language and that its onomasticon belongs even partially to the etymological pool of appellatives of this language and must therefore be systematically analyzed and interpreted on such a basis. It would be thinkable, for example, that two onomastic areas cover a single language (or the reverse). The question of whether an onomastic area actually matches the area of a historical language can only be decided on an ad hoc basis from case to case using specific arguments and in numerous cases will end up remaining sub iudice. Alcaios (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Having done more reading over the past few months about the Illyrians in post-2010 bibliography, I feel more confident in tackling a possible expansion of the article. If I worked on an expansion of the version you propose for the lead sentence, that means that the article should be renamed, doesn't it?--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Illyrian languages → Illyrian language – See above discussion.

As above, I couldn't find scholarly sources in English discussing these as languages in plural. However, English scholarly sources do discuss it in the singular ("apart from the filiation links it has with the Illyrian language", "view it as a successor of the Illyrian language", "traces of the Illyrian language").

Also:

– Thjarkur (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per discussion above and per usage in all relevant reference works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support contemporary bibliography treats it as a single language.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Contemporary scholarship treats this unknown language(s) as group of different linguistic zones. Even in one of the 3 examples provided in nom. the plural is used as an alternative form. Matzinger (as stated above) contradicts the existence of an Illyrian language while it's also quite interesting that Philip Baldi concludes on the issue that: all of which attests to the scarcity of concrete evidence on the Illyrians as a cultural or linguistic group. [[7]]. Some papers mention Illyrian in singular form, nevertheless none confirms that Illyrian formed a linguistic unity even as a wider group. The issue is controversial and needs to be treated with heavy precaution. 1-2 examples are not enough to warrant a move such as this one.Alexikoua (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: as used in contemporary bibliography. Other relevant sources are: Eichner, H. (2004). "Illyrisch − die unbekannte Sprache"; Tzitzilis, Ch. (2007). "Greek and Illyrian"; Matzinger, J. (2015). "Messapico e Illirico". – Βατο (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bato: Matzinger is definitely not clear about the linguistic heterogeneity of the Illyrian tribes: Ob diese Stämme auch eine sprachliche Einheit gebildet haben, lässt sich nicht feststellen. Aus diesem Grund darf der Begriff ‘Illyrer’ und ‘illyrisch’ primär nur als Sammelbegriff verstanden werden, i.e. it's a good example against such a move.Alexikoua (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are, again, misrepresenting both Matzinger and the scope of this article. This article is not about "whatever languages were spoken by tribes designated as Illyrian". It's about Illyrian as a linguistic unit. The current consensus in scholarship, since Katičić, is that among the larger range of areas once subsumed under "Illyrian" there is one smaller core area (in the south-west) where the onomastic evidence is consistent enough that you can reasonably assume there was a coherent language, definable as "Illyrian proper". This "Illyrian proper" is what this article is about, and Matzinger, like everybody else in the literature, continues to talk about it in the singular, as "a language", on a par with Thracian and Dacian and all the others ("Das eigentliche Illyrische", here, p.8). His cautioning remark that "Begriffe wie ‘Illyrisch’, ‘Thrakisch’ und ‘Dakisch’ dürfen in erster Linie nur als (grobe) klassifikatorische Benennungen aufgefaßt werden" ("concepts such as 'Illyrian', 'Thracian' and 'Dacian' can primarily only be taken as (rough) classificatory designations") simply reflects the fact that within this single language there could be dialectal subdivisions we don't know anything about, but that's no more true for Illyrian than for all the others. On the very same page, Matzinge has a map where "Illyrisch" is featured alongside "Makedonisch", "Thrakisch", "Dakisch" and "Getisch", all in the same style, and on p.6-7 he has a list where "Illyrisch" (singular) is listed on the same level as "Griechisch", "Thrakisch" and others. Throughout both this and this article, he is speaking of Illyrian in the singular, as a language, as a matter of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the article deals with the language spoken by Illyrian tribes: Ardiaei, Delmatae, Pannonii, Autariates, Taulantii, as the current lede suggests, but per Matzinger in map p. 12 they they do not spoke the same language. As such the lede needs large scale rephrasing so the reader can understand that this isn't about a language spoken by populations that inhabited a vast region from Dalmatia, Pannonia to central Albania.Alexikoua (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Matzinger doesn't discuss which tribes spoke Illyrian or the internal subdivisions of Illyrian onomastic areas or dialects. Who spoke Illyrian is subject which presupposes that which Matzinger discusses: Illyrian as one language, not as a group of languages.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography discusses Illyrian as a single language. If you have access to bibliography which might not be easily accessible online(paywall), it will help you with acquiring an overview of bibliography. Matzinger, De Simone and others have been linked. Add to the long list: Robert Woodard(ed.) (2008), The Ancient Languages of Europe, CUP - Illyrian is discussed as a single language.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

THE ARTICLE IS NATIONALIST PROPAGANDA FROM ALBANIAN NATIONALISTS

[edit]

Hellenic language doesnt come from albanian. Albanian dont have illyrian anchestors. Albanian came to the area thiusands of years later.

Albanian nationalists try to re-write history. The article needs to be removed. 2A02:587:610D:2D00:5BB:5517:5A14:FD9C (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illyrian_language&oldid=1221871916"