ПЕЛАЗГИ/ ИЛИРИ/ МАКЕДОНЦИ/ TRAKI/ FRIGI/ АЛБАНЦИ

[enhallon]

Албаците вештачка нација тоае факт нив западот поточно Германија и Енглеска ги создаде како против тежа на Србија да не излезе на море.Држава од 1912/1913 год.Абе ајјјјјјјјјјјјјјјј гитла замарате со глупости и убедувате .Дајте некој документ постар не од 100 еве од 200 години.

sigurno IN VITRO ne imat napraeno!!!!:pos2: :pos2: :pos2:

 

[Sturmgewehr]

Албаците вештачка нација тоае факт нив западот поточно Германија и Енглеска ги создаде како против тежа на Србија да не излезе на море.Држава од 1912/1913 год.Абе ајјјјјјјјјјјјјјјј гитла замарате со глупости и убедувате .Дајте некој документ постар не од 100 еве од 200 години.

не баш како што велиш ти пошто ако Албанците беа вештачка нација тоас зосто Арбрешите сеуште постојат во Италија и се уште го зборат оној стар Албански јазик што се зборел во време на Кастриот. а ти кај отиде 1912 година таа е Србска Прикаска да бесе тка не ке ни ја признаеше цел свет хисторијата.

 

[CELTIK]

slusajte be socevi vie ne si ja znaete istorijata vas drugi vi ja pisuvale a znaete zosto zasto drugi ve sozdadoa spojuvajki gi divite nomadski plemina od suva gora i od kamenjata pa slucajno nekako vo tie divi plemina se nasle ilirite koi mislam deka vi ja dadoa kulturata i jazikot i se sto evredno vo vasata kultura a zgora na toa ovie divjacive go primija islamot oti toj im odgovarase poveke radikalna vera po radikalen narod ama se se poveke izleguva na videlina deka civiliziranite i kulturnite albanci si se katolici a vie divjaci edni nikogas nema da ja svatite poentata na zivotot i cistoto razmisluvanje sekoj den spikaso samo nekoj razlicni filozofi mavas covece priberise SVE STO LETA NE SE JADE

 

[Sturmgewehr]

slusajte be socevi vie ne si ja znaete istorijata vas drugi vi ja pisuvale a znaete zosto zasto drugi ve sozdadoa spojuvajki gi divite nomadski plemina od suva gora i od kamenjata pa slucajno nekako vo tie divi plemina se nasle ilirite koi mislam deka vi ja dadoa kulturata i jazikot i se sto evredno vo vasata kultura a zgora na toa ovie divjacive go primija islamot oti toj im odgovarase poveke radikalna vera po radikalen narod ama se se poveke izleguva na videlina deka civiliziranite i kulturnite albanci si se katolici a vie divjaci edni nikogas nema da ja svatite poentata na zivotot i cistoto razmisluvanje sekoj den spikaso samo nekoj razlicni filozofi mavas covece priberise SVE STO LETA NE SE JADE

еј Рдикална вера и ти сега шо збориш, а кој во Мрачните векови палеше вештерки обвинувајки ги дека праат магии Муслиманите или Христјаните ај Остај не мешај религиа пошто црквата имат Изгорено живи луге бог знае колку а не само вештерки туку и научници кои тврдеа дека земјата е тркалезна и се врти околу сонцето.

Хисторијата наша ја писувале и други а и ние зошто тебе ти одговара некој Србин да ја пишел и да ја виткал ко што сака, не бе не оди така, хисторијата Албанска е напишана од ногубројни Автори домашни и странски

 

[Sturmgewehr]

Тој е Македонец со потекло од фамилијата Кастриоти , православни Македонци од Матија , северна албанија.и не сме ние глупи , науката така го нарекла човекот. побарај малку по турските списи од тоа време , дадена е цела биографија од човекот. ПРАВОСЛАВЕН ОД РАЃАЊЕ. потурчен- не поалбанчен

.

Ако тој бил Македонец зошто тогаш тој не се борел за македонија зошто тој тогаш не ги соединил Македонците туку ги соединил Албанците? зошто тој тогас земјата сто ја створи независна за толку години не ја викна Македонија? тој можда има Словенска крв посто мајкаму војсава е од Македонија но тоа не значи ека тој е макеоднец тој потекнува од Кралското семејство Кастриот од Голем Дебар Албанија не од Макеонија и неговата војска се сочинуваше од Албанци а не Македонци.

Објасни ти ако тој Бил македонец зошто досега во историјата тоа се нема докажано а за тоа што велис ти да ојме во турција во Истамбул за докази па иди ти и ке се увериш, фактот што тој многу документи ги пишувал на Словенски јазик не го Прави Македонец а и тоа што знаел Словенски е норална работа еден крал да знае 2 јазиоци посто јас знам 4 јазици, Реплицирај со нешто појако.

 

[rymz]

Не сум ти ги прочитал сите постови на историја за да знам дали ја браниш таа теорија. Ако не ја браниш, извини, моја грешка што сум те прашал.

Така...значи нема фрка.

И јас си знам за моите корени!

Антички македонец си, или старо-словен? Ако си антички македонец, користиш словенски јазик. Ако си словен, а не си антички македонец, по автоматизам губиш народност.

Што си?

А ај ти дај еден доказ дека гегите се присутни на балканот пред 17 век! Ете, јас ти реков дека се донесени од турците по продорот на австријците. Ти не даде ни еден релевантен документ дека тоа не е точно. А тоа дали гегите и тоските се или не се еден народ, тоа вие најубаво си го знаете. Сигурно јас не сум измислил дека вие сте различни народи, некој друг го заклучил тоа многу порано јас пред да се родам.

Како прво, да ти објаснам дека Тоска и Гега поделбата е поделба на јазични дијалекти, а не на различни народности. Разликата е во изговорот на одредени букви, како е А во О, и така натаму. Тоа доколку сакаш подетално да се информираш, прашај, ќе ти објаснам.
Гега дијалектот се користи во северниот дел на Албанија, македонските албанци, косоварите, и албанците во Црна Гора.
Тоска дијалектот се користи во Јужна Албанија, и во Чамерија.
Приказните што ти ги раскажувале, дека гегите и тоските не се разбираат меѓусебе, се фарса. Јас го зборувам гега дијалектот. Ќе идеме ако сакаш во јужна Албанија на море, ем ќе уживаме, ем ќе видиш дека супер си се разбирам со "јужњаците". Има потешкотии при разбирање, поради тврдиот изговор на зборови од гегите, ама не е неразбирливо, како што некој ти кажал. Тоа друже, е вистинската разлика помеѓу гегите и тоските.
Е сега...за доказ дека Гегите/Тоските или како сакаш наречи ги постоеле на балканот и пред 17тиот век, имаш колку сакаш. Тргни од 16тиот век и албанските писатели од тоа доба...Марин Бечикеми, Газули, Артиоти. Во 15тиот век го имаш речникот на Вон Харф, патописец, кој собирал зборови од местата кои ги посетувал, и во неговиот речник убаво се запишани албански зборови, и од северна, и од јужна албанија, и уште таму се приметуваат дијалектите на меко и тврдо А, О, У во албанскиот јазик. Исто така во 15тиот век го имаме Пал Енѓули, Марин Барлети, Лек Матренга, Пјетр Буди, Франг Барди, Пјетр Богдани (доколку ги сакаш нивните дела како доказ, кажи, ќе ти ги набројам). Нивните дела се напишани на албански јазик. Истите дела се напишани со истите јазични "разлики". Односно, писателите кои живеле во северниот дел, применувале дијалектот гега, а јужњаците тоска. Делата постојат, само кој да ги чита. Да се вратиме еден век поназад...во 14тиот век, Тиватскиот епископ, Гуглием Адае, во неговото дело (не знам точно, но можам да проверам ако и тоа сакаш) пишува за албанскиот јазик дека бил карактеристичен, со латински букви (дека на балканскиот преовладувала кирилицата) а јазикот немал никаква спојка со латинскиот, што тој го сметал за чудна работа.

Да продолжам вака секој век уназад? Или доста ти се како факти?

Теоријата дека некој дошол од Кавказ, нека си постои, доказите исто така. Албанскиот народ постоел на Балканов. Доколку некој се доселил на балканов...друг муабет, албанците не биле тие.

И да, благословен да ви е Тито ваш што дозволи да останете тука.

Да да, благословен да е Тито. Тој и таквите пред него, се причина што во Турска моментално има 6 миљони албанци. Прашај ги турците за ова. Демирел сам си призна.

Едно


Сакаш да видиш и на Јутјуб албанци во Турција како живеат?



Него...види најинтересно, во Адана како едно мало девојченце пее на албански јазик...мајката...како го знае јазикот? Шоте Шоте во позадина...

Турски документарец е

Е така друже мој, Тито ни "дозволи" да живееме тука...

Ај сеа биди ми поздравен, и кажи ако нешто друго те јаде во врска со албанската историја.

 

[anaveno]

Теоријата дека некој дошол од Кавказ, нека си постои, доказите исто така. Албанскиот народ постоел на Балканов.

da be..samo if falat postari (ili pomladi?) grobovi od 17 vek..
a po nekoi arheo, genetski, lingvisticki, kulturen, pomorski, zemjodelski, pcelarski...falinki...

postoele zaedno so Leprikonite..
isti se dokazite..

 

[anaveno]

1. DISCUSSING ALBANIAN PROTOHISTORY

Speaking about the proto-history of Albanian, there are at least five distinct issues to be accounted for:

the position of Albanian within the IE family (to be determined by some kind of genetic typology)

the relations of Albanian to the IE "mother-language"

the relations of Illyrian to the IE "mother-language"

the place where Albanian is born as an independent language (Albanian ethnogenesis)

the relations of Albanian to Illyrian

I am afraid to say that, if most historians and archaeologists really subscribe to the Illyrian theory, linguists are divided. There is some support for the Thracian theory. One of the latest important thorough analysis of this problem, the one of Georgiev, puts Albanian in close typological relationship to a Thracian language: the Daco-Misian (Georgiev believed that Daco-Misian was entirely different from languages of the Thracian group). Georgiev hypothesis has been, however, more than once rejected.

Though unenthusiastic about the Thracian theory, Cabej has nevertheless tried to explain through Albanian some Thracian insciptions. He didn't exclude the relevance of a Thracian component in Albanian. Having had for teacher and scientific mentor the albanologist Norbert Jokl, Cabej seems to have believed that Thracian and Illyrian were quite similar in structure and even in lexicon.

The supporters of the Thracian theory bring forward some convincing linguistic evidence: the close relationship between Albanian and Romanian. It is generally believed that Romanian, developed from Latin on a Thracian (Daco-Misian) substrate.

What is a SUBSTRATE? It can be subsumed to this: when a people changes language, because of assimilation, his previous language becomes the SUBSTRATE of his newly acquired language. Romanian has a non-Latin substrate. Some authors speak of a non IE substrate for Albanian. There is, for example, a Celtic SUBSTRATE in French, but there is also, in this same language, a Germanic SUPERSTRATE (the very ethnonyme, French, is due to this SUPERSTRATE).

Nevertheless, some scholars, like G. Meyer, thought that Romanian had an Illyrian substrate. One thing seems very likely to be true: the substrate of Romanian is practically the same language as the "mother" of Albanian.

Another curious fact: according to some authors, similarities between Romanian and Albanian regard mainly the Tosk dialect. This linguistic evidence made Arshi Pipa say that he saw a Thracian component in Toskeria, while Ghegeria, according to him, was mostly Illyrian (of course, Pipa is no authority in this highly specialistic matter, and doesn't even pretend to; I mention his thesis here only as a curiosity).

The ethnic landscape of proto-historic south-western Balkans looks quite complex. There are Illyrians who represent the main population, there are evident traces of a Thracian tribe in the area of Shkoder, and there is also good evidence even for a Celtic presence (the Skordisk tribe, if I am not mistaken). Southern Albania was populated by Epirotic tribes, believed to have been ethnically related to Illyrians. There is also some evidence for an independent Macedonian language (though Katicic, an authority in this intricated matter, thinks it was closely related to Greek).

The most important evidence, however, is that of all these noble languages there is no convincing evidence -- like intelligible written texts or alike -- , and all that linguists can do, is weaving conjectures. Some of these conjectures are necessary, so that university chairs are full-time occupied, and academic world gets its proper funding.

Even Pelasgians represent an enigmatic entity. Scholars do not agree about their being IE or not. There is no doubt that Illyrians, when they settled in the southwestern Balkans, assimilated an indigenous population there. A mysterious inscription, conserved in a museum in Shkodra, presents striking similarities to Etruscan, at least as far as the alphabet used is concerned (and it is generally accepted that the Etruscs were not IE).

It might be possible that Pelasgians were an IE people who preceded the Illyrians in their descent to the Balkans. This doesn't exclude their mixing with a non IE population (in this case, we could speak of a non IE substrate in Pelasgian, and a Pelasgian substrate [with non IE elements] in Illyrian).

It is presumed, by the very IE genetic theory, that three thousand years ago, the differences between IE languages were not so deep as today. The problem doesn't concern, however, the explanation of differences between various Illyrian dialects (or languages), but rather the elements these linguistic entities had in common. Are these common elements sufficient to let us speak of an Illyrian family, or are they simply due to these languages all belonging to the same IE proto-family?

 

[anaveno]

2. ILLYRIAN SCIENCE

There is an Illyrian myth, with which Albanian culture has been flirting for at least 150 years, and as a myth it can't be questioned (for it has all the answers). There is also a very tentative Illyrian science, based mainly on archaeology, and on some data transmitted by Ancient Greek and Latin Historians.

Those who are ready to swear that Illyrians were ONE people, should have a look at the Messapic inscriptions, in Puglia. The Messapes were an Illyrian tribe, who had migrated to that area to escape from the Turkish invasion (certainly not, but they moved to the Italic peninsula somewhere between VII and V century B.C., though I have no exact reference at the moment).

These inscriptions, being totally alien to Albanian, show that the Illyrian question is extremely complicated, and that it isn't likely to be resolved, unless fundamental epigraphic discoveries are made.

If Albanian developed from a Southern Illyrian dialect, then one should reach the conclusion that Illyrian dialects were very dissimilar to one another.

Some linguists, by analyzing the only remnant of Balkanic Illyrian: the names, have concluded that there were several onomastic areas in the Balkans, and these areas probably correspond to different languages.

The tendency is, however, to consider the Illyrians as the common denominator of a group of different tribes, with no substantial links to one another. This is just a hypothesis, and it is very difficult that it can either be proven, or confuted.

The great Illyrologist Hans Krahe himself was no supporter of the Illyrian theory about the origin of Albanians. In his late years he came to understand that most of his paleolinguistic theories were generally wrong. Krahe started by finding Illyrian traces everywhere in Europe, but then it was made clear that all he had found were Indo-European traces -- and nobody had any doubt that Indo-European tribes had been in Europe for a long many years.

Anyone initiated in the mysteries of paleolinguistics should know that onomastic evidence is the weakest evidence to be used in drawing linguistic conclusions. All these are conjectures that can't be classified, and stand therefore outside of the domain of science, and well within the domain of ideology and myth.

 

[anaveno]

3. NAMES ARE OF NO HELP

Onomastics is of no great help in settling linguistic and ethnogenetic issues. Let's have a look at some important place names in Albanian territories, like Dajti, Shkodra, Durresi, Vlora, Burreli, Drini, Shkumbini, Tirana, etc. Are they Albanian? We can't say that, for there are no Albanian words that would explain them (as we explain, for example, Kruja with "krue" - fountain). Are they non-Albanian? Difficult to admit this either. We simply do not know. In one of his most important contributions to Albanian ethnogenesis, prof. Cabej proved that most of these names had been continuously passed over, -- at least from early antiquity -- from generation to generation, by Albanian speaking populations (he did it by comparing their current form, with the form that is found in antique sources, and by searching if their phonetic evolution, e.g. from Durracchion to Durres, had followed the known phonetic patterns of Albanian historical evolution). But he didn't prove that they derived from Albanian (or proto-Albanian words). We also know a lot of Illyrian place names, transmitted to us by ancient historians and geographers. Some of these names have been tentatively explained through comparison with Albanian words, like Dardania (dardhe "pear") and Dalmatia (dele, delme "sheep"). This might well be true, but seems pathetic in front of the fact that we can't explain through Albanian words the place names we currently use, let alone the Illyrian ones. So what?

Let's take another example, which I hope will be of some help in understanding my point. Place names in Italian peninsula are generally well studied, and most of them successfully ethymologized. Among the Italian city names, only few of them are of certain Latin origin: Bologna, Firenze, Pescara, Udine, Torino. Even Roma is Etruscan in origin (the name), and also Etruscan are Mantova, Perugia and Parma. Greek names are abundant in the south: Napoli, Palermo, Ancona, Siracusa, Agrigento, Bari, Ancona, Cagliari, while Celtic names dominate in the north: Milano, Cremona, Modena, Verona, Lucca. Brindisi and Taranto in the south, and Trieste in the nort-east, are believed to be Illyrian.

What does this mean? Does it mean that the Latin tribes were only a minority in the peninsula and later had their demographic explosion thanks to the imposition of their military power? Not necessarily, but it seems highly probable that the Latin civilization, at its outburst, found these cities already in place.

Well, this was only an analogy. According to this analogy, the Albanian onomastic puzzle should be resolved by assuming that the Illyrians (or whoever) found some of their place names already in use, when they descended to the Balkans. Therefore, Illyrian onomastics CANNOT be of great help in shedding light in the mysteries of Illyrian, even if we take it for granted that Albanian descends from Illyrian, because we do NOT know, first of all, that the onomastic material in our possession really belongs to the Illyrian linguistic heritage.

Let's move up in time, and reach the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages the Albanians were somewhere there, though their first mention is in the 11th century (or 12th, I'm not sure). Where were they living? Where are the places they have named after their common words (technically called appellatives)? The south is full -- literally full -- of Slavic place names, especially the areas of Vlora, Tepelena, Skrapar, Mallakaster, Gramsh, Cermenike, Moker, Korce, Erseke. Does this mean that there were Slavs there, as the resident population, while the Albanians were wandering shepherds, as has been more than once -- erroneously -- alleged? Certainly not.

Then? Then the fault is with the method. As a source, onomastics can't be reliable, it will inevitably lead to absurd conclusions. The eminent German historian, Stadtmueller, in a research published before WW2, used these onomastic sources, along with the method of exclusion, to reach the conclusion that the Albanian people was born as a people in the area of Mati (more or less), which was clean of foreign onomastic interference. The current Albanian territories were explained, therefore, as the result of a demographic explosion (Albanians in search of Lebensraum). His method was certainly ingenious, but his sources, place names, were certainly shaky. Jokli and Cabej didn't think much of this theory. This is, summarily, what makes me believe that onomastics will never provide decisive clues for understanding Albanians' proto-history.

 

[anaveno]

4. ILLYRIAN MEMORY

My personal opinion is that the issue of Albanians descending or not from Illyrians doesn't deserve the interest it has traditionally aroused. There is absolutely NO Illyrian cultural legacy among Albanians today. In a certain sense, Illyrians (with their less fortunate fellows, the Pelasgians) are a pure creation of Albanian romanticism.

Nobody has ever put into discussion the fact that Albanians DO HAVE an origin (probably Illyrian), but there is NO MEMORY of the Illyrian past in the Albanian cultural heritage. Centuries of Turkish role didn't destroy our memory of being Albanians (but we DID lose the names "Arber" and "Arberi", and started calling ourselves "shqiptare", and the country "Shqiperi"). The descendants of Illyrians in the Middle Ages, however, DIDN'T KNOW Illyrians were closely related to them. Even the ideological leaders of Rilindja showed scarse interest in Illyrians, obsessed as they were with the Pelasgian myth.

Nobody is doubting that Albanians might have inherited a number of costumes and customs from Illyrians, rather than their pertinency to the discussion. My point is that there is NO MEMORY of this Illyrian past in the Albanian cultural heritage. Nobody has ever put into discussion the fact that the Albanians DO have an origin (probably Illyrian).

I don't see any kind of contradicting here. Illyrians were discovered to have been (probably) our ancestors in the 19th century. Up to that date hardly any Albanian had ever heard about this. (Moreover, the Illyrian heritage was claimed for some times by Croatians and Slovenes, when these peoples were going through their own period of awakening. Before the advent of comparative linguistics, ideas about the origin of peoples and languages were generally confuse.) That's precisely what I mean with a memory lost. We knew we were Albanians, but we didn't knew who were our ancestors in antiquity. As a PEOPLE, we knew about Scanderbeg, but not about Bardylis.

 

[anaveno]

5. MYTHS OF NATION AND RACE

The Illyrian myth survives in those Albanian intellectuals who believe that they have to take part in elaborating the Nation's culutral conscience. I consider this belief as part of a noble attitude in general, though I do not think this is the only right way to creating and maintaining the cultural conscience of a Nation. The average Albanian doesn't care of the Illyrian hypothesis. This is regrettable, because it is due not to a recent enlightenment, but simply to a lack of cultural conscience.

Speaking of Albanian race in the end of the 20th century is like trying to sell for true a fairy tale. Those authors who described an Albanian race were entirely involved in the paradigm dominating the romantic age of anthropological sciences. That paradigm nowadays is obsolete. There is no Albanian race, and I am very sceptical about an Illyrian race as well. Very tentatively we might speak of an Indo-European race, but in this case the concept is culturally contaminated as well.

Of course, people living together for a long period of time, and relatively free of cross-breeding interferences, will develop some characteristic physical traits, according to known genetic laws.

This is not the case with Albanians, however.

Anyway, if the notion of an Albanian race is acceptable, as far as its being just a popular myth is concerned, as a cultural construction, it sounds repelling.

Obviously today the myth of race can only be used obnoxiously.

Even the very idea of a Nation is a myth or, if you want, a form of religion. It is not up to us Albanians to start debunking it, in a time when nationalist propaganda in Albania is the WEAKEST in the Balkans. I should say that nationalism, in its negative form (hate towards other peoples and nations) has produced the most horrible tragedies in the history of mankind (most horrible even than those produced by religious fanatism). Albanian national myth is a defensive myth, and fully justifiable. It has created something we all belong: Albania, as an idea and an inspiration. In a word: it is not a myth that deserves to be debunked. It can serve as a base for building a better society in the country. It can serve as a basis for freeing millions of Albanians outside Albania from cultural slavery. I am not one of those who want to decontextualize Albanian nationalism, and prepare the terrain for destroying it. This national myth of Albania, however, should not look towards the past (also because our past, let us say it, is not so glorious as some would like to make it appear). We have to be proud not for what our (often mythic) ancestors have done, but for what WE are doing NOW, in order to prepare a better FUTURE for the next Albanian generations.

The Albanian nation (intended as the totality of all Albanians) need myths, for it is based on myths -- as any other nation. The Albanian culture needs myths, for it won't function without myths. When I take part in the spiritual life of my nation, I have to speak a language of myths, otherwise my discourse won't be understood. This means that I -- and I think a lot of other Albanians as well, for there's nothing special in this attitude of mine -- understand myth as a form of language. There are, then, those, who assign a reality to myth. The communication between the two parts is fortunately still possible. The same is true for other people as well. There national myths are more elaborated, culturalized, assimilated. These myths become particularily active when there is a contact between two peoples (be it disguised as a contact between two individuals). This contact takes place mostly on a mythic dimension. But it TAKES place, however. When I speak for the first time with a nationalist foreigner, Scanderbeg, and Albanian Muslims, and Ali Pasha Tepelena, and the Ismails Qemali e Kadare, and Ahmet Zogu, not to mention Enver Hoxha e Sali Berisha, are there with me. I can't get rid of them, without getting rid of my being Albanian.

http://members.aol.com/Plaku/illyrian.htm

 

[rymz]

Не знам по кој пат те прашувам...знаеш англиски?? Со текстов само се побиваш сама себеси

 

[anaveno]

Не знам по кој пат те прашувам...знаеш англиски?? Со текстов само се побиваш сама себеси

Da be.

kako znaes angliski?..:nesum:

Zali se na urednikot.

Ne pobivam, nabivam!

 

[rymz]

Колку што јас знам англиски, и колку што прочитав во твојот пост. Ти се побиваш сама себеси. Изгледа некој од нас двајца не знае англиски...само кој е прашањето?