Spored Mario Alinei, moze da se pretpostavi deka Slovenite se vsusnost Trakijci...
http://www.continuitas.org/texts/alinei_interdisciplinary.pdf
Alinei stava hipoteza deka Trakijcite navodno formirale Slovenska grupa ...
Mario Alinei isto taka veli deka migracijata na Slovenite e ''totalno absurdna''...
Istotaka toj veli:
(2) The absence of any memory of the ‘arrival’ of the Slavs in the Slavic written or oral
record “may be an indication of their (and their ancestors!) original stay in Central
Oriental Europe in large numbers” (idem, 206).
Otsutnost na nekakva memorija za ''migriranje'' na Slovenite vo Slovenskite pisani i usmeni podatoci ''moze da bide indikacija na nivnoto (i nivnite predci) originalno ostanuvanje vo Centralna Evropa vo golem broj''.
(3) Both in the oldest, 12th century Russian chronicle (the so called “Narration of the
past times”) (Conte 1990, 9), and in the oral tradition represented by Russian byliny, the
permanence of Slavs on the Danube is remembered (Trubaev 1985, 204-5). “What
else, if not a memory of the old stay on the Danube, appears [...] in the old songs about
the Danube among the Eastern Slavs who, it should be remembered, never lived on the
Danube [...] during their written history and never took part in the Balcanic invasions of
the Early Middle Ages” (ibidem). More over, already B.A. Rybakov had maintained
that the history of Eastern Slavs began in the South (idem, 225). The Middle Dneper
area remains important, but “it is not excluded that in some previous period [...] [it] was
only a [peripheral] part of a greater and otherwise shaped territory”. This would be also
confirmed y the high percentage of anthropological Mediterranean types among Eastern
Slavs and Poles (idem, 225, n. 20). In fact, in the middle of the first millennium the
Right Bank Ukraine must already be a part of the periphery of the ancient Slavic area (idem, 242).
--- надополнето ---
Nekoi istrazuvaci priznale prisustvo na Sloveni vo Trakija i Ilirija poradi prisustvoto na Slavjanskite toponimi kako Vulka, Vrbas, Tsierna e Pathissus:
(4) Many scholars have anticipated Truba ev’s thesis: Budimir, supported by numerous
ex-Yugoslavian scholars, claimed a greater proximity of Ancient Slavs to the Balkanic
region than traditionally thought; Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the
Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia
and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era; and both Niederle and Šafárik
considered as Slavic terms like Vulka, Vrbas, Tsierna e Pathissus (s. further) (idem,
223, 227, 229).
--- надополнето ---
Slavo Ilirskiot isoglos:
(7) Truba ev then underlines the importance of the contacts between common Slavic
and the different IE linguistic groups, and of the respective isoglosses (often, however,
without being able to exploit them owing to the traditional chronology!):
(a) The Slavo-Latin isoglosses, appearing in the social sphere (Lat. hospes ~ Slav.
*gospod, Lat. favere ~ Slav. *gov ti), in the construction terminology (Lat. struere ~
Slav. *strojiti), in that of landscape (Lat. paludes ~ Slav. *pola voda); of agriculture
(Lat. pomum < *po-emom ~ Slav. *pojmo (Russ. pojmo ‘handful’) (idem, 216. And see
also 217: grn , kladivo, molty). Within the PCT these isoglosses can be dated, at the
latest, to the beginning of Neolithic, when the contacts between the ‘Italid’ culture of
the Cardial/Impresso Ware on the Adriatic Eastern coast and the South Slavic Star evo
culture were certainly very close.
(b) The Slavo-Illyrian isoglosses (Doksy, Czech place name, Daksa, Adriatic island, and
Hesichius’ gloss: Epirotic dáksa; Dukla, mountain pass in the Carpatians, Duklja in
Montenegro, Doklea (Ptolemy); Licicaviki, Polish tribal name, to be compared to Illyr.
*Liccavici (Illyr. anthroponym Liccavus, Liccavius) and Southern Slavic place name
Lika (Truba ev 1985, 217-8). These isoglosses can be better explained in the light of the
PCT, as from this vantage point
the Illyrians were not only a people contiguous to the Slavs, but , later, they also formed an elite group that dominated a part of the Southern
Slavic territory for a period.
(c) Slavo-Iranian contacts, which, as we have seen, according to Truba ev should not
precede the middle of the 1st millennium (idem, 241).
(8) Criticizing the excessive restriction of the earliest Slavic area Truba ev finally
recalls Brückner’s humorous warning: “Don’t do to anybody what would not please
you. The German scholars would love to drown all the Slavs in the Pripet swamps, and
the Slavic scholars all the Germans in the Dollart […] – a quite pointless endeavour:
there would not be enough room for them; better drop the matter and don’t spare God’s
light for either of them” (idem, 206).
Mislam deka ovie tekstovi treba da se prevedat...Aj da vidime sto ke recat Pan Slavistite posle ova
... deka Ilirite ne bile samo granicni luge, no podocna tie formirale elitna grupa koja dominirase na del od Juzno Slovenskata teritorija...
The Slavic postglacial area would then form a kind of triangle, the Southern corner
of which
would correspond to Macedonia, the western frontier of which would pass
along the Italid Dalmatia, and delimit the rest of ex-Yugoslavia, Hungary, ex-
Czechoslovakia, and Southern Poland, and the Eastern frontier of which would delimit
Bulgaria, Romania, Western Ukraine, Belorussia and parts of Middle Russia.
Za navodnoto Slavjansko poteklo na Trakijcite:
A final remark: Herodotus, as is known, describes the Thracians as the most
numerous people after the Indians. Mallory comments that it is a “sad irony” they “have
left no modern descendant of their language” (Mallory 1989, 72). But is it really so?
First of all, if it is hard to admit that a numerous people might completely extinguish, it
is even less likely that this pre-existing people would have left no traces in the
archaeological record. And since, as we have seen, the demographic explosion of the
Slavs must be placed in Neolithic, we could then advance the hypothesis
that Thracians
was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, owing to the fact the Thracians were
one of the most powerful and representative elites of Slavic speaking Eastern Europe,
seen with Herodotus’ inevitably colonialist eyes. In a first approximation, then, the
Thracians would appear to be a Southern Slavic geo-variational group, out of which
came a Bronze age elite, first dominating then extinguished.
This hypothesis could be further developed and refined in the light of the results
of research on the Thracian language which, with the caution due to the scarcity of
materials, can be so summarized:
(1) Thracian is an IE satem language, like Baltic and Slavic;
(2) as discovered by Truba ev (see above), Thracian place names show a surprising
similarity with the Baltic ones;
(3) in some cases, however, Thracian affinities seem stronger with Slavic: the Thr.
place-name suffix -dizos e -diza, for example, to which the meaning of ‘fortress’ has
been attributed on the basis of the comparison with Gr. tekhos ‘wall’ (IEW 244), has a
much closer counterpart in the metathetic forms of OSl. ziždo, zydati ‘to build’ zyd,
zid ‘wall’, than in the Baltic ones (also methatetic), meaning ‘to form’. And the
vocalism of the Thr. river name Strymn and place name Strym seems closer to Pol.
strumie ‘brook’ and OSlav. struja ‘stream’ than to Latv stràume ‘stream’ (IEW 1003).
The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of
Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern
Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts (following the geolinguistic
well-known rule, according to which the center innovates, and the periphery preserves).
Mojot prv dolg post
Aj da vidime sto ke recat sosedive na ova
