Albanian and the Indo-European Urheimat

ZEUS10 wrote:


akull-----ice----------derives from aqu(water)(an obsolete root)
etc

Although I can't find a consensus among scholars, akull coming from PIE *akWa is very likely to me.

ZEUS10 wrote:

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:Hittite wātar----means water(how do you know that???)
Tocharian wär-means water (how do you know this)

I know this because much of these languages have been translated and you can find the information in many academic books. There is plenty of academic material available.

I am aware of that, but how do you know it has been translated correctly?

for example this is a tablet written in Tocharian:

https://2img.net/h/oi43.tinypic.com/1znx4t3.jpg

Linguists could translate Tocharian due to bilingual texts (Tocharian and Sanskrit) and also the Tocharian works were essentially translations themselves of works which were already in Sanskrit. This is how linguists were able to translate Tocharian.

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:


akull-----ice----------derives from aqu(water)(an obsolete root)
etc

Although I can't find a consensus among scholars, akull coming from PIE *akWa is very likely to me.

For my opinion akull(alb) and aqua (latin&Italian) come from Albanian verb kulloj=drain, drip, seep, ooze---meaning:flow.

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:Hittite wātar----means water(how do you know that???)
Tocharian wär-means water (how do you know this)

I know this because much of these languages have been translated and you can find the information in many academic books. There is plenty of academic material available.

I am aware of that, but how do you know it has been translated correctly?

for example this is a tablet written in Tocharian:

https://2img.net/h/oi43.tinypic.com/1znx4t3.jpg

Linguists could translate Tocharian due to bilingual texts (Tocharian and Sanskrit) and also the Tocharian works were essentially translations themselves of works which were already in Sanskrit. This is how linguists were able to translate Tocharian.

I am not sure this translation is accurate although we have good knowledge for the Sanskrit
language.
http://www.wordgumbo.com/ie/cmp/toch.htm

ZEUS10 wrote:

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:


akull-----ice----------derives from aqu(water)(an obsolete root)
etc

Although I can't find a consensus among scholars, akull coming from PIE *akWa is very likely to me.

For my opinion akull(alb) and aqua (latin&Italian) comes from Albanian verb kulloj=drain, drip, seep, ooze---meaning:flow.

The Latin form aqua can not come from the Albanian akull. If Latin borrowed a form like akull, it would be something like *acullus (LOL) in Latin. Why would the Latin speakers borrow the word for water from Illyrian? I can't think of an IE language which has borrowed the term water off the top of my head actually... The full cognate list for the *akWa root include: Hittite akwanzi, Luwian ahw, Gothic ahwa, Welsh aig. The Illyrian (Proto-Albanian) form would have been akwa and had a semantic shift to ice. Also consider the Latin word aquilō meaning north wind.

Latin cannot come from Albanian. That is not possible. Again, just because Albanian may be spoken in the PIE Urheimat, that does not mean Latin came from Albanian. Italian is spoken in the Italic Urheimat, but Spanish does not come from Italian.

ZEUS10 wrote:
I am not sure this translation is accurate although we have good knowledge for the Sanskrit
language.
http://www.wordgumbo.com/ie/cmp/toch.htm

The translations of what we know of Tocharian are very accurate. We know a lot more of Tocharian than we do of the Anatolian IE languages. In any event, what we should be discussing and theorizing about are how the IE branches relate to each other and the IE Urheimat. These are topics open for discussion. We already know the well defined branches of IE, what we don't know is exactly how they relate. There is way too much discussion of Greek here and we need to discuss more about Albanian. For example, we should look at so called Latin borrowings like qen, peshk, and qind, and discuss why these are native Albanian words and not Latin loans. We should look at mysterious Albanian words of unknown etymology and try to find actual cognates with other IE languages or perhaps loans/loaned words from other language groups.

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:


akull-----ice----------derives from aqu(water)(an obsolete root)
etc

Although I can't find a consensus among scholars, akull coming from PIE *akWa is very likely to me.

For my opinion akull(alb) and aqua (latin&Italian) comes from Albanian verb kulloj=drain, drip, seep, ooze---meaning:flow.

The Latin form aqua can not come from the Albanian akull. If Latin borrowed a form like akull, it would be something like *acullus (LOL) in Latin. Why would the Latin speakers borrow the word for water from Illyrian? I can't think of an IE language which has borrowed the term water off the top of my head actually... The full cognate list for the *akWa root include: Hittite akwanzi, Luwian ahw, Gothic ahwa, Welsh aig. The Illyrian (Proto-Albanian) form would have been akwa and had a semantic shift to ice. Also consider the Latin word aquilō meaning north wind.

Latin cannot come from Albanian. That is not possible. Again, just because Albanian may be spoken in the PIE Urheimat, that does not mean Latin came from Albanian. Italian is spoken in the Italic Urheimat, but Spanish does not come from Italian.

Apperantly you dont read what I writte, I never said Latin aqua comes from Albanian akull, I said both akull and aqua come from Alb kulloj:

ZEUS10 wrote:
For my opinion akull(alb) and aqua (latin&Italian) come from Albanian verb kulloj =drain, drip, seep, ooze---meaning:flow.

ZEUS10 wrote:

Apperantly you dont read what I writte, I never said Latin aqua comes from Albanian akull, I said both akull and aqua come from Alb kulloj:

The Latin word aqua does not come from Albanian, neither akull nor kulloj. The Latin word aqua is directly inherited from PIE.

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:
I am not sure this translation is accurate although we have good knowledge for the Sanskrit
language.
http://www.wordgumbo.com/ie/cmp/toch.htm

The translations of what we know of Tocharian are very accurate. We know a lot more of Tocharian than we do of the Anatolian IE languages. In any event, what we should be discussing and theorizing about are how the IE branches relate to each other and the IE Urheimat. These are topics open for discussion. We already know the well defined branches of IE, what we don't know is exactly how they relate. There is way too much discussion of Greek here and we need to discuss more about Albanian. For example, we should look at so called Latin borrowings like qen, peshk, and qind, and discuss why these are native Albanian words and not Latin loans. We should look at mysterious Albanian words of unknown etymology and try to find actual cognates with other IE languages or perhaps loans/loaned words from other language groups.

I think I would rather be looking at the already known ancient languages like Greek and Latin to find the key for the old Albanian language, than to be lost in scholastic-empiric rules of the PIE language.

Sykalter wrote: The Latin word aqua is directly inherited from PIE.

which is an assumption.....and the PIE is a hypothetic reconstructed language.

ZEUS10 wrote:

I think I would rather be looking at the already known ancient languages like Greek and Latin to find the key for old Albanian language, than to be lost in scholastic-empiric rules of the PIE language.

To properly compare Albanian with either Greek or Latin, you first have to look at every member of Indo-European such as Baltic, Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Tocharian, Anatolian, Armenian, and Celtic. There is no use to just look at Albanian, Greek, and Latin. The only way you get the complete picture and to know the cognates, is to compare all of these branches. Luckily of the past one hundred years, linguists have done most of the work for us. We know which words these branches shares as cognates and which are borrowed. Greek, Latin, and Albanian are all in different branches of Indo-European and have varied sound changes.

If you want to deconstruct Albanian, you first have to divide its lexicon by:
1. Inherited vocabulary from the Proto-languages
2. Interdialect borrowings
3. Early loans from non-IE languages
4. Early loans from IE languages
5. Late loans from IE languages
6. Late loans from non-IE languages
7. Unique forms

ZEUS10 wrote:

Sykalter wrote: The Latin word aqua is directly inherited from PIE.

which is an assumption.....and the PIE is a hypothetic reconstructed language.

The only hypothetic reconstruction accepted by all linguists. Anything else would be considered wacky and fringe. You won't find one linguist with any credibility who denies that Indo-European is a valid linguistic family, not one. People don't have to believe the Earth revolves around the Sun if they don't want to...

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:

I think I would rather be looking at the already known ancient languages like Greek and Latin to find the key for old Albanian language, than to be lost in scholastic-empiric rules of the PIE language.

To properly compare Albanian with either Greek or Latin, you first have to look at every member of Indo-European such as Baltic, Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Tocharian, Anatolian, Armenian, and Celtic. There is no use to just look at Albanian, Greek, and Latin. The only way you get the complete picture and to know the cognates, is to compare all of these branches. Luckily of the past one hundred years, linguists have done most of the work for us. We know which words these branches shares as cognates and which are borrowed. Greek, Latin, and Albanian are all in different branches of Indo-European and have varied sound changes.

If you want to deconstruct Albanian, you first have to divide its lexicon by:
1. Inherited vocabulary from the Proto-languages
2. Interdialect borrowings
3. Early loans from non-IE languages
4. Early loans from IE languages
5. Late loans from IE languages
6. Late loans from non-IE languages
7. Unique forms

1.This is a procedure followed at school but doesnt work.
2. I dont agree with PIE language(rules and reconstruction)
3. I hardly can find any loan in Albanian from Slavic, Germanic, Baltic, Tocharian and Anatolian, not at all in the basic words.

ZEUS10 wrote:

1.This is a procedure followed at school but doesnt work.
2. I dont agree with PIE language(rules and reconstruction)
3. I hardly can find any loan in Albanian from Slavic, Germanic, Baltic, Tocharian and Anatolian, not at all in the basic words.

If you dont' agree with PIE, then we have nothing more to discuss. I simply can't discuss anything of linguistics with anyone who doesn't either know or follow basic tenants of linguistic theory. If you don't follow or accept widely and universally accepted academic theories on linguistics and language families, then why have any discussion? We will simply be talking past each other and be going in circles forever. If you don't use an academic framework, then any discussion you have won't have any validity. In any argument or discussion, you must use sources which can back your argument and they must be from qualified sources.

Just because you may not personally agree with the sound laws or reconstruction of PIE, you are not a qualified authority to deny the validity of PIE. If you do deny the validity, then you better have very high quality academic sources to back your claim. If you don't have academic peer reviewed material to back your claim, then you really shouldn't discuss or make your opinion known or you come across as ignorant.

Without these frameworks, I can just make up claims too. I can claim that actually German is and Elf language from the Elves from Neptune settled Earth 43,000 years ago. While Greek is actually an Australian language brought by the Aborigines who settled Athens in 13,000 BC when a tornado brought them there after they had a picnic earlier that afternoon. Without using actual well accepted academic models, this is how your arguments look to a linguist.

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:

1.This is a procedure followed at school but doesnt work.
2. I dont agree with PIE language(rules and reconstruction)
3. I hardly can find any loan in Albanian from Slavic, Germanic, Baltic, Tocharian and Anatolian, not at all in the basic words.

If you dont' agree with PIE, then we have nothing more to discuss. I simply can't discuss anything of linguistics with anyone who doesn't either know or follow basic tenants of linguistic theory. If you don't follow or accept widely and universally accepted academic theories on linguistics and language families, then why have any discussion? We will simply be talking past each other and be going in circles forever. If you don't use an academic framework, then any discussion you have won't have any validity. In any argument or discussion, you must use sources which can back your argument and they must be from qualified sources.

Just because you may not personally agree with the sound laws or reconstruction of PIE, you are not a qualified authority to deny the validity of PIE. If you do deny the validity, then you better have very high quality academic sources to back your claim. If you don't have academic peer reviewed material to back your claim, then you really shouldn't discuss or make your opinion known or you come across as ignorant.

Without these frameworks, I can just make up claims too. I can claim that actually German is and Elf language from the Elves from Neptune settled Earth 43,000 years ago. While Greek is actually an Australian language brought by the Aborigines who settled Athens in 13,000 BC when a tornado brought them there after they had a picnic earlier that afternoon. Without using actual well accepted academic models, this is how your arguments look to a linguist.

I have studied every single small detail of the PIE theory but it doesnt give solution, it makes the problem even more difficult. The PIE theory has been created to make equal important slavic, germanic, latin & greek etc with real historic-natural languages like Albanian. The PIE theory(not entirely though) is against historic truth. A political agenda was behind it. I could start reconsidering PIE as a valid tool when some non-empiric formula is being used.

ZEUS10 wrote:

I have studied every single small detail of the PIE theory but it doesnt give solution, it makes the problem even more difficult. The PIE theory has been created to make equal important slavic, germanic, latin & greek etc with real historic-natural languages like Albanian. The PIE theory(not entirely though) is against historic truth. A political agenda was behind it. I could start reconsidering PIE as a valid tool when some non-empiric formula is being used.

Every branch of Indo-European is important to know the complete picture. Every member of Indo-European has expanded our knowledge and with the discovery of the Anatolian languages, it confirmed the laryngeal theory.

How is the PIE theory against historic truth? What is this political agenda? Please explain further please.