11-09-2023, 10:35 AM
Kortlandt seems to be alone with his view. Much more recent source: Hyllested & Joseph 2022: Albanian.
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/...ph-v03.pdf
“Ultimately, although no consensus prevails as to the exact classification of Albanian, we argue here that lexical and morphological isoglosses point to a Greek-Albanian subgroup, a grouping suggested by computational phylogenetic methodology in Chang et al. 2015 (see Section 13.5.2; note also Holm 2011).”
Between Albanian and Balto-Slavic, the only mentioned apparently shared sound change is Winter’s Law, and even that may not be real: “although this may alternatively reflect compensatory lengthening with the loss of the stop (Hyllested 2013).” Albanian changes are not connected to the Ruki-rule.
There are shared words between Albanian and Balto-Slavic, but more between only Albanian and one BS branch.
Parastais:
At some point the Balto-Slavic language surely was involved. But you cannot see from DNA or material remains, when and from where the language arrived. As I said, language does not necessarily follow the majority genetic root.
I do not deny that Balto-Slavic language may have been present in the Dnieper Region during the 2nd millennium BCE, because that is after the Fatyanovo Culture. In the Upper Dnieper Region, the Trzciniec Circle even followed Fatyanovo. Certainly there must be some traits of continuity there.
Parastais:
Actually, the supporters of continuity theories assumed that the Baltic loanwords were brought to Finland by the Corded Ware people. Anyway, modern views are not grounded on outdated views but purely on linguistic evidence: (1) shared innovations between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, and (2) traces of different early Balto-Slavic language stages in the more eastern regions than can be assumed if we look only the extant languages.
Parastais:
Para-Slavic is that late, but Archaic Balto-Slavic is earlier. And Kallio presents Proto-Balto-Slavic loanwords in West Uralic, but unfortunately he has not yet published his work.
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/...ph-v03.pdf
“Ultimately, although no consensus prevails as to the exact classification of Albanian, we argue here that lexical and morphological isoglosses point to a Greek-Albanian subgroup, a grouping suggested by computational phylogenetic methodology in Chang et al. 2015 (see Section 13.5.2; note also Holm 2011).”
Between Albanian and Balto-Slavic, the only mentioned apparently shared sound change is Winter’s Law, and even that may not be real: “although this may alternatively reflect compensatory lengthening with the loss of the stop (Hyllested 2013).” Albanian changes are not connected to the Ruki-rule.
There are shared words between Albanian and Balto-Slavic, but more between only Albanian and one BS branch.
Parastais:
Quote:“If you got a package of Trzciniets type of ceramics + Y line under R1a-Z280 + Balto-Slavic autosomal drift, then according to Occam razor Balto-Slavic tongue could be added to that package. Unless there is a strong linguistic counterargument which I had not seen. Like I wrote elsewhere, for example, Kallio has no problems stating that Trzciniets-Komarovo-Sosnitsa complex was likely Balto-Slavic.”
At some point the Balto-Slavic language surely was involved. But you cannot see from DNA or material remains, when and from where the language arrived. As I said, language does not necessarily follow the majority genetic root.
I do not deny that Balto-Slavic language may have been present in the Dnieper Region during the 2nd millennium BCE, because that is after the Fatyanovo Culture. In the Upper Dnieper Region, the Trzciniec Circle even followed Fatyanovo. Certainly there must be some traits of continuity there.
Parastais:
Quote:“Linguistic arguments for BaltoSlavic in Fatyanovo are weak. The idea of BS Fatyanovo comes from same age when Finnic/Uralic Comb Ceramic was proposed and Fatyanovo vs Comb Ceramic was seen as Baltic-Finnic interactions. It was based mainly on (false) idea of archeological continuity from F to Baltic forest cultures (no more pursued by archeologysts) and on Baltic hydronyms map which overlapped (not perfectly) to previous Fatyanovo culture.”
Actually, the supporters of continuity theories assumed that the Baltic loanwords were brought to Finland by the Corded Ware people. Anyway, modern views are not grounded on outdated views but purely on linguistic evidence: (1) shared innovations between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, and (2) traces of different early Balto-Slavic language stages in the more eastern regions than can be assumed if we look only the extant languages.
Parastais:
Quote:“Actually since you yourself wrote on BS loanwords in Dialectal West Uralic, then it does not contradict idea that temporarily BS arrived into Russian forests at/around DWU, which if I am not mistaken is roughly when first TCC pioneers arrived into Russian forests.”
Para-Slavic is that late, but Archaic Balto-Slavic is earlier. And Kallio presents Proto-Balto-Slavic loanwords in West Uralic, but unfortunately he has not yet published his work.
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)