Baltic languages: a short question.

[Aspar]

Well, I specifically meant the Roman Balkans, so north of the Danube is out. But even the parts north of the Lower Danube had newly been invaded by the Slavs during the 6th century AD.

Duridanov found little connection between Slavic and Thracian compared to what he found between Baltic and Thracian. That cannot just be due to the archaic nature of Thracian and Baltic, there seems to be a closer connection between Baltic and Thracian.

Well, let's say that it's as you say, although your point will have better weight if you prove how the archaism won't play a part in the similarities among the languages of a certain family language group.
And Thracian was certainly a part of the Balto-Slavic family group at one point in history.



So, if the Slavic and the Baltic languages split off around LBA-EIA, then the Thracian and the Baltic would have had split off at a later date.

Still, lot more connected with the Slavic language group than with any other Balkan language group.

[anglesqueville]

Do you have a link to that? That's so intresting.

Only if you're courageous, and can read German: http://eprints.nbu.bg/805/1/ID_Thrak...udien_1969.pdf . (

[davit]

Only if you're courageous, and can read German: http://eprints.nbu.bg/805/1/ID_Thrak...udien_1969.pdf . (

Not sure about the first part but I actually can read German. Thanks!

[DgidguBidgu]

I do not associate the Slavic languages with the old Balkan languages, you do. It is not my problem.

This is not just my opinion but it is scientifically proven.
On the other hand, attempts to connect the Balts with Thrace cannot happen.
Balts are closer to ethnic groups that do not speak Slavic languages. How do you explain that?
Simple. It's just that their language has been changed.
The problem is not mine because I am 100% sure, and without doubts claiming whole that.

[Onur Dincer]

Well, let's say that it's as you say, although your point will have better weight if you prove how the archaism won't play a part in the similarities among the languages of a certain family language group.
And Thracian was certainly a part of the Balto-Slavic family group at one point in history.



So, if the Slavic and the Baltic languages split off around LBA-EIA, then the Thracian and the Baltic would have had split off at a later date.

Still, lot more connected with the Slavic language group than with any other Balkan language group.

Let's turn to Duridanov and focus on numbers:

Of about 200 reconstructed Thracian words[14] by Duridanov, most cognates (138) appear in the Baltic languages, mostly in Lithuanian, followed by Germanic (61), Indo-Aryan (41), Greek (36), Bulgarian (23), Latin (10) and Albanian (8).

Duridanov finds less cognates between Thracian and Slavic than between Thracian and many non-Balto-Slavic languages. This cannot be explained just by the archaism of Baltic and Thracian with respect to Slavic. Slavic is not particularly non-archaic in its vocabulary. Bulgarian, for instance, has about 80% of its vocabulary derived from Slavic Bulgarian roots and a very large percentage of its loanwords are from Russian, another Slavic language.

[anglesqueville]

Not sure about the first part but I actually can read German. Thanks!

From the conclusion:

Die angeführten Gleichungen sprechen überraschenderweise für besonders enge Verbindungen des Dakischen und Thrakischen mit dem Baltischen. (...). Diese Angaben lassen keinenfalls auf eine enge Vervandschaft des Dakischen bzw. Thrakischen mit dem Slawischen schliessen ...

[DgidguBidgu]

Well, let's say that it's as you say, although your point will have better weight if you prove how the archaism won't play a part in the similarities among the languages of a certain family language group.
And Thracian was certainly a part of the Balto-Slavic family group at one point in history.



So, if the Slavic and the Baltic languages split off around LBA-EIA, then the Thracian and the Baltic would have had split off at a later date.

Still, lot more connected with the Slavic language group than with any other Balkan language group.

If there is any Thracian connection, why don't they directly compare the Baltic, why is it always placed in a group with the Slavic?
When did Baltic get accreditation to be the leading one in the group? Never saw such a claim in scientific literature.
I guess it doesn't come from the name of the language they speak, but that is because is spoken by Balts. The Baltic is in the Slavic group which is the main historical source.

[Aspar]

Let's turn to Duridanov and focus on numbers:



Duridanov finds less cognates between Thracian and Slavic than between Thracian and many non-Balto-Slavic languages. This cannot be explained just by the archaism of Baltic and Thracian with respect to Slavic. Slavic is not particularly non-archaic in its vocabulary. Bulgarian, for instance, has about 80% of its vocabulary derived from Slavic Bulgarian roots and a very large percentage of its loanwords are from Russian, another Slavic language.

Buddy, you do realize that Bulgarian is a modern language that is diverged quite a lot from the proto-Slavic?
The better comparison would be with the proto-Slavic language for which we don't have many attestations but it's mostly reconstructed.
As a Slavic speaker I can understand many of the Thracian words including some of the most basic ones, such as the word for the Earth.
As I already explained, Baltic and the Slavic are languages diverging from the samo proto language.

And no, the Slavic languages certainly don't have more more archaisms than Baltic languages do. In fact, many words of Germanic and Iranic origin entered in the proto-Slavic language. However, there are still signs that the old, pre-superstrate words were retained. For example, the word for God in Serbo-Croat is Big/Бог which is a clear Iranic influence and absorption however there is a word, divna/divan; дивна/диван, which means beautiful in the sense of a God or Goddess which is a clear cognate with the Baltic language

[Onur Dincer]

This is not just my opinion but it is scientifically proven.
On the other hand, attempts to connect the Balts with Thrace cannot happen.
Balts are closer to ethnic groups that do not speak Slavic languages. How do you explain that?
Simple. It's just that their language has been changed.
The problem is not mine because I am 100% sure, and without doubts claiming whole that.

Genetic closeness is not so important, most populations are genetically closest to their geographical neighbors irrespective of the language family. But you already disregard the autosomal and Y-DNA connections of South Slavs to North Slavs and their northern origins and also the historical and archaeological data. Anyway, we have talked too much on this subject. Let's turn back to the main subject of the thread. No more talk on South Slavic origins. Otherwise I will close the thread for too much off topic.

[DgidguBidgu]

I specifically mean the Slavic toponyms (those with clear Slavic etymology), not the pre-Slavic ones, not the ones assimilated to Slavic languages from the pre-Slavic languages of the Balkans.

I meant the same. There is no new language attested.
I gave you the source connected Getae (which are clearly Thracian tribe ) with Slavs directly.
If you find something about new language on the Balkans I am interested too.