Classification of Thracian

The linguistic classification of the ancient Thracian lan-guage has long been a matter of contention and uncer-tainty, and there are widely varying hypotheses regard-ing its position among other Paleo-Balkan languages.[1][2]It is not contested, however, that the Thracian languageswere Indo-European languages which had acquired satemcharacteristics by the time they are attested.The longer Thracian inscriptions that are known (ifthey are indeed examples of Thracian sentences andphrases, which has not been determined) are not appar-ently close to Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, or any other knownlanguage,[3] and they have not been satisfactorily deci-phered aside from perhaps a few words.

1 Hypothesized links

1.1 Daco-Thracian

A Daco-Thracian grouping is widely held. The prob-lem of the classification of Thracian can thus be seen asthe wider problem of the classification of Daco-Thracianand its place within the Indo-European language fam-ily. However, some paleo-linguists are not convincedthat Dacian was a Northern branch of Thracian, and havesought to place Dacian on a separate branch rather thanbelieving that Dacian diverged from Thracian/or Thra-cian diverged from Dacian (or both diverging from animmediate common ancestor).In the 1950s, the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir I. Georgievpublished his work which argued that Dacian andAlbanian should be assigned to a language branch termedDaco-Mysian, Mysian (the term Mysian derives fromthe Daco-Thracian tribe known as the Moesi [4] ) be-ing thought of as a transitional language between Dacianand Thracian. Georgiev argued that Dacian and Thra-cian are different languages, with different phonetic sys-tems, his idea being supported by the placenames, whichend in -dava in Dacian and Mysian, as opposed to -para, in Thracian placenames.[5] A series of authors fa-vors Georgiev’s view. Nevertheless, Polome hesitates toaccept it.[6] Crossland considers this seems to be a di-vergence of a Thraco-Dacian language into northern andsouthern groups of dialects, not as different as to rank asseparate languages .[7]

1.2 Thraco-Illyrian

Thraco-Illyrian is a hypothesis that the Thraco-Dacianand Illyrian languages comprise a distinct branch ofIndo-European. Thraco-Illyrian is also used as a termmerely implying a Thracian-Illyrian interference, mixtureor sprachbund, or as a shorthand way of saying that itis not determined whether a subject is to be consideredas pertaining to Thracian or Illyrian. Downgraded to ageo-linguistic concept, these languages are referred to asPaleo-Balkan.The rivers Vardar and Morava are generally taken as therough line of demarcation between the Illyrian sphereon the west and Thracian on the east.[8] There is, how-ever, much interference in the area between Illyrian andThracian, with Thracian groups inhabiting Illyrian lands(the Thracian Bryges for example) and Illyrian groupsoverlapping into the Thracian zone (the Dardani[9] seemto be a Thraco-Illyrian mix; Wilkes, 1992 et al.). Itappears that Thracian and Illyrian do not have a clear-cut frontier.[10] Similarities found between the Illyrianand Thracian lexis can thus be seen as merely linguisticinterference.[11]

Others such as I.I. Russu argue that there should havebeen major similarities between Illyrian and Thra-cian, and a common linguistic branch (not merely aSprachbund) is probable. Among the Thraco-Illyrian cor-respondences Russu considers are the following:Not many Thraco-Illyrian correspondences are definite,and a number may be incorrect, even from the list above.However, Sorin Paliga states:[12] “According to the avail-able data, we may surmise that Thracian and Illyrian weremutually understandable, e.g. like Czech and Slovak,in one extreme, or like Spanish and Portuguese, at theother.” Other linguists argue that Illyrian and Thracianwere different Indo-European branches which later con-verged through contact. It is also of significance that Illyr-ian languages still have not been classified whether theywere centum or satem language, while it is undisputedthat Thracian was a satem language by the Classical Pe-riod.[13]

Due to the fragmentary attestation of both Illyrian andThraco-Dacian, the existence of a Thraco-Illyrian branchremains controversial. In fact, this linguistic hypothe-sis was seriously called into question in the 1960s. Newpublications argued that no strong evidence for Thraco-Illyrian exists, and that the two language-areas showmore differences than correspondences.[14] The place of

1

2 3 REFERENCES

Paeonian language remains unclear. Modern linguists areuncertain on the classification of Paeonian, due to the ex-treme scarcity of materials we have on this language. Onone side are Wilhelm Tomaschek and Paul Kretschmer,who claim it belonged to the Illyrian family, and on theother side is Dimiter Dechev, who claims affinities withThracian.

1.3 Albanian

A hypothesis that the Thracian and the Albanian lan-guage together form a branch of the Indo-European lan-guage remains one of the major current theories. Thereare a number of close cognates between Thracian andAlbanian, but this may indicate only that Thracian andAlbanian are related but not very closely related satemIE languages on their own branches of Indo-European,analogous to the situation between Albanian and theBaltic languages: Albanian and Baltic share many closecognates,[15] but the languages themselves are on differ-ent Indo-European satem language branches. There havebeen great changes in the Albanian language since Thra-cian times, and it remains difficult to demonstrate thatAlbanian and Thracian were any closer than Albanianand for example, Baltic. Still, the hypothesis that Thra-cian and Albanian form a distinct branch (often in thesescenarios, along with Dacian) of Indo-European is givenmuch consideration even today. A few of the cognatesbetween Thracian and Albanian may actually representborrowings from one language to another ; in most casesthis is ruled out because a word or lexical item followsthe sound-changes expected in the language from its PIEsound-changes.Among the cognates between Thracian and Albanian: theThracian inscriptionmezenai on the Duvanli gold ring hasbeen unanimously linked to Messapian menzana (=horsedeity) to Albanian mëz (=pony), as well as to Romanianmânz (=colt), and it is agreed that Thracian mezenaimeant 'horseman'; Thracian manteia is supposed to becognate to Albanian mand (=mulberry).

1.4 Balto-Slavic

A hypothesis that Thracian (or in other scenarios, Daco-Thracian) and the Baltic languages or the Balto-Slaviclanguages form one branch of Indo-European has alsobeen proposed . Here again due to the scanty evidence,though many close cognates exist between Balto-Slavicand Thracian, there is not enough evidence to demon-strate that Thracian and Balto-Slavic or Thracian andBaltic (excluding Slavic in some scenarios) form onebranch of Indo-European.

1.5 Ancient Greek

Sorin Mihai Olteanu, a Romanian linguist andThracologist, recently proposed that the Thracian(as well as the Dacian) language was a centum languagein its earlier period, and developed satem features overtime.[16] One of the arguments for this idea is thatthere are many close cognates between Thracian andAncient Greek. There are also substratum words in theRomanian language that are cited as evidence of thegenetic relationship of the Thracian language to ancientGreek and the Ancient Macedonian language (the extinctlanguage or Greek dialect of ancient Macedon). TheGreek language itself may be grouped with the Phrygianlanguage and Armenian language, both of which havebeen grouped with Thracian in the past.As in the case with Albanian and Balto-Slavic, there is nocompelling evidence that Thracian and Greek (or Daco-Thracian and Greco-Macedonian) share a close commonancestor.

2 See also• Albanian language

• Balkan sprachbund

• Dacian language

• Paleo-Balkan languages

• Romanian words of possible Dacian origin (andcomparison with Albanian words)

• Thracian language

• Venetic language

3 References[1] This is confirmed among others by Benjamin W. Fort-

son in his Indo-European Language and Culture, when hestates that “all attempts to relate Thracian to Phrygian, Il-lyrian, or Dacian...are...purely speculative.” (p. 90).

[2] Ilija Casule even links Thracian and Phrygian with theBurushaski language, a language isolate spoken in north-ern Pakistan.

[3] Duridanov, Ivan. The Language of the Thracians.

[4] TheMoesi ofMoesia are not to be confused with theMysoi(Mysians) of Mysia in ancient Anatolia, though some hy-pothesize that theMysians are directly descended from theBalkanMoesi. This is hypothesized mostly on the basis ofStrabo's claim that someMoesians had migrated toMysia,becoming the Mysians of Anatolia. Also in some classicalsources the Moesi of Moesia are called Μυσοί; Thracol-ogists often see this as a corruption. Thracologists havenoted a Thracian element in Mysia, but the Mysians are

3

more often viewed as a non-Thraco-Dacic people akin tothe Phrygians, not the Thracians.

[5] Vladimir Georgiev (Gheorghiev), Raporturile dintre lim-bile dacă, tracă şi frigiană, “Studii Clasice” Journal, II,1960, 39-58.

[6] Polomé 1982, pp. 887–888.

[7] Crossland & 1982 838.

[8] Encyclopædia Britannica - Balkans.

[9] Wilkes, J.J. The Illyrians. 1992, ISBN 0-631-19807-5,p. 85. “Whether the Dardanians were an Illyrian or aThracian people has been much debated...”

[10] Russu (1969).

[11] Hemp, Georgiev, et al.

[12] Paliga, S. (2001–2002). “Pre-Slavic and Pre-RomancePlace-Names in Southeast Europe”. Orpheus (Sofia) 11–12: 85–132.

[13] The satem nature of proto-Thracian is disputed (Olteanu2002).

[14] See works by Vladimir Georgiev, Ivan Duridanov, andEric Hamp.

[15] Vladimir Orel, A Concise Historical Grammar of the Al-banian language; et al.

[16] Sorin Mihai Olteanu - The Thracian Palatal (Accessed:February 26, 2009).

4 Bibliography• Crossland, R.A.; Boardman, John (1982). “Linguis-tic problems of the Balkan area in the late prehistoricand early Classical period” in The Cambridge An-cient History Volume 3, Part 1. Cambridge Univer-sity Press. ISBN 978-0-521-22496-3.

• Polomé, Edgar Charles (1982). “Balkan Languages(Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian)". CambridgeAncient History. III.1. pp. 866–888.

4 5 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

5 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

5.1 Text• Classification of Thracian Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification%20of%20Thracian?oldid=651189771 Contributors: Joy,Rich Farmbrough, Florian Blaschke, Dbachmann, Paul August, Woohookitty, BD2412, Grafen, Daizus, Deucalionite, Igiffin, Codrinb,Xaxafrad, SmackBot, Imz, Argyll Lassie, Alex earlier account, Hibernian, Vasiliy Faronov, Eastlaw, Kupirijo, Future Perfect at Sunrise,Adavidb, TSxO1Dec82, Wikiisawesome, Jingiby, Revent, Til Eulenspiegel, Aigest, Eklir, B'er Rabbit, Addbot, Maqedan, Lightbot, Yobot,AnomieBOT, Alex contributing, ITSENJOYABLE, Onrswan, RjwilmsiBot, Dominus Vobisdu, Boldwin, Ego White Tray, Dream of Nyx,Helpful Pixie Bot and Anonymous: 21

5.2 Images

5.3 Content license• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0