It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Thracian language. (Discuss)

The linguistic classification of Thracian has long been a matter of contention and uncertainty, and there are widely varying hypotheses regarding its position among other Paleo-Balkan languages.^[1] It is not contested, however, that the Thracian language(s) were Indo-European languages which had acquired satem characteristics by the time there were attested.

Contents 1 Hypothesized links 1.1 Daco-Thracian 1.2 Thraco-Illyrian 1.3 Albanian 1.4 Balto-Slavic 1.5 Ancient Greek 2 References 3 See also

[edit] Hypothesized links

[edit] Daco-Thracian

A Daco-Thracian grouping is widely held. The problem of the classification of Thracian can thus be seen as the wider problem of the classification of Daco-Thracian and its place within the Indo-European language family. Older models often linked Thracian and Dacian to the Illyrian language. This grouping is contested and the affinity of Thracian with Daco-Thracian and ultimately with Thraco-Illyrian is sometimes disputed.^[2]

In the 1950s, the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir I. Georgiev published his work which argued that Dacian and Albanian should be assigned to a language branch termed Daco-Mysian, Mysian being thought of as a transitional language between Dacian and Thracian. Georgiev argued that Dacian and Thracian are different languages, with different phonetic systems, his idea being supported by the placenames, which end in -dava in Dacian and Mysian, as opposed to -para, in Thracian placenames.^[3]

[edit] Thraco-Illyrian

Thraco-Illyrian is a hypothesis that the Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian languages comprise a distinct branch of Indo-European. Thraco-Illyrian is also used as a term merely implying a Thracian-Illyrian interference, mixture or sprachbund, or as a shorthand way of saying that it is not determined whether a subject is to be considered as pertaining to Thracian or Illyrian. Downgraded to a geo-linguistic concept, these languages are referred to as Paleo-Balkan.

The rivers Vardar and Morava are generally taken as the rough line of demarcation between the Illyrian sphere on the west and Thracian on the east.^[4] There is, however, much interference in the area between Illyrian and Thracian, with Thracian groups inhabiting Illyrian lands (the Thracian Bryges for example) and Illyrian groups overlapping into the Thracian zone (the Dardani^[5] seem to be a Thraco-Illyrian mix; Wilkes, 1992 et al.). It appears that Thracian and Illyrian do not have a clear-cut frontier.^[6] Similarities found between the Illyrian and Thracian lexis can thus be seen as merely linguistic interference.^[7]

Others such as I.I. Russu argue that there should have been major similarities between Illyrian and Thracian, and a common linguistic branch (not merely a Sprachbund) is probable. Among the Thraco-Illyrian correspondences Russu considers are the following:

Illyrian	Daco-Thracian	Remarks
Abroi	Abre-	Abre- is an element taken from certain Thracian anthroponyms
Aploi, Aplus, Apulia	Apuli, Appulus, Apulum
Bilia, Bilios	Bila
Dardi, Dardani	Dardanos, Darda-para
Saprinus	Sapri-sara
Separi	Sapaioi
Sita	Sita, Seita
Tribulium	Triballi, Tribanta
Zorada	Zar-, Zur-

Not many Thraco-Illyrian correspondences are definite, and a number may be incorrect, even from the list above. However, Sorin Paliga states:^[8] "According to the available data, we may surmise that Thracian and Illyrian were mutually understandable, e.g. like Czech and Slovak, in one extreme, or like Spanish and Portuguese, at the other." Other linguists argue that Illyrian and Thracian were different Indo-European branches which later converged through contact. It is also of significance that Illyrian languages still have not been classified whether they were centum or satem language, while it is undisputed that Thracian was a satem language by the Classical Period.^[9]

Due to the fragmentary attestation of both Illyrian and Thraco-Dacian, the existence of a Thraco-Illyrian branch remains controversial. In fact, this linguistic hypothesis was seriously called into question in the 1960s. New publications argued that no strong evidence for Thraco-Illyrian exists, and that the two language-areas show more differences than correspondences.^[10] The place of Paionian language remains unclear. Modern linguists are uncertain on the classification of Paionian, due to the extreme scarcity of materials we have on this language. On one side are Wilhelm Tomaschek and Paul Kretschmer, who claim it belonged to the Illyrian family, and on the other side is Dimiter Dechev, who claims affinities with Thracian.

[edit] Albanian

A hypothesis that the Thracian and the Albanian language are kindred languages remains one of the major current theories, although contested. There are cognates between Thracian and Albanian, but this may indicate only language interaction between the groups and not language affinity.^[11] There have been significant changes in the Albanian language since Thracian times, and a Thracian link is difficult to demonstrate. Still, the relation of Thracian to Albanian is given much consideration even today.

Among the cognates between Thracian and Albanian: the Thracian inscription mezenai on the Duvanli gold ring has been unanimously linked to Messapian menzana (=horse deity) to Albanian mëz (=pony), as well as to Romanian mânz (=colt), and it is agreed that Thracian mezenai meant 'horseman'; Thracian manteia is supposed to be cognate to Albanian mand (=mulberry). It may also be connected to the Slavic mantija (=cloak). Sorin Paliga, a linguist at the academy of Bucharest, recently linked Romanian buză (=lip) and Albanian buzë (=lip) to the Thracian personal names Buzas, Buzo, Buzes. This word also exists in Bulgarian where it means 'cheek', in Serbian obraz means 'cheek', in Macedonian with the meaning of 'lip', and in Polish buzia where it means 'mouth' or 'lips'.

[edit] Balto-Slavic

In 1975, Ivan Duridanov publishes his Ezikǎt na trakite (The Language of the Thracians) in which a number of Thracian words and lexical elements are given Balto-Slavic cognates and possible Balto-Slavic cognates.

Using Duridanov's Ezikǎt na trakite essay as his basis, in the late 1980s and 1990s the linguist Harvey E. Mayer claimed that the Thracian language was a Southern Baltoidic language. There is no agreement on whether Thracian was even very close to Balto-Slavic itself, let alone agreement on which of the two it was closest to.

Though many cognates between Balto-Slavic and Thracian appear to exist, no conclusive evidence has arisen in support of a very close relation between Thracian and Balto-Slavic, and the longer Thracian inscriptions that are known (if indeed considered as Thracian) are not apparently close to Baltic, Slavic, or any other known language,^[12] and in fact they have not been deciphered aside from perhaps a few words.

[edit] Ancient Greek

Sorin Mihai Olteanu, a Romanian linguist and Thracologist, recently proposed that the Thracian (as well as the Dacian) language was a centum language in its earlier period, and developed satem features over time.^[13] One of the arguments for this idea is that there are many close cognates between Thracian and Ancient Greek. There are also substratum words in the Romanian language that are cited as evidence of the genetic relationship of the Thracian language to ancient Greek and the Ancient Macedonian language (the extinct language or Greek dialect of ancient Macedon). The Greek language itself may be grouped with the Phrygian language and Armenian language, both of which have been grouped with Thracian in the past.

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• Proto-Albanian language
• Thracian language
• Venetic language
• Balkan sprachbund