ÿþ<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=unicode"> <meta name="Author" content="Vassil Karloukovski"> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"> <meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document"> <title>E. Hamp - The Position of Albanian</title> </head> <body> <center><font face="Palatino Linotype"><b><font size=+1>The Position of Albanian</font></b> </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Eric P. Hamp, University og Chigaco <br><font size=-1>(<i>Ancient IE dialects</i>, Proceedings of the Conference on IE linguistics held at the University of California,</font> <br><font size=-1>Los Angeles, April 25-27, 1963, ed. By Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel)</font></font></center> <blockquote><font face="Palatino Linotype">(Part&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="#1.">_1</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#2.">_2</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#3.">_3</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#4.">_4</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#5.">_5</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#6.">_6</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#7.">_7</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#8.">_8</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#9.">_9</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#10.">_10</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#11.">_11</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#12.">_12</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#13.">_13</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#14.">_14</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#15.">_15</a>,&nbsp; <a href="#16.">_16</a>)</font></blockquote> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><br><a NAME="1."></a><b><font size=+1>1.</font></b> It is fashionable at conferences to come out with no clear affirmative assertion, but rather with a statement of all the many difficulties. While I have no taste for fashion, this should prove a fashionable paper, on this ground if on no other. It is often hard enough to say conclusively where the IE features of Albanian lie, let alone to identify them unambiguously and assign them to a restricted relationship of shared innovation. This is not to say that things are as G. Meyer is all too well known to have put it; there is plenty of good Indo-European material in Albanian but it is often ambiguous and represented by small numbers of examples for each feature and combination. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Furthermore, I am not yet in a position to say what I hope will be possible when the dialect materials from most enclaves have been sifted and compared. This applies particularly to the verb. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">There are also relative unknowns that are important in the total question on which I do not feel adequately informed to hold a worthwhile opinion: Thracian, with De ev's bewildering material, is the notable example here. </font> <p> <hr SIZE=1 NOSHADE WIDTH="50%"> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="2."></a><b><font size=+1>2.</font></b> There are ways in which our subject has been synthesized in the past that lighten our task somewhat: N. Jokl (Eberts <i>Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte</i>; articles "Albaner," "Illyrier," and "Thraker") gives a very just review; but he does nonetheless have his point of view. W. Porzig (<i>Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets</i> [Heidelberg, 1954]) gives a fair and fairly complete summary, but he has no incisive point of view. Moreover, there has been a good bit of activity recently, for such a small field, and I have tried to sift through the output as fully as I could. Thus I hope to reach a fair degree of completeness in reporting, although, I suppose, at the same time some of my prejudices will show through. </font> <p> <hr SIZE=1 WIDTH="50%"> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="3."></a><b><font size=+1>3.</font></b> When one looks over the ground to be covered, it seems that our subject falls naturally into three parts: the geographic position of Albanian in the Balkans; the corpus, location, and relations of Illyrian, Thracian, and their congeners; and the genetic ties of Albanian to its sister IE subgroups. These, in fair part, match three rather separate fields of expertise: "Balkan linguistics"; Classical linguistics, philology, and epigraphy; and Indo-European studies in the traditional sense. No one can be equally competent in all. </font> <p> <hr SIZE=1 NOSHADE WIDTH="50%"> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="4."></a><b><font size=+1>4.</font></b> On the question of the earlier location of the Albanians, there is a good summary and batch of references in A. Rosetti, <i>Istoria limbii romîne. II. Limbile bakanice</i><sup>3</sup> 41-44 (Bucure_ti, 1962). Rosetti, however, mistakenly repeats the myth that some Tosk dialects show Geg characteristics, thus pointing, allegedly, to a more recent dialect split. The isogloss is clear in all dialects I have studied, which embrace nearly all types possible. It must be relatively old, that is, dating back into the post-Roman first millennium. As a guess, it seems possible that this isogloss reflects a spread of the speech area, after the settlement of the Albanians in roughly their present location, so that the speech area straddled the Jire ek line. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">In this context it is possible to find almost every opinion. Many agree that Albanian lacks an old maritime terminology, yet D. De ev (<i>Charakteristik der thrakischen Sprache</i> 113 [Sofia, 1952]) thinks they have had it and lost it! </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">More positively, one may say that the mere absence of inherited maritime vocabulary can prove nothing. Recently, however, E. Çabej (<i>VII Congresso intemacionale di scienze onomastiche</i>, 4-8 Aprile 1961, 248-249) has argued for the actual presence, insufficiently noticed heretofore, of certain preserved old terms. But it seems to me that these are for the most part inconclusive in themselves: <i>dt</i> 'sea' (related to 'deep') could refer to any deep water; <i>vâ</i> 'ford, anchorage', <i>mat</i> 'beach' <i>valë</i> 'wave' could be applied to various bodies of water. A word like <i>grykë</i> 'narrows' is an easy metaphor ('throat'); <i>aní</i> ( : <i>an(ë)</i> 'vessel') and some names of parts of boats (<i>ballë</i> 'forehead', <i>pëlhurë</i> 'sail', <i>shul</i> 'mast', <i>lugatë</i> 'rudder', belonging with <i>lugë</i> 'spoon') are also easily understood as metaphors; <i>likurishtë</i> 'polyp' (cf. <i>likurë</i> 'skin') and many other names, often fairly transparent compounds (p. 249), are descriptive and could presumably have arisen in their attested uses at almost any time. The word <i>ngjalë</i> 'eel' &lt; *<i>engella</i>, even if related correctly to Illyrian 'EggelaneV, does not necessarily presuppose the sea. Thus, we still lack a demonstrated body of native marine morphemes, with no other morphological or semantic connections in the language to make transfer possible. For such an argument, only isolated forms will be convincing. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Even recent history is checkered: <i>Shqiptar</i> first appears in the fourteenth century. <i>Albi</i> occurs in an Angevin document of 1330; according to Ptolemy, in the second century the <i>Albanoí</i> lived around <i>Albanópolis</i> (Kruja), where the ethnic has been recorded in modem times. The enclaves of Italy and Greece, to the extent that they use a traditional name, use this term: <i>arbrésh</i> (e.g., Vaccarizzo Albanese), <i>arbëríshte</i> (Greece). The earlier data are rehearsed, with references, in H. Bari's <i>Lingvisti ke studije</i> (Sarajevo, 1954; abbr. <i>LS</i>), and <i>Hwmje në historín e gjuhës shqipe</i> 7 (Prishtinë, 1955; abbr. <i>Hymje</i>; = trans. <i>Istorija arbanaakog jesika</i> 30 [Sarajevo, 1959]). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">The question of the names <i>Elbasan</i>, <i> Arbëni</i>, <i>Albanopolis</i>, <i>Shqipëtar</i>, <i>Shqipëri</i> is discussed at length, but somewhat inaccessibly, in Dh. S. Shuteriqi, <i>Buletin për shkencat shoqërore</i> 1956:3.189-224 (abbr. BShkSh) and <i>Buletin i Universiteiit Shtetëror të Tiranës</i> 1958:3.45-70 (abbr. <i>BUShT</i>) . </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">It is clear that in the Middle Ages the Albanians extended farther north (Jokl, <i>Albaner</i> §2); that there are persuasive arguments which have been advanced against their having extended as far as the Adriatic coast  the fact that <i>Scodra</i> 'Scutari' (<i>Shkodër</i>) shows un-Albanian development (see §6 below), that there is no demonstrated old maritime vocabulary (see above), and that there are few ancient Greek loans (Jokl, <i>Albaner</i> §5; but see §5 below); and that there are arguments in favor of old Dardania: <i>Nia</i> &lt; <i>Naíssos</i>, with development as in <i>pyll</i> 'forest' &lt; *<i>pëýll</i> &lt; *<i>padkle(m)</i> : <i>palkdem</i> (Jokl, <i>Albaner</i> § 5). Admittedly, many of the arguments are negative; they are dealt with further below. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">In a series of studies, G. Reichenkron has recently elaborated on Albanian-Rumanian correspondences, and has even brought in Armenian. This latter argument is not new, having been first forcefully set forth by H. Pedersen (<i>KZ</i> 1900:36.340-341). Pertinent aspects of Reichenkron will be discussed below, but his work does not essentially alter the borrowing situation as it has been understood. S. Pu_cariu (trans. <i>Die rumanische Sprache</i> [Leipzig, 1943], from which citation is here made) reviews these matters under "Das autochthone Element" (pp. 203 210) and in his discussion of common Latin inheritances (pp. 326-336). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Although he deals with other views (pp. 336-338), he sees (p. 205) the Abanian-Rumanian elements as derived from Thracian, and thinks them inherited (as substratum) in Rumanian but loans into the Illyrian ancestor of Albanian. The richest account of this subject now is Rosetti <i>Istoria II</i><sup>3</sup>, which commendably treats the Balkans as a historic unit. For Albanian-Rumanian the phonological correspondences are set out (pp. 103-106), as well as the lexical (pp. 106-121); many of these are too well known to need exemplification here  in the gross, they are obviously true, and largely well understood. They point solidly to (1) a local native language, and (2) a special dialect of Latin. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">G. Reichenkron (<i>Romanistisches Jahrbuch</i> 1960:11.19-22) rehearses succinctly a number of hypotheses, which I summarize here: </font> <blockquote><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>a)</i> Not all Albanian-Rumanian correspondences are loans from Albanian into Rumanian; they may be from Illyrian and Daco-Thracian as sources. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>b)</i> "Autochthonous" elements of Rumanian show only in part Illyrian-Thracian-Albanian regularities; in part proto-Romance developments appear. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>c)</i> Most Albanian-Rumanian correspondences come from borrowings by Vulgar Latin (as precursor of Rumanian) in Dardania from an Illyrian substrate. Then, we suppose, pre-Rumanian moved north of the Danube and merged with a Daco-Romance dialect, which contained Thracian elements showing correspondences with Armenian (allegedly a sound shift, and certain affixes dealt with in <i>Rom. Jb.</i> 9; for details, see below). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>d)</i> Daco-Thracian yields Rumanian&nbsp;  &lt; IE *<i>q</i> before <i>eu</i>;&nbsp;c &lt; IE *<i>s</i> + front <i>V</i>, and IE *<i>k</i>; -<i>f</i>- &lt; IE *<i>p</i> ( > <i>p'</i>). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>e)</i> Of the residue of unexplained words, loans from Slavic and Magyar account for many. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>f)</i> Some ancient Greek loans are to be reckoned with, even though one would not expect Rumanian to borrow wholesale in areas where other Romance did not. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>g)</i> There are also some Germanic loans. Therefore, we must reckon with five IE components: Germanic, Latin, Greek, Dacian, Slavic. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>h)</i> We must be prepared for the situation where two unrelated etyma fall phonologically together but continue two meanings, such as OFr. <i>mont</i> 'world, mountain' &lt; <i>mundum</i>, <i>montem</i>; this possibility has too often been overlooked.</font></blockquote> <font face="Palatino Linotype">Reichenkron's reasoning (<i>Rom. Jb</i>. 1958:9.59-105, esp. 59-62) on the Albanian-Rumanian sound correspondences runs as follows: Such correspondences might reflect either (1) Daco-Thracian to Rumanian, and to Illyrian, which later becomes Albanian; or (2) Illyrian, which later becomes Albanian, to Getian Thracian to Rumanian. On the basis of the assumption of a Thracian sound shift from IE, similar to that in Armenian, Reichenkron follows Gamillscheg's theory that the West Rumanian dialects (i.e., Dardanian and South Danubian) go with Albanian in their loan reflexes, while East Rumanian dialects go with Thracian and show sound-shifted reflexes. Thus </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><img SRC="Dac_Ruman.jpg" height=126 width=642> </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Hence, the main diagnostic reflexes are: IE d<i>, g, g<img SRC="U_D.jpg" height=13 width=8 align=TEXTTOP>,&nbsp;</i> > East Rumanian <i>t, k, k<img SRC="U_D.jpg" height=13 width=8 align=TEXTTOP>,&nbsp;s</i></font><i><font face="Arial Unicode MS">#</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype">. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">On the basis of this Daco-Thracian theory, Reichenkron tries to explain various difficult Rumanian words involving <i>z</i>, some of which may be related to some Albanian words. He tries to elucidate certain Rumanian words in <i>zg</i>- as being originally borrowed from Thracian forms with a prefixed *<i>ghM</i>-, comparing certain Armenian developments. His attempt, which I consider unsuccessful or at best dubious, I criticize elsewhere, at least so far as the Albanian evidence goes. In any event, his main argument, whether right or wrong, would not need to affect our conclusions on Albanian, as it really has to do with the nature of Daco-Thracian and its putative reflexes in Rumanian. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Reichenkron argues repeatedly on the supposed direction of borrowing in a way that assumes that linguistic borrowing always moves from a higher sociological structure to a lower one. Without entering into the probably improvable factuality of these aspects of the cultures in question (the Dacians, Getes, and pre-Albanians), nor into the anthropologically unclear concept of equality and superiority of cultures, it is worth noting that in the case of cultures we know much about we could scarcely hypothesize in advance which way many categories of loans would move. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">In the course of discussing <i>shtrungë</i> 'enclosure for milking animals', Rumanian <i>strung</i></font><span lang="BG" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Arial Unicode MS">Î</span><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i></font><font face="Palatino Linotype"></font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype">, Reichenkron (Rom. Jb. 11.51-52) has an excursus on Baltic and Slavic <i>pa/po</i>- 'Art, After-, Nach-'. This argument loses force when we consider E. Westh Neuhard's article in <i>Scando-Slavica</i> 1959:5.52-63, showing that these Slavic compounds are calques on German, built on a very slender inherited Slavic base; moreover, they seem to reflect a rather literary (or literate) cosmopolitan intrusion of German culture rather than contact on the folk level. Therefore, it would be all the less likely to see such an origin in this item of Rumanian folk culture. As for the interesting Baltic forms adduced by Reichenkron, two types of explanation seem to suffice to dispose of them as calques, too. The <i>step</i> terms of kinship seem clear calques on the long established Slavic use of this prefix (<i>pásynok<span lang="bg"></span>J</i>). The other compounds of "approximation" seem again traceable to German diffusion, particularly when one considers how strong this influence has been, specifically in Lettish and Old Prussian. Thus the restricted size of the Old Prussian corpus, emphasized by Reichenkron in connection with the relatively large attestation of this feature, loses its probative value. Reichenkron goes on to urge a special relationship embracing Thracian, Slavic, and Baltic, based on a <i>po/pa</i>- prefix, in turn associated with dialect variants comprising the lone Rumanian <i>postrung</i></font><span lang="BG" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Arial Unicode MS">Î</span><font face="Palatino Linotype"> (beside <i>strung</i></font><span lang="BG" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Arial Unicode MS">Î</span><font face="Palatino Linotype">) and the obscure and otherwise unelucidated <i>pociump</i> and <i>pozmóc</i>. With the above considerations, the assumption of such a special relationship dissolves into thin air. It should be noted, in fairness, that Reichenkron (p. 53) allows the possibility that the dialect form <i>po-strung</i></font><span lang="BG" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Arial Unicode MS">Î</span><font face="Palatino Linotype"> may arise from early Serbian contacts. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Reichenkron's further argument (pp. 52-53), giving an alternative to the conventional (i.e., Jokl's) accounting for <i>pârîu</i> 'brook', is, independently of the above question, susceptible of a different solution. Jokl had <i>pârîu</i> &lt; pre-Albanian *<i>per-rn</i>- (> Albanian <i>përrua</i>, <i>përroni</i>; cf. Latin <i>frnum</i> > Rumanian <i>frîu</i>); Reichenkron suggests Thracian <i>pa-</i>(assimilated to <i>pâ</i>-) + Latin <i>rivus</i> > <i>rîu</i> 'river'. Equally possible, if one insists on an alternative to *<i>per-rn</i>-, is *p<i>er-r+vus</i>. </font> <p> <hr SIZE=1 WIDTH="50%"> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="5."></a><b><font size=+1>5.</font></b> Before continuing with the dimmer Balkan past, there are two sets of old loans in Albanian which lead us to a slender, but valuable, conclusion. It has long been recognized (since A. Thumb's basic article, <i>IF</i> 1910:26.1-20) that the ancient Greek loans are rare. Pre-Albanian was scarcely in close contact with Greek in antiquity. This places the Albanians north of the Jire ek line. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">However, Çabej has recently argued (<i>VII Congresso intemazianale di scienze onomastiche</i> 250-251) that these Greek loans do not necessarily remove the pre-Albanians far from Greek territory; that is, that they fit well with a location in present-day Albania, in contact either with Doric Greek colonists or with the Northwest Dorians. His points on the Doric character of the loans certainly look persuasive: <i>drapën</i>, Tosk <i>drapër</i> 'sickle' &lt; *drapanon rather than drepanon; <i>kumbull</i> 'plum' &lt; kokkumhlon, <i>brukë</i> 'Tamariske' &lt; murikh, <i>trumzë</i> 'thyme' &lt; qumbra ~ qrumbh. The last three (and, for that matter, reflexes of the first) occur in parallel forms in the Greek enclaves of southern Italy (though the Doric nature of these dialects is another famous debate!). But this still does not tell us precisely where the Dorians in question were at the time of contact. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">There are a few ancient Germanic loans: <i>fat</i> 'spouse', <i>shkum</i> 'foam', <i>tirq</i> 'trousers' (Goth. <i>þiubrokis</i>) look best. Bari (<i>LS</i> 73-91) has up-to-date pertinent detail. These are supporting evidence, but do not place things any closer geographically. Presumably the farther north and east the Albanians were, the better were their chances of contacts at this time with Goths, but the whole question is uncertain in the extreme. </font> <p> <hr SIZE=1 WIDTH="50%"> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="6."></a><b><font size=+1>6.</font></b> W. Cimochowski (<i>BUShT</i> 1958:3.37-48) displaces the Albanians much less than others: to the mountains near the Mati, north to Nia. Çabej (BUShT 1958:2.54-62) is even less willing to see them moved: on the basis of toponyms, he argues for a coastal region. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Particularly because of the relative inaccessibility of these articles, and because their theses have tended to be out of favor, it is worthwhile discussing them at some length. Cimochowski starts by reviewing, briefly and critically, Weigand's arguments (<i>Balkan-Archiv</i> 3.227-251) for a Thracian background for Albanian, and for an earlier home east of its present location: </font> <blockquote><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>a)</i> Toponyms of Latin origin in Albania show Dalmatian, not Albanian, phonological development. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>b)</i> Inherited nautical and fishing terms are absent in Albanian. These facts are easily understood, says Cimochowski, since Albanian must have continued in remoter areas where Romance would not absorb it completely  hence not in areas where such place names of Latin origin continued strongest. The Albanians would have lived inland from the seacoast, in the mountains, but not necessarily beyond the border of Albania. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>c)</i> Certain words, such as <i>man</i> 'mulberry, blackberry' are shared with Thracian (manteia). But this could merely show that there were contacts; besides, Thrace-Phrygian BrigeV are known to have lived near Durrës. Moreover, Çabej thinks that even these words can be shown to be Illyrian. Cimochowski goes on to point out (p. 48) that <i>karpë</i> and <i> mën</i> are shared in the Italian pre-Romance area; hence this alleged Thracian correspondence is vitiated. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>d)</i> Certain Thracian names are supposedly explained with the help of Albanian. Of these, only <i>Dacia Maluensis</i> ( : <i>mal</i>) is well explained in this way; <i>Decebalus</i> ( : <i>ballë</i>) and <i>Burebista</i> (<i>burre</i> + <i>bisht</i>) are surely wrong. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>e)</i> Albanian toponyms known from antiquity do not show Albanian phonological development. That should not be surprising; from the end of the tenth century the whole of southern Albania was overrun by Bulgarians. But that does not necessarily mean that there were no Albanians anywhere in Albania. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">f) Old loans in Rumanian from Albanian and shared Albanian-Rumanian developments from Latin point to an eastern origin. But the nomadic habits of the Vlachs and the herding culture of the Albanians would have brought them into contact for perhaps long periods in the past. Moreover, granting that the Albanians may well have had eastern contacts, we still do not know exactly where the Illyrian-Thracian line was, and NaissoV (Nia) is regarded by many as Illyrian territory.</font></blockquote> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><br>From these observations Cimochowski concludes only that the south of Albania, the north around Shkodër, and the Adriatic seacoast are excluded as earlier Albanian territory; but this does not prove a Thracian relationship. There then follows a long discussion of the evidence for an Illyrian relationship, which will be taken up in part below, after which Cimochowski concludes, with Stadtmüller, that the home of the Albanians was somewhere in the vicinity of the Mat, stretching to Nia. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Çabej&#39;s claim is even stronger than Cimochowski&#39;s. He first runs through the history of views on the early Albanian habitat in a convenient way: The Albanians continue the habitat of Illyrian (claimed by Thunmann, Hahn, Kretschmer, Ribezzo, La Piana, Sufflay, and Erdeljanovi). Half-Romanized Illyrians spilled south from the mountains between Dalmatia and the Danube (the view of Jirecek). In the third through sixth centuries, as nomads, they moved from the Carpathians south (Parvan, Puscariu, Capidan). They came from Pannonia (Procopovici, Philippide). Albanians and Rumanians were in Thracian territory between Nia, Sofija, and Skopje (thus Weigand). Albanians were in Dardania, where Illyria and Thrace meet, and moved to Albania in the late Roman period, so that the Slavs found them in the Bojana basin (Jokl, Durham, Skok). From the Balkan and Rhodope mountains they moved to Albania before the Slavs (Bari). They were in the Mati basin in Northern Albania, and expanded south in the Middle Ages (Stadtmiiller). This last location is too restrictive, according to Çabej. However, in <i>VII Congresso internazionale</i> 245, Çabej relates <i>Mathis fluvius</i> (Vibius Sequester) to <i>mat</i> 'river bank'. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Çabej points out that villages in the Balkans are generally of recent date and changeable settlement. Hence for the study of toponyms city names and rivers are best. If we inspect such names attested by ancient sources, we find that many follow Albanian phonological development: <i>Scardus</i> > <i>Shar</i>, with no metathesis, as in <i>Scardona</i> > <i>Skradin</i>. <i>Scodra</i> > <i>Shkodër</i>; Çabej remarks that <i>sk</i>- > <i>h</i>- belonged to the pre-Balkan period, and compares (<i>VII Congresso internazionale</i> 244), for phonology, <i>shkamb</i> &lt; <i>scamnum</i> and <i>kulshedër</i> &lt; <i>chersydrus</i>. (<i>Rogame</i> is a recent suffixation in -<i>ame</i> of <i>rëge</i>, and therefore no problem because of the medial -<i>g</i>-.) <i>Barbanna</i> > <i>Buenë</i> is regular, as shown by Jokl (IF 1932: 50.33 ff.), <i>Slavia</i> (1934-1935:13.286 ff.), <i>Glotta</i> (1936:25.121 B.). <i>Lissus</i> > <i>Lesh</i> (cf. <i>missa</i> > <i>meshë</i>, etc.); Çabej points out (<i>VII Congresso intemazionale</i> 245) that Latin&nbsp;- + <i>CC</i> is regular, a statement I can neither affirm nor control at the moment. <i>Dyrrachium</i> > <i>Durrës</i>, <i>Isamnus</i> > <i>Ishm</i>, <i>Drivastum</i> > <i>Drisht</i> show, as Krahe claims, the Illyrian initial accent. <i>Shkum(b)î</i> &lt; <i>Scampinus</i> is regular in the Central Albanian dialect, where pretonic <i>ë</i> > <i>u</i> and <i>mb</i> > <i>m</i> are expectable (<i>VII Congresso internazionale</i> 246). Aulwn > <i>Vlorë</i> may perhaps involve a Slavic intermediary. <i>Thyamis</i> > <i>Çamëria</i>, as Leake saw in 1814, is accepted by Çabej; however, one might expect <i>s</i> &lt; <i>t<img SRC="I_D.jpg" height=21 width=8 align=ABSBOTTOM></i> (cf. <i>pus</i> 'well' &lt; Lat. <i>puteus</i>). <i>Arachthos</i> > <i>Arta</i> is supposedly better explained by Albanian than by Greek; but, apart from the surprising syncope, <i>kt</i> should yield <i>ft</i> or <i>jt</i>, and not <i>t</i>, from that time level. <i>Ragusium</i> (<i>Ragusa</i>) is <i>Rush</i> in Bogdan (1685). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Thus, says Çabej, the seacoast has remained Albanian since antiquity. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">The foreign names represent several layers of later intrusions, which Weigand failed to weed out, and treated indiscriminately, according to Çabej (<i>VII Congresso internazionale</i> 243). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Bari (<i>LS</i> 25 ff.) gives an account that is as plausible on the other side of the debate, based on the careful work done by Skok on Balkan toponyms in relation to Romance. He sees Albanian as sharing with Thracian *<i>kt</i> > <i>t</i> (p. 26), but it should be noted that, as we shall see, V. Georgiev's "Thracian" has this, but that excludes his Daco-Mysian. Using the known symbiosis with the pre-Rumanians and the place names <i>Nia,&nbsp;`kup,</i> and&nbsp;<i>`tip</i> (p. 26), Bari places the Albanians in the Dardanian-Peonian region (p. 27). He then goes on to discuss (pp. 30-34) the problem of the location of the pre-Rumanians; whether they were spread out and far north of the Danube at that time need not concern us here. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">It has long been recognized that there are two treatments of Latin loans in Albanian. Bari sets forth (LS 27-28, and <i>Godianjak, Balkanoloaki Institut, Sarajevo</i> 1.1-16 [1957], esp. 7-11) a very convincing looking solution for this duality. Latin <i>ct</i>, <i>cs</i> gives Albanian <i>ft</i>, <i>fa</i> (<i>luftë</i> 'war', <i>kofshë</i> 'thigh'), which matches Rumanian <i>lupt</i></font><span lang="BG" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Arial Unicode MS">Î</span><font face="Palatino Linotype">, <i>coaps</i></font><span lang="BG" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Arial Unicode MS">Î</span><font face="Palatino Linotype">; these would easily represent sound substitutions after IE *<i>kt</i> had become *<i>t</i>. (One problem I see in this is <i>ftua</i> 'quince' &lt; <i>cotón<img SRC="E_D.jpg" height=20 width=12 align=ABSBOTTOM>um</i>, which would have to have become *<i>ct</i>- almost immediately to avoid falling in with <i>këta</i> 'this [n.], these [m.]'.) This group also includes Albanian <i>traftr</i> &lt; <i>tract</i>-. On the other hand, we have in <i>derjt</i> 'straight' &lt; <i>d(i)rectus</i> and <i>trajtonj</i> a different outcome, which matches Old Dalmatian <i>traita</i> &lt; <i>tract</i>-. Similarly, there are both Albanian <i>a </i>and <i>e </i>as reflexes of Latin<i> a</i>, which match Rumanian and Dalmatian developments. These, then, would look back to two chronological and geographical layers, one an "inner Balkan" and the other a "coastal Adriatic." Bari (<i>Godianjak</i> 13) considers that since Rumanian has loans from Albanian, but Albanian has practically none in the opposite direction, these Rumanian shapes must all be &quot;Restwörter,&quot; not &quot;Lehnwörter&quot;; but, as Reichenkron (above) takes into account, the loan situation may easily be more complex than this. </font> <p> <hr SIZE=1 WIDTH="50%"> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="7."></a><b><font size=+1>7.</font></b> There is, then, the question of where the Albanians were when the Slavs arrived. Bari discusses this (LS 28-29). Selia ev thought that the Slavs met only Romans in Albania. He showed clearly that most Albanian territory was at least exposed to Slavs in the Middle Ages; only the central region is thin on Slavic toponyms, perhaps pointing to early concentration there by the Albanians. In my opinion, the chronology of the Slavs and Albanians in Albania is uncertain in the extreme. Bari (<i>Hymje</i> 77) considers the loss of intervocalic voiced <i>C</i> in Albanian as post-Slavic, after Jokl (IF 1926:44.37 ff.). This would explain <i>Shkinikë</i> 'Bulgaria' &lt; <i>Sclavinica</i>; the etymon recurs clearly in the Greek enclavee as&nbsp;a<i>k<img SRC="H_I.jpg" height=20 width=16 align=ABSBOTTOM>eríate</i> 'in the other [Greek] language'. But these could well have had a Latin etymon in the first place. <i>Labërija</i> in the south has Tosk -<i>r</i>-from intervocalic -<i>w</i>- and the Slavic metathesized <i>la</i>-, but we could posit either order for the occurrence of these. Skok has <i>Durrës</i> 'Durazzo' &lt; <i>D<img SRC="ERG_U.jpg" height=16 width=12 align=ABSBOTTOM>ra <span lang="bg">L</span></i> &lt; <i>Dyrrachium</i> (but note */dú-/ is required!). Yet pre-Serbian must have accented <i>Dra </i> on the second syllable. Moreover, to make matters more vexed, Cimochowski (Ling. Posn. 1960:8.133-145) posits Durracion [dur:akhi<img SRC="I_D.jpg" height=18 width=7 align=ABSBOTTOM>on], taken into Illyrian as <i>dúrak<img SRC="I_D.jpg" height=18 width=7 align=ABSBOTTOM>u</i>- (after *<i>o</i> > <i>a</i>) > *<i>dúrra(An</i>) > *<i>dúrrëc(ë)</i> > <i>Dúrës</i>; this enlarges on and sharpens the account referred to above in Çabej&#39;s treatment of these names. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Perhaps it is naïve to look for neat, unbroken settlement areas, and doubly so for those familiar with the prenational state of the Balkans. On the present evidence, I cannot accept as a whole any one of the above vexed solutions; nor can I reject totally any one as clearly wrong. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">An improvement of Bari's presentation of the name of the Bojana river (<i>LS</i> 29) might be to posit from Livy's <i>Barbanna</i> a form *<i>bar<img SRC="B_CH.jpg" height=21 width=12 align=ABSBOTTOM>anna</i> (note that <i>Berat</i> lost its Slavic -<i>g</i>-) = /bar</font><span lang="BG" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Arial Unicode MS"><img border="0" src="U_D.jpg" width="14" height="19" align="middle"></span><font face="Palatino Linotype">anna/ > *<i>borjan(n)a</i> (by Slavic adoption) > *<i>bojana</i> (in earlier Albanian; cf. <i>ujë</i> 'water' &lt; *<i>udrj</i>). Here we would have all changes explained by known rules but no clear chronology. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Of course, in any event we could only prove the Albanians did, and never that they did <i>not</i>, precede the Slavs. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">On the question of the erstwhile spread of the Albanian speech area, I. Popovic (<i>Istorija srpskohrvatskogjezika </i>23 [NoviSad, 1955]) points out clear evidence of earlier remains in Crna Gora. But no argument can be raised on this, however well it may fit in with our general picture of the percolation south and west of the Albanians, for a similar argument could then be constructed for the older spread of the Tosk area to the south. </font> <p> <hr SIZE=1 WIDTH="50%"> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="8."></a><b><font size=+1>8. </font></b>We must turn now to the troublesome and inconclusive question of Illyrian and Thracian, and their possible relation to Albanian. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Without entering into his arguments in detail  for I find their longer range aspects unconvincing, and his safer observations of concordances no advance over those of earlier workers  Bari (<i>LS</i> 24 and elsewhere) plumps for an Albanian-Armenian relationship, with Thracian as intermediate. More precisely, he would posit an Albano-Thracian and Phrygo-Armenian continuum. Note that this is quite a different relationship from that assumed by Reichenkron, above. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">I.I. Russu (<i>Cercet</i></font><span lang="BG" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Arial Unicode MS">Î</span><i><font face="Palatino Linotype">ri de lingvistic</font></i><span lang="BG" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Arial Unicode MS">Î</span><font face="Palatino Linotype"> 1958:3.89-107) finds Illyrian to be a <i>satYm</i> language, and Thracian likewise; but since they have a clearly different toponymic and onomastic lexicon, they are not one and the same language. Illyrian would have been Romanized at an early date, and Albanian, since it survived as an independent, would more likely be from Thracian. But, Russu declares, the problem of Albanian is still not solved. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Rosetti (<i>Istoria II</i><sup>3</sup> 51-63) reviews the question generally. The two areas of Illyrian and Thracian were divided by the Morava-Vardar river line. While asserting what I take to be his considered conclusion that Albanian is a Thracian dialect, Rosetti mentions Georgiev (p. 53) and Bari (p. 54), citing V. V. Ivanov and Hamp to the effect that Albanian is neither <i>satYm</i> nor <i>centum</i> typologically (see more on this below in relation to Illyrian), and mentioning Russu and Cimochowski as defending a <i>satYm</i> character for Illyrian (see below also), while C. de Simone (<i>IF</i> 1960:65.33) doubts the latter. A good list, of the proposed lexical equations with Illyrian and Thracian, follows (pp. 56-62). A proper consideration of this list would easily generate a good-sized essay, for there are problems on all sides, and Rosetti is essentially reporting the state of scholarship as he sees it. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">While opinion may differ on the above matters, none of the positions differs essentially from positions long held by one or another worker in the field. When we turn to the recent work of Georgiev, a new ingredient is added. In his <i>La toponymie ancienne de la péninsule balkanique et la thèse méditerranéenne </i>(Sofia, 1961; = <i>Linguistique balkanique</i> 3.1), he sets up seven regions, which number among them the three groups Daco-Mysian, Thracian, and Phrygian. (Roughly, the first two match the "Thracian" of many others.) The first of these groups is evidenced by toponyms in -<i>deva/-dava/-dova</i> (the variants are explained by chronology) &lt; *<i>dhw</i>, is the ancestor of Albanian, and illustrates its relation by the sound changes in the above form. Georgiev posits a whole set of phonological changes for this language, which match known developments in Albanian phonology: *<i>é, o,&nbsp;,&nbsp;,&nbsp;M,&nbsp;<span lang="bg">k</span>, au, ei (> e), eu (> e),&nbsp;<img SRC="N_TU.jpg" height=22 width=13 align=ABSBOTTOM> (> a),&nbsp;<img SRC="R_KR.jpg" height=18 width=10 align=ABSBOTTOM> (> ri),&nbsp;<img SRC="K_K.jpg" height=23 width=13 align=ABSBOTTOM> (&gt; s, þ),&nbsp;(h) (> z,&nbsp;<span lang="bg"></span>, d), tt (> s), s (>&nbsp;a)</i>. This is discussed in his <i>Toponymie</i> 7-8, as well as in <i>Issledovanija po sravitel'no-istoriceskomu jasykosnaniju</i> 145 (Moscow, 1958). I am not sure that I understand what is posited for *<i>ei</i> and *<i>tt</i> in the light of what I understand for Albanian. This prelanguage would have arisen in Dacia and spread to Dardania and Eastern Macedonia, and thence down the Axios (Vardar). Georgiev mentions chronologies, but I do not know how he arrives at them. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Georgiev's Thracian is defined (p. 9) by <i>para</i> 'river', <i>bria</i> 'town', <i>diza</i> 'fortress'; as is customary in such matters, there are etymologies for all these. The Thracian area occupied the region bounded by the Black Sea, the Propontis, the Aegean, and the Timachus, Strymon, and Danube rivers. If Georgiev's phonological rules were to turn out to be correct, we are still faced with a formidable lexical job, in view of the sparsity of manageable items: <i>Darda</i>- appears as both Daco-Mysian and Thracian. The following, which we could try to fit into the Albanian schema, are declared Thracian (<i>Issledovanija</i> 119-121): -<i>bistas</i> (<i>Boure-bista</i>) 'pistoV', <i>b(o')ur</i>- (to <i>burrë</i>?), <i>zeiz</i>-, <i>zis</i>- (<i>i-zi</i>?), <i>mal</i>- (<i>mal</i>?), and the gloss <i>skiár</i> 'Kardendistel' (<i>sh-qer</i>?). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Again, Illyrian (pp. 32-34) occupies Illyria, Dalmatia, and southern Pannonia. Here we find <i>Delm</i>- (<i>delmë</i> 'mouton'; the ordinary form is <i>dele</i>, and we may wonder where other such forms are found), <i>Ulc</i>- (<i>ulk, ujk</i> 'loup'). Daco-Mysian supposedly penetrated Illyria and Dalmatia by the first millennium B.C. Also, Venetic and Keltic came in from the northwest, thus giving the analyst a wide range of possible alternatives. This would allegedly explicate the two traditional conceptions of "Illyrian": Hirt, Krahe, Bari, Pokorny, Popovi (<i>centum</i>), versus Kretschmer, Jokl, Ribezzo, Pisani, Mayer (<i>satYm</i>, with an ingredient of centum). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">In <i>Issledovanija</i> (pp. 133-137) Georgiev goes on to elaborate his Daco-Mysian/Albanian/Thracian relationship; there are two theories, which he elaborates but which we can pass over here. In the "Mysian" of Asia Minor, the solitary well-known inscription yields <i>patrizi</i> = Greek patraVi; this would show Albanian <i>ri </i>&lt; *<img SRC="R_KR.jpg" height=18 width=10 align=CENTER>. An inscription in Bulgaria comes up with <i>dierns</i>, which is derived from *<i>k<sup>w</sup>ersna</i> =&nbsp; ern; here, supposedly, the labiovelar is palatalized and spirantized, as in Albanian. Thus Albanian and the relevant elements of Rumanian come from Daco-Mysian; <i>Athrus</i> > <i>Jantra</i> and <i>Utus</i> > <i>Vit</i> in northern Bulgaria show that that region was never Thracian, but rather Daco-Mysian. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">The concrete evidence for the above claims is wholly beyond my control. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">V. Pisani is well known to be against simple "Stammbaum" connections, yet he has from time to time pointed out apparent parallels in Albanian and Illyrian. In <i>Paideia</i> (1958:12.271) he draws an isogloss for "Macedonia-Tracia" with the words for 'name': Alb. <i>emen</i>, Slavic <i>im</i><span lang="bg"><i></i></span>, Baltic <i>emnes</i>/<i>emmens</i>, Keltic <i>ainmN</i>, etc. Doric would also show Illyrian relics in EnumakratidaV, EnumantiadaV (both Laconian); and to these Pisani adds Laconian diza 'capra' = Albanian <i>dhi</i>. In <i>Paideia</i> (12.298) he adduces Laconian grifasqai = grafein, with "Illyrian" *<img SRC="R_KR.jpg" height=18 width=10 align=ABSBOTTOM> > ri and Hellenized phi; and deisa 'sterco', first attested in deisozos in Leonidas of Tarentum, which he equates with Albanian <i>dhjes</i> 'defecate'. In his review of Volume I of A. Mayor's <i>Die Sprache der alten Illyrier</i> (<i>Paideia</i> 1958: 13.319-320) Pisani lists various Illyrian glosses, most of which show no hopeful connection with Albanian, but do show considerable philological difficulty: pelioV, pelia 'vecchio, -a' might conceivably be put in relation with plak 'old man'; we could guess at tritw &#39;testa&#39; alongside trû &#39;brain&#39;; medoV 'hydromel' does not occur in Albanian (see below); perhaps the most interesting is dibriV 'qalassa' ("senza etnico"), which has been suggested in connection with Albanian <i>déet</i>, but which Pisani thinks probably Phrygian. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">De ev thinks that Albanian is from Thracian, not from Illyrian. R. Gusmani (<i>Paideia</i> 1957:12.164-165) remarks: &quot;Ora qui il D. non ha tenuto calcolo del fatto che ogni lingua è la confluenza di diverse e molteplici tradizioni linguistiche, non di un filone unico, com egli implicitamente pensa.&quot; Thus, Albanian would possibly be from an ancient Balkan <i>kóine linguistica</i>, but this evades the central quesiton of how the "mixture" came about. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Jokl's Illyrian-Albanian correspondences (<i>Albaner</i> §3a) are probably the best known. Certain of these require comment: Strabo (7.314) eloV Lougeon : <i>lëgatë</i> 'swamp'. This could be *<i>lug</i>-, but there is also *<i>lag</i>- 'wet', which might of course also represent *<i>loug</i>-. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>Ludrum</i> : Tosk <i>lum</i> 'muck', Geg <i>lym</i>, Tosk <i>ler</i>, but there are also Latin and Greek cognates. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>Aquae Balizae</i> : <i>baltë</i> 'mud'. But Krahe (<i>IF</i> 1962:67.151-158) thinks <i>Balissae</i> is from <i>Bal-is(i)a</i> : *<i>Bal-sa</i> in <i>Balsenz</i> &lt; *<i>Bal-s-antia</i> (: *<i>Ap-s-antia</i> > <i>Absentia</i>) : Lith. <i>balà</i> 'swamp' : OCS <i>blato</i>, Alb. <i>baltë</i>. Therefore, for Krahe <i>Balissae/Balizae</i> is "Alteuropaisch" (see below). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>Metu-barbis</i> ~ -<i>barris</i> is ambiguous. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>Malo/untum</i>, etc., involve root etymologies and are dubious. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Place names in -<i>V-ste/a/o</i> : <i>kopshtë</i> 'orchard', <i>vresht</i> 'vineyard' : (<i>Illyrier</i> §4) Lith. -<i>ysta</i> 'membership'. But even this seemingly solid item has been challenged by J. Hubschmid ("Substratprobleme," <i>Vox Romanica</i> 1960:19): &quot;Letzten Endes sind sie aber vorindogermanischen Ursprungs. Sie drücken die Zugehörigkeit aus, haben ferner kollektive oder frequentative Bedeutung&quot; (p. 177). Hubschmid claims the suffix occurs from Basque and Western Romania to Asia Minor, against Georgiev&#39;s Pelasgic -<i>s(s)</i>- (pp. 298-299). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Schulze's -<i>is</i>- in names is now Krahe&#39;s &quot;Alteuropäisch.&quot; </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">That Alb. -<i>ínj</i> is a plural-collective is clear, but what about the meaning of <i>Delminium</i>? </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Jokl's fragile Thracian correspondences need a thorough overhauling in the light of recent work, on more than one count. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">While we must exercise due caution in the use of supposedly Illyrian forms (see below), Cimochowski (<i>BUShT</i> 1958:2.41-46) has some important discussion to contribute to the lasting debate on the reflexes of Indo-European "gutturals" in Illyrian. He points (pp. 41-42) to evidence for both <i>satYm</i> and <i>centum</i> character for Illyrian (-Messapic). Doubtless, he says, some proposed etymologies have been wrong: <i>Volturex, Regontius, Regius, Rega, Genthius</i>; yet many good examples of palatals > velars remain. Likewise, <i>Barzidihi</i> could be &lt; *<i>Barzes</i> &lt; *<i>Bard-jo-s</i> (cf. Alb. <i>mjekrrosh</i> 'bearded'); yet there remain many presumably original palatals written <i>s, z,</i> s, z, q in classical sources. Also, in his view <i>Aquilis</i>, <i>Aquincum</i> indubitably show labiovelars. Cimochowski further argues (pp. 42-44) that all <i>satYm</i> languages show some erratics with velar reflex for original palatal, which many scholars have tried to explain away as loans of ancient date. Jokl (Eberts <i>Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte</i> 1.89-94, 6.38-45, 13.29) tried to show that this occurred in the presence of <i>r</i> and <i>n</i>. Against this, Cimochowski adduces <i>Gentius, Genusus, Epicadus, Magaplinu</i>s (the last supposedly belonging with Skt. <i>mahant</i>-, Alb. <i>i madh</i> 'big'), <i>Bersumno</i> beside <i>Berginium</i> and <i>Bargulum</i>, <i>Barzidihi</i> beside <i>Bargilius</i> and <i>Bargulis</i>. Cimochowski thus believes that Illyrian (-Messapic) shows velars where uncontested <i>satYm</i> languages do, and that therefore these reflexes fail to make Illyrian a <i>centum</i> dialect. I agree provisionally with Cimochowski's conclusion here, but on other grounds. True, the facts speak against a <i>centum</i> status for Illyrian; but Cimochowski has too simple a formula for the <i>centum</i>-<i>satYm</i> dichotomy. In all of his examples, the following environment always involves a resonant, while the other cognates adduced are sometimes weak or dubious or susceptible of other explanations: <i>Vescleves</i>, <i>Can-davia</i> (for which *<img SRC="K_K.jpg" height=23 width=13><img SRC="U_D.jpg" height=18 width=12 align=middle><img SRC="N_KR.jpg" height=17 width=12 align=middle>- is gratuitously reconstructed, but which points only to *<img SRC="K_K.jpg" height=23 width=13><img SRC="N_KR.jpg" height=17 width=12 align=middle>- at most), <i>Acra-banis, Bargulis/Bargilius, Skerdis</i>, ''AggroV. This environment matches exactly that posited by me for the merger of palatals and velars in Albanian (<i>KZ</i> 1960:76.275-280), and on no account depends on erratic matches in the <i>satYm</i> languages as conventionally understood. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">A special feature of Illyrian claimed by Cimochowski is its separate reflex of the labiovelars (pp. 44-46). Before front vowels, as Pedersen and Jokl showed, Albanian distinguishes the labiovelars. Jokl correctly saw that Illyrian distinguished them, too, but tried wrongly to prove that Thracian did also. Jokl's argument rested on Akuenision (which is simply Latin <i>Aquensium</i>), Kouimedaba/Koumoudeba (of uncertain first element), Gouolhta (of uncertain segmentation), Zououath(r) (unclear even for the Thracian values of the letters), and Koadama (whose analysis rested circularly on the first two). Thus, according to Cimochowski, the evidence for Thracian labiovelars crumbles away. The distinct reflexes of labiovelars in Albanian and Illyrian form, then, a capital proof of the Illyrian ancestry of Albanian. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">But, in the face of all this, I feel we must bear in mind that the positive Illyrian labiovelar evidence is sparse and conjectural in the extreme. Moreover, as a retention it would be, strictly speaking, only weakly diagnostic. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Cimochowski also claims that Albanian shares with Messapic <i>au > a</i> and with Illyrian IE * >&nbsp; (then * > Albanian <i>o</i>); the last would be seen in Spalatum : Spolhtion in Italy. But O. Haas (<i>Messapische Studien</i> 173-174 [Heidelberg, 1962]) states that <i>au > a</i> occurs in Vulgar Latin adaptations (<i>Ascoli : Ausculum; Basta : Bausta</i>), and not in Messapic itself, which had <i>au > ao > o</i>. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">On the loss of <i>C</i>'s before *<i>s </i>in Illyrian and Albanian, see Hamp (<i>IF</i> 1961:66.51-52). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Furthermore, Krahe&#39;s &quot;Alteuropäisch&quot; has added a new ingredient. For example, in his &quot;Baltico-Illyrica&quot; (<i>Festschrift für Max Vasmer</i> 245-252 [Berlin, 1956]), we see various equations that for Jokl might have been marks of kinship between Illyrian-Albanian and Baltic. With such sparse evidence, too, there is a self-defeating aspect to this scholarship; consider Krahe's equations in <i>BzN</i> (1956:7.1-8); <i>Nette, Netze</i> would match Skt. <i>nad<img SRC="I_CHU.jpg" height=21 width=11 align=ABSBOTTOM>, nady<img SRC="A_CHU.jpg" height=22 width=12 align=ABSBOTTOM>h</i>, while <i>na<img SRC="Z_I.jpg" height=17 width=14 align=CENTER></i> would match <i>nadá</i>-; so far so good. But then *<i>ned</i>- would also appear in <i>Neta</i> (Norway), Greek Neda, Nedwn. Which language do we have now, and how do we know when we meet a new language on this level, much less who its kin are? More recently (<i>BzN</i> 14.1-19 and 113-124 [1963]) Krahe has screened &quot;Die Gewässernamen im alten Illyrien&quot; and sorted them into &quot;Alteuropäisch,&quot; Baltic-Adriatic, Northwest (Germanic) connections, and a newly defined &quot;Illyrian.&quot; In the last category we find only ArdaxanoV, <i>Artatus</i>, DizhroV, <i>Dr+nus</i>, Drilwn (are these related?), <i>Genusus</i>, Kat-arbathV, <i>Clausala</i>, Pizwn. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Clearly, one must be very circumspect before assigning any form definitely to Illyrian. </font> <p> <hr SIZE=1 WIDTH="50%"> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="9."></a><b><font size=+1>9.</font></b> We will deal separately with the Messapic problem, partly because I have dealt with it before (<i>Studies Presented to Joshua Whatmough </i>73-89 [The Hague, 1957]) and wish here to revise my statement of the problem, partly because we should not too lightly lump Illyrian and Messapic together. On this latter point, see now Haas eagerly awaited <i>Messapische Studien</i>: On his page 11, Haas states that he intends to discuss elsewhere his views on the insufficiently grounded assumption of Messapic and Illyrian unity; here he simply illustrates the flimsiness of some grounds that depend on quite arbitrary segmentations of words. On his page 12 he says that the Illyrian thesis for Messapic belongs to the past, and hopefully soon to oblivion. This is not to exclude a fresh proof, when Illyrian may in the future become better specified; it is only that no such demonstration has been made up to now. On his page 13 he states that it is possible that Illyrian names may be clarified on the basis of our knowledge of Messapic; but the reverse is methodologically unsound. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">After the recent painstaking philological work on the texts by O. Parlangèli (<i>Studi messapici</i> [Milano, 1960]), Haas (op. cit.), and de Simone (largely in <i>IF</i>), no forms should be used without being freshly checked.<font size=-1>[This article had already been sent to press when I received, thanks to the courtesy of the authors, the marvelously meticulous joint work of C. de Simone (<i>Die messapischen Inschrifien</i>) and J. Untermann (<i>Die messapischen Personennamen</i> [Wiesbaden, 1964]), continuing Krahe's <i>Die Sprache der Illyrier</i>. Likewise, I had not seen de Simone&#39;s article on the Messapic diphthongs (IF 1964:69.20-37), nor Parlangèli&#39;s review of Haas (<i>Kratylos</i> 1963:8.179-186).]</font> </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Apparently without having seen my above-mentioned article (abbr. <i>A&amp;M</i>), (Çabej has dealt with some Messapic words in his &quot;Unele probleme ale istoriei limbii albaneze&quot; (<i>Studii&nbsp;_i cercet</i></font><span lang="BG" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Arial Unicode MS">Î</span><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>ri lingvistice</i> 1959: 10.527-560, esp. 555), and some of our treatments overlap. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Although the question of Phrygian takes us beyond the scope of this paper, those interested should now consult further (ad A&amp;M 76) the recent papers of Haas in <i>Die Sprache</i> and <i>Linguistique balkanique</i>. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Taking up specific points in A&amp;M: (§3.1) Çabej (p. 555) has likewise remarked this. (§3.3) Çabej adduces <i>balias, balakriaihi, bálakros</i>, Pliny's <i>balisca vitis</i>, and Apulian dialect <i>bálaku</i>, all beside Albanian <i>balosh</i> (term for horses and cattle with a white forehead). On the other hand, de Simone (<i>IF</i> 1962:67.36-52) lucidly reads <i>bale</i>y<i>ias</i> as <i>bale<img SRC="I_D.jpg" height=18 width=7 align=ABSBOTTOM>as</i> (= Illyr. <i>Diteius, Poteius, Ateia</i>, etc., in form); connects <i>Bales</i> (&lt; *<i>bal<img SRC="I_D.jpg" height=18 width=7 align=ABSBOTTOM>as</i>) with <i>balásh</i>; and says that Messapic <i>balasiiri[hi]</i> is not to be equated with <i>Bálakros</i>. But the connection of these forms directly with <i>balásh</i> is inexact, for this -<i>l</i>- comes from *-<i>lC</i>- and not from *<i>VlV</i> or *-<i>l<img SRC="I_D.jpg" height=18 width=7 align=ABSBOTTOM></i>-. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">(§3.4) Haas (<i>Mess. Stud</i>. 144) posits for <i> bijë</i> *<i>bhkl<img SRC="I_D.jpg" height=18 width=7 align=ABSBOTTOM></i>, but that cannot be, for it would give *<i>byjë</i>. If <i>bolles</i> and <i>bili(v)a</i> really reflect *<i>bhkl(i)<img SRC="I_D.jpg" height=18 width=7 align=ABSBOTTOM></i>-, as Haas assumes (pp. 28, 41, 131, 142-144), then we must abandon the Albanian equation. On <i>bir</i>, Pisani (IF 1959:64.170 n. 1), after E. Risch, has <i>f+lia </i>primary to the secondary <i>f+lius</i> and *<i>putlo</i>- remodeled to <i>puer</i> after <i>gener</i>, <i>socer</i>; here might be a parallel to bolster *<i>bi<img SRC="H_I.jpg" height=20 width=16 align=ABSBOTTOM></i>- > <i>bir</i>. (§3.5) If the suggestion of <i>delme</i> &#39;sheep&#39; to the name of Dalmatia is sound, then my suggestion falls away. (§3.10) If Alb. <i>mëz</i> really joins Basque <i>mando</i> 'mule', as Bari (<i>Hymje</i> 57) has it, then these go with the -<i>st</i>- suffix above. Bari also includes here <i>(h)ardhí</i> 'grapevine' : Basque <i>ardao</i> 'wine' and <i>bisht</i> 'tail' : Basque <i>buztan</i>. (§3.13) I hope to refine the account of <i>mjegullë</i> on another occasion. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">(§3.14) Çabej also adduces <i>ndë</i> &#39;in&#39;, but not the others. (§3.16) Pertinent to the comparative aspect of the discussion of <i>atavetes</i> and <i>sivjet</i> now is Mycenaean <i>za-we-te</i> (opposed to <i>pe-ru-si-nwa</i> PY Ma 225) = <i>kjawetes</i> 'this year' according to Palmer and Killen (Nestor 240 [March, 1963]), and <i>85-u-te</i>, which would not be *<i>sjawetes</i>, as Palmer wants, according to Killen (<i>Nestor</i> 258). In Mycenaean *<i>kj</i> and *<i>tj </i>would perhaps give the same result in this instance. (§3.19) Krahe (<i>IF</i> 1959:64.248) sees here the Messapic suffix -<i>id<img SRC="I_D.jpg" height=18 width=7 align=ABSBOTTOM>o</i>, also seen in <i>alzanaidihi</i> (gen.). This could then be compared to the Albanian plural and diminutive -<i>z</i>-. (§3.24) Çabej, too, adduces this equation. (§4.3) Çabej wonders whether <i>veinan</i> is not to be equated with Lith. <i>víenas</i>. Note that Haas (Mess. Stud. 37 and 221) continues the unacceptable reconstruction of Albanian <i>vetë</i> as *<i>s</i></font><span lang="BG" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Arial Unicode MS"><img border="0" src="U_D.jpg" width="14" height="19" align="middle"></span><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>e-ti</i>- by suggesting a comparison with Messapic <i>vetai</i> 'ihr selbst'. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">In passing, it is worth observing that Haas (p. 95) makes an identification and Messapic reconstruction that is suggestive of a new line of thought. He translates aran as 'illam' (contrast <i>A&amp;M</i> §3.1) and compares Umbrian <i>oro</i>-; this may or may not be so. Here (and again on p. 177) he translates <i>ennan</i> also as 'illam', reconstructing *<i>en<img SRC="I_D.jpg" height=18 width=7 align=ABSBOTTOM>m</i> and comparing Greek enh 'jenen Tag', OCS onJ, Latin <i>enim</i>. If so, this same reconstructed shape would also accommodate Albanian <i>një</i> 'one', and the sense is not too far off. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Also (Haas, 46 ff.), <i>graiva</i>, graibia (-<i>f</i>-) (a feast in Tarentum), derivative of an old <i>u</i>-stem, allegedly seen in B.1.43. <i>grahis damatria </i>*<i>grks</i> = grauV (Haas, op. cit. 142 on&nbsp;k > i), suggests Albanian <i>gr</i> plural of <i>grua</i> 'woman'. On this last word, see Hamp (<i>KZ</i> 1960:76.276). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">(§4.6) I am glad to see that Haas agrees (pp. 184-185) with me (save for a few details on which I am unclear) on the developments of the &quot;gutturals.&quot; The separate reflexes shown for the labiovelars (pp. 185-187) and the dentals derived from palatals (p. 188) are highly suggestive of Albanian, but the supporting examples are as yet insufficiently certain. On this matter, see also the discussion of Cimochowski s ideas above. Haas&#39; discussion of the labiovelars in <i>Ling. Posn</i>. (1953:4.78-80) seemed to me inconclusive by comparison with his later work. Further, Bari (<i>LS</i> 9-14) discusses the <i>satYm</i> question; all his examples for Illyrian <i>centum</i> features (p. 11) are dubious, as is his treatment of <i>kr</i>. On palatal-before-resonant in Albanian, see Hamp (KZ 1960:76.275-280); and cf. the above observations on the Illyrian question. Popovic (pp. 21-22) essentially follows Bari for Illyrian and <i>satYm-centum</i>. The matter of supposed palatalization of labiovelars in Thracian goes beyond our discussion. S. Josifovi "Nova mialjenja o indoevropskim jezi kim supstratima na Balkanu," <i>Godianjak Filozofskog Fakulteta u Novom Sadu</i> 1959:4.97-115) comments on Budimir's works of 1950 and 1956 on "Pelasti," and on Pavlovi's of 1957 and 1958 on the Mediterranean substratum in the Balkans. Most of this need not concern us here, but Budimir allegedly (p. 99) separates <i>kohë</i> from&nbsp; <i>as</i><span lang="bg"><i>J</i></span> &lt; *<i>k<sup>w</sup>so</i>-, which he relates to&nbsp; <i>esati,&nbsp; esno, kosa</i>, xainw, xew, xoanon. "Thus Albanian preserved the explosive character of the palatal gutturals for a long time, which is not the case with the other satYm dialects, and besides it distinguished velars and labiovelars in contradistinction to satYm languages." It may be so, but I do not see how this statement follows naturally from the context. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">(§4.7) On <i>haiva</i>y<i>ias</i> (p. 89), see de Simone, <i>IF</i> 1960:65.31-34. The ghost word <i>ana</i> now falls, away; see L. Ognenova, <i>Studia in honorem D. De ev</i> 333-341 (Sofia, 1958) K(uri)e bohqh ''Anna, and E. Çabej (<i>BShkSh</i> 1957:2.122-126, conveniently reported by M. Lambertz, <i>Südostforschungen</i> 1959:18.402-403) ana[b]ohqh 'I(h)s(ou) K(u)r(ie). </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">In addition to the forms I have discussed, Çabej (p. 555) has also proposed the following equations: <i>Meduma</i> (place name) = Albanian <i>i-mje(t)më</i> 'middle' (which, however, it should be pointed out, is simply a productive derivative in -<i>me</i> of the particle <i>mjet</i>); <i>tabaras</i>, <i>tabarra</i> 'priest, -ess (?)' = Albanian preverb (fossilized) <i>të</i>- plus the root <i>bar</i>- 'carry'; <i>ma</i> = Albanian <i>mos</i> 'modal negative'; <i>(ma)kos</i> 'ne quis (?)', <i>(ai min)kos</i> 'si quis (?)' = Albanian <i>kush</i> &#39;who?&#39;. Most of these Messapic forms are as yet of highly uncertain interpretation; consult Haas for more detail, Çabej also suggests Calabrese dialect <i>menna minna</i> = Albanian <i>ménd</i> 'suck, nurse'. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">For Salentine Greek, G. Rohlfs (<i>Die Sprache</i> 1959:5.173-175) has proposed a Messapic etymon *<i>squèros</i> for the word <i>s<img SRC="K_K.jpg" height=23 width=13 align=ABSBOTTOM>ero</i>, and puts this in relation with Albanian <i>hirrë</i> &quot;Käsewasser.&quot; </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">W. P. Schmid (<i>IF</i> 1960:65.26-30) reads Messapic genitive + <i>no</i> and equates this with Letto-Lithuanian <i>nuo</i>; since Lettish shows gen. sg. and dat. pl. here, Schmid posits original ablative syntax, which Messapic would have lost. </font> <p> <hr SIZE=1 WIDTH="50%"> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="10."></a><b><font size=+1>10.</font></b> We come now to the proposed relations between Albanian and other Indo-European groups. The material will be quickly passed in review. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">M. Durante ("Etrusco e lingue balcaniche," <i>Annali... Napoli</i> 1961:3.59-77) has some hazardous implications tied to a few observations on Albanian which do not convince me. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">It is convenient here to reproduce Georgiev's subgrouping of Indo-European (<i>Issledovanija</i> 282-283): </font> <blockquote><font face="Palatino Linotype">North: Baltic-Slavic-Germanic, perhaps Tocharian <br>West: Italic-Keltic, Venetic, Illyrian <br>Central: Greek, Daco-Mysian (including Albanian), Indo-Iranian, Phrygian-Armenian, Thracian, Pelasgic <br>South: Hittite-Luwian, Etruscan</font></blockquote> <font face="Palatino Linotype">Apart from the many debatable points that fall outside the scope of this paper, since Albanian belongs to the largest group, there is little to say about crucial problems. If one thing is clear to me, it is that no special relations have as yet been proposed for Italic, Keltic, or Anatolian. But in this field perhaps anything can happen. </font> <p> <hr SIZE=1 WIDTH="50%"> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><a NAME="11."></a><b><font size=+1>11.</font></b> By way of orienting ourselves, summarizing open issues, and correcting some unevennesses in past scholarship, we will now consider matters dealt with in Porzig's <i>Gliederung</i>. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype">First, some corrections, <i>dorë</i> 'hand' (p. 187), -ceir, etc. are taken back to *<i>her</i>- 'greifen', i.e., *<i>her-s</i>-; of course, in the light of Hittite the preform is something like *<i>h<img SRC="E_CHV.jpg" height=22 width=11 align=ABSBOTTOM>sr</i> (fem. in Albanian &lt; old neut pl. ?). The apparent reconstructions for Albanian are sg. <i>dorë</i> &lt; *<i>h(s)r</i>, pl. <i>duar</i> &lt; *<i>h(s)res</i> (C-stem). An alternative, preserving the gender considerations along with formal shape, is <i>dorë</i> fem. &lt; (by form-class analogy) *neuter &lt; *<i>h(s)r-An</i> (in Jokl's symbols) = *<i>h(s)r-om</i>, thematized from *<i>h<img SRC="E_CHV.jpg" height=22 width=11 align=ABSBOTTOM>sr</i>; <i>duar &lt; *dor &lt; *gera &lt; *gh(s)ra</i>. </font> <p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>zjarr</i> (p. 163) 'fire' is derived from an <i>n</i>-suffix form, and is equated with Skt. <i>gh<img SRC="R_KR.jpg" height=18 width=10 align="middle"><img SRC="N_T.jpg" height=19 width=13 align=middle>á</i> m. 'Glut, Hitze'; but as I have demonstrated in a recent oral presentati