Below is a snapshot of the Web page as it appeared on 8/11/2023 (the last time our crawler visited it). This is the version of the page that was used for ranking your search results. The page may have changed since we last cached it. To see what might have changed (without the highlights), go to the current page.
Bing is not responsible for the content of this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Greek language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Great initiative to open up such an page! There are hardly any sources online that deal with a possible Graeco-Phrygian language pre-history. However, let me make a note on mentioning Messapic. Isn't that a very bold statement made by Blazec recently? I mean in a way the group called "Hellenic" became a bag for poorly attested languages. Not even Phrygian can be called Hellenic. Helladic is a more accurate term for languages that we have strong indications to have been spoken within Greek borders. Fkitselis (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blažek cites Huld, Martin (1995). Grassmann's Law in Messapic. Journal of Indo-European Studies: 23, pp. 147–155, but I've not got access to that. Is 'Helladic' used in literature? — lfdder 23:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately not in historical linguistics. Only in archaeology. I didn't mean we should use it, but its context is geographic, hence much more accurate than Hellenic. In any case, I don't know if there is a point to mention the other groupings as part of the text. They should be in a "see also" section. Fkitselis (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I don't think so. They provide context. — lfddersmitten 12:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need a separate article for Balkan Indo-European. Neither Graeco-Armenian (which excludes Albanian and Phrygian and mentions Balkan Indo-European only on the side) nor Paleo-Balkan languages (which excludes Greek, Albanian and Armenian) treat this subject specifically. I recommend the writings of Joachim Matzinger, especially "Phrygisch und Armenisch" in Gerhard Meiser, Olav Hackstein (edd.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17. – 23. September 2000 in Halle an der Saale, Wiesbaden 2005, pp. 375–394. He definitely includes Messapic as Balkan Indo-European. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. We could possibly merge this article into it. — lfdder 23:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd prefer to keep them distinct. Graeco-Phrygian is (like Graeco-Armenian) relatively well-defined, the membership of Balkan Indo-European is not at all fixed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes, but we could talk about all the different groupings under the 'Balkan Indo-European' banner, I thought. — lfdder 13:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course. It would be an overview article summarising the proposals Graeco-Phrygian, Graeco-Armenian, Daco-Thracian and Thraco-Illyrian.
Oh, and Armeno-Albanian of course. Wait, nobody has proposed that one yet? What a shame.
By the way, Fkitselis: Venetic is now usually thought of as Italic, in view of its development of the voiced aspirates, but Matzinger points to some features it has in common with the Balkan languages. These might be due to contact. Istro-Liburnian seems to be Venetic, unlike Liburnian proper, which is more closely allied with the Illyrian languages. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Venetic is definetely Italic, but from a number of personal names it seems like some Balkanians shared space on the eastern limits of Venetic. I don't know the details that Matzinger points out, but I find it very probable that Venetic shared some features with neighbouring non-Italic languages. Fkitselis (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The paper I've mentioned above has a handy overview in the form of a table which shows for every language treated the presence or absence of traits relevant for Balkan Indo-European as + and − respectively. Unfortunately I can't think of any source right now which is handier (by being available online, in English, or both).
Balkan-Indo-European traits in Venetic, by the way, would strongly suggest these – those which Venetic does exhibit at least – to be areal features. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Glottolog considers the Phrygian link to be demonstrated well enough to have adopted the classification, but evidently not the others. — kwami (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
