Classication of Thracian

1.2 Thraco-Illyrian

The linguistic classication of the ancient Thracian language has long been a matter of contention and uncertainty, and there are widely varying hypotheses regarding its position among other Paleo-Balkan languages.[1][2]
It is not contested, however, that the Thracian languages
were Indo-European languages which had acquired satem
characteristics by the time they are attested.

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 longer Thracian inscriptions that are known (if

they are indeed examples of Thracian sentences and
phrases, which has not been determined) are not apparently close to Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, or any other known
language,[3] and they have not been satisfactorily deciThe rivers Vardar and Morava are generally taken as the
phered aside from perhaps a few words.
rough line of demarcation between the Illyrian sphere
on the west and Thracian on the east.[8] 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[9] seem
1 Hypothesized links
to be a Thraco-Illyrian mix; Wilkes, 1992 et al.). It
appears that Thracian and Illyrian do not have a clearcut frontier.[10] Similarities found between the Illyrian
1.1 Daco-Thracian
and Thracian lexis can thus be seen as merely linguistic
interference.[11]
A Daco-Thracian grouping is widely held. The problem of the classication of Thracian can thus be seen as Others such as I.I. Russu argue that there should have
the wider problem of the classication of Daco-Thracian been major similarities between Illyrian and Thraand its place within the Indo-European language fam- cian, and a common linguistic branch (not merely a
ily. However, some paleo-linguists are not convinced Sprachbund) is probable. Among the Thraco-Illyrian correspondences Russu considers are the following:
that Dacian was a Northern branch of Thracian, and have
sought to place Dacian on a separate branch rather than Not many Thraco-Illyrian correspondences are denite,
believing that Dacian diverged from Thracian/or Thra- and a number may be incorrect, even from the list above.
cian diverged from Dacian (or both diverging from an However, Sorin Paliga states:[12] According to the availimmediate common ancestor).
able data, we may surmise that Thracian and Illyrian were
In the 1950s, the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir I. Georgiev mutually understandable, e.g. like Czech and Slovak,
published his work which argued that Dacian and in one extreme, or like Spanish and Portuguese, at the
Albanian should be assigned to a language branch termed other. Other linguists argue that Illyrian and Thracian
Daco-Mysian, Mysian (the term Mysian derives from were dierent Indo-European branches which later conthe Daco-Thracian tribe known as the Moesi [4] ) be- verged through contact. It is also of signicance that Illyring thought of as a transitional language between Dacian ian languages still have not been classied whether they
and Thracian. Georgiev argued that Dacian and Thra- were centum or satem language, while it is undisputed
was a satem language by the Classical Pecian are dierent languages, with dierent phonetic sys- that Thracian
[13]
riod.
tems, his idea being supported by the placenames, which
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 ThracoIllyrian exists, and that the two language-areas show
more dierences than correspondences.[14] The place of

end in -dava in Dacian and Mysian, as opposed to para, in Thracian placenames.[5] A series of authors favors Georgievs view. Nevertheless, Polome hesitates to
accept it.[6] Crossland considers this seems to be a divergence of a Thraco-Dacian language into northern and
southern groups of dialects, not as dierent as to rank as
separate languages .[7]
1

Paeonian language remains unclear. Modern linguists are

uncertain on the classication of Paeonian, 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 anities with
Thracian.

REFERENCES

1.5 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.[16] 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
1.3 Albanian
Greek and the Ancient Macedonian language (the extinct
language or Greek dialect of ancient Macedon). The
A hypothesis that the Thracian and the Albanian lan- Greek language itself may be grouped with the Phrygian
guage together form a branch of the Indo-European lan- language and Armenian language, both of which have
guage remains one of the major current theories. There been grouped with Thracian in the past.
are a number of close cognates between Thracian and As in the case with Albanian and Balto-Slavic, there is no
Albanian, but this may indicate only that Thracian and compelling evidence that Thracian and Greek (or DacoAlbanian are related but not very closely related satem Thracian and Greco-Macedonian) share a close common
IE languages on their own branches of Indo-European, ancestor.
analogous to the situation between Albanian and the
Baltic languages: Albanian and Baltic share many close
cognates,[15] but the languages themselves are on dier2 See also
ent Indo-European satem language branches. There have
been great changes in the Albanian language since Thra Albanian language
cian times, and it remains dicult to demonstrate that
Albanian and Thracian were any closer than Albanian
Balkan sprachbund
and for example, Baltic. Still, the hypothesis that Thracian and Albanian form a distinct branch (often in these
Dacian language
scenarios, along with Dacian) of Indo-European is given
Paleo-Balkan languages
much consideration even today. A few of the cognates
between Thracian and Albanian may actually represent
Romanian words of possible Dacian origin (and
borrowings from one language to another ; in most cases
comparison with Albanian words)
this is ruled out because a word or lexical item follows
Thracian language
the sound-changes expected in the language from its PIE
sound-changes.
Venetic language
Among the cognates between Thracian and Albanian: the
Thracian inscription mezenai on the Duvanli gold ring has
been unanimously linked to Messapian menzana (=horse 3 References
deity) to Albanian mz (=pony), as well as to Romanian
mnz (=colt), and it is agreed that Thracian mezenai
[1] This is conrmed among others by Benjamin W. Fortmeant 'horseman'; Thracian manteia is supposed to be
son in his Indo-European Language and Culture, when he
cognate to Albanian mand (=mulberry).
states that all attempts to relate Thracian to Phrygian, Illyrian, or Dacian...are...purely speculative. (p. 90).

1.4

Balto-Slavic

[2] Ilija Casule even links Thracian and Phrygian with the
Burushaski language, a language isolate spoken in northern Pakistan.
[3] Duridanov, Ivan. The Language of the Thracians.

A hypothesis that Thracian (or in other scenarios, DacoThracian) and the Baltic languages or the Balto-Slavic
languages form one branch of Indo-European has also
been proposed . Here again due to the scanty evidence,
though many close cognates exist between Balto-Slavic
and Thracian, there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that Thracian and Balto-Slavic or Thracian and
Baltic (excluding Slavic in some scenarios) form one
branch of Indo-European.

[4] The Moesi of Moesia are not to be confused with the Mysoi
(Mysians) of Mysia in ancient Anatolia, though some hypothesize that the Mysians are directly descended from the
Balkan Moesi. This is hypothesized mostly on the basis of
Strabo's claim that some Moesians had migrated to Mysia,
becoming the Mysians of Anatolia. Also in some classical
sources the Moesi of Moesia are called ; Thracologists often see this as a corruption. Thracologists have
noted a Thracian element in Mysia, but the Mysians are

more often viewed as a non-Thraco-Dacic people akin to

the Phrygians, not the Thracians.
[5] Vladimir Georgiev (Gheorghiev), Raporturile dintre limbile dac, trac i frigian, Studii Clasice Journal, II,
1960, 39-58.
[6] Polom 1982, pp. 887888.
[7] Crossland & 1982 838.
[8] Encyclopdia Britannica - Balkans.
[9] Wilkes, J.J. The Illyrians. 1992, ISBN 0-631-19807-5,
p. 85. Whether the Dardanians were an Illyrian or a
Thracian people has been much debated...
[10] Russu (1969).
[11] Hemp, Georgiev, et al.
[12] Paliga, S. (20012002). Pre-Slavic and Pre-Romance
Place-Names in Southeast Europe. Orpheus (Soa) 11
12: 85132.
[13] The satem nature of proto-Thracian is disputed (Olteanu
2002).
[14] See works by Vladimir Georgiev, Ivan Duridanov, and
Eric Hamp.
[15] Vladimir Orel, A Concise Historical Grammar of the Albanian language; et al.
[16] Sorin Mihai Olteanu - The Thracian Palatal (Accessed:
February 26, 2009).

Bibliography
Crossland, R.A.; Boardman, John (1982). Linguistic problems of the Balkan area in the late prehistoric
and early Classical period in The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 3, Part 1. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-22496-3.
Polom, Edgar Charles (1982). Balkan Languages
(Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian)". Cambridge
Ancient History. III.1. pp. 866888.

5 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

5.1

Text

Classication 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, Igin, 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