|
The classification of the Thraco-Illyrian languages has long been a matter of contention and uncertainty, and there are widely varying hypotheses regarding the position of Thraco-Illyrian among the Paleo-Balkan languages.[1] It is not contested however that the Thraco-Illyrian languages were Indo-European languages which had acquired satem characteristics by the time there were attested.
Hypothesized links
-
Main article: 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.
Illyrian
-
Older models often linked Thracian and Dacian to the Illyrian language. This grouping is contested.
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 (v. Hemp et al.). 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 Albanian mëz (=colt), 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 man (=mulberry). It may also be connected to the Slavic mantiya (=cloak). Sorin Paliga, a linguist at the academy of Bucharest, recently linked Romanian buza (=lip) and Albanian buzë (=lip) to the Thracian personal names Buzas, Buzo, Buzes. This word also exists in Bulgarian where it means 'cheek', in Macedonian with the meaning of 'lip', and in Polish buzia where it means 'mouth' or 'lips'.
Balto-Slavic
In 1958 Vladimir Georgiev published his paper The Genesis of the Balkan peoples that proposed that Dacian and Thracian were on two different Indo-European branches. In 1975 Ivan Duridanov publishes his Ezikyt 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 Ezikyt 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 [1], and in fact they have not been deciphered aside from perhaps a few words.
Ancient Greek
Recently Sorin Olteanu, a Romanian linguist and thracologist, has proposed that the Thracian (as well as the Dacian) language was a Centum language in its earlier period, and developed Satem features over time [2]. 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.
Notes
- ^ Ilija Casule even links Thracian and Phrygian with the Burushaski language, a language isolate spoken in northern Pakistan.
See also
| 
