Talk:Messapic language

[Untitled]

Some of the few words presented here are very similar to presentday Albanian. Aran - arën, the (cultivated) field (as accusative object) Aprodita - afërdita, the dawn, also used as a girls' name Klauhi - quaj, call Mazzes - (i) madh, big

More about the relations between Messapian and Albanian in this site: http://www.gjuha-shqipe.com/english/content/about_albanian/history.html

LM 217.209.140.193 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed from the Albanian language because the source was not given and the IP contributed a text with numerous errors:

Messapian Proto-Albanian Albanian meaning bili(v)a birlā bijë, bilë daughter brendon "deer" brina bri, pl. brirë horn, antler grahis, graiva grāwā grua, pl. gra woman, wife klaohi "listen" klāusnja quaj, quej to call kos kusa kush who skero (Salentine Greek) skirā hirrë whey veinam "self" swam > wa u reflexive clitic pronoun

swaja vehte self 

venas wana uri, û (Gheg dial. unja) hunger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa the Sociopath (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Centum or Satem

I want to know how come is written that Messapic is Centum while seeing the sources (not the ones on the article because there are not) and the phonetic rules it looks like a satem language?. Aigest (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This passage

I read sources years ago saying that this passage is probably mostly names: I will bold at least some of them that look like names to me:

klohi zis (=Zeus?) thotoria marta pido vastei basta veinan aran in daranthoa vasti (?) staboos xohedonas (?) daxtassi (?) vaanetos (Venetic v.a.nt.s, name) inthi trigonoxo a staboos xohetthihi dazimaihi beiliihi inthi rexxorixoa kazareihi xohetthihi toeihithi dazohonnihi inthi vastima daxtas kratheheihi inthi ardannoa poxxonnihi a imarnaihi

---I will find more info showing why I think those are names, but I want to find the sources that I remember so I can source it in the article. I am so sure that the observation that is is mostly names is agreed upon, I will add that info ahead of time. Alex (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Some apparent first names?: Daranthoa, Rexxorixoa, Ardannoa, Thotoria, Dachtas (?; written Daxtas), Vaanetos. Alex (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, dazimaihi and dazohonnihi have been accepted as Messapic names related to Illyrian and Thracian Dasius,Dazaios, Dazas, Dazos Aigest (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you come across studies of Venetic/Messapic names in common, add that to the article. Besides those in common three ways (Mess.; Illyr.; Venet.), I've noticed some that I can't find in Illyrian: Mold- (Venetic Moldo, Moldonkeo, etc/Messapic Moldahtas), V.an.t.s/Vaanetos etc. Alex (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Messapic cognates

Above Brundis is even bilia (daughter) connected to Alb bir(son) (while Old Alb bila) as Hamp here [1] Aigest (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While another cognate is Jupiter Menzanas the horse deity of the Messapians, apparently with cognates in Illyrian mandos, Albanian maz, mëz(ponny) and Thracian Mezenai Aigest (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving here an article on another Messapic word, possible cognate to Menzanas: Meudler Marcel. Mézence, un théonyme messapien ?. In: Revue des Études Anciennes. Tome 105, 2003, n°1. pp. 5-15. [DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/rea.2003.5647] [www.persee.fr/doc/rea_0035-2004_2003_num_105_1_5647] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5CE7:8E72:EC12:30AF:8230:EF8C (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed text

The text below was added by an anonymous editor, & lacks citations -- or even a clear point for inclusion. -- llywrch (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

 kaj Ziut                            
 Dekias Artahias
 Thautori en nderr 
 Gjithe venit
 (connected with gheg albanian) 

 Thautorri probably means ruler, or king.

Adding pictures of inscriptions

Βατο, Krakkos, or any contributor watching this page, could you help me adding one or several pictures of Messapic inscriptions from this page? I'm not sure which license tag I must use or if I have the right to do so. Thank you, sincerely, Azerty82 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The content of the website hosting those images appears to have been copyrighted since 2008. It doubt the images can be used per WP:FAIRUSE either. Krakkos (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That's what I thought (although the website is not at the origin of the picture; it's probably a decade-old one featured in the Monumenta Linguae Messapicae), thank you for the feedback, Azerty82 (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Inscription

Azerty82, according to the material given by scholars, the English tranlation of hipakaθi ϴaotoras Keošorrihi bilia seems incorrect: ϴaotoras Keošorrihi bilia should be ϴaotora, daughter of Keošorr, and hipakaθi is related to 'offer', but I have not sources for the whole tranlation. What do you think? – Βατο (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A similar name, ϴeotoria is found also in Mallory & Adams p. 417. – Βατο (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right. I have taken the translation from Marchesini (2009):

hipakaθi ϴaotoras Keosorrihi bilia :: 'Hipaka figlia di ϴaotor Keosorrihi'

Which is strange since Marchesini is usually a reliable source. She has co-authored 'Monumenta linguae messapicae' with De Simone.

I have removed it since it appears doubtful. Azerty82 (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Βατο, the typo in atabulus was once again caused by my broken pdf of Orel (1998). This should be the last one. Hopefully, I didn't use it in other WP articles, except in my draft on the origin of the Albanians, which I'm going to thoroughly control. Azerty82 (talk)

Messapian > Messapic

I propose renaming the article from 'Messapian' to 'Messapic', since the latter is clearly the main denomination used by scholars. See the footnotes in the article.

The new lede would be: Messapic; also known as Messapian, or Iapygian to refer to the pre-Roman, non-Italic languages of the southeastern Italian peninsula) Azerty82 (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I support renaming the article, but I don't see the need to edit the lede, that is currently fully sourced.--3knolls (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

'Iapygian' is added in the lede to reflect the section /* name */, but it could probably be better worded ('Messapic' is abusively used to refer to the 3 languages spoken in Apulia). Azerty82 (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: just a precision, the above-written proposition is not the full lede, just the beginning until ...is an extinct... The rest of the lede will remain untouched Azerty82 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I support it. – Βατο (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Matzinger (2015)

I don't have much time to contribute to the article for now. Matzinger has written an interesting article (in Italian).

PDF: http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/idomeneo/article/download/15282/13278

DOI: 10.1285/i20380313v19p57 (http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/idomeneo/article/view/15282)

Azerty82 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Azerty82, there is also: Matzinger, Joachim (2005): Messapisch und Albanisch (in German), in International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 2, 2005, pp. 29-54. – Βατο (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This is also available on-line: Matzinger (2014): Einführung ins Messapische. A recent book is Matzinger (2019): Messapisch ISBN 3954903989. – Βατο (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Phonemes

/š/ is often used for /ʃ/ (the postalveolar voiceless sibilant fricative) but some clarity -- perhaps in prose -- could be helpful for readers I believe. Likewise, it appears surprising that a language in this area would possess /q/, an uvular voiceless stop, as a phoneme, which is generally not common in European languages outside the Caucasus (though Punic on the other side of the Mediterranean did possess it), though if sources report this clearly I would not doubt it. --Calthinus (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That's because Marchesini report them as /š/ and /q/, although she probably meant /k/ for the latter since the adopted letter is a Greek koppa. I'm not an expert of Messapic though (and only a few linguists really are unfortunately). De Simone is probably the leading expert of the language, so I'm going to read his chapter again and consider his statements as superseding those of Marchesini. Azerty82 (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't find a definitive answer. Others seem to read a labialized kʷ. I have added a (?) before the sound until one can find another RS that supports the uvular stop.

PS Βατο, regarding the anda root, De Simone says that a new datum of importance for historical phonology is provided by the particle anda ‘and, as well’ (MLM II, s. v.), which most likely can be traced back to PIE *n̥dó and therefore provides evidence for the outcome of the syllabic nasal in Messapic. I haven't find another source to support that yet. Azerty82 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Matzinger (2005, p. 38) translates it with 'in', I added also the Latin cognate. I found other sources that translates it with 'before' or 'beside', hence with the PIE root *h₂énti. Other sources should be consulted. – Βατο (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah sadly Jasanoff (1987) notes our "lamentable ignorance of Messapic phonology" [[2]]. I don't think we can say it is /k/, /kʷ/ or /q/. If it was mainly loanwords (Greek? Punic/Phoenician?) it may have been unstable, like <y> in Latin. But at least some discussion in an RS about this would be great. Especially as if this is in native vocab that has some implications as it could imply a place distinction among dorsals. Likewise discussion would be nice for Xx (/ʃ/?). --Calthinus (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Does not answer this question, but here is Klein/Joseph/Fritz 2018 on the matter -- may be good for the page elsewhere as this very much reflects the current canon on the various branches of IE and how each fit in [[3]]. A very useful tome, one of my current favorites :). It covers PIE *s > Messapic h and PIE *o > Messapic a, plus some other vowel developments. --Calthinus (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I've been 'spamming' this handbook in every bibliography of WP; this is really the 'Bible' of I-E linguistics ;-)

I didn't mention the *s > *h sound shift in the article yet though, I'll do it soon. Azerty82 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

New projects?

Hi, congrats all for the great work on this article!

Would you be interested in improving the articles on Iapygians, Messapians, Peucetians & Daunians? I've also been thinking about improving Illyrian languages and Illyrians for the last couple of weeks. What do you think? Choose what you prefer, I'm open to new projects ;-) Azerty82 (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Azerty82 well, as you probably already know, Illyrian stuff is the most important, and also the most difficult. Guess it just depends how big a challenge you want :). --Calthinus (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the biggest challenge, so we'll work on Illyrians (in a draft or directly in the article?). (I had already worked with Βατο and other contributors on Illyrian mythology). Azerty82 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Βατο, what do you think? Do you prefer working on Illyrians or Illyrian languages? Azerty82 (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It's the same, both are equally complicated subjects as there is very little information about "Illyrian" that can be considered widely accepted by scholars, moreover there are no recent publications that can provide more clarifications on it, but we can try. – Βατο (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Βατο, I'm going to work on Illyrian languages. As you pointed out, the current field of research has been settled by Stipčević in the 1970s, superseding the older (and outdated) Krahe's theory. But as for Illyrian mythology, many recent sources have complemented Stipčević's theories on precise points. How do you access Stipčević's The Illyrians: history and culture? Via Google Books' snippet view or do you have a link? If so, can you send my an email? PS: See my (very short) draft (or you can use my note page to follow what I'm currently working on in general) Azerty82 (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Azerty82, I access it via Google Books' snippet view. I think that Katičić's works are also important, but except for Ancient Languages of the Balkans (1976), I don't have access to them. Also Balkan Languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian) (1982) by Edgar C. Polomé can be helpful. A recent work is Die Altbalkanischen Sprachen (2016) by Matzinger, which is available online, but it is in German.– Βατο (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Βατο: Yes, Katičić is more important than Stipčević regarding the language. I just meant that the latter highlighted the fact that Illyrians were not a uniform group as Krahe initially thought. I also have Katičić's Ancient Languages. Other books are also available as pdfs, but they're in Croatian. I'll keep you in touch when I begin working on Illyrian languages. Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Phonetic value of eta

Klein/Fritz/Joseph explicitly say, in the second sentence of Alphabet that eta was "consonantal, not ē". I appreciate we have "heta". How should this be handled? --Calthinus (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification to this -- De Simone makes it pretty clear -- the "main" Messapic alphabet (Laconian-Tarentinian) uses eta as h, but in Apulian, it is /ē/. This is a relevant distinction. --Calthinus (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Also -- forgive my redundant citation of KFJ on top of de Simone who is the chapter author. I lack access to exact pages at the moment. I will have access soon. --Calthinus (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd like if possible to put in some footnotes into the alphabet section as this may be the "neatest" way to do it. There is a lot of uncertainty about the values of various graphemes that the table alone is not capturing. But I'm not quite sure how to fix it.--Calthinus (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The difficulty is (1) Marchesini and De Simone are contradicting each other (2) the alphabet is given in a "synchronic" way while the letters and sounds changed over time. Marchesini gives eta /ē/, while De Simone notes that it was an aspirate ((h)eta was an aspirate in some Greek dialects). De Simone notes that the sound /u/ was absent, while Marchesini gives a /u/ sound from Greek upsilon. Azerty82 (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: Calthinus, if you send me an email via my profile, I'll send you the three volumes of the handbook as searchable PDFs ;) Azerty82 (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this source: Matzinger (2014): Einführung ins Messapische can help for further clarification. I can't read it as it is in German. – Βατο (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Βατο, I'll look into it. Azerty82 (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I would venture to say Marchesini is relying not on the Tarentinian, but on the Apulian alphabet. --Calthinus (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Are Latin 'tōtus' and Albanian 'tanë' pertinent examples?

Βατο, I think your first intuition was the right one;

Orel connects 'tanë' to PIE *teu(h)a 'swell' (and with Lat. tōtus). If Mallory & Adams (1997) note that "it is generally supposed that *teutéhₐ is a derivative of *teu(ha)- ‘swell, be strong’...", and argue that "Lat tōtus ‘all, whole’ may preserve the underlying adjective from which *teutéha- is derived", "the form ( *tōtus rather than the expected *tūtus) is not well explained." De Vaan (2008, p. 625) likewise notes that there is no accepted etymology for tōtus.

Conclusion: 'tanë' is indeed cognate with Messapic 'teutā' but only distantly; it would not be pertinent to take it as an example. Albanian 'tanë' is cognate with–not a descendant of– PIE*teutéhₐ (both from *teu(ha)- ‘swell'; Orel gives other cognates like Lith. tvinti 'to rise, swell [of water]'). The etymology of Latin tōtus is unclear. Alcaios (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps more telling: PIE *teu(h)a 'swell' > (1) PAlb. *twana > Alb. 'tanë' / Lith. 'tvìnti' / (?) Lat. 'tōtus' || (2) PIE *teutéhₐ (people) > Messap. 'Teutā' / Lith. 'tautà' / Old Irish 'túath'.

I don't know about Albanian 'tëtanë' though. Alcaios (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios, Albanian tëtanë probably is a compound of të + tanë, like të + gjithë ("all", "whole", a synonym of tëtanë), but except for Orel, I couldn't find anything else in the sources. The separation of (1) and (2) could go well, but since the sources do not refer directly to (1), we can also remove it. – Βατο (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I would ask for an information. Is Oscan Touto related to Messapic teutā / Taotor? Can we add Touto as an example?--3knolls (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes good point, I have added it; already mentioned by sources used. Alcaios (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--3knolls (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Eteocretan

The Eteocretan theory is mentioned by historian Gustave Glotz, in a 1925 source (WP:AGEMATTERS). It's an old source, and the historian (not linguist) mentions the connection in passing, without giving any evidence (WP:FRINGE). Eteocretan is unclassified, and it is not regarded as related to Messapic today, while Messapic is considered Indo-European, and connected to the ancient I-E languages of the Balkans in current scholarship. Find better sources, and add information complying with WP:DUEWEIGHT, please. – Βατο (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a historical hypothesis, just like Oscan theory: no reason for removing one of them. However, Messapic is not sure to be an Illiric language, and this is stated in the other source I added.--3knolls (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alcaios:.--3knolls (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Eteocretan is not even an Indo-European language. The article can not give equal space to outdated theories which are not supported today. It is commonly accepted that Messapic came from the Balkans and that before its migration it was very close to Illyrian. Durraz0 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that no one knows whether Eteocretan was an IE language or not (and apart from the fact that the space dedicated to that historical theory is minimal), but please carefully read the book "Foundation of Latin" by Philip Baldi (2018) p. 150: "Now demonstrateted to be an independent IE language, Messapic was for some time connected by scholars with Illirian".--3knolls (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

And Baldi also says there that "Evidence for Messapic connections with Illyrian are particularly strong, or at least as strong as anything related to Illyrian can be". That Messapic was an independent IE langauge and not a dialect of Illyrian is not sth new. The very first sentence of the article says that. And do not mistake the Illyrian language with the concept of Illyrian languages. Illyrian ("proper Illyrian") was spoken in southern Illyria, while Illyrian languages were a group of languages and dialects spoken in or originating from Illyria that were similar/closely connected with Illyrian. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: Please read also Michiel de Vaan (2018). Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Indo-European Etymological dictionary series. Vol. 7. Boston: Leiden. p. 2. ISBN 9789004167971. ISSN 1574-3586.: "The interpretation of the extant Messapic inscriptions is too unclear to warrant the inclusion of Messapic in any Indo-European subfamily. There are obvious onomastic links with other Italic languages and possible lexical ties with Albanian, but Messapic offers no independent evidence for words of PIE origin." As far as I can see, only Wikipedia states that Messapic is "an independent Illyrian language", whereas nearly all modern reliable sources state it "is an independent Indo-European language".--3knolls (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't say that Messapic is an independent Illyrian language. Proto-Messapic diverged from the same language or language branch as Balkan Illyrian in the LBA and Messapic was a distinct/independent language 500 years after the Iapygian migrations. All groupings which have been proposed about Messapic include Illyrian to an "upstream" or as phyloequivalent, hence 1)"Messapo-Illyrian" which is further grouped with Albanian under "Adriatic Indo-European" or 2)"General Illyrian" or 3)"Western Paleo-Balkan".--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yours are nothing but mere hypotheses. Please carefully read this source instead: James Clackson (2007). Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press. p. 7. ISBN 9781139467346.: "As far as we can tell from the scanty textual remains of these languages, most were independent branches of IE and not part of a sub-group. Lusitanian is one example of such a language, and Messapic provides another. (...) Like Lusitanian, it is generally recognized to be IE, but is not securely associated with any branch of IE language. (...) The language shows significant divergences from the IE branches which are attested closest to it: Greek, Latin and Sabellian languages of Italy, and Albanian." Is it adequately clear now that Messapian is to be considered a very independent IE language? Yet although several reliable sources state that, every time I try to add this sentence with the sources, you keep removing both the contribution and the sources without any cause.--3knolls (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Messapic is of Balkan origin. It's not a hypothesis. The Archaeology of South-East Italy in the First Millennium BC has an extensive analysis about the Iapygian migrations. The article calls Messapic an independent language in the first paragraph. You can file a discussion at WP:RFC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

3knolls, your sources say that "The interpretation of the extant Messapic inscriptions is too unclear to warrant the inclusion of Messapic in any Indo-European subfamily" and that "and Messapic provides another. (...) Like Lusitanian, it is generally recognized to be IE, but is not securely associated with any branch of IE language" The Illyrian languages are not an Indo-European subfamily or a branch of IE language. They are just a group of languages and dialects that originated in what was known in the ancient Greek and Roman world as Illyria, and had good similarities with each other (judging mostly based on toponymy and onomastics, ofc). That is all the point of this. Linguists know next to nothing about these languages, Messapic itself included. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber "Balkans" is a geographical region, not a linguistic one. However not only Messapic, but also Oscan, Umbrian, and even Latin and Faliscan were likely to stem from the Balkan peninsula. Please read here: Philip Baldi (2018). The Foundations of Latin. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. p. 104. ISBN 9783110892604.</ref> "Colonists came across the Mediterranean (...), from the Danube and general central Europe (...), and also from the Balkan region via the Adriatic into central Italy. It is possible that the east-west movement into Italy was the source of the western Italic languages such as Latin and Faliscan, and that these were followed later by the eastern Italic languages such as Oscan and Umbrian. Finally, a southerly incursion brought the southern languages such as Messapic."
@Ktrimi991 I would simply point out that Messapic is usually regarded separately from Illyrian. Please read that source: Carlos Ramirez-Faria (2007). Concise Encyclopeida Of World History. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 345. ISBN 9788126907755. "The main groups of the IE branch (...) are Greek, Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Italic. Other surviving groups are Armenian, Celtic, and Illyrian (modern Albanian). IE groups and individual languages that have not survived are: Thracian, Phrygian, Anatolian (...), Venetic, and Messapic."
Thus it is clearly not correct to categorize this article as a "Messapic language", since WP:Categorization states "Categorization of articles must be verifiable". Unfortunately the whole article appears to be pro-Albanian biased, even though the reliable sources' approach is quite neutral.--3knolls (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@3Knolls Philip Baldi's work was published in 1998, it's not so recent, but it does not contrast more recent publications. The Balkan regional origin of Messapic is different from the alleged regional origin of the other I-E languages you listed above (Oscan, Umbrian, Latin and Faliscan), because Messapic, before migrating to Italy, is considered to have been originally part of an ancient sprachbund of the Balkans, regardless of its genetic affiliation to the other languages like Albanian (most likely according to current scholarship) or "Illyrian" (which is difficult to establish because of its scarse attestation). The Paleo-Balkan languages are particularly relevant for the classification of Messapic. – Βατο (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Βατο I obviously agree that Messapic is not an Italic language, but we can't categorize it as an "Illyrian language", because four recent reliable sources (which are all cited in this talk page) clearly state that Messapic is an independent IE language. I don't understand why you totally opposed my edits, even though I only used those sources (except for the old Eteocretan theory, which –just like the Oscan theory– is still historically relevant though). If you want to correct my contributions, you are welcome; but the article must be neutral and verifiable, and you cannot delete well sourced content.--3knolls (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

PS And here is a fifth, very recent source: Bernard Comrie (2018). The World's Major Languages (3 ed.). Routledge. p. 59. ISBN 9781317290490. It cites Messapic "with uncertain Italic or Albanian connections".--3knolls (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I replaced "Category:Illyrian languages" with "Category:Paleo-Balkan languages". The article clearly states that Messapic is distinct from Illyrian, although related (either by language contact or genetically) to Illyrian, in agreement with current linguistics (see inline citations). For the Eteocretan fringe theory there is no place, you added it based on a century ago source, and much research has been carried out in the last decades analysing new inscriptions, no wonder the alleged Eteocretan relation is never mentioned in current scholarship. – Βατο (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I removed also the template:Illyrians, and pulled out the Iapygian tribe from this. I actually found no current scholarship mentioning Eteocretan theory, but the other modern sources I cited in this discussion are very reliable, and I'll use them for improving this article; however, I'm not minded to remove any existing content and, if you need clarification, we will talk about it here. Thanks, 3knolls (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@3knolls: Illyrian tribes and Iapygian tribes are historically, archaelogically, genetically, and culturally related. Do not remove that template without consensus. – Βατο (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I will start a discussion as soon as possible, but first please @Maleschreiber @βατο can you clarify if your accounts are somehow related or not?--3knolls (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@3knolls: you are free to start a discussion. I reworded some parts adding also De Vaan (2018). And no, I am not related to User:Maleschreiber, is your allegiation based on the reverts of your massive removal of templates and categories from several articles without discussing it before? – Βατο (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Βατο: 3knolls should get an overview of bibliography and avoid questions which can be construed as WP:ASPERSIONS. @3knolls: you are arguing for a position which is indefensible. The Iapygians did move to Italy from the Balkans in the LBA/EIA. This movement has been investigated and verified at every level - archaeological, historical, anthropological, genetic and linguistic.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not used to hurting anyone, but your behavior seemed actually very unusual and suspicious to me. However, I think the template "Illyrians" is currently not very useful as it is too long and confusing (WP:NAVBOX), so I propose splitting it up by creating a new template specifically dedicated to the "Iapygians" (who were not Illyrian proper, but a population born of an intermingling of Paleo-Balkan groups with Italic elements instead). Within this new template one may then insert links to the Paleo-Balkans, the Illyrians, the Italics, and so on. I also propose splitting List of Illyrian peoples and tribes in the same manner; indeed, I notice that it has already been suggested to merge this list into List of ancient tribes in Illyria, which would imply taking Iapygian tribes out. --3knolls (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The template 'Illyrians' is not about Illyrians proper, but about everything concerning the ancient peoples and tribes of the western Balkans that have been associated with the term "Illyr-/ioi/-ii/-is/-icum" by ancient authors and by modern scholars, and Iapygian peoples are enough related in many aspects to be included in that tamplate. I think the links of the tribes and their cultural elements can stay, while the links of the settlements can be removed adding them into a new template specifically about Iapygians. – Βατο (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Oscan theory

I removed the section "Oscan theory", which almost entirely discusses the alleged mother tongue of Ennius, that is completely offtopic for the classification of the Messapic language. The modern sources added to support this alleged theory actually do not mention such classification for Messapic. The entire section was initially added only based on a 19th century source, which cannot be considered scientific within contemporary linguistic research. Hence it cannot remain as per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. – Βατο (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

M.L. West is incorrectly cited

Why is poor Martin Litchfield West cited as 'Morris L. West' in the references section? Bizarrely enough, it hyperlinks to the correct page (M.L. West) when his name is clicked on, but the citation is wrong as-is. Also, whoever is using him as evidence in the 'cognates' section should probably re-read the text they're referencing, specifically the introduction where West explicitly states he's not an Indo-European reconstructive linguist "[i]t remains the case that I write as a professional Hellenist, as much an amateur in Indo-European studies as in oriental..." (West 2007:v) And while I'm sure he's underselling himself somewhat (because he, for the most part, knows what he's doing), his repudiation of laryngeals in reconstructions later in the same paragraph should cause some concern when adducing his work as evidence for the data in the cognate table.

Vindafarna (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)