Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 64: Line 64:
==Pictures==
==Pictures==
I simply wonder why pictures of modern day people have been recently added in the dna section.[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 13:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I simply wonder why pictures of modern day people have been recently added in the dna section.[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 13:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|Alexikoua}}, they were added to the section about DNA discussing modern day Albanians. Can you explain why is this an issue (otherwise your edit will be reverted)? The article is about Albanians and the pictures are of Albanians.[[User:Resnjari|Resnjari]] ([[User talk:Resnjari|talk]]) 13:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:13, 19 December 2018

Studies of Albanians

Because Albanians speak a different branch of Indo-European language, that is not similar to any other branch, and also because genetically Albanians have a very interesting composition (with E-V13 being the dominant gene), there is widespread curiosity to know more about the population, including its genetics and DNA studies. A separate page for Albanians could serve also as a source to gather more information, but also to share it with each other. —185.47.190.2 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, this is that article.Resnjari (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari I think what the IP is saying is that we should have Genetic studies on Albanians (analogous pages exist for Bulgarians, Jews, etc...). But I disagree. The page for Jews is kind of a special case because, since Jews don't typically mix with non-Jews except in very specific historical situations (i.e. the US nowadays being one), their genetic makeup drifted away from non-Jewish populations, and there are various haplogroups that only occur in Jewish populations as they went extinct in all others (presumably). Such a page is also notable for medical research as thanks to long standing isolation many Jewish populations have unique susceptibility to genetic diseases. As for Bulgarians, the page exists for convenience only because after years of warring over how "Slavic" or "non-Slavic" the Bulgarian genome was (with the "Slavic" side typically having hte upper hand), a wiki-wide discussion initiated by Iryna Harpy resulted in the material being moved from the Bulgarian people page to a new page, but there are still some questions as to the notability of the page among other issues.
As for Albanians, there really have not been enough studies to say much, although there have been some interesting comparisons between Tosk and Gheg populations as well as some comparison of genetic makeup nowadays to in the Middle Ages (using Arbereshe as a proxy). As for your own commentary on Albanian genetic makeup, really it is not unique as it is quite similar to Greeks, the main difference being that some Greek islanders have more Near Eastern input, and that the Greek genome is overall much more diverse-- no surprise there, as it has been postulated that the Albanian population was effected by a genetic bottleneck occurring in the Dark Ages (hence the very low internal haplogroup diversity but high frequency of E-V13 among mountainous Gheg populations especially). ---- Calthinus (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the case of Albanians, best we keep it in one article as having is separate may open it open to POVish editing etc, like the Bulgarian case. That genetic studies data included in this article allows it to be placed within context of the wider topic of origins and thus things remain neutral. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of Belledi et al's abstract

Belledi et al, geneticists, not linguists, state in their abstract that "Albanians are clearly different from all other Indo-Europeans linguistically". This is the sort of clumsy statement that one might often see about historical linguists from people whose field is not historical linguistically. You see it is at once true and false. It is true because Albanian is on its own branch of Indo-European that no other living language belongs. But it is false because it in English (not the native language of the authors, nor of Skylax) can be read to mean that Albanian is more different from all other Indo-European languages than the remaining members of the family are with each other. This is flagrantly false. Albanian lexically has some surprising things, but it is nowhere near as divergent as the Anatolian languages or Tocharian, and is also usually considered less divergent than other "eccentric" branches like Armenian. It is entirely inappropriate that Skylax is insisting on using the abbreviated abstract of genetics paper to make a point about linguistics; more bizarre still his rants about "censorship". --Calthinus (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is more bizarre that a user, claiming to be expert, wants to cut in half a phrase from a source, becouse "he knows better".--Skylax30 (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is even more bizarre that you are using an argument that is entirely a strawman :). Geneticists cited for linguistics makes a quote immediately suspect if it sounds off, likewise economists for biology, sociologists for physics... Alas, don't take it from me.
Calvert Walkins, in Ramat and Ramat, The Indo-European languages, page 31: "A number of archaic features in morphology and phonology set Anatolian apart from other branches, and show it was the earliest to hive off".
The morphological features of Hittite, the best known Anatolic language, are strikingly different from all the rest of (non-Anatolic) Indo-European. For example, most Indo-European languages differentiate nouns grammatically by gender, or did historically in fairly recent times (English does not, but Old English did; same deal with Persian). Well, Hittite had no gender distinction and instead distinguished animate versus inanimate (see Hittite_language#Nouns), and has from the earliest stages of the language over three centuries ago, being the earliest attested IE language. Well this seems very enlightened (not sexist), but it's not typical of IE branches. Other such examples are manifest. That is why scholars think Anatolian was the first to branch off, and some even seriously propose (and many others disagree) the prospect of Indo-Hittite whereby Anatolian is a "sister" to Indo-European. Literally nobody proposes that Albanian was the first to branch off. Albanian has a few debatable phonological peculiarities but even these are disputable : Albanian's proposed preservation of PIE laryngeals is also disputed, because there is some evidence that Albanian actually may have had laryngeal insertion instead, leading to a counterexplanation for hte presence of h in this small set of etyma (these appear in ancient Latin loans too: Latin admissarius > Albanian hamshor; Latin arcus > Albanian hark, etc...). I hope I don't need to go on? --Calthinus (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CLOP

The text "The theory of Illyrian descent became the principal pillar of the Albanian nationalism in the 19th century, replacing the previous romantic theory of the "Pelasgian origin". Its importance was that it claimed historical continuity in Kosovo and other areas contested by Serbs and Greeks.[64]" violates WP:CLOP, IMO. Please have a look though, coz I am not very certain. Maybe an attribution would solve the problem. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May need to be better written. Going through it there are parts of the sentence that are taken from the book in whole like "historical continuity in Kosovo", "areas contested by Serbs and Greeks" which goes into Plagarism territory. CLOP problems are more with the rest of the sentence.Resnjari (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For or against

I faill to see why the following argument is against Albanian-Illyrian continuity. This appears more suitable for the "for" section: "The Albanian language is a close relation of both Messapian and Illyrian that as such Albanian words in certain instances have been able to explain Messapic and Illyrian words.[88] Examples include the Illyrian tribe".Alexikoua (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well Alexikoua because the source that you placed states the following [1] p. 1790: "Consequently, Albanian cannot be regarded as an offspring of Illyrian or even Thracian but must be considered to be a modern continuation of some other undocumented Indo-European Balkan idiom. However, Albanian is closely related to Illyrian and also Messapic (a language spoken in Southern Italy in antiquity but originally of Balkan origin ), which is why Albanian in some instances may shed some light on the explanation of Messapic as well as Illyrian words." Its why your addition was moved to the section about it being against an Illyrian origin as that whole section from the source is against the view of Albanian having an Illyrian origin.Resnjari (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A source can provide arguments both for and against. It's fine if you believe that the "for" arguments are too weak for inclusion in the correspondent section. Matzinger states that those Messapian - Albanian evidence is quite few by the way.Alexikoua (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no interpretation for it being a "for". The source speaks for itself. The sentence is quite clear i.e: "Albanian cannot be regarded as an offspring of Illyrian or even Thracian but must be considered to be a modern continuation of some other undocumented Indo-European Balkan idiom." The whole section expands on that view, hence it being in the 'against' section. With evidence, its scant either way due to a limited corpus of Illyrian words and Messapian.Resnjari (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Matzinger doesn't state that this happens simply due to the limited corpus. There are more serious issues that make this hypothesis problematic.Alexikoua (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remember in your edit summary the source by Klein according to you was the most "recent" scholarship [2] which comes after Matzinger. As for problems, the origins of the Albanian language will continue to be contested. All one can hope for is that scholars engaging in research and debate have the multilingual skills necessary for the endevour and do it in a way that is devoid of nationalistic jibberish (and i'm not talking about just the Albanian here, but much more wider in the Balkans who still have 'ideas' that Albanians and their language are an invention of the 20th century).Resnjari (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intermingling

The geographic coincidence might be one argument (though contuinuity is still a serious issue), the source states something else Even very common words such as mik "friend" (<Lat. amicus) or këndoj "sing" (<Lat. cantare) come from Latin and attest to a widespread intermingling of pre-Albanian and Balkan Latin speakers during the Roman period, roughly from the second century BC to the fifth century AD [[3]] Skylax' edit has (some) merit about a widespread intermingling of pre-Albanian and Balkan Latin speakers during the Roman period. No need to avoid that.Alexikoua (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Alexikoua, Skylax's edit was reverted because the editor was changing a piece of text that is already sourced. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this means you are not against addition of the intermingling of pre-Albanian speakers as the source states it (I fail to see where I'm against the geographic distrubution of Illyrian-Albanian speakers) Alexikoua (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it was POV pushed repeatedly, i want to see something here first and roughly where it would go into the article to avoid disruption.Resnjari (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I simply wonder why pictures of modern day people have been recently added in the dna section.Alexikoua (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, they were added to the section about DNA discussing modern day Albanians. Can you explain why is this an issue (otherwise your edit will be reverted)? The article is about Albanians and the pictures are of Albanians.Resnjari (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Albanians&diff=874470984&oldid=874470052

Leave a Reply