"Moreover, you scorned our people, and compared the Albanese to sheep, and according to your custom think of us with insults. Nor have you shown yourself to have any knowledge of my race. Our elders were Epirotes, where this Pirro came from, whose force could scarcely support the Romans. This Pirro, who Taranto and many other places of Italy held back with armies. I do not have to speak for the Epiroti. They are very much stronger men than your Tarantini, a species of wet men who are born only to fish. If you want to say that Albania is part of Macedonia I would concede that a lot more of our ancestors were nobles who went as far as India under Alexander the Great and defeated all those peoples with incredible difficulty. From those men come these who you called sheep. But the nature of things is not changed. Why do your men run away in the faces of sheep?"
Letter from Skanderbeg to the Prince of Taranto ▬ Skanderbeg, October 31 1460


Diskutim profesional për gjuhën.

Moderators: Mallakastrioti, bardus

Post Reply
User avatar
Star Member
Star Member
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:40 am
Gender: Male
Location: USA



Post by Orakulli » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:24 am

Yes, of course it is because every body may speculate in t his topic, included the linguists, who in fact are idiotcracies of this eventually level of the knowledge .
So, my first claim has always been that the language has nothing to do with la storia, e di meno con the Roman Empire. I have emphasized that because it is the major mistake you make when you argument about language. I do not know whether all people involved in this kind of discussions mess them involuntarily, or intentionally, or because of the total ignorance in this subject, but they do not give arguments, and they do not deal with the facts of linguistic evidence. The mostly speak in general, in a way that came mostly from prejudices, and hangs up of the risen opinions from every human garbage that have dominated most of the historical time.
But, the lingustic has a lot of issues.
I telling you one of them:
The issue del ochio.
Oko is also the Bulgarian word for ochio, also in Czech, Polish, etc. Has Latin borrowed that word? The linguists tell us that it came from Proto-Slavic *oko, from Proto-Indo-European *h₃ekʷ-.
Oko and Ochio are not related? They have the same meaning, almost the same pronunciation and oko has nothing to do with h₃ekʷ. It is so obvious. Is it an idiocy? Yes, it is. That is the level of the Indo-European linguistic. How can be understod the Etruscan language, for example?

by Atmir Ilias on Friday, December 16, 2011 at 2:51pm

Post Reply

Return to “Linguistikë”