Talk:Dalmatae

@Athenean: No edit-warring

@Athenean: I noticed that many times you don't write anything on the talk page, but just revert. Please don't liquidate users with a simple explanation when you revert them, but write in the talk page. These two reverts ([1] and [2] are completely uncalled for. --sulmues (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again you have no idea what you're talking about and I have to warn you to STOP accusing me things that aren't true. I didn't edit-war, and I certainly didn't "liquidate" any users, whatever you think that means. If you need to know, I discussed things with the user in question and the matter is now settled. Following me around and writing false accusations on talkpages can be construed as WP:BATTLE behavior, which you should be really careful about. Athenean (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You made two reverts which are uncalled for. Delme is an Illyrian word, and dele is the corrispondent Albanian word. That's what Wilkes is saying and I am going to make the appropriate change. --sulmues (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Details like this do not belong in the lead. You should move it to the appropriate sub-section. Regards, Athenean (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'll open a paragraph there. --sulmues (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

reverted vandalism, appears connected with ....

On "delme", and "delmer" that is a sheppherd in Albanian, http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/arqky1kpxsj6dfk/images/131-df554ed9eb/000.jpg Majuru (talk)

It's certainly something for Illyrian language#Possible relation to Albanian and not this article, because there's no obvious reason to mention this other than to promulgate the idea of Illyrian-Albanian continuity, which is not really useful for the reader. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it should better stay, because for a reason or another ("pointless Illyrian-Albanian continuity coatracking") you want to remove this material. I don't see any continuity issue, only etymological explanations. Majuru (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not the etymological explanation, it's a possible explanation being presented as certain. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we'll put "appears connected" in the article, instead of removing it. Majuru (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Orel

Demetrios1993, Orel is a recent addition. Any disputed change needs consensus here. I think that @Maleschreiber: made good points. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Orel writes: dele f, pl dele, dhen, dhën ‘sheep’. The Geg variant delme represents a formation in *-mā (and hardly has anything in common with the name of Dalmatia pace MEYER Wb. 63 and ÇABEJ St. I 111). It can't be inferred that he is referring to a *del(e/ë/m) etymology in general. Orel is not putting forward a new argument about the etymology - he is citing Çabej, an Albanian linguist who is discussing this particular variant. Editors should read bibliography carefully.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, Orel is a WP:RS used throughout Wikipedia, and his quote is straightforward.

Maleschreiber, Orel discussed dele in its entirety, hence the name of his entry and his inclusion of the PAlb form *dailā. Here is the whole quote:

dele f, pl dele, dhen, dhën ‘sheep’. The Geg variant delme represents a formation in *-mā (and hardly has anything in common with the name of Dalmatia pace MEYER Wb. 63 and ÇABEJ St. I 111). The word is based on PAlb *dailā ‘sheep’ < ‘suckling’ and related to various l-derivatives from IE *dhē(i)- ‘to suckle’ (MEYER Wb. 63, Alb. St. Ill 29 operates with *dailjā < IE *dhailiā or *dhoiliā), cf., in particular, Arm dayl ‘colostrum’ < IE *dhailo-. Suppletive plural forms dhen, dhën should be treated separately as a Proto-Albanian (collective) derivative in *-anti based on dhi ‘she-goat’. Thus, the source of dhen, dhën is to be reconstructed as *aiganti-, with apheresis of the anlaut vowel (OREL Koll. Idg. Ges. 357). BRUGMANN 117; PETERSSON LUÅ XIX/6 12; BARIĆ ARSt. 6 (dhën compared with IE *dhē(i)-); JOKL LKUBA 239 (mistakenly explains -l- from *-ln-), 251-253 (compares dhen, dhën with Celt *damatos ‘sheep’ > W dafad, Bret dauat or with n-derivatives of IE *dhē(i)- ‘to suckle’, in particular, with Skt dhenā ‘milk cow’, cf. also OIr dínu ‘lamb’ and the like), Reallex. Vorgesch. I 87 (traces of this root in Balkan place names); TAGLIAVINI Dalmazia 101, Stratificazione 135; LA PIANA St. Varia 77-78; SCHMIDT KZ L 238; PORZIG Gliederung 150; CIMOCHOWSKI LP II 240-241; MANN Language XVII 20-21 (dhen to Lat gēns ‘kin, tribe’); POKORNY I 241-242; DURIDANOV ŽA XVIII 37 (dhen - to Thr Δανδαλῆται); ÇABEJ St. I 152 (comparison of dhen, dhën with Gk δημός; ‘fat’), Etim. III 184-186 (follows MEYER); HULD 143; KÖDDERITZSCH LB XXXI 108; RASMUSSEN Morph. 52; OREL Koll. Idg. Ges. 357; DEMIRAJ AE 127-128, 157-158 (agrees with MANN).

Proto-Albanian began forming way after the first literary records of the Delmatae/Dalmatae, Delmatia/Dalmatia, and Delminion, let alone the Gheg dialectal divergence which is relevant to this dicussion. Go read the respective article. Hence why Orel's mention of the proto-Albanian form is crucial, through its absence of *-mā and the absence of its diphthong /ai/ from all the ancient forms that are supposedly related. Also, you cannot be treating the opposite view as a fact by stating "It is connected to the Albanian dele", per WP:UNDUE. It is disputed by a WP:RS. Instead we can include that "Most suggest a connection to Albanian dele through its form delme", which would be more accurate per the sources and per WP:UNDUE. Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Orel is a specialist on the subject, on the other hand straight declaring that an Albanian connection is universally accepted falls into POV.Alexikoua (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Demetrios, Orel is a renowned scholar, like all the others presented in the article. Nevertheless you are misrepresenting his statemets. Don't add your WP:OR interpretations, but only what the sources direclty suggest. Btw, Orel does not mention Delmatae, but Dalmatia, hence that info should be added there since it is not directly related to this article. Your claims: Proto-Albanian began forming way after the first literary records of the Delmatae/Dalmatae, Delmatia/Dalmatia, and Delminion, let alone the Gheg dialectal divergence which is relevant to this dicussion. are completely wrong. About this: Go read the respective article. you should inform yourself on reliable secondary sources. – Βατο (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Orel has been included even though he doesn't discuss the Delmatae. But now you're introducing edits which are not transfering to wikipedia what bibliography discusses. Duridanov et al. don't discuss a particular Gheg variant as their core argument, which Orel examines. I'm not interested in the 4RR itself, but the problems that are created when bibliography is misrepresented. Bibliography doesn't discuss a Geg variant - many variants have some form of *del(m)- and Hahn who is the first who considered the link between *del(m)- and Delmatae did so after he read the Tosk-based term "delmier" in Vangjel Meksi's New Testament[3].--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: this is a highly disruptive edit that introduces an WP:OR: where do you read the part consider a connection to the Albanian dele through its Gheg form delmë in the sources presented in the article? Moreover, you have not consensus to include a source that does not mention the tribe of Delmatae. – Βατο (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Where in the sources do they say anything about explaining it "through a Geg variant? Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ahmet Q.: Nowhere - they're trying to connect via WP:SYNTH Orel's argument to every other source. It's revert-warring over something that nobody discusses. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Βατο, Delmatae/Dalmatae, Delmatia/Dalmatia, and Delminion are all considered part of the same root, therefore he does refer to them as well indirectly (so do the rest of the sources). It is like Wilkes' quote which is and was used for all three articles prior of our new additions, even though he only made reference to the tribe of Delmatae. But despite that, i already agreed with including just Dalmatia, for the sake of source accuracy and even abstained from re-adding other earlier versions. It's really trivial details in my eyes since everyone can see that they are interrelated terms, even the rest of the section compliments this. As for the proto-Albanian discussion, i am not really wrong and i do base my statements on reliable sources, just like the respective article does. Anyway, i am not adding any WP:OR interpretations, but word for word what Orel describes. I could in fact elaborate more on his view and provide additional examples on why he is right, but that would actually fall under WP:OR and WP:FORUM.

Maleschreiber, both Orel and Duridanov refer to the same thing, it just happens that Orel elaborates on the dialectal form and in general presents a very sufficient analysis for the entry of dele in whole, something that the rest of the sources don't. Even the linked Wiktionary entries present delme as a Gheg form. As for the 3RR, i really don't see myself having surpassed it. My 3rd edit today, which came after my first reply above was essentially an act of conceding on most of the points after additional bibliography was added. For example from the original "A number of scholars consider a connection to Albanian" i ended up adopting "Most scholars consider a connection to the Albanian" per WP:UNDUE, or from "the names of Dalmatia and Dalmatae" to "the names of Dalmatia (and subsequently its cognates)" to just "the name of Dalmatia", or the positioning of the sentences essentially remained as you guys wanted it even though i preferred the ancient forms and then the etymology as more appropriate positioning. I only moved the ancient forms above the modern toponymes. I am not an irrational person.

I am going to bed now. It's pretty late here and i have work tomorrow. Demetrios1993 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Friend, *delm-/*dal-/*dalm- forms exist in every Albanian dialect as in Vangjel Meksi's recording of the form delmur, which comes from one of the southernmost dialects of Albanian. Orel discusses a particular form of a particular dialect and cites ÇABEJ. Çabej doesn't deny the general relation between *dal and Delmatae, but he writes that [4]: (..) est une chose admise, de meme que l'equation delme: Dalmatia, etablie deja par Hahn. A notre avis dele delme est une form retrograde, un singuilier calque sur le pluriel; la form originaire du mot est donc. *dal, *dalm It's important to read bibliography carefully because the overall relation between a proto-Albanian form and the Delmatae is not under objection - Orel per Çabej explores the link with the modern Geg form.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Is @Alexi cherry picking again? Nothing changes it appears. Anyway thanks for the extra detail Maleschreiber. It would help some editors if they could speak or learn to speak some Albanian (or Arvanitika) so they could better understand matters revolving around the Albanian language considering they often show deep interest in the topic.Resnjari (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Maleschreiber, i am not here to make my own WP:OR, i am simply following what linguists say, in this case Orel within his Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Furthermore, Orel doesn't discuss a particular form of a particular dialect. He discusses the whole root dele, that includes delme which he views as a Gheg variant. It is plainly written by him, as is his view against the relationship of the root to Dalmatia (and its cognates). Anyway, Orel doesn't cite Cabej (nor Meyer next to him), he explicitly states that he is in opposition to them. That's what "pace" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pace#Etymology_2) means in formal English. Please be more careful with bibliography. Last, i find the current version ok, even though not ideal per my prior suggestions. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Demetrios, I respect the way you're engaging yourself with the subject - it's the reason why I'm not getting into the 4RR issues. I don't think that pace is used in opposition to Çabej here because I've checked what he writes, but maybe new publications emerge about the subject. I think that the present state of the name section is near complete in terms of the little that can been written. Good day to you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)