Talk:Timeline of Slovenian history/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Venetian theory

I've put part of the article under the NPOV dispute until further notice (--XJamRastafire 09:47 28 May 2003 (UTC))

There's been much discussion on the Venetian theory of Slovenian origin on this page. Somebody who wasn't directly involved should make a digest of it. I will not go into this discussion anymore because it won't make any difference - people don't agree on it in real life, so how could we here?

Therefore, I will just present my key arguments for choosing the Slavic theory as basis for this article and moving the Venetian theory to the "some people claim" section. I will also ask the oposing camp to do the same lest the lengthy discussion goes forever. Zocky 19:06 26 May 2003 (UTC)

A note by Simon: When Zocky talks about "the Slavic theory", he actually means "the Carpathian theory". We both agree that Slovenians are of a Slavic origin, since Veneti were proto-Slav people and Slovenian obviously is a Slavic language.

Key arguments for the Slavic (Carpathian) theory of Slovenian origin:

  1. It's mainstream - most historians support it and it's what's taught in schools.
  2. There is no conclusive proof for the Venetian theory - use common sense and stick with the current theory.
  3. Slovenes are a language nation - the definition of a Slovene is "Somebody whose first language is Slovene". The identity of actual genetic forefathers of present day Slovenes is therefore completely beside the point. The language is definitely Southern Slavic, like Bulgarian, Macedonian, Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kajkavian in order of increasing similarity, and like all of them has come from behind Carpathians. In fact, linguists think that Slavic languages started to diverge only after 1000 AD. Calling any inscriptions before that specifically Slovene is baseless.
  4. See Jordanes circa 551 in the article. The confusion was present already at his times. [XJam]

ad 3: Slavic languages diverging only after 1000 AD?! Come on Zocky, have you ever read the Brizinski spomeniki (Freising manuscripts)? They were written between 970 and 1020, and linguists will tell you those texts are definitely Slovenian. Even more, scientists suggest the Brizinski spomeniki were probably copied from an older eighth century (Slovenian) documents. That was discussed in a documentary "Brizinski spomeniki - 1000 let slovenske pisane besede" made by TV Slovenia. Zocky, I never called the Veneti inscriptions Slovene, but I said they could only be understood using Slovenian and other Slavic languages. [Simon, 6 june 2003]

ad 4: Note that Jordanes wrote: "(There) the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes." He implies that clans of Sclaveni and Antes are part of the Venethi race. Later he adds: "These people [the Venethi], ... , though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Venethi, Antes and Sclaveni." He again explicitly states that Antes and Sclaveni are of Venethi origin (they are "off-shoots from one stock" - the Venethi). Maybe you should clarify this in the main article, XJam? [Simon, 5 june 2003]

Key arguments for the Slavic (Veneti) theory of Slovenian origin:

  1. There is actually NO proof for the Carpathian theory.
  2. Paul Diacon, who mentions nothing of the settlements of Slavs during the end of the 6th Century, even though he mentions the minutest details of his period right up to the border with Longobards.
  3. John Babbiensis, who around year 612 in the life-story of St. Columbus specifically names Slovenians as Veneti.
  4. Fredegarii Cronicum, who often names Slovenians as Vinedi (Veneti).
  5. Slovenian names are known from the Roman period e.g. Trgeste (tr?i?če=market), Oterg (otr?je), (Dravus Drava=river), Saloca (Zaloka)=village), Longaticum (Logatec=town), Poetovio (Ptuj=town), Ad Pirum (Hru?ica=village) etc.
  6. Numerous Veneti incriptions (more than 2.000 years old) that were found in Eastern Alps area and which can only be understood using Slovenian and other Slavic languages
  7. For more, please read theConcise History of Early Slovenians (The Veneti Theory)
  8. See above 4th argument. The same. [XJam] See also my comment. [Simon]

Simon, please: This is an international encylopaedia in English and the discussion should be in English, so that everybody (not just people from Slovenia) can follow it. Furthermore this is not a discussion site - the talk pages are meant as a place to gather information and agree on NPOV, not as room for advocating your pet theory. I quit the debate on this subject - it won't get us anywhere. Please just list any concrete arguments for the Venetian theory you want included in the above list - in English - not a point by point refutation of things you don't agree with. Zocky 16:03 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Zocky, please: I have asked you three times to show me any proof on which the "mainstream" theory of Slovenian origin is based (the "Carpathian marsh" theory) with no answer. You have showed us NO proof, and the reason for this is there really is NO proof for such a theory at all. So, Zocky, I guess we agree to call it a "pet theory", yes? In my previous message, which was, as you rightly pointed out, in Slovenian (I apologize to any non-Slovenian speakers who were not able to read it, but it was mostly about things I already wrote to Zocky in English, so nothing new here), I also posted some links to pages about the Venetic script and Inscriptions. Those inscriptions are an archeological - material proof showing us that proto-Slovenian language was used in the Eastern Alps area more than 2.000 years ago, in an area where Slovenians still live nowadays. Those inscriptions are not the only proof supporting the Veneti theory, for others please see the book "Veneti - First Builders of European Community". The pages I just mentioned are in English, so other people interested in the Veneti theory can also read them. With Zocky not providing us with any proof for his beloved "Slovenians come from behind the Carpathian Mountains" theory, I conclude this debate. Osti jarej (stay young), Zocky!

Best regards, Simon, June 4th, 2003

  1. "It's mainstream - most historians support it and it's what's taught in schools." -- In? To ?e ne pomeni, da teorija resnično dr?i. Tudi komunizem je bil v učbenikih nekoč opevan, zadnje čase pa izkopavamo tisoče trupel - zgodovina oz. pogled nanjo se pač spreminja in z njo knjige.
  2. "There is no conclusive proof for the Venetian theory - use common sense and stick with the current theory." -- Dokazov za zakrpatsko teorijo ni. In kmečka pamet zato izbere Venetsko teorijo.
  3. "The language is definitely Slavic and has come from behind Carpathians." -- Mnoga geografska imena na ?ir?em območju vzhodnih Alp (tudi tam, kjer Slovenci ne ?ivimo (več)) so slovenskega izvora, za popoln seznam glej knjigo Veneti na?i davni predniki. Ponavadi novopri?leki prevzamejo ?e obstoječa krajevna imena in jih le zapi?ejo po svoje (npr. Gradec v nem?ki Graz itd.) - to se na poselitvenem območju Slovencev večinoma ni zgodilo. Zocky, pravi?, da "jezik je definitivno slovanski in je pri?el izza Karpatov". Seveda je jezik slovanski, temu nihče ne oporeka. Prosim postrezi pa mi z dokazi, da je jezik res pri?el izza Karpatov. Tak?nih dokazov ni. So pa dokazi, da se je na območju vzhodnih Alp ?e pred več kot 2.000 leti govoril in pisal jezik, katerega preostanek je sloven?čina, skupaj s svojo arhaično dvojino. Venetskih napisov, torej materialnih dokazov v obliki arheolo?kih izkopanin, je mnogo: od atestinskih tablic, do napisov na orodju in nenazadnje na situli iz ?kocjana na Krasu (OSTI JAREJ). Napise se da razumeti le z uporabo sloven?čine in sorodnih slovanskih jezikov. A "mainstream" zgodovinarji trdijo, da takrat na tem območju ni bilo Slovanov. Seveda so bili - imenovali so jih (Slo)Veneti oz. po gr?ko Enetoi.
  4. Karantanija, neizpodbitno slovenska dr?ava (oz. dr?ava na?ih prednikov) iz 6. stoletja se ujema z mejami Notranjega Norika in ga je nasledila. Kako bi novopri?leki lahko zavzeli natančno isto območje kot je bil Notranji Norik pod Rimljani? Bilo bi res čudno naključje. V resnici gre za kontinuiteto ?ivlja.

Zocky: ?e vedno čakam, da mi predstavi? dokazov, verjamem, da jih ima? mnogo, ko tako vehementno trdi?, da so na?i predniki pri?li izza Karpatov in to teorijo podpre?, venetsko pa sesuje? v prah. Slednje ?e nikomur ni uspelo, a naj ti to ne vzame volje.

Nekaj povezav / Some links:

Lep pozdrav, Simon

Opomba to Timeline of Slovenian History by B. Jezovnik

V zgodovinsko praznino ne verjamem... Timeline of Slovenian History Published by Wikipedia, the free Enciclopedia External Links:

Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia, Washington, DC, History Timeline: http://www.embassy.org/slovenia/more3.htm

V verigi zgodovinskih dogodkov je vsiljena zakarpatska teorija, ceprav ni del Caranthe.

Iz tega seznama zgodovine so izlocene letnice 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

To pomeni zgodovinski falsifikat. Zato v nikaksem slucaja ne dovolim URL: http://www.niagara.com/~jezovnik/ in blatenje naslova Caranthe, in tudi ne zelim da ima Carantha kakrsen koli delez z tako zgodovino.

Note: I am not associating myself with this kind of history, because it tries to conceal the years between 1950 and 1990. Carantha is a Web Page that deals with true Slovenian history.

Note: The correct above sentence zelim da ima Carantha kakrsen koli delez z tako zgodovino is with a proposition ..s tako zgodovino. --XJam

To the knowledge of XJam: I, B. Jezovnik, have not written content of above Note. I have written: Zato v nikasem slucaja ne dovolim URL: http://www.niagara.com/~jezovnik/ in blatenje naslova Caranthe, in tudi ne zelim da ima Carantha kakrsen koli delez z tako zgodovino. Carantha: http://www.carantha.net/

Most of the early timeline was taken out of "Veneti" historical theories, which are BY NO MEANS mainstream history and are regarded by virtually all historians as either romanticism or patent nonsense. Mainstream history regards Slovenes as descendents of Slavic immigrants in 6th and 7th centuries and sees no connection to Venets.

All of this is thus NOT NPOV and SHOULD NOT be in an encyclopaedia. Zocky 19:01 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Zocky: Do you have any idea of what "osti jarej" could mean in slovenian? Think about it... It means "stay young" and it was written on a situla found in Skocjan (Kras). The jar is more than 2.000 years old, for God sake! Tell me, who do you think wrote this text, if not our ancestors?! "Mainstream" history will have to adopt new proofs, or it will become just a bad joke...

Osti jarej!

Simon, Ljubljana, 08 May 2003

Simon, do you know what 'bed' means in one of the Iranian languages? It means 'bed'. Wow, the English must be from Iran. Incidentaly, the French word 'prestige' must come from Serbo-Croatian 'prestici' - to overtake, which makes the French either Serbian or Croatian... Phrase fragments with similar words mean absolutely nothing.

Another example: "Se drajvam v karu po stritu in turnam na trefiklajtu v rajt." - All meaningful words are phonetic English, but the sentence is absolutely and recognizably in Slovenian, because the grammar is Slovene. (For English speakers - "I voz in an avto down ulica and zav at the semafor to desno" - you may not know what any of this means, but can tell that the sentence is in English).

Generally accepted view is what "mainstream" means. You can write about the Veneti theory if you like, you are welcome to write a whole article about it, but be sure to include the NPOV: It's a theory mostly advocated by romantic nationalists with less than 10 historians supporting it - main advocates are a couple of writers and a monk. Zocky 13:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Zocky good examples for mixed Slovene-English-like sentences. On the other side you've said the article is written mainly from the above mentioned URL. (A res -- really?) Since I am the author of a stub and some extensions I must say this is not true. I have right to literary copy that URL in my own words. But I did not do that in this way as it may seem. So, please, your accusation that it is not NPOV is pretty much filed up (napiljena/napihnjena). Mainstream history. I would like to believe it, really. I am not a priori in that group of 10 historians. Other 90 historians were teached from German or Austrian histrorians as they say. Times before 600s are pretty much unclear, so Veneti or anykind theory can most likely be true. I can say I am still young, and I do believe that not much was changed from let us say the year 1848 or from the times Urlik was killed in Belgrade. Just look to the Kozler's map from the perspective of one Slovene. Živjo. Se še oglasim - po potrebi. --XJam 14:23 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Addition 1: I also believe in rastafarian 'theory' of 12 tribes but I won't post it in Wikipedia, since I think I know that I distinguish what is NPOV and what is not.


One Love, one Destiny,
one Heart. One Slovene history...
Let's get together and feel alright
as deep and fresh is my sight... --(nasled'n komad od the Murat & Joseov prirejen od Boba Marleja) --XJam 14:50 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

It's not just about one phrase... The one that I quoted is perhaps most obvious to almost every Slovenian. Hundreds of Veneti texts were found in eastern Alps area. You see, this is archeological proof that Slovenian ancestors Venti lived here more than 2.000 years ago. On the other hand, there is NO archeological (or any other) proof that Slavs moved from the Carpathian marshes around 600 a.d., and that they settled in the aree of what is nowaday Slovenia. In fact, even the first Slovenian state of Karantania (Korotan) was formed a few decades before the year 600! Now, have you ever checked Austrian history schoolbooks? They do not mention that state, even if its center was in what is today Austrian Carinthia, but that is not a surprise, to say at least. In Slovenian textbooks Karantania is mentioned though, but only a few sentences are dedicated to it... I suggest anyone interested in Veneti to read an excellent book called: Veneti - Naši davni predniki (Bor, Šavli, Tomažic). The book is also available in German, Italian, English and Russian. It is a serious history book dealing with Veneti and their inscriptions, which were translated (or just transliterated in some cases as with "osti jarej") for the first time by a Slovenian linguist Matej Bor. Give it a try.

Osti jarej!

Simon, Ljubljana, May 9 2003

Hey, Simon well written. But Zocky is a tuff one. Read his note and *Veneti (we even do not know how they are properly named -- as far as I know), related with Slovenes will wanish in a minute. I've read (in my opinion) even more interesting book of Anton Berlot and Ivan Rebec "So bili Etruščani Slovani?" ("Were Etruscans Slavs?"), Lipa, Koper 1984, which is I think earlier than Šavli's one. Can you also please give me a hint how can I reach you to talk some of these topics in Slovene /best via the net/. You are also welcome to participate and add to Wikipedia, since these topics are not well covered yet. Let me just ask why do you use adjective Slovenian as Slovene is more 'common' in British English? I am very much interested in my own nation's history in a whole and my logic and thinking correspond, I would say, best to mathematician or physicist's one and not to politician's one. I won't check Austrian history books either. If we are already here -- we should also check some Italian history books (or even Croatian and Serbian ones). Let them check that on their own, ha, ha. After all I think that we [ Slovenes ] are not a 'salt of the World' in vain..... And if you ask me which language is most beautiful in this planet, you know what I shall answer you. But not because it is my native.... Best regards to the capital. --XJamRastafire 23:54 May 9, 2003 (UTC) Celje.

Zocky, please see below another opinion on Veneti. The author is Charles Bryant-Abraham, PhD, FSO - just another "romantic nationalist"?

I will leave Mr. Bryant-Abraham's opinion below to facilitate discussion. As far as I can see, we're talking about two different things here.

One is, are Slovenes descendents of Veneti? But what does that question mean? Is it:

  1. Did a people called Veneti live in present-day Slovenia in prehistoric and early historic times? Probably yes.
  2. Were some of the persons who are the direct ancestors of persons who now consider themselves "Slovene" members of the ancient ethnic group called "Veneti"? Undoubtedly yes.

But does that make Slovenes descendants of Veneti any more than of any other ethnic group who moved through this parts? Not really. So what is it that's supposed to make Slovenes collectively descendents of Veneti. The suggested answer is language. So here we have new questions:

  1. Are the words "Vendi", "Wends", "Anti", "Vindi?arji" cognate with "Veneti"? Quite possibly and utterly irrelevant. The French are named after a Germanic tribe, Russians are named after a Swedish tribe, Macedonians are named after their country which is in turn named after a ancient people related to Greeks.
  2. Are there similar words in ancient Venetian and modern Slovene? Very probably yes. So what? The reasons for this could be: pure chance, onomatopoeia, borrowing of words from neighbouring languages and lending them to others, common ancestry and finally, one language being the descendent of the other. It is very difficult to prove the last option, though - in a hundred generations languages can completely change their grammar and with no records of intermidiate phases, the whole discussion is purely speculative.
  3. Is Slovene a member of some other language family than Slavic? If you answer yes to this one, don't bother me with your further thoughts. Everybody who's not entirely blinded by preconceptions can see the continually falling similarities to Slovenian from Kajkavian abnd Chakavian, then Shtokavian dialects of Serbo-Croatian and then to other Slavic languages. We're not talking about similarity in vocabulary here, but rather about grammar.

So, if you agree with my arguments, there's no alternative in the language questions - Slovenes are Slavs and have come from behind Carpathians with other south and western Slavs.

Of course, there are other possibilities - all Slavs descending from Veneti, or Veneti being the first Slavs to come to Western Europe, etc. etc. Even so, the great time differences make all this hugely difficult to prove and, in my opinion, entirely non-interesting - we all ultimately come from Ethiopia and our exact paths along the way are not that important to me. But the proponents of the Veneti theory talk about it with a near-religious fervor, which is by itself a warning signal that makes the whole theory suspect.

So yes, I agree, it may even all be true. OTOH, writing an encyclopaedia article about the Timeline of Slovenian history is a whole another question. The fact is that the whole currently presented B.C. timeline is, as far as generally accepted view goes, completely unrelated to Slovenes and, let me add, hugely suspect. I'm pretty sure that most historians of Italy, Turkey and Iran won't agree with it. So no, the information that's in the article now, is definitely not NPOV and should be changed. I'd just delete the BC sections and optionally moved them to another article and note that the whole theory is contested by the mainstream - including the school system in Slovenia and other countries, encyclopaedias, history atlases, history books and very many historians - sort of like Atlantis. Zocky 15:08 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Zocky said: "Slovenes are Slavs and have come from behind Carpathians with other south and western Slavs."

I am still waiting for you to disclose any proof (archeological or documents from that time) supporting the Carpathian theory. Until then, I repeat: there is NO proof to support such a theory at all, even though it is called "mainstream".

Not only "romantic nationalists", but other people also, are realizing the lack of such proof - and you can not blame them for this. Take for example the Slovenian Identity Card or Passport: on both a Veneti horseman (from the Vace situla) is printed. Just a coincidence? Do you really think there would have been such a figure printed on our ID cards, if situla was of a Celtic origin? I doubt.

Even more, I present here an excerpt from a short publication on history of Slovenian army, published by Slovenian Ministry of Defence, Government of the Republic of Slovenia:

"[b]The origin of Slovenians is explained by two historical theories. One (supported by Romance and Germanic historic sources) claims that after the downfall of the Roman Empire and the mighty migration of peoples in the 6th century the territory of today?s Slovenia was emptied. Then the whole area was taken by Slavonic tribes coming from behind the Carpathian Mountains.

The other theory says that Slovenians are an autochthonous nation, which was subjugated by newly-settling invaders. Archaeology ? offering many material proofs of continuity ? has made it evident that the territory of Slovenia was inhabited at all times in history.[/b]"

Source (As you can see, the document is published on a government server.)

Best regards,

Simon

Ljubljana, Slovenija, May 21st, 2003

Zocky, please see below another opinion on Veneti. The author is Charles Bryant-Abraham, PhD, FSO - just another "romantic nationalist"?

"It is an honor and privilege to be invited to share with you a few modest thoughts on the present and future of Venetology, an emerging field promising to cast a new light on mankind's understanding of European prehistory.

First, a few introductory words about my own background are in order. I am a sixth-generation Texan and there are relatively few of us on earth. My family first came. to the Virginia Colony in North America in 1653. You will find few individuals who are as authentically American as I am. I was awarded a Ph.D. in Linguistics by the Université de Montreal for my work in Medieval Castilian philology. All of which is to say that I, at least for one, have no hidden agenda or political axe to grind about the importance of Slovenian dialectology in deciphering the Venetic inscriptions. I truly am simply an innocent academic bystander whose only interest is to learn a little more about early European pre-history. If I'm a chauvinist at all, I must be faulted as one of those proverbial insufferably-braggadocious types from the Lone Star State of Texas, a ?John Wayne? cowboy, if you please.

But indeed I do suspect that history is about to be written, or rather rewritten. We stand on the threshold of a new world of insight into the prehistory of Europe and of the Mediterranean.

Prior to entering into my exposition before this august assembly, I must issue a preliminary disclaimer, for the timeless epistemological remains ever in front of us. How can the "truth" of a given moment in history every really be known? Historian A may assert the reality of a fact and historians B, C, and D may successively quote the assertion of historian A in recounting their own stories of how things must have happened. But in every case where historians are not elaborating primary and direct evidence created at the time an event occurred, subsequent students of history will be coping with varying levels of credibility. The presupposition underlying any historical assertion doggedly remains, "It is believed that..." All that the most successful of historians ever achieve after that is a rearrangement of extant records lending strength to the probability of an assertion. In linguistic history, just as in social, military, literary, musical, or artistic history, there is simply no such thing as absolute proof of anything. Every "fact" we posit can only be based upon the preponderance of evidence found to date. At every step we must ask: "What does the preponderance of evidence now lead us to conclude?"

In the case before us, I must ask: what is all of this hue and cry about lack of scientific method in reexamining inscriptions which no one heretofore has been able to decode or make any significant sense of whatsoever? Do we now possess a preponderance of evidence permitting us to begin drawing some justifiable conclusions about these inscriptions, despite faulty methodology, or rather despite the lack of appropriate technical jargon to express the results obtained? Forgive me, but the analogy is obvious. It looks all the world like the proverbial, insecure, pedantic teacher who marks a correct math answer ?wrong? just because the student derived the correct answer without recourse to the precious method the teacher had so painstakingly taught. Clearly the integrity of a method or system is at best secondary to the accurate solution of a given problem.

Likewise, a satisfactory solution to any problem must preempt every system of instruction designed to lead to that solution. But in recent Venetic research a number of instances have come to remind us of the adage: "There is no sound as painful as a scientist groaning under a collapsed theory." The question, however, will just not go away: What inescapable conclusions must be drawn from the preponderance of evidence to date? Thanks to a precious few, undaunted Slovenian scholars, for the first time inscriptions heretofore indecipherable are at last being meaningfully read.


MateJ Bor, may he rest in peace, was a courageous pioneer who ventured forth into uncharted waters. All future Venetic scholarship will forever remain indebted to him. Like the work of every pioneer, the field of inquiry he so thoughtfully advanced will necessarily see many refinements in the years to come. But it must always be remembered: he was an intellectual father of Venetic studies.


Now, to the eyes of this sixth-generation Texas, it does seem that Matej Bor did manage to come to enough conclusions to make just about everyone on God's green earth angry at him. To be so decisively iconoclastic about one sacred assumption is daring enough, but the weighty implications of Bor's deductions were so broad and deep that much of the subsequent opposition would not have been difficult to predict.

Still, to streamline out and systematize three simultaneous rivers, which he let flow, might now prove useful to future directions of Venetic scholarship.

I. Undoubtedly the most intensely incendiary of Bor's findings is that Slovenian had heretofore been inaccurately classified as a South Slavic language, where in fact it is to be ranked among the West Slavic languages. This question continues to deserve all the attention it can bear, but for quite different reasons than those germane to the Venetic inscriptions. To sift out the objections of those decrying Venetic research as chauvinistically motivated, this entire issue should be reassigned to a specialized subcommittee for future development and redirected out of Venetic research altogether.

II. The evidence of past Venetic presence in any given area, which can be marshaled from inherited place names, will necessarily always be speculative and cannot be allowed to detract attention from more decisive evidence. Nevertheless, Venetic topology must be pursued, especially in areas where inscriptions do independently attest to earlier Venetic settlement. Anton Ambro?ič, in his book, Journey Back to the Garumna, has shown the validity and usefulness of Venetic topology in the territories of pre-Roman Gaul. Likewise, the identity of the pre-Greek Pelasgians, who had widely spread over the coasts and islands of the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean, may well be established through future Venetic topology, even in the dearth of reliable inscriptional evidence, as we shall come to see.

III. The overwhelming importance of the Venetic runic inscriptions themselves must lead to the development of a separate and distinct scientific discipline, commanding the keenest focus of all Slavicists, for it does constitute the cultural patrimony of all Slavs. Indeed the high value of the ultra-conservative Slovenian dialects in the decipherment of these inscriptions has the potential of so enhancing the appreciation of Slovenian linguistics that those alpine dialects may yet come to be collectively hailed as the "mother of Slavic languages." My sincere advice is that research into these inscriptions should proceed "full steam ahead" to produce credibly deciphered texts which can then later be analyzed by linguistic specialists who will write their descriptions in the conventional jargon of the trade."

I congratulate the debate about Slovene pre-history irrespective of the 'score'. I won't argue here with no manner. Personally it is very strange for me that no strictly written records exist like some Greek historian book aka Pliny the Elder's or Herodotus one. If according to the Veneti or even the Etruscan theory Slovene language was so well developed already before the 600s why there are just fragments in various inscriptions scattered all around? And also if Slovenes really came from the Carpathians the same... I doubt that (even a relatively small nation) would not have people who might be able to do that. This is my common sence. But piece by piece someday the consistent history of Slovenes will be written -- I do not doubt in this at all. The independence of Slovenia in 1991 reflects the whole its history. According to all social rules this nation should be extinct already long before. But obviously it still 'rocks' in a free world :-). Are there any differences in these two sentences:

Primorska was incorporated back again to the homeland of Slovenia from Italy after 1945. or:
Tibet was incorporated back again to the 'homeland of China' after 1959?

Tibetans are still waiting to 'rock'...
--XJamRastafire 12:54 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

NPOV dispute header still required?

It looks like nothing has been discussed or changed regarding the NPOV dispute on this page since early June of last year. I take it that this means the article has settled into a state that's at least grudgingly accepted by the various participants? If so, unless someone objects, I'm going to remove the NPOV dispute header (but retain the note about how the disputed theory is speculative). Bryan 01:44, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Count me in. I have nothing to object. The page is just a little greater effort of putting some facts and events from the history of the nation and a state, although TomS recently designated this page as non academic. Well... --XJamRastafire 23:50, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Misinformation

To XJamRastafire: Please don't litter the Timeline of Slovene history article with false historical information. I'm sure you're not a historian nor a slavist. You must have fallen for some pseudo-scientific theories. "Circa 400 - St. Jerome translates Slovene writings to Latin." This statement is quite funny. At the same time it's a pure mythology. But Wikipedia is meant to be a source of reliable scientific information, not a fantasy book, so please refrain from putting it in the article.

Also, as you seem to have little knowledge about your own native language, I suppose, let me tell you that the literary Slovene language emerged in the 16th century. Using the term "Slovene language" when referring to the times before the 16th century is in fact anachronistic. Boraczek 08:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, so as to explain why the quoted sentence is funny to me - that statement is on the same level of scientific substantiation as the sentence, say, "Circa 400 - Slovenes came to Slovenia from Mars by spaceships offered to them by Klingons from the Planet X". I don't need to check your personal info to know that you're not a historian, so you can't tell history from fantasies. But since you put fantasies in a Wikipedia article, you spread false historical information. Please think it over. I hope I didn't offend you. In fact, I'm a bit irritated, but I hope I didn't pass the line of being unkind. So let me end with: Kind regards. Boraczek 09:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, Boraczek you have correctly figured out that I am not a historian - but, hey, do I have to be to contribute here. You are objecting that I litter the article about Slovene history with some fantasies. How can you say that? The majority of it is all my contribution - of course there might be some mistakes - but at least you could give me some credits about it, and not just onesided critique. On many occasions I've found that non-Slovenes (many of them are other Slavs) are trying to write a history of this nation - and unfortunately a false or distorted one. So, I always try to contribute to the closest history as it is possible. I won't get into much details here, because I do not have to. The history of my nation speaks for itself.
I will forgive you for your bad remark about Slovenes coming from planet Mars. How do you know that St. Jerome did not translate from one language, called Slovene? Please give some sources, to support this. I will also do to provide some evidences. I just gave what I've found in some sources. I did not fall directly in so called »pseudo-scientific« theories.
I know enough about my mother tongue - be sure about that - of course you can never know all. Using a term Slovene language before 16th century is not anachronistic or whatever. Yes, literary language is another story, but language itself is not. Slovenes are not just another Slavic nation, but they are also unique nation as for instance Poles or Russians are. And there are strong indications (Academician and poet Matej Bor, ...) that Slovene language might be strongly connected with Etruscans and their language, but I won't talk about his now.
I will tell you that my practice is better than yours. You just delete and throw out what does not fit in your point of view and you never try to discuss about it. You just state that they are false historical information. That's why I've put back your deletions - irrespective if my previous statements (might) be wrong. In your last revert you have also deleted correct editings as unicodes and such. Think about it. I hope you'll get this notice in a good will and we could find some clever solutions in the future. And by the way I still doubt about correct terms Italia and Dalmatia in your map of Slovene territory during the Roman empire. How about Istria and Illyricum? I though that the north border of Dalmatia was/is the Croatian river Krka (Kerka), as it is written in the article about Dalmatia. This map together with your pure deletions told me that you can also be wrong (as me). Best regards. --XJamRastafire 10:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, Boraczek you have correctly figured out that I am not a historian - but, hey, do I have to be to contribute here. You are objecting that I litter the article about Slovene history with some fantasies. How can you say that?

Well, the problem is that you contribute to topics you have little or no knowledge about. This is why you provide readers with incorrect information. If you include incorrect infromation, you litter the article. Thus your contributions bring more harm than good. This is a brutal statement, but it's true.

How do you know that St. Jerome did not translate from one language, called Slovene? Please give some sources, to support this.

Well, I studied classical philology and slavistics. This is why I know that this information is a pure nonsense.

  1. First, it has been proved that in 800 AD there was still only ONE Slavic language south to the Sudetes and the Carpathian Mountains. This language is called Old Slavonic.
  2. Second, it has been proved that the Slovene language stems from Old Slavonic.

Hence, the Slovene language and Slovene writings couldn't have existed before 800 AD. Logical, isn't it?

We have HUNDREDS of linguistical proofs confirming what I've just said. You must have heard about the Freising monuments. They have been recently shown to the public in Ljubljana. They are very important, because they show that the language used in Slovenia was at the time they were written still very similar to Old Church Slavonic (almost the same as Old Church Slavonic). They, along with hundreds of linguistical proofs, show that at the time there was no Slovenian language having developed independently from the language spoken in Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Czechia, Morava and Slovakia.

Your question about sources is a bit ridiculous. Please read ANY scientific book related to the Slavonic languages in the medieval times. I can easily give you a source. Take any general encyclopedia you want and check the entries "Slavic languages", "Slavs" and "Proto-Slavic". You should find the corresponding information there.

I need to stop by now. To be continued. Boraczek 13:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So as to make it clearer. The line of evolution is: Proto-Slavic => Old Slavonic => Slovene, Slovak, Czech, Bulgarian etc. Slovene evolved from Old Slavonic, which was still alive in the times of Charlemagne.

And by the way I still doubt about correct terms Italia and Dalmatia in your map of Slovene territory during the Roman empire. How about Istria and Illyricum? I though that the north border of Dalmatia was/is the Croatian river Krka (Kerka), as it is written in the article about Dalmatia.

Please read the Dalmatia article carefully. The article doesn't say that the border of the Roman province of Dalmatia was Krka. It says that the border of some "barbarian" state was Krka. It also says: In AD 10, during the reign of Augustus, Illyricum was split into Pannonia in the north and Dalmatia in the south. This explains the relation between the Illyricum province and the Dalmatia province.
Istria (Histria in Latin) was a part of Italia, except for its eastern coast, which belonged to the Dalmatia province.
The names Italia and Dalmatia are correct. These are names used by ancient Romans. If you don't believe, please confer books about the ancient Rome.
BTW There's a very nice book by Tim Cornell and John Matthews. This book is called "The Roman World". It includes maps of all Roman provinces (and many other maps and pictures). Their borders of provinces are a bit different than mine, because I didn't base my map on this book and because my map desribes an earlier period. Anyway, I can recommend this book. Boraczek 18:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First disclaimer: I am not historian nor linguist so any information I know about the issue is second-handed. Regarding Freising manuscripts: I went to see them in May when they were in Ljubljana and I bought a little book about the exhibition. The book states that they are the oldest form of written Slovene language. The exhibitor (unfortunately I forgot his name, but he was historian, not philologist) said that they include some words that are uniquo to Slovene language - I remember krilatec which is still used in Slovene, though not for original meaning of angel. I was impressed how much of them is really similar to even nowadays Slovene. On the radio I heard interview with one of Slovene leading historical linguists (also forgot the name, sorry) and he said that the idea that Freising manuscripts are indeed in some form of ancient Slovene language is now widely accepted. He said that several scientists tried to prove that they are ancient Bulgarian etc. but that at their last international Slavic congress or meeting or something (again, I didn't remember what, when and where) there was only one article that they are not Slovene, and that the author even didn't publish this article in the proceedings after the meeting. This is what I remember hearing or reading about them. --Romanm 14:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
... but of course I agree that Slovene language developed from Proto-Slavic and together with other Slavic languages. On a second read, I see now that you didn't claim that Freising manuscripts were not in Slovene, so my post above is irrelevant. Just ignore it. --Romanm 14:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Let me define my standpoint in this matter. In my opinion, using the term "the Slovene language" in reference to the times before the 16th century is in fact an anachronism. I'm not surprised that most people in Slovenia say that the Freising monuments were written in Slovene, because this way of talking fosters the national pride ("our Slovenian tradition is so long, our language is so ancient" etc). But, let me say it clearly, this way of talking is not restricted to Slovenia. Many international scientists and writers say that the Freising monuments were written in Slovene. I find this way of talking inexact. But this is more a matter of words than a matter of facts. As for the facts, we should be aware that there is NO CONTINUITY between the language of the Freising monuments and the modern literary Slovene. I mean, the literary Slovene language emerged independently, it didn't evolve from the language of the Freising monuments. The Freising monuments were written in some Slavonic dialect used in Slovenia. And the people who gave rise to the literary Slovenian language (Trubar, Bohoric, Dalmatin) didn't know about the Freising monuments. They just gave rise to a new literary language, which was based on the dialects of Dolenjska and Ljubljana.
The Freisinig manuscripts are undoubtly written in (old) Slovene language. The manuscripts originate from betwen 993-1020 AD, but the text itself (the content) are about 200 years older. I suggest you read the Zbornik Brizinski spomeniki (Academia scientiarum et artium slovenica, 1996). The book includes some interesting artciles, like the two I quote below:
Brizinski spomeniki v razvoju slovenskega (knjiznega) jezika - The Freising Manuscripts in the Development of the Slovene (Literary) Language (page 323). An English excerpt follows: "The Freising Manuscripts are the first Slovene (and Slavonic) literary text pattern. Along with oral tradition it consolidated in the consciousness of its users its systematic and stylistic characteristics and thereby influenced the formation of "new" texts in the long term. Only thus, in spite of the partial later transformations at all language levels, can we understand the continuity of ceratin archaic elements (constants-modifiers) in the Slovene liturgical language of later centuries (especialy in morphology and vocabulary) - up to the present time.
Besedisce Brizinskih spomenikov v luci protestantskega besedisca 16. stoletja - Vocabulary of the Freising Manuscripts in the Light of 16th Century Protestant Vocabulary (page 289). An English excerpt follows: "The paper states the degree to which substantival and verbal terms from the Freising Manuscripts were preserved in (Slovene) Protestant books published in the 16th Century. It also presents the most asserted synonymous possibilities of expresion, primarly of course those words which the protestant writers did not use and those which were already beginning to disappear from use. With them and along with them attention is paid to word development which occured in the centuries between." -- Simon (26.07.2004)
The Freising monuments were written after the Slavonic language had started to differentiate. And they indeed contain some words which are peculiar for Slovenian dialects (the famous krilatec). In this sense their language may be called "Slovenian". But I think that it's much better to say "they were written in a Slovenian dialect" than to say "they were written in Slovene".
Anyway, this controversy involves a slight anchronism only. What is a real deep and blatant anachronism is to use the term "Slovene language" when referring to the times when Proto-Slavic hadn't split into Slavic languages yet. And this is the case with St. Jerome's translation. Boraczek 18:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I still can not agree that I litter the article. In fact you litter the article because you simply just delete what you haven't learnt during your study of classical philology and slavistics. But I with my peasant logic can see some things which tell that something is missing here. Why then you didn't first said on talk page that the issue with St. Jerome is wrong (if it is wrong). I know what I have read. It was written that he translated from Slovene to Latin. The language itself might be this so redeemed Old Church Slavonic, I can not tell, yes, as I am not trained philologist or slavist, or even slovenist. But my memory still works. You would say that I've fallen to some pseudo whatever - and in these cases philological expert should do their work correctly and tell to the majority of people what happend with Slavic languages before 701 and so on. I shall admit if I am wrong, that is also why I stay here for so long, but I can not stand devastatings of any kind. This is also a brutal statement, but it's true anyhow o:).

I do belive (I have to) there was one Slavic language in those days and that Slovene language itself developed from it, yes. On the other hand some new suggestions that Slovene language itself might evolve in its own way. For some details see above in some discussion of user Simon and me - specially the works of Anton Berlot and Ivan Rebec. I guess you haven't heard about connections with Etruscan language and Slovene in the University? It is very interesting - of course it will be even more when it will be proven or disproven by many other scientists. And this might take some time. Perhaps the line Proto-Slavic => Old Slavonic => Slovene is wrong afterall.

Todd B. Krause, Jonathan Slocum, The University of Texas at Austin, Old Church Slavonic Online

Although Old Church Slavonic (OCS) is the oldest documented Slavic language, it is not the language from which the other Slavic languages evolved any more than Sanskrit is the language from which the other Indo-European languages evolved. Rather OCS is now thought to be a dialect of one of the branches of the Slavic languages.

I have just indicated these facts in the article itself and I do not want to deny all those scientific linguistical proofs. You, probably tease me about Freising monuments, don't you. Of course I've heard about them. I was just too lazy to drive in Ljubljana to see them with own eyes. And I support Roman. In fact you have indirectly (Roman says you haven't) shown that the language can not be Slovene in them. Hey, man - Slavonic dialect used in Slovenia and Slovene language itself is a huge diference for me. Trubar did not know for them, just because he didn't have the Internet. You then talk about national pride. Do you think that Slovenes say these manuscripts were written in Slovene just because. I am sure now it is the time they should know some closer truth. No continuity? Yes. And why there are so little written documents in Slovene from the period of Freising monuments to, let us say, Trubar? This is also what bothers me. How can linguists be sure there are no continuity. This beautiful language couln't rise up in just one night. I do not have to be some special scholar to know this simple fact. Sometimes perhaps too much scientific work harms the view - I don't know. I have deep faith in scientific method on the other side, and I can say that I follow somekind of good and healthy analitical thought. Is a philoloy a diferent science then for instance physics or math?

I have read the article about Dalmatia carefuly and I still can't see that this region was stretched so far to the north over the river Krka. Sorry. Perhaps I might also read some geographic book, too, together with bunch of other crazy stuff. The splitting of Illyricum to Pannonia and Dalmatia has nothing to do with the issue of the north Dalmatian border, as I understand it. Some parts of Histria were also in Noricum, not just in Italia or Dalmatia. Hey, Boraczek, I do belive that a term Italia is correct - perhaps I have misunderstood it, because Italy (modern state) is called in Slovene Italija, but you were talking about ancient province of the Roman empire. All right. We have cleared some things, yes. Also very disputable is my map for wikipedia of later Karantania? I have just drawn it from one textbook. Do not blame me for stilling bad ideads, hey. Okay? And 'izinata' (~ deliberately) I am preparing a new and improved one. After that we shall see us in the battlefields and underground warfare - because Alpine Slavs were again not Slovenes, but just another Slavic tribe, he, he - the same as with their 'stupid' language. Thank you for this kind of history. --XJamRastafire 20:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a personal discussion, so I'll ignore the "littering part" (BTW I wonder if you really know what "to litter" means; but that's irrelevant) and I'll concentrate on the actual matter.
To litter means to spread litter for cattle, so transferred means to spoil the article. Am I right, or again not?! [XJam]
Oh :-) You're right. But I think we had a small misunderstanding, because I didn't even think about that meaning. I said "to litter" in the meaning "make untidy by scattering rubbish in". So precisely, I meant that you put incorrect information here and there (as if you were in a room and threw wads of paper here and there). As I said, I didn't mean to offend you. Boraczek 12:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
First, we should make a distinction between these languages:
  • Proto-Slavic
  • Old Slavonic
  • Old Church Slavonic
  • Slovene
Old Church Slavonic emerged about 863 AD thanks to Cyril and Methodius. It didn't existed before. So when I said "Old Slavonic", I didn't mean Old Church Slavonic, of course. And of course St. Jerome couldn't have translated from Old Church Slavonic. And Slovene (or Bulgarian or Macedonian or Russian) definitely didn't evolve from Old Church Slavonic.
I guess I know the difference between Old Church Slavonic and Old Slavonic - but read the article about Old Church Slavonic - I have written from it. Don't you think that also other articles have some sort of misinformations too? [XJam]
There's a lot of confusion with these names. Old Church Slavonic is indeed sometimes called Old Slavonic (especially in old linguistic works). And Church Slavonic is very often called Old Church Slavonic. This brings about an enormous confusion. And I've just noticed that the Wikipedia article "Old Slavonic" redirects to "Old Church Slavonic". So there's no wonder you thought I had meant Old Church Slavonic. Actually, by "Old Slavonic" I meant the common ancestor of Slovene, Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian, Macedonian etc. from the 8th century. Old Church Slavonic emerged in the 9th century. Boraczek 12:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, Slovene emerged in the 16th century. You may hold another opinion not being wrong, because it's just the matter of what meaning exactly we give to the name "Slovene". But if you (correctly) believe that Slovene stems from the common Slavonic language, you can't say that Slovene existed before the common Slavonic language split into many Slavic languages. Right? St. Jerome couldn't have translated from Slovene, because in the 5th century AD the common Slavonic language, namely Proto-Slavic, still existed. What you read was wrong. If anything, St. Jerome could have translated from Proto-Slavic. I guess this is a myth, not a real fact, because I have never heard about it (and I studied both slavistics and clasical philology). But I can't exclude it a priori, before I get to know the argument.
And why there are so little written documents in Slovene from the period of Freising monuments to, let us say, Trubar? This is also what bothers me.
And why are there so few, if any, written documents in German, Polish, Polabian, Sorbian, Czech, Slovak, Spanish, Portuguese/Galician, English, Irish, Breton, Danish, Icelandic, Rhaeto-Romance, Frisian, Welsh, Scottish, Manx Gaelic, Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian from the period before the Reformation? (I'm making an anachronism here, because I list modern languages, but I mean their "ancestors"). For the same reason. In medieval Catholic countries Latin was actually the only literary language (except the late medieval poetry). And whatever needed to be written, it was written in Latin. Other languages didn't have the literary form (no dictionaries, no spelling rules etc.).
How can we assume that there were documents in Slovene, German, Polish, Polabian, Sorbian etc., but they all have mysteriously disappeared without any trace, while many documents in Latin survived or are at least mentioned in other documents? If not the common sense, Ockham's razor should exclude this theory.
Yes, I understand about a role of the Latin. For instance Herman of Carinthia (~1100-~1160) was most probably Slovene or Croat and he didn't leave us a single line in (old) Slovene or Croatian, but just works in Latin. He was born in northern central Istria or on Korčula island in a territory of nowaday Croatia, so many call him Dalmata, but he also wrote he was from Carinthia. So, did he know any other language than Latin or not? If I was he, I surely would write something about that. [XJam]
This beautiful language couln't rise up in just one night.
Who says it did? It was the enormous effort and long work by Trubar, Bohoric and Dalmatin that gave birth to it. And the genius of France Preseren was required to fully develop this language.
Just genious of Prešeren? He had many words still in a dialect. For instance a conjunction inu and so on.
In my map I put the names of Roman provinces (that is, official administration units, like, say, regions in modern Italy): Italia, Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia. These are provinces of the Roman empire (except Italia, which was not a province, at least not a normal one), these are not geographical regions and not "barbarian" states. Sometimes we are not sure where precisely the border of a province went. But we know that the province of Dalmatia encompassed Kvarner and a part of Istria. And that its border was adjacent to the river of Kolpa (Colapis in Latin). No part of Istria belonged to Noricum.
I still doubt about the border of Dalmatia and that some parts Istria didn't belonged to Noricum. You are just speculating, because it suits you fine. I can put one blot on the map and say, hey folk that was Dalmatia during the Roman empire. I will check this for my own, because we can't get through it. [XJam]
Luckily, we know quite much about the Roman empire and its provinces, because we have a relatively big amount of ancient sources. Personally, I didn't examine the ancient sources. I based my map on books and maps elaborated by modern historians. Boraczek 12:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Map of Slovenia with Roman provinces and cities.
Ancient Roman provinces (as of 1-300)
I've check the issue about border of Dalmatia as Roman province - and YOU're right. My map is almost equal as yours. And also Histria was not part of Noricum, but of province of Italia. Nice work! [XJam]
The main difference between your map and mine is that in your map Emona and Nauportus belong to Italy, while in mine they belong to Pannonia. In fact, they belonged to Pannonia until the second half of the 2nd century, then they passed to Italia. Boraczek 23:24, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In my source the border between Italia and Pannonia is as I draw it on the map. The only mistake I've made is a town Neviodunum. I've put it in the place of modern Novo mesto, but its position was in Drnovo near Kr?ko. I shall correct it - and also added more precise borders instead of pure lines. [XJam]
Actually, there are many minor mistakes (mostly in names and chronology). Boraczek 12:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't know the Etruscan connection theory. I hope I'll get to know it in the future. Slovene has undoubtfully evolved from Proto-Slavic. It has undergone all the Proto-Slavic processes (for example three palatalizations, developing syllabic r and l, monophtongization). But I think some Etruscan connection don't have to be contradictory to the Proto-Slavic origin. This Etruscan suggestion sounds pretty fantastic, but of course I won't disregard a theory just because it sounds fantastic at the first glance. Things that weigh in science are facts and scientific examination of facts. Boraczek 23:16, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I was afraid that as you're educated scholar in the fields of philology and slavistics that you're not able to accept some new ideas although they might be still speculative or they sound fantastic. So I salute your opinion about that. Yes, there is a lot of time to examine some more facts about the origins of Slovene language and such. [XJam]
Just one thing I thought I'd say. Boraczek, don't believe everything they tell you in school :P
While I absolutely agree with you on St. Jerome, Veneti, etc, the statement that Slovenian emerged in the 16th century can't be true. Trubar's texts from 1550 are clearly, recognizably in Slovenian. I don't think it's very probable that the language appeared in the 50 years before that.
OTOH, the Freising Monuments are clearly not in Slovenian. When I try reading that, it's like reading Slovio. A language that I obviously recognize as familiar and understand a 90% of, but definitely not Slovenian. So what we now know as Slovenian must have emerged somewhere between 1100 and 1500. Zocky 01:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's a matter of words, not a matter of facts. It's not that we don't agree on some facts. It's rather that we assign different meanings to the word "Slovene/Slovenian". Boraczek 07:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If you do not understand them, Zocky, this does not mean they are not written in (old, proto, whatever) Slovene, right? I also don't understand them, but because they were probably written in the territory of Carinthia, most probably Slovene ancestors wrote them?! [XJam]
As regards St. Jerome, I suggest this version:
  • Circa 400 - St. Jerome hypothetically translates some Slavic writings into Latin.
This is what I can agree with. What do you think? Boraczek 08:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How about translates some Proto(or Old)-Slavic writings...? [XJam]
But what does "Old-Slavic" mean? Boraczek 12:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It would mean Old Slavonic (in your designation (not Old Church Slavonic)). But if Old-Slavonic did not exist already in 4th c., then Proto-Slavic. I hope now is clear. (I would still write somehow (perhaps Slovene dialect of...) - if St. Jerome was translating writings from this territory - and I know nothing else about him. So, I'm in a dead end of the street O:), again. Perhaps St. Jerome never existed. [XJam]
I'll put my suggestion in the article. Please see the article and tell me if you accept that suggestion. Boraczek 08:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)reply
I accept everything. I would only say in a different way (but how) about years 620s - which might be years of first mentioning of Karantania. [XJam]

Jordanes actually states that Venethi are divided into three groups: Venets, Ants and Sklavens.

This one is demonstrably false. Let's see the related parts of Jordanes's work

(34) Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Weneþi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names now vary amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaweni and Antes. (35) The abode of the Sclaweni extends from the city of Noviodunum {modern Isaktscha, Romania} and the lake called Mursianus to the Dniestr, and northward as far as the Vistula. They have swamps and forests for their cities. The Antes, who are the bravest of these peoples dwelling around the bend of the Black Sea, spread from the Dnestr to the Dniepr, rivers that are many days' journey apart. (119) After the slaughter of the Eruli, Ermanaric also took arms against the Winiþos {"Wends," a Slavic people}. This people, though despised in war, was strong in numbers and at first tried to resist him. But a multitude of cowards is of no avail, particularly when God permits an armed multitude to attack them. These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Winiþos, Antes and Sclaveni {= Slavs}. Though they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins, yet at that time they were all obedient to Ermanaric's commands.

As you can see, in 34 and 35 Jordanes seems to divide Venets into two groups: Ants and Sklavens (I adopt the article spelling). In 119 he states that there are three names for Venets: Venets, Ants and Sklavens. He doesn't say that there are three groups of Venets. In fact, it wouldn't make too much sense: "Venets are one of the three groups of Venets"???

So, the quoted part of the article is misleading when it says that Jordanes states that Venets are divided into three groups. He never said that. Quod erat demonstrandum. Boraczek 20:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This makes sense. So we can corect it. And do not blame me - because I have just summarized what was written in some other source. I leave it to you. --XJamRastafire 20:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think I'll simply remove that sentence, because the previous part explains the matter correctly, I think. Boraczek 07:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Can't we rephrase it instead of deleting it? Thank you for your answers too. --XJamRastafire 09:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What about "Jordanes actually states that there are three names for Wenethi - Wenethi, Antes and Sclaveni (Jordanes, Getica, ch. XXIII)"? This is almost an exact quote from Jordanes with a source indication.
As XJam reverted my last edits, let me explain them.
595 - According to Paul the Deacon, who was a medieval Lombard chronicler, in 595 Tassilo, king of Bavarians, attacked 'the province of Sclabi'. Some consider it the first mentioning of the Karantania state. (Other sources 620s).
I've changed "first mentioning" to "first known fact" just because I thought "first mentioning" could suggest that Karantania was mentioned by Paul the Deacon in 595, which is obviously incorrect, because Paul the Deacon lived two centuries later. I considered it a mere wording change. If you prefer the current wording, I won't quarrel about it.
No I didn't mean that Deacon actualy first mentioned Karantania, but according to him it was mentioned around 595 - as far as I know - and what is interesting - not just for the sake of Slovene national pride (as you were partialy talking about), but it is good to know when 'Slovenia' actually emerged - not just in the year 1991. Yes, of course these are still speculations - I am aware of very well. [XJam]
It's not about being partial. It's just that, as a general psychological law, people tend to believe in what makes them feel good. And that all nations like to enrich their own history and make it look more "noble" by creating myths. So do Slovenes. A brilliant example of Slovenian national mythology is a work by Adam Bohorič (Introduction to his famous grammar reference).
I feel a special emotional tie with Slovenia and Slovenes. I wouldn't have chosen Slovenia and its culture as my academic specialization and I wouldn't have learned Slovene if I hadn't like Slovenia and Slovenes. So if I am partial, I can only be partial in favor of Slovenia. Boraczek 08:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've removed "(Other sources 620s)" because if there are some events in the 620s that are interpreted as related to Karantania (and there are - the mentioning of prince Valuk), it is more logical to mention them under a 62x date than under 595.
I uderstand now the reason of your deleting. I can change it, but I have to repeat myself again and I am afraid that it won't be written well again. If I mention 620s already at 595 - I just say that sources can not agree when Karantania was first mentioned after all. I understand also the lack of proof for its existence before Samo's state. Perhaps some day... [XJam]
If we say "SOME consider it the first mentioning..." it is clear that there's a controversy about the first manifestation of the Karantania state. You don't need to mark that by the note "(Other sources 620s)". In fact, your note is misleading, because it suggests that there are two groups of historians: those who think that Karantania is first mentioned in the context of 595 and those who argue for 620s. Which is false, because both these dates are a mere speculation and some historians think that Karantania emerged much later (for example Croatian historians who believe that Croatia was the first Slavic state; another national myth in my opinion). I'll remove the note. Boraczek 08:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In fact, we don't know anything about Karantania before 745. We only know that it already existed in 745. Anything before is a mere speculation. Many historians believe that Karantania existed since the Samo's state, but there is no proof. So as to preserve the NPOV, we need to present those Karantanian interpretations as hypotheses, not as unquestionable facts. Boraczek 10:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vrag

This is a bit offtopic, but still very interesting to me.

But as Prešeren in Zdravljica literally says: "No Devil, but the Neighbour shall be a Borderer".

Does he really say "devil"?

The text in Slovene is: ne vrag, le sosed bo mejak.

In modern Slovene vrag means "devil". But the original meaning of this word was "enemy". This is the meaning that the word has in Old Church Slavonic and some modern Slavic languages (Polish wróg). In some modern Slavic languages the meaning is different (Slovene and Croatian vrag = "devil"; Slovak vrah = "murderer").

Now I wonder what vrag meant to Prešeren. I guess it meant "foe, enemy", unlike to present Slovenes, but this is only my guess (based on the translations I know), I haven't done any research yet. Boraczek 11:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary of the Slovene Literary Language (Slovene: Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika, SSKJ) lists nine different meanings for the word "vrag", all of them more or less in negative context. English "foe" or "evil man" are also two of them, first being marked archaic, but it shouldn't be so back in Prešeren's times. Also, Janko Lavrin on a Slovene government page translates these two lines as:
That all men free
No more shall foes, but neighbours be.
So I guess it's a foe, afterall. --Romanm 11:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
BTW, Slovene word for enemy is sovražnik or sovrag (archaic). I always thought (well, actually I didn't think much about it, but if I would I would think) that the etimology of this word is "the one who hangs out with the devil" - sort of co-devil. I see now that it could be "the one who socializes with the enemy". I'll check the Etimology Dictionary this evening. --Romanm 11:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Boraczek and Lavrin must be right for sure. I have translate the word itself perhaps a little bit too fast. Vrag at Pre?eren's time must have this meaning. And on the other hand, an enemy (who generaly does not bring anything good) can sometimes be identified as devil. I shall correct a rough translation. Thanks. --XJamRastafire 22:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I checked it. Marko Snoj's Slovene etymological dictionary (Slovenski etimološki slovar) indeed says that sovrag has the above meaning, while vrag itself was derived from Proto-Slavic word *vôrgъ which means torturer or to torture. The word is marked to appear in 16th century. --Romanm 05:31, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Slovene language before the year 701

Please, note I shall just speculate here (and I hope that I would not be accused for lack of knowledge, ...).

In Simon's link Concise History of Early Slovenians (The Veneti Theory) we can see these writings (again note I am not Slavist, nor Slovenist to know all accepted principles of (specially Slavic) language evolution and such):

BUG OŠA SO VIŠAD
Bog (naj bi) obšel to višavo
/God (might have) {(by-passed), gone} to heaven (here)/
Bog ... - pretty much general Slavic, I guess - but I wonder what about »vi?ad«? It sounds very Slovene to me...
OSTI JAREJ
Ostani mladenič
/Stay young/
See explanation and interpretation within the link, but ousti is said in a dialect still on the Kras today - again, what about other Slavic languages?
  • And many more. But enough for starting. --XJamRastafire 08:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Inscription: BUGOŠASOVIŠAD
Inscription (modern Italian spelling): BUGO SCIASO VISCIAD
Modern Italian: Buco (nel quale è) sceso Viscid'
English translation: The hole (where) the Abominable (= evil god) came down (to Earth)

Inscription: OSTIIAREI
Inscription (modern Italian spelling): OSTIA REI
Modern Italian: Ostia (dei) rei
English translation: Oblation (by) guilty men

As you can see, the inscriptions look more similar to Italian than to Slovene (and it only took me half an hour to invent these interpretations, maybe one could find something better).

6. Numerous Veneti incriptions (more than 2.000 years old) that were found in Eastern Alps area and which can only be understood using Slovenian and other Slavic languages

As you can see, the Veneti inscriptions can also be understood using Italian. And in my humble opinion Italian fits much better here than Slavic languages.

So I think that the Veneti theory needs some revision. They claim that the language of Veneti was Slavic and I have just proved that this language was almost the same as Italian ;-)

OK, let's take a break from pseudoscience. I only wanted to show that with a little bit of imagination you can "prove" that the language of the Veneti inscriptions is similar to any language you want.

"BUG OŠA SO VIŠAD" doesn't look like a Slavic writing. But let's assume that it's Slavic. As I roughly analyse this text I can see following processes:

  1. change o => u in "BUG" (why???);
  2. the first palatalization (not possible before the 1st century BC), a very strange case - needs further explanation;
  3. simplification of group bš/dš (strange - needs further explanation) => no jers (probably not possible before the 9th century AD);
  4. simplification dl => l in "OŠA" - this is a South Slavic or East Slavic dialect/language;
  5. no l in "OŠA" (why???);
  6. the word "SO" - ???;
  7. change y => i in "VIŠAD" (not possible before the 6th century AD).

So, if this was a Slavic language, this would be a South Slavic or East Slavic language from the 6th century AD or later (probably at least 300 years later). Boraczek 22:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I guess you can not prove whatever you like. I am sure there must be some more analitycal way to show which language was it. Your guesswork with Italian did not persuaded me. OSTIA REI is not the same as OSTI JAREJ. --XJamRastafire 21:41, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it? But if supporters of the Venetian theory read the alphabet correctly, the inscription is OSTIIAREI, not OSTI JAREJ. Just look at the inscription (your link, page 25). There's no J letter in that inscription.
If I had more time, I'd suggest the following game: you'd give me any Venetian inscription you want and I'd "prove" that this inscription is in Italian.
Of course it wouldn't be a real proof in the scientifical sense. I'd just do what Venetian theorists do, that is to say, I'd find a similar sentence in a modern language. Frankly, I think I'd do it better than they did it, because I guess I know more about Romance languages than they know about Slavic languages. In fact, I think my Italian interpretation is much more convincing than their Slovene interpretation. But of course both are false.
And of course there is a more analytical way to examine what language it is. In fact, I carried out a very rough analysis, didn't I? Boraczek 21:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed content

On 13 May 2004 I removed the following contribution by User:Avala:

2004 April 29 - Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek sued for command responsibilty of shooting 40 unarmed men on Slovene border while they were pulling back in 1991

That's when I said:

See Talk:Janez Drnovsek for discussion why those accusations from four Serbian political parties should not enter encyclopedia entries. --Romanm 22:12, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

On 26 May 2004 Avala added:

You will see that this MUST be deleted because we, Slovenians don`t like that accusations and we don`t want other people to know anything about that masacre.

Today I noticed that this old content was lost on the talk page, but that Avala added the above content once again on 21 July 2004, so I removed it. --Romanm 21:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments from Arbitration Commitee on Janez Drnovsek dispute

What follows is an excerpt from Talk:Janez Drnovsek dated 15:51 (UTC) 19 May 2004; a repost from RfA, where article on Janez Drnovsek was briefly discussed. Emphasis is by Snowspinner:

Oppose acceptance: Suggest mediation. I have done some research regarding the law suit at issue. I suggest it not be mentioned in the articles (or anywhere in Wikipedia) until the International Court of Justice has decided to hear it. (in other words not just filed but accepted by the court as worth hearing). If the parties continue with personal attacks the matter could be heard on that basis with offending parties all banned for a day or two. Meanwhile I suggest everyone just delete all personal attacks. I did not observe any neo-nazis or clowns myself. If we do eventually accept this matter it will not be to determine the content of the article, but to determine whether the users involved have followed Wikipedia policies. Fred Bauder 12:03, May 12, 2004 (UTC) Concur with Fred. James F. (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Please try to resolve the dispute amicably through mediation or other means first. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation if you've tried other methods. --Camembert 13:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Concur with Lee (Camembert). Martin 18:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Actions taken

I will remove this line once again. Reason is stated in the Rfa excerpt. --Romanm 14:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A less earth-shaking issue

I reworded many sentences so the English would sound more natural. I didn't fix this entry because I don't understand what it was supposed to mean: "1274 - Bohemian king Ottokar II. (reigned as a king 1253-1278) a candidate for the German throne refuses to appear or to restore the provinces of Austria, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola which he had seized. The way he got named provinces they believed was contentious. " Here's my best guess about what it means: "1274 - Bohemian king Ottokar II, who reigned as king from 1253 to 1278 and was a candidate for the German throne, seized the provinces of Austria, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola. Then he refused to restore the provinces, or to appear so he could explain his action. They believed the way he got the provinces was illegitimate." Is that what it means? Art LaPella 18:53, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation

See Veneti (disambiguation) which illustrates why I made the recent edits that I made. Alexander 007 23:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_Slovenian_history/Archive_1&oldid=468075833"