Talk:Liburnian language

Untitled
The whole information on this page seems to me very unreliable if not fake. Such long existence of a relict Indo-European language in Europe would be a scientific sensation; however, this language actually "exists" only in Wikipedia and its clones (and probably in the book written by Messrs. Yoshamya, which I have never seen). Isn't it strange? --Dmitri Lytov 14:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, most of the more fantastical-sounding stuff comes from a single banned user named "Winona Gone Shopping." This looks like a pretty clear hoax. algormortis 17:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps unexpectedly, there is a "Neo-Liburnic" book listed in WorldCat - but confusion over the authors -

Title: 	Ranohrvatski srednjovjeki pradialekti = Parvanje harvâtje bjesydôj / Author(s): 	Lovric, Andrija-Zeljko. Lovric, Mihovil. Publication: 	Zagreb : Znanstveno drustvo za proucavanje podrijetla Hrvata, Year: 	2005 Description: 	v. : ill. ; 31 cm. Language: 	Croatian; Abstract in English and résumé in French; table of contents also in French. Contents: 	knj. 1. Gan-Veyãn osce Bascânski besidãr : rjecnici istocnog Kvarnera-- Baska, Rab, Vinodol 28.700 besêd Standard No: 	ISBN: 9539612519 (set); 9539612527 (v. 1) ... Other Titles: 	Parvanje harvâtje bjesydôj; Archidiomes médiévaux protocorates; Old-Croatian medieval archidioms; Gan-Veyãn osce Bascânski besidãr =; Neo-Liburnic glossary grammar, culture, genom; Neo-Liburnic glossary grammar, culture, genom Responsibility: 	Mitjel Yosamya & Zjelimêr Yosamya.


 * You can also find it in Copac. --HJMG 09:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am finding other references to Liburnian, such as this listing, so it seems to be at least a hypothetical ancient language. Marco polo 02:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not remotely enough information on the language of the Liburnians available to us to make emphatic claims - as this article does - about its affiliation with Venetic. A few names from the area (I only recognise two Venetic elements in the first list of names, rather than the "many" claimed in the article - and one of them is not even attested in Venetic personal names), which might or might not have been names of native Liburnians, prove little to nothing. Realising that one simply does not have enough data to say anything other than "we simply don't know at this stage" is an integral part of competent scholarship.

This article is a mess. Sources are OK, but conclusions are all mixed between sources and then originally researched at the end. Since there is no classification of Liburnian, especially not such as Liburnian-Venetic – this thing doesn’t exist, it is reasonable to present scientific story through theories in timeline, article was obviously organized that way once upon a time in wikipedia, but not at the moment. Knowing real situation with studies of Liburnian, I have put parts where they belong (sources!), in hope nobody will destroy it too soon into something awful to read as it was recently. I have also removed originally researched “Liburnian-Venetic” language group  - based on discarded theory. Even if it was that link, it would not carry such name. Linguistic definition is usually Northern Adriatic group (Veneti, Histri). But as seen in the sources there are no enough serious evidences to prove that link as the important one. In contrary, Liburnian was probably something separately developed between I-E and P-I-E. Links to Venetic, Illyrian or other are just reflections of their geography in their language and polarity by means of I-E layer in their language.37.244.133.143 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A weird (?) sentence
This sentence:

"The Liburnians were conquered by the Romans in 35 BC, but despite Romanization, especially in the larger cities, Liburnians retained their traditions to the 4th century BC, as attested by the archaeology"

looks weird. I think it should state "(...) retained their traditions to the 4th century CE". Zeiimer (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)