Editing Messapic language (section)

=== Paleo-Balkanic ===
Messapic forms part of the [[Paleo-Balkan languages]]. Based upon lexical similarities with the [[Illyrian languages]], some scholars contend that Messapic may have developed from a dialect of pre-Illyrian, meaning that it would have diverged substantially from the Illyrian language(s) spoken in the Balkans by the 5th century BC, while others considered it a direct dialect of Iron Age Illyrian. Messapic is today considered an independent language and not a dialect of Illyrian. Although the unclear interpretation of Messapic inscriptions cannot warrant the placement of Messapic in any specific Indo-European subfamily,{{sfn|de Vaan|2018|p=2}} some scholars place Illyrian and Messapic in the same branch. [[Eric Hamp]] has grouped them under "Messapo-Illyrian", which is further grouped with Albanian under "Adriatic Indo-European".{{sfn|Hamp|Adams|2013|p=8}} Other schemes group the three languages under "General Illyrian" and "Western Paleo-Balkan".{{sfn|Ismajli|2015|p=45}}

A number of shared features between Messapic and [[Proto-Albanian language|Proto-Albanian]] may have emerged either as a result of linguistic contacts between Proto-Messapic and Pre-Proto-Albanian within the Balkan peninsula in prehistoric times, or of a closer relation as shown by the quality of the correspondences in the lexical area and shared innovations between Messapic and Albanian.<ref>{{harvnb|Matzinger|2005|p=48}}; {{harvnb|Matzinger|2015|p=|pp=65–66}}; {{harvnb|Matzinger|2017|p=1790}}; {{harvnb|Ismajli|2015|pp=65–68}}; {{harvnb|Trumper|2018|p=385}}; {{harvnb|Friedman|2020|p=388}}.</ref> Hyllested & Joseph (2022) identify Messapic as the closest language to Albanian, with which it forms a common branch titled ''Illyric''. Hyllested & Joseph (2022) in agreement with recent bibliography identify [[Graeco-Phrygian|Greco-Phrygian]] as the IE branch closest to the Albanian-Messapic one. These two branches form an areal grouping – which is often called "Balkan IE" – with Armenian.{{sfn|Hyllested|Joseph|2022|p=235}}

==== Illyrian languages ====
Although the Illyrian languages – and to some extent Messapic itself – are too scarcely attested to allow for an extensive linguistic comparison,<ref name=":2">{{harvnb|Woodard|2008|p=11}}; {{harvnb|Fortson|2004|p=407}}</ref>{{Efn|{{harvnb|Matzinger|2015|p=62|ps=: "Finché non sono risolti in maniera soddisfacente i vari e difficili problemi della fonologia storica dell'illirico vero e proprio è, al momento attuale, impossibile se non inutile effettuare una comparazione linguistica tra il messapico e l'illirico."}}; {{harvnb|de Simone|2016|ps=: "For many years the study of Messapic was based on the assumption that the language was genetically related to Illyrian. The main supporter of this theory was the German scholar H. Krahe, though he eventually modified his views considerably. At present we prefer to see Messapic as an autonomous linguistic unit, with its own history, to be studied within the context of the other languages and the history of ancient Italy. Yet it may still be possible to establish links between Messapic, which is certainly an Indo-European language, and other languages genetically close to it. In fact we cannot exclude that Messapic was introduced into Italy (in several waves?) by ‘Illyrian’ speakers who came from the Balkans, though at present this cannot be verified."}}|group=note|name=}} the Messapic language is generally regarded as related to, though distinct from, the [[Illyrian languages]].<ref>{{harvnb|West|2007|p=15|ps=...To these can be added a larger body of inscriptions from south-east Italy in the Messapic language, which is generally considered to be Illyrian...}}; see also {{harvnb|Mallory|Adams|1997|pp=378–379}}; {{harvnb|Fortson|2004|p=407}}; {{Harvnb|Woodard|2008|p=11}}; {{harvnb|Small|2014|p=18}}.</ref> This theory is supported by a series of similar personal and place names from both sides of the [[Adriatic Sea]]. Proposed [[cognate]]s in Illyrian and Messapic, respectively, include: '[[Bardylis|Bardyl(l)is]]/Barzidihi', '[[Teuta]]/Teutā', 'Dazios/Dazes', 'Laidias/Ladi-', 'Platōr/Plator-', '[[Iapydes]]/[[Iapygians|Iapyges]]', 'Apulus/Apuli', '[[Dalmatae|Dalmata]]/Dalmathus', 'Peucetioe/[[Peucetians|Peucetii]]', 'Ana/Ana', 'Beuzas/Bozat', 'Thana/Thana', '[[Deipaturos|Dei-paturos]]/[[Damatura|Da-matura]]'.<ref>{{Harvnb|Boardman|Sollberger|1982|p=870}}; {{harvnb|Buda|1984|p=50}}; {{harvnb|Pisani|1987|p=506}}; {{harvnb|Mallory|Adams|1997|pp=378–379}}; {{harvnb|West|2007|pp=140, 176}}; {{harvnb|Marchesini|2009|p=154}}; {{harvnb|Dzino|2014|p=48}}</ref>

==== Albanian ====
The linguistic data of [[Albanian language|Albanian]] can be used to compensate for the lack of fundamental information on Illyrian, since [[Proto-Albanian language|Proto-Albanian]] (the ancestor language of [[Albanian language|Albanian]]) was likewise an Indo-European language certainly spoken in the Balkans in antiquity,{{sfn|Friedman|2020|p=388}}{{Sfn|Matzinger|2015|p=|pp=62–63}}{{sfn|Aigner-Foresti|2004|p=81|ps=: "Altri studiosi, sulla scia di P. Kretschmer, sostengono invece la parentela linguistica illirico-messapica partendo dal presupposto che l'antico illirico trovi un seguito nell'albanese moderno. Le loro argomentazioni sono attendibili anche se non vincolanti."}} and probably since at least the 7th century BC, as suggested by the presence of archaic loanwords from [[Ancient Greek]].{{Sfn|de Vaan|2017|p=1732}}{{Sfn|Matzinger|2017|p=1791–1792}}{{Sfn|Rusakov|2017|p=559}}{{Sfn|Matasović|2012|p=6}}

A number of linguistic [[cognate]]s with Albanian have been proposed, such as Messapic ''aran'' and Albanian ''arë'' ("field"), ''biliā'' and ''bijë'' ("daughter"), or ''menza-'' and ''mëz'' ("[[foal]]").<ref name=":0">{{harvnb|Orel|1998|pp=260, 265}}; {{harvnb|West|2007|pp=137, 146}}; {{harvnb|Rusakov|2017|p=556}}; {{harvnb|Matzinger|2017|p=1790}}; {{harvnb|Poli|2019|p=600}}</ref> The [[Toponymy|toponomy]] points to a link between the two languages, as some towns in Apulia have no etymological forms outside Albanian linguistic sources.{{sfn|Trumper|2018|p=385|ps=: "Overall, the complex of Albanian dialects remains a solid block of the Albanoid group still relatable with Messapic (observed in place naming in Apulia: some towns have no etymon outside Albanoid sources, for example in toponyms such as Manduria)."}} Other linguistic elements such as [[Grammatical particle|particles]], [[preposition]]s, [[suffix]]es, [[lexicon]], but also [[toponym]]s, [[anthroponym]]s and [[theonym]]s of the Messapic language find singular affinities with Albanian.{{sfn|Aigner-Foresti|2004|p=82|ps=: "Elementi linguistici (particelle, preposizioni, suffissi, lessico, ma anche toponimi, antroponimi e teonimi) del messapico trovano, infatti, singolare riscontro nell'albanese."}} Some [[phonological]] data can also be compared between the two languages, and it seems likely that Messapic belongs, like Albanian, to a specific subgroup of the Indo-European languages that shows distinct reflections of all the three [[dorsal consonant]] rows. In the [[Nominal (linguistics)|nominal]] context, both Messapic and Albanian continue, in the masculine terms in ''-o-'', the Indo-European ending ''*-osyo'' (Messapic ''-aihi'', Albanian ''-i / -u'').{{Sfn|Matzinger|2015|p=|pp=62–66}}{{sfn|Ismajli|2015|pp=65–68}}

Regarding the verbal system, both Messapic and Albanian have formally and semantically preserved the two Indo-European [[subjunctive]] and [[optative]] moods. If the reconstructions are correct, we can find, in the preterital system of Messapic, reflections of a formation in ''*-s-'' (which in other Indo-European languages are featured in the suffix of the sigmatic aorist), as in the 3rd sg. ''hipades/opades'' ('he dedicated' < ''*supo-dʰeh₁-s-t'') and in the 3rd pl. ''stahan'' ('they placed' < ''*stah₂-s-n°t''). In Albanian, this formation was likewise featured in the category of aorists formed with the suffix ''-v-''. However, except for the dorsal consonant rows, these similarities do not provide elements exclusively relating Messapic and Albanian, and only a few [[morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] data are comparable.{{Sfn|Matzinger|2015|p=|pp=62–66}}