Talk:Carpi (people)

original / outdated research

This page has a lot of problems. But "a possible argument against the Carpi's proposed Dacian ethnicity is that Roman emperors did not use the long-established cognomen ex virtute Dacicus Maximus" looks also like original research. The argument "such titles were ethnographic, not geographical (i.e. Dacicus meant 'victorious over the Dacians', not 'victorious in Dacia')" is outdated and false. In the 2nd edition of CAH XII there's no such claim on page 140, note 1. However in this volume on p. 471 we read "How far the Romans pursued their defeated enemy is unknown, but Galerius, since he rejoined his Augustus Diocletian in Nisibis, and from an inscription on a triumphal arch in Thessalonica where he is called Persicus Maximus, Armeniacus, Medicus and Adiabenicus, might be assumed to have campaigned in Armenia and Media, as well as Adiabene which is next to the territory of Nisibis." Daizus (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Indo-European, not Sanskrit

"Also, it had been suggested that Carpathian Mountains may derive from the Sanskrit root “kar” 'cut' that would give the meaning of ‘rugged mountains’."

Surely, what is meant here is the Indo-European *(s)ker- root, which is already mentioned above. Sanskrit was not spoken near this area. I suggest deleting this sentence. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Karpi, not carpi

it's not carpi, like carpe diem, it's karpi like slavic karpa (a rock). also it's not the carpathians. it's karpati (the rocky mountains). you english speaking peoples translate everything beyond recognition.89.205.59.148 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent addition - Carpi after 318

The following text recently added Romanian scholars of the early 20th century, later refined by Giuliano Bonfante, hypotheised that contemporary Albanians descended from the Carpi. Their hypothesis states that the Carpi during the 4th century migrated in a peaceful and slow manner to the Roman provinces of Moesia and Dardania, prior to the Slavic migration into the aforementioned regions. As a result of this migration and assimilation with the local indigenous population, they took on a new identity while preserving their native language. Evidence for such a lineage attests to the affinities between the contemporary Albanian and Romanian languages. However, such a theory is challenged by the lack of intemediary places occupied by the migrating Carpi between the Danube region and the provinces of Moesia and Dardania. was reverted under the justification that the sources are outdated, POV, UNDUE, one of the sources are unreliable and don't refer to current linguistics. @Βατο given that you have made these multiple allegations, could you (or other interest parties) back up these claims with research from current linguistics as I have not found what you are referring to. ElderZamzam (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Quiles'book is unreliable [1]; [2]. Romanian scholar Sorin Paliga is not the best you can find ([3]), also you WP:CHERRYPICKED his publication.

Albanian is among the earliest languages to have been in contact with Latin, not to mention the early borrowings from North-West (Doric) Greek. Albanian is not a language that remained non-Romanized until the 3rd-4th centuries CE (or even 600 CE!) as conjectured by Paliga, this is a WP:FRINGE view; he also states This is, in fact, the theory recently advocated by Matzinger too which is false, Matzinger has rejected the Thracian origin of Albanian. Proto-Albanian has already been profoundly changed by contact with Latin in the first centuries CE. Current top notch academic sources (Hamp, De Vaan, Matzinger, Joseph, Friedman, Trumper, Breu) hold that Albanian-speakers were already at least in northern Albania-Central Balkans at the time of Carpi's first attestation north of the Danube. Furthermore, first contacts between Albanian and Romanian languages occurred south of the Danube; as stated by De Vaan and Joseph, this map is the most likely situation of the early period CE Commons:File:Map Romanian Dawns.jpg. – Βατο (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Quiles is not reliable at all, while the two others are promoters of Romanian nationalist ideas (they claim there is definitive proof that Romanian stems from Dacian in Romania!). Unless recent linguists specialized in Albanian studies are provided, it is just a waste of time. Recent top quality linguists who do specialize in Albanian (Hamp, Matzinger, Friedman, de Vaan, Joseph etc) do not even mention the Carpi fringe non-sense. No need to discuss this again really. At least from me do not expect more elaboration, unless you find recent linguists who specialize in Albanian - sth you can't do. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Carlos Quiles is not a linguist, an archaeologist, an anthropologist or a historian. No Quiles publication can be used as a reliable source, because none of them are academic sources.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Etymology: Slavic origin an anachronism?

Müller (1883), so a very old source, is quoted in favour of the mountains bearing a Slavic-origin name. How can that be even considered, when Claudius Ptolemy names them Karpátēs around 150 and the Slavs were at that time nowhere near the Carpathians? Or are there still accepted theories about an earlier migration of the Slavs, and how reliable are they? The 1880s were a time of national movements and science often did bend over backwards to serve nationalistic agendas. I don't know anything about Müller and his work - is he still a RS? Arminden (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)