Veneti Guestbook Entry

What do I think of "the Venetic theory"? In fact it is even not a hypothesis, just a (false) point of view, made by Slovene nationalists.   [ HARDLY !!!   You do not appear to even be aware that the Venetic theory was originally proposed by the Polish scholars Kostrzewski, Kozlowski, Czekanowski, Stojanowski, Lehr-Splawinski and others.   Matej Bor's work is a significant breakthrough standing on the firm foundation of these earlier Polish scholars.   You obviously have not studied these discoveries or Venetic theory with any depth. ]

I am answering this question: "But, the question still remains. Why the official theory refuses the Veneti theory. Why national media (TV, radio) neglect it completely? And the school?"

Because the aim of the science is to find the Truth and not to tell lies or to build false neo-mythologies.   [ The "Truth" can only be determined by a careful, knowledgeable and objective weighing of the evidence for the competing theories. ]   Take into consideration these four facts:

1) Scientists deciphered Venetic texts long ago and I see no reason not to believe them but a poet (who is Bor in fact).   [ Many scholars find much room for improvement over the previously offered decipherments which rely heavily upon the supposed names of unknown peoples. ]   The Venetic language is well known. It is not a Slavic language and it is absolutely not a Proto-Slovene.   [ Then why is it so easily recognizable and decipherable with the use of Slavic languages like Slovene and Slovak??? ]   The language is Italic and can be understood by the help of Latin, never Slovene.   [ Highly debatable!!! And why are the decipherments with the use of Latin so stilted and contrived? ]   Bor and co. ignore this at all (maybe because they have not read any book on Venetian yet).   [ To the contrary, Matej Bor studied the earlier works on the Venetic inscriptions by Pellegrini, Prosdocimi, and Lejeune in detail and whenever possible gave them credit for the conscientious work that they did do without a knowledge of the Slavic languages.   You, however, do not even seem to understand the difference between Venetic and Venetian peoples. ]

2) Venetic inscriptions were made from 500 BC till 100 BC. Next thy were replaced by Latin inscriptions, which proves that the Venetic language died ca. 600 years before first Slavic tribes came to Slovenia.   [ Since there is no conclusive proof that "Slavic tribes" came to Slovenia in the Sixth Century A.D., and much historical testimony for a much earlier presence, this only proves that earlier historians either did not do their homework or consciously distorted the historical record for political or other reasons. ]   So, Slovenian cannot be a child of Venetic.   [ And so, Slovenian can most certainly be a child of Venetic. ]

3) However, if I had even been wrong, what about other Slavic languages? If the Slovenes are descendants of the Venetians, what about the Poles, the Russian or the Bulgarians? Where are they from? Mars?   [ Slovenians are descendants of Venetic peoples, as are Venetians.   The Slovincians and Sorbs of Poland and eastern Germany represent the most authentic remnants of the Veneti within Poland.   Russians are descendants of East Slavs and Bulgarians are descendants of South Slavs.   Veneti were descendants of West Slavs. ]   All Slavic languages are so similar that they all must have come from one source and there is not a piece of evidence that the source was Slovenian. [ No one has ever claimed that the original source of all the Slavic languages was Slovenian, only that the Slovenian may have preserved enough of the key characteristics of the West Slav {Venetic} language to allow the accurate decipherment of the ancient Venetic inscriptions. ]   We know Old Church Slavic, the language spoken in Solun' (now Saloniki) at about 800 AD, which is very similar to the original Common Slavic language. Bor and co. compare Venetic and Slovene, not Venetic and Old Church Slavic (because they would not succeed with such a comparison).   [ Again, to the contrary, Matej Bor used Old Church Slavic repeatedly along with Slovenian dialects and other Slavic languages to arrive at his decipherments. ]   Why? Is Slovene older than Old Church Slavic?   [ YES!!! In terms of some of its features like the dual grammatical form, which is otherwise only also preserved in Lusatian and Vedic Sanskrit. ]   Or does it come from Venetian while other Slavic languages come from a language very similar to Old Church Slavic?   [ If by 'Venetian' you mean the ancient Venetic language, then, yes again for Slovenian; however, Old Church Slavic comprised an amalgamation of mostly South Slavic characteristics, not necessarily encompassing the East and West Slavic branches. ]

4) Polish (my native language) has preserved some primitive Slavic features (like nasal vowels) which are not present in (literary) Slovene and in "Slovene-Venetic" reconstructions of Bor and co. It is an absurd to believe that Slovene can be an immediate of Venetic because other Slavic languages have still preserved more primitive features than those present in Bor's Venetic reconstructions.   [ You do not seem to have any conception of the effect of time and/or distance upon the structure of language, let alone the effect of trans-migrations of other peoples.   However, that the languages of other Slavic nations may also have preserved other equally or nearly as ancient elements of the original proto-Slavic language in no way contradicts or even affects the Veneti theory as presented by Polish and Slovenian researchers.   In conclusion, your ignorance of the facts and even the arguments under consideration are apparent throughout your ill-advised posting.   However, I hope that my responses will help you and others to better understand the Veneti theory and further stimulate interest in the subject. ]