Re: [tied] Proto Romanian Cradle

From: Rex H. McTyeire
Message: 13063
Date: 2002-04-07

I still have not read all the previous input in this thread. (Pieces here and there, they are filed and I will get there when I can give them the thought deserved.)  < But>  until I see an argument or proof convincing me otherwise:


*The proto-Romaneste cradle is both banks of the Eastern Danube, and wider: bigger, not smaller than Romania.

*Narrowed only to the north bank+ Dobrodgea;  and west Border by Bulgar and Magyar consolidation where obvious.

*There is < no > reason to zero out whatever was here @ 271 AD and “create” viable scenarios for replacement.

*That simply does not happen to an area of this size with out distinct historical events chronicling it. (Not in Turkey, Hungary, Bulgaria, Scotland…or anywhere else even in the face of known historical events displacing language.)

*Who the boss is does not change who the people are, even when the language is displaced.

*The suggestion that Roman official presence withdrew to leave an empty void to all manner of new barbarians until such time as other romance speakers could filter in and “redominate” with a feat of logic and historical magic I would love to see proven.

*The whole premise of a “given” absence of in place components of the current language is challenged.

*Of course there was input from elsewhere throughout the dark millennium, as well as before and after.

*What I see here suggests immigration contributed to, influenced, but never erased what was already here.

*Latinization of the north bank is not limited to the period of Roman possession; the south bank had been Latinized and exchanging freely for centuries before and after that narrow(?) time window of 1.6 + centuries for Dacia 2.

*The unknown and disputed aspects of “Vlach” does not challenge this.

*The Hungarian occupation of much of Transylvania did not displace Romaneste even when attempted.

* Hungary demonstrates that even where languages are displaced, the people: are not.

* A foreign immigration to replace would not preserve words like : “getbeget”  and other (130 or 200?) pre-Latin regional

references known.  Home, food, village, hearth, family words..going directly to ethnicity.

* Free Dacians were labeled opposed to dominated one’s, they were not Live Dacians opposed to dead ones.

*The whole replacement scenario is unnecessary and the current situation is (at least) equally explainable by continuity.

* Continuity of populations with input and change is the norm, it is the alternative that is unusual..

…and bears the burden of proof.


(Is getbeget the opposite of vlach?  I dunno J)


There is only < one >  reason to suggest that a rare and even unique scenario impacted on the Eastern Danube whereby people were replaced after 271AD and new peoples then much later reintroduced a language similar to a previous one,  into an empty void, < or > new incomers trickling in dominated a third set of scattered “temporary”  languages then in place via others who entered the void, reintroducing a romance language.  These “newcoming samespeakers”  then collecting obscure cultural and folklore traits of the previously deceased inhabitants to confuse linguists J.  That reason is to disclaim ethnic and linguistic continuity through an historical void.  That unlikely set of results leads to an illogical conclusion which in turn supports only one interest:  (There is no regional continuity predating the Magyar intrusion into Pannonnia, or the 10th century [take your choice]; which then supports still pressed Hungarian claims to Transylvania if not the Eastern Danube.)


Slàinte mhath;

Rex H. McTyeire

Bucharest, Romania


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Alesu [mailto:rpales@...]
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 2:24 AM
Subject: [tied] Proto Romanian Cradle


Dear Piotr,

I want to reopen a subject and I have a question and some notes.

The subject is the “plausible scenario” of proto Romanian emerging in
the mountains South (Southwest) of Danube and then the speakers
migrating to today Romania.

The question is have you real proves for this scenario? Has anyone?

Here are some notes:

1. The simple fact of Romanian being a romance language is not proving
for this scenario.
2. After leaving some place, people have some nostalgia that often
generates some customs that are transmitted from generation to
generation. One example is the girl name Dacia that is used today in
Italy, Spain and Americas. While I do not know the story behind this
name, it makes sense that the habit was started by nostalgic Dacians. It
seems that the Romanian customs do not point to anything like that. By
the way, the name Dacia is fairly popular in USA too. Actually,
according to the census, more popular than Valentine.
3. In this scenario Dacians are basically foreigners to proto Romanians
and their ancestors, so there should be some linguistic traits about
this “foreignership”.  Something like the English word “dagger” and the
French “dague” which probably came from the Latin “daca” that meant
“Dacian knife”.  Only foreigners (in relation to Dacians) could call it
“_Dacian_ knife”. Are you aware of some “foreignership” traits related
to Dacians in Romanian?
4. A migration, even a slow migration, which according to this scenario
happened not too long ago, something like seven centuries, should be
remembered in folklore. It is not.
5. As this scenario puts it, proto Romanians and their language survived
in the high mountains South and Southwest of Danube protected of Greek
and Roman influence and shielded from barbarians. The same thing could
be accomplished, with no travel at all, in the high Carpatians North of
Danube. No Greek or Roman influence. The migrating barbarians could not
reach them because their big and swift horses, very good in the plains,
were worthless in the mountains.
6. I understand that “no prove” is not equivalent with prove. However,
the lack of proves should raise some big questions. Does it?

Looking forward for your opinions,

Paul Alesu

PS. Here is an excerpt from an old message, which generated this

Paul Alesu wrote:
The model by which Romanian speaking population influxed from other
Roman provinces, in my opinion, is as bad as the model by which Romans
and other conquerors destroyed the entire Dacian population.

Piotr Gasiorowski answered:
Why is it so bad, if there is a plausible scenario of what may have
happened? Latin (or rather Proto-East Romance), which was already widely
used as lingua franca in the Balkan provinces, shifted down the social
ladder, as it did in other parts of the Empire. It was adopted by
shepherds and farmers (some of whom may have been descendants of Dacian
refugees), replacing the traditional vernaculars and surviving in a
rural environment. The most favourable place for Proto-Romanian to
emerge would have been the mountainous regions of Moesia Superior and
inland Dalmatia, a convenient distance away from big towns and effective
Byzantine control. The migrations of the Slavs disturbed the ethnic
balance of that area and made the "Vlachs" explore the devastated lands
of former Roman Dacia, gradually reintroducing their Romance dialects
there. As I have said, residual Latinity may have survived the
successive invasions and continually erupting warfare, but it was
probably absorbed into early Romanian without influencing it

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.