> [Moeller] Your way to see it so. It fits maybe from the lingvistic
point of view from what is called "eastern romanity" but it doesnt fit in
historicaly and arheologicaly and very important too, demograficaly way of
things... [etc.]
But the issue in this thread is linguistics, not "other ways of
things". We are talking about the origin of the Romanian _language_ -- and
as regards that question I completely agree with Miguel for reasons that I won't
enumerate for fear of repeating myself -- we've been through all this before. In
one of your recent postings you quote several completely unenigmatic words
obviously derived from Latin (via regular phonetic changes) and call them
Dacian. What's the point of such an exercise apart from stirring up some
unnecessary confusion?
Piotr
[Moeller] the point is like in a paternity process . So says the court:
"I understand that the child has a black skin and you white, but the child
must have a father, and because you and the woman here are still married, i
cannot help you, so you are the father of the child...".
I give you just one question. We know very few about dacian but a lot
about latin. Latin was a remarcable language which has a lot of texts where we
can compare. Dacian language doesnt.But a little bit we know makes us to ask us
what is there.
So just 3 examples:
eng. stone -----lat. petra , romanian piatra:, dacian
petra(o)
eng. see -----lat. mare, romanian mare ,
dacian mare
eng. water -----lat. aqua, romanian apa: ,
dacian apa
So. tehre are the 3 examples. In the case with Miguel, I spoked about
the dacian plant of Dioscorides called "phitho phethela" transalted as
fito-fetela, where I tried to make a connection between fito= fir and
fetela=fetelor.
Miguel argued right with the evolution from latin to romanian ( with
the evolution lows which are accepted by romanic linguists.)
But because of these 3 examples I ask myself why I cannot link it
together? why shouldnt be the dacian fito-fetela the fir(ul) fete(lor) . Just
because we dont have texts with dacian words? But the latin name is away from
the both name. so let
us compare, specialy we seen before we have more words which are from
both languages very imediate to romanian:
lat. adianthum capillus veneris romanian firul fetelor (
pa:rul fetelor)-- dacian fito-fetela.
you got that point? I cannot accept the romanic explanations when some
things appear as selfevident so I look for alternatives . If this is true or
not, I will see it somewhere in the future. If I accept the romanic explanation
and I dont study the romanian and albanian languges, not troguh latin and
greek perspective, but trough IE evolutions there where it is possible , we
will know tomorrow as few as today about thracian /dacian
/illirians languages. What is wrong in what i try?
best regards
a. moeller