----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 7:56
AM
Subject: Re: [tied] just verifying a
point
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
From: alexmoeller@...
> To:
cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] just
verifying a point
>
>
>
> > It is in a
thraco-illirian region. Why should belive it is a celtic one? The panonians
where a mixture of thracian and illirian and very less celts. So, I repeat
your question by this way. Why should I belive is a celtic one and not a
thracian one?
>
>
> The term "Thraco-Illyrian" is
meaningless unless you can show that the languages in question were closely
related. No facts known to me justify such lumping. Two languages cannot be
assumed to be related only because both are poorly known. Pannonia is not
Thrace, Thracian was not spoken in Pannonia, while we know that there were Celts
near by and Celtic influence was rather strong there. The name _might_ be
Illyrian (we know so little about Illyrian that it's hard to exclude anything),
but a Celtic interpretation is quite natural, while a Thracian one is out of the
question.
[Moeller] You dont like to see a fact. You have as
fallow:
a celtic teonim =Epona= godess of
horses
a thracian Antroponim = Eppo, meaning
(?)
a thracian antroponim =Esbenus, meaning
(?)
a romanian word called "iapa"
You think Esbenos comme from *ek^wos and Eppo
too, but you are convinced that Esbenus is thracian, and you are not
convinced that Eppo is thracian. When I say that the celts and the
thracians were neigbours and they mingled together for a lot of time, long
time the before the world heard about latium, so is more easier for me to
say like you: "I assume because the celti lived together with dacians , they are
related ( see your thracian "esb" and iranian "asb" as good link) so, is
no wonder we have Eppo in thracian as Epo in celtic. But I cannot do it so easy.
I just have the 3 points of comparation and the rumanian rules for
substratum.
> > As Mr Vinereanu observes,
Kw>b(p) and gW>b allways except when fallowed by -i- and
-e-.
>
>
> Sorry, Alex, but I sometimes get the
impression that you can't read. First, the 'horse' word is *ek^wos, not *ekWos
(got it? or shall I repeat?). Secondly, Thracian is a Satem language, and PIE
*k^ > Thracian s. Thirdly, PIE *w > Thracian b (probably pronounced as a
fricative, i.e. [v]). To sum up, *-k^w- > -sb-, and therefore *ek^wos >
esba-. Got it at last? It was all there in the previous messages.
[Moeller] No. How you see romanian did not made
this "v" ="b" so quick as in another romanic languages. That shouls sound
curious for a linguist. But like allways, such things can be ignorated too.Have
you ever took a look how many words in romanian begina with "b"? Let us put
there and the words prefixed with "a" before "b" and you will wonder how much
there are. Please, do not make me to look in dictionary how many are, I am crazy
enough to take page with page for counting them:-))
[Moeller] Vinerean :"short vowel *e" for
ek^Wos:
PIE *ek'uus, ek'ua>proto-troco-dacian
*epa>traco-daca *iepa>romanian >iapa. This is the explanation of Mr
Vinerean.
The "kW" in ekwos belongs to me, I have to support
the mess for "ekwos".
You will observe thata iapa in plural form in
rumanian is iepe the same "ie" there if you will ask you why from
*epa>"iepa"
I repeat myself. why is thracian a satem language?
Give me please the characteristics which make of thracian a satem language.
Which are they?>
>
> > As a matter of fact, in
romanian language there is this rulle always: kW>p(b) except when fallowed by
-e- and -i-.
>
>
> Whatever happens in Romanian, Romanian is
not Thracian.
[Moeller] I should like to belive so I should
like to belive a wonder who determinated even the people ( romanized , of
course-) to labialised later the "qu" from latin. How you can explain
me the "p" and "b"- reflexes from substrate if not these rules?
How?
>
> > I posted there a message with
the thracian characteristics for the people who want to take a look.
>
>
> Such stipulations are of little interest if not supported by
good examples, and that in particular concerns Mr. Vinereanu controversial
proposal that *kW, *gW > p, b. It's all the more controversial because Mr.
Vinereanu evidently tekaes Thracian to be Satem (as his other rules make clear).
WHAT IS HIS EVIDENCE?
[Moeller]Mr Vinereanu say something else . He
does not say thracian is satem. He assume that the big separation in
centum and satem is not as happy as it seems to be. He means thracian and
illirian were in a central position having a lot of features from
centum languages but too , sharing some features with the satem languages. And
it seems to me it fits ok because of their geographic position.
There are many interactions where centum languages have satemised features and
the satem languages shows centum elements in them. In fact this phenomen should
be observed at best in the slavic languages which are not properly satem as
avestan or sanskrit.
But to recall the "p" cluster of thracian or dacian
and I want to tell me where do you see here that "kw">s
So a list now with some exemple for
you:
Toponims and Hydronims:
Apulum, Porolossium, Napoca, Naparis,
Alboca,Salapia ( 2 times, once in Apulia, Second in Dobrogea), Saldapa, Apeva (
in Panonia), Apila ( short river on the shore of Macedonien), Colapis today
Kulpa
Tribes:
Carpi, Colapiani (Plini 3,
147), Sirapilli ( Plini 3, 147) , Apulli, Mesapi
Plants. ( latin therm- dacian therm as found by
Dioscorides and Pseudo Apuleius)
arctium lappa - riborasta (asta, sound like
what? like questa?)
potentila reptans-propedila
centarium umbelatum - toulbela
ancusha italica= bou-datla
Dacian names for plants where I cannot use them
because they could not be identified :
Amalusta, DrocilaDinubula
,Coadama,Cotiata,Guoleta/Gonoleta,Tura,Pegrina
You see them ? I see them too and I am very
surprised even if I dotn know what they mean coada=coada, cotiata=cotita,
I cann speculate a lot. But I cannot because I dont know what these
means.
balega, barza, naparca, mânz, briu ( have you
looked for bria?you have briu for instance), brad, bunget, groapa, tzap , my God
there are too much to put them here. Even the words which are comon with
albaninas are not 80-100 and over 600 , but more of them are considered to be
bulgarian.
This is funny. two old folks evend if romanized or
not they got all their words from newcomers. From latin and later from
slavs, later from maghiars. That cannot be. Not such folks who lives as most
people like to say, " in mountains", scattered.They run away but they learn the
language of the newcommers.?How that?
Let me tell you how I see it and about slavs. Into
romanian language are not so many old slavic influence as bulgarian influence.
Do you indeed want to belive that the bulgarians gaves everything to romaninas
and we have a valaho -bulgarian empire in the time of Asan? I guess there must
have been a strong population of vlahs there where the slavs settled. And even
in Moesia Superior.. And because they were there as the slavs cammes, the slavs
got a lot from the valahians. But you like to assume the countrary.
It is a wonder in fact. The thracians forget their
language first time and learn latin, they forget latin too and learned a lot of
slavic words , but they did not wanted to learn hungar in almost 1000 years. How
that? Why? So from today on tomorow?There is no reliable explanation. The only
reliable explanation is that the language was in its roots very old there and it
envolved, got some news, a lot of loans too, but never forgotten.
You see always the migrators when you speak
about the bilingvism of populations. The people who , one german, one iranian,
put themself on the way to see the world. Sure, thec could become
bilingve. But not the sedentars who have had sporadic contacts .
[Piotr] please do that
[Moeller]
One of salapia was in Scythia Minor Piotr. I wait
for exact references where to find about. So far I got them you will be the
first who get them from me.