Re: [tied] Keeping up, barely :-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Keeping up, barely :-)


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: alexmoeller@...
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Keeping up, barely :-)
>
>
>
> > From the _historic_ point of wiev the romanians means they
are the dacians . What they do today?Well, I guess they feel
very prety beeing the descendants of "two men":-)) lol Trajan
& Decebal. ... [snip, snip, snip] ... P.S. an good
acquaintance of me told to me once "Every "olah" is dacofill ,
even if more ore less:-))
>
>
>
> Dear Alex,
>
> It can't have escaped your attention that your Dacophile
fantasies are not shared by all Romanians (even on this forum)
and I wonder if you have a right to volunteer as a spokesman
for the whole nation. You may even be doing a disservice to
Romania in this way.
>
[Moeller] Piotr I am just one who said out what he thinks. And
if the linguists are not able to resolve my problem, I have to
belive what I like. Historicaly the dacians could not disspier
but is " took" as it is. They went somewhere, assimilated by
no_one_knows_which_folk. The arheological evidence shows us
how the roman traces dissapier in Dacia in IV centuries but
dacian traces are until VI-VII centuries good to see and they
are to see until the time (IX-X centuries) where no arheolog
can say anymore who was the one who was burried there.
(christianity razor)
So, in this case there is only the language . Only the
language which speak about. And if I have a big basis in the
language which is considered to be latin, a big basis which is
considered to be slavic, and a big basis which is a substratum
+ a lot words with unknown ethymology what I have to do?For
slav I accept it , it is slav, ok, a part of my language is
slav, for latin ok, I accept it, a part of my language is
latin , and for the rest? What about? These way to say like: "
the ancients, the parents of proto-romanian " that means
nothing. Tell me their name.The ancestor of romanians did not
lived on the Mars.They must have been somehow on Earth and
more , in Europe from a point upon the timeline . No one like
to do it. The romanian linguists use here and there the word
"thracian" but they run as before the devil and they will
never use "dacian": Be my guests. They are not the dacians,
they are not the thracians. But who are they?
Tell me who? Tell me that the small tribe of trogloditen, tell
me that a semitic, tell me something. Does someone this? No.
They dont. Why?
I dont know. Are they not prepared ?Are they not good
profesionist?Are they uniteresed?Does a such explanation
change something in the general linguistic? No.
In fact it will clear a lot.
I do not idolitarize Vinereanu. Thus, he is the only one who
showed me a way how my words from substratum derive from PIE.
And that is enough.
Do not tell me he is wrong. That will say everyone. Show me
"the another way" how my words from substratum derive and
where from. And I will look at what you say. To say no, that
cann everyone. And to argue , that cand be done by a lot. To
show an another way, that is not the same that cann be done by
2-3 persons maybe..
Show me an another way and I will never run away. I will read,
I will compare, I will look at your examples and I will make
up my mind.I am a man of XXI century and I doubt even about
God. Is my properly right to doubt. And about people , even
linguists, maybe more as I doubt about the job of the
bricklayers.
If someone is not able to show me an another way, I can just
belive Vinereanu. Am I wrong here Sirs?