Actually, the fact that a good percentage
of the substrate vocabulary has Albanian counterparts suggests that it was a
Satem language closely related to Albanian (and, conversely, the Latin
substrate in Albanian shows a close affinity with Romanian); there is also
some evidence -- very limited but not altogether imaginary -- that Albanian
shares a number of features with the ancient Dacian/Getic languages. I am
therefore ready to admit that the substratal admixture to Romanian had something
to do with Dacian, and I have said so many times on this list. (Alex accuses
Romanian linguists of Dacophobia, which is both unfair and absurd; but if
that is to mean they don't suffer from Dacomania, I can only say I'm
glad.)
The question is what precisely is Dacian
about Romanian, and when and where the admixture was absorbed by Balkan Latin.
Was the source the native language of Moesia Superior? -- or the language of
evacuees from Dacia on the right bank of the Danube? -- or both? Various
scenarios can be envisaged. The least likely one, for historical
reasons, is the continuous survival of Dacian in its original homeland. And
of course the obsessive concentration on a single substratal element in a
language that has several such components, and even demanding that the langusge
should be genetically re-classified for the sake of that particular substrate is
something no linguist can approve of.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Keeping up, barely :-)
There may be a big problem identifying the immediately
pre-Latin ancestors of the linguistic ancestors of the Romanians by linguistic
means.