From: alexmoeller@...
Message: 15103
Date: 2002-09-04
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Keeping up, barely :-)
> 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
[Moeller] that is that. I was sure as the poor one in the
curch:-))
The schoolars are not able to learn that the d a c i a n s
were just a tribe of the getae. The shcolars forget that
dacian state in the time of Decebal was less as 1/5 from the
theritory of the getae. And that even if the whole dacian
tribe was rooted, there still have been 4/5 getae all around.
North, and north-east and north-west.
The episode 105-106 was fatal for the dacian state but not for
the getae as folk. If you will keep in mind that difference
you will make a big step . The dacians was a finger from a
hand of getae and no more.