Re: [tied] Re: south slavic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: south slavic


>
> Because there was nobody to Romanise them. They came to the
Balkans in post-Roman times. Of couse many originally Slavic
communities must have merged with the Greeks, Magyars, Vlachs,
Albanians, etc. If some of them switched from Slavic to early
Romanian, you can call that "Rumanisation".
>
> Piotr

[Moeller]
no, I did not mean to rumanize them, but to romanize them:-)
It seems very corect the picture here. In 550 AC there was
none more to romanize the slavs. I am OK with that:-)))
How OK , and perfectly in the historical picture is that the
romanians have few slavic words from the ancient slavs, if we
remember that in the VII century the slavs from Dacia after
their defeat by gepidae, were "forced" to move south of
Danube.
What doesnt fit too much is that the rumanians have such much
words from bulgarian. And that the romanian "phonetism" shows
"traces" of north bulgarian.
This is a another strange thing for a people who are supposed
to cradle womewhere in balcans, south or south-west of
bulgarians
By the way, did someone make a comparation if the so called
"balcanic basis" which born the " linguistic balcanic" has a
latin fundament or " an another one"?