Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

From: alex_lycos
Message: 21706
Date: 2003-05-10

george knysh wrote:

>> The same did the Greeks begining with VI century BC;
>> they have knew very
>> well the Thracians we should we not belive them?
> *****GK: What does this comment have to do with the
> Bastarnae being Germanic? Incoherent phrasings usually
> indicate incoherent thought processes. What in the
> world are you talking about?******

It doesnt has to do with the Bastarnae. It has to do with the
reliability of the ancient testimony. I made this statment because you
assumed the Romans know them well ( the Bastarnae), in this way they (
Tacitus in this case) must known they are Germanic.
I made a paralel here with the Greek world and the big Greek colonial
time between VI-IV BC. They too knew very well the Thracians and they,
the Greeks mention the Prygian should be descendents of Thracian.
Against this statement there is the linguistic evidence which say there
is no relationship between Thracian and Prygian. In a way, I have to
agree, I am a bit in doubt regarding the Bastarnae being Germanic. The
basoreliefs from Adam Clisi where are depicted Bastarnae, differ very
much by the figures which are on the Column of Trajan where we see
germanic folks. They are looking different. Way to look like, clothes,
way to keep the hair and much more.

> *****GK: The Bastarnae were located in today's
> Moldavia, and at the mouth of the Danube. The very
> name of "Moldavia" is ultimately derived from a
> Germanic root (a river name). But this (and other
> hydronyms and toponyms) only confirms what we already
> know from reliable historical sources.*****

You made this statment in a previous mail. I asked which is the germanic
Root for Moldau ( Actualy the name of the River which cross Prag) for
keeping it for germanic? I cannot see anything in germanic which I kann
corelate with Mold- this is why I am indeed very curious about the root.

> ******GK: I tend to agree with those scholars and
> commentators who see the proto-Romanians as initially
> inhabiting (in pockets) large areas of the Balkans
> south of the Danube, i.e. in Roman territory later
> breached by the Slavs.

The slavs did not broken the Romanian bloc. If they should have did it,
then there should have been words loaned from Slavic before metathesis
for instance. There are a few words borrowed from Slavic, but a lot
considered as borrowed from Bulgarian.Here the linguistic helps a bit.
The Aromanians have the same Old Slavic loans but they do not have any
Hungarian word into their dialect. What does it mean? They have been not
in conntact with Hungarians.Puting together the fact that the valahs
appear coincidentaly in the history once with the arise of the hungarian
state, I keep my theory that there was an admigration of Romanians from
North to South of Danube from West of actual Transilvania due the
Hungarian power.If we count on the fact that the first Bulgarian Empire
was alone "bulgarian" that will mean the valahs have been not very
numerous south of Danube. After this events ( admigration from North to
South), they became more numeros and the result is seen 100 years later
as the second Bulgarian Empire is in fact the Vlaho-Bulgarian Empire.
All these have a logic here.

> Why should they have borrowed
> anything from Lombards or Franks? I don't see anything
> mean or degrading about some of these populations
> (with other elements assimilated to them)subsequently
> trekking northward across the Danube and occupying the
> lands of contemporary Romania, creating mediaeval
> states there, and ultimately evolving into the modern
> Romanian (incl. Moldavians) ethnicity. Why is it
> necessary to fantasize their being descendants of 2nd
> c. Dacians?*****

I don't see either something degrading here. It is just the problem that
it doesn't matter where they have lived, the germanic tribes have
vagabunded almost on all european therithory. The missing of the
germanic loans ( I am reluctant in saying there is no one, but this work
must be done first). Now with the South location of the Romanians, here
is hard to belive that they lived so long within the Byzantine Empire
and there are so few Greek or Byzantine loans.
A short flash: begining with Justinian Latin langage is not used anymore
in the Byzantine Empire. Heraklion make the Greek language the language
od the state. From Heraklion ( VII AC) untill the supposed migration of
the valahians from South to nord between X -XII AC are between 300-500
years. And without Greek influence? Imposible.
I don't take too much into consideration the way the late Byzantine
chronicars kept the valahians for dacian, let it be their opinion. But
the logic of all these facts , all of them point out a life outside of
the Byzantine area.
For making the soup better, the Timocean Romanians are speaking
dacoromanian and not aromanian. And this is exactly the same situation
as in the time where Strabo say about the "dacians from the both shore
of the Danube" which speak the same language.Let it be again a
coincidence I don't care about, these are just for the decor of the
whole situation.

> *****GK: As pointed out to you, it is not necessary to
> share "West Roman" innovations to have contacts with
> the "Roman world" as long as there was one (I believe
> Greek only became the official language of the
> Byzantine Empire in the 7th c.).*******

No no. I don't talk about "west inovation". Remember, Miguel keep
Italian for "Eastern Romance" and Dan Milton ( was this Dan or Peter ?)
quoted that inovation have been missing. And these innovation have been
comming from Italy not from west.