> --- alex_tiscali_dsl <alxmoeller@...> wrote:Or that the Dacians became latinised because 1/3 of their theritory was
>> Reconsidering the ptoblem of the romanian elemetns
>> in the North of
>> Carpathian, N. Draganu (Rom. s. IX-XIV,326-415)
>> showed that the Romanian
>> expansion from Arva, Zips, Saos, Zemplen, Ung and
>> from the Carpaths of
>> Maramures, in Galitia further to west until Krakau,
>> in North until
>> Ptipet and in East until Podolia has been made in
>> the XI-XII century.
> *****GK: What does he base this hypothesis on? There
> may have been Romanians in the Hungarian armies which
> occasionally invaded Galicia in the 12th and 13th
> centuries, but they are not mentioned separately.
> "Expansion" is not the right word here. There is no
> record of settlement. On that basis, we could argue
> that the Irish "expanded" all the way to Kyiv because
> there was an Irish monastic presence there before
> ******GK: Alex, it has been known for a very long timeThis is how I will conclude about Rom. Lang too. The Latin influences
> that the "Jus Valachorum" ("Voloshs'ke Pravo") in
> Galicia in the 14th and 15th century was
> overwhelmingly used by local peasants, not by Romanian
> colonists. Most of the life of these "Valachian"
> villages continued to be regulated by the traditional
> "Rus' Law". The "militarization" of many of these
> villages is a later phenomenon, as is the co-optation
> of their "knyazi" into the local secondary
> aristocracy. The Romanian (actually Moldavian)
> influence is clear, but this is a borrowed system, not
> evidence of colonization.******
>George, what I wrote before is not my opinion. I just translated . i
> I'll look at your word list separately.