Re: [tied] Older Dacian zone in Balkans = Later Latin zone in Balka

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:51:38 +0000, m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
>
>> Well, if you look just once the URL you provided, you will
>> undoubtedly note that "Thracian language" was not spoken in
>> Moesia (Superior, for the matter).
>
> I didn't claim that.

Of course you didn't. I just pointed out that Moesia still lies
out of ST speaking zone even if on the online image file given at
the URL one can count...

> as many names in -para ("Thracian") there as there are in -dava
> ("Dacian").

That is: placenames are not the unique criterium to be taken into
account. You may see (on the same site on Duridanov's work) some
phonetical features for Paeonian
(http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/thrac/thrac_8.html) which
connect it rather with Dacian (NT) than with Thracian (ST).

> Perhaps we should introduce a "Western Thracian" subdivision,
> besides "Southern" and "Northern".

That would be an idea, but what linguistic facts can you take as
supporting it?! Place names seem not to fit as factual argument
(one has still the same -para, and -dav(b)a) and phonetics doesn't
appear to have many different subdivisions in the area.
If one sticks to the usual binary division, in Moesia (Superior)
the main idiom in use was rather NT.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi