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

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:30:41 +0000, m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

> 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).

I've also seen Paeonian connected with Macedonian and Greek, but I havce no
opinion.

>> 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?!

None. As far as I know, less is known about Moesian than about even
Thracian or Dacian (unless my guess/hunch that Moesian is pre-Albanian is
correct, and we know quite a few things about it, without knowing it).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...