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

Hello Miguel,

You wrote:

>None. As far as I know, less is known about Moesian than about
>even Thracian or Dacian

Nothing is known about the Moesian Language because it wasn't ANY
MOESIAN LANGUAGE...(we have 8 dava located there in a space of about
5 counties....)

The fact that there were several tribes doesn't means that each
tribes has its own language.

After you see the maps (dava/para) and fragments on Herodot,
Strabo, Iordanes ...this is ONLY A BAD INTENTION OF YOUR SIDE.

But of course, at the end, you can say what you want...

Regards,
marius a.

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