Re: [tied] Daco-Roman continuity [was: illyrian lexicon or inventor

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" wrote:

>>> 15-11-03, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>> Well, I don't believe in the Daco-Roman continuity story, ...
>>
>> I don't believe in Daco-Roman continuity in _Dacia_ ...
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Do you have some linguistic arguments OR is a simple "believe"
>> [here with the meaning of conviction/faith?] .
>
> I have no strictly _linguistic_ arguments apart from the the
> Albano-Romanian "substratal conspiracy",

... which doesn't say too much on the matter, in the light of the
usual division of Thracian (NT/ST).

> but given the distribution of the Romanian dialects at present
> and in the past (without claiming special historical status for
> Daco-Romanian), the dialectal isoglosses within the Romanian
> cluster, and the history of Dacia in the late Roman period and
> during the Great Migrations, Dacia is not a likely homeland for
> Common Romanian.

Maybe not entire Dacia, but importants parts of it yes, along the
Danube and the Western part. Of course, without any intention of
denying the extension of this "craddle" up to the Jirecek line.

> All the relevant arguments have been discussed here before,

Yes, but with whom?! :-)

> so anyone interested in a more detailed discussion may go back to
> ca. Message #15000, when such a discussion was in full swing.

This kind of discussion is of course a can of worms :-) and has
all chances to develop into a neverending thread; I would rather
suggest to make it more linguistical and less geographical. Methinks
a general formulation as "Common Romanian took shape somewhere North
of Jirecek line" would be just fine.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi