Re: [tied] Re: Albanian origins and much more

george knysh wrote:

> Are there any identifiable Iranisms in
> Alb?

so far I know, they arent. The only Iranisms which are in Alb. are entgered
this lang. via Turkish, but is possible to be wrong. Maybe Abdullah can tell
us more about here. BTW in the common Albanian-Romanian lexica there is no
Iranianism identyfied.

> The area of Geto-Greek contact south of the
> Danube was also one of intense Geto-Iranic
> contact.*****

was it? Because the persians defeted the getae who have been carzy enough to
fight against them? That should be to few for some borrowing. I am sure you
think here at "Agathyrsos" but they should have been of "scythic" stock
(what ever this will mean). And the Sarmats, well they lived long enough (
as per Ovid) in the same geografic space as Getae. That doesn't mean they
should have intermingled, but the possiblity of intermingling is given, of
course. The Cimmerians? They are considered more Thracian as "scythian" too
much unknown things here..

>
>> If Dacian is in the picture, then rather that of
>> South-Danubian Dacias
>> & upper Mo�sia. Perhaps the Bessi. (cf. that German
>> scholar, G. Schramm,
>> I once mentioned in a posting). But... centuries
>> later on, A.D.
>
> *****GK: Also, would not the Bessi be considered
> Thracian rather than Dacian?*****
>>
>> George

It seems you are a fellowers of Georgiev; Strabo means Thracians and Dacians
have been speakers of the same language. I prefer to believe Strabo and not
Georgiev:-))

Alex