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

--- alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
The matter is as follow:

> -the people who became romanized ( in my view:
> getting an huge Latin lexical
> data)

*****GK: Whereas others on this list would argue that
"romanization" involved much more than just that. But
we'll pass for the moment.*****

are not known exactly. They could be

> Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians,
> Peonians, Dardanians, etc etc etc.

*****GK: In my view they WERE all of the above.*****

>
> These people should be seen as point 0
>
> In the time of the Roman Empire, the people should
> have used stil their
> languages, mixed with Latin, borrowing more and more
> Latin words, having
> that "special Latin" in East of Roman Empire. This
> is the point 1 where we
> can call them just "roman citiziens". These "roman
> citiziens" are these
> which in that part of the world will became in our
> example, ProtoRomanians.
> That is the point 2 on the timeline.

******GK: Don't forget that besides the "romanized"
locals of many ethnicities, there was also an
important contingent of colonists (esp. in Dacia but
not only there) from all parts of the Empire, as well
as incoming "barbarians" from the north and elsewhere.
So (no pun intended) a veritable "hungarian goulash"
of peoples. Not an unusual situation, and one repeated
(and anticipated) in many other world contexts.****

> The last point is the arrival of the Slavs, we speak
> already about Valahs

*****GK: Has anyone wondered if at some point the term
"Vlach" could have covered more than just the
Romanians? I.e. could it have included (for a time)
the Albanians? And only later become "specialized" as
a designation of the Romanians ONLY? I ask because we
know how many different populations were designated by
similar terms in areas of contact with Germanic
groups.*****





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com