>Don't be too sure. It appears in Trieste < Tergeste, which is
>close, and further contains the Scandiavian (torg), Slavic (trg),
>Romanian (tîrg) and Finnic (turku) word for "market". Let's call
>it Venetic. But it would be intriguing if that -st- came from
>a palatalized plural of a Venetic -sk-, and was also reflected
>in Slavic -Å¡Ä-
What fits in other languages, is' mir schnuppe. I was talking
of what -e$ti is in Romanian, namely the plural of -esc. And
this -esc is related to -isc- (-isk-; and to -isch, -ish).
This is so because of a common Romanian phonetic occurrence:
-sc- followed by either [e] or [i] tends to become [St(e/i)].
E.g. musca > plur. mu$te, basca > bä$ti, gâsca > gâ$te,
casca > cä$ti, mascä > mä$ti, firesc (adj.) > fire$te (adv.).
This occurs in verbs of the -ire & -rîre (fourth) category,
indicative, as follows:
(A) "I <verb>esc" & "they <verb>esc" versus "you <verb>e$ti" &
"he/she/it <verb>e$te";
(B) "I <verb>räsc" & "they <verb>räsc" versus "you <verb>ä$ti"
& "he/she/it <verb>ä$te".
The same way in names ending in -escu: Ionescu > Ione$ti,
Popescu > Pope$ti, i.e. the idea of plurality/community/group.
It also applies to the inherited word for "Slav(ic)": singular
schiau [skjau] or $chiau, plural $chei [Skej] or $tei [Stej].
(The Romanian word slav is a modern loanword.)
>I propose that the Romanian language originated there
Not in the 1st century B.C., but a few centuries (4-5 centuries!)
later on, after certain waves of transformations of the Latin
language *had time* to come into existence. Note that AD 400 or
AD 500 there were no neo-Romance languages such as Proto-Italian,
Proto-French, Proto-Spanish ... Proto-Romanian. You have to add
further 2-4 centuries after the disappearance of the western
Roman Empire.
>Apparently it's long enough for you to complain that I made
>Romanian that older, or had you already forgotten that?
It cannot be older because of obvious chronologic reasons,
i.e. linguistic reasons: Romance and Romanized populations
were not in the situation to be able to develop new Romance
idioms prior to specific transformations of Latin, and prior
to the evolving of the appropriate conditions for the process
called "Romanization".
Actually, it's the same problem as in the case of the evolving
of Deutsch out of Germanic dialects: the 1st c. BC is too early.
Some kind of Proto-Deutsch was there in the Carolingian epoch
(old high German), but not 7-8 centuries earlier (when "your"
Bastarnians must have spoken a "German" as remote as is your
Danish to Wienerwald or to Graubünden German).
>Intersting, but irrelevant to my point, namely that my proposal
>can account for at least one of the facts those guys use as
>evidence for their theory.
Your proposal has nothing to do with any of the elements that
are relevant for any theory concerning the transformation of
certain regional types of Latin into both of the south-east
European neo-Romance languages: Dalmatian (Vegliot) and Romanian
(with its 4 dialects, and one extinct, that was spoken in Croatia,
the one of a population called Morlacs < Maurovlachs).
On top of that, a considerable population of colonists from all
over the Empire took part in the process of the Romanization of
the relevant SE European regions for centuries (most of them
military veterans; NB: in Romanian, "old man" is expressed by
a derivation of veteran: bätrân. The word vechi (fem. veche) is
semantically restricted and can't be interchanged with bätrân/ä
except for certain few situations).
>we don't have to assume any close genetic relationship between
>Slavic and Dacian / Thracian.
But the linguistic rests are there, they've been studied for
200 years now, and show that Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian, Phrygian,
Scythian (Iranian) belonged to the satem family.
>>(E.g. Berzobis > Bârzava, Dierna & Lerna > Äerna in Banat.)
>
>d- and l- -> Ä. Interesting.
In the same area, in two Romanian subdialects, -de- and -di-
are usually pronounced dže, dži. (But this is only a coincidence.)
>'This situation would have been intolerable to the then free
>Dacians, thus Burebista on the advice
This is not true. This is only a mental/cultual projection of
somebody educated after the Renaissance and Enlightenment. I.e.,
somebody interpreting nationality and nationalism from today's
point of view. To those people in ancient times all these notions
were different. "Free Dacians" did not meant a Abraham Lincoln-like
policy; it meant "not occupied by a foreign power"; as far as
the social stratum "slaves" was concerned, slavery was alive and
kicking, and you bet that Burebista would have been happy to
garner additional ounces of gold from selling slaves to whomever.
>instigation of Decaeneus in order to get a supply of slaves
>to sell to the Romans, with his Getae / Dacians
During Decaeneus's time, Dacians were also
free as they were under Burebista. And they sold
slaves. So, what's the reason to still use "free Dacians"
in an unappropriate context? The term "free Dacians" is
warranted only after the last Trajan's war (105-106),
when Dacia consisted of a territory that became a Roman
province and of a territory where no foreign power subjugated
the Dacians there (hence "free").
>attacked the Northern Bastarnae ie, the Atmoni and Sidones'
>
>The fact is that he did attack them. That is a fact that needs
>an explanation. So does the fact that a large part (at least
>35,000 plus another 35,000) of Spartacus' slave army were
>Germani. What do you have to offer to explain that? What is
>the fact your 'you see' refers to?
These two aspects of history have nothing to do with the
topic (namely with the Romanization of some populations
living between the Adriatic Sea, the Aegean Sea and the
Black Sea. And they happened centuries before the time
spans relevant for "forgetting" the substrate languages
and replacing it with variants of Latina Vulgata, that
in time turned Proto-Romanian and Proto-Dalmatian, and
to a certain extent to... Proto-Albanian).
>>>(and these Dacians, whose language, Dacian, was similar to
>>>Thracian, later, having fled south of the River, became the
>>>Albanians).
>>
>>>No need for them to be from northern Dacian areas: in the
>>>southern territories (in Dardania, the 2 Moesias,
>>>the 2 southern Dacias etc.) there were enough Dacians.
>
>'(And even free "barbarians" such as Costobocae, Carpi also took
>refuge in the Roman empire because of the waves of newcomers from
>"Russia"...)'
>
>Your own words.
Yes. But also, without them, there was whole lotta native
population over there. Moreover, from among the autochtonous
populations there some people even made spectacular careers
becoming great generals, politicians, even "caesars".
>The situation today is that we have a people with a almost
>completely Romanized language living *north* of a people
>speaking a descendant of that language
This is only an assumption. In fact, nobody knows exactly
what kind of an idiom is Albanian (which is also a result
of some kind of Romanization, that "freezed" before reaching
certain stages).
OTOH, up to the end of the medieval epoch, way into the
18th-19th century, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Greece had
a Romanian population that was almost as numerous as the
one North of the Danube! Only that of this reality very
few know something: outside of Romania because the neighbor
nations's political agendas don't deem this as worth
mentioning (quite the contrary), and in Romania itself there
has been no interest because it'd undermine Romania's
official ideological interpretation, namely that of the
"continuity", which is contested by its neighbors, esp.
by Hungarians and Ukrainians. But, for example, Turkey's
medieval Ottoman archives are fulla data concerning the
Romanians of the Balkans, and some scholars have studied
parts of them (but rather... exiled ones).
South-Danube Romanians have assimilated into those nations,
and partook in all major nation-building events there, for
the benefit of Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, Croatian and
Albanian nations. That's what usually happens when a
nation can't/is hindered (for various reasons) to build
its own form of a state or another; Northern Romanians
managed that, Southern Romanians didn't - although, ironically,
it was the Southerners that built the first own state
organizations, in the 10th and 12th centuries.
>whereas given the political facts on the ground two
>millenia ago we should expect the opposite situation.
No, we shouldn't expect anything. The ethnogenesis and
the numerous changes and Umwälzungen were far too
complicated and over long period of times that the
minor aspects (which occurred centuries earlier) really
have nothing to do with that.
Just take into consideration that for 2-3 centuries,
in all areas which today are called Albania, Croatia,
Serbia, Bulgaria everybody spoke popular Latin (and
educated people Greek as well), and some Gothic and
Gepidic; and some Hunnic. The substrate languages
virtually vanished, Slavic + Prototurkic + Alanian
Iranian hadn't yed arrived there.
After the Roman provinces were distroyed by invasions,
among which the first important one was the Avar-Slavic,
the Romance-language speaking population *decayed* and
took refuge or was chased away. Sources tell us that
the great Avar kagan Bayan displaced 100-200 thousand
Vulgata-speaking population from the NW of the Peninsula
to other areas to the East or North-East. (To begin with!)