--- In cybalist@..., "Rex H. McTyeire" <rexbo@...> wrote:
> I am reasonably certain that if
> Thracian existed as a language, then most people who carried the
Getae
> label: spoke it. (And only slightly less certain that it was the
same
> dialect of Thracian as Daci.)
Onomastic evidence (plus whatever lexical evidence can be salvaged
from fragmentary inscriptions and substratal data) shows that
Getic/Dacian and Thracian were distinct languages with different
vocabularies and place-naming pattrens, and with divergent sound
changes. The degree to which they may have been related is hard to
determine (as is the exact position of Moesian). Both were Satem
languages, at any rate.
> I don't know the standard arguments against a Getae / Goth link;
but
> the following are some of mine:
> [...]
> 3. The G in Getae is soft locally, resulting in Jettae and Jetto (in
> Geto-Daci), while the G in Goth (Goti, locally pronounced: Gots) is
> hard.
This is not a valid argument, since Latin /g/ was palatalised before
front vowels in *post-Classical* times in most Romance dialects; the
modern "local" pronunciation is therefore irrelevant. What's more
important is the vowel difference (/o/ = Germanic *u in "Goths", /e/
in "Getae"). There is no plausible way to derive anything like *geta-
from *gut-o:n-. A comparison based solely on the similarity of
consonant patterns has no value.
Anyway, the Getae were mentioned in Roman sources before the Goths
began to expand towards the Black Sea.
Piotr