Now 18th-century
European scholars supposed that the Hungarians were a Slavic or Turkic
people. On _linguistic_ grounds (especially as regards the occurrence of
characteristic onomastic elements), the Balkan Moesians were Getic, which means
that the Danube was _not_ a natural boundary between the Thracians proper and
the Getae. The Getae indeed lived on either side of it. If you want to
argue for a "Thracian" cultural circle including the Getae and thus extending
way north of the river, I don't mind. Calling the Finns Scandinavians, or
Estonians a Baltic nation is OK in cultural and geographic terms, though
not linguistically. As a linguist, I find the arguments in favour of
separating Thracian and Getic compelling.
Both Thracian and Getic (+ Albanian) are
Satem languages. There may have been a prehistoric continuum of related dialects
west and north of the Black Sea, with Proto-Balto-Slavic at the one end (in the
northern forest zone), Proto-Thracian at the other and Proto-Getic including
what George would call "Thracoid" in the middle.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:51
AM
Subject: RE: [tied] Thrace
[Strabo:] Now the Greeks used to suppose that the Getae
were Thracians; and the Getae lived on either side the Ister, as did also the
Mysi, these also being Thracians and identical with the people who are now
called Moesi; from these Mysi sprang also the Mysi who now live between the
Lydians and the Phrygians and Trojans.