--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> 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
>
>
Where would you fit the Bastarnians into this continuum? Time frame?
Torsten