From: Paul Alesu
Message: 12647
Date: 2002-03-12
>ADVERTISEMENT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: altamix
> To: cybalist@...: Monday, March 11, 2002 4:34
> PMSubject: [tied] Re: Daci
> > it is very interesting to see that such kind of discutions have all
> the root that hte dacians disappeared. I just want to point a
> speculation and maybe not a speculation.
> Into romanian language, "our people", ours, or "from here" or indigens
> means in the literraly language "de aici". In the popular way this
> construciton is shorted in this form "d'aci" And "from here" "from
> this place" is literally "de aici" the same. but in the popular way of
> speaking is "d'acia". So, this is the way to write it. In the
> pronounciation none can observe the apostroph "'" so, the one who hear
> about he will hear "daci" or "dacia"
>
> > Strange thing i guess. This is irrelevant coincidence. The Dacians
> of the second century BC cannot have sported a name derived from a
> Modern Romanian phrase (of approximately the same origin as French
> d'ici).
>
> > I see that 3 big folks have been latinised and dissapiered from
> europe in the same way. These are the thracians (implicitely the
> dacians), the celts in europa and the iberics..
> The latinisation have had succes only on these 3 folks. No succes over
> germanic area, no succes over slavi area, no succes in africa or
> arabian area... Lots of languages fell victim to the political and
> cultural impact of Latin: first, numerous languages in Italy, both
> Indo-European and non-Indo-European ones (Oscan, Umbrian, Faliscan,
> Picene, Messapic, Venetic, Sicel and Etruscan, to name but a few). The
> same fate befell all forms of Illyrian across the Adriatic. Each of
> your "3 big folks" stands for a varied collection of peoples and
> languages. Iberia, for example, was a linguistic mosaic involving
> Iberian proper (probably with a good deal of internal
> differentiation), Proto-Basque, as well as a several Indo-European
> languages (Lusitanian, Celtiberian and other varieties of Celtic). The
> Celts were conquered and assimilated by the Roman Empire in Gaul and
> the adjacent areas, but the Celts of Central Europe (and eventually in
> most of Britain) succumbed to various Germanic tribes. The Thracians
> (of Thrace) had been strongly Hellenised before Thrace became a Roman
> (and then Byzantine) province. As for Dacia, it had the misfortune of
> being trampled down and ravaged by all the participants of the
> Marcomannian wars at the same time -- not just the Romans but the
> Marcomanni, Quadi, Iazyges, etc. Then came the Ostrogoths folowed by
> the Avars etc., and finally the Slavs, but by that time the Getic
> language of Dacia was long extinct. The Romans had no success at
> conquering the Slavs, because Rome never attempted any such thing.
> During the heyday of the Roman Empire the Slavs were confined to
> remote parts of Eastern Europe, out of harm's way. The Slavic
> expansion began in the wake of the Great Migrations, when the Empire
> had already collapsed. The Germani were not conquered for well-known
> historical reasons. Don't blame the Romans for their failure to
> Romanise everybody everywhere. At least they tried :)
> > If we remember that the romans themself sustined they are too
> "thracians" then we must assume something was very common to latin,
> and these 3 folks.. There is no another way to explain the
> latinisation of them. This is magical thinking. There is no special
> affinity connecting Latin with Iberian, Gaulish or Thracian, and the
> Romans never called themselves "Thracians". The success of
> Romanisation in some places but not in others was contingent on many
> historical factors -- and history is capricious.
> > Specially of the dacians where the 160 years of roman dmoniation,
> with just ( at least of this time) 11 cities and the rest of the
> country fully peasants.. If we remember that the big part of army was
> withdrwaed from Dacia 12 years after conquest of it, there are really
> very big questions to answer..
> > Moreover, Kekaumenos (i repet myself, but this affirmation was made
> in XI century after we know that in 4 Century Attila, The King of Huns
> delcared himself and "duce of the dacians") afirm that the valahs are
> the the people once called "dacians". Or valahs, are mentioned in
> slavic documents first by Chronik of Nestor from Kiev as the
> inhabitants of the actually rumanian theritory..
> > Simple we could say dacian were named lately in X-XII centuries
> "valahi" and in the XIV-XV centuried they became called "rumuni".. But
> it is not so simple.. It should be so simple, we will have no
> discutions more about dacian language:)) Even the historical
> continuity between the Latin of Dacia Traiana and the variety that
> gave rise to Romanian is a moot issue, and there are in fact good
> reasons to question it. For example, Romanian contains virtually no
> loans that would demonstrate prolonged contact with Germanic or
> Sarmatian languages, and few lexemes that can with any luck be Getic
> (or related). On the other hand, there are significant linguistic
> affinities connecting Romanian with Dalmatian and with the Latin layer
> of Albanian vocabulary. Even if some Latin-speaking civilians chose to
> (and managed to) stay in Dacia throughout the historical upheavals of
> the second century AD and the next thousand years, it was in all
> likelihood the slow influx of Romanised groups from the neighbouring
> provinces that enabled "lingua Romana" to return to former Roman Dacia
> and to survive there. Piotr
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>--
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.