[tied] Re: Daci

Piotr: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).

i should like to point here that the germans "sachsen "
und "schwaben" are for centuries in romania ( or better said, they
were untill ceaucescu time) but with some exceptions their did not
mix together and they did not loaned too much from their languages..
This is pretty strange and in the same time, explain somehow that the
people lived in the same place but every in his etny.

Piotr:On the other hand, there are significant linguistic affinities
connecting Romanian with Dalmatian and with the Latin layer of
Albanian vocabulary.

not too mcuh with tha latin layer but more with the substrat of
albanian language:
words like gard, balega,copil, somehow the words of the sheperdlife.


Piotr: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.

I completly agree with you at this point. Where i have my trouble are
somewhere else. We definitely know nothign about dacian language.
But in the same time we make a lot of speculations about this
language, and in same time, we assume something must be from tha
language of getae.
Is this not strange? The science gone from a more or less good try to
reconstruct the thracian langauge trough the prism of a bulgar
scientist , a try made on the archeological evidences from Bulgaria
and the "thracian words" in bulgarian lanhguage.
this is pretty over the hand.
I say it because i just want to point the connection. We have from
Herodotus the affirmation the dacian are thracians. I dont rememebr
if there are more sources who tell us about the relationship about
htese 2 folks ( or parts) but we have at least one.
So, assuming that this "reconstruction" of the thracian languages
trough the bulgarian prisma, the people , the scientists, made
another assumption related to dacian language. So if they were
cousins or brother, they must be almost the same.
So far logical. But the iloogic is somewhere else. At this try.
Is this logic to take a folk like bulgarian to recreate the thracian
language? ( n.b. when i use language i mean just what thex could
deduct until now).
Bulgarians: thracian who becamee helenised ( you said it) , over them
are comming slavs and they became assimilated by slavs, over slavs as
ruling clas coming the bulgars..
So i see a longer chain between the root of thracian and the source
where from the scientist tried to recontrsuct ist.
Normaly, if thracian were related to dacians, you should have to take
the romanins and to try to reconstruct the dacian language, and on
the same construciton to make reference at the thracian language..
Somehow we come to the same point. Because the romanians have nothing
to do or in commun with dacians, we have had just one alternative.
The Bulgarians.. Funny, or?:))))
Best Regards

A. Moeller