i dont claim to do it.. it just seems to be
so.
We have a lot of names you say. Where ? in
romania? so far i know theys are almost all slavic.
We have a lot of dacian tribes-name
really?
how are they? they are known from greek
roman sources.. so we suppouse we know them
I take just the word carpi. So far i
remember it comes from old greek and means something like "stone" or
mountain.
If i replace that word carp with romanian
"muntean" i should have an another plan. But we know, muntem was the latin word
who gave birth to everything like "mountains" and so on..
This is why i say, something gone wrong.
We have no soruce which says "dacians"
died. But we assume it because " we dont know " something about.
We have sources which say valahians are the
dacians, but we deny it. We have no soruce which say "valahians are not the
dacians " but we accept it.
A big carusel.. anywys, i just get tired of
the dacian problem of rumanins and hungarians and all of them..
Just, there are too many quesions with a
wrong answer..
Best Regards,
A. Moeller
Not if we know that it came from some
other source. For example why should a feature known to be of relatively
recent Slavic or Greek origin be regarded as "Dacian"? And mind you, we do
know a thing or two about Getic. We have a large number of placenames,
hydronyms and some personal and tribal names that yield themselves to
combinatorial analysis, and glosses in Greek herbaries -- not much, but better
than nothing. The really preposterous thing to do would be to claim that
something "must" be attributed to Dacian or Thracian substratal
influence if there isn't a shred of evidence to support such a
claim.