Re: [tied] Re: Spread of Early Germanic

[Piotr]

I'm afraid I won't "keep myself back". Germanic *wi:na- (Goth. wein [wi:n], ON vín, OE wi:n, OHG wîn) can hardly be anything else than a loan from Latin (<vi:num>), and there's nothing in its form to suggest that it was borrowed in Dacia or from Daco-Latin. The archaic phonological shape of several Latin culture loans (usually combined with their pan-Germanic distribution) shows quite unambiguously that they filtered into Germanic during the first two centuries AD. I have mentioned *kaisar- before; other frequently quoted examples are Lat. lucerna 'lamp' > Goth. lukarn, Lat. asellus 'ass' > *asilaz (discussed on Cybalist quite recently), Lat. caupo: 'shopkeeper, trader' > *kaup- (cf. ON kaupa, Goth. kaupo:n, Ger. kaufen, OE ce:apian 'buy, bargain' [cf. <cheap>]).

Of course the fact that the Romanian word for 'wine' is <vin> is perfectly consistent with Romanian being a Romance language. Rom. vin has nothing to do with Dacian but everything to do with Fr. vin, It./Sp. vino, Port. vinho, etc.

OK Piotr, i see everything is perfectly explicably. You dont want to agree that you are looking for a chimera and that the dacian langauge - i have no idea how you will imagine that it should looked out like- was not similar to latin.

I am not a lingvist but as John Normal Consumer i am afraid I want to make you smile a bit.

So, I guess Dacian language was a dialect of the matrix language spooken ih the south of europe. From east to west.

So far I rememebr Strabon tell us about: " in the balcans even the dacians frm the boths side of Danube speak the same language, language which has the same state as the celtic language in Galia."About this celtic dialect we are informed to be very similar to latin.

I agree you will find a ethymology for every one of the next words, but i just have tu put them here. There are some paralels between gothic, latin and rumanain:

GOT RUMANIAN LATEIN ENGLISH

Win vin vinus wine

Widuwo váduv viduus widow

Wai vai interjection

In-sailja insáila ? ? to put things on a rope

Karkara carcerá carcerare jail

Mes masá mens table

Qainon cáina , a se cáini ?? to cry in Romanianan assumed to be borrowed from slav kajnu

Rajnnan a ráni ?? to make clean in stable into romanian assumed to be borowed from slav rina

Salbon salbá subalba ointment

Sama seamá ?? to be the same , to think about into romanian assumed to be borrowed from hungarian szam

Stairo sterp ?? sterile into romanian , unknown ethymology.

Zelotes zelos zelum zealous

For sure you can explain everything and even I agree all the sanskrit therms from rumanian are borrowed by greek even if apa , aparia is in both forms to find in romanian and sanskrit.

But.. I just want to put the situation into this way:

- with the mittles of the modern state, everywhere was assumed to make a " nationalisation " of the minorities in the respectively state, specialy in the comunist era.

The bulgarians bulgarized the vlachs, the jugos too, the romanians tried to spread the magyrs , the magyars did a cruely magyarisation politic tu romanians, slovaks, serbians etc..But all thes measurs, failed. Even today we have in all these countries the minorities.And this after many many hounderd from years.

This is what i wonder now. Specialy my favorite thing, the dacians.The legions were withdrawed in 118 from Dacia . We have a law of Trajan which tell us that it is forbbiden to bring colonist in new teritories if these colonists are latin or italic elements.

We know too that with Hadrian, the italico-latin element from legions dissapiered . Every legion incorporated from the area where this one was stationated.

So in Dacia from 118 is hard to speak for a "big latin mass" . We known that the people from empire war unwilling to go in the new colony Dacia and we too know that this one was at least secure from all colonies.

So. I wonder who at hell could learn these dacians latin? Moreover, a singular case in the roman empire, in III centueires CE the dacia is again in the hands of dacians trough the conquest of it by carpians.

If there was a population partialy romanized, in an embryonary form, it should have had its end with the new dacian wave of carps.

There are really very much to say about Piotr.. Somehow, it doesnt appear to be possible this latinisation .. And at all, how did the carpians learn latin?

Where from? apa, aparia, is coindicence, roata into romanian is sure a perfectly develop of rota from latin, the rumanians take baiat = "boy" from nowhere but they get fata = "girl" from latin,they got baba from slav and mos from nowhere, they got branza from nowhere but oaia from latin..

I just cannot be a friend of this theory.. even if I m not a lingvist...

Eh.. there are reall to much to say for a simple pos, we will discuse probably on this thema when something new appears..

Best Regards,

A. Moeler

P.S. Steve, excuse me , i forgot you,yes indeed, it seems this one was Iulius and not Augustus:))