[Piotr]
> No, but the fact that Romanian is particularly close to Dalmatian
and to the Latin substrate in Albanian suggests a historical
connection. Close, I mean, in terms of shared phonological
innovations and lexical peculiarities. Romanian also shares a number
of non-Latin isoglosses with Albanian. I would say that Romanian
appears to be the descendant of a West Balkan Latin dialect that
absorbed a local substrate related to Dacian, while Albanian is the
very same Dacoid language strongly influenced by West Balkan Latin,
but not to the point of losing its identity. The adstratal influence
of South Slavic is strong in both.
[Moeller]
Piotr, somehow i do not understang a thing. The albanians claim to be
the old illirians, the romanians claim to be the old dacians.
For both of then, these claims are refutted by "lingvists".
Dont you think they are more right as a lingvist?
I mean, I dont need you to tell me who my mother is, I must know it
normally. I guess here is something else. There are some lingvistics
presumptions and rules who will need to be changed as prooved to be
wrong. And maybe this is the reason why some people want to hardly to
deny to the bothd folks what they pretend to be:))
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
>
> > 3. In this scenario Dacians are basically foreigners to proto
Romanians and their ancestors, so there should be some linguistic
traits about this "foreignership". Something like the English
word "dagger" and the French "dague" which probably came from the
Latin "daca" that meant "Dacian knife". Only foreigners (in relation
to Dacians) could call it "_Dacian_ knife". Are you aware of
some "foreignership" traits related
> to Dacians in Romanian?
>
>
> If the scenario is true, Dacian was no longer spoken in Dacia when
the Proto-Romanians colonised the country. It had been dead for
several centuries.
[Moeller]
I guess you are wrong. And even because you are kooling for a
Galapagos-Language somewhere in the Balcans.In the balcans beside
greek and illrians was spoked dialects of the same language, but even
more in the west if we take the celst from gaul. And right, the most
known exponent of this language was latin.
> > 4. A migration, even a slow migration, which according to this
scenario happened not too long ago, something like seven centuries,
should be remembered in folklore. It is not.
>
>
> It may have been considerably earlier than that; anyway, there is
no reason to expect that it would have been remembered for ages,
especially if the migrating people were transhumant shepherds who
moved with their flocks to the highland pastures in summer and to the
lower areas in winter and often moved in search of good pasturage.
Migration was, so to speak, their way of life. The nomadic Rom people
apparently had no remembrance of their Indian homeland by the time
they appeared in Europe.
>
[Moeller] again wrong. Do you expect from a nomadic folk to become
the best agrar country from the medieval times until the WWII ?
I dont think so. And which should have been in your opinion the
factos which determinated thes sheperds to became agricultors?
The Slav migration ? It was over?Teh tatars invasions?
Is better you are sheperd in the mountains as peasant in the way of
migrators..You see the paradox?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
>
>
> > 5. As this scenario puts it, proto Romanians and their language
survived in the high mountains South and Southwest of Danube
protected of Greek and Roman influence and shielded from barbarians.
The same thing could be accomplished, with no travel at all, in the
high Carpatians North of Danube. No Greek or Roman influence. The
migrating barbarians could not reach them because their big and swift
horses, very good in the plains, were worthless in the mountains.
>
>
> The "barbarians" were not all steppe cowboys riding swift horses.
Consecutive waves of Celtic, Germanic and Slavic migrations
penetrated the Carpathians without much difficulty. Some of the "free
Dacians" apparently lingered on in the northern Carpathians but were
linguistically absorbed by the Slavs in the end. It seems, however,
that until the tenth century Slavic colonisation was sparse in
mountainous areas southwest of the Danube, so that the the Proto-
Romanians and the Proto-Romanians were able to maintain their
linguistic identity there.
[Moeller]
just two questions here.
How could be in your opinion latinised the carpians ?
Why did not the slavs remain in Dacia ? Dacia=more bigger, more
richer as Thracia...
Best Regards
A. Moeller