Re: [tied] Proto Romanian Cradle

Ahh..but Piotr: the box you are trying to place the opposition in is not appropriate. There is no unusual claim, there is no “unexpected” (in a nod to Steve’s argument).  It is only unexpected if you start with the premise that the linguistic palette was wiped clean at some point after 271AD. There is absolutely no reason to start with that position, that has been my loudest point. Replacement here is a weak assumption, whether applied before the hypothesis was originated or after it was developed.  There is a claimed relationship to historically known circumstances, there is resilient vocabulary, custom, and folklore, supported by what exists in precisely the same place, precisely fitting the influences of known history.

 

I fail to see what is “unexpected” about Romance existing in areas of known Roman or post Roman Latin influence, when it was not displaced by equally known historical circumstances.  

 

The unusual is to expect a single disciplinary argument to stand <against>  the usual (some would say the obvious) without proof. The absence of continuous historical record is not license to back fill the void with method and call it science, and denounce all opposition as less. Science says population replacement is unusual.  I frankly find the possibility that Romance speakers were killed off; pushed out; or swamped by intrusive linguistic influx, all to then be “re -Romanced”  by trickle in immigration to verge on the impossible. If a set of linguistic procedures is suggesting that, then my outside the field recommendation is to carefully check the assumptions used going in, because that is where I would focus an attack J . (Right off the bat: I think some stuff in the late adstrate box belongs in the early substrate box, and some presumed loan words are earlier substrate: but I am not based soundly enough in the discipline to even argue it, much less prove it: call it a suspicion arising from the different conclusions reached by separate disciplines.)  For the linguistic “Romance Shuffle” to fly..the population replacement has to be proven, or at least indicated.  It isn’t.   I submit it can’t be; and in my opinion won’t be: because it is not the case here.  When applied linguistics indicates a scenario that is not likely, it can not then turn around and call the normal “unexpected” to justify itself; then insert the word “science” a few times for safety and rest J .

 

I see nothing even slightly unexpected in the comparison with what is known to be here right now, and what history suggests happened here.  There is nothing glorious in a claimed and logical linear relationship with the <same> region (unless you have already convinced yourself there could be no survivors). Any “Glorius” claim is hinted in the Roman relationship to the Vlach population..which is also logical, and really quite obvious, just not proven;…  not the Dacian, or Geto-Daci links. Dacian as reference used in claims is to the Roman state ..not ethnic or tribal identity, but simple History.  It is relationship and origin, not direct linear descent of all inhabitants.  The international references asserting that as much as 80 percent of the population here is < related > to those here @ 271 AD is the position to be disproven as far as I am concerned.  It can not be ignored because it is inconvenient to a linguistic hypothesis.  Fine:  call them both hypotheses (I also think 80 % is ridiculous, by the way) I clearly see, however, the links of a large enough proportion of the indigenous population to reject a back fill of “Post Roman Neo-Thracian South Bank Transhumance Romance” speakers. I further suggest that many people escaping turmoil, hardship and political contest in their own regions were moving in the direction of like peoples with room.   The sheer number of Slavs and other intrusives here would have easily displaced (linguistically) anything weaker and more transient than a continuous, in place and reinforced culture and language.

 

You can claim that Ceausescu homogenized the language and fabricated the ethnic history like Ataturk (Attaturk’s errors were usually in the omission of components, not fabrication of them, however.)   The Ceausescu argument doesn’t explain why uneducated Romanian villagers can talk to equally uneducated R.O. Moldovan villagers (even though Romaneste was outlawed, to some success in the cities) ..with a giggle at their accent and Russian adstrate, but generally not miss a point. No sale.

 

I think we are looking at 3 possibilities re the eastern Danube.

 

1)     There was more in common, Thracian (Daci and Getic if you prefer) to Latin, than we now attribute.

2)     Continuity from Dacia 2; with loans and influences:  271 AD  to 2002 = Romaneste.

3)     Romance was displaced (or absent) after 300 AD and a later version of Romance from a tiny south bank center  managed to compete successfully with many other influences to dominate 30 million people, rather uniformly, before the Shecklers.  

 

It can be argued that none of those are “usual” I guess, but then all are “unexpected”:  but something has to explain the reality.  I still have to go with 2, with unknown assistance from 1), and challenge 3) as highly unlikely. It  [3)]  would take an intrusive army and an imposed state..there wasn’t one of either, and the known later ones failed to do what you suggest was done by odd immigration in a short historical void: completely replace the language of a vast area.