[Moeller old text]
... In this case, where from they got these stories? Certanly, the
people must have a big phantasie,
but without a bit of truth there is no story ....
[Piotr]
It's precisely this kind of logic ("people say so, so there must be
something in it") that makes people believe
in gossip and urban myths and spread such stuff: "It _really_
happened to one of my sister's friends ..."
(which means that your sister mentioned that it had "really" happened
to somebody who'd told it to a friend of hers).
The visceral romantic appeal of folk tales makes them even more
irresistible, but not necessarily more credible.
[Moeller]
heheheh.. yeap.. that is a nice comparation. but in this case
absolutely wrong. And you know why?
Because if you apply this comparation to the myths of a folk, to the
traditions, belives of this folk then you are trying
to wipe out the identity of this Folk. A folk ist now, we like it or
not, the myths, traditions, belives and language.
Or if you try to get these factor out of a identity of a folk you
have no folk to speak about anymore:)))
[Moeller old text]
> mmmm.. and what does speak against a common language in balkan
until on the scene apears the slavs?I mean, not
folk myths , but "reliable historical evidences" ? Nothing, so far i
know.
[Piotr]
"A little" is not the same thing as "nothing". There's quite a lot of
onomastic material representing Illyrian,
Getic and Thracian; we have some vernacular vocabulary surviving in
glosses in ancient texts, and we have some
Thracian inscriptions, which are obscure but at least prove that
Thracian was not, for example, a form of Greek,
which, after all, is also an ancient Balkan language. The material is
scarce but sufficient to show that the
languages in question were different from one another. We also know
Greek and Albanian to represent different
branches of IE. Ancient Macedonian was different from both (though
evidently related to Greek), and Messapic
(probably a form of Illyrian) was still different. The linguistic
diversity of the ancient Balkans is undeniable.
[Moeller]
suffcient??????????? Piotr, try to see please the things from a
greater distance.
Your arguments are onomastics, toponimes, hidronimes and some glosses
from ancient writers. They are perfect and it
is good they are. But they are used to build a wrong figure. I will
make you this comparation.
We have spanish, italian, romanian, portugal. They have DIFFERENT
Onomastics, they have DIFFERENT Toponims, they
have DIFFERENT hidronism and if someone will write somethign you will
have your glosses about these language.
But they have the same lexic, they are kinda almost the same langauge
from the lexic point of view.
I am sure you will agree and you will smile telling me, that is
normal because these languages have a common root,
in this case the latin language.But you will dont smile anymore if i
ask you why dont you see in the same way
the fact that dacian, thracian, moesian, latin, celtic dialect from
galia and so on, have had too a common root
and this is why they have been so likely .
How you see, toponisms, hidronisms, onomastics cannot be sufficient
to say " we know that these were DIFFERENT languages"
But we have wrotten affirmations which says " they speak the same
language" . I guess it is far, far more as simple
deduction and that what you embrace is , in this case, "scientific
speculations"...
So sad, I have no ideea how i can translate it into english, but in
german we use to say "hochbezalte Spinner"..
in a friendly way:)))
Best Regards
A. Moeller