From: george knysh
Message: 13151
Date: 2002-04-09
> > > How you [Piotr GK] see, toponisms, hidronisms,*****GK: No Mr. Moeller. That is not what he said.
> > 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"...
> >
> > *****GK: Where did Strabo say that Celts, Dacians,
> > Thracians, and Latins "speak the same language"?
> I'll
> > tell you where, nowhere. You can certainly use him
> to
> > argue that to a Greek Dacian and Thracian sounded
> > pretty similar (and perhaps were as close as say
> > Portuguese and French or whatever). But you can't
> use
> > this to back up a theory of commonality (other
> than IE
> > of course) between all the languages you've
> mentioned.
>
>
> [Moeller] he didnt say as you write here. He said in
> Balcan
> inclusively the dacians from both sides of Danube
> speak the same
> language.(he excepted greek and ilirians here)
> totheir
> > argue that to a Greek Dacian and Thracian sounded
> > pretty similar (and perhaps were as close as say
> > Portuguese and French or whatever). But you can't
> use
> > this to back up a theory of commonality (other
> than IE
> > of course) between all the languages you've
> mentioned.
>(Moeller) And about the celst from Galia he said
> language is very similar*****GK: OK what? That the Latins, Celts, Thracians
> with latin. OK?