Re: for Alvin

From: altamix
Message: 14343
Date: 2002-08-16

-----Urspr├╝ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
An: <>
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. August 2002 12:15
Betreff: [tied] Re: for Alvin

--- In cybalist@..., "altamix" <altamix@...> wrote:
> I ask myself if this is a slavic sufix which is borowed by
albanians and rumanians or maybe this sufix is from the substrate of
both languages ( alb. and rom.)
> best regards
> a. moeller

And I ask myself if perhaps all the shared features of the prototype
of all Sprachb├╝nde, the Balkan one, are not better explained as
coming from this Daco-Mysian or Thracian substrate. It is probably
safe to guess that that(those) language(s) had postponed articles?


[Moeller]this is an alternative Torsten. The problem is that the
romanic linguists have got a bad ( grinse) habbit. They want for
everything a wrotten document. So, we have almost nothing from dacian
if we thinks about documents. Some toponymes, some ethonymes, some
hydronimes and some name of the plants which we have from Dioscorides
and Pseudo Appuleius. As a matter of fact, the names are not the
same in some cases by Dioscorides and Pseudo Appuleius, the both,
giving different names for the same plant, but affirming " the dacian
say to this so_and_so".
I could find out some plantes have indeed a rumanian name , but
somehow the semnatic is a bit changed. For instance the plant "pa:rul
fetelor" transalted as " the hair of the girls" is in dacian "phito-
phetheala" .If we get a try , we see the name is wrotten as the
greeks it did for "f" using "ph" and "th" for "t" so, we can rewrite
this name as "fito-feteala". If "feteala" can be "fetelor" being a
genitiv form, we have some trouble with "fito". But romanians
use "hair" as all hairs tough, they have for " one hair" the
expresion " fir de pa:r" where "fir" is the word which can be
corrobrated with dacian "fito" ( could this word maybe be "firo"
too?). So, if we agree here, we have fito-fetela= firul fetelor, and
this is a interesting about "how dacian looked like"., and there is
too in both words a posposed article.It seems Detcev made some wrong
assumptions. I guess, the dacian language was a "bridge" betwen
italic and slavic languages. We have not to forget that the dacians
where the people among italic tribes and slavs at the time as the
slavs begun to move. So, it seems probably that the slavs got a lot
from dacians and the south slavs which intermingled with the south
danubian dacians and in time, asimilated these south dacians, formed
the new languages which have such big differences with the rest of
slavic languages, but in the same time has so much in commun with
romanian and albanian. The romanic linguists give no importance to
postposed article, affirming that in late vulgate latin was normal to
say "ille loccum or locum ille". Why the eastern "romanized"
population prefered in this case to use "locum ille" instead of ille
loccum" remains a mystery. And we have to keep in mind that beside
dalmatian language , these easter romanised peoples, were just one
folk.. the dacians..:))

best regards

a. moeller