Re: [tied] a help for Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] a help for Piotr


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: alexmoeller@...
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] a help for Piotr
>
>
>
> > Look at this please: there are two folks in Balcans.
Albanian and Rumanians. Albanians say about themselfs, they
are illirian , Rumanians say about themself , they are
dacians. They are indeed geographicaly, in the place where
once illirians and dacian. lived.
>
> This is precisely why they identify themselves with the
ancient Illyrians and Dacians, respectively. The
identification has become part of their romantic national
mythology, often reinforced by a history of territorial claims
and political disputes about "historical rights". Do you know
that there is a Slovene movement (very active on the Internet)
advocating "a new look" at Slovene history? They identify the
Slovenes with the ancient Veneti, and "decipher" the Venetic
language (sometimes in combination with Etruscan) as an early
form of Slovene.
>
> Piotr


[Moeller] I understand your point of view. Does these slovens
too have soo much substratum ? just a moment, please. What is
in fact the construction of the slavic languages? Are there
too substratum, stratum and adstratum?If so which a substratum
can it be?If the stratum is the one who is assumed to give
shape of the language , like in the romanic languages it is
supposed to be, how is this in slavics?What a substratum must
be there?Is there no one?Or paleoslav play both, the role of
substratum and stratum in the same time?
When I speak about romanian I dont speak withput a basis. I
have a big lugage with words from substratum and I cannot let
them so ( I did not used an archaic word in the texts I made,
they are not to find in DEX . The archaic words, or specialy
regional words are too, not in DEX, there, in DEX are words
who are understood by e v e r y romanian.) And the words from
substratum shows something about the ancestors of the
romanians and something about the PIe evolution of this words.
We cannot let it without explanation just because it disturbe
an model.. And by God, these words doesnt speak for a properly
satem langauge. And we take a look who could be the ancestors?
goth? no, huns? no, gepidae? no, avars? no, pecengs? no,
cummans? no, hungarian? no. Then who?
Well, if no migrating folk, then a folk from balkan. OK and
who has been in balkan?mmmm.. tiaa.... several. Thracians,
dacians, dalmatian, peons, celts, panonians, illirians and so
on... One of them must be. the ancestors. OK. As the valahs
appeared in the histroy they were large enough . And in north
of danube too, not just in south of the fluvium.Logicaly, who
was the largest folk of the ancient time in Balkans? The
thracians. What must I think? That this large balcanic folk
(romanians) is the evolution of a small unknown tribe?
Let please the logic speak, take the histrocial records, and
then put them together with the linguist model. Not separated
.And we will be able to do a good job.