Re: [tied] Keeping up, barely :-)

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 15100
Date: 2002-09-04

Actually, the fact that a good percentage of the substrate vocabulary has Albanian counterparts suggests that it was a Satem language closely related to Albanian (and, conversely, the Latin substrate in Albanian shows a close affinity with Romanian); there is also some evidence -- very limited but not altogether imaginary -- that Albanian shares a number of features with the ancient Dacian/Getic languages. I am therefore ready to admit that the substratal admixture to Romanian had something to do with Dacian, and I have said so many times on this list. (Alex accuses Romanian linguists of Dacophobia, which is both unfair and absurd; but if that is to mean they don't suffer from Dacomania, I can only say I'm glad.)
The question is what precisely is Dacian about Romanian, and when and where the admixture was absorbed by Balkan Latin. Was the source the native language of Moesia Superior? -- or the language of evacuees from Dacia on the right bank of the Danube? -- or both? Various scenarios can be envisaged. The least likely one, for historical reasons, is the continuous survival of Dacian in its original homeland. And of course the obsessive concentration on a single substratal element in a language that has several such components, and even demanding that the langusge should be genetically re-classified for the sake of that particular substrate is something no linguist can approve of.
----- Original Message -----
From: richardwordingham
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Keeping up, barely :-)

There may be a big problem identifying the immediately pre-Latin ancestors of the linguistic ancestors of the Romanians by linguistic means.