Michael J Smith wrote:
> A possible Albanian-Dacian relation was mentioned, but I
> thought Dacian was usually considered a Thracian branch? And
> Thraco-Phrygian is often mentioned, but I wouldn't think a close
> relationship between those two
>
> -Michael
>
Michael J Smith wrote:
> A possible Albanian-Dacian relation was mentioned, but I
> thought Dacian was usually considered a Thracian branch? And
> Thraco-Phrygian is often mentioned, but I wouldn't think a close
> relationship between those two
>
> -Michael
It wasn't. If we keep in mind what the people in the antiquity said, the
Thracians and Ilirians languages have been incomprehensible in the time
of Burebista already.
If we take today Rom. Lang and Alb. Lang as being the same languages of
the ancient times, they are today too incomprehensible. Rom & Alb. have
a very big common lexic and there are many other features which are to
find in the so-called Balkansprachbund. More, I will say. Albanians and
Romanians have undergone to the similar events regarding the language.
Over them are coming the Romans, over them are coming the Slavs. In so
far let us see the 3 layers + "spare parts":
- rich shared ancient vocabulary( what means ancient here? PIE,
NON-PIE?)
- the Latin layer
- the Slavic layer
- the common things which are descripted in Balkansprachbund.
Regardless all these factors which should make them very appropriate,
they are for their speakers, alien to each other.
That should made normally every paper-linguistic to explode. Something
is not OK here. Beside all these factors, if a Slav speaks or an
Albanian speaks, it will be for an uneducated romanian person an
absolutely foreign language. The same is for Albanians which hear the
Romanian language. On the both parts, there will be just some words to
understand, without being able to make the head and the tail of all what
is said.
That should be a proof about how hard is to change a language. Even
successive and identical influences ( even if with a different
percentage on both languages) doesn't change the generally aspect too
much .
One who will compare the common ancient admitted lexic in both
languages, will wonder about the form of the words. ( I say "common
admitted" since in my opinion the common ancient lexic is more bigger as
usually accepted).Even if they are looking like Latin words, the
Albanians words have the same phonetism as Romanian ( in most cases) one
will wonder about the treatment of the _real_ Latin words in Albanian.
They are very much changed , shorted, in most of the cases very
latin-unlike.
Here one must be very cautious. Why the very ancient layer of the words
_looking like Latin_ are almost identical with Romanians forms and why
the really Latin words ( see for instance the Christian terminology) are
very changed?
One answer should be as follow:
- the common ancient lexic of Albanians and Romanians is a lexic which
resulted from the relations the thracians and the Ilirians have had
together.
- later, as the Romans conquered the Balkans, the both languages ,
Thracian and Ilirian have had already a shape which could not be changed
anymore. The Latin neologism for that time, entered these both languages
and they have been _adapted_ to the usual way to speak of the thracians
and ilirians.
That a word like rom. "strâmb", alb. "shtrëmb", Latin "strabo" is
assumed to be a Thracian one , one word which was got by Illirians
should be clear because we find such word in Asia Minor where no
Illirian tribe has been. That a word as "hamës" is an Illirian one ,
should be seen trough the richness of derivation in Albanian and just
the presence of the verb and adjectiv in Rom. Lang. There should be a
lot of examples of this kind.
Then why the resemblance of Romanian with Latin then? Because they have
been in the same family but not in the same part of the family. The
Thracian should be seen as an P-romanic ( not Romance, but Romanic) and
Latin as a Q-Romanic.
Romanian Latin Thracian
-apa -aqua -apa
-iapa -equa -epa
potârniche -quocturnix -?
The relation between Latin and Thracian is observed in the thracian
glosses ( names, deities, name of the plants ) but too in some suffixes
and other comparative aspects. ( even the tribe of the Sabins is found
in Thracian glosses)
Of course what I write here will be seen as a "Lachnummer" and people
will ask me to demonstrate it. The acceptance of my demonstration will
be seen as "amusing" but "dilettante" and unprofessional.. I will try to
do the best of it.
At last I will say that Rom. Lang is the Thracian language just because
the attested forms necesary in the evolution of Romanian from Latin _are
already_ to find in the thracian time.
The phoneticaly supposed changes which are supposed to support the latin
words for becoming romanian words, _are already_ in the thracian
languages.
The only one thing which is missing for the 100% clearness is a fully
Thracian text. If we should have had it, here will be no discussion
anymore regarding the origin of Romanian language. It should be clear
that this is a language deriving from PIE as other languages and not a
language derived from Latin.
Regards,
Alex