Re: [tied] Re: continuity ( it was slavic "dalto")

--- alex_lycos <altamix@...> wrote:

> george knysh wrote:
> > --- alex_lycos <altamix@...> wrote:
> > when you will demonstrate how some poor scatered
> >> romanians will
> >> asimilate the big masses of Slavs in the North of
> >> Danube we can talk
> >> about any location South of Danube of the
> Romanians
> >
> > GK: The Rumanians who assimilated Slavs north
> of
> > the Danube were not exactly poor or scattered, and
> the
> > Slavs not exactly "big masses". The historical
> > evidence for Rumanians south of the Danube is
> > overwhelming. What is your evidence for large
> masses
> > of Rumanians north of the Danube before the
> 12th-14th
> > centuries?

>(Alex) 1) what makes you be so sure the Slavs have

been not

> too many and the
> Romanians have been a lot?/

***GK: etc. etc. etc. Alex continues with
irrelevancies until this point:***

3) for me the evidence for Romanians in the North of

> Danube should be
> enough if this is probed just trough only one thing.
> And because there
> are the R�c�tau toponyms of old dacians Racatenses _
> is more as enough

*****GK: Explain yourself. I gather that this is your
key argument.*****

>
> 4) George, I don't like to write this point 4 but I
> feel it must be
> done/**GK: Cut for economy***/

(Alex)It doesn't matter if romanised

> or not, the
> Romanians _are_ the thracians.

*****GK: Yes. I know this is your faith. What I am
asking for is for evidence independent of such wishful
thinking. For my part, I would think that the roots of
the Romanians are considerably broader. They include
some descendants of Thracians, I agree, but also
descendants from a great many of the populations of
the ancient Roman Empire, as well as Slavs and
others.*****

(Alex)One

> thing is sure. The Romanians and Albanians -it
> doesn't matter which is
> finally their root because their root is in the
> region of Danube, North
> and South are the more autochthonous from all actual
> populations of the
> Balkan and North of Danube.

*****GK: I gather that quite a few Vlachs and others
were assimilated by Slavs (and Hungarians). Did they
cease to be autochtonous? Are you able to determine
which Romanians and Albanians are descended from
populations which migrated into the Balkans? This is
getting silly.*****

Slavs in Balkan are emigrants as

> well as Hungarians.

*****GK: How many generations must one be in situ
before one becomes "autochtonous" (:=)))? I think just
about anyone is an immigrant or a descendant of
immigrants.*****

(Alex) when some

> ideologists of this people are trying to show that
> Romanians and
> Albanians have no rights for a portion of land _in
> Thracia and Dacia_ in
> this case there is nothing more to dispute. They can
> do it if they show
> that these people, Albanians and Romanians are more
> later emigrants as
> themselves AND, a very big AND , they are coming
> _not from Blakan or
> Dacia_.
> In the moment when they will show it, I agree, they
> could have any
> territorial claims they could have.

*****GK: Well I'm sure that there are a lot of people
who wouldn't accept such dialectics. I certainly
wouldn't. So if that's your worry, relent. I'm only
interested in historical issues when I question your
assumptions. Current politics should be based on other
considerations.*****


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com