Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

george knysh wrote:

> *****GK: As clear as can be. The attestations of Pliny
> (NH, IV,82,100) and Tacitus (Germ., 46) are
> sufficient. They were a mixed lot, with components of
> Dacian and Sarmatian origin, but the Germanic factor
> was dominant (as with the later Goths).*****

You are right to quote the ancient writter. In teh same manner Piotr
argued to me that it doesn't matter that Homerus & Strabo & Co kept the
Prygians for Thracians. Linguisticaly, there is no evidence. Which is
the linguistic germanic evidence for Bastarnae?

>
> *****GK: You shouldn't believe rumours Alex (:=)))

I don't but I take a look at them to see what about:-)

> I see that the issue of old Germanic loanwords in
> Romanian has been much discussed overnight. The bottom
> line (so far) seems to be that there are none. Feel
> free to dispute this. And as far as your comment about
> the Goths in Spain is concerned: the point is that we
> don't have to worry about this since the written
> documents are clear and abundant. This is precisely
> what is lacking about proto-Romanians north of the
> Danube. I find it extremely odd to say the least that
> if the Old Dacians of the North stayed in place and
> were subjected to Romanization, that somehow, over the
> centuries, no evidence would have survived of their
> extremely long, and intimate, contacts with various
> Old Germanic populations, prior to and posterior to
> the advent of the Romans. We're not just talking about
> a couple of generations here.*****

These Germanic population have been there for some hunderd of years. The
goths left, the Gepidae have been destroyed. In no story about them we
find anything about the "peasants". The cronics are silent regarding the
working population.
The very big help in the problem of Romanians being in North of Donau
from all the time are simply the slavs and the socalled slavic
continuum.