Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

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

> 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.

*****GK: I am not just quoting any ancient writers,
Alex, but writers who were in an excellent position to
know what they were talking about. The Romans had
frequent contacts with the Bastarnae on the Lower
Danube. So the quality of this information is
infinitely more reliable than Strabo's or
Polybius'.****

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: It's not required. We have no "linguistic
evidence" for the Germanic ethnicity of most if not
all of the Germanic groups enumerated by Tacitus. His
witness is sufficient.******

>
>
> >
> > GK: You shouldn't believe rumours Alex (:=)))
>
> I don't but I take a look at them to see what
> about:-)

*****GK: You don't seem to have done this with respect
to the Bastarnae. So here what you are doing is
advancing not just a rumour but an unverified rumour
as a counter-argument to very solid evidence. No dice
I'm afraid.*****

>
>
> > 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.
>
>(Alex) These Germanic population have been there for

some

> hunderd of years.

*****GK: Yes. Nearly a millennium*****

The

> goths left, the Gepidae have been destroyed. In no
> story about them we
> find anything about the "peasants".

*****GK: Yes. Various Germanic peoples (including the
Goths and Gepidae) also "left" areas contiguous to
those of Slavic settlements. But they left a number of
loanwords as evidence of their earlier presence. One
would have expected something similar in the case of
Dacians turned Romanians (as per your theory). You've
provided nothing yet.******

The cronics are

> silent regarding the
> working population.

*****GK: They're also silent about any kind of
proto-Romanian population north of the Danube before
the 2nd millennium AD.*****

> 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.

*****GK: How does that help? (Whatever you mean by
it)*****

>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com