Re: [tied] Re: cardinal points

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

> george knysh wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The same did the Greeks begining with VI century
> BC;
> >> they have knew very
> >> well the Thracians we should we not belive them?
> >
> > GK: What does this comment have to do with
> the
> > Bastarnae being Germanic? Incoherent phrasings
> usually
> > indicate incoherent thought processes. What in the
> > world are you talking about?
>
> It doesnt has to do with the Bastarnae. It has to do
> with the
> reliability of the ancient testimony. I made this
> statment because you
> assumed the Romans know them well ( the Bastarnae),
> in this way they (
> Tacitus in this case) must known they are Germanic.

*****GK: Quite. Both Tacitus and Pliny were better
informed about the ethnicity of the Bastarnae than
Polybius and Strabo, given their social positions and
contacts, and given the type of information they had
access to. It's not simply a general question of
reliability with abstract comparisons of X and Y. It's
a specific issue of the reliability of certain
witnesses compared to others as to a particular issue.
Strabo knew a great deal about Pontus, because that's
where he came from. For the rest he manoeuvered rather
well in the midst of multiple "scholarly" reports.
Pliny and Tacitus had access to Roman military and
diplomatic reports.*****

> I made a paralel here with the Greek world and the
> big Greek colonial
> time between VI-IV BC. They too knew very well the
> Thracians and they,
> the Greeks

******GK: Put a name to these "Greeks".*****

mention the Prygian should be descendents

> of Thracian.
> Against this statement there is the linguistic
> evidence which say there
> is no relationship between Thracian and Prygian. In
> a way, I have to
> agree, I am a bit in doubt regarding the Bastarnae
> being Germanic. The
> basoreliefs from Adam Clisi where are depicted
> Bastarnae, differ very
> much by the figures which are on the Column of
> Trajan where we see
> germanic folks. They are looking different. Way to
> look like, clothes,
> way to keep the hair and much more.

******GK: If you read the description of a young
Olbian in Dio Chrysostomus' "Borysthenic speech" you
would think (by the apparel) he was describing a
Sarmatian, not a Greek. The Bastarnae were clearly
influenced by the populations they contacted (Tacitus
notes this even as he notes their Germanic
language).*****

>
>
> >
> > GK: The Bastarnae were located in today's
> > Moldavia, and at the mouth of the Danube. The very
> > name of "Moldavia" is ultimately derived from a
> > Germanic root (a river name). But this (and other
> > hydronyms and toponyms) only confirms what we
> already
> > know from reliable historical sources.
>
> You made this statment in a previous mail. I asked
> which is the germanic
> Root for Moldau ( Actualy the name of the River
> which cross Prag) for
> keeping it for germanic?

*****GK: The river in question is the Molda (in the
Carpathians), supposedly a Germanic hydronym.****

I cannot see anything in

> germanic which I kann
> corelate with Mold- this is why I am indeed very
> curious about the root.
>
> > GK: I tend to agree with those scholars and
> > commentators who see the proto-Romanians as
> initially
> > inhabiting (in pockets) large areas of the Balkans
> > south of the Danube, i.e. in Roman territory later
> > breached by the Slavs.
>
> The slavs did not broken the Romanian bloc.

******GK: I mean, of course, the Danube frontier.
There's no pint in repeating the well known and
documented facts of Slavic invasions and
settlements.*****

If they

> should have did it,
> then there should have been words loaned from Slavic
> before metathesis
> for instance. There are a few words borrowed from
> Slavic, but a lot
> considered as borrowed from Bulgarian.Here the
> linguistic helps a bit.

*****GK: I'll leave this to the linguists. I don't
know what you're getting at. Your terminology is
confusing. Proto-Bulgarian?******

> The Aromanians have the same Old Slavic loans but
> they do not have any
> Hungarian word into their dialect. What does it
> mean? They have been not
> in conntact with Hungarians.Puting together the fact
> that the valahs
> appear coincidentaly in the history once with the
> arise of the hungarian
> state,

*****GK: Where do you get this? The first clearcut
mention of the Vlachs is in 976, south of the Danube,
and has nothing whatever to do with the establishment
of the Hungarian state.******

I keep my theory that there was an

> admigration of Romanians from
> North to South of Danube from West of actual
> Transilvania due the
> Hungarian power.

*****GK: I don't know what you're talking about.*****

If we count on the fact that the

> first Bulgarian Empire
> was alone "bulgarian" that will mean the valahs have
> been not very
> numerous south of Danube.

*****GK: You've been on the list for nearly two years
Alex. Isn't it time you learned to express yourself
intelligibly? What in blazes are you talking
about??!!*****

After this events (

> admigration from North to
> South), they became more numeros and the result is
> seen 100 years later
> as the second Bulgarian Empire is in fact the
> Vlaho-Bulgarian Empire.
> All these have a logic here.
>
> >(GK) Why should they have borrowed
> > anything from Lombards or Franks? I don't see
> anything
> > mean or degrading about some of these populations
> > (with other elements assimilated to
> them)subsequently
> > trekking northward across the Danube and occupying
> the
> > lands of contemporary Romania, creating mediaeval
> > states there, and ultimately evolving into the
> modern
> > Romanian (incl. Moldavians) ethnicity. Why is it
> > necessary to fantasize their being descendants of
> 2nd
> > c. Dacians?
>
> (Alex)I don't see either something degrading here.

It is

> just the problem that
> it doesn't matter where they have lived, the
> germanic tribes have
> vagabunded almost on all european therithory.

*****GK: There was obviously a difference as to their
geographical impacts.******

The

> missing of the
> germanic loans ( I am reluctant in saying there is
> no one, but this work
> must be done first). Now with the South location of
> the Romanians, here
> is hard to belive that they lived so long within the
> Byzantine Empire
> and there are so few Greek or Byzantine loans.

******GK: Are there more in some dialects than in
others? At any rate there are some?*****

> A short flash: begining with Justinian Latin langage
> is not used anymore
> in the Byzantine Empire.

******GK: Justinian, the Codifier of Roman Law?
(:=))****

Heraklion make the Greek

> language the language
> od the state. From Heraklion ( VII AC)

*****GK: I guess you mean Heraclius (610-641)****

untill the

> supposed migration of
> the valahians from South to nord between X -XII AC
> are between 300-500
> years. And without Greek influence? Imposible.

*****GK: What about Greek loans in Romanian? In any
case, there were a great many more Slavs in contiguity
than Greeks.******

> I don't take too much into consideration the way the
> late Byzantine
> chronicars kept the valahians for dacian, let it be
> their opinion. But
> the logic of all these facts , all of them point out
> a life outside of
> the Byzantine area.

*****GK: I have no problem with this. After the
definitive breach of the Roman frontier by the Slavs
(at the time of Phocas) the primary contact people
with the proto-Romanians were undoubtedly the latter
(and of course the proto-Albanians). Byzantine control
of the old Roman territories was not re-established
for a long time, even in Greece proper. And in the
meantime, the Proto-Bulgars arrived. In reality some
measure of Byzantine influence (as you imagine it)
would have existed only after the conquest of
Bulgaria, and even then not for very long, since all
of Bulgaria north of the Haemus mountains was lost to
the Pechenegs in the mid-11th c.******

> For making the soup better, the Timocean Romanians
> are speaking
> dacoromanian and not aromanian. And this is exactly
> the same situation
> as in the time where Strabo say about the "dacians
> from the both shore
> of the Danube" which speak the same language.Let it
> be again a
> coincidence I don't care about, these are just for
> the decor of the
> whole situation.
>
> >
> > GK: As pointed out to you, it is not
> necessary to
> > share "West Roman" innovations to have contacts
> with
> > the "Roman world" as long as there was one (I
> believe
> > Greek only became the official language of the
> > Byzantine Empire in the 7th c.).
>
> No no. I don't talk about "west inovation".
> Remember, Miguel keep
> Italian for "Eastern Romance" and Dan Milton ( was
> this Dan or Peter ?)
> quoted that inovation have been missing. And these
> innovation have been
> comming from Italy not from west.

*****GK: That's not exactly how I remember their
statements. In the discussion of Proto-Romance it was
noted that a lot of material was simply unavailable
since it was the Western daughter languages that were
being used for reconstructing it. The fact that
Romanian was out of the loop here after the 3rd c. (if
it was) implied nothing at all about its isolation
from the Roman world, just from that of the parent
dialects of vulgar latin which evolved into Italian,
Castilian, Catalan, French etc..*****


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