>*****GK: 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.*****
Indeed, that's the Romanian tradition or legend, trans-
mitted by chroniclers. But is this a conclusive explanation?
Because there are further Moldovas, e.g. Moldova Veche
and Moldova noua, toponyms in the province of Banat, at
the Romanian Serbian border; i.e. in a region which for
the first time after the Hunnic and Avar kaganates came
under the same jurisdiction with Moldavia only in AD 1919.
BTW, some people think the Slavic name of the
fir-tree species Picea as the origin for "Moldova": I don't
remember the Slavic form, but as a Romanian loanword
it looks like this <molid.> Is this assumption worth taking
into consideration?
(Besides, among Hungarians there are many having
the family names Moldvai and Moldoványi. I might be
wrong, but I don't believe that everyone carrying such
a name has some Moldavian ancestor.)
>Why is it necessary to fantasize their being
>descendants of 2nd c. Dacians?*****
Because this has some tradition. And, ironically,
a major initial role in this was played by...
Hungarian (!) chroniclers of the 12th-13th ff centuries,
who, along with contemporary or earlier foreign
(Greek, French) scribblers, inspired later generations.
The 2nd reason: even from the opposite point of view
-- that states there was no Romanization whatsoever
in north-Danubian Dacia --, there was possibility enough
for Dacians to become Latin-speakers in Moesia superior,
Dacia ripensis, Dacia mediterranea, Dardania, Pannonia,
parts of Illyricum as well as in areas that, according to
some administrative regulations in certain periods, rather
belonged to Thrace. So, there's enough "substrate" (be
it Thracian, be it Dacian-Moesian, be it Illyrian cum
Pannonian) to take into consideration even if the North-
Danubian territory is left out completely. On top of that,
some ancient writers reported of free Dacian populations
that crossed the Danube and settled down in those
regions of SPQR's Empire -- after all, pursuing what modern
immigrants pursue in the so-called Schengen territory.
>*****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.).*******
So, it seems they had plenty of time betw. 2nd-7th
cent. for drills in "lingua nostra nova". :-)
George