tolgs001 wrote:
>>> (Alex) Or that the Dacians became latinised because
>>> 1/3 of their theritory was for 150 Years under Roman
>>> administration:-)
>>
>> ******GK: Yes, that is a difficulty for the integral
>> autochtonists. But as the literature demonstrates it
>> is obviously not insuperable (:=)))*****
>
> Yeah, but Alex constantly avoids mentioning and/or
> taking into consideration that the substratum population
> lived not only in the occupied greater Dacia and the
> regions which remained free, but also in Dacia
> ripensis, Dacia mediterranea, Moesia Superior,
> Pannonia, Dardania, Thrace etc. And these territories
> were under Roman influence for a much longer time.
the problem is somewhere else george. The problem is just the linguistic
aspect, the other aspects are clear enough.
steps:
-there have been thracians, none known which a language they spoked
-there have been Romans which made a big empire
-among the tribes conquested habe been the thracians too. They became
romanised .That does not mean they have took the way of life of Romans,
building cities, making streets, keeping the standard high. No, the
romanisation is just that they got the language from the Romans. BEside
this nothing more.
- all this happens in 400 years. In 400 years the ancient folk forget
its language, take an another, the Latin one.
- there are now the DacoRomanians and Aromanians, separed for 1500
years.
- they have been under Greek Empire, Bulgarian Empire, Hungarian Empire,
Austrian Empire, Otoman Empire. Damm, these valahs did not wanted to
change again their language. They changed just Latin, for making
Romanian of this.
So, we see, there are enough teoretically 400 years for making a new
language and there are not enough anymore 1500 years for making an
another language. You understand the sense of sentence in Aromanian, you
do not understand Latin if you did not studied it. You will understand
just some words, maybe some more as in Albanian due the neologisms which
entered the modern Rom. Lang.
- we have to keep in mind, the Thracians are the only of the Balkan
together with Ilirians, their language went letting no traces. Netiher
to Albanians, nor to Romanians, neither to the coming slavs, nor if they
emigrated NOrth to the Nordic Slavs, no thing. Niente, nix, null komma
nix. I say " no trace" because the names , toponyms, etc are not
considerated as having too much to say.
- from the so-called "latin lexic" in Rom. Lang which is indeed the
lowest in all Romance, we discover that the most of this lexic is in
fact reduced to the PIE root since the latin creations, the derivatives
of these PIE roots within Latin are not to find in Rom. Lang. And this
seems a big question to me. Why just this archaic form of latinisation?
Why nothing more? Even if the valahians lived South of Danube, how does
it come there is nothing more in their latin as the very simple terms of
life? There are a bundle of questions onto this topic which I don't
expand now.
Let me tell you if there won't be the corpus of Greek literature, by the
big amount of lexical identities of Latin & Greek , the linguists will
have said the Greek language belongs too to the Eastern Romance in the
same manner as the "Latin elements" in Albanians.