alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> Hello Alex,
> Is Duridanov phonetic sure?
>
> URL:
> http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/thrac/thrac_7.html
> http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/thrac/thrac_8.html
>
>
> Thanks and Best Regards,
> marius a.
No. Neither Deçev's neither Russu's.
There are words where none know the meaning in Thracian but used by
these authors for making connection as they thought they could.
Duridanow try to link it to Baltic, Deçev want to demonstrate how satem
the language was an so on; the big manco of all this is that if we don't
know what an word meant, we can link it reflexes to what we want and we
explain how we like due dissimilations, assimilations, sincopes,
infixes, suffixes, prefixes, o-grade, e-grade und such stuff. None can
say "you are wrong" since none know what the words indeed meant.
There is too much speculation on a such work-basis. The names which are
to find in Glosses, even if are living today in the peasant areas, they
are considered to be new names; they can be borrowed from a long chain
of goto-gepido-huno-avaro-slavo-cumano-petschengo-hungaro migrators but
there is considered to be excluded as being the ancient names. The
reason? Because there is no Ocatvianus, Augustus, Severus, Maximus etc
as inherited names which should be present in Rom. onomastic. The logic
is simple: if there is no Latin name which survived (inherited, of
course), there cannot be any name before Latin time which could survive.
Alex