Hello Miguel,
1. Please take a look on the map that indicates the split
between Daco-Getae and Thracian tribes (based on toponyms : dava
versus para etc...)
2. Next please take a look on the Map regarding the Jiricek
line: the split between the latin/greek zones in Balkans
You will find that the Latin zone is almost superpose with the
older Daco-Getae zone and that the Thracian zones is almost in
totality on the Greek zone of Roman Empire.
Conclusion : If we not take into account the Dalmatian coast
(Ilyrians), the Latin zone in the Balkans was ALMOST LOCATED ONLY in
the Daco-Getae zones.This leads us to the conclusion that the whole
substrate of Balkans Latin is a Dacian one.
The North of the Danube (today Romania) was also a Dacian zone
(in fact the center of the Dacian Kingdom), occupied by Romans for
165 years (106AD-271AD). If this zone was less or not at all
Romanized is a good point to be discussed...but at least the
substrate and superstrate of this zone was between 100-300AD the same
as in the rest of the Balkans Latin zones.
So if we exclude for instance the Dalmatians coast the whole
substrate of the Balkans Latin was formed by Daco-Getae tribes.
Viewing this, in my opinion there wasn't a proto-romanian
language in Balkans (If we will not named the Balkan Latin as proto-
romanian) but parallel evolutions of less or more Romanized zones all
based on a Dacian Substrate.
Why I cannot understand is the following fact : if the Albanian
was located at South Danube, and we had 600 years of Roman occupation
in the "Balkan albanian area" how we explain the facts that the
albanians wasn't romanized ?
This could lead us to the conclusions that the latinisations of
Balkans betwen 0AD - 600AD wasn't as important as is explained today.
Also the Greek influence was even weaker than the Latin one:
The rest of Bessi tribe ( that has been survived in the
Rodopae Mountains) still spoke their thracian dialect around 500AD as
indicated by Byzantins sources), that could lead us to can assume
that when the south-slavs arrives in Thracia (in the Balkan Greek
Zone of Roman Empire) the thracian dialects were still spoken there.
Best Regards,
marius a.
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> >>> while the similarity of reconstructed
> >> Proto-Albanian to the Satem substrate in Romanian makes a
connection
> >> with Dacian likely, as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> > Well, I don't believe in the Daco-Roman continuity story, and I
think
> > that Romanian (i.e. the Romance dialect cluster including
> > Daco-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian)
> > developed South of the Danube, i.e. somewhere either in Illyria
or in
> > Thracia. The fact that Romanian is a Romance language, and that
it
> > shares a substrate with Albanian, both point to Illyria rather
than
> > Thrace (Thrace, if I'm not mistaken, belongs rather within the
Greek
> > half of the Empire). The Bulgarian, rather than Serbian, Slavic
> > adstrate may represent a secondary spread into Thrace (from
> > Macedonia), and then to North of the Danube.
> >
> >
> > =======================
> > Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> > mcv@...
>
> Thrace propria dictam is excluded since it meant the theritory
begining
> south of the Balkan mountains. I wonder what you understand trough
> "Illyria" since this was -at least in the Roman times- a vaste
> theritory; the Dalmatian theritory should be excluded too.
> As for the South branche of Arom. & Co. I see them as migrating
there in
> the X century. There are hystorical data which seems to sustain this
> opinion. Of course I exclude here the Timocens (the inhabitant of
Valley
> of Timoc) which appear to never moved from that region and speaks
Drom ,
> not Arom)
>
> alex