--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:59:36 +0000, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
>> Regarding :
>> "So what about the Moesians, the Paeonians, etc?"
>>
>> Seems that you couldn't find the map regarding dava/para
>> divisions:
>>
>> http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/vg/vg_map1.jpg
>>
>> This map is very instructive because based on the toponyms Moesia
>> is a Daco-Getae region with some Thracian penetrations.
>
> Looks to me as if Moesia has as many place names in -para, if not
> more, as in -dava (see also the map at:
> http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/thrac/thrac_map.html).
Well, if you look just once the URL you provided, you will
undoubtedly note that "Thracian language" was not spoken in
Moesia (Superior, for the matter). Most people having made
their name in this area agree that Thracian region was to be
divided in two linguistical areas corresponding to two idioms
more or less related: Southern Thracian (the one usually calls
simply Thracian, in the delimited area in the figure) and
Northern Thracian (a.k.a. Daco-Moesian, language also shared
by Getae). The level of relationship between NT and ST is
still to be debated (totally distinct languages or dialects
of a same language; Strabo's testimony is to be taken cum
grano salis; the safe assumption is they were still closely
related since also other sources point to that).
See also Georgiev's quotes about numbers.
Regards,
Marius Iacomi