--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> [...] *before* the conquest of Dacia in AD 117,
Conquest of Dacia is to ba dated a.D. 101-106.
> lest the Hungarians should come up with some crazy theory that
> *they* were already living in Transylvania before that time [*].
>
> [*] Of course this is not just paranoia, see sci.lang message
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:
thl2112786205d&dq=&lr=&selm=4uugil%249u0%40news.inforamp.net>
In fact, there is more than that. One of these days, on a bookshop
tour, I saw a book called "Etruscan: an archaic form of Hungarian"
(or something like that). It had around 200 pages and was costing
about 30 euros. Excellent graphical conditions, bibliography, etc.
Finally I decided not to buy it since one can find far better and
much cheaper humoristical books.
> That's why all of a sudden Romanian is just Dacian with a coat of
> Latin, and why we're stuck with Alex on this mailing list :-)
He might not be aware of that. Actually he came from the very
beginning on some speciality Romanian list with the declared
program to prove Romanians are Dacians, then when one has pointed
out Romanian _is_ a Romance language, he simply dedicated his
enthusiasm to demolish that well-established fact. I think in
some sense that one remark of mine (that Latin could be related
to Dacian only at PIE level) made him look on the web and find
this list which deals with IE issues. It fits well his purposes
since one basical point of Romanian "autochtonist" agenda is to
prove all IE are in fact nothing else but modified Dacian and PIE
homeland is nothing else than Carpathian area where from all IE
people spread out, changing by the same token their languages
(unlike PIE ~ Dacian which had the mysterious propriety of
conserving itself over millenia up to Romanian, only with some
minor changes).
Regards,
Marius Iacomi