Re: [tied] Baltic-Slavic disintegration

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> 15-01-04 21:08, alex wrote:
>
>> Alexander, there is no proof for Thracian as being a Satem language
>> beside some wild guesses. There is absolutely nothing where we know
>> about the meaning of a certain Thracian word for sure and we can
>> connect it with a IE root for showing: look , Thracian was a Satem
>> language. All the people who sustained Thracian should have been a
>> satem language could not deliver the needed proof which shows that.
>> Just assumptions .
>
> Alex, what little we understand about Thracian points unequivocally to
> its Satem character, even if you cannot of do not choose to understand
> why. I won't bore the list by reviewing the relevant examples once
> again
> -- it's all in the archives. What linguists say about Thracian is at
> least based on _some_ evidence, however meagre. What you say about it
> (and its alleged relationship to Romanian) is based on nothing at all.
>
> Piotr

Piotr, we don't need to rediscuse to what we discussed once. In the
archives one cannot find anything new. That is the bad thing. There
is no proof. Just assumtions. For the things as "esbenus" one
has against it "centus" so, without trying to re-open it, one has to put
the point on the "i"("i"= centum or satem) just when one has that proof.
I am not aware about this proof and you are too not aware of it.
Just as you say, "things points in that directions" and that _some_
evidece is not any evidence but just wished/forced relationship.
If I am wrong, let it be my sin. I guess tough I call the things on
their name saying none could deliver thr proof.

Alex