From: alex
Message: 29651
Date: 2004-01-15
> 15-01-04 21:08, alex wrote:Piotr, we don't need to rediscuse to what we discussed once. In the
>
>> 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