Hello Alex,
I want to point out some of your remarks :
I.
" Assuming a living Dacian population in the XII century "
>
> I don't assume a Dacian population in the XII century, when
> the Romanian people already finished his formation for a long time
> and no Dacians are attested in Transylvania.
>> if you do not assume it you should ask yourself where should have
>> had the Hungarians the name as "Zomus", right?
I talked here about 1200 not about 898 when the Hungarians arrived
in Panonnia. But if you talk about 900AD, yes, I said that : 'Zomus'
was borrowed from an Albanoid-Romanized population still
heterogenous in some aspects (parts more Albanoid, parts more
Romance). But this : at 900 not at 1200.
Plovdiv is loaned directly from Thracians after 612 AD, so why
Zomus couldn't be loaned by Hungarians after 900AD from a romanized
(romanized - at that date) Albanoid population.
If you can find other scenario from where Zomus could be derived
please present it here....But just remember that it couldn't be easy
to be derived as : Slavic, Germanic or Latin.
2.
> Hmmm... I am afraid we are here on a very unsure terrain.
> Since "buzã"
> and "byzantium" appears to be thracian, one has to assume the "z" >
was known to everyone ther
I showed you that the proto-Romanians has no zV, VzV or Vz. They
had only 3 /dz/. z appears only in zC clusters. If you know such a zV
proto-Romanian form please post it here.
Buza is attested as 'Budza' in Moldavia (I showed you Rosetti
toponyms in ILR II- pages on Balkanika but seems that you ignored
them ).
As regarding Buzau there is no attested form 'Buzau'. We have ONLY
an attested Greek form 'Museos' (if I remember well the spelling).
Also 'Buzantion' was already a Greek form, when it was attested
as 'Buzantion'.
As I know the Greeks don't have a '3' so 'z' spelling is normal.
On the other hand, Thracian is not Dacian, isn't it. What is 'z' in
Thracian could be well /dz/ in Dacian.
Also Albanian /z/ comes from an older /dz/ etc.., but the
transformation seems to be ended much much earlier that in Romanian.
For an Albanoid population this could be also the case.
In any case, the Balkan Romance population that became in time
something different among all other Balkans populations, had only
a 'dzV' and not a 'zV'.
3.
> I am afraid there is just the suffix "-esh" and has nothing to do
with
> the idea about Albanians living there.
Albanoids doesn't mean Albanians.
Also as I know "esh" is a valid Albanian sufix.
4.
> It doesn't fit. the contacts of Romanians with the Slavs should be
as
> early as these of Albanian with the Slavs. Assuming there has been
no
> "z" but "dz" ( which is almost the same thing); the Romanians should
> have got the "z" from the Slavs as per your idea; thus there
shouldn't
> be any problem to borrow the word from the Albanians as "Zomus".
In order to can say : 'It doesn't fit' : you have to estimate when
the proto-Romanians starts to loan a 'zV" as a 'z' and not as
a 'dz'. In my opinion this still wasn't the case around 700 AD ( when
I placed the arrival of the second massive wave of Romance population
in today Romanian especially in Transylvania).
Why ?
If rom. 'dzare' (today 'zare') is from Slavic 'zarja' (see Romanian
DEX at :
http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=zare&source= ) we had an
example where 'dz' is still active during the first Slavic waves.
Even if 'dzare' is not from Sl. 'zarja', the conservation of 'dz'
in Romanian dialects until sec. XVI-XVII in parallel with the new
loaned 'zV-words', shows us with a great probability that 'dz' was
still active around 700AD or even later.
(please note again that I talked in Trasylvania about an Albanoid
population and not about Albanians as you indicated above)
5.
> You can try to explain all the name of the rivers which does not
> support the Latin -> Romanian sound laws. Usually the common shcolar
> view is that the language which served as intermediating there
should
> have been a kind of Slavic dialect. The idea of a "Daco-Slavia"
> existed already 200 years ago but it was abbandoned due missing
> linguistic support.
Sorry but I didn't present the Daco-Slavia idea, that I know
very well.
I said only that :
There is a second wave of Romance migration in today Romania
started after the Slavs arrived in Balkans and dislocate the Romance
population from there in all directions (Aromanians-in south, Istro-
Romanians-in West, Daco-Romanian in N, N-W).
This wave arrive in N-W Romania around 650-700 AD
where they found a semi-romanized Albanoid population (see Zomus, but
not only). We are mainly the mixture of these 2 populations.
At the same times some Slavic tribes, less important regarding
their number that the Slavic tribes that arrived in Balkans, that
mainly arrived from today Slovakia, were already there or arrive
short after this. In any case around 900AD, the Hungarians
chronicles said that they encountered Bulgarians, Slavs, Cumans and
Vlachs when they arrived in Pannonnia and next in Transylvania.
Also is normal to try to explain the rivers that does not support
not ONLY Latin -> Romanian sound laws (here is obvious that we
couldn't derived Samus->Zomus using Balkan Latin), but we have
problems to explain them using any other known sound laws : Slavic
or Germanic. In my opinion an 'Albanoid' explanation fit well these
toponyms.
I would be glad to listen any other explanation for Samus->Zomus
and also for Romanian 'Somesh'.
Best Regards,
marius alexandru