From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 35220
Date: 2004-11-29
>at
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> In the first place, we don't really know
> whether the linguistic process you refer to must be
> exclusive to the postulated Dacian (?) foundation of
> Albanian and Romanian, or whether it also existed in
> other Palaeo-Balkan languages now extinct which were
> mentioned by various authors at the turn to the CE.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> You are right. With my examples I can Only proof that there is a
> Proto-Albanian component in Romanian OLDER than the Latin layer in
> Romanian. I used as arguments to show this only the timeframes of
> Albanian phonetic rules and nothing else: this is a very solid
> argument in my opinion.
>
> So I fully agree that the assertion "Proto Albanian = a Dacian
> Dialect" need to be further proved (even this is not a new
> hypothesis : Hasdeu, P^arvan, Bonfante, Weigand, Hamp, Orel etc..
> sustained this hypothesis)
>
> However regarding Romanian ancestors for sure we can place them
> the North of the Jiricek line (Jiricek line = the border betweenhttp://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/thrac/thrac_8.html
> Latin and Greek Language in Balkans during Roman Empire - even this
> is an "official border" based on "the inscription's language")
> (if somebody could post an internet link with a map showing the
> Jiricek line please do it, I couldn't find one)
> and
> the border betwen Dacian "dava" versus Thracian "para" are quite
> the same with the Jiricek line too.
> Please see at:
>my
>
> Regarding the Albanians origin my opinion is the following:
>
> The arrival of today Albanians ancestors in aprox. same area as
> they are today: Today Albanian and Kosovo (so maybe not on the
> Dalmatian coast but not far from it) happened Before Romans Arrival
> in Balkans (aprox. sec. III B.C.) ...Why ? because there are some
> Greek loans showing an ancient phonetic treatement in Albanian than
> the treatement of the Latin Loans in Albanian (you can see this in
> examples too).on
> So the Albanians were in contacts with Greeks before their contacts
> with Romans and we know very well the Greeks position in Balkans at
> that moment.
> This expansion of some Dacian tribes from Moesia, Banat and
> Carpathian Moutains to south, south-west direction is very well
> identified around sec. III B.C. by Vasile P^arvan in Getica based
> the toponimy of today Albania region in that period of time.Illyrian
>
> Based on these historical facts we can very well have an
> Substratum in Albanian and a Dacian Main Layer also that is (in myfully
> opinion very well visible) in Albanian language too:
>
> See Alb. 'ujk < ulk' 'wolf' and Ilyr. 'Ulcinium' etc...
> and in the same time
> Alb. 'karpë' 'rock' related to Dacian tribe name "Carps" and
> Dacian Mountain name: "Carpathians" for the "Carphatians Mountains"
> etc...
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> This would in no sense deny that Romanian is fundamentally a
> Latin-based language. Two cents worth from a non-linguist.*****
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't deny at all (I don't know from where in my message you
> have deduced this: is a mis-understanding here): in contrary I
> agree that the Romanian language is fundamentally a Latin-based
> language. Please see that I talked about 'Romanized Dacians' in my
> message.
>
> I wanted only to point out that based on the Proto-Albanian
> timeframes of Proto-Albanian phonetic transformations the Proto-
> Albanian(Dacian?) Substratum in Romanian Language is OLDER than the
> main layer of Romanian language: the Latin.
>
> Only the Best,
> Marius
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
> >
> > > The subject that I want to open here is the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > << PAlb a:>o ended before Romans arrival in
> > > Balkans but 'is
> > > reflected' in Romanian Language>>
> >
> > >
> > > Based on the conclusion above the Daco-Romanian
> > > theory (->theory
> > > that presents the Romanian people 'resulting from'
> > > Romanized Dacians)
> > > received a solid argument in its favor.
> > >
> > > The facts above generate a big problem for those
> > > that qualifies
> > > the Romanian Language as a Latin Dialect with some
> > > Loans from
> > > Albanian and that deny any Proto-Albanian(=Dacian?)
> > > component in
> > > Romanian Language or from those that accept some
> > > Dacian influences
> > > but deny the fact that the Dacian component is OLDER
> > > than the Latin
> > > component in the Romanian Language.
> >
> > *****GK: In the first place, we don't really know
> > whether the linguistic process you refer to must be
> > exclusive to the postulated Dacian (?) foundation of
> > Albanian and Romanian, or whether it also existed in
> > other Palaeo-Balkan languages now extinct which were
> > mentioned by various authors at the turn to the CE.
> > And in the second place, it can hardly be denied that
> > there was a strong "local" (Balkan) component in the
> > ethnogenesis of the Romanian people, which could well
> > have left some small traces in the parlance,
> > influencing the "colonizing" component. This would in
> > no sense deny that Romanian is fundamentally a
> > Latin-based language. Two cents worth from a
> > non-linguist.*****
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail