Re: [tied] Walachians are placed far North the Danube in Nestor (10

Sorry for beating a deceased horse, but I would like to clarify the
status of the PVl evidence in our discussion as I think it is. I'll
assume for the moment that the evidence is basically credible, but it
is important to keep in mind that given the purpose of the PVL and
the vagaries of its transmission that is a very shaky assumption
that should really be substantiated thoroughly before anything else
is done.


(1)


Seen from the point of view of the Rumanian-Hungarian controversy the
PVL evidence is good news for the Rumanian side because it shows
Rumanians active to the north of the Danube well before the arrival
of the Hungarians. I suppose that that is the reason the PVL evidence
is insisted upon so strongly.


(2)

However, seen from the wider perspective of the continuity thesis it
is entirely without any evidentiary value because conditions in the
ninth century cannot be projected back. One would think that that
whould be self-evident. After all, you just can't prove that the
Vojvodina was predominantly Serbian-speaking in the seventeenth
century by showing that it is predominantly Serbian-speaking now.
Lots of similar examples spring to mind (Kosovo, Ireland, not so
speak of towns like Brussels or Prague.) Why is this point so
difficult to grasp?


I'm slowly beginning to get fed up with bringing disappointing news
all the time.


Cheers!!



Willem