--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Aigius" <segijus@...> wrote:
> > And why would it be? It is
> > Thracian.
> >
> > Jens
>
> Ivan Duridanov: "The comparative studies with the Baltic
> languages were very helpful in the case of some unclear personal
> and geographical Thracian names and provided new insights into the
> Thracian vocabulary. It turned out that the Thracian language is in
> close genetic links with the Baltic languages [For more details see
> my work: Thrakisch-dakische Studien, I. Teil, Balkansko
> ezikoznanie,
> XIII, 2, Sofia, 1969]."
>
> Regards, Aigius
it is enough if one counts how many words are interpreted by
Duridanov as meaning "bog" in his Thracian-Baltic correspondancies.
So many different words with the meaning "bog" cannot be existent in
one language. Due his alleged and forced comparations, one cannot pay
too much for the ideas presented by Duridanov. So far I remember,
Deçev (to speak just about a compatriote of him) rejects the idea
of
Duridanov too.
Since we are here, one has to mention that Duridanov sees a lot of
correspondancies between Baltic and Thracian but he affirms
too "there is no corresponance between Slavic and Thracian". That
will mean the contact between Baltic and Slavic are all of later
nature, somewhere in the christian time. Does it fit in the Baltic-
Slavic relationship on the timeline?
Alex