Abdullah Konushevci schrieb:
> > how can one know if the common words are Illyrian or of
> > Dacian/Thracian origin? So far I know there is still a lot of
> > darkness in this part of the story.
> >
> > Alex
> ************
> Yes, there is a little darkness in this part of the story, till you
> read carefully "An Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Indo-European
> Language', revised version of "Indogermanisches
> EtymologischesWörterbuch" by Pokorny. I hope you will read it once and
> probably you will have much clear vision.
> As you know from my posts in Balkanika, there is not only a huge
> amount of common isoglosses, but as well of hydronyms and toponyms.
> Furthermore, exactly in compounds I saw unbroken syntax.
> If you agree that basic words for 'head, neck', 'lips', 'throat',
> 'gullet' can't be a loans from Albanian, then you may came as well to
> same conclusion.
>
> Konushevci
of course they cannot be loans from Albanian due their phonetical
aspect which speaks for a period of time before Roman times. Taking
cautiously the material presented by Pogirc, we see there are many
similarties between Illrian and Dacian names( antro,hydro,topo),
actuall much more as between Dacian and Thracian ( let by side the
space between Haemus and Danube, this was space caled "mesian" was
dacian. that will speak for a tighter link between Dacian and
Illyrians but the names of the Dacians are compounded ( see
Thomascheck and his material) , which is not the case for the
Illyrians ( see Krahe and his matterial)
(Deke-balus, Deke-neus, Koga-yones, Rascu-poris, Bure-bista,
Tara-bostes, Carna-basos, having almost the same metric as this in
Suci-dava, Petro-dava, Rami-dava, etc, etc, etc)
Of course it appears strange these names compared with the
macro-hydronimy where there is no compounde name but this can be
explained due the pre-IndoEuropean name of the macro-hydronimy, name
which have been presumably took over by IndoEuropean speakers. Yet,
why should one see the Dacian as Illyrians when Strabo & Co inform
us they should be count as Thracians? And to play the game until the
end, why should be they Thracians? The name of the cities are
different ( -diza, -para,-bria are thracian, -dava with variation (
-deva, -deba, -theba, eventually -thema) should be Dacian.
To be honest, I am not confident at all we can put them all
together. Searching on my way, I have to say that the idea of Pogirc
appears to be solid enough (the gloses speask for something more
similarity between Dacian and Ilirian rests) but on another side,
the authors of the antiquity put the Dacian and the Thracian
together, thing which cannot be confirmed due the lexical Data.
The late (V-VII century) "thracian" glosses mentioned by Dimitri
Deçev, appears to be simply archaic Romanian words as the well
mentioned "tserselush" ( =cercel < Lat. "circellus" = "little ear
ring") which are maybe not worth to be mentioned (but more worth as
the famos so called "romanian" [torna, torna fratre], words which
will make sense among all Balkan languages:-)))
Abdullah, there is a theory which says that the actually Romanians
are just citisien of the Roman Empire who have been captured by
Avars from the once Illyrian regions of the Roman Empire, ( now
romanised) and who have been transfered to the actually region of
Romania. If I remember correct, the number of the captives took by
the Avars have been around 150.000 people. It appears to be a
significat number to giver birth to a new folk from
the VII century until nowadays. If this supposition should be true,
then the similarities between Romanians and Albanians will appear in
another light and of course the Latin layer of Romanian should be a
back-grounded resonable by historical data.
Alex