From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 49159
Date: 2007-06-26
>************
>
>
> 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