--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@> wrote:
> >
> > P.S. I would say again, what I'm thinking for a long time:
> > That the Darwiniam Evolutionism based only 'on Random
> > Mutations' is a stupidity...
>
> If you think THAT is a stupidity, check out
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protochronism ,
>
> David
If your intention was to 'propose' an equivalence between
Protochronism and the Thesis asserting that the "Romanians are Romanized Dacians" than for sure you are wrong....
The Thesis that "The Romanians are (mainly) Romanized Dacians" is a Valid Model : I would say that it has the Greatest Probability to be True, among all the exiting Models proposed for 'The Origin of Romanians'
The main argument is the following one:
The Phonetic Changes of Proto-Romanian, Proto-Albanian and Dacian (even few words were preserved: city names, plant names, rivers names etc....) ARE VERY CLOSED, I WILL SAY IDENTICAL
As one example:
Dacian Diegis ('The Fervent One') could well reflect e/accented > ye of the PIE dHegWH- 'to burn'
Albanian djeg 'to burn' reflects again e/accented > ye from the same root
Proto-Romanian reflects e/accented > ye is also reflected in
Romanian fier as from Latin ferrum
Similar with this example: There are at least 20 others identical phonetic transformations leading us to a Phonetical Identity not far away from the time when The Romans enters in the Balkan Peninsula...
Practically there is no contradiction related to ANY EXISTING PHONETIC CHANGE beween Dacian, Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albanian...for the indicated timeframe.
So I consider The Thesis that "The Romanians are (mainly) Romanized Dacians" as a Valid One from a Scientific Point of View.
If this for you means Protochronism (even there is no link and a long distance from one to another) than in this sense : I confirm that I am Protochronist...
Marius