Re: Schöffe I

> >The oldest toponymic formations in -eşti cover almost the same area
>
> -eshti is the mere plural of -esc, which is an almost 100%
> equivalent of -esque (e.g. picturesque, kafkaesque), and seems
> to be a continuation of -isk- (either from Latin, or from another
> PIE "substrate"). Hence the antroponymic suffix -escu (masculine;
> its feminine counterpart is -easca), which plays the role of
> -son, -sen, Mac, -ov, -ev & the like in other languages. The
> toponymic -e$ti is a further semantic development. Albanian has
> a parallel occurrence -isht; so that Bucure$ti has a counterpart
> in Albania, called Bukurisht. (Not to be mixed up with the slavic
> -i$te, which is something else.)
>

...

> (And even free "barbarians" such as Costobocae,
> Carpi also took refuge in the Roman empire because of the
> waves of newcomers from "Russia"...)
>

...

>
> >Hans Kuhn sees -st as a typical NWBlock, thus also Venetic, suffix.
>
> -e$ti has nothing to do with it (at least directly).

Don't be too sure. It appears in Trieste < Tergeste, which is close, and further contains the Scandiavian (torg), Slavic (trg), Romanian (tîrg) and Finnic (turku) word for "market". Let's call it Venetic. But it would be intriguing if that -st- came from a palatalized plural of a Venetic -sk-, and was also reflected in Slavic -šč-

> >cf the finds of hoards of real and fake Roman coins there
>
> That was a "custom". Populations there had done it earlier
> as well, imitating Greek coins (esp. those in the colonies
> at the Black Sea).

You can blow this fact away like that.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66827
Theses hoards stand out from everything else in the area by their quantity.
'We are faced then with a massive penetration of the lower Danube basin by Republican denarii probably beginning towards the middle of the first century B.C. and continuing on a considerable scale to the end of the Republic and beyond. A phenomenon so anomalous and so unique can hardly be explained in terms of general trading activity, the existence of which between the lower Danube basin and the Mediterranean world is of course not to be denied.'

> >Those collaborating Thracians
>
> There is no need to think of "collaboration":

Nonsense, of course there is.

> all those populations hat... slaves, and thus took part in the
> commercial exchanges pertaining to the ... slave markets.
> Slave sales and procurements didn't occur only in the
> aftermath of wars (prisoners).

If we had been discussing slave procurement in 19th century Africa we would have to discuss which ethnic groups / tribes / nations did the 'procurement' and from which it was done, as well as the methods (own criminals, other peoples as POWs) used, That applies here too, mutatis mutandis.

> >would have communicated with the Romans in a
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin
> >Latin which then became a
>
> Latin was in those (many!) centuries what is English today.
> And *within* the Roman Empire of course did everybody speak
> at least subdialects/sociolects of "latina vulgata".

Of course. That's why I provided the link for your benefit.

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_language
> >and that language was Old Romanian.
>
> Romanian had the fate of any of the rest of the Romance
> languages. French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Rumansch-
> Grischun etc. are based on the same kind of "Pidgin Latin",
> i.e. on simplifications, lexical & semantic transformations,
> innovations as well as on massive borrowing of foreign
> vocabulary (Germanic in the West, Slavic in the East).

OK, I see you read the Wikipedia article.

> >We are talking mid - 1st century BCE here
>
> In that century, not even the first group to have been
> Romanized, the Illyrians, were Romanized linguistically,
> let alone the entire Thracoid mass of peoples (among which
> the so-called Dacians, Getae, Moessi were dialects speaking
> groups, perhaps forming sort of a linguistic "continuum" to
> the East, to the Scythian and Baltic populations, and to
> Phrygians in Anatolia).

We don't know. That includes you, believe it or not. I propose that the Romanian language originated there, with that trade, in that century. If you know of some reason why this could not have been so, don't hesitate to tell me.

> >thus long before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan
>
> 100-150 years isn't long.

Apparently it's long enough for you to complain that I made Romanian that older, or had you already forgotten that?

> >1) some of the evidence used by some Romanian linguist to
> >prove that Old Romanian / Dacian was a language closely
> >related to Latin
>
> This is sort of an "urban legend" (propagated esp. by a man
> called Nicolae Densusianu over 100 years ago). Those substrate
> dialects/languages spoken in South-East Europe in the vicinity
> of the Roman Empire and of Greece weren't closer to them than
> were Balto-Slavic, Scytho-Iranian and Armenian. One of the
> best witneys was the renowned poet Publius Ovidius Naso, who
> was exiled for many years among Getae, in a port at the Black
> Sea. He learnt their language, even wrote in that language, but
> unfortunately everything got lost. Yet his account that the
> language was "coarse" and difficult has been preserved. If
> it had been so close to Latin (sort of a "Proto-Latin" idiom),
> methinks Ovidius would have jubilated. And many other Latin
> scholars and writers would have written about the linguistic
> kinship.

Intersting, but irrelevant to my point, namely that my proposal can account for at least one of the facts those guys use as evidence for their theory.

> > 3) the fact that Romanians didn't Slavicize in the 6th and 7th
> > century like everyone else (except the Albanians)
>
> What is that "like everyone else"? Greek didn't Slavicize either.

Yes, true.

> For a quite long time, the Avar and Bulgar-Onogur "upper crust"
> didn't Slavicize either. (Some Thracian even spoke their idiom
> as late as in the 6th or 7th century - at least according to
> some Christian, monasterial, sources.)
>
> >in the Balkans (since they could not identify with the
> >Slav / slave cause)
>
> Keep in mind that, linguistically, the peoples of the "substrate"
> (chiefly of the Thracian kind) were much closer to Protoslavs
> as well to their Scythian (Alan) "Genossen" with whom they had
> built "Verbände" of immigrants. Some toponyms and hydronyms
> sound so much "Slavic" that, weren't Ptolemy's Geographia, one
> would've concluded forever that those names had been Protoslavic.

If the Slavic languages arrived in the Balkans (-> South Slavic) with Ariovistus' Charudes / Croats, those names might actually be Slavic, which means we don't have to assume any close genetic relationship between Slavic and Dacian / Thracian.

> (E.g. Berzobis > Bârzava, Dierna & Lerna > Černa in Banat.)

d- and l- -> č. Interesting.

> > This situation would have been intolerable to the then free
> > Dacians, thus
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burebista
>
> The phrase "free Dacian" is to be used only in the contest of
> later time periods, namely when some territories north of the
> Danube were Roman provinces (Banat, Transylvania, Oltenia),
> after Trajan's conquest (betw. 106-271). When Dacian living
> outside those provinces were ... free and some times dealt with
> invasions of those provinces. After Burebista's death, until
> Trajan's conquest, there's a time gap of roughly 150 years. In
> that time, all Dacians were free (except for those regions
> inhabited by Dacians South of the Danube that were already
> included in the Roman state territory).

Yes, yes, everybody knows that, and we already discussed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Dacians
And that's why I wrote 'the *then* free Dacians'.

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decaeneus
> >in order to get a supply of slaves to sell to the Romans
>
> So, you see, peoples in those ancient times had no problem
> selling their own slaves to others ("international markets").

The problem with your answers to other people's postings is that you comment one line at the time with whatever suits your fancy without reading the whole text and getting an idea of what the man said. Eg. here. The original text was:

'This situation would have been intolerable to the then free Dacians, thus Burebista on the advice / instigation of Decaeneus in order to get a supply of slaves to sell to the Romans, with his Getae / Dacians attacked the Northern Bastarnae ie, the Atmoni and Sidones'

The fact is that he did attack them. That is a fact that needs an explanation. So does the fact that a large part (at least 35,000 plus another 35,000) of Spartacus' slave army were Germani. What do you have to offer to explain that? What is the fact your 'you see' refers to?

> >(and these Dacians, whose language, Dacian, was similar to
> >Thracian, later, having fled south of the River, became the
> >Albanians).
>
> No need for them to be from northern Dacian areas: in the
> southern territories (in Dardania, the 2 Moesias,
> the 2 southern Dacias etc.) there were enough Dacians.

'(And even free "barbarians" such as Costobocae, Carpi also took refuge in the Roman empire because of the waves of newcomers from "Russia"...)'

Your own words.

> On top of that, the rest of the territories (called by
> the Greek Thracia) also could provide such a population.
> But of course, due to the Germanic and Hunic invasions,
> various groups of Thracoid, Carpoid, Costobocoid
> populations moved into the remnant Roman empire. Later on,
> even contingents of "Huns" (e.g. Huni fossatisi), Gepids
> et al. "Barbarians" moved thither (even in Italy proper,
> where traces can be seen in some kind of domestic animals,
> such as the Maremmana shepherd dogs and long-horned cattle
> /"Podolia cattle"/ etc.).

The situation today is that we have a people with a almost completely Romanized language living *north* of a people speaking a descendant of that language, whereas given the political facts on the ground two millenia ago we should expect the opposite situation. Seems to me someone is avoiding someone.



Torsten