Re: Schöffe I

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@...> wrote:

>
> >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-
>
> What fits in other languages, is' mir schnuppe.

Yes, apparently, since you're not a linguist. I can't ignore those facts.

> I was talking
> of what -e$ti is in Romanian, namely the plural of -esc. And
> this -esc is related to -isc- (-isk-; and to -isch, -ish).
>
> This is so because of a common Romanian phonetic occurrence:
> -sc- followed by either [e] or [i] tends to become [St(e/i)].
> E.g. musca > plur. mu$te, basca > bä$ti, gâsca > gâ$te,
> casca > cä$ti, mascä > mä$ti, firesc (adj.) > fire$te (adv.).
>
> This occurs in verbs of the -ire & -rîre (fourth) category,
> indicative, as follows:
>
> (A) "I <verb>esc" & "they <verb>esc" versus "you <verb>e$ti" &
> "he/she/it <verb>e$te";
>
> (B) "I <verb>räsc" & "they <verb>räsc" versus "you <verb>ä$ti"
> & "he/she/it <verb>ä$te".
>
> The same way in names ending in -escu: Ionescu > Ione$ti,
> Popescu > Pope$ti, i.e. the idea of plurality/community/group.

I know.

> It also applies to the inherited word for "Slav(ic)": singular
> schiau [skjau] or $chiau, plural $chei [Skej] or $tei [Stej].
> (The Romanian word slav is a modern loanword.)

And that word, we established, was probably a substrate word.

> >I propose that the Romanian language originated there
>
> Not in the 1st century B.C., but a few centuries (4-5 centuries!)
> later on, after certain waves of transformations of the Latin
> language *had time* to come into existence. Note that AD 400 or
> AD 500 there were no neo-Romance languages such as Proto-Italian,
> Proto-French, Proto-Spanish ... Proto-Romanian. You have to add
> further 2-4 centuries after the disappearance of the western
> Roman Empire.

I propose that the Romanian language originated in the mid-first century BCE among various Thracian tribes with the peak of Roman procurement of Dacian slaves. If you know of any reason why this couldn't have happened, say so or keep quiet.

>
> >Apparently it's long enough for you to complain that I made
> >Romanian that older, or had you already forgotten that?
>
> It cannot be older because of obvious chronologic reasons,
> i.e. linguistic reasons: Romance and Romanized populations
> were not in the situation to be able to develop new Romance
> idioms prior to specific transformations of Latin, and prior
> to the evolving of the appropriate conditions for the process
> called "Romanization".

But those 'specific transformations' are dated only relatively, ie. in the sequence of the development of Latin into Romance languages, not absolutely, which means they can't be used to date stages in that development. Trying to do that is a circularity.

> Actually, it's the same problem as in the case of the evolving
> of Deutsch out of Germanic dialects: the 1st c. BC is too early.
> Some kind of Proto-Deutsch was there in the Carolingian epoch
> (old high German), but not 7-8 centuries earlier

As usual, you give no reasons why it *must* be so, so I'll ignore that. I'll repeat:

I propose that West Germanic in the 2nd century BCE split into two languages:

1) Proto-English/Low German/Frisian spoken by the Sciri/Cimbri in the Przeworsk culture, and

2) Proto-Hochdeutsch spoken by the Bastarnians in the Poieneşti/Lukaševka culture

and that the Bastarnians were driven back into the Przeworsk culture by Burebista in the early half of the 1st century BCE, in which they took over as a new upper class and from where they spread into the Jastorf culture and expanded into present-day Swabia and Bavaria.

If you know of any reason why this couldn't have happened, say so or keep quiet.

> (when "your"
> Bastarnians must have spoken a "German" as remote as is your
> Danish to Wienerwald or to Graubünden German).

'My' Bastarnae would have spoken a language which was the ancestor of the languages you love so much. Bugs you, doesn't it?

> >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.
>
> Your proposal has nothing to do with any of the elements that
> are relevant for any theory concerning the transformation of
> certain regional types of Latin into both of the south-east
> European neo-Romance languages: Dalmatian (Vegliot) and Romanian
> (with its 4 dialects, and one extinct, that was spoken in Croatia,
> the one of a population called Morlacs < Maurovlachs).

Are you trying to say that my proposal can't explain that?

> On top of that, a considerable population of colonists from all
> over the Empire took part in the process of the Romanization of
> the relevant SE European regions for centuries (most of them
> military veterans; NB: in Romanian, "old man" is expressed by
> a derivation of veteran: bätrân. The word vechi (fem. veche) is
> semantically restricted and can't be interchanged with bätrân/ä
> except for certain few situations).

I know. Irrelevant.

> >we don't have to assume any close genetic relationship between
> >Slavic and Dacian / Thracian.
>
> But the linguistic rests are there, they've been studied for
> 200 years now, and show that Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian, Phrygian,
> Scythian (Iranian) belonged to the satem family.

I said:
'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.'
You deleted the premise of that, which means that what you quoted is no what I said, so I won't comment on it.

>
> >>(E.g. Berzobis > Bârzava, Dierna & Lerna > Černa in Banat.)
> >
> >d- and l- -> č. Interesting.
>
> In the same area, in two Romanian subdialects, -de- and -di-
> are usually pronounced dže, dži. (But this is only a coincidence.)
>
> >'This situation would have been intolerable to the then free
> >Dacians, thus Burebista on the advice
>
> This is not true. This is only a mental/cultual projection of
> somebody educated after the Renaissance and Enlightenment. I.e.,
> somebody interpreting nationality and nationalism from today's
> point of view. To those people in ancient times all these notions
> were different. "Free Dacians" did not meant a Abraham Lincoln-like
> policy; it meant "not occupied by a foreign power"; as far as
> the social stratum "slaves" was concerned, slavery was alive and
> kicking, and you bet that Burebista would have been happy to
> garner additional ounces of gold from selling slaves to whomever.

Nobody wants to be a slave, they don't need an Abe Lincoln to tell them that. Going to war against your neighbor and enslaving him was also the option favored over merely selling a slow trickle of domestic criminals among 18th century African Burebistas. You may call it job security for tyrants. I'm not presupposing any French-Revolution type concept of 'freedom' as a motive for Burebista, as you seem to think I do. Greed would suffice. Not that one excludes the other.

> >instigation of Decaeneus in order to get a supply of slaves
> >to sell to the Romans, with his Getae / Dacians
>
> During Decaeneus's time, Dacians were also
> free as they were under Burebista. And they sold
> slaves. So, what's the reason to still use "free Dacians"
> in an unappropriate context?

I said 'the *then* free Dacians', which you don't seem to have noticed.

> The term "free Dacians" is
> warranted only after the last Trajan's war (105-106),
> when Dacia consisted of a territory that became a Roman
> province and of a territory where no foreign power subjugated
> the Dacians there (hence "free").

The *then* free Dacians. Hello?

> >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?
>
> These two aspects of history have nothing to do with the
> topic (namely with the Romanization of some populations
> living between the Adriatic Sea, the Aegean Sea and the
> Black Sea. And they happened centuries before the time
> spans relevant for "forgetting" the substrate languages
> and replacing it with variants of Latina Vulgata, that
> in time turned Proto-Romanian and Proto-Dalmatian, and
> to a certain extent to... Proto-Albanian).

Well I think it does. If you have reasons why can't have been, say so, otherwise keep quiet.

>
> >>>(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.
>
> Yes. But also, without them, there was whole lotta native
> population over there. Moreover, from among the autochtonous
> populations there some people even made spectacular careers
> becoming great generals, politicians, even "caesars".
>
> >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
>
> This is only an assumption. In fact, nobody knows exactly
> what kind of an idiom is Albanian (which is also a result
> of some kind of Romanization, that "freezed" before reaching
> certain stages).

This theory seems to me the most reasonable one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Albanian#.28Old.29_Albanian
That would make Albanian a direct descendant of Daco-Moesian

> OTOH, up to the end of the medieval epoch, way into the
> 18th-19th century, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Greece had
> a Romanian population that was almost as numerous as the
> one North of the Danube! Only that of this reality very
> few know something: outside of Romania because the neighbor
> nations's political agendas don't deem this as worth
> mentioning (quite the contrary), and in Romania itself there
> has been no interest because it'd undermine Romania's
> official ideological interpretation, namely that of the
> "continuity", which is contested by its neighbors, esp.
> by Hungarians and Ukrainians. But, for example, Turkey's
> medieval Ottoman archives are fulla data concerning the
> Romanians of the Balkans, and some scholars have studied
> parts of them (but rather... exiled ones).
>
> South-Danube Romanians have assimilated into those nations,
> and partook in all major nation-building events there, for
> the benefit of Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, Croatian and
> Albanian nations. That's what usually happens when a
> nation can't/is hindered (for various reasons) to build
> its own form of a state or another; Northern Romanians
> managed that, Southern Romanians didn't - although, ironically,
> it was the Southerners that built the first own state
> organizations, in the 10th and 12th centuries.
>

Interesting.

> >whereas given the political facts on the ground two
> >millenia ago we should expect the opposite situation.
>
> No, we shouldn't expect anything. The ethnogenesis and
> the numerous changes and Umwälzungen were far too
> complicated and over long period of times that the
> minor aspects (which occurred centuries earlier) really
> have nothing to do with that.

Did you actually say anything there?

> Just take into consideration that for 2-3 centuries,
> in all areas which today are called Albania, Croatia,
> Serbia, Bulgaria everybody spoke popular Latin (and
> educated people Greek as well), and some Gothic and
> Gepidic; and some Hunnic. The substrate languages
> virtually vanished, Slavic + Prototurkic + Alanian
> Iranian hadn't yed arrived there.
>
> After the Roman provinces were distroyed by invasions,
> among which the first important one was the Avar-Slavic,
> the Romance-language speaking population *decayed* and
> took refuge or was chased away. Sources tell us that
> the great Avar kagan Bayan displaced 100-200 thousand
> Vulgata-speaking population from the NW of the Peninsula
> to other areas to the East or North-East. (To begin with!)

Interesting, but not relevant here.



Torsten