Talk:Dacian language
|
|
veveriţă=squirrel
- FWIW, vjeverica is squirrel in Croatian, so this sounds like an Illyrian word or something. --Shallot 11:44, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- squirrel in Czech is veverka, so I'd say that this is more likely to be Slavic
- Confirmed, veveriţă/vjeverica/veverka seems to be common to a number of western Slavic languages. The Russian word is белка, which also appears to be cognate, lending support to the idea of a Slavic, not Dacian, origin for the word. --Vorlon 23:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The suffixes '-itsa', '-ica' don't prove the Slavic origin at all: those are not just Slavic suffixes: -ica is well-known in Latin, and -itza is attested in Thracian...Decius 08:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This word veveriţa in itself is no big deal, but that one word is not the point. Decius 02:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
vatră=hearth
- FWIW, vatra is fire in Croatian. Neeeeext :) --Joy [shallot] 10:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, but is it of Slavic origin ? Can it be found in Russian, Polish, Czech or Old Slavonic ? It could be borrowed a substrate word.
- I know that Romanian and Bulgarian have a few hundreds of words which cannot be found in other language (Romance or Slavic). The Romanian etymologists say they were borrowed from Bulgarian and the Bulgarians that they were borrowed from Romanian (the same, but on a smaller scale with Hungarian). :-) Bogdan | Talk 18:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It seems that it is can be found only in Slavic languages (Serbo-croatian, Bulgarian, carpathian dialect of Ukrainian) that were close to other Balkan languages.
- [1] (http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/b_lang/bl_double.html) - Some Bulgarian linguist believes it is a "Bulgar" word, but it seems to be just a speculation. Bogdan | Talk 18:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Found in some Slavic languages doesn't mean it's from Slavic
If a Romanian word is found in one or more Slavic languages, that doesn't mean that the word is from Slavic: the word must first be proven to be native to Slavic: it must follow the sound-evolution from a Proto-Indo-European root to Slavic: not just sound and morphology, the meaning-development from a given root must also make sense: the more stretched a derivation, the more probable that you're looking at the wrong root. The actual situation is that many "Slavic" words (I mean Slavic words in general, not just the ones common with Romanian) have not been definitely traced to PIE roots, so it cannot quite be said that they are Slavic originally. For instance, you cannot say that 'vatra' is a "Slavic" word, because this has not been demonstrated (all linguistic references I've seen consider 'vatra' to be native to Romanian and/or Albanian: vater).Decius 05:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I did not say that this was necessarily so, I merely pointed it out as a possible false positive, like that other word before it. You don't need to get all defensive after a comment that was rather obviously benevolent. --Joy [shallot] 21:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Defensive might be the word---I prefer the word Offensive. Decius 02:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so no eggs will be thrown in anybody's face then. Decius 21:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So, again, huh? :) --Joy [shallot] 00:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Suta
Many linguists have said that Suta is definitely from Daco-Thracian, and I have seen at least one linguist state that the Old Slavonic and thus the Slavic words were literally picked up from Romanian (and this shows that it is indeed possible even for a "pan-slavic/old slavonic" word to be a word that the Slavs borrowed, as I've said many times before). Now, this might be true. The truth might be inbetween: the Old Dacian word may have had a hard 'k' sound in place of the 's' (as in Latin centum (>kentum), Greek katon). Over time, it became an 's' sound (see Spanish centavos (>sentavos) which developed from Latin centum (>kentum). The change may well have occured relatively late in Dacian---or in Daco-Romanian. Suta is not quite solid evidence of the Dacian "was Satem" belief. Decius 07:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Centum sound is known to be older than the Satem sound in *kmtom, so at some point in time the 'k' sound changed to 's' as Dacian branched off from PIE. Nobody knows when this sound-change happened in Dacian. It could have occured in late Dacian, or even in post-Roman times. Decius 06:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Common words and cognates
Many (perhaps most) of the Albanian words can be considered cognates to the Romanian words: Ro. brâu, Alb. mbrenj, both from a *bhren root, from which also came Greek phren. But a number may be words that proto-Albanians borrowed from Daco-Thracians (or vice versa). My agenda is not some insidious agenda, it is motivated by the likelihood that the Dacian language was not a proto-Albanian language, leaving aside the Italic-related question: it doesn't look very close to Albanian, not even to Baltic. Decius
- Baltic languages are very conservative and therefore very close to what used to be proto-Satem. Dacian was too probably rather close to proto-Satem. Albanian however, had relatively many linguistic changes, as can be seen on the evolution of the Latin words.
- Anyway, according to the linguists the most likely tree is something like this:
2500 BC 1000 BC 1 AD 300 AD 1500 AD
-> *(proto-Satem)---> (proto-Daco-Albanian)-\--> (Dacian dialect) --> (Daco-Romanian) --> Romanian
| |--> (another Dac. dialect) --> --> Albanian
---> (proto-Baltic) -\---> (proto-Latvian) --> --> Latvian
|--> (proto-Lithuanian) --> --> Lithuanian
- Also, please note that the Dacian dialect which gave the words to Romanian was not the same as proto-Albanian (see: dh <-> z corespondence), but they were close, probably mutually comprehensible. Bogdan | Talk 20:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In the name of accuracy, I will put "cognates and common words". Decius 20:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If Rosetti or whoever the hell thought Dacian was proto-Albanian wants to convince people, let them translate these toponyms for me, in proto-Albanian: List of Dacian cities. Page me when they do. Decius 20:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Albanian-Dacian theory is doing more damage than good, because it's false. And in case somebody thinks that the prevalent view in the scientific community is that Dacian was proto-Albanian, you're wrong, because there is no consensus, and in fact I was wrong when I said earlier that the "Baltic" idea is more accepted, because that's not the case either: there are so many conflicting views one cannot gauge which is "favored' now as of 2005. Yet a major and justified criticism against the Dacian-Albanian theory is that it is hardly supported by Dacian names and words. Decius 20:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fact: Dacian names and toponyms have not at all been convincingly linked to "Albanian". Decius 20:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That tree presents the view of one school, other linguists have different trees. Decius 21:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
From my fully automatic clip, here is one bullet: Zaldapa has been almost unanimously translated by Thracologists as 'Golden Water' or 'Golden River': neither 'zald' (golden) exists in Albanian, nor 'apa' (water, river). Examples such as this show that the idea that Albanian is "a Dacian dialect" is a fiasco, and a waste of time. Decius 21:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Using Olteanu's theory of an early centum period, it can be stated: 2500 bc, Daco-Thracian was a Centum language group, on a different branch from the Albanian branch, the Baltic branch, or Slavic branch. By 100 AD, partial satemization had developed, especially in Thracian. Contact with proto-Albanians since before the Bronze Age led to words and language-elements being exchanged. Later, more exchange went on as Daco-Romanians exchanged with early Albanians. Dacian names and toponyms do not contradict this scenario, but the Dacian-Albanian idea is contradicted by the Dacian corpus. Decius 23:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
About those sound-changes you mention---another theory, also proposed by Linguists (of another school), is that Daco-Thracian 'z' and 'r' became 'dh' and 'll' or 'l' in Albanian when Albanians borrowed the words, not as they inherited them from PIE roots (and this applies to other sound-changes), so don't present only one unproven assumption proposed by one school. One example is Daco-Thracian 'zara' >Albanian 'dhallë'. Romanian 'zara' and 'zer' are surely from *ser, despite what anyone might say (see Latin serum. "whey", Lithuanian sirus, "cheese"), and Albanian 'dhallë' cannot have developed from *ser, so it's borrowed from Daco-Thracians. This will become clear as the PIE roots from which the words actually came are discovered. Decius 23:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The roots for most of these words were unknown (abur, broasca, magura, mazare, vatra, etc. etc.), so Rosetti or whoever made that statement about the words following sound-changes from PIE to Albanian was either: 1) Generalizing, extrapolating from one or two examples; 2) was deceptive; 3) was an idiot. Or perhaps all three. How can anyone say that the words follow sound-changes when the roots are unknown? That is not science. Decius 00:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't even need to be said that for the words that are pre-Indo-European, the argument doesn't apply at all. Decius 00:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let's do some mathematics: I forgot the actual number, but let's say there are 125 Romanian-Albanian correspondances; let's be conservative and say only 40 are pre-IE, so they don't apply, and that leaves 85, if I remember my arithmetic (I'm not the best of mathematicians); from those 85, I'll say 30 were borrowed by Albanians from Daco-Thracians; 10 borrowed by Daco-Thracians from proto-Albanians; 10 originate from a third, fourth, fifth, etc., extraneous group or groups(take your pick; a likely example being 'ceafa', found also in Albanian and Arabic) that influenced both languages; that leaves 35 that are inherited from Proto-Indo-European simultaneously by both groups (>cognates), in this scenario, and there are much more words that are inherited and very close in meaning and form between Latin and Greek, so there is no grounds to place Dacian and proto-Albanian on the same branch, even if you multiply my 35 to 50 (though there is no evidence that the number is anywhere near so high). And don't forget the many substratum words that don't have Albanian cognates, and also leave room in the equation for words that have been misidentified as Latin, Slavic, Hungarian, Turkish, etc., that are in fact substratum, Daco-Thracian. Decius 00:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dacian toponyms
I don't have the works of the 'satemists' at hand, so I'm wondering if somebody has a list of the Dacian toponyms north of the Danube river that suggest a satem language. Also, beyond toponyms, of Dacian names, et cetera, that suggest satemization (besides "zamolxis", which is not at all a good example). Decius 12:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wrote "Some Dacian names are cited as evidence"---I need a number (and the examples that make up that number), or at least an approximation, and as soon as I get it, I will be very specific. I'm tired of dealing with vague generalities that suggest that there is "something there" when there is nothing or almost nothing there. Decius 13:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"The many cognates and common words between Romanian and Albanian"---I need numbers, with references. A figure that I remember was about 145, unless I or the reference was mistaken. Decius 13:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Last Dacians of Moldavia
According to archaeological work cited by Ralph Hoddinott, the last Dacians held out in the territory corresponding pretty much exactly to what is now Moldavia into the 4th century ad (300-400 ad) at least, but beyond that "dating depends on how far the Carpic culture can be considered a seperate entity after the Gothic arrival". Here again, speaking of the last archaeological layers "whether there is any overall ethnic basis for the horizon or whether it represents a varying amalgam of invaders and a North Thracian (by this he means Dacian as elsewhere in his book) or other substratum, all "barbarians" but in different ways reflecting the influence of the Roman world, it is generally agreed that, at least west of the Dneister (=Moldavia), a Thracian element remained to makes it contribution." Decius 04:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Copy edit question -- the following is from the first sentence of the article:
- and it is a source of dispute about its origin and characteristics
What is a source of dispute about the origins and characteristics of what? This is sufficiently unclear that I have no idea how to clarify it.... 24.215.177.116 02:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're right about that needing clarification, and I think I've clarified it. About the substratum: the substrata principally refers to those over 300 words that are possibily from Dacian, yet can also refer to definitive articles (though those may well be from Latin), suffixes, et cetera, that are often considered to be from Dacian. Decius 02:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, you helped me notice an old typo in the article that dates back to Dec 1st 2003, when the article was started by a contributor. Amazing no one noticed it till I noticed it today (see history). Decius 03:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh - wow. Surprised I didn't notice that either.... 24.215.177.116 03:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Albs
Now, since Albanians have Romance words that are clearly borrowed from Romanian, they obviously came back into contact with Romanians after the "initial disruption" (unless I'm wrong, if so please explain). Now, it would be possible that when they "came back" into contact, Albanians borrowed some non-Romance words along with Romance. It can't be just assumed that they already had all the words, and I need to see Rosseti's (or whoever's) arguments in detail: I doubt he totally ruled out any such Albanian non-Romance borrowings from Romanian after the Roman conquest. Decius 15:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's true that most of the cognate words cannot have been later borrowings: Ro. mazare<-->Alb. modhullë is impossible either way, and there are many more such examples. Decius 15:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, I know of no non-Romance example where it can be definitely said that Albanians borrowed or that Romanians borrowed. Decius 15:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Further up on this Talk Page, one can see that I was of the opinion that Albanians borrowed a number of the non-Romance words from Romanian: this was based partly on some things that Paliga said in his file about Romanian r's being older than Albanian l's etc. in such words as magura (Alb. magula), and so on. He was implying either that Albanians changed the sound on their own native word (r>l), or it changed after it was borrowed from Daco-Thracian or Romanian. Yet I'm starting to agree that later non-Romance borrowings (in either direction, Ro. <--> Alb.) are beginning to look unlikely in all but maybe a few cases. Decius 15:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm considering that proto-Albanians borrowed many of the words from Daco-Thracians, a scenario that is not contradicted and in fact solves many of the problems. This view is supportable because many of the PIE roots are unknown, so they cannot be proven to be native to proto-Albanian. So that's my policy. Decius 15:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And since contact between proto-Albanians and Romanians' substratum language were disrupted before Roman conquest, that implies (to me) that the idea that early Albanians migrated from Dacia after the conquest is very unlikely. Early Albanians were probably already south of the Danube (in Moesia or lower Pannonia or Dardania or Paionia) while the Romanian substrate language-speakers were in Dacia. Decius 16:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For more on this debate, see Origin of Albanians. Decius 17:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Theories
And please note: I have a roll-call of linguistic references that I can bring out against the Dacian-Albanian-on-the-same-branch theory, so don't insinuate it as if it is a proven theory or even a consensus theory. For example, Sorin Olteanu separates Daco-Thracian from Albanian by the fact that he classifies Daco-Thracian with Greco-Macedonian, apparently. Decius 17:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)