Talk:Origin of Romanians/Archive1

I added as arguments against migration from south the mention of Walachians in Nestor Chronicles In 6406 (898) Magyars, who fought against Slavs and Walachians, marched past Kyiv on the hill, which nowdays is called Hungarian Hill. Chronicles by Venerable Nestor (1056 - 1136 AD)link

As far as I know, Gesta Hungarorum has been proven to be quite unreliable on many points. 'Anonymus' (as the author is referred to) often just made up things to fill the gaps in his story. This may or may not be the case as regards his account of Vlachs in Transylvania. Still, the overall unreliability of GH is important to bear in mind when weighing this argument, so maybe we should include a note on it.--Tamas 17:45, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Dacian toponyms were kept (names of rivers: Samus - Somes, Marisia - Mures, Porata - Prut, etc; names of cities: Petrodava - Piatra Neamt, Varadia - Oradea)

This argument is very-very shaky. For example, it states that the Dacian name of the river 'Marisia' was Mures. The river is indeed called Mures is present-day Romanian, but this does not mean it was called so in Dacian. In other words, this is a circular reference.

Hate to rain on this guy's hungarian parade, but Herodotus specifically mentions this river as having the name Maris, alternatively Maros. Cf. Herodotus, History, Book IV, paragraph 49. See also a map of region showing only ancient hydronyms. Whether or not the river was named Maris/Maros/Mures by DACIANS specifically is another matter---even irrelevant to the point---what's important is that the river was so named in Herodotus' TIME, & is still basically named so. The name of the river goes back before Herodotus, of course. It is not a Roman name. No reason to suppose it was a Greek name---though Greeks may have modified it, as you see from the different spellings---Greeks hardly ventured so deep inland. It is also unlikely that the name was Scythian---the Scythians per se were not living near the Maris river---the Agathyrsi were living there. No one is sure whether the Agathyrsi were early Dacians or not, but most scholars consider them Thracian (as were Dacians). Also, Valerius Flaccus in his Argonautica (vi.135) calls the Agathyrsi the Thyrsagetae. Agathysri may have been the tribal name of some early Dacian tribes. No one knows who named the river Maris, but it may well have been named by these proto-Dacians. The Porata river is also mentioned by Herodotus in the same book IV, paragraph 48. Porata is specfically stated to be the Scythian name for the river, or the Scythian version of the name. The Greek colonists called it Pyretus. Aluta (Olt river)is also mentioned in ancient sources, as is Crisia (Crisa),Tisia (Tizsa), & many others. (Decius)

Varadia - Oradea is even more ludicrous: there was no Roman settlement called Varadia. Varadia is the latinized version of Hungarian Várad, invented by medieval scribes, chroniclers etc writing in Latin. The name Oradea, in turn, derives from Várad. (The vá->o change is pretty regular in loanwords from Hungarian, see város 'town' -> oras)

Therefore I think we should remove this argument as nonsensical. (It is so obviously weak that it weakens the case it is arguing for.) T

I'm afraid you misunderstood the argument. It's not important if the Dacian name of the river was Mures, Marisia, Murus, Amorie, Mory or whatever (I'm inventing examples). I guess it was Bogdan who added that argument and he just gave Latin and Romanian names together, so the second name is not really meant to be a Dacian name. What is important in this argument is the statement that the name of the river is of Dacian origin (which may be true or false, but that is another question). Boraczek 10:02, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still don't get it. An example: the Hungarian name of Marisia(Lat)-Mures(Rom) is Maros. Similarly: Samus(Lat)-Somes(Rom)-Szamos(Hung). If we accept the argument to be valid, we could as well say these names are of Hungarian origin. Or we could say they are of Slavic origin, and the Latin, Hungarian, Romanian forms derive from the original Slavic forms. Another example: the Latin name of Köln (Cologne) in Germany was Colonium. Does this mean the name of the town is of Germanic origin? No, it probably means that the Germanic tribes adopted the original Latin name. Mures, Somes etc can be such adoptions as well (maybe from Hungarian, maybe from Slavic, or Latin whatever) The point is: nothing in this argument proves that these names are of Dacian origin. They may be, I don't know, but this argument doesn't make much sense. Ceterum censeo: it should be removed. T

Yes, the article doesn't substantiate the statement that those toponyms are of Dacian origin. The argument is just "there are some Dacian toponyms", not "these toponyms must be of Dacian origin, because...". So I agree with you that in the article there's no prove that those names are of Dacian origin. The prove must emerge from some linguistic analyses we don't know. Maybe there's no real prove and the statement is wrong, I don't know. But if those names are of real Dacian origin, the argument is very important, because it shows that there's some kind of continuity between Dacians and the present inhabitants. So I think it should stay. What you pointed out is that it lacks some substantiation, maybe reference to some linguistic researches, and I concur with you here. Boraczek 16:13, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One final remark: still, listing the Latin names alongside their similar-sounding Romanian counterparts here may create the false impression in the reader that these names are of Dacian origin BECAUSE OF the apparent similarity. In other words, it suggests a false causal link. So my proposal is that we should only use the present-day Romanian names here. T

I think you're right, T. Boraczek 17:41, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We know that these toponyms were used by the Dacians/Getae because that's what Herodot, Strabo, etc said. They described the land of the Getae and they used the Greekified versions of the local names of the rivers.

Varadia is a medieval Latin name, it was my fault adding it. We can replace it with Timis/in ancient times Tibis (mentioned by Herodot). (From a linguistic POV: yes, there are other words in Romanian that changed "m"s in in "b"s, proving that it was the Hungarian that borrowed it from Romanian, not the other way around) Bogdan | Talk 18:49, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's nice :-) Could you please add a note that those Dacian toponyms are known to us because they were written down by ancient Greeks, in the article? I think it would strengthen the argument and make it clearer. I also think it would be clearer if there was information what language those toponyms are in. For example, is "Samus" an original Dacian toponym or a Dacian toponym in the form written by Greeks, or a Latinized Dacian name, or a present-day name? It's hard to figure it out. Boraczek 17:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK. Let's remove Varadia and leave the others. Still, I'm not sure this is a sound argument for continuity. It can be integrated into the migration theory as well: it is possible that the original Dacian/Getan names were picked up by Slavs, Avars, Hungarians or any other people whatsoever, and then from them by Romanians upon arrival. Such a thing has happened quite often in history. The Hungarian name for Danube (Duna) is pretty similar to Latin Danuvius, but this doesn't mean there was a continuous Hungarian settlement along the Danube since Roman times. The same goes for other rivers and peoples. T

I replaced Varadia with another city with Roman name, Abruttum (now Abrud, in Transylvania).

To put it in another way: if no toponyms were kept, this would be a strong argument against continuity; but the fact some (or even many) toponyms were kept does not prove continuity. The preservation of toponyms is a necessary condition of continuity, but not a sufficient one. T

I agree that if no toponyms were kept, this would be a strong argument against continuity (BTW this alone may be good reason to mention those toponyms in the "continuity" section). And I agree that Dacian toponyms don't prove that the Romanized Dacians survived the Dark Ages as a Romanic people and constituted the base for the formation of the Romanian nation. On the other hand, if the whole population of Dacia had been evacuated, as the "migrationers" are likely to think, then Slavs, Teutons, Hungarians etc. could not have picked up the local Dacian names, because they wouldn't have lived together with Dacians and got to know the names. As I said, I think this argument proves that there's some kind of continuity between Dacians and the present inhabitants. Boraczek 17:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that: the preservation of toponyms indicates clearly that Dacia was not completely evacuated. However, the main statement of 'migrationism' is that Romanians are not 'continuous' with Dacians. The evacuation story is strong ammunition for them, but the theory does not stand or fall on it. What if some Dacians remained after the Romans left, and then these Dacians were assimilated by Slavs, Teutons whoever, who picked up the Dacian names etc, and when Romanians arrived, they picked up those names form Slavs, Teutons, Hungarians etc. This too would be some kind of continuity indeed. However, Daco-Roman continuity implies ancestry as well (or at least that's how people usually use the term). The preservation of toponyms is indeed a very strong argument for 'weak' continuity (such as the Native American--Anglo-Saxon continuity in the US), but much less so for continuity=ancestry.

What if we added the following sentence to the original argument to state this point:

(It should be noted, however, that the preservation of toponyms only indicates continuous settlement, and not neccessarily continouos settlement by the same people.)

Or, maybe more logically, we could list this as a counterargument against complete evacuation. Either of these solutions could settle this matter correctly.--Tamas 20:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) --Tamas 21:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All right with me. Boraczek 22:01, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As no objections have been raised, I added the note.--Tamas 16:53, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bulgarian influence, not Serbian nor Greek

However this is easy to explain as historical and archeological sources indicate that southern part of Romania has been colonized by Slavic tribes speaking dialects close to Old Bulgarian (6th century).

I don't know how this explains that there is no Serbian nor Greek influence.Bogdan | Talk 09:12, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to rewrite all that argument, because it doesn't seem clear to me. Boraczek 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

According to me it is clear. According to "classical" migration theory motherland of Vlachs is present-day nothern Bulgaria, Macedonia and southern Serbia (at that times solely Bulgarian speaking). Besides collonization of Vlachia by "Bulgarian-like" Slavic tribes (6th century) is very well documented. There is also very well documented the fact that Vlachs mixed up themselve with local Slavic population of the territory later known as Vlachia (after 12th century), taking its social and political structure and (in some extend) local, Bulgarian-like language. To summarise: The "Bulgarian-like" language and cutural influence on Vlachs (and lack of "Serbian-like") can not be considered as argumenet against theory about "allochtonic" origins of Vlachs.Yeti 13:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of emotions regarding this subject. We have to take in consideration that for centuries in a row, there was a hard time in this region, with nomads raiding, natives migrating and natives hidding in forests or just obeying the new (temporary) rulers. I, for one, simply cannot imagine a large, fertile, teritory void of population for a long period of time. This isn't Sahara. -- MihaiC 31 may 2004

Nobody claim it to be a desert. Untill 3/4th centuries it was probably inhabited largely by Thracian-speaking people, and in some territories by Iranian people (western and southern part) and Germanic people (north), than in was collonized by masses of Germanic migrants from Ukraine (Goths, Gepides) than masses of Turkic migrants were added, and in 6th everything was covered by Slavic flood. Such development of situation is confirmed by historical as well as by archeological sources. There was no space for void. Unfortunatelly, claims of some (not all) Romanian historians about autochtonic origins of Vlachs do not meet with any proofs. The most probably theory is that modern Roamanians are descendants of Romanic-speaking migrants from present-day Bulgaria, Macedonia and southern Serbia who mixed themselves (largely already in presen-day Romania) with Slavic population and some Germanic, Turkic and possibly Dacian remnants. This theory explains almost everything: enormous influence of Slavic on Romanian language, Slavic territorial and social structure of early Romanians, close similarity between Romanian and Aromanian, and is supported by available historical sources. I know that this theory does not meet with Romanian historical myths (created in 19th century), but is just the most documented theory of Romanian origin. Yeti 16:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"The most documented theory". That's a misleading phrase, as if there is a comprehensive or even sizable body of documents. The truth is that there is a scarcity (not absence)of extant documents pertaining to Romanians/Vlachs north of the Danube till later times. Apparently first documented presence is south of the Danube, documents in question being Byzantine documents. It's obvious why Romanians south of Danube are thus mentioned first, being closer to Byzantine world. "Most probable theory" is a statement of opinion.(Decius)

Romanian is very different from Dalmatian, so they probably developed in distant regions. This suggests that Romanians could not have come from the western part of the Balkans (including Albania). - I think that this argument should be entirely removed as it definitelly is not argument against theory of migration from south, but barely from Dalmatia (nobody claims that Vlachs arrived from Dalmatia). It is just irrelevant. On the same basis Dalamiatian could be replaced by Italian.Yeti 17:58, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(however, the fact that Romanian is very different from Dalmatian is problematic, as supporters of Migration Theory place origins of Romanians not distant from Dalmatia, in Romanized provinces of Moesia & Thracia. I do not know any serious theory, which claim that Vlachs came from Dalmatia area. Dalmatian was spoken in northern Croatia and has nothing to do with claimed motherland of Vlachs.

1. If you don't know some theory, it doesn't mean that the theory doesn't exist. I've just checked my sources again to make sure I didn't confuse anything. I didn't. The migration theory I had occasion to get acquainted with claims that Romanians came to Romania from northern Albania and adjacent areas. I don't know if you consider that theory a "serious" theory, but I think it's good to write an argument against that theory anyway.
2. Thracia was not Romanized.
3. Moesia was not distant from Dalmatia. Moesia was adjacent to Dalmatia.
4. Dalmatian was not spoken in nothern Croatia. It was spoken in Ragusa, 100 km away from Albania and 250 km away from Macedonia.
5. Albania and northern Macedonia are situated south of the Danube and to the south of Romania.
6. The argument at hand is not an argument against the migration theory in general, but it's an argument against that version of migration theory which likes to see Romanians coming from western Balkans. I think it's clear. Boraczek 18:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

1. The mainstream of migration theory claim that Vlachs derive from modern Macedonia, Southern Serbia and Bulgaria rather than from Albania. Anyway, thats not the point. 2. Obviously Thracia was not romanized. We explained it before. I was not strict, sorry. 3. The fact that Dalmatia is close to Moesia in geographical sense means nothing. Dalmatia was not spoken in all over dalmatia of course but in small westernmost areas. You are right, that southern dialect of Dalmatian was spoken in Ragusa, but how can you claim that this area is adjacent to Moesia? Mayby we use different maps. Untill now I was sure that there is modern day Bosnia ans Serbia between? 4. I do not claim that Albania is not south of Danube :-))). 5. OK Yeti 11:13, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ad. 3. You wrote that the province of Moesia was distant from Dalmatia, so I corrected that. Of course, I don't claim that Ragusa was adjacent to former Moesia. I agree that the Dalmatian argument doesn't exclude Moesia. Boraczek 23:42, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The truth is no one today knows for sure the EXTENT to which Dalmatian was spoken in the province of Dalmatia. It may have been much more widespread than people such as Yeti (above) assume. The extent no doubt also fluctuated over time. IT IS RELEVANT that Moesia is adjacent to Dalmatia. It doesn't in itself demolish the migration theory, but it should be seriously taken into consideration. It also very relevant that Thrace was not Romanized. So, for the migrationists, that narrows down the area.(Decius)

I don't like the "pure blood" theories - Romanians are "just" Romans or "just" Dacians. IMO the "recipe" for Romanian people is like that : you merge Dacs with Romans (who were a mix themselves), add Slavs and some Goths, Gepides and Cumans for the taste :). Every nation is a mix after all. Migration theory says that ALL roman population left - I cannot agree with such a thing. MihaiC Jun 1st 2004

I don't know exactly how to integrate this info (earliest mentionings of "Vlachs"), but I think they would be relevant to this article:

• south of Danube: 976, Cedrenus, Byzantine
• north of Danube: 1070, Jan Dlugosz, Pole [1]

Bogdan | Talk 20:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Bogdan, the second date (1070) is wrong. As you wrote it yourself, Gesta Hungarorum mentions the presence of Vlachs north of the Danube in the 10th century. I've seen the page you gave a link to. It contains a lot of interesting information, but I noticed some obvious linguistical and historical mistakes in it, so I don't know if the remaining information is trustworthy. Boraczek 22:58, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Boraczek, it's OK to remove comments, but you should put them in an archive page.

Also, the article adds "Common words with Albanian" as an argument for migration from South of Romanians, but the truth may be the other way around. The Albanians could have migrated from Dacia to their current land. See the arguments of the Bulgarian linguist Georgiev [2] (the "Albanians and Rumanians" section). There's also a map of this theory here Bogdan | Talk 10:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll change the note to the argument, so as to encompass Georgiev's theory. Boraczek 14:39, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But many medieval sources indicate presence of Vlachs in areas south of the Danube.

Not that many. In fact, there was no reference until 976. There a few older that could be considered, but all of them are arguable. Bogdan | Talk 19:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Romanian grammar kept some Latin features (case system, neuter gender, etc) that cannot be found in any other Romance language (opponents claim that these may have been kept due to the Dacian or Slavonic grammar influence over the language).

Certain northern Iberian dialects (specifically Bable, AKA Asturian, if memory serves) have in fact retained neuter constructions into modern times, though to the best of my knowledge it is correct to say there are no other modern literary languages of Romance origin (to discount recent efforts to revive Bable) that share this feature. Vorlon 00:53 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*There are no traces of Teutonic influence in Romanian and we know that in the 5th and 6th century Dacia was inhabited by Teutonic tribes

what teutonic tribes inhabited Dacia in 5th and 6th centuries ?

Goths and Gepids. Boraczek 08:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, it seems that all the Visigoths evacuated Dacia after 377 (the late FOURTH century) after getting the permission of Valens to enter Roman territory. This applies only to Visigoths, as far as I know. Other germanics moved in later. This is important because these various germanic groups that moved in were not at all stable or continous in Dacia, & it takes a degree of stability & continuity to affect the language of one's neighbors. (Decius)

The Gepide kingdom in parts of Pannonia & Dacia was crushed in 567 by a collaboration of Avars & Longobards. The Longobards, though they temporarily settled in Pannonia (not Dacia), realized that they didn't want to live adjacent to Avars, so a year later in april of 568,the Longobards left Pannonia & headed towards Italy. As for the Avars, who seem to have been Turkic speakers, they settled mostly in Dacia. So, the Gepides also were in Dacia for only about a century.(Decius)

"There are no traces of Teutonic influence in Romanian"--this statement needs to be scrutinized. Are there no Old Germanic words in Romanian? A second & third look needs to be taken. Romanian etymology needs to be revised. I see many words that may in fact be derived from Old Germanic but have not been identified. Also, some words identified as "Slavic" may in fact be Old Germanic or native Dacian. For example, the Romanian word Sticla (glass)is said to derive from Slavic, but scholarship shows that the Slavs borrowed the word from Goths. It is a question whether Romanians got Sticla via Slavs or direct from Goths. There is another possibility.And there are more examples.(Decius)

Actually there a few words that entered some time in the language (probably 4-5th century) and have Slavic cognates -- AFAIK, they're still considered an enigma. It would be interesting to see whether there are any Gothic cognate. I should mention "stăpân" (master), "jupân" (sir), "vorbă" (talk). Bogdan | Talk 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the Romanian word "Vorba" is so close to Latin "Verbum"(= a word(n);to speak(v)) that there is no reason to derive it from anything other than Latin. Cf. also Latin "Vorax".(Decius)

Being close is not a proof in linguistics, it also has to match phonetically the sound changes. Since all these were indo-european languages, they're supposed to have cognates. For example, this word can also be found in Slavic: "dvorĭba". Was it from Latin or Slavic ? Bogdan | Talk 10:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm putting my money on Latin. In fact, let me be clear: this word & many others come down to us directly from Dacian Latin. It is not a case of foreigners mutating foreign words, like in other Romance languages. It's just that the Dacian branch of Latin inherited different forms than Roman Latin. In Dacian, it came down as "Vorba" not "verbum". By coincidence, (not an extreme coincidence)this form is reminiscent of a Slavic form, but that is a coincidence due to Indo-European affinities. There are, as you know, many cognates between classical Latin & the Slavic languages, as there are between all IE languages.I would venture that if a Dacian text fell into our hands, we would see a language that is clearly on the Latin branch, yet we would find words in Dacian Latin that are similar to Baltic or Slavic words, similarity not due to contact but due to IE. We may also someday discover that many Romanian words assumed to derive from Slavic in fact derive from Dacian. Because these words were later borrowed by Slavs, & because these words do not seem to have Roman Latin cognates, they have been assumed to derive from Slavic. Of course slavic influenced Romanian also, but to a much lesser degree than is generally thought.(Decius)

What many proponents of "complete" Daco-Roman evacuation don't seem to realize is that invading tribes generally did not penetrate the mountains of Romania. Daco-Romans could have easily established themselves in mountain communities, at least temporarily.

If we had isolated mountain communities, then, we would have a plethora of Romanian dialects, as each local community would develop its own local variation of Vulgur Latin. Bogdan | Talk

Also, even if many or some Daco-Romans or Romans did remove themselves south of the Danube, they did not go to "Africa" or some distant land, they just went next door----literally. There probably was much or at least some cross-filtration: most likely many of the evacuees went back north, a few miles. As for the Albanian connection: most of the words that Albanians have in common with Romanians are evidently or most likely words that Albanians took from Southern Vlachs

There are two types of words common with Albanian:

• the words borrowed from Latin, the same Latin dialect that was then developed into Romanian. See cabbalus -> cal (Rom), kal (Alb); etc
• the words inherited directly from IE. These comply to the sound laws of Albanian and there's no way they were borrowed from a Vlach language. Bogdan | Talk 09:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---or---it's possible the Albanians migrated from the North (Dacia)& picked up Daco-Roman words while there---

That is not impossible. See: Origin of Albanians

or, VERY LIKELY it's possible many of these words were taken directly from the Dacians by the ancestors of the Albanians in ancient times.

That is unlikely. Many of these words are purely Albanian. They follow the sound changes from the PIE to Albanian. (of course, you could argue that Dacian *is* the ancestor of Albanian) Bogdan | Talk 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remember, the Dacians were not restricted to Dacia,& there is much evidence (particularly in ancient personal names)of Dacian penetration into Illyria.

In Western Moesia (now Serbia), yes.

So if the ancestors of Albanians were in or near Illyria in ancient times, they would most likely have picked up Dacian (& Thracian) words. The Albanian cognates are not good evidence for 'the Romanians migrated from the south' theory. They can be easily explained by other scenarios. Another point: there is enough difference between Daco-Romanian & Macedo- & Megleno-Romanian to argue for quite a seperation in space & time.

Linguists have a pretty clear image on the separation: around 8th-9th century, before the Romanians and Slavs had close contacts.

The precise dynamics of this seperation needs to be investigated further, however possible. Some argue that the old presence of Vlachs in Macedonia & Greece & Albania somehow supports the idea that all Romanians originate from south of the Danube. This is not the case.

One interesting fact: the only toponym that follows closely the Romanian language sound-changes is not North of Danube, but South: "Săruna" (Thessaloniki). So, I wouldn't discard this theory completely.

The fact that the first documented mention (By Byzantines) of Vlachs is of Vlachs south of the Danube also proves nothing in itself. You would expect Byzantines to be more concerned with the southern Vlachs that were within their domains than with distant Dacia. There are several possible explanations for these southern Vlachs: here are two: they migrated from Dacia in the north; or, they represent a branch of Romanians who developed south of the Danube in Thrace, Macedon, & Moesia,while Daco-Romanians developed in Dacia.(Decius)

Macedo/Meglo-Romanian originated from the same place as Daco-Romanian. There's no doubt that until 8th-9th century, they were one and same language. Bogdan | Talk 09:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that some of the Romanian/Albanian cognates are due to the fact that both languages are Indo-European. Yet most may be borrowings from Vlachs or Daco-Thracians.

These words of both language are clearly ancient. Some even suggest that they're different enough to be inherited from two separate dialects of Dacian/proto-Albanian.

There are those who use these lexical interactions to support their theory that all Romanians once lived south of the Danube adjacent to early Albanians. I was showing how this reasoning is shaky at best, because there are so many unknowns & so many variables & alternative scenarios. There is also more direct evidence against the 'complete evacuation of Dacia theory',some of which has already been mentioned.

As for my comment about Daco-Roman mountain communities, I didn't say 'isolated' mountain communities; in fact, I didn't even say that the retirement into mountainous elevations was necessarily a long or continous 'retirement'. It may have been intermittent, as circumstances made necessary. In other words, flexible, & connected to settlements or groups living at lower elevations. I brought up this old idea (yet not properly examined idea) because it can explain the absence of germanic loan words, if that really needs such explaining. Another thing: many Daco-Romans, even before the (partial) evacuation,were living south of the Danube, in Moesia/Dacia Nova/Dardania/Illyria and other regions. Important point: many (not all)Daco-Romans were in Moesia when the emperor Valens in 377 allowed the Visigothic tribes to cross the Danube (fleeing the coming huns) & settle in MOESIA. So,the 'mighty' Goths evacuated (all the Goths? I think so. They had no long-standing ties to the area) Dacia by 377 & resettled again in Vlach-populated lands south of the Danube.They weren't in Dacia for a very long period---about a century. And how many were there to begin with, in Dacia? How did they interact with the Daco-Roman population that they may well have come upon still in Dacia? Is it even necessary to posit Daco-Roman mountain communities to explain the absence of tuetonic words?

The absence or scarcity of Teutonic words in modern Romanian proves nothing really.It is doubly intriguing that 'there are no Teutonic words' in Romanian seeing as how the Visigoths settled in the Vlach-popluated provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire for a time. Yet, ARE there No Teutonic words? I see some likely candidates.

Many linguists searched for them, but as far as I know, there were not find any.

It needs to be looked into carefully. It may be the case that despite their belligerence, the Goths were not a strong influence linguistically upon early Romanians, whom they may well have encountered in Dacia & who they definitely encountered south of the Danube.(Decius)

Of course. Just as we don't have any Cuman, Avar or Pecheneg words, although they ruled lands inhabited by Romanians. Bogdan | Talk 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Returning a bit to the question of proto-Albanian & its relation to Dacian, let me just state my opinion (based on research; a major reason is because I see no Albanian element in old Dacian toponyms/hydronyms/or personal names) that proto-Albanian & Dacian were not kindred languages, though they shared features (some suffixes; some phonetic feautures)in common because of long contact & common words because of long contact.

if proto-Albanian is not linked with neither Dacian/Thracian, nor Illyrian, where did they lived ? Bogdan | Talk 10:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While it's possible the early Albanians migrated from Dacian lands or lands directly adjacent to Dacia, I don't follow Georgiev in lumping proto-Albanian & Dacian together. I understand subsequent researchers have dismantled many of Georgiev's ideas. While he made some good contributions, the fact that Georgiev was obviously a Bulgarian nationalist makes many of his ideas biased. He wanted to connect Bulgarians & Baltics & Slavs as much as possible to the ancient Thracians, & often stretched linguistics to do this.

He also cavalierly dismissed Romanians & sought to totally disconnect Dacians (thus Romanians) from Thracians & lump Dacians together with proto-Albanians in the same language family. While not impossible, I will say that this Daco-Albanian equation is wrong, & Georgiev & scholars like him should be looked upon with suspicion---there are often ulterior motives. Another Bulgarian, Ivan Duridanov, is continuing Vladimir Georgiev's work, & is pretty much echoing Georgiev.I want to clarify that I'm not anti-Bulgarian or anti-Slavic.I'm against individual researchers who are sloppy or biased. If a debater in this forum here is occasionally sloppy, it can be forgiven. I'm sloppy sometimes. But there's no excuse when you pretend to be an authority like the late Georgiev fancied himself to be. As for bias, it's hard for any historian to be totally unbiased, but there are degrees of biasness. The point is, when compiling these Wikipedia articles, we need to question our sources.(Decius)

An example of bias in this field at work: according to Georgiev & others in his camp, the Thracian language was a satem not a centum language. I seriously question his interpretation of the scanty evidence primarily because: Georgiev was a Bulgarian, hence a Slavic speaker, & Slavic is A SATEM LANGUAGE.

AFAIK, most linguists, Bulgarian or not, consider that Thracian was a Satem, based on the toponyms. Bogdan | Talk 10:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As you can see, the policy of connecting Thracians to Baltic & Slavic speakers is at work here, & I will not accept his conclusions until further verified. Thracian may in fact have been a centum language. I've also personally reviewed the Thracian 'glossary' compiled on Duridanov's site, & I have noted many errors & many wild speculations. I also notice that there is an overwhelming predeliction to list Thracian 'cognates' with Baltic or Slavic words, ignoring other cognates.

Look at Duridanov's Thracian glossary. I'll give you one example: Apa is listed (correctly) as a Thracian word for water; loose cognates are given in Baltic, & a good but distant cognate in Indic;

Indic languages are satem! So, cognates to Sanskrit would only enforce the theory that Thracian was a satem language. Bogdan | Talk 10:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the problem is, the most direct cognate geographically, the ROMANIAN word 'Apa' (=Water) was ignored. Apa is also listed as meaning 'water' in the Illyrian glossary.It is obvious that the Romanian word Apa comes directly from pre-Romans, & was not simply a case of latin Aqua "becoming" Romanian Apa.

Apa is derived from Latin "Aqua" ('Acva'): that's what the linguists say, because it's not the only word where Latin "c" is transformed in Romanian "p" See: "pectus" -> "pept", "octo" -> "opt", "quattuor" ('cvatuor') -> "patru" etc.

It is generally considered that Thracian "apa" and Romanian "apa" are just coincidences. Bogdan | Talk

There are other examples of Georgiev & Duridanov dodging Romanians. (Decius)

I don't want to flood this page, but I have to adress this: in the article, there is this sentence under the southern migration argument: "Common words with Albanian in Romanian, thought to be of Thracian or Illyrian origin (Opponents claim that the proto-Albanian & Dacian languages were probably related & the common words could have come from the Dacian language)"---Okay, I note that it says "probably" related, but I still don't like the fact that it gives the impression that all such opponents beleive that Dacian is related to Albanian. I don't. Many others don't. I beleive Dacian was on a whole other IE branch, but like I said previously, long contact between Dacians & proto-Albanians led to lexical interaction & phonetic influence, just as happened between Romanians & Slavs. Pile on top of that interactions between Vlachs & early Albanians. Furthermore, I beleive Dacian was a centum language, & was close to the "Italic" branch, which I call the Latin branch.

This belief of Săvescu's nationalists has absolutely no proof. Bogdan | Talk 10:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I replaced "opponents" with "some opponents". Is it all right now? Boraczek 12:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While calling it the "Latin branch" may not be totally accurate seeing as how Latin per se was a smaller branch on this bigger branch, it's more accurate than calling it the "Italic" branch, because the Latin languages did not originate in the Italian peninsula, but in Central or East-Central Europe. I think the Daco-Albanian theory should not be over-represented, as it is not that likely anyway.(Decius)

There are arguments for it. The "Latin language" theory of Dacian has almost none. If you can give me from Săvescu's site one historically sensible argument in favor of this, I'll add it. Bogdan | Talk 10:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, the sentence is fair now. (Decius)

Back to the Albanian question for a moment: there is no evidence that the Albanian language is descended from the languages of the different peoples historians identified as Illyrians;Thracians; or Dacians; & there is more evidence against such notions. The ancestors of the Albanians may well have lived in the Balkans, but there is no necessity to connect them with any of the above groups. They may have belonged to some other Balkan group mentioned by ancient writers.(I erased another possibility, because I agree it is unlikely: I mentioned it to be complete, but I've erased it)

How would that be ? For thousands of years, nobody heard of them, until 1000 AD ? Very unlikely. Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. As for the Romanians, there is evidence of descent at least in part from Dacians or Thracians. I will list two important data here, not necessarily the best data among the data: Kekaumenos the Byzantine in his 11th century Strategikon stated specifically that the Vlachs are descended from the Dacians & the Bessi (a Thracian tribe), so unlike Albanians, Romanians didn't suddenly make up their claim in the 19th century. The idea of Romanians being descended from Dacians/Thracians, then, first seems to occur in Kekaumenos, an 11th century Byzantine Greek. 2nd datum: In later Byzantine usage 'Bessoi' became a general term for Vlachs. I will get more exact references to this.

interchangeably ? reference, please.

While some might say this was a misidentification, my research makes me certain it was a correct identification. Search for such references if you don't beleive me. (Decius)

I think that is wrong. Bessi were recorded last time in 4th century. Vlachs were recorded first time much later, I think it was in the 8th or 9th century. Again, reference. Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the evidence of certain old documents, Gottfried Schramm in his work 'Anfange' wrote that the Bessian language survived into the sixth century, specifically at least as late as the 560's AD. In these old texts, one reads of "monks who were speaking Bessan (in the ms., Bessum)as well as Latin & other languages in a monastery atop Mt. Sinai in the 560's". How did Bessi end up there? There are other old manuscripts that tell of Bessi living in Constantinople (no surprise), yet also in Jerusalem. I beleive Schramm's interpretation is right, & I haven't seen a convincing refutation. So, the language of the Bessi (& thus the ethnicon) may well have survived beyond the 4th century. And if I'm right, Macedo- and/or Megleno-Romanian is a continuation of that language & ethnos.(Decius)

Let me point something out: while the Albanian LANGUAGE is probably not descended from Illyrian, Thracian, or Dacian, the present Albanian genetic matrix most likely contains a portion from each, unless, as some argue, the Albanians migrated late into the Balkans from elsewhere. (Decius)

Linguistics has little to do with genetics: one can learn a language and pass it to his children regardless of the ethnic/racial/genetic background: Romanians (mostly from Transylvania), Serbians and Albanian are genetically close, but you can't tell from this where the Romanians and Albanians originated. Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Something else I want to point: if one argues from the standpoint that Dacian was already a Latin language (though of course not the classical Latin of Rome; I don't know if Savescu argues that Dacian was classical Latin, but I certainly don't; by the way, I read of the idea before reading Savescu, & I find his site full of inaccuracies, though the core of the theory, which dates at least to the 19th century, is sound)before Roman contact, then the idea of flexible mountain communities becomes MUCH less of a problem. No totally different Romance languages would arise; & since the communities need not be isolated from one another, the only differences would be dialectical. But anyway, I see no need to restrict Dacians (or Daco-Romans, if you prefer the term) to mountain communities. Another point where I differ from Savescu is that I beleive that Roman Latin may have had a strong influence upon indigenous Dacian Latin, & there may have been a trend towards 'normalization', or making the two meet together more.

Of course. There are words in Romanian that can be traced in Etruscan, such as "fereastră", which cannot be explained otherwise. Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A cautionary note about Latin words of "Etruscan origin"---most of these words cited are words that because of their obscure etymology (hard to trace to known IE roots) some scholars have proposed that they derive from Etruscan. Very few of these words are definitely from Etruscan. Of course, I would expect that there had to be at least some Roman words of Etruscan origin, & there seem to be. But I wouldn't have faith that all such words identified as Etruscan (by some) are truly Etruscan. I've long given this issue some thought, because any words definitely from Etruscan most likely entered Romanian through Roman Latin. But there are other possible avenues. Remember, according to many ancient writers, & according to some archaeological finds (such as the close affinities between Etruscan language & Lemnian language, though both barely readable), the Etruscans may have migrated to Italy by sea from the Aegean area: certain Aegean islands, & the adjacent coast of Anatolia.If true, then Etruscan words may also have very long ago entered ancient Greek & Thracian, & Dacians may have picked up these words from Thracians & Greeks (especially from coastal Greek settlements)& passed them onto their descendants, Romanians. (Decius)

The Latin Dacian theory resolves more problems than it brings up, & the problems it raises, such as scarcity of APPARENT Latin elements in known Dacian toponyms, is not a great problem & perhaps the relations are there waiting to be identified. As for no KNOWN historical source pointing out that Dacian was similar to Latin, I emphasize that only a fraction of the ancient literature has come down to us; & what has come down may possibly have passed through hands that had an interest to withhold or edit certain documents or artifacts. But I'm getting into conspiracy theories & I know nobody wants to hear that. (Decius)

Bogdan, the reasoning of such linguists in many cases is faulty. It does not make the case any better if you multiply the examples: the interpretation of the examples may well all be wrong. Example: in Umbrian, Roman Quattuor(4) was PETUR, not because Umbrians mutated a Roman form, but because they inherited a different form, as I beleive the Dacians did in the case of Patru (the Romanian word for 4), Apa, the words you listed above, & many , many more.I don't accept what most linguists state, because in the case of Romanian they may well have been working from a false assumption---not because they necessarily dismissed the Dacian Latin theory, but because they never heard of it. Now, the assumptions have been established, & all who question the established linguists are looked upon as fantasists. The linguists were operating from the assumption that all Romance languages derive from localized versions of Vulgar Latin. A sweeping assumption. (Decius)

Clarify: I'm not saying Dacian was especially closely related to Umbrian more than to Roman Latin. I'm just citing what I believe is a parallel case. If Umbrian was especially close to Dacian, I'd expect to see more direct cognates. For example, the Umbrian word for 'Five' was 'Pompe' (or Pompa? don't remember) which sounds nothing like Romanian 'Cinci'(Though note that Romanian Cinci, Latin Quinque, Umbrian Pompe, English Five & others all come from the same IE root according to IE scholars, & I agree). The lexicon varied in these different Latin or proto-Latin languages (I don't call them 'Italic'), & there were also variations in grammar, phonetics, suffixes, prefixes, etc. If you look at the history of Roman Latin itself, you will see marked evolution from archaic forms. One more point for tonight: it seems unlikely (or at least no a-priori reason) to assume that the entire proto-Latin branch somehow decided to migrate into the Italian peninsula. It's very likely some stayed behind, or settled in other areas---the balkans,or Dacia---or stayed where they were. Maybe the Latins originated from the Dacian area, as has been pointed out. Sorry if I'm going on & on about this, but I want to emphasize that the Dacian Latin theory is not unlikely or crackpot, & I'm glad it's given a voice in Wikipedia.(Decius)

Quick observation: in our modern culture, we generally tend to invest a lot of power in certain terms. The term "Linguist" for instance. "Linguists have said this" & "Linguists have said that", & we often look upon them as some sort of priesthood pronouncing divine truths. What is a linguist? a human being who has studied language at some recognized institution(s) & has received a recognized degree(s). Linguists are human beings shaped by their culture & often make mistakes, or skew their findings to conform with what they already beleive.

If we start thinking like that, we end up in pseudo-science. The liguists are scientists, and as such, they follow the scientific method. Therefore, they have some input data and by analizing these data, they draw conclusions. Since no evidence (personal names, toponyms, references in ancient texts, etc) is pointing at a Dacian language of the Italic-branch, there is no need to invent one. Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Skepticism should be applied against their claims as well as against mine. From my own research I feel justified in doubting the statements of these "linguists". What holds true in French & Spanish & Portugese & Italian etc. does not necessarily hold true in Romanian. Studying the etymology of Romanian words, I'm more & more convinced that Romanian inherited many words & grammatical features from a Dacian branch of Latin. Don't expect too many specific examples because I'm doing private research. I put a lot of work into this subject & I don't exactly want to give everything away wholesale.(Decius)

If you're interested in the Dacian component of Romanian and connections with Albanian, you may want to read the archive at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balkanika/ Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There IS evidence, & a growing amount of evidence, pointing to Dacian as a language on the Latin branch.

No, there is't. There are no references in ancient texts as to a Latin-like language, there are no inscriptions that show a language close to Latin. There are no personal names that resemble Latin. The toponyms and hydronyms don't look Latin-like, but more like a Satem language, from the few words identified. Also, the Romanian words suspected to be Dacian are at least as old as the Latin words. That's why no important linguist ever considered this idea: it's very, very unlikely. Bogdan | Talk 21:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as yet there is not too much direct, or physical evidence, of a Latin Dacian language. Physical evidence would be if we found Dacian inscriptions or text that bore unmistakable Latin features. As for no evidence from Dacian toponyms, hydronyms, or personal names, I would caution you that the relations may be there waiting to be identified. Another thing: many Roman, Umbrian, Oscan (etc.) personal names, toponyms, & hydronyms are not transparent or translatable through Latin, Umbrian, or Oscan. It's hard to get a hold of the language of a people solely through such means. Anyone who has studied Umbrian or Oscan or other old Latin languages would immediately see the dramatic variation found among their vocabulary, their phonology, & their grammatical features, as compared to Roman Latin or as compared to each other. Dacian, given its distance from Italy, would no doubt have its own character, with many words & word-families not found in Roman Latin, or found only vestigially. The Romanian language shows evidence of this. (Decius)

Thanks for the link. Of course I'm interested in identifying Dacian words in the Romanian language. That's what my whole argument is about. I'm also interested in the Albanian connections, though I emphasize (as I have many times before) that the Albanian connection is not well understood at all, though some sort of connection is obvious. I listed some possible explanations above. It's still a mystery. I underline the fact that the Albanian connections do not in any real way contradict the Dacian Latin theory. If you think it does, state your arguments. I stated further up this page why I think it doesn't. There are many connections between the ancient Latin & the ancient Greek languages also, especially in vocabulary, & this extends beyond obvious borrowing, paralleling the Romanian-Albanian situation.(Decius)

Rebuttal: 1)historical sources are fragmentary 2) there are no Dacian inscriptions to judge whether or not Dacian was close to Latin 3)some personal names are not that far from Latin branch, & besides, many Roman names don't look Latin either 4)toponyms & hydronyms are not as far from Latin as they appear, & even around Rome many toponyms & hydronyms have foreign derived names; it is nonsense to identify a language as satem or centum from a few known words---maybe if they were key words, but they're not 5) I never questioned the ancientness of either word-group, & if the Dacian theory is right, most words from BOTH groups are Dacian or at least were found in Dacian, & I'm not questioning which is older, only which words derive from what language branch.

You have no actual proof, do you ? :-) Bogdan | Talk 10:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The standard hypothesis that Romanian represents a mutation from Vulgar Latin like other Romance languages makes no attempt to support its view with real evidence of such a development.

Anyway, there is much disagreement within the Romanization theory: did the language develop more from Roman colonists or more from Romanized natives? How could the Roman colonists be so linguistically dominant in Dacia/Moesia? How were the Dacian & Thracian languages so completely swallowed up?

One explanation would be the "Romanianization" (instead of Romanization) of Dacians. The Vlach Latins expanded their teritory to include the former Dacian lands, this happening in the Dark Ages. So, the famous foundings of Wallachia and Moldova ('descălecare') are not just legends. Bogdan | Talk 10:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the Byzantine Kekaumenos in the 11th century Strategikon specifically states that Vlachs are descended from Dacians & Bessi (Thracians), not Roman colonizers. Why couldn't Kekaumenos have been right? If he was, why suppose these Dacians & Bessi began speaking Vulgar Latin, instead of maintaining their own language? No, the Romanization theory has too many holes for me to accept it. (Decius)

Strategikon was right, Vlachs are decendents of the Dacians. Of the Romanized Dacians. :-) In the same vein, we can consider the Serbs descendents of Slavicized Moesi Thracians and the Croatians descendents of the Slavicized Illyrians. But their languages are not Thracian, nor Illyrian. Bogdan | Talk 10:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another thing: when Aurelian initiated the evacuation from Dacia, he was concerned primarily with evacuating ROMAN settlers & those who joined or were absorbed by Romans (not neccesarily linguistically absorbed, but politically & culturally)---Aurelian may or may not have evacuated all Romans, but it is ludicrous to suppose he evacuated all DACIANS, especially the free Dacians. They most likely remained behind. No one knows how they interacted with Germanic tribes in these times. But we can look at what history (actually, this is based more on archaeology) tells us: long before the Romans invaded Dacia, Celtic tribes invaded Dacia & settled---but they never became dominant. In fact, those that stayed were absorbed by Dacians. Perhaps the Germanics also could never culturally or linguistically dominate Dacians, & no longer tried to. They instead may have set up types of kingdoms where Dacians had a major role.(Decius)

Okay. Let me give you an example of why the Romanization theory is circuitous & awkward: 1) According to at least one 11th cenury source, Romanians are descended from Dacians/Thracians. 2) according to scholars, Apa was a Thracian word for water 3) Apa is also the Romanian word for water, & we have already seen that Romanians are most likely descended from Dacians/Thracians. BUT the awkward Romanization theory would have us beleive that we "lost" (huh? how did we lose it? we still have it) the Thracian word Apa, & our word derives from Aqua, a case of Q sound becoming P sound (other examples given, which prove nothing). Now, I reject the standard speculation & apply Occam's Razor: Apa in Romanian is a pre-Roman Dacian/Thracian word, as are most Romanian words, because Dacian was a Latin branch language.This is just one example.(Decius)

We cannot create a theory based on only one word. Anyway, there are hundreds of toponyms that had their meaning identified and they are similar with Slavic, Iranian, etc. words instead of being similar to Latin. Bogdan | Talk 09:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I want to bring something up, something I considered years ago, & which makes so skeptical of certain scholars & their theories: many top linguists have stated that the Satem/Centum divide is largely artificial & misleading, that in most languages, SOME words follow Satem in having sibilants, other words follow Centum (Kentum) in having hard consonants in those words, so one cannot truly put them in either/or categories.

Exactly. It's because:

1. a centum language may have satem influence and a satem language may have centum influence;
2. some languages split before or after the sound changes from centum to satem.

Furthermore, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE OR NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE to know for certain whether a given ancient language was "satem" or "centum" based on a few speculative glosses of ancient terms. If you don't beleive my assertions, research it, & you'll see my statements are corroborated. For instance, Spanish Centavos is pronounced with an S in place of the K sound that was in Latin Centum (or that is beleived to have been in Latin Centum). Written phonetically, it would be Sentavos. Imagine trying to judge whether Spanish is satem or Centum from such words. You might end up thinking Spanish is Satem.

But linguists don't judge satem/centum languages just by one sound change -- that would be very unreliable. S/K is the most famous one, but there are many others.

BTW, Romanian "suta" is believed to be derived from an ancient Satem language (most likely Dacian), not from Latin (if it were Latin, it would look like this: "cint"). (and it's very unlikely to be from Slavic). Bogdan | Talk 09:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Linguists have created artificial categories (science in fact must create these categories) that only roughly correspond to reality. In the case of Thracian, only someone with a vested interest to have Thracian or Dacian as satem languages would "legislate" to put them in this category, linguists such as Georgiev was.

I'm sorry to say this, but it seems that you don't know enough about how linguists work. It's a scientific method, not sorcery. Bogdan | Talk 09:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now, I have interests to put them more towards Centum, it's true---but the truth is, no one yet knows for sure. And the truth is satem & centum are not exactly real categories, only rough approximations of phonetic trends observed in IE languages. (Decius)

Rebuttal: 1) Apa is just one example 2)most of those toponyms/names haven't been identified correctly or at all 3)I know linguists use more than one sound change as a criterion, I just gave one example 4)I know "Suta" is an enigmatic word that may well derive from Dacian, I've read that before, but even so that wouldn't necessarily mean Dacian was satem 5) As for how linguists work, I've read enough of their speculations to see that the results of their work, however "scientifically" or not they go about it, are often very flawed or speculative. Okay, to show you that there are bonafide linguists who share my view that Dacian/Thracian may have been Centum or intermediary between Centum/Satem, see the site of the Romanian Thracologist Sorin Olteanu (no, that's not me---Olteanu doesn't beleive in the Dacian Latin theory, but he disagrees with Georgiev & others & connects Thracian to Centum more than to Satem; he beleives Thracian had much more affinity to ancient Greek dialects than to Baltic/Slavic, though he beleives Thracian was not on the same branch as Greek, & different enough). Olteanu from what I've read is a sane & sober Thracologist. If you type in his name on your search engine his site should come up. Go to his index. Scroll down & see an article that discusses ancient connections between proto-Romanian & ancient Greek. That's where he points out that Thracian may have been Centum, not Satem. I've seen Olteanu's credentials, & I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. I don't beleive what Bulgarian Thracologists say. They're worthless. I know enough about linguists to know that Georgiev & Duridanov are trash. (Decius)

Basically, what Olteanu is saying is this: Thracian/Dacian were originally Centum, like Latin & Greek,but over time, due to influence from adjacent Satem groups, many consonants became sibilants, etc. I recommend his site. Well researched. The Lexicon of Thracian also shows heavy Greek inluence, or vice versa. He doesn't say, but I think Phrygian (which DOES seem to have been satem, so far as I can tell) was a major influence upon Thracian. Also, I beleive Scythian was IE, & may have been satem, & Scythian influence also played a role. Also, the older Kimmerians, before the Scythians, may have been satem IE, but this is pure speculation. Another satem influence would be proto-Albanian. All these adjacent groups may have contributed to 'satemizing' the basically Centum Daco-Thracic languages, to the degree that thousands of years later near-sighted, biased Bulgarian scholars could misidentify Thracian as a satem language, based on some shaky glosses. But enough Centum traces remain for more judicious researchers to revise that conception, & reveal that Daco-Thracic may well have been Centum at base. (Decius)

Another thing about toponyms:they can easily mislead people, because toponyms are often saturated with foreign words & names. For instance, the ancient town of Pulpudeva---it was named after a foreign ruler, Philipp (Phil+Ippos)of Makedon. Pulpu=Philip.

Yes, they might be. However, the foreign languages (Greek, Celtic, Iranian) are much better known than Dacian and they can be easily noticed. Bogdan | Talk 07:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many other Dacian/Thracian towns may incorporate such foreign names & words, easily leading uncautious researchers astray. As for Dava, Deva, Daba, etc., the etymology can be explained without resorting to satem languages.

PIE *dhewa or somthing like this.

In other words, there is no convincing proof 1) that Dacian was satem; 2) that Dacian was not in fact Centum & of the Latin branch. The problem is, some people expect to see plain Latin toponyms( yet many Roman toponyms were foreign or obscure themselves),the Latin of Rome, but that is a misconception. Dacian Latin had its own character. Let me quote an old authority, Carl Darling Buck, speaking of the ancient "Italic" languages:"There are many striking differences between Oscan-Umbrian & Latin, in general more radical than those between the Greek dialects." How much more "strikingly different" Dacian Latin was is an important question. Different enough that toponyms & personal names are obscure, yet close enough that we have the Romanian language devoloping from Dacian Latin---under some Roman influence. (Decius)

Look at these Thracian words: http://www.geocities.com/indoeurop/project/glossary/thra.html Bogdan | Talk

Perhaps the single best piece of evidence for the 'Thracian was Satem' hypothesis is the ending found in many Thracian toponyms, Diza, Deiza, which, IF it has been properly interpreted as meaning "fortress", "wall", etc., would be evidence (but not conclusive, it's just one word) that Thracian was satem because exact cognates of Diza (if properly interpreted) are found in satem languages. In Centum, you would expect a form more like the ancient Greek Teichos (wall), where we have a consonant (Chi) in place of a sibilant (Zeta). But two things must be kept in mind: 1)the interpretation of Diza may be wrong 2) even if right, this one word may have been borrowed from Phrygian (which was satem, it seems) or some other satem language, or a centum word may have fallen under satem influences. The same for the other examples. Some might say that just the fact that "so many" examples pile up points to satem for Thracian, but most of those examples may well be erroneous, & what remains has alternative explanations. Another thing about linguists: they vary when it comes to the amount of scientific professionalim: Duridanov's glossary takes too many speculations as certainties. (Decius)

Yes, that's the main glossary I've been referring to also. That's the glossary I'm referring to when I say most are speculative & a nice number are erroneous. Many of the items on that glossary come down to us through the interpretations & speculations of the Bulgarian researchers I've already mentioned. I recommend once again Olteanu's site.(Decius)

About those foreign language elements being "easily identified": Dacian toponyms in what is now Moldova & northern Dobrudja may well have had Scythian initial elements "suffixed" by -Dava in the usual Dacian way. Scythian, as you know, has not revealed its mysteries, though most scholars tend to beleive they were IE speakers, perhaps on the Iranian branch, which would explain apparent "Iranian cognates" you mentioned in Dacian toponyms. Also, aside from foreign elements, keep in mind that toponyms often preserve words & names that are very old & handed down from a time when the language had a different form, making it more obscure (as an example, look at ancient Greek toponyms & how obscure most are, due to the fact that Greek changed & also to the fact that Greece was once the home of non-Greek peoples). Some words & names may date to a time when Dacia was home to different IE branches,or non-IE speakers, many of which history knows nothing. Yet there are also transparent Dacian toponyms that are not far from Latin: Petro-Dava, near Piatra Neamt, Petro- meaning 'rock, stone', found in Latin & many other IE. Also, Salmuris on the Dobrudja Black Sea coast, which most likely meant Salt Water or Salt Sea (Sal as in Latin; Muris cognate to Latin Mare). So, IF these are correct, we already have Petro, 'stone', Sal, 'salt', Muris 'body of water'. Now, this doesn't PROVE that Dacian was close to Latin, but if correct it shows that the lexicon may have been close. Perhaps if we had the 'Key', we would recognize other Latin cognates that had their own form in Danubian/Dacian Latin but changed form according to unknown laws. But don't expect to find Latin cognates for all. In Umbrian, Oscan, etc., there were MANY words that were exclusive to each "Italic" branch. As for the relation between Dacian & Thracian, I beleive they were related, yet distinct, most likely different but related languages, or maybe dialects. I know that Thracian toponyms overall have a different character from Dacian. In my opinion, Thracian fell under heavy Greek influence on one hand, & Phrygian influence on the other. As for the Thracian inscription on the Ezero ring (if it is indeed Thracian), it may be that most of those clusters identified as words may be in fact names(Rolisteneas, Nerenea, etc.). (Decius)