What is your opinion about dacians?Were they south slavs or goths?

[mihaitzateo]

I did not said that those thracians were ancestors of all norwegians I said they were carrying those R1a1 norse branches.
Go check a little that pdf with what David Faux is suposing,with the central origins of some of the vikings.

It is pretty clear that other vikings were bearing some branches of N,on paternal line (like Rurik had),very likely others were bearing I1.But nothing supports the theory that vikings were bearing some branches of R1B,on paternal line.


You are making things much more simple than they are in fact.
Take for example I1,there are more branches of I1,same happens with R1a - R1a1 is a branch of R1a.
Now R1a1 have a lot of sub-branches,which includes different kind of branches found in different slavs,the norse vikings,some germans - everyone with different branches.
Most I1 from Norway is not same with most I1 from Sweden,as a example,are different branches of I1.

Ok now if you call the greatest poet of Iceland someone who "invented" things,that is something which I will not comment.
I guess than Carol Lundius also invented a lot of things.And Rasmus Rask,a well known danish scholar and philologist who showed pretty clear that icelandic comes from thracian language,with lots of evidences,was also wrong.
And so on.

As for proto-germans bearing branches of R1B,I am not that sure.This seems asociated pretty clear with celts and latin populations.

Also if some tribes ruled a country for some period of time,that does not means that those tribes are from that country/geographical area.
This is what I was wondering,if dacians did not actually came from south Sweden to rule Dacia,and they gave this name to the land.Because it seems that the ancient population here was bearing mostly I2 .
What remained are the figures from sculptures,but it seems no one want to make a little effort to study them.

In case you did not knew,the thracian language is considered to be one of the proto-indo-european languages.

 

[Taranis]

I did not said that those thracians were ancestors of all norwegians I said they were carrying those R1a1 norse branches.
Go check a little that pdf with what David Faux is suposing,with the central origins of some of the vikings.

As I said, such stories about a connection with the Thracians and the Balkans are completely uncalled for. R1a has been in Europe since the Copper Age, and as I mentioned, the oldest find to date was amongst the Corded Ware Culture of the Copper Age:

The ancestors of the Scandinavians were the people of the Nordic Bronze Age.

It is pretty clear that other vikings were bearing some branches of N,on paternal line (like Rurik had),very likely others were bearing I1.But nothing supports the theory that vikings were bearing some branches of R1B,on paternal line.

You are making things much more simple than they are in fact.
Take for example I1,there are more branches of I1,same happens with R1a - R1a1 is a branch of R1a.
Now R1a1 have a lot of sub-branches,which includes different kind of branches found in different slavs,the norse vikings,some germans - everyone with different branches.
Most I1 from Norway is not same with most I1 from Sweden,as a example,are different branches of I1.

Yes, they were not exclusively carriers of R1a, but also for instance I1 (which is a survivor of Europe's Mesolithic lineages), N (which is of Finnic/Uralic origin) and R1b-U106. This is obvious. It's also clear that there's different subclades of R1a, some which can be linked with the Slavic migrations, some which can be linked with the Norse, the Scythians, etc. None of this changes the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever that the Norse somehow migrated from Dacia.

Ok now if you call the greatest poet of Iceland someone who "invented" things,that is something which I will not comment.
I guess than Carol Lundius also invented a lot of things.And Rasmus Rask,a well known danish scholar and philologist who showed pretty clear that icelandic comes from thracian language,with lots of evidences,was also wrong.
And so on.

It's just wrong to assume that medieval representations of the ancient Norse religion were completely unbiased. They were clearly influenced by other stories and by Christianity. The idea that the Vikings are supposed to be descended from Trojans is just a fantasy. It is based off the myth that the Romans themselves had that they were descended from the Trojans.

As for proto-germans bearing branches of R1B,I am not that sure.This seems asociated pretty clear with celts and latin populations.

R1b-U106 (also known as R1b-S21) is generally thought to be associated with the Germanic peoples. It may not be exclusively so, however.

Also if some tribes ruled a country for some period of time,that does not means that those tribes are from that country/geographical area.
This is what I was wondering,if dacians did not actually came from south Sweden to rule Dacia,and they gave this name to the land.Because it seems that the ancient population here was bearing mostly I2 .

I've said before, the Dacians never came from Sweden to Dacia. Herodotus mentions the Getae in the 5th century BC. This is about a millennium before Germanic people arrive on the Balkans.

In case you did not knew,the thracian language is considered to be one of the proto-indo-european languages.

Your statement makes no sense. The term "Proto-Indo-European" denotes the reconstructed ancestor language from which all branches of the Indo-European language family (Albanian, Anatolian, Armenian, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Italic, Indic, Slavic, etc.) are descended. Thracian is an old Indo-European language, but it's clearly not the oldest.

The oldest Indo-European languages that we known (from the Bronze Age) are Mycenean Greek, Hittite, Luwian and Rigvedic Sanskrit.

 

[mihaitzateo]

I will stop argue with people here,I would have liked that someone from South Sweden would have come here to talk with me on this subject.
Germanic people arrived to today's Romania only in the year 1500?
And what are all the facts in history telling about goths and ostrogoths rulling Dacia,fabrications?
You are amazing,this is why I will stop arguing with you,cos it leads no where.

I do not belive that goths were germans,but south swedes,I am keeping this opinion.

As for dacians,no one told anything relevant to see what haplogroup they might carry on paternal line.
And a few more facts:
I am still wondering how is possibile that after second roman-dacian war,Dacia is rulled sometime by goths/ostrogoths (called gepids) and after,no kings are present here anymore,at least nothing is written in history about them.
First king in Dacia,now split in 3 parts,and not called Dacia anymore,is around the year 1310,Basarab I,in what is called now Wallachia,which name is clearly gave because people here are speaking now a romance language.
As for Denmark being called later Daciam,you can check with google translate,from latin to english,to see how Daciam is translated,from latin.

There are also people in Scandinavia who are calling themselves "of Dacia" but no ruler in Moldavia,Wallachia and Transylvania takes this tittle.
For example:
Jacob_the_Dacian,Petrus de Dacia,Swedish_monk,Petrus de Dacia,mathematician,all from Sweden or Denmark,lived around 1200-1300.
How can you explain this?

As for some of the norse vikings being the only descendants of thracians,fantasy,oh really,take David Faux DNA testing and compare with the few samples of R1a1 from Bulgaria,and see that is some bulgarian R1a1 there with markers that are iddentic with Norse R1a1 dna,on the following markers:
393,390,19,391 and 389i,392,389II.
David Faux did not gave vallues for middle markers I mean 385a,385b,426,388,439 that only for 2 branches of norse dna.
However,strangely enough,if you combine the vallues that differ in norse dna,with the middle vallues,you have exactly same dna in Bulgaria of 3 R1a1 bulgarian from 13 R1a1 bulgarian samples,with norse dna,which is just weird.
Guess these are "fantasies also".

 

[Taranis]

I will stop argue with people here,I would have liked that someone from South Sweden would have come here to talk with me on this subject.
Germanic people arrived to today's Romania only in the year 1500?
And what are all the facts in history telling about goths and ostrogoths rulling Dacia,fabrications?
You are amazing,this is why I will stop arguing with you,cos it leads no where.

Please, I did not say that:

I've said before, the Dacians never came from Sweden to Dacia. Herodotus mentions the Getae in the 5th century BC. This is about a millennium before Germanic people arrive on the Balkans.

A "about a millennium after Herodotus" would be ca. 500 AD, not 1500 AD!

I do not belive that goths were germans,but south swedes,I am keeping this opinion.

I did not claim the Goths were "Germans". There's a distinction between "German" and "Germanic", and although that happens easily in English, you should not confuse the two. Swedish, like Gothic and German, is a Germanic language too.

As for dacians,no one told anything relevant to see what haplogroup they might carry on paternal line.
And a few more facts:
I am still wondering how is possibile that after second roman-dacian war,Dacia is rulled sometime by goths/ostrogoths (called gepids) and after,no kings are present here anymore,at least nothing is written in history about them.

First king in Dacia,now split in 3 parts,and not called Dacia anymore,is around the year 1310,Basarab I,in what is called now Wallachia,which name is clearly gave because people here are speaking now a romance language.
As for Denmark being called later Daciam,you can check with google translate,from latin to english,to see how Daciam is translated,from latin.

Do you mean this guy? He was not a Dacian, and he certainly didn't speak Dacian either because I am pretty sure that people spoke the Romance language at that point of time as well. What I do not understand however is actually how you can assume that the ancient Dacians are descended from Goths if the Goths clearly arrived only after the ancient Dacians.

By the wayf you mean that modern-day Romanians are in part descended from Gothic/East Germanic peoples, yes, this is certainly accurate.

There are also people in Scandinavia who are calling themselves "of Dacia" but no ruler in Moldavia,Wallachia and Transylvania takes this tittle.
For example:
Jacob_the_Dacian,Petrus de Dacia,Swedish_monk,Petrus de Dacia,mathematician,all from Sweden or Denmark,lived around 1200-1300.
How can you explain this?

The term "Dacia" was used as a Medieval Latin name for Denmark or Scandinavia, but there's no relationship between it and the Dacians.

 

[pipinnacanus]

Welcome to the forum.

You seem to have a lot of confusions. The Dacians were obviously neither "Gothic" nor "South Slavic". "Gothic" would imply Germanic, and it's very clear that the Dacians were not Germanic. The reason the Dacians and the Goths are often tied is due to the name "Getae" for the Dacians, which indeed sounds similar to "Goths", but is attested as early as the 5th century BC (Herodotus), long before the Germanic peoples started to be mentioned. Also, Dacian was clearly not a Slavic language: the Slavs didn't show up on the Balkans until the Migration Period. What the language of the Dacians shared with both Gothic (a Germanic language) and the South Slavic language is that it was Indo-European. What the Dacian language additionally shares with the Slavic languages is that it's a Satem language (which additionally applies for the Baltic, Armenian, Albanian and Indo-Iranic languages).

EDIT: Regarding Y-Haplogroup I2, I highly recommend reading what the administrator of this forum, Maciamo. I can also highly recommend by board member sparkey.

There is not a obvious dacian language or y-dna conclusive to be drawn, because only tiny few word is known to us, and has been filter through speaker of non-dacian language who record a unwritten language.
To make claims that certain conclusion is totally known shows a lack of caution to make one serious point. Or too eager to demand certain conclusive, the other point.


Getae and Goths are use in history for same people in same place over time, and only goth legends about scandinavia that include myth are the cause to separate them. Many early histories say they are the same, and the getae disappear from history after goths arise, either they are mass murder by Hun, or the surivor of getae are called of goth now after they leave the east.


The Getae are separate from Dacian in all histories but they work together as neighbor with different custom and culture. Also, a servant / slave population reside in the area who are slave of the Sarmatian, the 'Limigantes', and no one know of their origin or race.


It is possible that I2 Hg is local natives, possibly the major part of the slave 'limigantes' who are natives there, this would also be the local Dacian early people who are broken by Romans. The R1a is the Sarmatian and Scythian and Slav. The Goth moved with their peoples to the west to be free of the Huns. The Hg E1b in modern balkans and greece is from some early mediteranean peoples and later ottoman turk periods.


I think the major part of dacian and limigantes survive over time into modern romanian who are I2 Hg. They I2 are not actually slav, romanian, serbian, german or any other people originally, but are indigenousness to the lands in europe before the later culture arrives.
In the case of the dacian they carry on as slave Limigantes to the Sarmatians until they regain their freedom. This is my belief but I tell you sure that the claims to ancient language are offered with confidence when no confidence is supporting the claim in such case where no direct language survive or only a few word that come from a greek translation of phonetical sounds.

The I2 in europe is very old and is present long before La Tene Celtic culture, germans or slavs.

 

[pipinnacanus]

I will stop argue with people here,I would have liked that someone from South Sweden would have come here to talk with me on this subject.
Germanic people arrived to today's Romania only in the year 1500?
And what are all the facts in history telling about goths and ostrogoths rulling Dacia,fabrications?
You are amazing,this is why I will stop arguing with you,cos it leads no where.

I do not belive that goths were germans,but south swedes,I am keeping this opinion.
(/QUOTE]

The Goths claim brotherhood with 'Geats', who are from lands of the south of Sweden.

The Swedes are from the 'Svears' who are seperate from the Goths and Geats, and are from more nothern lands in sweden.

The land of the Svear is I1 Hg, and no one know where they came from, only that they take over Sweden from the control of the Goths and the Svear invade Finnmark leaving only I1, since the Geats/Goth did not come with them but were subject to them at home.
The Svear I1 Hg spread into europe continent when the Vikings and scandinavian farmers begin leaving during the mini-ice age of the dark ages.
The Goths-Getae maybe have some small bands of scandinavia Geats who flee the Svears treachery in sweden, and become together the masters in Ukraine. The small Geats bands flee Scandinavia in the epic Beowulf from the Svears dominion, and certainly go to the continent as well as in Beowulf into Britain.

The Geat may lead the goths-getae but after enter into europe, the most Y-dna is from the native getae-goths instead of the swedish geats who would be the few in number.

 

[hope]

Has anyone an opinion where the Lbk culture where it is believed the genetic variant that causes lactose persistence may have originated? I know the culture was settled around Denmark, Sweden and Norway, the Netherlands and Germany but where did they originate before this? ( sorry I hope Im not changing the ongoing subject too much)

 

[LeBrok]

Hi hope, I've opened a new thread for you, please post your question there.
Click on this link: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?27317-Linear-Pottery-Culture-LBK&p=392264#post392264

 

[zanipolo]

a lot of people are or seem confused on these "gothic" names for tribes.

After reading a history of the goths plus
Cassidoros, Jordanes and the History of the goths:studies in a migration myth by Arne Soby Christensen.

This is what I found
the ancient thracians over time where divided by the greek historian into sub-groups, Dacians in the north west, Getae in the north east ( on the black sea), moesians south of the dacians and Odrysians in the south of the getae and bordering the argean. They where not always present at the same time in history.

In regards to Goths, most people say they where east-germanic also known as Gottones and moved to sweden and back to the contintent.

The Gepids , they where east-germanic residing below the venedi , who where on the coast next to the vistula river.

The goths never settled in dacia but the GEPIDS did..........so it seems people think the gepids are goths. Well, they are not , sometimes in alliance , sometimes at each other throats.

IIRC, the goths went to Italy and beyond, the Gepids never ventured further than dacia

 

[Diurpaneus]

Of course Dacians and Thracians had substantial common background(also similar languages).
But they could also had distinct features.
Dacians, Getae and Moesians they all spoke Dacian language.
I think the key in the Slavic genesis is Chernyakhov culture.
Some Dacian tribes(Costobocae,Carpi & others) played a significant role here.
There are more common Dacian/Balto-Slavic phonetical features than Dacian/Thracian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dava_(Dacian)

http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_9.html

http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_8.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernyakhov

 

[mihaitzateo]

Well since Taranis was asking about language,there are some very strange resemblances between romanian language and germanic languages.
(I will not deny that a lot of romanian words are of latin source,or at least this is how is told.
I will not start to contest this.)
What is clear is that the sonority of romanian is most close from european languages with the english language and not with romance languages.
And here some few examples:
In english language a very common vowel (maybe most common) is what is called schwa,the sound as you pronounce the a in water or in banana or how you say the indefinite article,as example a chair etc.
Here you can see a guide from bbc ,about this sound:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbYVN077--M
Now in romance languages (italian,spanish,portughese,french) from what I know this sound is not present at all.
In romanian language,the same sound,that is called schwa in english and wrriten in romanian as an a with small cap above - ă - ,is very present.In the words that are said to be coming from dacian language,is also very present,same sound (not as much as in english but is a very common sound).
For example as in apă varză etc.
If you do not believe me,just put those words on forvo.com and see how you pronounce them.
(choosed words you can found on forvo.com ).
Listen how the z in varză is pronounced,is exactly same as you pronounce s in raises or z in zero and so on.

Now this sound,z is also very present in words of dacian origin and pretty present in romanian words.
Can you see this sound pretty present in other romance languages,except french,where very likely is not a latin ancestry?
Because from what I know the latin language did not had the z sound or letter.
I might be wrong,please search examples and prove me that I am wrong.

Another example,take how you pronounce the ch in chair or how you pronounce it in chest,is exactly as the romanian pronunciation for the group of letters ce as in romanian word cer or ceară and so on.
I saw that swedes/norwegians usually have dificulty to pronounce this ch in english,they pronounce it almost as the sh in sharp.
(another resemblance with germanic language,the sound as it is in sharp,is pretty common in romanian language,we have even a letter for it,is s with a small coma under it,I do not know how to write it here;from what I know is also pretty present in german language,but almost absent from romance languages.)

Sure a lot more examples of sonorities specific to german languages very present in romanian language could be given,above just a few were given.

And what is very easy to see,on most romanian people from today,is the lack of resemblance between them and people of latin countries,as italians etc.
Most romanian people have a wide forehead and are heavy boned,which are not features of the mediteranid profile to which most population of Italy,Spain and Portugalia belongs to.
Also the facials lines are much straight and harsher for romanians,that you see for mediteranid populations,who have faces that gives the impression of roundness.
Almost all romanians have high cheekbones and their eyes are a little slanted,not rounded as someone else told above.
Not to mention that majority of romanian people are brachycephals,while most people in latin countries are dolichocephalics.

Go see how good can the usual romanian pronounce in english,they are pronouncing better than even scandinavians,who are known that can learn english and pronounce pretty well.
However,romanians are pronouncing even better in english.
The people from latin countries,including France (which is not really latin) can not pronounce well in english,same happens with greeks and germans have some problems with some sounds also,like schwa or how you should pronounce s in raises.
So I think dacians were clearly a germanic people,and today romanians are almost a germanic people.

 

[zanipolo]

Well since Taranis was asking about language,there are some very strange resemblances between romanian language and germanic languages.
(I will not deny that a lot of romanian words are of latin source,or at least this is how is told.
I will not start to contest this.)
What is clear is that the sonority of romanian is most close from european languages with the english language and not with romance languages.
And here some few examples:
In english language a very common vowel (maybe most common) is what is called schwa,the sound as you pronounce the a in water or in banana or how you say the indefinite article,as example a chair etc.
Here you can see a guide from bbc ,about this sound:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbYVN077--M
Now in romance languages (italian,spanish,portughese,french) from what I know this sound is not present at all.
In romanian language,the same sound,that is called schwa in english and wrriten in romanian as an a with small cap above - ă - ,is very present.In the words that are said to be coming from dacian language,is also very present,same sound (not as much as in english but is a very common sound).
For example as in apă varză etc.
If you do not believe me,just put those words on forvo.com and see how you pronounce them.
(choosed words you can found on forvo.com ).
Listen how the z in varză is pronounced,is exactly same as you pronounce s in raises or z in zero and so on.

Now this sound,z is also very present in words of dacian origin and pretty present in romanian words.
Can you see this sound pretty present in other romance languages,except french,where very likely is not a latin ancestry?
Because from what I know the latin language did not had the z sound or letter.
I might be wrong,please search examples and prove me that I am wrong.

Another example,take how you pronounce the ch in chair or how you pronounce it in chest,is exactly as the romanian pronunciation for the group of letters ce as in romanian word cer or ceară and so on.
I saw that swedes/norwegians usually have dificulty to pronounce this ch in english,they pronounce it almost as the sh in sharp.
(another resemblance with germanic language,the sound as it is in sharp,is pretty common in romanian language,we have even a letter for it,is s with a small coma under it,I do not know how to write it here;from what I know is also pretty present in german language,but almost absent from romance languages.)

Sure a lot more examples of sonorities specific to german languages very present in romanian language could be given,above just a few were given.

And what is very easy to see,on most romanian people from today,is the lack of resemblance between them and people of latin countries,as italians etc.
Most romanian people have a wide forehead and are heavy boned,which are not features of the mediteranid profile to which most population of Italy,Spain and Portugalia belongs to.
Also the facials lines are much straight and harsher for romanians,that you see for mediteranid populations,who have faces that gives the impression of roundness.
Almost all romanians have high cheekbones and their eyes are a little slanted,not rounded as someone else told above.
Not to mention that majority of romanian people are brachycephals,while most people in latin countries are dolichocephalics.

Go see how good can the usual romanian pronounce in english,they are pronouncing better than even scandinavians,who are known that can learn english and pronounce pretty well.
However,romanians are pronouncing even better in english.
The people from latin countries,including France (which is not really latin) can not pronounce well in english,same happens with greeks and germans have some problems with some sounds also,like schwa or how you should pronounce s in raises.
So I think dacians were clearly a germanic people,and today romanians are almost a germanic people.

what's your bases for dacians are germanics? ......linguistic? ...if so, then you would know that many, many saxons went to romania as miners during the late middle ages and renaissance period.
Is it not this german language from this period an influence of romanian language?.

 

[Yetos]

Well since Taranis was asking about language,there are some very strange resemblances between romanian language and germanic languages.
(I will not deny that a lot of romanian words are of latin source,or at least this is how is told.
I will not start to contest this.)
What is clear is that the sonority of romanian is most close from european languages with the english language and not with romance languages.
And here some few examples:
In english language a very common vowel (maybe most common) is what is called schwa,the sound as you pronounce the a in water or in banana or how you say the indefinite article,as example a chair etc.
Here you can see a guide from bbc ,about this sound:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbYVN077--M
Now in romance languages (italian,spanish,portughese,french) from what I know this sound is not present at all.
In romanian language,the same sound,that is called schwa in english and wrriten in romanian as an a with small cap above - ă - ,is very present.In the words that are said to be coming from dacian language,is also very present,same sound (not as much as in english but is a very common sound).
For example as in apă varză etc.
If you do not believe me,just put those words on forvo.com and see how you pronounce them.
(choosed words you can found on forvo.com ).
Listen how the z in varză is pronounced,is exactly same as you pronounce s in raises or z in zero and so on.

Now this sound,z is also very present in words of dacian origin and pretty present in romanian words.
Can you see this sound pretty present in other romance languages,except french,where very likely is not a latin ancestry?
Because from what I know the latin language did not had the z sound or letter.
I might be wrong,please search examples and prove me that I am wrong.

Another example,take how you pronounce the ch in chair or how you pronounce it in chest,is exactly as the romanian pronunciation for the group of letters ce as in romanian word cer or ceară and so on.
I saw that swedes/norwegians usually have dificulty to pronounce this ch in english,they pronounce it almost as the sh in sharp.
(another resemblance with germanic language,the sound as it is in sharp,is pretty common in romanian language,we have even a letter for it,is s with a small coma under it,I do not know how to write it here;from what I know is also pretty present in german language,but almost absent from romance languages.)

Sure a lot more examples of sonorities specific to german languages very present in romanian language could be given,above just a few were given.

And what is very easy to see,on most romanian people from today,is the lack of resemblance between them and people of latin countries,as italians etc.
Most romanian people have a wide forehead and are heavy boned,which are not features of the mediteranid profile to which most population of Italy,Spain and Portugalia belongs to.
Also the facials lines are much straight and harsher for romanians,that you see for mediteranid populations,who have faces that gives the impression of roundness.
Almost all romanians have high cheekbones and their eyes are a little slanted,not rounded as someone else told above.
Not to mention that majority of romanian people are brachycephals,while most people in latin countries are dolichocephalics.

Go see how good can the usual romanian pronounce in english,they are pronouncing better than even scandinavians,who are known that can learn english and pronounce pretty well.
However,romanians are pronouncing even better in english.
The people from latin countries,including France (which is not really latin) can not pronounce well in english,same happens with greeks and germans have some problems with some sounds also,like schwa or how you should pronounce s in raises.
So I think dacians were clearly a germanic people,and today romanians are almost a germanic people.

I think the opposite,

if Thracians were the R1b and R1a means that they went west and North,

Germany is an exonym, as thracians was an exonym,
while Getae and daci might be inner name,

I controversary think that today Germanic people are older tribes and nations + Thracians + Scythians
while Slavic people is a mix of older people (thracians included) + scythians + Sarmates,


All modern Natons share heritage from past but are new Nations, new unification movements,

 

[Franco]

Well since Taranis was asking about language,there are some very strange resemblances between romanian language and germanic languages.
(I will not deny that a lot of romanian words are of latin source,or at least this is how is told.
I will not start to contest this.)
What is clear is that the sonority of romanian is most close from european languages with the english language and not with romance languages.
And here some few examples:
In english language a very common vowel (maybe most common) is what is called schwa,the sound as you pronounce the a in water or in banana or how you say the indefinite article,as example a chair etc.
Here you can see a guide from bbc ,about this sound:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbYVN077--M
Now in romance languages (italian,spanish,portughese,french) from what I know this sound is not present at all.
In romanian language,the same sound,that is called schwa in english and wrriten in romanian as an a with small cap above - ă - ,is very present.In the words that are said to be coming from dacian language,is also very present,same sound (not as much as in english but is a very common sound).
For example as in apă varză etc.
If you do not believe me,just put those words on forvo.com and see how you pronounce them.
(choosed words you can found on forvo.com ).
Listen how the z in varză is pronounced,is exactly same as you pronounce s in raises or z in zero and so on.

Now this sound,z is also very present in words of dacian origin and pretty present in romanian words.
Can you see this sound pretty present in other romance languages,except french,where very likely is not a latin ancestry?
Because from what I know the latin language did not had the z sound or letter.
I might be wrong,please search examples and prove me that I am wrong.

Another example,take how you pronounce the ch in chair or how you pronounce it in chest,is exactly as the romanian pronunciation for the group of letters ce as in romanian word cer or ceară and so on.
I saw that swedes/norwegians usually have dificulty to pronounce this ch in english,they pronounce it almost as the sh in sharp.
(another resemblance with germanic language,the sound as it is in sharp,is pretty common in romanian language,we have even a letter for it,is s with a small coma under it,I do not know how to write it here;from what I know is also pretty present in german language,but almost absent from romance languages.)

Sure a lot more examples of sonorities specific to german languages very present in romanian language could be given,above just a few were given.

And what is very easy to see,on most romanian people from today,is the lack of resemblance between them and people of latin countries,as italians etc.
Most romanian people have a wide forehead and are heavy boned,which are not features of the mediteranid profile to which most population of Italy,Spain and Portugalia belongs to.
Also the facials lines are much straight and harsher for romanians,that you see for mediteranid populations,who have faces that gives the impression of roundness.
Almost all romanians have high cheekbones and their eyes are a little slanted,not rounded as someone else told above.
Not to mention that majority of romanian people are brachycephals,while most people in latin countries are dolichocephalics.

Go see how good can the usual romanian pronounce in english,they are pronouncing better than even scandinavians,who are known that can learn english and pronounce pretty well.
However,romanians are pronouncing even better in english.
The people from latin countries,including France (which is not really latin) can not pronounce well in english,same happens with greeks and germans have some problems with some sounds also,like schwa or how you should pronounce s in raises.
So I think dacians were clearly a germanic people,and today romanians are almost a germanic people.

Nonsense.Romanian does not sound like Germanic languages more than other Romance languages. There may exist individual sounds in Romanian than coincidentally exist in Germanic languages and not in other Romance languages. But the same happens in let's say Spanish. The TH sound does not exist in any other Romance languages but it does in Icelandic. Is Spanish related to Icelandic? No, the TH sound appeared in Spanish in the XVI century, it's just coincidence. Romanian does in fact sound pretty Romance, more than French. A person speaking Romanian may even be took for a Portuguese by a person not very familiar with Romance tongues as both sound quite similiarly. Not to mention that in Catalan there are many words that are spelled and even pronunced exactly like in Romanian.

 

[mihaitzateo]

I have no ideea what dacians where but as phisical look they were is you look at statues from Arch of Constantine and other old statues,they are either dinarids or nordids.
That asociated with blue eyes and blonde hair shows that they were either some kind of germans or some kind of scandinavians.

The ideea with romanian "romance language" came from some romanian people in Transilvania,which studied at jesuits schools (in latin) so no wonder they made out of romanian "romance language".
But today romanians are mostly germanics and this is atested first by how they look and second about how their language is.
In Romania and Germany there are common popular traditions,linked to the fir tree,take for example that in older Romania traditions if people would not have priest,they would weed young people at fir tree since they consider this tree holy.How can you explain that?
That was long before the fir tree was introduced for use as Christmass tree.
Beside,in Romania P37.2 (I2 branch),the branch you find also in bosniaks and croats is at high percentages,but I think is a different branch of I2 than Serbia and Croatia,a more german I2 branch,considering the differences in look of the people.
Sure more genetic testing should be done.
As for romanian language being romance,the greatest romanian poet,Mihail Eminescu, made studies in german language (in Vienna) .He is romanian,how he could learn german language easy and even make studies in it and so on?
A romanian is not having absolute any problems to pronounce every german word,for english the th like in the is not that natural,even if it is very close to romanian z,is not found in usual romanian words.
Edit:
Just remembered,romanian language share with german language,the sound tz as in german eins zwei which in romanian is a common sound and have the letter t with a small underscore to represent it - ț -.
So if you write eins like this - einț - and you take a romanian who have no ideea about german language and put him to pronounce it,it will be the correct pronounciation.Same if you write zwei țwei or țvei because in romanian v is pronounced as w,and f is how you pronounce the german v.
How come most romanians are learning english only by watching TV,how come I made french in school from 5th grade till 12th grade and barely know to count to 10 and most romanians are having problems with learning french?
However,I only studied a few lessons of english after a little in school (4 years) and can speak english without any problems and pronounce as a normal englishman from UK.

As for the brachycephali of most romanians,that is clearly asociated ,considering language ,with a germanic ancestry,so it seems the native people of Romania did not mixed too much with latins from Roman empire.
How can you explain that the native population of Romania did not fought with gepids and goths,which were germanic or scandinavian tribes?
As for people saying that you find a lot of romanians with black hair,that is pure nonsense,maybe 1 from 10 romanians have black hair,but not even that often,most romanians have nuances of brown hair,with darker nuances of brown hair being more common.
As for black eyes,I did not saw any romanian with black eyes,most romanians have various nuances of brown eyes(most have a little lighter nuance of brown).A lot of romanians have blue or green eyes,for example when I made highschool in my class 6 boys from 12 were with brown eyes and 6 with green or blue eyes.

If you want to make DNA tests,you need more deep DNA tests,to see what kind of R1a1 have romanians here ,what kind of I2A,what kind of R1b.

 

[razor]

The Dacians (Getans) were an Indo-European people with their own language and culture, similar to, but different from, the Thracians to the south. They were not Germanics at all. Their archaeology is quite distinct from that of the Germanic peoples. Anyone who has bothered to read the literature would know this. The first Germanics with whom the Daco-Getans had dealings were the Bastarnians, who assimilated some of them and created the hybrid Poeneshti-Lukashovka culture of the 2nd/1rst c. BCE. This is all elementary stuff.
After the Roman conquest of Dacia, there were very large changes in the structure of the population. Contemporary Romanians are descendants of many inputs, from the Dacians onwards, including Roman colonists from all over the Empire, other Balkan populations, and a smattering of Germanics, Cumans, and especially Slavs. All modern populations are analogical mixtures.

 

[mihaitzateo]

I do not belive that the so called "south slavs" are in fact slavs.
That branch of I2,which is very present in Serbia and Montenegro and Croatia and Bosnia does not seems slavic at all.
How come south slavs are looking more close to south germans,if you take cepahlic index,how their beard is prominent,how their forehead is than to how other slavs are looking?
And I am not saying about russians,since russians are not really slavs,but slavs very mixed with vikings,so those are not a example of slavic look.
In the North of Russia,most people have N on paternal line,which is either finn or viking and not slavic.In the other parts of Russia,there is a serious pressence of I1A (10% or more),which is clearly of viking origin,also you can found a lot of russians with branches of norse R1a1.No ideea how much from the R1a1 in Russia is of slavic origin and how much of viking origin.

 

[razor]

You should take a refresher course in genetics. Y-DNA has nothing whatever to do with people's looks.

 

[Taranis]

The ideea with romanian "romance language" came from some romanian people in Transilvania,which studied at jesuits schools (in latin) so no wonder they made out of romanian "romance language".
But today romanians are mostly germanics and this is atested first by how they look and second about how their language is.
In Romania and Germany there are common popular traditions,linked to the fir tree,take for example that in older Romania traditions if people would not have priest,they would weed young people at fir tree since they consider this tree holy.How can you explain that?
That was long before the fir tree was introduced for use as Christmass tree.
Beside,in Romania P37.2 (I2 branch),the branch you find also in bosniaks and croats is at high percentages,but I think is a different branch of I2 than Serbia and Croatia,a more german I2 branch,considering the differences in look of the people.
Sure more genetic testing should be done.
As for romanian language being romance,the greatest romanian poet,Mihail Eminescu, made studies in german language (in Vienna) .He is romanian,how he could learn german language easy and even make studies in it and so on?
A romanian is not having absolute any problems to pronounce every german word,for english the th like in the is not that natural,even if it is very close to romanian z,is not found in usual romanian words.
Edit:
Just remembered,romanian language share with german language,the sound tz as in german eins zwei which in romanian is a common sound and have the letter t with a small underscore to represent it - ț -.
So if you write eins like this - einț - and you take a romanian who have no ideea about german language and put him to pronounce it,it will be the correct pronounciation.Same if you write zwei țwei or țvei because in romanian v is pronounced as w,and f is how you pronounce the german v.
How come most romanians are learning english only by watching TV,how come I made french in school from 5th grade till 12th grade and barely know to count to 10 and most romanians are having problems with learning french?
However,I only studied a few lessons of english after a little in school (4 years) and can speak english without any problems and pronounce as a normal englishman from UK.

I do not wish to sound offensive, but you really seem to have no understanding of linguistics. Romanian is a Romance language, and there's no point in denying that. Much of what you see as "Germanic" features in Romanian are just coincidentially similar: these features in German are not typical of Germanic but only occur in Standard German, as well as middle and upper German dialects (including Swiss German): they are the product of the Second Germanic Sound Shift.

I do not belive that the so called "south slavs" are in fact slavs.
That branch of I2,which is very present in Serbia and Montenegro and Croatia and Bosnia does not seems slavic at all.
How come south slavs are looking more close to south germans,if you take cepahlic index,how their beard is prominent,how their forehead is than to how other slavs are looking?
And I am not saying about russians,since russians are not really slavs,but slavs very mixed with vikings,so those are not a example of slavic look.
In the North of Russia,most people have N on paternal line,which is either finn or viking and not slavic.In the other parts of Russia,there is a serious pressence of I1A (10% or more),which is clearly of viking origin,also you can found a lot of russians with branches of norse R1a1.No ideea how much from the R1a1 in Russia is of slavic origin and how much of viking origin.

Sorry, but the South Slavic languages are clearly Slavic languages. As razor said before, the modern-day inhabitants of the Balkans are the melange of the inhabitans and immigrants during history, and to claim that they are just descended from one specific ethnicity. Seriously though, all this talk of yours about cephalic index, "dinarids" and "nordids", and forehead shape is just reminscient of the racial theories of the late 19th century. These have been disproven as complete nonsense, and they have no place here, if only for the fact that the adherence to certain Y-Haplogroups has no effect whatsoever on physical appearance.

 

[mihaitzateo]

I really doubt that people responding here,including taranis,even checked the sonority of romanian words.
I think some people are just having some pre-fabricated conceptions about romanians,which they refuse to check if are suported by some real evidences or not.
Is no point to try continue the discussion here,is like I am talking to walls.