Thracians spoke Balto Slavic language

I am not a linguist. I don't know if you are. If you are not, every discussion about languages is waste of time, is like two deaf people talking.

What I wrote,about the multitude of Slavic words in Romanian,is well known about most Romanian scholars.
What is not known,is how these words got here.
Some supposition which is accepted by most says that Thraco-Dacian population from Romania was very low,after lots of fights,so they accepted a lot of Slavic people,to settle in Romania.
From these people these words came.
However,if South Romania would have had a lot of Slavs here,should be more light haired.
So I think the source of most words might have been from Dacian that conquest old population.
Sadly,there are very very few autosomal tests made for Romanians,to see how much Western admixture is here.
I do agree that most Albanian genetics is from Illyrians and 2nd,from Thraco-Dacians because there is too much Western admixture in Albanians,compared to South Slavs from near them.
However,the language can not be descendant of Illyrian,but of Thraco-Dacian,because is Satem language.
 
Well you do not even know basic history.
A part of Dacia was under Roman Empire,but only for 125 years.
A much larger of Dacia was under Goths,Ostrogoths etc for a longer period,but Romanian barely has any borrowings from East Germanic languages.
How this can be explained?

And 2nd ,as number of words common with other languages,in Romanian,are Slavic languages,especially Bulgarian.
At least 20% of the words from Romanian are common with some Slavic language.
But it seems that if you also take Old Slavic and common words with South Slavic dialects,like Macedonian,is even more.
Romanian also have some cognates with Albanian,that are not common with Latin or Slavic,about 300 or towards 500 words.

Now coming back to the Roman conquest of Dacia,areas like Moldavia were never conquered by Roman Empire,however,those people are speaking Romanian with a little different accent.
And they (Moldovans,not matter if they are from Bessarabia or from Moldavia from Romania) have a lot of I2A and 2nd R1A1.And most are wide faced,which is common with Eastern Slavs and Baltids,not with any Balkanic people,for your info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_province_of_Dacia_(106_-_271_AD).svg
As you can see the people inhabiting that area,during Roman Empire conquest,are still called Daci,Carpi (which was a Dacian tribe),Sarmatae (which were Iranic people,or proto-Slavic people,or mixture of both,anyway,Satem speakers,most blue eyed and light haired) and Bastarnae.
Bastarnae are not known what they are,if they were Celtic or Scytho-Sarmatian people.
Not to mention Romanian sonority is quite unique in Europe,sharing some letters/sounds with Eastern Slavs,which are not present in any other language from Europe and have plenty of other harsh sounds as Z,J etc which were not found in Latin and are not found in any Romance language either.
(except French,but this is not really Romance,more like Gallo-Romance).
So is clear that Romanian have plenty of words common with Romance languages,not only Italian but also lots with French,but how does this makes these words borrowed from Latin?
I do not understand why this theory,which says,Spanish,French,Portuguesse,are coming from Latin?
I think this theory (even if very supported) have same logic as saying that Swedish/Norwegian/Danish,English,Dutch etc all are coming from German.
I think is much more logic to suppose it existed a proto-Romance language from which Latin,Italian,Romanian,Spanish etc split.
And would be quite logical that Illyrians were speaking some kind of proto-Romance,since they were living very closed to Italy.
I always wondered if there were some Italic tribes in Romania in pre-Roman and Roman times. Left over after Italics' migration from East to West? They came from somewhere East, settled in Valachia(?), then after few centuries, half of them moved to Italy, half stayed there. This might explain dominance of Romance/Vlach language in this area, In other areas it was easier for Thracians to change to old Slavic, because of similarities and satem nature of these two languages.
 
I don't get your point. I don't know where you get the information about Albanian language. I am a native speaker of that language and I know what am I talking about. If you have entertaining porpuse in your mind keep doing what you doing.

I just don't see how can you not get the point. Nobody is that stupid. You're joking with us, right?
 
The Romans imposed Latin on the inhabitants of Romania (mostly Dacians derived from Illyrians). This is known fact, it took place during roman rule of the region.
 
In 700 A.D. Slavic tribes made a heavy push from the Russian plains towards east-Central Europe. This movement could explain many modern European Slavic derived tongues such as Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Croatian in part, Serbian (not Hungarian as this is a Finno-Ugric language) etc.
 
I don't see what else could explain a Common Slavic linguistic link in these nations and a few others, if not for movements of Slavs holding the R1a marker from the Ukrainian refuge genera legion.
 
The Romans imposed Latin on the inhabitants of Romania (mostly Dacians derived from Illyrians). This is known fact, it took place during roman rule of the region.
This is pure Ceausescu propaganda.
"The grouping of Dacian, Illyrian and Thracian languages into a Thraco-Illyrian branch of the Indo-European language family, a widespread idea in the first half of the 20th century, has lost popularity because of the lack of convincing evidence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Romanians
 
In 700 A.D. Slavic tribes made a heavy push from the Russian plains towards east-Central Europe. This movement could explain many modern European Slavic derived tongues such as Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Croatian in part, Serbian (not Hungarian as this is a Finno-Ugric language) etc.

Why exclude Hungary? Their relation with Uralic tribes is more lingustical and formal, than genetical.

I think that Slavs inhabited central Europe spreading from 4 rivers (Don, Dniester, Dnieper, Danube) up to river Oder, Vistula and Laba, but that was situation long before AD. Everything suggests that Goths made a big push towards East and South. After that we had Slavs pushing South to the borders of Byzant and Constantinople. Middle East was already in war. You don't go to war if don't have much to plunder. Inhabitants of Europe (Goths, Celts and Slavs) were probably very poor comparing to Levant and Mediterranean so they had no reason to wage wars amongst themselves. It was probably the appearance of money that started all that fuss.
 
I was ONLY speaking linguistically dude, of course modern Hungarians are not related to Finno-Ugrians but to nearby Europeans.
 
I2a, R1a, R1b; all these European paternal groups are very present in the Hungarian y-DNA melting pot, everyone knows that.
 
So wait a minute gyms, you are contesting that the Romans imposed Latin tongue on Romania?
 
Why exclude Hungary? Their relation with Uralic tribes is more lingustical and formal, than genetical.

I think that Slavs inhabited central Europe spreading from 4 rivers (Don, Dniester, Dnieper, Danube) up to river Oder, Vistula and Laba, but that was situation long before AD. Everything suggests that Goths made a big push towards East and South. After that we had Slavs pushing South to the borders of Byzant and Constantinople. Middle East was already in war. You don't go to war if don't have much to plunder. Inhabitants of Europe (Goths, Celts and Slavs) were probably very poor comparing to Levant and Mediterranean so they had no reason to wage wars amongst themselves. It was probably the appearance of money that started all that fuss.

Not really sure about the warfare between Goths, Slavs and Kelts (given the timeline) but there was a lot of warfare between the so-called "Barbarians" before the common enemy Rome;

Strabo - VII/III
Boerebistas a Getan, on setting himself in authority over the tribe, restored the people, who had been reduced to an evil plight by numerous wars, and raised them to such a height through training, sobriety, and obedience to his commands that within only a few years he had established a great empire and subordinated to the Getae most of the neighboring peoples. And he began to be formidable even to the Romans, because he would cross the Ister with impunity and plunder Thrace as far as Macedonia and the Illyrian country; and he not only laid waste the country of the Celti who were intermingled with the Thracians and the Illyrians, but actually caused the complete disappearance of the Boii who were under the rule of Critasirus,

Strabo equates the Getae with the Daci as does Cassius and both Cassius and Herodotus considered the Getae to be Thracians living on both sides of the Danube/Ister;

Than there is also the account of Ariovistus (Plutarch/Appian) a Germanic chieftain (most prob. Herminonen) that crossed the Rhine into Gallic territory and the Gauls calling the Romans for help;
Or this passage from Caesar's Commentaries -

Julius Caesar - De Bello Gallico I/I
Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because they are furthest from the civilization and refinement of Province, and merchants least frequently resort to them, and import those things which tend to effeminate the mind; and they are the nearest to the Germans, who dwell beyond the Rhine, with whom they are continually waging war; for which reason the Helvetii also surpass the rest of the Gauls in valor, as they contend with the Germans in almost daily battles, when they either repel them from their own territories, or themselves wage war on their frontiers.

And judging by the cemeteries of the Gauls/Kelts and Thracians (Iron-age onwards) and the vast amounts of Gold/Silver in them - neither was that poor to begin with; In-fact more prosperous than most Greek cities and early Rome;
 
In 700 A.D. Slavic tribes made a heavy push from the Russian plains towards east-Central Europe. This movement could explain many modern European Slavic derived tongues such as Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Croatian in part, Serbian (not Hungarian as this is a Finno-Ugric language) etc.

In the time of Thracianas there was practically same distribution of haplogroups in the Balkans as today. Slavs changed the haplogroup situation in the Balkans less than 5%. Why Balkan inhabitants easily adopted South Slavic language? Because languages natives and newcomers probably were similar. There are scientists in the world who claim that native inhabitants and newcomers spoke very similar language. If this is true Balto Slavic languages ​​are spoken in the Balkans 4 millennia or more.
 
In the time of Thracianas there was practically same distribution of haplogroups in the Balkans as today. Slavs changed the haplogroup situation in the Balkans less than 5%. Why Balkan inhabitants easily adopted South Slavic language? Because languages natives and newcomers probably were similar. There are scientists in the world who claim that native inhabitants and newcomers spoke very similar language. If this is true Balto Slavic languages ​​are spoken in the Balkans 4 millennia or more.
Entertaining. Salute for the sense of humor!
 
Entertaining. Salute for the sense of humor!

Maybe you can laugh the science, or maybe you don’t like the science, and why not, everyone can have own believing.

But the things are complex, and the science tries to give us the answers for this complexity. Of course, definitive answers often are not possible. Thus, the science has paradigms, theories, hypothesis, etc. Coming to know is not easy.

There are several paradigms of origins of Indo-European languages: Copper age theory, Neolithic theory and Paleolitic continue theory.

For our theme this third paradigm is most interesting. Paleolithic continue theory has a lot of scientists: Ballester, Cavazza, Hausler, Poghire, Alinei, etc.

According these opinions languages are much more ancient. Different grammatical structures are more ancient than Copper Age or Neolithic, and they reflect slow development process. It means that there is continuity with Paleolithic. Differentiation of languages was very very slow process.

We can here speak about very interesting things, and about different cultures in space-time continuum from Caspian sea (and further to the East) to Western Europe, and from Paleolithic to Chalcolitic, but it would be require a lot of time and it is not for this theme. It is for other topics, and some of them are already open.

We can consider Balto-Slavic area which reaches almost half of Europe. We will here focus only to Slavic area. And languages in this area are much more homogenous than languages in Western Europe. Also, Slavic languages have unique asymmetric distribution. Traditional theory about Slavs and Slavic language in the light of Paleolithic continue theory is not sustainable. The newer knowledge from lot of sciences: archeology, linguistics and (geolinguistcs), genetics, paleoanthropology, cognitive sciences etc. are in according to Paleolithic continue theory.

The scientists discovered one very important asymmetry in Slavic languages: Southern bloc in Slavic languages is unique, but Northern bloc is divided in two branches: Western and Eastern branch. According to Paleolitic continue theory the scientists can find explanation for this:

Souther Slavic was earlier core, Northern branches had later development!

This discovery was done by Italian scientist Mario Alinei. Modern science based on Paleolitic continue theory says that great migration of Slavs to the Balkans didn’t exist, and that Slavs, or as the inhabitants of these areas have already called, were there from remote times.
 
I was ONLY speaking linguistically dude, of course modern Hungarians are not related to Finno-Ugrians but to nearby Europeans.

Ye, ye, no problem, just making sure we're on the same latitude.
 
Not really sure about the warfare between Goths, Slavs and Kelts (given the timeline) but there was a lot of warfare between the so-called "Barbarians" before the common enemy Rome;

Strabo ... Julius Caesar ...

And judging by the cemeteries of the Gauls/Kelts and Thracians (Iron-age onwards) and the vast amounts of Gold/Silver in them - neither was that poor to begin with; In-fact more prosperous than most Greek cities and early Rome;

I know about those times, but I was thinking some way further in the past. In Strabo's time gold coins already existed, and everyone in Europe was aware of the value of the gold and were digging for it. I'm thinking before ~ 700 BC.
Yes I agree, there must have been wars, especially with the neighbours, but I have a feeling that great movements of "all male" warrior groups didn't happen before good/silver money was adopted.

I know that gold was valued thousands of years before that, but I'm not sure that Goths were aware of Pharaoh's love for gold? Another problem is did they have it? Cause, even if Goths were aware of the value of the Gold in like 5000 BC, it wouldn't do them any good to start a war campaign into Slavic tribes which have none of it.
 

This thread has been viewed 149519 times.

Back
Top