Slavic homeland and ethnogenesis

[Rethel]

Lyakhs

No! No! No!

Lyakh it is russian innovation.
Oryginally was Lęch what gives polish name Lech, and tribal names Lechites.
In south slavic languages should be the same.

 

[Taranis]

Curta is archeologist and historian for Middle Age South-East Europe not Lingustic,he rather propose that the idea of "migrationism" doesn't make sense in his own archeology research,he also argue that the name Sclavene was missused and raised a lot of questions rightly so,the migration period is not supported today like before unless we base the same 'Slavic" migration on gigantic genocide of half Europe which doesnt make a lot of sense,we could see archeological proves mostly,could be linguistic spread,elite dominance whatever else or homogenity whilst their language was streghten from 6th-9th century,

You're missing my point entirely of what the problem with Curta is: Curta is completely ignorant of the linguistic situation in the Pannonian basin in Antiquity. There's no possibility that the Slavic languages evolved in the Pannonian basin - or on the Balkans - because we have plenty of evidence that the ethnolinguistic makeup of the Pannonian basin was a completely different one. The Slavic languages were introduced from somewhere else. It should also be noted that some of the key sound changes (notably Balto-Slavic *a to Slavic *o) are found amongst Latin loanwords (a good example is the word for donkey, Russian "osel" or "осел", from Latin "asellus"), and including Latin place names on the Balkans (for example "Tragurium" > "Trogir"). The only way for this to work out is that Slavic languages were introduced as a newcomer on the Balkans during the Migration Period.

Mario Alinei Specialist in Geo-Lingusitics proposal-Thracian problem and hypothesis:

Mario Alinei is an emeritus professor of the university of Utrecht, and he's the proponent of the so-called "Paleolithic Continuity Theory", which posits that the Indo-European languages are native to Europe since before agricultural revolution (amongst other things) which is a fringe position that does not hold water as it applies that the key items of Proto-Indo-European that even the Anatolian hypothesis concedes are reconstructable (common words for domesticated animals like "cow" or "ewe"), which Paleolithic Europeans didn't have. In his scenario, of course Alinei requires the Slavic languages to be present on the Balkans (just like Germanic languages in southern Germany, Proto-Italic in southern France, and Etruscan in Italy - the underlying idea is extreme language immobility ), but unless you buy into that hypothesis, there's no reason to bring in the Thracians here.

There's another argument to dismiss the Balkans homeland: how do explain that the Proto-Slavic language had to the word for "beech" from a Germanic source (Russian "buk" or "бук" - compare German "Buche", Swedish "bok", but also Gaulish *bāgo-, Latin "fāgus" and Greek "phēgos"), if beeches actually grow on the Balkans? Conversely, and this should be a giveaway, beeches do not grow in the area that was occupied by the Milograd culture.

 

[Милан М.]

You're missing my point entirely of what the problem with Curta is: Curta is completely ignorant of the linguistic situation in the Pannonian basin in Antiquity. There's no possibility that the Slavic languages evolved in the Pannonian basin - or on the Balkans - because we have plenty of evidence that the ethnolinguistic makeup of the Pannonian basin was a completely different one. The Slavic languages were introduced from somewhere else. It should also be noted that some of the key sound changes (notably Balto-Slavic *a to Slavic *o) are found amongst Latin loanwords (a good example is the word for donkey, Russian "osel" or "осел", from Latin "asellus"), and including Latin place names on the Balkans (for example "Tragurium" > "Trogir"). The only way for this to work out is that Slavic languages were introduced as a newcomer on the Balkans during the Migration Period.



Mario Alinei is an emeritus professor of the university of Utrecht, and he's the proponent of the so-called "Paleolithic Continuity Theory", which posits that the Indo-European languages are native to Europe since before agricultural revolution (amongst other things) which is a fringe position that does not hold water as it applies that the key items of Proto-Indo-European that even the Anatolian hypothesis concedes are reconstructable (common words for domesticated animals like "cow" or "ewe"), which Paleolithic Europeans didn't have. In his scenario, of course Alinei requires the Slavic languages to be present on the Balkans (just like Germanic languages in southern Germany, Proto-Italic in southern France, and Etruscan in Italy - the underlying idea is extreme language immobility ), but unless you buy into that hypothesis, there's no reason to bring in the Thracians here.

There's another argument to dismiss the Balkans homeland: how do explain that the Proto-Slavic language had to the word for "beech" from a Germanic source (Russian "buk" or "бук" - compare German "Buche", Swedish "bok", but also Gaulish *bāgo-, Latin "fāgus" and Greek "phēgos"), if beeches actually grow on the Balkans? Conversely, and this should be a giveaway, beeches do not grow in the area that was occupied by the Milograd culture.

Curta is archeologist not linguistic,don't know why you bring him into question,so called "migration" period has not much support in anything today to begin with,you prolong something that we have no knowledge on any Slavic in that region,neither in toponyms,neither in names until late 10th century,not Balkan homeland,the Danube basin or else wider area,that culture seem the less possible could be periphery with Iranic speakers at that time,isolated Slavic speaking groups could be in the Balkans,what's so weird about it?Trogir was build by Greek colonists on the Adriatic what name you expect,plus Balkans were dominated since Roman conquest with Latin as administrative language,i should ask what BylaZora-white dawn in Slavic,ancient Paeonia,Serbinum in Pannonian plain mentioned by Ptolemy and later authors derrived from the tribe Serboi etc, doesn't make sense, Pannonia was mixed heritage in antiquity,you wanna say that you know all the languages spoken there,or it was Celtic,Germanic really?i gave you written sources,place names,could you do the same with Milograd culture,i guess maybe Slavic came from the Arctic and all of a sudden half Europe spoke Slavic,the interaction between people wasn't same in every region,why you take Russian as example,we don't use Latin for donkey,the best is to look in the OCS if you want to reconstruct Proto-Slavic language.English word-book from Slavic Bukva spelling Bookva meaning letter and for this you say it has cognate in beech cause PIE people wrote on beech very possible lol Buk is not derrived from Germanic,in the Balkans the tree Bukva or Buk grows actually and we use that word it's a Slavic word,or the word Land in the Germanic languages from Slavic Ledina,if this site support Kurgan hypothesis of IE doesn't mean you are right all other lingustics wrong,Marija Gimbutas wasn't so bright either,why should we dismiss Thracian if we find the best comparison in Balto-Slavic or Baltic and Slavic languages? every other language push it back to proto-whatever and we can't compare similar language to ours and most probably same family.

 

[Милан М.]

How you explain this,if Slavic came from so far and so late:Balkanic Sprachbund locally or as place names,magula or tumba in Greece, mogila in Bulgaria, gòmila/mògila in Serbia,gamúle/mágule in Albania. But the word, with the meaning of ‘tumulus’, ‘tumb’, is diffused also in the rest of the Slavic area slava (Russ. mogíla, Ukr. mohýáa, Slovn.gomíla, Czec. Slovk. mohyla, Pol. mogiáa) and in Romania (Rum. măgură).Unfortunately, its etymology is not certain. But given its areal distribution, Vasmer’s proposal to connect it with Proto-Slavic *mogo, in the sense of ‘dominating site’ Tell are, of course, prehistoric sites of exceptional importance, not only for the significance of their stratigraphies, but also as signs of an uninterrupted continuity, both cultural and ethnic (Lichardus-Lichardus 1985, 229).While tells are very common in the Near and Middle East, where Neolithic cultures have an extraordinary and well-known duration and stability, in Europe they appear only in the Balkans, and only to the South of the Danube,and thus only in the Greek, Albanian and Southern Slavic area.

 

[Милан М.]

You're missing my point entirely of what the problem with Curta is: Curta is completely ignorant of the linguistic situation in the Pannonian basin in Antiquity. There's no possibility that the Slavic languages evolved in the Pannonian basin - or on the Balkans - because we have plenty of evidence that the ethnolinguistic makeup of the Pannonian basin was a completely different one. The Slavic languages were introduced from somewhere else. It should also be noted that some of the key sound changes (notably Balto-Slavic *a to Slavic *o) are found amongst Latin loanwords (a good example is the word for donkey, Russian "osel" or "осел", from Latin "asellus"), and including Latin place names on the Balkans (for example "Tragurium" > "Trogir"). The only way for this to work out is that Slavic languages were introduced as a newcomer on the Balkans during the Migration Period.



Mario Alinei is an emeritus professor of the university of Utrecht, and he's the proponent of the so-called "Paleolithic Continuity Theory", which posits that the Indo-European languages are native to Europe since before agricultural revolution (amongst other things) which is a fringe position that does not hold water as it applies that the key items of Proto-Indo-European that even the Anatolian hypothesis concedes are reconstructable (common words for domesticated animals like "cow" or "ewe"), which Paleolithic Europeans didn't have. In his scenario, of course Alinei requires the Slavic languages to be present on the Balkans (just like Germanic languages in southern Germany, Proto-Italic in southern France, and Etruscan in Italy - the underlying idea is extreme language immobility ), but unless you buy into that hypothesis, there's no reason to bring in the Thracians here.

There's another argument to dismiss the Balkans homeland: how do explain that the Proto-Slavic language had to the word for "beech" from a Germanic source (Russian "buk" or "бук" - compare German "Buche", Swedish "bok", but also Gaulish *bāgo-, Latin "fāgus" and Greek "phēgos"), if beeches actually grow on the Balkans? Conversely, and this should be a giveaway, beeches do not grow in the area that was occupied by the Milograd culture.

Another evidence that no Slavs migrated from Milograd culture or any of that region.
Much has been made of Slavic influence upon Romanian.But,if anything the linguistcis evidence contradicts the idea of migration of the Slavs from their Urheimat in Galicia(Western Ukraine) to the Balkans.Indeed,it has been noted that if speakers of Slavic came from some territory to the north east of what is today Romania one would expect a strong influence of East Slavic upon Romanian.This would be true even if "East Slavic" may not have existed at the time of supposed migration.Speakers of Slavic choosing to stay north of the Danube,instead joining the immigrants leaving for the Balkans,would remain in contact with the Urheimat and as a consequence their language would have been affected by changes most typical of East Slavic dialects.This would in turn show up in Slavic loans and various other features of the Slavic influence upon Romanian.But place and river names of Slavic origin in Romania overhelmingly point to a Southern not a Eastern influence,most Slavic loans in Romanian are of Balkan origin.

 

[Милан М.]

remember thracian was spoken even in Kaspian sea and minor Asia as historians say

Tios Bakchos (Phrygian Thracian) become Θεος compined with Dios, and Bog

We still use the word BOG for GOD.

 

[Милан М.]

either this either that Sun always shine when is not cloudy,

you can search Duridanov's work and Georgiev's, Itrust them a lot,
I could also give you some Greek thracologist, who search Thracian in Greek language, but these 2 are enough,
anyway I wrote in many previous threads about, so i am not going to repeat,
by the little true Thracian we know, they even are connected with Armenian and Scottish,
the myth of Balto-Slavic origin of Thracian seems anachronistic, they are either brother languages or sprunk from Thracian
it is rather the oposite,
in Fact sometimes I believe that even Gothic/Germanic sprunk from Thracian, but many linguists in forum show me not

remember thracian was spoken even in Kaspian sea and minor Asia as historians say

Tios Bakchos (Phrygian Thracian) become Θεος compined with Dios, and Bog
Thracian Muca = tribe Scottish Mac = clan Slavic Muscι Μuscarat = man Iran Muka =son
bekos = food Bread goes peka pekara in Slavic
mezena horseman exists only in Albanian Romanian
ostas river water Bulgarian uostije
saldas gold Slavic Zalta Zlata
as you see you can not put Thracian in modern, or connected with just one group,
they are even connected with Avestan Homeric and Indian

For Thracian we find most of the words in Balto-Slavic,some in Sanskrit and Avestan has cognates that is nothing new if we know the Indo-Aryan migration.Therefore Lithuanian (Baltic) like most archaic IE is the most similar to Sanskrit,all are from same root but some keep more archaism.

 

[Diurpaneus]

How you explain this,if Slavic came from so far and so late:Balkanic Sprachbund locally or as place names,magula or tumba in Greece, mogila in Bulgaria, gòmila/mògila in Serbia,gamúle/mágule in Albania. But the word, with the meaning of ‘tumulus’, ‘tumb’, is diffused also in the rest of the Slavic area slava (Russ. mogíla, Ukr. mohýáa, Slovn.gomíla, Czec. Slovk. mohyla, Pol. mogiáa) and in Romania (Rum. măgură).Unfortunately, its etymology is not certain. But given its areal distribution, Vasmer’s proposal to connect it with Proto-Slavic *mogo, in the sense of ‘dominating site’ Tell are, of course, prehistoric sites of exceptional importance, not only for the significance of their stratigraphies, but also as signs of an uninterrupted continuity, both cultural and ethnic (Lichardus-Lichardus 1985, 229).While tells are very common in the Near and Middle East, where Neolithic cultures have an extraordinary and well-known duration and stability, in Europe they appear only in the Balkans, and only to the South of the Danube,and thus only in the Greek, Albanian and Southern Slavic area.

"Magura"(large hill) clearly underwent rhotacization, a process that affects only the words of Latin and "autochthonous" origin;in other words,Slavic wasn't its source,nor Greek.

It doesn't seem Latin either,they have tried to derive it from "macula",but it's a long shot.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=macula&allowed_in_frame=0

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/macula#Latin

"Thus, Latin caelum (meaning 'heaven' or 'sky') became Romanian cer, Latin fenestra (meaning 'window') becomes Romanian fereastră, and Latin felicitas (meaning 'happiness') Romanian fericire."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotacism#Linguistics



Albanian maguLe,Romanian maguRa

Albanian modhuLLe(pea), Romanian mazaRe

Albanian vjedhuLLe(badger), Romanian viezuRe



related terms:


PIE root: muk-,a heap,etc.

O.Ice. mugi, mugr “heap, bulk, mass"
O.E. muga m. “(corn, grain-)heap
Nor. dial. mukka “heap, bulk, mass”, M.H.G. mocke m. “clump, gobbet “
M.L.G. muke, Dutch muik, M.H.G. muche, Ger. (half nd.)
Mauke f., b O.Ir. (genuine hochd.) Mauche “ hunch, outgrowth"(Pokorny)


mogul (n.2)
"elevation on a ski slope," 1961, probably [Barnhart] from Scandinavian (compare dialectal Norwegian mugje, fem. muga, "a heap, a mound"), or [OED] from southern German dialect mugel in the same sense.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mogul&allowed_in_frame=0

 

[Милан М.]

"Magura"(large hill) clearly underwent rhotacization, a process that affects only the words of Latin and "autochthonous" origin;in other words,Slavic wasn't its source.

It doesn't seem Latin either,they have tried to derive it from "macula",but it's a long shot.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=macula&allowed_in_frame=0

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/macula#Latin

"Thus, Latin caelum (meaning 'heaven' or 'sky') became Romanian cer, Latin fenestra (meaning 'window') becomes Romanian fereastră, and Latin felicitas (meaning 'happiness') Romanian fericire."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotacism#Linguistics



Albanian maguLe,Romanian maguRa

Albanian modhuLLe(pea), Romanian mazaRe

Albanian vjedhuLLe(badger), Romanian viezuRe



related terms:


PIE root: muk-,a heap,etc.

O.Ice. mugi, mugr “heap, bulk, mass"
O.E. muga m. “(corn, grain-)heap
Nor. dial. mukka “heap, bulk, mass”, M.H.G. mocke m. “clump, gobbet “
M.L.G. muke, Dutch muik, M.H.G. muche, Ger. (half nd.)
Mauke f., b O.Ir. (genuine hochd.) Mauche “ hunch, outgrowth"(Pokorny)


mogul (n.2)
"elevation on a ski slope," 1961, probably [Barnhart] from Scandinavian (compare dialectal Norwegian mugje, fem. muga, "a heap, a mound"), or [OED] from southern German dialect mugel in the same sense.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mogul&allowed_in_frame=0

As far i am aware Latin is not autochtounous in the Balkans neither any Romance,in Balto-Slavic or Thracian we seem to explain most of the settlements in large area of the Balkans,we are talking about languages here not about any "migrations" this word couldn't enter Slavic like many others if the same language came there in the 6th century with a cultures long gone,this are old research which you post,many words couldn't be explained cause they push Slavic to be very young and actualy it isn't.

 

[Diurpaneus]

Milan,"autochthonous"(vocabulary) means "Paleo-Balkanic"(vocabulary),those three Albanian-Romanian correspondences have nothing to do with Latin.

 

[Милан М.]

Milan,"autochthonous"(vocabulary) means "Paleo-Balkanic"(vocabulary),those three Albanian-Romanian correspondences have nothing to do with Latin.

Yes but i was saying that those Paleo-Balkanic languages and many places,settlements,words fit very well in Balto-Slavic and can be explained,depends on region the word itself is very old and how can you trace in Albanian-Romanian that is another thing,the word mean Tumulus.

 

[Taranis]

Another evidence that no Slavs migrated from Milograd culture or any of that region.
Much has been made of Slavic influence upon Romanian.But,if anything the linguistcis evidence contradicts the idea of migration of the Slavs from their Urheimat in Galicia(Western Ukraine) to the Balkans.Indeed,it has been noted that if speakers of Slavic came from some territory to the north east of what is today Romania one would expect a strong influence of East Slavic upon Romanian.This would be true even if "East Slavic" may not have existed at the time of supposed migration.Speakers of Slavic choosing to stay north of the Danube,instead joining the immigrants leaving for the Balkans,would remain in contact with the Urheimat and as a consequence their language would have been affected by changes most typical of East Slavic dialects.This would in turn show up in Slavic loans and various other features of the Slavic influence upon Romanian.But place and river names of Slavic origin in Romania overhelmingly point to a Southern not a Eastern influence,most Slavic loans in Romanian are of Balkan origin.

You are aware that Romanian (hint: the name should be a giveaway) is a Romance language that is derived from Latin. Of course there would be a common words, because the Slavs arrived on the Balkans after the Romans.

i guess maybe Slavic came from the Arctic and all of a sudden half Europe spoke Slavic,the interaction between people wasn't same in every region,why you take Russian as example,we don't use Latin for donkey,the best is to look in the OCS if you want to reconstruct Proto-Slavic language.

Really, the Milograd culture wasn't located in the Arctic. Also, there's still Slavic languages spoken there today (Belorussian). East Slavic and West Slavic peoples don't exist and the Balkans is the navel of the Slavic-speaking world? The point is, we do not have data for the Milograd culture because people were iliterate. But we do have data for the Pannonian basin in the centuries before the Migratiod Period, and as I said, there's no Slavic place names or personal names there. The earliest recorded name of the city of Belgrade, for example, is "Singidunum" (Celtic in origin).

English word-book from Slavic Bukva spelling Bookva meaning letter and for this you say it has cognate in beech cause PIE people wrote on beech very possible lol Buk is not derrived from Germanic,in the Balkans the tree Bukva or Buk grows actually and we use that word it's a Slavic word,why you think is Germanic loanword,

What tell us that the word is a Germanic loanword? Basic concepts of linguistics (sound correspondences). When discussing language families, one should be aware of these concepts. In this specific case, the Slavic word adheres a Germanic sound shift (*g > *k, part of Grimm's Law). The Slavic word for 'letter' (e.g. Russian "bukva" or "буква") is also borrowed from Germanic. If there was a native Slavic word for "beech" (cognate with Latin "fagus" and Greek "phegos"), it would probably be something akin to *baz.

I should add that the Slavic word "grad" (town, city) is itself a Germanic loanword, because of the *d, which is unexpected in Slavic, and can only be explained to the effects of Grimm's Law and Verner's Law. The Slavic word is a cognate with English "garden", German "Garten", and further Old Irish "gort" ('field'), Latin "horta" ('garden'), Greek "chortos" or "χορτος" (grass, pasture).

 

[Arame]

Taranis

How linguists explain some similarities that exist between Phrygian and Slavic languages?
Yes this words are common to IE but isn't it perplexing that their phonetic forms are closer to Slavic?

Zemelo - a ground, a mortal a slave, man on ground - Slav. Zemlia , *zemja
eistani - (they are setting), to setup something - *sta, Stanovit
eksis, ezis - hedgehog - Slavic *ezji, Greek ekhinos, Armenian ozni, Lithuanian ez'ys (a hedgehog) - Note that the Slavic form is closer and lacks the N that is present in Greek and Armenian forms
wit- (to know) - vedat (to know in Russian ) also to see videt in Russian.

For the word Grad I saw Your explanation. I mean the capital Gordion.

I should add that the Slavic word "grad" (town, city) is itself a Germanic loanword, because of the *d, which is unexpected in Slavic, and can only be explained to the effects of Grimm's Law and Verner's Law.

 

[Arame]

Thracian tomps also shown some H Hg!!!
so it is more possible that Balts and Slavic sprunk from Thracian, possible after Scythian entrance
in Yamna Hypothesis for me Thracian is the oldest IE language in Europe

Yetos
Older than Mycenean Greek ? I believe You that Thracian is an old language, but when Thracian text is attested?

 

[Taranis]

Taranis

How linguists explain some similarities that exist between Phrygian and Slavic languages?
Yes this words are common to IE but isn't it perplexing that their phonetic forms are closer to Slavic?

Phrygian and Slavic are both Indo-European, and Satem languages? Beyond that, I don't see them as particularly close, to be honest.

For the word Grad I saw Your explanation. I mean the capital Gordion.

The name "Gordion" is obviously unrelated. The reason is simple, because the chronology would make it impossible. As I discussed earlier, we have a good idea when the sound shift *a > *o occured in Proto-Slavic. As I said, Latin loanwords and placenames are subject to it, this means that the sound shift occured some time during the Migration Period. Before that, it would have been *gard in Proto-Slavic, which is closer to the Germanic form (because, unsurprisingly, it was borrowed from there ). The city of Gordion existed over 1000 years earlier. So unless you posit that the ancient Gordion was named by time-travelling Slavs from the middle ages, this is pretty impossible.

 

[Garrick]

I should add that the Slavic word "grad" (town, city) is itself a Germanic loanword, because of the *d, which is unexpected in Slavic, and can only be explained to the effects of Grimm's Law and Verner's Law. The Slavic word is a cognate with English "garden", German "Garten", and further Old Irish "gort" ('field'), Latin "horta" ('garden'), Greek "chortos" or "χορτος" (grass, pasture).

Maybe you're right, maybe no. Linguists dispute if (Lith.) gardas = stall, (Old. Church Sl.) gradu = town, (Russ.) gorod = city etc. had independent development or they borrowed from Germanic how you say or maybe from Phrygian, gordum = town.

It is interesting (Germ.) garten, (Eng.) garden = (Serb.) = gradina.

Maybe you are right partially. If this word is not Phrygian, or perhaps Thracian or Dacian, I would say this word perhaps borrowed from Celtic not Germanic, even Proto Celtic.

I think Proto Celtic is older than forerunners of Germanic and Romance. For me Proto Celtic should be very old.

 

[Arame]

Taranis
I just want to learn. I am ready to hear every opinion.
If You say that the sound shift *a > *o occured in Proto-Slavic. Then why the same thing happened in the Phrygian?
And if this word is Germanic in origin then why Slavs and Phrygian kept the meaning as a city. But other IE languages have other meanings distant from the town/city?

I am not saying 'Slavs' build Gordion, I just say why Proto-Slavs coudn't borrow this word from Phrygians?

he Slavic word is a cognate with English "garden", German "Garten", and further Old Irish "gort" ('field'), Latin "horta" ('garden'), Greek "chortos" or "χορτος" (grass, pasture).

 

[Милан М.]

You are aware that Romanian (hint: the name should be a giveaway) is a Romance language that is derived from Latin. Of course there would be a common words, because the Slavs arrived on the Balkans after the Romans.

How sure you are Balto-Slavic(Thracian) was much prior then the Romans.
Really, the Milograd culture wasn't located in the Arctic. Also, there's still Slavic languages spoken there today (Belorussian). East Slavic and West Slavic peoples don't exist and the Balkans is the navel of the Slavic-speaking world? The point is, we do not have data for the Milograd culture because people were iliterate. But we do have data for the Pannonian basin in the centuries before the Migratiod Period, and as I said, there's no Slavic place names or personal names there. The earliest recorded name of the city of Belgrade, for example, is "Singidunum" (Celtic in origin).



What tell us that the word is a Germanic loanword? Basic concepts of linguistics (sound correspondences). When discussing language families, one should be aware of these concepts. In this specific case, the Slavic word adheres a Germanic sound shift (*g > *k, part of Grimm's Law). The Slavic word for 'letter' (e.g. Russian "bukva" or "буква") is also borrowed from Germanic. If there was a native Slavic word for "beech" (cognate with Latin "fagus" and Greek "phegos"), it would probably be something akin to *baz.

I should add that the Slavic word "grad" (town, city) is itself a Germanic loanword, because of the *d, which is unexpected in Slavic, and can only be explained to the effects of Grimm's Law and Verner's Law. The Slavic word is a cognate with English "garden", German "Garten", and further Old Irish "gort" ('field'), Latin "horta" ('garden'), Greek "chortos" or "χορτος" (grass, pasture).

The "arival" is proven by what 19th century inception? I see a debate yet.. and have you understand the point what i actualy wrote if "Slavs" came from that region the influence upon Romanian would be East Slavic and not South Slavic,haven't said East and West don't exist but there is no proves that "Slavs" came from the North,haven't said Balkans is the core but you did,most of the Thracian settlements,words are explainable to Balto-Slavic which was i think prior in the Balkans and Danube basin and especialy prior Germanic,i think you go in opposite direction when you explain the languages plus Grad mean fortress and city,Slavic could evolved from Balto Slavic in the Danube Basin most probably and some wider area half Europe speak Slavic,like you said Milograd were "iliterate" well i doubt they could impose language on half Europe in "migration" well they were perhaps numerous lol the settlements like example Thracian dyza,dyz(fortress)evolved in Slavic zyd (wall) zyda,zydati -to build wall,and were replaced by others,same like Celtics doesn't use Dunum anymore for settlement cause is Old etimology,your Garden could come from Slavic Gradina (Garden) as well,thus Grad (city) and Gradina (Garden) don't mix the two.

 

[Rethel]

in Slavic zyd(wall) zyda-to build were replaced by others,

I have Мilan no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Garrick]

I have Мilan no idea what you are talking about.

He said that Thracian dyza (fortress) evolved in Slavic zyd (zid = wall), zyda (zida, verb. zidati in Serbian = to build wall).

This is known.