Misplaced Pages

#269730

82-458: A Daco-Thracian (or Thraco-Dacian ) grouping with Dacian as either the same language or different from Thracian was widely held until the 1950s, but is untenable (according to J. P. Mallory ) in light of toponymic evidence: only a percent of place names north of the Danube betray "pan-Thracian" roots. The hypothesis of a Thraco-Dacian or Daco-Thracian branch of IE, indicating a close link between

164-859: A in Thracian, has been disputed by Russu. A comparison of Georgiev's and Duridanov's reconstructed words with the same meaning in the two languages shows that, although they shared some words, many words were different. However, even if such reconstructions are accepted as valid, an insufficient quantity of words have been reconstructed in each language to establish that they were unrelated. According to Georgiev (1977), Dacian placenames and personal names are completely different from their Thracian counterparts. However, Tomaschek (1883) and Mateescu (1923) argue that some common elements exist in Dacian and Thracian placenames and personal names, but Polomé considered that research had, by 1982, confirmed Georgiev's claim of

246-750: A in Thracian, has been disputed by Russu. A comparison of Georgiev's and Duridanov's reconstructed words with the same meaning in the two languages shows that, although they shared some words, many words were different. However, even if such reconstructions are accepted as valid, an insufficient quantity of words have been reconstructed in each language to establish that they were unrelated. According to Georgiev (1977), Dacian placenames and personal names are completely different from their Thracian counterparts. However, Tomaschek (1883) and Mateescu (1923) argue that some common elements exist in Dacian and Thracian placenames and personal names, but Polomé considered that research had, by 1982, confirmed Georgiev's claim of

328-529: A sister language to ancient Greek. Historian Anna Avramea considered that the Thracian language was related to Greek as well, but that it was later alienated. Sorin Mihai Olteanu, a Romanian linguist and Thracologist , proposed that the Thracian (as well as the Dacian) language was a centum language in its earlier period, and developed satem features over time. One of the arguments for this idea

410-784: A Thracian or Dacian word contained such a phoneme, a Greek or Latin transcript would not represent it accurately. Because of this, there are divergent and even contradictory assumptions for the phonological structure and development of the Dacian and Thracian languages. This can be seen from the different sound-changes proposed by Georgiev and Duridanov, reproduced above, even though these scholars agree that Thracian and Dacian were different languages. Also, some sound-changes proposed by Georgiev have been disputed, e.g., that IE *T (tenuis) became Thracian TA (tenuis aspiratae), and *M (mediae) = T : it has been argued that in both languages IE *MA (mediae aspiratae) fused into M and that *T remained unchanged. Georgiev's claim that IE *o mutated into

492-784: A Thracian or Dacian word contained such a phoneme, a Greek or Latin transcript would not represent it accurately. Because of this, there are divergent and even contradictory assumptions for the phonological structure and development of the Dacian and Thracian languages. This can be seen from the different sound-changes proposed by Georgiev and Duridanov, reproduced above, even though these scholars agree that Thracian and Dacian were different languages. Also, some sound-changes proposed by Georgiev have been disputed, e.g., that IE *T (tenuis) became Thracian TA (tenuis aspiratae), and *M (mediae) = T : it has been argued that in both languages IE *MA (mediae aspiratae) fused into M and that *T remained unchanged. Georgiev's claim that IE *o mutated into

574-791: A clear onomastic divide between Thrace and Moesia/Dacia. Georgiev highlighted a striking divergence between placename-suffixes in Dacia/Moesia and Thrace: Daco-Moesian placenames generally carry the suffix -dava (variants: -daba , -deva ), meaning "town" or "stronghold". But placenames in Thrace proper, i.e. south of the Balkan mountains commonly end in -para or -pera , meaning "village" or "settlement" (cf Sanskrit pura = "town", from which derives Hindi town-suffix -pur , e.g., Udaipur = "city of Udai"). Map showing -dava/-para divide Georgiev argues that such toponymic divergence renders

656-625: A clear onomastic divide between Thrace and Moesia/Dacia. Georgiev highlighted a striking divergence between placename-suffixes in Dacia/Moesia and Thrace: Daco-Moesian placenames generally carry the suffix -dava (variants: -daba , -deva ), meaning "town" or "stronghold". But placenames in Thrace proper, i.e. south of the Balkan mountains commonly end in -para or -pera , meaning "village" or "settlement" (cf Sanskrit pura = "town", from which derives Hindi town-suffix -pur , e.g., Udaipur = "city of Udai"). Map showing -dava/-para divide Georgiev argues that such toponymic divergence renders

738-648: A close group with the Baltic (resp. Balto-Slavic), the Dacian and the ' Pelasgian ' languages. More distant were its relations with the other Indo-European languages, and especially with Greek, the Italic and Celtic languages, which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities with Thracian; the Tokharian and the Hittite were also distant." Of about 200 reconstructed Thracian words by Duridanov, most cognates (138) appear in

820-597: A common linguistic branch (not merely a Sprachbund ) is probable. Among the Thraco-Illyrian correspondences Russu considers are the following: Not many Thraco-Illyrian correspondences are definite, and a number may be incorrect, even from the list above. However, Sorin Paliga states: "According to the available data, we may surmise that Thracian and Illyrian were mutually understandable, e.g. like Czech and Slovak , in one extreme, or like Spanish and Portuguese, at

902-492: A common treatment of Proto-Indo-European glottal stops, that Thracian can be considered a Proto-Armenian dialect, thus, the two languages forming a Thraco-Armenian branch of Indo-European. Kortlandt has also postulated a link between Thraco-Armenian and the hypothetical Graeco-Phrygian language family. Despite Thracian and Armenian being Satem languages and Greek and Phrygian being Centum languages, Kortlandt identifies sound correspondences and grammatical similarities, postulating

SECTION 10

#1732775598270

984-611: A language closely related to Venetic and Phrygian but with a certain Daco-Moesian admixture. Venetic and Phrygian are considered centum languages, and this may mean that Georgiev, like many other paleolinguists, viewed Illyrian as probably being a centum language with Daco-Moesian admixture. Georgiev proposed that Albanian, a satemised language, developed from Daco-Moesian, a satemised language group, and not from Illyrian. But lack of evidence prevents any firm centum/satem classification for these ancient languages. Renfrew argues that

1066-550: A language closely related to Venetic and Phrygian but with a certain Daco-Moesian admixture. Venetic and Phrygian are considered centum languages, and this may mean that Georgiev, like many other paleolinguists, viewed Illyrian as probably being a centum language with Daco-Moesian admixture. Georgiev proposed that Albanian, a satemised language, developed from Daco-Moesian, a satemised language group, and not from Illyrian. But lack of evidence prevents any firm centum/satem classification for these ancient languages. Renfrew argues that

1148-1237: A recent common ancestor. After creating a list of names of rivers and personal names with a high number of parallels, the Romanian linguist Mircea M. Radulescu classified the Daco-Moesian and Thracian as Baltic languages, result of Baltic expansion to the south and also proposed such classification for Illyrian . The American linguist Harvey Mayer refers to both Dacian and Thracian as Baltic languages and refers to them as Southern or Eastern Baltic. He claims to have sufficient evidence for classifying them as Baltoidic or at least "Baltic-like", if not exactly, Baltic dialects or languages and classifies Dacians and Thracians as "Balts by extension". Mayer claims that he extracted an unambiguous evidence for regarding Dacian and Thracian as more tied to Lithuanian than to Latvian. Finally, I label Thracian and Dacian as East Baltic ... The fitting of special Dacian and Thracian features (which I identified from Duridanov's listings) into Baltic isogloss patterns so that I identified Dacian and Thracian as southeast Baltic. South Baltic because, like Old Prussian, they keep unchanged

1230-400: A relationship between his Thraco-Armenian family and the more established Graeco-Phrygian family. Graeco-Armenian is by itself a common hypothesized subgrouping of Indo-European languages. Kortlandt groups Albanian with Dacian, considering Daco-Albanian as belonging to a separate language complex than Thraco-Armenian. Older textbooks grouped Phrygian and Armenian with Thracian, but the belief

1312-521: A shorthand way of saying that it is not determined whether a subject is to be considered as pertaining to Thracian or Illyrian. The Thracian and Illyrian languages are placed among the Palaeo-Balkan languages , either through areal contact or genetic relationship . Due to the fragmentary attestation of both Illyrian and Thracian, the existence of a Thraco-Illyrian branch remains controversial. The rivers Vardar and Morava are generally taken as

1394-643: Is a mistake of the past: "In the past it was regarded that Thracian together with the Phrygian and other vanished languages belonged to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages. This mistake was corrected in the 80’s of the last century, but the ambiguities still persisted: the Thracian was combined in one group with the Phrygian (P. Kretschmer), and later – with the Illyrian (the language, spoken in

1476-1059: Is an extinct language generally believed to be a member of the Indo-European language family that was spoken in the ancient region of Dacia . The Dacian language is poorly documented. Unlike Phrygian , which is documented by c. 200 inscriptions, only one Dacian inscription is believed to have survived. The Dacian names for a number of medicinal plants and herbs may survive in ancient literary texts, including about 60 plant-names in Dioscorides . About 1,150 personal names and 900 toponyms may also be of Dacian origin. A few hundred words in modern Romanian and Albanian may have originated in ancient Balkan languages such as Dacian (see List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin ). Linguists have reconstructed about 100 Dacian words from placenames using established techniques of comparative linguistics , although only 20–25 such reconstructions had achieved wide acceptance by 1982. There

1558-938: Is an extinct language generally believed to be a member of the Indo-European language family that was spoken in the ancient region of Dacia . The Dacian language is poorly documented. Unlike Phrygian , which is documented by c. 200 inscriptions, only one Dacian inscription is believed to have survived. The Dacian names for a number of medicinal plants and herbs may survive in ancient literary texts, including about 60 plant-names in Dioscorides . About 1,150 personal names and 900 toponyms may also be of Dacian origin. A few hundred words in modern Romanian and Albanian may have originated in ancient Balkan languages such as Dacian (see List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin ). Linguists have reconstructed about 100 Dacian words from placenames using established techniques of comparative linguistics , although only 20–25 such reconstructions had achieved wide acceptance by 1982. There

1640-558: Is east Baltic, e-grade here is west Baltic, while the other word for "pine, evergreen", preidē (Prussian and Dacian), priede (Latvian), is marginal in Lithuanian matched by no *peus- in Latvian. " Thraco-Illyrian " is a hypothesis that posits a distinct Indo-European branch constituted by Thracian and Illyrian . "Thraco-Illyrian" is also used as a term merely implying a Thracian-Illyrian interference , mixture or sprachbund , or as

1722-1006: Is limited to a modest number of words and a few grammatical peculiarities. According to Georgiev (1981), in Romanian there are about 70 words which have exact correspondences in Albanian, but the phonetic form of these Romanian words is so specific that they cannot be explained as Albanian borrowings. Georgiev claimed that these words belong to the Dacian substratum in Romanian, while their Albanian correspondences were inherited from Daco-Moesian. Dacian%E2%80%93Baltic connection Pontic Steppe Caucasus East Asia Eastern Europe Northern Europe Pontic Steppe Northern/Eastern Steppe Europe South Asia Steppe Europe Caucasus India Indo-Aryans Iranians East Asia Europe East Asia Europe Indo-Aryan Iranian Indo-Aryan Iranian Others European Dacian ( / ˈ d eɪ ʃ ə n / )

SECTION 20

#1732775598270

1804-479: Is no longer popular and is mostly discarded. Today, Phrygian is not widely seen as linked to Thracian. Georgiev claimed that Thracian is different from Phrygian "as much as Greek from Albanian", comparing 150 Phrygian inscriptions. Duridanov found in 1976 Phrygian completely lacking parallels in Thracian and concluded that the Thraco-Phrygian theory is debunked. Duridanov argued that the Thraco-Illyrian theory

1886-428: Is no significant difference between Dacian and Thracian. Rădulescu (1984) accepts that Daco-Moesian possesses a certain degree of dialectal individuality, but argues that there is no fundamental separation between Daco-Moesian and Thracian. Polomé (1982) considers that the evidence presented by Georgiev and Duridanov, although substantial, is not sufficient to determine whether Daco-Moesian and Thracian were two dialects of

1968-406: Is not so significant as to rank them as separate languages. According to Georg Solta (1982), there is no significant difference between Dacian and Thracian. Rădulescu (1984) accepts that Daco-Moesian possesses a certain degree of dialectal individuality, but argues that there is no fundamental separation between Daco-Moesian and Thracian. Renfrew (1990) argues that there is no doubt that Thracian

2050-406: Is not so significant as to rank them as separate languages. According to Georg Solta (1982), there is no significant difference between Dacian and Thracian. Rădulescu (1984) accepts that Daco-Moesian possesses a certain degree of dialectal individuality, but argues that there is no fundamental separation between Daco-Moesian and Thracian. Renfrew (1990) argues that there is no doubt that Thracian

2132-454: Is related to the Dacian which was spoken in modern-day Romania before that area was occupied by the Romans. However, all these assertions are largely speculative, due to the lack of evidence for both languages. Polomé (1982) considers that the evidence presented by Georgiev and Duridanov, although substantial, is not sufficient to determine whether Daco-Moesian and Thracian were two dialects of

2214-401: Is related to the Dacian which was spoken in modern-day Romania before that area was occupied by the Romans. However, all these assertions are largely speculative, due to the lack of evidence for both languages. Polomé (1982) considers that the evidence presented by Georgiev and Duridanov, although substantial, is not sufficient to determine whether Daco-Moesian and Thracian were two dialects of

2296-433: Is scholarly consensus that Dacian was a member of the Indo-European family of languages . These descended, according to the two leading theories of the expansion of IE languages, from a proto-Indo-European tongue ("PIE") that originated in an urheimat ("original homeland") in S. Ukraine/ Caucasus region ( Kurgan hypothesis ) or in central Anatolia ( Anatolian hypothesis ). According to both theories, Indo-European reached

2378-433: Is scholarly consensus that Dacian was a member of the Indo-European family of languages . These descended, according to the two leading theories of the expansion of IE languages, from a proto-Indo-European tongue ("PIE") that originated in an urheimat ("original homeland") in S. Ukraine/ Caucasus region ( Kurgan hypothesis ) or in central Anatolia ( Anatolian hypothesis ). According to both theories, Indo-European reached

2460-475: Is that there are many close cognates between Thracian and Ancient Greek . There are also substratum words in the Romanian language that are cited as evidence of the genetic relationship of the Thracian language to ancient Greek. The Greek language itself may be grouped with the Phrygian language and Armenian language , both of which have been grouped with Thracian (see: Graeco-Phrygian , Graeco-Armenian and

2542-632: Is ultimately based on the testimony of several Greco-Roman authors: most notably the Roman imperial-era historian and geographer Strabo, who states that the Dacians, Getae , Moesians and Thracians all spoke the same language. Herodotus states that "the Getae are the bravest and the most just amongst the Thracians", linking the Getae with the Thracians. Some scholars also see support for a close link between

Classification of Thracian - Misplaced Pages Continue

2624-416: Is ultimately based on the testimony of several Greco-Roman authors: most notably the Roman imperial-era historian and geographer Strabo, who states that the Dacians, Getae , Moesians and Thracians all spoke the same language. Herodotus states that "the Getae are the bravest and the most just amongst the Thracians", linking the Getae with the Thracians. Some scholars also see support for a close link between

2706-468: Is very different from that of Thracian; the vowel change IE *o > *a recurs and the k-sounds undergo the changes characteristic of the satem languages. For the phonology of Thracian, Georgiev uses the principle that an intelligible placename in a modern language is likely to be a translation of an ancient name. Georgiev (1977) also argues that the modern Albanian language is descended from Dacian, specifically from what he called Daco-Moesian or Daco-Mysian,

2788-468: Is very different from that of Thracian; the vowel change IE *o > *a recurs and the k-sounds undergo the changes characteristic of the satem languages. For the phonology of Thracian, Georgiev uses the principle that an intelligible placename in a modern language is likely to be a translation of an ancient name. Georgiev (1977) also argues that the modern Albanian language is descended from Dacian, specifically from what he called Daco-Moesian or Daco-Mysian,

2870-613: The Illyrian family , and on the other side is Dimiter Dechev , who claims affinities with Thracian . In 1977 Georgiev claimed that "Daco-Mysian" was closely related to the Thracian branch of Indo-European and that Illyrian was different from Thracian "as much as Iranian from Latin" for example. There are a number of close cognates between Thracian and Albanian, but this may indicate only that Thracian and Albanian are two Palaeo-Balkan languages related but not very closely related, belonging to their own branches of Indo-European, analogous to

2952-544: The Baltic languages, mostly in Lithuanian, followed by Germanic (61), Indo-Aryan (41), Greek (36), Bulgarian (23), Latin (10) and Albanian (8). The use of toponyms is suggested to determine the extent of a culture's influence. Parallels have enabled linguists, using the techniques of comparative linguistics , to decipher the meanings of several Dacian and Thracian placenames with, they claim, a high degree of probability. Of 300 attested Thracian geographic names, most parallels were found between Thracian and Baltic geographic names in

3034-659: The Carpathian region no later than c. 2500 BC. According to one scenario, proto-Thracian populations emerged during the Bronze Age from the fusion of the indigenous Eneolithic (Chalcolithic) population with the intruders of the transitional Indo-Europeanization Period . From these proto-Thracians, in the Iron Age , developed the Dacians / North Thracians of the Danubian-Carpathian Area on

3116-411: The Carpathian region no later than c. 2500 BC. According to one scenario, proto-Thracian populations emerged during the Bronze Age from the fusion of the indigenous Eneolithic (Chalcolithic) population with the intruders of the transitional Indo-Europeanization Period . From these proto-Thracians, in the Iron Age , developed the Dacians / North Thracians of the Danubian-Carpathian Area on

3198-426: The Illyrian branch of IE. On the basis of shared features and innovations, Albanian is grouped together with Messapic in the same branch in the current phylogenetic classification of the Indo-European language family . On the other hand, historical linguistic evidence shows that the individual phonetic history of Albanian and Thracian clearly indicates a very different sound development that cannot be considered as

3280-569: The Moesian dialect of Dacian, but this view has not gained wide acceptance among scholars and is rejected by most linguists, who consider that Albanian belongs to the Illyrian branch of IE. Polomé accepts the view that Albanian is descended from Illyrian but considers the evidence inconclusive. There is general agreement among scholars that Dacian and Thracian were Indo-European languages; however, widely divergent views exist about their relationship: Georgiev (1977) and Duridanov (1985) argue that

3362-514: The Moesian dialect of Dacian, but this view has not gained wide acceptance among scholars and is rejected by most linguists, who consider that Albanian belongs to the Illyrian branch of IE. Polomé accepts the view that Albanian is descended from Illyrian but considers the evidence inconclusive. There is general agreement among scholars that Dacian and Thracian were Indo-European languages; however, widely divergent views exist about their relationship: Georgiev (1977) and Duridanov (1985) argue that

Classification of Thracian - Misplaced Pages Continue

3444-687: The Thracian and Dacian languages in the works of Cassius Dio , Trogus Pompeius , Appian and Pliny the Elder . But the Daco-Thracian theory has been challenged since the 1960s by the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir I. Georgiev and his followers. Georgiev argues, on phonetic, lexical and toponymic grounds, that Thracian, Dacian and Phrygian were completely different languages, each a separate branch of IE, and that no Daco-Thraco-Phrygian or Daco-Thracian branches of IE ever existed. Georgiev argues that

3526-515: The Thracian and Dacian languages in the works of Cassius Dio , Trogus Pompeius , Appian and Pliny the Elder . But the Daco-Thracian theory has been challenged since the 1960s by the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir I. Georgiev and his followers. Georgiev argues, on phonetic, lexical and toponymic grounds, that Thracian, Dacian and Phrygian were completely different languages, each a separate branch of IE, and that no Daco-Thraco-Phrygian or Daco-Thracian branches of IE ever existed. Georgiev argues that

3608-412: The Thracian and Dacian languages, has numerous adherents, including Russu 1967, Georg Solta 1980, Vraciu 1980, Crossland, Trask (2000), McHenry (1993), Mihailov (2008). Crossland (1982) considers that the divergence of a presumed original Thraco-Dacian language into northern and southern groups of dialects is not so significant as to rank them as separate languages. According to Georg Solta (1982), there

3690-526: The centum/satem classification is irrelevant in determining relationships between languages. This is because a language may contain both satem and centum features and these, and the balance between them, may change over time. There was a well-established tradition in the 4th century that the Getae, believed to be Dacians by mainstream scholarship, and the Gothi were the same people, e.g., Orosius: Getae illi qui et nunc Gothi . This identification, now discredited,

3772-474: The centum/satem classification is irrelevant in determining relationships between languages. This is because a language may contain both satem and centum features and these, and the balance between them, may change over time. There was a well-established tradition in the 4th century that the Getae, believed to be Dacians by mainstream scholarship, and the Gothi were the same people, e.g., Orosius: Getae illi qui et nunc Gothi . This identification, now discredited,

3854-737: The diphthongs ei, ai, en, an (north Baltic Lithuanian and Latvian show varying percentages of ei, ai to ie, and en, an to ę, ą (to ē, ā) in Lithuanian, to ie, uo in Latvian). East Baltic because the Dacian word žuvete (now in Rumanian spelled juvete) has ž, not z as in west Baltic, and the Thracian word pušis (the Latin-Greek transcription shows pousis which, I believe, reflects -š-.) with zero grade puš- as in Lithuanian pušìs rather than with e-grade *peuš- as in Prussian peusē. Zero grade in this word

3936-612: The distance between Dacian and Thracian was approximately the same as that between the Armenian and Persian languages, which are completely different languages. In elaborating the phonology of Dacian, Georgiev uses plant-names attested to in Dioscorides and Pseudo-Apuleius, ascertaining their literal meanings, and hence their etymology, using the Greek translations provided by those authors. The phonology of Dacian produced in this way

4018-445: The distance between Dacian and Thracian was approximately the same as that between the Armenian and Persian languages, which are completely different languages. In elaborating the phonology of Dacian, Georgiev uses plant-names attested to in Dioscorides and Pseudo-Apuleius, ascertaining their literal meanings, and hence their etymology, using the Greek translations provided by those authors. The phonology of Dacian produced in this way

4100-612: The extinct Phrygian language was considered, largely based on Greek historians like Herodotus and Strabo . By extension of identifying Phrygians with Proto-Armenians, a Thraco-Phrygian branch of Indo-European was postulated with Thracian, Phrygian and Armenian and constituent languages. The evidence for this seems to have been mostly based on interpretations of history and identifying the eastern Mushki with Armenians and assuming they had branched off from western Mushki (whom have been conclusively identified as Phrygians). However, Frederik Kortlandt has argued, on linguistic grounds, such as

4182-470: The form of Mysian by a migration of the Moesi people; Strabo asserts that Moesi and Mysi were variants of the same name. Dacian was an Indo-European language (IE). Russu (1967, 1969 and 1970) suggested that its phonological system, and therefore that of its presumed Thraco-Dacian parent-language, was relatively close to the primitive IE system. While there is general agreement among scholars that Dacian

SECTION 50

#1732775598270

4264-419: The form of Mysian by a migration of the Moesi people; Strabo asserts that Moesi and Mysi were variants of the same name. Dacian was an Indo-European language (IE). Russu (1967, 1969 and 1970) suggested that its phonological system, and therefore that of its presumed Thraco-Dacian parent-language, was relatively close to the primitive IE system. While there is general agreement among scholars that Dacian

4346-548: The modern Dalmatia and Albania)." Scholars have pointed out that the suffixes of the few surviving Thracian words betray Greek linguistic features. Indeed, nearly all known Thracian personal names and toponyms are Greek . There are also many close cognates between Thracian and ancient Greek. According to archaeologists Ioannis Liritzis and Gregory N. Tsokas, the Thracians spoke the Greek language with particular idioms , solecisms and barbarisms. Linguist Nikolaos P. Andriotes  [ el ] considered Thracian to be

4428-473: The notion that Thracian and Dacian were the same language implausible. However, this thesis has been challenged on a number of grounds: Georgiev's thesis has by no means achieved general acceptance: the Thraco-Dacian theory retains substantial support among linguists. Crossland (1982) considers that the divergence of a presumed original Thraco-Dacian language into northern and southern groups of dialects

4510-410: The notion that Thracian and Dacian were the same language implausible. However, this thesis has been challenged on a number of grounds: Georgiev's thesis has by no means achieved general acceptance: the Thraco-Dacian theory retains substantial support among linguists. Crossland (1982) considers that the divergence of a presumed original Thraco-Dacian language into northern and southern groups of dialects

4592-491: The one hand and the Thracians of the eastern Balkan Peninsula on the other. According to Georgiev, the Dacian language was spread south of the Danube by tribes from Carpathia, who reached the central Balkans in the period 2000–1000 BC, with further movements (e.g., the Triballi tribe) after 1000 BC, until c. 300 BC. According to the ancient geographer Strabo , Daco-Moesian was further spread into Asia Minor in

4674-436: The one hand and the Thracians of the eastern Balkan Peninsula on the other. According to Georgiev, the Dacian language was spread south of the Danube by tribes from Carpathia, who reached the central Balkans in the period 2000–1000 BC, with further movements (e.g., the Triballi tribe) after 1000 BC, until c. 300 BC. According to the ancient geographer Strabo , Daco-Moesian was further spread into Asia Minor in

4756-476: The other." Other linguists argue that Illyrian and Thracian were different Indo-European branches which later converged through contact. It is also of significance that Illyrian languages still have not been classified whether they were centum or satem language, while it is undisputed that Thracian was a satem language by the Classical Period . The linguistic hypothesis of a Thraco-Illyrian branch

4838-485: The phonetic development from proto-Indo-European of the two languages was clearly divergent. Note : Asterisk indicates reconstructed PIE sound. ∅ is a zero symbol (no sound, when the sound has been dropped). Georgiev and Duridanov argue that the phonetic divergences above prove that the Dacian and Thracian (and Phrygian, per Georgiev) languages could not have descended from the same branch of Indo-European, but must have constituted separate, stand-alone branches. However,

4920-485: The phonetic development from proto-Indo-European of the two languages was clearly divergent. Note : Asterisk indicates reconstructed PIE sound. ∅ is a zero symbol (no sound, when the sound has been dropped). Georgiev and Duridanov argue that the phonetic divergences above prove that the Dacian and Thracian (and Phrygian, per Georgiev) languages could not have descended from the same branch of Indo-European, but must have constituted separate, stand-alone branches. However,

5002-618: The place of Dacian in the IE evolutionary tree. According to a dated view, Dacian derived from a Daco-Thraco-Phrygian (or "Paleo-Balkan") branch of IE. Today, Phrygian is no longer widely seen as linked in this way to Dacian and Thracian. In contrast, the hypothesis of a Thraco-Dacian or Daco-Thracian branch of IE, indicating a close link between the Thracian and Dacian languages, has numerous adherents, including Russu 1967, Georg Solta 1980, Vraciu 1980, Crossland 1982, Rădulescu 1984, 1987. Mihailov (2008) and Trask 2000. The Daco-Thracian theory

SECTION 60

#1732775598270

5084-570: The place of Dacian in the IE evolutionary tree. According to a dated view, Dacian derived from a Daco-Thraco-Phrygian (or "Paleo-Balkan") branch of IE. Today, Phrygian is no longer widely seen as linked in this way to Dacian and Thracian. In contrast, the hypothesis of a Thraco-Dacian or Daco-Thracian branch of IE, indicating a close link between the Thracian and Dacian languages, has numerous adherents, including Russu 1967, Georg Solta 1980, Vraciu 1980, Crossland 1982, Rădulescu 1984, 1987. Mihailov (2008) and Trask 2000. The Daco-Thracian theory

5166-525: The placenames, which end in -dava in Dacian and Mysian, as opposed to -para , in Thracian placenames. Georgiev argues that the distance between Dacian and Thracian was approximately the same as that between the Armenian and Persian languages. The claim of Georgiev that Albanian is a direct recent descendant of 'Daco-Moesian' is highly based on speculations that have been thoroughly dismantled by other scholars. The Baltic classification of Dacian and Thracian

5248-407: The result of the same language. A clear and remarkable isogloss that distinguishes Albanian from Thracian is the palatilization of the IE labiovelars which in Albanian was present well before Roman times, while the IE labiovelars clearly did not palatalize in the pre-Roman period in 'Thracian' or in the area where it was spoken. For a long time a Thraco-Phrygian hypothesis grouping Thracian with

5330-436: The rough line of demarcation between the Illyrian sphere on the west and Thracian on the east, which overlapped in the eastern strip of Dardania . It appears that Thracian and Illyrian do not have a clear-cut frontier. Similarities found between the Illyrian and Thracian lects can thus be seen as merely linguistic interference . I.I. Russu argue that there should have been major similarities between Illyrian and Thracian, and

5412-465: The same language or two distinct languages. The ethnonym Moesi was used within the lands alongside the Danube river, in north-western Thrace. As analysed by some modern scholars, the ancient authors used the name Moesi speculatively to designate Triballians and also Getic and Dacian communities. It is possible that Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian were three dialects of the same language, according to Rădulescu. Georgiev (1966), however, considers Illyrian

5494-465: The same language or two distinct languages. The ethnonym Moesi was used within the lands alongside the Danube river, in north-western Thrace. As analysed by some modern scholars, the ancient authors used the name Moesi speculatively to designate Triballians and also Getic and Dacian communities. It is possible that Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian were three dialects of the same language, according to Rădulescu. Georgiev (1966), however, considers Illyrian

5576-624: The same language or two distinct languages. In the 1950s, the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir I. Georgiev published his work which argued that Dacian and Albanian should be assigned to a language branch termed Daco-Mysian , Mysian (the term Mysian derives from the Daco-Thracian tribe known as the Moesi ) being thought of as a transitional language between Dacian and Thracian. Georgiev argued that Dacian and Thracian are different languages, with different phonetic systems, his idea being supported by

5658-414: The satem/centum distinction, once regarded as a fundamental division between IE languages, is no longer considered as important in historical linguistics by mainstream scholars. It is now recognised that it is only one of many isoglosses in the IE zone; that languages can exhibit both types at the same time, and that these may change over time within a particular language. There is much controversy about

5740-414: The satem/centum distinction, once regarded as a fundamental division between IE languages, is no longer considered as important in historical linguistics by mainstream scholars. It is now recognised that it is only one of many isoglosses in the IE zone; that languages can exhibit both types at the same time, and that these may change over time within a particular language. There is much controversy about

5822-546: The section " Thraco-Phrygian or Thraco-Armenian hypothesis " above. Dacian language Pontic Steppe Caucasus East Asia Eastern Europe Northern Europe Pontic Steppe Northern/Eastern Steppe Europe South Asia Steppe Europe Caucasus India Indo-Aryans Iranians East Asia Europe East Asia Europe Indo-Aryan Iranian Indo-Aryan Iranian Others European Dacian ( / ˈ d eɪ ʃ ə n / )

5904-435: The situation between Albanian and the Baltic languages: Albanian and Baltic share many close cognates, while according to Mayer, Albanian is a descendant of Illyrian and escaped any heavy Baltic influence of Daco-Thracian. The view of a close link between Albanian and Thracian has not gained wide acceptance among scholars and is rejected by most linguists, including Albanian ones, who mainly consider that Albanian belongs to

5986-557: The study of Duridanov. According to Duridanov, "the similarity of these parallels stretching frequently on the main element and the suffix simultaneously, which makes a strong impression". He also reconstructed Dacian words and Dacian placenames and found parallels mostly in the Baltic languages, followed by Albanian. Other Slavic authors noted that Dacian and Thracian have much in common with Baltic onomastics and explicitly not in any similar way with Slavic onomastics, including cognates and parallels of lexical isoglosses, which implies

6068-506: The validity of this conclusion has been challenged due to a fundamental weakness in the source-material for sound-change reconstruction. Since the ancient Balkan languages never developed their own alphabets, ancient Balkan linguistic elements (mainly placenames and personal names) are known only through their Greek or Latin transcripts. These may not accurately reproduce the indigenous sounds, e.g., Greek and Latin had no dedicated graphic signs for phonemes such as č, ġ, ž, š and others. Thus, if

6150-506: The validity of this conclusion has been challenged due to a fundamental weakness in the source-material for sound-change reconstruction. Since the ancient Balkan languages never developed their own alphabets, ancient Balkan linguistic elements (mainly placenames and personal names) are known only through their Greek or Latin transcripts. These may not accurately reproduce the indigenous sounds, e.g., Greek and Latin had no dedicated graphic signs for phonemes such as č, ġ, ž, š and others. Thus, if

6232-481: Was an Indo-European language , there are divergent opinions about its place within the IE family: Several linguists classify Dacian as a satem IE language: Russu, Rădulescu, Katičić and Križman. In Crossland's opinion (1982), both Thracian and Dacian feature one of the main satem characteristics, the change of Indo-European * k and * g to s and z . But the other characteristic satem changes are doubtful in Thracian and are not evidenced in Dacian. In any case,

6314-481: Was an Indo-European language , there are divergent opinions about its place within the IE family: Several linguists classify Dacian as a satem IE language: Russu, Rădulescu, Katičić and Križman. In Crossland's opinion (1982), both Thracian and Dacian feature one of the main satem characteristics, the change of Indo-European * k and * g to s and z . But the other characteristic satem changes are doubtful in Thracian and are not evidenced in Dacian. In any case,

6396-421: Was proposed by the Lithuanian polymath Jonas Basanavičius , referred to as "Patriarch of Lithuania", who insisted this is the most important work of his life and listed 600 identical words of Balts and Thracians and was the first to investigate similarities in vocal traditions between Lithuanians and Bulgarians. He also theoretically included Dacian and Phrygian in the related group, but a part of this inclusion

6478-467: Was seriously called into question in the 1960s. New publications argued that no strong evidence for Thraco-Illyrian exists, and that the two language-areas show more differences than correspondences. The place of Paeonian language remains unclear. Modern linguists are uncertain on the classification of Paeonian, due to the extreme scarcity of materials we have on this language. On one side are Wilhelm Tomaschek and Paul Kretschmer , who claim it belonged to

6560-459: Was supported by Jacob Grimm . In pursuit of his hypothesis, Grimm proposed many kindred features between the Getae and Germanic tribes. The mainstream view among scholars is that Daco-Moesian forms the principal linguistic substratum of modern Romanian , a neo-Latin ( Romance ) language, which evolved from eastern Eastern Romance in the period AD 300–600, according to Georgiev. The possible residual influence of Daco-Moesian on modern Romanian

6642-459: Was supported by Jacob Grimm . In pursuit of his hypothesis, Grimm proposed many kindred features between the Getae and Germanic tribes. The mainstream view among scholars is that Daco-Moesian forms the principal linguistic substratum of modern Romanian , a neo-Latin ( Romance ) language, which evolved from eastern Eastern Romance in the period AD 300–600, according to Georgiev. The possible residual influence of Daco-Moesian on modern Romanian

6724-413: Was unsupported by other authors, such as the linguistic analysis of Ivan Duridanov , which found Phrygian completely lacking parallels in either Thracian or Baltic languages. The Bulgarian linguist Ivan Duridanov, in his first publication claimed that Thracian and Dacian are genetically linked to the Baltic languages and in the next one he made the following classification: "The Thracian language formed

#269730