Talk:Dacian language

Active discussions

No Dacian inscriptions survive...Edit

"No Dacian inscriptions survive save names using the Latin alphabet. "

I know little about Dacian/Thracian, however this assertion in the article seems to be at odds with this interesting blog post:
Dacian Ring Mystery: http://aplac

eofbrightness.blogspot.com/2009/05/mystery-of-ezerovo-ring.html Sam 20:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dacian inscriptionsEdit

  1. Ther are Dacian "micro-inscriptions" i.e. Decebal per Scorilo….(Paul Lachlan MacKendrick, 2000 The Dacian Stones Speak, page 65)
  2. Bruce Manning Metzger, in his book “New Testament studies philological, versional and patristic” Leiden, Brill, 1980, ISBN: 9004061630, 9789004061637, page 163
"...There are also “micro-inscriptions” discovered at the sacred enclosure at Sarmizegetusa in Dacia,...." not necessarily in Dacian ...

and he continues,

When Ovid, while living in Tomis [modern Constanta, Romania], composed a poem in the Getic language, we would like to know whether it was written in a local alphabet. Most of the 80 or so ‘micro-inscriptions’ discovered at the sacred enclosure of Sarmizegetusa in Dacia contain only Greek consonants, while others contains signs that re apparently not of the Greek alphabet. How far these latter were used in writing literary texts of greater extent than the scraps preserved in Tracian inscriptions we do not know. In any case, Lozovan is probably correct when he states: “It is rather illogical to believe that the population of Dacia and Scythia Minor (modern Dobrogea, Romania) would have had to wait until the beginning of the second millennium and contact with the Slavs in order to begin to write. Situated between the Huns and the Goths, on the margin of the Roman-Byzantine Empire, and Christian for a long time, they ought to have written before the X-XI centuries

Boldwin (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacian's place among IE languagesEdit

Back in February 2005 I was asking about what evidence is there that Dacian was closer to Albanian or Dacian was closer to Baltic. I went into a discussion with Bogdan and along the way Bogdan posted that language tree below: 76.208.187.195 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Baltic languages are very conservative and therefore very close to what used to be proto-Satem. Dacian was too probably rather close to proto-Satem. Albanian however, had relatively many linguistic changes, as can be seen on the evolution of the Latin words.
Anyway, according to the linguists the most likely tree is something like this:
      2500 BC             1000 BC                  1 AD                  300 AD             1500 AD 
-> *(proto-Satem)--->  (proto-Daco-Albanian)-\--> (Dacian dialect)  --> (Daco-Romanian) --> Romanian
                 |                           |--> (another Dac. dialect)  -->           --> Albanian
                 --->  (proto-Baltic)    -\---> (proto-Latvian)     -->                 --> Latvian
                                          |--> (proto-Lithuanian)   -->                 --> Lithuanian
Also, please note that the Dacian dialect which gave the words to Romanian was not the same as proto-Albanian (see: dh <-> z corespondence), but they were close, probably mutually comprehensible. Bogdan | Talk 20:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I knew that Bogdan, that nowadays the most advanced hypothesis is that the Dacian dialect which gave the words to Romanian was not the same as proto-Albanian. I knew that even back then. Back then though I was just worried that the hypothesis that Dacian was closer to Albanian rather than to Baltic was not properly supported by new evidence---however since February 2005, I have studied a lot more and I see no evidence that Dacian was closer to Baltic, rather than to Albanian. 76.208.187.195 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the linguistic community is not sure whether all the Satem languages represent a satem branch going back to a proto-Satem IE branch, or whether some early IE languages became satemized through areal contact. Dacian and Thracian may be an example of satemization through areal contact with fully satem languages, although I don't quite believe that, but it's one possibility. Armenian for instance, though Satem, may be from the same branch as Greek and Phrygian. Alexander 007 06:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This article still needs more information on the closeness of Dacian to proto-Albanian. 76.208.187.195 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoddinott quoteEdit

According to archaeological work cited by Ralph Hoddinott, the last Dacians held out in the territory corresponding pretty much exactly to what is now Moldavia into the 4th century ad (300-400 ad) at least, but beyond that "dating depends on how far the Carpic culture can be considered a seperate entity after the Gothic arrival". Here again, speaking of the last archaeological layers "whether there is any overall ethnic basis for the horizon or whether it represents a varying amalgam of invaders and a North Thracian (by this he means Dacian as elsewhere in his book) or other substratum, all "barbarians" but in different ways reflecting the influence of the Roman world, it is generally agreed that, at least west of the Dneister (=Moldavia), a Thracian element remained to makes it contribution." Alexander 007 04:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some romanian "lingvist" says that the free dacians remained in small comunities across what is now Romania until the XVII-XVIII century, when they where finnaly asimillated byt the romanians.His argument is the word "curca" (turkey in romanian, the animal not the country), which would have been invented by those "dacian remnants".Preety fantastic this theory for me, but whorth to try at least analizing this word "curca". The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.231.84.73 (talk • contribs) 30 Aug 2005.

Why does this article keep changing...Edit

...without at all apparently getting better? And why do comments on the talk page (usually thought of as a record of the conversation leading to the article) keep getting edited after the fact? I've been trying to follow this, but I am pretty much on the point of giving up. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I recently changed it to move it towards NPOV, and it will not get much better unless more references are found. Another problem it will continue to have is this: there are so many variant theories on Dacian (each "Thracologist" seems to spin off in a different direction) that the article will lack a neat unity.
I think it's gotten better (NPOV, bit more exact), but I don't think it has gotten good. A problem I have is the circular reasoning present in earlier versions: we cannot just assume that the Romanian substratum words are Dacian and then proceed to use them as evidence that Dacian was close to this or that language or had this or that phonetic feature. This is not a topic like Gaulish language. So little is known of Dacian as of 2005 that you have one linguist saying it was a "south Baltic language" (>Harvey E. Mayer), while another says it was on the same branch as Albanian (Georgiev, etc.), while Olteanu proposes that Daco-Thracian may have been on the same branch as Greek. It is a state of chaos, pretty much.
You can go ahead and rearrange it however you think it will be clearer or more informative. I can add more information to it from a few websites, but I'm waiting to find more real references so I can review what led to their conclusions. The websites (such as Babaev's) just make statements without demonstrating the evidence (ex: giving phonetic features of Dacian without detailing what Dacian elements the features are deduced from, etc.). Alexander 007 05:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

UpdateEdit

Up to date With just a few word it is not posible i supose for anybody to tell us what kind of language was dacian.A few inscription means nothing. With a conquest of 20% of Dacia s teritory, roman empire keep that under control betwin 106 and 271,and in this short time period how could be posible to make romanization? Romanian language is considerated to be neolatin language,the basque it is not.But the basque was under roman ocupation for 700 years.Why it is necesary dual standard of evaluation one for romanian and one for basqe? At this moment in the internet could be found a lot of study about the fact that the tracian language and especial the dacian language was close to latin.This is just a teory, but as good as "the oficial one".In this case I request article modification for a better presentation of all teories about the caracter of dacin language --proturism 06:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Proturism, Wikipedia:Policy (I'll find the exact policy in a bit) prescribes that we do not discuss the Dacian was a Latin language or an Italic language theory in the main article unless you find one or more current linguists in support of it. Otherwise, I recommend you create a separate article, as part of a Pseudo-linguistics category. Alexander 007 06:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
They have to be current specialists in the relevant field, not just anyone with a PhD in whatever field. I think there was a 19th century linguist (Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu) who supported (at least for a time) a variation of the Latin theory, but I have not read his work and I don't know what variation of it he proposed. Alexander 007 06:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not fair whats happend.The oficcial history is in imposibility to prove the dacian language was not close with latin.With a few words (from greec sources!!!)how could make a study about the caracter of one language (gramar,words,and others)? This is inquisitorial system:Belive and dont study!!!!!!!!Why a teory it is beter then another one without prove.We took about hypotesis not facts.It is fair to present the main hypotesis or maybe it is prepared a return to dark age?.link titleI will sent you Alexander a lot of links of sites relevant specialists(by the way relevant means people who suport oficial hypotesis?). The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proturism (talk • contribs) 13 Dec 2005.

I'm sorry, are you saying that it's unfair that there is a limited historical record? Or that Wikipedia accurately reflects that? Or something else? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Proturism, not all theories/hypotheses/ideas have the same standing. Unless you find linguists (preferably, current linguists) who support the idea that Dacian was close to Latin or to the Italic languages in general, Wikipedia policy prescribes that we do not include such an idea in the main article. All the ideas currently presented in the article (Dacian close to Albanian; or to Baltic; or to Greco-Macedonian) have current linguists in support of them. Relevant specialists here, to put it bluntly, means linguists. Not engineers. Not computer scientists. Not physicians. Alexander 007 09:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW, Hasdeu eventually became a strong supporter of the theory that Albanians are the of the successors of the Dacians. bogdan 13:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

InfoboxEdit

This brings up a question I was going to put forth eventually for other peoples' input. I was going to add an Infobox to Dacian as I have to the Illyrian languages, Liburnian language, etc., but I came across an obtuse point: as you can see in the Illyrian infobox, I had to state that the extinction of the Illyrian languages is disputed, because there are current linguists who maintain that the Albanian language is an Illyrian language/developed from an Illyrian language. In the case of Dacian, there are also current linguists who describe Albanian as a living descendant of Dacian. So in the Dacian infobox, perhaps we should not state that Dacian is extinct. I think we should have an infobox for Dacian, by the way. Alexander 007 06:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

BibliographyEdit

Unlike the Gaulish language, which is attested, ideas concerning the affiliation of the Dacian language are not in agreement, so as said before, writing/organizing this article presents a challenge. I find it almost impossible to separate the Dacian language from the scholars who have written of it, so I will assemble a ==Bibliography== section in the article (and eventually, a ==References== section). Tomaschek and Hasdeu would be two early figures. Alexander 007 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

79.167.154.190 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC) About the bibliography: "According to Georgiev, the likely IE root-word for Axios is *n̥-ks(e)y-no ("dark, black" cf. Avestan axsaena).[125] On the basis of the known rules of formation of IE composite words, Axiopa would break down as axi = "black" and opa or upa = "water" in Dacian; the -polis element is ignored, as it is a Greek suffix meaning "city". The assumption is then validated by examining cognate placenames. There was another Balkan river known in antiquity as Axios, which is today called Crna reka (Slavic for "black river"): although it was in Dardania (Rep. of Macedonia), a mainly Illyrian-speaking region."

"The axi element is also validated by the older Greek name for the Black Sea, Ἄξεινος πόντος – Axeinos pontos, later altered to the euphemism Εὔξεινος πόντος Euxeinos pontos meaning "Hospitable sea". The opa/upa element is validated by the Lithuanian cognate upė, meaning "water").[126] The second component of the town's name *-upolis may be a diminutive of *upa cf. Lithuanian diminutive upelis."

1) This is incorrect. I'm Greek. Greek is my native language. So I know that the "axi" element (does it exist?) is not contained in the greek word "Άξεινος Πόντος" (Axeinos Pontos) because in this word there is only the greek element "a" that has negative meaning and makes any word having the opposite meaning. For example the greek word "κύρος" (kiros) means "glamour, honor, valid" but "άκυρος (ά-κυρος)" (akiros, a-kiros) means "not having glamour, honor, not being valid". Furthermore "ηθικός" (ithikos) means "moral" but "ανήθικος, α-ν.ήθικος' (anithikos, a-n-ithikos) ("n" exist because of the vowel "i" anithikos)means "immoral". So "Ά-ξεινος Πόντος" "A-xeinos Pontos" (α + ξειν, ξειν=ξένος=φιλόξενος=hospitable in English) means "not hospitable sea" but "Εύ-ξεινος Πόντος" (Ef-xeinos Pontos)(Εύ=καλός=good + ξειν=xein=ξένος=φιλόξενος=hospitable) means "Hospitable Sea" (Ef + xein). Finally it must be clear that "α" in greek is exacly what "dis, im, in, un" are in english! Generally "α" and "ef" just determine the word's "xein" meaning! 2) "Polis" (Πόλις) means city in greek. So "upolis" is not slavic, or dacian or something but greek. "Αξιού-πολις" "Axiou-polis" means "the city of Axios" (Axios αξιός is a greek river) 3) "Αξιός", "Axios" isn't dacian or something. It derives from the greek word "άxios", "άξιος" meaning "able, powerful".

SO PLEASE CORRECT THE ARTICLE!

PIE sound-changesEdit

It looks like it's going to be a very long section. I recommend copy-pasting to a separate article, Dacian sound laws perhaps. Otherwise, the article is hard to read. This will not be a reversion to the previous section, rather a new format. Alexander 007 01:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to keep it there because that sound laws really reflectvthe Dacian language Maybe to organize it better at the end

I agree the section is important; in fact, in the case of barely attested languages, this is the most important body of information. However, the section is simply too vast. Wiki articles have to be within a certain length; no one wants to scroll down 10 feet (it's not 10 feet yet of course) to read an article. Alexander 007 10:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I really expect the feedback of everybody to arrive here to a very accurate section Thanks. --MariusA 15:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: Dacian Decebalus being cognate to Sanskrit dasabala was taken from User:Grzegorj who I assume took it from a linguistic source. Is that etymology considered wrong, or else why was it removed? The comparions between Dacian and Thracian which were removed will be placed in a new article, Daco-Thracian, which will be concerned with the similarities and differences between Dacian & Tracian, and with the linguistic opinions concerning a Daco-Thracian grouping, how close they were, etc. Alexander 007 16:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion for the section: in the Dacian language article, we just give the proposed sound-changes in a different format from the current with a few lexical elements cited. The section will have a link however that will say: Main article:Dacian sound laws. See Gaulish language; while that article is perhaps too concise, it is much more readable than that mass of material in Dacian language, which should probably placed in Dacian sound laws. Alexander 007 18:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This article should give only a general outlook over the Dacian language and what we know about it. The sound changes are already too technical and may confuse most users. So, it would be better that we move them to a sub-article and in here, we should keep a discussion on the PIE sound-changes and their sources. bogdan 18:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal: but let's try to finalize this page somehow (in the next days) and next we can discuss on how to organize/move it. I doubt about 'ten' in Decebalus (the reconstructed Dacian ten in Decebal's times is *djetsa/*djatsa, but for sure the "bhel"-root 'strong' is present in the last part of its name. --MariusA 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It can be further refined here, then eventually copy-pasted. I await the new article. Alexander 007 18:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be interesting if you provided a source for that reconstruction of the Dacian word for ten in Decebalus' time that you mention. I have no source for that *dekm- etymology of Decebalus, but I can ask User:Grzegorj. Alexander 007 21:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mayer the crankEdit

After discovering that Mayer groups Proto-Slavic not with Proto-Baltic, but with Proto-Albanian, Messapian and Illyrian---which really is ludicrous, since Messapian is attested and we know it is not close to Proto-Slavic (see also Talk:Balto-Slavic languages#Have you read this)---I feel like removing mention of Mayer and his theory, and I will do so. For those that are curious, his paper can be found here [http://www.lituanus.org/1992_2/92_2_02.htm . Alexander 007 14:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

While the connections between Daco-Thracian and the Baltic languages had been underlined long before Mayer (who based his paper mostly on Ivan Duridanov, as he writes), Mayer is the only one AFAIK who has stated that Dacian and Thracian may have been types of Proto-Baltic languages. But the fact that he derives Messapian and Proto-Slavic from a parent "Albanoidic branch", as he writes, makes all his claims extremely dubious for the purpose of a main Wikipedia article. Alexander 007 15:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed also Sorin Olteanu's idea, only because it has not been elaborated yet and seems too new. I would like to elaborate on the Albanian correspondances. Alexander 007 16:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mayer is a crackpot. His arguements are entirely historically flawed. He must be some Baltic nationalist - arguing that Balts brought ALbanians to the south as SLaves, thus forming SLavs, or something along thoe lines. He has entirely confused totally different epochs of history, and his drug-binged claims are totally ahistoric Hxseek (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully Mayer won't get any supporters here :) Daizus (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox: should it say that Dacian is extinct?Edit

Do we have any citation for the hypothesis that Dacian may have continued as the Albanian language, rather than the more likely theory that Albanian split off from Dacian much earlier, thus Dacian can be considered extinct? If not, I will revise the infobox and say Dacian is extinct. Alexander 007 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu claimed that the Albanians were the descendants of the Costoboci and Carpians in his "Cine sunt albanesiĭ?" in 1901. bogdan 21:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then we have a citation. But that was Hasdeu in 1901. Not current enough for me to want to say Dacian is not extinct in the Infobox based only on Hasdeu. Alexander 007 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Not current enough. Alexander what the **** is that "not current enough". I mean we have studies concerning akkadian and sumerian from 192* and that seems to be current enough. this is supposed to be the sum of human knowledge not a news site...

Hi I removed a bad word from your post according to policies here. It is very important that we have recent sources for material in this article, okay? This is obvious. I'm not saying there aren't such sources, I'm saying I want them identified. Albanians may not be direct descendants of the Dacians as Hasdeu wrote, and I want this topic investigated with more recent sources. 76.208.179.203 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not mean that Hasdeu could not be included in the article because he is not recent enough, if you understood that then you misunderstood. When I replied to Bogdan, I meant, "well Bogdan, okay, you mention Hasdeu, but that's way back in 1901, and I know that Hasdeu has correct stuff but also a number of errors in his work, so I would like something more recent and more scientifically sound: I don't want to say in the Infobox that Dacian is not extinct just because Hasdeu said in 1901 that Albanian is a direct continuation of Dacian"...76.208.179.203 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
However, I made some mistakes in my post from March 2006: not regarding my phrase "not current enough", which I explained, but rather because in my post I was too opinionated against Albanian being a direct descendant of Dacian. 76.208.179.203 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hidden politicsEdit

In section Dacian as the substratum of Proto-Romanian, there are formulations that doesn't seem to belong to the main discurse. F.ex.:

Whether Dacian in fact forms the substratum of Proto-Romanian is disputed (see Origin of Romanians), yet this theory does not rely on the Romanization having occurred in Dacia, as Dacian was also spoken in Moesia,

This obviously seems to be a meek saving clause to save the theory from aggressive anti-Romanian imperialist Hungarians that wish to prove that Transsylvania belongs to them, or on the other side fanatical Romanian racists, that want to remove all non-Romanians from Romania. Now, since I heavily despise people that cannot see truth and need to identify themselves with this-or-that propagandist national quality, I would like less diplomacy and more ruthlessness against semihumans (nationalists on both side) that haven't reached full humanity in enlightenment, I would like to add some clarifying and potentially provoking statement about why-so, why is this statement important in order to avoid attacks from not-so-humans? But first: warn me and play a little devils advocate – I don't wish battles – I wish to edit out nationalists from touching Wikipedia. Rursus 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dacian language collaborationEdit

Hello from WikiProject Dacia!

Since there are so many religious wars going on at the moment around Dacians and their language, we are proposing to all involved to use their creativity, knowledge and energy in creating separate articles for different language affinities. Stop deleting and reverting and start creating!

Instead, expand or create the articles listed at the WikiProject Dacia's Current Collaboration, using as much academic evidence you can gather.

Once these separate articles went through a lot of scrutiny and have reached a good article status, we can discuss the addition of links to the various theories and potentially even add sections about them in the Dacian language and Dacian tribes articles.

Let the Daciada begin! Thanks for your support! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Shame on you, Codrin.B! You have assumed leadership of the Dacia project, and yet you do not act as an impartial arbiter. You should know better than to take sides in the disputes. Instead of encouraging people with new ideas to get involved, you have backed the outrageous tactics of Daizus and the Anonymous editor in the Carpi (people) and Costoboci articles - arbitrarily removing content without a consensus, inserting unreferenced material, and now replacing the superb map of the Empire created specially for Wikipedia by Andrei Nacu and me, which shows every river, region and barbarian people mentioned in the article with a completely irrelevant map of Roman Dacia - simply because the Geto-Daco-Romanists don't like a few rubrics. You have supported their demand that the Carpi and Costoboci be shown as Dacian-speakers, even though the evidence (and the CAH) do not warrant this.
If you see your role simply as the watchdog of Geto-Daco-Romanic continuity orthodoxy, then your project will get nowhere. Any contributor who wants to open up the debate and explore new possibilities will simply not bother to get involved, and you will be left with a series of boring articles parroting the tired shibboleths of a largely discredited theory.
If you want your project to succeed, you must adopt a strictly neutral position in academic disputes e.g. with the linguistic affiliation of the Carpi and Costoboci, you should back an "uncertain" classification, as that is the neutral position. You must also stop the edit wars, instead of complacently presiding over them. You should ban the tactics of Daizus and co. You should not allow content to be removed without a consensus (which must obviously include the agreement of the main author) unless that content is irrelevant or not properly referenced. You must also ban any unreferenced contributions. Anonymous is the big offender here (at least Daizus provides refs for his input): despite repeated invitations, Anonymous has refused to get a Username. Early on, he let slip that he had "lost" his previous Username: does this mean he was banned from editing? I would not be surprised if he was, given his modus operandi. Although he has made a few useful contributions, most of Anonymous' input has been negative, and you need to rein him in hard; if he does not respond, get his computer no. banned as well. You must also ban personal abuse: if you look at the debate above, I have been called ignorant, biased, and even dishonest. This is unacceptable. Above all, you must encourage people to explore ideas outside the orthodoxy, instead of ganging up with the Geto-Daco-Romanists to suppress their contributions - otherwise the whole exercise is a waste of time. EraNavigator (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If you had an earlier interest in Dacia, I don't see why didn't you create the project. I put a lot of work in it, and the primary purpose is to organize the articles and improve the quality. As I already answered, please do not make false accusations, spam or resort to personal attacks. Please accept the challenge and lets collaborate. Your effort on this subject is much needed. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this is the longest article I've seen on WP yet! Anyway, why does the above box say "Please refrain from changing the main article on Dacian language..." I mean there's no other way to make it better. Tripnoted (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dacian-Baltic connectionEdit

I invite those insisting on the Dacian-Baltic connection theory to start that separate page and add all the knowledge you have, as long as is not original research or doesn't prove to be a fringe theory. If it is becoming a quality, properly verified and reviewed article, we can link it to a new section in the main Dacian language article. Until then, please refrain from making Dacians and/or Costoboci Balts or Slavs. Thanks and looking forward for that. Feel free to discuss your thoughts here and move the discussions from various talk pages. --Codrin.B (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly an interesting proposal. However, I really do not think there is quite enough material on this matter to start an entirely seperate article for it. I suggest that it is included as a small subsection in the Main Dacian language article, in a sub-chpater pertaining to 'Proposed relations", or the like. This would be an entirly linguistic article, and does not mean that Dacians are SLavs or Balts - they cannot be. Dacians existed hundreds of years before ! Hxseek (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Hxseek. I agree with all the points. But I am suggesting another article since I am afraid of edit wars or conflict. At least someone should create this section in their user space or I suggest the WikiProject Dacia drafts space, and ask for reviews, before making changes to the main article. What do you think? The fact that there is not enough material, should also hint that it cannot be imposed as a mainstream view and warrant major changes to the Roman Empire map.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don;t think it will cause edit wars (especially if written appropriately), becuase it has not really been an issue. AFAIK, apart from personal discussion amongst Era and I, the relationship between Dacian language and Balto-Slavic has not been an issuw. After our discussions, Andrei and him (i presum) concluded that Carpi should be categorized as B-Sl. Whilst I support a linguistic link, I do not necessarily support the latter, although I do think that the Carpi might indeed have spoken som edialect of B-Sl, given their locality. Afterall, the fact they they were in what is currently Romania/ Moldavia doesn;t at all mean that they were Dacian.

I'd be happy to draft something with appropriate resources references, after a few weeks (currently doing some other research)

Hxseek (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


I would be more than happy to help clarify this situation, I already know the books required to provide vierifiable, non-POV views on this matter. This will take me a few days, so if all parties concerned can take some time out for now, that would be good.

To briefly outline my arguement will be along the following lines

(1) As we all know, the evidence for Dacian is frustratingly poor. Some scholars have seen particular affinity with Baltic, but this does not mean it is, or vice -versa

(2) The evidence for what languages the peoples known as Carpi, Costoboci, Veneti, basternae spoke is 'non-existent. I know that well-reputed and otherwise uniterested historians (eg Malcolm Todd - not a Slav or Romanian) have postulated various things, include a variety of 'mixture' scenarios. This might well warrant mention, however, it doe not overcome the previous point.

(3) We must also take heed of the fact that lingusitic affilitation does not imply any ethnic homonymy (although it does today). Eg the Carpi were NOT Dacians. Simply, because, when the Romans spoke of "Dacians", they referred to Decebalius (& his ancestors) and his men in what became Roman dacia. The (unsupported) idea that Carpi spoke Dacian has not come from any evidence, but from Romanian scholarship simply assuming that they "must have been" Dacian just because they lived in what is now modern Moldavia, or from following a few fragmentery lines of writing which suggests that some Dacians might have fled there after Roman defeat

(4) Nor, do I suppose that the Carpi were Slavs. Even if they spoke a language (eg a precursor, or relative) like Slavic, the Slavs first appear as a defined ethno-political group in the 6th century, so they could not have been Slavic either ! I think Era's efforts on the Carpi (and Andrei's maps) are commendable, and are not fringe - becuase if one looks at things fairly, all theories about them are FRINGE given the lack of any solid evidence !

(5) The only thing we do know is that they occasionaly raided Rome, and they lived in huts, used pottery and certain fibulae similar to other groups in the Moldavia & Ukraine region in Late Roman times. Hardly surprising

Hxseek (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

EraNavigator promoted theories such as:
1. That Costoboci were a Sarmatian tribe and Iranic speaking. His "arguments" were: a) the suffix (sic!) in Pieporus might be the same in Shapur and other Iranic names b) Pliny located a Costoboci tribe on Don c) Ptolemy placed a part of them in Sarmatia d) Ammianus placed them between Dniester and whatever river east of it (Dnieper, Don), but this is not true as I proved on the relevant talk page. He requested few times on Andrei's page to list Costoboci among Sarmatian tribes, and there are still articles (I know at least one) where Costoboci were presented as a "probably a Sarmatian" tribe.
2. That Dacian is a Balto-Slavic (sic!) language. His "arguments" were a) some formal similarities between few Dacian names and words and Lithuanian ones and b) more recently a strange claim that Duridanov argued for this idea, which as far as I know, he didn't (I suspect Era can't read German; nevertheless I asked him to provide citations, a thing which he avoided so far). Era managed to get this idea represented on the AD 125 map, and for a while the Daci were part of the Balto-Slavic group(!) His theory is even crazier than that (Mayeresque :P) - in ancient times the Balts came from Anatolia (Mysia) to northern Balkans (Moesia). And eventually they migrated to Baltic shores (I assume this last link is substantiated only by his Dacian-Lithuanian "links")
3. I guess the main drive of his theories is to prove there's no Dacian substratum in Romanian language. He claims all those Romanian words with parallels in Albanian or likely from a pre-Roman language eventually are Illyrian words, a language which he considers the ancestor of Albanian. Maybe that's a sort of nationalism also - to bring Romanians closer to Italy, on the Dalmatian coasts :)
4. I can't understand why he insisted to make Veneti Slavs (I guess using Jordanes, because I can't imagine any other "evidence") - but maybe that plays a part too in his Balto-Slavic paradigm (Era loves to use this word) Daizus (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As for what you say, I agree with all except for one thing - for Romans Dacians (identity, not language!) were:
* people from pre-Roman Dacia (Decebalus' subjects)
* people from Roman Dacia (both pre- and post-Aurelian), in this case Dacian has the same weight as "Tuscan" or "Texan"
* various people recruited from Dacia, Moesia and perhaps other regions who are called in inscriptions (usually Roman military diplomas) Daci and often have non-Roman names
* some tribes at the borders of Roman Dacia, because ancient sources and imperial titles point out Romans were fighting some Dacian tribes from time to time Daizus (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and Era's theories are fringe ;) Daizus (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I second Daizus here 100%! Very pertinent. And great intellectual debate BTW. Cheers!--Codrin.B (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacian language outside Roman DaciaEdit

"The Dacian language was spoken by the ancient inhabitants of Dacia". I consider Dacian language shouldn't be restricted to Roman Dacia. Strabo:

"As for the southern part of Germany beyond the Albis (modern River Elbe), the portion which is just contiguous to that river is occupied by the Suevi ; then immediately adjoining this is the land of the Getae, which, though narrow at first, stretching as it does along the Ister on its southern side and on the opposite side along the mountain-side of the Hercynian Forest, for the land of the Getae also embraces a part of the mountains, afterwards broadens out towards the north as far as the Tyregetae; but I cannot tell the precise boundaries."Boldwin (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)In BC 53, Caesar stated that the Dacian territory was on the eastern border of the Hercynian ForestBoldwin (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I also consider there is missing reference to A grammar of modern Indo-European: language and culture, By Carlos QuilesBoldwin (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Hercynian Forest supposedly stretched "along the Danube from the territory of the Helvetii (present-day Switzerland) to Dacia (present-day Romania). Dimadick (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Bolwin, good points. I think you should include that information, as long as it is properly sourced with references to a modern interpretation. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


The region of Dacia cited in the section 'Geographic distribution' is referenced by a map "Georgiev 1976, p. 191 (map)".

Still, the same author, Georgiev , in his book Introduction to the history of the Indo-European languages, published by Pub. House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in 1981 , page 148 is saying : “The Daco-Mysian region included Dacia (approximately contemporary Rumania and Hungary to the east of the Tisza ) Mysia = Moesia (what is now northeast Yugoslavia and north Bulgaria) and Scythia Minor (what is now Dobrudja)

It appears that the cited map is not the right source for Georgiev's opinion Boldwin (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we need better maps... --Codrin.B (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In Romanian Culture sectionEdit

Currently that section focuses too much on the "Dacian and Thracian were Italic languages" thread. However as you guys know, that is only one part of the story of Dacian/Thracian in Romanian culture, not the main part. I think most Romanians didn't subscribe to that thread of thinking, for example I never heard of that idea till the summer of 2004 on Wikipedia, because it had been added into the Origin of Romanians by the editor who started that article. Among the Romanians that I heard/overheard as a boy, I heard talk about the Dacians and Thracians but I never heard about the idea that the Dacians/Thracians spoke a language similar to Latin when I was growing up in California. 76.208.187.195 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. I think it would be great if you create an account. It would give your more credibility and the ability to track and get credits for your contributions. Thanks for helping with the article. --Codrin.B (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit

Era Navigator, please do not replace scholars’ opinions with your opinions. BTW, entries have to be proper referenced. Boldwin (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Other areasEdit

"....In any case, the hypothesis of a substantial Dacian population in Poland is not widely supported among modern scholars, as this region is generally regarded as inhabited predominantly by Germanic tribes during the Roman era e.g. Heather (2009...." BTW Scholars are talking about Dacians from the South of Poland and not about Dacians inhabiting the entire Poland area. Germanic tribes migrated from northern Poland. Also, there is about a Celtic-Dacian horizon in Eastern Slovakia (it lasted at least until 1st century AD) There is not about the entire Slovakia. Scholars agree that Tisza was the western border of Dacia. Are there scholars saying about Timis? Boldwin (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Georgiev's paraEdit

Georgiev used the ending terms –para, dava, bria of place-names from Thrace and Moesia and Dacia for supporting his own theory. With regard to these ones, Georgiev (1981) himself sustains that “…..the most typical toponyms of Thrace are compound words, the second part of which is para 'brook, river (?)', bria 'town', and diza….”

Also, Georgiev (1981) says “….The most typical toponyms in Dacia, Moesia (= Mysia), and Thrace are the three types of compound names whose second members are the words dava (or deva) 'town', para 'river (?)', and bria 'town'....” Eric P. Hamp : “….Georgiev's Thracian is defined (p. 9) by para 'river', bria 'town', diza 'fortress'…”

Malcolm (1998) “….Several Thracian place-names end in -para, for example, which is thought to mean 'ford', or -diza, which is thought to mean 'fortress'….”

Georgiev's etymology doesn't invalidate his theory. Why do you erased? Boldwin (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is also “strange” that IP 178.108.121.158 erased from Georgiev’s opinion exactly Georgiev’s interpretation of the ending term –para. Boldwin (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


In this article you inserted "...variant: -pera: "village" or "settlement" Polome 1982 p. 872...." This seems to be completely wrong and misleading. I verified this page and it doesn't have this etymology at all. Please double check it.Boldwin (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


Again, this section is about Georgiev’s theory. Therefore, it has to reflect his opinion

Georgiev (1981) “…There are 42 (or 51) toponyms formed with para : para 'brook, river (?)' perhaps comes from *bora…”

As a reminder, Georgiev postulated for Thracian *o > *a; therefore *bora > para 'brook, river (?)' makes sense

If you suggest *pera > para you suggest a different language change i.e. *e> *a (similar to Dacian language change: PIE *dhewa” > Dacian *dava). Also, a form *pur doesn't change to *para, according to Georgiev’s Thracian changes Boldwin (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

DubiousEdit

I've tagged as "dubious" the recently added statement [1] that "The second component of the town's name *-upolis may be a diminutive of *upa cf. Lithuanian diminutive upelis", sourced to Polomé 1982: 879. Given the obvious identity with the common Greek placename element -(ou)-polis, this suggestion seems bizarre. I'd like to see a full quotation of what Polome is actually saying please.

And, to everybody who has been editing this article recently: please, please, please, use informative edit summaries always, and please edit logged-in with an account. Fut.Perf. 09:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly common for Greek words to "sound like" Lithuanian or Latvian words owing to -is masculine noun endings. I've not come across any sources purporting there's any ethno-linguistic link. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 03:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's the page. It's V. Georgiev's hypothesis and Polomé listed it as "highly plausible" because it is supported by "contextual elements". However your doubts are justified. To my knowledge this hypothesis was first criticized by I. I. Russu (in this controversial article I tried to balance some of the pov-pushing - unfortunately that edit was buried in the original research of one of the editors: [2] [3]) The most recent re-assessment is Sorin Olteanu's in his PhD thesis on De Aedificiis (not published; his paleography study was self-published here in Romanian, the new edition of De Aedificiis was self-published here in Romanian and Latin), who not only supports Russu's objection but also makes a persuasive case to read Axiopa not as a genuine native name, but merely as an abbreviation for Axiopolis (see the paleography study, p. 306 - you may not understand the Romanian, but you'll understand the Greek and the drawings which should be persuasive enough) Daizus (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Weird Thracian sound-shiftsEdit

From the section on Thracian:

Prominent among these differences are consonant-shifts that Georgiev claims occurred in Thracian but not in Dacian: IE *t became Thracian ta, and *m = t.{{sfn|Georgiev|1981|p=128}} However, Daco-Thracianists deny that such a consonant-shifts occurred, arguing instead that in both languages Indo-European *ma fused into m and that IE *t remained unchanged. {{sfn|Radulescu|1987|243}}

These sound changes appear extremely unusual. I've never heard of anything like that, either, nor does our article on the Thracian language mention them. Do the sources really say that? What I suspect is really meant is: *t became Thracian th, and *d became t, while in the second case, *dh merged with d (= *d), and the Proto-Indo-European *t remained unchanged. This is also what I recall reading on Duridanov's website: Thracian supposedly behaves like Armenian, and (the uncontroversial part) Dacian like Balto-Slavic/Albanian/Iranian. Not sure how one can misread d as m and h as a, though, even when (cursive?) Cyrillic may be involved. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For Georgiev's position regarding to the IE voiced stops (mediae) that would have become voiceless (M>T) we can check at [[4]]Boldwin (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 
: Tomascheck suggested that Dacian name of plant apsintion/absintion is related to an old root *spind and maybe found in Romanian spindz [5]Boldwin (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't view the content, sorry, Google Books doesn't offer a preview. In any event, M is not a voiced version of T. If you mean d>t, why do you write "M>T"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah! These must really be cover symbols for Media, Tenuis, Tenuis Aspirata (misunderstood by the editors). I'm adding that insight to the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ovid testimonyEdit

Some sources as Horace [24],Ovid [25] and Sextus Rufus [26] showed similarities between Latin and Dacian or Getae languages. Ovid wrote a poem in Dacian language so his opinion is very important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.31.157 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources are not reliable information. Please, use secondary sources, published by worldwide known Universities in English. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

romanian substratum issuesEdit

I certainly agree with most of the passage about how the presumed "substratum" words in Romanian don't have a clear or solid link to what we know of Dacian, and how many in the past assigned the words of unknown origin to Dacian by default, which isn't necessarily right. In some cases they may be Albanian borrowings by the proto-Romanians or Vlachs there, depending on which theory one subscribes to, but that's another heated topic that concerns the "origin or Romanians" page more. I also agree there is an underlying effort by many Romanian scholars in the past to heighten or emphasize connections that aren't very strong realistically, and believe Lucian Boia had some points, especially when regarding the fringe theories like the link to proto-Italic with Dacian, making Latin ultimately descended from it, which is complete pseudo-linguistics.

However that being said I think there's got to be a better way to word or organize parts of the following paragraph:

"Despite strenuous efforts by Romanian scholars to prove a Dacian linguistic "substratum" for the modern Romanian language, there is in reality little hard evidence that Romanian is linked to the ancient Dacian language at all. None of the few Dacian words known (mainly plant-names) and none of the Dacian words reconstructed from placenames have specific correspondent words in Romanian (as opposed to general correspondents in several IE languages). Words defined as "autocthonous" (i.e. indigenous) by DEX are assumed by several scholars to be of Dacian origin, but there is no proof that they are. They could, in some cases, be of pre-Indo-European origin (i.e. truly indigenous, from Stone Age Carpathian languages), or, if clearly Indo-European, be of Sarmatian origin. It seems plausible that a few Dacian words may have survived in the speech of Carpathian inhabitants to be imported later into the Romanian language, when the latter became the predominant language in the region. But this incidental connection hardly qualifies as a linguistic substratum. (In contrast, Slavic has a far stronger claim to constitute the substratum of Romanian, since 10-15% of the Romanian lexicon, numerous grammatical features, and a majority of Romanian placenames, are of Slavic origin: see Slavic influence on Romanian). In any case, there is no genetic relationship between ancient Dacian and modern Romanian: Romanian is descended from the Italic branch of IE, through Latin and proto-Romance; the classification of Dacian remains uncertain, but all linguists agree that it did not belong to the Italic branch."

I understand what they're trying to say regarding the technically stronger possible claim that Slavic has to being a substratum in Romanian, but I could see how this could be misleading to people who aren't familiar with these issues at all or the history of the region, who might actually misunderstand it as Slavic having a strong possibility for being the substratum. While this is technically not impossible, historically it does not seem very probable at all for a Slavic people to have been directly Latinized, since the ancient Romans hardly made direct contact with true Slavic people during the classical era (who weren't in Dacia or the Balkans at the time), and Romanian as a Romance language underwent many of the same Late and Vulgar Latin and early proto-Romance transitions and evolutions that were paralleled other Romance languages. It would have been a rather late start for this process if it only began in the 6th century when the first Slavs moved into the Dacia and Balkan region, making it highly improbable. Unless they're hinting that Romanians were a Slavic people who later had an element of Balkan Latin added or forced onto their language, but this doesn't make much sense either and there are numerous problems with that. Sound shifts from Slavic are different from those of Latin, indicating a probably later layer. Additionally, while there are Slavic grammatical influences in Romanian, this doesn't necessarily constitute a substratum, and there are stronger influences from the Balkan sprachbund (which is usually explained as being of Paleo-Balkanic origin, or at least linked with Albanian, rather than being of truly Slavic origin, despite its presence in Bulgarian/Macedonian, some Serbian etc. So while I'm not saying Romanian is linked with Dacian as far as we know, I do believe there is some kind of paleo-Balkanic influence on it) I realize the person who wrote that wasn't trying to suggest or say that it was actually the case that Slavic is a substratum, and simply that it had more of an impact on Romanian than Dacian, but I feel like the way it was worded wasn't necessary.

Also the way some parts of the passage were written seem to be subtle jabs at Romanian academic and scholarly work in the past overall; while I agree there are plenty of problems with it, the tone doesn't seem right here. There are also no citations in that whole section either. And why does that paragraph belong in the Baltic theory section necessarily? Whether or not it has any substratum link to Romanian doesn't seem to have much to do with whether Dacian was possibly originally linked with Baltic languages, unless they're trying to say that Baltic grammar would be more apparent in Romanian if it was the case that Dacian was a substratum for it. Just wanted to check to see if people had any opinions on this before just editing, thanks, Word dewd544 (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A few more things: I don't know if Romanian necessarily even has a substratum that's truly proven really. I don't know why people try to hard to find one or prove it was one language or the other. We're probably looking at mostly later additions to the language that happened to have significant and deep impacts.
Also, there's a part that seems to assume most of the cognates with Albanian words were borrowed from Albanian. It may be true for many or even most of them, but I wouldn't throw them all in that category, and it hasn't been definitively proven in general. Addtitionally, it says the borrowing was one-sided. That's true, but there were also some early Romance words that entered Albanian probably from interaction with proto-Romanians (separate from the larger amount of borrowings Albanian made directly from Latin). Word dewd544 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation still neededEdit

After I added a "Citation needed" template to the claim that most Romanian place names are of Slavic origin, somebody removed it and added a link to an article about Slavic influence on Romanian. However, nothing in that article supports the claim, so I have put the template back on. I have no shares in the question but a profound interest in toponymy, so it would be great to see a link to a reliable source. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC) PS: Yes, the article about Slavic influence says that no place names known from Latin sources survived - which is an uncontested fact - but it does not follow that a majority of all place names of Romania are therefore Slavic. For example, East Romance or Romanian names could have been formed at a later stage. So a source would be great. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The majority of Romanian place names are Romanian, they're either a geographical description, like White River or Long Valley or derived from a family name Ciocăneşti = Hammerville, probably from the name of someone known as Ciocan (Hammer). Slavic placenames are found throughout the country, but they're not the majority anywhere. bogdan (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Intersting, thanks. It would be great with a source, though. Unfortunately, Balkan toponomy seems to be utterly neglected by linguists/philologians--Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Bogdan, the example you have chosen, Ciocanesti, disproves your own argument, since ciocan derives from a Slavonic word meaning "hammer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.177.125 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC) This word was then adopted into Romanian. The point is that most Rom. placenames are based on Slavic words, although in many cases they have been "romanianised" by slightly modifying them, or giving them Rom. endings (e.g. -esti); or alternatively, translating them into Rom. (but the Slavic original appears in 16th/17th century maps)

Romanian placenames and Slavic substratumEdit

The point about Romanian placenames is that, as a whole, they constitute an insurmountable obstacle to the Daco-Roman Continuity theory. They prove beyond reasonable doubt that medieval Dacia was predominantly Slavic-speaking before it became Romanian-speaking.

Quoting from the excellent section on Rom. placenames in Origin of the Romanians:

"Although some towns preserved their ancient names[note 1] in South-eastern Europe up until now, the names of all Roman settlements attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity disappeared.[1][2] The names of some rivers[note 2] survived the Roman withdrawal,[3] but their modern forms suggest a Slavic mediation instead of a direct transmission from a native language or Latin to languages now spoken in the territory.[4] For instance, the vowel shift from [a] to [u] or [o] experienced in the case of the rivers Mureş [< Maris], Olt [< Aluta], and Someş [< Samu(m)] is attested in the development of the Slavic languages, but is alien to Romanian and other tongues spoken in their regions.[5] Dunărea, the Romanian name of the Danube may have developed from a supposed[6] Geto-Dacian *Donaris form.[7] However, this form is not attested in written sources.[6] Therefore, it is possible that the Romanians' ancestors in this case also adopted a Slavic name.[8]" EraNavigator (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If Latin-speakers continued as the majority group without interruption from Roman times, then the original (Daco-)Latin names would survive without Slavic mediation. Thus the river Aluta would still be called Aluta, and not Olt. The point about toponyms is that they are very conservative, often surviving successive changes in predominant language.

In contrast, the fact that many original Latin names survive in Rep. of Macedonia (the homeland of the Aromanians), probably implies that this was the region where the Romanian language originally developed - and was then spread into Dacia by migration of Vlach populations, most likely after the collapse of the First Bulgarian Empire in 1014, when tens of thousands of Vlachs, who were allied too the Bulgarians, fled north of the Danube to escape the reprisals of the Byzantines under Basil II the "Bulgar-Slayer". They probably formed a military elite which established their hegemony over Wallachia (then still known to the Byzantines as Sklavinia ("Land of the Slavs") and gradually superimposed the Vlach language by elite transfer (the process was not complete until the 16th c) . Once they had done so, they attracted even more Vlachs to migrate from south of the Danube, during the Byzantine oppression of Bulgaria (which was only ended in 1185 by the Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion).

"Place names of Latin origin abound in the region of Lake Shkodër, along the rivers Drin and Fan and other territories to the north of the Via Egnatia.[9] Gottfried Schramm argues that the names of at least eight towns in the region,[note 3] likewise suggest the one-time presence of a Romance speaking population in their vicinity.[10] Romanian place names can still be detected in Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and Serbia.[11] For example, such names[note 4] are concentrated in the wider region of the river Vlasina both in Bulgaria and Serbia,[12] and in Montenegro and the nearby territories.[note 5][11] 18:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC) "

References

  1. ^ Schramm 1997, p. 292.
  2. ^ Tóth 1994, p. 60.
  3. ^ Madgearu 2005, p. 143.
  4. ^ Schramm 1997, p. 294.
  5. ^ Makkai, László (2001). Transylvania in the Medieval Hungarian Kingdom (896–1526), History of Transylvania, Volume I. Institute of History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. ISBN 0-88033-479-7.
  6. ^ a b Vékony 2000, p. 210.
  7. ^ "Dunărea". Dicţionar explicativ al limbii române pe internet. dex-online.ro. 2004–2008. Retrieved 14 October 2012.CS1 maint: date format (link)
  8. ^ Vékony 2000, pp. 209-210.
  9. ^ Wilkes 1992, p. 278.
  10. ^ Schramm 1997, p. 300.
  11. ^ a b Sălăgean 2005, p. 167.
  12. ^ Schramm 1997, p. 323.

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dacian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dacian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dacian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Return to "Dacian language" page.