Talk:Dacian language

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."

[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".

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.

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.

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.

--Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] The point about Romanian placenames is that, as a whole, they constitute an insurmountable obstacle to the Daco-Roman Continuity theory.

[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.

[8]" EraNavigator (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] If Latin-speakers continued as the majority group without interruption from Roman times, then the original (Daco-)Latin names would survive without Slavic mediation.

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".

"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.

[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.

And I think it would be best to remove the portion about the etymology and the name of the lake; onomastics and hydronymy are very difficult to conclusively prove, and generally unhelpful.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindafarna (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] ' (For some historians, mainly Hungarian, this allegedly didn't occur before the 13th or 14th century[citation needed]), but the hypothesis is highly controversial since it likely is politically motivated.)