Talk:List of reconstructed Dacian words

Large Parts of Background: Merge to the Dacian language

Parts of Background: the Dacian language section would probably be better of in Dacian language article, eventually. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some chunks of this section could usefully be imported (and preferably much expanded) into Dacian language. However, I do think we need a summary of the main points about Dacian in this article as an introduction. EraNavigator (

talk) 18:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I agree we do need a summary here as well, but lists usually are just lists, don't treat a topic in detail. Nice work! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I am concerned this background is growing too much already, while there is no list yet... Please consult Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists). I would focus on the actual list, then later move most of this section to Dacian language, if it is not too outdated, also being careful to WP:NPOV (per Daizus comments below). --Codrin.B (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, at this point this article getting further and further away from the idea of a list. When you finalize the Background and Baltic connection sections, I think most of their content should definitely be moved to the Dacian language.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see the list coming along!! Nice work Era! The Background section looks better, more structured, but still too long. That content will do well in the Dacian language.--Codrin.B (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Books and full citations

I know the article is work in progress but we need book details and full citations. I can help formatting and with citation styles. Also, bear in mind this is a live article, people can already find it and read it. You may consider using the user space or WikiProject Dacia drafts space until it gets to a form you consider acceptable for prime time, ideally with full references. But having it live is one strategy to bring reviewers and collaborators faster ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

What's this article about? It's like for 40 years nothing happened!

Lead: "100 Daco-Moesian placenames are documented and some 20 personal names." Oh really? Then why in "Les daces dans les ostraca du désert oriental de l'Égypte. Morphologie des noms daces", ZPE 143 (2003), p. 166-186, Dan Dana lists the following noms daces dans le désert Oriental de l'Égypte:

16 noms daces déjà attestés: Aptasa, Avizina, Blaikisa (= Blegissa), Kaigiza, Damanais, Dekibalos, Dekinais, Dida, Diernais, Diourdanos (et Zourdanos), Diourpa, Eithazi, Eithias, Natopor, Zourai, Zourazi.

29 noms daces nouveaux ou probables: Bastiza, Komakiza (= *Komagissa), Dablosa, Dadazi, Dardanos, Dardiola, Dezibalos, Diengi, Dieri, Diourpliz (?), Ditoulai, Dotos, Dotouzi, Dourpokis (?), Eithiokalos/Ithiokalos, Geithozi, Naisoulai, Neisto, Petipor, Pouridour, Rolouzis, Tiato[ ?], Titila, Thiais, Thiaper, Thiapo[r ?], Thiathithi/Tiatitis, Zouroblast[ ?], Zoutoula.

8 noms douteux: Dadas, Daïdour[ ], Decinsada, Dia[..]palai, Dio[.]lizis, Thiadicem (acc.), Thouthoila, Zoubliza (?).

So we have 45 Dacian personal names + 8 doubtful ones attested in the Eastern Egypt only!

Then please go check RMD and other modern epigraphic corpora. How about the diplomas issued to pedite Itaxae Stamillae filio Daco, equite Thiodo/Thiopo Rolae filio Daco, equite Thiae Timarchi filio Daco, equite Sisceo Aptasae filio Daco and many such others?

The rest of the article doest not follow WP:NPOV and WP:NOR: only Duridanov's view is considered, only words reconstructed from place names and personal names (why? Duridanov himself uses other sources such as Romanian-Albanian parallels) and it uses unreliable views such as Mayer's to suggest Dacian is a Balto-Slavic language. Daizus (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I express some of the same worries about WP:NPOV as I see a few authors cited many times. But I don't have any linguistics background so I wouldn't comment on the specifics mentioned above by Daizus. However I would urge you to take a look at Sorin Olteanu's Project: Linguae Thraco-Daco-Moesorum - Toponyms Section. It has a lot of up to date research plus maps showing linguistics separation (I put one here commons:File:Teritoriul onomastic al elementului dava - Sorin Olteanu.jpg), and is consolidating/reviewing many theories for the Bulgarian writers. Unfortunately is mostly in Romanian with only some parts in English and French. Maybe Daizus and Andrei can help you with translation. I am much more interested in archaeology and the project organization/article style and quality, so I'll live linguistics to you guys. Related to that, I also made a note above about this article being a list and not the Dacian language topic. I think the focus should be on the list itself.

As a side note. Daizus, do you mind expanding the List of Dacian names article with all this great info you provided here? Someone created that article a while back and is in terrible shape. I believe all this recent knowledge deserves to be captured and that article seems the likely place. Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check some articles and make some lists of names. Daizus (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is actually much worse. Era distorted Duridanov's views into a crazy theory (of his own) "that Dacian and Illyrian were closely related". Daizus (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dardanos as a Dacian name? Are you certain this isn't just the Greek Δάρδανος? Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

From the article (p. 175): De plus, c'est un nom populaire en Asie Mineure (et comme nom d'un héros), en Dardanie, et comme nom d'esclave (nom mythologique). On peut même songer à une hellénisation, au Mons Claudianus, du nom dace Diourdanos. Sinon, on peut y reconnaître un thème dard- suffixé (Dard-anos, cf. Diourdanos), que l'on rencontre dans le nom du soldat Dardi-ola aussi. In conclusion this is a nom problématique, that's why it's recorded in a list of noms daces nouveaux ou probables. Daizus (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

List of reconstructed Dacian words

I welcome such a list Yet, it this is a walking on thin ice. It seems to me it has to be specified there is about a reconstruction from proto-Indo-European language to Dacian language Boldwin (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is full of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV violations. I warned EraNavigator before starting this article. Daizus (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to understand this article. I jumped the part with considerations about Dacia, were I concur with your opinion and it should be corected. I have also some observations

• Only in the table the starting point as Indo-European root-words. But, it is confusing Today, there are so many root-words classified as Indo-European i.e. Pokorny ‘s classification. Maybe I am wrong, but I didn’t find in Pokorny the reconstructed PIE root *olda, *olta ("water", "odorous") Maybe EraNavigator should title Duridanov’s root-words or something like this
• Maybe the section Attestation should include (inscriptions, plant names, Strabo, Discorides etc) and these shouldn't be just put at the References

section. It would help reader to follow the approach

• At usually, toponyms' meanings are questioned by experts. Not all scholars accept the meanings of toponyms’.i.e. the meaning birch for Bersobis.
• In table I see Axiopa (with Latin letters). Probably Axiopa meant "black water" in Dacian. Acording to Palome E.C., it is among words were the etymology is strenghten by Pliny with a river in Macedonia “nigra and fusca” I cite further:"Cernavoda could be a loan-translation of the ancient Dacian name Axiopa, if *Αxios reflects IE *n-ks(e)y ‘dark, black’ literally ‘not shining’ cf. Avestan axsaena ‘dark-coloured’ xsaeta ‘light’ and the second element could pe equated as reflexes of *upa, diminutive *upolis with Lith upe ‘river’"
• Akmonia is within PIE (Pokorny) Ak / Ok (*hek) with m formant. The root itself means also sharp and not only stone

There are two derivations there 1) Akmo -> Acmonia is related by Pokorny to akmo See Greek aκμa `point, edge, sharpness; the highest point, climax, decisive point 2) Akme-> The meaning stone is related to ak-men-/-mer- Old Indian áśnaḥ, áśnā, av. ašnō, Abl. ašnāat̃ with -n- from -mn-; phryg. PN Ακμονα; gr. Aκμων' anvil', lit. ãšmens m. Pl. `Edge', akmuõ, -eñs m. `stone'

• The table section "Latin equivalent" The term taken out of the Duridanov acceptation could also be confusing. I.e. Table gives us amnis (der.< abnis). But, abnis is a reconstructed form by Pokorny from Latin amnis (it implies b>m) Pokorny also include here rum. apă `water'. Table doesn’t include cognates, yet.

I do not know yet how to read this articleBoldwin (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Daizus, why have scrubbed my amendment on Daco-Moesian/ thracian surviving into 6th c.? EraNavigator (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific and provide a diff? Daizus (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't get your point EraNavigator (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC) PS: I think we need Greek-alphabets PNs transliterated into Latin latters in brackets - not all readers know Greek letters EraNavigator (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You have asked a question and I don't know what you mean, and I won't check all my past edits to figure it out. So be more specific. And provide a diff if needed. Daizus (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop mixing up attestations and references. When there are more attestations, the table must show the source for each word. Or maybe the table is not the best structure for this information, and we should write a longer text. Daizus (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind where you put the refs - as long as the entries in the table are consistent. So if you think the PNs should be reffed in the same box, make sure they all are, not just your own entries. PS: the edit I made (which you prob. scrubbed accidentally) was: South of the Danube, Daco-Moesian was probably replaced by Latin as the dominant language of the inhabitants of Moesia by the 3rd century, although Daco-Moesian may have survived in remote areas into the 6th c., as Thracian certainly did. (ref: AHM Jones, (1964) LRE 998). EraNavigator (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't changed the first three entries because I haven't verified the attestations yet. I will.

As for that revert, if I did it, then it was by mistake. Daizus (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we show the table-refs at the bottom of the article, together with the rest of the citations, so we don't clutter the table with refs? Thus, we could do away with the refs column? EraNavigator (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. But we need two sets of notes. One set for attestations. The other set for scholars. Daizus (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, technically, we don't need the attestation refs at all - since they are given in the scholars' cites.EraNavigator (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC) We could axe the attestation refs and just leave the scholars' refs in the final column. EraNavigator (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, But I think we still need some notes and further explanations for attestations, because many of them are not straightforward. Daizus (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I think the best option is to have both numbered cites for the PN refs and the final column for scholarly refs. This combines flexibility with reducing clutter on nthe table itself.EraNavigator (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

Just wondering

Why do you havce so many primary sources There is a Wikipedia label about it . This rule should apply for everybody

"Around the time of the Roman conquest of Dacia (AD 101-6), the Dacian language was spoken, North of the Danube, in the ancient region of Dacia, defined by the Roman imperial-era Greek geographer Ptolemy as the area contained by the river Ister Danube to the South, the river Thibiscum (Timiş) to the W., the northern Carpathian mountains to the N. and the river Hierasus (Siret) to the E

reference. Ptolemy III.8.1-3.

Note: Ptolemy Geography had been written after the making of Roman Dacia (even though some of his sources are before this date).

According to Strabo, the Dacians, the Getae (inhabiting the modern regions of Wallachia/Dobrogea), the Moesians and the Thracians (Bulgaria South of the Balkan Mts) all spoke essentially the same language, which was the same as Mysian, a language of Anatolia.[13]

13. ^ Strabo VII.3.2; 3.13

A part of Mysians emigrated to Minor Asia. This is the reason of " Mysian, a language of Anatolia". Ancient sources also specified that Moesians lived both sides of Danube and all tribes listed above spoke a Thracian language. Dacians or Getae also lived both sides of Danube.

Boldwin (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I added the OR tag. Making arguments on primary sources is original research, unless those arguments were proposed by modern scholars, as well. Daizus (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

on Calabeus

There are more parallels and cognates proposed by Duridanov: [1] [2] Daizus (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I know: I am not entering all the cognates in Duridanov, only the closest ones: otherwise, the table will get far too long. EraNavigator (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Closest" unless specified by Duridanov to be so is OR in this case. Daizus (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I second Daizus on this. I think we should enter all the parallels and cognates found in Duridanov's work. Andrei nacu (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Daizus as well on this one. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, most definitely all the close cognates and even some not-so-close cognates should be listed. I will soon begin adding all the Albanian cognates that are missing, plus alternative etymologies from the linguistic sources. I just recently came across this article, it would be freakin' suspicious to leave out the Albanian cognates---even when they are different, that is very relevant because it shows the purported difference between Dacian and Albanian---as long as they are in fact cognates and the etymologies are correct. 76.208.169.150 (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversions in Background section

Daizus, you cannot say that Latin replaced Dacian N of the Danube, except in Roman Dacia for the period 106-275. There is no evidence that the Free Dacians ever adopted Latin as their everyday speech; and the survival of Latin after the Roman evacuation in 275 is disputed.

Georgiev and many other authors say it. This is not a question of 106-275, but of replacement and just that. If Dacian was revived in Dacia after 275, please provide a source saying so, but in Roman Dacia virtually all inscriptions are in Latin (few are in Greek), none in Dacian.

For Latin and Greek in Moesias see also: [3]. For Latin being a significant spoken language in Dacia, you also can find in this paper a short comment: "Finally, Aurelian’s evacuation of Trajanic Dacia in AD 271, accompanied by resettlement of the strongly Romanized population of the Dacian provinces south of the Danube, contributed substantially to the popularity of Latin in this region in Late Antiquity." (emphasis mine) Daizus (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you read the extinction subsection, you will see that, after your edits, it does not even make sense syntactically. You have reduced a couple of paras to incoherence.

I'm not sure what you refer to, but feel free to improve the wording. Daizus (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We surely must mention that Rom. is a Romance language: that may be obvious to you or me, but it may not be to a reader who has just been told that its substratum is daco-Moesian. Also I can see no reason why G.'s view of Dardanian origin of proto-Rom. should be omitted: esp. since we then go on to give his view of Dardanian origin of Albanian.

No, we don't. We only have to put a link on Romanian. Georgiev does not support a Dardanian-only origin of proto-Romanian, and certainly whatever Georgiev arguments about Romanian must be added in Romanian language or Origin of Romanians. The Dacian language section is already a POV-fork which was suggested to be merged. Daizus (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally, what are all these OR? tags. It seems to me that you are interpreting OR and POV absurdly tight - so as to makke it virtually impossible to write a coherent article. EraNavigator (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's not in the source, it's OR. Read the rules. Daizus (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

disruptive editing by EraNavigator

• removing inline tags indicating problems is disruptive editing if you can't provide sources supporting the allegations in the article

You're one to talk about disruptive editing: you mess up my prose, reduce paras to incoherence, revert my edits before I've even finished writing them - all without any prior discussion. As for your tags, you must justify each one on this page

I don't have to justify OR when it's plain obvious. For example:

• If one accepts the "family-tree" model of language evolution, this theory would place Dacian and Thracian in the Balto-Slavic grouping of IE languages is clearly OR and I pointed that out several times when we were discussing the 125 map. Neither Duridanov, nor Meyer, nor any other scholar you quoted supports this claim. It's you, EraNavigator, serving this conclusion to the readers. Sorry, this is not acceptable.
• may have survived into the 6th c.: there is a mention of so-called "Carpo-Dacians" in the chronicle of the Byzantine official Zosimus, writing in ca. 500. However, Zosimus is widely regarded as an unreliable source, especially as regards accuracy of names and dates. Interpreting primary sources directly is OR by WP:PSTS. The "however" part is OR on two counts: a) by WP:SYNTH as Thompson says nothing about "Carpo-Dacians" on that page b) and WP:OR because Thompson does not even say "especially as regards accuracy of names and dates", he only lists Zosimus as "worst of all extant Greek historians of the Roman Empire" and then proceeds to enumerate several of his mistakes, some of which are "has falsely transcribed names" and "his confusion of events". It's easy to notice that you over-interpreted your source, to serve your proof. But again, your proof, so this is not acceptable. Daizus (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

On the unreliability of Zosimus, Thompson is hardly the only source. "Rome's Fall and After" (1989) by Walter Goffart devotes an entire chapter on Zosimus, his merits and faults:

• p. 81-82 "Who was first to write the history of the Roman Empire in the way Gibbon did, that is, as a completed tale of decline and disintegration? Though not unanswered, this question has attracted little attention. The historian who fills this role is a Byzantine of disputed, the retired advocate Zosimus, author of a New or Recent History whose detailed portions extend from the third century A.D to the year 410." ... "He was not simply a pessimist, writing in tones of dark foreboding in the manner of Sallust, Tacitus, and Ammianus ; nor did he intend, like Orosius, to produce a catalogue of disasters and miseries. His purpose was unique and original. From a perspective that we might to be in medias, Zosimus deliberately related the history of the Roman Empire as a tale of decline and fall: "For just as Polybius narrated how the Romans acquired their sovereignity within a brief period of time, so I am going to tell how they lost it through their own blind folly within no long period of time" (1. 57)" This statement of his purpose ideologically colours his history.

• p.82: "From footnote to footnote, he [Gibbon] qualifies Zosimus as a servile Greek, unworthy of esteem and trust, neither a soldier nor a politician, prejudiced, partial, malicious, ignorant (three times), credulous, indecently bigoted, poor in judgement, a disingenous liar, almost incredible in his crude simplicity. His documentary value stems only from our lacking an alternartive"

• p.82: "Ludwig Mendelssohn, expressed the same judgement in less colorful but more circumstantial terms: "The more familiar one becomes with Zosimus, the more one learns to distrust him. He confuses times, he is ignorant of places, he joins together disconnected subjects and dissociates connected ones; while he goes on at length with fables and miracles, he either omits or glosses over the main subject; he relates the same story twice in a slightly different way. In sum, one passage or the other ... may serve to illustrate every vice that dishonors the historian."

• p. 84-85 "Zosimus supplies material to suit all modern interpretive preferences. Fanciers of economic causes encounter the spoliation of great fortunes and the imposition by Constantine and Theodosius of new and vexatious tributes on every class, together with unfair and merciless collection. Those tending toward administrative causes are offered the proliferation of praetorian prefects, generals, and their subordinates. Military causes are represented by the relaxation of discipline, cantonment in cities, and the exclusion of pagans from the ranks. The ferocity of Constantine towards his family, the licentious self-indulgence of Theodosius, and the nullity of Arcadius and Honorius constitute suitable personal failings. Partisans of external causes will specially note Zosimus' references to the barbarians, whom imperial indulgence allowed to flood the army and to espy the languishing corpse of the empire they were supposed to defend. Finally, there are religious causes in the form of Christian monks whose greed impoverished everyone in the name of poverty and, most of all, the abandonment of the ancient divinities and rites that had protected the Roman state. ... Fourteen centuries of time, five centuries of research, have hardly altered the pattern of decline offered by Zosimus; only the mix is somewhat different, the data somewhat more accurate. The one noteworthy addition is a negative portrayal of the Roman third century, something that Zosimus could not quite see."

• p.85-86: "Was Zosimus personally a devotee of the pagan gods? The Church historian Evagrius though so, and so has everyone else. Probably he was, but his paganism had much in common with dourly austere Christianity. His opinions proceeded not from emotional attachment to the gods but from princliple: piety; reverence for ancient, hallowed things; a conservatism that is blind to its inconsistencies ... He [Zosimus] did not miss the ancient gods. Instead he castigated the innovation that consisted in abandoning the gods. Their abandonement summed up to him the multitude of innovations- from the establishment of the Empire by Augustus to Theodosius' creation of five magistri militum- that were responsible for bringing about the desolation he saw about him."

• p. 88 "Zosimus depended closely on literary sources. The outstanding illustration is his treatment of Stilicho. While his first pages are fiercely hostile, the account of Stilicho's execution is followed by a thoroughly favorable judgement upon the man. The explanation for the disrepancy is that Zosimus came to the end of the History of Eunapius and turned to that of Olympiodorus without doing anything to efface the glaring contrast in their respective views of Stilicho. Photius went so far as to say that he [Zosimus] did not write a history so much as a transcription of Eunapius, from whom he differed only in consision. ... His appraisal should be a continuous warning against our ascribing particular views to Zosimus unless we have specific reasons to suppose they are his own. ... He frequently steps out from behind his sources to draw attention to some deplorable thing or another, such as the closing of the temples in Oriens and Egypt. ... In such passages, we know whom we are dealing with."

• p. 93-94: "The tendency to think of Zosimus as a pagan die-hard, reminiscent of Libanius and Symmachus, have all contributed to obscuring the great distance between him and the age about which he wrote. How alien he was to his subject matter is touchingly illustrated by the following passage: "Indeed Constantine, wishing to contrive something really painful for the men of conspicuous wealth, would name each to the office of praetor and, using this honor as a blind, would dun each of a great weight in silver" (2.38.3). Thoughout classical antiquity, and well after Constantine, men of wealth had willingly shouldered the expensive burdens of the state, regarding their public generosity as just compensation for their unequal share of the riches of the community. The honor of a magistracy went hand in hand with its heavy cost. A whole structure of law had grown up to institutionalize these practices and surround them with necessary safeguards. ... All this was hidden from Zosimus. " In other words, Zosimus attributes to Constantine a practice that long predated that emperor. Seemingly ignorant of an important feature of the Roman state.

• p. 95: "Zosimus had good sources about the third and fourth centuries, but he experienced that past only through his books, as though it were distant and hazy, which of course it was. We could not be surprised to encounter in his pages the sort of ridiculous anecdote about the Emperor Honorius that we later find in Procopius. The same remoteness has already been observed in Zosimus' paganism. ... Not his least value is as witness to his own age, which, while not that of Justinian, fell in the decades immediately preceding Justinian's accession. ... Zosimus sat in Constantinople, amidst the most physically visible achievement of the later Roman Empire, the city of Constantine, whose ascent as a seat of power, a fortress, and an emporium had been uninterrupted since its foundation. Yet Zosimus in his mind saw just Gibbon saw, an empire fallen, lost not only in part in the West, but departed, a thing of the past." Not much of a primary source for events prior to the late 4th-century and with a negative view of his own time. Dimadick (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'm sure you can find much more. But it's all irrelevant if it's not about Carpi (Carpodaci in Zosimus), and to my knowledge neither Thompson, nor Goffart, nor many other scholars found Zosimus wrong on this particular mention.

Era is swimming against the tide here. In Carpi and in several other articles he promoted his pet theory that it's unlikely Carpi were Dacians (a Dacian tribe, Dacian speaking, "ethnically" Dacians etc.) But his own sources state the contrary (CAH XII, 2nd edition, p. 224: "By the early third century the ‘Free Dacians’, as they were earlier known, were a significantly troublesome group, then identified as the Carpi, requiring imperial intervention on more than one occasion.")

One note on your "not much of a primary source for events prior to the late 4th-century" - Theodosius' action against Sciri, Carpodaci and Huni is a late 4th century event. And it's, of course, your own interpretation and WP:OR, Goffart only says "had good sources about the third and fourth centuries, but he experienced that past only through his books", which is more or less true for many if not most of our primary sources writing about events they did not witness in person.Daizus (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you happen to ignore that Zosimus is missing key concepts of Roman history? Or that he is repeating whatever his sources say on certain subjects? Calling OR in a discussion page is rather strange. Dimadick (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about Roman history, and certainly not about what Zosimus missed or not. If most scholars chose to use Zosimus to make the Carpi Dacians, then this is what the articles on Dacians should reflect. There's no "however" unless a scholar makes a suggestion a) that Zosimus is confused/wrong about Carpi and Dacians b) that Zosimus meant something else c) that Zosimus got everything wrong, therefore nothing of what he wrote can be true. Any other "however" is a non sequitur and a original research.

As for your assessment I called it OR assuming good faith: I imagined your contribution is relevant to the topic of our discussion, which is how to use (or not use) Zosimus in an article on Dacians and their language. If this is not the case, then please see Zosimus (a stub!) and continue there. As a side note, if Zosimus is "repeating whatever his sources say", that makes him a very reliable source ;) Daizus (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The topic is how reliable Zosimus can be when writing texts. Which is why his writing a century after the relevant events raises questions. "Most scholars"? You have yet to establish that. Up till now "Carpo-Dacians" is qualified in the article only by a reference to Zosimus himself. References supporting the material have not been added. Even on the article on the Carpi, the sentence "Beyond this date, evidence of Carpi continuity is limited to Zosimus' Karpodakai." remains unreferenced. "Barbarians within the gates of Rome:a study of Roman military policy and the barbarians, ca. 375-425 A.D." (1994) by Thomas S. Burns offers the following views of the text:

• p. 56-57 "During this same period, Zosimus tells us, Theodosius defeated some Sciri and Carpodaces with Huns among them and forced them to return home. Just how many groups were in this movement? Who were these people, such as the Carpodaces? Clearly the participants, chronology, and significance of the events presented in this short passage, just one chapter of 37 lines in the standard edition of Zosimus, are far from clear. Orosius condensed everything even further, into a simple statement that Theodosius fought many battles with only a small army."

• p. 58, "The Carpodaces, if we may trust the name, may well have been a remnant of the Carpi, some of whom had merged with Goths in the course of the third and fourth centuries while others were settled in the Empire. In fact, there had been an encampent of Carpi along the Danube near to where Valens spent the winter of 368, perhaps founded long before but still bearing the name vicus Carpi. Other Carpi were still distinguishable as a group in Pannonia, having been established there by Diocletian (284-305). In fact, Maximinus, the praetorian prefect of the Gauls, 371-376, claimed a distant ancestry to the Carpi settled there."

• p. 110 "There were numerous groups of Huns, most still living beyond the Danube, without any central leader until Uldis emerged at their head around 400. Some were at Adrianople and others were with the Carpodaces, defeated by Theodosius in 379-380." He places Carpodaces in quotation marks, doubting the name. Dimadick (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Zosimus' reliability is not a topic of discussion if it's not related to his sayings about Carpi and Dacians. I started this discussion about the OR in this article. If your sources (such as Thompson and Goffart) do not say anything about Carpi, then arguing about Zosimus is OR: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research". End of story.

Your interpretations above on Burns also fall into OR. Who were the people named Carpodaces may be "far from clear" (to Burns), but that doesn't mean Zosimus is wrong, or that there's something wrong with believing Carpi were Dacians using that evidence (especially in conjunction with other evidence - see Burns below). His quotation marks may mean only "far from clear" or they may just point out the unusual mention (the hapax), not an actual doubt on the information supplied by Zosimus. Stop over-interpreting sources to push a POV!

For Carpi and Daci there are plenty of references, but as I pointed out, Era tried to make Carpi not Dacians, and those were avoided. As for "most scholars", if you'd search on Carpi, and not only to disprove the Carpi-Dacian link, you could see that for yourself. Here's a very small list (no Romanian authors, and only Google books in limited preview only so I can show you the pages):

• Thomas S. Burns, A history of the Ostrogoths, p. 111 ("the Carpi, often called 'free Dacians'" - oh noes!, and then Burns also wrote of "Carpi and other free Dacians")
• Paul Lachlan MacKendrick, The Dacian Stones Speak, p. 117
• Matthew Bunson (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Roman empire, p. 96 and 247
• Herwig Wolfram, The Roman Empire and its Germanic peoples, p. 124
• Herwig Wolfram, History of the Goths, p. 56
• Peter Heather, The Goths, p. 89
• Kelly De Vries (following Heather) in John France (ed.), Mercenaries and paid men. The mercenary identity in the Middle Ages, p. 48
• John Wilkes' contribution in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. XII, p. 224 (map: p. 215)
• Timothy Taylor's contribution in Encyclopedia of Prehistory. Europe, vol. IV, p. 215
• Walter Goffart, The Barbarian Tides. The migration age and the later Roman Empire, p. 205

I can easily supply 30-40 books and studies published in the past few decades arguing or claiming the Carpi were Dacians, and occasionally quoting also Zosimus for that. How many references can you quote for the contrary? Daizus (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to forget a couple of things. First, the phrases above are direct quotations. Including the telling "if we may trust the name". The only time I make an interpretation, is on the text outside the quotations. Second, I am not arguing that the Carpi are not Dacians. I am arguing about the reliability of the mention of Carpodaces by Zosimus. You have not provided any of the above sources for the article. Also most of the pages you link to above are somewhat irrelevant, as they are mentioning the Daci, Carpi, etc. in the 3rd century. The Cambridge History goes on a little further, to the death of Constantine (d. 337). We are talking about an event contemporary to Theodosius I. I checked the various pages above:

• The first quotation from Wolfram is appropriate because he uses the term "Dacian Carpi" for the relevant events in the 380s. De Vries is also useful for using the term "the little-known Dacian Carpi" in the same context. You might as well add them in the article to support the reference by Zosimus.
• Goffart states that Carpi (Carpodaces) is the "term used for Dacians outside Dacia". Good enough, though probably more useful in the article about the Carpi. (Though this is the first time I see an argument that Scirians were not Germanic at all).
• Heather's quotation is not exactly useful. He uses the term "Dacian Carpi". But in the context of the Dacian Carpi, the Black Sea city-states and the Sarmatians facing Gothic invasions. The phrase continues to say that they "lost out in the process". Where does it say that they were moving south or facing the Romans?
• I am not even sure why you used the Encyclopedia of Prehistory. Not only does it not mention Zosimus. In that page, the latest event mentioned is the reign of Decebalus (87-106)! Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

None of the "direct quotations" prove my objections wrong. "If we may trust the name" doesn't mean "we can't trust the name", and certainly doesn't mean Carpi were not Dacians. I quoted Burns himself for Carpi = free Dacians, so I don't think those "direct quotations" suggest the opposite.

The we're talking about part is a straw man: I added the OR tag, not on a late 4th century "event", but on doubting the association between Carpi and Dacians and how Zosimus was used in this regard. Thus all the references I provided are relevant, because they all assert or argue for the Dacianess of Carpi. I don't want to use any of these references here, I want 'the Zosimus argument' fixed or removed. EraNavigator complained I remove his contributions, as such I also use tags to point out the problematic content which needs to be fixed or removed. As long as you can't make a case for using and discussing Zosimus directly (please read WP:PSTS also) in the text, those OR tags stay per all the reasons I listed so far.

Some of these scholars use Zosimus directly, explicitly or not, see above Goffart 2007:205: "Carpi (Carpodaces), the term used for Dacians outside Dacia". If you take your time to read the bibliography and the footnotes and navigate back to primary accounts and evidence, you'll find out that Zosimus is the only literary source for this association, all the other evidence is circumstantial (archaeology, geography, toponymy). Kelly de Vries quoted Peter Heather, Timothy Taylor quoted Gh. Bichir, but in the end the literary evidence is this short mention by Zosimus, nothing else. I said "most scholars chose to use Zosimus to make the Carpi Dacians" and this is exactly what the short bibliography I provided shows. Daizus (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Straw man"! really? You added the tag on anything that would question Zosimus' reliability. Any sources on his faults you throw out. I do not need the time to read the bibliography to find out that Zosimus is the only source for that narrative. That is the problem which started the whole debate. Whenever something has just a "short mention by" any primary source and "nothing else", there is always a question of reliability. Read again the policy you quoted: "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." ... "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source." Why wouldn't you want to use a reference? Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're building straw men after straw men and I explained each time why. Here's a new round: I added one OR tag for the use of Zosimus (currently referenced by footnote 23) invoking WP:PSTS. I added another OR tag for the questioning of Zosimus (currently referenced by footnote 24) invoking other aspects of WP:OR such as WP:SYNTH. Why would I use references for a text I believe it must be removed?

As for your quote of WP:RS, that is another straw man. The policy applies to Wikipedia not to scholars. If they chose to trust this short mention by Zosimus, then so must we (quoting them, not Zosimus), because their works are reliable sources. But that's something which should happen in the Carpi article, which is flagged for violations of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Daizus (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To end this charade, I removed all the OR and irrelevant material in "Extinction" section. Feel free to improve. Daizus (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• claiming Georgiev supported a "Dardanian origin of Romanians" is OR to say the least. Georgiev supports a "Carpathian origin" of Romanians (from both banks of Danube, I guess; see also Duridanov), see for example Georgiev's "Raporturile dintre limbile dacă, tracă şi frigiană" in Studii Clasice II (1960): 35–38. The homeland of Albanians (neighbouring the proto-Romanians) is in Dardania, Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea (that is eastern Moesia Superior and western Moesia Inferior).

I never said that the Romanians originated in Dardania. Obviously, the Romanians are primarily of Carpathian origin, genetically. What I, or rather G., said is that the Romanian language originated in Dardania: Georgiev (p. 283): "The Albanians came to Illyria from the eastern part of Moesia Superior, approx. ancient Dardania (i.e. the regions of Nis, Sofia and Skopje)... Albanian developed in a region where the Romanian language was in the process of formation." Later (p. 287) G. specifies that: " Some Daco-Moesian tribes infiltrated the Moesia

Georgiev did not say Romanian language was formed only in Dardania. Maybe you should read all what he wrote, in that 1977 book, in that 1960 article and in many other studies and books. Of Albanian, for instance, in his Introduction to the history of the Indo-European languages (1981), p. 141: "the original home of the Albanians was the central northern part of the Balkan Peninsula, i.e., the eastern part of Upper Moesia and the western part of Lower Moesia or approximately Dardania, Dacia Mediterranea, and Dacia Ripensis." Daizus (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• any rant against the "Daco-Romanian continuity theory" is a POV fork and a blatant case of SYNTH, as Georgiev, Duridanov and other scholars in the article do not engage in this kind of discourse.

Neither this article, nor Wikipedia is the place for biased anti-whatever theories. Go and write your own book, or on a blog, a forum or someplace else. Daizus (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to say you guys are working hard on this and glad to see the list coming along. A few notes:

• I agree with Daizus that removing inline tags instead of providing sources or fixing the issues highlighted is disruptive editing. It is akin to WP:EDITWARRING and doesn't help anyone, especially the article. When someone challenges your content, take the challenge and clarify/source the statements. Don't remove the tags, it's childish.
• I insist that the bulk of "Background: the Dacian language" section should be moved to Dacian language or a another article. This is not how a list article should be structured and written, style wise. Please review WP:LIST, WP:STANDALONE and WP:LSC. A quick overview is good but having a whole theory, sometimes in conflict with the Dacian language article, doesn't make sense on another article, let alone a list.
• Try to not rely just on a few sources, add more to the pile.
• Era, I appreciate your interest and effort, but sorry to say, I think you really need to spend the time thoroughly reviewing WP:OWN, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. And this is not about whether the Daco-Romanian continuity, Baltic connection or Illyrian/Albanian theories are better or more plausible than the others. It's about the policies and rules that have to apply to all WP articles, regardless of topic.

--Codrin.B (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

this article gets worse and worse

1) I removed Era's attempt to create two tables, in his tradition of pushing his own theory, that Romanian does not have a Dacian substratum.

"The first contains words derived from attested Daco-Moesian placenames and personal names. The second, necesaarily more s[eculative, contains a smaller number of words derived from presumed substratum words in modern Romanian and Albanian, in combination with Pokorny's reconstructed proto-Indo-European root-words. "

Duridanov and Georgiev, the two authors used by Era, both use Romanian and Albanian words as a reliable source for Dacian words. Separating Duridanov's list in two tables - a "reliable" one (from ancient names) and an "unreliable" one (from Albanian and Romanian words), is a violation of WP:NOR, a kind of WP:POVFORK (the same petty strategy, but using tables instead of articles).

2) I added NPOV tag for the entire article, as the list became hopeless. Many of Duridanov's judgements are fringe: he is the only proponent, or worse, his claims run against consensus. I explained this to Era some time ago. Now it's not only about Douiana, but many entries in the table. There are problems with the reconstructions (e.g. for Zalmoxis, Zalmodegikos, most scholars following Porphyry consider *zalmo- a Thracian root for "fur, hide") or with the names being Dacian. For instance, regarding some fortresses mentioned by Procopius I already added in the article the case of Ἀξίοπα, as a corrupted name from Axiopolis. But for authors like V. Beshevliev (Zur Deutung der Kastellnamen in Prokops Werk "De Aedificiis", 1970) Ἄλδανες is Aldanis, a Celtic name (cf. Aldaniae, Aldaniacus mons, etc.), Βούττις is also Celtic, Γράνδετον Latin (from Granditum [castellum] or even Grande + -ton), Γρίβο also Celtic (cf. Celtic *gravo = 'sand'), Σκουάνες Latin (squamis), etc. Moreover Vl. Georgiev considers names like Ἄλδανες and Γρίβο Slavic! Some other scholars argue that some of the names are Thracian, not Dacian (e.g. see D. Detschew, Die thrakische Sprachreste, 1957) Daizus (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reluctance

Regarding to Georgiev theory built on –dava versus –para, there are certain reasons for reluctance.

1) uncertainties of the geographical distribution of place-names (cf. the case of Daco-Moesian Pulpudeva in the center of Thrace) 2) Georgiev’s phonetic systems (and their evolution) are not reconstructed from elements of the involved ancient languages but from their approximate Greek and Latin transcripts. 3) In 1980, Solta noted that the phonetic attributed to Thracian language by Georgiev is identical to the one, that the same author reconstructed for the pretended Pelasgian language , an hypothetical Indo-European language, considered substratum of the ancient Greek 4) Detailed studies regarding the Thracian position among Indo-European languages don’t confirm the difference between Dacian and Thracian

Boldwin (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• The same author of reluctance reasons, in other place noted that "he etymology of Bersobis = birch is based only on resemblance" Tomaschek gave a different one

• Ptolemy’s borders of Dacia are not the same with Dacia’s borders conveyed to us by Agrippa’s. And, modern historians and archaeologists pointed out that Dacians inhabited a larger area than Ptolemy’s Dacia

Boldwin (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some of Georgiev's Dacian words: [4] (and one inscription, Era's article claims there're no Dacian inscriptions!) Daizus (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Boldwin, what you've said above seems summarized from here: [5] [6]. It would be nice on the talk pages to bring some links if the materials are public, so other editors can read and use them too, moreover when those bringing the new stuff are not really language experts ;)

For example, on Bersobis you've read Fischer wrong. He said about that etymology it is "une simple hypothèse, bien que vraisemblable" which doesn't mean it "is based only on resemblance" but "although plausible".

Bersobis is attested Berzobis in the famous excerpt from Trajan's campaign journal: inde Berzobim, deinde Aizi processimus (but see also Βέρζανα, a castle in Dardania attested by Procopius). Here you can find the word 'birch' in IE languages. As you can see there *bherǝg'- > *berz- is a quite normal satəm evolution. Moreover other Dacian or Thraco-Dacian names such as Aizis (in Ptolemy Αἰζισίς), -zenis/-zanus as second element in many names (cf. Latin genus, Greek γένος, -γένης) show the same g' > z. Daizus (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad you read it. I didn’t read wrong about the etymology birch associated to Bersobis. Anyway, nobody really reads discussion pages

Procopius of 6th century cited Trajan of 2nd century “inde Berzobim, deinde Aizim processimus” It it a Latin transcript, but it doesn't change anything. Paliga considers Berzobis related to Alb. bardh, ‘white’ < IE *bherag ‘to shine; white, bright’. Parvan considers ber(e)z white, spotted. PIE root bherǝĝ-, bhrēĝ- : `to shine; white from Old Indian bhrājatē `glares, gleams, shines'; Old Persian brāzaiti ds. (*bhrēĝō), npers. barāzīdan `shine', barāz `jewellery'http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean.html

Tomaschek’s opinion remains isolated. He pointed out to Iranian bareza ‘height’ This is PIE root bhereĝh- : `high; mountain' that derived from PIE root bherǝĝ-, bhrēĝ- : `to shine; white, *ash wood, ashen, birch tree, elm'. http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean.html

PIE root bhereĝh- high; mountain' had been established on the material basis of Avestan ( an East Iranian language) bǝrǝzant, f. bǝrǝzaitī `high', bǝrǝzi- (: *bǝrǝzra-), bǝrǝz- `high' and `height, mountain' (= npers. burz Nom. Barš) Armenian berj

Why the etymology birch prevails? It could mean white, or spotted, or height that doesn’t contradict any satem evolution.Boldwin (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Trajan was not cited by Procopius, but by Priscian (Institutiones grammaticae, 6.13).

Sorin Paliga is a protochronist author, so his views should be ignored. The "spotted white" meaning is assumed by the "birch" meaning (see my link, especially the Pokorny entry): some birch species have the bark like that. As Fischer himself noted, it is a plausible hypothesis to connect Berzobia with 'birch', so the doubts in this case are really unjustified. Daizus (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Primarily meaning is white See Sorin Olteanu , too. Boldwin (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. For S. Olteanu, too, Berzobis is related to 'birch'. Daizus (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Duridanov, Oltean and Parvan do not contradict each other. I do not know Russu opinion on this matter.

Adding alternative etymologies would just add confusion to the article.

For the sake of the above discussion, I am just listing the following alternatives for Bersovia

Alternative etymologies: 1) PIE * bers "rapid, quick" > Bersovia (H. Krahe, Indogermanische Forschungen) lit. bruz-g-ùs `quick, fast', bruz-d-ùs `movable, nimble', besides burz-d-ùlis ds., burz-dė́ti `run to and fro'; slav. *bъrzъ in Old Church Slavic brъzo Adv. `quick, fast', skr. br̂z `quick, fast', russ. borzój `quick, fast, fiery', besides *bъrzdъ in wruss. bórzdo Adv. `quick, fast', skr. brzdìca f. `rapids, speed in stream'

2) Does Duridanov considers ‘birch’ = primarily meaning ? Then it correspond to the following PIE http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots#b.CA.B0

• bʰérhǵo- birch Russ. берёза (berjoza), Gm. birihha/Birke, Bulgarian бреза (breza), Polish brzoza, Lith. beržas, Ltv. bērzs, Osset. бæрз (bærz), Skr. (bhūrja), ON bjǫrk, Old Prussian berse, Eng. birce/birch, Thrac. berzas, OCS breza, Lat. frāxinus

3) Parvan, Olteanu considers*bʰer ‘brown, shining’ as primarily meaning ? Then it correspond to the following. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots#b.CA.B0

• bʰer- brown, shining Ltv. bērs; bebrs, Lith. bėras; bebras, Old Prussian bebrus, Gaul. Bibrax, Welsh befer, Eng. brūn/brown; bera/bear; beofer/beaver, Gm. brūn/braun; bero/Bär; bibar/Biber, ON brúnn; bjǫrn; bjórr, Skr. (bhā́ti), Av. bawra, Lat. fiber, Russ. бобр (bobr), Toch. parno/perne; paräṁ/perne reduction grade alb. barth (bardhḫi) `white' (*bhǝrǝĝo-).

Note: Common alb. -ĝ- > -dh- phonetic mutation, Thracian -Dacian -ĝ- > -z They consider this root developed in birch. If I am not wrong, Olteanu suggested that it developed a second meaning related to stork

4) Tomaschek opinion in Les restes de la langue dace ‚high’ correspond to Root / lemma: bhereĝh-, English meaning: high; mountain, German meaning: `hoch, erhaben' Note:Root / lemma: bhereĝh- : `high; mountain' derived from Root / lemma: bherǝĝ-, bhrēĝ- : `to shine; white, *ash wood, ashen, birch tree, elm' Avestan. bǝrǝzant- (npers. buland), f. bǝrǝzaitī `high', in compound bǝrǝzi- (: *bǝrǝzra-), bǝrǝz- `high' and `height, mountain' (= npers. burz ds., ir. bri ́; the Nom. av. Barš, Armenian Arm. berj `height'

I note that the etymologies of Duridanov, Parvan and Tomaschek are cited in various books of 21st century Boldwin (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

At the end, I do not think we contradict each other. I was in hurry when I added comments about Bersovia, and my phrasing was wrong I tried to clarify so that you better understand why I wrote what I did. This 'white, brown' and 'birch' discussion is not really the issue of this article. Sorry for any inconvenience Boldwin (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You say that "[a]dding alternative etymologies would just add confusion". Perhaps. But with no alternatives, there's no NPOV. We can have few words saying there's much under debate, and just list the names, with no etymologies and no meanings. I opposed, perhaps not strongly enough, the current way of making lists (see my initial proposal).

I assume Oltean is Olteanu, and if so, there's considerable disagreement between scholars, including between Olteanu, Pârvan and Duridanov. For example Olteanu reconstructs two distinct roots *barz- and *berz- in Daco-Moesian.

I also would object to your use of "primary meaning". Olteanu identifies two distinct words with two distinct meanings. According to his reconstruction, *berz- meant "birch" and nothing else in Daco-Moesian, while *barz- covered different shades of white (also with darker spots or strips). This latter word also came to mean "stork" (with its black and white feathers, see also the Greek πελαργός for a similar etymology).

If you want to move back to PIE reconstructions, then Olteanu starts with *ər(ə)g'- (+ var.) meaning "(shining) white". *bhər(ə)g' (+ var.) was thus a derived word for "shining", "light". In different daughter languages, this 'class' of roots was inherited in the words for 'birch', 'white', 'stork', 'dawn', 'to shine', etc. Other scholars suggest a different history, as you noted yourself.

If you check some of the reconstructed histories of the Albanian language: ([7] [8]) you will see that PIE g' > Proto-Albanian dz > Albanian dh. In both Greek and Latin scripts 'z' can be a notation for 'dz'. Daizus (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

References

Latest contributions

(1) I can see no justification for tagging the whole article for neutrality, since I deliberately removed the contentious parts of the Background section. The summary points on the Dacian language are now largely uncontroversial, and differing opinions are noted.

(2) As regards Duridanov/Georgiev's work, noone is suggesting that it cannot be challenged, and I agree with adding the caveats (I intended to do this myself, once I found an appropriate source). Obviously there will be uncertainty, to varying degrees, about each etymology. But we should bear in mind that both Duridanov and Georgiev are (were?) highly-regarded academic linguists who presumably know what they are talking about. In order to make room for alternative views on the etymology, I propose to remove the "References" column in the table (and simply use tagged refs to show the sources) and to replace it with a "Notes" column. EraNavigator (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(3) I regard the following paragraph, added to the "Currency" subsection, as either invalid, redundant or confusing:

"The Geto-Dacians inhabited a vast territory, extending from the region lying between Tisza and the Dniester, up to the eastern Haemus and along Lower Danube up to its mouth, including the adjoining coastline of the Black Sea. In BC 53, Caesar stated that the Dacian territory was on the eastern border of the Hercynian forest. According to Strabo, the Geto-Dacians bordered with the Suevi, who lived in the Hercynian Forest, which some locates somewhere in the vicinity of the river Duria, the present-day Vah (Waag). Agrippa says that Dacia is limited by the Baltic Ocean in the North and by the Vistula in the West . Ptolemy’s Dacia (around 140 AD) was bordered by Tisza at West, Galician Carpathians at North, Siret at the East and Danube at the South . Yet, Dacian people were living also South of Danube, and people’s names and settlements confirms the Dacia’s borders given by Agrippa ."

Sentence (1) simply repeats what my text already states about the extent of Dacian inhabitation.

Sentence (2), that Dacia was on the eastern border of the Hercynian Forest, does not tell us anything, since the eastern border of that Forest is nowhere clearly defined by the ancient sources. Pliny the Elder (Hist. Nat. IV. 25) states that the "Hercynian range" was in Pannonia and Dacia - clearly he is referring to the northern Carpathians here. - which adds nothing to Ptolemy's statement (already quoted) that the carpathians formed the northern border of Dacia. Overall, I consider defining Dacia's western border as the "Hercynian forest" as simply confusing

In sentence (3), "Agrippa's" definition of Dacia (as far as the Baltic Sea) seems wildly exaggerated. I am not aware that any writings by M. Vipsanius Agrippa have survived. Has the source for this been accurately quoted?

Sentence (4) is another repetition, as I set out Ptolemy's definition of Dacia already, except that it's an inaccurate repetition: Ptiolemy says Dacia's western border is the river Thibiscum (Timis) not the Tisza, which was known as the Tisia to the Greco-Romans

Sentence (5) is another repetition of my text.

I therefore propose to remove the repetitions; the only sentence that adds anything new, no. 4, I will tag as dubious. EraNavigator (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

When you guys are done with all this, please move the background section to Dacian language. This list is not appropriate for this kind and amount of content in the "intro" section. It is a list. Thanks--Codrin.B (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

On (1) and (2)

There's much in this article which is controversial or lopsided.

On what grounds can one claim "it is thus generally agreed that Dacian developed in the Carpathian region probably during the 3rd millennium BC"? We can read dozens of books on the 3rd millenium BC, and we won't find anything about Dacians, or conversely we can read dozens of books about Dacians and we won't find anything about their history in the 3rd millenium BC!

Fringe views as Mayer's are presented as valid enough to be included in the narrative. Most of the article focuses on Duridanov and Georgiev. While they made some contributions to the field, there's much controversy about it, and this article fails to note it. For example some linguists were not persuaded by the etymologies provided by scholars such as Georgiev, Russu, Dečev (a review here; Warren Cowgill: "Alle diese Bücher müssen mit der grössten Vorsicht benützt werden", Jan Felix Gaertner: "this lamentable tradition").

This article makes strong claims: "These Baltic parallels have enabled linguists to decipher many Dacian and Thracian placenames. Of the 74 Dacian placenames analysed by Duridanov in his 1969 essay, a total of 62 have Baltic cognates, the great majority rated 'certain' by Duridanov ". However on further reading they are not confirmed. Few were impressed by this "decipherment" and "certainty". Polomé (1982) ignored most of it - he focused on the etymologies suggested by Georgiev and Russu. J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams in their Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world noted the "twenty to twenty-five Dacian words have had reasonable though not certain Indo-European etymologies proposed". Or see this survey by Václav Blažek: "extremously poor data and their ambiguous interpretations lead to various hypotheses." But please also note in Georgiev's classification Daco-Mysian and Albanian are closest to Indo-Iranian languages (Balto-Slavic, Germanic and Tocharian form a different major branch), but this article completely fails to note this point, even though relies heavily on Georgiev's theory. Daizus (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, fine. If there are critiques of Georgiev/Duridanov's work, by all means work them into the article. One point though: you talk of etymologies, but G/D specifically avoid deriving their meanings from IE root-words, precisely because these are insufficiently precise (i.e. more than one root-word could, in most cases, apply). Instead, they focus on cognates in other IE langs, a recognised comparative linguistic technique, which G. and D. regard as highly reliable. EraNavigator (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymologies are etymologies, regardless if one derives them from root words or finds parallels in other languages. As pointed above, the names of Justinianic fortifications which for Duridanov sound "Dacian" (with Baltic parallels), for other authors sound "Celtic", "Latin" or "Slavic". Daizus (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You should enter disputed etymologies in the new Notes column of the table. EraNavigator (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Place names, river names, tribal names

Hi guys,

I see a long list of place names (PN), river names, tribal names, many with no citations/references. If they are verified, could you please help with a few things:

1. Add them to the List of ancient cities in Thrace and Dacia
2. Add them to the List of ancient tribes in Thrace and Dacia
3. Add them to the List of Dacian names

I can probably work on it too, but I need some references for them.

Citations/refs are on their way. Don't fret, CodrinB. EraNavigator (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --Codrin.B (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Caveats to reconstruction of Dacian/Thracian words

Reasons for linguists’ reluctance to accept this reconstruction of Dacian / Thracian words include:

1. uncertainties of the geographical distribution of place-names (cf. the case of Daco-Moesian Pulpudeva in the center of Thrace)
2. Georgiev’s phonetic systems and their evolution are not reconstructed from elements from the involved ancient languages but from their approximate Greek and Latin transcripts.
3. In 1980, Georg Solta noted that the phonetic attributed to Thracian language by Vladimir I. Georgiev is identical to the one reconstructed by the same author for the pretended Pelasgian language (an hypothetical Indo-European language, considered substratum of the ancient Greek)
4. Detailed studies regarding the Thracian position among Indo-European languages don’t confirm the difference between Dacian and Thracian
5. Since the material is onomastic, the original word meaning is hypothetical, and subject to divergent etymological interpretations.

I am concerned about the validity of these points:

1. Pulpudeva is the only exception to Georgiev's rule. G. deals with it by saying that the name, a Daco-Moesian name derived from Greek Philippopolis, was artificially imported into the region by Philip of Macedon, who founded it, and thus does not represent an indigenous Thracian name
2. the Greco-Latin transcripts are the only evidence available and thus must necessarily be the base of the exercise. Obviously the transcripts will contain some inaccuracy, but G. and D. clearly do not consider this factor significant and we must assume that they know what they are doing
3. What is meant by "phonetic" here? Is it "phonetic structure" or "phonetic development" or what? Also are we talking about the "Pelasgian" language or the Paeonian language, which G. certainly does talk about? And what is the significance of its similarity to G.'s "phonetic" attributed to Thracian?
4. This point is surely not valid. There is no consensus about "Thracian's position among IE languages" - this is the realm of much controversy (and speculation). The article already states that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether Thracian and Dacian were different languages or dialects of the same language. we should leave it at that
5. Obviously the original meaning of the names is hypothetical: but how many of G/D's reconstructions are actually controversial? As far as I am aware, only a few have been specifically disputed by other scholars EraNavigator (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

These points mostly come from a work by Iancu Fischer, an expert in Latin philology. Has he been accurately quoted? Does he specifically dispute G/D's reconstructions and if so, which ones? Even if he has, the points should be elaborated a little to show more clearly their significance EraNavigator (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I agree - Georgiev provided explanations, but it's also true that other scholars can be skeptical about them.

2. On the question of Balkan indigenous languages (Thracian and/or Dacian) in Greek and Latin transcriptions see [9] [10] [11] [12]

3. Solta and Fischer have in mind the phonetic systems reconstructed by Georgiev: [13]

5. Most of them. See my examples above. Polomé ignored (and thus dismissed) most of Duridanov's "Baltic etymologies". Blažek qualified these types of attestation and their etymologies as "extremously poor data and their ambiguous interpretations". Mallory and Adams noted that "twenty to twenty-five Dacian words have had reasonable though not certain Indo-European etymologies", meaning most of Duridanov's etymologies were ignored (or deemed "unresonable"). Daizus (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In this matter Daizus pointed very well. I thinh everyone agrees that, when it can not be established exact sound laws, etymology and reconstruction is not possible. As far as I know, Duridanov also made the following statements ......in earlier times – probably in the III-th millennium BC, and before the realisation of the aforementioned sound shifts, – the Thracian language formed 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 Language of the Thracians, Ivan Duridanov)

The followings are some phonetic differences between Dacian and Thracian Indo-European Dacian Thracian b, d, g b, d, g p, t, k

Within Thracin itself sometimes there are alternatives. Is Thracian briza coming from *wrig’h or from *breg’h ? Is it related the Lithuanian brizdis ‘ling’? I see nothing wrong to see there are more thesis about Dacian vs Thracian words.Boldwin (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Coming across this discussion now, I see that both sides of this debate raised some good points, and it looks to me that both sides made mistakes. I'll join this discussion some more later, for now in answer to User:EraNavigator, yes Vladimir Georgiev proposed a sound-system for Pelasgian, which, he was arguing, was a poorly documented IE language, which I guess he imagined was close to Thracian, see for now this link, which leads to other links so you can locate the publications from Georgiev [14].

In answer to EraNavigator's other question: "Obviously the original meaning of the names is hypothetical: but how many of G/D's reconstructions are actually controversial? As far as I am aware, only a few have been specifically disputed by other scholars" ---more than a few of G/D's Baltic/Balto-Slavic etymologies are soundly contested (e.g., there are alternative etymologies, and each etymology when dealing with Thracian and Dacian is significant, especially the number of disputed etymologies that we are talking about here)---however I think many of them if not most of them are correct. For me to say as Daizus does that most of the Balto-Slavic cognates are wrong or probably wrong, I would need to see more proof for such a statement.

I am reminding Daizus and Era Navigator and Boldwin that Albanian and Baltic have many close cognates, and I will link a work by Vladimir Orel to show you guys some of them. They include such important words as Albanian zorrë (Early Albanian zorna, -rna was rhotacized into -rra in this and many other Albanian words) and Lithuanian zarna both meaning "gut" and both deriving by way of satemization from PIE *gher-, "gut" (see Vladmir Orel's work here [15] for that cognate and search through that work for many others). I'm saying that Dacian was not too far from Albanian or Baltic. Which branch was it closer to, that is a question. 76.208.173.82 (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You should read D. Dana's "Les daces dans les ostraca du désert oriental de l'Égypte. Morphologie des noms daces" in ZPE 143 (2003) 166-186. Duridanov's wrong mostly because he considers many non-Dacian names, most of the Dacian names we know today were unknown to him, and his method and his speculative etymologies are flawed. Here's Dana's verdict: "Tout récemment, on peut signaler l'étude de Duridanov sur l'onomastique thrace et dace; il analyse un bon nombre de noms daces, mais sa méthode est discutable: des noms douteux, des noms qui ne sont guère daces, une majorité d'hapax, et presque toujours des étymologies baltes. Même s'il reconnaît aussi la spécificité de l'onomastique dace, son examen reste limité. [footnote: I. Duridanov, «Thrakische und dakische Namen », dans édd. E. Eichler et alii, Namenforschung/Name Studies/Les noms propres, 1, Berlin-New York, 1995, pp. 820-840 (§ 120). Il consacre une page aux noms daces (p. 835), pourtant pleine d'erreurs: il y mêle des noms thraces (Abrenus, Brinus, Brinursius, Ditugentus, Eptaper, Syrmos), illyriens (Baedarus), certainement non-daces (Davos, Skopasis), très douteux ou des hapax (Balius, Blasa, Sappo, Tautomedes), des formes bizarres (Δεκαίνευς!), des étymologies suspectes (il résume en effet son étude Thrakisch-dakische Studien. I. Die thrakisch- und dakisch-baltischen Sprachbeziehungen, Sofia, 1969). [...] On ne peut pas approuver la méthode de Duridanov (et de Georgiev) pour les noms daces: ils ne tiennent pas compte du contexte des noms, et partent de suppositions arbitraires (tel nom est dace, parce qu'il se trouve en Dacie ou parce que c'est un hapax). ]" Daizus (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Suggestion

I propose to have three main parts, since there are three main hypothesis, theories or whatever you want to name them

I) Hypothesis

1) Thracian and Dacian are two separated languages : Georgiev, Duridanov and others

2) Thracian and Dacian are two names for the same language Russu

3) Thracian and Dacian are related to each other, are dialects of the same language

4) others: when it is not known hypothesis of reconstruction

For each theory we could have pros, and cons, reluctance you name them. Also, for each theory we could have a table containing reconstructed words. Is Olteanu and others are consistent with Duridanov, belong to his proposals’ table. If not, it should be moved to others

Or, we could have three articles, one for each theory … it sounds too many but Duriodanov table is pretty long

II) If the statement, there are only 20 Dacian names belongs to Duridanov theory, then it belongs to pros. If there are more, it belongs to cons.

In my opinion, a structure like the one I propose will better serve the reader Boldwin (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that all theories should be presented. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Option 3 is no different option. Russu and others having Thracian and Dacian the same language do not deny the existence of dialects.

Tables cannot be separated on theories. There are scholars discussing Thracian or Dacian words, without making any comment on how Thracian or Dacian are related. There are scholars discussing Thracian or Dacian names, without making any comment on their etymologies. Daizus (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

On this issue, I agree with Daizus 100% (a rare event!). With respect, Boldwin's proposal is nonsensical. We should stick to the table as currently structured. I have added a new column for "Notes", where any conflicting views on each *word can be discussed. If the table gets too long, it's no problem, as we can split it up by initial letter groups (e.g. A-F, etc) or even by individual letter, if necessary.

Regarding Mallory/Adams statement that only 20-25 Dac. words have been plausibly reconstructed, I think that comes from Detschew, as D. draws on this source too. But I see no evidence that Mallory/Adams are aware of D's work: it's not mentioned in the bibliography at the end of the relevant section. Also i cannot agree that Polome not mentioning D's cognates necessarily means that he is dismissing them - is he aware of D's work at all? I ask because it's very difficult to get a copy of D's book: only one library holds one in the whole of Britain. Anyway, we can certainly add a paragraph to the introduction with a caveat that Mallory/adams think only a minority of the table entries are reliable.

Are you all aware that Georgiev's reconstructed Thracian words are already reproduced on Wiki, in Thracian language? However, this list only includes those in G.'s French summary. The Bulgarian main text contains at least three times as many. I guess, when I have finished with this List, I should expand the thracian one also. EraNavigator (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's from one review published in Language:

(About Duridanov's Baltic vs Thracian/Dacian parallels, p. 962): These and quite a number of others conform to D[uridanov]'s structural requirements and cannot easily be shrugged off. Nevertheless, one is puzzled to know WHY the Daco-Thracian proper names should have counterparts in Baltic but not in Slavic, if this is indeed the case. D can only suggest that Baltic, Dacian, and Thracian tribes dwelt in adjacent areas in prehistoric times, possibly as early as the third millenium B.C. Senn believes that the pre-Balts and pre-Slavs were in close contact in the third millenium B. C. until the pre-Balts migrated around 2000 B.C. to the northeast, into a territory located considerably to the east of their present locations. Admittedly, the earliest migrations of the various IE tribes are hardly more than scholarly conjectures; still, the many shared features of Baltic and Slavic, especially if they can truly be traced back to a remote period of close association, seem in contradiction with any presumed special relationship between Daco-Thracian and Baltic alone. Even Georgiev is in basic disagreement on this thesis, for he argues that the vocabulary of Albanian is most clearly related to that of Balto-Slavic, and he explains these correspondences on the ground that Albanian is 'an heir of Daco-Mysian, inasmuch as the latter was an immediate neighbor of Balto-Slavic.'

On Duridanov as bibliography: you would have a point if he would have published in the past 10 years or so. However his work is more than 40 years old. It doesn't have to be cited directly, but if his ideas failed to get in the mainstream, they don't show anywhere, and that's visible in (almost) any book about ancient IE languages. Few if any really bought his theory that Dacian and Baltic languages were closely related (read the review above).

Polomé however used Duridanov's study (E 269 in his bibliography) and two others (E 270 and E 271). Duridanov's etymologies seem mentioned only when also confirmed by other scholars (e.g. on page 880 on Thracian 'briza')

It's thus hard to argue on the currency of Duridanov's theories. Really now, how many IE trees have you seen with Dacian and Baltic in the same branch? Daizus (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have just contradicted the quote above. Duridanov does NOT say that Dacian and Baltic were closely related (in the sense of genetically related). He simply says (p. 100) that the speakers of the two languages were geographical neighbours for a long time, and thus exchanged much vocabulary. Mayer DOES say that they are genetically related, but that seems very much an isolated view. My personal view is that it's possible that they were genetically related, but that the available evidence is nowhere near sufficient to prove it. EraNavigator (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer above seems to confuse genetic relationship with proximity interaction. If two languages have a genetic relationship, it means that they have descended from a common parent, such as Italian and Romanian, which are both the progeny of Latin. But langs can also acquire many features from langs that are not genetically related (except in the very distant sense of both being IE langs), but are spoken in neighbouring regions. Thus Romanian has acquired many words (ca. 15% of the Rom. lexicon) and features from Slavic because Vlachs and Slavs lived cheek-by-jowl in Bulgaria and Serbia for many centuries. But because Rom. and Slavic are not genetically related, a Romanian can understand Italian fairly easily, but Bulgarian not at all, even though Bulgaria is next door, while Italy is far away. Acc. to Schleicher, Baltic and Slavic languages are the "children" of a "Balto-Slavic" parent. But this thesis is by no means generally accepted, with others holding that Baltic and Slavic were separate branches of IE and that their common features developed by long-time geographical proximity. So even with these fully-documented, living langs the evidence is not clearcut enough to result in academic consensus about their relationship. All the more so with Dacian and Thracian, extinct langs with virtually no documentation. The 100 or so reconstructed words in each of these two langs (if they are accepted as valid) are simply not enough to draw any conclusions about their place in the IE tree. Having said that, the fact that so many Dac and Thrac *words have Baltic parallels is unlikely to be coincidence, and therefore it can said fairly safely that Dac/Thrac speakers were, at the least, in close geographical proximity weith Baltic-speakers for a prolonged time. Whether Dac/Thrac and Baltic langs have a genetic relationship can only be speculative. EraNavigator (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the reviewer is confused, you are. I proved with more than enough references that Duridanov's views are not widely accepted. You failed to prove otherwise, therefore your theory (and articles) are blatant POVs. Daizus (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell me what's confused (or confusing) about what I stated above. Mallory/Adams accept 20-25 words as well-founded, so there is general agreement on about 20-25% of D's words. If the methodology is valid for these, then it is reasonable to suppose that it's fairly sound. In any case, I continue to regard this exercise as both legitimate and worthwhile. Both G. and D. are eminent linguists, and it is legitimate to present their views, providing they are qualified by the appropriate caveats. The problem with Daizus' obsession with POV (and all the other ludicrous Wiki acronyms) is that, taken to its logical conclusion, you would never write a single sentence, for fear that it's biased. EraNavigator (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Daizus' caution regarding the Baltic and Balto-Slavic etymologies goes too far, but a number of them are wrong or probably wrong. How many are soundly disputed? I don't have that info at hand now. In this case, between Era Navigator and Daizus you get closer to reality as regards Dacian and Thracian and Albanian and Baltic. 76.208.173.82 (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As regards User:EraNavigator, I haven't gone over much of his edits, but from what I've seen he may be assuming that 1) Dacian and Thracian have many close Baltic cognates, therefore Dacian and Thracian were closer to Baltic, rather than to Albanian. That there indeed is a dangerous Point of View for this article. 76.208.173.82 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Crossland

The following is Crossland's conclusion regarding to Georgiev thesis

"...Georgiev has claimed in addition that names from approximately Roman Dacia and Moesia show different and generally less extensive changes in Indo-European consonants and vowels than those found in Thrace itself. However, the evidence seems to indicate divergence of a Thraco-Dacian language into northern and southern groups of dialects, not as different as to rank as separate languages..." Someone tag it with .

It doesn't look like Crossland' conclusion regarding to -para / dava and sound changes established by Georgiev deserve this tag . Please suggest how should this be changed? Boldwin (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Guilty! :) In the same volume E. C. Polomé uses the same evidence to discuss about Thracian and Daco-Moesian as two different entities (p. 876 - phonological features are a good enough reason to speak of a Daco-Moesian distinct from Thracian, p. 882 - a "fairly reliable picture of the phonological structure of both languages" is presented on this page and the following ones), while admitting it's difficult to say they were different languages or dialects (p. 887-8). Other scholars reject Georgiev's theory as too speculative, or they accept it. Apparently Crossland's position that Georgiev's theory supports only a "divergence of a Thraco-Dacian language into northern and southern groups of dialects" is a minority point of view, and must be presented as such. Daizus (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Moving Background to Dacian language

I am ready to move the Background section to the Dacian language. This article is not the right place for it. If anyone has any concerns, please voice it here. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Please help consolidating the content in the Dacian language, remove redundancies. I did my best to merge it and create a logical and consistent flow there. Please add linguistic theories, relationships with other languages and the like directly in the Dacian language article. Of course make sure you source it properly. Regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the Baltic connection section?

I thought it had some merit? Why is it gone completely?--Codrin.B (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

NVM, I see it was swallowed by the "Relationship with modern IE languages" section.--Codrin.B (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Additions

Is the Thracian aspios, esvas, asbe- attested in Dacian? It is well attested in Thracian and I think there is no debate that this is the Thracian development of PIE *ekwo-, "horse", and that it still meant "horse" in Thracian also, see Thracian language. If attested in Dacian esvas, asb- (Asbenoi etc.), aspios, should be added. There are many words that I want to see added here later, including mal- being a word for "mountain", "raised ground" or "bank/shore" (Romanian, Albanian and Latvian examples), maz- being a possible Dacian word for "small" based on Romanian, Albanian, and Lithuanian cognates. An interesting work to check out is Vladimir Orel's work on Albanian, I'll post the link to that later. This article by the way is pretty good and it can only get better :) 76.208.187.195 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is okay now, but it should be great soon if I can spare some time to improve it. :) 76.208.173.82 (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to find the proposed Dacian era form of those root words, and the others that I want listed or at least mentioned in the text if not listed. 76.208.173.82 (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the entry from Demiraj's Albanian Inherited Lexicon, which I copy-paste:

Albanian form: mal [m] (tg)

Meaning: mountain, rock-formation, mountain-wood

Proto-Albanian: mall-

Other Alb. forms: maje¨ / maje [f] `peak, summit, top, tip, brim, elevated place' {2}

Page in Demiraj AE: 254

IE reconstruction: molH-(i-)

Meaning of the IE root: elevated, raised place

Certainty: ? {1}

Page in Pokorny: 722

Other IE cognates: Rom. mal `shore, side (of the river)'; Latv. mala `shore, side (of the river)'

Notes: {1} Possibly, a non-IE word. {2} < PAlb. *maliiƒ (< *m(o)lH-ieh2).

---76.208.173.82 (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Mal is a great entry to this list. Dacian word mal is attested with a town Malva from Dacia Malvenis (Russu 1967 p=110) and it is preserved with Albanian word mal and Romanian word mal(Russu 1967 p=182)Boldwin (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

original research

The article had serious original research issues before, but it's getting worse. Few obvious examples:

• Even if correct, however, Russu's objection is irrelevant: it does not invalidate the decipherment of the axi- element and the -upa element appears in other placenames e.g. Scenopa.
• This is because the root-words themselves are reconstructions, which are in some cases disputed and in all cases subject to uncertainty; multiple root-words can often explain the same word; and the list of proposed IE root-words may not be complete.
• This is because the process of elimination described cannot exclude the possibility that a word derives from other, unknown or little-known tongues that were at some period current in Dacia or Moesia: for example, possible pre-Indo-European language(s) of the Carpathians or Balkans; or the Illyrian, Thracian and Paeonian languages, spoken alongside Daco-Moesian in the Balkans for at least 2 millennia. Almost half the Romanian substratum words have close cognates in Albanian: since the latter is considered by mainstream scholarship to be a descendant of Illyrian, it is possible that many of the Romanian substratum words are of Illyrian, rather than Dacian, origin. In other words, there is no guarantee that the Romanian "substratum" words are, in reality, of Dacian origin.
• Thus, reconstructions based on modern Albanian words, or Romanian substratum words with Albanian cognates, may actually represent ancient Illyrian, rather than Dacian, elements.
• Orel considers Lithuanian mažulis and mažas a cognate for Albanian modhullë and modhë, and Romanian mazăre 'pea'. [false; Orel 2000, 125: modhull < EPA *mādzula close to Lith. mažùlis 'small' and further related to Lith. māžas id.]
• It [i.e. the Thraco-Illyrian hypothesis] cannot, therefore, be used to validate as Dacian words reconstructed from Romanian substratum/Albanian cognates. Daizus (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Daizus. I thought you were taking a break from your anti-OR crusade. Regarding the points above, I agree that (5) is wrong and (6) needs rewording. But points 1-4 are logically consistent and I don't see what your objection is. I don't consider it OR if you draw the logical conclusion from a set of sourced statements e.g. the statement that substratum words may not be of Dacian origin is the logical deduction from the fact that etymological dictionaries like DEX give half a dozen other possible etymologies for most of these words (see Dacian language#Sources for details). Your definition of OR is too restrictive and is strangling innovation and progress.EraNavigator (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OR is another word for "the editor has his own theory and uses the article to promote it" (my definition is here). If (virtually) no scholar holds Illyrian to be the substratum of Romanian, that theory is OR. If it's attributable, then do it, but with due weight. Also some scholar's interpretation (e.g. Russu's objection on Axiopa) is not "irrelevant" just because an editor doesn't like it. Have Georgiev or any other proponent of the other etymology considered it that way? Please cite and prove it.

The arguments are not at all logical, but a sequence of non sequiturs and dubious factoids. Let's review your(?) objection to Russu. The name of the Black Sea is likely from Turkic (Kara Deniz, see also Ak Deniz for Mediterranean Sea). In Άξεινος Axe- is said to be the Greek adaptation of a Scythian(?) Aksha-. Nothing 'Dacian' about this 'argument'. As for Scenopa, the name is not securely Dacian, nor is there any certainty about an -upa element. For Polomé "-upa 'water' [is] occurring only in Axiopa [...] and possibly Scenopa" Moreover Scenopa is not attested, but vicus Scenope(n)sis, so there's no evidence it refers to a river/lake, and not to a local tribal name or anything else (cf. vicus Clementianensis, vicus Buteridavensis etc.) For some other scholars the name is vicus Scenopesis. Daizus (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just checked the ISM V 21 inscription. Here it was edited with the following comment (p. 47): Scenopesis pare mai degrabă a fi un toponim derivat de la un nume de persoană. Analogiile cele mai apropiate sînt în lumea ilirică, unde nume cu rădăcina Scen- sînt extrem de numeroase: Scenus, Scenobarbus, Scenocalo etc. (cf. I. I. Russu, Illirii, p. 244 - 245 şi 126; v., de asemenea, D. Detschew, op. cit., p. 458: "Ethnikon von Scenopa. Vgl. die illyr. Personennamen Sceno, Scenobarbus, Scenua, Scenus. Krahe PN 101"). Analogii pentru nume trace cu rădăcina Scen- lipsesc în toate inscripţiile din lumea tracă. Daizus (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I disclaim responsibility for points 5 and 6 (I personally don't believe that Illyrian and Dacian were the same language). I am responsible for points 1 to 4. It's ridiculous that you deny the logic of 2 to 4. Do you really deny that some Rom substratum words may not be of Dacian origin? Or that, if Albanian is descended from Illyrian language, that exact cognates of Alb words in Rom may be of Illyrian origin (note the words may be, not are)? Or that IE root-words are reconstructions and that therefore etymologies based on them are uncertain? If you call these "non sequiturs", then I call yours "Dacian logic".

Regarding Scenopa, Duridanov dismisses Decev's suggestion that it is based on an Illyrian name, since this place is located in Dobrogea, deep in the Daco-Moesian zone, far from Illyria. The axi- element is also independently validated by the 2 Axios rivers which have been translated into Slavic as "black river". So Russu's objection is irrelevant.

It's high time that we downgraded I.I. Russu as a reliable academic source. He was the classic nationalist-communist Geto-Dacianist paradigmer, who turned the scientific method on its head: instead of constructing a theory to fit the available evidence, he looked for evidence to fit a pre-conceived theory. As a consequence, much of his "science" is dubious. If you look at List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin, you will see several words suggested as Dacian by Russu. Most have plausible Latin etymologies e.g. strănut ("a sneeze") , which obviously derives from Latin sternutum (same meaning, cf It starnuto). So Russu's claim that these words were Dacian is completely bogus.

It's a source of huge frustration to me that you have failed to collaborate with me in upgrading the Dacian articles. We could have achieved far more working as a team (under my direction, naturally). Instead, your petty and obsessive concern with OR and other ludicrous Wiki acronyms has simply stalled progress. At the same time, you have opened the gates to jokers like Boldwin and his ludicrous ideas e.g. that the Vistula was the western border of Dacia! (See Dacian languages#Geographical extent for a full expose of this nonsense (sections 3.1 and 3.2 are Boldwin's product). I gave up trying to edit his text, and have settled for producing my own separate version, to give readers a reas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.100.47.45 (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasonably coherent and plausible account of the regions where Dacian was probably predominant: section 3.3 Dacian linguistic zone in the era of Augustus. Why didn't you help me? EraNavigator (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

To work under your direction?!! Do you have any other but promoting your petty theories (is this better than ludicrous Wiki acronyms?) and hatred against (some) Romanian scholars? Considering also your position against the basic rules of this site, it is enough for me to suggest a topic ban.

Also, feelings aside, you know little or nothing about the people you dislike or about many of the things you discuss. For example, it's not only that Russu is a great scholar and classicist (and thus a reliable source), but his etymology on strănut is about a different word (with the variants strenut and stărnut), an adjective meaning "with a white spot on nose". This word did and does not exist in Latin, nor in any other Romance language. If you lay yourself open to ridicule, I won't stop you. But we can't collaborate, not like that. It's so ironic Russu is arguing Axiopa is not a Dacian name, and you call him a "Geto-Dacianist paradigmer"! To be sure, his argument is confirmed by recent studies (see p. 306), only that they are not (yet) published in a way we can use them here.

On Vicus Scenope(n)sis, the objections are again flawed. There's no Axios river in Dacia or Moesia (and even if it would be, it could be a Scythian or Greek name as well). Dobrogea is not "deep in the Daco-Moesian zone" and Roman Dobrogea was quite a cosmopolitan society (moreover, even in pre-Roman Dobrogea we find Greek, Scythian, and Celtic toponyms), so distance is irrelevant. Most vici are named are after personal names: Vicus Secundini, Vicus Quintionis, Vicus Casianum (or Casianus), Vicus Celeris, Vicus Clementianensis, Vicus Narcissiani, Vicus Vergobrittiani (recently corrected by Alexander Falileyev and Florian Matei-Popescu to Vero[.]rittiani, possibly Vero[b]rittiani) etc. As pointed above, the editors of the inscription considered Scenope(n)sis derived from a personal name, possibly the name of the land-owner/founder. Illyria may be far from Dobrogea, but so is Central Europe or Italy.

I know why you insist on making names like Axiopa and Scenopa Dacian. Because they provide links to Baltic (in this case -opa allegedly indicating a Dacian upa = "water"). And that's your petty theory, that Dacian was a Baltic language or closely related to Baltic languages. It's Duridanov (see objections in the article) who "turned the scientific method on its head: instead of constructing a theory to fit the available evidence, he looked for evidence to fit a pre-conceived theory", and you want to push this even further. I won't expand on the other three points because it's a waste of time. I usually discuss exempli gratia and so far it is enough to show there are serious problems, also with your contributions in general, also with this article in particular. The most serious issue of this article is with the list itself. Many entries are fringe (not even widely accepted as Dacian names) and the "language" is a collection of words reconstructed from different assumptions, using different methods. There's also an acronym for that :P Daizus (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Dacian language article is a mess and section 3.3 is no exception. Help with what? Tag it as inappropriate, biased and lacking sources? Daizus (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, negative and disloyal tagging is about all that you have contributed to these articles. You say Dacian language is a mess. My response is: what have you done to improve it? I at least have made a major effort: I don't claim perfection, but if you remove my contributions, then you are really left with a joke. You call my section 3.3 a mess (although it actually is a clear and well-founded region-by-region discussion of the evidence) but you endorse 3.1 and 3.2 - a goulash of half-baked outdated ideas presented in an utterly chaotic style. Just ask a general reader which he finds easier to follow.

EraNavigator (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I said the entire article is a mess, so I don't endorse anything. But since you mentioned it, Boldwin made better edits - at least he sticks to the sources. Yes, it's not always neutral and more work is needed to put all the facts and interpretation together, but at least there's something to start with other than his personal views. Not your case. I prefer truth, in whatever form, than an "easier to follow" lie.

You can see my contributions on Dacian and Thracian language topics in several articles and sections like Costoboci#Onomastics (information you tried to hide, though it is heavily sourced, for the simple reason it conflicts with your theories). I don't have time for endless edit wars in all the articles you're active, and if you follow my contributions you can see I do also other things but spending all my time and resources here to argue with you about Dacians.

I don't for a moment believe the silly argument that vicus Scenopensis was founded by an Illyrian called Mr. Scenopa. Sure, there are Greek, Scythian and Roman placenames in Scythia Minor; but these groups are attested as occupying Scythia Minor: I have seen no evidence of an Illyrian presence there. Duridanov is clearly right that this refers to a steam or lake.EraNavigator (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ala Dardanorum was stationed at Arrubium, not far from this village. Some Dardanians had Illyrian names. Also we know several Illyrian names attested in Roman Dobrogea, perhaps most famous is Dasius, the name of a 4th century martyr who lived in Durostorum. Daizus (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this clear: you are seriously telling me that you believe Boldwin's proposition, that in the 1st century BC, Slovakia and eastern Poland and the Hungarian Plain were predominantly Dacian-speaking? And that you are more convinced by that than by my "lie" that these regions were mainly Celtic-, Germanic- and Celtic-speaking respectively? I shall assume that you are joking. But this illustrates a key point. You say Boldwin presents many more sources: so he does, but his end-result is patently wrong. That is because the sources he presents are outdated or Daco-Roman nationalist or based on pseudoscience (e.g. equating material cultures with ethnic groups) or just plain silly, like the "evidence" of the lost Agrippa Map, whose content is unknown! I won't even comment on the value of his embarassing "chronology" of the spread of Dacian speech. My point is that you can find a published source to support virtually any proposition, but that does not make the proposition correct. Following your perverse logic, you would sooner believe a sourced statement that Romanian is descended from Dacian, which was an Italic language, than an unsourced statement that Romanian descends from Latin! EraNavigator (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're barking at the wrong tree. Boldwin is correct to point out that according to some Slovak, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, and also Romanian scholars there were some Dacian/Thracian/whatever-Balkan-language speaking populations somewhere in Central Europe. He did not write those regions were "predominantly Dacian-speaking" (another lie), but wrote about the "widest extent" of Burebista's realm, of "Dacian penetration" in SE Poland, a " Dacian presence" west of the Tisza, a "Celto-Dacian" population in Hungarian Plain (presumably a mix of Celtic and Dacian speakers), "Dacian groups" near Vistula, and so on. I fail to see how his sources serve the "Daco-Roman nationalist" cause, since Romans never conquered Poland and Romanian is not spoken there. You can't complain about my "perverse logic" in a rhetoric completely divorced from logic.

His chronology is much better than yours. Well, Strabo is mostly a source for 1st century BC, but he's correct to use Ptolemy for 2nd century AD. You, on the other hand, created an absolutely fictional "linguistic zone in the era of Augustus" by misinterpreting evidence and sources. Ptolemy's map of Dacia is first and foremost a map of Roman Dacia in the 2nd century AD, with Roman settlements and native settlements under Roman rule. Actually the native "tribes" and "settlements" were interpreted by some scholars as evidence for civitates peregrinae. Predavenses, Rhatacenses, Caucoenses, Buridavenses, Cotenses, Albocenses, Potulatenses, Saldenses should be compared with Tricornenses, Picenses, Oetenses, Obulenses, Dimenses, Appiarenses and other similar "tribes" recorded by Ptolemy in Moesia Superior and Inferior.

It's ironic you call Boldwin's sources "outdated" when yours are no better. For example, we know today dozens of diploma granting citizenship to Dacian soldiers, most of them found in Moesia Superior and Inferior. So we know for sure there were Daci south of Danube, it's not a question of "probably" or "tribes believed to". There's also one diploma of a Scordiscan with Dacian patronymic: ex gregale M(arco) Sollio Zurae f(ilio) Gracili, Scordis(co) ex Pannon(ia). This suggests Strabo's account is reliable to some extent.

In general your text, though a much better read, is riddled with errors and incoherence. A telling example is "within the line of the Timiş (extended northwards)" - but that river flows from east to west on a semi-circular course! So much about your knowledge! Daizus (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Always provide an edit summary

To EraNavigator, 78.60.92.5 and other IP editors, please read Help:Edit summary, especially WP:FIES (i.e. Always provide an edit summary) and please get up to speed with Wikipedia:Editing policy. Thanks and happy holidays! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Any chance for adding these Albanian cognates?

From Vladimir Orel's Albanian Etymological Dictionary.

*aba, apa - (Gheg) sg. amë, pl. ama meaning "riverbed", from Proto-Albanian *abnā, same PIE root — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.40.179 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

*d(i)egis - djeg, from Proto-Albanian *dega same meaning, same PIE origin, also dhez Proto-Albanian *dagja meaning "light, kindle" or ndez, same meaning but different dialect.

*lug - singular lug, plural lugje, meaning "trough, water trough, long gutter" from Proto-Albanian *luga which also is a cognate with the Illyrian ἔλος Λοὐγεον. Other words related to it are sg. lag "to wet" from Proto-Albanian *lauga sg. lëng, pl. lëngje meaning "liquid, juice, broth" from Proto-Albanian *langa and sg. lëgatë, pl. lëgata meaning "marsh" from Proto-Albanian *leugata

*sausas - thaj meaning "to dry" from Proto-Albanian *sausnja (also derived words, which I guess they would be unnecessary)

There's probably more, but that's what I have for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.40.179 (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Add the Albanian cognates yourself in the appropriate boxes. The table is designed to be expanded. But be sure to add a citation to support the cognates, to prove it's not just your own research. EraNavigator (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of reconstructed Dacian words. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5vSjj8iYr?url=http://soltdm.com/geo/arts/categs/categs.htm to http://soltdm.com/geo/arts/categs/categs.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5vSjj8iYr?url=http://soltdm.com/geo/arts/categs/categs.htm to http://soltdm.com/geo/arts/categs/categs.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Decebalvs per Scorilo

The word "per" probably doesn't mean son. It is probably a preposition derived from PIE root "per-". If we say the meaning is suppose to be "from" or "by means of" it may imply that this is actually the Latin word "per"("through","by means of").

This would mean that this inscription is in Latin. The "-us" ending of Decebalus makes more sense under this interpretation, as does Scorilo as the dative/ablative case of Scorilus(though I think "per" is only used with accusative in Latin(perhaps the inscriber was unskilled with Latin?)). Cynemund (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)