Talk:Dacian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Dacian's place among IE languages

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

That tree presents the view of one school. Other linguists have different trees. Alexander 007 21:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that there ever was a "Satem branch" or a "proto-Satem language". Armenian for instance, though Satem, may be from the same branch as Greek. The satem-reflexes may as well have spread through areal contact. Alexander 007 06:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Hoddinott quote

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

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

[edit] Question

Copy edit question -- the following is from the first sentence of the article:

and it is a source of dispute about its origin and characteristics

What is a source of dispute about the origins and characteristics of what? This is sufficiently unclear that I have no idea how to clarify it.... 24.215.177.116 02:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're right about that needing clarification, and I think I've clarified it. About the substratum: the substratum principally refers to those over 300 words that are possibily from Dacian, yet can also refer to definitive articles (though those may well be from Latin), suffixes, et cetera, that are often considered to be from Dacian. Alexander 007 02:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, you helped me notice an old typo in the article that dates back to Dec 1st 2003, when the article was started by a contributor. Amazing no one noticed it till I noticed it today (see history). Alexader 007 03:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh - wow. Surprised I didn't notice that either.... 24.215.177.116 03:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Axiopa (Greek Axiopolis) meaning "dark water", nowadays "Cernavodă" < Slavic "black water"
*n-ks(e)t - "non-shining, dark", cf Avestan Axsaena "dark water"
*upa - "river", cf Lithuanian upe "river"
bogdan | Talk 10:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this article keep changing...

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

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

[edit] Update

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

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

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

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

[edit] Infobox

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

[edit] Dacian vis-a-vis hypothetically Dacian

I'm going to make some edits for the sake of separating lexical items taken from the Romanian language, which may be from the Dacian language, from those that are derived directly from the known Dacian corpus. Alexander 007 17:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The information in the sentence I removed will be incorporated into Eastern Romance substratum. Alexander 007 17:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

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

[edit] PIE sound-changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Harvey E. Mayer

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

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

[edit] Infobox again

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

Well, Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu claimed that the Albanians were the descendants of the Costoboci and Carpians in his "Cine sunt albanesiĭ?" in 1901. bogdan 21:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
But that was Hasdeu in 1901. Not current enough. Alexander 007 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] O.R. check

check possibly original research inserted into this article. No citation given for material included in Dacian language by that IP. The Dacian language article in general requires more references/citations. 69.106.206.100 02:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I like reading more than editing these days. Editors, you are wanted. These articles need attention. 69.106.206.100 02:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden politics

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

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

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