Romanians are not Dacians

[GoneWithTheWind]

[Deymark321]

The book you posted has no actual sources in it and the map you posted is from some hungarian revisionist website who also had no source in it.
Also i took a quick look at your book and it is full of non-sense and then they try to draw very forced conclusions

If you cannot post archaelogical, lingusitical, genetical&anthropological facts then dont post,untill further proven, vlachs are the roman collonists from Dacia Trajana.And just so you know the vlachs from balkans are all migrators from Romania.You are just butthurt that siptars were proven non-illyrians.

[Scholarios]

the map is wrong, but the conclusion may be correct.

[GoneWithTheWind]

The book you posted has no actual sources in it and the map you posted is from some hungarian revisionist website who also had no source in it.
Also i took a quick look at your book and it is full of non-sense and then they try to draw very forced conclusions

If you cannot post archaelogical, lingusitical, genetical&anthropological facts then dont post,untill further proven, vlachs are the roman collonists from Dacia Trajana.And just so you know the vlachs from balkans are all migrators from Romania.You are just butthurt that siptars were proven non-illyrians.

The book is from Noel Malcolm Kosovo a short history. He has dozzens of sources listed from Serbian to British at the end of his book.

[Deymark321]

Albanians have no connection with romanians, even more now we know that linguistically we are more different than close.

The following book is the most important book on this subject."The language of thraco-dacians".
World Renowed linguists like J.Grimm,P.de Lagarde A.fick , W.Tomaschek(first to make a complete analisis of thracian languages), G.Meyer, F.Solmsen, P.Kretschmer, H.Hirt, D.Decev, V.Parvan, I.I.Rusu, V.Georgiev and many many others along with other researchers, argues that the common words between albanian-romanian do not justify at all a albanian-romanian geographic communion, if we lived near eachother it was for a very very short time, most of the words are older in romanian,alot believed to be unknown are actually from latin and it is absolutely impossible for the words exchange to come after Vi century

Chapter "Common albanian-romanian words"



p.182

------------------------------------------------------------

What binds more tighly romanian and albanian, in a special way,are the common exclusive lexical elements,dating from the pre-roman epoque,belonging to the substrate,the so called "albanian","albanian loanwords" of our language(romanian).They constitute a distinct problem,precisely conturated,which will next be researched and judged by criterias essentially different from what the followers of "linguistic communion" and the so called "albanian-romanian symbiosis".The long researches and discussion -even though they taken only 2 comparation terms , romanian and albanian languages through their common elements, firstly the lexic - lead to precious results, that eases alot our problem.There exists clear criterias to specify the language relations,especially on a lexical level.Firstly, the specific and old romanian character of the common "albanian-romanian" lexical elements that are missing in other languages,is obvious to notice.In 1892 Gustav Meyer observes "bei 'barză' und 'mazăre' stellen sich der Annahme der Entlehnung Schwierigkeiten enigegen; barză deckt sich mit dem femininum zu dem alban. adj. barth 'weiss', bardhë (genauer mit einem "bardë");aber dies femininum heisst im alb. niemals , Schwann [means 'Storch']".If for romanian 'viezure'(badger in english) - he observs - it can be somewhat admitted that it came from alb. vjedhullë, for 'barză' and 'mazăre' difficulties arrise, because the first has a arnaut correspondent adj. 'barth', -dhë, but it does not mean "badger";and "mazăre" presents compared to the alb. modhullë a difference of a radical vocal,showing that the romanian word, same as 'barză', "eine im Verhaltnis zum Alban. altere Lautstufe bewahrt" (preserves 'a' compared to albanian, shows a older sound stage).The observation of the austriak was noticed by no one and especially from it, the necessary conclusion wasnt drawn, that the common romanian-albanian elements(that Barić, Jokl etc considered simple "borrowings" from albanian,without respecting the romanian historic grammar and often mixing romanian words to make them closer to the idea that they came from albanian) are independent words in romanian,related and paralel to the albanian ones,meaning that they have a common carphato-balkanic root and obviously pre-roman, sometimes knowing ancient differences.It was affirmed that the albanian-romanian lexical relations are of "pure vicinity"[2],because the "albanian" words in romanian do not present the character of borrowings,



[1]G.Meyer , Albanische Studien III(In SB Akad, Wien, 125), p.22

[2]Treimer, Zeitschr, Roman.Philol., XXXVIII, 1914, p.387





p.183

------------------------------------------------------------

having identical treatment as the hereditary latin lexic.From this simple remark(that is not identical with "symbiosis"),in fact, it throwed overhead the whole theory of lexical borrowings from albanian to romanian togheter with all the consequences of social-ethnic order and historically concluded from alleged borrowings:firstly the so called albanian-romanian "symbiosis" at the end of antique epoque or in evul medium.Such a symbiosis is as justified as for example the idea,that someone might have,tring to explain the numerous common traits between italian and romanian through a italian-romanian "symbiosis" in the feudal period.

In conclusion,it can be said that "those terms,come in both languages,from the language that was spoken before in balkanic peninsula and carphato-danubian zone and that left as footprint of its existence these elements in the vocabulary of the romanian language" - an older ideea shared by other philologists-linguists(Hasdeu,Philippide,Pascu,Capidan,partiall y Puscariu etc).philippide revealed that the great differences between albanian and romanian form a true gap between these two idioms,that nor the inconclusive gramatical elements nor the talking about "cohabitation" of romanians to shiptars(meaned to justify the "borrowings" of albanian words), could justify it.

It was revealed also that albanians only recently borrowed words from romanian, an inexplicable thing if they lived near each other and also only share 70 words of common substratum.Such obvious and elementary truths only surprised the supporters of the so called albanian-romanian linguistic "communion", a old product of the insufficient investigation methods from the 1900.On the other side, not even one of the "albanian-romanian symbiosis" supporters forget that these two idioms are of different structure and origin;still they classified them togheter trying to closer them in the "linguistic union" and consider romanian as dependent on albanian through some "borrowings".The reservation and objection against such thesis are known: romanian language of neo-latin origin and structure(romance) presents forms of characteristic evolution,with many divergent notes compared with other occidental romance idioms and with inexplicable elements from the vulgar latin(observed by Kopitar,Miklosich,Schuchardt etc),because of the pre-roman substratum;there are numerous carphato-balkanic words from the autochtonous populations of this territories.On the other side, albanian is a indo-european language(satem type),



[1]Al.Rosetti,ILR, ii , p 103.



p. 184

------------------------------------------------------------------

,having plenty of latin words from the epoque of roman dominion in balkans[1].Its normal that languages of different types to present this "gap" that Philippide was talking,that excludes the symbiosis contact or any reciprocal influence after the end of antiquity and evul medium.The common grammatical notes are explained through the action of the substratum and the specific evolution of oriental romance.The common elements in albanian and romanian lexic can only be explained arbitrary as "borrowings" from one language to another,before the roman epoque of the romanian language.Bizzare are also the theories of "emmigration" of aromanians(Densusianu) or shiptars(Weigand, after Gaster) carriers of albanian elements in romanian language from the carphatian zone.

After it was proven that the common phonetic,morphologic and sintactic elements from romanian and albanian do not justify at all a "geographic communion", it is necessary to explain those words.he majority of them(brau,mazare,sambure,viezure etc) are way older in romanian than in albanian,they are known in the roman epoque, way before slav migrations(VI),we can see in the phonetic modification(brau and parau same as grau < lat. granun, frau < lat. frenum; mazare from *ma(d)ze-l-, sambure < *sambul-, viezure < *ve(d)zul-, sare from lat, sale- soare < sole- etc)).From this elementary fact,obviously, the conclusion is that the romanic population(autochtonous romanised) from the carphato-balkanic territory, had in its speech a series of non-latin words from the substratum.If hypotheticlaly we would presume that romanians borrowed isolated words like (brau,mazare,sambure etc) from shiptars or their ancestors, the romanian grammar shows that its impossible for it to have happened after VI century.But the comparatistic shows something in plus at some albanian-romanian common words:mazare presents a way older stage in romanian compared to albanian modhulle, the radical vocal accentuated "a" being etymologically original, compared to accentuated o before, rad .i-e *mag'(h)-;borrowing from albanian to romanian is impossible (o accentuated does not become a in romanian).A similar case is romanian "soparla" compared to albanian "sapi", both indo-european *suo-p-, with "o" keeped in romanian, it becomes "a" in albanian.In romanian "brau" compared to albanian "bres,brezi(*bren-z-)" we have a proto-romanian root *bre-n-, and in albanian a indo-european sufix -z- (-di-o-);proof that



E.Cabej, Zur Charakteristik der lateinischen Lehnworter in Albanischen, in "Revue de Linguistique", VII, 1962, p161-199



p.185

-----------------------------------------------------------

romanian couldn't have borrowed the word in the roman epoque or before, because the proto-romanians couldnt have taken from albanians only the theme of the word, a *bre-n-, leaving the sufix -z-,and this theme to develop in romanian as the latin inherited words like granum, frenum.The situation is similar at other words "parau" from indo-european *per-ren- compared to albanian form with vocalic alternation "o"(or internal evolution e > o in albanian) *per-ron-;Romanian "pururea" from *porur- compared to albanian perhere with radical vocal "e".

So its impossible for these words to have come in feudal epoque, because they oppose the phonologic evolution of some albanian and romanian words, in comparation to their etymologic roots.This words show that also is impossible that even the similar words in albanian-romanian to be borrowed from one to other(bunget,gata,gard,galbeaza,groapa,grumaz,mos, vatra etc) like for example the romanian carne,ochiu are not from italian carne,occhio.They have to be interpretated exactly like above.They prove a little more than just some phonetic missmatches or better said inconsequences in the corespondences of the sound of the identical words(in consonatism),signaled by A.Rosetti, who is mainly right saying that "the sounds in romanian are diverse in origin and in this way the borrowings from romanian are justified"[2].But the sound paralelism established by Rosetti is based on etymological approaches that cannot be always admitted,sometimes unlikely(for ex. alb. byk- rom. buc, pelk-balk droe-droaie,dhalle-zara).It is true that we find a lack of consistency concerning the consonants from albanian and romanian; for ex: alb. th(kurthe,thumbulle) coresponds rom. s (cursa,sambure), and sometimes(thark) coresponds to rom. ţ (ţarc).The discordance is obvious,and it can be established in other cases.But even if a fully compliance would have existed in the treatment of consonants the borrowings "from albanian" cannot be admitted because of the missmatches found in the vocalism of the words examined above(like soparla,mazare,parau),and also after the post-roman epoque of romanian language,because of the phonological norms of our idiom who follows the etymologic and phonologic indo-european criteriasThe theory of "albanian borrowings" leads you at the pre-roman epoque of the carpatho-balkanic and danubian territories,when it is not correct to speak about albanians(shiptars) in these areas,inhabited in antiquity by illyrians at west and thraco-getae at north-east.The obligatory conclusion is that the cmmon elements from the albanian-romanian lexic, around 68 or 70 terms, are in this idioms(like also the 89/90 autochtonous romanian words not found in albanian) from a common source, the carphato-balkanic substratum.They have evolved differently in albanian and romanian, according to each language characteristics, in the feudal period.

The autochton romanian words that are paralel with the albanian ones from the carphato-balkanic substratum are : abure,argea,baci(?),balaur,baliga,balta,barz,basca ,brad,brau,brusture,bucur-,bunget,buza,caciula,capusa,caputa,catun,copac,cru ta,curma,curpan,cursa,darama,das,druete,farama,gar d,gardina,gata,galbeza,ghimpe,ghionoaie,grapa,gres ie,groapa,grumaz,grunz,gusa,mal,mazare,magura,mara t,matura,manz,mos,mugur,murg,naparca,parau,pastaie ,pururea,ranza,sarbad,scapara,scrum,scula,sambure, spanz,sterp,strepede,strunga,sale,soparla,sut,tap, tarc,vatra,vatui,viezure,zgarda,zgaria.

[Wrong]

You stole my idea, not cool man.

[Deymark321]

The book is from Noel Malcolm Kosovo a short history. He has dozzens of sources listed from Serbian to British at the end of his book.

he might as well be Obama.Unless I see a source its bullshit.

[Pahli]

Down with the Roman empire

[GoneWithTheWind]

You stole my idea, faggoty idiot.

How did I steal your idea? I bought this book months ago and made a thread like this weeks ago quoting a whole chapter from the book. You're the one who said Albaniaan is Dacian. Just because of it's connection with Romanian does not make it automatically dacian because we don't know if Romanian is dacian. Going by this theory it isn't

[Deymark321]

How did I steal your idea? I bought this book months ago and made a thread like this weeks ago quoting a whole chapter from the book. You're the one who said Albaniaan is Dacian. Just because of it's connection with Romanian does not make it automatically dacian because we don't know if Romanian is dacian. Going by this theory it isn't

There is no connection with romanians that albanians have.
ROmanian IS NOT DACIAN you cretin fuck, Romanian is a ROMANCE LANGUAGE and the closest gramatically to vulgar latin.