0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,654 Given: 661 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,654 Given: 661 |
Where is the fantastic ''Dacian'' substrate in Romanian ? Because no serious linguist heard for such fantasy.
or you have confused it with proven Albanian substratum in the Romanian ?
Daco-Roman myth dismissed by every scholars, expect nationalist Romanian ''scientist''. Linguistic, genetic and written history speak about their southern Balkanite (macedonia southern serbia albania area) origin. Deal with it.
Last edited by Stears; 12-02-2017 at 02:43 PM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 6,880 Given: 7,415 |
I already mentioned this in my previous post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Dacian_origin
Romanian-Albanian similarities are a result of a possible common ancestor of both Thracian (Dacians were a Thracian subgroup) and Illyrian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Illyrian
There isn't any record of a large scale migration of Albanian to Romania for your theory to be true.
You also ignored my question about the identities of the rulers of the first three dukes (Menumorot, Gelu, Glad)...
They are like Bulgarians with less Slavic influence (which is why some Bulgarians plot north of them). They border Serbia, so also overlap with them a bit. But their genetics overall matches their geographic location:Daco-Roman myth dismissed by every scholars, expect nationalist Romanian ''scientist''. Linguistic, genetic and written history speak about their southern Balkanite (macedonia southern serbia albania area) origin. Deal with it.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,654 Given: 661 |
Duke Glad is a fictional character of Gesta Hungarorum. Gesta Hungarorum is not considered reliable source by Western historians since the late 19th century, only some romanians believe in it.. You can read about the reasons here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum The genre of medieval European Gestas is not chronicle, but medieval amusement storybooks. Gesta Hungarorum also tell stories about the Hungarian conquest, but it is not a CONTEMPORARY work, it was written 300 years after the conquest, the writer has often no clue about the old events, and he simply use his fantasy. It has serious contradictions with all CONTEMPORARY chrolnicles about the era, like Byzantine, German and Kijev Chronicles, but it is not surprising, because it is just a Gesta, and not chronicle. The writer creates Hungarian and anti-Hungarian foreign fantasy heroes and fantasy enemies, who were simply named after toponyms, hydronyms or town names, and whose simple existence is not suppoted by any older contemporary European sources. However its biggest fault about Hungarian conquest is the lack of mention of all really existed and contemporary recorded conflicts and battles with historic persons and powers (war against Eastern Franks Bulgarians and Moravian rulers and states ) who were the real lords of the Carpatian Basin before the Hungarian conquest. It means that the writer had not really clue about the contemporary power and political circumstances of the conquest period. Gesta also projekt back the migration of Cumans and Jassic people long before the Hungarian conquest, despite the fact, these ethnic groups migrated to Kingdom of Hungary in the 13th century. But it is a Gesta (storybook), so the historical reliablility is not expected.
Romanized Dacians? Really? There are not any linguistic proof for that. However you are the only nation in Europe who have albanian loanwords. The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the Roman legions and dacians remianed very hostile. This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process.
In the reality, the Vlach (neo-latino) speaker ancestors of romanians come from the balkans, where the Roman rule lasted 500+ years.
Read about the Jireček Line:
Your Gelou is Gyula, an ancient Hungarian title: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyula_(title)
As all contemporary early medieval sources recorded, the slavic speaking people lived there. The neo-latino speakers (ancestors of Romanians) arrived much later.
There are not Dacian texts, just some words in Greek/Latin sources, mostly related to personal names. and some place names. That's why dacian language did not remain for the posterior.
There are not.
Neo latino is an ethnic slur for romance speakers.
Re-latinization also means the Romanian Language reforms. All Central and Eastern European languages had serious linguistic reforms during the late 18th century and 19th century, Romanians borrowed French and Italian loanwords in massive amounts, and Latin words, they replaced huge amount of slavic turkic and albanian loanwords, the old substratum.
I already answered to this above.
Unknown origin words are not proof for anything, since the dacian language did not remained to the posterior. It is just a perfect example for the nativist nationalist so-called wishfull-thinking. Every languages had huge amount of unknown origin words. German English Hungarian Slavic languages have a huge amount of unknown origin words, what linguist historians can not trace back.
Middle ages lasted from fall of Rome to the discovery of the Americas. So your first texts were born in the 16th century, 500years after the Hungarian, it is half a millenium. Lack of literacy is not surprise from late nomadic shepherd people.
I already answred about the Gesta Hungarorum, its many fictional characters and Gyula above.
Many of that county names were renamed and re-organized during the 19th century national avakening and nationalism. The nationalist nativist daco-roman continuity propaganda was born in that national awakening period too.
Despite the Latin was the official language and language of Church and higher education in Hungary until 1844, Hungarian language (not even the scientific and legal language) was not really much effected by the Latin language, but the origin of Hungarian language is off-topic in this thread.
Last edited by Stears; 12-03-2017 at 06:40 PM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 10,426 Given: 4,139 |
It's not quite accurate. Moldavians (I'm also reffering to those within the Romanian state) are indeed by far a lot more slavic influenced than Bulgarians. In terms of autosomal DNA, Romanians are quite diverse and most samples are usually from the south since that's where Bucharest is. In general Romanians from Transylvania are somewhere around Croats, Moldavians are somewhere in between s. Romanians and Ukranians and s. Romanians are somewhere close to Bulgarians as well as Serbs (the ones from southwestern Romania).
Obviously it's like you'd be arguing with a brick wall since the "migration" theory was nothing more than Hungarian propaganda. Even if Romanians aren't native to Transylvania, they must have been there before Hungarians came as most sources, including some you used would suggest so. Stears uses common misconceptions about autosomal DNA to try to legitimize that theory. For example he'd claim something like "Romanians are genetically Balkan, Transylvania is in central Europe so Romanians are not native to there". First of all "genetically Balkan" is not a thing; I.e. Albanians and central Romanians are genetically quite distant by intra-Euro standards, and the borders of central Europe are arbitrary and they aren't genetically similar either way within whatever you'd define as "Central Europe". Gene flow from Albania all the way to Hungary does exist, so using genetics to strengthen the theory is just dumb.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,409 Given: 1,009 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,654 Given: 661 |
Wrong, they are not. Every scientific study show them more southern than the Serbs. Some assimilated Ukrainians from northern Romania can't help this fact.
ethnic Romanians are more balkanite than geography would suggest, which prove their southern migrant origins (contrary to the southern slavs who have origin from the north)
Thumbs Up |
Received: 15 Given: 79 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 15 Given: 79 |
The genetic map of Europe bears a clear structural similarity to the geographic map.
Romanians are originated from the southeastern European area known as the “Carpato—Danubiano-Pontic” space.
Hungarians, magyarized people from pannonia, a mixture of Romanians, Slavs, Germans.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 6,880 Given: 7,415 |
Okay. That's a good point. But we have to consider something here. The writer of Gesta Hungarorum was clearly familiar with who Romanians were in the 1200's. If the character Gelou was invented, he was most likely named after the town Gilău, which is where he was killed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil%C4%83u,_Cluj
Even if the characters were invented, Anonymous strongly implies that Transylvania was Romanian majority at this time.
What year do you think the ancestors of Romanians started migrating from the southern Balkans to Transylvania?
Also, this is from the Wikipedia link on Gesta Hungarorum you posted:
Although the Hungarians, or Magyars, seem to have used their own alphabet before adopting Christianity in the 11th century, most information of their early history was recorded by Muslim, Byzantine and Western European authors.[1][2] For instance, the Annals of Fulda, Regino of Prüm's Chronicon, and Emperor Constantine VII's De administrando imperio contain contemporaneous or nearly contemporaneous reports of their conquest of the Carpathian Basin at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries.[3][4] Among the Hungarians, oral tradition—songs and ballads—preserved the memory of the most important historical events.[5][6] The Illuminated Chronicle explicitly stated that the "seven captains" who led the Hungarians during the Conquest "composed lays about themselves and sang them among themselves in order to win worldly renown and to publish their names abroad, so that their posterity might be able to boast and brag to neighbours and friends when these songs were heard".[7][8]
Btw, what do you think was the ethnicity of the people that Árpád and co. conquered?
The number is actually around 130 years, not 160 years. And that number is in reference to the number of years it took to conquer the lands inhabited by the Free Dacians. The Romans viewed the Dacians as a threat since the first century, but the first time they fought (where the Dacians won), it was 85 AD, so you can say the actual Roma-Dacian wars lasted 30-35 years.Romanized Dacians? Really? There are not any linguistic proof for that. However you are the only nation in Europe who have albanian loanwords. The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the Roman legions and dacians remianed very hostile. This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process.
When the Romans conquered "Dacia", they only conquered King Decebal's kingdom. Outside of his kingdom still lived Dacians such as the Costobocs in northern Transylvania or the Tyragetae in Bessarabia. The Roman province of Dacia in 106 AD was just comprised of eastern & southeastern Transylvania, Banat, and Oltenia. Most Dacians did live in the Roman province of Dacia though. The Dacians who lived in lands outside this administered province were known as "Free Dacians". Their lands took about 130 years to incorporate into Roman Dacia. So peripheral Dacian lands took 130 years to conquer. Other parts of modern day Romania were inhabited by Sarmatians btw.
After Dacia was conquered, it was named Dacia Felix, meaning "Dacia the Blessed". Romans from other parts of the empire were told that Dacia Felix was a rich and beautiful land with a lot of opportunities so began coming there en masse. From there on, a lot of Romans began migrating to Dacia to help develop the place into a proper Roman city. These were largely civil servants, engineers, doctors, and other specialists. But also normal citizens as well. There were also a large number of military men imported there to help defend it against the Free Dacians and other invading "barbarians". About 100 fortifications were set up. The Romans that settled in Dacia in the early second century ended up living there and starting a family. They mixed with Dacians and created a hybrid Daco-Roman people (although the Roman genetic contribution was minimal, their cultural contribution was immense). Towards the mid-late third century when the Roman Empire was in trouble, Emperor Aurelian took out a lot of Romans from Dacia, but at this point, Dacia had already been Romanized.
There aren't any literary texts from this period, but there is evidence of religious artifacts in Romania in the second century. For example, the Roman deity "Glycon": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycon
If Romans (cultural ancestors of Romanians) didn't live there in the second century, then how do you explain that? There were said to be a mix of Dacian and Roman deities that were worshiped in Dacia Felix.
Also, you have to keep in mind that Roman influence on Dacians existed before the Roman conquest of Dacia, but that influence was not linguistic though. After Decebal defeat the Romans in 85, there was an agreement that Decebal would introduce Romanian cultural elements and Rome would pay tribute to Dacia. Decebal introduced Roman architecture, Roman discipline, Roman fighting methods, etc.
As I said above, eastern and southeastern Transylvania were part of Roman Dacia since 106 AD. The rest of Transylvania and neighboring lands were conquered in the subsequent 130 years.In the reality, the Vlach (neo-latino) speaker ancestors of romanians come from the balkans, where the Roman rule lasted 500+ years.
Is this the Balkans?
Also, they were controlled for not a mere 500 years but for almost 1000 years.
Most rural inhabitants of Dacia were Dacian-speakers, but those in the city were Latin-speakers. Since Romans outnumbered Dacians in cities, the Dacians were forced to learn Latin in order to communicate with the Roman colonialists. Roman settlers (coloni) and veterans of Roman legions were also given tracts of land in rural Dacia. Here, they had a lot of Dacians as workers for them on their lands so those Dacians were forced to learn Latin. But Dacians here still mostly spoke Dacian for a while since they outnumbered the Romans by a big margin. Later, all Dacians in the empire were given citizenship and Latin was declared the official language by Emperor Caracella. After about three generations, the region was pretty much completely Latinized and the Dacian language only survived in substrates (or not at all according to you). By this time, Dacia was a Latin-speaking land. And there were still a few centuries left until the Hungarians (and Turks) invaded Europe. When the Hungarians invaded Dacia, what language do you think they spoke at this time?
I know about the Jirechek Line. It says that Romania was part of the Latinosphere as opposed to the Grecosphere. How does it contradict any of my posts?
Read about the Jireček Line:
Is that where the town name Gilău comes from?Your Gelou is Gyula, an ancient Hungarian title: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyula_(title)
Up until 106 AD, the land was not yet conquered by the Romans and it was Dacian-speaking. After it got conquered by the Romans, it makes sense to assume that this is when the Romanization process started. We have records of Roman deities like Glycon being worshiped in Romania during this period. Gesta Hungarorum, even if it has inaccurate events, refers to parts of Transylvania as being Romanian. So all this evidence points to it being a Romance-speaking land.As all contemporary early medieval sources recorded, the slavic speaking people lived there. The neo-latino speakers (ancestors of Romanians) arrived much later.
You yourself said that there is no evidence for Romanian literature. So where is your proof that it was Slavic back then?
Yes, I had it confused with southern Thracian. I think there is only one text in Thracian found in Bulgaria. But nevertheless, we have evidence that a Dacian language was spoken in Romania before the Roman conquest (or Slavic conquest according to you lol).There are not Dacian texts, just some words in Greek/Latin sources, mostly related to personal names. and some place names. That's why dacian language did not remain for the posterior.
Okay.Neo latino is an ethnic slur for romance speakers.
I know about it. I was just wondering if that was the reference that you were making. Also, no "Albanian" words were purged.Re-latinization also means the Romanian Language reforms. All Central and Eastern European languages had serious linguistic reforms during the late 18th century and 19th century, Romanians borrowed French and Italian loanwords in massive amounts, and Latin words, they replaced huge amount of slavic turkic and albanian loanwords, the old substratum.
Almost everything about the Dacian language is speculative. Some of these words make a lot of sense, but of course you are going to ignore them. They make much more sense than your so-called "Albanian" words, which are based on even speculation since there is no record of a mass migration from Albania to Romania.Unknown origin words are not proof for anything, since the dacian language did not remained to the posterior. It is just a perfect example for the nativist nationalist so-called wishfull-thinking. Every languages had huge amount of unknown origin words. German English Hungarian Slavic languages have a huge amount of unknown origin words, what linguist historians can not trace back.
Maybe some of the Latin names were, but not the Dacian names. The reason it mostly has Hungarian names is because it was ruled by Hungary for centuries so they founded most of the cities there. But I think some of the Latin names would have been pre-Hungarian conquest as well.Many of that county names were renamed and re-organized during the 19th century national avakening and nationalism. The nationalist nativist daco-roman continuity propaganda was born in that national awakening period too.
It was the same for Old Church Slavic in Romania.Despite the Latin was the official language and language of Church and higher education in Hungary until 1844, Hungarian language (not even the scientific and legal language) was not really much effected by the Latin language, but the origin of Hungarian language is off-topic in this thread.
Can you explain how Romania became a Romance-speaking country? You seem to think that it was Slavic-speaking before and try to downplay or deny all of Romania's Dacian and Roman heritage, so how did it become Romance speaking in the first place?
Last edited by Mingle; 12-04-2017 at 05:21 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks