Talk:Origin of the Romanians

Talk:Origin of Romanians/Archive1

I added as arguments against migration from south the mention of Walachians in Nestor Chronicles In 6406 (898) Magyars, who fought against Slavs and Walachians, marched past Kyiv on the hill, which nowdays is called Hungarian Hill. Chronicles by Venerable Nestor (1056 - 1136 AD)link

As far as I know, Gesta Hungarorum has been proven to be quite unreliable on many points. 'Anonymus' (as the author is referred to) often just made up things to fill the gaps in his story. This may or may not be the case as regards his account of Vlachs in Transylvania. Still, the overall unreliability of GH is important to bear in mind when weighing this argument, so maybe we should include a note on it.--Tamas 17:45, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I feel it was not underlined the corespondence with Nestor's chronicle. Basically both chronicles show romanic population (vlachs) in Transylvania during 9-10th centuries. Daizus

Dacian toponyms

• Dacian toponyms were kept (names of rivers: Samus - Somes, Marisia - Mures, Porata - Prut, etc; names of cities: Petrodava - Piatra Neamt, Varadia - Oradea)

This argument is very-very shaky. For example, it states that the Dacian name of the river 'Marisia' was Mures. The river is indeed called Mures is present-day Romanian, but this does not mean it was called so in Dacian. In other words, this is a circular reference.

Herodotus specifically mentions this river as having the name Maris, also spelled Marisia, etc. Cf. Herodotus, History, Book IV, paragraph 48. See also a map of region showing only ancient hydronyms. The river was known by that name in Herodotus' time, before his time, and after his time. It is 99.99 % certain that the Dacians also knew it by that same name (or a variant spelling of the same name). The river is still named so, undergoing a change in form from the spellings found in ancient sources. So, it can be considered a Dacian hydronym, no problem there. As for who originally named the river, that's another question. No one knows who named the river Maris, but it may well have been named by these early Dacian-Thracian peoples. The same can be said for the other ancient hydronyms in the area, except perhaps for Porata which Herodotus says was the "Scythian name" for the river (in the same line he says Pyretus was the Greek name for the river). Decius

OK, most probably you are right. However, until you came, nobody substantiated this point so I think my criticism was justified. (And it was no 'Hungarian parade': semi-chauvinistic remarks like this hurt people and contribute nothing to the discussion)--Tamas 11:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright, that's justified: I'll remove that remark. I might even say "I apologize". Decius 00:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Varadia - Oradea is even more ludicrous: there was no Roman settlement called Varadia. Varadia is the latinized version of Hungarian Várad, invented by medieval scribes, chroniclers etc writing in Latin. The name Oradea, in turn, derives from Várad. (The vá->o change is pretty regular in loanwords from Hungarian, see város 'town' -> oras)

Therefore I think we should remove this argument as nonsensical. (It is so obviously weak that it weakens the case it is arguing for.) T

I'm afraid you misunderstood the argument. It's not important if the Dacian name of the river was Mures, Marisia, Murus, Amorie, Mory or whatever (I'm inventing examples). I guess it was Bogdan who added that argument and he just gave Latin and Romanian names together, so the second name is not really meant to be a Dacian name. What is important in this argument is the statement that the name of the river is of Dacian origin (which may be true or false, but that is another question). Boraczek 10:02, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still don't get it. An example: the Hungarian name of Marisia(Lat)-Mures(Rom) is Maros. Similarly: Samus(Lat)-Somes(Rom)-Szamos(Hung). If we accept the argument to be valid, we could as well say these names are of Hungarian origin. Or we could say they are of Slavic origin, and the Latin, Hungarian, Romanian forms derive from the original Slavic forms. Another example: the Latin name of Köln (Cologne) in Germany was Colonium. Does this mean the name of the town is of Germanic origin? No, it probably means that the Germanic tribes adopted the original Latin name. Mures, Somes etc can be such adoptions as well (maybe from Hungarian, maybe from Slavic, or Latin whatever) The point is: nothing in this argument proves that these names are of Dacian origin. They may be, I don't know, but this argument doesn't make much sense. Ceterum censeo: it should be removed. T

Yes, the article doesn't substantiate the statement that those toponyms are of Dacian origin. The argument is just "there are some Dacian toponyms", not "these toponyms must be of Dacian origin, because...". So I agree with you that in the article there's no prove that those names are of Dacian origin. The prove must emerge from some linguistic analyses we don't know. Maybe there's no real prove and the statement is wrong, I don't know. But if those names are of real Dacian origin, the argument is very important, because it shows that there's some kind of continuity between Dacians and the present inhabitants. So I think it should stay. What you pointed out is that it lacks some substantiation, maybe reference to some linguistic researches, and I concur with you here. Boraczek 16:13, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One final remark: still, listing the Latin names alongside their similar-sounding Romanian counterparts here may create the false impression in the reader that these names are of Dacian origin BECAUSE OF the apparent similarity. In other words, it suggests a false causal link. So my proposal is that we should only use the present-day Romanian names here. T

I think you're right, T. Boraczek 17:41, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We know that these toponyms were used by the Dacians/Getae because that's what Herodot, Strabo, etc said. They described the land of the Getae and they used the Greekified versions of the local names of the rivers.

Varadia is a medieval Latin name, it was my fault adding it. We can replace it with Timis/in ancient times Tibis (mentioned by Herodot). (From a linguistic POV: yes, there are other words in Romanian that changed "m"s in in "b"s, proving that it was the Hungarian that borrowed it from Romanian, not the other way around) Bogdan | Talk 18:49, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's nice :-) Could you please add a note that those Dacian toponyms are known to us because they were written down by ancient Greeks, in the article? I think it would strengthen the argument and make it clearer. I also think it would be clearer if there was information what language those toponyms are in. For example, is "Samus" an original Dacian toponym or a Dacian toponym in the form written by Greeks, or a Latinized Dacian name, or a present-day name? It's hard to figure it out. Boraczek 17:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK. Let's remove Varadia and leave the others. Still, I'm not sure this is a sound argument for continuity. It can be integrated into the migration theory as well: it is possible that the original Dacian/Getan names were picked up by Slavs, Avars, Hungarians or any other people whatsoever, and then from them by Romanians upon arrival. Such a thing has happened quite often in history. The Hungarian name for Danube (Duna) is pretty similar to Latin Danuvius, but this doesn't mean there was a continuous Hungarian settlement along the Danube since Roman times. The same goes for other rivers and peoples. T

I replaced Varadia with another city with Roman name, Abruttum (now Abrud, in Transylvania).

To put it in another way: if no toponyms were kept, this would be a strong argument against continuity; but the fact some (or even many) toponyms were kept does not prove continuity. The preservation of toponyms is a necessary condition of continuity, but not a sufficient one. T

I agree that if no toponyms were kept, this would be a strong argument against continuity (BTW this alone may be good reason to mention those toponyms in the "continuity" section). And I agree that Dacian toponyms don't prove that the Romanized Dacians survived the Dark Ages as a Romanic people and constituted the base for the formation of the Romanian nation. On the other hand, if the whole population of Dacia had been evacuated, as the "migrationers" are likely to think, then Slavs, Teutons, Hungarians etc. could not have picked up the local Dacian names, because they wouldn't have lived together with Dacians and got to know the names. As I said, I think this argument proves that there's some kind of continuity between Dacians and the present inhabitants. Boraczek 17:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that: the preservation of toponyms indicates clearly that Dacia was not completely evacuated. However, the main statement of 'migrationism' is that Romanians are not 'continuous' with Dacians. The evacuation story is strong ammunition for them, but the theory does not stand or fall on it. What if some Dacians remained after the Romans left, and then these Dacians were assimilated by Slavs, Teutons whoever, who picked up the Dacian names etc, and when Romanians arrived, they picked up those names form Slavs, Teutons, Hungarians etc. This too would be some kind of continuity indeed. However, Daco-Roman continuity implies ancestry as well (or at least that's how people usually use the term). The preservation of toponyms is indeed a very strong argument for 'weak' continuity (such as the Native American--Anglo-Saxon continuity in the US), but much less so for continuity=ancestry.

What if we added the following sentence to the original argument to state this point:

(It should be noted, however, that the preservation of toponyms only indicates continuous settlement, and not neccessarily continouos settlement by the same people.)

Or, maybe more logically, we could list this as a counterargument against complete evacuation. Either of these solutions could settle this matter correctly.--Tamas 20:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) --Tamas 21:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All right with me. Boraczek 22:01, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As no objections have been raised, I added the note.--Tamas 16:53, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Bulgarian influence, not Serbian nor Greek

However this is easy to explain as historical and archeological sources indicate that southern part of Romania has been colonized by Slavic tribes speaking dialects close to Old Bulgarian (6th century).

I don't know how this explains that there is no Serbian nor Greek influence.Bogdan | Talk 09:12, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite all that argument, because it doesn't seem clear to me. Boraczek 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

According to me it is clear. According to "classical" migration theory motherland of Vlachs is present-day nothern Bulgaria, Macedonia and southern Serbia (at that times solely Bulgarian speaking). Besides collonization of Vlachia by "Bulgarian-like" Slavic tribes (6th century) is very well documented. There is also very well documented the fact that Vlachs mixed up themselve with local Slavic population of the territory later known as Vlachia (after 12th century), taking its social and political structure and (in some extend) local, Bulgarian-like language. To summarise: The "Bulgarian-like" language and cutural influence on Vlachs (and lack of "Serbian-like") can not be considered as argumenet against theory about "allochtonic" origins of Vlachs.Yeti 13:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

---

There are a lot of emotions regarding this subject. We have to take in consideration that for centuries in a row, there was a hard time in this region, with nomads raiding, natives migrating and natives hidding in forests or just obeying the new (temporary) rulers. I, for one, simply cannot imagine a large, fertile, teritory void of population for a long period of time. This isn't Sahara. -- MihaiC 31 may 2004

Nobody claim it to be a desert. Untill 3/4th centuries it was probably inhabited largely by Thracian-speaking people, and in some territories by Iranian people (western and southern part) and Germanic people (north), than in was collonized by masses of Germanic migrants from Ukraine (Goths, Gepides) than masses of Turkic migrants were added, and in 6th everything was covered by Slavic flood. Such development of situation is confirmed by historical as well as by archeological sources. There was no space for void. Unfortunatelly, claims of some (not all) Romanian historians about autochtonic origins of Vlachs do not meet with any proofs. The most probably theory is that modern Roamanians are descendants of Romanic-speaking migrants from present-day Bulgaria, Macedonia and southern Serbia who mixed themselves (largely already in presen-day Romania) with Slavic population and some Germanic, Turkic and possibly Dacian remnants. This theory explains almost everything: enormous influence of Slavic on Romanian language, Slavic territorial and social structure of early Romanians, close similarity between Romanian and Aromanian, and is supported by available historical sources. I know that this theory does not meet with Romanian historical myths (created in 19th century), but is just the most documented theory of Romanian origin. Yeti 16:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

"The most documented theory". That's a misleading phrase, as if there is a comprehensive or even sizable body of documents. The truth is that there is a scarcity (not absence)of extant documents pertaining to Romanians/Vlachs north of the Danube till later times. Apparently first documented presence is south of the Danube, documents in question being Byzantine documents. It's obvious why Romanians south of Danube are thus mentioned first, being closer to Byzantine world. "Most probable theory" is a statement of opinion.(Decius)

Romanian is very different from Dalmatian, so they probably developed in distant regions. This suggests that Romanians could not have come from the western part of the Balkans (including Albania). - I think that this argument should be entirely removed as it definitelly is not argument against theory of migration from south, but barely from Dalmatia (nobody claims that Vlachs arrived from Dalmatia). It is just irrelevant. On the same basis Dalamiatian could be replaced by Italian.Yeti 17:58, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

(however, the fact that Romanian is very different from Dalmatian is problematic, as supporters of Migration Theory place origins of Romanians not distant from Dalmatia, in Romanized provinces of Moesia & Thracia. I do not know any serious theory, which claim that Vlachs came from Dalmatia area. Dalmatian was spoken in northern Croatia and has nothing to do with claimed motherland of Vlachs.

1. If you don't know some theory, it doesn't mean that the theory doesn't exist. I've just checked my sources again to make sure I didn't confuse anything. I didn't. The migration theory I had occasion to get acquainted with claims that Romanians came to Romania from northern Albania and adjacent areas. I don't know if you consider that theory a "serious" theory, but I think it's good to write an argument against that theory anyway.
2. Thracia was not Romanized.
3. Moesia was not distant from Dalmatia. Moesia was adjacent to Dalmatia.
4. Dalmatian was not spoken in nothern Croatia. It was spoken in Ragusa, 100 km away from Albania and 250 km away from Macedonia.
5. Albania and northern Macedonia are situated south of the Danube and to the south of Romania.
6. The argument at hand is not an argument against the migration theory in general, but it's an argument against that version of migration theory which likes to see Romanians coming from western Balkans. I think it's clear. Boraczek 18:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

1. The mainstream of migration theory claim that Vlachs derive from modern Macedonia, Southern Serbia and Bulgaria rather than from Albania. Anyway, thats not the point. 2. Obviously Thracia was not romanized. We explained it before. I was not strict, sorry. 3. The fact that Dalmatia is close to Moesia in geographical sense means nothing. Dalmatia was not spoken in all over dalmatia of course but in small westernmost areas. You are right, that southern dialect of Dalmatian was spoken in Ragusa, but how can you claim that this area is adjacent to Moesia? Mayby we use different maps. Untill now I was sure that there is modern day Bosnia ans Serbia between? 4. I do not claim that Albania is not south of Danube :-))). 5. OK Yeti 11:13, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ad. 3. You wrote that the province of Moesia was distant from Dalmatia, so I corrected that. Of course, I don't claim that Ragusa was adjacent to former Moesia. I agree that the Dalmatian argument doesn't exclude Moesia. Boraczek 23:42, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The truth is no one today knows for sure the EXTENT to which Dalmatian was spoken in the province of Dalmatia. It may have been much more widespread than people such as Yeti (above) assume. The extent no doubt also fluctuated over time. IT IS RELEVANT that Moesia is adjacent to Dalmatia. It doesn't in itself demolish the migration theory, but it should be seriously taken into consideration. It also very relevant that Thrace was not Romanized. So, for the migrationists, that narrows down the area.(Decius)

I don't like the "pure blood" theories - Romanians are "just" Romans or "just" Dacians. IMO the "recipe" for Romanian people is like that : you merge Dacs with Romans (who were a mix themselves), add Slavs and some Goths, Gepides and Cumans for the taste :). Every nation is a mix after all. Migration theory says that ALL roman population left - I cannot agree with such a thing. MihaiC Jun 1st 2004

---

I don't know exactly how to integrate this info (earliest mentionings of "Vlachs"), but I think they would be relevant to this article:

• south of Danube: 976, Cedrenus, Byzantine
• north of Danube: 1070, Jan Dlugosz, Pole [1]

Bogdan | Talk 20:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Bogdan, the second date (1070) is wrong. As you wrote it yourself, Gesta Hungarorum mentions the presence of Vlachs north of the Danube in the 10th century. I've seen the page you gave a link to. It contains a lot of interesting information, but I noticed some obvious linguistical and historical mistakes in it, so I don't know if the remaining information is trustworthy. Boraczek 22:58, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Boraczek, it's OK to remove comments, but you should put them in an archive page.

---

Also, the article adds "Common words with Albanian" as an argument for migration from South of Romanians, but the truth may be the other way around. The Albanians could have migrated from Dacia to their current land. See the arguments of the Bulgarian linguist Georgiev [2] (the "Albanians and Rumanians" section). There's also a map of this theory here Bogdan | Talk 10:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll change the note to the argument, so as to encompass Georgiev's theory. Boraczek 14:39, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

But many medieval sources indicate presence of Vlachs in areas south of the Danube.

Not that many. In fact, there was no reference until 976. There a few older that could be considered, but all of them are arguable. Bogdan | Talk 19:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Romanian grammar kept some Latin features (case system, neuter gender, etc) that cannot be found in any other Romance language (opponents claim that these may have been kept due to the Dacian or Slavonic grammar influence over the language).

Certain northern Iberian dialects (specifically Bable, AKA Asturian, if memory serves) have in fact retained neuter constructions into modern times, though to the best of my knowledge it is correct to say there are no other modern literary languages of Romance origin (to discount recent efforts to revive Bable) that share this feature. Vorlon 00:53 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Teutonic tribes

*There are no traces of Teutonic influence in Romanian and we know that in the 5th and 6th century Dacia was inhabited by Teutonic tribes

what teutonic tribes inhabited Dacia in 5th and 6th centuries ?

Goths and Gepids. Boraczek 08:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, it seems that all the Visigoths evacuated Dacia after 377 (the late FOURTH century) after getting the permission of Valens to enter Roman territory. This applies only to Visigoths, as far as I know. Other germanics moved in later. This is important because these various germanic groups that moved in were not at all stable or continous in Dacia, & it takes a degree of stability & continuity to affect the language of one's neighbors. (Decius)

The Gepide kingdom in parts of Pannonia & Dacia was crushed in 567 by a collaboration of Avars & Longobards. The Longobards, though they temporarily settled in Pannonia (not Dacia), realized that they didn't want to live adjacent to Avars, so a year later in april of 568,the Longobards left Pannonia & headed towards Italy. As for the Avars, who seem to have been Turkic speakers, they settled mostly in Dacia. So, the Gepides also were in Dacia for only about a century.(Decius)

"There are no traces of Teutonic influence in Romanian"--this statement needs to be scrutinized. Are there no Old Germanic words in Romanian? A second look needs to be taken. Romanian etymology needs to be revised. I see many words that may in fact be derived from Old Germanic but have not been identified. Also, many words identified as "Slavic" may in fact be Old Germanic or native Dacian. For example, the Romanian word 'Sticla' (glass)is said to derive from Slavic, but scholarship shows that the Slavs borrowed the word from Goths. It is a question whether Romanians got Sticla via Slavs or direct from Goths. Another strong possibility is that the word 'Sticla' is a native Dacian word. This is just one example. Decius

Actually there a few words that entered some time in the language (probably 4-5th century) and have Slavic cognates -- AFAIK, they're still considered an enigma. It would be interesting to see whether there are any Gothic cognate. I should mention "stăpân" (master), "jupân" (sir), "vorbă" (talk). Bogdan | Talk 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Being close is not a proof in linguistics, it also has to match phonetically the sound changes. Since all these were indo-european languages, they're supposed to have cognates. For example, this word can also be found in Slavic: "dvorĭba". Was it from Latin or Slavic ? Bogdan | Talk 10:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would venture that if a Dacian text fell into our hands, we'd see a language that was closer to the Italic languages than to the Slavic languages. Romanian vorba could be from Dacian. Decius

Romanians

What many proponents of "complete" Dacian and Roman evacuation don't seem to realize is that invading tribes generally did not penetrate the mountains of Romania. Dacians & Romans could have easily established themselves in mountain communities, at least temporarily. Yet I see no need to restrict Dacians and Daco-Romans to 'mountain communities', because the invading hordes weren't as pervasive in Dacia as is presumed. Decius

If we had isolated mountain communities, then, we would have a plethora of Romanian dialects, as each local community would develop its own local variation of Vulgur Latin. Bogdan | Talk

That would be less of a problem if the 'mountain communities' (I didn't say 'isolated') were actually temporary retreats into fortress communities, communities linked with groups at lower elevations and ground level. It is absurd to beleive that all Dacians, especially the free Dacians of Moldova, would have joined the Roman colonists when many of them evacuated. And even if some Dacians or many Romans did remove themselves south of the Danube, they did not go to "Africa" or some distant land, they just went next door----literally. There probably was much or at least some cross-filtration: most likely many of the evacuees went back north, a few miles. As for the common words with Albanian, consider these factors: proto-Albanians lived adjacent to Dacians and Thracians. So some common words date from that period. Other common words originate from Albanian contact with certain Vlach tribes that lived south of the Danube. Not all Daco-Romanians lived south of the Danube by any means. Other common words are due to pan-Balkan affinities. Decius

There are two types of words common with Albanian:

• the words borrowed from Latin, the same Latin dialect that was then developed into Romanian. See cabbalus -> cal (Rom), kal (Alb); etc
• the words inherited directly from IE. These comply to the sound laws of Albanian and there's no way they were borrowed from a Vlach language. Bogdan | Talk 09:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's also possible that Albanians originally lived north of the Danube in or adjacent to Dacia. They could have picked up Daco-Roman words while they lived in or near Dacia.

That is not impossible. See: Origin of Albanians

It's very possible that many of the common words were taken by proto-Albanians directly from the Dacians by the ancestors of the Albanians in ancient times. Other words, of course, are indigenous to Albanian and were picked up by Dacians. Due to the Balkan language mix, it's hard to tell.

That is unlikely. Many of these words are purely Albanian. They follow the sound changes from the PIE to Albanian. (of course, you could argue that Dacian *is* the ancestor of Albanian) Bogdan | Talk 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Dacians were not restricted to Dacia,& there is much evidence (particularly in ancient personal names)of Dacian penetration not only into Moesia---but into Illyria.

In Western Moesia (now Serbia), yes.

So if the ancestors of Albanians were in Moesia or near Illyria in ancient times, they would most likely have picked up Dacian (& Thracian) words. The Albanian cognates are not good evidence for 'the Romanians migrated from the south' theory. They can be easily explained by other scenarios equally possible or even more possible. Another point: there is enough difference between Daco-Romanian & Macedo- & Megleno-Romanian to argue for quite a seperation in space & time.

Linguists have a pretty clear image on the separation: around 8th-9th century, before the Romanians and Slavs had close contacts.

The precise dynamics of this seperation needs to be investigated further, however possible. Some argue that the old presence of Vlachs in Macedonia & Greece & Albania somehow supports the idea that all Romanians originate from south of the Danube. This is not the case.

One interesting fact: the only toponym that follows closely the Romanian language sound-changes is not North of Danube, but South: "Săruna" (Thessaloniki). So, I wouldn't discard this theory completely.

The fact that the first documented mention (By Byzantines) of Vlachs is of Vlachs south of the Danube also proves nothing in itself. You would expect Byzantines to be more concerned with the southern Vlachs that were within their domains than with distant Dacia. There are several possible explanations for these southern Vlachs: here are two: they migrated from Dacia in the north; or, they represent a branch of Romanians who developed south of the Danube in Thrace, Macedon, & Moesia,while Daco-Romanians developed in Dacia.(Decius)

Macedo/Meglo-Romanian originated from the same place as Daco-Romanian. There's no doubt that until 8th-9th century, they were one and same language. Bogdan | Talk 09:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that some of the Romanian/Albanian cognates are due to the fact that both languages are Indo-European and both are Balkan. Yet most may be borrowings from Vlachs or Daco-Thracians.

These words of both language are clearly ancient. Some even suggest that they're different enough to be inherited from two separate dialects of Dacian/proto-Albanian.

There are those who use these lexical interactions to support their theory that all Romanians once lived south of the Danube adjacent to early Albanians. I was showing how this reasoning is shaky at best, because there are so many unknowns & so many variables & alternative scenarios. There is also more direct evidence against the 'complete evacuation of Dacia theory',some of which has already been mentioned.

As for my comment about Daco-Roman mountain communities, I didn't say 'isolated' mountain communities; in fact, I didn't even say that the retirement into mountainous elevations was necessarily a long or continuous 'retirement'. It may have been intermittent, as circumstances made necessary. In other words, flexible, & connected to settlements or groups living at lower elevations. I brought up this old idea (yet not properly examined idea) because it can explain the absence of germanic loan words, if that really needs such explaining. Another thing: many Daco-Romans, even before the (partial) evacuation,were living south of the Danube, in Moesia/Dacia Nova/Dardania/Illyria and other regions. Important point: many (not all)Daco-Romans were in Moesia when the emperor Valens in 377 allowed the Visigothic tribes to cross the Danube (fleeing the coming huns) & settle in Moesia. So,the 'mighty' Goths evacuated (all the Goths? I think so. They had no long-standing ties to the area) Dacia by 377 & resettled again in Vlach-populated lands south of the Danube.They weren't in Dacia for a very long period---about a century. And how many were there to begin with, in Dacia? How did they interact with the Daco-Roman population that they may well have come upon still in Dacia? Is it even necessary to posit Daco-Roman mountain communities to explain the absence of teutonic words?

The absence or scarcity of Teutonic words in modern Romanian proves nothing really.It is doubly intriguing that 'there are no Teutonic words' in Romanian seeing as how the Visigoths settled in the Vlach-populated provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire for a time. Yet, ARE there No Teutonic words? I see some likely candidates.

Many linguists searched for them, but as far as I know, there did not find any.

It needs to be looked into carefully. It may be the case that despite their belligerence, the Goths were not a strong influence linguistically upon early Romanians, whom they may well have encountered in Dacia & who they definitely encountered south of the Danube.(Decius)

Of course. Just as we don't have any Cuman, Avar or Pecheneg words, although they ruled lands inhabited by Romanians. Bogdan | Talk 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Opponents

I replaced "opponents" with "some opponents". Is it all right now? Boraczek 12:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's alright now. Decius

Language & genetics

I've seen some people try to prove the origin of various Balkan ethnic groups (many of which are defined by language) via genetic methods. Decius 04:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Linguistics has little to do with genetics: one can learn a language and pass it to his children regardless of the ethnic/racial/genetic background: Romanians (mostly from Transylvania), Serbians and Albanian are genetically close, but you can't tell from this where the Romanians and Albanians originated. Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dacian & Albanian

If you're interested in the Dacian component of Romanian and connections with Albanian, you may want to read the archive at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balkanika/ Bogdan | Talk 18:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering when the Dacian language disappeared, and so on, but not much progress has been made in this field. I've seen estimates such as the 5th or 6th century AD. Also wondering how it was engulfed so readiliy. Decius

One explanation would be the "Romanianization" (instead of Romanization) of Dacians. The Vlach Latins expanded their teritory to include the former Dacian lands, this happening in the Dark Ages. So, the famous foundings of Wallachia and Moldova ('descălecare') are not just legends. Bogdan | Talk 10:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dacian Satem?

From what I remember, there aren't that many examples that show that Dacian was a satem language, unless I've missed those examples. Maybe Dacian was neither Satem or Centum in the classical sense. Some languages such as Hittite are neither Centum or Satem. Decius

Exactly. It's because:

1. a centum language may have satem influence and a satem language may have centum influence;
2. some languages split before or after the sound changes from centum to satem.

BTW, Romanian "suta" is believed to be derived from an ancient Satem language (most likely Dacian), not from Latin (if it were Latin, it would look like this: "cint"). (and it's very unlikely to be from Slavic). Bogdan | Talk 09:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thracian glossary

Look at these Thracian words: http://www.geocities.com/indoeurop/project/glossary/thra.html Bogdan | Talk

I know about that list, compiled by Cyril Babaeev I think, and based largely on Ivan Duridanov and Vladimir Georgiev's work. Some might say that just the fact that "so many" Satem examples exist indicates that Thracian was Satem in the traditional sense, but most of those examples may well be erroneous, & what remains has alternative explanations. That glossary takes too many speculations as certainties. Decius

That's the main glossary I've been referring to also. That's the glossary I'm referring to when I say most are speculative & a nice number are erroneous. Many of the items on that glossary come down to us through the interpretations & speculations of the Bulgarian researchers I've already mentioned. I recommend once again Olteanu's site. Decius

Strategicon

• It would be interesting to know what they teach children in Hungary about this. Is the migration theory the only thing they learn?
• I don't think the etymological arguments can lead anywhere. You can prove anything with that kind of stuff. Even DNA wouldn't prove much.

DNA says that most people living in Europe have their genes older than the Indo-European migration. Bogdan | Talk 21:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The Dacians spoke many dialects of a primitive language. The Romans were techically superior and it is easy to understand how they adopted that language so easily, and why they had no reason to borrow from the Teutons

There is no such things as 'primitive' and 'advanced'. Some tribes in Africa might have some languages that are much more complex than English in some aspects. Bogdan | Talk 21:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• There were Romanians living in Bulgaria. They became assimilated by the superior Slavic civilisation. There were migrations over the frozen Danube, but there was nothing huge and organized that would include a complete migration of culture; Romanians aren't like that, Hungarians are. Romanians couldn't even organize a feudal state.

AFAIK, the Slavic people were not superior technologically when they reached the Balkans, but they were in a rather large number, since the Balkans were pretty sparsely populated at the time. In fact, that was one of the reasons of lack of feudal states. Bogdan | Talk 21:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The whole debate is pretty absurd; even if, by absurd, the Hungarians could prove that Romanians are Eskimos, this still wouldn't give them any right over Transylvania

• Us Romanians don't have much proof for our theory, but the Hungarians don't have any coherent theory. The Hungarian point of view fails with regard to Occam's Razor; their ideas are both incoherent and complicated. All these theories are based on an undocumented double migration; the Romanian theory has zero migrations in it.

• In my Romanian History high school manual it says that the original proponent of the Romanian theory was one collector of Roman inscriptions called Szamoskozy Istvan; after Mihai Viteazul invaded Transylvania, he changed his theory; so did many other Transylvanian scholars after surges of Romanian nationalism.

"Superior Slavic civilization"? Oh brother. You are misinformed bigtime. I could fill an encyclopedia set with examples to the contrary. Here are some quotations from the Strategikon of Emperor Maurice(reigned 582-602), speaking of the Slavs of his time: "They live among nearly impenetrable forests, rivers, lakes, and marshes..."---in other words, they were relegated to the barbaric fringes, not civic areas. "They live like bandits and love to carry out attacks against their enemies in densely wooded, narrow, and steep places." "Their experience in crossing rivers surpasses that of other men, and they are extremely good at spending a lot of time in the water. Often enough, when they are in their own country and are caught by surprise in a tight spot, they dive to the bottom of a body of water. There they take long hollow reeds they have prepared for such a situation and hold them in their mouths, the reeds extending to the surface of the water. Lying on their backs on the bottom they breathe through them and hold out for many hours without anyone suspecting where they are." These are features not of a civic people, but of people who knew how to live in Wild areas, like Native Americans did. More from the Strategikon:"Owing to their lack of government and their ill feeling toward one another, they are not acquainted with the order of battle." "They use wooden bows with short arrows smeared with a poisonous drug which is very effective." "They are also not prepared to fight a battle standing in close order,or to present themselves on open and level ground. If they do get up enough courage when the time comes to attack,they shout all together and move forward a short distance. If their opponents begin to give way at the noise, they attack violently; if not, they themselves turn around, not being anxious to experience the strength of the enemy at close range. They then run for the woods, where they have a great advantage because of their skill in fighting in such cramped quarters." Yes, how civilized they were. You just revealed your ignorance by your statement that slavs had a superior civilation: compare these wilderness-inhabiting Slavs with the city-living Dacians who truly had a long-standing civilization. It took the Romans long & bloody battles over centuries to finally conquer part of Dacia. Here is a quote from Procopius, speaking again of the Slavs:"They live in pitiful hovels which they set up far apart from one another, but, as a general thing, every man is constanly changing his place of abode." Yet I guess you magyars consider this wilderness way of life "superior". Decius

It's revealing that Maurice emphasizes the amphibious aspects of the Slavs. Consider this quote from The Balkans, a book in the Time-Life Library written by Edmund Stillman and the editors of Life, speaking of the derivation of the term 'Slav': "Still another suggestion sometimes offered is that the word derives from a river or swampy area known as Slava or Slova. The Slavic peoples did, in fact, originally come from the marshy regions of the upper Vistula valley area." Swamp people. Not exactly civilizers, by any means. Decius

To make the arguments in here more ordered, it would help if each debater added his name or pseudonym at the end of each entry. I don't want my comments confused with anybody else. Decius

The hungarian theory that Romanians originate from south of the Danube is not convincing, and I'd rather debate something else. That's why I'm mostly concerned with the Dacian Latin theory vrs the Romanization theory. But if you want to battle, we can battle. Eat some goulash and get ready. Try to write coherent sentences. Decius

Which Hungarian theory ? That the Romanians are from south of Danube ? Bogdan | Talk 14:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me be exact: there is no single coherent hungarian theory. Just reveiwing 6 such websites, I came back with 6 different versions. So you guys got work to do. When you come up with anything scientific, I'll send you a box of cigarettes. Decius

In Hungarian schools, both versions are being taught, although the bottom line is that Daco-Roman continuity is probably incorrect, and the south-of-the Danube theory is probably true. But the whole thing is no big deal for most Hungarians, I guess it is more important for Romanians as it pertains to the origins of their nation. And I also believe Hungarians scholars (I don't speak about amateur enthousiasts on the internet, who are not a reliable source on theory) don't want to claim any right to Transylvania, they are just interested in historical truth. And let us remember that the theory of Daco-Roman continuity as a tool for territorial claims was first used by Romanian nationalists wanting to unite Transylvania with the Old Kingdom, that's how the whole issue got politicised in the first place.--Tamas 15:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The bottom line is: the Hungarian speculation that Romanians migrated from south of the Danube is not in anyway supported by any solid evidence, and is in fact a very unlikely scenario. And Hungarians need not concern themselves with Transylvania: that is Romanian land, and always will be. Decius

Recent addition by Decius

Toponyms and personal names seem to suggest that Dacian belonged to another branch of the Indo-European language tree (satem, while Latin was centum). Yet in recent years linguists have begun to question the supposed satem nature of Dacian and Thracian, and some linguists and thracologists consider Dacian and Thracian to have been in fact Centum languages with some satem features.

I'm sorry, but I think a report on the discussion about the satem or centum character of the Dacian language does not belong in this article and in the section dedicated to arguments against the Latin-relative theory. I think we should present the arguments as briefly and clearly as possible. And I think the first sentence and the fact that we mention the Latin-relative theory makes it clear enough that there is no consensus about the satem character of the Dacian language. Hence I'm moving the higlighted part to the article about the Dacian language. Boraczek 17:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine I guess. The article as it was before was almost misleading. Anyway, thanks for transferring it at least. Decius 08:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reality Check

Earlier, I was comparing Romanian words to Dacian and Thracian words, and such comparisons are of course natural, given the fact that the 11th century Strategikon states that Romanians/Vlachs are descended from the Dacians and from the Bessi (a Thracian people), and given the fact that it is generally admitted that the Romanian language contains substratum Dacian-Thracian words. The person I was debating with (Bogdan) then posted a link to "a Thracian glossary" of words that somehow were intended to throw the idea that the Dacians spoke a Latin-related language into doubt, implying that the "words" in the glossary somehow make it unlikely that the Dacian and Thracian languages were close to Latin. Well, here is good news for some, bad news for others: there are only 21 core Thracian words of definite meaning cited in ancient texts, and many of their etymologies "cannot be explained". Most of the "Thracian words" in the previous "Thracian glossary" that was posted are conjectures, speculations, hypothetical "words" (actually elements extracted from names and toponyms) with hypothetical meanings. Here is a link to the core 21 Thracian words: [http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/thrac/thrac_3.html

As you can see, given the sparse data that we have to work with, it would be silly to deny the possibilty that the Dacian and Thracian languages may have been Centum with some satem features, and related perhaps to Latin. Decius 04:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Others would say it would be silly to state that the Dacian and Thracian languages may have been Latin-related languages: actually, there is nothing silly in that statement. Those 21 Thracian words don't make a good case against the Latin theory. Decius 07:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You`re right.I think is the only explanations which make sense in logical terms.Not to mention, probalby that guy who wrote Strategikon know much more then we know today.

Out of the 21, a couple words suggest some satem features. Wow. Decius 07:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Satem toponyms"

The same geniuses who can't tell whether the spoken Albanian language is Satem or Centum think they can tell whether Dacian (an unknown language) was Centum or satem from some toponyms of uncertain meaning, and some names of uncertain meaning, that represent much less than 1% of the Dacian language. Yeah, sure they can tell. Decius 21:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you don't believe the interpretations of the toponyms, let's look at the gods. "Zamolxis" was the Dacian god of Earth, right ? Guess what, the Slavic god of Earth was called "Zemlia". "Nebeleizis" was the Dacian god of Sky. Another coincidence, the Slavs called him "Nebo"! Bogdan | Talk 22:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zamolxis is only one spelling: the other spelling is Zalmoxis. Nebeleizis is only one spelling, it's more often spelled Gebeleizis. <These are the older spellings, from what I remember, as given in Herodotus. And yes, the main thing I disagree with is the interpretation of the toponyms and the personal names---those are pure speculations. I also disagree with these particular interpretations of these divine names, though these are at least seemingly sensible---on the surface. Decius 02:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zalmoxis is more likely to be the correct spelling, because we also find the Dacian personal name Zalmodegikos. Decius 04:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zalmoxis has been interpreted by many scholars as being the Supreme Sky god of the Dacians, and He was connected to the earth only in his function as a God of the dead: just as in ancient Greek religion there was Zeus Ouranios (of the sky) and Zeus Chthonios (of the underworld). Zemlia is a Slavic goddess of the Earth: [3]. The apparent similarity is a coincidence, due to a misspelling. Decius 04:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, in ancient sources, Zalmoxis is often identified with Gebelaizis/Nebelaizis as another name or epithet of the same god: a sky god of thunder and lightning, and also of the dead. Decius 04:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So guess what: both of those "satem examples" are meaningless coincidences. Decius 06:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slavic hydronyms in Transylvania

Many names of places and rivers in Transylvania, if not the most, can be traced back to Slavic origins. The most obvious examples is offered by the names of some major rivers, such as Bistrita, Târnava, Cerna and some minor ones like Bistra. Now, it is very interesting the fact that in the case of Târnava, the Hungarian correspondent is Kukulo, which is in fact the translation of the slavic name (meaning the whirling river i think). The Germans (or Saxons) who were settled in the aria of this river in the 12th century, name it Kokel, which is clearly borrowed from Hungarian. In fact the dialect spoken by the Saxon settlers, unlike the Hungarian language, has no direct Slavic borrowings and no slav settlements are mentioned in any documents concerning Transylvania from 11th century onwards, which strongly suggests that the Slavs had already been assimilated/dissapered when the Germans arrived. How is then possible that the Romanians, who is alleged to have arrived only from the 13th century onwards, have preserved the Slavic name? Furthermore, the Romanian pronounciation of Târnava is exactly the same as the Slovakian Trnava (city in Slovakia). The same is true for Bistrita (pronounced exactly the same as Bystrika, from Banska Bystrika - region in Slovakia). The Hungarian and Germans correspondent are Beszterce and Bistritz, respectively. Even more interesting is the fact that on the superior valley of river Bistrita, the local Romanians still call the river with the Repedea (from the common noun of Latin origin "repede", which means the same as Bistrita in Slavic, i.e. Rapid, Fast).

there is this romanian word 'bistrit' with unknown origin; and there are these two ancient Dacian toponyms Tsierna/Dierna (river Cerna), and 'Birzava' (the famous 'inde Berzobim, de inde Aizi processimus' quote of Trajan). note that in Bulgarian language 'birzo' means "quick, fast" and in Russian language 'biistra' means "quick,fast".

the capital of the empire of the Asen brothers in 1185 had its capital at Turnovo in what is today Bulgaria. interestingly the romanian word 'turn' comes from german 'tura' -- Criztu 07:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

keeping titles of lands conquered

Recent anonymous addition:

(It should be noted, however, that the emperors often kept titles of lands conquered by predecessors but no longer actually held, a habit continued by kings until modern ages.)

This is not the case here. It is a well-established fact that the Romans fought countless battles against the Dacians (who were allied with Goths) after the Aurelian retreat.

Maybe we should include this piece of information in the original article. It makes the whole issue of the title Maximus Dacicus irrelevant: if we know about Romans fighting Dacians after the retreat, that's a solid piece of information and we do not need to make conjectures based on imperial titles.--Tamas 20:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum

About the Gesta Hungarorum: Vlach meant Romanian, not probably Romanian. It is very clear stated: "Blachi ac pastores Romanorum". Also, the Magyars settled first in Pannonia, then advanced toward Transylvania by conquering the local Romanian and Slavic states. Bogdan | Talk 15:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some historians argue that the writer of GH was notorious for extrapolating present conditions into the past. So the fact he talks about Vlachs would only prove that there were Vlachs in the territory by the time of the writing of the chronicle.

Also, talking about Slavic and Romanian 'states' in Transylvania in the 9-10th century AD seems a bit of an exaggeration to me.--Tamas 20:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong about the word "state" ? From how they were described, they had all qualifications needed in order to be a state:

the Montevideo Convention from 1933, whose article 1 states: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. (from state)

Bogdan | Talk 22:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

I brought this up before, I'm going to bring it up again. "According to Roman sources the population of Dacia was evacuated south of the Danube." I suggest that everyone interested in the debate tracks down each and every Roman source and each and every Roman sentence, cite them in the reference section of the article, and provide a link to the quote in Latin, if possible. Decius 08:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to Eutropius, the Romans (not "all Romans", and not "the Dacians" and not the "Romanized Dacians", who though linguistically Romanized may not have cared to declare Roman citizenship) in the cities (=urbibus) and lands (or 'cultivated lands'; the Latin word used is agris) of Dacia were resettled in Moesia, south of the Danube. There is no mention that the entire population of Dacia was evacuated, Roman or not. Decius 08:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Romanians / Vlachs

The Romanians (sometimes referred to as Vlachs in historical contexts)

Actually, even nowadays, the Daco-Romanian speakers of Eastern Serbia are commonly referred by Serbs as "Vlachs", so it's not just in historical contexts. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was until 29 May, Bogdan. Since the French and Dutch referenda the entire project of EU enlargement has been thrown into disarray. Don't expect to join in either 2007 or 2008. As for our assimilation, I would dispute the notion that we are assimilating to a "foreign" culture, as you with your AK-47 have admitted you are in the US of A. The Greek-speaking world has been familiar to us during our entire existence, and we have helped mould that world by contributing powerfully to the creation of a modern Greek state. Moreover, there are many historical examples of minorities assimilating to the majority culture while retaining inordinate influence in their country's affairs. The Jews in America, for instance. We are Greece's Jews. User:Theathenae

Good Lord, the fact that you ended your diatribe by proclaiming "We are Greece's Jews" proves my point. Decius 03:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Genetics

I do not see any assimilation here in Greece going on.The Aromanians are the same as the other Greeks genetically.

Not "the same". Genetically related yes, but cannot be "the same".

Actually, genetically, there are several groups in the Balkans:

1. Inland Greeks, Vlachs, Bulgarians and Wallachians

2. Transylvanians, Serbians/Croatians, Albanians

3. Mediteraneans -- on the coast and islands (Greeks, Italians, even some Turks)

As you see, they match more geographical regions than ethnic borders.

Why is this? Because Europeans lived in Europe before the arrival of Indo-Europeans and their languages! There was a study that showed that more than 80% of the genes of the Europeans are of pre-Indo-European origin. The genetical differences match the pre-Indo-Europeans' ethnic borders and not today's ethnic borders.

So that's why using genetics in Balkan ethnology is wrong.bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Greco-Roman culture was always our culture.In fact Rome was culturally always a Greek city.It is said by Horatius.

If that information is correct that Albanians and Transylvanians are in the same genetic group, to me that indicates that Albanians may be from Transylvania, as some scholars have written (rather than vice versa). Interesting. I would expect "Illyrian descendants" to fall in the Mediterranean group, with coastal Greeks and Italians (yeah, some Illyrians were also in Serbia, but Illyrian focus was further south). Decius 17:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. Genetics again. Why can't Vlachs be genetically "the same" as Greeks?

Simply because any isolated population will grow its own distinctive genetical features. All the genetical differences you see today in the human species (or even the differentiation between any kind of species, animals or plants) are due to the isolation of groups. So, even if by reductio ad absurdum they were originally a Romanized Greek group, in the time since they started using Latin, they had to develop those features. And from what I know about Vlachs, until recently, they were isolated from the Greeks: they have few, if any ancient Greek words; their traditions encourages marriage within the same ethnicity; in the 12th century, Benjamin of Tudela said that they even killed the Greeks which entered their lands. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 19:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geneticists have discovered that the variation within groups is much wider than it is between them.--Theathenae 18:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's true, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking here. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 19:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a superficial similarity between the province name Moesia and Romanian words (1) moş, (2) moşie meaning (1) elder, uncle, father, grandfather, and (2) homeland, family property. - you'll have to prove that if you want sentence to stay:

1.Moesia existed since long before 46 AD and the moesians were related/in contact with the dacians, so this word can very easily be from those times, so how does this relates to a post roman migration, especialy when we know that Moesia was replaced by Dacia in 275 which lasted until at least 600 ?

2.Do you have any other example of a roman province name at the origin of a word designating "homeland, family property" ?

3.Did any scholar related Moesia to romanian word Mosie ? -- Criztu 22:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moesia vs Mosie

There is a superficial similarity between the province name Moesia and Romanian words (1) moş, (2) moşie meaning (1) elder, uncle, father, grandfather, and (2) homeland, family property. - you'll have to prove that if you want sentence to stay:

1.Moesia existed since long before 46 AD and the moesians were related/in contact with the dacians, so this word can very easily be from those times, so you have to prove the word Mosie couldn't have entered the languages spoken north of Danube before a post roman migration from south

2.Do you have any other example of a roman province name at the origin of a word designating "homeland, family property" ?

3.Did any scholar related Moesia to romanian word Mosie ?

4.Did any author presented this "similarity" betwen Moesia and Mosie as an argument for a Migration from South ?

5.are you aware that http://dexonline.ro gives 'Mos' as "confer albanian Moshe = age" ?

6.why not the name of the province/people to be from a thraco-daco-moeso-getae word Mosie/Mos ? -- Criztu 22:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point 6 above should work equally well, Criztu. The fact that Romanian still preserves the meaning homeland, home property attached to the word moşie could prompt to the argument that moşie-derived Moesia was in fact homeland to at least some Romanian-speaking people; the Romanian language must have not been necessarily confined to the space North of Danube. This, in the assumption that Romans named the province Moesia by the name it ran with the local, Thracian/Dacian inabitants.--192.94.73.3 00:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

there was this Getae movement from south of Danube (Moesia) to north of Danube (Dacia) somwhere during 300 BC, could these Moes > Mos and Moesia > Mosie date from that "migration from South" ? -- Criztu 14:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and i can tell you the meaning of Mosie is not "homeland (home country, country of origin)" but "land inherited from the elders (Moshi), land of the elders(pamant stramosesc)", not "family property", but "property inherited from the elders" -- Criztu 15:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and there's the word "Moasha" (birth assisting experienced woman), according to your POV this word should come from "Moesa" = "a female inhabitant of Moesia" :) -- Criztu 15:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was added by an anonymous with no reference. It was also a bad argument, so I erased it on sight. Decius 22:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A common characteristic of Central Indo-European languages is the drift of voiceless consonants into voiced ones. (e.g.: s > sh; d > z) A Central Indo-European-speaking people would change Southern-pronounced Moesia into Moshia, and Moes (i.e., the inhabitant of Moesia) into Mosh. Other than that, my using a non-registered edit does not necessarily discredit my edits.--192.94.73.3 22:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you mean say thousand years from now the word "america" and "american" might evolve into "homeland, family property" and "elder, uncle, grandfather" ? :) -- Criztu 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No credible reference means you can't include it. Even supposing they are cognate, it is a weak argument because Daci lived also in Moesia, and Moesi and Daci probably spoke closely-related languages or dialects. Decius 22:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criztu, the meaning of "Moşie" (homeland) is derived from "Moş" (elder), not the reverse. And AFAIK, suffix "-ie" is of Latin origin. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 10:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so there was a people Moesi, from which the name Moesia came. The romanian word Mos (confer albanian Moshe) comes from "Moes" (inhabitant of Moesia), or from a thraco-daco-moeso-getae word (say Moxis) meaning "age/ancient/pimordial/ancestor" ? -- Criztu 13:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and then there are the Motii (motzii) in Maramures in Tzara Oashului. There are speculations that Motz comes from Moes. -- Criztu 13:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Criztu. These two remarks of yours are in line with the Migration from South theory. I am not saying that all Romanians did in fact migrate from Moesia at a specific moment in history. This connection between Moesia and moshie (and as you say, motz) can, and will, be used as an argument in favor of the migration theory. One should not burry ones head in the sand at the prospect of such theories, (and therefore erase them on sight) but rather one should consider that several historical events must have contributed to the formation of such a numerous nation.--192.94.73.3 19:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i guess this is the point where BogdanGiusca intervenes and tells you that Wikipedia doesn't allow original research :) -- Criztu 19:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It will be erased on sight unless you have current scholarly references for it. Decius 19:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criztu once tried to argue that Romanians might be descents from Arabs because of the Basarab name. Watch out for him!

--Anittas June 29, 2005 07:40 (UTC)

As much as I usually get along with Criztu, I have to admit that he is strangely preoccupied and attracted to various eastern peoples (turkic groups, hunnic, semitic, iranic, etc.). Sometimes I wonder why, but everybody has their own "thing" I guess. Decius 29 June 2005 07:48 (UTC)

user:Anittas is simply an Internet troll, he is flaming me for a couple of months now. to have a troll on your back would be the price that anybody in search of new grounds has to pay i guess. -- Criztu 29 June 2005 11:03 (UTC)

-- Criztu, have you lost all sense of time chronology? I've been flaming you for years. But I don't tell lies.

So anyway, I see that you've decided to be a Messagetae. What happened to the other 10,000 tribes you used to claim? --Anittas June 29, 2005 13:22 (UTC)

Historically or sometimes referred to as Vlachs?

Both are correct to an extent, but I have the impression that the Serbs and Hungarians only use the term in an old-fashioned folkish sense, much like the Turks use the term Rumlar or even gavurlar ('infidels') for the Greeks. "Vlach" is not an official language of Vojvodina; Rumanian is.

The same thing was in Romanian, where Turks were named "păgâni" (pagans), but this hasn't been commonly used for a couple of centuries. Unlike that, in official Serbian statistics, the Romanians living in Timok valley are still called "Vlachs" (Власи/Vlasi). Actually, the Romanians living in Vojvodina (speaking the Bănăţeană variant of standard Romanian) are officially "Romanians", while the Romanians living in Serbia proper (speaking the Oltenească variant of standard Romanian) are called Vlachs. If you don't believe that, see the official statistics at the Serbian government site: Власи/Vlasi (0,53%), Румуни/Rumuni (0,46%) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 10:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Besides, the Vlachs article itself says that "since the creation of the Romanian state, the term has mostly been used for those living south of the Danube river".--Theathenae 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would wait for people who currently live in the area to weigh in on this:User:Bogdangiusca, User:Criztu, etc. Decius 08:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i go for "historicaly" meaning "in the past", cuz today romanians are "contemporarily" refered to officialy as romanians in neighbouring countries. at least the hungarians and bulgarians refer to romanians as 'romanok' and 'rumuntzi' respectively. romanians don't call the polaks as "leshi" anymore, but "polonezi"-- Criztu

I guess the Serbian Власи/Vlasi are a special case, as they do in fact live south of the Danube. But they live in regions contiguous to Rumania and are clearly ethnically Rumanian, not Vlach in the Aromanian or Meglenitic sense. The Slavic "buffer zone" between the Rumanians and Aromanians is discussed at Origin of Romanians#Migration from South. The Serbian Власи/Vlasi clearly fall on the Rumanian side of the divide.--Theathenae 12:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

which maintains that vs thus in 2nd § 2nd sent

I personally would prefer which maintains that. And it's quite irrelevant here whether I am Hungarian or not. Frankly, it's quite annoying that some Wikipedians continue to see this whole problem in terms of a nationalistic debate between "Hungarians" and "Romanians". Come on, we are supposed to be the smart guys who have already moved on and left the old-style nationalistic quarreling behind us. :) --Tamas 22:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also hope that the new generations of Romanians and Hungarians will learn to appreciate each other more, rather than slander one another. Decius 22:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A more complex romanization process

It's often ignored that north-Danube's population had a long contact along Danube with post-271 Romans.

There is absolutely no proof of that. From what we know, after 271, there was no linguistic contact between the Romanians and the Western Romance languages. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

i understand mother of i forget which post 271 roman emperor was from Romula from Dacia Trajana. so at least in this respect there was continuous contact, people circulated on both sides of Danube after 271 -- Criztu 16:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Roman Empire, then the Eastern Roman Empire, and then the Byzantine Empire maintained this border continously until the 7th century

The Eastern Roman Empire was Greek-speaking, so they had nothing to do with the Romanization.bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

(the Avaro-Slavic and then the Bulgar invasion) and they created it again after ending the First Bulgarian Empire (but perhaps this one is a bit too late for our discussion's focus). Emperors like Constantine the Great or Justinian built or rebuilt fortifications north of the river, in the supposed non-Roman territory (was a common method for Romans to protect their borders, their limes with fortification on both sides of the border). Between 4th and 6th century there were permanent troops in those fortifications. They will mostly fall (or become deserted) during the late part of 6th century and the first part of the 7th. So as for the romanization centers north of Danube, beside the already mentioned Transylvania and Oltenia, there's Scythia Minor

Although it was for a longer time under Roman rule, Schythia Minor only small parts were Romanized and eventually the Latin-speakers were completely assimilated by the larger Dacians/Getae population, then by the Slavs, Turks (Pechenegs, Tatars, Cumans) and other migrating peoples, who were eventually assimilated by Romanian population coming from Wallachia and Moldova. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

and a strip, not very well defined, which means southern Wallachia and southern Moldavia. The duration and the intensity of the process, of course, varied, but it's a much more promising map for the Daco-Romanian theory, and especially for the romanization of Dacians. Daizus

From what I know, southern Moldavia was never under Roman rule. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

from the maps ive seen on the net, there was a fortified wall in southern Moldova built by the romans -- Criztu 15:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, no doubt. I've been trying to determine how Romanized Scythia Minor was in the period when proto-Romanian would have formed. People seem to forget about Scythia Minor and those other regions. Decius 07:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Schythia Minor probably had the most complex history of all of today's Romania. Maybe I'll try to write more on history of Dobruja next week. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As long as there were Roman fortifications north of Danube why do you say there was not a linguistic contact? Because, please note I'm not talking about Western Romance, but about Romans in Balkans, hence Eastern.

As for the Hellenization of Eastern Roman Empire - it was a becoming process. In Eastern Roman Empire during Constantine the Great, or even after the break from 395 AD, Latin was widely spoken and it was the official language for a significant time. Historians speak of a Greek Empire since Justinian's era, but mostly after Heraclius. For the time questioned (3rd-6th centuries), it is reasonable to assume that Latin was a spoken language in Balkans.

Scythia Minor was under Roman rule after 271 and some cities belonged to Byzantines until late 7th century. A lot of evidences (like mixed Daco-Latin anthroponyms) and circumstances (like a flourishing urban life) needed for the Romanization theory come from here.

And also please note I haven't claimed a Roman rule in southern Moldavia, but a Roman influence (Romanization), specifically some circumstances for a proto-Romanian language to be forming in most of the territories it's encountered today. Daizus

Hungarian juridic words

Neagu Djuvara has an interesting argument that the place of origin of the Romanians is in Transylvania, based on the fact that Romanian language has an unusual amount of juridic words borrowed from Hungarian, including:

• a făgădui (to promise)
• a tăgădui (to deny)
• a se răfui (to settle a deal)
• a bănui (to presume)
• a îngădui (to allow)
• a chibzui (to judge a situation, to reflect)
• a mântui (to redeem; to save)

These words can be found in all subdialects of Romanian. Supposing the Hungarians' claim that the Romanians came to Transylvania only in the 12th/13th century, it means that the Transylvanian Romanians had very little time to assimilate the words, then spread them on all their territories. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Another interesting argument from Djuvara

(in Romanian)

Marele nostru arheolog Vasile Pârvan a descoperit două documente din veacul al IV-lea, în care un „rege" al goţilor de prin părţile noastre, la nord de Dunăre, îşi zice „Jude" — or, acesta nu era un titlu onorific pe care să i-l fi putut conferi împăratul de la Constantinopol (cum ar fi patriciu, despot sau cezar), era doar numele pe care localnicii daco-romani îl dădeau căpeteniilor lor administrative peste o grupare de sate sau peste o vale, judecători şi administratori (termen ce se va păstra până târziu, cum vom vedea), înseamnă că acest rege barbar domnea la nord de Dunăre peste populaţii de limbă latină şi a vrut să-şi zică cum numeau supuşii lui localnici pe şefii lor.

---

I removed the last argument against migration as it is not relevant. No-one claims that there were no Dacians after evacuation in 271. Yeti 22:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was added by User:Criztu some months ago and it was allowed to slide by. Removal of that one was better. ---Masterful Killer 22:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for no romanisation process

I`ve read all the arguments around here, i propose to all members interested in romanian history to join this discussion.Firstly, Occam`s Razor says that the most simple explanation tends to be the correct one, in this case the most simple one that dacians indeed spoke a language similar to latin.Why i am saying this ?Just think at medieval romanian.Lets suppose whe have no doccuments written in medieval romanian (like whe have almost no one in dacian), only a couple of names.Seeing names such as Vladislav, Vlaicu, Vladimir, or anything like that, anybody could simply suppose that medieval romanian was a satem slavic language (oh, and i forgot the word "suta" ), which we know it is not the case (fortunately, whe have plenty of documents in medieval romanian, so there is no place for such abberations).So, lets came back to dacian.What if whith the dacian was a similar situation, a centum language, which because of its geographicall placement, got many satem charactheristics ?Whe now that Scythians and later Sarmatians exercited an important influence over Dacia.There are already lingvists claiming that the Dacian language was in original a Centum language which later developed Satem charachters.

It is higly unlikely that any roman colonist whith any logical thinking, would have remained in Dacia after 271.That merchants and missionaryes from the Roman Empire came, that is a different story.The only people having an interest to remain, where the local dacians.

The Thracians where not "romanised".A part of them, living in the south, where at some time asimilated by greeks, but most of them remained as a people.They where still a living populatian during the time of Justinian,in the VI century, and remained until the slavic invasion dominant in what is modern Bulgaria.Then, they retreated into the mountains and later emerged as the Vlachs.If the thracians where not romanised and the result of them where the Vlachs/southern romanians, thus no romanisation for the dacians was necesary in order to form the romanian people.QUAD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM.

It is an attractive scenario, and I will not be silly and say that it is "impossible". I used to investigate a version of the theory (that Daco-Thracian was very similar to the Italic languages and that not much, but some, Romanization took place), but I abandoned this because of 1) lack of evidence; 2) what evidence there is suggests something else. However, the case is not closed. ---Decius 14:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyway,something did happened overhere in the V and VI century :).The romanisation you speak of ,was probably due to christianisation in latin language (which whe now it is for sure), if the theory i exposed above (and i personally believe) it is right.I tried to look in books after arheological discoveries in Romania dating from that period, but only settlement of migrating people where found.Recently, i have learnt of the existence near Brasov of some sort of fortress in the mountains (not a large one, and made out of unpolished stones) which COULD date back from that period.Again presumptions, nothing sure, unfortunately.The evidence of what language the dacians spoke, it is probably somewhere forgotten in the libraries of Vatican, where the poetry of Ovidius was partially lost, but no romanian scientist ever wondered to look after those scrolls...Someone shoudl really search for them, and also for the work of Dion Christostomos.These two if found, could resolve all these disputes.

One important question:there are Vlach comunities in Slovakia, and southern Poland, where they where mentioned in the early middle ages.We now these areas where inhabitted by the dacians.Are these Vlachs emigrants from the south, or are they indigenous to those areas ?

This is a debateable subject. The Vlach communities in Poland probably emigrated there in later times. ---Decius 20:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

So called 'Great Migrations of Vlachs' along Carpatian Mauntains to Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland are very, very well documented. They had place between 14th and 16th centuries. Settlement of Vlachs in uninhabited mountains was promoted by local landowners and was regulated by so called Valachian Law (Prawo Wołoskie in Polish). In fact there were joined migrations of Vlachs and Slavic tribes and the Vlachs has been slavized during migrations.Yeti 00:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Places of refuge for Daco-Romanians in the Dark Ages, during the migrations

There where mountainous regions in Romania which even up to the XIX century where very hardly accesible.These regions contain today populations which are either by traditions, by some small language difference or by looks, different from the romanians living in nearby.On of these regions is the one in Poiana Ruscai mountains, named "Tinutul Padurenilor".Etnographs today consider the "padureni" as coming directly from the dacians.They use agriculture in terrases, they have plenty of decorative elements in theyr pottery and dressing common (if not identicall) whith those the dacians used.Not to mention the fact, that they have in vocabulary the word "a vulnera" for "a lovi" ,one of the many latin "arhaisms" in romanian language,which is a more than clear evidence for theyr continuous presence overhere.Another of this isolated place, is in the mountainous areas of the Buzau country, more exclusively in the Ivanetu mountains.There is an entire ancient monastic complex built in small caves, named "Agathon", which dates back probably as farr beyond as III - IV century AD, whith evidence of continous settlement until the XVIII century.

---

I would like to propose to remove the first argument against migration theory. In fact it is not argument against. At the time of proposed migration the territoty of present day Romania have been populated mainly by Slavonic people speaking language akin to Old Bulgarian/Macedonian/Old Church Slavonic. According to Migration Theory the migrating Vlachs could peacefully settle amongst the Slavs and recognize the authoriy of local Slavonic rulers and then assimilate the local slavonic population. It perfectly explains influence of South Slavinic on Romanian. This is also supported by the fact that the first known rulers of Vallachia have obviously Slavonic names.Yeti 01:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

To Decius: the argument removed by you perfectly supports migration theory. According to linguists the Vlach dialects split after 700-800 AD. It means, after Slavonic colonisation of Balkans, inluding present day Romania. I beg your pardon but I let myself to restore it.Yeti 01:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but a counter-argument will be placed after it. Decius 01:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Linguistic evidence for continuity

I have added the following argument for the continuity theory: Linguistic evidence: the subdialect spoken in the mountainous and upland regions of western Transylvania preservs some very old words of latin origin such as "pedestru" (from latin "pedester"), "nea" (from "nix, niva"), "june" (from "juvenis") which are absent from the subdialects of the southern Romania where they may have old slavic borrowings equivalents. This supports the continuity of latin speaking in the upland regions as opposed to the migration from the south. [11]

I do not agree with the later edit:

(However opponents can argue that it is only an evidence that migrants from South of Danube who settled in sparsely populated mountains have been less influenced by Slavonic population than those who settled in more accessible areas).

This can meen only two things: 1) a strange segregation of the romanian imigrants into more Latin-speaking individuals who settled in the mountains and more slavic-influenced ones which stay in the lowlands, or, more probably 2) a migration of the romanians into a slavic speaking land, but relatively uninhabited in the mountains. In the worst case, this still means that the romanians arrived there when the slavic populations were still strong in numbers, i.e. before the arrival of the Hungarians.

I added some more linguistic arguments from [11] which suggest that the ancient dialectal variation existed in the Latin spoken in Transylvania vs the southern regions was preserved in the modern Romanian.

• Lets make it clear: this is Wikipedia, not a place of fight between Hungarians and Romanians. I am neither Romanian nor Hungarian and I am not interested in your fight who-was-first-in-Transylvania.

• Indeed this is Wikipedia, where people fight like on internet forums. And theories are created and developed online. If it was Encyclopaedia Britannica, the matter would have been settled for quite a while. There is only one theory there.

Secondly: Your last "evidence" you have included in the article is not an evidence at all. The examples given by you can be explained in many different ways, I have given one.

• As I explain below this is a valid argument. It is documented. You have not given an explanation. It is a dialectal variation in the Latin stratum of the language and has nothing to do with slavic influence

1) a strange segregation of the romanian imigrants into more Latin-speaking individuals who settled in the mountains and more slavic-influenced ones which stay in the lowlands, or, more probably

Mountainous populations are often isolated. It is not strange. It is obvious. As an extremal example you have small population of migrating Goths who settled in the mountains of Crimea. The Vlach population settled and isolated in mountains has been less influenced by local Slavonic population and less influenced by official Orthodox Church. What do you expect as an effect?

• I understood your point. This is the case of situation 2) I was also hoping that you understand that situation 1) covers the hypothesis that the romanians arrived in the 12th century and after (is not this what the official migration theory says? or it seems to me that you are developing here on your own another migration theory - see also below about academic and less academic theories) In any case, the Romanians arriving after 12th century, obviously there are no Slavs left in Transylvania; whatever slavic influences in the language, etc they have, they bring these with them from the south. In this case the segregation i mentioned looks strange.

2) a migration of the romanians into a slavic speaking land, but relatively uninhabited in the mountains. In the worst case, this still means that the romanians arrived there when the slavic populations were still strong in numbers, i.e. before the arrival of the Hungarians.  

And? As I told I am not interested in your fight who-was-first.

I don't think this is not relavant. This is not my fight, but the essence of the whole topic. This is the very reason for the existence of more than one theory. The "migration theory" is a theory perfected by the Hungarian historians. Do you have references of an academic and detailed formulation of the "migration theory" other than a hungarian one, or one which is not crucially related with the "who was first in Transylavania" issue? I do not mean "website" or "discussion forum" theories, or mere hypotheses put forward by recognised scientists, but on few pages only - far from being developed into an extensive theory. I mean a theory supported by many, extensive and recognised, i.e. peer-reviewed publications (unlike "beer-garden" publications which try to propagate the "Dacian language = Latin" theory; by the way, could we put an argument against the "Dacian language theory" saying that no contemporary academic, peer-reviewd publication supports it?). Besides, the introduction of the article clearly states that "19th century's Hungarian historians largely supported the migration theory, which maintained that Transylvania was not inhabited by Romanians at the time of the Magyar arrival in central Europe during the 10th century." Even if you are not interested in this, the argument is at least setting some limits on the time interval of the migration form the south.

"Official" migration theory? I see the point. You still argue against politically motivated theories of Hungarian historians from the beginning of 20th century. C'mon... The world moved forvard from that time. I do not know any serious historian who argue that Vlachs could not reach Transilvania before 12th century. I will find references later.

In fact, according to migration theory, Vlach collonization of present day Romania was not an "invasion". The "collonization" could last for 200-300 years. Groups of Vlachs who possibly recognized authority of Bulgarian khans and tsars, and local Slavonic and Cuman rulers could escape wars that devastated present day Bulgaria and Serbia and settle on plains and mountains in Vallachia and than migrate northwards, to Transilvania and Moldavia. As indicate available linguistic and historical evidcence it could happen between 700 and 1100 AD. As I told this process was gradual and some areas could be collonized earlier and other later. I do not know, mayby Transylvania - to some degree - has been colonized by Vlachs before 896 AD. This process did not stop at the point and in the 13th century Vlachs reached present day Ukraine, in 14th Poland and some migrants reached Bohemia in 16th century.

Anyway, in your last edit you manifested you opinion as a fact. As I told your argument is very easy to repell and do not contradict migration theory at all. I let myself to move your last edit to discussion:

There are also some remarkable dialectal variations in the language spoken in Transylvania vs. the southern regions, which correspond to north/south variations in the Vulgar Latin known also in other parts of the Roman Empire, such as "rarunchi"/"rinichi" (from latin "renunculus"/"reniculus", i.e "kidney"). These are much easier to explain by the continuity of vulgar dialects latin north of the Carpathians than by a migration from the south where the variations were not present.

• If there was an argument which contradicts absolutely the migration theory, then this would have been long since dead. The linguistic arguments are not absolute proofs, just arguments. Is not my opinion, I have given references. The ancient dialectal variations are a fact, and they are easier explained by continuity than by migration. The main point here it is not what archaic linguistic feature was lost through slavisation, but rather that there is some archaic diversity/variation in the latin stratum of the language. Some elements of these variation such as "renunculus"/"reniculus" are especially difficult to explain in the migration theory context. Is not that "renunculus" was lost in the south; is rather that, from the best of actual knowledge of the Vulgar Latin, the term was not used south of the Danube, from the very begining. These two words come the same Latin root "ren", and they are diminutives formed in two different ways, using two different grammar rules. This might be still wrong (i.e. maybe renunculus was in use also in the south), but even if the even if the variation existed at some point back in time in south, this would imply complicated migration patterns to the north, in orde to bring one variant in Transylvania only, and the other in the rest of the country only. This is more of an Occam's razor argument. Another interesting thing mentioned in [11] is that these dialectal variations are not very numerous, but they have such deep roots that one wonders how they did not evolve into two completely separated dialects in modern Romanian. This is explained in [11] by continuous movement of the population and a possible migration from the south after the Slavic invasion of the Balkan peninsula. I come then to my final point:

• In my opinion the continuity theory does not necessary have to contradict migration form the south. It only contradicts the "official migration theory" put forward by the Hungarian historians, which excluded any continuity on political premises. It is very possible to have both continuity and migration. What the arguments are supporting is the continuity of the romanised population in the uplands, not the absence of the migration. Maybe we should make this thing clear somewhere in the article, that the two theories do not entirely contradict each other. At the moment we only have the first link which is suggesting something similar.

As i told it do not contradict the Migration theory. It only indicates that after migration particular the Vlach poulation were to different degree influenced and some kept some archaic fetures that disapeared in other areas. Yeti 09:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• As I said the archaic dialectal variation in the Latin stratum has nothing to do with slavic influences

• What if remove then your "counter-argument" from the article? It seems to me a personal comment, not an argument. Besides you are supporting there your own "variant" of the migration theory. Arguments should not be personal - the article is not a discussion forum. They should be extracted from reviews of the academicaly accepted theories only. And what is the point of having separate "argument for" and "arguments against" sections if after each argument an counter-argument is placed. Is the article a place where we present/describe established scientific theories or a place where new theories are born?

The word 'rinichi' is used in all Romanian dialects. I don't know of any other word for 'rinichi'. --Anittas 09:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, how can I help then your knowledge? Maybe in Sweden they speak less Romanian :))) Well... moving to serious talk... i am sure you know that Romanian literary language is based on a southern subdialect, where only "rinichi" exists. "Rarunchi" has now become a regionalism ; by school education and mass-media "rinichi" is now well-spread in all regions. "Rarunchi" is still used in many proverbs and popular sayings north of the Carpatians. http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=rarunchi&source= http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/Zafiu/37.htm

"Termenii perechii sinonimice rinichi – rărunchi au o îndepărtată origine comună, pentru că provin din latina populară, din două diminutive (renunculus, reniculus) formate de la acelaşi cuvânt de bază, ren. Repartiţia dialectală a sinonimelor a fost înregistrată de ALR I (1938): rinichi era termenul curent în Muntenia şi în Dobrogea (Puşcariu 1976 presupunea de aceea că ar fi venit din sud), în vreme ce rărunchi era folosit în tot restul teritoriului românesc. Oricum, rinichi e forma care s-a impus în limba literară, în vreme ce rărunchi a rămas un cuvânt învechit şi popular – care apare în unele dintre cele mai vechi texte româneşti şi care a dezvoltat o frazeologie destul de bogată (a fi cu seu la rărunchi „a fi om înstărit“; a prinde seu la rărunchi „a se îmbogăţi“; a i se rupe rărunchii de milă „a-i fi foarte milă“ etc.). De fapt, cuvântul are şi un înţeles mai larg, dar nu foarte depărtat de cel primar: „adâncul trupului omenesc considerat ca centru al forţei, al sensibilităţii etc. “ (DLR, Tomul IX, Litera R, 1975). Acest sens apare cu claritate în construcţiile care exprimă intensitatea, forţa unei stări sau a unei acţiuni fiziologice: din rărunchi, până-n rărunchi, până în fundul rărunchilor. În citatele din DLR, sintagmele cu sens intensiv determină verbe ca a se bucura, a se opinti, a geme, a suspina, a ofta, a se cutremura („am suspinat din rărunchi“ – G. Galaction; „să se cutremure până-n rărunchi“ – E. Camilar) etc. Acestea sunt de fapt contextele în care cuvântul circulă şi azi (în afara vorbirii regionale) în registrul colocvial şi în presă; discursul public oferă exemple precum „strigând din rărunchi“ (textele unui cenaclu, în Internet), „ideea salvatoare a lui Ninel este să urle din rărunchi“ (arhiva Internet RLit 1998); „o ţară care se pretinde tolerantă şi creştin–ortodoxă până în rărunchi“ (arhivă VL); „sindicalişti sau peremişti care cer din rărunchi demisia guvernului“ (arhivă AC 1997) ş.a. "

1. Unfortunatelly, it is only your opinion that these variations could be better explained by continuation theory. According to me it could be very well explained by migration theory. Whose opinion is better? If we have got migration of separate small population from different regions south of Danube, small variations in their language are unavoidable even if they speak the same language. Sorry, but I do not undersand why continuation is to explain it better.

2. According to linguists (Romanian as well) Romanian and Arumanian dialects derive from the same proto-Romanian language that split around 700-800 AD. Do you imagine that isolated population from Carpathian mountains and Romanized population of Moesia could speak the same language after 400 years (Roman evacuation of Dacia had place about 270 AD)? We know that untill 600 AD territories South of Danube (Moesia and "Dacia Nova") have been populated by permanent urban and rural Romance speaking population. It was invasion of Slavs and Avars in the time of Emperor Focas (around 600 AD) that destroyed Roman civilisation in this area. It perfectly match with liguistic data we have. Vlachs seems to be surviving descendants of this population. It explains everything and match with historical and linguistic data we have. You are talking about Occam's razor. So you have got an opportunity to use it. Yeti 18:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• I am also sorry that you don't want to understand. This is not "only my opinion". Even the academic critics of the theory do not argue on the logic of this fact; what they argue is that the number of words/differences in question is not very large. As for the logic, is the following: as you agree in in (2.), isolated populations living in separated areas, as upland regions in Transylvania vs. South, develop differences in their language. This is more natural than assuming that the differences come from a homogenous area, i.e. the S of Danube (there is no need to say that those imperial provinces, urbanised and with the people very much interacting each other were a bunch of small populations with dialectal differences in 600AD). And there is no need also to explain why the words in question are not encountered any more in the south. This much about Occam's razor.
• I am still waiting for your academic, non-hungarian treatis on the migration theory...Meantime, as I see that many are still passionate about this topic, I might bring some detaild archaelogical evidence...which is recognised in the international circles; this is the main reason why Britannica has only one theory. And in the most foreign academic environements, the situation is similar.

---

Torna, torna fratre

A let myself to remove this fragment:

During the campaigns of Justinian against the Avars, one of the local guides presumably said in the local language "torna, torna fratre", which are considered a clear evidence of the presence of Romanic people north of Danube.Howewer, there is still debate upon this.

It seems not to be correct. This guy seems to be a muleteer from south. If you do not agree, a proof, please.Yeti 10:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A "muleteer" from the south ? Improbable. Avars where dwelling at that time to the NORTH of the Danube,so when the bizantynes attacked them, they would have needed a guide who know well those places.When an army takes a guide, it takes it in order to be of use.A simple vlach shepherd (as it is suggested by you) from the south, would hardly now anything about the geography of what is north of Danube.

In 579 there was a campaign in present day Serbia, South of Danube. The Bizantians moved their campaigns into Awar territory after 589 AD. Yeti 16:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)