Talk:List of reconstructed Dacian words

Caveats to reconstruction of Dacian/Thracian words

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

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

I am concerned about the validity of these points:

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

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

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

2. On the question of Balkan indigenous languages (Thracian and/or Dacian) in Greek and Latin transcriptions see [1] [2] [3] [4]

3. Solta and Fischer have in mind the phonetic systems reconstructed by Georgiev: [5]

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

In this matter Daizus pointed very well. I thinh everyone agrees that, when it can not be established exact sound laws, etymology and reconstruction is not possible. As far as I know, Duridanov also made the following statements ......in earlier times – probably in the III-th millennium BC, and before the realisation of the aforementioned sound shifts, – the Thracian language formed a close group with the Baltic (resp. Balto-Slavic), the Dacian and the "Pelasgian" languages..... More distant were its relations with the other Indo-European languages, and especially with Greek, the Italic and Celtic languages, which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities with Thracian; (The Language of the Thracians, Ivan Duridanov)

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

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

Coming across this discussion now, I see that both sides of this debate raised some good points, and it looks to me that both sides made mistakes. I'll join this discussion some more later, for now in answer to User:EraNavigator, yes Vladimir Georgiev proposed a sound-system for Pelasgian, which, he was arguing, was a poorly documented IE language, which I guess he imagined was close to Thracian, see for now this link, which leads to other links so you can locate the publications from Georgiev [6].

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

I am reminding Daizus and Era Navigator and Boldwin that Albanian and Baltic have many close cognates, and I will link a work by Vladimir Orel to show you guys some of them. They include such important words as Albanian zorrë (Early Albanian zorna, -rna was rhotacized into -rra in this and many other Albanian words) and Lithuanian zarna both meaning "gut" and both deriving by way of satemization from PIE *gher-, "gut" (see Vladmir Orel's work here [7] for that cognate and search through that work for many others). I'm saying that Dacian was not too far from Albanian or Baltic. Which branch was it closer to, that is a question. 76.208.173.82 (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

References

original research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Always provide an edit summary

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

Any chance for adding these Albanian cognates?

From Vladimir Orel's Albanian Etymological Dictionary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decebalvs per Scorilo

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

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