Editing Dacian language (section)

== Linguistic classification ==
Dacian was an [[Indo-European language]] (IE). Russu (1967, 1969 and 1970) suggested that its phonological system, and therefore that of its presumed Thraco-Dacian parent-language, was relatively close to the primitive IE system.{{sfn|Vraciu|1974|p=283}}

While there is general agreement among scholars that Dacian was an [[Indo-European language]], there are divergent opinions about its place within the IE family:
* Dacian and the extinct [[Thracian language]] were members of a single [[dialect continuum]]; e.g., {{harvp|Baldi|1983}} and {{harvp|Trask|2000}}.
* Dacian was a language distinct from Thracian but closely related to it, belonging to the same branch of the Indo-European family (a "[[Thraco-Dacian]]", or "Daco-Thracian" branch has been theorised by some linguists).{{sfn|Edwards|Gadd|Hammond|1971|p=[https://archive.org/details/cambridgeancient1971edwa/page/840 840]}}
* Dacian, Thracian, the [[Baltic languages]] (Duridanov also adds [[Pelasgian]]) formed a distinct branch of Indo-European, e.g., Schall (1974), Duridanov (1976), Radulescu (1987) and Mayer (1996).<ref name="Schall H. 1974">Schall H., Sudbalten und Daker. Vater der Lettoslawen. In:Primus congressus studiorum thracicorum. Thracia II. Serdicae, 1974, S. 304, 308, 310</ref><ref>[http://www.kroraina.com/thrac_lang/thrac_9.html The Language of the Thracians, Ivan Duridanov, 2.9 Thracian and Illyrian]</ref>{{sfn|Rădulescu|1987}}{{sfn|Mayer|1996}}
* Daco-[[Moesi]]an was the ancestor of [[Albanian language|Albanian]], belonging to a branch other than Thracian, but closely related to Thracian and distinct from [[Illyrian language|Illyrian]]. Proposed by [[Vladimir I. Georgiev|Georgiev]] (1977),{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|pp=132, 183, 192, 204, 282}} this view has not gained wide acceptance among scholars and is rejected by most linguists, who consider that Albanian belongs to the [[Illyrian language|Illyrian]] branch of IE,{{sfn|Lloshi|1999|p=283}} either as a direct descendant or as a sister language.<ref>{{harvnb|Friedman|2020|p=388}}; {{harvnb|Friedman|2022}}.</ref>

Several linguists classify Dacian as a ''[[satem]]'' IE language: Russu,{{sfn|Polomé|1982|p=878}} Rădulescu,{{sfn|Rădulescu|1987|p=243}} Katičić and Križman.{{sfn|Katičić|Križman|1976|p=150}} In Crossland's opinion (1982), both Thracian and Dacian feature one of the main satem characteristics, the change of Indo-European *'''k''' and *'''g''' to '''s''' and '''z'''. But the other characteristic satem changes are doubtful in Thracian and are not evidenced in Dacian.{{sfn|Crossland|1982|p=848}} In any case, the satem/centum distinction, once regarded as a fundamental division between IE languages, is no longer considered as important in [[historical linguistics]] by mainstream scholars.{{sfn|Renfrew|1990|p=190}} It is now recognised that it is only one of many [[isogloss]]es in the IE zone; that languages can exhibit both types at the same time, and that these may change over time within a particular language.{{sfn|Renfrew|1990|p=190}} There is much controversy about the place of Dacian in the IE evolutionary tree. According to a dated view, Dacian derived from a Daco-Thraco-Phrygian (or "Paleo-Balkan") branch of IE. Today, [[Phrygian language|Phrygian]] is no longer widely seen as linked in this way to Dacian and Thracian.{{sfn|Polomé|1982|p=888}}

In contrast, the hypothesis of a Thraco-Dacian or Daco-Thracian branch of IE, indicating a close link between the Thracian and Dacian languages, has numerous adherents, including Russu 1967,{{sfn|Rădulescu|1987|p=243}} [[Georg Solta]] 1980,{{sfn|Rosetti|1982|p=5}} Vraciu 1980,{{efn|{{harvnb|Rădulescu|1984|p=85}}: "Russu's conviction about the existence of a 'Thraco-Dacian Language', shared by Crossland and by Vraciu (1980) and the reservations expressed by Polomé and Katicic (see above) are thus fully justified"}} Crossland 1982,{{efn|{{harvnb|Crossland|1982|p=838}}: "V. I. Georgiev (1977) has claimed in addition that names from the Dacian and Mysian areas approximately Roman Dacia and Moesia) show different and generally less extensive changes in Indo-European consonants and vowels than do those found in Thrace itself. The evidence seems to indicate divergence of a 'Thraco-Dacian' language into northern and southern groups of dialects, not so different as to rank as separate languages, with the development of special tendencies in word formation and of certain secondary phonetic features in each group"}} Rădulescu 1984,{{efn|{{harvnb|Rădulescu|1984|p=85}}: "Georgiev had the merit to state that Daco-Moesian possesses a certain degree of dialectal individuality, but the data presented here clearly label as wrong any theory which claims a more profound separation between Daco-Moesian and Thracian proper, even if Daco-Moesian proves to be more closely related to Illyrian than to Thracian or, as it seems more likely to be the case, if we will eventually have to conclude that we deal with three different dialects of the same language"}} 1987.{{efn|{{harvnb|Rădulescu|1987|p=243}}: "Russu defended two important theses: 1) the close relationship between Daco-Moesian and Thracian (the title of his book is The language of the Thraco- Dacians), and 2) the nonexistence of a "consonantal shift" in Thracian, contrasting it with Daco-Mysian, firmly supporting the position that, in both dialects, the IE *MA and M merged into M and the *T remained unmodified"}} Mihailov (2008) and Trask 2000.{{efn|{{harvnb|Trask|2000|p=343}}: "...Thracian An extinct and poorly known Indo-European language of ancient Bulgaria and Romania. Its slightly distinct northern variety is sometimes distinguished as Dacian, in which case the label Daco-Thracian is applied to the whole complex ..."}} The Daco-Thracian theory is ultimately based on the testimony of several Greco-Roman authors: most notably the Roman imperial-era historian and geographer Strabo, who states that the Dacians, [[Getae]], Moesians and Thracians all spoke the same language.{{sfn|Strabo|loc=VII.3.2, 3.13}} [[Herodotus]] states that "the Getae are the bravest and the most just amongst the Thracians", linking the Getae with the Thracians.{{sfn|Mihailov|2008|p=598}} Some scholars also see support for a close link between the Thracian and Dacian languages in the works of [[Cassius Dio]], [[Trogus Pompeius]], [[Appian]] and [[Pliny the Elder]].{{sfn|Bolovan|Constantiniu|Michelson|Pop|1997|p=10}}

But the Daco-Thracian theory has been challenged since the 1960s by the Bulgarian linguist [[Vladimir I. Georgiev]] and his followers. Georgiev argues, on phonetic, lexical and toponymic grounds, that Thracian, Dacian and Phrygian were completely different languages, each a separate branch of IE, and that no Daco-Thraco-Phrygian or Daco-Thracian branches of IE ever existed.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=282}} Georgiev argues that the distance between Dacian and Thracian was approximately the same as that between the [[Armenian language|Armenian]] and [[Persian language|Persian]] languages,{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=298}} which are completely different languages. In elaborating the phonology of Dacian, Georgiev uses plant-names attested to in Dioscorides and Pseudo-Apuleius, ascertaining their literal meanings, and hence their etymology, using the Greek translations provided by those authors. The phonology of Dacian produced in this way is very different from that of Thracian; the vowel change IE *o > *a recurs and the k-sounds undergo the changes characteristic of the satem languages. For the phonology of Thracian, Georgiev uses the principle that an intelligible placename in a modern language is likely to be a translation of an ancient name.{{sfn|Poultney|1968|p=338}}

Georgiev (1977) also argues that the modern Albanian language is descended from Dacian, specifically from what he called Daco-Moesian or Daco-Mysian, the Moesian dialect of Dacian,{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=283}} but this view has not gained wide acceptance among scholars and is rejected by most linguists, who consider that Albanian belongs to the [[Illyrian language|Illyrian]] branch of IE.{{sfn|Lloshi|1999|p=283}} Polomé accepts the view that Albanian is descended from Illyrian but considers the evidence inconclusive.{{sfn|Polomé|1982|p=888}}

=== Relationship with ancient languages ===

==== Thracian ====
{{See also|Thraco-Dacian||Thracian language|Classification of Thracian}}

There is general agreement among scholars that Dacian and Thracian were Indo-European languages; however, widely divergent views exist about their relationship:
# Dacian was a northern dialect or a slightly distinct variety of the Thracian language.{{sfn|Mihailov|2008|p=598}}{{sfn|Trask|2000|p=343}}{{sfn|McHenry|1993|p=645}} Alternatively, Thracian was a southern dialect of Dacian which developed relatively late. Linguists use the term Daco-Thracian or Thraco-Dacian to denote this presumed Dacian and Thracian common language.{{sfn|Trask|2000|p=343}} On this view, these dialects may have possessed a high degree of mutual intelligibility.
# Dacian and Thracian were distinct but related languages, descended from a hypothetical [[Daco-Thracian]] branch of Indo-European. One suggestion is that the Dacian differentiation from Thracian may have taken place after 1500&nbsp;BC.{{sfn|Shashi|1992|p=107}}{{sfn|''Academic American encyclopedia''|1994|p=198}} In this scenario, the two languages may have possessed only limited mutual intelligibility.
# Dacian and Thracian were related, constituting separate branches of IE.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=282}} However, they shared a large number of words, which were mutual borrowings due to long-term geographical proximity.{{sfn|Duridanov|1969|p=100}} Nevertheless, they would not have been mutually intelligible.

Georgiev (1977) and Duridanov (1985) argue that the phonetic development from proto-Indo-European of the two languages was clearly divergent.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Divergent sound-changes in Paleo-Balkan languages according to Georgiev (1977){{sfn|Georgiev|1977|pp=63, 128, 282}}
! Proto-Indo-European !! Dacian !! Thracian !! Phrygian
|-
|*o
|a
|a
|o
|-
|*e
|{{Not a typo|ie}}
|e
|e
|-
|*ew
|e
|eu
|eu
|-
|*aw
|a
|au
|
|-
|*r̥, *l̥
|ri
|ur (or), ur (ol)
|al
|-
|*n̥, *m̥
|a
|un
|an
|-
|*b, *d, *g
|b, d, g
|p, t, k
|p, t, k
|-
|*p, *t, *k
|p, t, k
|ph, th, kh
|ph, th, kh
|-
|*s
|s
|s
|∅
|-
|*sw
|s
|s
|w
|-
|*sr
|str
|str
|br
|}
'''Note''': Asterisk indicates reconstructed PIE sound. ∅ is a zero symbol (no sound, when the sound has been dropped).

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Divergent sound-changes in Dacian and Thracian according to Duridanov (1985){{sfn|Duridanov|1985|loc=ch. VIII}}
! Indo-European !! Dacian !! Thracian
|-
|*b, *d, *g
|b, d, g
|p, t, k
|-
|*p, *t, *k
|p, t, k
|ph, th, kh
|-
|*ē
|ä (a)
|ē
|-
|*e (after consonant)
|{{Not a typo|ie}}
|e
|-
|*ai
|a
|ai
|-
|*ei
|e
|ei
|-
|*dt (*tt)
|s
|st
|}

Georgiev and Duridanov argue that the phonetic divergences above prove that the Dacian and Thracian (and Phrygian, per Georgiev) languages could not have descended from the same branch of Indo-European, but must have constituted separate, stand-alone branches.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=282}}{{sfn|Duridanov|1985|p={{Page needed|date=October 2021}}}} However, the validity of this conclusion has been challenged due to a fundamental weakness in the source-material for sound-change reconstruction. Since the ancient Balkan languages never developed their own alphabets, ancient Balkan linguistic elements (mainly placenames and personal names) are known only through their Greek or Latin transcripts.{{sfn|Fisher|2003|p=570}}{{sfn|Polomé|1982|p=885}} These may not accurately reproduce the indigenous sounds, e.g., Greek and Latin had no dedicated graphic signs for phonemes such as č, ġ, ž, š and others. Thus, if a Thracian or Dacian word contained such a phoneme, a Greek or Latin transcript would not represent it accurately.{{sfn|Paliga|1986|p=120}} Because of this, there are divergent and even contradictory assumptions for the phonological structure and development of the Dacian and Thracian languages.{{sfn|Polomé|1982|pp=878, 879}} This can be seen from the different sound-changes proposed by Georgiev and Duridanov, reproduced above, even though these scholars agree that Thracian and Dacian were different languages. Also, some sound-changes proposed by Georgiev have been disputed, e.g., that IE '''*T''' (tenuis) became Thracian '''TA''' (tenuis aspiratae), and '''*M''' (mediae) = '''T''': it has been argued that in both languages IE '''*MA''' (mediae aspiratae) fused into '''M''' and that '''*T''' remained unchanged.{{sfn|Rădulescu|1987|p=243}} Georgiev's claim that IE '''*o''' mutated into '''a''' in Thracian, has been disputed by Russu.{{sfn|Rădulescu|1984|p=78}}

A comparison of Georgiev's and Duridanov's reconstructed words with the same meaning in the two languages shows that, although they shared some words, many words were different.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|pp=280, 285, 298}} However, even if such reconstructions are accepted as valid, an insufficient quantity of words have been reconstructed in each language to establish that they were unrelated.{{Citation needed|date=April 2012}}

According to Georgiev (1977), Dacian placenames and personal names are completely different from their Thracian counterparts.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=298}} However, Tomaschek (1883) and Mateescu (1923) argue that some common elements exist in Dacian and Thracian placenames and personal names,{{sfn|Tomaschek|1883|p=402}}{{sfn|Rosetti|1978|p=220}} but Polomé considered that research had, by 1982, confirmed Georgiev's claim of a clear onomastic divide between Thrace and Moesia/Dacia.{{sfn|Polomé|1982|p=876}}

Georgiev highlighted a striking divergence between placename-suffixes in Dacia/Moesia and Thrace: Daco-Moesian placenames generally carry the suffix ''-dava'' (variants: ''-daba'', ''-deva''), meaning "town" or "stronghold". But placenames in Thrace proper, i.e. south of the [[Balkan mountains]] commonly end in ''-para'' or ''-pera'', meaning "village" or "settlement"{{sfn|Polomé|1982|p=872}} (cf [[Sanskrit]] ''pura'' = "town", from which derives [[Hindi]] town-suffix ''-pur'', e.g., [[Udaipur]] = "city of Udai").{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=191|loc=(map)}}{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=279}}{{sfn|Bynon|1974|pp=271–273}} [http://www.kroraina.com/thrac_lang/thrac_8.html Map showing -dava/-para divide] Georgiev argues that such toponymic divergence renders the notion that Thracian and Dacian were the same language implausible. However, this thesis has been challenged on a number of grounds:
# Papazoglu (1978) and [[Margarita Tacheva|Tacheva]] (1997) reject the argument that such different placename-suffixes imply different languages{{sfn|Papazoglu|1978|p=79}}{{sfn|Tacheva|1997|p=200}} (although, in general [[historical linguistics]], changes in placename-suffixes are regarded as potentially strong evidence of changes in prevalent language). A possible objection is that, in 2 regions of Thrace, ''-para'' is not the standard suffix: in NE Thrace, placenames commonly end in ''-bria'' ("town"), while in SE Thrace, ''-diza''/''-dizos'' ("stronghold") is the most common ending.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=191|loc=(map)}} Following Georgiev's logic, this would indicate that these regions spoke a language different from Thracian. It is possible that this was the case: NE Thrace, for example, was a region of intensive Celtic settlement{{sfn|Twist|2001|p=69}} and may, therefore, have retained Celtic speech into Roman imperial times. If, on the other hand, the different endings were due simply to Thracian regional dialectal variations, the same could be true of the dava/para divide.
# Papazoglu (1978) and Fisher (2003) point out that two ''-dava'' placenames are found in Thrace proper, in contravention of Georgiev's placename divide: ''Pulpudeva'' and ''Desudaba''.{{sfn|Fisher|2003|p=570}}{{efn|{{harvnb|Papazoglu|1978|p=79}}: "... To explain the appearance of Desudaba and Pulpudeva on Thracian territory we must suppose that word dava was understandable to the Thracians although they used it infrequently. It is quite common thing in the same linguistic area to find that one type of place-name appears more frequently, or even exclusively in one district, another in another..."}} However, according to Georgiev (1977), east of a line formed by the Nestos and Uskur rivers, the traditional western boundary of Thrace proper, ''Pulpudeva'' is the only known ''-dava''-type placename,{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=191}} and Georgiev argues that it is not linguistically significant, as it was an extraneous and late foundation by the Macedonian king [[Philip II of Macedon|Philip II]] (''[[Plovdiv|Philippopolis]]'') and its ''-dava'' name a Moesian import.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=279}}
# The dava/para divide appears to break down West of the Nestos-Uskur line, where ''-dava'' placenames, including ''Desudaba'', are intermingled with ''-para'' names.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=191}} However, this does not necessarily invalidate Georgiev's thesis, as this region was the border-zone between the Roman provinces of [[Moesia Superior]] and [[Thracia]] and the mixed placename suffixes may reflect a mixed Thracian/Moesian population.

Georgiev's thesis has by no means achieved general acceptance: the Thraco-Dacian theory retains substantial support among linguists. Crossland (1982) considers that the divergence of a presumed original Thraco-Dacian language into northern and southern groups of dialects is not so significant as to rank them as separate languages.{{sfn|Crossland|1982|p=838}} According to [[Georg Solta]] (1982), there is no significant difference between Dacian and Thracian.{{sfn|Fisher|2003|p=570}}{{efn|{{harvnb|Rosetti|1982|p=5}}: "{{lang|fr|Solta montre qu'il n'y a pas de difference entre le thrace et le dace}}"}} Rădulescu (1984) accepts that Daco-Moesian possesses a certain degree of dialectal individuality, but argues that there is no fundamental separation between Daco-Moesian and Thracian.{{sfn|Rădulescu|1984|p=85}} Renfrew (1990) argues that there is no doubt that Thracian is related to the Dacian which was spoken in modern-day Romania before that area was occupied by the Romans.{{sfn|Renfrew|1990|p=71}} However, all these assertions are largely speculative, due to the lack of evidence for both languages.

Polomé (1982) considers that the evidence presented by Georgiev and Duridanov, although substantial, is not sufficient to determine whether Daco-Moesian and Thracian were two dialects of the same language or two distinct languages.{{sfn|Polomé|1982|pp=887–888}}

==== Moesian ====
{{See also|Moesi|Moesia|Dacia Aureliana}}
The ethnonym Moesi was used within the lands alongside the Danube river, in north-western Thrace. As analysed by some modern scholars, the ancient authors used the name Moesi speculatively to designate Triballians and also Getic and Dacian communities.{{sfn|Theodossiev|2000|p=88}}

==== Illyrian ====
{{See also|Illyrian language|Thraco-Illyrian}}

It is possible that Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian were three dialects of the same language, according to Rădulescu.{{sfn|Rădulescu|1984|p=85}} Georgiev (1966), however, considers Illyrian a language closely related to [[Venetic language|Venetic]] and Phrygian but with a certain Daco-Moesian admixture.{{sfn|Poultney|1968|p=339}} Venetic and Phrygian are considered centum languages, and this may mean that Georgiev, like many other paleolinguists, viewed Illyrian as probably being a centum language{{citation needed|date=September 2011}} with Daco-Moesian admixture. Georgiev proposed that Albanian, a [[Centum-satem isogloss|satemised]] language, developed from Daco-Moesian, a satemised language group, and not from Illyrian. But lack of evidence prevents any firm centum/satem classification for these ancient languages. Renfrew argues that the centum/satem classification is irrelevant in determining relationships between languages. This is because a language may contain both satem and centum features and these, and the balance between them, may change over time.{{sfn|Renfrew|1990|p=190}}

==== Gothic ====
{{See also|Gothic language}}

There was a well-established tradition in the 4th century that the Getae, believed to be Dacians by mainstream scholarship, and the Gothi were the same people, e.g., Orosius: ''Getae illi qui et nunc Gothi''. This identification, now discredited, was supported by [[Jacob Grimm]].{{sfn|Momigliano|1984|p=216}} In pursuit of his hypothesis, Grimm proposed many kindred features between the Getae and Germanic tribes.{{sfn|Hehn|1976|p=428}}

=== Relationship with modern languages ===

==== Romanian ====
{{See also|List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin}}

The mainstream view among scholars is that Daco-Moesian forms the principal linguistic [[Substrata (linguistics)|substratum]] of modern [[Romanian language|Romanian]], a neo-Latin ([[Romance languages|Romance]]) language, which evolved from eastern [[Eastern Romance languages|Eastern Romance]] in the period AD 300–600, according to Georgiev.{{sfn|Georgiev|1977|p=287}} The possible residual influence of Daco-Moesian on modern Romanian is limited to a modest number of words and a few grammatical peculiarities.<ref>cf {{harvnb|Georgiev|1977|p={{Page needed|date=October 2021}}.}}</ref> According to Georgiev (1981), in Romanian there are about 70 words which have exact correspondences in Albanian, but the phonetic form of these Romanian words is so specific that they cannot be explained as Albanian borrowings. Georgiev claimed that these words belong to the Dacian substratum in Romanian, while their Albanian correspondences were inherited from Daco-Moesian.{{sfn|Georgiev|1981|p=142}}{{Clarify|reason=Isn't that a matter of definition? If the words in question were borrowed from Daco-Moesian, and if Albanian is descended from it, then they are still from an ancestral form of Albanian, just one that isn't usually called &quot;Albanian&quot;, just as the ancient form of Romance is usually called Latin or Vulgar Latin.|date=October 2012}}

As in the case of any Romance language, it is argued that Romanian language derived from [[Vulgar Latin]] through a series of internal linguistic changes and because of Dacian or northern Thracian influences on Vulgar Latin in the late Roman era. This influence explains a number of differences between the Romanian-Thracian substrate and the French-Celtic, Spanish-Basque, and Portuguese-Celtic substrates.{{sfn|Appel|Muysken|2006|p={{Page needed|date=October 2021}}}} Romanian has no major dialects, perhaps a reflection of its origin in a small mountain region, which was inaccessible but permitted easy internal communication. The history of Romanian is based on speculation because there are virtually no written records of the area from the time of the withdrawal of the Romans around 300&nbsp;AD until the end of the barbarian invasions around 1300&nbsp;AD.{{sfn|Walters|1988|p=18}}

Many scholars, mostly Romanian, have conducted research into a Dacian linguistic substratum for the modern Romanian language. There is still not enough hard evidence for this. None of the few Dacian words known (mainly plant-names) and none of the [[List of reconstructed Dacian words|Dacian words reconstructed from placenames]] have specific correspondent words in Romanian (as opposed to general correspondents in several IE languages). DEX doesn't mention any Dacian etymology, just a number of terms of unknown origin. Most of these are assumed by several scholars to be of Dacian origin, but there is no strong proof that they are. They could, in some cases, also be of pre-Indo-European origin (i.e. truly indigenous, from [[Stone Age]] Carpathian languages), or, if clearly Indo-European, be of [[Sarmatian]] origin – but there's no proof for this either.
It seems plausible that a few Dacian words may have survived in the speech of the Carpathian inhabitants through successive changes in the region's predominant languages: Dacian/Celtic (to AD 100), Latin/Sarmatian (c. 100–300), Germanic (c. 300–500), Slavic/Turkic (c. 500–1300), up to the Romanian language when the latter became the predominant language in the region.

===== Substratum of Common Romanian =====
{{Main|Substrate in Romanian}}
{{See also|Daco-Romanian|Daco-Romanian continuity|Thraco-Roman}}

[[Image:Romani daci.jpg|upright=1.35|right|thumb|Blue = lands conquered by the [[Roman Empire]].<br />Red = area populated by Free Dacians.<br />Language map based on the range of Dacian toponyms.{{dubious|date=November 2013}}{{citation needed|date=November 2013}}]]

The Romanian language has been denoted "[[Daco-Romanian]]" by some scholars because it derives from late Latin superimposed on a Dacian substratum, and evolved in the Roman colony of Dacia between AD 106 and 275.{{sfn|Campbell|1998|p={{Page needed|date=October 2021}}}} Modern Romanian may contain 160–170 words of Dacian origin. By comparison, modern French, according to Bulei, has approximately 180 words of Celtic origin.{{sfn|Bulei|2005|p=26}} The Celtic origin of the French substratum is certain, as the Celtic languages are abundantly documented, whereas the Dacian origin of Romanian words is in most cases speculative.

It is also argued that the Dacian language may form the substratum of [[Common Romanian]], which developed from the [[Vulgar Latin]] spoken in the Balkans north of the [[Jirecek line]], which roughly divides Latin influence from Greek influence. About 300 words in [[Eastern Romance languages]], [[Daco-Romanian]], [[Aromanian language|Aromanian]], [[Megleno-Romanian language|Megleno-Romanian]], [[Istro-Romanian language|Istro-Romanian]], may derive from Dacian, and many of these show a satem-reflex.{{Citation needed|date=September 2011}} Whether Dacian forms the substratum of Common Romanian is disputed, yet this theory does not rely only on the Romanisation having occurred in Roman Dacia, as Dacian was also spoken in [[Moesia]] and northern [[Dardania (Roman province)|Dardania]]. Moesia was conquered by the Romans more than a century before Dacia, and its Latinity is confirmed by Christian sources.{{sfn|Polomé|1983|p=539}}

[[Image:Language border (Matzinger).png|upright=1.35|left|thumb|The [[Jireček Line]], an imaginary line through the ancient [[Balkans]] that divided the influences of the [[Latin]] (in the north) and [[Greek language|Greek]] (in the south) languages until the 4th century. This line is important in establishing the Romanization area in Balkans]]
The Dacian / Thracian substratum of Romanian is often connected to the words shared between Romanian and Albanian. The correspondences between these languages reflect a common linguistic background.{{sfn|Polomé|1983|p=540}}

==== Albanian ====
{{See also|Origin of the Albanians|Albanian language}}

[[Vladimir I. Georgiev]], although accepting an Illyrian component in Albanian, and even not excluding an Illyrian origin of Albanian, proposed as the ancestor of Albanian a language called "Daco-Mysian" by him, considering it a separate language from Thracian.{{sfn|Rusakov|2017|p=555}}{{sfn|Demiraj|2006|p=78}} Georgiev maintained that "Daco-Mysian tribes gradually migrated to the northern-central part of the Balkan Peninsula, approximately to [[Dardani]]a, probably in the second millennium B.C. (or not later than the first half of the first millennium B.C.), and thence they migrated to the areas of present [[Albania]]".{{sfn|Demiraj|2006|p=78}} However, this theory is rejected by most linguists, who consider Albanian a direct descendant of ancient Illyrian.{{sfn|Lloshi|1999|p=283}} Based on shared innovations between Albanian and Messapic, [[Eric P. Hamp]] has argued that Albanian is closely related to Illyrian and not to Thracian or Daco-Moesian, maintaining that it descended from a language that was sibling of Illyrian and that was once closer to the Danube and in contact with Daco-Moesian.{{sfn|Friedman|2020|p=388}} Due to the paucity of written evidence, what can be said with certainty in current research is that on the one hand a significant group of [[Albanian-Romanian linguistic relationship|shared]] Indo-European non-Romance cognates between Albanian and Romanian indicates at least contact with the 'Daco-Thraco-Moesian complex', and that on the other hand there is some evidence to argue that Albanian is descended from the 'Illyrian complex'.{{sfn|Friedman|2022}} From a "genealogical standpoint", Messapic is the closest at least partially attested language to Albanian. Hyllested & Joseph (2022) label this Albanian-Messapic branch as ''Illyric'' and in agreement with recent bibliography identify Greco-Phrygian as the IE branch closest to the Albanian-Messapic one. These two branches form an areal grouping - which is often called "Balkan IE" - with Armenian.{{sfn|Hyllested|Joseph|2022|p=235}}

==== Baltic languages ====
There is significant evidence of at least a long-term proximity link, and possibly a genetic link, between Dacian and the modern Baltic languages. The Bulgarian linguist [[:bg:Иван Дуриданов|Ivan Duridanov]], in his first publication claimed that Thracian and Dacian are genetically linked to the Baltic languages{{sfn|Duridanov|1969}}{{sfn|Dėl žynio Žalmokšio vardo kilmės}} and in the next one he made the following classification:<blockquote>"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 Tokharian and the Hittite were also distant."{{sfn|Duridanov|1976}}</blockquote>Duridanov's cognates of the [[List of reconstructed Dacian words|reconstructed Dacian words]] are found mostly in the Baltic languages, followed by Albanian without considering Thracian. Parallels have enabled linguists, using the techniques of [[comparative linguistics]], to decipher the meanings of several Dacian and Thracian placenames with, they claim, a high degree of probability. Of 74 Dacian placenames attested in primary sources and considered by Duridanov, a total of 62 have Baltic cognates, most of which were rated "certain" by Duridanov.{{sfn|Duridanov|1969|pp=95–96}} Polomé considers that these parallels are unlikely to be coincidence.{{sfn|Polomé|1982}} Duridanov's explanation is that proto-Dacian and proto-Thracian speakers were in close geographical proximity with [[Proto-Baltic language|proto-Baltic]] speakers for a prolonged period, perhaps during the period 3000–2000 BC.{{sfn|Duridanov|1969|p=100}} A number{{sfn|Vyčinienė|p=122}} of scholars such as the Russian Topоrov{{sfn|Toporov|1973|pp=51–52}} have pointed to the many close parallels between Dacian and Thracian placenames and those of the [[Baltic languages|Baltic]] language-zone&nbsp;– [[Lithuania]], [[Latvia]] and in [[East Prussia]] (where an extinct but well-documented Baltic language, [[Old Prussian]], was spoken until it was displaced by [[German language|German]] during the Middle Ages).{{sfn|Duridanov|1969|pp=9–11}}

After creating a list of names of rivers and personal names with a high number of parallels, the Romanian linguist Mircea M. Radulescu classified the Daco-Moesian and Thracian as Baltic languages of the south and also proposed such classification for [[Illyrian language|Illyrian]].{{sfn|Rădulescu|1987}} The German linguist Schall also attributed a southern Baltic classification to Dacian.<ref name="Schall H. 1974" /> The American linguist Harvey Mayer refers to both Dacian and Thracian as Baltic languages. He claims to have sufficient evidence for classifying them as Baltoidic or at least "Baltic-like," if not exactly, Baltic dialects or languages{{sfn|Mayer|1992}}{{sfn|Mayer|1996}} and classifies [[Dacians]] and [[Thracians]] as "Balts by extension".{{sfn|Mayer|1997}} According to him, [[Albanian language|Albanian]], the descendant of [[Illyrian language|Illyrian]], escaped any heavy Baltic influence of Daco-Thracian.{{sfn|Mayer|1997}} Mayer claims that he extracted an unambiguous evidence for regarding Dacian and Thracian as more tied to Lithuanian than to Latvian.{{sfn|Mayer|1996}}{{sfn|Mayer|1999}} The Czech archaeologist Kristian Turnvvald classified Dacian as [[Danube|Danubian]] Baltic.{{sfn|Turnvvald|1968|p={{Page needed|date=October 2021}}}} The Venezuelan-Lithuanian historian Jurate de Rosales classifies Dacian and Thracian as Baltic languages.{{sfn|de Rosales|2015}}{{sfn|de Rosales|2020}}

It appears from the study of hydronyms (river and lake names) that Baltic languages once predominated much farther eastwards and southwards than their modern confinement to the southeastern shores of the Baltic sea, and included regions that later became predominantly Slavic-speaking. The zone of Baltic hydronyms extends along the Baltic coast from the mouth of the [[Oder]] as far as [[Riga]], eastwards as far as the line [[Yaroslavl]]–[[Moscow]]–[[Kursk]] and southwards as far as the line Oder mouth–[[Warsaw]]–[[Kyiv]]–[[Kursk]]: it thus includes much of northern and eastern [[Poland]], [[Belarus]] and central [[European Russia]].{{sfn|Gimbutas|1963|pp=30–31 (fig. 2)}}{{sfn|Heather|2009|loc=map 16}}

=== Dacian as an Italic language ===
Another theory maintains that the Dacians spoke a language akin to Latin and that the people who settled in the Italian Peninsula shared the same ancestors.

The Romanian philologist [[Nicolae Densușianu]] argued in his book ''Dacia Preistorică'' (Prehistoric Dacia), published in 1913, that Latin and Dacian were the same language or were mutually intelligible. His work was considered by mainstream linguists to be [[pseudoscience]]. It was reprinted under the regime of [[Nicolae Ceaușescu]]. The first article to revive Densușianu's theory was an unsigned paper, "The Beginnings of the History of the Romanian People", included in ''Anale de istorie'',{{sfn|Anale de Istorie|1976}} a journal published by the [[Romanian Communist Party]]'s Institute of Historical and Social-Political Studies.{{sfn|Boia|2001|pp=103–105}} The article claimed that the Thracian language was a pre-Romance or Latin language. Arguments used in the article include for instance the absence of [[Interpreting|interpreters]] between the Dacians and the Romans, as depicted on the bas-reliefs of [[Trajan's column]].{{sfn|Boia|2001|pp=103–105}} The bibliography mentions, apart from Densușianu, the work of French academician [[Louis Armand]], an engineer who allegedly showed that "the Thraco-Dacians spoke a pre-Romance language". Similar arguments are found in [[Iosif Constantin Drăgan]]'s ''We, the Thracians'' (1976).{{sfn|Boia|2001|pp=103–105}} About the same time [[Ion Horațiu Crișan]] wrote "Burebista and His Age" (1975).{{sfn|Boia|2001|pp=103–105}} Nevertheless, the theory didn't rise to official status under Ceaușescu's rule.

Opinions about a hypothetical latinity of Dacian can be found in earlier authors: Sextus Rufus (Breviarum C.VIII, cf. Bocking Not, Dign. II, 6), Ovid (Trist. II, 188–189) and Horace (Odes, I, 20).

[[Iosif Constantin Drăgan]] and the [[New York City]]-based physician [[Napoleon Săvescu]] continued to support this theory and published a book entitled ''We Are Not Rome's Descendants''.{{sfn|''Noi nu suntem urmașii Romei''}} They also published a magazine called ''Noi, Dacii'' ("Us Dacians") and organised a yearly "International Congress of Dacology".{{sfn|Congrese Dacologie: Dacia Revival}}

Less radical theories have suggested that Dacian was either [[Italic languages|Italic]] or [[Celtic languages|Celtic]], like the speakers of those Indo-European languages in Western Europe who became Latinized and now speak Romance languages.