Editing Dacian language (section)

=== 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}}