The first author of a Romanian etymological dictionary, Alexandru Cihac considers that Romanian lexicon consists of: 20% of its lexical elements are of Latin origin, 40% are Slavic, other 20% Turkish and the remainder of 20% are of other origins. The dictionary was written in French and published in two volumes between 1870-1879. Meanwhile, a few other incomplete etymological dictionaries of Romanian were published, but they avoided the non-Latin elements which represent the bulk of the lexicon. Another etymological dictionary from A to Z was written in Spanish and published in Madrid, in 1958, by Alexandru Cioranescu. Although Cioranescu published his dictionary almost a century after Cihac’s, he transfered almost entirely the non-Latin etymologies given by Cihac. In other words, we do not see any real progress in 140 years. Therefore, the origin of a large number of Romanian words remains either unknown or uncertain, since the comparison was done mostly with Latin or Slavic and even in these cases many etymologies are wrongly attributed. For exmaple, Cihac based his „Slavic” etymologies on the work of Slovene linguist Fr. Miklosich (Die Slawischen Elemente in Rumänischen, 1862). Miklosich’s etymologies are extemely flawed, but his mistakes are due to the lack of insufficient data. Recently, a couple of complete dictionaries of Old Church Slavonic were published (Blagova et al, 1994 and Djačeneko, 1998) where more than half of the „Slavic etymons” of Romanian words found in Cihac’s dictionary and other etymological dictioanries of Romanian are non-existant, to give one simple example. Thus, due to this situation, I realized that the true structure and origin of Romanian language were misunderstood. My dictionary has about 6600 entries. In the Romanian version there are about 1200 modern loanwords most of them from French or Latin, found in most modern languages as well, including English.
In elaborating my etymological dictionary, in order to solve the multitude of uncertain and unknown etymologies, I used a new method, namely comparison with other Indo-European languages, other than Latin, Romance or Slavic languages. As a result, the statistics of my dictionary looks quite different. We have about 15% Latin lexical items, 9% of Salvic origin, 3.5% of Turkish origin, 3% Greek, 1.5% Hungarian and 1% German. Unlike all other etymological dictionaries, I have found about 15-20 Gothic loanwords borrowed into Dacian in the first half of the the first millenium AD. A percentage of 6% (around 280 words) are of imitative nature and about 300 words (6.5%) still remain of uncertain origin. The rest of 61.5% are of Thraco-Dacian origin, including the 6% of imitaitive origin. The dictionary demonstrates that these lexical items derive from Proto-Indo-European roots through Thraco-Dacian. This breakdown shed a new light on the structure of Romanian lexicon and, in the same time, it solves the etymology of thousands of words which, for a long time, were of unknown or uncertain origin.
One may imagine three different hypotheses regarding the origin of Romanian language:
1. Latin origin with 15% of its lexical elements of Latin origin and 85% of loanwords
2. Latin origin with many Thraco-Dacian words, some Slavic or of other origin
3. Thraco-Dacian origin with loanwords from Latin, Slavic or other languages .
The first hypothesis is the traditional one and the official doctrine in Romanian culture for over 200 years. However, the hypothesis fails to explain how the so-called Vulgar Latin spoken in the Roman Province of Dacia, lost most of its lexicon, to be replaced with words of other origins, most of them Thraco-Dacian In this case Romanian language would have borrowed many syntactic and morphological aspects as well and it would have taken place a creolization of the language loosing most of its morphology. On the contrary, Romanian language has a rich morphology in noun declesion, but especially in verb conjugation. The second hypothesis derives from the first one, but it follows closer the structure of the Romanian lexicon. According to this theory, the Latin origin of Romanian language cannot be denied, since a part of its core lexicon seems to be of Latin origin. The third hypothesis considers that Romanian language is of Thraco-Dacian origin which, over a period of 2000 years was influenced by Latin, Slavic or other languages. In this context I have to mention that Thraco-Illyrian dialects were closely related to the Italic languages (dialects), since most Italic tribes migrated from either Balkan Peninsula, Middle Danube Valley (today’s Hungary or Pannonia in Ancient times) or from Upper Danube Valley (today’s Southern Germany). In other words, many of so-called Latin words are not, in fact, of Latin origin, but they belong a common Thraco-Illyro-Italic heritage.
The hypothesis of Thraco-Dacian origin of Romanian language was proposed by the Romanian historian Nicolae Densuşianu, over 100 years ago and before him by Felix Colson, a French diplomat and writer who wrote a number of books on the history of Romanian people and its language, in the middle of 19th century. In fact, this hypothesis should be refined saying that there was a beginning of Romanization which was abruptly interrupted in 271 AD, after Roman authorities withdrew all officials, Roman military and citizens from the province of Dacia abandoning it entirely, even destroying the bridge over the Danube river to stop further invasions of the barbarians into the provinces situated south of Danube river.
In a previous book (Vinereanu, 2002), I had shown that the situation in Dacia differed considerably from other Roman provinces. Romans remained in Dacia about 160 years occupying only a fifth of the Dacian kingdom. It is very interesting that the territory of the the Dacian kingdom coincides roughly with the territory of today’s Romania and Republic of Moldova. Therefore, a large number of Dacians lived outside of the Roman province Dacia which was the last European province added to the empire and the first to be abandoned. Furthermore, the military and political situation in Dacia was always unstable, during the 160 years of Roman control. Therefore, the Romanization could really not take place in such conditions.
Here are a few details regarding the political situation in Dacia after the Roman conquest which should be mentioned for a better understanding of the social and political background. In 107 AD, only about 1/5 of the Dacian kingdom was transformed into a Roman province, namely the territory where there were located the salt and gold mines of Dacian kingdom, more specifically the south-western regions (today’s Oltenia and Banat) and south-western part of today’s Transylvania. In northern Oltenia and southern Transylvania there were huge salt deposits, while in western Transylvania there were the largest deposits of gold ore in Europe. Even today, there are still considerable deposits of salt and gold in these regions.
After the death of Trajan, the conqueror of Dacia, in 117 AD, his successor Hadrian faced a double invasion in Dacia by barbarian tribes and he was about to abandone the province of Dacia, but he was adviced not to o so. Although he could not control the situation and abandoned other three provinces: Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria. To protect the Roman province of Dacia, he built the limes alutanus, hundreds of miles of fortifications along Alutus river (today’s Olt river). He did the same thing in Brittania to stop the invasions of the Picts. During the reign of emperor Antoninus (138-161) a rebellion of the Dacians from inside the province took place coupled with a invasion of Dacians found outside the border of the Roman province. About 20 years later, during the reign of emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) took place several revolt of Dacians inside the province and coupled with invasions of those outside the province. In about the same period, the Goths started to attack repeatedly, not only the province found north of Danube river, but also those situated south of this river. After 230 AD, tribes of Goths and Dacians together or separatedly attacked the Dacian province more and more often. During the reign of emperor Galienus (260-268), the Romans could not control anymore the situation loosing the control of the province as most ancient historians maintain (cf. Iordanes (18); Ammianus Marcelinus (31. 5-13); Zosimus (1, 13); Aurelius Victor (29)) and the official retreat took place several years later in 271 AD. In other words, real language contact could not have taken place only 20-30 years after the conquest of Dacia, after a number of colonists may have settled in the province, but the situation was still very unstable until 160-180 AD, due to numerous invasion and internal revolts. There was a relative stability with less invasions and revolts, only between 180 to 230 AD, about 50 years, in other words just two generations. I should say that the colonists settled only in the cities not in the contryside, let alone in the mountains regions of Dacia. After 271 AD, the province was abandoned and the urban life was completely destroyed due to the invasions of Goths and other barbarian tribes.
Furthermore, there is a lot of archaeological evidence regarding the presence of Dacians north of Danube river between 2nd and 12th centuries. Starting in the 50’s and 60’s of the 20th century, there were uncovered many archaeological artifacts regarding the presence of Dacians in this region. The two cemeteries of Bratei, Sibiu county (Southern Transylvania) are Dacian (cf. L. Barzu, 1973).
The cemetery #1 is from 4th-5th centuries, the period right after Roman retreat from Dacia. At this time the population practiced incineration only, unlike Romans who practiced both incinearation and inhumation. The cemetery #2 of Bratei (6th-7th centuries) represents an early period of Dridu culture which could be found on a large territory includes today’s Romania, Republic of Moldova, Bulgaria and most of Ukraine. During this time inhumation rituals appeared, but incineration is still predominant even during 11th and 12th centuries.
These are just some of the most important details regarding the situation in Dacia during and after Roman occupation which gives a pictures of the conditions of so-called Romanization in Dacia and explains why Romanian language has a reduced percentage of Latin words and almost 2/3 of its lexicon is of Thraco-Dacian origin.
Most linguists consider that Thraco-Dacian was a satem language, but in fact, it was closely related to the Celtic and Italic languages. Thraco-Dacian language shares some phonological features with Osco-Umbrian and Continental Celtic. Looking at linguistic and historical data, we may assume that towards the end of second millenium BC, these languages emerged as separate dialects. At the beginning of Iron Age (cf. H. Wagner, 1971), the Thraco-Dacians, Illyrians and Celts occupied most of Europe, from Meotic Lake (today’s Azov Sea) to the Pyrenees Mountains. In other words originally the Celts emerged as individual group west of Thraco-Illyrians. O. Schrader (1890) shows that Pytheas the Massiliotte, a Greek navigator who traveled into the North Sea mentioned the Celts who were situated west of Rhine River, while Scythians to the east of it, by Scythians he meant Dacians. The French historian Arbois de Jubainville (1889-1894), citing the Roman writer Eusebius Pamphilius, shows that Osco-Umbrians migrated from Upper Danube River into the Italic Penninsula, around 1200-1300 BC. We may assume at that time the Thraco-Dacians, Illyrians, Italic and Celtic tribes were speaking similar dialects judging by some historical and linguistic data. About the same time, the Dorians (a Thraco-Illyrian tribe) migrated into Greece. They became Greek speakers, but kept some phonological features of their original language. Dorian dialect and other Western and Northern Greek dialects have labialized the Proto-Indo-European labio-velars (as did the Thraco-Illyrian, Osco-Umbrian and Continental Celtic) unlike the Ionian dialect which did not. Thus, PIE *kwetor > Dorian Greek péttares, Lesbian péttures, as well as Homeric Greek písures, are forms influenced by Thraco-Illyrian, but Ionian Greek téttares. Furthermore, the Roman writer Marcus Antonius, a Celt from Gaul, says that Gaulish and Osco-Umbrians have a common origin (cf. A. de Jubainville, 1894) in other words Oscans and Umbrians were offshoots of the Celts. He lived in 1st century, BC and he was a native speaker of Gaulish, being able to see similarities between Gaulish and Osco-Umbrian languages which share some common features which make them different from Latin.
Regarding the Latino-Faliscan, archaeological evidence shows that they migrated from Middle Danube Valley, as the bearers of Villanovan culture of Italy. Velleius Paterculus (11.100), an officer in the Roman army during the Roman-Pannonian war at the beginning of 1st century AD and Roman historian tells us that “ omnibus autem Pannonis non disciplinae tantum modo, sed linguae quoqoue notitia Romanae” (all Pannonians have not only Roman (military) discipline, but they have also knowledge of Roman language). The explanation of this apparently bizarre statement can be simply explained by the fact that the Romans’ ancestors migrated from this region about 1,500 years before.
Returning to the previous discussion regarding the linguistic and historical context towards the end of the 2nd millennium BC, in what follows I will discuss the relations between Thraco-Dacian and the neighboring languages. It is well known that Proto-Indo-European had a series of aspirated stops: *bh, *dh, *gh and most probably *kh (see infra). In Thraco-Dacian and in other neighboring languages such as Celtic, Baltic and Slavic, these aspirated consonants collapsed with their non-aspirated counterparts. Furthermore, in Continental Celtic as well as in Osco-Umbrian, the Proto-Indo-European labio-velar *kw, *gw turned into p or b respectively, as well as in Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian, except for the cases when these sounds were followed by a front vowel such as e or i.
The Relationship between Thraco-Illyrian, Italic and Celtic languages
Indo-Europeanists divide the Celtic and Italic languages into two major groups: the Q-dialects and P-dialects. The Q-Celtic dialects were those which were separated earlier from the main group such as Proto-Irish and Proto-Celtiberian according to the treatment of Proto-Indo-European labio-velars in these languages. The P-dialects turned the labio-velars into bi-labials, while Q-dialects kept the labio-velars. Instead, west of Pyrenees, the Celtic dialects have turned the Proto-Indo-European labio-velars into labials, like in Osco-Umbrian.
As I mentioned above Thraco-Dacian (and Illyrian) treated the labio-velars differently, according to the phonological environment. Thus those followed by front vowels (a, o, u) lost their velar feature, turning into a labial (p or b), while those followed by e or i turned into simple velars, which later, perhaps in Late Thraco-Dacian (preserved as such in Romanian) turned into affricates or sibilants (see infra). This second phonological aspects brings Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian closer to the Balto-Slavic group. Regarding the treatment of labio-velars in Italic languages, the situation is identical to the Celtic group, namely Latin and Faliscan which migrated earlier into the Italic Peninsula, kept the labio-velars, unlike Oscan and Umbrian which have the same treatment of labio-velars like Continental Celtic.
The relationship between Latin on one hand, and Osco-Umbrian on the other hand, was discussed by a number of linguists such as G. Devoto, R.S. Conway, M.S. Beeler and others. Thus, Devoto states: “The separation of Latin from Osco-Umbrian is not an Italic fact, but an Indo-European dialectical one, since the Indo-Europeans came to Italy in two different waves” (cf. Tagliavini, Le Origine…, 2, p. 67), while Beeler comes closer to the historical and linguistic facts: “I don’t think that any of the innovations found in Latin and Osco-Umbrian is strong enough to be a irrefutable argument for a “Italic phase” conceived as a distinct linguistic community, separated in time and space since Indo-European . I will rather suggest that Proto-Latin and Proto-Osco-Umbrian may have occupied neighboring areas in a Western Indo-European a still undivided community” (Language, 28, p. 443)”.
To sum up, the ancestors of Osco-Umbrians migrated to Italic Peninsula from Upper Danube Valley around 1200-1300 BC, while those of Latino-Faliscans came to Italy around 1500 BC, 200-300 years before. Latin and Faliscan kept unchanged the Proto-Indo-European labio-velars, unlike Osco-Umbrian.
Relationship between ThracoDacian, Illyrian and Albanian
In my opinion, Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian were dialects of the same language, although most linguists believe that they are different languages. On the other hand, Ancient and Medieval historians consider Illyrian as Thraco-Dacian (Strabo), while Suidas Lexicon (10th century AD) states that “Illyrians [are] Barbarian Thracians” (illírioi barbároi thrákoi). Today, there is a general confusion regarding the relationship between these languages. Some linguists believe that they are related languages, while others believe that they are different since Illyrian was centum language, while Thraco-Dacian a satem language. However, a comparison between Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian glosses indicates that they are almost identical dialects. Although Albanian has a series of common phonological and syntactic features with Romanian, there are some differences as well. The Epirotes of Ancient times lived where Albanians live today. Tucydides shows that the Epirotes were Illyrians and they were speaking two different dialects. Strabo (7,7) states that the Epirotes lived south of river Shkumb and Illyrians to the north. The Romans used to make clear distinction between Illyrians proprio-dicti (proper) and Illyrians in general. In their understanding Epirots were not Illyrians proper. Illyrians proper were those from Illyria, Dalmatia and the two Pannonias. In modern Albanian there is no labialization of Proto-Indo-European labio-velars as in Thraco-Dacian, Illyrian, Osco-Umbrian and Continental Celtic: PIE *kŭetor “four’ > Albanian katër “four” or PIE *wulkŭor “wolf” < Albanian ulk “wolf”.
The Relationship between Thraco-Dacian and Balto-Slavic Group
It is very important to know the real relationship between Thraco-Dacian and Proto-Slavic in order to understand properly the Slavic segment of Romanian lexicon. Thraco-Dacian and Proto-Slavic were considered to be satem languages and, therefore, it was difficult to see the differences. In what follows, I will discuss some of the particular features of these languages. It is not an easy task to distinguish what it is original in these languages and what may be attributed to reciprocal borrowings and influences, since speakers of the two languages were in contact long before the arrival of Slavic tribes to the Danube and in the Balkan region. On the other hand, there were made already all kinds of assumptions regarding the relationship of the two languages and, therefore, it is difficult to make people to break their habits.
S.B. Bernstein (1964) shows that most Slavists believe Common Slavic lasted for more than 2000 years, although he thinks that this period was much longer. During this long period of time, important changes took place, thus the Common Slavic of the last stages of this long period of time was a lot different than the one of the initial stages. He shows that the most important phenomenon was “the law of open syllable” and it marks the beginning of other phonological transformation. The earliest borrowings from Germanic languages took place during the first centuries of the Christian era. He divides the Common Slavic into two large periods:
1. archaic period: up to the open syllable
2. late period: after the open syllable.
The law of open syllable of Common Slavic led to the metathesis of liquids (l and r) from the end of the syllable over the vowel. This phenomenon is almost unknown in the original lexicon of Romanian and Albanian. Another feature of late Common Slavic is the elision of the nasals from the final position of the syllable coloring the vowel in front of it, also unknown in Romanian and Albanian. In this language, the Proto-Indo-European velars and labio-velars had the same evolution . As I have shown above Thraco-Dacian had a different treatment not only between velars and labio-velars, but even inside the labio-velar group depending on the phonological environment. I may say that before (or during) the open syllable transformation in Common Slavic, the only important change in Thraco-Dacian was the labialization of Proto-Indo-European labio-velars (see supra), while in Common Slavic and Proto-Baltic the labio-velars turned into regular velars and later they were palatalized in some conditions. Furthermore, the Slavists found out that in Slavic and Baltic languages there are borrowings from some Indo-European centum language. Thus, they concluded that the speakers of Common Slavic and Proto-Baltic were in contact with the speakers of this unknown centum language, in the first millennium BC.
Furthermore, Bernstein emphasizes that before 4th-2nd centuries BC, the territory westward of Vistula River was “occupied by tribes of Luzacian culture and “the bearers of this culture were the Veneti tribes (p. 58)”, but he gives no indication of whom this people might have been or about the nature of their language. This culture spread up to the Baltic Sea coming in contact with the Baltic tribes as well. According to the Polish archaeologist Moszynski (cf. Bernstein), the original homeland of the Slavs was on the Upper Dnieper River. They both agree that later on, the Slavic tribes migrated south of Pripet River which was “the territory of Venete language”. According to Bernstein the speakers of Venete language spread from Dnieper to Vistula River and beyond to the west. On all these territories the Slavic tribes found a ”Venete” population which they had assimilated (p. 60). Afterwards the Slavs moved westward up to Vistula River and Oder River between 3rd-2nd BC and 3rd-4th centuries AD. When Germanic tribes met the Slavs they call them Wenedi, but Slavs never call themselves Veneti or Wenedi (cf. Bernstein). The Slavists never really identified the so-called Venete population, but they all agree that they were speaking an Indo-European centum language and they call it “Illyro-Venete”. This language cannot be other than the one spoken by northern Dacian tribes which occupied large territories in Central and Eastern Europe. Herodotes (Histories) states that Traco-Dacians were the most numerous in the world after the Indians.
Read Part II http://vetiver.weblog.ro/2012/01/19/mihai-vinereanu-the-origin-of-the-romanian-language-ii/#axzz1jki4yVPD and Part III http://vetiver.weblog.ro/2012/01/19/mihai-vinereanu-the-origin-of-the-romanian-language-iii/#axzz1jki4yVPD
