There were many controversies regarding the origin and authenticity of Sinaia Tablets. Their odyssey is well known in Romania. Some researchers consider that the original tablets were made of gold, but there were melted and the gold was used to build the Pelesh Castle of King Carol I, on the Prahova Valley on the southern slope of the Carpathian Mountains, not before they made lead copies. Everything was done with no publicity and the copies were thrown in the basement of the History Museum, in Bucharest. In short time, their real story was forgotten and the next generations of historians considered that they were fakes made in secret by either the linguist Bogdan P. Hasdeu or by the historian Nicolae Densusianu. Needless to say that such hypotheses are totally absurd. In the last few decades, more and more researchers, including myself considered them as genuine copies of the gold originals, since the language of the inscriptions is an authentic language. The inscriptions are written in Thraco-Dacian language, perhaps in a certain dialect (or perhaps a few different dialects), a ‘standard’ language used primarily in writing at the time. In fact, one may speak of a history of writing in the language of our ancestors, since certain tablets are written in a mysterious alphabet (maybe a syllabic writing) much older, but the researchers failed to issue any opinion about them. It should be added that a few tablets have two texts in two different alphabets. The two texts appear to convey the same message in two different scripts, and most probably two different language varieties: a sort of ‘Rosetta Stone’. Furthermore some tablets are written in some different scripts and remain to these days completely cryptic. On the other hand, most of the inscriptions are written in an alphabet similar to the Greek alphabet and a few more signs for affricate sounds.
Given these details, in what follows I will do an etymological analysis of the words of inscriptions as they were identified by Eugen Nicolaescu in his book Vorbele din Plumb, published at Printech, Bucharest, 2014. In my opinion, Mr. Nicolaescu did a much better job than his predecessors. In fact, the language resembles both Latin and Italic languages, but it is especially closer to Romanian. Out of more than 1,000 lexical items whose form and meaning are considered by the author as being correctly identified, the overwhelming majority have equivalent in modern Romanian and often, and in Latin, Italic or other Indo-European languages.
I will discuss all the lexical items after they were grouped into semantic categories, 336 such title-words. For most of them, there are descendants in modern Romanian, many considered by the official linguistic academia as being either of Latin, Slavic or other origin. However, I must add that in the etymological dictionary of the Romanian language (DELR, 2008) I argue that the Thraco-Dacian language along with its sister Illyrian language were closely related to Italic languages. The hypothesis becomes abundantly clear from lexicographical material analyzed in this dictionary. In addition, I have shown that a good share of the main vocabulary of Romanian language has cognates not only to Latin, but also in many other Indo-European languages, since the main vocabulary is best preserved in any language. In this small Thrace-Dacian etymological dictionary the words are grouped by grammatical categories also, namely: verbs, nouns, numerals, article (definite and indefinite), conjunctions, prepositions and one interjection as well.
In many such words, letter o, in the initial position (before a nasal) or final position, it was read ă (a central mid-vowel similar to a schwa) which in today’s Romanian turned into î (a high mid-vowel) in initial position or remain ă, in final position. The two sounds are in fact very close, as the sound o is only the round variant of ă, a fact well understood by Dacian scribes and, therefore, they do not feel the need to invent a new sign for this sound. I suppose also that there are some abbreviations, as happens in any inscriptions, or copyist errors. The same word may appear in slightly different forms, denoting that the texts were written in different places (or dialects) and at different historical times. There are different word endings and they seem to be case endings most of the time. Many nouns appear only in singular forms, especially ethnonyms or other nouns, although they are plural forms also, marked by endings typical to Romanian plural or other Romance and Indo-European languages. When they appear in the plural, I discuss them (cf. avendu, haben, dorindu). Most of the time, verb are in the present tense (historical present tense), some forms of perfect (equivalent of simple perfect of modern Romanian), similar to Latin perfect, but apparently a few forms of future tense.
On the other hand, there is strong evidence that the Dacian language had definite article, very similar to the current Romanian one and it is generally post-posed as in modern Romanian, unlike all other Romance languages. There are a few instances when it is pre-posed, especially in the genitive case, also similar to modern Romanian. Latin has not any kind of article: definite or indefinite. Out of Italic languages only Etruscan has (pre-posed) definite article. It has long been believed that Etruscan was a strange language, with no particular lineage or related languages, therefore remained undeciphered. Despite all these false assumptions, American researcher Mel Copeland in his Introduction to the Etruscan language (academia.edu) amply proves that Etruscan was an Italic language similar to Latin and it was widely spoken in a territory that includes 12 cities of Italic peninsula. It seems to have been the second (as number of native speakers) after Osco-Umbrian language. Copelnad’s Etruscan glossary consists of over 2000 words to which I found about 300 Romanian cognates.
Therefore, Thraco-Dacian language did not disappear, but it lives in Romanian language of today. Besides the definite and indefinite article, there are documented almost all numerals from 1 to 10 (except for four, five and eight) and all resemble those of modern Romanian, and several other numerals discussed in turn. There are also a few (not many) Greek and Latin loanwords which will be discussed as well. There are a few Dacian words which were not preserved in Romanian, but I found cognates in other Indo-European languages. In the Argument (Introduction) to Etymological Dictionary of Romanian Language (DELR), I have shown that only 14% of Romanian language vocabulary has correspondents in Latin and Romance languages, making a total of about 700 title-words, although there are only about 400 correspondents in classical Latin. Therefore remained a very small number of Romanian words from the 14% that do not have equivalent forms attested in Sinaia Tablets texts. Note also that text only deals with certain areas of Dacian people life, such as political, military or religious.
Finally, we hope that this small etymological dictionary, in conjunction with Etymological Dictionary of the Romanian Language bring irrefutable proofs that the Romanian language is, in fact, the modern version of the Thraco-Dacian language.
A SMALL THRACO-DACIAN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY
The first part: the verb
I will start with the verbs ‘to be’ and ‘to have’ since they the most important verbs in any language, but all other are listed in alphabetical order.
1.The verb to be occurs in several forms: fi ‘to be’ (079, 092, 107-2) (cf. Romanian a fi ‘to be’), fu (fio, fiu, fo, foe) ‘it was, they were, be’ (007, 045, 065, 069, 072, 092, 096, 106, 107, 109, 122, 127), fu ‘let it be, it was, they were’ ((015, 076, 116, 130-2) (cf. Romanian fu ‘he/she/it was’) , da hie ‘to be, let it be’ (cf. Romanian să fie “to be, let it be” and simo ‘let it be’ or fu, fue ‘as being, it was/they were’, ese, eso ‘will be, let it be, is’ (018), hindu (hiindu, fiindu) ‘being’ (present participle) (002, 009) (cf. Romanian fiind / hiindu ‘being’ (pr. part.)), ere, erio, eru ‘let it be, being’ (002, 127) (cf. Romanian root of imperfect tense er-), ese, eso ‘he will be, he/it is’ (118), saro ‘I was’ (003), se ‘I am’ (042) (cf. Romanian (eu) îs ‘I am’), seni ‘they are’ (III, pl.) (cf. Romanian (ei) sânt ‘id’) seo ‘it was’ (003), seri, serio (seru, seriu) ‘they were’ (009, 042), seu ‘it will be’ (119) , seu ‘they were’ (auxiliary to be translatable by to be) sia ‘being’ (107), sie (si) ‘let it be, been’ (012, 015, 069, 084, 130), sio, siu ‘it was, being’ (001, 022, 062, 091, 106, 107, 121, 122, 126, 127), siu ‘it was’ (008), so ‘it was, thus’ (007, 069, 079, 080, 118, 124, 127, 128), so feu ‘what it was’ (076), so, su, sue ‘to be, will be, it was, been/done, be (that …), there are, as so were’ (010, 025, 028, 025, 045, 052-2, 062, 065, 069, 076, 079 -5, 084, 109-6, 111, 113, 115, 116-2, 119, 123-2, 124, 126, 130-2, 134), soa ‘it will be’ ((130).
Different forms of the verb ‘to be’ occur over 100 times on the Sinaia tablets’ texts, as a few different roots., all found in modern Romanian. First, fi, fu, fiind etc. are equivalent to Latin fio, fieri ‘to be’ which are considered to be the roots of similar Romanian forms. However, close forms are found in other Italic languages: cf. Oscan fiiet (pers. III, pl.), Umbrian fuia (pers. III, sg.) fuiest (pers. III, sg, future). All these forms derived form PIE * bheu– ‘to grow, to be’ (IEW, 146). This root is found in all Indo-European language groups (for details, see DELR, fi). The forms ero, erio, eso have also similar forms in Latin, Romance languages, including Romanian. The roots si-, se-, so-, su– appear in numerous verbal forms, more numerous than in modern Romanian, also with cognates in Latin and Romance languages, especially Italian. In Romanian the root s– (I) is found in (eu) îs ‘(I) am’ and also in sânt-, –em, –eți, –Ø ‘(we) are, (you) are, (they) are’.
2.The verb ‘to have’ is also present in the texts of the Sinaia tablets, as au ‘(they) have, had have’ (cf. Romanian au ‘id’), and avendu ‘(they) have, (they) hold’ (III, pl.). The form avendu is the form of the third person plural, present tense of the verb ‘to have’, where, ending –endu is almost identical to ending Latin equivalent of hab-ent (III, pl). The form au is identical in modern Romanian. The verb ‘to have’ is attested also as haben ‘(they) hold, (they) have’ which proves that the texts were written in different dialects or different historical language varieties. The explanation is that they were written originally in different places and at different historical moments. This is fully proved by the existence of Rosetta Stone style inscriptions, as shown above. The same root of the verb is attested as well in the Illyrian expression (a curse) άβεις έχεις ‘vipers you have!’ (in Hesychius), where άβεις is the form of the second person singular, very close to the old Romanian aibi ‘(you) have’ (II, sg.). The root aib– is still present in Romanian as in să aibă ‘let him (her) have’. The Latin correspondent form habies ‘(you) have’ (II, sg.) (habeo, habere) is also similar. One may notice that Romanian verb a avea ‘to have’ is very close to the Thraco-Dacian (and Illyrian) forms and it is not of Latin origin (cf. DELR, avea).
3.accendiu (ascendo) ‘promoting, going up (to)’ (005, -2, 013-2, 062, 065, 069, 079, 080, 092, 106, 113, 119, 124). This verb did not survive into modern Romanian. It is almost identical to Latin as-cendo ‘(I) climb, to ascend, ascend’, (cf. descendo) < scando ‘to climb’. The verb asendi (013) ‘climbed (pl.)’ derives from the same root. These verbal forms have originate from PIE *skend-/ *sknd– ‘to jump (up) to climb’ (de Vaan, 542-43).
All these forms derive from PIE *skend-/*sknd– with cognates in Celtic languages (cf. Proto-Celtic *kand–e /o-) and Sanskrit skandati ‘to jump’ (EDL 542).
4.The verb adeuge ‘added to, additional’ is preserved in Romanian, but it is considered of Latin origin, although it was seldom used in Latin. The verb addere ‘to gather, to add’ was much more usual, a derivative of do ‘to put’, prefix by preposition ad. In addition, the origin Latin adaugere remains unknown. I have to mention that this verb is not in any Romance language, except Romanian language. Thus one may assume that Latin borrowed it from Thraco-Dacian or Illyrian which was a closely related language (or dialect) of Thraco-Dacian. Such examples explains many of the ‘mysteries’ of so-called Vulgar Latin. Therefore, the Romanian verb a avea ‘to have’ is of Thrace-Dacia origin.
5.ageiu (ageu) ‘let (him) act’ (023, 045). It is a cognate of Latin ago, -re ‘to drive’ (IEW, 4). Other cognates are found in Greek and Sanskrit. There are many derivatives of Latin ago. It was not preserved in Romanian in this form, but the Proto-Indo-European root seems to be preserved in another Romanian verb, namely a alunga ‘to drive away, to chase (away)’ (cf. DELR, alunga).
6.agnulo ‘kneeling / desolated / nulified’ (011), ongeni (ongenu) ‘to kneel/ on
knees’ (094). These two Dacian verbs derive from PIE *g‘enu– *g‘neu– ‘knee, angle, corner’ (IEW, 380), specifically from *g‘neu-, suffixed by –ul-o. One may notice that in Thraco-Dacian, PIE * g’ > g which means Thraco-Dacian language was a centum language and not a satem one as it was senselessly repeated for about 200 years by various linguists. In this case, it is obvious that Romanian genunchi ‘knee’ (and its derivatives) is of Thrace-Dacian origin. The root is found in many Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, genunchi). Dacian city name Genucla where Zamolxiu, the Dacian prophet and god, started his spiritual mission, as the Sinaia inscriptions tell us, seems to originate from the same root. Zamolxiu (or Zamolxis in Greek spelling) was the one who founded the Dacias religion, around 900-1000 B.C.
7.alo (108) ‘(they) increased, (they) grow’ is a cognate of Latin alo ‘(I) nourish’. Both come from PIE * al– ‘to grow, to feed’ (IEW, 26). Other cognates: Sanskrit an-ala ‘fire’ (meaning ‘the insatiate one’), Old Irish alim ‘(I) feed’ and other Celtic languages. It was not preserved in modern Romanian.
8.amoas (001) ‘he liked it more’, ami ‘in friendship’ (084), cognate to Latin amo ‘(I) love’, amicus “friend”, as well as Albanian mik “friend” which is considered to be of Latin origin.
9.amonuzis (a monuzi) ‘to entrust, to hand over, to deposit’ (122). This verb is a compound derived from moon, munúa ‘hand’: cf. Romanian mână ‘hand’, înmâna ‘to entrust, to hand over (see below munúa ‘hand’, Noun section). The radical is found Italic, Celtic and old Germanic languages (cf. DELR, mână).
10.The forms aprociu ‘he/she/it was getting closer’, apropeo ‘(that) he (she, it)was approaching (subj.)’ are the ancestors of Romanian a (se) apropia ‘to get closer, to appoach’ and aproape ‘close, near’. It is a cognate of Latin prope ‘close’ < propro ‘near, next to’ being an iterative form (cf. EDL, 492) and proximus.
11.apucat iie ‘it was caught, captured’ is the predecessor of Romanian a apuca ‘to grab, to grasp’ whose etymology gave much trouble to linguists, but basically it derives from PIE *ap– ‘to grasp, to reach, to catch’ (IEW, 50). The Thrace-Dacian form apucat is identical to the Romanian past participle form of the verb a apuca. Cognates: Latin apiscor ‘to grasp, to reach’, Sanskrit apnoti ‘to reach, to win’ and other forms in various Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, apuca).
12.asondio ‘to announce/to (be) heard’ (005, 126), asonigo ‘to celebrate, to invoke’ (003), son, sono ‘song’ (008), sonu ‘signal, call, sound’ ( 040) are the predecessors of Romanian a suna ‘to ring, to sound, to call’, sunet‘sound’. These Thraco-Dacian forms derive from PIE * suen– ‘to to call, to resonate’ (Walde-Hoffmann, II, 559; IEW, 1046). Indo-European cognates: Latin sonare ‘to sound’, Sanskrit svanati ‘to sound’ (III sg), Old Irish son ‘noise’, senna ‘to sound, to sing’, Latvian sonnet ‘to grumble, to hum’ and others (cf. DELR, suna). Regarding the forms zvon ‘rumor’, a zvoni ‘to be rumored’ derive from the same radical Proto-Indo-European root. These last forms are considered to be of Slavic origin (cf. OCS zvonŭ ‘sound’), but given the Thrace-Dacian data, we may assume a Dacian origin as well (from a different dialect), although one may not exclude a Slavic origin for Romanian zvon (cf. DELR, zvon).
13. au, avio (028, 106) ‘wanted by, he (she) wanted more’ cognate to Latinaveo ‘to want more’ (Nicolaescu). The forms come from a PIE *eu–e– ‘to enjoy, to enjoy eating’ (cf. de Vaan, 65). The verb was not preserved in Romanian.
15. cadu (căzu, căzând) (he, she, it) ‘he has fallen, descended’ are precursor forms of Romanian a cădea ‘to fall’ considered to be of Latin origin, namely form Latin cado, –ere ‘id’ , which is, obviously, a cognate. They derive from PIE *k‘ad– ‘to fall’ (IEW, 516). For cognates in other Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, cădea, 191). These forms show that Dacian PIE *k’ > k which another proof that this language was a centum languages and a satem one.
16. conetor (019) ‘a knowledgeable person, researcher’. Nicolaescu associates it with Latin commentor ‘to study’. Dacian conetor is akin to the Dacian forms conito / cognito (121) ‘id’. associated by Nicoleascu with Latin cognitor ‘representative’. All these forms have their origin in PIE *gnosko– ‘to know’ (Walde-Hoffmann, II, 176) which comes close to Old Latin gnosco and ancient Greek gnosko (cf. DELR, 291). Dacian conetor has the suffix –tor frequently fond in today’s Romanian as a derivational suffix as in Latin, while conito has the suffix –ito, also found in Latin, Romanian and other Romance languages.
17.cons / concie (114) ‘assembly’ a cognate of Latincontio ‘assembly meeting’. According to de Vaan (132) Latin contio derives from PIE * gʷmti– ‘coming’, a derivative of PIE *gʷem– ‘to come’ with similar forms in German. De Vaan’s hypothesis is not very plausible.
18.corolo, corolu, coroleu ‘he crowns, crowned, crown’ (052, 094, 098) are direct references to modern Romanian coroană ‘crown’, a încorona ‘to crown’, as well as a încununa, cunună with similar, but different meanings. All are considered to be of Latin origin, but they are rather cognates, as well as to Greek κορωνις ‘curved object’. All these forms derive from PIE * (s) ker– ‘to bend’ (IEW, 935). The radical is very prolific in Romanian and in many other Indo-European languages. Again these Romanian forms are not of Latin origin.
19.canosca ‘to recognize’ (022). It is a predecessor form of the Romanian form a cunoaste ‘to know, to recognize’, very close to Old Latin gnosco and Greek (Epirus dialect) γνώσκω ‘(I) know’ from PIE *gnosko– ‘know (Walde-Hoffmann, II, 176). Given a much larger number of data Walde-Pokorny reconstruct a PIE *g‘nē-, g‘nō– ‘to know’ (IEW, 376) widespread in Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, cunoaste) (see conetor, above).
20.curgea ‘it was running, flowing’, curs ‘the course of, time’ (124) .These Thraco-Dacian forms are virtually identical in modern Romanian. It is assumed that Romanian verb a curge ‘to flow, to run’ derives from Latin curro, cucurri ‘id’. In some idioms and dialects, there is the a cura which closer to Latin curro. Haşdeu (Cuvente … I, 421) and after him other linguists believe that the form a curge is rebuilt after other verbs such as a merge ‘to go’ in order to avoid the homonymy with the noun cur ‘annus’. The assumption seems to be true, but one should add that the word is not of Latin origin and restructuring of the verb took place sometime in the Thrace-Dacian language, before the tragedy of 105-106 A.D. Note that as the Thraco-Dacian forms and meaning as in today’s Romanian and they are cognates to the Latin verb. They all derive form PIE *kers– ‘to run, to run away’ (IEW, 583) (cf. DELR, curge). The form curgea is found on the tablet 076 and appears in the following expression ‘curgea songeli soruae’ (the blood was flowing in streams). Any native speaker of Romanian will easily understand this sentence (cf. DELR, curgea, 294).
21.dau ‘he/she gave’ (011), which is actually a past tense form, similar to the Romanian equivalent forms. The forms dato, datu ‘given, donated, entrusted’ (065, 079, 096) which the same to the Romanian past participle form dat. All these forms derive from PIE *do-, dǝ-, dou– ‘to give’ (IEW, 223) with cognates in many Indo-European languages, including Latin (cf. DELR, da)
22.deno, denua, ‘he/she confided / testified, revealed’ (130-2). It could be a compound word from the prefix de– ‘de-, des-‘ and the root –no, –nu whose meaning must be something like ‘secret, mystery’ or they derive from a root *den– , related to taină ‘secret, mistery’ which is considered to be of Slavic origin. I could not identify other Indo-European cognates.
23.dicea ‘he/she says (that)’ (107), dizi ‘he/she says, considers to’ (013) podicea ‘after declaring, it can be said’ (119), zice (ziceo) ‘he/she is called” (122) zicto (zihto) ‘by the one called’ (025). All derive form a Thraco-Dacian root dic-/zic-, the predecessor of the Romanian a zice ‘to say’. The Latin dico, dicere ‘to indicate, to say’. Other cognates are found in many Indo-European languages. All come from PIE * deik’- ‘to show, to indicate’ (IEW, 188) (cf. DELR, zice). The alternation d / z is found in different Thraco-Dacian glosses as well as in the inscriptions of the Sinai tablets.
24.disile (106) ‘collapse, disappearance’is a cognate of Latin dissilo ‘to crack, to break into pieces’ (Nicolaescu).
(115) dorindu ‘they want’ has the ending –indu of the pers. III, plural as avendu ‘they have’ ( discussed above). The alternation e / i corresponds to the conjugations II and III which are reflected in various forms today’s Romanian forms of gerund. In the case of the third person plural these ending subsequently disappeared to eliminate confusion with the gerund form, also present in Thrace-Dacian language. Thus, Romanian verbs of third person plural came to be identical either with the third person singular or with the first person singular, after this changes. The verb is found in the modern Romanian. From the same root derives the noun dor ‘longing’ an almost untranslatable word considered to be so specific to the Romanian spirituality. The noun dor is considered by older etymological dictionaries to derive form Latin dolus ‘deceit, wickedness’ which it is absolutely a ridiculous non-sense (cf. DELR, 326-27).
25.edi ‘he/she did, to do’ (013, 076) derives from PIE * dhe– ‘put, to place’ (IEW, 235-38) with cognates in most Indo-European languages. It seems to be be related with Aromanian adaru ‘(I) do’ and modern Romanian a deretica ‘to do one’s room’, but the details are not clear (cf. DELR, 313).
26.ede, edo, edu ‘departure, chasing, to come, to go, to arrive’ (002, 007, 106, 111, 115, 123,
124-2, 127, 130) , eide ‘proceed to’ (023). They are cognates with Latin eo, ire ‘to go’. The root form appears also in compound forms such as gedi, gedu (ge + edo) (ge < PIE * kʷe) ’who came, where he came from’ (098, 121). This Thrace-Dacian root has many cognates in other Indo-European languages and not preserved in the Romanian language (it is found in Aromanian dialect spoken in Greece, Albania and Bulgaria), except for the interjection di ‘urge horses set off’ from an older *idi or *edi (similar to the singular imperative form of the Latin ii < ire ‘to go’) by the elision of the initial vowel.All these forms derive from PIE * ei– * i– ‘to go’ (cf. EDL, 193).
27.ema, emao ‘they descend from, they originate from, origin, descent’ (084-2) are cognates to Latin emano, emanare ‘to come from, to originate from’. This word was not preserve in modern Romanian, but it is a modern loanword.
28.facindu, facsu, factu, fecuu, fem ‘making (doing), he/she made, they made’ (040, 084, 118, 127, 137), as well as factice, fact ‘deeds, acts’ (028, 079) (003- 2 025 130) or facu, fact, factu ‘decided, set up (the gods), faxu, faxtu, fokeso ‘let it be done, so be it !, decision (the Divine Will), onfaho ‘perform’ ( 106). All these forms are predecessor of Romanian verb a face ‘to make, to do’. The similarity with Latin facio ‘to make’ is more than obvious. There are similar forms in other Italic languages : cf. Faliscan faced, Oscan fakiiad, Umbrian faciad, fakust, fakurent (III, pl. prefect future), Venete vhaχsto, all meaning ‘to make, to do’. Linguists believe that these forms derive from PIE * dhe– ‘to put, to place’ (IEW, 235-38). It has been reconstructed a Proto-Italic root *fak– *fek– ‘to do, to make’, as well. I have shown repeatedly that the Italic languages do not come from a Proto-Italic language, such a language never existed, since Italic languages are originally, either Thraco-Illyrian or Celtic dialects. The numerous Italics forms indicate that the same root existed in other Thraco-Illyrian or Celtic dialects (see DELR). In all Italic languages, the verbs deriving form this root mean ‘to do, to make’, not ‘to put, to place’ as in other Indo-European languages with which they are associated. In addition, I have shown the Thraco-Dacian form edi ‘he/she did’ (see above) derives from the same Proto-Indo-European root which Indo-Europeanists deemed the Italic forms derive from. I believe the Italic forms and the Thraco-Dacian ones come from radically different type PIE * bhak– ‘to do’ (cf. DELR, face). It seems that Thrace-Dacian language made the distinction between ‘to do’ and ‘to make’ as English language does as well, unlike modern Romanian and other Romance languages.
30.gatiste ‘(it) is prepared, (it) is ready’ (040). In this case, the suffix –iste corresponds to the Romanian verbal suffix –este as Mr. Nicolaescu argues and not the derivative adverbial suffix of today’s Romanian. The two suffixes are identical, but they are different from grammatical point of view. This verb is the same with Romanian gata ‘(it is) ready’ and its derivatives such as the verb a găta ‘to finish’ and a găti ‘to cook’. These forms have cognates in Albanian, Slavic and Baltic languages (cf. DELR, gata).
31.glotelu, gloto ‘speech, speech, speech’, agloeto ‘speech, speech’ .These forms derive from PIE * g’hlād– ‘to sound, to call’ (IEW, 451) with cognates in the Old Irish, Greek, Sanskrit and
Avestan. There are forms are the forerunners of Romanian glas ‘voice’, a glăsui ‘to speak, to talk’ (cf. DELR, glas).
32.graveu ‘to give weight, gravity, strength’ (079). It is the forerunner of Romanian greu ‘heavy’, greutate ‘weight’. They derive form PIE * gʷuer(ǝ)- ‘heavy’ (Hoffmann-Walde, I, 621). Cognates: Latin gravus and many other Indo-European languages forms (cf. DELR, greu).
33.grihio ‘(he/she) takes care’ (109) is the forerunner of Romanian grijă ‘care’, a îngriji ‘to take care of’ are considered to be Slavic loanwords in Romanian, but this root is not found in any Slavic languages , except for Bulgarian griža ‘id’ which, under the circumstances, can only be a loanword from Romanian. Bulgarian language was heavily influenced by Romanian.
34.lamfalosu ‘we were born / connected by umbilical cord’ (011). It is a form derived from a noun *amfalo, *omfalo, a cognate of the Greek ομφαλός ‘navel’. It could be a loanword from Greek. Modern Romanian has the form buric ‘navel’, a cognate to the Greek form.
35.logue, logo, logue, logiu ‘talking (to / with …) / (he/she) spoke, speak, he/she spoke / speech’ (025, 072). Cognates: Latin loquor, loqui, both from PIE * tlokʷ ‘to speak, to talk’ (cf. EDL, 348). Romanian tâlc ‘meaning, significance’ derives form this root as well.
36.a lotue (lutue, lutie) ‘he/she will fight, he/she have to fight” (045) may have the same origin as atlaito, atlatoe ‘mythical fighters (of Atlantis, ?) (025, 079) and atleu ‘fighter, fight’ (013) atlio (atlu) ‘fighting’ (091-2), but it rather seems to be a cognate of Latin luctor, luctāri, both from PIE * lug-to– ‘to crook, to bend’ (EDL 350) (cf. atlaito, atleu, see infra, Noun section).
37.lubese ‘a loved one’ (098), lubiomu ‘beloved’ (128). Cognates: Latin libet and other Indo-European languages forms such as Germanic, Slavic, Celtic groups, etc. There are forerunner forms of the Romanian verb a iubi ‘to love’ (DELR, iubi).
38.masoratu ‘measured, numbered’ (003) a forerunner of Romanian a măsura ‘to measure’ cognate of Latin mensura, both from PIE *mē– *met– ‘to measure’ (IEW, 703). Other cognates in several Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, măsura).
39.merge ‘alloy, fused’ (106). It may be a cognate of Latin mergo, -ere ‘to sink’, although the meaning is different. However, Medieval Latin mergo seems to have acquired the meaning of ‘unite, merge’ (cf. English merge < Latin mergo). It seems to be cognate Greek μέλδειν ‘to melt’ and Old English meltan ‘to melt, to consume’, Old Norse melta ‘to devour’ This root was not preserved in modern Romanian (not to be confused with the verb a merge ‘to go’).
40.morire ‘to die’ (016), the forerunner of the Romanian verb a muri, murire ‘to die’, cognates to Latin morire ‘id’ and many other Indo-European languages forms, all from PIE * mer– ‘to die * mrtis ‘death’ (IEW, 735) (cf. DELR, muri). Note infinitive suffix -re as in Latin and other Romance languages, including Romanian.
41.meteu ‘to lodge, to deposit / to lay down’ (007), remeso ‘to withdraw’ (118). The second verb is a compound form consisting of the root met-, prefixed with re-. Both forms can be associated with French mettre ‘to put, to lay down’. They seem to be cognates of Latin mitto ‘to let go, to send, to throw’.
42.oloto (olo + to), olutu ‘he will be anointed (as a monarch)’. It derives from the same root as Romanian ulei (oloi, oleu) ’oil’. The root is found in most European Indo-European languages, all from Greek (Attic dialect) έλαιον ‘oil’. Obviously Romanian ulei (oloi, oleu) is a loan-word from Greek, in pre-Roman times.
43.ondu ‘it will be placed between, empowered’ (028, 035, 062).a cognate to Latin induo ‘to put put something onto someone’ (cf. Nicolaescu).
44.onsocito ‘accompanied’ (108), is a predecessor form of Romanian soț ‘husband, companion’, a cognate of Latin socio ‘to unite’, socius ‘ally’. All derive from PIE *sokʷi-s ‘companion’ < PIE * sekʷ– ‘same, to follow, together’ (Walde-Hoffmann, 2, 551; IEW, 896)
45.oprito ‘stopped, hindered’ (123) is a forerunner of Romanian a opri ‘to stop’, as well as a popri ‘to withhold’. Cognates: Albanian prap ‘(I) stop’. The root is found in Slavic languages as well. The Romanian verb a opri ‘to stop’ is considered to be of Slavic origin, but this hypothesis is invalidated by this example.
46.ova ‘we welcome / we rejoice’ ((117), a cognates of Latin ovo, -are ‘rejoice, to celebrate’. Forms are imitative nature.
47.parcio ‘he/she will spare, spare, cease, stop’ can be associated with certain Germanic forms such as Old Norse spara, Old English sparia, English to spare.
48.paz, pazu, pazi, pazieo ‘to defend, to protect’ (158 etc.), pazo ‘defense’ (128). These are predecessor forms of modern Romanian pază ‘watch’, a păzi ‘to watch, to guard’ were considered to be of Slavic since Miklosich (middle of 19th century). All this time, nobody challenged this ‘etymology’. Djačenko cites Miklosich as the source in his Old Church Slavonic dictionary, but Miklosich ‘reconstructed’ the ‘Slavic’ form using existing forms in Bulgarian and Polish. In fact, there is a similar form in Old Church Slavonic, namely paso, pasti which cannot be the etymon of the Romanian forms, but it is a cognate of the Thraco-Dacian and Romanian forms (cf. DELR, păzi).
49. peghiseo ‘(have) sinned’ (035) is a cognate of Latin peccō ‘to err, make a mistake’ > peccatum ‘error, mistake’. It is obvious that, although the root pre-existed in Thraco-Dacian, the Romanian noun păcat ‘sin’ is a loanword from Latin peccatum ‘id’ as a Christian term. The verb a păcătui ‘to sin’ was rebuilt after păcat.
50.pezi ‘to dismount, to colonize’. Cognates: Greek πεζεύω ‘to walk’ (translated by Nicolaescu by ‘to dismount’. If we can do this association, then Dacian pezi may mean ‘to start to walk, to be pedestrian’, hence the alternate meanings of ‘to dismount, to colonize’ In this case, both forms derive PIE * ped– ‘foot’. Thus, Thraco-Dacian pezi is the forerunner Romanian piez ‘leg’ (see DELR, piez, picior).
51.pentu ‘signed, sealed’ (035) is a cognate of Old Church Slavonic pečatiti ‘to sign’ which has the same origin with pisat’ ‘to write’. There are other cognates in Baltic languages. All from PIE * peig– * peik– ‘to color, to decorate’ (IEW, 794). In other Indo-European languages the meaning is ‘to paint, stain’. The Thraco-Dacian form pentu derives from a later Indo-European *pet-, from which seems to derive the Baltic and Slavic forms as well. It is certain that form these roots derive Romanian pată ‘stain, blemish’, a păta ‘to stain’ as well as pag ‘a horse with black or brown spots’ (cf. DELR, pată, pag).
52.perdutu ‘lost, perished’ (045). It is the forerunner of Romanian a pierde ‘to lose’ a cognate of Latin perdere ‘id’.
53.petir ‘to attack’ (115). It seems to be a cognate of Latin peto, -ere ‘to reach, to go to’ <PIE *pt– (e) –i– ‘to fly’ (EDL, 463-64). Also, Venete –pe– ‘to ride’. It was not preserved in Romanian.
54.po, pu, pi, pie, pus, pusere ‘to put, he/she puts, to lay, imposed’ (002, 003-2, 013-2, 121 031, 035, 045, 052-2 , 058, 062-2, 076, 079, 094, 109, 118, 119, 121-2, 124, 126, 134-2), poeno ‘they put’ (072), pout (put) ‘they were placed, they sucked “(023) repunero ‘it is replaced by’ (016), so ropus ‘they were returned’ (122) are cognate forms of Latin pono, -ere ‘to put’ < * pozno < * po–sino ‘to put down’ (EDL, 479). Therefore, forms in –n– are later ones. On the tablets appears only once. In Umbrian is without nasal as in Dacian, namely perstu, pestu ‘to put’ (cf. EDL. 461). They are predecessor forms of Romanian a pune ‘to put’ (cf. DELR, pune).
55.poio (puo, pou), puto ‘he/she can, it may’ (002, 123) are cognates of Latin poteo, -ere ‘can’, all from from PIE *poti-s ‘householder, master, husband’ (IEW, 842). Other cognates can be found in there Italic languages such as Umbrian putiiad, putiians ‘can, may’. Here and in other cases Thraco-Dacian forms may be abbreviated, a very frequent phenomenon in ancient inscriptions.
56.popadu (popadue) ‘invaded, overran, trampled’ (127). The root pad– is found in today’s Romanian in verbs such as nă-pădi ‘to invade’, pră-pădi ‘to destroy’ and even nă-pusti ‘to rush’ (as well as nă-pastă ‘misfortune’ > a năpăstui). In all cases we have the prefix nă- and once pră-. All these verbs come from PIE * ped-, pod– ‘foot’ (IEW, 790), yielding a verb meaning ‘to trample’. Romanian verb a prăpădi ‘to destroy, to die’ is considered of Slavic origin, namely from Old Church Slavonic propasti, propada ‘to crack’, but such a verb is not listed in Djačenko’s dictionary of Old Church Slavonic Slavic (cf. DELR, năpădi, năpusti, prăpădi). Therefore, all the verbs and nouns that contain this root may be considered o of Thraco-Dacian origin.
57.porcedu, purcedu, purcesu, purcedemu, etc.’to start, to proceed’ (009-2, 021, 040, 062, 111, 126, 127, 129, 134), purcezundu / porcezind ‘addressing, reviewing, watching’ are cognates of Latin procedere a compound form from pro- <PIE * per ‘over, too’ (IEW, 810) and cedo ‘to go, to leave’ (cf.DELR). In Thraco-Dacian PIE *per > pur– as in today’s Romanian purcede ‘to proceed, to leave, to go’. In DELR, I considered this Romanian verb to be of Latin origin.
58.portu, porton ‘carry/to head to’ (014, 096, 134) are predecessors of Romanian a purta ‘to wear, to carry’. It is a cognate of Latin porto -are ‘to carry, to bring’, Umbrian purtatu, portatu (pers.II/III, imp. II), portaia (III, sg., subj.), portust (III, sg., future perf.) ‘to wear’, as well as Sanskrit piparti ‘to carry over’, all from PIE *port–o– ‘passage, crossover’(EDL, 482-83). Also, Romanian poartă, Latin porta and Umbrian purtam ‘gate, door’ derive form the same root.
59.pradeo ‘to loot / to snatch’ (069) is a cognate of Latin praeda ‘war booty’ and Sanskrit pradhan ‘id’, as well as Albanian prua ‘plunder’ and a predecessor of Romanian pradă ‘plunder’ and a prăda ‘to plunder’. Walde (II, 352) believes that Latin praeda comes from PIE *dhe– ‘to place, set’ prefixed with prae– (cf. DELR, pradă).
60.preto ‘treasured / to value’ (002, 107) is the predecessor form of Romanian preț ‘price’ a cognate of Latin pretium ‘payment reward price’, both forms of PIE * preti– ‘against’ (EDL 488).
61.prinderoto ‘surrounded’ (0060, prinsu ‘caught, I swear’ (111, 122-2). There seems to be cognate Latin praehendo ‘to catch’. It is assumed that Romanian prinde < Latin praehendo. In case that Nicolaescu’s interpretation is correct, then we should rethink the etymology of this Romanian verb, but I have some doubts about this. In any case, –roto should be associated with Romanian roată ‘wheel’ (cf. DELR, prinde, roată).
62.rani ‘hurt’ is the predecessor of Romanian rană ‘wound’, a răni ‘to wound, to hurt’ and it should be associated be with rana ‘wound’, found in southern Slavic languages (Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian), and Russian which seems to be a loanword from Romanian. Russian may borrowed it form Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian). Cognates in other Indo-European languages such as Albanian, Sanskrit and Avestan, all from PIE *ŭorna ‘wound, opening’ (IEW, 1163). (cf. DELR, rană).
63.retero, retahio ‘removed, withdrawn, to be withdrawn, to move beyond’ (009, 025, 076, 091, 134). It is a compound verb composed of the root ter-, tah– whose origin is difficult to identify. It may be associated with PIE * tragh– ‘to draw, to pull’ (IEW, 1089), but the evolution of the two forms is difficult to understand. We can not tell if the identification of the two forms is correct or not.
64.rigoete, roghiau ‘(they) pray / worship’ (020, 065, 123), arezandu ‘(they) dedicated to, to bring an offering’ (094) airozanu ‘prayer / Te Deum, vow, sacrifice, dedication’ (094) are cognates of Latin rogo, -are ‘to pray’ < PIE *rog-o ‘stretching’ (cf. EDL).
65.ripondeo / rupondeo ‘he/she answered’ (134) . The verb ripondeo is related to with arpunsue ‘replied that’. It means that either they belong to different dialects (or historical versions of the same language) or less likely, there are writing hesitations. Cognates: Latin respondio < spondeo ‘to promise, to make a contract’ < PIE *spondeje/o ‘to make libations several times’ (EDL, 582)
66.rometo, romeso ‘to resolve, to sent’ (006, 011, 022) seems to be a cognate of Latin trasmitto < mitto ‘to let go, to convey’ < PIE *m(e)ith– ‘to change, to replace’ (EDL, 383-84).
67.ropnistoe / roponestoe ‘raped’ (109-2) ropuso, roposi ‘to kill, slain, killed’, roposi ‘slain (pl.)’ (069, 111), socirapto ‘breaking, taking away’ (129). The first two forms appear on the tablet 109 and have the same meaning. Nicolaescu believes it is a compound form rop’ni sto ‘king lied on her’. However, I believe it is not a compound form, but a verb that comes from the same root as Romanian a răpi ‘to kidnap’ along with a răpune ‘to kill’. The meanings of the forms ropuso, roposi confirm the hypothesis. Latin rapio, rapere means ‘to kidnap’ and ‘to rape’ as well as raptus ‘robbery, rape’ (cf. English to rape < Late Latin rapere). All from PIE *rep– ‘to snatch, to steal’ (IEW, 865). There are other cognates in several Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, răpi, răpune).
68.ropto ‘separated, torn’ (023) is a cognate of Latin rumpo ‘to break’ from PIE * Hru-n-p (present) *Hreup– (aorist) ‘to break’. There are cognates in several Indo-European languages (cf. EDL, 529- 30). scete ‘to know, to find out’ (130) is a cognate of Latin scio, -ire ‘to know’ < PIE * sk-i(e/o- ‘to make an incision’. I note that there are no cognates in other Romance languages, except for Romanian and Sardinian where the Latin influence was minimal.
69.seat, sede, setu, setue ‘to sit, to be seated, seated, enthroned’ (015, 039, 108, 116), sidue ‘to sit, be seated’ (072), asit seu ‘being seated at’ (126) asetina ‘placed it (fem.), placed’ (109, 123), sidue ‘to sit / be seated “(072) siado (shadu) ‘establishment’ (116) sito ‘settlement, establishment, temple’ (009, 128) .All these forms derive from PIE *sed– ‘to sit’ (IEW, 884). Romanian verbs a sedea ‘to sit’ and a aseza ‘to place’ derive from these Dacian verbal forms.
70.sendu so ‘feeling that, admitting that’, sendos ‘agreement, consent’, cosendos ‘agreement / consent’ (011, 040, 072) are cognates of Latin sentio, -ire ‘to feel’ < PIE *snt-ie/o– or *sénti ‘to notice’ (cf. EDL, 554).
71.sochetu ‘he/she counted / determined / considered’ (108) is a predecessor of Romanian a socoti ‘to calculate, to consider’. Bulgarian sokotit’ ‘to take care, to guard’ and Ukrainian sokotyty ‘to keep, to save’ seem to be loanwords form Romanian, while Russian sčot ‘calculation’, sčitati ‘to count, to consider’ is a cognate.
72.stopito ‘to stop, stopped, he/it was stopped’ (005, 006, 009-2, 062) is related to Romanian a astupa ‘to occlude, to stop, to block’ (which obviously does not derive from Vulgar Latin *adstuppare as some linguists maintain) and dop ‘stopper, cork’. Cognates: Hittite ištap ‘to cover, to close, to plug’, Latvian staupe ‘stopper, cork’, all from PIE * (s)teup– ‘to push, to to stop, toplug’ (IEW, 1034) (cf. DELR, astupa, dop).
73.sto, stoe ‘to stay, be ready to’ (016, 045, 106, 121-2) is the predecessor of Romanian a sta ‘to stay, to stand’ (and its derivatives). There are cognates in most of the Indo-European languages, besides Latin. All from from PIE *stā-, *sta– ‘to stay, to stand’ (IEW, 1004).
74.tecevo (tecebo) ‘to teach (them)’ (079) seems to be a cognat Latin doceō ‘to say, to inform, to learn’ from PIE * dok–om / o ‘to get someone to accept something’ (EDL 176) with cognates in Hittite and Greek (cf. DELR)
75.timie, timieis ‘to fear, they fear’ (072) is a cognate of Latin timeō ‘I fear,I am afraid’ from PIE * tem– (Walde-Hoffmann, 682). Other cognates in Greek and Sanskrit (cf. DELR, 812).
76.torehu ‘they descended’ (019) may be associated with Romanian a tărăgăna ‘to delay, a trage ‘to draw, to pull’, cognate to Latin traho, trahere ‘to draw, to pull’ (cf. DELR, trage)
77.torso, torsos ‘to return, return (to …)’ (023, 115), turnato ‘the one who came back’ (014). In some dialects of Romanian there is the form înturna ‘to turn, to return’ very close to Thraco-Dacian onturnu, onturniu, onturna ‘returned, to return’ (002, 028, 069, 122), cognates to Latin tornare ‘to turn, to return’ < tornus. Note that the famous phrase ‘Torna, torna fratre’ from 7th century, AD, may not not be a some kind of Vulgar Latin expression as it is commonly believed an not be considered Latin, the language. The Greek historian Theophanes who gives this expression said it belonged to the local speech (cf. DELR, întoarce). All these forms originate in PIE * terk– * tork– ‘to twist, to turn’ (IEW, 1077). In other words, both the Thraco-Dacian and (Romanian) and Latin have words serving from the root * tork-, torn-, but also in Greek. It is believed that Latin torno < tornus < Greek τόρνος ‘compass, object to circles, circle’, but it is a wrong assumption. One may see that both root forms are present in Thraco-Dacian and Romanian. The Greek form is isolated in Greek and it seems to be a loanword from Thracian or Illyrian. Beekes (EDG, II, 1495) argues that the Greek τόρνος derives from PIE * tor–no– which is actually a variant of * tork-, mentioned above.
78.tram ‘bound, tied’ (017) should be associated with Aromanian tramă ‘warp’, not preserved in modern Romanian. However the root is present in the verb a destrăma ‘to unravel, to unweave, to desintegrate’. These forms are cognates to Latin trama ‘woof, weft’.
79.traso, trasu, treset ‘signed, written, drawn by’ (005, 006, 011, 012, 022, 035, 040, 045, 052, 058, 065, 069, 072, 079, 092, 096, 121, 126, 129, 134) are derived forms of from the past participle of the verbal root *trag– ‘tp draw, to pull < PIE * trāgh– ‘id’ (IEW (1089). There are cognates in several Indo-European languages (see torehu, above) .
80.tuetie ‘he announced/ trumpeted’ (126). Onomatopoeic formation, similar to Romanian a tutui both from PIE * tu– * tu–tu ‘it imitates a muffled or birds sounds’ (IEW, 1097).
81.uma ‘to bury, pits’ (111), a cognate of Latin humo ‘to bury’, Etruscan um ‘to bury’ (cf. DELR, humă, om).
82.upato ‘they subdued’ (129) is a compound verb and may be associated with Latin supponere and Greek υποτάσσω ‘to subdue’ from PIE * upo-, * up– ‘under, until’ (IEW, 1106) and a verbal radical po, pu ‘to put’ (see above) and –to is a verbal suffix indicating a past form.
83.va ‘to come’ (028), vado ‘to go’ (006), with Latin vado ‘to leave, to go’. The radical was kept in Romanian va in the phrase ‘mai va’.
84.vacuren (vachiren) ‘he left/deserted’ (014) vacuto ‘vacant’ (119) is cognate Latin vaco, –are ‘to empty’ < PIE * u(e)ko-(EDL 649) have cognates in other Italic languages: Umbrian ander.vakaze, ander.uacose ‘to interrupt’. This Dacian verb was not preserved in Romanian.
85.varu ‘they returned’ (009) derives from the same root as Romanian a (se) învârti (and its derivatives) < PIE * ŭert– ‘to spin, to rotate’ (IEW, 1156) with Cognates in Latin and other Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, învârti).
86.veiu ‘will care / will watch’ (045) is to be associated with Romanian a veghea (and its derivatives). They derive from PIE * ŭeg‘-e– ‘to be strong, to thrive” (EDL, 677). Cognate in Latin, Sanskrit and Germanic languages (cf. DELR, veghea).
87.veso (văzu) ‘he saw, observed’ (076) iveru ‘it is obvious (that)’ (013), is the predecessor of Romanian a vedea and cognate to Latin videre, both from PIE * ŭedi– ‘to perceive, to see’ (IEW, 1125). The root is present in many other Indo-European languages. This Thraco-Dacian form corresponds to perfect form of today’s Romanian language (cf. DELR, vedea).
88.vetoe ‘they oppose’ (045) is cognate of Latin veto ‘to prohibit’ < PIE * ŭet– * ŭot– ‘to speak, to say’ (EDL, 672). Although this verb not preserved in Romanian language, preserved in the Romanian noun votru ‘spokesman, mediator, matchmaker’ (fem. vruță).
89.voie, voiu, voisu ‘he/they want’ (026, 029, 1270, voiu, voie ‘will, the will’ (045, 080, 122), voru ‘they want, the will’ < PIE * ŭel-,* ŭol– ‘to want’ (IEW, 1137). Most of these forms can be found in today’s Romanian with the same meaning. There are cognates Latin, Germanic and Slavic languages (cf. DELR, vrea, voi).
90.zerind ‘they spotted, glimpsing’ (111) is the predecessor of Romanian zări ‘to glimpse, to sight’. Cognates: Latin seruo (obseruo ‘to notice’ and Lithuanian žuru, žureti ‘to look, to noice’.
91.zimzu ‘they were singing, humming’ is imitative formation verb such as today’s Romanian a zumzăi ‘to hum, to buzz’.
Arbois de Jubainville, Henri d’, Les premiers habitants de l’Europe d’apres des écrivains de l’antiquité et les travaux des linguistes, Paris, 1889-1894.
BA: Balkan-Archiv. Fortsetzung des Jahresberichtes des Instituts für rumänischen Sprache, Leipizig, 1 (1924) – 4 (1928).
Bârzu, L., Continuitatea populaţiei autohtone în Transilvania în sec. IV–V, Bucureşti, 1973.
BL: Bulletin Linguistique, Bucarest-Paris, 1 (1933) – 4 (1938).
Blagova, E., Ceitlin, R.M., Večerki, R., Staroslaveanski slovarĭ (po rukopiseam 10-11 vekov), Moscova „Russki jazyk”, 1994.
Brugmann, K., Elements of the comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages: A concise exposition of the History of Sanskrit, Old Iranian… Old Armenian, Old Greek, Latin, Umbrian-Samnitic, Old Irish, Gothic, O
Bulgăr, Gh., Constantinescu-Dobridor, Gh., Dicţionar de arhaisme şi regionalisme, Saeculum Vizual, Bucureşti, 2005.
Cihac, A., Dictionnaire d’étymology daco–roumaine, Frankfurt (2 vol.), 1870-1879).
Cionchin, A.C., Cionchin, I., De la scrierea dacică la cea românească, Editura Eurostampa, Timişoara, 2006.
Candrea, I.A., Densusianu, O., Dicţionarul etimologic al limbii române, (a-putea), Bucureşti, 1907-1914.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Genes, Peoples and Languages, Nort Point Press, New York, 2000.
Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire de mots, Klincksieck, Paris, 1968-1980.
Cihac, A., Dictionnaire d’étymology daco–roumaine, Frankfurt (2 vol.), 1870-1879.
Cionchin, A.C., Cionchin, I., De la scrierea dacică la cea românească, Editura Eurostampa, Timişoara, 2006.
Copeland, M., Introduction to the Etruscan language (Academia.edu).
Cioranescu, A., Diccionario etimologico rumano, Madrid, 1958.
Colson, F., Nationalité et régénération des paysans moldovalaques, Paris, Dentu, 1862.
Corominas, J. & Pascual, J.A, Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico, Editorial Gredos, Madrid, 1987.
Cortelazzo, M. & Marcato, C., I dialetti italiani, Dizionario etimologico, UTET (Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese), Torino. 1998.
DAR: Dicţionarul Academiei Române, Bucureşti, 1913-1940 (a-lepăda).
DELR: Vinereanu, M., Dicționar Etimologic al Limbii Române – pe baza cercetărilor de indo-europenistică, Alcor Edimpex, Bucurști, 2008
Densuşianu, N., Dacia preistorică, Editura Meridiane, Bucureşti, 1986.
Diez, F., Etymologisches Wörterbuch der romanischen Sprachen. Dritte Auflage, Bonn, 1869.
Djačenko, Polnyi cerkovno–slaveanski slovarĭ, Moscova, în „Terra knižyi Klub” (2 vol.), 1998.
Dolgopolski, A.B., The Indo-European homeland and lexical contacts of Proto-Indo-European with other languages, în „Mediteranean Language Review”, 3, 1988, pp. 7-31.
Dolgopolski, A.B., The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Paleontology, The McDonald Institute for Archeolgical Research, Cambridge, England, 1998.
EDG: Beekes, R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Brill, Leiden, Boston, 2010.
EDL: de Vaan, M. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages, Brill, Leiden, Boston, 2008.
Georgiev, V., Le dace comme substrat de la langue roumnaine, în „Revue roumaine de linguistique”, 10, 1965, pp. 75-80.
Golab, Z., “Kentum” elements in Slavic, în „Lingua Posnaniensis”, 16, 1972, pp. 53-82.
Goodenough, W.H., The evolution of pastoralism and Indo–European Origins, în Cardona, G., Hoenigswald, H.M. & Senn, A. (ed), Indo–European and Indo–Europeans, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1970.
Hasdeu, B.P., Magnum etymologicum Romaniae. Dicţionarul limbii istorice şi poporane a Românilor, (a-bărbat), Bucureşti (4 vol.), 1886-1868.
Herodot, Histories of Herodotus, London, New York, 1964.
IEW: Walde, A., Pokorny, J., Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Bern, München
Iordanes, The Gothic history of Jordanes, Barnes & Noble, Cambridge, New York, 1960.
Lehmann, W. P., A Gothic Etymological Dictionary, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1986.
Lidell, H., Scott, R., Greek–English Lexicon, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.
Miklosich, F., Die Slawischen Elemente in Rumänischen, în „Denkschriften”, XII, Akademie der Wissenschaften, Viena, 1862.
Orel, V., Albanian etymological Dictionary, Brill, Leiden, Boston, 1998.
Orel, V., A Concise Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language, Brill, Leiden, Boston, Köln, 2000.
Oţetea, A. et al., Istoria lumii în date, Editura enciclopedică română, Bucureşti, 1972.
Ovidiu, Naso Publius, Tristia, Ex Ponto, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1965.
Priscus, Panites, Ambasadele în Izvoarele Istoriei României, vol. II, Bucureşti, 1964.
Procopius din Caesarea, History of Wars, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1992-1998.
Procopius din Caesarea, De Aedificiis Iustiniani Imperatoris, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1992-1998.
Puhvel, J., Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1984.
Pulgram, E., The tongues of Italy. Prehistory and history, Harvard Unviersity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Puşcariu, S., Etymologisches Wörtebuch der rumänischen Sprache. I. Lateinische Elemente, Heidelberg, 1905.
Reichenkron, G., Das Dakische (reconstruiert aus dem Rumänischen), Heidelberg, 1966.
REW: Meyer-Lübke, W. Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Carl Winter Universitätverlag, Heidelberg, 1972.
Russu, I.I., Elemente autohtone în limba română; substratul comun româno-albanez, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, Bucureşti, 1970.
Tagliavini, C., Le origine delle lingue neolatine, Bologna, 1959.
Thesaurus linguae latinae, Editus auctoritate et consilio academiarum quinque Germanicum Berolinensis, Gottingensis, Lipsiensis, Monacensis, Vidobonensis, Lipsiae, In aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1900-.
Van Windenkens, A.J., Essai sur une indo–europeene préhelenique, Louvain, 1952.
Varro, M.T., De lingua latina, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. (English-Latin), 1951.
Vasmer, M., Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg, 1953-1955.
Vasmer, M., Etimologičeski slovarĭ russkogo jazyka, Moscova, Progress (4 vol.), 1986-1987.
Vinereanu, M., Originea traco–dacă a limbii române, Pontos, Chişinău, 2003.
Vinereanu, M. Dicționar etimologic al limbii române, Alcor Edimpex, 2008, București.
Walde, A. and Hoffmann, J.B., Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, I+II, Heideberg, Karl Winter
Zaharia, E., Populaţia românească din Transilvania în sec. VII–VIII, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, Bucureşti, 1977.
Zaharia, E., Săpăturile de la Dridu, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, Bucureşti, 1967.