antichiu (antehieu, antehiu) ‘ancient’ (108). It has the same origin as ancieu, a cognate of Latin antiquus. Although it is possible to be a loanword from Latin, it can be a genuine Dacian word from PIE * anti- (IEW, 48) with cognates in many Indo-European languages such as Hittite, Sanskrit, Greek, (see ancieu, ultra adverbs) (cf. DELR, înainte).

bolesto (on seti bolesto) ‘being sick’. From this form derive Romanian boală ‘disease, illness’, bolnav‘sick’. In DELR, I have shown that these Romanian forms may not be Slavic as it was believed for a long time, since cognates can be found in other Indo-European languages, not only in the Slavic ones, such as theCeltic languages which were closely related to  Thraco-Illyrian  (cf. DELR, boală).

crum  ‘bloody, cruel’ (003) has the same origin as Romanian crud ‘cruel’, crunt ‘cruel bloody which may be of Thraco-Dacian origin, seemingly from other dialects of this language. There are cognates in many other  Indo-European languages, including Latin, from PIE * kru-n-to-s ‘bloody, cruel’ (IEW, 621). One may notice that Romanian crunt is basically identical with the Proto-Indo-European form reconstructed by Walde-Pokorny and slightly different from Latin. According to Hoffmann-Walde (1, 294) Latin cruentus ‘bloody’ < *cruventus ‘id’ (cf. DELR, crud, crunt).

 eliau, eliu, elie, elia so ‘holy, divine, of / the gods’ (014, 015-2, 108, 115-2, 127, 134). I am tempted to associate these forms to Afro-Asian ones that define divinity: Hebrew el ‘god’, Arabic ilah ‘god’, as well as Sumerian el ‘id’ as in Bab-el (Babylon) ‘Gate of  Gods’. If Thraco-Dacian  language has these forms, they go back to the Nostratic level. Modern Romanian share hundreds of roots with other Nostratic languages (see our Nostratic Roots in Romanian, 2010). On the other hand, these forms may be associated with the root of personal pronoun (see supra, Pronouns).

elio, elieu, eloa, eloas ‘special, famous, praised’ (013, 062, 080-3, 092, 130-2). These forms cannot be associated with the ones above, although it may be associated with Romanian alege ‘to choose, to select’ and Latin eligo, elegere ‘to choose, to select’, both  from PIE *leg- ‘to collect’ (EDL, 332), if the author correctly identified these lexical items.

malio (ghetto) ‘little, Getae’ (107). I will discuss only the adjective  malio ‘small’ which has cognates in several Indo-European languages meaning ‘small’ (especially in Germanic, Slavic  and Romanian as well ), meaning originally ‘small animal’ as is the case of Romanian miel ‘lamb’ (or mior (mioară) ‘one year old lamb’) . The phrase ‘small Getae / Goths’ is found in Jordanes who states that they were  numerous and  were farmers and shepherds. It is well known that Jordanes makes a confusion between the Getae and Goths in his work. All these forms come from PIE * melo- ‘small animal’ (IEW, 724) (cf. DELR, miel) (for  ghetto, see Nouns).

mare, mario ‘great, deserving, valuable’ (007, 012, 092), mairo (viro) ‘great man / Roman consul, mayor’ (010, 011, 025, 045, 062, 092, 094, 119, 120 , 121, 124, 126), maieru ‘consul / governor’ (129) are predecessor forms of Romanian mare ‘big, great’. There are no cognates in Latin, nor in Romance languages, but there are cognates in Celtic languages: cf. Old Irish mar ‘id’, Old Welsh maur ‘id’,  Breton .meur ‘id’ (cf. DELR, mare¹).

noe, nueu ‘new’ (045, 128), novu ‘new (fem.)’, (012) nueso ‘to renew’ are predecessor forms of Romanian nou ‘new’ (and its derivatives). There are numerous cognates in many other Indo-European languages, all from PIE *neu-ios ‘new’ (IEW, 769) (cf. DELR, nou).

onsoletole ‘brilliant (from the top of the sun)’ (005) is a compound form: from  on- ‘a derivational prefix’ which was pronounced ‘ăn’, similar to Romanian prefix ‘în’. The root sole ‘sun’ (cf. Romanian soare ‘sun’) and -tole ‘high, tall’ (see tali, talu , Nouns).

roso  ‘red’ (128) is the predecessor of Romanian  roșu ‘id’ (vezi roșu, DELR).

tatu ‘all’  (fem., pl.) (127) is the predecessor of Romanian tot ‘all’ (dialectal tăt) (cf. DELR, tot)

vel ‘great’ (079), velite ‘great, beautiful’ (002) is a cognate of OCS velŭ ‘great’. We cannot tell if the identification of this root is correct or not, but it was not preserved in modern Romanian (see also malio ‘small’ supra).

(closed classes of words)



cuive (134) ‘any, anyone’ associated by Nicolaescu. with Latin quivis, quaevis ‘any’. The form cuive seems to be composed of cui related to Latin cuid suffixed by -ve. It is quite obvious this suffix is the predecessor of Romanian -va expressing something undetermined as in some relative pronouns or adverbs such as cine-va ‘somenone’, ce-va ‘something’, unde-va ‘somewhere’, când-va ‘sometime’, etc. One may notice that in Dacian language the suffix -ve is  used in similar situations.

ge ‘which, what’ (025, 118, 122-2, 124, 128), ge ‘of /’s’ (011-2, 028) .This form may be associated with Latin. hic, haec, hoc ‘this’ for which de Vaan (EDL 284) reconstructs a PIE * g / ghe / o- ‘this’. Its original meaning is  ‘he who’ as it appears in fact in most cases. It is a relative pronoun which introduces a subordinate clause. It is also found in compound forms such as gea (ge-a) ‘for whom.., for what to…’ or gedo (ge-do) ‘who/that has come, came’ , gelues (ge-lues) ‘the famous, the praised ones’ , geo, geo ‘the one who, the ones who, who’.

enio, enu ‘they, the gods’ (080, 109-2), eno ‘he, she, her, goddess / god’ (002.079, 109-2, 134), eu ‘him, theirs’ (116 127), eiu ‘those, they’ (130). It is hard to say what is the relationship between the concept of divinity and the third person pronoun (singular and plural) or whether it is about an homonymy or not, as the author does not specify this. One may infer that our ancestors prefer to refer to the gods as ‘they’. The fear to pronounce the name of a divinity was widespread in ancient times.

esti ‘this, this time’ (109) is the predecessor of Romanian ista ‘this’, asta ‘id’, ăsta ‘id’ cognates of Latin iste ‘id’, and Umbrian estu ;istum, esto ‘ista’. (see DELR, ăsta).

 ila, ilo ‘that, someone’ (062, 115-2). From these forms are derived Romanian ăl, ăla, a, aia and the definite article and the personal pronoun of the III person, singular and plural. There are cognates in Italic languages: Latin ille, illa, Umbrian ulu ‘illuc’, as well as Oscan ullas ‘illius’.

 lore (lor) ‘to those’ (084), lorieo (loriu) ‘of them, their (kingdoms)’ (091) are the predecessors of the Romanian plural form ‘-lor’ for genitive and dative plural of the definite article, as well as the personal pronoun plural form ‘lor’ for genitive, dative and vocative case.

lue, lui, loui ‘he, to him, his’ (062-2, 065, 069, 092, 120, 126, 128-2) are the predecessors of Romanian the form of the definite article singular of genitive and dative case.

mio ‘my’ (018) is the predecessor of Romanian possessive pronoun meu  ‘my’. It has numerous cognates in many other Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, meu).

na ‘with us, on our side’, nie ‘our’ (pl.), nieu ‘our’ (sg.), niu ‘us, through/by us’ (002, 079), nester, nosetru ‘our, ours, ours’ (069, 120, 126-2, 129), noste, nostero, nosteu, nostu ‘ours’ (005, 006-2, 007, 011, 040), nostreo ‘our’ (111) . We have here a variety of forms defining plural personal pronouns of the I person which are  essentially divided into two groups: nie, nieu, niu and nosetro, nosetru, noste, nostero, nosteu, nostu, nostreo. The first group is closer to PIE * ne * no-, *nes-,  * nos- ‘we’ (IEW, 758). The form na is in an oblique case, probably similar or identical to the nominative form. The others are possessive forms, almost identical to the equivalent forms of modern Romanian (nostru, and dialectal nostu, nost) and cognates to Latin noster, nostrum, as well as Old Irish náthar ‘ours’, all  from an older IE * nōstrom (EDL 413).

sosi ‘their’ is a form of the possessive pronoun and it should be associated with Romanian possessive forms său ‘his’, sa ‘her (s)’, săi ‘their’, sale ‘id’.

tu ‘you’ (sg) (005), teu, tu, ti ‘tu, father (?)’ (011, 79-2, 091, 122) is the origin of Romanian personal pronoun tu ‘you’ (and its derivatives) from PIE *tu ‘you’ (IEW, 1097). Cognates are found in most Indo-European and even Nostratic languages (Bomhard & Kerns, 102) (cf DELR, tu).




ce ’the one who, who (which), that’ (15, 079, 084) eco, ceu ‘that, which, the, of those’ (005-2, 006, 009, 013, 025 -3, 035, 072, 079, 084, 092, 117, 119, 130, 134), ceiceu, cie ‘the ones, of those who, those’ (003, 021, 107, 129), chi ‘those’ (123), uceo, ucea ‘of those’ (072) are formed which explains the pre-posed definite article in Romanian cel (cea, cei, ,cele) which are compound forms of ăl (a, ăi, ale). These Dacian forms are derived  from PIE *  kʷo, kʷe- ‘what, who’ (IEW, 644) (see ge supra, Pronouns).

lo ‘the’ (002, 007, 009, 010-3, 012, 013-2, 015-4, 028, 035, 040-5, 045-2, 058, 069, 080-3, 084, 091, 092-2, 096-2, 108-2, 113, 115, 118, 122-3, 124, 129, 134), lo ‘the one of’ (021-5, 069, 120-3, 126), lo ‘the one who’(025, 121), lo ‘of (the)’ (introducing a noun in genitive case) (065, 076, 080, 092, 094, 096-2, 098, 108, 116, 117, 128), lo ‘the one from’ (069, 076, 079, 116). This is the Dacian form of the pre-posed article similar to  Romanian pre-posed definite article ăl (a, ăi, ale). Dacian has also a a postponed definite article as Romanian has which is more frequent in Romanian (see bellow) and later cel (cea cei, cele) which are introducing an adjective in Romanian.  Outside Sinaia tablets, the  pre-posed definite article in the genitive case appears on a ledger discovered at Tomis( an ancient city by the western side of Black Sea, today’s Constanța, Romania) with the image of a woman and the inscription with the same characters used on the Sinaia tablets: ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΑΛΟΥΛΟΖΑΝΙΣ (ANTIGONA LU LOZANIS) where LU  is same definite article found on the Sinaia tablets and in Romanian as well. In other words, this inscription is in Dacian language, not Greek, and can be understood today by any Romanian-speaking person. This example is a real proof that the Sinaia tablets are not counterfeit as most of our establishment scientists maintain.

-le (-li) ‘the’ found in songe-li ‘the blood’ (76) which is a singular form singular  (almost) identical to Romanian form sânge-le ‘id’ , but also as  plural form of gloatele  ‘the words’. In modern Romanian we have the same situation. The post-posed definite -le is found to singular masculine  nouns ending in -e and to the feminine plural noun (see glotelu, supra, Nouns).

 li ‘the (definite article plural form) (127) found in the expression tato li onghio ‘from all sides’. One may see this is the pre-posed  plural definite article, unlike modern Romanian where the definite article which basically post-posed. In this case, the plural li  (from singular lo?) is pre-posed, but in other cases it may be post-posed (see above). Therefore, one may not say anymore that the definite in Romanian (and the Romance languages (cf. Vinereeanu, RLCR 4, 2015) is derived from Latin  illo, illa. Certainly, the Thraco-Dacian definite article should be associated with the Thraco-Dacian forms of the demonstrative pronouns ilo, ila ‘that’ discussed above, identical to the Latin forms (see supra, Pronouns). On the other hand one should bear in mind that there was no definite (or indefinite) article in Latin. I believe that the definite article became entirely post-posed (perhaps in late Thraco-Dacian)  once the determinants of the  nouns in the overwhelming majority became post-posed. On may notice that in  Thraco-Dacian the determinants are in most cases pre-posed as malio ghetto ‘little Getae’ or in mairo viro ‘great man’, etc.


 centine ‘hundreds’ (025) is cognate of Latin  centum ‘hundred’ from PIE * kntom- <dkntom ‘ten times ten’ (IEW, 192). In other words, Thraco-Dacian is a centum language form. However, on the Sinaia tablets one may find also the form soto ‘id’ (003, 005, 079), a satem language form, if both forms are correctly identified by the author.  On different occasions, I proved that Thraco-Dacian was a centum language, not a satem one as most historical linguists believe. The form soto must be a loanword from some satem Indo-European language (dialect) neighboring Thraco-Dacian, such as Scythian considered to be an Iranian language.

deciunu ‘eleven’ (062). This form shows that the formation of numerals from 11 to 19 in Thracian-Dacian was different from today’s Romanian or at least in the dialect which the tablet 062 was written, yet different than system of Latin (cf. Latin undecim ‘id’). The current Romanian form system un-spre-zece is the same as in Albanian njëm-bë-dhjetë indicating  a  Thraco-Illyrian origin. One may notice that the dental did not turn into  z in this dialect as in other Thrace-Dacian words (see above deus /zeu, Nouns).

 deo, doi ‘two (singular feminine and masculine forms), the two , both’ (002, 035, 062, 111, 117,

hilu (chilu) ‘thousands’  > hili-arh, hili-arhu  ‘general, commander over 1000 men’’ (006, 013, 025, 062, 079-2, 084, , 094, 120, 130-2, 134 etc.) are loanwords form Greek χίλιοι ‘thousand’

saptaus, saptaius ‘seventh’ (117) is related to Romanian șapte ‘seven’. One may notice that in Thraco-Dacian the formation of the ordinal numeral is similar to Latin (cf. Latin septimus ‘id’), but it comes closer to the Indo-European. In Proto-Indo-European the ordinal numeral was formed by adding the suffix *-o-s, inherited in these two languages and in Greek as well.  It is of special interest the Illyrian proper name Sestus ‘sixth’, almost identical to Latin sextus (Sextus) also used as a proper name. Illyrian was a dialect of the Thraco-Illyrian not a different language as most linguist believe.

seși ‘six’ (002, 012), seit ‘sixth’ (117), seih, Seix Teera ‘the master of the six provinces’ (003). Seși is the form of the cardinal numeral, almost identical to Romanian șase ‘id’.

seti ‘seven’ (012) seems to be the form of a different dialect or an error of writing. E. Nicolaescu argues that in many cases there are introduced some extra vowels to break some with consonantic clusters. The best example is the name of king Burebista (1st century BC) which is spelled almost each time in a different way in various contexts..Also the  consonantal group pt is simplified to t, in many cases. as it is in is set form a *sept.

soto ‘hundred’ (003, 005, 079) is the satem languages variant of the numeral 100, pe lângă centine  (see centine, supra). Modern Romanian sută ‘id’ is derived from a satem language, although Thraco-Dacian waa a centum language

tre, treu, treuit, truu ‘three, third’ (025-2, 080, 109), triga, trigaiu ”triunghiular /tripartite, trinity’ (040, 118), tripalele ‘the Danube Delta’ (129-2), triga, trigaiu ”trunghiular/ tripartite, trinity (040, 118) are the predecessors of Romanian numeral trei (and its derivatives)) from PIE *trei- (IEW, 1090) with cognates in most of the Indo_European languages (cf. DELR, trei)

un ‘one’ (062), unie, unio, uniu, oniri, onu, onisi ‘united, to unite /reunite (002, 021, 023, 045, 072, 109, , 123), uniu unidu, unnu ”union, united’ (040, 045, 084, 116, 118, 127), reuniu, rioniero ‘to reunite, allied, reunited’ (045, 126), unisive ‘neighbors, neighboring’ (040), reuniro ‘bring together, reunion’ (118), reuniu, reunierio ‘let be reunited, allied/ unied’ (045, 0126),  oni sa, onio, onireo so, onisi ‘let them be united, unite, reunite, united, to unite’ (007, 021, 080, 109, 114, 126). Cognates are found in Latin, the Romance languages and in other Indo-European languages as well, from  PIE *oin-o-s ‘one’ (IEW, 286) (cf. DELR, un).



aci, aici ‘here’ (116, 127), ice, icea ‘here’ (069, 079, 121) are predecessors of aici, aci, ici, icea etc. ‘id’. Lat. hic, haec, hoc ‘this, here’ este un cognat, dar format pe alt principiu. De Vaan (EDL, 284) reconstituie  PIE *g/ghe/o- ‘this’ și -*k’e ‘here’. De Vaan considers that Latin and Itlaic forms are componds of the two, but this does not happen in other Indo-Europena languages. latine. The Thraxo-Dacian forms are derived from PIE *k’e ‘here’, prefixed by a, ( or i, e> a).  In Italic languages: cf. Oscan eks-, uk ‘id’ and Umbrian essu, as wellas Etrusna ik ‘id’ (Copeland).

anceu, anceo, ăncio ‘before, ahead, in front (of) (010, 012, 016, 079-2, 96, 98, 120, 121), ancieu ‘before, old’ (52) and as preposition ancea, anceu, anceo, ănceo ‘before, in front’ (010, 012, 016, 079-2, 096, 98, 120, 121) are the predecessors of Romanian înainte < în-ante, dinainte ‘in front, before’. Many times in the inscriptions of the Sinaia tablets, the dental t, followed by a front vowel such as e or i, turns into affricate (č) as in many modern Romanian dialects. In the previous century the phonological phenomenon was found almost everywhere, but it was ‘corrected’ by the standard language rules. The forms are derived from PIE *anti- ‘before, in front’ (IEW, 48).

apo ‘after’ (023), onapoe ‘backward / return’ (069), nopoilu ‘back’ (124) are almost identical to Romania  apoi ‘after’ (and its derivatives), all from  PIE * apo- ‘back’ (IEW, 53) with cognates in several Indo-European languages (cf. DELR), while onapoe and nopoilu is an compound form with the prefix no < on (in) as in Romanian napoia ‘behind or a înapoia ‘to return’ .

cuid (076) ‘even, really’ is a cognate of Latin quidem ‘really, indeed’ (Nicolaescu)  from quid ‘why’, all from  PIE * kʷui- (cf. DELR, ce) (see also above cuive, Pronouns).

 cumu ‘how’ (003, 084) is identical to Romanian cum ‘id’, both form * PIE * kʷom-  ‘a relative-interrogative form’ (IEW, 644). Cognates are found in several Indo-European languages, including Latin (cf. DELR, cum).

 cundu. ‘when’ (134) is almost identical to Romanian când ‘id’, with cognates in several Indo-European languages, including Latin from PIE *ko- * kʷom- (IEW, 644).

delu (010) ‘down’, dolu ‘id’ (002), delo on ‘lower than’ (052). It seems that these adverbial forms have the same origin a sRomanian dolină ‘valley, depression’ which, according to  the so-called etymological dictionaries of Romanian language, is of Serbian origin.  All these forms come from PIE * dhel-, dholo- ‘curve, curvature, hole, cavity’ (IEW, 245). There re cognates predominantly in Germanic languages : cf. Gothic dals, dal ‘valley, pit’ NHG Tal ‘valley’,  Old Norse dalr ‘id’.

detro ‘between, among, inside’ (108) is a compound word, from the preposition de and *entro < PIE * enter- ‘among, between ,inside’ (IEW, 313) (cf. DELR, între).

deunde (069) ‘(where) then’ is a cognate of Latin deinde ‘afterwards, then’, built in the same manner.

dezdeo ‘today’ (121) is a compound word from preposition de and the noun deo ‘day’ (see, zu, zoe ‘day’, supra, Nouns).

dupio ‘as a result of’  (040) is a compound word from the preposition du < de and pio < poi ‘after’ (see above). It is the ancestor of Romanian după ‘after, afterwards’ (see DELR, după).

dusotra / diosotra ‘above, over’ (011) is also a compound form from d (u) < de and sotra. It seems that there is a writing mistake, or a transformation of bilabial p into a dental (t) due to the previous dental, instead of supra ‘above’ found as such in Romanian. There are cognates in other Indo-European languages whereas the form sotra can not explained etymologically (cf. DELR, supra).

ex ‘around, around, outside’(003) is a cognate of Latin ex ‘apart from, from’ with  other cognates  in many Indo-European languages from PIE * eghs- ‘outside’ (IEW, 292). It seems that Dacian ex > s in Romanian which indicate an exhaustive action such as in a smulge ‘to snatch’ a derivative of a mulge ‘ to milk’.

gorio (goru) ‘up’ (005, 011) seems to have the same origin as Romanian grui ‘mountain’ from PIE * gʷuer- * gʷor- ‘mountain’. Walde-Pokorny believes that the ethnonym of  Ύπερ-βορίοι (Hyper-boreans) given by Greek to Dacians,  means ‘those who live in the mountains’ where PIE * > b, the northwestern Greek dialects.  Also, in the case of adverb delu, dolu ‘down’ and this adverb comes also from a nominal root as well (see delu, dolu, above).

indo, inde ‘then, in future’ (045) is a cognate of Latin deinde ‘then’.

muto, multu ‘many (?)” (076), multeo ‘much, very’ (130) are cognates of Latin multus from PIE * m(o)lto- ‘good, great’ (EDL 394). Other cognates are found in other Italic languages.

ne, ni ‘no, not’ (072, 080, 123), nu ‘no’ (023, 031-2, 109, 111, 115-2, 127-2). These  Thraco-Dacian negations are similar to those in other Indo-European languages from PIE *ne ‘no’ (IEW, 756) and also to Nostratic languages (cf. DELR, nu). In modern Romanian the negation ne- is found as prefix to the noun (as English un-) or as a negation to the gerundive verbs.

nilue ‘nothing’ (134) seems to be cognate Latin nihil.

 preu ‘continuously, unceasingly’ (045) can be associated with Latin. per ‘by’ both from PIE * per ‘by’ (EDL, 459)

  1. pridu ‘for a long time, long before’ (123). It should be associated with Greek πρότερον ‘sooner’

In Hesychius,  we have πρόδανις  ‘id’ considered by Beekes of unknown origin. It is probably of Thraco-Illyrian origin, being, in fact, very close to Thraco-Dacian pridu.



ap ‘over, above’ (003), apo (ăn) ‘above, over’ (096) are cognates of Latin ob ‘towards, in front of, regarding, because’. Other cognates in several Indo-European languages from PIE * epi,        * opi- * pi- ‘at, next to, in addition, besides, on’ (IEW, 323) . I believe that Romanian preposition pe ‘on’ with its original meaning, along with the preposition peste ‘over, above’ are derived form the same root.

a ‘against’ (045), a ‘at’ (076), a ‘towards’ ((079), au ‘up to, (starting) from’ (028, 115), ad ‘from’ (116 ) are the predecessors of Romanian preposition a (later la), cognates of Latin ad, and   other Indo-European languages  as well, all from PIE * ad ‘to, near’ (IEW, 3) (see DELR, a, la).

  1. co, cu ‘with’ (003-2, 005, 035, 107, 123-2) are the same as the Romanian cu ‘id’. Cognates are found in other Italics and  Indo-European languages from PIE * ku-  (Hoffmann-Walde, I, 305) (cf. DELR, cu).

de ‘from’, di, dis, do (dă), de, di, din, dis, do, du ‘of, from’  (009, 014, 025, 042, 062-2, 065, 072, 079, 092 108, 117-2, 120, 124, 130), di, do, du ‘of, by, to’ (005-2, 013-2, 062, 065, 069, 079, 080, 092 106, 113, 119, 124), di, du ‘of (them), of (his) , from, of’ (002-2, 009-3, 010, 015, 035, 042, 045, 052 , 058, 079-4, 091, 109, 128, 134), die ‘of, from’ (072), din, die ‘one of them’ (045), detro ‘between, among, within’ (108), de, dei ‘of, to, from, once’ (001, 002, 013, 025, 035-2, 040, 062, 069, 076, 109, 121-3, 124, 127-3). The preposition de (di) appears also in other types of compound forms such as de gi ‘of those’, de no ‘ours’  the” (013), de ra no ‘of our kings’, deghe ‘between’ (002-2) .3

di tu ‘from … to’ (128) where di is the same preposition , and tu is a variant of ‘to’. (see to, ultra).The forms de (di) are the origin of the Romanian preposition de (dial. di). Other derivative forms in Romanian are din ‘from’, and dintre ‘from; (cf. Dacian detro). This preposition (and its derivatives) have many occurrences  in the texts of Sinai tablets and it cannot be considered in any way aa error of interpretation. The preposition is found in Latin, in all Romance languages and also in Celtic languages (see DELR, de).

deo ‘to,’ (015, 080) seems to be  a compound from form de ‘of’ and a ‘at’.

ditu ‘from … to’ (128) is a compound form form di ‘of’ and tu ‘to’  (see tu,, above).

dio (diu, du) ‘in, during (thet time)’  (106, 113) should be  be associated with Latin  deus ‘daily,  long time, ago’. In  Latin is a derivative of dies ’day’ as in Thaco-Dacian (see zu, zo, Nouns, above).

do ‘of’ (002, 009, 010, 031, 117), do ‘from, from / of / from (year …)’, deo (do, de,) ‘by’ (069, 079, 080). There are variants of  preposition de.

dopa ‘after’ (042) is the same as Romanian după ’id’, both compound words from de ‘of’ and  apo ’after’ (see apo , Adverbs, above; DELR, după).

 en ‘in’ (111, 127), in ‘as, that’,  in “in, in, from’ (007, 008, 079, 084, 107, 115), ăn (on) ‘over’ (122-2) have the same origin as Romanian preposition în ‘in’ with cognates in Italic, Germanic and  other Indo-European languages from PIE * en ‘in’ (IEW, 311) (cf. DELR,  în).

intu cue ‘against’ (018), intu cue ‘from which’ (076). It should be associated with Latin  contra ‘in, of, against’, a compound form from cum and intra (De Vaan, EDL, 132) reconstructs a Proto-Italic * kom-tero without understanding the origin of the second component. Accordingly, the Thraco-Dacian. intu cue is build in the same way, only the components are inverted.

on (ăn, în) ‘into / between, from / to’ (003, 009-2, 010-2, 013-4, 015-2, 016, 018, 025-5, 028, 035-3039- 4, 040, 045, 052-2, 058, 069-2, 072-2, 084, 091, 092-3, 096-4, 098, 107, 111-2, 117, 118-2, 119, 120- 4, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126-3, 127-3, 128, 1290-3, 130-3, 134-2), on (ăn în) ‘under’ (007, 011) , on (ăn în) ‘over / with, based on, in / on’ (012, 016, 039, 062, 096, 126, 128, 130) on (ăn în) ‘as (… to) in / as’ (025, 045, 062, 079-2, 92), on (ăn, în) ‘on’ (123), on (an in) ‘to, towards’ (003, 007, 072, 076, 123), on (ăn, în) ‘to’ (076), on (an in) ‘from / to’ (025). This Thraco-Dacian preposition is the same as en ‘in’, but spelled slightly different (see en , above).

on capu   ‘over, above, in front of’ (012). This Dacian prepositional locution can be translated (word-by-word) as ‘in (the) head’ . Both on and cap are inherited in the modern Romanian including the expression în capul… ‘in front of’.

pero ‘opposite’ is a cognate of  Greek πέρα ‘beyond, over’ from PIE * per- ‘over, too’ (IEW, 810) used both as a preposition, but also as a prefix or adverb (see DELR, pre-)

peste. ‘over’ (016), pi ‘over’ (002, 134) are the same with Romanian pe, peste  from PIE * epi, * opi- * pi ‘at, next to, on’ (IEW, 323).

 pu ‘after’ ((039, 062) is an interesting form, a derivative of apo ‘after, then’ (see apo, above).

  1. untu ‘in’ (076), similar to intu (cue) ‘from which’ , cognate of  Latin intus ‘inside’.



 a ‘because’ (002-3, 022, 023, 062, 069, 080, 109, 134) (see a as a preposition, Prepositions, above).

an  ‘while’ (008) is not a variant of en, in ‘in’, but must be compared with Latin  an ‘or,  if , maybe’ from PIE * en- ‘there, beyond’ (EDL, 40-41): cf. Sanskrit . ana,  Avestan anā ‘by it’.

ca ‘as’ (122) is the same conjunction as Romanian ca ‘id’ form PIE *kʷo, *kʷa (IEW, 644) with cognates in many other Indo-European languages (see DELR, ca).

cu (că) ‘that’ (002, 062, 134), cu (co) ‘as for that, because’ (040, 042, 076, 124) are the predecessor forms of Romanian conjunction ‘that’.

done  ‘in which, from where’ (108-2, 109) is compound form de  and en ‘in’ as in Romanian din ‘from’

deno ‘lest’ (012-2) is different from the previous one regarding both its origin and meaning. It is a compound preposition from do and negation no ‘not’.

deu ‘in order to, to, for’ (015, 080) has the same origin as do (see the following).

do ‘to’ (080, 084) is the same as ‘to’ (see below) appears to be the predecessor of Romanian conjunction ‘id’ , in addition to to (tu). The two forms have existed both in Thraco-Dacian and in Proto-Indo-European. The linguists reconstructed PIE * so – / * to- (EDL, 310, iste) and PIE * to-, ta- / * so- * sa ‘pronominal root’ (IEW, 1086). Cognates are  found in Albanian te ‘to’) as well as in Germanic languages.

  1. e ‘and’ (007, 010, 13-2, 025, 065-2, 091, 108, 115, 129), i ‘and’ (002, 035-2, 079-2, 127) are cognates of Latin et ‘and’ and Umbrian et ‘id’. The conjunction e found in the religious texts of Coresi (16th century), considered by all linguists as a Latin relic which is not used anymore in Romanian.

ila, ilu ‘either, or’ (12-2, 16-2, 042, 124, 128) has cognates in Slavic languages: cf. Russian ili ‘or’. There was not preserved in modern Romanian.

. pri ‘for, of / for’ (092, 115) comes from PIE * per- ‘through, over, for’ (IEW, 810) and it seems to be the basis for Romanian pentru ‘for’ which is a compound form from *per and *enter.

sa ‘to’ (003, 012) has the same meaning and the same origin do (see do above). Thraco-Dacian use to have both forms, while Romanian kept only sa > ‘to’ used in the subjunctive mood of Romanian only. The modality is found in other Balkan languages by language contact to Romanian once spread all over Balkan region, being the only language here in most parts until the invasion of Slavs.

 si ‘and / including’ (025). It is the same as Romanian şi and are derived from PIE *kʷe ‘and’ (IEW, 635) here the Proto-Indo-European labio-velar (kʷ) turned into a regular velar (k) which later became a the sibilant ș (cf. DELR, și).


ece ‘here, look, behold’ is the predecessor form of Romanian iacă, iată with cognates in Italic languages: Latin ecce ‘id’, Paelic ecuc ‘id’, Oscan ek (uk), Umbrian eso (cf. DELR, ia). Mel Copeland identifies Etruscan forms ec, eca, eve ‘id’.  I remind our readers that Mel Copeland finds Etruscan to be an Italic language related to Latin and other  Italic languages.



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 (

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.

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.