{"id":850,"date":"2016-10-06T12:00:24","date_gmt":"2016-10-06T12:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/?p=850"},"modified":"2016-10-06T12:00:24","modified_gmt":"2016-10-06T12:00:24","slug":"the-language-of-the-sinaia-tablets-inscriptions-iii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/the-language-of-the-sinaia-tablets-inscriptions-iii\/","title":{"rendered":"THE LANGUAGE OF THE SINAIA TABLETS\u2019 INSCRIPTIONS (III)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Adjectives:<\/p>\n

antichiu<\/em> (antehieu, antehiu) \u2018ancient\u2019 (108). It has the same origin as ancieu<\/em>, a cognate of Latin antiquus<\/em>. Although it is possible to be a loanword from Latin, it can be a genuine Dacian word from PIE * anti<\/strong>– (IEW, 48) with cognates in many Indo-European languages such as Hittite, Sanskrit, Greek, (see ancieu<\/em>, ultra adverbs) (cf. DELR, \u00eenainte<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

bolesto<\/em> (on seti bolesto) \u2018being sick\u2019. From this form derive Romanian boal\u0103<\/strong> \u2018disease, illness\u2019, bolnav<\/strong>\u2018sick\u2019. 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\u00a0 Thraco-Illyrian\u00a0 (cf. DELR, boal\u0103<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

crum<\/em>\u00a0 \u2018bloody, cruel\u2019 (003) has the same origin as Romanian crud<\/strong> \u2018cruel\u2019, crunt<\/strong> \u2018cruel bloody which may be of Thraco-Dacian origin, seemingly from other dialects of this language. There are cognates in many other\u00a0 Indo-European languages, including Latin, from PIE * kru<\/strong>–n<\/strong>–to<\/strong>–s<\/strong> \u2018bloody, cruel\u2019 (IEW, 621). One may notice that Romanian crunt<\/strong> 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<\/em> \u2018bloody\u2019 < *cruventus \u2018id\u2019 (cf. DELR, crud<\/strong>, crunt<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

\u00a0eliau<\/em>, eliu,<\/em> elie<\/em>, elia so<\/em> \u2018holy, divine, of \/ the gods\u2019 (014, 015-2, 108, 115-2, 127, 134). I am tempted to associate these forms to Afro-Asian ones that define divinity: Hebrew el<\/em> ‘god’, Arabic ilah<\/em> \u2018god\u2019, as well as Sumerian el<\/em> \u2018id\u2019 as in Bab-el<\/em> (Babylon) \u2018Gate of\u00a0 Gods\u2019. If Thraco-Dacian\u00a0 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<\/strong>, 2010). On the other hand, these forms may be associated with the root of personal pronoun (see supra, Pronouns<\/em>).<\/p>\n

elio<\/em>, elieu<\/em>, eloa<\/em>, eloas<\/em> \u2018special, famous, praised\u2019 (013, 062, 080-3, 092, 130-2). These forms cannot be associated with the ones above, although it may be associated with Romanian alege<\/strong> \u2018to choose, to select\u2019 and Latin eligo<\/em>, elegere <\/em>\u2018to choose, to select\u2019, both\u00a0 from PIE *leg<\/strong>– \u2018to collect\u2019 (EDL, 332), if the author correctly identified these lexical items.<\/p>\n

malio<\/em> (ghetto) \u2018little, Getae\u2019 (107). I will discuss only the adjective\u00a0 malio<\/em> \u2018small\u2019 which has cognates in several Indo-European languages meaning \u2018small\u2019 (especially in Germanic, Slavic\u00a0 and Romanian as well ), meaning originally \u2018small animal\u2019 as is the case of Romanian miel <\/strong>\u2018lamb\u2019 (or mior<\/strong> (mioar\u0103) \u2018one year old lamb\u2019) . The phrase \u2018small Getae \/ Goths\u2019 is found in Jordanes who states that they were\u00a0 numerous and\u00a0 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<\/strong>– \u2018small animal\u2019 (IEW, 724) (cf. DELR, miel<\/strong>) (for\u00a0 ghetto<\/em>, see Nouns).<\/p>\n

mare<\/em>, mario<\/em> \u2018great, deserving, valuable\u2019 (007, 012, 092), mairo<\/em> (viro) \u2018great man \/ Roman consul, mayor\u2019 (010, 011, 025, 045, 062, 092, 094, 119, 120 , 121, 124, 126), maieru<\/em> \u2018consul \/ governor\u2019 (129) are predecessor forms of Romanian mare<\/strong> \u2018big, great\u2019. There are no cognates in Latin, nor in Romance languages, but there are cognates in Celtic languages: cf. Old Irish mar<\/em> \u2018id\u2019, Old Welsh maur<\/em> \u2018id\u2019,\u00a0 Breton .meur<\/em> \u2018id\u2019 (cf. DELR, mare<\/strong>\u00b9).<\/p>\n

noe<\/em>, nueu<\/em> \u2018new\u2019 (045, 128), novu<\/em> \u2018new (fem.)\u2019, (012) nueso<\/em> \u2018to renew\u2019 are predecessor forms of Romanian nou<\/em> \u2018new\u2019 (and its derivatives). There are numerous cognates in many other Indo-European languages, all from PIE *neu<\/strong>–ios<\/strong> \u2018new\u2019 (IEW, 769) (cf. DELR, nou<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

onsoletole<\/em> \u2018brilliant (from the top of the sun)\u2019 (005) is a compound form: from\u00a0 on<\/em>– \u2018a derivational prefix\u2019 which was pronounced \u2018\u0103n\u2019, similar to Romanian prefix \u2018\u00een\u2019. The root sole<\/em> \u2018sun\u2019 (cf. Romanian soare \u2018sun\u2019) and –tole<\/em> \u2018high, tall\u2019 (see tali, talu , Nouns).<\/p>\n

roso<\/em>\u00a0 \u2018red\u2019 (128) is the predecessor of Romanian\u00a0 ro\u0219u<\/strong> \u2018id\u2019 (vezi ro\u0219u<\/strong>, DELR).<\/p>\n

tatu <\/em>\u2018all\u2019\u00a0 (fem., pl.) (127) is the predecessor of Romanian tot<\/strong> \u2018all\u2019 (dialectal t\u0103t) (cf. DELR, tot<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

vel \u2018<\/em>great\u2019 (079), velite<\/em> \u2018great, beautiful\u2019 (002) is a cognate of OCS vel\u016d<\/em> \u2018great\u2019. We cannot tell if the identification of this root is correct or not, but it was not preserved in modern Romanian (see also malio<\/em> \u2018small\u2019 supra).<\/p>\n

(closed classes of words)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Pronouns:<\/p>\n

cuive<\/em> (134) \u2018any, anyone\u2019 associated by Nicolaescu. with Latin quivis<\/em>, quaevis<\/em> \u2018any\u2019. The form cuive<\/em> seems to be composed of cui<\/em> related to Latin cuid <\/em>suffixed by –ve<\/em>. It is quite obvious this suffix is the predecessor of Romanian –va<\/em> expressing something undetermined as in some relative pronouns or adverbs such as cine<\/strong>–va<\/strong> \u2018somenone\u2019, ce<\/strong>–va<\/strong> \u2018something\u2019, unde<\/strong>–va<\/strong> \u2018somewhere\u2019, c\u00e2nd<\/strong>–va<\/strong> \u2018sometime\u2019, etc. One may notice that in Dacian language the suffix –ve<\/em> is\u00a0 used in similar situations.<\/p>\n

ge<\/em> \u2018which, what\u2019 (025, 118, 122-2, 124, 128), ge<\/em> \u2018of \/\u2019s’ (011-2, 028) .This form may be associated with Latin. hic<\/em>, haec<\/em>, hoc<\/em> \u2018this\u2019 for which de Vaan (EDL 284) reconstructs a PIE * g<\/strong> \/ ghe<\/strong> \/ o<\/strong>– \u2018this\u2019. Its original meaning is\u00a0 \u2018he who\u2019 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<\/em> (ge-a) \u2018for whom.., for what to\u2026\u2019 or gedo<\/em> (ge-do) \u2018who\/that has come, came\u2019 , gelues<\/em> (ge-lues) \u2018the famous, the praised ones\u2019 , geo<\/em>, geo<\/em> \u2018the one who, the ones who, who\u2019.<\/p>\n

enio<\/em>, enu<\/em> \u2018they, the gods\u2019 (080, 109-2), eno<\/em> \u2018he, she, her, goddess \/ god\u2019 (002.079, 109-2, 134), eu<\/em> \u2018him, theirs\u2019 (116 127), eiu<\/em> \u2018those, they\u2019 (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 \u2018they\u2019. The fear to pronounce the name of a divinity was widespread in ancient times.<\/p>\n

esti<\/em> \u2018this, this time\u2019 (109) is the predecessor of Romanian ista <\/strong>\u2018this\u2019, asta <\/strong>\u2018id\u2019, \u0103sta<\/strong> \u2018id\u2019 cognates of Latin iste <\/em>\u2018id\u2019, and Umbrian estu<\/em> ;istum, esto<\/em> \u2018ista\u2019. (see DELR, \u0103sta<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

\u00a0ila<\/em>, ilo<\/em> \u2018that, someone\u2019 (062, 115-2). From these forms are derived Romanian \u0103l<\/em>, \u0103la<\/em>, a<\/em>, aia<\/em> and the definite article and the personal pronoun of the III person, singular and plural. There are cognates in Italic languages: Latin ille<\/em>, illa<\/em>, Umbrian ulu<\/em> \u2018illuc\u2019, as well as Oscan ullas<\/em> \u2018illius\u2019.<\/p>\n

\u00a0lore<\/em> (lor) \u2018to those\u2019 (084), lorieo<\/em> (loriu) \u2018of them, their (kingdoms)\u2019 (091) are the predecessors of the Romanian plural form \u2018-lor\u2019 for genitive and dative plural of the definite article, as well as the personal pronoun plural form \u2018lor\u2019 for genitive, dative and vocative case.<\/p>\n

lue<\/em>, lui,<\/em> loui<\/em> \u2018he, 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.<\/p>\n

mio<\/em> \u2018my\u2019 (018) is the predecessor of Romanian possessive pronoun meu<\/strong>\u00a0 \u2018my\u2019. It has numerous cognates in many other Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, meu<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

na<\/em> \u2018with us, on our side\u2019, nie<\/em> \u2018our\u2019 (pl.), nieu<\/em> \u2018our\u2019 (sg.), niu<\/em> \u2018us, through\/by us\u2019 (002, 079), nester<\/em>, nosetru<\/em> \u2018our, ours, ours\u2019 (069, 120, 126-2, 129), noste<\/em>, nostero<\/em>, nosteu<\/em>, nostu<\/em> \u2018ours\u2019 (005, 006-2, 007, 011, 040), nostreo<\/em> \u2018our\u2019 (111) . We have here a variety of forms defining plural personal pronouns of the I person which are\u00a0 essentially divided into two groups: nie<\/em>, nieu<\/em>, niu<\/em> and nosetro<\/em>, nosetru<\/em>, noste<\/em>, nostero<\/em>, nosteu<\/em>, nostu<\/em>, nostreo<\/em>. The first group is closer to PIE * ne<\/strong> * no<\/strong>-, *nes<\/strong>-,\u00a0 * nos<\/strong>– \u2018we\u2019 (IEW, 758). The form na<\/em> 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<\/strong>, and dialectal nostu<\/em>, nost<\/em>) and cognates to Latin noster<\/em>, nostrum<\/em>, as well as Old Irish n\u00e1thar<\/em> \u2018ours\u2019, all\u00a0 from an older IE * n\u014dstrom<\/strong> (EDL 413).<\/p>\n

sosi<\/em> \u2018their\u2019 is a form of the possessive pronoun and it should be associated with Romanian possessive forms s\u0103u<\/strong> \u2018his\u2019, sa<\/strong> \u2018her (s)\u2019, s\u0103i<\/strong> \u2018their\u2019, sale<\/strong> \u2018id\u2019.<\/p>\n

tu<\/em> \u2018you\u2019 (sg) (005), teu<\/em>, tu<\/em>, ti<\/em> \u2018tu, father (?)\u2019 (011, 79-2, 091, 122) is the origin of Romanian personal pronoun tu<\/em> \u2018you\u2019 (and its derivatives) from PIE *tu<\/strong> \u2018you\u2019 (IEW, 1097). Cognates are found in most Indo-European and even Nostratic languages (Bomhard & Kerns, 102) (cf DELR, tu<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Articles:<\/p>\n

ce<\/em> \u2019the one who, who (which), that\u2019 (15, 079, 084) eco<\/em>, ceu<\/em> ‘that, which, the, of those\u2019 (005-2, 006, 009, 013, 025 -3, 035, 072, 079, 084, 092, 117, 119, 130, 134), cei<\/em>,\u00a0 ceu<\/em>, cie<\/em> \u2018the ones, of those who, those\u2019 (003, 021, 107, 129), chi \u2018those\u2019 (123), uceo<\/em>, ucea<\/em> \u2018of those\u2019 (072) are formed which explains the pre-posed definite article in Romanian cel<\/strong> (cea, cei, ,cele) which are compound forms of \u0103l<\/strong> (a, \u0103i, ale). These Dacian forms are derived\u00a0 from PIE *\u00a0 k\u02b7o<\/strong>, k\u02b7e<\/strong>– \u2018what, who\u2019 (IEW, 644) (see ge<\/em> supra, Pronouns).<\/p>\n

lo<\/em> \u2018the\u2019 (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<\/em> \u2018the one of\u2019 (021-5, 069, 120-3, 126), lo<\/em> \u2018the one who\u2019(025, 121), lo \u2018of (the)\u2019 (introducing a noun in genitive case) (065, 076, 080, 092, 094, 096-2, 098, 108, 116, 117, 128), lo \u2018the one from\u2019 (069, 076, 079, 116). This is the Dacian form of the pre-posed article similar to\u00a0 Romanian pre-posed definite article \u0103l<\/strong> (a, \u0103i, ale). Dacian has also a a postponed definite article as Romanian has which is more frequent in Romanian (see bellow) and later cel (c<\/strong>ea cei, cele) which are introducing an adjective in Romanian.\u00a0 Outside Sinaia tablets, the\u00a0 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\u2019s Constan\u021ba, Romania) with the image of a woman and the inscription with the same characters used on the Sinaia tablets: \u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0399\u0393\u039f\u039d\u0391\u039b\u039f\u03a5\u039b\u039f\u0396\u0391\u039d\u0399\u03a3 (ANTIGONA LU LOZANIS) where LU\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

–le<\/em> (-li) \u2018the\u2019 found in songe-li<\/em> \u2018the blood\u2019 (76) which is a singular form singular\u00a0 (almost) identical to Romanian form s\u00e2nge<\/strong>–le<\/strong> \u2018id\u2019 , but also as\u00a0 plural form of gloatele<\/em>\u00a0 \u2018the words\u2019. In modern Romanian we have the same situation. The post-posed definite –le<\/strong> is found to singular masculine\u00a0 nouns ending in –e<\/strong> and to the feminine plural noun (see glotelu<\/em>, supra, Nouns).<\/p>\n

\u00a0li<\/em> \u2018the (definite article plural form) (127) found in the expression tato li onghio<\/em> \u2018from all sides\u2019. One may see this is the pre-posed\u00a0 plural definite article, unlike modern Romanian where the definite article which basically post-posed. In this case, the plural li\u00a0 (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\u00a0 illo<\/em>, illa<\/em>. Certainly, the Thraco-Dacian definite article should be associated with the Thraco-Dacian forms of the demonstrative pronouns ilo<\/em>, ila<\/em> \u2018that\u2019 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)\u00a0 once the determinants of the\u00a0 nouns in the overwhelming majority became post-posed. On may notice that in\u00a0 Thraco-Dacian the determinants are in most cases pre-posed as malio ghetto<\/em> \u2018little Getae\u2019 or in mairo viro<\/em> \u2018great man\u2019, etc.<\/p>\n

Numerals:<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>centine<\/em> \u2018hundreds\u2019 (025) is cognate of Latin\u00a0 centum<\/em> \u2018hundred\u2019 from PIE * k<\/strong>\u2019ntom<\/strong>– <dk<\/strong>‘ntom<\/strong> \u2018ten times ten\u2019 (IEW, 192). In other words, Thraco-Dacian is a centum language form. However, on the Sinaia tablets one may find also the form soto<\/em> \u2018id\u2019 (003, 005, 079), a satem language form, if both forms are correctly identified by the author.\u00a0 On different occasions, I proved that Thraco-Dacian was a centum language, not a satem one as most historical linguists believe. The form soto<\/em> must be a loanword from some satem Indo-European language (dialect) neighboring Thraco-Dacian, such as Scythian considered to be an Iranian language.<\/p>\n

deciunu<\/em> \u2018eleven\u2019 (062). This form shows that the formation of numerals from 11 to 19 in Thracian-Dacian was different from today\u2019s Romanian or at least in the dialect which the tablet 062 was written, yet different than system of Latin (cf. Latin undecim<\/em> \u2018id\u2019). The current Romanian form system un-spre-zece is the same as in Albanian nj\u00ebm-b\u00eb-dhjet\u00eb<\/em> indicating\u00a0 a\u00a0 Thraco-Illyrian origin. One may notice that the dental did not turn into\u00a0 z in this dialect as in other Thrace-Dacian words (see above deus<\/em> \/zeu<\/em>, Nouns).<\/p>\n

\u00a0deo<\/em>, doi <\/em>\u2018two (singular feminine and masculine forms), the two , both\u2019 (002, 035, 062, 111, 117,<\/p>\n

hilu<\/em> (chilu) \u2018thousands\u2019\u00a0 > hili-arh<\/em>, hili-arhu<\/em>\u00a0 \u2018general, commander over 1000 men\u2019\u2019 (006, 013, 025, 062, 079-2, 084, , 094, 120, 130-2, 134 etc.) are loanwords form Greek \u03c7\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 <\/em>\u2018thousand\u2019<\/p>\n

saptaus<\/em>, saptaius<\/em> \u2018seventh\u2019 (117) is related to Romanian \u0219apte<\/strong> \u2018seven\u2019. One may notice that in Thraco-Dacian the formation of the ordinal numeral is similar to Latin (cf. Latin septimus <\/em>\u2018id\u2019), but it comes closer to the Indo-European. In Proto-Indo-European the ordinal numeral was formed by adding the suffix *-o-s, <\/em>inherited in these two languages and in Greek as well.\u00a0 It is of special interest the Illyrian proper name Sestus<\/em> \u2018sixth\u2019, almost identical to Latin sextus<\/em> (Sextus) also used as a proper name. Illyrian was a dialect of the Thraco-Illyrian not a different language as most linguist believe.<\/p>\n

se\u0219i <\/em>\u2018six\u2019 (002, 012), seit<\/em> \u2018sixth\u2019 (117), seih<\/em>, Seix Teera<\/em> \u2018the master of the six provinces\u2019 (003). Se\u0219i<\/em> is the form of the cardinal numeral, almost identical to Romanian \u0219ase \u2018id\u2019.<\/p>\n

seti<\/em> \u2018seven\u2019 (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\u00a0 consonantal group pt<\/em> is simplified to t, in many cases. as it is in is set form a *sept.<\/p>\n

soto<\/em> \u2018hundred\u2019 (003, 005, 079) is the satem<\/em> languages variant of the numeral 100, pe l\u00e2ng\u0103 centine<\/em>\u00a0 (see centine<\/em>, supra). Modern Romanian sut\u0103<\/strong> \u2018id\u2019 is derived from a satem language, although Thraco-Dacian waa a centum language<\/p>\n

tre<\/em>, treu<\/em>, treuit<\/em>, truu<\/em> \u2018three, third\u2019 (025-2, 080, 109), triga<\/em>, trigaiu<\/em> \u201dtriunghiular \/tripartite, trinity\u2019 (040, 118), tripalele<\/em> \u2018the Danube Delta\u2019 (129-2), triga<\/em>, trigaiu <\/em>\u201dtrunghiular\/ tripartite, trinity (040, 118) are the predecessors of Romanian numeral trei<\/strong> (and its derivatives)) from PIE *trei<\/strong>– (IEW, 1090) with cognates in most of the Indo_European languages (cf. DELR, trei<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

un<\/em> \u2018one\u2019 (062), unie,<\/em> unio<\/em>, uniu<\/em>, oniri<\/em>, onu<\/em>, onisi<\/em> \u2018united, to unite \/reunite (002, 021, 023, 045, 072, 109, , 123), uniu<\/em>,\u00a0 unidu<\/em>, unnu<\/em> \u201dunion, united\u2019 (040, 045, 084, 116, 118, 127), reuniu<\/em>, rioniero<\/em> \u2018to reunite, allied, reunited\u2019 (045, 126), unisive<\/em> \u2018neighbors, neighboring\u2019 (040), reuniro<\/em> \u2018bring together, reunion\u2019 (118), reuniu<\/em>, reunierio<\/em> \u2018let be reunited, allied\/ unied\u2019 (045, 0126),\u00a0 oni sa<\/em>, onio<\/em>, onireo so<\/em>, onisi<\/em> \u2018let them be united, unite, reunite, united, to unite\u2019 (007, 021, 080, 109, 114, 126). Cognates are found in Latin, the Romance languages and in other Indo-European languages as well, from\u00a0 PIE *oin-o-s<\/strong> \u2018one\u2019 (IEW, 286) (cf. DELR, un<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Adverbs:<\/p>\n

aci<\/em>, aici \u2018here\u2019 <\/em>(116, 127), ice<\/em>, icea <\/em>\u2018here\u2019 (069, 079, 121) are predecessors of aici<\/strong>, aci<\/strong>, ici<\/strong>, icea<\/strong> etc. \u2018id\u2019. Lat. hic<\/em>, haec<\/em>, hoc \u2018this, here\u2019<\/em> este un cognat, dar format pe alt principiu. De Vaan (EDL, 284) reconstituie\u00a0 PIE *g\/ghe\/o<\/strong>– \u2018this\u2019 \u0219i -*k\u2019e<\/strong> \u2018here\u2019. 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\u2019e<\/strong> \u2018here\u2019, prefixed by a<\/em>, ( or i,<\/em> e><\/em> a<\/em>).\u00a0 In Italic languages: cf. Oscan eks<\/em>-, uk \u2018id\u2019<\/em> and Umbrian essu<\/em>, as wellas Etrusna ik \u2018id\u2019 (Copeland).<\/p>\n

anceu<\/em>, anceo<\/em>, \u0103ncio<\/em> \u2018before, ahead, in front (of) (010, 012, 016, 079-2, 96, 98, 120, 121), ancieu \u2018<\/em>before, old\u2019 (52) and as preposition ancea<\/em>, anceu<\/em>, anceo<\/em>, \u0103nceo<\/em> \u2018before, in front\u2019 (010, 012, 016, 079-2, 096, 98, 120, 121) are the predecessors of Romanian \u00eenainte<\/strong> < \u00een-ante<\/strong>, dinainte <\/strong>\u2018in front, before\u2019. 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 (\u010d) as in many modern Romanian dialects. In the previous century the phonological phenomenon was found almost everywhere, but it was \u2018corrected\u2019 by the standard language rules. The forms are derived from PIE *anti<\/strong>– \u2018before, in front\u2019 (IEW, 48).<\/p>\n

apo<\/em> \u2018after\u2019 (023), onapoe<\/em> \u2018backward \/ return\u2019 (069), nopoilu<\/em> \u2018back\u2019 (124) are almost identical to Romania\u00a0 apoi<\/strong> \u2018after\u2019 (and its derivatives), all from\u00a0 PIE * apo<\/strong>– \u2018back\u2019 (IEW, 53) with cognates in several Indo-European languages (cf. DELR), while onapoe<\/em> and nopoilu<\/em> is an compound form with the prefix no<\/em> < on<\/em> (in) as in Romanian napoia<\/strong> \u2018behind or a \u00eenapoia \u2018to return\u2019 .<\/p>\n

cuid<\/em> (076) \u2018even, really\u2019 is a cognate of Latin quidem<\/em> \u2018really, indeed\u2019 (Nicolaescu)\u00a0 from quid<\/em> \u2018why\u2019, all from\u00a0 PIE * k\u02b7u<\/strong>i- (cf. DELR, ce<\/strong>) (see also above cuive<\/em>, Pronouns).<\/p>\n

\u00a0cumu<\/em> \u2018how\u2019 (003, 084) is identical to Romanian cum<\/strong> \u2018id\u2019, both form * PIE * k\u02b7om<\/strong>–\u00a0 \u2018a relative-interrogative form\u2019 (IEW, 644). Cognates are found in several Indo-European languages, including Latin (cf. DELR, cum<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

\u00a0cundu<\/em>. \u2018when’ (134) is almost identical to Romanian c\u00e2nd<\/strong> \u2018id\u2019, with cognates in several Indo-European languages, including Latin from PIE *ko<\/strong>– * k\u02b7om<\/strong>– (IEW, 644).<\/p>\n

delu<\/em> (010) \u2018down\u2019, dolu <\/em>\u2018id\u2019 (002), delo on<\/em> \u2018lower than\u2019 (052). It seems that these adverbial forms have the same origin a sRomanian dolin\u0103 \u2018valley, depression\u2019 which, according to\u00a0 the so-called etymological dictionaries of Romanian language, is of Serbian origin.\u00a0 All these forms come from PIE * dhel<\/strong>-, dholo<\/strong>– \u2018curve, curvature, hole, cavity\u2019 (IEW, 245). There re cognates predominantly in Germanic languages : cf. Gothic dals<\/em>, dal<\/em> \u2018valley, pit\u2019 NHG Tal<\/em> \u2018valley\u2019,\u00a0 Old Norse dalr<\/em> \u2018id\u2019.<\/p>\n

detro<\/em> ‘between, among, inside\u2019 (108) is a compound word, from the preposition de and *entro<\/strong> < PIE * enter<\/strong>– \u2018among, between ,inside\u2019 (IEW, 313) (cf. DELR, \u00eentre<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

deunde<\/em> (069) \u2018(where) then\u2019 is a cognate of Latin deinde<\/em> \u2018afterwards, then\u2019, built in the same manner.<\/p>\n

dezdeo<\/em> \u2018today\u2019 (121) is a compound word from preposition de and the noun deo<\/em> \u2018day\u2019 (see, zu<\/em>, zoe <\/em>\u2018day\u2019, supra, Nouns).<\/p>\n

dupio<\/em> \u2018as a result of\u2019\u00a0 (040) is a compound word from the preposition du<\/em> < de<\/em><\/strong> and pio<\/em> < poi \u2018after\u2019 (see above). It is the ancestor of Romanian dup\u0103<\/strong> \u2018after, afterwards\u2019 (see DELR, dup\u0103<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

dusotra<\/em> \/ diosotra<\/em> \u2018above, over\u2019 (011) is also a compound form from d<\/em> (u) < de and sotra<\/em>. It seems that there is a writing mistake, or a transformation of bilabial p<\/em> into a dental (t) due to the previous dental, instead of supra<\/em> \u2018above\u2019 found as such in Romanian. There are cognates in other Indo-European languages whereas the form sotra<\/em> can not explained etymologically (cf. DELR, supra).<\/p>\n

ex<\/em> \u2018around, around, outside\u2019(003) is a cognate of Latin ex<\/em> \u2018apart from, from\u2019 with\u00a0 other cognates\u00a0 in many Indo-European languages from PIE * eg<\/strong>‘hs<\/strong>– \u2018outside\u2019 (IEW, 292). It seems that Dacian ex<\/em> > s in Romanian which indicate an exhaustive action such as in a smulge<\/strong> \u2018to snatch\u2019 a derivative of a mulge<\/strong> \u2018 to milk\u2019.<\/p>\n

gorio<\/em> (goru) \u2018up\u2019 (005, 011) seems to have the same origin as Romanian grui<\/strong> \u2018mountain\u2019 from PIE * g\u02b7uer<\/strong>– * g\u02b7or<\/strong>– \u2018mountain\u2019. Walde-Pokorny believes that the ethnonym of\u00a0 \u038e\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1<\/em>–\u03b2\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9<\/em> (Hyper-boreans) given by Greek to Dacians,\u00a0 means \u2018those who live in the mountains\u2019 where PIE * g\u02b7 <\/strong>> b, the northwestern Greek dialects.\u00a0 Also, in the case of adverb delu<\/em>, dolu<\/em> \u2018down\u2019 and this adverb comes also from a nominal root as well (see delu<\/em>, dolu, above).<\/p>\n

indo<\/em>, inde<\/em> \u2018then, in future\u2019 (045) is a cognate of Latin deinde<\/em> \u2018then\u2019.<\/p>\n

muto<\/em>, multu <\/em>\u2018many (?)” (076), multeo<\/em> \u2018much, very\u2019 (130) are cognates of Latin multus<\/em> from PIE * m<\/strong>(o<\/strong>)lto<\/strong>– \u2018good, great\u2019 (EDL 394). Other cognates are found in other Italic languages.<\/p>\n

ne<\/em>, ni<\/em> \u2018no, not\u2019 (072, 080, 123), nu<\/em> \u2018no\u2019 (023, 031-2, 109, 111, 115-2, 127-2). These\u00a0 Thraco-Dacian negations are similar to those in other Indo-European languages from PIE *ne<\/strong> \u2018no\u2019 (IEW, 756) and also to Nostratic languages (cf. DELR, nu). In modern Romanian the negation ne<\/strong>– is found as prefix to the noun (as English un-) or as a negation to the gerundive verbs.<\/p>\n

nilue<\/em> \u2018nothing\u2019 (134) seems to be cognate Latin nihil<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u00a0preu <\/em>\u2018continuously, unceasingly\u2019 (045) can be associated with Latin. per<\/em> \u2018by\u2019 both from PIE * per<\/em> \u2018by\u2019 (EDL, 459)<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. pridu <\/em>\u2018for a long time, long before\u2019 (123). It should be associated with Greek \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd <\/em>\u2018sooner\u2019<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In Hesychius,\u00a0 we have \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2<\/em>\u00a0 \u2018id\u2019 considered by Beekes of unknown origin. It is probably of Thraco-Illyrian origin, being, in fact, very close to Thraco-Dacian pridu<\/em>.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Prepositons:<\/p>\n

    ap<\/em> \u2018over, above\u2019 (003), apo<\/em> (\u0103n) \u2018above, over\u2019 (096) are cognates of Latin ob<\/em> \u2018towards, in front of, regarding, because\u2019. Other cognates in several Indo-European languages from PIE * epi<\/strong>,\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 * opi<\/strong>– * pi- \u2018at, next to, in addition, besides, on\u2019 (IEW, 323) . I believe that Romanian preposition pe<\/strong> \u2018on\u2019 with its original meaning, along with the preposition peste<\/strong> \u2018over, above\u2019 are derived form the same root.<\/p>\n

    a<\/strong> \u2018against’ (045), a<\/strong> \u2018at\u2019 (076), a<\/strong> \u2018towards\u2019 ((079), au<\/strong> \u2018up to, (starting) from\u2019 (028, 115), ad<\/em> \u2018from\u2019 (116 ) are the predecessors of Romanian preposition a <\/strong>(later la), cognates of Latin ad, and \u00a0 other Indo-European languages\u00a0 as well, all from PIE * ad<\/strong> \u2018to, near\u2019 (IEW, 3) (see DELR, a<\/strong>, la<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. co<\/em>, cu<\/em> \u2018with\u2019 (003-2, 005, 035, 107, 123-2) are the same as the Romanian cu<\/strong> \u2018id\u2019. Cognates are found in other Italics and\u00a0 Indo-European languages from PIE * ku-\u00a0 (Hoffmann-Walde, I, 305) (cf. DELR, cu<\/strong>).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      de<\/em> \u2018from\u2019, di,<\/em> dis,<\/em> do<\/em> (d\u0103), de<\/em>, di<\/em>, din<\/em>, dis<\/em>, do<\/em>, du<\/em> \u2018of, from\u2019\u00a0 (009, 014, 025, 042, 062-2, 065, 072, 079, 092 108, 117-2, 120, 124, 130), di<\/em>, do<\/em>, du<\/em> \u2018of, by, to\u2019 (005-2, 013-2, 062, 065, 069, 079, 080, 092 106, 113, 119, 124), di<\/em>, du<\/em> \u2018of (them), of (his) , from, of\u2019 (002-2, 009-3, 010, 015, 035, 042, 045, 052 , 058, 079-4, 091, 109, 128, 134), die<\/em> \u2018of, from\u2019 (072), din<\/em>, die<\/em> \u2018one of them\u2019 (045), detro<\/em> \u2018between, among, within\u2019 (108), de<\/em>, dei<\/em> \u2018of, to, from, once\u2019 (001, 002, 013, 025, 035-2, 040, 062, 069, 076, 109, 121-3, 124, 127-3). The preposition de<\/em> (di) appears also in other types of compound forms such as de gi<\/em> \u2018of those\u2019, de no<\/em> \u2018ours\u2019\u00a0 the” (013), de ra no<\/em> \u2018of our kings\u2019, deghe<\/em> \u2018between\u2019 (002-2) .3<\/p>\n

      di<\/em> … tu<\/em> \u2018from … to\u2019 (128) where di<\/em> is the same preposition , and tu<\/em> is a variant of \u2018to\u2019. (see to<\/em>, ultra).The forms de<\/em> (di) are the origin of the Romanian preposition de<\/em> (dial. di). Other derivative forms in Romanian are din<\/strong> \u2018from\u2019, and dintre<\/em> \u2018from; (cf. Dacian detro). This preposition (and its derivatives) have many occurrences\u00a0 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<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

      deo<\/em> \u2018to,\u2019 (015, 080) seems to be\u00a0 a compound from form de<\/em> \u2018of\u2019 and a<\/em> \u2018at\u2019.<\/p>\n

      di<\/em> … tu<\/em> \u2018from … to\u2019 (128) is a compound form form di<\/em> \u2018of\u2019 and tu<\/em> \u2018to\u2019\u00a0 (see tu<\/em>,, above).<\/p>\n

      dio<\/em> (diu, du) \u2018in, during (thet time)\u2019\u00a0 (106, 113) should be\u00a0 be associated with Latin\u00a0 deus \u2018daily,\u00a0 long time, ago\u2019. In\u00a0 Latin is a derivative of dies \u2019day\u2019 as in Thaco-Dacian (see zu<\/em>, zo<\/em>, Nouns, above).<\/p>\n

      do<\/em> \u2018of\u2019 (002, 009, 010, 031, 117), do<\/em> \u2018from, from \/ of \/ from (year \u2026)\u2019, deo<\/em> (do, de,) \u2018by\u2019 (069, 079, 080). There are variants of\u00a0 preposition de<\/em>.<\/p>\n

      dopa<\/em> \u2018after\u2019 (042) is the same as Romanian dup\u0103<\/em> \u2019id\u2019, both compound words from de \u2018of\u2019 and\u00a0 apo<\/em> \u2019after\u2019 (see apo<\/em> , Adverbs, above; DELR, dup\u0103<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

      \u00a0en <\/em>\u2018in\u2019 (111, 127), in<\/em> \u2018as, that\u2019,\u00a0 in<\/em> \u201cin, in, from\u2019 (007, 008, 079, 084, 107, 115), \u0103n<\/em> (on) \u2018over\u2019 (122-2) have the same origin as Romanian preposition \u00een<\/em> \u2018in\u2019 with cognates in Italic, Germanic and\u00a0 other Indo-European languages from PIE * en<\/em> \u2018in\u2019 (IEW, 311) (cf. DELR,\u00a0 \u00een).<\/p>\n

      intu cue<\/em> \u2018against\u2019 (018), intu cue<\/em> \u2018from which\u2019 (076). It should be associated with Latin\u00a0 contra<\/em> \u2018in, of, against\u2019, a compound form from cum<\/em> and intra (<\/em>De Vaan, EDL, 132) reconstructs a Proto-Italic * kom-tero without understanding the origin of the second component. Accordingly, the Thraco-Dacian. intu cue<\/em> is build in the same way, only the components are inverted.<\/p>\n

      on<\/em> (\u0103n, \u00een) \u2018into \/ between, from \/ to\u2019 (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<\/em> (\u0103n \u00een) \u2018under’ (007, 011) , on<\/em> (\u0103n \u00een) \u2018over \/ with, based on, in \/ on\u2019 (012, 016, 039, 062, 096, 126, 128, 130) on (\u0103n \u00een) \u2018as (… to) in \/ as\u2019 (025, 045, 062, 079-2, 92), on<\/em> (\u0103n, \u00een) \u2018on\u2019 (123), on<\/em> (an in) \u2018to, towards\u2019 (003, 007, 072, 076, 123), on (\u0103n, \u00een) \u2018to\u2019 (076), on<\/em> (an in) \u2018from \/ to\u2019 (025). This Thraco-Dacian preposition is the same as en<\/em> \u2018in\u2019, but spelled slightly different (see en , above).<\/p>\n

      on capu<\/em> \u00a0 \u2018over, above, in front of\u2019 (012). This Dacian prepositional locution can be translated (word-by-word) as \u2018in (the) head\u2019 . Both on and cap are inherited in the modern Romanian including the expression \u00een capul<\/strong>\u2026 \u2018in front of\u2019.<\/p>\n

      pero<\/em> \u2018opposite\u2019 is a cognate of\u00a0 Greek \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u2018beyond, over\u2019 from PIE * per<\/strong>– \u2018over, too\u2019 (IEW, 810) used both as a preposition, but also as a prefix or adverb (see DELR, pre<\/strong>-)<\/p>\n

      peste<\/em>. \u2018over\u2019 (016), pi<\/em> \u2018over\u2019 (002, 134) are the same with Romanian pe<\/strong>, peste<\/strong>\u00a0 from PIE * epi, <\/strong>* opi<\/strong>– * pi<\/strong> \u2018at, next to, on\u2019 (IEW, 323).<\/p>\n

      \u00a0pu<\/em> \u2018after\u2019 ((039, 062) is an interesting form, a derivative of apo<\/em> \u2018after, then\u2019 (see apo<\/em>, above).<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. untu<\/em> \u2018in\u2019 (076), similar to intu<\/em> (cue) \u2018from which\u2019 , cognate of\u00a0 Latin intus \u2018inside\u2019.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

         <\/p>\n

        Conjunctions:<\/p>\n

        \u00a0a<\/em> \u2018because\u2019 (002-3, 022, 023, 062, 069, 080, 109, 134) (see a<\/em> as a preposition, Prepositions, above).<\/p>\n

        an<\/em>\u00a0 \u2018while\u2019 (008) is not a variant of en<\/em>, in <\/em>\u2018in\u2019, but must be compared with Latin\u00a0 an<\/em> \u2018or,\u00a0 if , maybe\u2019 from PIE * en<\/strong>– \u2018there, beyond\u2019 (EDL, 40-41): cf. Sanskrit . ana<\/em>,\u00a0 Avestan an\u0101<\/em> \u2018by it\u2019.<\/p>\n

        ca<\/em> \u2018as\u2019 (122) is the same conjunction as Romanian ca<\/em> \u2018id\u2019 form PIE *k\u02b7o<\/strong>, *k\u02b7a<\/strong> (IEW, 644) with cognates in many other Indo-European languages (see DELR, ca<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

        cu<\/em> (c\u0103) \u2018that’ (002, 062, 134), cu<\/em> (co) \u2018as for that, because\u2019 (040, 042, 076, 124) are the predecessor forms of Romanian conjunction c\u0103<\/strong> \u2018that\u2019.<\/p>\n

        done<\/em>\u00a0 \u2018in which, from where\u2019 (108-2, 109) is compound form de<\/em>\u00a0 and en<\/em> \u2018in\u2019 as in Romanian din \u2018from\u2019<\/p>\n

        deno<\/em> \u2018lest\u2019 (012-2) is different from the previous one regarding both its origin and meaning. It is a compound preposition from do<\/em> and negation no<\/em> \u2018not\u2019.<\/p>\n

        deu<\/em> \u2018in order to, to, for\u2019 (015, 080) has the same origin as do<\/em> (see the following).<\/p>\n

        do<\/em> \u2018to\u2019 (080, 084) is the same as s\u0103<\/em> \u2018to\u2019 (see below) appears to be the predecessor of Romanian conjunction s\u0103<\/strong> \u2018id\u2019 , in addition to to<\/em> (tu). The two forms have existed both in Thraco-Dacian and in Proto-Indo-European. The linguists reconstructed PIE * so<\/strong> – \/ * to<\/strong>– (EDL, 310, iste<\/em>) and PIE * to<\/strong>-, ta<\/strong>– \/ * so<\/strong>– * sa<\/strong> \u2018pronominal root\u2019 (IEW, 1086). Cognates are\u00a0 found in Albanian te<\/em> \u2018to\u2019) as well as in Germanic languages.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. e<\/em> \u2018and\u2019 (007, 010, 13-2, 025, 065-2, 091, 108, 115, 129), i<\/em> \u2018and\u2019 (002, 035-2, 079-2, 127) are cognates of Latin et<\/em> \u2018and\u2019 and Umbrian et<\/em> \u2018id\u2019. The conjunction e<\/em> found in the religious texts of Coresi (16th century), considered by all linguists as a Latin relic which is not used anymore in Romanian.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          ila<\/em>, ilu<\/em> \u2018either, or\u2019 (12-2, 16-2, 042, 124, 128) has cognates in Slavic languages: cf. Russian ili \u2018or\u2019. There was not preserved in modern Romanian.<\/p>\n

          . pri<\/em> \u2018for, of \/ for\u2019 (092, 115) comes from PIE * per<\/strong>– \u2018through, over, for\u2019 (IEW, 810) and it seems to be the basis for Romanian pentru<\/strong> \u2018for\u2019 which is a compound form from *per and *enter.<\/p>\n

          sa<\/em> \u2018to\u2019 (003, 012) has the same meaning and the same origin do<\/em> (see do <\/em>above). Thraco-Dacian use to have both forms, while Romanian kept only sa<\/em> > s\u0103<\/strong> \u2018to\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

          \u00a0si <\/em>\u2018and \/ including\u2019 (025). It is the same as Romanian \u015fi and are derived from PIE *k\u02b7e<\/strong> \u2018and\u2019 (IEW, 635) here the Proto-Indo-European labio-velar (k\u02b7)<\/strong> turned into a regular velar (k) which later became a the sibilant \u0219 (cf. DELR, \u0219i<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

          Interjections:<\/p>\n

          ece \u2018here, look, behold\u2019 is the predecessor form of Romanian iac\u0103<\/strong>, iat\u0103<\/strong> with cognates in Italic languages: Latin ecce<\/em> \u2018id\u2019, Paelic ecuc <\/em>\u2018id\u2019, Oscan ek<\/em> (uk), Umbrian eso<\/em> (cf. DELR, ia<\/strong>). Mel Copeland identifies Etruscan forms ec<\/em>, eca<\/em>, eve<\/em> \u2018id\u2019.\u00a0 I remind our readers that Mel Copeland finds Etruscan to be an Italic language related to Latin and other\u00a0 Italic languages.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          BIBLIOGRAFIE<\/p>\n

          Arbois de Jubainville, Henri d\u2019, Les premiers habitants de l\u2019Europe d\u2019apres des \u00e9crivains de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 et les travaux des linguistes<\/em>, Paris, 1889-1894.<\/p>\n

          BA: Balkan-Archiv. Fortsetzung des Jahresberichtes des Instituts f\u00fcr rum\u00e4nischen Sprache<\/em>, Leipizig, 1 (1924) \u2013 4 (1928).<\/p>\n

          B\u00e2rzu, L., Continuitatea popula\u0163iei autohtone \u00een Transilvania \u00een sec. IV<\/em>–V<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, 1973.<\/p>\n

          BL: Bulletin Linguistique<\/em>, Bucarest-Paris, 1 (1933) \u2013 4 (1938).<\/p>\n

          Blagova, E., Ceitlin, R.M., Ve\u010derki, R., Staroslaveanski slovar\u012d (po rukopiseam 10-11 vekov)<\/em>, Moscova \u201eRusski jazyk\u201d, 1994.<\/p>\n

          Brugmann, K., Elements of the comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages: A concise exposition of the History of Sanskrit<\/em>, Old Iranian… Old Armenian<\/em>, Old Greek<\/em>, Latin<\/em>, Umbrian-Samnitic<\/em>, Old Irish<\/em>, Gothic<\/em>, O<\/em><\/p>\n

          Bulg\u0103r, Gh., Constantinescu-Dobridor, Gh., Dic\u0163ionar de arhaisme \u015fi regionalisme<\/em>, Saeculum Vizual, Bucure\u015fti, 2005.<\/p>\n

          Cihac, A., Dictionnaire d\u2019\u00e9tymology daco<\/em>–roumaine<\/em>, Frankfurt (2 vol.), 1870-1879).<\/p>\n

          Cionchin, A.C., Cionchin, I., De la scrierea dacic\u0103 la cea rom\u00e2neasc\u0103<\/em>, Editura Eurostampa, Timi\u015foara, 2006.<\/p>\n

          Candrea, I.A., Densusianu, O., Dic\u0163ionarul etimologic al limbii rom\u00e2ne<\/em>, (a-putea), Bucure\u015fti, 1907-1914.<\/p>\n

          Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Genes, Peoples and Languages<\/em>, Nort Point Press, New York, 2000.<\/p>\n

          Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire \u00e9tymologique de la langue grecque<\/em>. Histoire de mots<\/em>, Klincksieck, Paris,\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 1968-1980.<\/p>\n

          Cihac, A., Dictionnaire d\u2019\u00e9tymology daco<\/em>–roumaine<\/em>, Frankfurt (2 vol.), 1870-1879.<\/p>\n

          Cionchin, A.C., Cionchin, I., De la scrierea dacic\u0103 la cea rom\u00e2neasc\u0103<\/em>, Editura Eurostampa, Timi\u015foara, 2006.<\/p>\n

          Copeland, M., Introduction to the Etruscan language<\/em> (Academia.edu).<\/p>\n

          Cioranescu, A., Diccionario etimologico rumano<\/em>, Madrid, 1958.<\/p>\n

          Colson, F., Nationalit\u00e9 et r\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9ration des paysans moldovalaques<\/em>, Paris, Dentu, 1862.<\/p>\n

          Corominas, J. & Pascual, J.A, Diccionario cr\u00edtico etimol\u00f3gico castellano e hisp\u00e1nico<\/em>, Editorial Gredos, Madrid, 1987.<\/p>\n

          Cortelazzo, M. & Marcato, C., I dialetti italiani<\/em>, Dizionario etimologico<\/em>, UTET (Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese), Torino. 1998.<\/p>\n

          DAR: Dic\u0163ionarul Academiei Rom\u00e2ne<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, 1913-1940 (a-lep\u0103da).<\/p>\n

          DELR: Vinereanu, M., Dic\u021bionar Etimologic al Limbii Rom\u00e2ne – pe baza cercet\u0103rilor de indo-europenistic\u0103<\/em>, Alcor Edimpex, Bucur\u0219ti, 2008<\/p>\n

          Densu\u015fianu, N., Dacia preistoric\u0103<\/em>, Editura Meridiane, Bucure\u015fti, 1986.<\/p>\n

          Diez, F., Etymologisches W\u00f6rterbuch der romanischen Sprachen<\/em>. Dritte Auflage<\/em>, Bonn, 1869.<\/p>\n

          Dja\u010denko, Polnyi cerkovno<\/em>–slaveanski slovar\u012d<\/em>, Moscova, \u00een \u201eTerra kni\u017eyi Klub\u201d (2 vol.), 1998.<\/p>\n

          Dolgopolski, A.B., The Indo-European homeland and lexical contacts of Proto-Indo-European with other languages<\/em>, \u00een \u201eMediteranean Language Review\u201d, 3, 1988, pp. 7-31.<\/p>\n

          Dolgopolski, A.B., The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Paleontology<\/em>, The McDonald Institute for Archeolgical Research, Cambridge, England, 1998.<\/p>\n

          EDG: Beekes, R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek<\/em>, Brill, Leiden, Boston, 2010.<\/p>\n

          EDL: de Vaan, M. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages<\/em>, Brill, Leiden, Boston, 2008.<\/p>\n

          Georgiev, V., Le dace comme substrat de la langue roumnaine,<\/em> \u00een \u201eRevue roumaine de linguistique\u201d, 10, 1965, pp. 75-80.<\/p>\n

          Golab, Z., \u201cKentum\u201d elements in Slavic<\/em>, \u00een \u201eLingua Posnaniensis\u201d, 16, 1972, pp. 53-82.<\/p>\n

          Goodenough, W.H., The evolution of pastoralism and Indo<\/em>–European Origins<\/em>, \u00een Cardona, G., Hoenigswald, H.M. & Senn, A. (ed), Indo<\/em>–European and Indo<\/em>–Europeans<\/em>, University of Pennsylvania Press,\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Philadelphia, 1970.<\/p>\n

          Hasdeu, B.P., Magnum etymologicum Romaniae. Dic\u0163ionarul limbii istorice \u015fi poporane a Rom\u00e2nilor<\/em>, (a-b\u0103rbat), Bucure\u015fti (4 vol.), 1886-1868.<\/p>\n

          Herodot, Histories of Herodotus<\/em>, London, New York, 1964.<\/p>\n

          IEW<\/em>: Walde, A., Pokorny, J., Indogermanisches Etymologisches W\u00f6rterbuch<\/em>, Bern, M\u00fcnchen<\/p>\n

          Iordanes, The Gothic history of Jordanes<\/em>, Barnes & Noble, Cambridge, New York, 1960.<\/p>\n

          Lehmann, W. P., A Gothic Etymological Dictionary<\/em>, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1986.<\/p>\n

          Lidell, H., Scott, R., Greek<\/em>–English Lexicon<\/em>, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.<\/p>\n

          Miklosich, F., Die Slawischen Elemente in Rum\u00e4nischen<\/em>, \u00een \u201eDenkschriften\u201d, XII, Akademie der Wissenschaften, Viena, 1862.<\/p>\n

          Orel, V., Albanian etymological Dictionary<\/em>, Brill, Leiden, Boston, 1998.<\/p>\n

          Orel, V., A Concise Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language<\/em>, Brill, Leiden, Boston, K\u00f6ln, 2000.<\/p>\n

          O\u0163etea, A. et al., Istoria lumii \u00een date<\/em>, Editura enciclopedic\u0103 rom\u00e2n\u0103, Bucure\u015fti, 1972.<\/p>\n

          Ovidiu, Naso Publius, Tristia, Ex Ponto<\/em>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1965.<\/p>\n

          Priscus, Panites, Ambasadele<\/em> \u00een Izvoarele Istoriei Rom\u00e2niei<\/em>, vol. II, Bucure\u015fti, 1964.<\/p>\n

          Procopius din Caesarea, History of Wars<\/em>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1992-1998.<\/p>\n

          Procopius din Caesarea, De Aedificiis<\/em> Iustiniani Imperatoris<\/em>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1992-1998.<\/p>\n

          Puhvel, J., Hittite Etymological Dictionary<\/em>, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1984.<\/p>\n

          Pulgram, E., The tongues of Italy. Prehistory and history<\/em>, Harvard Unviersity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.<\/p>\n

          Pu\u015fcariu, S., Etymologisches W\u00f6rtebuch der rum\u00e4nischen Sprache<\/em>. I. Lateinische Elemente<\/em>, Heidelberg, 1905.<\/p>\n

          Reichenkron, G., Das Dakische<\/em> (reconstruiert aus dem Rum\u00e4nischen), Heidelberg, 1966.<\/p>\n

          REW: Meyer-L\u00fcbke, W. Romanisches etymologisches W\u00f6rterbuch<\/em>, Carl Winter Universit\u00e4tverlag, Heidelberg, 1972.<\/p>\n

          Russu, I.I., Elemente autohtone \u00een limba rom\u00e2n\u0103; substratul comun rom\u00e2no-albanez<\/em>, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Rom\u00e2nia, Bucure\u015fti, 1970.<\/p>\n

          Tagliavini, C., Le origine delle lingue neolatine<\/em>, Bologna, 1959.<\/p>\n

          Thesaurus linguae latinae<\/em>, Editus auctoritate et consilio academiarum quinque Germanicum Berolinensis, Gottingensis, Lipsiensis, Monacensis, Vidobonensis, Lipsiae, In aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1900-.<\/p>\n

          Van Windenkens, A.J., Essai sur une indo<\/em>–europeene pr\u00e9helenique<\/em>, Louvain, 1952.<\/p>\n

          Varro, M.T., De lingua latina<\/em>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. (English-Latin), 1951.<\/p>\n

          Vasmer, M., Russisches Etymologisches W\u00f6rterbuch<\/em>, Heidelberg, 1953-1955.<\/p>\n

          Vasmer, M., Etimologi\u010deski slovar\u012d russkogo jazyka<\/em>, Moscova, Progress (4 vol.), 1986-1987.<\/p>\n

          Vinereanu, M., Originea traco<\/em>–dac\u0103 a limbii rom\u00e2ne<\/em>, Pontos, Chi\u015fin\u0103u, 2003.<\/p>\n

          Vinereanu, M. Dic\u021bionar etimologic al limbii rom\u00e2ne, Alcor Edimpex, 2008, Bucure\u0219ti.<\/p>\n

          Zaharia, E., Popula\u0163ia rom\u00e2neasc\u0103 din Transilvania \u00een sec. VII<\/em>–VIII<\/em>, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Rom\u00e2nia, Bucure\u015fti, 1977.<\/p>\n

          Zaharia, E., S\u0103p\u0103turile de la Dridu<\/em>, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Rom\u00e2nia, Bucure\u015fti, 1967.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          This is the third and the last part of nn etymological dictionary of the Thraco-Dacian language. spoken in Central Europe including the Balkan region which is, in fact, the ancestor…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":196,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[131,132,133,30],"tags":[4,116,5,134,32,119,135,122],"class_list":["post-850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-131","category-132","category-issues","category-linguistics","tag-indo-european-language-and-languages","tag-italic-languages","tag-latin-language","tag-romanian-as-the-daughter-language-of-thaco-dacian","tag-romanian-language","tag-sinaia-tablets","tag-thraco-dacian-and-romanian-etymologies","tag-thraco-dacian-language"],"taxonomy_info":{"category":[{"value":131,"label":"12\/2017"},{"value":132,"label":"7\/2016"},{"value":133,"label":"Issues"},{"value":30,"label":"Linguistics"}],"post_tag":[{"value":4,"label":"Indo-European language and languages."},{"value":116,"label":"Italic languages"},{"value":5,"label":"Latin language"},{"value":134,"label":"Romanian as the daughter language of Thaco-Dacian"},{"value":32,"label":"Romanian language"},{"value":119,"label":"Sinaia tablets"},{"value":135,"label":"Thraco-Dacian and Romanian etymologies"},{"value":122,"label":"Thraco-Dacian language"}]},"featured_image_src_large":false,"author_info":{"display_name":"Mihai Vinereanu","author_link":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/author\/mihai-vinereanu\/"},"comment_info":0,"category_info":[{"term_id":131,"name":"12\/2017","slug":"122017","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":131,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":131,"category_count":2,"category_description":"","cat_name":"12\/2017","category_nicename":"122017","category_parent":0},{"term_id":132,"name":"7\/2016","slug":"72016","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":132,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":132,"category_count":2,"category_description":"","cat_name":"7\/2016","category_nicename":"72016","category_parent":0},{"term_id":133,"name":"Issues","slug":"issues","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":133,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":5,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":133,"category_count":5,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Issues","category_nicename":"issues","category_parent":0},{"term_id":30,"name":"Linguistics","slug":"linguistics","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":30,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":13,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":30,"category_count":13,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Linguistics","category_nicename":"linguistics","category_parent":0}],"tag_info":[{"term_id":4,"name":"Indo-European language and languages.","slug":"indo-european-language-and-languages","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":4,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":116,"name":"Italic languages","slug":"italic-languages","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":116,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":5,"name":"Latin language","slug":"latin-language","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":5,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":134,"name":"Romanian as the daughter language of Thaco-Dacian","slug":"romanian-as-the-daughter-language-of-thaco-dacian","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":134,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":32,"name":"Romanian language","slug":"romanian-language","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":32,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":4,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":119,"name":"Sinaia tablets","slug":"sinaia-tablets","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":119,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":3,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":135,"name":"Thraco-Dacian and Romanian etymologies","slug":"thraco-dacian-and-romanian-etymologies","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":135,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":122,"name":"Thraco-Dacian language","slug":"thraco-dacian-language","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":122,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/196"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}