This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Can someone cite a reference that the Dacians and Thracians spoke a related language? As I understand it, there are almost no known words fromthe Dacian language that are known today and those that are believed to be Dacian are not yet verified as truly being of Dacian origin. -- 86.123.83.18 08:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
yes I will soon after I will come with enough sources (and there are plenty) to do so. this article is horrible . first of all the dacians were a thracian tribe from the Banat region and they spoke and wrote in thracian. Mitridatu ( talk)
Should we mention that it is correlated with haplogroup E3b1a2? -- Kupirijo 17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC) romania ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.204.19 ( talk) 10:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
irrelevant Mitridatu ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC).
Hey - I am fluent in Romanian, and proud of my heritage. would love to help translating it in english, might need some coaching with editing/organizing articles. drop a line on my page if you're willing to watch my back or lend a hand... sorry I wont have a whole lot of time but will definitely work on this article. thanks. Buburuza 06:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There are a vew hundreds of km from what used to be Argedava to the Danube. That's not quite so close to my undersanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.39.91 ( talk) 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Edward Gibbon, in his "The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire", Vol. 1-10, Chpt. X, Note 2, mentions that Emperor Decius was so named on account of his extraction being that of the "Decii".
"2 [ His birth at Bubalia, a little village in Pannonia, (Eutrop. ix. Victor. in Caesarib. et Epitom.,) seems to contradict, unless it was merely accidental, his supposed descent from the Decii. Six hundred years had bestowed nobility on the Decii: but at the commencement of that period, they were only plebeians of merit, and among the first who shared the consulship with the haughty patricians. Plebeine Deciorum animae, &c. Juvenal, Sat. viii. 254. See the spirited speech of Decius, in Livy. x. 9, 10.]"
Question: is he reffering to Dacians (i.e. Dacii)?
- RomânescEsteLatin ( talk) 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What does that mean ? Are the 20 something references not trustworthy ? -- Venatoreng ( talk) 14:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The article does have many sources referenced - should an admin remove the tags on the article's page? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 20:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan
Quotations from The Cambridge Ancient History and Strabo should be properly used Blurall ( talk) 06:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Added reasoning and three sources for my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all! I am planning to move the religion, occupations, culture, language sections from Dacia to the Dacians article since I think it pertains to the people not the geographical region. It is also consistent with the Thrace/ Thracians and Illyria/ Illyrians, as well as the tree in Category:Dacians and Category:Thracians. The Dacians article also has Dacians#Religion and language sections which are just stubs. Anyone who has objections or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! -- Codrin.B ( talk) 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, read this aloud to yourself and tell me it makes sense:
"The element of unity of beliefs about werewolves and lycanthropy consists in the magical-religious experience of mystical solidarity with the wolf by whatever means used to obtain it. But all have one origin myth, a primary event. Thus manages to transform into the wolf the one who comes out of himself and its present time and becoming contemporary with mythical event.[2]"
It looks as though someone used google translator or was simply too lazy to write readable sentences.
Whoever wrote this crap needs to fix it.
207.177.63.177 ( talk) 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Codrin.B ( talk) 06:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Your source does not fulfill the guidelines listed in WP:RS. I have explained why above. Your only response has been to repeatedly insist that YOU think the source is reliable. Unless you provide reliable sourcing, the material you restored will continue to be reverted without further comment. Please familiarize yourself with the policy in question (WP:RS). Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
1-you are not in any position to contest Eliade, or to criticise him. You are not an authority in ethnology and mythology history, you are just an anonimus guy on internet, and your personal oipinon doesnt count here. 2-You cant use wikipedia as a source for criticisizing Eliade, wikipedia, as we all know, is an unreliable source, and even wikipedia itself agree with this. 3-Boia, the one you mentioned, is not a historian of religions and mythology, is a historyan of ideas, so is not his area of expertise the things we talk about here 4-if you find someone (a historian of religions and mythology) who criticize Eliade, you can show his/her opinion, posting couple words in the same part of the article. But it must be strictly related with the subject presented there, and not that bulshit mambo-jumbo with dont know what political ideas had Eliade some decades ago so all his work is wrong because of that and other such things unrelated with the subject. It must be a scientifical critic, not a biased political one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.220.132 ( talk) 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This article currently cites ancient authors as reliable sources, in blatant contradiction with WP's policy, as well as antiquated source little relevant for modern research (lots of book from the 1800s). Most of those sources were introduced by recent edits, thus this message is to notify whoever is expanding to article (as the template at the top of the article says it's happening) to stop introducing such sources, and start using modern reliable sources. Otherwise, any editor is authorised to remove any of those pseudo-sources and the statements based on them. Thanks Anonimu ( talk) 13:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
-- Codrin.B ( talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with ancient sources. I doubt Wikipedia editors are citing directly Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny etc. It is a matter of ancient languages. I can not say I agree with removing all sources from XIX century. If this is the rule, so be it. Still, I would propose to have for XIX the same rule that applies for ancient sources, eventually
Boldwin (
talk) 16:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)16:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Boldwin (
talk)
Paliga in Thracian and pre-Thracian studies mentioned Decev's etymology daoi = wolf. I can not cite it in the article, since I do not have Decev's book. Is there anybody else who proposed this, earlier than Decev ? I do not know if that etymology is correct or not. But, I understand you are going to remove all Tomachek's etymologies.... even though the PIE approach is based on Sanskrit, Veda that helped reconstructing PIE by Pokorny. Tomaschek and others (i.e. Gheyn cited by historians like Iorga) were interpreting names from a specific hypothesis. Is the Pokorny's Indo-Germanische more appropriate? I am just wondering
Boldwin (
talk)
17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC) I would live all etymologies17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Boldwin (
talk)
@Daizus: Do you happen to have those books/journals? I am still looking for them but couldn't find much yet. Thanks. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 00:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see the source for the translated ancient authors, where these translations had been taken from. BTW, at usually, the cited translations are from around 1900. I do not doubt these translations, but I think it is easier to find and verify them Boldwin ( talk) 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I added the neutrality tag because this article follows at times only one author (or few authors), one POV. For example the recent additions in the "Origin" section - not all authors support that chronology and that model of "Indo-Europeanization".
One POV claim (by Fischer following Solta) I also believe it's rather dubious: "Detailed studies regarding the Thracian position among Indo-European languages don’t confirm the difference between Dacian and Thracian". However on one hand there is Georgiev's theory reconstructing different phonetic systems for Thracian and Dacian (in "Raporturile" see p. 49 and 52). On the other hand there are several other onomastic studies, noticing such differences: "Dorénavant, on pourra donc faire une distinction entre l'onomastique dace et l'onomastique thrace, ce qui n'est pas sans importance si on s'interroge sur l'origine de telle ou telle personne. Il y a bien, à côté d'un territoire toponymique daco-mésien, un Namengebiet daco-mésien, qui montre une distinction plus nette entre les Thraces d'une part, les Gètes, les Mésiens et les Daces, de l'autre. L'anthroponymie s'accorde ainsi avec les données toponymiques et les gloses daces (noms de plantes): le dace était une langue indo-européenne différente du thrace, mais apparentée." (Dan Dana, in his article published in ZPE in 2003, see p. 181-2) Daizus ( talk) 21:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I erased my entry Grumeza...since I do nto know if he is reliable or not. and Conti....since it is not really a historiography, they just mention one time the Geto-Dacian Costoboci.
With regard to Fischer a.s.o, just proceed according to Wikipedia rules, I do not mind if you erase. I am totally neutral. Boldwin ( talk) 14:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Regarding to Fisher I was having also in mind and plan to add more about it. It is somehow strange, but all Indo-european list Dacian place names but name them Thracian I will bring something that would clarify There are more differences than the ones you listed, and also affinities Thank you so much for correcting this Boldwin ( talk) 14:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I used Grumeza entry because I have seen it was already listed at references.
The main difficulty with Dacian Thracian language article consist in the fact various wiki editors are using different terms, for the same concept, eventually. Many linguists agree Dacian and Thracian are not totally separate languages but rather dialects. For expressing this, one editor is using one term that speaks about a different dialect. Other editor read this term as denoting separate language. And so on It is something maybe unavoidable in first place, until the article will define article’s terms so that everybody will be on the same page Boldwin ( talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, my purpose is to present the current theories and some arguments for them. Nothing is yet established for sure, but the already entries made already a certain statement. I have read your quote. I know there are arguments for it. There are arguments for each theory. Tomaschek noticed the different ending of names dava and para but this didn't prevent him from seeing also affinities, and common “parentage” based on common people names and place names. Also, archaeological finds are saying something on this matter, acording to Daicoviciu who sustains therefore these languages were dialects. Also, I have to find at least two references for any of my entry, from now on. This takes time. Boldwin ( talk) 17:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
That statement that I cited above made me more curious than interested. I wouldn't cite it in any article, if it were not about direct inscriptions of Dacian names Boldwin ( talk) 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Boldwin ( talk) 07:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There is an interest paragraph from the book THE THRACIANS 700 BC -AD 46, from OSPREY PUBLISHING, Man-at-Arms collection, Vol. 360, ISBN 1 84176 329 2, written by Christopher Webber and ilustrated by Angus McBride. On pgs. 10-11, when detailing the historical outline of the different Thracian tribes it is stated that " ... The 'Getae' lived between the Haemus range and the Skythians, on both sides of the Istros (Danube) ... Herodotus (IV, 98) called them the bravest and most noble of all the Thracians ... Diodorus Siculus (XXI.11-12) said they are barbarous and lead a bestial existence ...the poet Ovid complains about the austere Getic lifestyle ..." . Further, on pgs. 16-17 when describing the Roman conquest on the Balcanic and Pontic regions, the author adds that " ... Formal annexation did not stop further raids, incursions and rebellions, however. The most significant of these came from the 'Dacians', direct descendants of the Getae who spoke a language closely related to Thracian. Burebeista, the first great Dacian king (c.70-44) made the Geto-Dacian state powerful enough to worry Rome ...".- Periptero ( talk) 22:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
As if this article didn't have enough problems, an IP continues to remove the position on etymology presented by one of Romania's most respected historians of Antiquity, referenced in the main history compendium published by the Romanian Academy (basically, the official version of Romanian history), while giving prominence to uninformed opinions such as that of a Paliga, a specialist in modern Western Slavic languages known for his protochronist ideas, Eliade, a historian of religions whose association with the far right are notorious, or some obsolete 19th century scholars. So, if someone is going to ever fix this article, he may want to check the various vandalisms perpetrated by IPs to discover important facts removed from the article since they didn't support the frigne point of view of protochronism. I've had enough trying to mend it. Good luck! Anonimu ( talk) 09:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Can someone cite a reference that the Dacians and Thracians spoke a related language? As I understand it, there are almost no known words fromthe Dacian language that are known today and those that are believed to be Dacian are not yet verified as truly being of Dacian origin. -- 86.123.83.18 08:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
yes I will soon after I will come with enough sources (and there are plenty) to do so. this article is horrible . first of all the dacians were a thracian tribe from the Banat region and they spoke and wrote in thracian. Mitridatu ( talk)
Should we mention that it is correlated with haplogroup E3b1a2? -- Kupirijo 17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC) romania ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.204.19 ( talk) 10:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
irrelevant Mitridatu ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC).
Hey - I am fluent in Romanian, and proud of my heritage. would love to help translating it in english, might need some coaching with editing/organizing articles. drop a line on my page if you're willing to watch my back or lend a hand... sorry I wont have a whole lot of time but will definitely work on this article. thanks. Buburuza 06:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There are a vew hundreds of km from what used to be Argedava to the Danube. That's not quite so close to my undersanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.39.91 ( talk) 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Edward Gibbon, in his "The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire", Vol. 1-10, Chpt. X, Note 2, mentions that Emperor Decius was so named on account of his extraction being that of the "Decii".
"2 [ His birth at Bubalia, a little village in Pannonia, (Eutrop. ix. Victor. in Caesarib. et Epitom.,) seems to contradict, unless it was merely accidental, his supposed descent from the Decii. Six hundred years had bestowed nobility on the Decii: but at the commencement of that period, they were only plebeians of merit, and among the first who shared the consulship with the haughty patricians. Plebeine Deciorum animae, &c. Juvenal, Sat. viii. 254. See the spirited speech of Decius, in Livy. x. 9, 10.]"
Question: is he reffering to Dacians (i.e. Dacii)?
- RomânescEsteLatin ( talk) 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
What does that mean ? Are the 20 something references not trustworthy ? -- Venatoreng ( talk) 14:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The article does have many sources referenced - should an admin remove the tags on the article's page? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 20:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan
Quotations from The Cambridge Ancient History and Strabo should be properly used Blurall ( talk) 06:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Added reasoning and three sources for my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all! I am planning to move the religion, occupations, culture, language sections from Dacia to the Dacians article since I think it pertains to the people not the geographical region. It is also consistent with the Thrace/ Thracians and Illyria/ Illyrians, as well as the tree in Category:Dacians and Category:Thracians. The Dacians article also has Dacians#Religion and language sections which are just stubs. Anyone who has objections or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! -- Codrin.B ( talk) 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, read this aloud to yourself and tell me it makes sense:
"The element of unity of beliefs about werewolves and lycanthropy consists in the magical-religious experience of mystical solidarity with the wolf by whatever means used to obtain it. But all have one origin myth, a primary event. Thus manages to transform into the wolf the one who comes out of himself and its present time and becoming contemporary with mythical event.[2]"
It looks as though someone used google translator or was simply too lazy to write readable sentences.
Whoever wrote this crap needs to fix it.
207.177.63.177 ( talk) 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Codrin.B ( talk) 06:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Your source does not fulfill the guidelines listed in WP:RS. I have explained why above. Your only response has been to repeatedly insist that YOU think the source is reliable. Unless you provide reliable sourcing, the material you restored will continue to be reverted without further comment. Please familiarize yourself with the policy in question (WP:RS). Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
1-you are not in any position to contest Eliade, or to criticise him. You are not an authority in ethnology and mythology history, you are just an anonimus guy on internet, and your personal oipinon doesnt count here. 2-You cant use wikipedia as a source for criticisizing Eliade, wikipedia, as we all know, is an unreliable source, and even wikipedia itself agree with this. 3-Boia, the one you mentioned, is not a historian of religions and mythology, is a historyan of ideas, so is not his area of expertise the things we talk about here 4-if you find someone (a historian of religions and mythology) who criticize Eliade, you can show his/her opinion, posting couple words in the same part of the article. But it must be strictly related with the subject presented there, and not that bulshit mambo-jumbo with dont know what political ideas had Eliade some decades ago so all his work is wrong because of that and other such things unrelated with the subject. It must be a scientifical critic, not a biased political one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.220.132 ( talk) 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This article currently cites ancient authors as reliable sources, in blatant contradiction with WP's policy, as well as antiquated source little relevant for modern research (lots of book from the 1800s). Most of those sources were introduced by recent edits, thus this message is to notify whoever is expanding to article (as the template at the top of the article says it's happening) to stop introducing such sources, and start using modern reliable sources. Otherwise, any editor is authorised to remove any of those pseudo-sources and the statements based on them. Thanks Anonimu ( talk) 13:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
-- Codrin.B ( talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with ancient sources. I doubt Wikipedia editors are citing directly Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny etc. It is a matter of ancient languages. I can not say I agree with removing all sources from XIX century. If this is the rule, so be it. Still, I would propose to have for XIX the same rule that applies for ancient sources, eventually
Boldwin (
talk) 16:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)16:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Boldwin (
talk)
Paliga in Thracian and pre-Thracian studies mentioned Decev's etymology daoi = wolf. I can not cite it in the article, since I do not have Decev's book. Is there anybody else who proposed this, earlier than Decev ? I do not know if that etymology is correct or not. But, I understand you are going to remove all Tomachek's etymologies.... even though the PIE approach is based on Sanskrit, Veda that helped reconstructing PIE by Pokorny. Tomaschek and others (i.e. Gheyn cited by historians like Iorga) were interpreting names from a specific hypothesis. Is the Pokorny's Indo-Germanische more appropriate? I am just wondering
Boldwin (
talk)
17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC) I would live all etymologies17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Boldwin (
talk)
@Daizus: Do you happen to have those books/journals? I am still looking for them but couldn't find much yet. Thanks. -- Codrin.B ( talk) 00:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see the source for the translated ancient authors, where these translations had been taken from. BTW, at usually, the cited translations are from around 1900. I do not doubt these translations, but I think it is easier to find and verify them Boldwin ( talk) 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I added the neutrality tag because this article follows at times only one author (or few authors), one POV. For example the recent additions in the "Origin" section - not all authors support that chronology and that model of "Indo-Europeanization".
One POV claim (by Fischer following Solta) I also believe it's rather dubious: "Detailed studies regarding the Thracian position among Indo-European languages don’t confirm the difference between Dacian and Thracian". However on one hand there is Georgiev's theory reconstructing different phonetic systems for Thracian and Dacian (in "Raporturile" see p. 49 and 52). On the other hand there are several other onomastic studies, noticing such differences: "Dorénavant, on pourra donc faire une distinction entre l'onomastique dace et l'onomastique thrace, ce qui n'est pas sans importance si on s'interroge sur l'origine de telle ou telle personne. Il y a bien, à côté d'un territoire toponymique daco-mésien, un Namengebiet daco-mésien, qui montre une distinction plus nette entre les Thraces d'une part, les Gètes, les Mésiens et les Daces, de l'autre. L'anthroponymie s'accorde ainsi avec les données toponymiques et les gloses daces (noms de plantes): le dace était une langue indo-européenne différente du thrace, mais apparentée." (Dan Dana, in his article published in ZPE in 2003, see p. 181-2) Daizus ( talk) 21:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I erased my entry Grumeza...since I do nto know if he is reliable or not. and Conti....since it is not really a historiography, they just mention one time the Geto-Dacian Costoboci.
With regard to Fischer a.s.o, just proceed according to Wikipedia rules, I do not mind if you erase. I am totally neutral. Boldwin ( talk) 14:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Regarding to Fisher I was having also in mind and plan to add more about it. It is somehow strange, but all Indo-european list Dacian place names but name them Thracian I will bring something that would clarify There are more differences than the ones you listed, and also affinities Thank you so much for correcting this Boldwin ( talk) 14:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I used Grumeza entry because I have seen it was already listed at references.
The main difficulty with Dacian Thracian language article consist in the fact various wiki editors are using different terms, for the same concept, eventually. Many linguists agree Dacian and Thracian are not totally separate languages but rather dialects. For expressing this, one editor is using one term that speaks about a different dialect. Other editor read this term as denoting separate language. And so on It is something maybe unavoidable in first place, until the article will define article’s terms so that everybody will be on the same page Boldwin ( talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, my purpose is to present the current theories and some arguments for them. Nothing is yet established for sure, but the already entries made already a certain statement. I have read your quote. I know there are arguments for it. There are arguments for each theory. Tomaschek noticed the different ending of names dava and para but this didn't prevent him from seeing also affinities, and common “parentage” based on common people names and place names. Also, archaeological finds are saying something on this matter, acording to Daicoviciu who sustains therefore these languages were dialects. Also, I have to find at least two references for any of my entry, from now on. This takes time. Boldwin ( talk) 17:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
That statement that I cited above made me more curious than interested. I wouldn't cite it in any article, if it were not about direct inscriptions of Dacian names Boldwin ( talk) 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Boldwin ( talk) 07:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There is an interest paragraph from the book THE THRACIANS 700 BC -AD 46, from OSPREY PUBLISHING, Man-at-Arms collection, Vol. 360, ISBN 1 84176 329 2, written by Christopher Webber and ilustrated by Angus McBride. On pgs. 10-11, when detailing the historical outline of the different Thracian tribes it is stated that " ... The 'Getae' lived between the Haemus range and the Skythians, on both sides of the Istros (Danube) ... Herodotus (IV, 98) called them the bravest and most noble of all the Thracians ... Diodorus Siculus (XXI.11-12) said they are barbarous and lead a bestial existence ...the poet Ovid complains about the austere Getic lifestyle ..." . Further, on pgs. 16-17 when describing the Roman conquest on the Balcanic and Pontic regions, the author adds that " ... Formal annexation did not stop further raids, incursions and rebellions, however. The most significant of these came from the 'Dacians', direct descendants of the Getae who spoke a language closely related to Thracian. Burebeista, the first great Dacian king (c.70-44) made the Geto-Dacian state powerful enough to worry Rome ...".- Periptero ( talk) 22:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
As if this article didn't have enough problems, an IP continues to remove the position on etymology presented by one of Romania's most respected historians of Antiquity, referenced in the main history compendium published by the Romanian Academy (basically, the official version of Romanian history), while giving prominence to uninformed opinions such as that of a Paliga, a specialist in modern Western Slavic languages known for his protochronist ideas, Eliade, a historian of religions whose association with the far right are notorious, or some obsolete 19th century scholars. So, if someone is going to ever fix this article, he may want to check the various vandalisms perpetrated by IPs to discover important facts removed from the article since they didn't support the frigne point of view of protochronism. I've had enough trying to mend it. Good luck! Anonimu ( talk) 09:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)