Chronology of the breakup of Common Romance/CELTS

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/18/99 10:36:23 PM, mclssaa2 at fs2.mt.umist.ac.uk wrote:

<<I have seen a suggestion that:-
  (1) The Romanians are not descended from the Dacians, but from Vlachs
(scattered nomadic mountain shepherds who are found over much of the Balkans)
who found what is now Romania....>>
<<(2) The Vlachs are descended from Latinized Illyrians who fled into the
mountains when the Avars marauded in;
  in which case the ancestors of the Romanians started learning Latin when
Rome invaded Illyria, not when Rome invaded Dacia, and that alters the
linguistic timetable a bit.>>

There's another element in this piece of history that could skew everything.

"Vlach" or "Wallach" seems to be descended from a name that was commonly
applied to Celts.  Appearing as "Walh" or "Walah" in OHG, it has interpreted
as meaning "foreigner", sometimes Roman, but in usage it is closely
associated with Celts and regions of Celtic habitation - e.g., "Wales",
"Walloon".  I seem to recall an suggestion that there may be a tie here to L.
vallum (fortified wall, the earliest meaning of "wall") and refer to the
Celtic or Romano-Celtic oppidum or walled town.

The strong Celtic presence along the Danube is attested by Classical writers
well before the common era.  E.g., Alexander fights them before turning
against the Persians and meets Celts who are from Illyria.  Galicia in
southern Poland is a region whose name remembers a Celtic presence even
farther north.  I remember an old passage where Vlachs are identified as "the
shepherds of the Romans" and in this role they may also have been imported
help as they were in northern Italy.

<<in which case the ancestors of the Romanians started learning Latin when
Rome invaded Illyria, not when Rome invaded Dacia, and that alters the
linguistic timetable a bit.>>

The ancient ethnic designations in that part of the world are a little
difficult to follow,  but it seems clear that the whole region from Illyria
to present day Romania was under Rome by 250 ace.  And there is some
possibility that Vlachs represented Romanized Celts across those regions.  In
any case, the small difference in time between Rome's entry into Illyria and
into Dacia would be a de minimis factor.

In a message dated 6/20/99 5:55:33 PM, rmccalli at sunmuw1.MUW.Edu wrote:

<<Rumanian does share a common pre-Romance substrate with Albanian
which presumibly should help pinpoint the origin of Rumanian.>>

The suggested Thraco-Illyrian-Albanian substrate has always been called
tentative, especially in light of potential borrowing across short distances
where there would have been much opportunity for contact, particularly prior
to the Slavic invasions of the Balkans.

This brings up that familiar problem of finding a Celtic substrate, one that
might be fruitful.

E.g., one example of the Albanian substrate often given (per G. Mallinson)
has been Rom. "abure"/ Alb. "avull" (steam.)  But in Gaelic I see "co-bur"
(foam), "to-bar" (well) and "bruich" (boil) - add the Gaelic "a-" (out of) to
get /a-bruich (out of boiling- steam?) and the Celtic seems as possible as
the Albanian as a source.  Another substrate example has been Rom. "vatra"/
Alb. "vatre" (hearth), but perhaps forms like the Gaelic "fadadh" (kindling)
and "bradhadair" (blazing fire) offers evidence of a common origin and
original meaning for these later similarities.

I haven't found any recent consideration of the Celtic remnants in this area,
but I would think it might offer some real possibilities.

In a message dated 6/20/99 5:55:33 PM, rmccalli at sunmuw1.MUW.Edu wrote:

<<BUT there is also an argument that Albanian is descended from Thracian
speakers who fled to the west>>

An important question would be when this migration would have occured.

<<I seem to remember reading that while Albanian has a strong substrate, that
it is significantly lacking in Ancient or Classical Greek substrate. If
this is true, then it tells us where not to look...>>

But the problem is that Rumanian does have a substantial Greek substrate (and
had a larger one centuries ago before Rumanian was "purified" in recent
times.)  Much of this is attributed to Old Church Slavonic carrying Greek
lexicon and to Greek administration under the Turks. (The highly-related
Arumanian particularly has morphological and syntactic similarities to Greek,
e.g, the use of compound pluperfect.)  But as one scholar pointed out, "The
desire to improve and purify Rumanian... has complicated the already
difficult task of carrying out research on the origins of Rumanian
vocabulary."

Furthermore, given the extreme amount of intercourse between Greek and Thrace
during those many early centuries, wouldn't one expect Thracian to have a
strong and ancient Greek substrate, especially with regard to trade items and
such?  If Albanian doesn't have such substrate, it may not be Thracian.

Regards,
S. Long