Ci
This article contains a list of reconstructed words of the ancient Dacian language. They have been restored by some linguists from attested place and personal names (toponyms and anthroponyms) from the historical region of Dacia.
In the case of words reconstructed from onomastic evidence, the original meanings ascribed to the names in question are derived from examination of closely cognate words and placenames in other Indo-European languages, complemented by analysis of the historical evolution of such placenames. However, the results are hypothetical and subject, in many cases, to divergent etymological interpretations.
Reconstructions derived from Romanian and Albanian words that have not been attested to be Dacian or that have not been documented in Dacian territory are speculatively based on the unproven theory that Dacian constitutes the main linguistic substratum of Romanian and a closely related language to Albanian, a circular method criticised by mainstream historical linguistics.
Both Georgiev and use the comparative linguistic method to decipher ancient Thracian and Dacian names, respectively.
Georgiev argues that one can reliably decipher the meaning of an ancient place-name in an unknown language by comparing it to its successor-names and to cognate place-names and words in other IE languages, both ancient and modern. He gives several examples of his methodology, of which one is summarised here:
The city and river (a tributary of the Danube) in eastern Romania called CernavodÃÂ. In Slavic, the name means "black water". The same town in Antiquity was known as ÃÂþïÿÃÂñ (Axiopa) or ÃÂþùÿÃÂÃÂÿûùà(Axioupolis) and its river as the ÃÂþùÿà(Axios). The working assumption is, therefore, that Axiopa means "black water" in Dacian. According to the known rules of formation of IE composite words, this breaks down as axi = "black" and opa or upa = "water" in Dacian (the -polis element is ignored, as it is a Greek suffix meaning "city"). The assumption is then validated by examining cognate placenames. The axi element is validated by a tributary of the Vardar called the Axios, which is today known as Crna reka (located in Republic of Macedonia "black river") and by the older Greek name for the Black Sea, ÃÂþõùýÿàÃÂÃÂýÃÂÿà(Axeinos pontos, later altered to the euphemism Euxeinos pontos = "Hospitable sea"). The opa/upa element is validated by the Lithuanian cognate upà("river"). This etymology is questioned by Russu: Axiopa, a name attested only in Procopius' De Aedificiis, may be a corrupt form of Axiopolis. Even if correct, however, Russu's objection does not invalidate the decipherment of the axi- element.
Apart from Duridanov and Georgiev, other scholars have attempted to reconstruct Dacian and Thracian words. Russu (1967) attempted to decipher Thracian and Dacian onomastic elements (placenames and personal names) by reference to presumed proto-Indo-European roots-words. Georgiev considers such a methodology (known as Wurzeletymologien = "root-etymologies") to be "devoid of scientific value". This is because the root-words themselves are reconstructions, which are in some cases disputed and in all cases subject to uncertainty; multiple root-words can often explain the same word; and the list of proposed IE root-words may not be complete. Reichenkron (1966) assumed that so-called "substratum" words in Romanian (those whose etymology cannot be ascribed to any of the fully documented languages that have influenced Romanian: Latin, Slavic, Hungarian, Greek, Turkish etc.) are of Dacian origin. But Polomé considers that such a methodology is not reliable. This is because there is no guarantee that the substratum words are, in fact, Dacian. Instead, they could derive from other, unknown or little-known tongues at some period current in Dacia or Moesia: for example, possible pre-Indo-European language(s) of the Carpathians.
The methodology used by Georgiev and Duridanov has been questioned on a number of grounds, including:
Despite these objections, Georgiev and Duridanov claim a high degree of reliability for their reconstructions. However, Polomé (1982), in his survey of the state of research into paleo-Balkan languages for Cambridge Ancient History, considers that only "20âÂÂ25 Dacian, and 40âÂÂ45 Thracian words have had reasonable, but not certain, Indo-European etymologies proposed". This compares with c. 100 Dacian words reconstructed by Duridanov, and c. 200 Thracian words by Georgiev.
Georgiev, Duridanov and Russu concur that the Dacian language constitutes the main pre-Latin substratum of the modern Romanian language. Duridanov also accepts Georgiev's theory that modern Albanian is descended from "Daco-Moesian". Where words in modern Albanian and/or Romanian can be plausibly linked to an Indo-European root and modern cognates of similar meaning, a reconstruction of the putative Dacian originals have been proposed by Duridanov, who included them in a separate list from words reconstructed from placenames.
CAVEAT: The following word-reconstructions are based on the assumption that the Albanian language is descended from "Daco-Moesian". This theory is contested by many linguists, especially Albanian, who consider the language a direct descendant of the extinct Illyrian language. Thus, reconstructions based on modern Albanian words, or Romanian substratum words with Albanian cognates, may in reality represent ancient Illyrian, rather than Dacian, elements. In addition, the reconstructions below, unlike those in Table A above, are not validated by Dacian place- or personal names. The "Dacianity" of the reconstructions is therefore completely speculative, in comparison to those derived from placenames. (N.B. Even if Albanian is descended from Illyrian, the reconstructions below could nevertheless represent Dacian elements if the "Daco-Illyrian" theory - that the Dacian and Illyrian languages were closely related - is correct; or if the words below represent Illyrian borrowings from "Daco-Moesian", but not if they represent "Daco-Moesian" borrowings from Illyrian)