Talk:Dacian language: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Proturism (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Proturism (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 65:
:You can go ahead and rearrange it however you think it will be clearer or more informative. I can add more information to it from a few websites, but I'm waiting to find more real references so I can review what led to their conclusions. The websites (such as Babaev's) just make statements without demonstrating the evidence (ex: giving phonetic features of Dacian without detailing what Dacian elements the features are deduced from, etc.). [[User:Alexander 007|Alexander 007]] 05:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 
Up to date
withWith just a few word it is not posible i supose for anybody to tell us what kind of language was dacian.A few inscription means nothing.
With a conquest of 20% of Dacia s teritory, roman empire keep that under control betwin 106 and 271,and in this short time period how could be posible to make romanization?
Romanian language is considerated to be neolatin language,the basque it is not.But the basque was under roman ocupation for 700 years.Why it is necesary dual standard of evaluation one for romanian and one for basqe?
At this moment in the internet could be found a lot of study about the fact that the tracian language and especial the dacian language was close to latin.This is just a teory, but as good as "the oficial one".In this case I request article modification for a better presentation of all teories about the caracter of dacin language
--[[User:Proturism|proturism]] 06:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)