Dacian () is an extinct language generally believed to be a member of the Indo-European language family that was spoken in the ancient region of Dacia.
The Dacian language is poorly documented. Unlike Phrygian, which is documented by c. 200 inscriptions, only one Dacian inscription is believed to have survived. The Dacian names for a number of medicinal plants and herbs may survive in ancient literary texts, including about 60 plant-names in Dioscorides. About 1,150 personal names and 900 toponyms may also be of Dacian origin. Of about 100 Dacian words reconstructed through 20th century comparative linguistics techniques, only 20–25 had achieved wide acceptance by 1982.
Sources
Many characteristics of the Dacian language are disputed or unknown. No lengthy texts in Dacian exist, only a few glosses and personal names in ancient Greek and Latin texts of the Roman era. No Dacian-language inscriptions have been discovered, except some of names in the Latin or Greek alphabet. What is known about the language derives from:
Placenames, river-names and personal names, including the names of kings. The coin inscription KOΣON (Koson) may also be a personal name, of the king who issued the coin. The Dacian names of about fifty plants written in Greek and Roman sources (see List of Dacian plant names). Etymologies have been established for only a few of them.
Some scholars have used the substratum words found in Romanian, the language that is spoken today in most of the region once occupied by Dacian-speakers, to reconstruct Dacian words. According to Romanian historian Ion I. Russu, there are supposedly over 160 Romanian words of Dacian origin, representing, together with derivates, 10% of the basic Romanian vocabulary; however, many linguists consider them debatable. Romanian words for which a Dacian origin has been proposed include: ("dragon"), ("cheese"), ("bank, shore"), and ("grape"). The value of the Romanian words of possible pre-Roman origin as a source for the Dacian language is limited because there is no certainty that these are of Dacian origin. Some of them may be actually inherited from Latin (e.g., ("snail") may derive from Latin /proto-Romance *limace; cf. It. , by metathesis of "m" with "l"), and others are clear loanwords from Albanian (e.g. Romanian vatră < Tosk Albanian vatër). p. 606: The methodology that reconstructs Dacian words using Romanian words of pre-Roman origin that also have cognates in Albanian, but which have not been attested to be Dacian or which have not been documented in Dacian territory is 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..
The substratum words have been used, in some cases, to corroborate Dacian words reconstructed from place- and personal names, e.g., Dacian * = "white" (from personal name Balius), Romanian = "white-haired" However, even in this case, it cannot be determined with certainty whether the Romanian word derives from the presumed Dacian word or from its Old Slavic cognate belu.
Origin There is scholarly consensus that Dacian was a member of the Indo-European family of languages. These descended, according to the two leading theories of the expansion of IE languages, from a proto-Indo-European (PIE) language that originated in an urheimat ("original homeland") in the southern Ukraine/ Caucasus region (Kurgan hypothesis) or in central Anatolia (Anatolian hypothesis). According to both theories, Indo-European reached the Carpathian region no later than c. 2500 BC.
According to one scenario, proto-Thracian populations emerged during the Bronze Age from the fusion of the indigenous Eneolithic (Chalcolithic) population with the intruders of the transitional Indo-Europeanization Period. From these proto-Thracians, in the Iron Age, developed the Dacians / North Thracians of the Danubian-Carpathian Area on the one hand and the Thracians of the eastern Balkan Peninsula on the other.
According to Georgiev, the Dacian language was spread south of the Danube by tribes from Carpathia, who reached the central Balkans in the period 2000–1000 BC, with further movements (e.g., the Triballi tribe) after 1000 BC, until c. 300 BC.
Linguistic classification The scantly documented material of Dacian shows that it was an Indo-European language (IE), but it is not sufficient to allow a clear classification of Dacian among the IE branches. As such, there are divergent opinions about its place within the IE family: Dacian and the extinct Thracian language as members of a single dialect continuum; e.g., and . Dacian as a language distinct from Thracian but closely related to it, belonging to the same branch of the Indo-European family (a "Thraco-Dacian", or "Daco-Thracian" branch has been theorised by some linguists). Dacian, Thracian, the Baltic languages (Duridanov also adds Pelasgian) as a distinct branch of Indo-European, e.g., Schall (1974), Duridanov (1976), Radulescu (1987) and Mayer (1996).Schall H., Sudbalten und Daker. Vater der Lettoslawen. In:Primus congressus studiorum thracicorum. Thracia II. Serdicae, 1974, S. 304, 308, 310The Language of the Thracians, Ivan Duridanov, 2.9 Thracian and Illyrian Dacian as a language of the "Daco-Moesian" group that would have also included the ancestor of the Albanian language spoken south of the Danube in Upper Moesia. The "Daco-Moesian" branch would have been other than that of Thracian, but closely related to Thracian and distinct from Illyrian. Proposed by Georgiev (1977), this view has not gained wide acceptance among scholars and is rejected by most linguists, who consider that Albanian belongs to the Illyrian branch of IE, either as a direct descendant or as a sister language.; .
Several linguists classify Dacian as a satem IE language: Russu, Rădulescu, Katičić and Križman. In Crossland's opinion (1982), both Thracian and Dacian feature one of the main satem characteristics, the change of Indo-European *k and *g to s and z. But the other characteristic satem changes are doubtful in Thracian and are not evidenced in Dacian. In any case, the satem/centum distinction, once regarded as a fundamental division between IE languages, is no longer considered as important in historical linguistics by mainstream scholars. It is now recognised that it is only one of many isoglosses in the IE zone; that languages can exhibit both types at the same time, and that these may change over time within a particular language. There is much controversy about the place of Dacian in the IE evolutionary tree. According to a dated view, Dacian derived from a Daco-Thraco-Phrygian (or "Paleo-Balkan") branch of IE. Today, Phrygian is no longer widely seen as linked in this way to Dacian and Thracian.
In contrast, the hypothesis of a Thraco-Dacian or Daco-Thracian branch of IE, indicating a close link between the Thracian and Dacian languages, has numerous adherents, including Russu 1967, Georg Solta 1980, Vraciu 1980, Crossland 1982, Rădulescu 1984, 1987. Mihailov (2008) and Trask 2000. The Daco-Thracian theory is ultimately based on the testimony of several Greco-Roman authors: most notably the Roman imperial-era historian and geographer Strabo, who states that the Dacians, Getae, Mysians and Thracians all spoke the same language. Herodotus states that "the Getae are the bravest and the most just amongst the Thracians", linking the Getae with the Thracians. Some scholars also see support for a close link between the Thracian and Dacian languages in the works of Cassius Dio, Trogus Pompeius, Appian and Pliny the Elder.
But the Daco-Thracian theory has been challenged since the 1960s by the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir I. Georgiev and his followers. Georgiev argues, on phonetic, lexical and toponymic grounds, that Thracian, Dacian and Phrygian were completely different languages, each a separate branch of IE, and that no Daco-Thraco-Phrygian or Daco-Thracian branches of IE ever existed. Georgiev argues that the distance between Dacian and Thracian was approximately the same as that between the Armenian and Persian languages, which are completely different languages. In elaborating the phonology of Dacian, Georgiev uses plant-names attested to in Dioscorides and Pseudo-Apuleius, ascertaining their literal meanings, and hence their etymology, using the Greek translations provided by those authors. The phonology of Dacian produced in this way is very different from that of Thracian; the vowel change IE *o > *a recurs and the k-sounds undergo the changes characteristic of the satem languages. For the phonology of Thracian, Georgiev uses the principle that an intelligible placename in a modern language is likely to be a translation of an ancient name.
Relationship with ancient languages
Thracian
There is general agreement among scholars that Dacian and Thracian were Indo-European languages; however, widely divergent views exist about their relationship: Dacian was a northern dialect or a slightly distinct variety of the Thracian language. Alternatively, Thracian was a southern dialect of Dacian which developed relatively late. Linguists use the term Daco-Thracian or Thraco-Dacian to denote this presumed Dacian and Thracian common language. On this view, these dialects may have possessed a high degree of mutual intelligibility. Dacian and Thracian were distinct but related languages, descended from a hypothetical Daco-Thracian branch of Indo-European. One suggestion is that the Dacian differentiation from Thracian may have taken place after 1500 BC. In this scenario, the two languages may have possessed only limited mutual intelligibility. Dacian and Thracian were related, constituting separate branches of IE. However, they shared a large number of words, which were mutual borrowings due to long-term geographical proximity. Nevertheless, they would not have been mutually intelligible.
Georgiev (1977) and Duridanov (1985) argue that the phonetic development from proto-Indo-European of the two languages was clearly divergent.
+ Divergent sound-changes in Paleo-Balkan languages according to Georgiev (1977) Proto-Indo-European Dacian Thracian Phrygian*oaao*eee*eweeueu*awaau*r̥, *l̥riur (or), ur (ol)al*n̥, *m̥aunan*b, *d, *gb, d, gp, t, kp, t, k*p, *t, *kp, t, kph, th, khph, th, kh*sss∅*swssw*srstrstrbr Note: Asterisk indicates reconstructed PIE sound. ∅ is a zero symbol (no sound, when the sound has been dropped).
+ Divergent sound-changes in Dacian and Thracian according to Duridanov (1985) Indo-European Dacian Thracian*b, *d, *gb, d, gp, t, k*p, *t, *kp, t, kph, th, kh*ēä (a)ē*e (after consonant)e*aiaai*eieei*dt (*tt)sst