The Daco-Romanian Cultural Vocabulary

Abstract

The population of today’s Romania spoke in antiquity a language known as Dacian, classified by linguists as an Indo-European language. The Dacian language remains a mystery, and the limited direct testimony of written documents, mostly toponyms, hydronyms, and personal names, transmitted through Greek and Latin alphabets, The geographic proximity, the economic exchanges, and pastoralism, among the populations of the Dacian-Getae, Mysian, Thracian, Dardanian, Illyrian, Macedonian, and Greeks, led to sharing specialized vocabulary for commercial exchanges, forming the main substrata that underline the Balkan peoples of today. The phonological developments of the Daco-Romanian language (DRom), was the subject of many linguistic studies, among which the Istoria limbii române (ILR) published in 1969, and of I. I. Russu (IIR) in his study Etnogeneza românilor published in 1981, studies instrumental in the analysis of unexplained Romanian forms.

As a general consensus, here I used single quotes for the translation of words in discussion, and double quotes when citing a text.

Classified together with the other Romance languages, the Romanian language is still uses a large number of isoglosses of unknown etymology. The scope of this analysis is to observe relations between the Daco-Romanian language and the larger familiy of the Indo-European languages. The possibility that the substratum of the southeast European languages contains old Indo-European forms coexisting and influencing the newer Indo-European arrivals is a hypothesis that needs to be investigated. As mentioned earlier, the Daco-Romanian used approximately 2581 words, with over 30% directly from Latin, 25% formed internally, to which can be added 17% with multiple etymologies, the Slavic influence counting for about 9%, and other smaller contributions (Sala, 1988, p. 73), and a considerable percentage of about 20% with unsolved etymology. The cultural vocabulary preserved by the Daco-Romanian population, and analysis of other Indo-European language vocabularies, can contribute to a better understanding of a civilization lost in time. The Proto-Indo-European roots recognizable in the DRom reflexes presented in this work will help not only to reveal the preferences and particularities of the Daco-Romanian language, but also help advance the Indo-European linguistic research. A preliminary examination of a list of words that qualify as the basic IE vocabulary according to The Cultural Lexicon of Indo-European in Europe: Quantifying Stability and Change (2018), next to the Romanian translation and the etymology for each, can give a glimpse of the development of the language.

Domestic animals
English	DRom	Etymology
sheep	oi (pl., fem. sg. oaie)	Lat ovis; IE *h2ówis,
ram	berbece	Lat berbex, -ecis (=vervex)]
lamb	miel	Lat agnellus—PIE *meh1l- sg. m. miel, f. mială, mioară
goat	capră	Lat capra
hen	cloșcă	Slv Bg kločka
chicken	găină	Lat gallina
rooster	cocoș	Slv kokoši ‘hen’
horse	cal	Lat caballus;
(colt)	mânz	IE *mendyos
donkey	măgar	IE *marko-
ox	bivol	Slv byvolŭ? (Derksen Ru býdlo ‘cattle’; ORu bydlo ‘animal’; PIE *bhHu-tlom
cattle (generic)	cireadă	Slv OCS črěda
bull	bou	Lat vulgar *bovus, -um
cow	vacă	Lat vacca
pig	porc	Lar porcus
duck	rață	???
dog	câine, câne	Lat canis
cat	pisică	??? Onomatopoeic DRom pis-pis
bee	albină	Lat alvus ‘beehive, cavity’

In this subject category, from the total of nineteen, the majority of nouns are inherited from Latin, with four of Slavic contribution, raising the question: What equivalent forms existed in the language previous to the Latin or Slavic contact? Of the four reflexes considered here of IE origin, two could be controversial, sheep—oi, oaie < Lat ovis, lamb—miel < Lat agnellus, and yet, the IE reconstructed form MA *meh₁l- ‘small animal’; IEW 724 *mēlo-, smēlo- could be a better option.

Wild animals
wolf	lup	Lat lupus
bear	urs	Lat ursus
owl	bufniță	IE *b(e)u, *b(h)eu;
cheetah	n/a
leopard	n/a
lion	n/a
lynx	râs	Slv rysĭ.
fox	vulpe	Lat vulpes
jackal	n/a
snake	șarpe	Lat serpens
raven	corb	Lat corvus
eagle	vulture	Lat vŭltŭr, vúlturis
bison	zimbru	IE *ĝ(h)ombhros
wild boar	mistreț	Lat mixticius?
hare	iepure	Lat lepus, -oris
rabbit	iepure	Lat lepus, -oris
deer	căprioară	‘doe’ Lat capriole

Most of the words for wild animals in this list are of Latin origin.

Material vocabulary
scythe	coasă	Slv kosa (controversial)
sickle	seceră	Lat sicilis
spade	spadă	Italian neolog.
plow (n.)	plug	DRom > Slv < Germ < Celt > DRom (archaeological replica found in Dacia in third century BCE)—wonderword
saw	ferăstrău	? (Lat fero?)
ax	secure	Lat secures
(hatchet)	bardă	IE *bhar- s ´pointed´
(ax)	topor	Slv toporŭ
yoke	jug	Lat jugum
wagon	car	Lat carrus
wheel	roată	Lat rota
axle	osie	OCS osь
cultivated field	a) arătură, câmp	Lat arare ‘plow land’: Lat campus
	b) lan	PIE MA *lendh- ‘open land’ OIr lann, Eng land?
weave	țese	Lat texere
spin (thread)	toarce	Lat torquere
sew	coase	Lat cosere (consuere)
plow (v.)	ara	Lat arare
sow	semăna	Lat seminare
wool	lână	Lat lana
fur	blană	Bg блана/blana f. membrane? Slv kozina ‘fur’

The basic material vocabulary is mostly of Latin origin, with a few Slavic forms. The IE form bardă could be controversial.

Edible
honey	miere	Lat mel, -is
milk	lapte	Lat lac, -tis
salt	sare	Lat sal, salis
wine	vin	Lat vinum
mead	mied	IE *médhu
wax (bees)	ceară	Lat cera
meat	carne	Lat caro, carnis
grease	grăsime	Lat gras
hops	hamei	Slv chmeli
wheat	grâu	Lat granum
barley	orz	Lat hordeum
rye	secară	Lat secale
oats	ovăz	Slv ovesŭ.
grain(generic)	grâne	Lat granum
turnip	ridiche	Lat radicula
apple	măr	Lat malus
grape	struguri	IE *sre/ohags- ‘berry, fruit’
flax	in	Lat linum

In the Edible subject list fourteen are of Latin origin, two Slavic, and two IE.

From the total words in this list, considered the basic IE vocabulary, the majority of DRom reflexes are of Latin influence, with nine Slavic and eight from the substratum. The Latin loans are in majority forms designating animals, food, and verbs related to domestic work; some developments are the result of contamination or merger phenomenon between existing Dacian/Thracian forms, and the conquering language of the Roman colonists, some speakers of the Vulgar Latin. For example, the DRom v. a vătăma,‘to hurt, injure, damage; 1st sg. eu va’tăm (first vowel accentuated) ‘I hurt you’ or, ‘someone’, explained in DEX.RO by Lat victimare ´to give offering, sacrifice, slaughtering,´ could have been a merger between the Latin form with an existing Dacian form related to the PIE (MA) root *wedh- ‘push, strike’; Pokorny IEW 1108 u̯ā-, u̯ō-, u̯ǝ- ‘to hit, wound’ with cognates in Grk éthei ´destroys´; Hit wezz- ‘strike, urge’; Skt vadh- ‘strikes, pushes, slays’; Toch B wät- ‘fight’; Ltv vâts ‘wound’, Lith votis ‘open wound’, all indicating an archaic reflex, a possible example of a merger.

The formative process in the history of Daco-Romanian language is shown more conclusively by the coexistence of archaic forms for horse: DRom mânz ‘colt’, murg ‘dark colt’ and iapă ‘mare’, next to DRom cal < Lat caballus < Celtic. Similarly, the subject of daily ‘activities’ has many correspondences in IE, while the domesticated animals are almost all inherited from Latin. The coexistance between the inherited vocabulary and the Latin one, is also exemplified by the many daily produce for use in house or for trade, brânză, urdă ‘cheese’, zer/zară ‘whey’, of PIE heritage, next to lapte ‘milk’ of Latin origin.

The vocabulary for ‘cultivated field’ is of Latin influence, while the plow (n.)—DRom plug, has the character of a wonderword. Many of the religious terms, loan words through Christian influence, are also of Latin origin: church—DRom biserică < basilica; pray/prayer > DRom ruga/rugăcine, priest > DRom preot, etc.; in some cases the merger hypothesis is yet another way to regard the Latin contribution to the Daco-Romanian vocabulary. The Christian Greek Orthodox preachings, coming from the South of the Danube with the Greek and Bulgarian priests, form the main corpus of the Slavic influence on the Romanian religious vocabulary.

The attempt to clarify the many unexplained and regional reflexes in use in Daco-Romanian language is partial, mostly due to the author’s limitations.

Besides the approximately 360 words from the substratum listed in the Appendix, for which a PIE root was found, the DRom language uses quite a few ‘everyday’ isoglosses for which there is no solution as yet, many of them in common with Albanian language: băiat n.‘boy’, copil n. ‘child’, moș m. moașă f. ‘old man, midwife, old woman’; măgură n.´small hill´, Alb achaic magulë ‘hill’; Sardinian mogoro ‘hill’, Basque mokor ‘lump of (dry) earth’? mărar n.´deel´ Alb maraj ‘fennel’; mazăre ‘pea,’ Dacian form found in Dioscoride’s list mozula, mizela ‘the plant thyme’; țap n. ´he-goat´, Alb sqap, tsap, Dalm tsap, Abruzz tsappe; pururea adv. ‘ever’; răbda v. ‘bear, endure’; șopârlă n. ´lizard´ Alb shapi ‘id’; șoric n. ‘pig skin’; spânz, spînț n. ´plant Helleborus pupurescens’; strepede, pl. strepezi n. ´larva in cheese or vinegar´; viezure ´badger´ Alb vjedhullë ‘id’, etc.

The Daco-Romanian language includes particularities that are the result of the substrate influence such as:

• the sound ă (schwa ə);

• the laringeal h;

• the rotacism of -n- > -r- ;

• the change of Lat ct > pt. (Albanian ft);

• the postposition of the article (similar to Bulgarian and Albanian);

• the neuter gender;

• the identity between dative and genitive cases;

• the particle -ne attached to personal pronouns mine, tine, sine ´me, you, self´, and the interogative cine ´who´;

• the future tense with Lat volere as in eu voi merge ‘I will go’;

• the sufix -esc for apartenance românesc ‘Romanian’, to list the most important ones.

The phonological developments from Proto-Indo-Euroipean (PIE) to Daco-Romanian language (DRom), as presented in the Istoria limbii române (ILR) published in 1969, and by I. I. Russu (IIR) in his study Etnogeneza românilor published in 1981, instrumental in the analysis of unexplained Romanian forms, are listed here, to which I added examples from the present study:

PIE a (ə) > a in DRom (ILR, 1969, p. 316); á > a; a > ə in Thraco-Dacian (IIR: 123); here: *ap-1 (proper ǝp-) ēp- ‘to take, grab, reach’ DRom v. apuca ‘to grab’ 50–51; *areg- ‘to lock’ DRom n. argea ‘underground room’

PIE a, ā > a (ə) o (ILR: 316, IIR: 123); here: *balba-, *balbal-, *barbar- DRom n. bală, pl. bale ‘slobber, drool’, v. bolborosi ‘mumble’;

PIE e > e (ILR: 316, IIR: 123); here: *se(n)k- ‘dry up’ > DRom adj. sec ‘dry’

PIE e > schwa ǝ (Georgiev, Vraciu) DRom ă > â; here *kerdheh_a > DRom n. cârd

‘flock, herd’, the schwa ǝ sound in DRom is generally accepted as inherited from the substratum (ILR 320);

PIE é > ie (ILR: 316) Dacian toponyms Tierna, Dierna, ie/ia *dheu(h_x) ´being stirred (like dust or smoke) > DRom adia v. ‘to breeze, soft wind’; n. adiere ‘breeze’;

*mel-⁶, melǝ- ‘dark color, black, dirty’ DRom adj. mieriu ‘blue’;

PIE ē > a > o (ILR: 316, IIR: 123); here: *melh₃ -, *mel-, melǝ-, mlö- ‘to rise up,rising land’—DRom n. mal ‘small cliff, beach’

PIE o > a (ILR: 316); (IIR: 123); here: *ghórdhos or *ghórtos ‘fence, enclosure’—DRom n. gard ‘fence’;

PIE ō > ö > e (ILR: 316); o > o; ō > a (IIR: 123); here: *h₃or- ‘eagle’—DRom n. erete, harete ‘hawk’

PIE ō > u; here: *bhólĝhis ‘skin, belly’—DRom n. burtă ‘belly’

PIE ū > ü > i (ILR: 316); u > u(o) (IIR: 123); here: *bulis ‘rump’—DRom n.

buric ‘belly button’; *dhúbhos- DRom n. dop ‘cork’

PIE ai̯ > a (ILR: 316); here—possibly *haek̑—‘point, sharp’; a derivative *haek̑sti-.

‘bristle’; DRom v. ascuți, pers. I (eu) ascut ‘I sharpen’

PIE ei̯ > ẹ (ILR: 316); here: (h_a)ei > i / â: *h_aeis- DRom v. isca ‘appear’; *rei-, *reik- ‘scratch’—DRom v. râcâi ‘scratch’, n. râie ‘scabia’

PIE aṵ > a (ILR: 316); here: no examples; only aṵ > au *auo-s (*ḫuḫḫaš) ‘grandfather’ DRom arch. n. auş ‘grandfather, old man’;

PIE eu > e (ILR: 316); here: eu > ău (ǝu): *keus- ‘hollow out’—DRom n. căuc, căuş ‘cavity as in cup, spoon, middle of hand’; *reus- ‘anger’—DRom adj. rău ‘bad’;

*ĝhēu-, *ĝhō(u)-, *ĝhəu- ´yawn, gap´—DRom n. gaură ‘hole’

eu > o, u *bhreu- ‘brew’- DRom n. burtă ‘belly’, borţ ‘belly’, borhot ‘fermented fruit’.

eu > i, iu *leubh- ‘love, desire’—DRom v. iubi, n. iubire ‘love’, *leuk- ‘shine’ DRom n. licăr, v. licări ‘glitter’.

PIE ṇ > a (ILR: 316); here: *ṇbh(ro/ri) ‘rain’—DRom n. abure ‘mist’, v. aburí; *andher-, *ņdher- ‘stem, spike’ DRom n. andrea ‘knitting needle’

PIE ṛ > ri (ILR: 316); here: ṛ > re: *k̑ṛrēh₂ ‘head’—DRom n. creier ‘brain’

PIE b^h > b (ILR: 316); here: *bhag- ‘divide, apportion’—DRom eu bag ‘I insert’;

*bhreu- ‘brew’—DRom borhot ‘marc’

b^h > p *dhúbhos- ‘wedge’—DRom n. dop ‘cork’ (later development?);

PIE d ^h > d (ILR: 316); here: *dhúbhos- ‘wedge’—DRom n. dop ‘cork’; in some cases

d^h > d > ġ 1. *udero- ‘uterus/womb’, 2. *h₁óuh_xdhŗ ‘breast, udder’—DRom n.

uger ARom udzire, IstrRom uger ‘cow udder’

d ^h > d > t: *dhren- ‘drone’—DRom trăncăni ‘speak endlessly’; *dergh- ‘grasp’—DRom targă ‘stretcher’

PIE g^h > g (ILR: 316); here: *ghórdhos or *ghórtos ‘fence, enclosure’- DRom n. gard ‘fence’; *dergh- ‘grasp’—DRom targă ‘stretcher’;

PIE k̑ > s (ILR: 316); k̑ > s (IIR: 124); here: * k̑súlom ‘post, stake’—DRom sul ‘role, tube’; *h_aek̑ ‘sharp’—DRom as-cut ‘I sharpen’; *k̑ouh₁ros

‘powerful’—DRom în-surat ‘married man’;

But also,

PIE k̑ > c *k̑ostrom/dhrom ‘knife’—DRom custure ‘knife’; *k̑er- ‘grow’—DRom cârlan ‘young lamb or foal’; *k̑ṛrēh₂ ‘head’—DRom n. creier ‘brain’

PIE k̑ > h *k̑euh_x- ‘hollow out’—DRom n. hău ‘abyss, precipice’;

These examples: k̑ > s, but also k̑ > c, or k̑ > h, presents Daco-Romanian with both centum and satem reflexes, offering the possibility to analyze linguistic strata in different historic stages, taken from linguistic comparison when s > h changes in Greek, Phrygian, Armenian, Iranian, but not Illyrian.

PIE k > k (c, g) (IIR: 124); here: *kerk- ‘hen’—DRom n. fem. Curcă ‘turkey’;

*krob- ‘hurry’—DRom v. grăbi, n. grabă ‘rush, hurry’;

PIE ĝ, ĝh > z (ḋ) (ILR: 316; IIR: 124); here: *ĝ(h)ombhros ‘bison’—DRom zimbru ‘bison’

[Common Illyr gh- > d- then Lat. d- > f- phonetic mutation (IEW)]

PIE k^w > k (p) (ILR: 316); k^w > k (IIR: 124); here: *k^wek^wlóm, *k^wok^wlos ‘wheel’

< *k^wel ‘turn’—DRom n. cocǎ ‘dough’, cocoaşǎ ‘hump’n. cocoloș ‘ball of dough or other material’; v. cocoli, cocoloşi ‘to overprotect mostly of children’;

k^w > p *h₁ek̑wos ‘horse’, fem. *h₁ék̑weh_a—DRom n. fem. Iapă ‘mare’, Dacian personal names: Βετεσπιος, and Ουτασπιος (in Katičić & Mate, 1976, p. 149).

PIE g^w, g^wh > g (b?) (ILR: 316); g^w, g^wh > g (IIR: 124); here: *g^worh_x ‘mountain’—DRom n. gorun ‘oak’; *g^wr(e)h_a(−u); *g^wreh_x-u- ‘heavy’—DRom greu,

fem. grea ‘heavy’;

PIE n > n; m > m; l > l (intervocalic > r) li > I; p > p; weak n intervovalic > r

(ILR: 316–322; IIR: 124)

PIE s > s / ș (IIR: 124) *h₁ēs- ‘sit’ > DRom v (se reflexive particle) aşeza ‘sit

oneself, set; something’; *septm̥ > DRom șapte ‘seven’; *k̑os-trom/dhrom ‘knife, dagger’ > DRom n. custure ‘knife’

PIE sr > str (ILR: 316): *sre/oh_ags- ‘berry, fruit’; DRom n. sg. strugure ‘grapes’.

A special situation is offered by the development of consonantal Lat kt, ks > DRom pt, ps and ft, fs in Alb, considered specific to the Balkan region; the Albabian development ft, fs is not accepted in DRom.

Noteworthy, the s- mobil with an unclear function, which can be present or absent (Beekes, 1995, p. 163), could be observed in a few Romanian reflexes:

*(s)kel- ‘crooked’—DRom n. cârcă ‘(uper) back’, cârjă ‘croch’, cârlig ‘hook’, cârlionţi ‘ringlets’, cârnat ‘sausage’, v. cârni ‘turn’

*(s)keng- ´limp´—DRom n. ciung, ciump ‘crippled’, ciunt ´unihorned´ v. ciunti ´cut short´, ciot ‘stmp’

*(s)kēp-2, (s)kōp- and (s)kāp-; (s)kēb(h)-, skob(h)- and skāb(h)- ‘work with a sharp instrument’—DRom n. scoabă ‘clamp’, v. scobi ‘to hollow, scoop’

*(s)kerb-~(s)kerbh- ‘shrink, shrivel’—DRom v. scoroji ‘dry out, as of leather or skin’, *sphaen ‘flat-shaped piece of wood’—DRom n. pană ‘shim’,

*spleiĝh- ‘step, go’—DRom v. plec(a) ‘leave’,

*(s)teg ‘pole, post’—DRom n. stejar ‘oak’; stinghie ‘wooden beam’; steag ‘flag’; steajer, steajăr ‘pole’; stînjen ‘measurement, 1,366 meters’.

In a more comprehensive comparative analysis these examples could help determine various stages in the historical development of the Daco-Romanian language.

As part of the Balkan Sprachbund, the Romanian language is characterized by the existence of the ‘schwa’ vowel noted as ă in DRom, as ӗ in Albanian, and ъ in Bulgarian.

Romanian language knows a proclitic particle a (also a mark of the ARomanian dialect) that in time received various explanations. Mallory and Adams (2006) argue that “the augment particle h₁e added at the beginning of a root indicated the past tense, therefore an association with the imperfect and aorist, as in Skt á-bharam, Grk é-pheren, Arm e-ber as reflexes of *h₁e-bher-on ‘I carried’” (MA: 65). Hamp (1985, p. 70) explained this particle as the prefix ad- ‘to’, which he derives as a special syntactic use from *ad- ‘conformity, goal’. Other linguists consider this particle/prefix a non-Indo-European mark (Kroonen, 2012, p. 240) The past tense nuance is not visible in DRom, thus this particle may be either “the augment particle h₁e” (Mallory & Adams, 2006), or related to the prefix ad- (Hamp, 1985), or it may be of a non-IE origin; here are some DRom examples:

adia v. ‘to breeze, soft wind’ *[h₁e]dheu(h_x) ´be stirred like dust or smoke´; or,

dialectal Greek ἅϝησι (áwēsi) = “it blows”, from IE h2-w-h1

agonisi v. ‘gather wealth’ *[h₁e]g^whonós ‘fullness, thickness’;

amăgi v. ‘allure, trick’ *[h₁e] h₂mey-g^w- ‘change, exchange’

ameți v. ‘be dizzy’ *[h₁e]médhu ‘mead’

ardica (archaic) v. ‘to lift up, raise’ see ridica *[h₁e]h₃er- ‘set in motion vertically’

ascuţi v.’to sharpen’, *[h₁e]h_aek̑ ‘sharp, pointed’.

(se) asemăna v. ‘to look the same’ *[h₁e]somos ‘same’

abure n. ‘mist’ if we take the IEW 162 *bholo- ‘smoke steam’ > a+bure ‘mist’.

Traditionally, Romanian linguists considered the DRom particle a as a development from the Lat preposition ad, as in v. mesteca ´chew’—amesteca ‘mix´; yet, in the examples listed above the Latin preposition ad- (a-) could not be considered an etymological solution since there are no Latin words such as (ad)+dia, (ad)+gonisi, to justify the formation, nor are there DRom words dia, gonisi, etc., as in regular Latin developments: Lat adducere >DRom aduce ‘to bring’, Lat adiutare > DRom ajutor ‘help’, etc.

This very productive particle marks the infinitive in DRom (omitted in this dictionary to avoid redundancy): a avea ‘to have’, a fi ‘to be’, a mânca ‘to eat’, a pleca ‘to leave’, etc.; it also forms nouns: a-casă ‘(at) home’ [casă ‘house’], adverbs: adeseori ‘often’ [des ‘often’], etc. By itself the particle a indicates affiliation ‘of’ as in: miroase a mâncare ‘smells of food’, tată a doi copii ‘father of two kids’, etc. The DRom and ARom particle a could be the development of Lat ad- in clearly Latin loans; it could also be preexisting the Latin influence, related to the PIE *h_aed with the sense of ‘direction, of nearness, toward, or belonging’ > DRom a-, but Lat ad, NE at, Oscan az ‘at’. Gaulish ad ‘at’, Welsh add ‘id’, Gothic at ‘at, next to’, OHG az ‘at, next to’, even though it should have developed in az as in Oscan.

PIE short o before the consonantal allophones of the PIE resonants became in open syllables in Ind-Ir ā, as in Grk. δόρυ, Skt. dā́ru, but was dropped in DRom druete, codru.

The change of Lat b+u into DRom g^w established by the Romanian linguists based on a few examples, such as negură ‘fog’ < Lat nebula from IEW 315–316 *(enebh-2): nebh-, embh-, mbh- ‘wet, damp, water, clouds’, should be reconsidered on account of the DRom form murg, Alb murg ‘colt’ < PIE *(h_a)merh_xg^w ‘dark’ that developed in Greek in amorbós ‘dark’; and also on account of the Alb mjegull/njegull ‘fog, mist darkness’. This change is stated in IEW (106) “Common Lat. kʷ > p phonetic mutation corresponds to common Gk. gʷ > b phonetic mutation”, and specified in Fortson: “At an earlier date, the voiced labiovelar *g^w became b in Celtic” (2004); these conclusions advance the possibility that the DRom language reflex negu-ră shows the retention of a more archaic form. The other DRom forms, fagur(e) ‘honeycomb’ < Lat favus (“etymology unknown” de Vaan, 2008, p. 207), and DRom n rug with a double meaning: ‘bramble, shrub of blackberries’ < Lat rubus ‘blackberry perennial, blackberry’, but also n rug ‘stake’ < Lat rogus (possible neologism), should also be analyzed through the PIE reconstructed roots. The phonetic modifications are even more complicated with the reversed development Lat g^w > DRom b, as in Latin lingua > DRom limba ‘tongue’, considered a general rule even though this is the only example, and without further reference to DRom murg, or negură.

Other examples such as k̑ > s, but also k̑ > c, or k̑ > h, may stand proof for certain tendencies at some historical moments [what used to be called centum or satem], that could help identify chronological changes during various linguistic strata in the Daco-Romanian language.

The laryngeal [−h], well attested in DRom, was considered by some linguists of Slavic influence (based on OCS examples as har ‘bliss’, hrană ‘food’) since it disappeared from Latin long before the Dacian wars. Others counteragrued signaling the existence of the laryngeal in some Dacian reflexes, which may plead for an older origin: chodela plant name, hydronyms Auha, Helivacia, Hierasus (Lat Gerasus), Hister (Histros), toponyms Histria (also Istria), Helis, Lat Carsium today Hârsova, antroponym Heptapor, granted that the graphic reproduction may be problematic. Common reflexes with Albanian, hameș, hutui, lehăi, for example, or other forms that could not be explained through Slavic, or other languages, as habă (see below), hârșie ‘black sheep fur’, horoi ‘woodpecker’, hoț ‘thief’, hud(r)ă ‘hole’ (ILR 321) attest to a Romanian laryngeal.

Here are some examples of possible PIE laryngeal h developments in DRom:

PIE h₁ + é > h as in: *h₁édmi ‘eat’ > DRom n. m. hameș, f. -ă ‘gluttonous, big eater’, v. part. Hămesit ‘starving, hungry’, verified by the Alb form ha ´eat´;

*h_2/3webh ´weave´—DRom habă ‘gathering of women to spin and sew’.

*h_xolu-, or *alu- ‘spell’—DRom hală, (bală, balaur) ală ‘monster creator of storm’.

*h₂ṛg̑(u)- ‘white’—DRom hârcă ‘skull’.

The DRom can also offer the development of a laryngeal from a velar as in *kap- ‘have, seize’—DRom hapcă/japca ‘fishing rod, catch by force’; interj. Hap ‘catch with mouth’ hăpăi ‘gulp dwon’; and, *ghrebh- ´dig´—DRom n. hrubă (?) ‘underground room, gallery, cellar’.

Among the lexical derivative particles inherited from the substrate are the following suffixes:

• -esc forming adjectives românesc ‘of romanian’, frățesc ‘brotherly’, ciobănesc ‘of shepherds’; also adverbial particle -esc, -eşte as in românește, frățește, ciobanește;

• -uş sufix forming diminutives sfedeluș, jucăus, bebeluș, etc.

• -ză associative sufix, also forming diminutives (Rosetti, 1968) as in pupăză ‘hoopoe’, coacăză ‘currant’, căcărează ‘pejorative—little piece of caca’, spetează ‘back of a chair, from spate ‘back’, gălbează ‘flatworm’

The Slavic influence on the Daco-Romanian language is undisputable, particularly during the Christian influx of monks from the South following the Turkish conquering of the area. Many of the Bible translations from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries used Greek and South-Slavic sources; the monks and priests performing the translations inserted Slavic words, mostly because they were not familiar with the Romanian language. However, in addressing this influence, the history of the Balkan languages and their common substratum should be taken into consideration. The separation of Slavic languages into East and South East is first attested in manuscripts from the ninth to the tenth centuries. This separation is confirmed, among other phonological phenomena, by the metathesis of the liquids l / r in the so-called open syllable law; for example, the PIE *ghórdhos or *ghórtos ‘fence, enclosure’ > OCS gradŭ ‘city’, but DRom gard ‘fence’ and Alb gardh ‘fence’, where the metathesis phenomenon is absent, pleading to the conclusion that the DRom and Albanian forms were present in the common substrate; other examples could be: PIE *del- ‘cut’, OCS dlato, dlěto ‘chisel’ and DRom daltă ‘chisel’; PIE *tolkw- ‘speak’ > OCS tlŭ-, DRom n. tâlc ‘meaningful talk, sense’, see further. In these cases, the metathesis did not take place in Daco-Romanian, either because these loans entered the language by contact with Slavs before the open syllable law occurred, in other words, before the ninth century, a fact historically not accepted, or, most likely, these reflexes were already present in DRom, and a later regressing metathesis to a previous form, from OCS dlato, dlěto ‘chisel’ to DRom daltă, is less plausible. The same applies to DRom baltă ‘puddle, swamp’ and Blg blato ‘swamp’. To bring this argument further, here are a few examples of DRom reflexes, with correspondences in OCS, but without metatheses:

• DRom tâlc ‘meaningful, wise speech’ < OCS tlŭkŭ < Proto-Slavic tъlkъ < Proto-Indo-European (IEW 1088) *tolkʷ- ‘to speak’ the number of cognates in I-E could indicate a merger rather than an earlier loan from a Slavic source prior to the ninth century: Latin loquor ‘to speak’, Old Irish do-tluchethar ‘to ask’, ad-tluchedar ‘to thank’; in the Old East Slavic the phenomenon did not occur: тълкъ (tŭlkŭ), Belarusian толк (tolk); Russian толк (tolk) ‘interpretation, explanation’; Ukrainian толк (tolk); Danish tolk; Dutch tolk; Estonian tulk; Latvian tulks; Lithuanian tùlkas; Middle Low German; tolk; Norwegian tolk; Old Norse tulkr; Swedish tolk.

• DRom n. vârf ‘peak’ < OCS vrŭhŭ ‘top’ < PIE *wers- ‘peak’, IEW 1151–1152 u̯er- (*su̯er-) ‘highland, high place, top, high’, with cognates OIr ferr ‘better’[<‘higher’]; Lat verrūca ‘varus, pimple’; OE wearr ‘sill’; Lith viršùs ‘highest point’; Rus verkh ‘peak’; Grk hérma ‘point, top’; Skt várṣman- ‘height, peak’; OCS vrьxъ m. (u) ‘top’.

The languages of the Balkan region have certain features in common, of which a few should be mentioned here:

• the schwa vowel (ə) in Romanian and the other dialects (Aromanian, Meglenoromanian, Istroromanian) transcribed as ‘ă’, in Albanian as ‘ë’, and in Bulgarian as ‘ъ’,

• the proclitic definite article in Romanian, Albanian, and Bulgarian, proclition that was determined by the adjective position after the noun in Romanian, similar to Albanian, but not in Bulgarian, where is positioned before the noun (Rosetti, 1968, p. 233) which shows the substratum influence on this language;

• loss of the infinitive and substitution in most cases by the subjunctive

• merging of the dative and genitive cases

• future tense expressed analytically (often using want as an auxiliary)

• perfect tense using have

• verbs that take two direct objects

• analytic formation of the comparative for adjectives

• common pattern for constructing the numerals 11–19 ‘un/spre/zece, doi/spre/zece etc.’

• tendency to replace case endings with prepositions

There are many discussions on the Daco-Romanian and Albanian relation; among approxmately 211 common words (Vraciu, 1980, p. 117), deserving of special attention is the DRom reflex for ‘village’ sat, used in the entire Romanian territory: the general consensus among the Romanian linguists is in favor of a solution offered by the Byzantine military form fosaton < Lat fossatum > Alb fshat > DRom *fsat > sat ‘village’, even though the Romanian villages are not surrounded by fossa ‘ditches.’ In a Byzantine document from the sixth century, Strategikon (2001), we find fosaton, Greek ϕοςςατον, used regularly, meaning ‘military compound’, ϕοςςατον being used overall to designate the army itself in the Byzantine military; moreover, we should consider that by the fourth century, the Roman administration and the army were no longer present in Dacia. Pokorny (IEW 626) argues that Albanian fshat, developed from *k̑þei- ‘to settle’ through an old Alb *kṣati > fshati > DRom *fsat, following a common development in Alb-DRom k^whs > phs > fs; this rule was applicable in the case of Lat coxa > DRom coapsă, and Abl kofsha ‘thigh’. The phonetic group ps-, fs- in initial position is not accepted in Romanian language. The etymology for DRom sat < fsat < Alb fshat ‘village’ is based on the occurrence of this form in only one document, the manuscript named Psaltirea Scheiană (dated approximately 1576–1578), a translation in Romanian of a religious text using the Kirilic alphabet, perhaps, that could have been translated by an Albanian monk, or a monk with limited knowledge of Romanian language. Incidentally, the use of DRom sat in this Psalter coincided with the time when Coresi’s Tetraevanghel was printed, between 1560–1561, in which the DRom sat ‘village’ is frequently used, and the form fsat is totally absent. The same can be said about the Slavo-Romanian Psalter printed by Deacon Coresi in 1577 in which only the form sat ‘village’ is used in the entire work, proving that fsat, Albanian fshat was used only in a single publication dated from the same period with Coresi’s documents, and should not be considered as a possible solution for the DRom sat. More so, in T. Cunia’s Dictsiunar a Limbljei Armãneascã, the author specifies that the word: “fsat (fsátŭ) sn—scriari neaprucheatã tu-aestu dictsiunar; vedz fusati—‘Sriere neacceptată in acest dictionar, vezi fusati’ (fsat (fsátŭ) [unacceptable writing in this dictionary, see fusati.] Further: “fusati/fusate (fu-sá-ti) sf fusãts (fu-sắtsĭ)—hãndachi (adancitura) strimtã shi lungã … {ro: tranşee, şanţ} ‘fusati/fusate (fu-sá-ti) f. n. fusãts” [long narrow ditch, Romanian trench, ditch.]

http://www.dixionline.net/index.php?inputWord=f%C3%A3nt%C3%A3nel%C3%A3

Another argument against the foston origin of the DRom sat is the fact that the Aromanians, living in close proximity with the Albanians, use for ‘village’ the form hoară, a Greek loan.

The PIE offers some possible solution in MA *sed- ‘sit’; IEW 884–889 *sed ‘to sit’, *sed-to ‘sit, settlement, chair’; sed-ter ‘seat, settlement?’; sed-ti ‘gathering’ > DRom n. sat, pl. sate ‘village, settlement’ (e > a in DRom); cogn.: NWels sedd ‘seat’; OIr saidid, said ‘to sit’, and OIr sid ‘peace’: Grk hédos ‘seat’; Av hadiš ‘home’; Skt sádas ‘place’, sad-; sādayati ‘to sit/place down’; satti, sadas ‘seat, place to stay’; sattá- ‘sitted’; ppp. Satta’to ‘sit down, settle down’; sat ‘existence’? Av pasuš-hasta- ‘hurdle’ (*settlement); Av had- ‘I sit’; Lat sedeo, ere, sedi ‘to sit’; OIsl set ‘raised on ground’; Etruscan sath-, śat- ‘to put, establish’ (B-B 2002:218). The Albanian fshat has cognates in OInd kṣḗti, kṣiyáti ‘stays, dwells’, Av šaēiti ds; OInd kṣití-, Av šiti- ‘residence, settlement’, OInd kṣḗtra-, Av šōiϑra- n. ‘estate, residence’, OInd kṣēma- m. ‘quiet, peaceful staying’; Maybe Alb (*kṣati) fshati ‘village’.

Note: H. W. Vallis, in The Cosmology of the RIGVEDA. 1887, discusses in an interesting aspect regarding this word. “Lastly we come to the expressions asat and sat, the ‘ non-existent’ and the ‘existent’. The word asat is used in the Rigveda in two senses, as an adjective with vacas ‘speech’ and as the converse of sat. The philosophic comment of Suyana on verse X. 129. 1, is disproved by the expression ‘sato bdndhum asati nir avindan’ in verse 4. If we treat the hymn philosophically, we must assume a stage between those states described in verses 1 and 4 in which asat was present, but there was as yet no sat. The context, however, shows that the poet merely wished to shadow forth a condition in which absolutely nothing existed; and the presence of asat is denied because it was inseparably associated with ‘sat’”.

Besides the cognates with Albanian or Slavic languages, the Daco-Romanian has a few reflexes in common with the Hungarian language, resulting from the Maghiars that settled in the tenth century in the proximity of the former Dacian territory. For some of these reflexes considered loans from Hungarian language I used the A Magyar Nyelv Törteneti-Etimologiai Szotarat-Etimologiai Szotara, 1970 (The Historical-Etymological Dictionary of the Hungarian Language), with special attention to forms listed in this dictionary as of unknown etymology in Hungarian; these solutions are not without controversy, and are open for further investigation.

The Romanian language uses certain diacritics for its specific sounds, which include: ă, a ‘schwa’ as already mentioned, corresponding to the sound ə as in ‘hurt’; â used only in the middle of a word, and î only at the beginning of a word, corresponding to a sound similar to French ‘en’; ș stands for the sound sh; ț for the sound tz; gh is the sound found in ‘gift’, ch indicates the sound in ‘key’, and ce/ci stands for the sound č as in ‘change’.

Verbal forms listed here are given in the infinitive without the mark a as Engl ‘to’; there are four conjugations, as in the following examples: -a—ex. a pleca ‘to leave’; -ea—ex. a tăcea ‘to keep quiet’; -e—ex. a merge ‘to walk’; -i—ex. a privi ‘to look’; the conjugations, -a, -ea -e, -i, are of Latin influence,

The following list of Proto-Indo-European roots and their Daco-Romanian correspondences are arranged by subject, hoping to offer a better understanding of the cultural environment of the Dacian people. The appendix includes about 360 DRom words of basic vocabulary from substratum, for which there is no satisfactory etymological solution, either in the conquering language or other influences, offering a contribution to future investigations into a cultural complex research less available in the English language.

For the present Daco-Romanian unexplained forms I used Pokorny’s Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wōrterbuch (IEW) Pokorny, 1959, (Indo-European Language Association—http://dnghu.org/), Robert S. P. Beekes Comparative Indo-European Linguistics 1995, Mallory & Adams (MA) The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Indo-European World, 2006, and other available sources. Among the Romanian linguists used are I. I. Russu, whose studies addressed the Daco-Romanian language relation to the Indo-European stock, Ariton Vraciu Limba daco-geților (1980), Grigore Brâncuși Vocabularul autohton al limbii române (1983), Alexandru Rosetti Istoria limbii române (1968), and a more comprehensive work, the Istoria limbii române (1969) under the coordination of I. Coteanu. The following list attempts to cover mostly words from the main vocabulary, part of a large number of Romanian words that could not be explained through the usual sources, Latin, Slavic, Germanic, Hungarian, etc., and are listed in the Romanian sources as of an unclear (unknown) etymology, such as the Dictionarul Explicativ al Limbii Române (DEX.RO, https://dexonline.ro/). In an effort to clarify these isoglosses, considered as part of the Romanian substratum, I proposed the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) reconstructed root that could offer a better solution. I did not venture into reconstructing Dacian roots, a language of which we have very few documents. Due to the limited nature of this list I decided not to include the solutions found in previous Romanian studies, most of which do not include any reference to Pokorny’s (IEW) dictionary, or other IE sources. I. I, Russu, Limba traco-dacilor, 1967, lists of Dacian lexicon was used when it was relevant to the current discussion.

The arrangement of the PIE roots to DRom reflexes follows the subject order corresponding, more or less to Mallory–Adams’ dictionary, hoping to offer a glimpse on the material and spiritual preferences of the population from Dacian territories, and thus learn more about this little known culture. Each entry includes the Mallory–Adams and Pokorny reconstructed form, the Romanian reflexes, n (noun), v (verb), etc., with the English translation, followed by the cognates taken from MA, IEW, other current sources, and in Romanian documents when applicable. Each subject area is preceded by a short overview. Occasionally, the Daco-Romanian form could be explained by more than one PIE reconstructed root, leaving room for further research.

Alphabetical lists of the DRom words and the PIE roots in connection to the DRom ones help a quick reference.