I'd be nicer to build the language around Ossetian or other sister languages for which we have a lot of information since Dacian was possible an Iranian language. Daco-Thracian and Greaco-Armenian are pretty much dead hypotheses that are still quoted because we have no evidence of these ancient languages and groups. In your case (Daco-Thracian), it is based on the interpretation of a sentence that a Greek historiographer wrote 600 years ago after they went extinct.
Post 90s, with great leaps on sciences such as geology and biology, we moved from the classical approach of "interpret what that Greek historian wrote" to a holistic anthropological approach using data from multiple different fields. As far as I am aware SOAS is doing research on Eastern Iranic groups and that includes the Dacians. And yeah it might sound far-fetched but regardless of the Dacians, we have evidence of more than a millenia of migratory movement of Eastern Iranian people - they moved North (towards modern day Tajikistan, skipping Persia) then West settling as far as the Danube.
I just read the article - I think it very much adds to my argument.
From the Summary:
about 100 Dacian words reconstructed through 20th century comparative linguistics techniques, only 20–25 had achieved wide acceptance by 1982.
It is very important to understand 20th century comparative linguistics was based on classical studies - traditional philology. Our contemporary approach has superseded this methodology with the use of data from geoanthropology to ML4AL more recently.
You see from the section of Dacio-Thracian the references are all from the 20th century and earlier: Georgiev (1977), Duridanov (1985), Tomaschek (1883), Mateescu (1923) and it ends with a conclusion "However, all these assertions are largely speculative, due to the lack of evidence for both languages."
My personal opinion is that this \~40 year gap in hypotheses and references is based on the fact that during the 90s this methodology was challenged and superseded and modern classicists accept the need of anthropological linguists and interdisciplinary study to form such theories.
Btw, I see the downvotes - I didn't mean to be rude to the OP. I love linguistics & that's why I took time to read his post, I just made a suggestion since I see his reinvention is based mainly on Thracian. He himself states that Daco-Thracian is just a possible classification and I personally believe Dacian as Iranic language is a more probable scenario, since now we know that Iranic people lived where & when Ancient Greeks. Keep in mind, any reinvention of Dacian as based on Thracian will always be entirely dependent on the extremely limited remains of Thracian. However Iranic languages of populations around the Black Sea are far better documented.
Eastern_Click_4361@reddit
There is some fuckery at play behind this attempt. This is bait.
azuratios@reddit
I'd be nicer to build the language around Ossetian or other sister languages for which we have a lot of information since Dacian was possible an Iranian language. Daco-Thracian and Greaco-Armenian are pretty much dead hypotheses that are still quoted because we have no evidence of these ancient languages and groups. In your case (Daco-Thracian), it is based on the interpretation of a sentence that a Greek historiographer wrote 600 years ago after they went extinct.
Post 90s, with great leaps on sciences such as geology and biology, we moved from the classical approach of "interpret what that Greek historian wrote" to a holistic anthropological approach using data from multiple different fields. As far as I am aware SOAS is doing research on Eastern Iranic groups and that includes the Dacians. And yeah it might sound far-fetched but regardless of the Dacians, we have evidence of more than a millenia of migratory movement of Eastern Iranian people - they moved North (towards modern day Tajikistan, skipping Persia) then West settling as far as the Danube.
XRaisedBySirensX@reddit
Wikipedia lists hypotheses for Dacian that posit a relationship to basically every other indo European language.
azuratios@reddit
I just read the article - I think it very much adds to my argument.
From the Summary:
about 100 Dacian words reconstructed through 20th century comparative linguistics techniques, only 20–25 had achieved wide acceptance by 1982.
It is very important to understand 20th century comparative linguistics was based on classical studies - traditional philology. Our contemporary approach has superseded this methodology with the use of data from geoanthropology to ML4AL more recently.
You see from the section of Dacio-Thracian the references are all from the 20th century and earlier: Georgiev (1977), Duridanov (1985), Tomaschek (1883), Mateescu (1923) and it ends with a conclusion "However, all these assertions are largely speculative, due to the lack of evidence for both languages."
My personal opinion is that this \~40 year gap in hypotheses and references is based on the fact that during the 90s this methodology was challenged and superseded and modern classicists accept the need of anthropological linguists and interdisciplinary study to form such theories.
Btw, I see the downvotes - I didn't mean to be rude to the OP. I love linguistics & that's why I took time to read his post, I just made a suggestion since I see his reinvention is based mainly on Thracian. He himself states that Daco-Thracian is just a possible classification and I personally believe Dacian as Iranic language is a more probable scenario, since now we know that Iranic people lived where & when Ancient Greeks. Keep in mind, any reinvention of Dacian as based on Thracian will always be entirely dependent on the extremely limited remains of Thracian. However Iranic languages of populations around the Black Sea are far better documented.
Sandzakguy@reddit
When Redditors see a man with knowledge, they downvote lol
Fine-Ear-8103@reddit
We can’t reconstruct dacian language as we don’t know it, nor can proto-albanian be used to reconstruct it because they most likely are not related.