The ‘trichotomical’ character of Proto-Slavic and the long-debated Issue of the oldest Slavic Borrowings in Romanian (original) (raw)

2012, Theory and Empiricism and Slavonic Diachronic Linguistics (Brno)

On the occasion of the International Congress of Slavists in Ljubljana, Aleksandar Loma, University of Belgrade, analysed Proto-Slavic as a dichotomical summum (or ‘blend- ing’) of Balto-Slavic (Proto-Slavic A) and West Iranic (Proto-Slavic B). His study, combined with recent data, as presented also in our book Linguistics and Archaeology of Early Slavs. Another View from the Lower Danube (in Romanian, wri􏰂en together with archaeologist Eugen Silviu Teodor) lead to the conclusion that what is currently labelled ‘Proto-Slavic’ must have had, in fact, three satem basic components: Balto-Slavic (stratum A, the most numerous), West Iranic (stratum B) and North 􏰀racian (or North Dacian, stratum C). Germanic, Ugro- -Finnic and Romance influences may be also determined via forensic analysis (strata D, E and F). One consequence, delicately avoided during the last years, refers to the issue of the oldest Slavic borrowings in Romanian, traditionally dated as back as 6th or 7th centuries A.D. Al- ready in 1971, Gh. Mihăilă, in a study now almost forgo􏰂en, proved that oldest Slavic borrow- ings in Romanian cannot be dated earlier than 12th century. 􏰀is leads to many uncomfortable aspects, as the difference of approximately 5 centuries is not exactly a minor detail, on the contrary, it affects the very understanding of the historical and ethno-cultural events of the second half of the first millennium. 􏰀ere are also major implications in defining and un- derstanding the substratum elements in Romanian.