According to Hungarians. This is where Romanians came from. And they only arrived in modern day Romania AFTER the Hungarians. Does this theory hold any water?
>>16804737I'd say so.
>>16804737Where do Slovaks come from? Methinks mostly from Slavs in living in Carpathian basin, strengthened but not replaced by later medieval migration from Moravia and Poland specifically to East Slovakia.
>>16804795>Where do Slovaks come from?Same place as Czechs and Poles.
>>16804737I'm not an expert, but I think the following map is close to our current understanding.>https://www.reddit.com/r/kosovo/comments/dyas50/a_map_delineating_the_urheimat_of_protoalbanian/The linguistic ancestors of the Albanians and the Eastern Balkan Romance speakers (Vlachs, Romanians, etc.) lived together in the triangular area of the map above which has as sides the blue line, the Jireček's red line separating Latin and Greek as lingua franca and the Danube.
>>16805442Vlachs are the leftover romanized population of the Balkans. Albanians are the more indigenous native mountaineers/highlanders. Similar case with Scotland between lowlanders and highlander.
>>16804737It's not conclusive, but Romanian scholars have failed to provide a linguistic argument for the Daco-Romanian continuity theory, or at least have failed to provide it in an English format I can find.In theory it would be so easy to at least make an argument by just bringing up loanwords that Romanian could have only received north of the Danube, or city and rivernames that indicate that Romanian speakers knew of those rivers and talked about them continuously instead of having a Slavic discontinuity layer.
>>16805546Roman settlers arrived in Dacia 2000 years ago and have been there ever since. Over time and due to no standardization their Latin slowly became Romanian. Why's that so hard to believe?
>>16805575The hydronyms in particular seem to present a problem for this theory.
