DACIAN AND THRACIAN AS SOUTHERN BALTOIDIC

Harvey E. Mayer
Defense Language Institute

Why is it no one properly appreciates an important work by Bulgarian scholar Ivan Duridanov? This
book, Die thrakisch-und dakisch-baltischen Sprachbeziehungen, published by the Bulgarian Academy
of Sciences in 1969, was mentioned only in part of a sentence as "incorporating the Baltic claims" to
ties with Albanian by Eric P. Hamp in his "Albanian" in Volume Nine, Part Two of Current Trends in
Linguistics, published in 1972. It seems to have been otherwise entirely ignored by Baltists. Yet it
provides a new perspective to the understanding of Pre-Balts and Pre-Baltic. And it confirms some of
my more recent notions of Early Baltic and Early Balts.
Surely my brand new view which I derive from Duridanov's book that the Thracians and Dacians were
descended from Indo-European tribes which spoke forms of Pre-Baltic of sorts enhances the old idea
I have had and, I am sure, others have had that the ancestors of the historical Balts moved around a
great deal and in so doing spread Baltic linguistic items over an immense area. Duridanov's book
allows us to expand that concept to include in a way even movement southward to the Balkans if we
can accept the Thracians and Dacians as descendants of "Balts," or really, "Pre-Balts" of a sort. And
hence I designate Thracian and Dacian and their Indo-European ancestor dialects, Pre-Thracian and
Pre-Dacian, as "Southern Baltoidic," "Southern" with respect to their ultimate position as eventually
more southerly than Baltic proper and "Baltoidic" to indiciate them as a class of "Baltic-like," if not
exactly, Baltic dialects and then languages.
Duridanov does not even hint that Thracian and Dacian might have been varieties of Pre-Baltic. He
merely suggests that certain strikingly parallel vocabulary items and structurings, and some of these,
apparently, exclusive between these languages and the Baltic ones allow us to conclude that Baltic,
Dacian, and Thracian in their early history once bordered on one another.
My evidence for stating that Dacian and Thracian are "Southern Baltoidic" is phonological. From the
lexical items mentioned by Duridanov I can show that not only is the sequence initial ks- missing, but
even metathesized, as Dacian examples show, to sk- in two of the same morphemes, skaud-'pain'
and skuja 'pine,' which we find in Baltic, that is, Lithuanian. The Lithuanian forms skaudus 'painful'
and skuja 'pine' show a metathesis of initial ks- to sk- (that is, not *k-) which preceded the ruki law
and was, therefore, Pre-Baltic since the ruki law assimilation of s to a preceding k to, at first, s, surely
began operating in Late Dialectal Indo-European. Like the metathesis of initial ks- to sk- which we find
direct evidence for only in Baltic and Dacian, the ruki law was an early attempt to reduce the
possibility of h, that is, aspiration, to arise. These measures against aspiration were inspired by
glottalization, itself a direct measure against excessive aspiration in Indo-European. And languages
showing metathesis of initial ks- to initial sk- arose from those Indo-European dialects which had the
heaviest early glottalization. These include the Baltic languages, Dacian, and, I say, Thracian. Note
that the special correspondences between Baltic, Dacian, and Thracian in not only lexicon, but also in
lexical structuring mentioned by Duridanov now take on particularly great significance when seen
against the background of the special phonological parallels between them which I mention. I believe
these phonological parallels, and particularly the underlying excessive early glottalization were the
features which encouraged the unique syllabic consciousness of early Balts, Thracians, and Dacians
and their ancestors necessary to keep alive these special lexical and word-building parallels in their
languages. Normally, related languages and Indo-European dialects of long separation by large
stretches of territory do not allow us to show nearly as many strikingly clear parallels in derivatives
and compounds, and some of these so ancient that their meanings are somewhat uncertain.

An early scholar who classified Thracian which he incorrectly lumped together with Phrygian by its
lack of initial ks-was August Fick who wrote in 1873 in the section called "Die grossen Nationen der
Phryger und Thraker" in his Die ehemalige Spracheinheit der Indogermanen Europas (Gttingen) the
following: "Es fehlen die eranischen Kennlaute: ks im Anlaut... im Phrygischen vllig." Considering
initial ks-in New Phrygian kseune we can see clearly now that Phrygian was a language separated
from Thracian by that very feature. Phrygian permitted initial ks-. Thracian, like Dacian and Baltic, did
not. I believe this difference seen in the context of the Thracian, Dacian, and Baltic lexical parallels
indicates that Thracian and Dacian are intrusive Baltoidic elements in the Eastern Balkans which,
incidentally, lie due south of Prussia, Lithuania, and Latvia, a fact indicating the direct southerly route
taken, I believe, by the Baltoidic Pre-Thracians and Pre-Dacians. These were surely intrusive
elements since they were bordered by Pre-Greeks to the south, Pre-Illyrian-Messapic Albanians to the
west, Pre-Phrygians to the east, and Albanoidic Pre-Slavs to the north, all of whose dialects were less
heavily glottalized and, therefore, permitted initial ks-.
Duridanov separates Thracian from Dacian on phonological grounds. Dacian, he says, reflected IndoEuropean p, t, k and b, d, g as such and deaspirated Indo-European bh, dh, gh to b, d, g. These
Dacian reflexes match Baltic ones. But Thracian, he says, like Phrygian changed Indo-European p, t,
k to ph, th, kh, Indo-European bh, dh, gh to b, d, g, and Indo-European b, d, g to p, t, k. Spellings
seeming to reflect b, d, g for expected p, t, k in Thracian words he blames on Dacian phonological
influence. Admitting that spellings seeming to reflect p, t, k are the rule, he says that this resulted from
weakly aspirated ph, th, kh. The truth, I believe, is that the far fewer spellings of Thracian words
seeming to reflect ph, th, kh whether in Greek or Latin symbols were purely graphic resulting from
Phrygian and Greek orthographic influences where aspirated stops seem to have existed.
Fluctuations in spellings with symbols p/b, t/d, k/g in Thracian words, I think, represent
real phonetic differences between these words and their Dacian counterparts which, from what
Duridanov says, show no such fluctuation.
These differences are significant. They date the arrival of the Pre-Thracians to the Balkans as, I
believe, significantly earlier than that of the Pre-Dacians, a fact coinciding with their geographic
positions and other linguistic data such as Dacian's examples of skaud- 'pain' and skuja- 'pine'
showing the Baltoidic metathesis of initial ks- to sk-, vocabulary items not attested in Thracian. Thus,
Pre-Thracian reached the Balkans precisely after p(h), t(h), k(h), b(h), d(h), g(h) had all lost their
allophonic aspiration, a feature characteristic of Central Indo-European dialects such as Baltoidic PreLithuanian, Pre-Latvian, and Pre-Prussian and Albanoidic Pre-Illyrian-Messapic-Albanian and PreSlavic, but before glottalic b", d" g" (or p", t", k") had deglottalized either to b, d, g, the usual IndoEuropean change, or to p, t, k, the less common change. I say that intense contact with Pre-Phrygian
influenced the Pre-Thracian choice of voiceless p, t, k as reflexes of glottalic b", d", g". The glottalic
phonemes were the only Pre-Thracian stops left unaltered and were, therefore, the only ones subject
to change in the manner of Phrygian ones on the arrival of Pre-Thracian to the Balkans.
The Grimm's Law-like sequences of changes, glottalic b", d", g" (or p", t", k") to p, t, k; W), d(h), g(h),
to b, d, g; and p(h), t(h), k(h) to ph, th, kh with aspiration made phonemic, were possible only
where early excessive glottalization had not taken place, that is, where, with weaker glottalization,
aspiration was stronger, and certainly strong enough to survive. It was not strong enough to survive in
Baltoidic which included Pre-Thracian. Thus Thracian really did show only one change, p, t, k from
glottalic b", d" g" (or p", t", k"). It did not have the changes ph, th, kh from Indo-European p(h), t(h),
k(h) expected by Duridanov, an expectation conditioned by Grimm's Law Indo-European studies.
Therefore, Thracian orthographic representations really do reflect p, f, k, and certainly not a "weakly
aspirated" ph, th, kh.
Since the Pre-Dacians left Baltoidic territory later than the Pre-Thracians, Dacian shows a sound
system closer to Baltic with b, d, g from glottalic b", d", g" and the following extant examples of roots
with initial ks- metathesized to
initial sk-; Dacian Scaugdae from*Skaudgae from *Skaudgedae with *skaud-matched by
Lithuanian skaudus 'painful' versus Slavic xudu 'bad' from earlier *ksoud- with no metathesis of
initial ks- and Dacian Skuanes from *Skujaines with *skuja matched by Lithuanian skuja 'pine' versus
Russian xvoja'evergreen' from earlier '*ksuoi- also with no metathesis of initial ks-. As a parallel, all
that can be found for Thracian is a word with an initial s-, presumably the reflex of Indo-European
palatal k'- which had probably been preceded earlier by an initial s-. This earlier initial

sequence, sk'- from earlier sk- had been metathesized, I believe from an earlier ks-. The Thracian
word reflecting all this is, I believe, the tribal name Satrai which Duridanov compares with
Sanskrit ksatra- 'dominion', Avestan, Old Persian kaOura- 'dominion, empire', and
Lithuanian atrus 'alive, stem' in his 1976 book Ezik"t na trakite (Izdatelstvo "Nauka i izkustvo," Sofia).
This is reminiscent of the Lithuanian word for "six," ei, where initial - reflects Indo-European
palatal k' occurring after metathesis of ks- to sk- (and later sk- tok-) and loss of initial s-, that is, -.
To reach the Eastern Balkans, Baltoidic Pre-Thracians and Pre-Dacians had to pass through
Albanoidic territory in the Carpathians. I believe they captured some Albanoidics and brought
them to the Eastern Balkans as slaves. Some of these Albanoidics escaped westward into the
mountains to hide. From these less hospitable, poorer West Balkan areas some of these escaped
Albanoidics crossed the Adriatic to Italy and became known as Messapians. The rest remained
in the Western Balkans and became known as Illyrians whose direct descendants, I believe, are the
Albanians who, incidentally, have kept up their old tradition of wandering on to Italy. This scenario
explains some of the Non-Romance, "native" lexical corespondences between Rumanian and
Albanian. Some of these items are Thracian and Dacian words which the ancestors of the Albanians
learned from their Baltoidic Thracian and Dacian masters.
The Dacians were the ancient Southern Baltoidics more likely to have occasionally made trips back to
Old Baltoidic territory to the north as their name suggests. Duridanov says its conceivable tie to
Lithuanian dakyti 'agitate, make a mess,' dvaknoti 'act rashly,' dvakas, dvokas 'smell' suggests that
the name Dakoi means "mobile, restless people" ("fahrige, unruhige Menschen"). Dacians moving
north on passing through intervening Albanoidic territory in the Carpathians surely picked up
some Albanoidics to bring along as slaves. These became later known as Slavs. The emasculated
nature of Slavic from the viewpoint of old Indo-European vocabulary, that is, the lack in Slavic of
words like vyras, aner 'man' and smakras, the old masculine word for "beard," attests to the
servile status of their ancestors, the Albanoidic Pre-Slavs.
Assuming all this to be true, the dearth of ancient Albanoidic place names, be they Illyrian, Albanian,
or Slavic, is no surprise. Surely Pre-Slavs and possibly early Slavs escaped from Baltoidic masters
where and when they could as did their Southern Albanoidic cousins from Dacians and Thracians.
And these runaways were not likely to give names to prominent geographic features which might aid
their Baltoidic captors in finding them. It is ironic that now the dominant languages in both the Balkans
and the Baltic has for the last 300 years tended to be Slavic, that is, Albanoidic rather than Baltoidic.
In the Balkans, since approximately the seventh century, A.D., Baltoidic Thracian and Dacian even
ceased to exist while Non-Baltoidic Albanian still survives only because the ancient prehistoric
ancestors of the people who speak it managed to escape and stay free from their form Baltoidic
masters.
Now, to display their Baltoidic heritage, here are some of the Thracian and Dacian words given by
Duridanov with Baltic counterparts:
Thracian (Suntus: Lithuanian place names Suntupi kaimas, Suntuoki vienkiemis
Thracian z(i)burul 'flashing light': Lithuanian iburys 'spark'
Dacian zuv-: Lithuanian uvis, Latvian Dialect zuva 'fish'
Dacian zuras, Zyras: Latvian zveruot 'flash,' uret 'blink,' Lithuanian irti look at'
Dacian Naparis: Prussian water and place names Nauper(y)n, Panawpern, Pa-naupern, Po-nopern
The influence of Southern Baltoidic, that is, (Pre-)Dacian and (Pre-)Thracian and the tribes that spoke
these dialects with, originally, the heaviest early glottalization seems to have been very large. These
speakers, have inherited a special consciousness of form visible in the correspondences above,
which, I believe, resulted from this earlier heavy glottalization determined the future developments of
Albanoidic so that its speakers which they took south became, eventually, Messapians, Illyrians, and
Albanians, while those which they took north became Slavs. These people spoke a dialect of IndoEuropean with weaker glottalization and, consequently, had a lesser consciousness of form. The
substantial differences between Albanian and Slavic can surely be traced to these very active
Baltoidics who separated the speakers of a more or less uniform ancestor Indo-European Albanoidic
dialect. Those speakers, being less form conscious, were going to permit changes large enough to
divide Southern from Northern Albanoidic and eventually make these new variants mutually

unintelligible to their speakers. Thus, Baltoidic (Pre-)Thracians and (Pre-) Dacians started the creation
of two different languages from basically one Albanoidic prototype. Otherwise, as for what was going
to survive from Baltoidic, we can say that since contact with Northern Baltoidics, I believe, seemed to
have been maintained by Southern Baltoidic (Pre)Dacians and, possibly, even (Pre-)Thracians after
their moves to the Eastern Balkans, their influence, I suspect, was startling. Lithuanians and Latvians
may well have ties with "cradles of civilization" which were far more immediate and constant than
most specialists have imagined!