1. According to most linguistics there Thracian was very similar to Baltic, some classify it as south Baltic...

2. Baltic is very close to Slavic...

3. So that means that Thracian must have been quite close to Slavic...

4. Bessi (Thracian tribe) in 570 spoke their language:

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/570 - 570 , Antonius Placentius said that in the valleys of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai - Mount Sinai there was a monastery in which the monks spoke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language - Greek , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin - Latin , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_language - Syriac , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language - Egyptian and Bessian.

The origin of the monasteries is explained in a mediaeval http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography - hagiography written by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_Metaphrastes - Simeon Metaphrastes , in Vita Sancti Theodosii Coenobiarchae in which he wrote that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_of_Amasea - Saint Theodorius founded on the shore of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea - Dead Sea a monastery with four churches, in each being spoken a different language, among which Bessan was found. The place where the monasteries were founded was called "Cutila", which may be a Thracian name.

It has been argued that the name "Bessam" used in the Sinai region could be a corrupt version or alternate name for "Persian", "Slavic", "Iberian" or "Armenian", but there is nothing to indicate that.

Conclusion of the abovementioned facts: Thracians and Slavs spoke related language, close to each other (if Thracian was really close to Baltic). Thracians spoke the language when Slavs were entering the Bolkans. Could this mean that the Slavic in Bulgarian may also be Thracian?

Just a suggestion. I dont wanna start war. I just wanna provoke discussion. I dont say its true, just hipothesis.

 

 

So Thracian could have been closer to Slavic than it was to Baltic.

The name of God Zamolxis looks exactly like a Lithuanian name the ending "is" "as" is very common for Baltic languages. When I first heard that name I was convinced that the subject was about Lithuania . The same is also true about other known Thracian names and toponims.

 

Also there are some interesting parallels in Romanian and Baltic culture for example: only thse cultures have so called doina/daina which is a specific form of poetry and music style.

 

This interesting connection can be explained only by the assumption that ancient Baltic/Thracian connection existed. Taking into account the fact that Baltic tribes in antiquity lived much more to the South than they are now, this is totally possible.

Most linguists think the connection is very obvious...

Maybe Thracian was related to Baltic or Slavic languages. But not too close, otherwise the current Baltic or Slavic speakers would have no difficulties in decyphering the Thracian texts, yet no one provided so far an un-equivocal, non-controversial reading for inscriptions like the ones found at Ezerovo or Kjolmen:

http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_6.html - http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_6.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, from your list:

Kotys - definitely Thracian (there were several kings bearing this name)

Ketrizios looks Thracian - as in Ketriporis, Thracian king

Trales idem - as in Mucatralis, Eptatralis, names from other Thracian inscriptions

Rymitalkis idem - as in Roemetalces, Thracian king

Sadalu idem - as in Sadalas, Thracian king

 

Are you sure the names are in nominativ? The u termination makes me think of a gentive for a name ending in -os/-es/-as (e.g. Seut(o)u could be the gentive for Seutes, and that is similar to Seuthes, there were some Thracian kings with this name)

 

edit: I think I solved the mystery. It is not name + surname, but name + patronym, like X of Y. That's why where are two names one is in nominative (the name of the person), the other in genitive (the patronym). For instance, Pamphilou is certainly the genitive of a Pamphilos, thus is to be translated "of Pamphilos".

 

The u in Romanian is a leftover of Latin -us/-um (and exists also in other Romance languages but usually a different vowel. e.g. Ursu, Petru, Iuliu - Romanian vs Orso, Pietro, Giulio - Italian). In the history of the language there was a moment when the -u termination was casual (today many nouns lost it), and I assume this is how many names borrowed from neighbouring languages (like Dumitru from Demetrios, Petru from Petros) got it, too.

 

 

Is that true that earth is zamol in Thracian?  Slavic is zemlia. Seems quite close.

asa                    coltsfoot

brai                      town; settlement

Thank you Darius.

 

Although some of these words seem close to Slavic, unfortunately most of them don't.

 

What is the source of this BTW?

besides, I personally know some philologists interested in Thracian onomastics.

 

I'm not sure I made my point clear. What I meant is that in the list the pairs of names mostly look like: Name1 <in nominative> Name2 <in genitive> and such names should be read as "Name1 of Name2". For instance "Beithys Pamphilou" should be "Beithys of Pamphilos". Kareventh(o)u can be "of Kareventhos". This rule would work for all pair of names except for row 2.

 

Dizas/Diza is a common Thracian name, also Dizo/Diso. I don't know about dhiza, but that dh sequence looks suspicios. Are you sure about its form?

 

 

 

 

 

Germe-  there's a deity Diana Germetitha in a Bulgarian inscription usually translated as "Diana, the one with the warm bossom" and also a toponym Germisara in Dacia (Ptolemy, Tabula Peut., and some inscriptions) usually translated as "warm waters" (it is located in today Romania near a thermal spring). It would be a cognate of the Greek thermos.

 

-bria, -diza these are common toponymic formants together with -para. For the Dacian area but also large parts of Moesia the common formant was -dava.

 

romphaia is a gloss given by some Greek authors (e.g. Hesychius), the Latin authors give the form rumpia

 

zelas, skalme, genton, zibythides are also glosses (also mentioned by Hesychius among others)

 

Germe is "warm" in Persian too.

The Modern Persian word for "earth" is Zamin, Middle Persian Zamik, Avestan Zam. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zam - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zam

 

As far as I understand similarity between languages is studied not only by similarity of particular words (which is speculative -- in many cases we may only guess the meaning) but on the basis of phonetics. In this respect there are much more Thracian words, including names, toponyms, hydronyms etc. They are more than thousand. I recomend Ivan Duridanov's study about the place of Thracian languages in the Indoeuropean family. Look at http://www.kroraina.com/thrac_l/index.html - http://www.kroraina.com/thrac_l/index.html  and references therein.

The most full list of all thracian words published so far was done by Detschew in "Die Thrakischen Sprachreste" (in German). He cites all sources or inscriptions (Greek and Latin mostly for obvious reassons) where every particular word/name/toponym was found.

Here is the link for downloading:

http://kroraina.com/NI/Thrak_Sprachreste.djvu - http://kroraina.com/NI/Thrak_Sprachreste.djvu

 

There are also plenty of much less studied Greko-Thracian and Latin-Thracian mixed inscriptions some of them even not published yet.

 

For those who can understand Bulgarian here is a book about Daco-Thraco-Baltic relationship:

http://kroraina.com/NI/Kiril_Vlahov-Kym_vyprosa_za_trako-dako-baltiiskite_ezikovi_otnosheniq.djvu - http://kroraina.com/NI/Kiril_Vlahov-Kym_vyprosa_za_trako-dako-baltiiskite_ezikovi_otnosheniq.djvu

By Kiril Vlahov (very meaningful name ) and another his book about thraco-slavonic relationship:

http://kroraina.com/NI/Kiril_Vlahov-Trako-slavqnski_usporedici.djvu - http://kroraina.com/NI/Kiril_Vlahov-Trako-slavqnski_usporedici.djvu

 

 

Btw, is Hesychious dictionary on Thracian available somewhere online?

It's not only on Thracian, it is a Greek lexicon but contains many weird words, including some of the languages neighbouring Greek but which were known also by some Greeks (like these several Thracian glosses). Here are some volumes scanned by Google Books (those in full view can be downloaded as PDF):

 

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=0&q=inauthor%3Ahesychius - http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=0&q=inauthor%3Ahesychius

 

After you'll download the DJViewer you can find in Detschew's TSR those Thracian words which are listed by Hesychius and follow the reference.

 

We know that bus in Greek means bull and could cognate to bo. We know also that lithos is a synonym to petra/las etc which means stone and could cognate with linthos. That could mean that linthos ment stone or mountain and bolinthos = mountain bull in some early anatolian language. That word may have passed through to Thrace with the Paionians. Just a theory ofcourse...What do you think?

Your etymology seems plausible, the only thing which doesn't seem clear is whether *linthos is indeed a cognate for lithos.

 

I browsed a bit through Vlahov's works and the latter seems quite speculative.

I do not find it speculative. It is well known fact that Baltic and Slavic languages are from the same group, if you find similarities between Thracian and Baltic, one could expect similar similarities between Slavonic and Thracian as well.

 

 

Well, this group means simply common origin. Obviously all indoeuropean languages have common origin but those two (baltic and slavonic) splitted from each other later than from the rest.

 

Duridanov finds similarities between Slavonic and Thracian in his book as well:

"

 2.4. Thracian, Baltic and Slavic

It is not a surprise that there are some Slavic analogies to the Thraco-Baltic parallels. Baltic and Slavic and closely related and are sometimes grouped together in a Balto-Slavic group. Here are some parallels:

– the Thracian PN Brinkazis, Brinkainos, the Slavic PN Brzek, Brzeko (Polish), Brekoja (Bulg.) and the Lith. VN (from FN) Brinkiškiai.

– the Thracian PN Kersēs, Kersos, the Old-Pruss. PN Kerse, Kerso (from kéršas 'on white and black spots'), and the Slavic PN Črch (Czech) (from the Old-Slavic *čьrchь), the Bulgarian Chernjo (from cheren 'black').

– the Thracian VN Kurpisos, the Lith. VN Kurpai, Kurpikai, etc., and the Bulgarian VN Kərpec (from the Old-Slavic *kərp-), the Russian korpatь 'to dig up', the Ukrainian korpati 'to dig, to rummage'.

– the Thracian tribe name Trausoi is identical to the Old-Latv. FN Trousz from the Latv. traušs 'friable', similar to the Lith. traušus 'friable, fragile' and the Old-Russian PN Truha, Trushь, the Old-Russian tronhə 'lazy, sad'.

– the first element in the Thracian VN Tarpo-dizos and the Lith. tárpas 'an interstice, an interspace' and the Church-Slavic trapə, the Bulgarian trap 'a ditch, a pit' (from the Old-Slavic *tǎrpə). "

 

There is another proposition, slightly different. Germ means warm water. In this respect one could remember water celebration called German that is celebrated in Bulgaria, North of Greece and Romania (I do not know how is it called there though.)

 

Such lexical similarities are common among all IE languages. Vlahov was pushing further to say there were certain Thracian compounds showing consistently similarities with Slavic.

 

Don't you find that Thracian will have parallels with Iranic and German?

I actually referred to this:

http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637&PID=467291 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637&PID=467291

Here is the border where I stop to appreciate your humour. I personally do not care if they are similar or not. It simply doesn't mean anything to me. I also believe, I do not have enough education to judge linguistic analysis myself. Kinda think, you don't have it either.

And as you don't trust me, why don't your read Polome's chapter on Balkan languages from CAH volume III.1 or other scholars to see for yourself, through peer-review, how much Vlahov's conclusions really worth (he's actually quoted by Polome with two works, both on Thracian toponymy, but nothing is said - neither from Vlahov, nor from other "enthusiast" scholars like Alinei, Mayer et al. - about alleged Thracian closeness to other languages, especially Slavic)?  

 

The leit motif of my posts here was to share some books with those who were interested. I am sorry you didn't understand that. Neither did I sugest closeness to Slavic. Mate, you are like a bolynthos when arguing.

 

So the all these similarities between Thracian and Slavic (sometimes through a Baltic proxy), the substantial number of Thracian speakers existent at the end of Late Antiquity (ready to meet the Bulgarians), the common(!) substratum between Bulgarian, Romanian, and Albanian, are not about closeness. 

 

Play your games, Anton, I'll just bring my objections and perhaps you might get upset again that my horns were too sharp.

 

 

I respect your objections and sometimes agree with them. Horns is different thing. They are full of accusation in nationalism and more sharp they are the less I would be proud of them if I were you.

 

This seems very possible to me.

 

 

 

No.

My opinions, without citing sources:

- many linguists believe Dacian language had sounds without equivalent in Greek and Latin alphabet, so the few Dacian words reproduced in Greek writings (most of them) are altered.

The sound 'ă' is commonly used in Romanian, while other neo-latin languages lack this sound or use it very rarely.

Simple logic ..If Thracian language was not slavic ( Old Church Slavonic) than what was the need for creating The Glagolitic alphabet (aka Cyrillic Alphabet)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic -   Кѷрїлловица (kyrillovitsa)?

Bulgarian claims from evidences dated 6th BC,  that Thracian language  from Ionian origin (Euboia   region) 

The present study of the Thracian language is based on an updated collection of epigraphic material found in Bulgaria. Our knowledge of the Thracian language comes from evidence that has been assembled by modern scholars throughout the last two centuries from two types of documents: literary documents derived from Greek and Latin writers and inscriptions. Owing to the fact that epigraphy has furnished less information, many scholars undertook investigations that were not based but on one principle, to find any form of indication leading to any possible information on the Thracian. Methodologically speaking, this kind of “thesaurus at any rate” has produced only more confusion extant in many writings to the present day. The multiplication of errors and misunderstandings dating from Antiquity to modern times is responsible for “rapprochements” of personal, god- and place-names in the vast area of the Mediterranean region using onomastic material, glosses or commentaries of ancient grammarians and lexicographers irrespectively.1 Therefore, the updated collection of epigraphic material found in Bulgaria is a kind of evidence that comes to reinforce our knowledge of Thracian names and Thracian words and phrases sporadically discovered and unveiled after years of scholarly work done by archaeologists, historians, and linguists. 

Yet another major difference lies in the effectiveness and clarity of the data accumulated; whereas in the past, criteria for words of Thracian language origin were based upon their being referred to as such by ancient Greek and Latin authors, in this study they must qualify and be listed as Thracian only if the inscriptions themselves indicate it. 

A few words are needed to set the background of Thracian linguistics. We dispose of no other resource but the inscriptions. Again, for practical reasons inscriptions in the Greek language are considered in establishing the inventory of Thracian onomastics. Latin forms of names coming from Latin inscriptions are more of a supportive nature for two reasons: for being late or because of the fact that Thracian settlements were following a Greek tradition throughout the Roman imperial period, keeping Greek and less so Latin in their everyday administrative activities, with only a few exceptions. The Greek inscriptions have a history of their own in Thrace proper. Their geography may well be divided in three major parts: (1) Thrace as part of present-day Bulgaria (2) Thrace as part of present-day Greece (and all of the Greek territories in Antiquity), and (3) Thrace in present-day Turkey along with Asia Minor where traces of Thracians were found in inscriptions. This division alone makes for the innumerable difficulties in presenting the material.48 The legends on a limited number of coins were used in this study. Their complexity requires a separate way of investigation, and the evidence they provide was utilized with caution.49 With many inscriptions found on metalwork, it became even more difficult to keep up with the line of equally treating all inscriptions and positive data at yield. For epigraphy developed its own way50 and therefore facts are hardly to be interpreted from a single point of view. For example, we cannot be sure that the value (in terms of alphabet reform, editing, and lettering) of an inscription found on the Athenian agora could be attributed automatically to an inscription found in Thrace. The situation is comparable to that found in similar fields, such as history of religion51 .

******************************************

Facts The golden ring of Ezerovo is presented in Figure 1. The text presented in Figure 1 is written in 8 lines in scriptio continua. The last line is engraved on the edge of the elliptical plate of the ring because of lack of space. The letters are 61 in number; they are clear and resemble those of the Greek alphabet [1], pp. 86, 87. They are: 

ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝ 

ΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛ 

ΤΕΑΝΗΣΚΟΑ 

PΑΖΕΑΔΟΜ 

ΕΑΝΤΙΛΕΖΥ 

ΠΤΑΜΙΗΕ 

ΡΑΖ 

HΛΤΑ

The text from Thracian burial ring in the deployed state:

ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕΑΣΝΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛΤΕΑΝHΣΚΟΑΡΑΖΕΑΔΟΜΕΑΝΤΙΛΕΖΥΠΤΑΜΙ ΗΕΡΑΖΗΛΤΑ Detchev concluded that the found artefacts were used in a burial ritual – consisting of a three-day wake, called by the Greeks protezis. Detchev compared the objects with others, from Trebenište, Macedonia, where another golden ring was found, and concluded that the ring from Ezerovo was made especially for the burial (for the funerary purpose alone) and not for everyday use, or as seal ring [2], p. 106. 178 In the past decades many translations were offered, but to date, none is generally accepted. Dechev (quoted by Duridanov [1] p. 88) suggested the following transcription: Rolesteneas Nerenea tiltean esko Arazea domean Tilezypta mie erazelta. That he translated into: Bulgarian (Cyrillic): Аз съм Ролистенеас, потомък на Неренеас,Тилезипта, аразийка по род ме предаде на земята (погреба ме) Bulgarian (Latinic): Az săm Rolisteneas, potomăk na Nereneas, Tilezipta, araziika po rod me predade na zemjata (pogreba me) English: I am Rolisteneas, progeny of Nereneas, Tilezipta - of Arazian clan, gave me to the earth (buried me). Georgiev suggested a different reading [2], p. 108: Rolistene, as Nerenea Tiltea nesko arazea do mean tilezyptam ie eraz elta. That he translated into: Bulgarian (Cyrillic): Ролистене, аз Неренея Тилтея умирам спокойно до (теб) моя блаженопочивши аз, която децата отхрани (отгледа) Bulgarian (Latinic): Rolistene, az Nerenea Tiltea umiram spokoino do (teb) moja blagopočivši, az kojato deĉata othrani (otgleda) English: Rolistene, I Nerenea Tiltea die calm near (you) my silent sleeping (husband), (me) who the children fed (brought up the children). ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕ is interpreted by Georgiev [2], p. 108, as Thracian personal name in Vocative case consisting of two parts: ΡΟΛΙ and ΣΤΕΝΕ. He connects ΡΟΛΙ with Thracian personal name Ρωλής and the toponym Рολλι-γέράς, and the second part ΣΤΕΝΕ with the toponym Στένέ-κορτά. ΑΣ or АΣΝ Georgiev translates as I - me, corresponding to Old Bulgarian азъ (az) – I, me, Lithuanian ‘aš’ – I, me and Avestanic ‘azem’ – I am. About the part ΝΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛΤΕΑ Georgiev isn’t very certain, he suggests two possibilities: ΝΕΡΕ (E) ΝΕΑ ΤΙ - your young wife. ΝΕΡΕ he connects with Sanskrit ‘nari’ – woman, wife, Albanian ‘njeri’ – human, and points the Albanian phrase ‘grue(ja) e re’ – young woman, wife, also the Rumanian ‘soţia cel tânǎrǎ’ – young wife. NEA Georgiev connects with Greek νέά – new, coming from Indo-European ‘newa’ – new, young. T(I) or T’ is connected with Albanian ‘ty’, ‘t’’, ‘të’, Rumanian ‘ţi’, and Bulgarian ‘ti’, all with the meaning – yours in Dative case. ΙΛΤΕΑ is connected with Rumanian ‘aleasa-a’ – the chosen one (-a is interpreted by Georgiev as a suffixed definitive article) with the suggestion that the Thracian variant of the hosen one was ΙΛΤΕ-Α (with -A as suffixed definitive article). But Georgiev considers also the possibility that ΝΕΡΕΝΕΑΤΙΛΤΕΑ was Thracian personal name: ΝΕΡΕΝΕΑ ΤΙΛΤΕΑ. ΝΕΡΕΝΕΑ is related to Latin personal names Neriene(s), Nerienis, Neria. ΤΙΛΤΕΑ is related to Thracian personal name Τιλθ-άζεις [2] p.109. The part ΝHΣΚΟ Georgiev connects with (Attic) Greek verb θνήσκω – I die. The following Α(P) ΡΑΖΕΑ Georgiev equates to A(N) PAZEA and translates AN as on, at. PAZE-A he interprets as line, row (here in Locative case) coming from Indo-European ‘rogi’ - line, direction, present in Vedic ‘raji’ – line, row, German ‘Reihe’ – row and 179 common Slavic ‘red’ – row. According to Georgiev PAZE-A has a suffixed definitive article as in ILTE-A. DO is connected with Latin ‘do’, Anglo-Saxon ‘to’, Lithuanian ‘do’ and Bulgarian ‘do’ - next, beside, up to. MEAN corresponds according to Georgiev to Latin ‘meum’, coming from Indo-European ‘meyo-m’ – mine, here in Accusative case. ΤΙΛΕΖΥΠΤΑM Georgiev interprets as silent – sleeping. ΤΙΛΕ he connects with Lithuanian ‘tylis’ – silent, calm, and ΖΙΠΤΑM with Sanskrit ‘supta-m’ – asleep, in Accusative case, and equates it with Bulgarian блаженопочивши (blazenopočivši) – died in peace. IH is equated to Greek ή – (this one) who, related to Old Phrygian ιος – (this one) who. HEPAZ means children according to Georgiev and is related with Phrygian έιροι – children. HLTA is translated as fed, brought up. HLTA → aluit – cared for, brought up (Thracian word, related to Latin ‘alo’ – I care for, I bring up [2], p. 108)

Etymology of the words 1. ROLI-STENE – Thracian personal name, here in Vocative case still preserved in Modern Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, and Czech language. For male names the ending is E: Ivane = Hey Ivan! ; Petre = Hey Peter! [6], p. 24. Related to ROLI are the Thracian personal name Rolis and Oroles, corresponding to common Slavic word ‘orel’ – eagle and to Bulgarian personal name Орльо (Orljo) with the meaning eagle [7], p. 118. The part STEN can be connected with Bulgarian personal name ‘Стан’ (Stan) [7], p. 138. 2. AS – I, me corresponding to Old Bulgarian азъ (azǎ), Modern Bulgarian ‘аз’ (az) - I, Slovene ‘jaz’ – I, Lithuanian ‘aš’ – I and Avestanic ‘azem’ – I am. 3. NERE-NEA – female Thracian name with possible meaning strong one. It is derived 181 from Thracian word ‘aner’ man (strong one) and related to Gaulish ‘nertos’ strength, Hittite ‘innarumni’ strong, Luwian ‘innari’ strong, Sanskrit ‘nara’ man, ‘nari’ woman, and Bulgarian ‘nerez’ male animal (strong one). Other related Bulgarian word is ‘nestinarka’ dancing woman (it concerns a ritual dance on hot coals) In my opinion NERE is related to Bulgarian personal name Неранза (Neranza) [7], p. 116. The part NEA may correspond to Bulgarian personal name Нея (Neja) [7], p. 116. 4. TILTEANIS – Thracian family name with possible meaning: progeny of Teano. TIL is related to Old Bulgarian word тилище (tilište) - human, person, челядъ (čeljadă) - progeny, человекъ (čelovekă) – human. TEANO was female Thracian name. The wife of Antenor and daughter of Thracian king Cisseus was called Teano. As Slavic related anthroponyms I offer the Bulgarian personal names: Деян (Dejan) and Техан (Tehan). 5. KOA – who (fem. gender) corresponding to Modern Bulgarian коя (koja) - who (fem. gender), Slovene ‘kdo’ – who, Sanskrit ‘kah’– who, Luwian ‘kui’ – who also related. 6. RAZEA – wrote corresponding to Bulgarian verb реза, ряза (reza, rjaza) – wrote, carved (Aorist tense, 3-rd person singular of the verb режа (reža) – I cut, I make notches) Bulgarian words рез, ряз (rez, rjaz) – notch, mark, рисувам (risuvam) – I draw, I make lines, рисунка (risunka) drawing, образ (obraz) depiction, face. Slovenian words ‘rez’ – cut, ‘rezati’ – to cut, ‘rezba’ – woodcarving, ‘raziti’ – to scratch, and common Slavic verb ‘risuvati’ – to draw are also related. RAZEA is also related to Sanskrit words ‘rekha’ - notch, mark, ‘rekhati’ – to mark, to make notches. 7. DO - beside, next, corresponding to common Slavic word ‘do’ beside, next, up to. 8. MEAN – me, corresponding to Bulgarian мен, мене (men, mene) me, Slovenian ‘mene’ – me, Russ. меня (menja) – me. 9. TI – you, corresponding to Bulgarian ти (ti), Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, Czech ‘ti’ - you. 10. LEZI – lay! corresponding to Bulgarian лежи (leži)! lay! Ležati – to lay is a common Slavic verb; Slovenian: lézi! – lay down immediately!, lêži! – continue laying!, ležì - is laying. 11. PTA – master corresponding to Bulgarian бат (bat) – master. Old Bulgarians used the title Bat. Bat Bajan had meaning Master Bajan (in Modern Bulgarian бате (bate) is used as addressing towards elder brother). Bosnian ‘bato’ – big brother, Ukrainian батко (batko) – father, Russian батюшка (batjuška) master, Avestanic ‘pait’ – master are also related. PTA is related also to Scythian ‘peit’ – master (In the names Spargapeit [8], IV-76, Ariapeit [8], IV-78, which had also variant ‘biti’ – mistress in the theonym Tabiti – the Mistress [8], IV-59). Thracian personal name Baton is also related to PTA (perhaps pronounced B’TA). Other related personal names are the Bulgarian: Baton, Bat, Bato. PTA corresponds also to common Slavic word Gospod – Lord, master. PTA is in Vocative case, the ending -a corresponding to -o in Old Bulgarian [8], p. 25, (bлaдиkо! (vladiko)! – Oh leader!). 12. MIHE – my, corresponding to common Slavic ‘moj’ – my. 13. RAZIL – departed, corresponding to Old Bulgarian verb разити ся (raziti sja) Slovene 182 verb ‘raziti se’, and Russian ‘razoitis’, all with the meaning to go away, to depart. RAZIL is a past tense participle with ending L – [9], p. 38. The root in RAZIL is I (Infinitive iti – to go). RAZ is a common Slavic prefix which we find in Bulgarian verbs разбивам (razbivam) – I break, разбирам (razbiram) – I understand, раздавам (razdavam) – I give, I distribute, corresponding to Slovene verbs ‘razbiti’ – to break, ‘razbrati’ – to understand, ‘razdati’ – to give, to distribute. 14. TA - here, corresponding Old Bulgarian тоу (tu) – here, Modern Bulgarian тук (tuk) – here and Slovene ‘ta’ – this, that and ‘tukaj’ – here. The best match, however, is Slov. dial. (Idrija) ‘tà’ – here. Conclusion Despite the fact that the inscription was written about 2500 years ago, half of the words have remained almost unchanged in Modern Bulgarian: AZ = az – I, TI = ti – you, LEZI = leži – lie or lay, KOA = koja – who, DO = do – beside, MEAN = men – me, RAZEA = rjaza – cut. The rest of the words can be explained easily with help of the Old Bulgarian vocabulary and Bulgarian personal names. The phrase: ΔΟ ΜΕΑΝ ΤΙ ΛΕΖΙ! (do mean ti lezi!) is strikingly close to Bulgarian ДО МЕН ТИ ЛЕЖИ! (do men ti leži) – lay beside me! It was shown also that the words from the inscription have equivalents in Slovene, Czech, Russian etc. The grammatical peculiarities are very important when the affiliation of certain language has to be determined. We can notice the presence of Slavic (Blg. Sl.) personal pronouns AZ – I, TI – you, MEN – me, Vocative case in ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕ, and ΠΤΑ, Slavic Past tense in RAZIL, and Slavic (Blg.) Aorist in PAZEA, Imperative in LEZI – lay!, Common Slavic noun DO – next, beside, and the common Slavic prefix RAZ-. That gives me the right to claim that Thracian language was nothing more but archaic Slavic language. So much peculiarities in such short text are good prove that Simokatta wrote the truth: Slavs, or Getae (Thracians) because that was their name in the antiquity [5], p. 14.

New interpretation If the beginning of the inscription and words following it show such closeness with Bulgarian vocabulary and grammar, it is logical that an attempt should be made to decipher the rest of the words with the help of the Bulgarian and other Slavic languages. Only if this approach doesn’t give good results, one should proceed with the search for related words in other Indo-European languages. There is another reason to begin with Bulgarian and other Slavic languages. That is the presence of testimonies of the ancient authors equating Bulgarians with Thracians (Moesians) [4], p. 76-79, 107-108, 110, and Thracians (Getae) with Slavs. T. Simokatta (quoted by Tsenov in [5], p. 14) is very clear: Sclavos sive Getas hoc enim nomine antiquitus appellati sunt Slavs or Getae, because that was their name in the antiquity My reading deviates from that of the other researchers and that is why I divide the text in a different way and I recognise 14 words consisting of 61 letters: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ΡΟΛΙΣΤΕΝΕ ΑΣ ΝΕΡΕΝΕΑ ΤΙΛΤΕΑΝΗΣ ΚΟΑ ΡΑΖΕΑ ΔΟ ΜΕΑΝ ΤΙ ΛΕΖΥ ΠΤΑ ΜΙHE ΡΑΖHΛ ΤΑ ROLISTENE AZ NERENEA TILTEANIS KOA RAZEA DO MEAN TI LEZI PTA MIÍE RAZIL TA This I translate as: Ролистене, аз Неренея Тилтеанис, коа разеа: до меан ти лези пта мие разил та (Rolistene, az Nerenea Tilteanis, koa razea: do mean ti lezi pta miie razil ta) In modern Bulgarian: Rolistene, az Nerenea Tilteanis, (săm tazi) koja(to) rjaza (tova): do men ti leži sypruže moi počinal tuk. In English: Rolistene, me Nerenea Tilteanis (is the one) who wrote this: lay beside me my master, (husband) released here (in the grave) 

Ref:

http://www.korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik07/serafimov_ezer07.pdf

http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/61248

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=8gkaBwAAQBAJ&pg=PR24&lpg=PR24&dq=was+thracian+language+bulgarian&source=bl&ots=rldCSrJ5-A&sig=xXo26Yn4GQalBZKuKPYhjvk61Dc&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=was%20thracian%20language%20bulgarian&f=false

I hope Cyrus will help us about numbers in ancient "Persian"!Sorry that will disappoint you but people those days were proud they were civilized&sanctified.