cian ▁origin ▁simply ▁because ▁it ▁is ▁att ested ▁in ▁D acia . ▁In ▁D ana ' s ▁opinion , ▁the ▁Da cian ▁origin ▁of ▁some ▁of ▁the ▁names ▁is ▁doubt ful ▁or ▁even ▁ex cluded . ▁Also , ▁Dur idan ov ' s ▁method ▁is ▁un re li able ▁because ▁most ▁of ▁the ▁names ▁he ▁cons iders ▁are ▁unique . ▁▁ ▁D ana ▁questions ▁the ▁valid ity ▁of ▁the ▁Balt ic ▁et ym ologies ▁used ▁to ▁de ci pher ▁the ▁Da cian ▁names . ▁ ▁According ▁to ▁Mess ing , ▁Dur idan ov ' s ▁results ▁are ▁in ▁contradiction ▁with ▁the ▁reconst ruction ▁of ▁a ▁Bal to - S lav ic ▁language ▁group , ▁as ▁they ▁show ▁many ▁par alle ls ▁between ▁Da cian ▁and ▁Balt ic , ▁but ▁only ▁a ▁few ▁with ▁S lav ic ▁languages . ▁( This ▁ob jection ▁is ▁irrelevant ▁if ▁Balt ic ▁and ▁S lav ic ▁const itute ▁separate ▁branches ▁of ▁IE ▁( i . e . ▁" Bal to - S lav ic " ▁never ▁existed , ▁as ▁some ▁lingu ists ▁maintain ); ▁or ▁if , ▁as ▁Dur idan ov ▁arg ues , ▁Da cian ▁acquired ▁Balt ic ▁words ▁through ▁long - term ▁proxim ity ▁interaction ▁with ▁Balt ic ▁languages , ▁rather ▁than ▁through ▁a ▁gen etic ▁link ). ▁ ▁Despite ▁these ▁ob jections , ▁Georg iev ▁and ▁Dur idan ov ▁claim ▁a ▁high ▁degree ▁of ▁reli ability ▁for ▁their ▁reconst ru ctions . ▁However , ▁Pol om é ▁( 1 9 8 2 ), ▁in ▁his