Download - Etymologica et anthropologica maiora
-
S o r i n P a l i g a
E t y m o l o g i c a e t
Anthropologica Maiora
-
Already published in the series
Sorin Paliga, Opera Omnia
I Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous
(Thracian) Elements in Romanian
II Influen!e romane "i preromane n limbile slave de sud
III Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora
Forthcoming
IV Lexicon Proto!Borealicum et alia lexica
etymologica minora
V Istoria vechilor slavi
A History of the Old Slavs
VI Introducere n tracologia lingvistic# An Introduction to Linguistic Thracology
-
Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora
-
Apari!ia volumului s-a bucurat de sprijinul pre!ios al
S.C. ROSAL GRUP S.R.L. Bucure"ti
This volume has been published by generous support of
ROSAL GRUP Ltd. Bucharest
Coperta / Cover: Sorin Paliga
Ilustra!ia copertei / Cover Picture: Vidra-Zmbreasca artefact
Revizia "tiin!ific# "i tehnoredactarea apar!in autorului
Revision and page setting by author
Copyright: Funda!ia Evenimentul 2007
Funda!ia Evenimentul pentru Cultivarea P#cii "i a Spiritului Tolerant
Str. Constantin Nacu nr. 4, sector 2
Sector 2, Bucure"ti
Romnia
telefon: (4)021 / 781 2490
fax: (4)021 / 211 4779
Director General: Paul Tutungiu
Pre"edintele Funda!iei Evenimentul pentru Cultivarea P#cii
"i a Spiritului Tolerant
I.S.B.N. - 13 978-973-87920-2-9
-
Sorin Paliga
E t y m o l o g i c a e t
Anthropologica Maiora
Bucure"ti
2007
-
Contents / Cuprins
Cuvnt nainte 7
Foreword 9
I.
Thracian terms for township and fortress, and related place-names 13
The Social Structure of the South-East European Societies
in the Middle Ages. A Linguistic View 21
A Pre-Indo-European Place-Name: Dalmatia 39
Slavic *s!to - a challenging problem? 43
Types of Mazes 61
Proto-Indo-European, Pre-Indo-European, Old European:
Archaeological Evidence and Linguistic Investigation 77
Are There Urbian Elements in Slavic? 91
An Archaic Word: doin" 95
The Tablets of T#rt#ria an Enigma?
A reconsideration and further perspectives 113
Metals, Words And Gods. Early Knowledge of Metallurgical Skills in
Europe, and Reflections in Terminology 151
Two river-names revisited.
Once again on the opposition north-south in late Thracian 175
Romanian Definite Article Revisited 183
Herrscherschaft and Herrschersuffix
in Central-East European Languages 195
Ten Theses on Romanian Etymology 209
-
II.
Ardeal, Transilvania 235
Zeit#!i feminine ale basmelor romne"ti: znele "i snzienele.
Originea cuvintelor "i a cultului profan 243
Civiliza!ia vechilor urbieni 255
Toponimul Cluj 267
Pururi = focuri 281
Originea Albanezilor 285
Un cuvnt str#vechi ora# 291
Toponimia arhaic# a Romniei 295
Despre TABA/TEBA, DAVA/DEVA, despre alte aspecte
ale fondului pre-indo-european, ale celui indo-european,
ale celui proto-boreal, despre nostratisme
precum "i despre coeren!# n tracologia lingvistic# 299
III.
La divinit suprme des Thraco-daces 317
Devenir et aspectualisation. Encore une fois sur le verbe slave 331
Aperu de la structure tymologique du Roumain 345
Bibliographia 353
-
Rodic uxori suaviter,
Ror Dain Mari fili dulcissim,
Atque filiis Michaeli Uaro et Bucuro Johanni
dedicatur
-
Exordium dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________7
Cuvnt nainte
Al treilea volum al acestei serii cuprinde majoritatea studiilor publicate n diverse
reviste de specialitate. Fiind vorba de studii scrise de!a lungul a aproximativ 25 de ani, unele revizuite !i completate, iar altele incluse n alte lucr"ri (cum ar fi volumele precedente ale acestei serii, alte cteva fiind incluse n volumul urm"tor, al patrulea), a fost necesar" o reorganizare a materialului.
Pe de o parte, am eliminat acele studii care fac deja parte din alte volume publicate precum !i pe cele care se ncadreaz" mai bine volumului urm"tor, care va cuprinde cteva dic#ionare etimologice de volum limitat, dar esen#iale, credem noi,
demersului etimologic (Lexiconul Proto!Boreal, lexiconul celor o sut" de r"d"cini slave esen#iale, un extras al cuvintelor autohtone care permit reconstruirea unei spirante velare n trac"). Dat fiind c" unele studii au ap"rut deja n Thracian and
Pre!Thracian Studies (ed. Lucretius, Bucure!ti 1999), iar ntre timp num"rul acestor studii a crescut semnificativ, am considerat necesar" reordonarea lor nu numai pe principiul cronologic. Cum frontiera dintre temele abordate (cum ar fi, de
exemplu, mo!tenirea trac" a limbii romne, rela#iile slavo!romne, influen#ele de substrat asupra limbilor slave etc.) nu este simplu de trasat, am considerat util" ordonarea pe criteriul limbii n care au fost publicate studiile care este, n bun" m"sur", !i o ordonare tematic".
Primele sunt studiile n limba englez", cele mai numeroase de altfel !i, de fapt, cu acestea am debutat n lumea !tiin#ific" n anii 80, pe cnd revistele de specialitate din Romnia au amnat sistematic publicarea acelor studii !i care, astfel, au c"p"tat gradual versiune englez" pentru a putea ap"rea. Urmarea acestui fapt este c" versiunile ap"rute n Linguistica, World Archaeology, The Journal of
Indo!European Studies !i, nu n ultimul rnd, n Slavisti!na Revija (n limba sloven", dar fiind traduceri dup" originalul n limba englez") au fost ini#ial rescrise de autor pe baza versiunii n limba romn". Nu am mai revenit asupra formei
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Exordium
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________8
ini#iale, nici nu le!am retradus n limba romn". Cum timpul trece, ni s!a p"rut mai util s" relu"m, cu noi argumente, datele mai vechi, astfel c" studiile n limba englez" nu au, n general, versiuni n limba romn", de!i unele abordeaz" teme similare.
Partea a doua include studiile n limba romn", toate publicate dup" 1990 (dintre care am eliminat studiul dedicat boieriei, acesta fiind deja inclus ca un subcapitol al volumului precedent); cum acestea se refer" preponderent la mo!tenirea arhaic" a
limbii romne !i la rela#iile romno!slave (cteva !i la cele romno!maghiare), n acest fel cititorul va avea !i o organizare tematic".
n sfr!it, ultimele studii sunt cele n limba francez", publicate n Dialogues dhistorie ancienne.
Poate ar trebui s" argumentez de ce am ales titlul Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora. Fiecare dintre aceste studii n parte !i toate n ansamblu arat", cum avem speran#a, c" Europa a cunoscut trei mari perioade etnice: 1. $ neoliticul !i eneoliticul, cu marile lor culturi !i civiliza#ii (cca. 75003500
a. $Ch.); 2. $ invazia indo!european": conturarea limbilor !i culturilor antichit"#ii (34001200 a. Ch.); 3. dezvoltarea civiliza#iilor antichit"#ii, c"derea lor !i formarea limbilor !i culturilor Europei medievale (mileniul I a. Ch. !i primele secole ale erei cre!tine).
Autorul are speran#a c" ansamblul acestor studii formeaz" un set coerent de abord"ri preponderent lingvistice, dar !i antropologice n sens larg, privitoare la
probleme esen#iale ale cercet"rii etimologice: rolul stratului pre!indo!european n
conturarea profilului etno!cultural al Europei; problema mo!tenirii indo!europene !i
felul n care acest strat lingvistic mai nou s!a amalgamat cu cel str"vechi,
pre!indo!european; substratul limbilor slave !i problema rela#iilor slavo!romne;
elementele traco!dace ale limbii romne. Multe dintre aceste studii pot fi considerate studii de caz ce completeaz" ori argumenteaz" datele prezentate n ampla lucrare de sintez" Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian.
Sorin PaligaAugust 2006
-
Exordium anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9
Foreword
The third volume in this series contains most of the studies published in various
scientific journals. As these cover over 25 years of research, some being revised and
completed and others already included in other works (as the preceding volumes of
the series, others in the forthcoming volumes), reorganising the material has been
mandatory.
I have therefore removed those studies already published in other volumes and
some, which are rather appropriatre for the forthcoming volume, to include limited
etymological dictionaries, but I do hope essential for a solid etymological
approach (Proto!Boreal Lexicon, the etymological lexicon of 100 Slavic roots, an
extras of indigenous elements witnessing a former velar spirant in Thracian). As
some studies were already published in Thracian and Pre!Thracian Studies
(Lucretius, Bucure!ti 1999), and the number of these studies has meanwhile
become higher, their re-organisation has become imperious, not necessarily
following the chronological order. As the fronteer between topics approached over
years is not so easy to mark (e.g. the Thracian heritage of Romanian, Slavic-
Romanian relations, substratum influences in Slavic etc.) re-organising the studies
according to the language they were written may be, at least to a certain limit, a
thematic order.
The studies in English, most numerous, were those by which we made the
scientific debut in the 1980s, specifically because the Romanian scientific journals
repeatedly rejected them. Thus they gradually got an English garment and could be
published abroad. Consequently the versions published in Linguistica, World
Archaeology, The Journal of Indo!European Studies and, last but not least, in
Slavisti!na Revija (in Slovene, but translated from the English original) were
initially re-written following the Romanian former original. Generally I did not
revert to the original, older Romanian form, nor did I re-translate them back. As
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Exordium
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
10
time passes by, I found a lot more useful to resume older data by using new
arguments. Therefore the studies in English do not generally have a Romanian
translation, even if some may loosely approach similar topics.
The second part includes the studies in Romanian, all of them published after
1990. I removed the study dedicated to boier (a chapter in the preceding volume of
this series); as these mainly refer to the archaic heritage of Romanian and to
Romanian!Slavic relations (a few to Romanian-Hungarian relations), there is also a
thematic organisation of material.
Finally, there are also three studies in French, as published in the Dialogues
dhistorie ancienne.
It should be perhaps useful to further expand on the title: Etymologica et
Anthropologica Maiora. Every study and all together point(s) to the three major
Ethnic Periods in Europe: 1. " Neolithic and Chalcolithic, with their major
cultures and civilizations (cca. 75003500 B.C.); 2."The Indo!European invasion,
which led to the making of ancient languages and cultures (34001200 B.C.);
3. "The making of Ancient Civilizations, their fall and the making of Medieval
languages and cultures (first millennium B.C. and the Christian era).
The author hopes that these studies form a coherent set of linguistic and
anthropological approaches: the role of the Pre!Indo!European substratum in
contouring the ethno-cultural profile of Europe; the Indo!European heritage and
amalgamation of Pre!Indo!European and Indo!European stratum; the substratum in
Slavic and Romanian!Slavic relations; the Thracian heritage in Romanian. Many
studies may be labelled case!studies to complement or to backup the data in the
ample Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian.
Sorin Paliga
August 2006
-
I
In English
Anglice
-
Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
13
Thracian terms for township and fortress,
and related place-names
Piae memoriae Patris
Introduction
Though the Tracians had no written tradition, some essential terms
connected with their everyday life and especially many place-names can be
fairly well identified and interpreted on the basis of (1) the information given
by the Greek and Latin writers, and (2) the analysis of some words, arguably
of Thracian origin, preserved in the modern languages spoken in southeastern
Europe, especially in Romanian, Albanian and Bulgarian. Though the gap in
time is important, we assume that relevant terms may be identified and
analysed in such a way as to complement the archaeological data. In our
attempt we shall try (1) to determine the Thracians terms specifically express-
ing the notion township and/or fortress, (2) to connect these terms to evident-
ly (or probably) related place-names inside or outside the Thracian area, and
(3) to consider them in their historical evolution, i. e. whether the terms are
still in use either in denoting a certain place-name or used as such in the
everyday vocabulary. In every case it is useful to refer to the etymon of the
word analysed, knowing that the sense is a strong support for the social
context in which a word (term) is used.
Thracian terms for township and fortress
1. Bria. The Thracians called the polis bria (Strabo 7: 6: 1; Stephanes Byz.
446: 15). Bria also appears as second element in many place-names like:
Alai-bria, Bolba-bria, Mesem-bria, Selym-bria, etc. (De!ev 1957: 86; Russu
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
14
Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
15
1967: 96). Closely related is the place-name Brea (De!ev 1957: 85). The
word is compared to the Indo-European (hereafter IE) root *wer- to close, to
cover (Pokorny 1959: 1162; AHD 1549). In our opinion the term under
consideration is an obvious Preie. relic derived from the root *B-R-/*P-R-
identified in the Mediterranean region and whose meaning should be recon-
structed as elevation; high, zero-grade form *BR-i-a. In this respect, the
Thracian word has clear affinities with terms and place-names of this type
like Provenal and Catalan brac a moor, place-name (hereafter PN) Saint-
Martin-de-Brasque, Bresq, Briasq, Braux ( PN Plovdiv (Bulgaria). A satisfactory
etymon of the word was suggested a long time ago: IE *dh"- to set, put, development *dh"-w- (Tomaschek 1893 II: 1: 9), and has been accepted by all subsequent specialists like De!ev, Russu and Georgiev (1961: 7). The
North Thracian term dava, deva seems to be akin to PN Datos (De!ev: 120)
and Albanian dhat city and Greek #$%&' a place, centre. Beside the Bulgarian place-name Plovdiv, which reflects the ancient Pulpu-deva, this
etymological group is well preserved in some Romanian place-names, such
as Deva, an important town in Transylvania. The Thracian origin of the
place-name has been sometimes denied on the feeble ground that intervocalic
b/v should have been lost as in the Latin elements preserved in Romanian
(e.g. Lat. caballus > Rom. cal horse). But it seems clear to us that the
Thracian phoneme v (like b) had a particular pronunciation different from the
Late Latin b/v, so its preservation as such is not only plausible but even
inevitable (Kisch 19291934: 181). Three other modern Romanian towns
preserve the same element: Deda, Deta (cf. Thr. Datos) and Dej (formerly
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
14
Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
15
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
16
*De-e(, in two syllables, confirmed by the medieval Latin spelling Dees). These place-names undoubtedly preserve the parallel Thracian forms *d"-t-, *de-e(- (attested only once in PN Datos) against the classical form dava, deva.
3. Dina, deina. This word is witnessed in a few place-names like Asbolo-
dina, Bassi-dina, Pesi-dina, etc. (De!ev 1957: 136). It may have the same
etymon as deva/dava but with a different development (of the type *dh"-n-), or it might be related to Cymric din township as De!ev unconvincingly
suggested. No related place-names have been clearly identified so far. We
suggest a possible approach to PN Dindryme (? Din-dryme) and mountain-
name (hereafter MN) Din-dyma, Din-dymon which are differently analysed
in De!ev (1957). This suggestion finds some support in Rom. PN Dinga and
PN Dinia) (< *din-g- and *din-i-a( respectively) which should probably be regarded as having a Thracian origin in the context discussed.
4. Diza, dizos, deize, witnessed in many place-names like Bur-dizos,
Diza-zelmis, Diza-pes, Diza-polis, Oru-disza, Tyro-diza, etc. (De!ev 1957:
132). If the word is related to Greek *+,-&' city-wall (Chantraine 1968: 1098) then the IE root is *dheig. ho- (Pokorny 1959: 244), as in Avestan pairi-da"za fence, garden, Armenian d"z heap, multitude. These extra-Thracian parallels are irresistible and they seem to support the attested Thracians
forms. We might equally refer to the same IE root *dh"- with a different development of the type *dh"-g. (h)-/, *dh"-g. (h)-os. As often in the field of comparative grammar no definite solution exists, but this is less important in
the context of this paper. The term diza/dizos may not be preserved in any
modern form, except perhaps Rom. PN Dezna (district Arad, W. Romania)
for which it is difficult to suggest any other origin.
5. Leba: 01234560,' 758 9:3%;< (Hesychius). De!ev (1957), following Tomaschek (1893), considers that leba is a misspelling for deva. However,
we will assume here that the form given in Hesychius is correct. This fact is
proved by the existence of clearly related Thracian place-names like MN
Abro-lebas, PN Libon, Libum in Bythinia, and PN Libyssa, Libissa on the
river Libyssos (De!ev 1957: 3 and 275). The leba/liba forms have clear
affinities with similar Preie. place-names derived from a root *L-P-/*L-B-
-
Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
15
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
16
Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
17
stone, mountain, from which come PN Lebena in Crete (Faure 1977: 141),
PN Libana located in the mountainous region of Castilia (Ptolemy 2: 6: 57),
PN Labro > Livorno, and Lat. lapis stone (analysis in G. Alessio, Studi
Etruschi 9/1935: 133 ff). The primitive meaning of the root leba was there-
fore stone, hence stone-wall, fortress. It is possible that the Thracians used
leba to denote the stone-walls of their townships and fortress (cf. the so-
called murus dacicus the Dacian wall).
6. Ora, oros, oron. This term is attested in several place-names: Al-oros,
Az-oros, El-oros, Gaz-oros, Thest-oros, Milk-oros, Tarp-oron, Clev-ora,
Cap-ora (De!ev 1957: 535). Other related forms are known from the Thra-
cians area: MN Orb-elos, PN Org-ame, Ur-briana. All these examples are
undoubtedly Preie., belonging to the root reconstructed *OR-/*UR- very big,
huge, high, well represented in the ancient place-names, such as Urgo/Orgo,
an island between Corsica and Etruria (Pliny 3:81), PN Orgon, Provence
(Rostaing 1950: 70); Basque uri city, township; PN Uri, in Switzerland; Hatti
ure huge, big; Greek =:>< etc. (Mu"u 1981: 199 ff). Of course, Lat. urbs should be also discussed in this context, as it has long been observed. We
assume here that the similarity of Basque uri, Latin urbs and Thracian oros,
ora cannot be mere chance. As Prof. Mu"u has observed, the meaning of this
root is big, huge, high, hence mountain, hill or/and township (on elevated
location).
The Thracian ora, oros, oron forms discussed here are preserved in some
Romanian terms and place-names. The most important of all is surely ora) (dialectically also ura)) the usual word for the meaning city, township, obviously akin to uria) (dialectically also oria) with the same o/u alternation) huge, very big. Some place-names are clearly related: Oradea, Or)ova (Or)-ova, probably with a suffix of Slavic origin in Romanian), MN Urlea, in the Transylvanian Alps, etc. The origin of these Romanian forms cannot by
any means be attributed to a late Hungarian influence, a theory much sup-
ported by Hungarian scholars (cf. Kiss 1980: 453) simply because Rom.
ora)/ura) township and uria)/oria) huge, giant have clear affinities with the Thracian and extra-Thracian examples already shown. We must not forget
that many words of Thracian origin, place-names included, in the modern
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
16
Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
17
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
18
languages spoken in the Balkans, are still frequently explained by the Slavic
or Hungarian influence, though in these languages the terms are still more
obscure. The absence of or-/ur- forms in Albanian (often referred to in the
case of some Thracian elements preserved in Romanian) is not of course an
argument against their Thracian origin in Romanian.1
7. Para also bara. This term is very well attested in place-names in the
Thracian region south from the Danube: Bessa-para, Gelu-para, Drusi-para,
etc. (De!ev 1957: 3567) and Zuro-bara, Tamon-bari (De!ev 1957: 42). This
Thracian term has clear affinities with other para-/bara- forms of certain
Preie. origin (root *PaR-/*BaR- (*P-R-/*B-R-)): Catalan barri city, district;
Provenal rampart; PN Barras and PN Barga in Tuscany (Rostaing 1950:
88); PN Parium in Mysia; PN Parma in Gallia; and Greek PN Parnassos, PN
Paros, etc. (Trombetti 1925: 44; Faure 1977: 141). All these forms represent
the full a-grade of the root as compared to the zero-grade in bria analysed
above.
No modern form with the specific meaning township has been preserved,
but the root may be easily identified in several place-names in Romania:
B!r!gn, Brg?u (< *BaR-g-), and MN Par@ng in the Transylvanian Alps (primitive from *PaR-ang- or *PaR-ag- then nasalised to * PaR-a-n-g-)
Discussion
The examples analysed, despite the corrupted spellings of the Thracian
words in the Greek or Latin writers, complement the archaeological data very
well. It is obvious that the Thracians had a rich terminology for township
and/or fortress. Of course the terms under consideration reflect regional
(local, dialectal) differences: dava/deva was common among the North
Thracians (Dacians or Getae) while para/bara, bria and diza were more
1 The existence or non-existence of the root *OR-/ *UR- in Albanian remains to be
demonstrated. One example: Alb. yll star must derive from preie. *OR- or *OL-,
*UL-. The form ora), and its tortuous etymological history, will be discussed in another paper, below.
-
Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
17
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
18
Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
19
common among the South Thracians. Yet this is not an argument for the
existence of a Dacian bloc versus a Thracian bloc as sometimes suggested
(Georgiev 1961: 54; Duridanov 1976: 39 ff). This opposes not only known
historical information but also surviving linguistic evidence. For example,
Rom. PN Deva reflects Thr. deva which is equally preserved in Bulg. PN
Plovdiv < Pulpu-deva. It is better to assert dialectal differences and not a
clear-cut ethnic divide. A good proof to this is represented by the situation of
Thr. forms ora, oros, oron, poorly attested in the Latin and Greek writers (at
least compared to the richly witnessed dava- and para- forms) but reflected
in Romanian by ora)/ura) as the usual word for denoting the township in general. It is clear that an identical word or one closely similar was used in
the everyday life of the Thracians (or, at least, of the North Thracians): it was
the popular word versus the official one (dava or para), which is now
preserved only in a few place-names. Three groups of Thracians terms have a
clear IE origin: dava/deva/dova, dina/dena and diza, dizos (though the
ultimate etymon may seem uncertain), whilst four groups seem to have a
Preie. origin: bria, bara/para, leba and ora/oros/oron. This should not be
surprising and can be more easily understood in the light of archaeological
research. We consider here that the Neolithic (Preie.) townships reflect a
particular aspect of Old Europe (Gimbutas 1973: 23, 89). The Indo-Euro-
peanisation of Europe did not mean total destruction of the previous cultural
achievement but consisted in an amalgamation (hybridization) of racial and
cultural phenomena (Gimbutas 1974: 302). Linguistically, the process may
(and must) be regarded in a similar way: the Indo-Europeans imposed an
idiom, which itself then adopted certain elements from the autochtonous
languages spoken previously. These non-IE (Preie.) elements are numerous
in Greek, Latin and, arguably, Thracian though in the last case the analysis is
more difficult because of the lack of a written tradition. But difficulty is not
synonymous with impossibility, as we have tried to prove in the paper.
The persistence of some Thracian elements (of origin both IE and Preie.)
in Romania, Bulgaria and other south-east European areas and languages
should therefore be considered in this development context (just like the
Celtic words and place-names in English and in Britain respectively). Refer-
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
18
Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
19
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
20
ring only to the examples analysed, the preservation of some Preie.
place!names and terms expressing the notion township in Thracian and, via
Thracian, in Romanian or Bulgarian can be better understood in the light of
historical and archaeological data. Thus, in the Thracian area locations which
can be described as township or fortress were already present in the Neolithic
(Cri"an 1986: 145; Childe 1946: 98 ff; Opperman 1984: 11 ff). In this
respect, the Thracian territory has parallels in the Celtic area (Cri"an 1986:
150). Thus and we want to stress this detail the Daco-Thracian davae did not
borrow the Greek pattern but conserved a very old type (Cri"an 1986: 168).
In other words, the Thracians were highly conservative in their idea of
urbanism; their language reflects this reality in terms (words, place-names)
the origin of which can be traced back to the idioms spoken in the Neolithic
(Preie.) times. Surprisingly or not, the facts are quite obvious and must be
considered as such. One more detail: as has been well observed, the Thracian
davae or parae were at the same time oppida and urbes (Braga 1980: 9) and
have parallels in the Celtic area (cf. Caesar, De Bello Gallico). Militarily,
these locations were fortresses while economically they were towns or
markets.
The survival of several important Thracian terms connected with the
notion township, as well as of some major place-names, is interesting.
Bulgaria was initially a Romanized region, then Slavonized; Romania is
represented by the Romanized Daco-Thracian territory and population. The
latter is undoubtedly the most conservative both culturally and linguistical-
ly, the Thracians elements of the vocabulary being quite important (cf.
Russu 1981), although they have not been analysed in full. It is equally
interesting to note that the Thracian (pre-Roman) place-names of Romania
are mainly preserved in Transylvania and the neighbouring regions, the
mountainous zones. The Romanian name for Transylvania, Ardeal, is one
of the clearest Preie. relics: root *AR- high, elevated; far away and *DaL-,
*DeL- hill, forest, mountain (Paliga 1986). Again, place-names are of great
importance in the reconstruction of vanished civilisations and it is almost
inevitable that the identifiable Preie. elements come down from the Ne-
olithic times: the dawn of the European civilization.
-
Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
19
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
20
Conclusions
Thracian terms denoting township are fairly well attested in Latin and
Greek writers, and reflect both IE and Preie. elements. The existence of these
terms reflecting this double origin should be considered in the light of the Old
European (Preie.) Civilisation and the subsequent Indo-Europeanisation
which caused an amalgamation of populations, rather than a total destruction
of previous achievements. The terms analysed in this article are a real support
for the idea that the languages spoken in antiquity reflected an IE structure
but preserved a certain number of terms of Preie. origin; these terms can
easily be identified and analysed in several cultural or ethnic areas. Important
place-names closely connected to an initial meaning township can be identi-
fied and analysed over a large area reflecting both the IE and Preie. heritage.
The Thracian territory roughly corresponding to that of present-day Romania
and Bulgaria despite the lack of a written tradition, witnesses such forms,
some of them preserved into the modern period. Such terms have been
adopted to successive historic and social realities, and some have proved to
be resistant to linguistic erosion and are still in use. The case of Romanian
ora)/ura) city, township is typical: its origin should be traced back to a Pre-Thracian (Preie.) idiom spoken in the Neolithic. As Latin urbs has not been
preserved in any Romance language, it is interesting to observe that the
Romanian term, together with Basque uri (of identical meaning) are the only
pre-Indo-European words with this connotation still in use.
(World Archaeology 1987, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 2329)
-
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
21
The Social Structure of the South-East European Societies
in the Middle Ages. A Linguistic View
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to review several terms spread over a quite
large area in south-east Europe. The starting point of our investigation is
the Romanian language understood as inheriting an important Thracian
vocabulary, specifically referring to the social and political structure of the
Early Middle Ages. The terms discussed are not exclusively Romanian. In
fact, they reflect roughly speaking the ancient extension of the Thracians
speakers, i.e. the present-day territories of Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria,
and parts of south and southwest Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary and former
Yugoslavia1.
Speaking of the Thracian words transmitted till modern times via Roma-
nian we must of course understand via late-Latin/Proto-Romanian in still
confuse times when linguistic and cultural changes diffused without
control. It was an age of fundamental changes but not without solid links
with the previous cultural achievements. It is by no means our intention to
over-estimate the importance of the Late-Latin/Proto-Romanian elements
in southeast Europe, more or less affected by the Thracian substratum, but
to point out that the only plausible manner of explaining these forms is to
assume even if only as a hypothesis of first-stage investigation a substra-
tum influence quite homogeneous in its phonetic changes and, generally, in
its linguistic phenomena.
1 The Thracian tribes inhabited a large part of contemporary Serbia.
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
22
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
23
We shall therefore focus on the following forms in Romanian together
with their parallels in other neighbouring idioms: (1) ban overlord, master
and ban money, coin; (2) cioban recipient, pot and cioban shepherd;
(3) giupn (pronounced !upn), later jupn master (cf. ban); (4) st"pn
master. At a first sight, all these forms witness a common component: -
ban, -pan > -pn, with the probable meaning master, leader. Does this
reflect a real old heritage or are we victims of an illusion? Or, otherwise
put, do all these forms reflect a common origin, from one language spoken
in south-east Europe? How shall we explain the large diffusion of some of
these terms?
Before giving a coherent answer it is imperious to reconsider these very
forms.
(1) Ban overlord, master and money, coin.
The word was generally analysed separately for these two meanings, as
follows:
1.1 The sense overlord, master has been interpreted as:
(a) Slavic heritage, now accepted by several scholars (Cihac 18701879,
II: 8; Macrea 1958: 66; Rosetti 1978: 297, 431). This hypothesis was
supported by the fact that similar forms are witnessed in Serbo-Croatian,
Bulgarian and Hungarian (ban, bn)
(b) A version of the previous hypothesis is that in Romanian the word
should be explained as a Hungarian influence (Tiktin 19031916: 152; DA
I: 471; Iorga 1905, I: 135; !"ineanu 1929: 52; Cior"nescu 1960 ff.: 64,
with hesitations; Tams 1967: 90; Mih"il" 1974: 74).
(c) Slavic or Hungarian origin (Coteanu et al. 1975: 72). Such an unde-
cided opinion was surely supported by the fact that in both Slavic and
Hungarian the word is not satisfactorily explained. A very brief review of
the etymological analysis from this non-Romanian perspective is useful:
(a) For Miklosich the word is of Persian origin; from Persia it was
supposedly transmitted into Europe by the Turks (Miklosich 1884, I: 11;
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
22
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
23
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
24
1886: 7; Matzenauer 1870: 103). It can be easily argued that such a hypoth-
esis is feeble, as long as Turkish ban is a rare word. Besides, the Turkish
influence was quite late and could not impose a term of social structure. On
the other hand, Hung. bn is a governor at the frontier of Hungary (Benk#
et al. 1967); this detail is interesting but ignored, perhaps unvoluntarily.
(b) Berneker assumes that Slavic ban is of Mongolian origin, the origi-
nal form being bojan, hence ban (Berneker 19081913: 42; Bezlaj 1976
ff.: 10). But the phonetic changes are not explained and they are not at all
easily to be accepted as such 2 .
(c) It is sometimes hypothesized that Slavic ban is of Persian origin,
transmitted to Europe by the Avars (Onions 1969: 72). This reference to
Persian ban cannot be avoided but how to explain the route of the word to
Europe? Are the Avars (or, according to another version, the Turks) respon-
sible for the spread of the word in South-East Europe?
We basically doubt such a hypothesis. But before giving an answer to
this question it is useful to review some opinions regarding the homophone
ban money, coin.
1.2 Ban money, coin (preserved as a vivid form only in Romanian; also
Polish and Bulgarian dialectally, obsolete).
(a) Isolatedly, some linguists speak of a Slavic element (Cihac 1870
1879, II: 8). It is, of course, a difficult point, as long as the meaning
money, coin is not at all specifically Slavic, on the contrary. The distribu-
tion of this meaning clearly proves that a discussion regarding the ultimate
origin of this semantic field cannot start from Polish or Bulgarian.
(b) One of the most interesting explanations of this word was given a
century ago: Ban is the coin of the Ban [see first meaning discussed
2 It should be remembered that bojan was other times assumed as being the origin
of boier, a specific term to denote a rich man in the Middle Ages. See the chapter
Este boieria o institu#ie mprumutat"? (Is boyardom a borrowed institution?) in the preceding volume.
-
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
23
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
24
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
25
above] just as the Italians call the coin of a duke ducato and the English
call the coin of a Sovereign sovereign (Hasdeu 18871888: 2448). This
explanation has been accepted by many other linguists (Tiktin 19031916:
151; !"ineanu 1929: 52; Macrea 1985: 66). A version of this hypothesis is
that the Romanian word is equally of Hungarian origin, an opinion much
advocated by Hungarian linguists (Tams 1967: 91; accepted, without
arguments, in Rosetti 1986: 384). The word under consideration cannot by
any means be of Hungarian origin for the simple reason that this meaning
is absent in Hungarian (dialectal Transylvanian forms are not relevant
because they may be and are under the Romanian influence).
(c) A particularly interesting and very original explanation, almost
forgotten, is exposed by Sextil Pu$cariu (DA I: 472; Pu$cariu 1923) who
considers that Rom. ban money, coin should be explained together with
Aromanian (Macedo-Romanian) verb a b"n to live (cf. Papahagi 1974:
191) as a heritage from a pre-Roman (i.e. Thracian) form *bann- life
cattle money, following the same change of meaning like Latin pecus
herd pecunia money.
According to this theory, there is no connection between the meanings
overlord, master and money, the similitude being therefore a result of
hazard, in change the antiquity of the word becomes considerable, assumed
of Thracian origin. It is what the author believes, but from completely other
reasons and with other arguments (see below). It should be now observed that
the Thracian reconstructed form *bann- is completely unfounded nor is it
supported by the testimonies in the Greek and Latin writers (cf. De%ev 1957).
(d) Finally, some scholars simply consider that the word is obscure
(Cioranescu 1960 ff.: 65; Coteanu et al. 1975: 72). In the given circum-
stances this undoubtedly is a correct position.
1.3. It is our hypothesis that we can explain fairly well both the meaning
overlord, master and money, coin in a wholesome way. Before referring
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
24
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
25
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
26
to other forms, we hypothesize that the word really is of Thracian origin, as
Pu$cariu brilliantly observed, from a reconstructed form *b$n- assumed
akin to Persian b$n master, also house (Horn 1893: 40) and p$n (p/b as
an old Indo-European alternation, already analyzed by Benveniste 1962:
168 in the case of the root *pH3 > *p%- to drink). The Indo-European
root of these forms is quite clear: on the one hand *p$- to protect, to feed,
on the other hand *p%i- to protect the cattle, to graze. These two roots are
separtely analyzed by Pokorny (1959: 782, 839), also separately but
nothing their probable initial kinship in Morris et al. 1979: 1532, 1535.
Secondly, the meaning coin, money of ban seems to have cognate
parallels in Old Indian: pa&a' a kind of coin (Mayrofer 1953, II: 196),
pa& to honor, buy, negotiate, pa&a to play for winning; coin;
house (Monier 1976: 580).
Are these similarities simple hazard? They might be, though it is diffi-
cult to think so. In this perspective, it would be perhaps useful to revert to
Hasdeu's opinion that the ban is the coin used under the authority of a
Ban, observing that the parallel lord, master coin seems to be much
older than Hasdeu thought, perhaps preserving a sense developed in the
satem area. We suggest therefore to consider the double meaning of ban
not a result of simple hazard but the preservation of very old parallel of
sense overlord, master coin3. It is not the purpose of this paper to
consider the beginnings of trade and coinage, but to draw attention on
some interesting aspects.
Summing up, it can be surmised that Thracian had a form *b$n master,
overlord and, very probably, a parallel form *b$n money, coin. Further
facts should substantiate this hypothesis.
3 A third meaning, house, is also witnessed by Old Indian and Persian.
-
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
25
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
26
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
27
(2) Cioban [!oban] recipient, pot and shepherd. (Meaning shep-
herd spread over a large area in southeast Europe).
As in the case discussed above, where the parallel master, lord coin
occured, in this case another parallel awaits a proper consideration. The
forms to start with are:
Rom. cioban [(oban]; common sense shepherd, but also wooden pot,
recipient (Transylvania);
Hung. csobny wooden pot, also csobn(y) shepherd;
Old Czech (bn, mod d)bn wooden pot.
As we know, these reciprocally significant forms have never been
considered together as an etymologically compact group, probably because
they require complex investigations and, perhaps much more important, to
abandon the deeply rooted preconceived idea that cioban, (oban shepherd
is a Turkish influence. The facts are, in our opinion, simple enough and do
not require special devices of investigation. Anyway, a brief review of the
topic is necessary.
In what concerns the Romanian forms, it was generally assumed that
cioban pot is a Hungarian influence (DA II: 435), the Hungarian word
being, in its turn, borrowed from Slovak with the specific phenomenon of
svarabhakti: Slovak bn > Hung. csobny (Benk# et al. 1967: 545), with
the observation that probably there is no connection between csobn
shepherd and csobn(y) pot (id.), yet without any further attempt in
explaining this strange similitude 4.
On the other hand, the situation of the Slavic terms is equally obscure to
the Slavists. The situation could be summarized thus:
4 It is again a case when obviously uncomfortable details are ignored ad usum
Delphini.
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
26
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
27
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
28
(a) For Miklosich there should be a similitude of some terms like the
already quoted Romanian and Hungarian forms, plus Rom. zbanc" a
recipient, Lithuanian izbonas, zbonas, uzbonas. This similitude is striking,
yet zbanc" may be considered a deformation of the Czech and Slovak
d)bn [how?], the situation as a whole remaining as confuse as before
(Miklosich 1886: 37).
(b) For Berneker, the Slavic word is dunkel(obscure) (Berneker
19081913: 165).
(c) Referring to the Baltic forms, a Polish or White-Russian origin is
suggested (Pol. dzban, zban, WRuss. )ban), which is very probable but is
no solution to the problem as a whole (Fraenkel 19551965 : 188).
(d) V. Machek reconstructs an Old Slavonic form *(*van+ [?!] and even
a common Slavic *(*ban+ [?!] approaching the forms to Greek ,-./01 5
(Machek 1971: 138). Though the Czech scholar makes a bold attempt in
explaining these facts and suggests a radical solution (the common Slavic
origin) his hypothesis is feeble and completely unfounded, including the
approach to d)ber a recipient, Rom. ciub"r [(b2r], German Zuber,
which are considered pra-evropsk (pre-Indo-European? 6).
The facts could be therefore summarized thus:
(I) In Hungarian both csobn pot and csobn(y) shepherd are borrow-
ings; the topic cannot be therefore solved starting from this point.
(II) The bizar parallel pot, recipient shepherd is preserved only in
Romanian and Hungarian, but as long as the latter cannot be the lending
idiom, it is feasible that some brighter perspectives may arise referring to
the Romanian forms.
5 ,-./01 pot, recipient and ,-341 orifice are derived from 56-7 to spread out,
to flow (cf. Chantraine 19681980: 316 and Frisk 1960).
6 Indeed the term pra-evropsk8 used by Machek is often confuse as he is not definite whether it refers to Proto-Indo-European (PIE) or Pre-Indo-European,
which is essential for an accurate linguistic analysis.
-
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
27
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
28
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
29
These preliminary conclusions are, in our opinion, obvious and generally
not contradicting the suggestions presented by some prominent scholars. It
should be also observed that a sense of borrowing of the type Slovak >
Hungarian > Romanian is hardly conceivable. Futhermore, it is observable
that the Slavic forms represent an assimilation (autochthonization) of a
foreign word heard *(oban or *(uban ((uban in Macedo-Rom., cf. Flora
1985: 89).
These observations will be reconsidered after reviewing the situation of
the homophone cioban shepherd in Romanian. First of all it is to observe
that many other synonyms are used, e.g.:
(1) p"curar < Lat. pecurarius, from pecus;
(2) p"stor < Lat. pastor, akin to pasco, pascere;
(3) oier, derived from oaie, pl. oi < Lat. ovis;
(4) mocan, unknown origin, very probably old archaic indigenous
(Thracian) term;
(5) baci unexplained;
(6) cioban considered, in general, as a Turkish influence (Cihac 1870
1879, II: 565; Tiktin 19031916: 354, balkanisches Wort; Lbel 1894:
32; !"ineanu 1900, II: 128; 1929: 130; Pu$cariu et al. 1916 ff., II: 435,
with the precious observation that the word occurs rarely in Macedo-
Romanian; Pu$cariu 1976: 313, 347; Macrea et al. 1958: 145; Cior"nescu
1960 ff.: 185; Coteanu et al. 1975: 151).
This rich synonymy in Romanian, unique perhaps in Europe, is not a
simple hazard but reflects the importance of this activity among the Roma-
nians. If so, a serious question arises: why should have the Romanians
borrowed a Turkish word for denoting an activity in which they were
perfect specialists all over the Balkans (the word Vlach Romanian is often
synonymous with shepherd) and for which their own language offered
and offers many other equivalents? Did the Romanians like the Turkish
word so much that they simply wanted un de plus? It seems that this aspect
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
28
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
29
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
30
passed ignored by all those who studied this topic, though it appears to us
of the highest importance. But not only the synonymic aspect has been
ignored, but also the historical facts: could the late Ottoman influence
impose such a word which belongs to the basic vocabulary? And, impor-
tant as well, how should we explain the sense pot, recipient?
Among all these hypothesis, unacceptable as we can see, one remarkable
exception: B. P. Hasdeu, who firsty assumed a pre-Roman, Thracian origin
of the word akin to Avestan f9u-b$n herdsman (Hasdeu 1973, II: 95141;
the study had been initially published in 1874). He later abandoned this
brilliant hypothesis replacing it by an opinion suggesting a rather Tartar
origin (Hasdeu 18871898: 2298). It is no better solution, but it reflects his
preocupation of finding a plausible explanation, realizing that the Turkish
(Ottoman) influence is impossible.
The facts can be therefore summarized as follows:
(a) Rom. cioban shepherd is surely non-Turkish;
(b) Rom. cioban should be explained in its double meaning: pot,
recipient and shepherd.
If this is correctly understood, the problem is theoretically solved, the
real difficulty consisting in finding the primitive connection between the
two spheres of meaning, which is:
shepherd undestood as PROTECTOR of livestock;
recipient understood as PROTECTOR of liquids,
both derived from a primitive root meaning to cover, to protect, hence
to graze, to contain. Given the correspondences already observed
between the balkanic terms and Persian, it is understandable that we must
look for a primitive root in the Indo-European heritage, where two roots
could be considered:
(a) IE *kadh- to cover, to protect, preserved in forms like
(1) helmet, hat: Lat. cassis (*kadh-tis), OHG huot, etc.
-
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
29
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
30
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
31
(2) care, defence: OHD huota Germ. Hut, f.
(3) to graze, shepherd: MHG heten, OHG huotan, huoten Germ.
Hter shepherd, behten to graze.
(Forms in Pokorny 1959: 516; Morris et al. 1979: 1520).
(b) IE *(s)keu- to cover, in forms like
(1) roof, protection, cover: OInd. ku-k:la a pod, p$;su-k:la priest
garment, Arm. c< iw roof, shelter;
(2) room, house: Arm. xuc< room, Oir. c:l shelter;
(3) genitals: Latvian kja, Gr. =>?301 female genitalia, Cymric cwd
Hodensack;
(4) pot, recipient: OInd. k@a, ku@apa-, ku@ay-;
(Pokorny 1959: 951; Morris et al. 1979: 1540).
It is clear now that Rom. cioban [oban] together with its Persian corre-
spondent forms (oban, (uban, (upan, which are for long known as the
origin of the turkish word (oban shepherd must be explained as a com-
pound with the first part IE *(s)keu- to cover, to protect and the second
part b$n analyzed above, with the expected treatment of IE group *keu- to
( in Persian and Thracian; from the latter language the word spread
throughout the Balkans where is surely is much older than its Turkish
equivalent of Persian origin.
The Balkanic term (oban cannot be of Turkish origin. The confusion was
produced by the similar forms existing from Persia to southeast Europe. But
this cannot confuse us and lead to an erroneous analysis. It should be equally
reminded that Turkish oban is a bookish word (Redhouse 129, 258, 262)
another detail proving that the Balkanic words cannot be derived from
Turkish but, quite precisely, from Thracian, like all the other forms consid-
ered in this paper. This will be clearer if referring to other examples.
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
30
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
31
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
32
(3) Cioban, !oban shepherd and giupn, "upan, jupn, #upan
master, lord.
The following solutions were offered in explaining the origin of the
word:
(a) In Romanian it is assumed that the term is of Slavic origin (Cihac
18701879, II: 161; Tiktin 19031916: 880; Dragomir 1921: 147, 165;
!"ineanu 1929: 351; Rosetti 1978: 318, 344), though is sometimes pointed
out that the oldest Romanian form witnesses the phonetic structure with !:
giupn [!upn], which is a difficult detail, showing that this form is older
than that with !/j, in Romanian. It was suggested that this detail would
witness an immediate borrowing from the Slavs (Skok 1936: 34;
Popovi& 1960: 609; Mih"il" 1971: 360). But the hypothesis of an immedi-
ate borrowing does not clarify the problem in its complexity.
(b) For other linguists the origin of the word is unknown (Giuglea 1922:
361; Pu$cariu 1976: 256; Cioranescu 1960 ff.: 458; Coteanu et al. 1975:
482). This undoubtedly is a correct interpretation of the available data but
still does not solve the topic.
(c) Even a Latin origin was once suggested, namely a Late Latin form
*giupanus < Gr. gypA + -*-$nus (Giuglea 1923: 604; reconsidered in
Diculescu 1927).
In our opinion, Rom. giupn and Slavic upan should anyway be dis-
cussed closely connected with cioban, (oban, as long as the two groups
show a similar composition: (o-, (u- as compared to (u- (the Romanian
phonetism is surely the oldest) or )u- in the Slavic area also later in Roma-
nian, in the latter case the phonetic evolution being explainable either as a
normal change from ! [spelled gi] to ) [spelled j] (following the same
phonetic rules like the Latin elements, e.g. Lat. jocus > *!ocu > joc, cf. It.
giuoco) or a Slavic influence supported (and supporting) the normal
internal evolution. This is a secondary aspect, a definite answer being
possible after a general consideration of the forms.
-
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
31
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
32
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
33
The context in which these words are discussed leads to the reconstruc-
tion of a Thracian prototype *!upn-, possibly also *!up2n-, if we accept
the idea that Thracian had a neutral phoneme /2/. As compared with the
previously discussed form *(oban- (in Thracian) developed later into
modern forms like Rom. cioban, Alb. oban, Hung. csobn(y), etc. It is
quite clear that both forms support one another and should be anyway
analyzed together. If our hypothesis is accepted, we face a quite interesting
detail of Thracian (probably, more exactly, Late Thracian) phonetic alter-
nance: *(o-b$n, *(u-b$n- as compared to *!u-p$n-, *!u-p2n-, i.e. (/! and
b$n-/p$n-, p2n-. The author has no miraculous solution in explaining this
particular phenomenon but facts are quite clear (see infra).
(4) St$pn a master, Slavic *stopan% id.
After the previous discussion, it has become hopefully clear that this
word should be discussed in this context. But not always happened so:
(a) It is generally assumed that the word is of Slavic origin in Romanian
(Cihac 18701879, II: 351; Tiktin 19031916: 1483; !"ineanu 1920: 613;
Rosetti 1978: 320; 1986: 287). Indeed similar parallels are present among
Slavic speakers but is the word Slavic?
(b) A Latin origin was also suggested, from *stipanus < stips a small
coin + -$nus (Giuglea 1923, reconsidered by Pu$cariu 1976: 283). It is
also the solution advocated for the previous case giupn (supra).
(c) Latin origin as well but from hospitanus (Bari 1919: 9394).
(d) Unknown origin (Coteanu et al. 1975: 189).
(e) Thracian origin from a prototype akin to German Stab, Sanskrit
sthapyami (Philippide 19231928, II: 14; Prvulescu 1974: 28; Iv"nescu
1980: 254).
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
32
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
33
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
34
It is interesting enough to observe that only this word was tentatively
explained as a Thracian heritage though obviously enough the other forms
are also eloquent in this respect. This solution firstly suggested by Philip-
pide is indoubtedly the only feasible. It is now reconsidered in the light of
the data presented here. The closest parallels are in Sanskrit: staphti,
sth$pana to stay, to maintain, sth$pin image-maker, etc. (cf. Monier
1976: 1262). It is clear therefore that the first of the compound reflects IE
*st$- to be, to stay (Pokorny 1959: 1004; Morris et al. 1979: 1542). The
second part -pn (in Romanian), -pan (among the Slavic speakers) clearly
reflects the already analyzed form -ban, -pan master, lord, leader.
(5) Early attestations of the Thracians forms
A decisive proof of our hypothesis would be the ancient witnesses, the
written testimonies. As long as the Thracian did not write (at least according
to present-day knowledge) the situation seems desperate. Yet, there are
precious Thracian words mainly place-names and personal names preserved
in the Greek and Latin writers. Are these useful to our purpose? Surely yes,
but before analyzing such Thracians forms in Greek or Latin spelling an
important observation: Greek, like Latin, had no special graphic sign for a
series of phonemes like (, !, ), 9 and others, specific even inevitable in a
satem language like Thracian. If a Thracian word had such a specific
phoneme, it is clear that the Greeks could not spell it correctly, deforming it
more or less. Of course, the Greek (or Latin writers) cannot be blamed for
this, as their purpose was not to offer a scientific notation of the words heard
(such a notation would have been impossible anyway), neither could they
foresee the extraordinary importance of their clumsy notations. They simply
aimed at informing their co-nationals about an ethnic or geographic reality. If
these preliminary observations are correctly understood, some Thracian
forms in Greek or Latin spelling are of paramount importance to us.
-
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
33
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
34
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
35
Thus, the reconstructed Thracian word *ban- and *pan-, possibly also
*p2n- is attested in some personal names ending in -paneus, -
B./.1, !B./.61, -panes (De%ev 1957: 42, with reference to the IE root
*p$- to graze, see supra). These forms should be discussed together with
Illyrian Panes (Russu 1969: 231).
It is interesting to observe that some b- forms (witnessing that the
postulated b/p was real in Thracian) appear with the meaning fortress (cf.
the sense house v. master in Persian), e.g. place-name C./D1, in Dacia
Mediterranea, also personal name Bantion (De%ev, 1957). The same
meaning appears with p- spelling in Panion, a city in Propontis, with the
corresponding ethnikon E./FG41, if these forms are really Thracian,
possibly also Scythian or Scythoid (Zgusta 1964: 355).
Giupn, for wich we expect a Thracian prototype *!up$n-, also *!up2n-,
is abundantly attested in somewhat unexpected spellings like Diuppaneus,
Diopanes, HIJB./.61, H0JB./.61, H0JB./.1, Dorpaneus, Diurpaneus
(De%ev 1957: 1941, 150; Russu 1967: 104). The name is mainly known as
that of a Dacian king Duras-Diurpaneus (in our hypothesis, a real pronun-
ciation *Duras- !upan-/!up2n, see infra), mentioned to have reigned
between the death of Burebista and the advent of Decebalus, i.e. first
century A.D. It is for us obvious that the oscillations in spelling diu-, dio-,
dyr-, dor-, etc. are but desperate attempts in noting a phoneme inexistent in
Greek: !. In this view, r in some of these spellings does not reflect any
actual sound /r/ but a pseudo-spelling. The word should have been pro-
nounced *!up$n, *!up2n-, as the parallels clearly show.
Cioban, (oban, with a reconstructed Thracian prototype *(oban-,
*(uban- is identifiable in the form KI-.F/7/ / KI-DF/7/ LMJ01 / =NO4
(De%ev 1957: 269), with the spelling ky- instead of (u-, (o-, for wich Greek
had no graphic equivalent.
St"pn, Sl. stopan+ seemingly has no witness in the Greek and Latin
writers; yet the co-radical place-name PGQ/D1 is attested in the Thracian
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
34
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
35
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
36
territory (Procopius, De aedificiis 4, 4), for which cf. Rom. stn"
sheepfold with Balkanic parallels. The absence of this form in the Greek
or Latin writers dealing with Thracian realities should not impede the
correct understanding of the word as Thracian. It is interesting though that
despite this detail, this was the only word out of all analyzed in this paper
for which the Thracian origin has lately become accepted by several
scholars. It should be anyway viewed in the light of the other parallels with
the similar meaning master, leader.
A similar situation connected to the approximative spelling of the
Thracian words is found in the Mediaeval attestation of giupn/!upan/
)upan. In this respect a particular consideration should be given to an
interesting testimony in an Avar text found in Snnicolau-Mare (Romanian
Banat, West Romania). This testimony is sometimes considered as the
earliest witness in the Middle Ages of a term connected to the social and
political structure of South-East Europe. It is true that the term was in-
tepreted as an Avar influence, but this was in accordance with the largely
spread conceptions concerning the Balkanic civilisation (Machek 1971).
Here is the text:
'()*+ ,(+-+. /012 3)40/(542
'()/+()* ,6+-+. /+47(42 2/,542 /+512
Buila zoapan tsi dgtugi
Butaul zoapan taMruMi i(igi tsi
Buila-8upan made the cup, (this) cup
which Butaul-8upan ordered to be adapted for being hung.
-
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
35
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
36
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
37
This text was analyzed by J. Nmeth (1932) who assumed that the forms
RSTETU and RVTETU should be read *(aban, so Buta-ul (aban
would mean son of Bota [from the breed of] aban, Bujla-aban would
mean Buila [from the breed of] %aban. Nmeth is inclined to find a
support of his hypothesis in Constantin Porphirogenetos (De adm. imp.
37); in this view, the forms have nothing to do with Slavic )upan.
Following our hypothesis, it is most probable that the forms RSTETU,
RVTETU are nothing else than !upan/)upan as terms referring to the
social and political structure of the newcomers. This changes fundamental-
ly classical conceptions which view early south-east European civilisation
as a result of important Oriental (Avar or Turkic in general) influences. In
our view, the newcomers borrowed civilisational terms from the au-
tochthonous inhabitants who anyway had more complex social organisa-
tion. Indeed no Oriental influence can be postulated in either case of those
analysed in this paper.
Discussion
The words analyzed in this paper represent an old Indo-European
heritage transmitted until modern times via Thracian to the whole south-
east area. We started our investigation from Romanian, considered here as
reflecting conservative aspects of the Thracian substratum influence. The
terms considered as Thracian fill an important gap in our knowledge
regarding the social and political structure of the Thracian society, a
structure preserved later in the Middle Ages throughout the Balkans. The
significant spread of the terms in modern times roughly corresponds to the
territory inhabited by thracians. Linguistically, the situation can be summa-
rized thus:
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
36
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
37
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
38
(a) IE *p$-, also *p%i- to protect; to graze
Thracian *b$n- overlord, master, also *-p$n (seemingly only in
compounds).
Rom. ban, Hung. bn (undoubtedly a Romanian influence, not vice-
versa), Serbo-Croatian bn overlord (a specific term of the political
structure). The meaning coin is seemingly derived from that of master,
overlord, possibly at a very early time (late Proto-Indo-European preced-
ing the expansion) as shown by the Old Indian forms (supra).
(b) IE *(s)keu- to cover, to protect
(1) Thracian *(u-b$n-, *(o-b$n- shepherd; (u- forms seem the oldest
reflecting the treatment IE *eu > Thr. :.
Rom. cioban shepherd also recipient, a parallel witnessing an early
development of the meaning to cover (1) to graze sheep, shepherd and
(2) cover, recipient. Meaning recipient is preserved only in Hungarian
and Czech/Slovak as an obvious Romanian influence. Meaning shepherd
is preserved all over the Balkans:: Bulg. (oban, (obanin, S.-Cr. (ban,
(obanin, Alb. oban, Mod. Gr. G?0-W/61; Turkish oban should be regard-
ed as a Persian influence. The Turkish word made the analysis difficult as
many linguists were inclined to consider the south-east European words of
Turkish origin. It is obvious that the Turks could not influence these
languages as long as pastoralism was very developed in this area and could
not be influenced in a way or another by the Turks or the Turkish language
respectively.
(2) Thracian *!u-p$n-, !u-p2n- a lord, master, reflected in Rom. giupn
[!upn], later jupn, also among Slavic speakers in the form )upan.
(c) IE *st$- to stay, to be
Thracian *sta-p$n-, probably also *st2-p2n- master, with second element
like in *ban, *(oban-, *!upan- and their modern preserved equivalents.
-
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
37
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
38
Rom. st"pn master and Slavic reconstructed form *stopan+ (with the
observation that the form is by no means proto-Slavic). Compound built up
as giupn, jupn, !upan.
In the light of the facts presented in this paper, we assume that both
phonetic changes from Proto-Indo-European via Thracian till modern times
and the semantic field do not allow to replace affinities by borrowings
from, e.g. from Turkish or another oriental language. Obviously enough,
the words considered are not Oriental or Slavic (in the sense of Proto-
Slavic). The presence or these forms on a large area in South-East Europe
is normal, reflecting a common cultural pattern (Thracian) and cultural
diffusion.
An interesting question arises: if Romanian may be assumed as preserv-
ing a substratum influence how should be regard the forms in the Slavic
languages? Are they Proto-Romanian or late Thracian terms? An answer to
this question implies an answer to another important question: until when
was Thracian spoken? Did the first Slavs still hear Thracian spoken? These
are complex aspects which require complex investigations. These questions
will not be answered here. We expect further discussions to our paper and
further consideration of the beginnings of early southeast European civili-
sations.
Linguistica (Ljubljana) 27: 111126.
-
Dalmatia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
39
A Pre-Indo-European Place-Name: Dalmatia
Two years ago I ventured to suggest another etymon of the place name
(hereafter PN) Ardeal, the Romanian form for Transylvania and, connected
to this, I also explained the PN Dalmatia (Paliga 1986)1. I shall not rediscuss
the whole topic, yet it is useful to briefly point the essentials of my hypothe-
sis for a larger discussion. I started from the observation that the largely
accepted hypothesis which sees Rom. PN Ardeal as a reflection of Hung.
Erdly is not at all feasible, mainly from reasons of phonetic evolution, as
long as the expected form should have been *Erdei or *Ardei.
We can better understand the situation of this PN if placing it in a reason-
able linguistic-comparative context. As a matter of fact the situation is
simple enough: Ardeal is a compound of the type Ar-deal, ar- (a particle lost
in vocabulary, probably akin to a arunca, a aruca to cast away, throw)
with the reconstructable meaning over, far away, and deal hill, also
forest, very frequent in Romanian place-names. The fact that Ar!deal is a
compound is also supported by obviously similar forms like Subdeal (also
spelled Sub Deal) at the foothill, Pe deal on the hill, La deal uphill. All
these forms are frequent in the so-called minor toponimy as well as in
vocabulary. Reverting to Ar-deal, it should be also observed that the Me-
dieval Latin form Trans-silvania and German berwald (now replaced by
Siebenbrgen) are loan-translations (calques) after Ar-deal. Hung. Erdly is
also a calque but following the rules of derivation in Hungarian: noun +
particle, i. e. Erd!- forest and -elu/-elv > -ely (cf. el!re straightforward,
eltt in front of), as shown and accepted by all Hungarian linguists (cf. Kiss
1980 with further references). What is particularly interesting in this case is
that the calque was doubled by a fortuitous similarity between Ar-deal and
Erdly, which created a confusion of etymological analysis.
1 See the study in the next, 4th volume, of this series.
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
40
Another important point I tried to solve was to observe that what the
linguistic investigation had to clarify was the situation of Rom. deal hill,
also forest as compared to the rare Slavic form d"l# hill. My hypothe-
sis, proved by other parallels (see Table 1 below), is that this Slavic form
has nothing to do with other two homophone roots: d"l-a to make, create
(d"lo work, artifact, etc.) and d"l-b to divide, to part (d"liti, etc). Thus
d"l-c hil' is, unlike the other two roots, non-Slavic, probably borrowed
from the Balcanic substratum. In this case, we must identify, obviously
enough, a Preie. root *D-L/ *T-L (*DaL-, *DeL-, *TaL-, *TeL-, etc.) well
analyzed by various linguists (e.g. Trombetti 1925, Rostaing 1950, Faure
1977). PN Dalmatia is also analyzable from this perspective, being a
compund of the type *DaL-MaT-ia. The second part of the PN is also of
Preie. origin, namely the root *MaT(T)- confused, labyrinthine, from
which several meanings are derived, in this case the most probable being
bush, tree. The general meaning of the compound Dal-mat-ia is there-
fore forested highland. The spread of the Preie. root *DaL- / *DeL- is
briefly sketched in Table 1. The Preie. origin of the PN Dalmatia is in full
agreement with archaeological finds, a very early Neolithic civilization
being well documented along the Adriatic. The PN should be considered
pre-Illyrian.
Linguistica (Ljubljana) 28 (1988):105108
-
Table 1
Survey of the forms derived from the Preie. root *D-L-, *D-L- prominence, hill, mountain
1 No connection with Gr. !"#$%, !&'#$% obvious, evident, which reflects IE *dei-, *deiw- to shine.
2 By hazard similar to !'#()% uterus, matrix.
3 Lat. terra is derived from the parallel Preie. root *T-R-, *D-R- not analysed here.
Illyrian
NPp Dalmatae,
Delmatae,
Delmateis
NR Dalmatia
NL Dalmatas
Thracian
NL Daltarba
NSt Delkos
Romanian
(via Thracian)
deal hill;
forest
NR Ar-deal
over the hill/
forest
NL Subdeal,
Sub-deal, La
Deal, Peste
deal etc.
NL Delea
NL Talma
Greek
NI Delos (The
Cyclades)
NM Delos (1)
(Boeotia)
NL Delphoi (2)
NL Tylissos
(Crete)
NM Talarus
NL Lepa-talea
(Caria)
Etrusco-Latin
Etr. tel hill
?tular
boundary
Lat. tellus (3)
earth
Provence
NL Tallard (<
*Tal-arn-u-)
NL Toulon
Georgian
talaki fertile
soil
-
Centum in lingua Sclavenorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
43
Slavic *s!to - a challenging problem?
In memoriam Francisci Miklosich
Introduction
The numeral 10, given its importance in the archaic barter-based
societies, often puts interesting problems not only of strict linguistic analy-
sis but of extra-linguistic realities as well. Slavic *s!to is a good example which will be reconsidered below. Out of all the Slavic numerals it undoubt-
edly is the most interesting for the linguistic investigation thus compensat-
ing the somewhat obscure points connected with the prehistory of the Slavs
and the assumably rich inter-ethnic contacts.
The existence of similar forms in all the Slavic idioms converging to the
reconstruction of a unique form *s!to does not raise essential problems. Things turn unexpectedly complicated when we try to refer to the Proto-
Indo-European (hereafter PIE) form: *k"#t-m, *k"#t-$, as a variant of *dk"#t-m, *dk"#t-$, obviously related to *dek"# 10. Therefore 10 was viewed by the PIE speakers as ten times ten or amplified ten whereas
1000 was later interpreted as an amplified hundred or big hundred as
revealed by comparative analysis.
In what concerns the Slavic languages the basic problem is that the
reconstructable common form *s!to is not the expected one, i. e. *s%t&, eventually *s%to; furthermore, not only the phoneme % replaced by ! is discouraging, but the ending as well. By comparing 10 with 100 and
1000 (details below) then the general reconstructable form should be
*s%t&. To my knowledge this detail, not at all unimportant, has not been properly considered. If we are to assume that exceptions from the current
phonetic changes occured (e.g. by frequent use of this numeral, cf. Ma!czak
1971) we must equally refer to the obviously related form for 10 and
-
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
44
Centum in lingua Sclavenorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
45
1000 respectively which witness normal phonetic changes. If so, is the
situation of Slavic *s!to really challenging?
10, 100, 1000
Linguistic reconstruction allows to assume a basic PIE form *d(e)k"# 10 as well as a derivative *(d)k"#-t-om > Lat. centum ten times ten (Perotti 1985: 606). It is therefore conceivable that the basic numeral of the PIE
society meant all [ten] fingers of the [two] hands. But as such a small or
low quantity as expressed by this numeral cannot cover important barter
transactions like 100 sheep, 100 cows, 100 pots, etc., which occur very
often,10 became the most important numeral in such instances. This
explains why Finno-Ugric languages witness a borrowing from an Iranic
idiom: Finnish sata, Hungarian szz (Benk" et. al. 19671976, 3, s.v. szz).
The extralinguistic reality was therefore that Iranian tribes, neighbouring the
Finno-Ugric homeland in prehistory, influenced trade life and terminology
as well.
Yet this is not at all an isolated case. Armenian preserves only tasn 10
as an IE heritage. The numeral 100 is unexplained (probably indigenous)
while the form for 1000 is borrowed (Table 1). Albanian witnesses mixed
indigenous and Latin forms, though in some instances it is very difficult to
decide in favour of one of the two possible origins as long as early texts are
not available and contamination had its role. Anyway, Alb. dhjet 10 seems
indigenous, cind 100 reflects Latin centum and mij reflects Lat. mille,
milia (cf. Rom. mie).
The numeral 1000 also poses interesting problems. Though it is not
directly illuminating our topic it is useful for a general background. First of
all it should be noted that PIE probably had no specific form for 1000, the
various IE idioms developing specific forms at later period