Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora | Sorin Paliga .edu

November 13, 2017 | Author: Anonymous | Category: Documents
Share Embed


Short Description

A similar situation connected to the approximative spelling of the Thracian ...... au fost sinonime sau au reflectat num...

Description

Sorin Paliga

Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora

Already published in the series Sorin Paliga, Opera Omnia I Etymological Lexicon of the (Thracian) Elements in Romanian

Indigenous

II Influen!e romane "i preromane în 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 în 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-Zîmbreasca 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 România 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

Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora

Bucure"ti 2007

Contents / Cuprins Cuvânt înainte Foreword

7 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 Romanian Definite Article Revisited

175 183

Herrscherschaft and Herrschersuffix in Central-East European Languages Ten Theses on Romanian Etymology

195 209

II. Ardeal, Transilvania

235

Zeit#!i feminine ale basmelor române"ti: zînele "i sînzienele. Originea cuvintelor "i a cultului profan

243

Civiliza!ia vechilor „urbieni”

255

Toponimul Cluj

267

Pururi = „focuri”

281

Originea Albanezilor

285

Un cuvînt str#vechi – ora#

291

Toponimia arhaic# a României

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!# în tracologia lingvistic#

299

III. La divinité suprème des Thraco-daces

317

Devenir et aspectualisation. Encore une fois sur le verbe slave

331

Aperçu de la structure étymologique du Roumain

345

Bibliographia

353

Rodicæ uxori suaviter, Roræ Dainæ Mariæ filiæ dulcissimæ, Atque filiis Michaeli Uaro et Bucuro Johanni dedicatur

Exordium dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

Cuvânt înainte

Al treilea volum al acestei serii cuprinde majoritatea studiilor publicate în diverse reviste de specialitate. Fiind vorba de studii scrise de!a lungul a aproximativ 25 de ani, unele revizuite !i completate, iar altele incluse în alte lucr"ri (cum ar fi volumele precedente ale acestei serii, alte câteva fiind incluse în 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 încadreaz" mai bine volumului urm"tor, care va cuprinde câteva 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 în trac"). Dat fiind c" unele studii au ap"rut deja în Thracian and Pre!Thracian Studies (ed. Lucretius, Bucure!ti 1999), iar – între 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 române, rela#iile slavo!române, influen#ele de substrat asupra limbilor slave etc.) nu este simplu de trasat, am considerat util" ordonarea pe criteriul limbii în care au fost publicate studiile care este, în bun" m"sur", !i o ordonare tematic". Primele sunt studiile în limba englez", cele mai numeroase de altfel !i, de fapt, cu acestea am debutat în lumea !tiin#ific" în anii ’80, pe când revistele de specialitate din România au amânat 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 în Linguistica, World Archaeology, The Journal of Indo!European Studies !i, nu în ultimul rând, în Slavisti!na Revija (în limba sloven", dar fiind traduceri dup" originalul în limba englez") au fost ini#ial rescrise de autor pe baza versiunii în limba român". Nu am mai revenit asupra formei __________________________________________________________________ 7

Etymologica-anthropologica / Exordium __________________________________________________________________

ini#iale, nici nu le!am retradus în limba român". Cum timpul trece, ni s!a p"rut mai util s" relu"m, cu noi argumente, datele mai vechi, astfel c" studiile în limba englez" nu au, în general, versiuni în limba român", de!i unele abordeaz" teme similare. Partea a doua include studiile în limba român", 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 române !i la rela#iile româno!slave (câteva !i la cele româno!maghiare), în acest fel cititorul va avea !i o organizare tematic". În sfâr!it, ultimele studii sunt cele în limba francez", publicate în Dialogues d’historie ancienne. Poate ar trebui s" argumentez de ce am ales titlul Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora. Fiecare dintre aceste studii în parte !i toate în 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. 7500–3500 a. $ Ch.); 2. $ invazia indo!european": conturarea limbilor !i culturilor antichit"#ii (3400–1200 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 în sens larg, privitoare la probleme esen#iale ale cercet"rii etimologice: rolul stratului pre!indo!european în conturarea profilului etno!cultural al Europei; problema mo!tenirii indo!europene !i felul în care acest strat lingvistic mai nou s!a amalgamat cu cel str"vechi, pre!indo!european; substratul limbilor slave !i problema rela#iilor slavo!române; elementele traco!dace ale limbii române. Multe dintre aceste studii pot fi considerate „studii de caz” ce completeaz" ori argumenteaz" datele prezentate în ampla lucrare de sintez" Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian. Sorin Paliga August 2006 __________________________________________________________________ 8

Exordium anglice __________________________________________________________________

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, SlavicRomanian 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 1980’s, 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 __________________________________________________________________ 9

Etymologica-anthropologica / Exordium __________________________________________________________________

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 d’historie 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. 7500–3500 B.C.); 2."The Indo!European invasion, which led to the making of ancient languages and cultures (3400–1200 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

__________________________________________________________________ 10

I In English Anglice

Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces __________________________________________________________________

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 expressing the notion township and/or fortress, (2) to connect these terms to evidently (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 __________________________________________________________________ 13

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

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-Ridentified in the Mediterranean region and whose meaning should be reconstructed 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 Provençal and Catalan brac ‘a moor’, place-name (hereafter PN) SaintMartin-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 dhatë ‘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 1929–1934: 181). Three other modern Romanian towns preserve the same element: Deda, Deta (cf. Thr. Datos) and Dej (formerly __________________________________________________________________ 14

Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces __________________________________________________________________

*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 Asbolodina, 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 mountainname (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 pairida"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__________________________________________________________________ 15

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

‘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 therefore ‘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 socalled 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 Thracians 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 supported 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 __________________________________________________________________ 16

Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces __________________________________________________________________

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’; Provençal ‘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!gán, Bîrg?u (< *BaR-g-), and MN Parî@ 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. __________________________________________________________________ 17

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

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-Europeanisation 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__________________________________________________________________ 18

Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces __________________________________________________________________

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 linguistically, 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 Neolithic times: the dawn of the European civilization. __________________________________________________________________ 19

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

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 identified 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 PreThracian (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. 23–29)

__________________________________________________________________ 20

De structura societatis Europæ vulturnæ __________________________________________________________________

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 Romanian 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 substratum influence quite homogeneous in its phonetic changes and, generally, in its linguistic phenomena. 1

The Thracian tribes inhabited a large part of contemporary Serbia. __________________________________________________________________ 21

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

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) giupîn (pronounced !upîn), later jupîn ‘master’ (cf. ban); (4) st"pîn ‘master’. At a first sight, all these forms witness a common component: ban, -pan > -pîn, 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 1870–1879, 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, bán) (b) A version of the previous hypothesis is that in Romanian the word should be explained as a Hungarian influence (Tiktin 1903–1916: 152; DA I: 471; Iorga 1905, I: 135; !"ineanu 1929: 52; Cior"nescu 1960 ff.: 64, with hesitations; Tamás 1967: 90; Mih"il" 1974: 74). (c) Slavic or Hungarian origin (Coteanu et al. 1975: 72). Such an undecided 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; __________________________________________________________________ 22

De structura societatis Europæ vulturnæ __________________________________________________________________

1886: 7; Matzenauer 1870: 103). It can be easily argued that such a hypothesis 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. bán 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 original form being bojan, hence ban (Berneker 1908–1913: 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) responsible 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 distribution 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 împrumutat"? (Is boyardom a borrowed institution?) in the preceding volume. __________________________________________________________________ 23

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

above] just as the Italians call the coin of a duke ducato and the English call the coin of a Sovereign sovereign” (Hasdeu 1887–1888: 2448). This explanation has been accepted by many other linguists (Tiktin 1903–1916: 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 (Tamás 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"ná ‘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 circumstances 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 __________________________________________________________________ 24

De structura societatis Europæ vulturnæ __________________________________________________________________

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 *péH3 > *p%- ‘to drink’). The Indo-European root of these forms is quite clear: on the one hand *p$- ‘to protect, to feed’, on the other hand *p%i- ‘to protect the cattle, to graze’. These two roots are separtely analyzed by Pokorny (1959: 782, 839), also separately but nothing their probable initial kinship in Morris et al. 1979: 1532, 1535. Secondly, the meaning ‘coin, money’ of ban seems to have cognate parallels in Old Indian: pa&a' ‘a kind of coin’ (Mayrofer 1953, II: 196), pa& ‘to honor, buy, negotiate’, pa&a ‘to play for winning; coin; house’ (Monier 1976: 580). Are these similarities simple hazard? They might be, though it is difficult to think so. In this perspective, it would be perhaps useful to revert to Hasdeu's opinion that “the ban is the coin used under the authority of a Ban”, observing that the parallel ‘lord, master’– ‘coin’ seems to be much older than Hasdeu thought, perhaps preserving a sense developed in the satem area. We suggest therefore to consider the double meaning of ban not a result of simple hazard but the preservation of very old parallel of sense ‘overlord, master’ – ‘coin’3. It is not the purpose of this paper to consider the beginnings of trade and coinage, but to draw attention on some interesting aspects. Summing up, it can be surmised that Thracian had a form *b$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. __________________________________________________________________ 25

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

(2) Cioban [!oban] ‘recipient, pot’ and ‘shepherd’. (Meaning ‘shepherd’ 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. csobány ‘wooden pot’, also csobán(y) ‘shepherd’; Old Czech (bán, mod d)bán ‘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 bán > Hung. csobány (Benk# et al. 1967: 545), with the observation that probably there is no connection between csobán ‘shepherd’ and csobán(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. __________________________________________________________________ 26

De structura societatis Europæ vulturnæ __________________________________________________________________

(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)bán [how?], the situation as a whole remaining as confuse as before (Miklosich 1886: 37). (b) For Berneker, the Slavic word is ‘dunkel’(‘obscure’) (Berneker 1908–1913: 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 1955–1965 : 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 [(úb2r], German Zuber, which are considered “pra-evropské” (pre-Indo-European? 6). The facts could be therefore summarized thus: (I) In Hungarian both csobán pot and csobán(y) ‘shepherd’ are borrowings; 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 1968–1980: 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. __________________________________________________________________ 27

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

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 1903–1916: 354, “balkanisches Wort”; Löbel 1894: 32; !"ineanu 1900, II: 128; 1929: 130; Pu$cariu et al. 1916 ff., II: 435, with the precious observation that the word occurs rarely in MacedoRomanian; Pu$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 Romanians. 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 __________________________________________________________________ 28

De structura societatis Europæ vulturnæ __________________________________________________________________

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, important 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: 95–141; 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 1887–1898: 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. __________________________________________________________________ 29

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

(2) ‘care, defence’: OHD huota Germ. Hut, f. (3) ‘to graze, shepherd’: MHG hüeten, OHG huotan, huoten Germ. Hüter ‘shepherd’, behüten ‘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$;su-k:la ‘priest garment’, Arm. ?301 ‘female genitalia’, Cymric cwd ‘Hodensack’; (4) ‘pot, recipient’: OInd. kó@a, ku@apa-, ku@ayá-; (Pokorny 1959: 951; Morris et al. 1979: 1540). It is clear now that Rom. cioban [oban] together with its Persian correspondent forms (oban, (uban, (upan, which are for long known as the origin of the turkish word (oban ‘shepherd’ must be explained as a compound with the first part IE *(s)keu- ‘to cover, to protect’ and the second part b$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 çoban 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 considered in this paper. This will be clearer if referring to other examples. __________________________________________________________________ 30

De structura societatis Europæ vulturnæ __________________________________________________________________

(3) Cioban, !oban ‘shepherd’ and giupîn, "upan, jupîn, #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 1870–1879, II: 161; Tiktin 1903–1916: 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 !: giupîn [!upîn], 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 immediate 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. giupîn and Slavic ìupan should anyway be discussed 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 Romanian, 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. __________________________________________________________________ 31

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

The context in which these words are discussed leads to the reconstruction of a Thracian prototype *!upîn-, 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. çoban, Hung. csobán(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 alternance: *(o-b$n, *(u-b$n- as compared to *!u-p$n-, *!u-p2n-, i.e. (/! and b$n-/p$n-, p2n-. The author has no miraculous solution in explaining this particular phenomenon but facts are quite clear (see infra). (4) St$pîn 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 1870–1879, II: 351; Tiktin 1903–1916: 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 giupîn (supra). (c) Latin origin as well but from hospitanus (Bari 1919: 93–94). (d) Unknown origin (Coteanu et al. 1975: 189). (e) Thracian origin from a prototype akin to German Stab, Sanskrit sthapáyami (Philippide 1923–1928, II: 14; Pârvulescu 1974: 28; Iv"nescu 1980: 254). __________________________________________________________________ 32

De structura societatis Europæ vulturnæ __________________________________________________________________

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 Philippide is indoubtedly the only feasible. It is now reconsidered in the light of the data presented here. The closest parallels are in Sanskrit: stapháti, 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 -pîn (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. __________________________________________________________________ 33

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

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$- ‘to graze’, see supra). These forms should be discussed together with Illyrian Panes (Russu 1969: 231). It is interesting to observe that some b- forms (witnessing that the postulated b/p was real in Thracian) appear with the meaning ‘fortress’ (cf. the sense house v. master in Persian), e.g. place-name C./D1, in Dacia Mediterranea, also personal name Bantion (De%ev, 1957). The same meaning appears with p- spelling in Panion, a city in Propontis, with the corresponding ethnikon E./FG41, if these forms are really Thracian, possibly also Scythian or Scythoid (Zgusta 1964: 355). Giupîn, for wich we expect a Thracian prototype *!up$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 pronunciation *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 pronounced *!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"pîn, 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 __________________________________________________________________ 34

De structura societatis Europæ vulturnæ __________________________________________________________________

territory (Procopius, De aedificiis 4, 4), for which cf. Rom. stîn" ‘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 giupîn/!upan/ )upan. In this respect a particular consideration should be given to an interesting testimony in an Avar text found in Sînnicolau-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 intepreted 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 täsi dügätugi Butaul zoapan taMruMi i(igi täsi Buila-8upan made the cup, (this) cup which Butaul-8upan ordered to be adapted for being hung.

__________________________________________________________________ 35

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

This text was analyzed by J. Németh (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’. Németh 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 fundamentally 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 autochthonous inhabitants who anyway had more complex social organisation. 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 southeast 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 summarized thus:

__________________________________________________________________ 36

De structura societatis Europæ vulturnæ __________________________________________________________________

(a) IE *p$-, also *p%i- ‘to protect; to graze’ Thracian *b$n- ‘overlord, master’, also *-p$n (seemingly only in compounds). Rom. ban, Hung. bán (undoubtedly a Romanian influence, not viceversa), Serbo-Croatian bàn ‘overlord’ (a specific term of the political structure). The meaning ‘coin’ is seemingly derived from that of ‘master, overlord’, possibly at a very early time (late Proto-Indo-European preceding the expansion) as shown by the Old Indian forms (supra). (b) IE *(s)keu- ‘to cover, to protect’ (1) Thracian *(u-b$n-, *(o-b$n- ‘shepherd’; (u- forms seem the oldest reflecting the treatment IE *eu > Thr. :. Rom. cioban ‘shepherd’ also ‘recipient’, a parallel witnessing an early development of the meaning ‘to cover’ – (1) ‘to graze sheep, shepherd’ and – (2) ‘cover, recipient’. Meaning ‘recipient’ is preserved only in Hungarian and Czech/Slovak as an obvious Romanian influence. Meaning ‘shepherd’ is preserved all over the Balkans:: Bulg. (oban, (obanin, S.-Cr. (óban, (obanin, Alb. çoban, Mod. Gr. G?0-W/61; Turkish çoban should be regarded as a Persian influence. The Turkish word made the analysis difficult as many linguists were inclined to consider the south-east European words of Turkish origin. It is obvious that the Turks could not influence these languages as long as pastoralism was very developed in this area and could not be influenced in a way or another by the Turks or the Turkish language respectively. (2) Thracian *!u-p$n-, !u-p2n- ‘a lord, master’, reflected in Rom. giupîn [!upîn], later jupîn, 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. __________________________________________________________________ 37

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

Rom. st"pîn ‘master’ and Slavic reconstructed form *stopan+ (with the observation that the form is by no means proto-Slavic). Compound built up as giupîn, jupîn, !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 ProtoSlavic). 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 preserving 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 civilisations. Linguistica (Ljubljana) 27: 111–126.

__________________________________________________________________ 38

Dalmatia __________________________________________________________________

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 hypothesis for a larger discussion. I started from the observation that the largely accepted hypothesis which sees Rom. PN Ardeal as a reflection of Hung. Erdély 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 reasonable 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 Medieval Latin form Trans-silvania and German Überwald (now replaced by Siebenbürgen) are loan-translations (calques) after Ar-deal. Hung. Erdély 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 Erdély, which created a confusion of etymological analysis. 1

See the study in the next, 4th volume, of this series. __________________________________________________________________ 39

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

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 hypothesis, 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 therefore ‘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):105–108

__________________________________________________________________ 40

Table 1 Survey of the forms derived from the Preie. root *D-L-, *D-L- ‘prominence, hill, mountain’ Illyrian NPp Dalmatae, Delmatae, Delmateis NR Dalmatia NL Dalmatas

1 2 3

Thracian NL Dalátarba 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’

Georgian

Provence NL Tallard (< *Tal-arn-u-) NL Toulon

talaki ‘fertile soil’

Lat. tellus (3) ‘earth’

No connection with Gr. !"#$%, !&'#$% ‘obvious, evident’, which reflects IE *dei-, *deiw- ‘to shine’. By hazard similar to !'#()% ‘uterus, matrix’. Lat. terra is derived from the parallel Preie. root *T-R-, *D-R- not analysed here.

Centum in lingua Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

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 analysis 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 undoubtedly is the most interesting for the linguistic investigation thus compensating 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 ProtoIndo-European (hereafter PIE) form: *k" #t-óm, *k" #t-$, as a variant of *dk" #t-óm, *dk" #t-$, 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 __________________________________________________________________ 43

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

‘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 száz (Benk" et. al. 1967–1976, 3, s.v. száz). 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 mijë 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 periods. The recon" heslo- with the would-be meaning ‘1000’ is structed pseudo-PIE form *g based on too little solid data (Pokorny 1959: 446; Morris et al. 1979: 1518). " hsl!yo!) as well Anyway it is supposed to explain Greek forms for ‘1000’ (*g __________________________________________________________________ 44

Centum in lingua Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

as Latin form (*sm'- one + a form *gzhl'!). These opinions seem to be rather desperate attempts in instances when the PIE vocabulary can hardly explain later realities. The Indo-Iranian group witnesses forms derived with sa- ’one’ + a form " heslo-, though a relationconsidered derived from the same primitive root *g ship with Skr. sáhas- ‘power, force’ is also possible (Simenschy and Iv#nescu 1981: 311). Other languages like Armenian and Hungarian borrowed Iranic forms for ‘1000’ (see table 1) whereas Finnish borrowed the corresponding numeral from the Germanic neighbours. On the other hand Georgian developed this numeral as ‘ten hundred’ (Table 2). Most relevant for our topic and preparing further developments regarding the situation of the numeral ‘10’ in Proto-Slavic is the situation of the numeral ‘1000’ in Slavic1, Baltic and Germanic. As Table 4 shows, both numerals for ‘10’ and ‘1000’ in Proto-Slavic witness forms with normal phonetic evolution, in the latter case with a construction of the type *tu- > *ty- +‘10’, i.e. *ty-s%t&, *ty-s%ta ‘amplified hundred’ or ‘big hundred’. These are important details showing that, quite probably, the archaic Proto-Slavic form for ‘10’ had been *s%t&, later replaced by *s!to. But before developing this point it should be noted that similar constructions for ‘1000’ are witnessed in Baltic and Germanic. If the convergent forms in Baltic and Slavic put no major problems as long as the two linguistic group developed many similar forms, the existence of a similar numeral in Germanic (built therefore on the same model *tu- + ‘100’) poses some uncomfortable problems. Machek (1971: 643) tried to solve this difficult problem by assuming that Germanic forms are not indigenous (i. e. not following phonetic rules of evolution from PIE to Germanic) but borrowed from Slavic. Yet Germanists 1

Old Church Slavonic (hereafter OCS) *t!ma is also attested with the meaning ‘very much, myriads’ sometimes even ‘ten thousand’. It was calqued in Old Romanian by întunerec ‘darkness’ (L. Djamo-Diaconi$# in Olteanu, ed. 1975: 103, n. 1). This particularily interesting semantic evolution can be explained by the association ‘night’ – ‘many stars’, eventually ‘dark sky’ (e.g. before the storm), ‘many birds’ etc. __________________________________________________________________ 45

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

usually suppose a proto-form *tus-hundi therefore *tus- + ‘100’), the first part of the compound being seemingly derived from IE *t(u-, *t)u-, *tew)- ‘to swell’ (Pokorny 1959: 1080, cf. Arm. t"iv ‘number’; further Wasserzieher 1979: 230; Morris et. al. 1979: 1546). It is not easy to conciliate the two views yet it can be easily observed that Proto-Slavic *ty-s%t&, *ty-s%ta is based on a normal phonetic evolution and is surely indigenous. If we are to accept Machek’s hypothesis (to which the present author also inclines) then a reconstructable Germanic form *tusundi (not *tus-hundi) may be considered borrowed from Slavic *ty-s%t& or rather from the parallel form *ty-s*t&, the Germanic speakers hearing Slavic y (still short u) as u, the nasal * as un and the group t& as ti. As we see, nothing opposes Machek's theory and it should be carefully reconsidered.2 Slavic *s!to and related problems Given these details a question arises: if ‘10’ and even ‘1000’ witness a normal phonetic evolution from PIE to Proto-Slavic, furthermore ProtoSlavic ‘1000’ was probably (or at least possibly) borrowed by the neighbouring Germanic speakers at a quite early stage, why ‘100’ poses such 2

To my knowledge the hypothesis that Baltic, Slavic and Germanic might reflect a loan-translation (calque) after an indigenous (pre-Indo-European) model has never been advanced though it seems to me perfectly feasible. Further details should be of course considered (e.g. whether Germanic calqued the model as well or simply borrowed it from Slavic after the calque had previously occurred). As long as the purpose of this paper is not to solve such a most debated or debatable topic, I only limit myself to pointing it. Finally an eventual hypothesis that Baltic, Slavic and Germanic developed convergent forms at a later, pre-expansion PIE phase, is not feasible as long as Baltic and Slavic, on the one hand, and Germanic, on the other, belong to the satem and centum group respectively. It may be surmised that the convergent forms in these languages reflect innovations, borrowings or calques (the linguists should decide) which occurred at a later, post-PIE phase. The hypothesis that these forms might be calques after a pre-IE model is supported by the situation in Georgian where the connection between‘100’ and ‘1000’ is obvious, the latter being ‘ten hundred’ (cf. Table 2). __________________________________________________________________ 46

Centum in lingua Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

problems of phonetic evolution? Of course, we might think there may have been exceptions from the normal phonetic evolution or that usage changed the initial form. These are, in fact, hypotheses advanced faute de mieux. If we really attempt to giving a reasonable explanation we should adopt the hypothesis that Slavic form was probably borrowed. This was evident to many scholars (e. g. Mikkola 1913–1950, 1: 69). Other Slavists quote this as a possibility though are not inclined to adopt it (e. g. Vasmer 1953–1958, 3: 15; Skok 1971– 1974, 3: 336, both with further references). Indeed, Iranic may be a plausible source as long as Finno-Ugric languages also borrowed an Iranic form. The problem is that Iranic forms witness a vowel grade of the root (Avestan sat)m) whereas Slavic form leads to a basic form *sut(therefore *sut)m, in the hypothesis of an Iranic source), to my knowledge never attested or reconstructable for an Iranic idiom. In present author’s view, the Iranian connection cannot offer a good explanation and it should be abandoned. The fact that many Slavists have not adopted it may also be a proof that it is not convincing enough. But what other source can be invoked? Obviously, it should be a satem language spoken by an ethnic group neighbouring the Slavic homeland which can be now assumed as being north from the Carpathians, in what is today south Poland and southwest Ukraine (Gimbutas 1971; Vá!a 1983). The geographical distribution of the Slavs and their neighbours is shown in Figure 1. In the light of the data known it may be therefore assumed that: (1) Slavic *s!to cannot be borrowed from any centum idiom, therefore Germanic and Celtic cannot be invoked; (2) Baltic idioms cannot equally explain the Slavic form though they are closely related; (3) Iranian cannot be invoked either, as long as no proto-form like *sut)m can be plausibly reconstructed. Eliminating these possibilities our analysis can now refer to the last two ones: Illyrian and Thracian. Illyrian can be practically excluded because historical, archaelogical or linguistic data do not allow to invoke Illyrian as __________________________________________________________________ 47

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

a source for Slavic *s!to. Indeed, contacts between the Slavs and the Illyrians must have been accidental whereas a word like *s!to requires constant, long and systematic links. This leads finally to the last possibility which may ultimately illuminate the whole topic: the Thracian connection.3 Romanian sut", Slavic *s!to and related aspects It was once common to explain Rom. sut+ as reflecting a Slavic borrowing (%#ineanu 1929: 632; Pu&cariu 1976 [1st ed. 1940] :275; Schmid 1964: 196; Vasmer 1955–58, 3: 15; Rosetti 1986: 135, 280 who invokes a very old borrowing when the treatment Slavic ! > Romanian u was possible 4; Raevskij and Gabinskij 1978: 411). Newer investigations doubt the Slavic origin of Rom. sut+ (Mih#il# 1971: 360; Fischer 1985: 105–6), quote it as unknown origin (Coteanu et. al. 1975: 919) or specifically consider Rom. sut+ a substratum (North-Thracian or Dacian) element (Giuglea 1983: 316; 1988: 359; Pârvulescu 1974). An isolated hypothesis sees both Romanian and Slavic words for ‘100’ as borrowed from the same Iranian source (Slu&anschi in Slu&anschi and Wald 1987: 265, n. 16). 3

The hypothesis that Slavic *s!to might reflect a north-Thracian (Dacian) borrowing was firstly advanced by C. Daicoviciu (1956: 120). It was a brilliant observation due to an authoritative historian, though his comment was only en passant, without the necessary demonstration. It should be recorded for the history of the topic. The present paper has been worked out independently of that brief study and with totally other arguments. 4 The treatment Slavic ! > Rom. u (stressed, as in sút+) was never possible and is not supported by any example at all. The deeply rooted idea that Rom. sut+ reflects a Slavic influence was also (or mainly) due to a graphic illusion, when *s!to was transcribed *s,to, a common way in the last century (e.g. Miklosich 1886) and even now when special characters are a problem in working with computers or traditional printing methods, e.g. Raevskij and Gabinskij 1978: 411, in the latter case with the transcription *s-to, presumably a misprint. Summing up, *s!to and *s,to are simple conventions, but sometimes graphic illusions as well. __________________________________________________________________ 48

Centum in lingua Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

Reviewing the various hypotheses advanced to explaining rom. sut+ we can observe that the Slavic origin, formerly usually admitted, is now difficult to be accepted. Such a hypothesis was once advanced and then rapidly adopted (already in the 19th century) when the problems connected with the substratum heritage in Romanian were not properly approached. For many linguists it was (and sometimes still is) easier to equate Rom. sut+ < Sl. *s!to (formerly spelled *s,to, a graphic illusion which supported the hypothesis of the Slavic origin of this numeral in Romanian) then to assume, for instance, that both forms might be in fact related, urverwandt, at a larger IE scale. Finally, the isolated hypothesis advanced by D. Slu&anschi (mentioned above) does not solve this complex problem, moreover complicates it without reason and without perspective. These facts require answers to other details essential to a correct understanding of the topic in its complexity, i. e.: (1) The treatment of IE sonants in Thracian as compared to other IE idioms, Slavic included; (2) The possible witnesses of ancient texts referring to Thracian forms, and (3) When and how the Slavs presumably borrowed a North-Thracian (Dacian) form for ‘100’ which subsequently replaced the inherited ProtoSlavic form *s!to. The final part of this paper is dedicated to these aspects. (1) IE sonants in Thracian and connected problems (Table 3) As long as both Thracians and Proto-Slavs did not use writing what can the linguistic analysis illuminate in such a difficult point of investigation? Of course, the linguist cannot offer miraculous solutions but can infer data from known elements. Such a case is the reconstructable (as plausible as possible) evolution of the IE sonants to Thracian as compared to other IE idioms. Investigations of the last 20–30 years have shown that indeed IE *# and *. resulted in Thracian *um, *un (Georgiev 1957: 81, reviewed in Poghirc __________________________________________________________________ 49

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

1969: 316–317). Nevertheless a major corrigendum is necessary at this point: the phonetic treatment IE *#, *. > Thr. *um, *un is not specific to only the southern branch of the Thracian family but obviously enough to its northern branch as well (with a slight difference, see below), fact proved among other details by the inheritied substratum form sut+ in Romanian and by the borrowed form *s!to in Slavic. But not only by this. A recent observation due to the late Professor Gh. Iv#nescu (1980: 258) noted that Rom. burt+ ‘belly, womb’ (used when referring to a pregnant woman, also to a fat person in general) reflects IE *bh/t-, root *bher- ‘to carry, to bear children’ (Pokorny 1959: 128; Morris et. al. 1979: 1509). The Romanian form has immediate parallel in German Ge-burt, related to Bahre ‘a stretcher’ (Wasserzieher 1979: 24), detail showing that IE */ had similar treatments in Thracian and Germanic. In the light of these data, we have therefore at least two clear examples proving the treatment of IE sonants into Thracian: IE *# > Thr. *um, n, later also u (in some northern dialects, including the dialect from which Slavic *s!to was borrowed), e. g. IE *k" #t!$ > Thr. *sunt-, sut- (most probably *sunt) and *sut)), hence Rom. sut+ (final -+ very probably reflects a similar or identical phoneme in Thracian).5 IE */ > Thr. *ur, e. g. *bh/t- (root *bher-) > Thr. *burt- > Rom. burt+ ‘belly, womb’. Is there possible to identify other examples reflecting the same treatment of the IE sonants into Thracian? The success depends, as always in such instances when written texts are absent, on the good intuition of the linguist when choosing the possible primitive root and the possible parallels. It also depends on other linguists accepting or not a given example. In author’s view, the two examples quoted above are a minimum sufficient for our 5

If our reconstruction has been sufficiently correct, then the most probable form for ‘10’ in Thracian should have been *désunt (in southern dialects) and *d)sut (in northern dialects). Also possible are the forms *d)súnt, *d)sút, if we accept the idea (well supported by various data) that Thracian has at least one neutral vowel of the type /)/. __________________________________________________________________ 50

Centum in lingua Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

purpose. Another possible example is offered by Rom. a se gudura (referring to dogs) to express happiness by rubbing the body against master’s legs. It is an obvious archaic term connected to pastoral life where dogs are indispensable in guarding the sheep; the word has a clear Albanian parallel gudulís ‘to tickle, titillate’. The suggested IE form is *gh.d-, root *ghend-, ghed- ‘to seize, grasp, take’ (hence also English get, for-get , Lat. pr(a)ehendere, etc.; further forms in Pokorny 1959: 437; Morris et. al. 1979: 1517-8). If our solution is accepted then the reconstructable phonetic change is: IE *gh.d- (< *ghend-) > Thr. *gud-ur-/-ul- > Rom. gudur-a, Alb. gudulí!s. 6 The list may of course continue, but the treatment of IE sonants into Thracian and other idioms should be the subject of a paper apart. (2) Reverting to Rom. sut+ and its obvious substratum origin, another question arises: was the Thracian word attested in an ancient text? The question may seem absurd as long as the Thracians did not probably use writing save perhaps for magic and ritual purposes in restraint circles of connoisseurs. Nevertheless we have an important corpus of Thracians names (place-names and personal names) of much use whenever possible (De'ev 1957). In what sense can this corpus be relevant to our topic? Before answering the question it should be noted that Romanian witnesses the existence of personal names derived from sut+ ‘100’, like: sut+, Suteanu (sut+ + -eanu), Sutescu (sut+ + -escu) (Iordan 1983: 431). Such a detail is extremely precious because it proves that personal names derived from the numeral ‘100’ do exist, initially perhaps nicknames, or nicknames 6

The Albanian parallel may reflect an Illyrian prototype (in the hypolthesis that Albanian really is a neo-Illyrian idiom) or a Thracian prototype (if we assume that Albanian is of Thracian origin). Given the polemic discussions regarding the Albanian ethnogenesis, I only point out the parallel Rom. a se gudura ~ Alb. gudulís. In the light of newest data and arguments, Albanian is a neo-Thracian, rather than neo-Illyrian, language. But the problem is really complex... __________________________________________________________________ 51

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

too (though not necessarily ironically given) reflecting trade activities like someone having ‘100’ sheep and the like. Some Thracian forms might be relevant in this sense: (a) Thr. personal name 01234125 (Sountous, Suntus) (De'ev 1957: 470). (b) 0126412-76315, 0128412-76315, epithets for Heros, the Thracian knight (op. cit. 468). The latter two names (god-names or heroic names) witness a second element -l(nos, unclear etymologically yet attested in other god-names like 92:; *u (north dialects, including the dialects from which Slavic form was borrowed). The hypothesis that Sl. *s!to might reflect an Iranian influence should be __________________________________________________________________ 54

Centum in lingua Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

abandoned because it is not supported by the phonetic laws reconstructed for the Iranic branch of the IE family. To the question: was *s!to the only north-Thracian influence on Slavic? The answer is: of course not. Slavists have lately agreed that north-Thracian (Dacian) influence on Slavic should have been important though we are still far from a coherent view in this sense. The present paper has shown only one aspect out of many others to be analyzed in this; it is therefore mainly an invitation to further discussions7. First version in Slovene with an English abstract in Slavisti=na Revija (Ljubljana) 36, 4 (1988): 349–358.

7

See also the study 100 Slavic Basic Roots, in volume 4 of this series . __________________________________________________________________ 55

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________ Table 1Table 1 Numerals ‘10’, ‘100’, ‘1000’ in the Indo-European Languages ‘10’ *dek" #

‘100’ *(d)k" #-t-óm, *(d)k" #-t-$

OCS Baltic: Lith. Latv. O. Ind. Avestan N. Pers. Arm. Germanic Gothic Celtic: O.I. Kimric

*des%t& de?imt desmit daBa dasa

(*s%t&) replaced by *s!to ?imtas simts Batám sat)m

tasn *tehun taihun deich deg

harivr (< Preie.) *hundan hund c(t cant

Cornic Breton Tokh. A/B Lat. Greek Eolic

dek dek A: (äk/ B: (ak decem DEFG

cans kant A: känt/ B: känte centum ‘ 9

*ty-s%t&, *ty-s%ta t@kstantis t@ksto?, tukstuAts sa-hásram ha-za!r)m haz$r hazar (< N. Pers.) *thus-hundi C@-hundi

m'lle, m'lia IE77818 I(?*A+,C (also $>?*+,&, $>?"A+,C), name of a plant with aromatic roots (name derived from its probable small size), $>?+,&, a measure for grain (i. e. ‘small measure’). For all these words, present in southeast Europe and even in an Uralic idiom, a primitive root with the meaning ‘small, little’ may be reconstructed. Two questions may now arise: (a) What can there be the relation between the two meanings ‘bush, tree’ and ‘small, little’? The answer seems logically easy: it can be supposed that the oldest meaning for the group ‘bush, tree’ was also ‘small’, i. e. ‘small tree or plant’. Later the two groups became independent (perhaps already in Preie. times) and the speakers did not feel the initial connection any more. __________________________________________________________________ 162

De metallis __________________________________________________________________

(b) In what way are these forms relevant to our problem, the origin of the PN =>?+,&, and consequently, the primitive etymon of the term ‘copper’? It should be remembered that the root *KoB-/KoP- was discussed in the case of several place-names (Trombetti 1925; Rostaing 1950). It may be of course questioned whether all these forms really repose on a primitive root with the meaning ‘small, little’, eventually whether all these forms really have a common origin. In my opinion at least some (if not all) of these forms reflect the preservation of an archaic Preie. root. The spread of the forms from west to south and southeast Europe is normal as long as many other examples confirm it. The PN Kypros cannot be any longer considered enigmatic as long as many others parallels can be quoted. Yet I have not answered the most important question: what is the connection between the primitive meaning ‘small, little’ and the name KDpros? Surely, it is not a small island, therefore a primitive meaning ‘small island’ can be easily rejected. A second hypothesis assumes that the PN is related – in a way or another – to kypárissos ‘cypress’, mainly because this tree is abundant on the island (Guyot and Gibassier 1960: 33–4). A third possibility – which I support in the context discussed – is that initially the name of the island was derived from something which had had the meaning ‘small, little’. This was the primitive Preie. name for ‘copper’. In other words, an old Preie. word for ‘copper’ was associated with the idea of smallness. A key-word for solving this difficult and extremely delicate problem may be Rom. a cople;i ‘to press, to squeeze, to overwhelm’, i. e. ‘to make, turn small’, a verb now accepted as probably indigenous, of Thracian origin. I should add: of Pre-Thracian origin, derived from the same root *KoP-/KuP‘small, little’, i. e. ‘to turn small, to squeeze’. In a similar way, a pre-Greek form *KuP-ro- was used to denote the soft metal (copper), literally the ‘metal which could be squeezed, hammered into small pieces’. In the light of the data presented, there are two ways of explaining the Latin name for ‘copper’; __________________________________________________________________ 163

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

(1) One possibility is to derive it from the PN KDpros, in its turn derived from (or related to) kypárissos ‘cypress’. Pre-IE root *KoB-/*KoP-/*KuP‘small, little’ > name for ‘cypress’ (initially ‘small plant/tree’) > name of island > name of metal. (2) The other possibility – to which I incline – may be summarized: Preie. root *KoB-/*KoP-/KuP- ‘small, little > name for copper (‘name which can be turned small’) > name of island (from its copper bearing ores). At a later stage, when the initial Preie. idiom became extinct, folketymology derived the name for ‘copper’ from the place-name. It is understandable that is too early to offer an ideal solution to such obscure facts. The Preie. heritage is still little and often incoherently analyzed, but future data will surely substantiate many details and consequently clarify this topic as well. I should point out that this context (the Preie. root /*K-B-/*KoP- ‘small, little’) can offer a good explanation to another important term noted above: kíbdos ‘slag’. Indeed, the root of this word seems to be again *K-B-/*K-P-. The primitive meaning of the word seemingly was ‘(small) particles’. Quite unexpectedly, both kíbdos ‘slag’ and (aes) cyprium, cuprum can be therefore explained as initially deriving from the same Preie. root. Can this be acceptable? Facts show that the situation really was so. A fascinating history is hidden behind every word if it is unveiled. Lat. aurum ‘gold’, from an older form *aus-om, has quite clear parallels: Old Prussian ausis ‘id’, Lithuanian auksas ‘id’ (with an epenthetic k unexplained), Tokharian A väs ‘id’. The primitive reconstructed root is *aus- and its proto-IE character seems to be proved by the preservation of similar forms on a large area (Ernout and Meillet 1959: 60). Indeed, gold must have been an important metal of the IE society and the search for gold was probably one of the impulses (maybe the most important) to the IE expansion (Gimbutas 1973 a).

__________________________________________________________________ 164

De metallis __________________________________________________________________

Bronze: An Indo-European Metal The only IE name of metal reconstructable from forms preserved all over the IE area is *ayos: lat. aes (initially ais) ‘bronze’, sometimes ‘copper’ (i.#e. ‘copper alloy’), Gothic aiz (Gen. aizis), ‘ore’. Sanskrit áya5 (Gen. áyasa5), Avestan ayE (Gen. ayanhE), etc. (Pokorny 1959: 15; Morris et. al. 1979: 1507; Ivanov 1983: 32; Lehmann 1987: 78). This term places us on the more firm ground of the comparative grammar of the IE languages. This confirms archaeological finds which now indicate that intentionally produced copper alloys were introduced into Europe by the Kurgan People: the Indo-Europeans (Gimbutas 1973 a, b; 1979). An Unexpected Difficulty: ‘iron’ The name for ‘iron’ poses unexpected problems to linguists because in a series of languages it has no accepted or acceptable etymon. Gr. sídFros and Lat. ferrum are two typical examples. Both IE and Preie. perspectives are obscure from the very beginning: the Indo-Europeans did not know or use iron, and the same thing is valid for their indigenous (Neolithic and Chalcolithic) predecessors. The etymological analysis is confronted with a serious problem. If the term is surely non-IE (non-Proto-Indo-European) can it be Preie.? A positive answer implies a total anachronism whereas a negative answer leads to an even more disconcerting position: where was this term taken from or how was it invented? An authority in Greek etymology rejected a hypothesis which – in the present author’s opinion – has good chances to be real: iron was initially known from meteorites. The argument invoked is purely phonetical: the presence of initial s(Chantraine 1968–1980: 1002–3). But the phonetic treatment of initial s in Greek is clear enough only in the case of the IE heritage. But what can we say about the treatment of initial s in the substratum elements? Tens other __________________________________________________________________ 165

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

examples show that it is highly probable that initial s was preserved in the substratum (Preie.) terms and, very probable again, in some IE terms which underwent other phonetic treatments (e. g. terms possibly borrowed, at a certain historical stage, from neighbouring idioms, like Thracian, Illyrian, eventually from other languages about which we have no knowledge). In this sense, there is no need to invoke repeatedly that a word like GA#2C%& ‘a # silenus, Silenus’ was borrowed. It is much more reasonable to assume that it is an archaic indigenous mythological term just like sídFros ‘iron’. The inevitable parallel of this word is, in this view, Lat. sidus, -eris ‘a star constellation’, for which an IE root (*sweid- ‘to shine’) has become largely accepted (Pokorny 1959: 1042; AHD 1979: 1544). It should equally be mentioned that the possible relationship between Gr. sídFros and Lat. sidus was (hesitantly) rejected in favour of a relationship between the Greek word and an Old African form si-tari (Bantu kH-talH) ‘iron’ (Trombetti 1925: 47). If this relation is improbable, the parallel Gr. sídFros ‘iron’ - Lat. sidus ‘star’ remains probable, or – at least – possible. Lat. ferrum also poses difficult problems. A common statement may be one like “Latin ferrum is possibly borrowed (via Etruscan) from the same obscure source as Old English braes ‘brass’” (AHD 1979: 1515). Such a statement is similarly presented in Ernout and Meillet 1959: 229) where we are further referred to Akkadian parzilla ‘iron’, Phoenician barzel ‘id’, “ce qui ne fournit rien de net”. The Germanic word for ‘iron’ has been reconstructed as *isarno and is usually derived from the IE root *eis- in words denoting passion, e. g. Lat. ira ‘anger’, Gr. hieros ‘filled with the divine’, etc. (Pokorny 1959: 299; AHD 1979: 1514). Yet this derivation has been lately doubted with solid arguments and with the conclusion that “the position of the words for ‘iron’ in the Germanic lexicon as well as phonological and morphological considerations lead us to the conclusion that they are not native, but rather borrowed from a non-Germanic language” (Lehmann 1987: 78; cf. Polomé __________________________________________________________________ 166

De metallis __________________________________________________________________

1987: 223). Another doubtful point added to the already existing ones revealed in Greek and Latin. What can there be the situation of Germanic *isarno? If we adopt the position that this term does not belong to the IE heritage, then a pre-Germanic/Preie. origin might be sustained but it is impossible to advance any possible initial meaning. It might have been a name for another metal in ‘pre-ferric’ west-central Europe or a name of a colour, etc. Yet I think that the derivation from the IE root *eis- is still feasible in the light of the ‘meteoric theory’. In other words, the reconstructed sense ‘sacred metal’ supports very well the hypothesis that the Indo-Europeans could have known iron as a meteoric metal just like other ethnic groups outside the Kurgan (IE) area. It is therefore a problem open to speculation whether Gr. sídFros and Lat. sidus may be assumed of IE or Preie. origin. There are arguments supporting both opinions with much chance that the form might be Preie., from a primitive reconstructable root *S-D- (*SiD-) ‘star, constellation; falling star, meteorite’. Metallurgy and ‘l’au-delà’ The term metallurgy derived from metal (spread in many European languages) represents Latin metallum, in its turn borrowed from Gr. mevtallon ‘mine’, then ‘mineral, metal’. This word is obscure as well. Paul Kretschmer, in a classical study dedicated to ancient names of metals, withdrew his previous opinion which had suggested a Preie. term in connection with a Cretan PN Metallápyton (pyton being obscure); reconsidering this former hypothesis, he suggested an approach to -*)"##4I ‘search after, investigate’ (Kretschmer 1952: 1). This hypothesis is appreciated as ‘very probable’ in Chantraine (1968–1980: 690). On the other hand, it is clear that a generic name for ‘metal’ may appear only at a later stage of historical development when man began to process __________________________________________________________________ 167

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

several metals and thus felt the need for such a term. The oldest meaning of Gr. métallon was ‘mine’ and is clear that initially this word had nothing to do with metallurgy in its broader sense (even if we refer to the level got at in pre-ferric age) but, very probably, with the magic powers of primitive mines which surely had close resemblance with caves and labyrinth. It is therefore more plausible to look for the initial meaning of Gr. métallon in the sphere of magic meanings connected to caves and labyrinths. If this hypothesis is accepted, then métallon should be connected to an archaic Preie. root *MaT(T)-, *MeT(T)- ‘intricate, confuse; maze’ (Paliga 1988; the problem of the cult places in the Aegean in analyzed in Rutkowski 1972). Metallurgical activities were therefore associated with the magic powers of nature as proved not only by the primitive sense of métallon but later by the consciously processed ores which implied high temperature, i.e. fire. For primitive man this meant the understanding of nature by magic. It should be remembered that the magic virtues of manual work have been preserved until modern times (cf. Benoist 1966). Consequently, the Dii fabri (or smith-gods) had an important role in mythological representations. Comparative mythological analyses show that artisan gods are present in many (perhaps all) mythologies, e. g. Anunnaki and Kothar (Mesopotamia). Twashtri (Vedic mythology), Hephaistos and the secondary figure Technites (from )1!C2 ‘skill, art’ akin to Lat. texo ‘to weave’, IE root *teks-), Latin Volcanus/Vulcanus, etc. (Kernbach 1983). A fascinating deus faber is the Finnish god Ilmarinen, a central figure of the Kalevala; this god was initially associated with nature and weather (cf. ilma ‘good weather’, formerly also ‘sky’) (Harva 1946). Another interesting figure, still enigmatic, is the Thracian artisan god Dabatopeios. The name seems to be a compound: Dabato-peios, the second part of which is not clear. The first part is yet perfectly analyzable etymologically, reflecting the IE root *dhabh- ‘to fit together’, hence also Lat. faber (initial IE *dh > Lat f), also modern Romanian form dibaci (ci = B) ‘skillful’, undoubtedly an archaic __________________________________________________________________ 168

De metallis __________________________________________________________________

indigenous term of Thracian origin (Mu!u 1982: 139 ff.). This theonym is akin to the personal name Dabeis (Deev 1957: 109). The Thracian artisan god Dabatopeios was a faber or technites par excellence, as proved by etymological analysis: a god imagined as the skillful artisan. Another example showing that spiritual achievement was attained by skillful manual work (cf. Benoist 1966; H. Masson 1970). In the final part of this study I shall concentrate on two important figures of classical mythology: the Greek lame-god Hephaestus (Hephaistos) and the Latin god Volcanus/Vulcanus. About Hephaestus we cannot unfortunately say much more than at the beginning of the century: “for the time being it is impossible to offer an explanation for god’s name” (Malten 1913: 341). The name is, beyond any doubt, of Preie. origin, like many other words in Greek and like others analyzed in this paper. A major difficulty of analysis consists in the fact that we do not know how to interpret graphic forms in Greek words of Preie. origin as long as we do not know the phonetic structure of the Preie. idioms of SE Europe. It would be simplistic to assume that the peculiar Preie. phonemes followed the same phonetic changes like the IE phonemes which can be now fairly well reconstructed by comparative analysis. The point is that only 40% of the Greek vocabulary admits an IE etymon. The overwhelming majority remains unclear. In the very case of the god-name JK"A'),& we can say, with much probability, that it must have something in common with the Cretan place-name Phaistos (as already suggested by Malten 1913: 340), with the Mycaenean spelling paito (Morpurgo 1963: 225; Chantraine 1968– 1980: 1172). If this is admittedly true, then the name has a structure Hephaistos. Following Gh. Mu!u’s hypothesis concerning Pre-Hellenic heritage, aspirated or non-aspirated vowels in ante-position seem to have the role of a prefix (Mu!u 1981). It is clear that if we try to explain peculiar forms it is imperious to abandon the phonetic rules known in comparative grammars of IE languages. The name of the Greek smith-god Hephaestus __________________________________________________________________ 169

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

has already been analyzed in the light of the Preie. heritage, unfortunately the study is still unpublished (Mu!u n.d.). Nevertheless, Hephaestus’s lameness is fairly well interpretable. It should be remembered that lameness appears as a repetitive motive of many ancient and modern mythologies; a lame mythic figure usually represents a god tamed by mutilation. Hephaestus, supervising the terrible fire of the earth, should have been imagined as lame, i. e. with reduced, not dangerous powers (Mu!u 1972 and personal communication).

__________ Fig. 5 Sethlans, Etruscan god of smiths and his attributes on a coin found at Populonia. After Komorovsk$ 1986.

__________ The etymological analysis of the god-name Volcanus/Vulcanus is, in my opinion, much simpler, despite the common opinion that the name is not analyzable (e. g. Eisenhut 1974: 949). To explain this name is to explain also a detail of spelling: the group vo-/vu- (pronounced wo-/wu- down to classical age). The name Volcanus/Vulcanus is a good example proving that the root was *OL-/*UL- ‘high, elevated’, emphatically pronounced *WOL-/ *WUL-; this phenomenon was already analyzed in the case of many Preie. __________________________________________________________________ 170

De metallis __________________________________________________________________

relics (Rostaing 1950). I see this god-name related to vultur (usually explained as deriving from the IE root *gwLtur-, Pokorny 1959: 482 and AHD 1979: 1520) and to many other PN, e. g. Ólympos; Ulcinium, Ulcirus, Ululeus (Illyria); Oloros, Ólynthos (Thracia), Olomouc (Czech Republic), etc. (further examples in Paliga 19891). Once again we can identify a word of Preie. origin connected with the mountainous elevations, in this very case with the volcanic mountains. Final Remarks and Conclusions The beginnings of metallurgical activities have a particular significance for understanding the civilisational process. This paper concentrated on south and southeast Europe, where archaeological finds document the emergence of the earliest European civilization termed ‘Old Europe’ by M. Gimbutas and ‘Urbian’ by the author of this paper (1989). It is clear that metallurgy is only one aspect of the complex social activities of the Old Europeans. It can be no doubt that metallurgical skills developed in Europe much time before the IE expansion and this is proved not only by archaeological evidence but also by linguistic analysis. Many fundamental terms of earliest documented metallurgical activities are not IE nor can they be attributed to an Oriental influence. Though metallurgy (like agriculture) developed earlier in Anatolia it is little probable that Neolithic and Chalcolithic Europeans imported terms from there. It is anyway unknown whether the Preie. languages of Anatolia had a similar (or even identical) structure to (with) the Preie. idioms of SE Europe. This may be very possible as proved by the extraordinary diffusion of many Preie. terms over a large area. In this perspective it is of course problematic to say who borrowed from where. Several terms analyzed in this paper indicate that the indigenous Europeans rather adapted local realities to new socioeconomic 1

Now, see the Addenda to our Etymological Dictionary, vol. I in this series. __________________________________________________________________ 171

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

achievements, which – for those times – could be termed ‘technological revolutions’. A number of words analyzed prove their affinities with local names, especially in mountainous areas. A careful analysis proves that indigenous people of SE Europe associated names of metals with the rocky regions where the respective metals were probably found. Another term like Gr. lébes ‘cauldron’ proves that cauldrons were initially made of stone, probably naturally concave stone-slabs. The evolution from a lithic to a metallic civilization is obvious. Of course, not all the aspects connected to a prehistoric metallurgy are so clear. We are sometimes forced to use our imagination in order to reconstruct a possible prehistoric tableau, e. g. the feasible hypothesis that meteoric iron was known by primitive man from immemorial times. Later man was surprised to observe that he himself could process and produce this metal known by his ancestors. It cannot be therefore surprising that iron was imagined imbued with magic powers. It would be interesting to extend the investigation of metallurgical terms at a general European (or Euro-Asiatic) scale, from reconstructable prehistoric times down to present-day. Such an attempt (though to a restricted scale) was recently done (Ivanov 1983, with a misguiding title) yet many questions remain unanswered and there still is much uncertainty is working with the Preie. substratum. I do not see any real progress in comparative linguistic unless the Preie. heritage becomes more coherently analyzed. It would be also interesting to investigate the situation of metallurgical terminology in certain areas, e. g. Modern southeast Europe (cf. Mihail 1981), in Romance, Germanic or Celtic languages. Basque, Albanian and the Fenno-Ugric languages may also offer valuable data. The close connection between metals, skills and the mythological representations may also be a fruitful theme. I pointed here only several essential aspects, among which is of particular importance to note the __________________________________________________________________ 172

De metallis __________________________________________________________________

analogy of derivation of the type: mountainous area – metal/mountainous area – god-name. Such details show that the Preie. heritage requires a change (or a radical revision) of what we know from the comparative grammar of the IE languages. Linguists should be prepared to see and interpret complex realities otherwise. The Indo-Europeans represented only one component of European ethnogenesis and we cannot expect a real progress without taking into consideration the other essential component: the Preie. substratum. Such a large and deep perspective cannot be practically approached without the co-operation of any linguists and without the constant comparison of linguistic and archaeological data. The metallurgical terminology is an example but must not remain the only example. Faute de mieux we must still refer to place-names in order to explain archaic realities. If this is still inevitable, we must anticipate the day when we have achieved a more coherent and ampler Preie. glossary. I do not see possible the decipherment of Linear A or Etruscan without previously accomplishing this condition. Acknowledgements Many of the opinions presented here are due to the long discussions I once had with prof. Gh. Mu!u. Unfortunately, his works, and especially his essential contribution to a better nderstanding of the Pre-Hellenic heritage, are little known. I also wish to express, over years, my gratitude to late Prof. Marija Gimbutas for her constant and warmful assistance.

__________________________________________________________________ 173

Duo flumina Thraecorum __________________________________________________________________

Two river-names revisited. Once again on the opposition north-south in late Thracian

It is generally known that place- and river-names offer a good occasion of analysing the distribution of local, dialectal differences. In the case of Thracian, place-names are a precious means of identifying the long, but obscure, evolution of Thracian. The problem is complex. I shall refer here to only two basic examples showing a divergent evolution in north v. south Thracian approximately after the second century A.D. 1. Marisia: Mure! - Marica. The Indo-European (hereafter IE) root *m!r-, *mor- ‘wet; a pond, a lake’, with a large distribution in the IE area, developed in Thracian as the attested river-name (hereafter NFl) Marisia, today surviving in the Transylvanian river-name Mure" (dialectally pronounced Mur#") and the Bulgarian NFl Marica. It cannot be any reasonable doubt that the Thracian form had a root *m!r- which later had the interesting evolution to u in Romanian, but was preserved as a in Bulgarian. This detail (and other similar details) puzzled many linguists who sometimes considered that the archaic pre-Roman (Thracian or DacoThracian) place- or river-names were not transmitted directly to Romanian, but via an intermediary, presumably Slavic or eventually Hungarian (in Kiss 1980, under various entries, we can read the assertion that all the Thracian river!names in Transylvania were transmitted to Romanian via Hungarian exclusively, which is at least debatable, if not entirely wrong). The details of phonetic evolution show something different. A first observation is simple: if all the pre-Romance river-names were transmitted __________________________________________________________________ 175

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

to Romanian via Slavic (or Hungarian) why then - in this very case for example - the corresponding, clearly related, Bulgarian form Marica does not witness a u root as expected following the logic of this theory? Why the same root developed with an u root grade in Romanian, whereas it led to an a grade in Bulgarian? There is no reasonable doubt that the Thracian form was *M!risia as Thr. ! and # were noted by the same graphic sign in both Greek and Latin. It should be perhaps mentioned that a similar phenomenon occurred in Germanic: IE ! and $ changed into $ first, then to ô > uo/ua (Althochdeutsch phase), finally to u/ü (the Neuhochdeutsch phase; Mettke 1978: 45). There was no causality link between Germanic and Thracian, but the parallel is hopefully relevant. It is not only possible or probable, but even certain that the north-Thracian dialects had a different evolution in the final, post-Romanisation phase of Thracian (approximately after the second century A.D.) as confirmed – among other details which may be invoked – by the late spelling M$reses for Marisia/Mure". The spelling clearly shows that the shift from ! to ô was already accomplished (or almost) in the 3rd century A.D. (see the forms in De!ev 1957 s.v.; also Poghirc 1969). The shift ! > ô did not take place in south-Thracian as the Bulgarian NFl Marica shows. It is perhaps interesting to note that some linguists noted the evolution ! > o (e.g. Georgiev 1960: 14 and 1964; Giuglea 1983: 359–360 discussing Mure"; Giuglea 1988: 259; Poghirc 1969: 316). 2. D"n- 'river, stream': Latin-Celtic D!nuvius/D!nubius, Rom. Dún#re, Sl. Dunav, Dunaj, Hung. Duna. The same phonetic change is met in the case of Rom. Dún#re 'the Danube'. The bookish form has been transmitted with the usual spelling a (as in all the western languages: Danubio, Danube etc.) whereas in Romanian and the neighbouring languages the root has the already usual u (< Thr. !). There cannot be any reasonable doubt that the Romanian form was not affected by any influence as proved by not only the __________________________________________________________________ 176

Duo flumina Thraecorum __________________________________________________________________

normal shift ! > u, but also by the suffix -#r- (unstressed), which makes Romanian isolated in the area: no other language witnesses such a development. It is probable that Rom. -#r- is related to other forms usual in European hidronymy like NFl Aare (Switzerland), Samara (Sam-ar-a) > Somme (France). Therefore Romanian has preserved the river-name (1) with the expected and entirely normal evolution Thr. ! > Rom. u; and (2) with the unique development -#r-. Furthermore, (3) the Slavs and the Hungarians borrowed the form after the change ! > u, i.e. after the 4th century A.D.. Yet it is interesting to note that neither the Slavs nor the Hungarians borrowed the full -#r/ar- developed form, but a simplified (or abridged) form Dunav/ Dunaj and Duna respectively. It is not clear to what extent the Romanian personal name Dun# is relevant to the topic. It may be an archaic form or a re-borrowed form from Hungarian. I do not have decisive arguments supporting an alternative, but the personal name is not essential as other forms, discussed below, support the general hypothesis that late Thracian ! changed into first ô then u. I have not identified essential references to explaining the German form Donau. It may be either archaic, given the fact that the Danube springs in the German-speaking area, or borrowed from the neighbouring Slavs. The latter hypothesis is less probable. 3. There are other Romanian forms, presumably of Thracian origin, which support the idea that late north Thracian ! changed into u, initially via an intermediate sound ô, sometimes preserved as such down to modern Romanian in isolated areas. I shall refer to only two relevant examples. Mum# ‘mother’, usual term in tales as reflecting an archaic mythology, e.g. muma p#durii, lit. ‘forest's mother’ imagined as an old ugly woman. The word is rarely used in the common speech where the usual form is mam# < Latin mamma; dialectally the form maic# (< Sl. majka) is __________________________________________________________________ 177

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

sometimes heard. Mum# must be the Thracian word with the normal change ! > u: Thracian *m!m- > Rom. mum#. But a simple phonetic detail shows that mum# must be the Thracian word with its specific evolution as compared to the Latin word mamma > mam#. It cannot be surprising that a Thracian word has been preserved in the sphere of popular beliefs like bal#, baláur ‘a dragon’ (another usual term in Romanian tales), zân#, zîn# ‘a fairy’, Sânziene, Sînziene ‘holy fairies’, also the popular term for the Christian festivity observed on June 24th (further discussions in Paliga 1989 a). A momí is another relevant form. The basic meaning is ‘to lure, to entice, to attract’ and is very probably derived from the basic form mum#, with the usual shift u/o (like in a muri/mort ‘to die/dead’ or preserving the archaic change from ! to o/u. The dialectal form mom# is supported by the mountain-name Codru Moma ‘the dense forest Moma’. Codru ‘forest’ also ‘hill’ is related to Albanian kodër ‘a hill’. Also related is seemingly momî% ie ‘a dummy’, pejoratively also used in order to define a person lacking energy. A murá. The verb refers to an archaic home activity: preservation of vegetables over winter by introducing them in water and salt. The word has not yet been satisfactorily explained. It seems related to the old IE root *m!r-, *mor- ‘wet, pond, lake’ also preserved in the river-names cited above. The association with the root of Mure" is irresistible. All these forms show that there was a specific phonetic treatment of late north Thracian ! to later develop as ô. Then two dialectal (or better subdialectal) evolutions could be identified: (1) a large area where the evolution continued to u as in Mure", Dun#re and mum# (Muma p#durii) and (2) a subregion where the evolution stopped at the stage ô > o as in mom# (Codru Moma), a momi and momâie. It is difficult to determine whether the root vowel grade o in certain forms is a conservative element or the usual shift o/u in stressed/unstressed position respectively. It is the usual phonetic phenomenon in Romanian like another usual alternation a/# __________________________________________________________________ 178

Duo flumina Thraecorum __________________________________________________________________

(stressed/unstressed respectively). The subdialectal treatment Thr. ! > ô > o against ! > ô > u belongs anyway to the large north Thracian (DacoMoesian) area. I have not identified a similar phenomenon is south Thracian (or Thracian proprie dictu). This phonetic change seemingly began in the late phase of Thracian, after the second century A.D. and was presumably completed by the fifth century. 4. The discussion should also take into consideration other specific phonetic treatments in place-, river- and mountain-names as toponymy may offer valuable data of phonetic treatments in Thracian, specifically in late Thracian before the complete Romanisation (further discussions in Paliga 1991). The complex problem of the possible chronological horizon when Thracian ceased to be spoken cannot be analysed here in detail. According to reliable sources, archaeological and linguistic analyses, it may be surmised that Thracian was still spoken in the fifth century A.D., and continued to be spoken for at least a century in isolated areas in both the Balkan mountains and Carpathian-Moldavian region as revealed by recent archaeological discoveries which have identified specific Thracian cultural elements as late as (at least) the 6th century A.D., possibly later1. Specific Daco-Thracian burial rites (implicitly indicating the preservation of certain linguistic elements) are identified in the former area of the so-called “Free Dacians” (Daci Liberi) as late as the seventh century A.D. (Bichir 1973; Ioni"# 1982; Ioni"# and Ursachi 1988). Afterwards the archaeological data are no longer relevant because the material culture became more and more uniform on a large area in southeast Europe, therefore the usual or traditional connection material culture - ethnos/language is no longer relevant. 1

It may be surmised that Albanian ethnogenesis is connected to the survival of these Thracian groups, which moved southwards concurrently with the Slavic groups proper. This hypothesis will be developed and expanded in our History of the Slavs (in preparation, when this book is being prepared for print). __________________________________________________________________ 179

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

These principles may explain why it is simplistic to assume that Romanisation was entirely concluded in the fourth century A.D.. The indigenous Thracians (north- and south-Danubian) surely continued to be an important ethno-linguistic element, and the substratum elements in Romanian, Bulgarian and Albanian cannot be simply regarded as relics of a presumed pre-fourth century reality. The gradual integration of the Thracian elements in the archaic phase of Proto-Romanian (fourth-fifth centuries A.D.) is much more complex because in the course of time the specific phonetic changes followed chronologically discriminated rules. The above quoted shift ! > ô > o/u is an example. But there must be other examples so far little investigated, if at all. This brief study cannot approach all these complex realities. 5. In change the present paper can note some other details of phonetic analysis. An example may be NFl Some" < Thr. Samus and NFl Olt < Thr. Alutus. Again the specific phenomenon a > o. This time the analysis is more difficult, mainly because – unlike the forms Mure" and Dun#re – the etymon is not quite clear, therefore it is difficult to determine whether the initial phoneme was ! or #. Anyway, Thr. Samus > Rom. Some" seems to admit a Pre-Indo-European (Pre-IE) etymon, root *SaM-, *SoM- ‘deep’ and ‘high’ (cf. Lat. altus with both meanings). Anyway the phonetic evolution is similar in the already quoted case Samara > Somme (supra) with which Samus/Some" is obviously related. Thr. NFl Alutus > Rom. Olt poses a similar problem. It is tempting to compare the river-name with Latvian aluots ‘a water spring or source’, but other parallels, possibly derived from the Pre-IE root *AL- are also possible (see Paliga 1989 b, where I sketched the major problems of the Pre-IndoEuropean heritage). Equally NFl Alta, a tributary of the Dnjepr, may be relevant. In this case again, the original a-grade root has been preserved as such. That is why the postulated Slavic phonetic influence in the case of __________________________________________________________________ 180

Duo flumina Thraecorum __________________________________________________________________

Thr. Alutus > Rom. Olt is little probable. (Cf. the lake Oltina in Dobrudja). Indeed the once much invoked Slavic (or Hungarian) intermediary in order to explain specific phonetic evolution of the Romanian river-names of Thracian origin cannot be accepted. In many cases (like Dun#re, Mure", Timi", Cri" and many others) the intermediary is impossible, because the phonetic evolution is not at all specific to either Slavic or, still less, Hungarian. It cannot be admitted that, in the same area, some river-names followed specific evolutions from (late) Thracian to Romanian, whereas in other cases they were transmitted via Slavic or Hungarian. I am afraid that in many instances the extra-linguistic (i.e. political) arguments fuelled such hypotheses which cannot be held for serious any longer. The real, major problem is to identify those specific features of Thracian and how they were passed on to Romanian, Bulgarian and Albanian. 6. These examples and general considerations remind us of the much debated problem whether the Thracian (in the context, Daco-Thracian or Daco-Moesian) phonemes followed the same evolution to Romanian like the popular Latin elements. The debate is to a large extent superfluous because it started from the basically erroneous principle that popular (or “vulgar”), better colloquial Latin had the same, and only the same, phonemes like Thracian (or better Thracian dialects), which is absurd. Obviously there were major differences between popular Latin and colloquial Thracian, and different phonemes (or sounds, of course) could not have the same phonetic evolution. The examples discussed in this paper are only a few out of many more others. In the very case of Romanian, the debates referred to the evolution of intervocalic b, v and l. They had specific treatments in the Latin elements, but the explanation is simple: they reflected an alteration already in postclassical Latin. That is why intervowel b/v have been lost in Romanian, and intervowel l turned to r. But there are exceptions too, proving that the __________________________________________________________________ 181

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

phenomenon had late-Latin, post-classical roots. The examples are banal and may be found in any history of the Romanian language. But how did the Thracian phonemes develop? Did they follow the same rules? As long as the phonemes were different, even though they were sometimes spelled similarly, their evolution must have been different. By spelling the letter b, for example, we denote different sounds in Spanish, Romanian and English, and the situation was similar in the case of Latin v. Thracian. There cannot be any reasonable doubt that Thracian b, v and l were pronounced with force, and were not affected in the course of evolution like their late Latin counterparts which must have had a weak pronounciation. That is why intervowel b, for example, in the Thracian elements of Romanian is regularly preserved, like abur, aburi ‘vapour(s)’, Alb. avull. The importance of this word should not be discarded as it clearly shows that intervowel b/v in Thracian has been preserved in Romanian (unlike intervowel b/v in Latin which has been lost). Again Rom. NFl Ibru, obviously related to Bulgarian NFl Ib#r, does not follow the expected phonetic evolution from Latin to, but the evolution from Thracian to Romanian (Fr#"il# 1987: 118-123). 7. Summing up, there are some basic principles we can further adopt in analyzing the Thracian or Daco-Thracian (otherwise labelled Daco-Moesian) heritage in Romanian. There was a specific evolution of Thracian phonemes as reflected in both toponymy and vocabulary, as there was - in the late phase of Thracian - diverging evolutions in south Thracian and north Thracian (Daco-Moesian) respectively. I have focused on the specific evolution of Thr. ! > Rom. ô > o/u against Thr. ! > Bulg. a as the parallel Mure" - Marica clearly shows. This specific treatment is also visible in the case of NFl Dun#re, but also in mum#, a momi, NM Codru Moma. Future analyses should concentrate on identifying other specific evolutions. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of probable words of Thracian origin in Romanian. They should be analyzed with care, and trying to identify those phonetic details relevant to the topic.

__________________________________________________________________ 182

De definitione linguæ dacoromanicæ __________________________________________________________________

Romanian Definite Article Revisited

Introduction

I shall attempt to resume a long, almost endless discussion: the origin of the Romanian definite article. Any grammar of Romanian or any comparative grammar the Romance languages (e.g. Tagliavini 1977) always observes that Romanian, an isolated case in the Romance family, has an agglutinated definite article. The typology is not indeed rare: Bulgarian, Albanian, Armenian, Basque and Swedish witness the same mechanism. We cannot approach the topic by analysing all these languages, yet a comparative analysis would be finally useful. In our case, it is obvious that Romanian cannot be isolated from Albanian and Bulgarian. A potential solution must explain the situation in ALL these three “Balkanic” languages, even if Romanian is not Balkanic stricto sensu 1. The paper shall focus on the deep roots of the Romanian and Albanian definite article, its typological relations with other linguistic areas, and shall attempt to explain this isolated situation in the field of Romance linguistics. For sure, the Romanian definite article mainly reflects the Latin heritage. Nevertheless, by saying only this, the tableau is not complete: some forms are not Latin but Pre-Latin, Thracian. This paper will try to substantiate this assertion. 1

The term Balkanhalbinsel ‘Balkanic Peninsula’ was coined in the year 1808 by the Berlin geographer Johann August Zeune starting from the Turkish word balkan ‘mountainous rocky land’ and presumably reflects a calque after Bulg. Stara planina. The word Balkan(s) had a tremendous success, especially in its extended meaning (including its political connotations). The original meaning was purely geographic and referred to the modern states of Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania and Greece. __________________________________________________________________ 183

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

The definite article of nouns and adjectives Though the facts are well known, I shall resume the basic facts and point out less known details. At a first glance things are so simple: the definite article reflects the agglutinated Latin demonstrative. And yet... ____________ Sing. Masc. -u, -ul, -le* -lu(i) ¶ -ul-e ‡

N.A. G.D. V. ____________

Pl. Fem. -a -(e)i, -(i)i -

Masc. -i -lor †

Fem. -le -lor

* The form -u is always colloquial and is attested in the oldest Romanian texts, whereas -ul is bookish. Both are used with the former Latin nouns of second declension or assimilated with them (e.g. lupus > Rom. lup). The form -le is both colloquial and bookish and is used with former nouns of third declension (e.g. canis, Acc. canem > Rom. cîine). Therefore the definite forms are, e.g., lup-lupul, but cîine-cîinele. ¶ Lu is always colloquial, lui (with i pronounced as semivowel y) belongs almost exclusively to the written language. Identical to the personal pronoun, genitive-dative. † Identical to the personal pronoun plural, genitive-dative. ‡ Common nouns like om – omule, fecior ‘son’ – feciorule, but copil ‘child’ – copile. The pattern is therefore: sometimes noun + definite article ul + ending e (< Latin vocative -e), sometimes the definite article is not required (no rule). See below the case of personal names.

__________________________________________________________________ 184

De definitione linguæ dacoromanicæ __________________________________________________________________

Masc. sing. N.A. -u is as old as the form -ul, despite the largely spread hypothesis that the colloquial form -u would be simplified from -ul. Oldest Romanian texts witness -u rather than -ul. It is true that the form -ul is the only accepted in written texts, whereas -u belongs to the spoken language and is in fact the unique spoken form. Masc. sg. N.A. form -u has an identical parallel in Albanian, e.g. shok – shok-u ‘a colleague, comrade’, zog–zogu ‘a bird’, etc. Useless to say that the form -u cannot be explained from Latin like all the other forms in Albanian, where the paradigms are more complicated. Let us compare the Albanian forms: The Albanian Definite Article Forms in the Nominative singular Masc. -i or -u Fem. -a N. -t, -të Pl. -t, -të

Type I ¶

Type II †

Type III *

Type IV ‡

Type V **

Ind.

Def.

Ind.

Def.

Ind.

Def.

Ind.

Def.

Ind.

Def.

N

-

i

-

u

-

a

-

t, të

-

t, të

G

i

it

u

ut

e

s, së

i

it

ve

D

i

it

u

ut

e

s, së

i

it

ve

Ac.

-

in, në

-

un, në

-

n, në

-

t, të

-

t, të

Abl.

i

it

u

ut

e

s, së

i

it

sh, ve

ve, vet

ve, vet ve, vet

__________________________________________________________________ 185

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

¶ Includes most masculine names. † Includes some masculine forms which end in -g, k, -h or in a stressed vowel. * Feminine; includes also a few personal masculine names which end in -ë or -o, like tatë, tata. ‡ Includes all neuter forms. ** Plural forms. First conclusions: (1) form -u is as old as the form -ul, perhaps even older (see below); it is identical to Albanian paradigm in -u; (2) form -ul reflects indeed Latin ille with the link vowel -u-. • Masc. sing. N.A. form -le is used in case of words ending in -e e.g. cîine < Lat. cane(m), i.e. former Latin names of third declension or assimilated to it. It obviously reflects Lat. ille. • Fem. sing. N.A. -a reflects Latin illa. Things are more complicated with the G.D. form -ei and sometimes -ii. It is well known that Fem. sing. G.D. forms are identical to Fem. pl. N.A. forms (non-articled), e.g. fat! ‘girl’ – fete which is both G.D. sing. and N.A. pl. The definite article is called to clarify the case: fetei ‘to the girl’ – fetelor ‘to the girls’. So we may question whether the article of the fem. sing. G.D. is -i, identical to Albanian -i, or -ei as hypothesised by many linguists, it is true not taking into account the Albanian forms. Difficult to decide: if the old paradigm in Romanian for fem. sing. is (indefinite v. definite respectively) -! v. -e (e.g. fat! – fete), then the definite article for fem. gen. is INDEED -i (pronounced as a semivowel y, not -ei, pronounced ey). It is true that the corresponding personal pronoun G.D. is ei (v. masc. lui), but for both genders the short (unstressed) form is i. I would not dare to derive it from Latin as many other linguists do. __________________________________________________________________ 186

De definitione linguæ dacoromanicæ __________________________________________________________________

• Fem. pl. N.A. -le reflects indeed the Latin demonstrative. The same is valid for the forms -lui and -lor identical to the oblique cases of the personal pronoun el (masc. sing.) – G.D. lui and ei (masc. pl.) – lor. • Romanian neuter forms follow the general rule: masculine forms are used for the singular and feminine forms for the plural. Romanian neuter is therefore strictly different from Slavic or German neuter. A brief survey with the corresponding example is perhaps useful: Masculine (indefinite/definite) Sing. N.A. om/om-u, om-ul cîine/cîine-le G.D. om/om-u-lui cîine/cîine-lui Pl. N.A. oameni/oameni-i cîini/cîini-i G.D. oameni/oameni-lor cîini/cîini-lor Note: The graphic sequence ii includes (1) the mark for plural -i + (2) the definite article -i; it is pronounced as vowel i, against the indefinite plural form in -i which is pronounced as a very short i, in fact a palatalisation of the previous consonant. Therefore, the pl. indefinite form lupi is pronounced /lupi/, whereas the pl. definite form lupii is prounced /lupi/ proper. The various pronounciations of graphic i represent a hard try for the foreigners who study Romanian. Feminine (definite/indefinite) Sing. N.A. fat-!/fat-a femei-e/femei-a G.D. fet-e/fete-i femei/femei-i (i-i is pronounced /i/)

N.A. G.D.

Pl. fete/fete-le fete/fete-lor

femei/femei-le femei/femei-lor

__________________________________________________________________ 187

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

Note: In feminine singular, the opposition definite-indefinite of the first class (ending in -!) is the opposition !/a. ! is the neuter vowel ", usually the quality of a in unstressed position; a similar sound is Alb. ë and Bulg. !. Again, the spelling ii reflects a normal /i/, against the spelling i which in Romanian usually reflects the semivowel /y = i !/. Romanian neuter has no special forms. It uses the masculine forms in the singular, and the feminine forms in the plural, with (sometimes) the mark of plural -uri which is only for neuter plural. Otherwise the paradigm follows the same rule: the neuter is masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural. The latin ille, illa, illud has been considered and accepted as the origin of the Romanian definite article. It is indeed so, yet NOT ALL THE FORMS reflect this origin. And, if we refer to Albanian, with which Romanian has indeed much in common, we can realise that the situation is not so simple. It is not simple indeed even if we ignore the Albanian forms, as usual with most linguists who have analysed the topic. The popular Latin forms which explain the definite article not only in Romanian, but also in Western Romance languages, are: Singular Masculine

Feminine

N.A.

*ellu (str.), *lu (unstr.)

*ella (str.), *la (unstr.)

G.D.

*lui

*laei (= *l#i)

D. *li (cf. Arom. l’i, Rom. i)

*li

__________________________________________________________________ 188

De definitione linguæ dacoromanicæ __________________________________________________________________

Plural N.A. G.D. D. A.

*elli (str.), *li (unstr.) *loru *le (Rom. le, It. le) *lo(s) (cf. Old Rom. l!)

*elle (str.), *le (unstr.) *loru *le *lo(s) (cf. Old Rom. l!)

This reconstruction (Iv!nescu 1980: 133–134), one of the best I have knowledge of, does not explain all the Romanian forms, among these the feminine singular form -a and accusative sing. of the feminine pronoun -o. Iv!nescu justly notes, on the next page, that the agglutinated position of the Romanian definite article should be explained as a Thracian influence. He refers, of course, to the known fact that both the definite article and the adjective follow the rule “first the noun, then the article and/or adjective”. This is the usual form in Romanian, though dialectally some forms of the definite article are placed before the nouns and, from various stylistical reasons, the adjective may be placed before the noun. But the standard, also archaic, order is noun + definite article or noun + adjective. He does not dare mention that those forms difficult to explain via Latin may very well be inheritied from the Thracian substratum, like – on the other hand – the colloquial and dialectal forms of the verb a fi ‘to be’: îs ‘I am, they are’, îi ‘he, she is’, which can NEVER be explained from Latin, but rather reflect a Thracian heritage. The limited purpose of this paper does not allow me to extend the discussion. It is high time to pass to the next step: The definite article of demonstratives and adverbs! Romanian is different from any other Romance or Germanic language by using a specific form of the definite article. The situation has not been properly observed by most linguists and grammarians, so I shall concentrate on it. __________________________________________________________________ 189

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

Romanian uses an invariable definite article -a for both demonstrativa and adverbia. The invariable form -a should NOT be confused with the feminine definite article of singular forms. Many linguists, by not confusing the situation, simply claim that this specific -a is a particle. It is not a particle, it is a genuine and very clear definite article. Some examples may prove relevant. Demonstrativa The invariable definite article for demonstratives is used for masc. and fem. sing and masc. and femine plural forms. It is always -a. Examples: • acest ‘this’ (masc. sing.) – acesta ‘this (plus the definite article)’; no equivalent translation. approx. ‘this [person] I am talking about’. Acest om este s!rac ‘this man is poor’ Acesta este s!rac ‘this (definite: man I am talking about) is poor’ • same construction is applied to similar forms like acel ‘that’ – acela • aceast! ‘this (fem. sing.) – aceasta ‘this (plus the definite article)’; no equivalent translation. approx. ‘this [woman] I am talking about’. Aceast! femeie este s!rac! ‘this woman is poor’ Aceasta este s!rac! ‘this (definite: woman I am talking about) is poor’ • ace$ti ‘these’ (masc. pl.) – ace$tia (same meaning plus definite article); no equivalent translation, approx. ‘these [persons] I am talking about’. • acei ‘those’ (masc. pl.) – aceia; identical construction as above. • aceste (fem. pl.) – acestea ‘these [women]’ without and respectively with the definite article. • acestor (G.D. plural forms for both masc. and fem.) ‘to these [men or women] – acestora. • acelor (G.D. plural forms for both masc. and fem.) ‘to those [men or women] – acelora.

__________________________________________________________________ 190

De definitione linguæ dacoromanicæ __________________________________________________________________

Adverbia Few adverbs very frequently used witness the same definite article -a. Examples: • ades (from adj. des < Lat. densus) ‘frequently’ – adesea (with linkvowel -e which, given its position, is pronounced like a semivowel: e!a). • pururi ‘for ever, eternally’ – pururea (with the same link-vowel -e); also in the construction de-a pururi – de-a pururea (same meaning, same parallel without and with definite article respectively) 2. Two exceptional forms: tat!/tata ‘father’ and pop!/popa ‘a priest’ Tat! ’father’ is articled tata (identical to Alb. tatë, tata), and pop! ‘a priest’ is articled popa. It is outstanding that these two exceptional forms have never been properly analysed, according to my available information. The origin of tat! is, of course, Latin tata, -ae m., used in colloquial Latin (the modern English equivalent would be ‘dad, daddy’). The masculine gender of the Latin original is preserved in Romanian. Things seem much more complicated with the form pop! ‘a priest’. All the dictionaries and studies I have knowledge of (no exception) indicate that the origin is Slavic pop!, not Latin popa, -ae (also a colloquial word) ‘a priest in charge with sacrifices’. Rom. pop! is also exclusively colloquial (against the formal, official term preot < Lat. presbiterum). Indeed the Slavic form pop˙ cannot be avoided, nevertheless things are not so simple, because Slavic pop! cannot result in Rom. pop!. This origin is to be

2

Pururi was initially a noun, of neuter gender, *pur, pl. pur-uri, presumably of Thracian origin and having the meaning ‘fire’ i.e. ‘eternal fire’. For the peculiar evolution of this meaning see Paliga 1992, reprinted in Paliga 1999. See below, next chapter (Studies in Romanian). __________________________________________________________________ 191

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

identified in NP Pop, against Popa. The only argument I have heard 3 (never read) is that Lat. popa should have resulted in Rom. *poap!. I doubt that such an evolution is possible, because (1) the diphtongation in the pre-final syllable (o > oa, in literary Romanian, or o > ò, i.e. open short o, in regional Transylvanian Romanian) is the EXCLUSIVE attribute of the femine gender, and (2) a Slavic masculine could NEVER result in a Romanian masculine noun with feminine aspect. In fact, beside pop! 4 , there is only tat!. 5 It is impossible to accept the idea that Lat. tata and popa 6 , two colloquial Latin forms of masculine gender of the first declension, preserved in Romanian as tat! and pop! respectively, use the definite feminine article. In these two forms, THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE HYPOTHESIS is that they preserve the archaic bi-gender (or bi-functional masculine-femine) article -a of Thracian origin. We cannot know the various paradigms of the Thracian noun, but it is safe and logical to assume that such an article did exist, as it has been preserved in some archaic Romanian forms belonging to the basic vocabulary. A would-be form *poap! is really impossible, as the diphtongation of the pre-final o in case of feminine words ending in -! and (sometimes) -e is such a strong mark of the femine gender that the rule is followed by the recent borrowings as well, e.g. director m. – directoare. Pop! ‘priest’, with a deep mark of the masculine character, can never become *poap!, which 3

Dr. Gheorghe Mih!il!, specialist in Old Church Slavonic and author of numerous books regarding the relations between the Romanians and the Slavs. 4 It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the origin of Slavic pop!, but I wonder whether the largely accepted theory which considers this word as reflecting Gr.-Lat. papas should not be rather replaced by a less comfortable theory, implied in this text, that it reflects Rom. pop!. For further discussions regarding the oldest Romanian and Thracian borrowings in Slavic see Paliga 1996, passim. 5 Rom. vod!, abridged from vojevoda, also with feminine aspect, is an obsolete undeclinable form of Slavic origin. It is not used any more: the word disappeared from the common vocabulary when the historical and social context disappeared too. Tat! and pop! have remained words of the basic vocabulary. 6 Lat. tata belongs to the childish vocabulary, while the colloquial form popa is presumably of Etruscan origin (Ernout-Meillet 1959 s.v.). __________________________________________________________________ 192

De definitione linguæ dacoromanicæ __________________________________________________________________

sounds pejorative. The word is really sometimes heard with the meaning ‘a priest’s wife’. The definite article of personal names Personal names follow some other rules, i.e. • The G.D. form for masculine is placed before the noun, e.g. N.A. Petre – G.D. lui Petre. As always, the definite article is identical to the G.D. personal pronoun. • The feminine personal nouns are always articled in the N.A. case: Ileana, Maria, also NL Sofia, Londra, unlike their masculine counterparts which are not. Masculine place-names follow the same rules as masculine common names (i.e. non-articled in N.A. basic forms). • The feminine G.D. forms are identical to the common nouns. Nevertheless in contemporary Romanian the G.D. masculine form is used, though it sounds strangely: lu (instead of bookish lui) Ileana. The form is almost acceptable for foreign feminine personal nouns which cannot be included in a Romanian paradigm ending in -a or -e, e.g. N.A. Carmen – G.D. lui Carmen. The normal form would be *Carmenei, but it is merely theoretical: nobody uses it. Problems appear in written Romanian, not in colloquial Romanian. But maybe the most interesting fact is represented by the personal family names ending in -a. They are represented by an important number of names of various roots: indigenous Thracian, Latin and Slavic. By tradition, a family name reflect the male ascendency, and some of them are indeed articled with the masculine article -u (never ul, which is exclusively bookish), e.g. brad ‘a fir’ – NP Bradu, Br!deanu (indigenous Thracian root); lup (Latin lupus) – NP Lupu, Lupescu etc. Another category is represented by the forms ending in -a or -ea (a diphtong, with the specific semivowel e!, dialectally pronounced i !): Bradea, __________________________________________________________________ 193

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

Lupea, Toma, Nicula, Mircea etc. As easily observable, a is the (masculine) definite article, not an -a ending as suggested by most scholars. If there are still doubts, I must add that in all such forms, the -a definite article may be replaced by the usual masculine definite article -u, without any change of sense, even though sometimes the -u-articled forms are not usual or never used as such. Discussion Romanian shares with Albanian and Bulgarian the specific agglutination of the definite article. Typologically this construction is also met in Swedish, Armenian, Basque and – according to recent theories – in Etruscan. By analysing all the available relevant data we can observe that: • Most of the forms of the Romanian definite article are of Latin origin, but some reflect the indigenous Pre-Romance (Thracian) influence. • Romanian is closely related to Albanian in many aspects, specifically the masc. sing. form N.A. -u (colloquial in Romanian) and fem. sing. G.D. -i. • Romanian is unique in preserving an invariable definite article -a for both adverbs and demonstratives. This form should not be confused with the fem. sing. form -a of presumably Latin origin. This article is also used in the case of two words belonging to the basic vocabulary: tat! and pop!, both of masculine gender. • The other forms reflect Latin ille, illa and, for plural, the oblique cases of the personal pronouns are agglutinated and used as the definite article. • The Bulgarian and Macedonian definite article is a calque after Thracian and/or Romanian. An accurate analysis could be made only after deciding whether Thracian was still spoken at the arrival of the first Slavic groups in the South Danubian region, which is very probable (a hypothesis well argumented by the Bulgarian School of Thracian Studies). It is feasible to admit that the agglutinated definite article in Bulgarian and Macedonian is a calque after the indigenous Thracian substratum, later consolidated under the Romanian influence. __________________________________________________________________ 194

De vocabulis dominationis __________________________________________________________________

Herrscherschaft and Herrschersuffix in Central-East European Languages

Introduction In a paper written some 15 years ago (Paliga 1987, in Linguistica, Ljubljana)1 I dared suggest that a series of Romanian and Slavic terms referring to social and political organisation, specifically ban (1) ‘master, local leader’ and (2) ‘coin, money’ (2nd sense derived from the 1st one), jupîn (formerly giupîn) ‘a master’, st!pîn ‘a master, a lord’, cioban ‘a shepherd’, rather reflect a compact etymological group of Pre-Romance and Pre-Slavic origin (including cioban, incorrectly considered a Turkish influence, seemingly starting from the erroneous, but largely spread hypothesis that intervocalic -b- in Romanian would rather suggest a newer origin2). To these, on another occasion, I added the form v!taf, v!tah (also with parallels in some Slavic languages, Paliga 1996: 34–36) and on another occasion I analysed the form boier, also spread in many neighbouring languages, which has often been considered either of unknown origin or again of Turkic (not Turkish, i.e. Ottoman) origin (Paliga 1990; see also our main studies gathered together in a single volume, Paliga 1999). The purpose of this paper is: 1. to gather together all the relevant forms in the semantic sphere ‘leader, leadership; master, to master, to protect’ in Romanian and the neighbouring Slavic languages; 1

See the second study in English, above.

2

Indeed, intervocalic -b- and -v- are lost in Romanian in the words of Latin origin, NEVER in the case of the indigenous Thracian elements as clearly shown by numerous examples, see below further discussions. __________________________________________________________________ 195

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

2. to rediscuss them in the light of new data, and – if required – to make the appropriate corrections and additions; 3. to try a plausible reconstruction of those remote times, and of those remote societies in which these forms were in current use as all these terms refer to essential forms of social, economical and political organisation; and some of them are still in current use (e.g. Slovene !upan, Romanian ban ‘money, coin’ and st!pîn ‘a master’). 4. to suggest further directions of research and discussions. The forms Series ban, cioban, jupîn, st!pîn and the archaic Herrshersuffix -nI shall only sum up the data presented in my papers mentioned above. The first series is represented by the forms with the basic root *ban-, *pan-, sometimes in compounds (detailed analysis in Paliga 1987): Ban ‘a master’, also ‘coin, money’. Spread in Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian-Croatian and Hungarian; in these languages the spelling is ban, bán, and the general meaning is ‘local leader’; the sense ‘coin’ is specific only to Romanian (general, usual sense) and Polish, at dialectal level. The meaning ‘coin’ is derived from ‘master’ as Hasdeu brilliantly observed more than a century ago: “The coin (ban) is made under the authority of the local leader (the ban), just as the old English coin sovereign was made under the authority of the sovereign”. Similar forms are recorded in: (a) Croatian, Bulgarian ban ‘a leader’; (b) Hungarian bán ‘a leader at the Hungarian border’ (i.e. Croatia); (c) Polish ban ‘a coin’. All these forms are not used any more, with the exception of the form ban ‘coin’ which is the usual modern Romanian form for ‘money’, and also the subdivision of the national currency leu, lit. ‘lion’. __________________________________________________________________ 196

De vocabulis dominationis __________________________________________________________________

Many analyses have been inclined to generally consider the two meanings as two different forms of different origin, even though the derivation is clear: ban ‘coin, money’ is the consequence of the first meaning ‘master, lord’ as already suggested by Hasdeu in the 19th century. What was clear for long is that a similar form is attested in Persian, hence – some assumed – was borrowed by the Turkic groups and then spread all over southeast Europe. This hypothesis puts, first of all, an essential problem: the term ban, just like the others discussed below, are not specific terms to any Turkic language which might be considered as the intermediate idiom between Persian and Central-Southeast Europe. But the situation will become clearer if we refer to the other terms. Such hypotheses rather reflect the once current recourse to Oriental influences, via Turkish or Persian, whenever no other explanation seemed plausible. Cioban ‘shepherd’, also ‘a recipient, a pot’; meaning ‘shepherd’ spread over a large area in Southeast and East Europe. Again the two meanings of the same word have been largely analysed separately. To most linguists, they seem to be so remote from each other, that they may be considered as two different words. In fact, both ‘shepherd’ and ‘recipient’ reflect an archaic heritage of the same basic meaning: ‘to cover, to protect’ (1) sheep, and (2) liquids. In addition, the indigenous Thracian origin of cioban was rarely considered starting from the largely spread opinion that intervocalic -b- should have been lost in Romanian words of Thracian origin. This was an automatic hypothesis starting from the erroneous conception that all the Thracian elements of Romanian must follow the rules of phonetic evolution like the Latin elements; this view was common in the 19th century and, to a large extent, it is still common among many linguists, despite the obvious reality that, in the indigenous elements of Romanian, intervocalic b and v NEVER disappear, and intervocalic l NEVER turns to r. About this see below. __________________________________________________________________ 197

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

Therefore, if cioban is to be rejected its indigenous origin, then other arguments must be looked for. Perhaps decisive in this sense is a still largely spread view that Thracian and Proto- and Early Romanian could not influence the neighbouring languages to such a great extent. Fortunately, in the wake of the remarkable contribution of the Bulgarian school of Thracian studies, we now know that Thracian was still a spoken language when the first Slavic groups passed the Danube at the beginning of the 6th century A.D., and therefore re-analysing now these (and other) terms does not look so absurd as it seemed some years ago. Many false theories have been built up starting from such erroneous principles, and I feel it is high time to correct them or, at least, to draw attention to their being re-analysed. Briefly, I only note that cioban is a compound: cio-ban (pronounced "oban), the second part of which is ban mentioned above. In order to have a larger and, hopefully, more convincing view of the topic, let us briefly mention two other forms. 3–4. Jupîn, also spelled jupân, formerly #upîn and st!pîn, also spelled st!pân. Obviously both are again compound forms of the same type like cioban: #u-pîn > jupîn, st!-pîn. The only difference is that the second part of the compound witnesses the voiceless parallel p to the voiced b, whereas #u- in #u-pîn is the voiced parallel to the voiceless "o-, "u- in cioban, ciuban. The semantic sphere is also ‘a (local) leader, a master’. The term is specific to Romanian (now obsolete, but preserved in the compound a st!pîni ‘to master, to be master of’), and to some neighbouring languages. The form !upan is still preserved in Slovene with the meaning ‘mayor’, and clearly reflects the archaic, basic meaning: ‘a local leader, a master’. Old Slavonic !upan$ and stopan$ are also attested. It should be remembered __________________________________________________________________ 198

De vocabulis dominationis __________________________________________________________________

that st!pîn was correctly noted as a probable Thracian element in Romanian and the neighbouring languages, and this view has been adopted by more and more linguists (this hypothesis was initially sustained by Al. Philippide, who approached the form to German Stab and Sanskrit sthapáyami; this hypothesis was later adopted by Pârvulescu and Gh. Iv!nescu). In an attempt to overview the problem connected to the four forms (ban, cioban, jupîn and st!pîn), I suggest the following reference points: (a) All these forms reflect IE *p%- ‘to protect, to feed’ and/or *p&i- ‘to protect the cattle, to graze’. The two roots are separately recorded in Pokorny and AHD, in the latter case mentioning their probable relationship in Proto-Indo-European (hereafter PIE). (b) The semantic sphere is ‘to protect (cattle and/or people), to be a master of (cattle, people)’, in one case only preerving an archaic parallel ‘to protect’ – ‘recipient’ (in Romanian only, and only at dialectal level, in Transylvania). (c) Seemingly there was an early specialisation of the forms: ban and cioban ("o-ban), therefore with voiced explosive, refer to ‘PROTECTING LIVING BEINGS’ (cattle and/or people), whereas the forms with unvoiced explosive (st!pîn and jupîn) refer to ‘PROTECTING A TERRITORY’, therefore got an early administrative and political meaning. The opposition voiced-unvoiced (b v. p) was seemingly due to a laryngeal (see below our brief hypothesis about the Thracian laryngeal) or due to a phonetic sequence "-b as opposed to #-p in Thracian. (d) All these forms preserve the specific Indo-European Herrschersuffix -n-. (e) All these forms must have the same origin as they refer to a specific semantic sphere, have a quite clear IE etymon, have the same development: the Herrschersuffix -n-, and are spread specifically in those southeast __________________________________________________________________ 199

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

European languages which reportedly have a Thracian and/or Illyrian influence; some forms are also attested in Persian. (f) All these forms represent an etymologically compact group; but cioban should probably deserve a more detailed discussion. Anyway, they should not be discussed and analysed separately, or to assume that only some of them may be of indigenous Thracian origin whereas others might be of Turkic (Pre-Ottoman Turkish, as they are attested many centuries before the arrival of the Turks in Europe). A disparate analysis cannot note the common origin and meaning of these forms. I assume the form cioban is essential to understanding the evolution and distribution of these forms. Practically the indigenous (Thracian or DakoMysian) origin of this form in Romanian was rejected on the erroneous ground that intervocalic b/v in Thracian elements must have disappeared in Romanian as it happened in the Latin elements. This is a topic I have repeatedly approached in some of my papers, and am forced to approach it again. It should be remembered that intervocalic b/v is exceptionally preserved in Latin elements too, as in a avea ‘to have’, avem, ave'i ‘we have, you have’) or turns to # as in uber > uger ‘udder’. This reflects the special situation of b/v in Late Latin, not in Late Thracian. IN ALL THE EXAMPLES I KNOW, THRACIAN INTERVOCALIC b/v IS REGULARLY PRESERVED IN ROMANIAN, as in abur ‘vapours’ (= Albanian avull, meanwhile accepted as one of the obvious Thracian elements in Romanian, and with obvious intervocalic b); equally the remarkable parallel of river-names: Rom. Ibru, Bulg. Ib!r, Serbian Ibar (in the sequence -br-, b would also have disappeared in a word of Latin origin); place-name Deva – Bulg. Plovdiv (Thr. dava, deva ‘a fortress’), and many other examples prove the same: intervocalic b/v is always preserved in the indigenous Thracian (Dako-Mysian) elements. __________________________________________________________________ 200

De vocabulis dominationis __________________________________________________________________

Another argument invoked for the non-indigenous Thracian origin of cioban is the ending -an, which, also according to the Latin heritage of Romanian, would have closed to -în. Again the reference is not complete, as there are indeed obvious indigenous forms which preserve this ending (formerly it must have been a suffix), e.g. suffix -man in place-names like Caraiman, C!liman (with South Slavic parallels also of Thracian and/or Illyrian origin, see extensively our paper for the 8th Thracian Conference in Sofia-Jambol, September 2000, in print, when this paper is being prepared), ortoman (obsolete, rare) ‘rich’ (obscure origin, most probably indigenous Thracian) etc. Briefly, the existence of forms with final -an, -in, -un (instead of the expected closed vowel + n) is not an argument against the archaic, indigenous character of these forms as some words of unknown, possibly or probably of Thracian origin, clearly show. So if Rom. cioban is to be really considered a Turkish (or generally Turkic) influence, other arguments should be invoked. The current hypothesis I know is that indeed cioban ultimately is of IE origin, but via Turkish where it was borrowed from Persian. This is indeed tortuous, and also unsustainable at a forensic analysis. The word is rare in Aromanian (Macedo-Romanian), but – if of Turkish origin – we would expect it to be the current term there; in fact, the current term for ‘shepherd’ in Aromanian is picurar = Daco-Romanian p!curar < Latin pecurarius – pecus, pecoris. Besides, Romanian has many other terms for the same semantic sphere (the richest in the area): oier < oaie (Latin ovis), p!stor < pastor, baci (archaic indigenous term, probaby of Pre-Indo-European origin), mocan, also of unknown origin, perhaps of Pre-Indo-European origin as well. In these circumstances, it would be difficult indeed to accept that cioban is a late borrowing from Turkish where, in its turn, was borrowed from Persian. __________________________________________________________________ 201

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

We must admit that the etymology of cioban is a key point in further investigations; and the same should be said about du(man ‘an enemy’, an old IE term, but also considered of Turkish origin in Romanian. The arguments are again feeble, and based on the same erroneous assumption that the phonetic evolution in the case of indigenous Thracian words must follow exactly the phonetic evolution from Latin to Romanian. This is valid indeed when the sounds (phonemes) involved were identical, which is not always the case. V!taf and a brief survey of the Thracian laryngeal I also discussed this form connected to related forms in Romanian dialects (v!tav, v!ta(, v!taj, v!tah) and the neighbouring languages: Ukr. vataha, Pol. wataha, Bulg. vatah, and Serbian-Croatian vatak. In the Slavic languages, the sense, according to the available dictionaries, is always ‘a leader, a master’ (therefore similar to the ban-series analysed above). In Romanian, the basic sense is the same, with some peculiarities: (1) a leader of the servants in a boyar’s court and/or in a monastery; (2) leader of a hospodar’s group; (3) an essential character of the indigenous magic dance of C!lu(.3 The word must ultimately be of indigenous Thracian-Illyrian origin, and some Ancient forms may witness the proto-form: )*+,+-./01, 2+,+-./01, Vetespios, Betespios ‘an epithet for Heros’. In the series of the etymological explanations of Kretschmer, Bari", De#ev, i.e. the possible relation may be with Alb. vetë ‘self, a person’. I also agree that it must be of archaic origin, and also consider that other related Thracian forms may be relevant or illuminating: NP Vitupaus, Vithopus, 2+/3/.41 (De#ev 1957: 47). 3

The C!lu( is one of the main attractions for the foreign tourists in Romania. The complexity of this dance cannot be discussed here. __________________________________________________________________ 202

De vocabulis dominationis __________________________________________________________________

Nevertheless the etymon cannot be followed as related to Albanian vetë, but as derived from the IE root *wat-, *wet- ‘to inspire, to elevate spiritually’, hence also Lat. vates, -is ‘a wit, a prophet’, Old Irish faith ‘a visionary, a prophet’, Germanic god-name Woden, hence Eng. Wednesday, and Norse Odhinn (sometimes identified with Woden). This ultimate origin is, in my view, the only possibility to explain ALL these forms, both formally and semantically. The spread of these forms all over Central-East Europe cannot be a mere hazard, but the common Thracian or Thraco-Illyrian heritage, even though Romanian must be the intermediary for Ukrainian and Polish forms. The family represented by Rom. v!taf also puts a particularly interesting problem of phonetic evolution: the relations and correspondences between f, h,(/j, " and k as witnessed in the languages mentioned, including the Thracian forms attested in the Antiquity. The task is not easy, but we may surmise that the protoforms had a sound impossible to spell in Greek and Latin. It must have been of laryngeal type, later lost in Romanian, Albanian and also in the Slavic languages which borrowed the term. My view may be better understood if comparing the following examples: Romanian Albanian Rom./Alb. ____________________________________________________ (1) f!rîm! ‘a small piece’ (2) ceaf! ‘(neck) nape’ (3) c!ciul! ‘a cap’ (4 ) fluture, a flutura ‘a butterfly; to flutter’ (5) hali, h!mesit ‘to eat; hungry’ (6) abur ‘vapours’ (7) barz!, pl. berze ‘stork’

thërrimë qafë kësulë fluturonj

f/th (< *H); !/ë; r/rr; m/m ci(")/q; f/f c/k; ci(")/s; l/l; !/ë f/f (fl/fl); t/t; u/u

ha, hamës

h/h (< *H); m/m

avull bardhë ‘white’

a/a; b/v; r/ll b/b; r/r; z/dh

__________________________________________________________________ 203

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________ (8) dîrdîi ‘to shiver’ (9) zer, zar!’ whey’ (10) zer, zar!

dergjem ‘I’m ill, sick’ d/d; er/îr dhallë ‘buttermilk’ z/dh; r/ll, but also: hirrë ‘whey’ z/h (< *H); r/ll

(11) zim' ‘a dent; a tooth’ (12) la'e ‘(long) hair’ (13) mal ‘river-side’ (14) nan!, nene ‘older person’ (15) vatr! ‘a hearth’

dhëmb ‘a tooth’ lesh ‘hair; wool’ mal ‘a hill’ nënë ‘mother’ vatër, vatra ‘fire’

z/dh; im/ëm;'/b4 l/l; '/sh m/m; a/a; l/l n/n; an/ën; !/ë v/v; tr/tr

The examples may continue, but it is clear, I hope, that (1) Rom. h and f, on the one hand, v. Alb. h, f and th reflect, in some instances, AN OLDER SOUND, conventionally labelled here as laryngeal *H; (2) In the indigenous Thracian elements, Alb. ll is newer than Rom. r; specifically the evolution, in Albanian, was r > R (as in modern English) > ll, as obvious in Rom. abur v. Alb. avull. And, as stated above, indigenous (Thracian) b/v is regularly preserved in these forms. My reconstruction of the protoform for v!taf/v!tah/v!ta(/v!taj and its Slavic paralles is *v#taH, where the laryngeal *H was later turned into either f/h/( in Romanian and f/h - th (3)/dh (5) in Albanian. The existence of this laryngeal was brilliantly observed by Hamp in 1973 and rediscussed in Brâncu$ 1995, a good hypothesis, sustained and sustainable by other examples, unfortunatelly ignored by many linguists. For sure, it will be rediscussed in the coming years, and will illuminate many obscure points of the phonetic evolution from Thracian (and Illyrian) to modern languages. 4

In fact, the sequence –im'/-ëmb should be analysed as a group; cf. the relations between the archaic place-names Vin'u, Vin'a (Romania) – Vin"a (Serbia) – V!"a (Bulgaria), ultimately of Pre-Indo-European origin via Thracian. The Pre-IE root *W-$- has clear correspondences in southeast Europe and even farther West, in Iberia and southern France. __________________________________________________________________ 204

De vocabulis dominationis __________________________________________________________________

The complex correspondences between Romanian and Albanian cannot be discussed here. They just reflect, as stated in some of my previous papers, the complex, multi-stratified origin of Albanian: Romanised Illyrian (very few reliable examples), Proto-Dalmatian, Proto-Romanian and LateThracian origins. Albanian, in agreement with most linguists now, must be a Neo-Thracian, not Neo-Illyrian, language with an important Romance heritage, in its turn via at least three routes: Romanised Illyrian, ProtoDalmatian and Proto-Romanian. An East-Romance innovation: boier In Paliga 1990 I made an extensive analysis of Rom. boier in relation with its obviously related forms spread over a large area in Central-East Europe: S.-Cr. bòljarin, pl. boljári; Alb. bujar; Russ. bujarin; Lith. bajoras. These forms refer to a specific social and economic function in the Middle Ages in the areas where these languages were and are spoken. Other forms, like Hung. bo(j)er, Turk. boyar, Pol. bojar refer to such an organisation in the neighbouring areas. Also Med. Lat. boiarones and the institution of boieronatus, boeronatus reflect a reality specific mainly to Central and Southeast Europe, and also to Russia (see analyses in Arion 1940; Filitti 1925; Filitti 1935; Nistor 1944; Novakovi" 1913; Stoicescu 1970). The term is first mentioned by Constantine Porphirogenetos in De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae at the beginning of the 10th century A.D. (905– 909). There he mentiones that the first six boyars (607/85+1) were “the great boyars’, i.e. 9+:870/ 607/85+1. There is an impressive literature referring to the boyars (for which see Paliga 1990). I shall resume here only the main ideas and references. Thus, summing up the historical realities offered by Romanian, Serbian-Croatian __________________________________________________________________ 205

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

and Russian, where the term refers to specifically local realities, and as a step towards explaining the origin of the term, we may assert that: • The boyars were ALWAYS land-owners; and they were ALWAYS cattle-owners. • In the course of time, they also acquired certain political, economic and military functions, for the simple reason that they had the financial means to protect not only their properties, but also their country as a whole. Generally many linguists were tempted to consider boyar a term of Turkic origin as initially suggested by Miklosich in 1886: 17, root baj-, boj‘great; high’. There are several variants of this basic theory, all suggesting that the term had been spread a long time before the extension of the Ottoman Empire, so the origin might be Petcheneg or Cuman. There is a major and essential impediment of this old theory: this term is not at all specific to the Turkic area; in Turkish, boyar refer to the Romanian boyars, and there is no argument supporting the idea that this term would have ever been specific in the social and economic organisation of the Turkic groups. The term must be, as I suggested many years ago, of East-Romance origin, in other words it must be a Proto-Romanian innovation: it is simply derived from bou, pl. boi ‘ox, oxen’ (< Lat. bos, bovis, Acc. bovem) just like oier ‘shepherd’ < oaie, pl. oi < Lat. ovis, Acc. ovem. Therefore, the Romanian boier initially meant ‘owner of cattle’, and this is in full agreement with the traditional, archaic view that ‘owner of cattle’ or ‘owner of sheep’ was similar to richness. This obvious association has been preserved over millenia by the association pecus – pecunia ‘group of sheep’ – ‘money’. This East-Romance term spread to the neighbouring areas, just like k$motra < Rom. cum!tr! < Post-Classical Latin *comatra, *cumatra, __________________________________________________________________ 206

De vocabulis dominationis __________________________________________________________________

Classical commater (see other examples in Paliga 1996: Romance and PreRomance Influences in South Slavic). There is no other reasonable explanation regarding the origin of this term, and therefore any other hypothesis should be abandoned. Other Terms 1. gospod% ‘a master, lord’, especially ‘Lord = God’. Reflects the archaic compound *ghostis-potis, and the archaic meaning must have been ‘lord of the house’. This seems to be the oldest Slavic term referring to the sphere ‘master, lord’. In modern Slavic languages, the meaning is generally ‘sir, Mr.’ also ‘God’. This form was not borrowed in Romanian, where the usual term is domn ‘a master, Mr.’, also ‘God’; the feminine is doamn!; both reflect Lat. dominus, domina. Yet gospodar adj. ‘diligent’ is a Romanian semantic innovation starting from the Slavic word. 2. c;sa seems to be the oldest form, belonging to the basic Proto-Slavic vocabulary. All the other forms are borrowed from either North Thracian/ Proto-Romanian (ban, jupîn, st!pîn, also cioban, the latter with a restricted circulation, vatah/vata") or Germanic (c;sa boier ‘owner of cattle = rich man’. This reflects the various influences upon Proto-Slavic and Post-Expansion Slavic (4th to 8th centuries A.D.) until it got the form we know from oldest documents. In Romanian, the series ban, jupîn, st!pîn, also cioban, and v!taf, v!tah, v!ta( must reflect the indigenous Pre-Romance (Thracian) substratum; împ!rat and rege reflect the Latin influence; and cneaz the Mediaeval Slavic influence. This rather simplified scheme roughly reflects the various linguistic evolutions and interferences in this part of Europe. They also partially reflect the archaic Herrscherschaft suffix -n- (ban, jupîn, st!pîn, cioban) and, all, the various conceptions about Herrscherschaft across centuries: the master of the house, the master of the land, and the master of the universe = God. And they also fully support the archaeological and historical data referring to Central-, Central-East and Southeast Europe: an archaic world striving to adapt to the realities of the 21st millenium.

__________________________________________________________________ 208

Decem theses __________________________________________________________________

Ten Theses on Romanian Etymology Piae memoriae Ivani Duridanov

Introduction Several years ago the Linguistique Balkanique generously published my paper Two river-names revisited, preceded by a commentary of Prof. Ivan Duridanov (LB 38, 3). I hesitated a long time whether to write the following lines or just let time judge. In the field of linguistic studies, the Bulgarian school of thracology is obviously more articulated and coherent than its Romanian equivalent, if really a Romanian school of linguistic thracology exists. I would rather mention some remarkable studies scattered in various journals like those of Mircea Mihai R!dulescu (1981, 1984, 1987), now unjustly forgotten by my colleagues, and the works of Gh. Mu"u dealing with the Pre-Indo-European heritage in south-east Europe (Mu"u 1981, 1995) and the Thracian mythology and religion (Mu"u 1972, 1973, 1982); Mu"u wrote exclusively in Romanian and his remarkable contributions are practically unknown abroad1. And the remarkable works of Grigore Brâncu" and C!t!lina V!t!"escu. Such details are – in a way – the history of Thracian studies too. And I feel embarrassed to contradict Prof. Duridanov: he is not right in putting things in such a manner that the reader might understand (or surmise) that he detains the unique and 1

I am embarrassed to note that Mu"u’s fellow Romanian colleagues have rarely quoted his works, and thus contributed to his being unknown or too little known abroad. This footnote cannot radically improve the situation, but at least lets my conscience free of a burden. __________________________________________________________________ 209

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

absolute truth. In fact, three topics were approached there: (a) that north Thr. ! did not turn into ô > o and u in Romanian (i.e. a phonetic change specific to north Thracian; Prof. Duridanov uses the term Dako-Mysisch ‘Daco-Mysian’ for North Thracian, for which see below); (2) that Some" may be only explained via a Slavic intermediary and that this river-name is not of Pre-Indo-European (hereafter Pre-IE) origin, namely from *S!M- ‘deep; high’, “eine kühne Etymologie” (kühne ‘audacious’2); (3) river-name Olt may be explained only if a Slavic intermediary in supposed. In order to justify his observations (and therefore putting down my arguments which were extracted to exactly fit the purpose), Prof. Duridanov invoked nomina sacra of the Romanian and European linguistics, specifically Pu"cariu, Petrovici, Russu and Schramm. Embarrassed as I was I still am, nevertheless I shall put it plainly: THEY WERE/ARE WRONG; sometimes. I shall explain below why they were and some others still are wrong, but I hasten to add that indeed a certain detailed discussion is necessary in the case of Olt < Alutus, where a Slavic influence is possible, yet not certain as many still believe. This would anyway be a very rare case where the substratum nomina were affected by the Slavic influence. But this has for long become a cliché (see below). Terminology An important, if not a fundamental and misleading misunderstanding is the direct consequence of the different terminology used in Romania and Bulgaria. There are also differences from author to author. I shall briefly present them. The usual and largely spread terms in the Romanian studies are: Thracian referring to the linguistic area inhabited by ALL the Thracian groups, and thus referring to the area corresponding to modern Romania and Bulgaria, but also to Serbia, east Hungary, east Slovakia, south Ukraine and Republic of Moldova; 2

Thus I became an audacious linguist, without wishing it, but just knowing that Pre-IE root *S-M- has for long become usual in many references. __________________________________________________________________ 210

Decem theses __________________________________________________________________

Thraco-Dacian, sometimes Geto-Dacian or Daco-Getian or Daco-Geto-Thracian or Geto-Daco-Thracian or simply Dacian rarely Getian, referring specifically to the north Danubian Thracian groups, i.e. those which inhabited present Romania. By !orth Thracian my Romanian colleagues (and I) understand Geto-Dacian etc. It corresponds to Daco-Mysian (for which see below a brief commentary). In Bulgaria, the usual terms are Thracian (Thrakisch) or Thracian proper or even “Pure Thracian” (echtthrakisch3) and Daco-Mysian (Dako-Mysisch) which would correspond to Thraco-Dacian in the Romanian terminology. But M.M. R!dulescu also uses the term Daco-Mysian in his studies written in English. This parallel terminology made Prof. Duridanov say that my postulated evolution North Thracian (i.e. Daco-Mysian) ! > *ô > Rom. o and u (regional and/ or dialectal differences) is not correct; if I justly understand what he writes in the quoted article everything would have been acceptable, if not entirely correct, if I had used the term Daco-Mysian, not north Thracian, for the mentioned phonetic treatment. Thus do I surmise after reading § 4 in Duridanov 1996: 223. This is, I feel, the long-term consequence of the largely spread hypothesis in the Bulgarian school of Thracian studies that Thracian (proper or “echtthrakisch”) is radically different from Daco-Mysian (i.e. north Thracian in my terminology). I am afraid that this is a simplistic way of approaching the Thracian heritage. In more elegant words than mine, the same idea is expressed in Janakieva 1995: 241, who belongs to the same Bulgarian school of Thracian studies; still more remarkable from this perspective is the recent synthesis of Fol et alii 2000, which definitely speaks of the whole Thracian world, south- and north-Danubian. This is, in fact, the standard view expressed, among others, in Oppermann’s Thraker zwischen Karpatenbogen und Ägäis. Differences between the Thracian dialects grew along time and, of course, while history, political relations and economic interests had their way ahead. I assume, or at least imagine, that more rapid divergent evolutions 3

Duridanov 1995: 169, speaking about Thr. deva, diva, labels it as “echttrakisch”. The term would require at least a clearer definition, if not an abandon. __________________________________________________________________ 211

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

in the Thracian world began in the first century BC and became rapid indeed beginning with the 2nd century AD. In the 3rd–4th century A.D. we might indeed speak of more divergent Thracian tongues, but still close enough to be mutually intelligible. And maybe Thracian was still spoken, in isolated groups, even when the Magyars settled in Pannonia in the 10th century AD. Those Sclavini, Bulgari, Blachi ac pastores Romanorum mentioned by Anonymus4 seemingly are the Slavs, the Romanians and the not yet Romanised Thracian groups, but in close connection with the Romanised economic élite which used them as shepherds. Faute de mieux, the author called them pastores Romanorum ‘the Romans’ [= Romanians’] shepherds’. In the given context, pastores Romanorum obviously has an ethnic meaning. Who may have been those “shepherds of the Romans” if not the last remnants of the former indigenous population, the Thracians? My theory may seem audacious, but I am really prepared to assist at a serious debate on the topic: until when was Thracian spoken? My Bulgarian colleagues admit now that it was still spoken when the first Slavic groups passed the Danube and settled in what is today Bulgaria, i.e. 6th even 7th century AD. In full agreement with them, I overbid this assertion and say: at least in some isolated areas in north Transylvania, Maramure", Oa" and Bukovina, maybe also in Pannonia, Thracian was still a vivid tongue in the 10th century A.D., but rapidly came into extinction in the 11th century A.D. The surrounding world really changed and they could not survive in such an adverse environment: their god Zamolxis, their seasonal rites, burial rites, their prayers could not find a way out in the new political and economic circumstances. World had really changed, and there was no room for their archaic rites. And Romanian, just like its West-European Romance relatives, was too powerful to not assimilate these relics of the past. 4

Ch. IX: Et laudabant eis terram Pannoniae ultra modum esse bonam. Dicebant enim, quod ibi confluerent nobilissimi fontes aquarum, Danubius et Tyscia, et alii nobilissimi fontes bonis piscibus habundantes. Quem terram habitarent Sclavi, Bulgari et Blachi ac pastores Romanorum. __________________________________________________________________ 212

Decem theses __________________________________________________________________

This long way around has had some purpose: (1) to underline that facts should be considered carefully, if possible without preconceived ideas; (2) we really need a unified terminology referring to the Thracian world; (3) archaeological, historical and linguistic data from both the documents of the antiquity and modern languages should be put together and sometimes reconsidered and/or reinterpreted (see below). Many stereotypes have unfortunately become usual, and erroneous hypotheses have been built on them. The long debate whether Thracian (proper, or “echtthrakisch”) was radically different from North Danubian Thracian (DacoMysian) seems to rather reflect the political intrusion into cultural affairs, and Thracian studies too, in the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s in both Romania and Bulgaria, and the naive illusion that scientific research is called to justify political conceptions of the time, specifically the orders of the political communist régimes of those times. Unfortunately, intellectuals are often victims of such political pressures, and rarely find the power to oppose them. These are indeed painful details, but they also represent an important part of the history of Thracian studies. I hasten to add that the intrusion of politics into scientific debates was not and is not specific to only southeast Europe. This truth has been plainly presented by Jucquois (2000), with reference to the long debated theories regarding the origin of human speech; he keenly noted the intrusion of the political atmosphere in western Europe in the late 1960’s (May 1968 and the cold war) which led to significant compromises of non-scientific character. Facts The evolution of certain Thracian sounds cannot be easily reconstructed. The analysis is based on the approximate spelling of the Thracian words (mainly place- and personal names), the identification of possible derivatives in modern languages (Romanian, Albanian, South Slavic idioms, but also Ukrainian or Hungarian), in both vocabulary and place-names, and of course the possible relationship with other linguistic areas, especially the satem speaking group, first of all Baltic and Slavic, but also Iranic and Old Indian. If the evolution of north Thr. (Dako-Mysian) ! is in view, __________________________________________________________________ 213

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

then as many as possible relevant forms should be analysed. So the parallel Mure"Marica is inevitable, but not only that. I repeat: river-name Mure" is seemingly5 related to other forms like a mura ‘to pickle’ (to preserve vegetables in water and salt over winter). But the evolution of (north) Thr. (Daco-Mysian) ! to Rom. o and u is really evident in Dun#re ‘the Danube’, mum# ‘mother’ (specific term of Romanian tales6), NM Codru-Moma (moma is a variant of mum#). Maybe I was wrong when I supposed that Mure" is closely related to Marica, and that the original ! in the root should be explained in a way or another. Maybe there was # there in the south Thracian dialect where the river Marica flowed and flows. Ultimately there is another Romanian river-name Mara not far from the Mure" (hence the region Maramure"), as there is the Slovene river-name Mura.7 I patiently wait for better explanations, but in that case I shall use the whole arsenal of arguments which show that (north) Thr. ! (Daco-Mysian !) first turned into ô then into Romanian o and u, with local (regional, dialectal) differences: in some areas the evolution was ! > ô > o, in other areas the evolution was ! > ô > u. The examples are clear and entirely coherent, even if they were formerly ignored. Some! as Pre-IE relic. This time the topic turns down back in time. We all know that the flourishing Neolithic civilisations of southeast Europe were not IndoEuropean: Sesklo, Cri"/Körös, Karanovo I–IV, Vin#a-Turda", Cucuteni etc. were non-IE cultures. I do not see any impediment in considering that an important amount of Thracian, Greek, Hittite or Latin words was inherited from the archaic Pre-Indo-European substratum8. How important was this component of the 5

I say seemingly to not induce the idea that I have discovered a Thracian text I do not want to publish, and thus keep this precious document for myself only. 6 As compared to mam# < Lat. mamma and maic# < S.-Cr., Bg. majka. 7

Discussed in Ljubljana at the Simpozij Obdobja. The papers of the symposium were published in 2002. 8 According to reliable sources, e.g. Chantraine, only 40% of the Greek vocabulary admits an Indo-European etymon; some other words reflect various influences from the Mediterranean languages, and more than 50% reflect, beyond any doubt, the indigenous (Pre-Indo-European) heritage. And Hittite also had an important Pre-Indo-European (Hatti) heritage, especially in the religious vocabulary. __________________________________________________________________ 214

Decem theses __________________________________________________________________

Thracian language is difficult to estimate now; it probably was much more important than I was inclined to admit some 20 years ago and much more important than many linguists still admit. Some of them do not discuss this topic at all, probably because it was not included in the textbooks of the 1950’s and 1960’s. So much the worse, as it was well sustained and fundamented in the 1920’s and our knowledge has gradually increased ever since. We can now identify tens of Pre-IE roots, and their number is increasing. The progress cannot be rapid; I only remind that Etruscan is still largely unknown, despite the strenuous efforts of the last decades. I gladly agree with Prof. Duridanov (alas!) that Some" is indeed related to Slavic som$ and Lith. !amas, Latvian sams ‘the fish Silurus’, BUT I AM INCLINED TO CONSIDER ALL THESE FORMS AS PRE-INDOEUROPEAN too as I put on paper some 18 years ago in my book Byzantion9. This is indeed normal, as some archaic place-names and fish-names prove their common etymon (among these, the relation between NM Carpathians and the fish carp, with similar, related forms in many European languages, e.g. Rom. crap, cf. NPp Carpi, Korpiloi, a North-Danubian Thracian group, located in modern Moldavia). Pre-IE words in Slavic? Why not: add to this form ryba or the placename Praha (and many others, of course) and we are slowly getting to the great truth: Slavic also has a Pre-IE heritage (as I briefly wrote in Slavisti%na Revija 40, 3/1992: 309–313). And Slavic, as a satem Indo-European language, could not be very far from Thracian; or, otherwise put, was quite close to the northernmost Thracian dialects spoken in what is today Bukovina (north Romania) and

9

Unpublished in the initial form. Large parts of it have been published as independent papers, and some other parts were included in Paliga 1996. __________________________________________________________________ 215

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

southwest Ukraine10. Briefly, I do NOT think that Romanian somn ‘the fish silurus’ was borrowed from Slavic som$; if there still are linguists inclined for such an etymon, let them explain the phonetic evolution step by step and sound by sound: how that Slavic $ resulted in Romanian n? Was there the homophonous somn ‘sleep’, which helped this confusion? Was the sequence mn in somn something created for an easier pronunciation? It is indeed a specific Romanian sequence like in Lat. lignum > Rom. lemn, or Lat. signum > Rom. semn, and just from that reason I think that Rom. somn ‘the fish Silurus’ is older than Sl. som$. It is clear to me, and hopefully to others, that Sl. som$ belongs to the category of archaic terms related to fishing and this Urverwandtschaft should be analysed correspondingly. Slavic som$ may be further explained as either an indigenous Slavic form or rather borrowed from a neighbouring idiom just because the sequence mn in final position is unusual in Slavic and thus replaced by the sequence -m$. I would just remind that there is a series of old borrowings from (Boreal) Thracian and Proto-Romanian into Pre-Expansion-Slavic, sometimes incorectly labelled “common Slavic” (see below Thesis 9). So, Some" is indeed related to somn ‘the fish silurus’ (and with Sl. som$ and Lith. !amas and Latvian sams, indeed), but – as we may surmise according to available data - not via Slavic, but from the Thracian substratum, which – in its turn – may have also had its contribution to the Slavic ethnogenesis. And, to add even more difficulty to the analysis, I add other Romanian forms derived from the same Pre-IE root *S-M-: seme& ‘high’ (about a peak); ‘proud’ (about persons); 10

If north Thracian is to be equalled to Daco-Mysian, so “northernmost Thracian” or Boreal Thracian must be that Thracian dialect(s) spoken in north Romania and south Ukraine; their speakers must have had an important role in the Slavic ethnogenesis together with the Baltic speakers; the Germanic and Iranic speakers must have had a less important role, yet identifiable in vocabulary. On the complex Slavic ethnogenesis, see our brief survey in Slavisti%na Revija (in press when this paper in being prepared). __________________________________________________________________ 216

Decem theses __________________________________________________________________

Semenic (a peak in the West Carpathians), closely related to the preceding; 'imleu, place-name in west Romania; "oim ‘a falcon’ (not from Hungarian salyom, which I suppose is from Romanian, ultimately in agreement with the Hungarian linguists, who assume it is of unknown origin, but avoiding to quote the Romanian form); 'oimu", a village near Jibou, district S!laj; related to "oim; etc. River-name Some" is only one example OUT OF OTHER NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF ROMANIAN WORDS OF PRE-INDO-EUROPEAN ORIGIN, preserved via Thracian, and showing that the Pre-Indo-European component of Thracian was important. If there still are linguists in the area who simply ignore the Pre-Indo-European heritage of Southeast Europe, this is exclusively their own risk and their own raison d’être, not to be used as an argument. To put it straight, if my Romanian and Bulgarian colleagues still ignore the Pre-Indo-European heritage of Thracian, I warmly invite them to read the fundamental works of Skok and Bezlaj, two authors whose contributions are indeed relevant to the topic and still unsurpassed in many aspects. The investigation of the Pre-Indo-European substratum already had a quite long history, which started to have a coherent structure after WW1 mainly by the works of the Italian linguists (see our preview in Paliga 1989 c, 1988; both reprinted in Paliga 1999, which summarises our main studies in the field). Deva-dava, deva, Moldova, Pulpudeva/Plovdiv, and Kokodiva or about the legendary intervocalic b/v in Thracian elements preserved in Romanian. The town of Deva is located in south Transylvania and visitors can still see the ruins of an early medieval fortress on the hill nearby. Despite the obvious origin of the place-name, Thr. dava, deva ‘fortress’, I identified only one explanation in Iordan 1963 which assumes that the origin would be Sl. d(va ‘a girl’! The reason was, of course, the largely spread idea that Thracian intervocalic b/v should have __________________________________________________________________ 217

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

followed the same evolution to Romanian as Latin b/v, A WRONG ASSUMPTION based on theoretical considerations without support and, strangely enough, confusing the notion letter and sound: Thracian b/v IS REGULARLY PRESERVED IN ROMANIAN as observed by other linguists, e.g. abur (Alb. avull) ‘vapour(s)’ (meantime a largely accepted Thracian element in Romanian). And, to be clear, c#ciul# ‘a (fur) cap’ preserves intervocalic -l- which, in the Latin elements of Romanian, would have turned to r; but it didn’t! And it didn’t in any other identifiable case: it was preserved as such in Romanian. And river-name Ibru (of course related to Bg. Ib#r and to Serb Ibar) did not lose b in the sequence -brand so on and so forth: NP C#lin, NM C#liman (related to Caraiman and to Carpa&i), etc. Other examples in R!dulescu 1981 passim. The Bulgarian forms Plovdiv and Kokodiva/Kukudiva have been analysed in Duridanov 1986 and 1989; the author did not note the obvious relationship with the Romanian place-name Deva. But in that case he could not mention that deva is “echtthrakisch”, because it is indeed audacious to assert that a south Transylvanian place-name with obvious relations in south Thracian (or “echtthrakisch”) is echtthrakisch too. Or, in more clear terms, I think Transylvanian Thracian was as echtthrakisch as any other Thracian dialect, north or south from the Danube. Ten Theses on Romanian, Thracian and Slavic Elements in Southeast Europe I shall try to summarise the results of my research in the field, hoping that it might be useful for my colleagues preoccupied with Thracian studies. It reverts to the same topic briefly approached in Linguistica 31/1991, with some important additions. Thesis 1. The Thracian-speaking area was large enough11 to assume that local 11

Modern territories of Romania, Republic of Moldova, Bulgaria, Serbia, East Hungary, East Slovakia, South Ukraine with radial transitory expansions. __________________________________________________________________ 218

Decem theses __________________________________________________________________

(dialectal, regional) differences existed. I surmise that a more rapid divergent evolution began in the 1st century BC and accelerated at the beginning of the 2nd century AD. THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT THERE WERE RADICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DACO-MYSIAN AND THRACIAN PROPER. If such theories still persist, they just continue stereotypes of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Northernmost speakers of Thracian (Boreal Thracian12) could understand southernmost Thracian (“Thracian proper” or “echtthrakisch”) speakers without major difficulties, and presumably understood fairly well the Illyrian speakers. I repeat some known examples, and add some others I have lately identified. Examples from toponymy (Romanian territory v. (“–”) South Slavic territory, Thraco-Illyrian area): Arad – Arda; baci ‘(master) shepherd’, also in place-names – Ba%, Ba%ka (several names); Buda (several locations) – Budva; Chilia – Kilia, Celje; &u&ulc#, )u&ora – Cuculka; Dridu – Drid (Adriatic islands); c#tun – Katun (cf. Alb. katun); codru (‘forest; hill’, also in place-names) – Kodrjana; Deva – Kokodiva, Kukudiva, Plovdiv (all reflecting Thr. dava, deva ‘a fortress’); Ibru–Ib#r, Ibar (and also Ibr, a tributary of Teterev in Ukraine); Media" – Medija; Mure" (dial. pron. Mur#") – Mura, Murva; "era, "#ruja – "era, "eretva; Savu – Sava; Siret, Siriu – Serava, Srem; Strei, Strem& – Struma, Strima, Strjama; Tarc#u ( jupîn and Sl. $upan$ (I have not changed my view exposed many years ago in Linguistica 27/1987). My reconstruction may seem abusive, as Rom. jupîn is on the list of the so-called “oldest borrowings from Slavic into Romanian”, together with balt#, dalt#, gard, m#gur#, m#tur#, smîntîn#, st#pîn, stîn#, sut#, sometimes even "chiau, pl. "chei ‘Slav’ (thus in Duridanov 1991), but this list is anyway incorrect: ALL THE SUPPOSED “OLDEST BORROWINGS FROM SLAVIC INTO ROMANIAN” IS BASED ON ERRONEOUS ETYMOLOGIES AND THE 18

Also spread in the Caucasian languages which rather indicates its archaic origin; see Klimov 1994: 200. __________________________________________________________________ 222

Decem theses __________________________________________________________________

STEREOTYPE THAT THERE WERE SUCH VERY EARLY BORROWINGS AS THE VI–VIIth CENTURIES A.D. In reality, the oldest Slavic elements in Romanian cannot be dated earlier than the XIIth century, more probably XIIIth century. The famous list of “old borrowings” is entirely fictitious and led to false conclusions. Most of the words in the famous list are of certain or very probable Thracian origin (including sut#19), others reflect Urverwandtschaft, not borrowings, e.g. Rom. gard ‘a fence’, balt# ‘a pond’ – Sl. grad$, blato respectively. It is important to note that ALL the quoted forms put MAJOR PROBLEMS of etymological and/or historical interpretation in Slavic, so at least a more cautious approach would be required. Anyway, "chiau, pl. "chei ‘a Slavic speaker’ should not be discussed in this context, but rather together with the other two old ethnonyms in Romanian, i.e. rumân (< Romanus) ‘a Romanian’ (in modern times spelled român, as a bookish influence, of course); frînc, frânc (< Francus) ‘a west European speaker of a Romance language’ (the “technical” term by which the Romanians identified the non-Romanian speakers of a neo-Latin idiom). There can be a long discussion about the very presence of the form Sclavus > (Proto-)Romanian "chiau, "chei in east Romance as a colloquial, non-bookish form. Sut# has a special position in both Slavic (for which see Paliga 1988 b with full argumentation and references) and Romanian, ultimately showing its nonSlavic and non-Romance character and leading to the only logical conclusion: it is an “intrusive” element in both Romanian (as an indigenous Thracian numeral among the other numerals of Latin origin) and Slavic (as a borrowed form from a neighbouring language). Jupîn and st#pîn should be discussed together with ban and cioban ‘shepherd’; ban, jupîn and st#pîn have similar meanings: ‘a local leader, a small king, a princeps’ (see extensively in Paliga 1987 b, reprinted in Paliga 1989). 19

For which see Paliga 1988 b (in Slovene with an abstract in English); an English version was published in Paliga 1999, and is also included in this volume, above. __________________________________________________________________ 223

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

They also reflect the “standard” Herrschersuffix -no- specific to words denoting mastership: Lat. dominus, Quirinus, Germanic *Wodanaz, Hittite Tabarna, etc. (Klock-Fontanille 1998: 63). Briefly, the list of the so-called “oldest borrowings from Slavic into Romanian” puts major problems and is based on erroneous assumptions and etymological interpretations. Most of them are due (mainly) to the incoherent and shallow analysis of the Thraco-Illyrian heritage in southeast Europe, and also to the numerous unclear aspects connected to the Slavic ethnogenesis; this latter problem is too complex to be analysed here. I shall revert to this topic on another occasion, hopefully again in Slavisti%na Revija. Thesis 3. The agglutinated definite article in Romanian (Latin forms calquing the indigenous system, but -u and -a in some forms being of Thracian origin) Albanian and, by calque, in Bulgarian (and Macedonian) is of Thracian origin. The agglutinated definite article was seemingly (to not write “obviously”) a PanThracian feature (see a last review of the topic in Brâncu" 1995: 98 ff.). In full agreement with Iv!nescu (1980, passim) I share the hypothesis that the Thracian influence should be considered in all the essential aspects of Romanian: phonetic inventory, some forms of the definite article (like -u, masc. sg., and -a, the definite article of the adverbs and demonstrative pronouns, a specific feature of Romanian, sometimes shared with Albanian), personal pronouns and verbal flexion. A simple example with the verb a fi ‘to be’; in the following scheme, the bold italic forms are of probable Thracian influence and origin: (eu) sînt, îs, -s (when preceded by a stressed form, e.g. mi-s aici ‘I am here’) (tu) e"ti (el, ea) e, este, îi20 (noi) sîntem 20

To note that the parallel forms e-este (always pronounced with initial y, i.e. ie, ieste) is not so easy to explain from Latin est: where is -e in este from? This seems to be also an indigenous form with emphatic role. __________________________________________________________________ 224

Decem theses __________________________________________________________________

(voi) sînte$i (ei, ele) sînt, îs "ote. Most of the forms above look like “obviously Latin”; nevertheless note that the identity of 1st person singular and 3rd person plural is an indigenous innovation; for the verbs of the first conjugation (like a cînta) the identity is 3rd person singular and 3rd person plural: el/ea cînt# – ei/ele cînt#; a substratum influence may be surmised. Other examples may be: o (3rd pers., sg., fem., accusative) ‘her’, e.g. o v#d ‘I see her’; the glottal stop in the case of triphthongs as in beau (dial. biau, with e/i and u as semivowels), probably witnessing for an archaic laryngeal (see above); o in the popular future like o s# vin ‘I shall come’ (in fact, the analytical future of the subjunctive with indicative meaning), etc. Ultimately, speaking of innovations in the Romance languages, we may often surmise or assume that they were due to the indigenous, substratum influence or, in the case of Italy, to other more or less related Italic languages. Thesis 4. The dialectal differences of Thracian must have been those reflected in the dialectal differences of Romanian (north Danubian area) and of Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbian (south Danubian). Specifically: Thracian (proper or “echtthrakisch” corresponding to Thracia as a region); Danubian Thracian, including the area of the tributaries of the Danube like Transylvania and west Romania; East Thracian (or CarpoThracian) where a certain Scythian influence occurred; Boreal Thracian or northernmost Thracian, i.e. the Thracian groups which influenced the emergence of the Slavic speakers21. The differences among these local variants were probably important but, in any case, we are not allowed to postulate that there were more than ONE AND UNIQUE, QUITE COHERENT, THRACIAN LANGUAGE. Neither the Greek or Latin writers, nor 21

About this complex topic, see our study in the Slavisti%na Revija, in print when this paper is being prepared.. __________________________________________________________________ 225

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

modern investigations allow such a view, unless extralinguistic, political reasons are possibly implied. Thracian must have been quite close to Illyrian, as many place- and personal names show. How close and with what differences is difficult to estimate; maybe Thracian and Illyrian were as close/remote to each other just as Bulgarian to Macedonian or Serbian to Croatian or Czech to Slovak. If the readers may find these examples unconvincing, I am prepared to listen to other arguments if they are justified, not simply asserted. The only obvious difference, based on reliable analysis, is the different evolution of ! > ô > o/u in North Danubian Thracian (Daco-Mysian), whereas the South Danubian Thracian (“echtthrakisch”) seemingly does not share this evolution, or at least I could not identify any reliable example. Thracian must have had, as any other language, dialectal differences, initially less important, later, after Romanisation, more and more important. But this does not mean that there were more Thracian languages, or, pejoratively, several “Thracoid” languages. Thesis 5. The Pre-Indo-European heritage must have been important in Thracian as many place-names show, a reality reflected in the NUMEROUS PLACE-NAMES OF PRE-INDO-EUROPEAN ORIGIN PRESERVED in both Romania and also Bulgaria, former Yugoslavia and the Adriatic. Romanian preserves an important amount of Pre-Indo-European elements in the basic vocabulary. The topic is complex; the readers are referred to my previous studies (e.g. Paliga 1989 c and recently Paliga 1999; see also Mu"u 1981 and 1995). Examples in south Slavic place-names: Aborna, Arda, Bar, Grpe, Ig, Igman, Kilia, Klis, Kokra, Koro!ka, Kranj, Krka, Pirin, Pula, Una, V#%a, Vin%a, Vrbas etc. Examples in the Adriatic islands: Krk, Kras, Vir (< Ura), Olib/Ulib, Rava, Utra, Vrgada, Kakan, etc. __________________________________________________________________ 226

Decem theses __________________________________________________________________

Examples in Romania: Abrud, Ag#", Ighiu, Ineu (In#u), Anie", Ampoi, Arad, Anie", Arie", As#u, Asuaj, Adea, Atea, Atia, Cara", Carpa&i, C#rand, Guga, Gugu, Ilba, Ilva, Mandra, Manga, Mineu, Mini", "istru, Oarba, Oar&a, Oradea, Orlat, Orman, Urde", Uria, Uriu, Parîng, Pele", Peleaga, Sebe", Semenic, Simeria, Tulca, Tulcea etc. Examples in Romanian vocabulary: ora" ‘township’; uria" (adj) ‘huge’; (noun) ‘a giant’ (typical term of Romanian tales); seme& ‘high’ (about mountain peaks); ‘proud’; somn ‘the fish Silurus’; a adia ‘to breeze’; mo" ‘old man’; mu"uroi ‘(ant)hill’; mi"ca ‘to move’; roab#22 ‘wheelbarrow’ (archaic technical term); talp# ‘sole; instep’, etc. It would be remembered that the Pre-Indo-European influence has been proven for both Greek and Hittite; it would be indeed a wonder if the Pre-IndoEuropean had not been important in Thracian too. This is in full agreement with archaeological data, and any discussion on this topic should consider facts, not personal interpretations deprived of proofs and arguments. Thesis 6. Some words supposed of Hungarian origin are indigenous, borrowed by Hungarian from Romanian, not vice-versa. This series is not impressive in number, but contains some essential words like gînd ‘a thought; a preoccupation’, a gîndi ‘to think’; ora" ‘township’, related to uria" (1, noun) ‘a giant’ (term of Romanian tales); (2, adj.) ‘huge’, talp# ‘a sole’. Brief discussion: gînd and a gîndi must be related to Lith. godoti ‘to honour; to respect; to think, to meditate’; goda ‘a dream; a thought’; there is no major difficulty in supposing the Romanian origin in Hungarian as Hung. gond has no etymon23; 22

With the same intervocalic b, normal in the indigenous elements in Romanian (see above other examples). 23 It is obviously borrowed from Romanian, but the topic has been avoided in Hungary as long as most Romanian linguists erroneously consider that the Romanian form is borrowed from Hungarian; in this way, we turn around a vicious circle. __________________________________________________________________ 227

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

ora" can never be explained from Hung. város; it represents the largely spread Pre-IE root *OR-, *UR- ‘huge, big, giant’, also preserved in uria" ‘a giant’ (also a typical term in Romanian tales) and numerous place-names spread not only in Romania but over southeast Europe. Please note that ALL these Hungarian words have no reasonable and acceptable etymon; the fact that Hungarian scholars systematically refuse to accept them as Romanian influences is another story, mainly of political character. Thesis 7. The relationship between Thracian and Baltic is known. Some Romanian words still show this old relationship (Romanian v. Lithuanian): doin#, (dial., obsolete dain#, also duin#) ‘(specific Romanian) song’ – daina ‘(specific Lithuanian) song’24; erete ‘hen-hawk’ – erelis ‘eagle’; gînd, a gîndi (see above Thesis 6); "o (incentive for dogs) ‘go and attack (the foreigner, the unknown person, the enemy)’, especially in the phrase "o pe el ‘attack him’ – !uo ‘dog’25; zmeu, a specific term of Romanian tales: ‘a (fantastic) person living in the underground’ (usually malefic, but benefic values are also possible); related to zmeur# ‘raspberry ( = German Erdbeere, lit. ‘earthberry’)’26 – $mogus ‘a man’, .mon/s ‘people’, related (Urverwandt) to .emuog/ ‘(wild) strawberry’, all from IE *g' (e)m- ‘earth’27; dar (adversative conjunction, sometimes adverb) ‘but’ – dar (adverb) ‘still; yet’, iar ‘and’ (in some special constructions, otherwise "i < 24

Of Pre-Indo-European origin in both Romanian and Baltic; similar forms also in Basque (for which see Paliga 1992 e and 1994 a; reprinted in Paliga 1999). 25 Rom. cîine ‘dog’ ( < Latin) has replaced the archaic word in the common vocabulary. 26 The (obvious) relationship between zmeu and zmeur# HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED so far; it has probably been considered a fortuitous similarity! Its relation with Slavic zmij0 should be discussed separately. 27

The Slavic origin of Rom. zmeu, from zmij0, is impossible, yet this is a generally spread hypothesis! __________________________________________________________________ 228

Decem theses __________________________________________________________________

Lat. sic) – Lith. ir ‘and’. I must add that the studies dedicated to the Thracian/Romanian – Baltic correspondences are indeed rare. To date there is no coherent approach to the topic; a rare exception is R!dulescu 1981: an outstanding, dense (maybe too dense) study, unfortunately unknown to many specialists in the field28. Thesis 8. Thracian seemingly still was a vivid tongue when the first Slavic groups moved south in the 6th century and, according to reliable information, continued to be spoken in more and more restricted areas; it is not excluded that the first Magyar groups still heard Thracian speakers until the 11th century. Such details are not unimportant as they show that Thracian elements were integrated into Romanian and Bulgarian along several centuries, not all of a sudden within a (very) limited period of time. It is noteworthy also that, according to recent research, Bulgarian had a double substratum: Romance (Proto-Romanian) and Thracian. This changes a lot the former “compressed” view which assumed that Thracian was extinct in the 4th century at the latest. It should also change the view that the numerous Thracian elements in Romanian should follow uniform and simple phonetic rules as established from studying the evolution of the Latin elements. The situation was indeed complex in the first centuries A.D. in the Thracian speaking area as it was, in fact, all over Europe. We are called to identify those specific features which are relevant to the topic. These details are relevant in assuming that the Thracian words were integrated into Romanian, Albanian and Bulgarian over several centuries, not in a very limited period of time as was the former view. The Bulgarian substratum is thus double: Romance (Proto-Romanian) and (Late) Thracian; Albanian is for sure a Mircea-Mihai R!dulescu was a physician (doctor), and approached the Thracian studies as a passion of his mature years; many (local) linguists considered him an intruder and an incompetent pseudo-linguist; facts show that his studies are remarkable. 28

__________________________________________________________________ 229

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

stratified idiom with Romanised Illyrian elements (Proto-Dalmatian), Thracian elements, Thraco-Roman and Proto-Romanian elements, hence the (apparently) incoherent phonetic correspondences between Romanian and Albanian29. These may seem chaotic only if we attempt simplistic analyses; they get full meaning when we try to find the reasons why these correspondences are such as they are. See some examples in the preceding study. Thesis 9. There is evidence of very early borrowings from both a certain phase of Thracian and also a very early phase of Proto-Romanian into common (“PreExpansion”) Slavic. I briefly refer to only two examples, already analysed on another occasions: – Sl. s$to ‘100’ reflects a borrowing from a neighbouring language, and that language cannot be else than a northernmost dialect of Thracian; see further discussions in Paliga 1988 b. – Sl. k$motra reflects a very early borrowing from Proto-Romanian *kumatra, Classical Latin commater. This form may offer a sound approach to the topic as its origin is limpid and uncontroversial (further discussions in Paliga 1997). There are many other examples, e.g. the case of Sl. $upan, pan, ban and their relations to Rom. giupîn, st#pîn, ban (Paliga 1987); they reflect a larger, but somewhat limited, area of influence, in our case southeast Europe, where the quoted forms were, sometimes still are, largely spread (in Slovene, $upan still is a usual form with the meaning ‘mayor’). The relations between the Pre-Expansion Slavs, the northernmost Thracian groups and Proto-Romanians were indeed complex and require serious investigations; many of the finds largely accepted thus far should, I think, be basically revised, even if they belong to various nomina sacra of international linguistics. Quoting a famous name is not an argument in itself, or cannot be the unique argument in a scientific debate. 29

Many linguists are tempted to (erroneously) consider Albanian as a language directly derived from Indo-European; consequently thousands of pages have been written starting from this assumption. __________________________________________________________________ 230

Decem theses __________________________________________________________________

Thesis 10. The religious beliefs of the Thracians left traces down to modern and contemporary times. This is another field of investigation, where folklore specialists, anthropologists, historians, archaeologists and linguists should meet and conclude that southeast Europe has always been the cradle of original civilisations, with their ups and downs. Linguistically such spiritual relics are still identifiable in vocabulary, therefore the linguists have an important role in unveiling the realm of past gods. The problems are indeed complex, but I would mention the case of Rom. Cr#ciun ‘Christmas’, also ‘piece of wood’ (dialectal meaning) the origin of which cannot be Lat. creatio, but an indigenous Thracian root derived from IE *(s) ker- in words denoting pieces of wood, branches, twigs, and the like. The initial meaning had nothing to do with the Christian event, but with the “heathen” feast around the winder solstice when pieces of wood were lit, and still are in various parts of Europe until now. Given the limited, and rather summarising, character of this paper, I cannot develop on this topic. Nevertheless it should be mentioned that the Thracian and Thraco-Dacian religious complex has left traces in both vocabulary and beliefs all over southeast Europe. Some elements show their Pre-Indo-European origin. The rite connected to the supreme god Zalmoxis, specifically the one referring to his retirement in a cave, rather indicates a Pre-Indo-European motif than an IndoEuropean belief in the god of the shining sky. Theses 1 to 10: Summing up The Thracian world, as we may understand it, was complex and reluctant to traditional analyses. If I have succeeded in just suggesting some possible ways for future research, and in correcting some common error or stereotypes, even if these belong to nomina sacra of European linguistics, then this paper has hit an important target: that our approach must be serene, deep and, if possible, __________________________________________________________________ 231

Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice __________________________________________________________________

politics-free. I suggest a more decisive approach to the PRE-INDOEUROPEAN heritage, undoubtedly important in Thracian (as it was in Greek and Hittite too), its balance with the Indo-European heritage and, later, the role of romanisation and slavisation in contouring what we label southeast Europe or, using a term with pejorative connotation our days, the Balkans. For sure, the task is not easy, yet it offers the only way to better understanding the making of modern Europe, specifically southeast Europe.

__________________________________________________________________ 232

II În român! Dacoromanice

Studiile cuprinse în acest capitol au fost scrise de!a lungul a mul!i ani, ca atare ortografia va fi, în bun" parte, cea de dinaintea reintroducerii lui â #i, desigur, #i cea de dinaintea ultimei revizuiri. Ne!am expus cîndva criticile fa!" de asemenea decizii, luate f"r" discu!ii ample, cum s!ar fi cuvenit. De altfel, asemenea modific"ri nu rezolv" nimic din marile probleme ale grafierii limbii române, nef"cînd altceva decît s" complice inutil însu#irea limbii române, inclusiv de str"ini. Cum nu polemica este rostul acestor preciz"ri, r"mîne deschis" problema unei ample dezbateri privind ortografia limbii române. Cu aceast" ocazie trebuie s" se r"spund" clar la cîteva întreb"ri, în primul rînd trebuie r"spuns clar la o întrebare esen!ial": este necesar" revizuirea ortografiei limbii române? $i, dac" da, cum trebuie f"cut"? Prin deciziile unui grup restrîns sau în urma unei ample dezbateri?

De nomine Transylvaniæ __________________________________________________________________

Ardeal, Transilvania

„...ci Ardealul se cheam! mijlocul "!rii...”

1. Ne propunem ca în rîndurile ce urmeaz! s! relu!m, cu date esen"ialmente noi, etimologia toponimului Ardeal. Dup! cum este în general cunoscut, s-a acceptat c! numirea Ardeal î#i are originea în forma maghiar! Erdély, care este un derivat de la erd# „p!dure”, "inutul însemnînd deci „dincolo de p!duri”. Aceast! etimologie a fost lansat! înc! din secolul trecut 1 de Pál Hunfalvy #i „a fost acceptat! de to"i cercet!torii competen"i”, cum spune Gh. Iv!nescu (1980: 483). Este totu#i interesant de remarcat c!, în ciuda accept!rii acestei solu"ii etimologice, ea nu este deloc indubitabil!, cum ne-am a#tepta, nici nu s-a încercat vreodat! (ori, mai bine zis, practic niciodat!, cum vom vedea imediat) s! se explice cîteva anomalii; în adev!r, presupunînd c! forma maghiar! Erdély ar fi cea mai veche, ar fi de a#teptat ca é s! fie redat în român! prin e sau i #i nu prin diftongul ea, iar ly ar fi trebuit s! fie redat prin i, ceea ce înseamn! c! în român! numirea ar fi trebuit s! sune *Erdei sau *Ardei (e ini"ial din maghiar! poate fi redat în român! prin a; pentru asemenea coresponden"e fonetice a se vedea Rosetti 1986: 382 sq.). S-ar putea replica îns! c! româna ar fi putut împrumuta cuvîntul „la o dat! foarte veche”2 (?) pe cînd în maghiar! el apare Erdöel, Erdöelv, Erdöel, Erdeel (cum semnaleaz! Hunfalvy în studiul s!u) sau Erdeuelu (sec. XIII–XIV) cum apare la Anonymus, cap. XI, ocazie cu care reamintim c! 1

Secolul al XIX-lea, prima versiune a studiului nostru fiind publicat! în anul 1986, dar scris! în 1981–1982. 2

Formula „la o dat! foarte veche” este salvatoare atunci cînd nu exist! explica"ii ra"ionale sau #tiin"ifice, cum a fost - mult timp, dar înc! citat! pe alocuri - teoria „slavismelor vechi” în limba român!, împrumutate prin sec. VI–VII e.n. __________________________________________________________________ 235

Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

aceast! form! latin! medieval! este #i cea mai veche atestare pentru erd# „p!dure” (Benk$ et al. 1967–1980, I, 782). O discu"ie ampl! se g!se#te la Dr!ganu (1933: 421–422), care îns! reprezint! un stadiu par"ial dep!#it de analiza lingvistic!. Aceste detalii – ca #i alte cîteva de care vom aminti imediat – ne-au ap!rut ca fiind destul de interesante pentru a reconsidera #i, eventual, corecta etimologia admis! în mod curent ori, cel pu"in, a explica aceste cîteva neclarit!"i de tratament fonetic (#i care au devenit neclarit!"i de interpretare istoric!!). Este interesant de remarcat, totu#i, c! anumite încerc!ri timide de a atrage aten"ia asupra unor posibile numiri înrudite cu Ardeal au fost criticate ori ignorate. N. Dr!ganu, op. cit., men"ioneaz! regiunea Ardalus (Pausanias) ori ardelorium natio, la care noi am ad!uga, de exemplu, etniconul Ardilenós ori castelul Ardeia, ambele de pe teritoriul trac (formele se g!sesc citate de De%ev 1957: 23). Acestea au fost b!nuite ca fiind – probabil – asem!n!ri întîmpl!toare #i nu puteau fi altfel considerate, atîta timp cît forma Erdély se acceptase a fi originea cuvîntului românesc. În sfîr#it, este de men"ionat un „cercet!tor incompetent”, I. Mar"ian, care, într-o serie de articole publicate în revista Bistri"a (între 1924–1925), contest! originea maghiar! a formei române#ti Ardeal, men"ionînd o scrisoare a regelui Iosif al chazarilor (popula"ie de origine turcic!, convertit! la religia mozaic!, ce #i-a întemeiat un efemer regat în nord-estul M!rii Negre) c!tre rabbi Chasdai din Córdoba, unde se vorbe#te de un "inut numit Ardil în sec. VIII e.n., identificat de autorul articolelor cu Ardealul de dinainte de sosirea maghiarilor, implicit negîndu-se originea maghiar! a numirii. Din p!cate, aceste afirma"ii nu au putut fi verificate de noi, r!mînînd a fi reconsiderate în viitor. Dar drumul spre clarificarea acestei etimologii se poate face #i f!r! aceast! atestare (pre"ioas! de altfel, dac! s-ar dovedi real! 3), cum vom încerca s! demonstr!m în continuare. N. Dr!ganu 3

Forma Ardil se refer!, foarte probabil, dac! trebuie s! ne referim la aceasta, la o regiune cu acest nume din Caucaz, unde se stabiliser! chazarii. __________________________________________________________________ 236

De nomine Transylvaniæ __________________________________________________________________

crede (Societatea de mîine, II/1925, p. 38 #i 1928: 420 sq.) c! forma Ardil – #i, ad!ug!m noi, #i altele similare – nu poate fi anterioar! (respectiv, nu pot fi anterioare) venirii maghiarilor, deoarece „Ardealul nu este men"ionat în tot secolul al XI-lea decît foarte rar, în documente doar o singur! dat! în forma castrum quod vocatur Turda, dar nu Ardealul ca nume” (dup! Fr. Müller, Archiv des Vereines für siebenbürgische Landeskunde, nr. II, p. 318). Aceast! observa"ie interesant! nu se opune îns! ideii c! numirea Ardeal poate fi (cel pu"in teoretic) anterioar! secolului al XI-lea, ci arat!, cît se poate de clar, c! în acel timp maghiarii – #i alte popoare – înc! nu foloseau numirea Erdély/Ardeal, ce avea s! apar! o dat! cu Anonymus, cu dou!-trei secole mai tîrziu #i c! cetatea Turda4 avea o deosebit! importan"! strategic!, detaliu care nu intereseaz! aici. 2. Vom începe partea dedicat! ipotezei noastre chiar cu ceea ce ar trebui s! fie concluzia: originea de fapt a toponimicului Ardeal, echivalat în textele medievale germane ca Überwald, iar în cele latine#ti ca Ultra silvas, Ultrasilvania #i Transilvania, „traduceri” care, în modul cel mai simplu, ne dau #i solu"ia: Trans-silvania ori Ultra-Silvania înseamn! „PESTE DEAL” adic! „AR-DEAL”, în care trans-/ ultra- echivaleaz! pe ar- ce va fi însemnat, fire#te, „peste, dincolo de”, cuvînt pierdut în limba curent!, dar perfect încadrabil etimologic, cum vom vedea imediat, iar silvania #i germanul Wald traduc românescul deal, în sensul pe care l-a avut cîndva: „deal, în!l"ime” #i „p!dure”. Trebuie precizat c! aceast! paralel! „dealp!dure” exist! #i la alte popoare europene, cum ar fi german Wald fa"! de englez wold „regiune de dealuri #i p!duri” apoi „mla#tin!” ori Berg „munte” fa"! de suedez berg „deal” #i „p!dure” (de la o r!d!cin! *welt- „p!dure, s!lbatic”), la slavi gora desemneaz! atît muntele (la slavii de r!s!rit #i de apus) cît #i p!durea (la slavii de sud), iar la români codru „p!dure deas!” avea ini"ial #i sens de „deal”, precum forma albanez! kodër. De observat c! 4

Toponimul Turda este, f!r! îndoial!, de origine traco-dac!, radical preie. *T-R-. A&se vedea acum discu"iile din primul volum al acestei serii. __________________________________________________________________ 237

Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

etymonul cuvîntului românesc este – prin filier! traco-dac! – r!d!cina indoeuropean! *k$dh- „a acoperi, a proteja” #i tot astfel în albanez!; teoria care propune latinul quodrum ~ quadrum pe motivul c! un „codru de pîine” este ... p!trat (?!) este, fire#te, absurd! (vezi discu"ii la Gh. Mu#u 1982: 77–85). Revenind la toponimul Ardeal, observ!m deci c! el este – asemeni formelor latine #i germane – un cuvînt compus, în care prima parte ar- are semantismul „dincolo, peste”, iar partea a doua, deal, se explic! prin sine. Asupra formei maghiare vom reveni mai jos. Etimologia toponimului se „descompune” a#adar în a explica originea particulei ar- #i a lui deal. Vom începe cu al doilea component, cel mai important. 2.1. Originea lui deal a fost considerat! în mod constant ca slavul d%l-, cu sens identic. Este de observat c! acest cuvînt apare numai în unele limbi slave moderne, mai exact în vechea sîrb!, în ucrainean! #i în polona dialectal!, fapt ce arat! caracterul s!u de termen împrumutat. Originea slav! a cuvîntului românesc – de#i suficient!, poate, pentru a respinge teoria originii maghiare a toponimului Ardeal – nu poate fi îns! sus"inut!. Semnal!m, exempli gratia, c! r!d!cina d%l- apare într-adev!r pe teritoriul slav, dar în familii de cuvinte care nu au nici o leg!tur! cu semantismul „deal, în!l"ime”. Este vorba, pe de-o parte, de familia reprezentat! de d%l-1 în cuvinte ca d%l-iti „a împ!r"i” #i, pe de alt! parte, de d%l-2 „a face”, în cuvinte ca d%l-ati „a face”, d%l-o „oper!”. Ni se pare evident c! *d%l(reconstituirea unei forme slave primitive – ideal!, fire#te – s-a f!cut pornindu-se de la limbile moderne amintite) red! un cuvînt auzit de slavi de la popula"ia local! romanizat! (viitorii români), tot a#a cum este #i ab% din textele slave vechi, ce red! românescul abia (din lat. ab vix). Natural, asemenea pronun"ii identice ori asem!n!toare au creat confuzii de tipul etimologiilor populare. Este în orice caz incorect ca d%l- cu sensurile „parte” #i „deal” s! fie considerat unul #i acela#i cuvînt; sunt în realitate doi termeni net diferi"i, cu sens #i etymon net diferit. O asemenea confuzie, este drept par"ial!, o face #i Vl. 'milauer 1970: 54. Oricum, se observ! #i aici c! __________________________________________________________________ 238

De nomine Transylvaniæ __________________________________________________________________

semantismul „deal” apare în ariile vecine românilor, adic! în bulgar!, ucrainean!, polon! (este vorba de r!spîndirea medieval!), fapt ce arat! înc! o dat! caracterul de termen împrumutat al formei d%l- „deal”, suprapus! peste cele slave vechi #i confundat! cu acestea. De altfel, faptul c! deal apare deosebit de frecvent în toponimia româneasc! #i c! a fost împrumutat #i de popoarele din jur este un fapt în general cunoscut (a se vedea Iordan 1963: 26 #i Balkan Archiv, II, p. 40, pentru împrumuturile la slavi). Vechimea cuvîntului românesc va deveni înc! mai clar! o dat! cu încadrarea lui corect! în familia etimologic!. În primul rînd, r!d!cina dal-, del- apare frecvent în numirile trace, chiar dac! nu întotdeauna putem sugera #i un etymon acestor numiri, fiind posibil a#adar ca în spatele lor s! se ascund! sensuri #i origini diferite. Din perspectiva care ne intereseaz! pe noi aici, cit!m doar (dup! De%ev 1957: 113) toponimul Dalátarba #i Délkos, un lac bogat în pe#te. Dar cuvîntul care este poate cel mai aproape de forma #i sensul cercetate de noi este etnonimul illyr Dalmatae, Delmatae, numire a c!rei prim! parte (dal-, del-) a fost divers explicat! (fie r!d!cina indoeuropean! *dhel-, *dhal- „bolt!”, fie apropierea de alb. déle „oaie”). În"elesul real al numirii acestui etnonim #i al regiunii corespunz!toare, Dalmatia, nu poate fi decît unul singur, în deplin! concordan"! cu realitatea geografic! respectiv! : Dalma!ia este o regiune de dealuri 5. R!d!cina dal-, del- apare îns! #i în afara zonei traco-illyre, anume într-o alt! numire topic! pe teritoriul grec: Delos, de gen feminin, ca numele unei insule muntoase din Cyclade, iar de gen masculin ca numele unui munte în Beo"ia. Fire#te, apropierea de delos „vizibil, evident” este rezultatul hazardului #i atari confuzii apar frecvent pe teritoriul grecesc în cazul mo#tenirii pre-hellenice. În sfîr#it, semnal!m #i cîteva forme de sens similar cu consonantism ini"ial t- (fa"! de d-), cum sunt latin tellus „p!mînt”, gruzin talaki „p!mînt fertil”, arab tall, ebr. tell, etr. tel, toate însemnînd „deal”! Am citat toate aceste exemple nu pentru a deruta cititorul, ci pentru a 5

Vezi mai sus, în acest volum, #i studiul dedicat toponimului Dalmatia. __________________________________________________________________ 239

Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

sublinia r!spîndirea remarcabil! a acestei r!d!cini, uneori de tip DaL-, DeL-, alteori de tip TaL, TeL-. Prezen"a sa pe o arie atît de mare #i în limbi apar"inînd unor familii diferite (indo-europene, caucazice, semite, ca #i în etrusc!, un idiom vechi pre-latin) ne arat! originea str!veche, mediteranean!, pre-indo-european! a acestei r!d!cini. Ceea ce este esen"ial în explicarea originii cuvîntului românesc deal este c! el se apropie formal #i semantic de cuvintele evident înrudite din limbile trac! #i illyr!, fie acestea #i imprecis notate în grafie greac! ori latin!, ca #i de cele din greac!. 2.2. Raportarea etimologic! a particulei ar-, pierdut! azi în limba român! dar – aparent – înc! avînd sens în clipa în care Ar-deal a fost echivalat cu Trans-silvania ori Ultra-silvania, nu poate merge decît tot spre limba tracodacilor, unde ar- va fi însemnat „dincolo, departe, peste”. Cea mai probabil! – cu #anse mari de certitudine – raportare este de r!d!cina verbului a arunca (la românii sud-dun!reni #i a aruca), al c!rui sens este de asemeni „dep!rtare”. Dup! cum se #tie, a arunca (aruca) este de mult recunoscut #i acceptat ca termen autohton trac (vezi I. I. Russu 1981: 252). Este îns! cel mai bine a c!uta originea ultim! a acestui cuvînt nu în lexicul primitiv indoeuropean – cum face profesorul clujean – ci în acela#i fond str!vechi preindo-european, unde r!d!cina ar- apare frecvent, inclusiv pe teritoriul tracodac, avînd semantismul „mare, înalt”, de aici „dep!rtare, aruncare”. 3. Ar-deal este o mo#tenire pre-roman!, o numire preluat! ca atare din limba traco-dac! (unde va fi sunat *Ar-del-; termina"ia cazual! nu este, fire#te, cunoscut!). S! fie a#adar numirile antice amintite mai sus (Ardilenós, Ardalus, etc) atestarea numirii Transilvaniei? Înclin!m s! credem c! – în adev!r – acestea sunt, în cea mai mare parte, asem!n!ri întîmpl!toare, deoarece toate aceste nume par a avea o r!d!cin! ard-. Natural, cercet!ri ulterioare vor putea preciza dac! vreuna din aceste numiri este reala atestare antic! a numirii Ardealului. Deosebit de interesant!, dac! se dovede#te real!, este #i forma Ardil din scrisoarea regelui cazarilor. Consider!m îns! c! #i f!r! o asemenea atestare – care, ca mai totdeauna în cazul numelor traco__________________________________________________________________ 240

De nomine Transylvaniæ __________________________________________________________________

dace, st! sub semnul hazardului – originea numelui românesc al Transilvaniei este suficient de clar!. 4. Ar!tam c! denumirea AR-DEAL a fost echivalat! – înc! o dovad! c! în epoca timpurie medieval! toponimul avea sensul viu al „regiunii de dincolo de dealuri” – ca Ultra-silvania, Ultra-silvas, Trans-silvania iar în german! ca Überwald. Cum se explic! forma maghiar!? R!spunsul este deosebit de simplu: asemeni numirilor latine #i germane, maghiarii au tradus la rîndul lor cuvîntul, dar în maniera specific! unui idiom fino-ugric, nu prin particul! antepus! – a#a cum era în originalul românesc #i în echival!rile latine ori germane – ci prin particul! postpus!, precum au ar!tat cercet!torii maghiari: erdö-elü, erdö-elv, devenit ulterior Erdély. Extraordinar a fost îns! faptul c! – prin pur hazard – traducerea în maghiar! se asem!na aproximativ numirii române#ti, fapt care a #i încurajat probabil echivalarea iar, mai tîrziu, a ajutat s! se presupun!, în mod eronat, c! prototipul ar fi fost numirea maghiar!. Confuzia, de tipul etimologiei populare, a condus #i spre o eronat! etimologie #tiin"ific!. 5. În finalul rîndurilor noastre este necesar, #i interesant pentru cititor, s! preciz!m c! deal #i Ardeal nu sunt izolate relicte toponimice de o atare vechime, nu numai pre-latin! ci – precum sper!m c! am demonstrat – chiar pre-trac!, numirea Ardealului ca atare coborînd spre zorii civiliza"iei neolitice. Fire#te, nu putem insista aici asupra unor aspecte atît de complexe care, fiecare în parte, se pot trata în volume separate. Am analizat în Byzantion 6 peste o sut! de nume comune #i proprii (onomastice) care se explic! în modul cel mai clar prin mo#tenirea trac!, unele prin filier! indo-

6

Este vorba de lucrarea noastr! Byzantion, pe atunci [1986] în manuscris. De#i nu a fost niciodat! publicat! ca atare, capitole din aceasta au ap!rut ca studii independente, o parte fiind inclus! #i în lucrarea noastr! Influen"e romane &i preromane în limbile slave de sud (1996). Altele sînt incluse în acest volum. __________________________________________________________________ 241

Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

european! (cum este, de exemplu, cazul hidronimului Mure& 7), altele ca relicte arhaice ale civiliza"iei neoliticului, precum exist! numeroase asemenea urme în întreg spa"iul sud-est european #i cum sunt #i pe teritoriul româniei: Ardeal, deal, Some&, #i înc! multe altele, sunt exemple de atari numiri pre-indo-europene. În sfîr#it, observ!m c! în"elesul „peste deal” al Ardealului nu se aplic! numai dinspre partea de vest a sa – dinspre Ungaria – ci, precum #tim cu to"ii, din toate punctele cardinale: Ardealul este o fortifica"ie natural! „de peste dealuri” orideunde am pleca. Ardealul a fost, f!r! îndoial! #i f!r! nici o tendin"! de exagerare, vatra civiliza"iei carpatice, a fost #i este „centrul "!rii” cum explica Simion Dasc!lul, transcriind memoria unei realit!"i imemoriale. (Tribuna, Cluj, an XXX, nr. 8 (1522) din 20 februarie 1986, pp. 1, 6)

7

Vezi #i studiul Two river-names revisited (unde detaliem situa"ia hidronimelor Mure& #i Dun!re), mai sus în acest volum. __________________________________________________________________ 242

De mulieribus cœlestibus __________________________________________________________________

Zeit!"i feminine ale basmelor române#ti: zînele #i sînzienele. Originea cuvintelor #i a cultului profan

Prezentul studiu î!i propune discutarea critic" a originii !i semnifica#iei a doi termeni fundamentali ai mitologiei române: zîn! !i Sînziene, analiza#i în contextul existen#ei unor personaje similare !i în mitologia altor popoare europene. Indiferent de numele pe care îl poart" în diverse limbi (rom. zîn!, engl. fairy, germ. Fee, prov. fada, sp. fada, scr. vila, bulg. samovila etc.), zeit"#ile feminine au o importan#" deosebit" în mitologiile popoarelor respective. Ele sînt, în general, imaginate ca reprezent"ri fantastice, de regul" malefice, dar avînd !i ipostaze benefice, tr"ind în locuri izolate !i fermecînd prin frumuse#ea lor (Bernea 1985, 27 sq., Papahagi 1979). Fiind legat totdeauna de magie, cu r"d"cini adînci în preistorie, numele zînei este adesea tabuat. Exemple clare ne sînt oferite de chiar limba român", unde exist" paralele semnificative: iele, una dintre cele mai clare urme de tabuare a cuvîntului (grafie pentru ele; considerat de Hasdeu, Columna lui Traian 1874: 176, cuvînt autohton tr.-dac, ipotez" greu de admis); dînsele, m!iestrele, sfintele, "oimanele, frumoasele, fecioarele, împ!r!tesele v!zduhului, vîntoasele ($"ineanu 1886; Bîrlea 1976). Zîna cea frumoas" a basmelor române!ti în ipostaza sa benefic" este Ileana Cosînzeana, fata idealizat" înzestrat" cu frumuse#e fizic" !i moral" des"vîr!it", purtînd !i ea alte nume, cum ar fi (Bîrlea 1976, 201–203): Ileana Simziana (a se remarca pronun#area ziana fa#" de zeana); Rujuleana (compus din ruj! ‘roz"’ !i Ileana); Floarea Florilor; Frumoasa lumii; Zîna dobrozîna (repeti#ie__________________________________________________________________ 243

Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

reduplicare cu intercalarea epitetului ‘bun’ tradus într!un idiom slav: dobr# ‘bun’; cf. antroponimul Dobre, toponimul Dobra); Abrunca1 mîndr! "i frumoas! din $ara femeiasc!; Rora2 cea frumoas!, probabil un nume asociat cuvîntului rou!, ceea ce duce la ideea unei ipostaze de divinitate str"veche a zorilor !i vegeta#iei; Rozuna (aparent o contaminare între rou!, respectiv Rora, !i zîn!, cu pronun#area nea!teptat" zun!). Fa#" de F!t-Frumos, eroul idealizat al basmelor noastre !i care continu" o zeitate precre!tin" a perioadei calde a anului !i avînd origine htonic" (Mu!u 1982, 20, n. 2; 91–93), Ileana Cosînzeana are o origine miraculoas" !i locuie!te în cer (Stamati, f. a. II, 269 sq.; Bîrlea 1976, 201–203). Zîn!. Etimologii propuse. Este interesant ca, în contextul schi#at mai sus, s" încerc"m o trecere în revist" a etimologiilor propuse pentru acest cuvînt. (1) Prima încercare de a explica pe zîn! apar#ine lui Dimitrie Cantemir, fiind – de altfel – !i prima prezentare erudit" a credin#elor legate de zeit"#ile feminine la poporul român. Înv"#atul-domnitor considera c" originea cuvîntului este lat. Di%na. Iat" întregul pasaj (Descriptio Moldaviae 3, 1): Dzina, quam vocem a Dianae denominatione suspicareris, raro tamen singulari numero eam celebrant, sed plerumque plurali Dzinele utuntur feruntque virgines esse formosissimas et venustatis largitrices“. Explica#ia lui Cantemir a r"mas, pîn" ast"zi, acceptat" de majoritatea cercet"torilor (TDRG; Tagliavini 1928; REW; DEX; Rosetti 1986: 362) Cihac a explicat forma româneasc" prin lat. divina, devenit, prin c"derea lui v intervocalic !i contragerea celor doi i: *diina > dzin! > zin!, zîn! (Cihac, 233). Explica#ia a fost acceptat" doar de $"ineanu (1929: 709). 1

Abrunca este, foarte probabil, cuvînt autohton tr.-dac de origine preie., cf. NL Abrud !i abur. 2

Rora trebuie pus în leg"tur" cu rou! din lat. ros, roris. Evolu#ia fonetic" fireasc" ar fi cea din Rora, nu cea din rou!. Ar putea fi vorba de evolu#ii fonetice paralele, datorate tabu"rii formelor din sfera sacrului; vezi mai jos discu#iile despre formele zîn!, -ziene, -zun! etc. __________________________________________________________________ 244

De mulieribus cœlestibus __________________________________________________________________

(3) Hasdeu, abordînd problema mitului zînei Filma în Banat, propune explicarea prin gotic", mai exact „provenind de la gepizii de la Tisa, dintr!o form" Dina Filma“ (Hasdeu 1877: 32). Din citarea solu#iilor oferite pentru etimologia cuvîntului zîn! a reie!it cu suficient" claritate c" r"mîn nesolu#ionate cîteva aspecte fundamentale: (a) Evolu#ia fonetic" de la lat. Diana la rom. zîn! nu este tocmai „în regul"“, fapt de care sînt con!tien#i !i unii cercet"tori; în DEX, de exemplu, apare men#iunea c" originea cuvîntului românesc ar fi probabil lat. Diana, ceea ce poate fi o manier" de a recunoa!te, implicit dac" nu explicit, c" ne afl"m în fa#a unui punct dificil al cercet"rii etimologice române!ti. (b) Pe de alt" parte, ipoteza originii din lat. diuina rezolv" întrucîtva aceast" dificultate de evolu#ie fonetic", de!i – paradoxal – ea nu a fost acceptat" decît rareori. F"r" îndoial", dac" ar fi s" c"ut"m originea cuvîntului în fondul mo!tenirii latine, diuina ar fi o solu#ie cel pu#in la fel de plauzibil" ca !i Diana. (c) Exist" înc" un aspect neelucidat, de!i bine cunoscut, cel pu#in de folclori!ti: paralelele, uzuale sau dialectale, zin! (grafie preferat" de $"ineanu 1929: 709, probabil pentru a-l ajuta suplimentar în a-!i impune ipoteza deriv"rii din lat. diuina, de!i forma aceasta nu este deloc cea mai r"spîndit"), ziana (în compusele Sînziana, Simziana, pe care le vom analiza detaliat mai jos), zeana (în compusul Cosînzeana), zun! (în Rozuna), care doar aparent complic" !i mai mult o situa#ie deja complicat". Ipoteza noastr!. Sensul prim al cuvîntului, ca !i forma acestuia, trebuie c"utate, în principiu, într-o sfer" semantic" formal" delimitat" de sensurile deja subliniate mai sus: femei frumoase, magiciene des"vîr!ite, care farmec" !i iau min#ile. Asocierea numelui lor cu un cuvînt oarecare al limbii duce implicit la tabuarea acestuia !i la crearea, în continuare, a unor paralele eufemistice, cum sînt iele, frumoasele, împ!r!tesele v!zduhului etc. (vezi mai sus). __________________________________________________________________ 245

Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

Cu aceste preciz"ri, solu#ia va reie!i sper"m de la sine prin încadrarea cuvîntului în familia sa etimologic": vechi indian gn% ‘zeitate feminin"’ (Götterweib); neopersan zan ‘femeie’, zen%na, zan%na ‘parte a casei destinat" femeilor, gynaeceum’; Tocharic A &ä', B &ana ‘femeie’; slav (ena ‘femeie, so#ie’; grec )*+, ‘femeie’; tot aici trebuie încadrat" !i forma albanez" zanë ‘zîn"’, care pare a fi în leg"tur" cu zonjë ‘femeie’ (vezi mai jos rela#ia dintre zot ‘domn’ !i zonjë). Toate aceste forme sînt derivate de la r"d"cina indo-european" *gw-n-%, *gw.n-% ‘femeie, so#ie’ (Pokorny 1959: 474; pentru formele persane vezi !i Horn 1893: 148). Expunînd ipoteza noastr" trebuie totodat" s" facem cîteva preciz"ri asupra problemei în discu#ie: (a) Apare evident faptul c" zîn! trebuie discutat în strîns" leg"tur" cu alb. zanë, cu sens identic, !i cu forma indian" veche gn% ‘Götterweib’, apoi cu formele persane !i slave. Încadrarea formei române#ti în aria satem (vechea indian!, persana, slava, albaneza) ne arat!, cît se poate de clar, c! ne afl!m în fa"a unui cuvînt str!vechi de substrat traco-dac. (b) Ni se pare inevitabil, în urma datelor prezentate, s" fie discutate împreun" !i formele albaneze zanë ‘zîn"’ !i zonjë, de!i – în ultimul caz – este vorba de „un nea!teptat vocalism o al r"d"cinii, care face dificult"#i“ (Meyer 1891: 486). Din cîte !tim, formele albaneze nu au fost niciodat" al"turate !i discutate împreun". Din perspectiva propus! de noi aici, formele române#ti #i cele albaneze se dovedesc reciproc revelatoare. Fire!te, clarificarea situa#iei din albanez" este o problem" de albanologie, care nu poate fi aprofundat" aici. Dorim doar s" semnal"m faptul c" nea!teptatul vocalism o al formei zonjë pare a avea aceea!i motiva#ie ca !i anomaliile de tratament fonetic din formele române!ti zîn!, zin!, zian!, zean!, zun!, !i anume 3

tabuarea . 3

Un exemplu tipic de tabuare este ie. *w/kwo- ‘lup’, care a dat *w/po- pentru germanic *wulfaz, *lupo pentru lat. lupus, *lukwo- pentru gr. l0kos etc. Lupul a fost animalul sacru al indo-europenilor, iar deform"rile fonetice ca rezultat al tabu-ului lingvistic sînt fire!ti. __________________________________________________________________ 246

De mulieribus cœlestibus __________________________________________________________________

(c) Forma albanez" zanë, cu sens identic cu al lui zîn! din român", este una din „cheile“ rezolv"rii problemei. Formele române!ti !i albaneze trebuie s" aib" un etymon comun. Albanologii consider", de asemenea, c" originea formei zanë ar fi tot lat. Di%na, explicînd anomalia de evolu#ie fonetic" (forma a!teptat" fiind *djanë, cf. djall < diabolus) printr-o asimilare dj > z (Çabej 1976, II: 315–316, unde semnaleaz" !i atestarea antic" tîrzie Thana: Vidaso et Thana, cu th b"nuit ca influen#" ilir"; cf. Russu 1969, 255, cu observa#ia c", în opinia sa, zeitatea respectiv" este „probabil ilir"“). Care s" fie rela#ia dintre alb. zanë !i rom. zîn!? Un studiu recent, ap"rut dup" elaborarea ini#ial" a celui de fa#", sus#ine c" trebuie s" vedem în forma româneasc" zîn! o influen#" albanez" (Schütz 1984: 525–8). Ipoteza este greu admisibil", deoarece albaneza nu putea impune românei un termen mitologic esen#ial; în plus, autorul în discu#ie nu face referiri (ca, de altfel, mul#i al#i autori) la formele paralele zîn!, zun!, zeana, ziene etc. (vezi alte critici la Ghe#ie 1988). Ipoteza cea mai plauzibil", sprijinit" de tot mai multe date (vezi !i discu#iile de mai jos), trebuie s" plece de la premisa c" este vorba de un element str"vechi de substrat traco-dac, eventual cu paralel" iliric" 4. De fapt, forma albanez" pare – mai degrab" – împrumutat" din român", deoarece n intervocalic ar fi trebuit s" rotacizeze, astfel c" forma albanez" modern" ar fi trebuit s" fie, în cazul unui cuvînt vechi, *zarë sau *zërë. Ipoteza unui „împrumut albanez în român"” trebuie cu des"vîr!ire abandonat" (de altfel, trebuie respins" global ipoteza – înc" citat" în destule lucr"ri – conform c"reia ar exista albanisme în român"). 4

Conform ultimelor cercet"ri, albaneza trebuie privit" ca un amalgam de elemente autohtone ilire romanizate (ilirii fuseser" complet romaniza#i în secolul II e.n.), peste care s-au suprapus elemente trace tardive; limba trac" era înc" vorbit" în secolul VI e.n., atît la nord de Dun"re, cu siguran#" în zona dacilor liberi, cît !i la sud de Dun"re. __________________________________________________________________ 247

Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

Esen#ial în în#elegerea problemei originii cuvîntului zîn! este faptul c", în credin#ele populare, sensul a fost (!i este) „divinitate feminin"”. Solu#ia etimologic" va trebui s" explice, deci, în primul rînd acest cîmp semantic. În al doilea rînd, trebuie discutat" situa#ia formelor celor mai vechi din român" dzîn! (dzinele la Cantemir), care se confirm" prin existen#a formei aromâne dzîn! (Papahagi 1963, 435) !i, pe de alt" parte, raportul dintre forma româneasc" !i cea albanez". Putem afirma, cu certitudinea pe care ne-o poate da analiza etimologic" într-un domeniu atît de fragil uneori cum este mo!tenirea autohton", c" alb. zot ‘domn, Dumnezeu’ nu are nimic de-a face cu formele discutate (cf. Bari 1919, 121, care nu aminte!te, totu!i, pe zanë; dup" opinia noastr", nu pare a fi vreo leg"tur" între zot !i zonjë amintit mai sus, ultima form" fiind u!or încadrabil" în familia, bine reprezentat", derivat" din radicalul indo-european pentru ‘femeie, so#ie’; cf. !i Çabej 1976, IV: 25 sq.). (d) Forma cea mai veche româneasc" va fi fost dzîn!, a!a cum apare la Cantemir !i în aromân". Apari#ia sunetului dz nu trebuie c"utat", dup" opinia noastr", prin ac#iunea (ori nu) a legilor fonetice de trecere de la latin" la român", ci în acelea de trecere de la faza tîrzie a traco-dacei la român". Reconstruc#ia trebuie s" porneasc" de la i.-e. *gwe- > trac dz, alb. z. Problema este, credem, ceva mai complicat" decît pare, deoarece este foarte posibil ca numai anumite dialecte trace s" fi cunoscut evolu#ia fonetic" i.-e. *gwe > dz, în alte dialecte putînd exista evolu#ia i.-e. *gwe- > z (ca în persan" !i, similar, în slav", unde avem () ori *gwe- > dz > z, a!adar o trecere a lui dz la z în faza tîrzie a tracei. Acest fenomen fonetic, negeneralizat în arealul tracic, s-a continuat pîn" tîrziu în român". (Natural, discu#iile de acest tip trebuie f"cute pe un num"r mai mare de exemple, singurele în m"sur" s" reduc" la minimum posibilit"#ile de eroare.) În explicarea formelor cu dz (care nu sînt, cum vom vedea mai jos, chiar __________________________________________________________________ 248

De mulieribus cœlestibus __________________________________________________________________

cele mai vechi atest"ri !) am putea porni de la ipoteza unei influen#e de pronun#are datorate formelor cu dz ini#ial de origine latin": dzi (zi), dzice (zice) etc. Dac" accept"m o atare ipotez", atunci evolu#ia fonetic" trebuie în#eleas", de fapt, ca o alterare a pronun#"rii originare, cu z, nu numai datorit" analogiilor cu alte cuvinte de origine latin", ci, poate, tabu"rii, deosebit de puternice în cazul termenilor mitologici. Faptul c" forma trac" a fost, foarte probabil, *zana, *zena, *z1na (ultima form" reconstruibil" dac" accept"m ideea c" traca a avut un fonem neutru de 5

tipul lui 1 ; cf. Paliga 1987: 118) este sus#inut !i de alte atest"ri antice, pe care le vom analiza dup" ce vom aminti, pe scurt, situa#ia unui alt termen esen#ial al mitologiei române: Sînziene. Sînziene. Etimologii propuse. În credin#ele populare, Sînziene este o alt" denumire, emfatic", a zînelor. Numirea s-a particularizat pentru s"rb"toarea de la solsti#iul de var", reprezentat" în calendarul cre!tin de Sf. Ioan, dar de evident" origine precre!tin" !i legat" de cea mai lung" zi a anului. Explica#iile date cuvîntului Sînziene au fost urm"toarele: (1) Din lat. Sanctus Ioahnnes (Cihac I: 240; TDRG: 1432; Rosetti 1986: 129), plecîndu-se de la ideea c" numirea ar fi în leg"tur" cu s"rb"toarea cre!tin". Ipoteza este, desigur, greu acceptabil", deoarece ignor" atît semnifica#ia de facto a cuvîntului, cît !i, nu mai pu#in important, evolu#ia fonetic". (2) Din lat. Sanctus dies Iohannes, conform unei evolu#ii fonetice ce se poate „descompune“ în: sanctus > rom. sîn(t); dies > rom. zi; Iohannes, Ioannes > Iuannes > Iane, Iane, deci sîn-zi-iane (Candrea 1927: 100; reluat de Ionescu 1975: 257). Ipoteza nu este conving"toare !i nu o putem accepta, 5

Ast"zi nu mai poate fi dubiu c" traca a avut cel pu#in o vocal" neutr" de tipul lui ! românesc (1). Nu este sigur dac" traca va fi avut, cel pu#in în unele dialecte, !i alte vocale neutre, de exemplu una similar" lui î românesc (!). __________________________________________________________________ 249

Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

ea ignorînd, pur !i simplu, sensul evident de ‘zîne’ al Sînzienelor. (3) Din lat. Sancta Di%na, ipotez" care acceptînd etimonul Diana pentru zîn! sesizeaz" corect leg"tura dintre zîn! !i Sînziene (Pîrvan 1982: 163; Lozovan 1968: 230; Vulc"nescu 1985: 439; Eliade 1970: 73). Ipoteza noastr" privind etimonul cuvîntului zîn! sprijin" (!i este sprijinit" de) forma sînziene, care este – a!a cum bine a observat Pîrvan – un compus din forma popular" sîn(t) (din lat. sanctus) !i zîn! în „versiunea“ dialectal" ziene (plural), întîlnit" !i în Sîn-ziana, Sim-ziana. Mergînd pe drumul deschis de ipoteza noastr", ni se pare firesc s" credem c" Sînziene este o form" ce coboar" spre perioada unui bilingvism dacoroman, singurul – în opinia noastr" – care poate explica forma româneasc", dintr-un prototip *sanctae zenaae (eventual !i *sanctae zanae, *sanctae z1nae, poate !i *sanctae dzenae, etc.), cu primul element latin, iar al doilea autohton traco-dac. Ipoteza noastr" este sprijinit" de atestarea formei trace. Plantele-zîne #i atestarea cuvîntului trac. Sînziene se nume!te popular !i o specie de cucut" numit" !tiin#ific Galium. Iat" cîteva forme semnificative pentru demersul nostru (Borza 1968, 74-75): Galium mollugo Sînziene, Sînz"nie, Sînzenie alb", Sînzian" alb", Sînziene albe Galium schultesii Cucut" de p"dure, Sînziene de p"dure Galium varium Sînziene, Samziene, S"nziene, Sîmziene, Stînjene Aceste denumiri populare, care se leag", înc" o dat", de str"vechi credin#e, explic" (!i, totodat", sînt explicate de) atestarea nea!teptat" întrucîtva a zînelor în ipostaza de plant". Aceste denumiri populare ne duc îns", mai departe, spre clarificarea unei atest"ri antice (De%ev 1957, 548): 23+456+ : 78265 9:+; (Dioscorides 4, 78), adic" „Dacii numesc cucuta zena”, ultima form" fiind, nu ne putem îndoi, chiar atestarea antic" a __________________________________________________________________ 250

De mulieribus cœlestibus __________________________________________________________________

cuvîntului trac zena (postulat de noi mai sus), cu sensul ‘cucut"’, mai exact, numind specia Galium, cum ne arat" perpetuarea cuvintelor în român" 6. Atestarea într-un text antic a formei trace zena nu este îns" singular". Tot în acest context trebuie discutat numele zei#ei preromane „balcanice“ Zana (devenit" în interpretatio romana zei#a vîn"torii !i asimilat" Dianei 7), ale c"rei animale protectoare erau trei capre (str"vechi animal mitic) cu coarnele de aur. Zeitatea aceasta a supravie#uit ca o zîn!, venerat" pentru bravura !i frumuse#ea sa (Lürker 1984: 356 8). Ne afl"m, fire!te, în fa#a unei zeit"#i ce preced" istoric credin#ele moderne influen#ate de cre!tinism. Zeitatea antic" „balcanic"“ Zana, precum !i alb. zanë, rom. zîn! !i Sîn-ziene sînt „versiuni“ ale aceleia!i zeit"#i antice, cu r"d"cini preistorice. De asemenea, relevante pentru subiectul analizat aici sînt cîteva antroponime trace cu radical zen-: -94+: Cluj "i, în continuare, maghiar Kolozs!vár. Explica!ia aceasta, sobr# "i corect# în principiu, observ# c#, într!adev#r, maghiar Kolozs!vár este o form# împrumutat# din român# prin fenomenul fonetic, specific maghiarei, de svarabhakti (epenteza vocalic#) ce a avut ca rezultat forma Kolozs "i apoi compunerea cu vár ‘cetate’, ce apare frecvent în toponimia maghiar# (despre situa!ia formelor ora! "i város, vezi Paliga 1987 a "i 1991 a; în acest volum, supra). În general, faptul c# maghiarii au preluat numirea de la români, adaptînd!o specificului limbii lor, este un fapt clar, dar acest detaliu nu este înc# suficient pentru a aprecia vechimea, originea "i în!elesul toponimului. Ipoteza lui Huszti este îns# respins# de Dr#ganu (loc. cit.) deoarece, argumenteaz# acesta, o form# latin# clusa ar fi trebuit s# aib# ca rezultat în român# *chius$, iar dintr!o form# latin# tîrzie am avea *clus$. Observa!ia lui Dr#ganu este, într!adev#r, judicioas#, de"i nu ar fi fost cu totul exclus# o perpetuare a unei forme cu un tratament fonetic diferit în cazul unui toponim atît de important cum este Cluj. __________________________________________________________________ 269

Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

Nu ader#m, totu"i, la aceast# explica!ie, sobr# "i relativ bine argumentat# de cercet#torul maghiar, cu totul remarcabil#, ca !inut# "tiin!ific#, pentru sfîr"itul secolului al XVIII!lea. H. Tiktin (1903–1925: 378) încearc#, la rîndul s#u, o explica!ie prin intermediul unei forme germane Kluse!Klause, respins# îns#, "i pe bun# dreptate, de Kisch (1929–1934, 1: 69), deoarece germanii au ajuns aici d u p # atestarea ora"ului ("i ad#ug#m noi, nici evolu!ia fonetic# nu este tocmai în regul#). În mod evident, nici aceasta nu poate fi explica!ia mult a"teptat#, real# "i plauzibil#. N. Dr#ganu, loc. cit., expune "i ipoteza sa: „Mai r#mîne o explicare care se pare c# îndestule"te toate preten!iile – Cluj ca derivat din Clus ca hypocoristic slav al lui Nicolaus, a"a cum este la germani Klaus. [...] În sloven# este atestat hypocoristicul Klou". Din acesta se explic# u"or [sic!] Kolozs!vár“ [??!] În mod evident, explica!ia „nu îndestule"te“ toate preten!ile unei analize "tiin!ifice serioase. Dincolo de mari dificult#!i formale ori geografice (slovenii nu au intrat în contact cu românii nord!dun#reni, forma maghiar# nu se poate explica din sloven# etc.), este greu (cite"te: imposibil) de presupus c# un hypocoristic echivalent, s# zicem, cu Mi"u < Mihai, ar sta la baza toponimului ardelean. Ipoteza a fost acceptat#, f#r# discern#mînt, de Pascu "i Marica 1969: 10). Un dic!ionar etimologic toponimic publicat în Ungaria (Kiss 1980: 350) consider#, de asemenea, c# originea toponimului este obscur#, trecînd în revist# patru posibilit#!i de explicare: (1) un nume de persoan# maghiar, atestat în anul 1387 în forma kolus. Ipoteza este, fire"te, imposibil#, deoarece numele este atestat mult dup# atestarea toponimului în forma Clus, deci f#r# influen!a pronun!#rii maghiare (c#ci în ipoteza unui prototip maghiar, forma româneasc# ar fi fost *C$luj, vezi mai jos situa!ia toponimuli Blaj). (2) Un antroponim slav asem#n#tor celui sîrb!croat Klu", care ar fi avut ca rezultat Klu". (3) O form# mittelhochdeutsch kl#s ‘trec#toare’, de respins din acea"i motiv pentru care s!a respins etymonul Kluse!Klause: germanii au venit aici dup# atestarea formei Clus. (4) Un antroponim german Klaus!Nicolaus, deoarece numirea german# a ora"ului este Klausenburg, care este evident __________________________________________________________________ 270

Claudiopolis __________________________________________________________________

ulterioar# "i adaptat# dup# modelul românesc (vezi supra). Dup# cum se observ#, maniera în care se încearc# rezolvarea dificult#!ilor (majore) de explicare a numelui topic Cluj este, în linii mari, aceea"i utilizat# de Dr#ganu acum o jum#tate de secol, în plus, dorindu!se a se sugera, fie m#car cu minime "anse de probabilitate, ipoteza unei origini maghiare a numirii, ceea ce este nu numai greu acceptabil ci, pur "i simplu, imposibil. În mod cert, András Huszti era mult mai aproape de explica!ia corect#. În dic!ionarul toponimic Lutterer, Kropá%ek "i Hu&á%ek (1976: 62) se precizeaz# în mod egal dificultatea de a analiza r#d#cina clu!/cluj, autorii lucr#rii înclinînd spre o explica!ie din lat. clausum – clusum ‘închidere’ = ‘cetate’ (fr. cluse) sau din antroponimul Claudius de la numele unui posibil conduc#tor al legiunii a XVII!a sta!ionat# pe aceste locuri dup# cucerirea roman#. Ipoteza este "i ea încadrabil# în sfera celor deja criticate de Dr#ganu (supra). Ad#ug#m, în sfîr"it, c# o analiz# sobr# "i fin# a cîtorva numiri topice române"ti face "i un istoric azi uitat, Iosif $chiopul (1945, passim), inclusiv numirea Cluj, semnalînd "i atest#rile medievale timpurii, inclusiv forma latin# Claudiopolis. A"a cum bine a observat Dr#ganu, un antroponim latin Claudius nu poate avea ca rezultat Clu!/Cluj, dar – a"a cum semnalam mai sus – numele latin ofer# mult a"teptata „cheie“ a rezolv#rii acestei adev#rate „enigme“ toponimice. Ipoteza noastr! Toate aceste încerc#ri, numeroase cum am v#zut, dovedesc dificultatea real# a problemei. În mod clar, Cluj nu î"i v#de"te vreo afinitate semantic!formal# cu vreo numire echivalent# (ori echivalabil#) din limbile de adstrat ale românei, a"adar maghiara, diversele idiomuri slave, germana, trebuie înl#turate dintr!o încercare de explicare plauzibil#. Nici latina nu explic# satisf#c#tor numirea. Din cîte "tim, idiomurile turcice nu s!au invocat __________________________________________________________________ 271

Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

niciodat# întru explicarea toponimului "i pe bun# dreptate. Preciz#m c# "i pe Eminescu l!a tentat s# încerce o explicare a toponimului românesc prin compararea cu forma etrusc# Clusium, azi Chiusi (Eminescu 1981: 613). Observa!ia, penetrant#, deloc „romantic#“, ce propune o foarte posibil# înrudire, nu poate fi folosit# în discu!ie "i nici în demonstra!ie, deoarece am explica obscura per obscuriora. Eminescu se gîndea, f#r# îndoial#, la o înrudire str#veche dintre toponimul românesc, prin filier# traco!dac#, "i cel etrusc. Este ceea ce credem "i noi, nereferindu!ne deocamdat# la forma etrusc#, dificil de analizat atîta timp cît nu "tim exact în ce grup# lingvistic# s# încadr#m etrusca "i nici care ar putea fi eventualele sale rela!ii cu traco!daca. Tot spre un toponim autohton se îndreapt# în explica!ia sa "i A. Riza (1982: 11 sq.), f#r# a aduce îns# o argumentare coerent# "i conving#toare. Spuneam mai sus c# interesant# "i util# pentru noi este forma latin# medieval# Claudiopolis care, prin în!elesul s#u ‘ora"ul lui Claudius’, ne ofer#, într!un mod nea"teptat, solu!ia problemei. Pentru a face în!eleas# ipoteza noatr#, trebuie precizat c# semantismul antroponimului Claudius este ‘"chiop’, din grupul reprezentat de verbele claudeo, claudico ‘a "chiop#ta’, precum "i de verbul claudo ‘a închide’, derivate de la r#d#cina indo!european# *kl%u!, *kl&u! ‘a încovoia, a îndoi’, de unde sensurile: (1) ‘îndoit, curb’ – ‘"chiop’ "i (2) ‘îndoitur#, împrejmuire’ – ‘cetate, fort#rea!#’. Cu aceste detalii din sfera ‘îndoiturilor’ "i lucrurilor curbe ne afl#m, în drumul nostru spre explicarea numirii Cluj, într!o pozi!ie mult mai bun# "i putem face înc# un pas mai departe, referindu!ne la numiri trace cum sînt antroponimele grafiate '()*+,, '()+, (De%ev 1957: 248). Tentînd o raportare etimologic#, credem c# aceste forme reprezint# echivalentul deplin al formei latine Claudius, derivate de la aceea"i r#d#cin# indo!european# "i cu acela"i în!eles: ‘"chiop’. Ni se pare a fi de domeniul eviden!ei, ori cel pu!in al maximei probabilit#!i, c# antroponimul trac atestat în grafie greac# (a"adar cu echivalarea aproximativ# a pronun!#rii __________________________________________________________________ 272

Claudiopolis __________________________________________________________________

reale) este etymonul toponimului Cluj. Nu este inutil s# preciz#m c# exist# o izbitoare asem#nare între grafia antic# a numelor trace "i cea medieval# pentru Cluj. Asem#narea devine, practic, identitate dac# transcriem grafierea greac# cu caractere latine: Cleus, pronun!area real# fiind, foarte probabil, *kl#". Preciz#m, adiacent problemei în discu!ie dar strîns legat de aceasta, c# tot de la acela"i radical indo!european trebuie explicate "i toponimele trace Clev!ora, Cleb!ora, Cles!bestita, Clepi!dava (Deev, loc. cit.), de data aceasta p#strînd sensul (2): ‘îngr#ditur#, cetate’. Aceste forme trace, al c#ror în!eles va fi fost, foarte probabil, ‘cetate, tîrg, ora"’, ar putea fi înc# o denumire a a"ez#rii urbane în lumea trac# (vezi mai sus Thracian terms for ‘township’ and ‘fortress’, and related place!names). ‘Ora"ul lui Claudius’. Argumentul numismatic Ne putem gîndi, fire"te, c# cel care a dat numele s#u ora"ului atestat în antichitate în forma Napoca, pe care a înlocuit!o, ar fi putut fi, cum au sugerat autorii cehi aminti!i mai sus, un anume conduc#tor al legiunii a XVII!a. Ne gîndim îns# c# acel Claudius care a dat numele s#u ora"ului, nume autohtonizat de popula!ia locului la *Kl#", va fi fost, foarte precis, împ!ratul Claudius II Goticul (Marcus Aurelius Claudius Gothicus), 219–270, împ#rat între 268– 270, comandant al trupelor imperiale din Balcani sub împ#ratul Galienus "i devenit împ#rat dup# asasinarea acestuia (Matei 1983: 142; idem, 1984: 307). Este firesc s# credem c# toponimul Cluj î"i are originea în numele împ#ratului "i nu provine de la vreun obscur comandant local. Dac# este a"a ("i faptele men!ionate sprijin# acest lucru), atunci toponimul Cluj, antroponim la origine, trebuie încadrat în sfera toponimelor de tip comemorativ: Constantinopolis, de la numele lui Constantin cel Mare (306–337); tot de la numele acestuia provine "i numele portului românesc Constan-a, dar prin intermediar italian!genovez. În mod similar, Alexandria "i!a luat numele de la Alexandru cel Mare (356–323 î.e.n.), etc. (vezi la Kiss 1980 s.v.). __________________________________________________________________ 273

Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

Un sprijin important al ipotezei noastre îl g#sim în efigiile dedicate lui Claudius II Goticul. Monedele b#tute cu chipul lui Claudius II atest# extraordinara cinste ce i s!a acordat timp de mul!i ani dup# moarte, cu o remarcabil# revitalizare în timpul lui Constantin cel Mare (n#scut în jur de 280 e.n.) care se considera, de altfel, urma"ul lui Claudius II (Webb 1968: 202 "i, în general, 201–237; Kent 1978, pl. 525). Pe teritoriul României s!au g#sit relativ pu!ine monede cu efigia lui Claudius II (Donoiu 1980: 159), ceea ce face ca situa!ia toponimului Cluj s# fie cu atît mai important#, completînd "i clarificînd ceea ce datele arheologice "i istorice nu au putut clarifica. La întrebarea „cînd s!a impus numele Clu!/Cluj în locul mai vechiului Napoca?“, r#spunsul este mai greu de dat. Cel mai plauzibil este s# presupunem c# noul nume de loc a început s# intre în uz în timpul scurtei domnii a lui Claudius, consolidîndu!se dup# moartea acestuia, avînd în vedere onorurile ce i!au fost acordate post mortem "i extraordinara memorie a numelui s#u. Nu este exclus ca numirea s# se fi impus definitiv în timpul lui Constantin cel Mare, chiar dac# Dacia nu mai f#cea parte, formal, din Imperiu. Evident, nu putem da aici un r#spuns definitiv, ci doar a sugera o posibilitate. Ad#ug#m doar c# NL Napoca, grafiat "i Napuca, este probabil înrudit cu NFl Naparis (în Sci!ia, cf. De%ev 1957: 317) "i se explic# prin r#d#cina preie. *N!P! ‘piatr#, stînc#’, radical ce pare a sta "i la baza unui alt termen autohton: n$pîrc$, de aici "i a n$pîrli, cu sensul ini!ial ‘animal de stînc#’, probabil de la obiceiul n#pîrcilor de a se înc#lzi întinse pe stînci. Fire"te, problemele legate de mo"tenirea pre!ie. în român# sînt mult prea complexe "i complicate pentru a fi analizate aici. Ne rezum#m doar la unele observa!ii en passant. Dac# accept#m ipoteza c# antroponimul autohton *Klu", ce calchia – la rîndul s#u – numele latin Claudius, s!a impus definitiv în timpul lui Constantin cel Mare, atunci motiva!ia poate fi de natur# social#, militar# "i religioas#, "tiut fiind rolul major al lui Constantin în r#spîndirea cre"tinismului precum "i faptul c# el se considera urma"ul lui Claudius. F#cînd un pas mai __________________________________________________________________ 274

Claudiopolis __________________________________________________________________

departe, putem presupune c# popula!ia local# cre"tin# (sau în curs de cre"tinare) din zona Clujului de azi a dorit s#!i fie recunosc#toare lui Constantin, onorîndu!l pe str#mo"ul acestuia, pe Claudius. Natural, este o posibilitate care deschide noi c#i de cercetare, inclusiv din perspectiva r#spîndirii cre"tinismului primitiv în Dacia. Un detaliu important: evolu#ia fonetic! Din cele expuse pîn# acum s!ar p#rea c# exist# un impediment serios în a se accepta ipoteza noastr#: evolu!ia fonetic#. Se "tie c# grupul cl! (kl!) ini!ial din latin# a avut ca rezultat în român# kl’ > k’ (grafiat che, chi), de exemplu lat. clavis, !em > cheie. Fenomenul nu este specific numai latinei populare din Dacia, c#ci în italian# avem, plecînd de la acela"i cuvînt latin, chiave iar în portughez# chave (pronun!at .ávî). Tot a"a, de la latin clamare avem în român# chema, it. chiamare, port. chamar (./már) etc. Alte exemple se pot g#si în REW 3 s.v.Situa!ia lui cl! în latina postclasic# fa!# de cea din posibilele elemente autohtone nu a stîrnit aten!ia cuvenit#. Studiul de fa!# dore"te s# corecteze întrucîtva situa!ia, nefiind totu"i un înlocuitor al unui studiu am#nun!it din acest unghi. Exemplele date sînt suficiente pentru a ar#ta c# aceast# evolu!ie fonetic# s!a datorat unei pronun!#ri /kl’!/ deja în latina popular# postclasic# de pe o arie vast# (franceza nu a cunoscut totu"i acest tratament fonetic, cf. clef, clé ‘cheie’). Ce se întîmpl# îns# cu elementele autohtone ale românei care au avut grupul kl! în pozi!ie ini!ial#? Au urmat oare tot evolu!ia fonetic# din latina popular#? Discu!ia ideal# ar trebui f#cut# pe ansamblul fenomenelor de evolu!ie fonetic# de la trac# (traco!dac#) la român#. Cum acesta este un subiect mult prea amplu pentru scopul studiului nostru, ne vom limita numai la cîteva puncte relevante demersului nostru. Cercet#rile de tracologie de pîn# acum s!au îndreptat mai ales spre reconstituirea unui posibil tablou al structurii fonetice trace ori traco!dace "i __________________________________________________________________ 275

Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice __________________________________________________________________

mai pu!in (ori chiar deloc!) spre o analiz# coerent#, concret# "i conving#toare, argumentat#, a evolu!iei fonetice de la trac# (traco!dac#) la român#. A existat "i exist# impresia, preluat# de la autor la autor, f#r# discern#mînt, în opinia noastr#, c# fonemele trace trebuie s# urmeze, f#r# excep!ie, acelea"i legi de evolu!ie fonetic# asemeni celor latine. Afirma!ia pare, evident, rezonabil#. S!a uitat îns# c#, sub acela"i „înveli"“ grafic, se pot ascunde foneme (sunete) diferite, uneori net diferite. În plus, pare a se uita adesea c# inventarul fonetic trac (traca fiind un idiom satem) era net diferit de cel al latinei, inclusiv de al latinei populare. În ciuda faptului c# nu exist# înc# un consens al tracologilor asupra unor detalii de fonetic# (formulele de reconstituire propuse de D. De%ev, G. Reichenkron ori I. I. Russu fiind, practic, ireconciliabile 1) nu poate fi îndoial# c# sunetele specifice tracei, ca 0, 1, ", 2, ts (-) etc., inexistente în latin#, au avut o soart# în mod necesar specific# atunci cînd ele au existat într!un cuvînt integrat latinei dun#rene, nemaivorbind de faptul c# tocmai fonetismul trac este cel care va fi influen!at "i latina popular# din Dacia "i care a creat premisele evolu!iei la un idiom specific, româna. Influen!a substratului asupra foneticii proto!române"ti a fost sus!inut# conving#tor de Gh. Iv#nescu (1980: 117 sq. "i 188 sq., cu alte referin!e). Nu trebuie niciodat# s# ne gr#bim a face paralele neadecvate cu Romania occidental#, chiar dac#, aparent, faptele par asem#n#toare. Sunetul /0/, existent "i în italian# "i în român#, trebuie explicat ca evolu!ie în primul caz, dar ca influen!# a foneticii trace în al doilea caz. $i astfel de exemple ar putea continua. De altfel, într!un alt plan, în unele cuvinte române"ti de substrat cercet#torii au acceptat tacit unele aparente „anomalii“: în abur (alb. avull) întîlnim /b/ intervocalic, în c$ciul$ (alb. kësulë) avem /l/ intervocalic (nimic nu ne permite 1

Asupra caracterului ireconciliabil al diverselor formule de reconstituire a foneticii trace atr#geam aten!ia, foarte pe scurt, în Luceaf$rul nr. 36, 6 septembrie 1986 vorbind despre lucrarea lui I.H. Cri"an Spiritualitatea geto!dacilor. Am revenit (în Contemporanul nr. 42, 21 octombrie 1988, p. 11) asupra polemicilor, adesea sterile, din lumea tracologilor. __________________________________________________________________ 276

Claudiopolis __________________________________________________________________

s# credem c# am putea reconstitui, în mod salvator, un prototip trac cu /!ll!/; în Ibru (cf. paralela bulgar# Ib$r) grupul !br! se p#streaz# nealterat la /wr/. Situa!ia hidronimului Ibru a fost bine analizat# de Fr#!il# (1987: 118–125). Autorul sprijin# ipoteza c# avem de a face cu un hidronim autohton, bine reprezentat în arealul tracic. Împ#rt#"im aceast# ipotez#, cu observa!ia c# unele re!ineri ale autorului timi"orean î"i au originea tocmai în ideile preconcepute privind situa!ia sunetelor trace în elementele autohtone. Demersul s#u poate fi un bun argument pentru ceea ce sus!inem în acest studiu ("i în altele): sunetele trace au avut acela"i tratament fonetic în evolu#ia la român! ca "i cele latine numai atunci cînd au fost identice celor latine "i în mod necesar un tratament diferit atunci cînd au fost diferite. Kl! (cl!) este un caz tipic "i tot tipic este "i cazul b/v intervocalic. În ultimul caz, cele dou# sunete ini!ial diferite au ajusns# se confunde într!unul singur: o siflant# bilabial# asem#n#toare celei din spaniola contemporan#. O atare pronun!are a dus la c#derea sunetului în român#. Natural, în cuvintele autohtone, b "i v se vor fi pronun!at distinct "i, ca atare, s!au p#strat, în principiu, nealterate. Este regretabil c# asemenea detalii esen!iale au fost ignorate. $i exemplele pot continua. Revenind la situa!ia grupului kl! ini!ial în elementele autohtone, facem observa!ia preliminar# c# antroponimul trac atestat cu grafia '()*+,, '()+, (pronun!ie real# reconstituit# *Kl#"), considerat de noi a sta la baza toponimului Cluj ( thr. *zem-, *zam-. Déformation-évolution de la forme initiale *SamolEis > *ZamolEis. (3) La déformation continue par la métathèse zamol- > zalmo-, qui aide l’association avec zalmos ‘cuir, fourrure’; cette dernière explication a été, très probablement, fabriquée par les Thraces, pour cacher la signification réelle, “sérieuse”, de leur divinité suprême. __________________________________________________________________ 325

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

L’aniconisme Les représentations visuelles dans le monde thrace sont limitées à: (1) Sous l’influence hellénistique, le Cavalier thrace (analyse “classique” par G. Kazarov en Pauly-Wissowa, revue par Mu!u 1982). (2) Après la conquête, des divinités romaines, parfois assimilables avec une divinité locale, par exemple l’association Diana-Bendis. (3) Les monnaies (Donoiu 1980). Ces cas ne nous intéressent pas ici. Autrement, il n’y a aucune représentation d’une divinité thraco-dace proprement dite, donc aucune représentation de la divinité suprême ou d’une quelconque divinité thraco-dace. D’ailleurs, les sources antiques n’indiquent pas une autre divinité thraco-dace que Zalmoxis. L’aniconisme est donc la caractéristique essentielle de la religion thraco-dace. Du point de vue typologique, le système religieux thraco-dace paraît être similaire aux religions aniconiques comme le judaïsme et l’Islam. Cela explique pourquoi les Grecs n’ont pas compris l’essence d’un tel système et pourquoi les Thraco-daces mêmes ont senti la nécessité de “fabriquer” des explications exportables, pour le goût des Grecs. On peut faire une comparaison avec l’incapacité des Grecs de comprendre la religion juive. En fait, les origines de l’antisémitisme datent du 3e siècle av. J.-C. à Alexandrie (Bevan en Bevan et Singer 1927: 29–68). De plus, malgré la forte influence grecque, puis romaine, les Thraco-daces n’ont jamais adopté l’écriture phonétique, mais il est probable qu’ils avaient un système de graphèmes symboliques et initiatiques. Il s’agit, très probablement, d’une interdiction totale de toutes les représentations visuelles, y compris 7

l’écriture . Ni l’influence hellénistique, ni la forte romanisation n’ont pu 7

Les textes en thrace sont vraiement très rares. Il s’agit, en fait, de très courtes inscriptions (parfois il n’est pas du tout sûr qu’ils sont en thrace). Le plus long est l’anneau d’Ezerovo, Bulgarie, indéchiffrable (présentation et discussions chez De"ev 1957: 566 sq.). En ce qui concerne la prétendue inscription thraco-dace de Sarmizegetusa sur l’intérieur d’un grand récipient (maintenant exposé dans le Musée National d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de Bucarest) DECEBALVS PER SCORILO, “traduite” par le regretté H. Daicoviciu ‘Decebalus fils de Scorilo’, il s’agit d’une banale inscription dédicatoire en latin populaire, avec per au lieu de pro. L’inscription est intéressante, parce qu’elle atteste vraiement deux noms thraces, ceux des rois Decebalus et Scorilus. __________________________________________________________________ 326

Deus supremus Dacorum __________________________________________________________________

changer cette mentalité archaïque, “rétrograde” pour notre mentalité moderne, ainsi que pour la mentalité des Grecs et des Romains. Une telle interdiction ne peut fonctionner qu’avec un fort substrat religieux, conventionnellement appelé “la religion zalmoxienne”. Une telle mentalité archaïque a survécu jusqu’au 17e siècle, dans le jus Valachicum (ou lex Olachorum), la tradition juridique et coutumière, toujours orale, des Roumains pendant le Moyen Age 8

(Sachelarie et Stoicescu 1988: 176-178; autres discussions chez Paliga 1991) . Il semble évident que la synthèse entre le système religieux aniconique des Thraco-daces et le christianisme s’est réalisée dans des conditions spéciales. C’est un sujet pour une autre étude, mais signalons quelques aspects essentiels. Les survivances L’analyse des survivances du système religieux thraco-dace peut se faire dans le contexte des survivances linguistiques et mythologiques thraces en roumain et en albanais (discussions Paliga 1991). En général, on a signalé archaïcité du système mythologique roumain (Vulc$nescu 1972, 1985; Ghinoiu 1988); on peut aussi faire de comparaisons intéressantes avec la mythologie lithuanienne (Greimas 1985). Pour le but de cette étude, nous essayons de signaler quelques faits moins connus des survivances mythologiques thraco-daces. Un premier exemple est la situation du roum. CrDciun ‘Noël’ et ‘pièce de bois, bûche’ (cf. alb. kërcú ‘bûche’). Une situation similaire existe en italien: Ceppo ‘Noël’, mais aussi ‘bûche’. Il s’agit d’une survivance préchrétienne: les fêtes du feu du solstice d’hiver, quand on brûlait des bûches (discussions et analyse chez Mu!u 1973, 1982; l’hypothèse que roum. CrDciun reflète lat. 8

L’interdiction de l’écriture a été signalée dans les croyances roumaines jusqu’au 20e siècle (information orale de Ion Ghinoiu). __________________________________________________________________ 327

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

creationem doit être rejetée définitivement). La perpétuation d’un mot préchrétien et préroman (thraco-dace) dans le vocabulaire chrétien fondamental du roumain ne doit pas faire de problèmes; cf. aussi la situation de l’anglais Easter ‘Pâques’ < nom d’une déesse germanique. Nous avons déjà analysé le cas de roum. zînD (graphié aussi zânD) ‘fée’ (mot essentiel des contes populaire) qui reflète un mot thraco-dace *zanI, *zInI, initialement avec le sens de ‘femme’, puis ‘femme sacrée > fée’ (Paliga 1989 a). Un cas intéressant est offert par l’appellation de la divinité chrétienne en roumain: Dumnezeu < Domine deus (ailleurs, le latin deus est préservé en roumain, zeu, avec le sens ‘dieu païen’). À notre connaissance, la forme appellative-vocative Domine deus a été préservée seulement en roumain. On peut discuter si cette forme ne cache pas, comme nous sommes inclinés à croire, une appellation initiale de la divinité suprême thraco-dace. Nous nous limitons à ces trois exemples, qui nous semblent suffisants pour conclure que le système religieux thraco-dace a influencé considérablement les croyances des Roumains. Gh. Mu!u a observé (1982) qu’on doit imaginer la société thraco-dace représentée, d’une part, par l’élite politique, militaire et religieuse des initiés zalmoxiens; d’autre part, par les masses qui vénéraient aussi les fées et le démons. En tout cas, on peut accepter l’idée que cette élite sociale cultivait un système religieux de type hénothéiste ou même monothéiste, où Zalmoxis occupait une place centrale, peut-être exclusive. En général, la situation des mots préchrétiens et des mythèmes intégrés dans le système religieux chrétien représente un chapitre à part dans l’histoire européenne, à analyser dans une étude détaillée.

__________________________________________________________________ 328

Deus supremus Dacorum __________________________________________________________________

Conclusions L’analyse mythologique et linguistique révèle que le système religieux thraco-dace était un mélange d’éléments urbiens (pré-ie.) et kourgan (ie.). L’influence urbienne est visible dans le caractère archaïque cyclique et chthonien de la divinité suprême, ainsi que dans la signification reconstituée du théonyme *Sam-ol-E-is ‘la grande divinité des abîmes, des cavernes et/ou des hauteurs, le HAUT GRAND’. L’influence kourgan est visible dans l’épithète ‘lumineux’, ainsi que dans l’assimilation tardive avec un mot ie. signifiant ‘terre’, d’où la forme Zamolxis, associée à *zam-, *zem- ‘terre’. L’analyse révèle encore l’explication-déformation du théonyme, en l’associant avec un mot zalmos ‘cuir, fourrure’; c’est une “explication d’exportation”, pour satisfaire le goût des Grecs. L’analyse révèle aussi le caractère aniconique et initiatique de la religion zalmoxienne (d’où l’association grecque, assez raisonnable, avec Pythagore), une religion nationale, pas assimilable avec n’importe quel système religieux. Du point de vue typologique, en considérant l’aniconisme comme un trait fondamental, le zalmoxianisme avait des correspondances avec le judaïsme. Il est probable que l’impact entre le zalmoxianisme et les premiers chrétiens n’a pas été aussi choquant, parce que les deux systèmes religieux avaient deux traits fondamentaux communs: l’aniconisme (perdu plus tard par le christianisme) et la résurrection. L’interdiction sacrale des représentations visuelles chez les Thraco-daces s’est perpétuée plus d’un millénaire dans le jus Valachicum (ou la lex Olachorum), la tradition orale des Roumains pendant le Moyen Age. Le roumain révèle aussi, dans son vocabulaire religieux et mythologique, des survivances thraco-daces, comme CrDciun ‘Noël’ et ‘bûche’ et zînD, zânD, ‘fée’. Il est plus difficile de reconstituer les rites thraco-daces, mais on peut imaginer des rituels initiatiques, le rôle essentiel de la musique dans la société, une symbolique religieuse, une fierté nationale de protéger la signification __________________________________________________________________ 329

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

sacrale de la divinité suprême, une mentalité complètement différente de celle des Grecs, mentalité modelée par l’aniconisme (ce qui signifie, en essence, une relation acoustique et mentale avec le divin), une mentalité – sans aucune doute – fanatique, les croyances en l’immortalité. En un mot, un ensemble de mentalités, conceptions et pratiques spécifiques qui a fasciné les Grecs, mais aussi les modernes. En ce qui concerne la fièvre religieuse, le sentiment ineffable de la communauté avec le divin, c’est une question de réaction intérieure, pas analysable avec les méthodes rationnelles (cf. Masson 1970). Qiud autem ista loquor? Non enim tempus quaerendi nunc est, sed confitendi tibi. (Conf. 4, VI, 11)

Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 20, 2 (1994): 137–150

__________________________________________________________________ 330

De aspectu verborum Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

Devenir et aspectualisation Encore une fois sur le verbe slave

Clearly it is difficult to imagine human communication without some notion of semiotic systems (Arndt & Wayne Janey: 91) La force des langues slaves est comprise dans le verbe (Bezlaj 1948: 201)

Préliminaires Le problème de l’aspect verbal dans les langues slaves, concrètement en tchéque, puis en slovène, nous a préoccupé dès 1976, quand l’auteur de cet article commençait l’étude du tchéque et, en 1978, l’étude du slovène. Un premier résultat de nos études a été notre thèse de licence (1980). Entretemps, nous avons étudié divers problèmes liés à l’héritage indo-européen et pré-indo-européen et aux relations entre les Roumains et les Slaves. Donc, pour quelques années, nous avons abandonné nos préoccupations concernant l’aspect slave. Notre intéret a été réactualisé en 1991–1992, à l’occasion d’un cours de tchéque à la Faculté des Lettres de Bucarest. Un problème frequemment posé par les étudiants était, bine-sûr, l’aspect verbal. Le but de cet article est de résumer et de réactualiser nos résultats et conclusions, et de suggérer une autre interprétation de l’aspect slave. Il ne s’agit point d’une œuvre d’érudition, mais d’un essai pour comprendre le __________________________________________________________________ 331

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

subtil processus subi par le verbe slave. Secondement, pour ne pas compliquer notre démarche et nous limiter aux frontières raisonnables d’une étude, les langues tchéque et slovène sont analysées en premier lieu. En tenant compte de quelques différences, notre hypothèse et notre système peuvent être appliqués aux systèmes verbaux slaves en général. Aspect et temps. Définir le problème L’aspect et ses relations (ou non-relations) avec le temps (grammatical ou “objectif”) ont été un immense sujet d’investigations. Il est intéressant de noter, en passant, que les spécialistes ont souvent préféré d’examiner les problèmes liés à l’aspect plutôt que de définir l’aspect. Il est vrai qu’une question aussi épineuse reste dificile à définir. Selon Dostál (1954), il y a plusieures tendences dans les définitions de l’aspect (voir aussi Bezlaj 1948): Une caractéristique ou une conception de l’action verbale. Une modalité de développement de l’action verbale. Une partie de la racine verbale qui montre le développement de l’action verbale. L’évolution ou, au contraire, l’achèvement de l’action verbale. La vue (vision) du locuteur concernant l’action verbale (cf. Kurz 1969: 102). On peut ajouter qu’il s’agit ici d’une conception qui sépare l’action extérieure, réelle ou possible, d’une part, de l’expression linguistique. Une telle vue concerne une analyse de l’experience humaine (Erlebnis) qui peut être un sujet pour d’autres études (voir plus récemment Arndt & Wayne Janney 1987). La durativité a été parfois invoquée comme représentant la plus claire différence entre perfectif v. imperfectif. Une telle définition est un critère imprécis pour l’imperfectif et entièrement inadéquat pour le perfectif. __________________________________________________________________ 332

De aspectu verborum Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

La notion de finalité ou d’achèvement (skon!enost) a été aussi invoquée. Un autre critère imprécis. Le perfectif a été aussi caracterisé par la ponctualité de l’action verbale (méthode appliquée par Brtek et Sobí"ek dans leur dictionnaire des verbes tchéques). La ponctualité est toutefois une situation relativement indéterminée. La résultativité, l’accomplissement ou le résultat de l’action verbale. Une telle définition de la perfectivité élimine tous les verbes qui n’ont pas un sens résultatif. La perfectivité vue comme frontière (ohrani!enost ‘frontièreté’). La perfectivité serait le sens de l’action verbale du futur vers le passé et l’imperfectivité le sens contraire, du passé vers le futur. Une définition typique (et assez compliquée, pour ne pas dire de pire) pour les hypothèses qui suggèrent une liaison entre la sphère du temps et celle de l’aspect. Cf. Galton (1969): “l’aspect est étroitement lié au temps” 1. L’action perfective vue comme “action pure et simple” (Meillet 1902– 1905, 1: 100). L’action perfective serait “culminante à son point d’aboutissement”, mais l’imperfectivité est définie comme “développement dans le temps”. Une autre tendance qui consiste à lier la sphère de l’aspect à la sphère du temps. La perfectivité aurait une nuance de possibilité (Kannbedeutung). Une définition assez intéressante est liée au concept de complexité, d’entièreté et de concentration de l’action verbale, mais l’imperfectivité fut définie comme action cursive, c.à.d. pas comme l’envers de la perfectivité. Une version de cette définition utilise les concepts de concentration v. expansion pour le perfectif, mais l’imperfectif n’est pas l’envers du perfectif, donc non-concentration ou non-expansion. 1

Ou mieux dire: les locuteurs non-slaves, ont (peut-être) l’impression (éronée) que l’aspect et le temps sont deux faces de la même chose. __________________________________________________________________ 333

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

Marc Vey (1958) a suggéré une categorisation trinaire. Son étude fut publiée en théque, où il utilise la formule: nést ‘porter’ – aktuálnost (‘actualité) nosit – nikoli-aktuálnost (approx. ‘pas du tout actualité’) nosívat – neaktuálnost (‘non-actualité’) Marc Vey présente d’autres exemples qui soutiendraient son hypothèse. En son temps, son étude a été fort analysée (Isa!enko 1960; Kope!n# 1960; Seidel 1960). La formule trinaire nous semble raisonnable, mais dépourvue de toute connotation temporelle qui, encore une fois, semble aussi tentente, irrésistible. Les Actes du colloque Linguistique et sémiotique I, Le discours aspectualisé (Fontanille, éd. 1991) ont apporté quelques nouvelles contributions au problème aussi complexe et débattu de l’aspect. L’avant propos (Greimas-Fontanille) résume les points plus importants du colloque. Nous sommes d’accord avec les observations de Zlatka Guentcheva (pp. 49–65). Je cite comme très importante l’observation: “Nous avons adopté depuis longtemps l’attitude de considérer temps et aspect comme deux faces d’une même catégorie” (p. 55) et, sur la page suivante, n. 7, elle observe “le désordre terminologique en aspectologie” (l’auteur cite une étude de Dahl, inaccessible pour nous). En analysant G. Guillaume, J. Fontanille (pp. 127–143) fait l’observation que “non seulement la théorie de l’aspect et du temps, mais aussi celle des prépositions, du nombre et de l’article sont intrinsèquement aspectuelles” (p. 129). Sur ce point, qui ouvre les portes pour notre hypothèse, on doit mentionner une vielle étude, peut-être oubliée, de Ji$í Krámsk# (1968). L’auteur s’occupe ici de la catégorie de détermination (determinedness) qui a, selon lui, l’opposition (prot"j#ek) individualité v. genus. Il apporte comme exemple qui soutient son hypothèse le cas de l’article (dans la sphère du nom) qui s’est développé à partir de l’adjectif-pronom __________________________________________________________________ 334

De aspectu verborum Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

démonstratif (voir plus bas). L’article, ajoute Kramsk#, représente la détermination et, de plus, modifie le sens de la parole. Notre hypothèse Notre hypothèse était esquissée il y a plus de dix ans. Entre-temps, elle s’est consolidée et maintenant est soutenue par d’autres observations citées ici. Quelques considérations préliminaires sont toutefois nécessaires. Premièrement, le “désordre terminologique” est lié à la diversité des faits aspectuelles. D’une part, les langues slaves, où les situations sont plus ou moins similaires, d’autre part les langues comme l’anglais, l’espagnol, le portugais, où l’aspect est réalisé par d’autres modalités. En effet, selon nous, l’aspect dans ces trois langues est plutôt une modalité d’expansion temporelle dans la flexion verbale – c’est une situation totalement différente des langues slaves. Mais il est difficile de tenter d’introduire une nouvelle terminologie, voir une terminologie spéciale pour chaque groupe linguistique. Il suffit, pour le moment, de préciser en quoi consiste le caractère spécifique des langues slaves et, enfin, de tenter une définition claire, simple et concise de l’aspect dans les langues slaves v. autres langues. Une deuxième question, qui me semble fondamentale, est de se demander pourquoi beaucoup de linguistes ont été tentés de lier l’aspect à la catégorie du temps, si bien que d’autres linguistes se sont opposés catégoriquement à cette hypothèse. Je trouve deux explications possibles. D’une part, l’association étroite entre verbe et temps. N’oublions pas qu’en allemand, par exemple, le verbe est nommé Zeitwort ‘parole du temps’. Les premières investigations des langues slaves ont été entreprises par des linguistes comme Jernej Kopitar ou Franz Miklosich (Slovènes), probablement fort influencés par la culture et la langue allemande. En général, l’analyse du “phénomène linguistique slave” a été fortement __________________________________________________________________ 335

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

influencée par la terminologie appliquée (et applicable) aux langues classiques ou occidentales, donc une terminologie inadéquate pour les langues slaves, parfois inadéquate même pour quelques langues occidentales (voir ici les observations profondes de Bezlaj 1948: 199). D’autre part, il est très connu que toute traduction d’une langue slave dans une langue non-slave doit convertir l’aspect par des modalités temporelles. La situation inverse – la tâche de convertir l’imparfait et l’aoriste grecs en vieux slave, par bon exemple – a été analysée par Meillet (1902–1905, 1: 1–100). L’étude de Meillet concernait un stade incipient d’évolution du système aspectuel, mais même Meillet observait que: “le présent est d’ailleurs la seule forme où la différence d’aspect serve, en un certain sens, à exprimer une différence de temps. Partout ailleurs le temps et l’aspect sont rigoureusement distincts et indépendants” (p. 99). On peut citer une autre observation intéressante: “La majorité des dialectes slovènes ont perdu l’ancien imperfait et l’aoriste au plus tard au 15e siècle. Ses fonctions ont été remplacées par l’aspect verbal” (Logar 1975: 15). Ces dates nous semblent suffisantes pour expliquer la tendance, irresistible pour beaucoup de linguistes et critiquées par d’autres linguistes, de lier l’aspect verbal au temps. En effet, temps et aspect sont deux phénomènes synkinétiques, qui se retrouvent et/ou se rencontrent dans la psychologie des locuteurs et dans l’expression verbale de leur psychologie. Du point de vue grammatical, temps et aspect sont distincts (voir la ferme mise au point par Bezlaj 1948). * *

*

Le trait caractéristique du processus de perfectivisation – déperfectivisation – itérativisation est un “jeu gauche-droite” selon le schéma: __________________________________________________________________ 336

De aspectu verborum Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

Un préfixe verbal (préverbe), formellement identique – dans la plupart des cas – avec la préposition correspondante, attaché à un verbe imperfectif (nommons-le “forme neutrale”), (1) détermine ou, selon notre terminologie, articule l’action verbale et, de plus, (2) change le sens de la racine verbale selon le sens du préverbe. Cette fonction double du préverbe a posé des questions troublantes. Il s’agit, en effet, d’un article verbal + changement du sens. Ce changement du sens peut être minimal, c.à.d. un préverbe purement “articulatif”, ou maximal, c.à.d. changement total du sens. Comme le système verbal slave fonctionne par paires, l’article verbal ainsi défini ci-dessus réclame la création d’une paire “non-articulée” (nondéterminée), qui se réalise par suffixation. Le développement typique est le suffixe -je-, donc tous les verbes en -ati/-ajon, -ovati/-ujon et -ti/-"jon sont imperfectifs (Meillet 1902–1905, 1: 20). Très brièvement, la développement en -a- est la marque typique de l’imperfectivité. Comme le discours est successif, il en résulte que le développement en -a- annule le rôle articulatif (déterminatif) du préverbe, mais pas le composant sémantique, selon le principe “la dernière loi annule toutes les lois précédentes qui s’y opposent”. En ce qui concerne les itératifs, la situation n’est pas identique dans toutes les langues slaves. En tchéque, les itératifs forment une catégorie distincte. Ils se réalisent, en général, par un double développement en -a-, par exemple pracovat, ipf. ‘travailler’, pracovávat, itér. A partir de hodnota ‘valeur’, on a hodnotit ‘apprécier’ ipf. – zhodnotit, pf. – zhodnocovat, ipf. (dév. en -a-) – zhodnocovávat (double dév. en -a-), itér. Dans la plupart des cas, l’itérativité est limitée aux verbes dont la sphère sémantique justifie “l’itérativité sémantique”, mais – pour des raisons stylistiques, souvent ironiques – tout verbe imperfectif est itérativable. En slovène, le nombre des itératifs est plus limité. Il s’agit, en général, des itératifs sémantiques hérités comme tel du fond slave, par exemple les __________________________________________________________________ 337

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

itératifs “classiques”, sans développement en -a: hoditi ‘aller’, nositi ‘porter’, voditi ‘conduire’. Ils sont, en effet, des imperfectifs sémantiquement itératifs, situation prouvée par les formes tchéques chodívat, nosívat qui sont des itératifs clairs, dérivés de l’imperfectif, sémantiquement itératif. Ces différences montrent que l’itérativisation est plus récente et en cours de consolidation. D’ailleurs, du point de vue chronologique, les processus de la préfixation et de la suffixation sont d’anciens traits indoeuropéens. L’essentiel est de comprendre pourquoi cet ancien héritage s’est converti – à partir d’un certain moment – en un procédé si typiquement slave, un nouvel édifice construit avec des briques archaïques. L’archaïcité matérielle et l’innovation systémique sont montrés par le processus d’articulation verbale subi par quelques anciens verbes comme iti, jiti ‘aller à pied’ – (c)hoditi, itér., d’un part, et jeti ‘aller à cheval’ – jezditi, itér. Le slovène a abandonné, au cours de l’évolution, la dernière forme, en généralisant iti, mais hoditi signifie toujours ‘aller à pied’ v. peljati ‘aller avec un véhicule’ qui, à son tour, se comporte spécifiquement: pripeljati, pf. ‘arriver avec un véhicule’ – pripeljavati, ipf.; odpeljati, pf. ‘partir (avec un véhicule)’ – odpeljavati, ipf. Quelques analystes considèrent iti comme un verbe aussi perfectif qu’imperfectif. En réalité, il est un verbe imperfectif, mais l’impératif, mode sémantiquement articulé, déterminé, est réalisé avec po-: pojdi! ‘va!’. En tchéque, po- sert aussi pour réaliser un futur de jiti, nésti ‘porter’ et d’autres, peu nombreux, verbes archaïques. Il s’agit, en effet, d’un verbe articulé avec po-. Le sens de la forme perfective du présent se traduit, dans une autre langue non-slave, par un futur, détail qui a beaucoup affecté les analystes adeptes de la fusion aspect-temps en slave. En slovène, le futur (analytique) __________________________________________________________________ 338

De aspectu verborum Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

s’applique aux perfectifs et aux imperfectifs, sans distinction, signe clair de l’indépendance des deux sphères – temps et aspect. Le rôle articulatif de po- dans le cas des quelques verbes archaïques montre que, très probablement, le processus d’articulation verbale a commencé par cette préposition-préverbe, multisémantique, difficile à traduire: il y a des sens temporels, locatifs et modaux. Le caractère archaïque du préverbe-article po- est aussi montré par une dérivation comme v"d"ti ‘savoir’, ipf. – pov"d"ti ‘raconter’. En tchéque v"d"ti – pov"d"ti – povídati se construisent aussi avec un double préverbe po-po(réduplication): popov"d"ti– popovídati. En slovène, povedati et re!i sont supplétifs avec govoriti, ipf. ‘parler’. On ne peut pas ignorer le cas de tch. $íci – $íkat – $íkávat, pf. – ipf. – itér., où la première forme est “articulée” avec l’article zéro (sans préverbe). C’est un verbe ancien ou le procéssus de perfectivisation a commencé par le contenu de la racine, puis s’est développé selon les canon “classique”: le jeu gauche-droite déjà presenté. Un dernier exemple de supplétivisme. Slovène vzeti (*v%z-(j)&ti) – jemati ‘prendre’ a pour équivalent le tchéque vzít – brát (en slovène, brati a développé le sens ‘lire’, mais préserve l’ancien sens ‘prendre’ en composés) – p$evzít, pf. – p$ebrat, pf. – p$ebírat, ipf. Cet évantail des réalisations concrètes de l’articulation verbale a boulversé et déconcerté les linguistes. Pour comprendre mieux ce processus, très difficile à catégoriser avec les instruments linguistiques disponibles, d’où notre terme “article verbal”, imaginons-nous une langue slave idéale dans laquelle la perfectivisation se réaliserait avec un seul préverbe, disons po- (ce qui était, probablement, la situation pendant les premiers siècles de notre ère). Dans un tel cas, il en résulterait plus clairement que la préfixation verbale fonctionnerait comme un vrai article verbal. De même, il aurait été plus facile de trouver l’essence de la perfectivisation / articulation verbale si le nombre des préverbes (“articles verbaux”) était réduit, disons à deux, trois __________________________________________________________________ 339

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

ou quatre. En pratique, et pour sortir du monde idéal, l’articulation verbale se réalise par tous les préfixes verbaux. De plus, et il me semble que cela a conduit aux formules confuses de l’aspect slave, ces préfixes modifient le contenu sémantique du verbe. Ils ont donc deux fonctions: une, grammaticale (“articulative”); la seconde, sémantique. L’absence / présence de l’article verbal est une formule binaire. Le tchéque a aussi développé l’itératif, un itératif clairement grammatical, qui se réalise par suffixation (double développement en -a-), et non un simple imperfectif sémantiquement itératif (le cas du slovène). En tchéque on doit accepter une formule trinaire, imperfectif-perfectif-itératif. Pour terminer notre comparaison avec la sphère nominale, nous suggérons de rapprocher l’itératif de l’article indéfini. Selon notre hypothèse, l’aspect est un processus aussi grammatical que lexical, synkinétique au temps verbal, qui modifie le sens du verbe ou qui lui donne une nuance supplémentaire, presque toujours difficile ou même impossible à traduire dans une langue étrangère. La conversion se réalise vers le jeu des temps verbaux et qui, de plus, détermine ou “articule” l’action verbale. Ce processus se réalise par préfixation et suffixation vebales, parfois (rarement) par des changements dans la racine du verbe, sans préfixation (article verbal inclu dans la racine verbale). Ce processus est (1) binaire: imperfectif (ou “neutral”) – perfectif (ou l’article verbal défini) ou bien (2) trinaire, quand l’itératif (l’article verbal indéfini) devient une troisième forme grammaticalement distincte (le cas du tchéque), non pas un simple imperfectif, sémantiquement itératif. Ce processus de perfectivisation – déperfectivisation – itérativisation est continu et représente l’expression la plus spécifique des langues slaves.

__________________________________________________________________ 340

De aspectu verborum Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

Les époques du devenir La perfectivisation verbale, ou l’articulation verbale, s’est consolidée approximativement quand, dans les langues occidentales, se consolidait l’article dans la sphère nominale. C’était la période de l’antiquité tardive et du passage au féodalisme (du 5e au 10e siècles), donc une période de changements majeurs dans la mentalité des peuples, des mœurs, des coutumes, l’époque des grandes migrations qui ont conduit à une nouvelle carte ethnique de l’Europe. Tous ces facteurs ont influencé les langues en cours de profondes transformations. C’était une période d’un intense sens du devenir, reflété dans la structure même des langues. Du point de vue typologique, on ne doit pas s’inquieter du fait qu’il y a un “article verbal” dans les langues slaves. Il est instructif de constater que l’article verbal slave se consolidait dans la même période quand les langues néo-latines et germaniques consolidaient l’article nominal qui, à son tour, a son histoire, comme le montre l’évolution du démonstratif. La détermination nominale, d’une part, et la détermination verbale slave, d’autre part, ne sont pas incompatibles. Il y a des langues qui connaissent les deux modalités déterminatives, comme le groupe bulgare-macédonien-2 et le hongrois. Ce sont des langues qui, au cours du temps, ont subi des diverses influences et pour lesquelles l’analyse doit tenir compte des données spécifiques. Un groupe intéressant est représenté par les langues comportant un article défini enclitique (ou agglutiné). C’est le cas du roumain, de l’albanais, du groupe bulgaro-macédonien, de l’arménien, du basque ainsi que, selon les derniers résultats, de l’étrusque lui-même. Il s’agit d’un héritage archaïque, sans doute pré-indo-européen du point de vue typologique. Mais c’est le sujet d’une autre étude possible concernant le sens du devenir. 2

Il s’agit de la langue macédonienne moderne, une langue slave parlée dans la Macédoine ex-Yougoslave. __________________________________________________________________ 341

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

Conclusions La détermination dans la sphère du NOM • L’article défini et indéfini. Simplification radicale de la flexion nominale. Disparition des anciens cas, remplacés par des moyens analytiques. • On distingue deux types principaux: (a) avec article défini proclitique: la plupart des langues néo-latines et germaniques, sauf roumain et suédois, le grec. Origine: le démonstratif. (b) Avec article défini enclitique (agglutiné): albanais, roumain, suédois, arménien, basque et, très probablement, l’étrusque. Ce groupe perpétue, très probablement, une typologie archaïque pré-indo-européenne. Dans ces langue l’article indéfini est proclitique. • La sphère du verbe reste très développée si bien que relativement simplifiée en rapport avec les prototypes anciens. VERBE • L’“article verbal” (selon notre définition), nommé “aspect verbal”, avec l’opposition perfectif / imperfectif / itératif. Origine: l’ancien processus de préfixation et de suffixation indo-européen mais qui, au cours du temps, achève le rôle de “détermination à gauche” (perfectivisation ou “article verbal défini”) et de dé-détermination à droite (imperfectivisation), aussi de double dé-détermination (double développement en -a-): itérativisation (“article verbal indéfini”). Procédé spécifique aux langues slaves. Évolution parallèle à l’évolution de l’article nominal proclitique. Simplification radicale des temps verbaux dans la plupart des langues slaves. __________________________________________________________________ 342

De aspectu verborum Sclavenorum __________________________________________________________________

• La sphère nominale de la plupart des langues slaves reste sans détermination, donc fortement flexionelle (à l’exception du bulgare et du macédonien). Observation: l’aspect verbal en anglais, espagnol et portugais est radicalement différent de l’aspect slave. Il s’agit ici d’un procédé analytique d’expansion du temps verbal. CAS SPÉCIAUX Le bulgare et le macédonien ont aussi développé un article défini enclitique (agglutiné), comme en roumain et en albanais, dont l’origine est aussi le démonstratif. Les slavistes disputent encore de l’origine de cet article: quelques uns veulent y voir un prototype slave, en invoquant la situation en russe dialectal, une tendance vers la position enclitique du démonstratif, mais qui s’explique par l’influence du substrat ouralien, de type agglutinant. En tout cas, il n’y a pas un article défini en russe dialectal; d’autres considèrent que l’article défini en bulgare et en macédonien reflète une influence du roumain primitif (“proto-roumain”), ce qui est très probable. Cer article est, en tout cas, spécifique au roumain et au albanais. Le hongrois a développé un article défini proclitique, dont l’origine est aussi le démonstratif, et un article indéfini proclitique, de plus une conjugaison avec ou sans complément direct (héritage ouralo-altaïque) ainsi que un système préfixatif (“articulatif”) du verbe similaire au système slave. Il s’agit ici des diverses influences dans l’histoire de cette langue. Conclusion générale Les détermination dans la sphère du nom, d’une part, et dans la sphère du verbe, d’autre part, sont indépendantes, mais pas du tout incompatibles. Quelques langues ont développé une détermination nominale ainsi que verbale. __________________________________________________________________ 343

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

Remerciements La première version de cette brève étude a été commentée par Dr. Jo%e Topori"i! et Dr. Alenka &ivic-Dular de l’Université de Ljubljana. Je leur adresse mes remerciements pour leurs commentaires qui ont influencé la forme finale y présentée. Bien-sûr, les eventuelles erreurs et inadvertances du discours appartiennent à l’auteur, toujours le seul responsible.

__________________________________________________________________ 344

De compositione etymologica __________________________________________________________________

Aperçu de la structure étymologique du Roumain

Il est bien connu que le roumain a une position particulière dans le monde néo-latin. C’est évidemment une langue néo-latine contenant beaucoup de particularités qui ne permettent pas de réduire les problèmes à l’héritage latin seulement. La plupart, pour ne pas dire tous les ouvrages dédiés à l’étude du roumain notent ses relations avec les autres langues romanes (par exemple Coteanu et Sala 1987; Sala et al. 1988); on peut ajouter, bien sûr, les influences des adstrats, en premier lieu slave mais aussi des autres langues. C’est le cas du dernier livre de N. D. Raevskij (1988). Pour faire justice à l’auteur, il faut préciser brièvement que c’est un livre utile à l’étude de la romanité orientale. L’auteur utilise souvent une méthode originale pour délimiter les périodes historiques de la cristallisation d’un spécifique roman “danubien”. Il introduit (à ma connaissance) la formule “perioad! etnic!” (période ethnique). Le but de cette discussion n’est pas d’analyser cet ouvrage mais de signaler quelques aspects d’ordre plus général liés à un problème qui me semble fondamental: le rôle du substrat thrace (ou thraco-dace, selon une autre formule) dans la formation de la langue roumaine. Il faut dire que N. D. Raevskij, le coauteur d’un dictionnaire étymologique de la langue “moldave” (1979) réduit – comme d’ailleurs la plupart des auteurs – le rôle du substrat thrace dans la formation de la romanité orientale à quelques dizaines de mots. C’est vrai que cette méthode (adoptée par une autorité comme Al. Rosetti, 1986) a ses raisons bien connues. Les linguistes aiment utiliser des données écrites qui leur __________________________________________________________________ 345

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

permettent de tracer une évolution plus sûre d’un phénomène phonétique, en réfutant – en général – les reconstructions, étant donné le risque d’erreur. Ce principe général doit avoir des exceptions, car il est absurde d’affirmer que le roumain ne peut avoir que (disons) 180 mots d’origine thrace parce qu’on ne possède pas de textes anciens thraces ou proto-roumains. Il est évident que la structure étymologique d’une langue n’a presque rien à faire avec ses attestations écrites. Je dis “presque” parce que l’apparition de l’écriture est liée au contacts culturels qui peuvent influencer le vocabulaire. Donc, le roumain doit avoir un certain nombre d’éléments indigènes non parce qu’il y a ou il n’y a pas de textes anciens mais purement et simplement parce que la civilisation thrace si originelle, celle qui avait toujours fasciné les grecs, fut trop puissante et trop bien représentée par les autochtones conquis. Les données archéologiques (il y a des centaines d’études qu’on ne peut pas citer ici) prouvent que la romanisation n’a pas été un phénomène de prépondérance numérique de la part des colonistes romans, bien au contraire: les indigènes eurent la supériorité. La romanisation a été un phénomène de prestige culturel comme résultat d’un prestige militaire. Enfin, un autre détail: il y a des différences nettes entre le substrat du roumain (thrace, c’est-à-dire un idiome satem) et les autres langues romanes où le substrat a été celto-italique ou ibéro-celte (idiome centum, aussi nonindo-européen, voire le basque). Beaucoup de linguistes d’autorité (parmi eux Al. Rosetti) invoquent le fait qu’on ne peut pas analyser un mot roumain d’origine obscure en se rapportant directement à une racine indo-européenne (j’ajoute, horribile dictu, pré-indo-européenne aussi). Autrement dit, la langue roumaine sera perpétuellement non-analysable aussi complètement que possible parce qu’on ne peut pas invoquer une racine primitive reconstruite en utilisant les lois de la reconstruction linguistique. Il est difficile de comprendre pourquoi le lithuanien et le letton, langues très archaïques et avec des textes écrits plus tardifs que ceux en roumain, sont entrées dans tous les __________________________________________________________________ 346

De compositione etymologica __________________________________________________________________

manuels de grammaire indo-européenne comparée tandis que le mots roumains n’en ont pas eu ce droit. Les similitudes du roumain et des langues baltiques ne sont pas seulement “typologiques” mais elles sont plus profondes. Roumain iar ‘et’ (en quelques constructions typiques) est évidemment apparenté au lithuanien ir ‘et’. Aussi roum. dain! (forme dialectale en Transylvanie), doin! (forme littéraire courante) - lith. dainà, let. daina ‘chant populaire’. Et les exemples peuvent continuer. Les relations roumaines-hongroises sont, à mon avis, plus complexes que certaines linguistes le veulent (non seulement hongrois). Il est courant de considérer que roum. hotar ‘limite, frontière’ reflète le mot hongrois határ ; mais il y a un mot presque identique en albanais: hátër, hatér. L’exemple le plus sensationnel est représenté par le rapport entre roum. ora" (dial. aussi ura") et hong. város. Il est habituel de considérer le mot roumain comme une influence hongroise. Mais les Thraces avaient un terme presque identique pour désigner la ville: ora, oros, oron. Un simple hasard? Une analyse attentive nous permet de conclure qu’on ne peut pas invoquer ici le hasard (Paliga 1987 a; 1989 a). Le mot roumain fait partie d’un héritage très ancien: le substrat pré-indo-européen d’où proviennent aussi le latin urbs, basque uri, aussi iri (cf. le canton helvétique Uri) et, plus ou moins épouvantable, le sumérien Ur, Uruk. Tous ces formes reflètent un vieux terme pour désigner la structure urbaine plus ou moins primitive. J’ai signalé tout à l’heure importance capitale du fond pré-indo-européen pour expliquer des aspects importants de l’héritage culturel du sud-est européen (Paliga 1986; 1987 a; 1988 a; 1989 a, c). Je n’y insisterai plus. Bien sûr, le substrat pré-indo-européen est seulement un aspect, mais il est bien fondamental. Il y a beaucoup de problèmes presque aussi intéressants qu’importants. On dit, par exemple, que le roumain a 4000 mots environ d’origine inconnue (Vraciu 1984). Dans un livre récent (Coteanu et Sala 1987: 112) le lecteur est averti “qu’on ne peut pas prétendre, comme on __________________________________________________________________ 347

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

faisait à l’époque romantique, que tous les mots roumains à l’étymologie inconnue sont d’origine thrace”. Une telle précaution me semble inutile. A ma connaissance, personne n’a affirmé une telle absurdité (et, moi, je ne comprends pas ce que les auteurs veulent dire par “époque romantique” non précisée dans le texte). Mais ces auteurs-ci, comme la majorité d’ailleurs, ne proposent aucune méthode plus ou moins radicale pour réduire le nombre impressionnant de “black holes” du vocabulaire roumain. En effet, le nombre de 4000 mots dont l’origine reste inconnue semble trop grand. Malheureusement, le nombre exacte de tels mots ne peut pas être établi purement et simplement parce que le dictionnaire explicatif (DEX) qui a probablement été la source d’inspiration de cette estimation, contient beaucoup d’incertitudes pour ne pas dire de graves erreurs. En premier lieu, ce dictionnaire ne fait jamais distinction entre: (1) mots d’origine thrace (certaine ou probable), (2) mots d’origine discutable (pour lesquels on a suggéré quelques explications), (3) mots non expliqués plausiblement. Toutes ces catégories sont analysées en bloc comme “d’origine inconnue”. Il n’est pas étonnant donc qu’on enregistre 4000 mots d’origine inconnue. Avec de telles manières commodes de résoudre les problèmes complexes de l’étymologie roumaine, on peut citer 5000 ou bien 10000 mots obscurs si nous ajoutons les formes dialectales. Deux exemples y seront utiles. Naiba, mot populaire pour ‘diable’, est considéré d’origine inconnue. Mais il est évident que son étymologie est très simple: n-aib! (parte) ‘qu’il n’ait pas (part)’. C’est donc une création euphémique parce que le nom du diable était un tabou (cf. Paliga 1989 b où on analyse la situation similaire de zîn! ‘fée’)1 . Un autre exemple. V!trai ‘tisonnier, attisoir’ est considéré un emprunt au bulg. vatral, s.-cr. vàtralj ‘id.’ Il est évident que v!trai doit être apparenté à vatr! ‘foyer, âtre’ qui se trouve aussi en bulgare, serbo-croate ainsi que dans d’autres langues balkaniques ou est-européennes (alb. vatrë etc.) où a le 1

Voir cette étude dans ce volume!ci.

__________________________________________________________________ 348

De compositione etymologica __________________________________________________________________

sens de ‘feu’. Le mot est certainement d’origine thrace (si bien que l’étymologie n’est pas claire). Les auteurs du dictionnaire ont pensé probablement que le roumain a emprunté comme telle une forme dérivée du bulgare et/ou serbo-croate de vatra qui est, à son tour, un élément protoroumain d’origine thrace dans ces langues-ci. Mais peut-on accepter un tel point de vue? Ne serait-il pas plus normal de juger que v!trai soit dérivé purement et simplement de vatr!? Il est vrai, un telle explication doit résoudre un autre point difficile, c’est-à-dire la dérivation de type vatr! + -i qui n’est pas fréquente mais bien présente en quelques mots obscurs, par exemple m!lai ‘farine de maïs’, sens primitif ‘farine de millet’ de *mal!, sens inconnu. Il est inutile de dire que ce suffixe -i doit être indigène (c’està-dire thrace) et ne peut avoir rien à faire avec l’i hongrois, sens locatif (budapesti ‘de Budapest’). Il est significatif que le roumain n’a pas encore de dictionnaire étymologique-historique complet de haut niveau scientifique: celui de Cihac est inutilisable aujourd’hui et ne peut constituer éventuellement qu’un exemple de comment on ne doit pas faire un dictionnaire étymologique; celui de Gabinskij et de Raevskij (1978) est un dictionnaire scolaire pour ne pas dire pire; celui de Candrea et Densusianu est admirable comme méthode scientifique mais malheureusement incomplet (1914, a–putea, seulement pour les éléments latins). Un beau jour, le roumain aura son dictionnaire étymologique. mais pour achever une telle tâche et pour ne pas répéter ou bien amplifier les erreurs habituelles, je suggère une réorganisation (aussi radicale que possible) des méthodes utilisées et du matériel linguistique. Je les résume en quelques points. 1e Une analyse profonde et complète des mots présents dans tous les langues dites “balkaniques” et la précision s’il s’agit vraiment des mots slaves ou des emprunts au substrat thrace, illyrique ou à d’autres langues. La simple présence d’un mot en roumain et dans une ou plusieurs autres langues slaves ne peut signifier automatiquement que ce mot roumain doit __________________________________________________________________ 349

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

être slave mais il peut être aussi bien un mot roumain en une langue slave ou thrace en roumain et en slave. 2e Les relations entre le roumain et le hongrois doivent être réanalysées en profondeur. Il y a des dizaines de mots communs aux deux langues considérées en roumain comme éléments hongrois et en hongrois comme des mots d’origine obscure; de tels mots semblent parfois être des mots roumains en hongrois (le cas de gond, határ, talp, város, oriás etc.). 3e Une analyse approfondie sans idées préconçues (qui sont toujours le fruit de la commodité et de l’ignorance) en ce qui concerne les relations entre le roumain et les autres langues balkaniques d’une part, et les autres langues indo-européennes ou non-indo-européennes (aussi pré-indo-européennes). D’autre part, pour noter les correspondances lexicales évidentes ou possibles. Cela implique une bonne préparation dans le domaine comparatif. Il n’est pas étonnant d’observer que les meilleures histoires ou analyses de la langue roumaine sont dues aussi aux linguistes spécialisés en langues romanes qu’a ceux spécialisés en langues indo-européennes (B. P. Hasdeu, Gh. Iv!nescu, A. Vraciu). J’ajouterais les ouvrages remarquables de M. M. R!dulescu (par exemple 1981, 1984, 1987) qui, selon notre avis, ont rendu clairs beaucoup d’aspects de l’héritage dace en roumain. 4e On ne peut pas s’imaginer une analyse profonde, ample, sérieuse et aussi complète que possible du vocabulaire roumain sans coopération entre les linguistes et les archéologues d’une part, et entre diverses branches de la linguistique comparée (les langues slaves, romanes, germaniques, turciques, balkaniques – ce qui implique, encore une fois, la thracologie) d’autre part. Il est évident que les problèmes complexes liés au substrat Thrace dans les Balkans ne sont pas une “affaire” roumaine ou bulgare mais qu’ils impliquent et réclament une coopération internationale. Et je pense qu’en premier lieu, il n’y a que de linguistes yougoslaves et bulgares qui puissent offrir des sujets de discussion intéressants. __________________________________________________________________ 350

De compositione etymologica __________________________________________________________________

Evidemment, cette note ne peut pas épuiser tous les problèmes concernant le substrat thrace. En ce qui concerne le problème de l’écriture thrace, je soutiens l’hypothèse avancée il y a trois ans (Paliga 1988 c) fondée sur les données archéologiques et historiques, que la société thrace en général ainsi que la société thraco-dace en particulier, a été de type initiatique et aniconique et, de plus, avec l’interdiction sacrale des représentations visuelles y compris l’écriture. Les représentations visuelles dans le monde Thrace sont le résultat des influences étrangères ou bien une évolution tardive comme résultat du syncrétisme religieux. Le fait que la société thrace a eu un caractère aniconique peut avoir des conséquences essentielles pour la compréhension du caractère spécifique de cette civilisation qui a fasciné les Grecs et qui a influencé l’ethnogénèse du sud-est européen. Comme j’ai souligné dans l’étude cité, on peut observer l’aura magique qui entoure les Thraces et les Etrusques, une aura amplifiée par notre ignorance doublée par l’ignorance des Grecs et des Romans vis-àvis de la civilisation des Thraces. C’est la tâche des recherches à venir de préciser si l’apparition tardive de l’écriture chez les Roumains ne constitue pas une survivance de l’interdiction sacrale des représentations visuelles dans le monde thraco-dace. Cela peut prouver – indirectement – que l’influence subie par la civilisation daco-romaine/proto-roumaine de la part de la civilisation thraco-dace a été considérable, beaucoup plus ample et profonde de ce qu’on admet d’habitude. Si c’est le cas (que je suis incliné à soutenir par des données linguistiques et mythologiques), il est évident qu’on ne doit pas utiliser des principes simplistes pour expliquer le rôle du substrat thraco-dace dans l’ethnogénèse roumaine ou, en général, le rôle du substrat dace ou thrace dans les Balkans. Un tel problème réclame de profondes et sérieuses recherches absentes pour le moment dans la plupart des ouvrages consacrés à la langue roumaine et à d’autres langues balkaniques. __________________________________________________________________ 351

Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice __________________________________________________________________

Je voudrais accentuer l’idée que la cause principale de l’absence d’un dictionnaire étymologique du roumain à haut niveau scientifique est due en premier lieu à une optique dépassée et déformée pour ne pas dire erronée et dépourvue de fondement (malgré les affirmations contraires de ceux qui l’adoptent). Si on changeait radicalement une telle optique, on pourrait espérer qu’un dictionnaire étymologique du roumain pourrait être écrit au moins dans une première forme provisoire. Celui-ci devrait être un dictionnaire qui comprendrait une analyse sérieuse de toutes les correspondances possibles entre le roumain et les autres langues antiques et modernes (y compris les formes thraces enregistrées par Deev et d’autres). Il devrait aussi faire allusion au fond pré-indo-européen sans lequel on ne peut pas espérer une analyse étymologique sérieuse. Cette tâche une fois accomplie, on pourrait faire un autre pas plus difficile: le dictionnaire étymologique thesaurus des langues balkaniques 2 qui offrirait une vision d’ensemble sur le rôle du substrat Thrace et encore pré-thrace (pré-indoeuropéen) dans l’évolution ethnolinguistique du sud-est européen. Pour le moment, c’est encore un rêve, mais il y a beaucoup d’exemples qui montrent que parfois les rêves deviennent des réalités vivantes.

2

Le roumain n’est pas, bien-sûr, une langue “balkanique” proprie dictu, mais, pour simplifier les choses, on adopte ici cette formule utilisée parfois dans la littérature linguistique. __________________________________________________________________ 352

Bibliographia __________________________________________________________________

Bibliographia Aleksova, Vasilka 1997–1998. Éléments communs dans la terminologie nuptiale bulgare et roumaine: bulg. !"#$%&'/roum. pocînzéu. Linguistique Balkanique 39 (1997–1998), 3–4: 159–164. Alessio, Giovanni 1935–1936. Le base preindo-europee KAR(R)A/GAR(R)A ‘pietra’. Studi Etruschi IX: 133–152 and X: 165–189. Alessio, G. 1955. Le lingue indoeuropee nell’ambiente mediterraneo. Bari: Adriatica. Andreev, Nikolaj Dmitrievi! 1986. Ranne-indoevropskij prayazyk. Leningrad: Nauka. Andreev, N.D. 1986 b. Correlation between the simplicity of language typology and the attainable degree of formalization in historical linguistics. Symposium on Formalization in Historical Linguistics (Tallinn, November 24–26, 1986), ed. by Mart Remmel. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of Estonia. Andreev, N.D. 1987. The importance of Estonian for Boreal reconstruction. Symposium on Language Universals (Tallinn, July 28–30, 1987), ed. by Toomas Help (responsible) and Sirje Murumets. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of Estonia. Arndt, Horst, Richard Wayne Janey 1987. InterGrammar. Toward an Integrative Model of Verbal, Prosodic and Kinesic Choices in Speech. Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton-de Gruyter. Avram, Andrei 1990. Nazalitatea (i rotacismul în limba român). Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei. Bari", Henrik 1919. Albano-rumânische Studien. Sarajevo: Institut für Balkanforschung. Battisti, C. 1934. L’etrusco e le altre lingue preindoeuropee d’Italia. Studi Etruschi 8: 179–196. Battisti, C. 1941. Alfredo Trombetti ed il problema dell’origine mediterranea della lingua etrusca. Studi Etruschi 15: 165–170. Battisti, C. 1956. I Balcani e l’Italia nella preistoria. Studi Etruschi 24: 271–299. Battisti, Carlo 1927. Per lo studio dell’elemento etrusco nella toponomastica italiana. Studi Etruschi 1: 327–349. __________________________________________________________________ 353

Etymologica-anthropologica __________________________________________________________________ Baylon, Christian, Paul Fabre 1982. Les noms de lieux et de personnes. Introduction de Ch. Camproux. Poitiers: Nathan. Baylon, Christian, Paul Fabre 1982. Les noms de lieux et de personnes. Introduction de Ch. Camproux. Poitiers: Nathan. Benk#, Loránd (ed.) 1967–1980. A magyar nyelv történeti–etimológiai szótára, I–IV, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Benveniste, Emile 1962. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve. Beranová, Magdalena 1988. Slované. Praha: Panorama. Berneker, Ernst 1908–1913. Slavisches etymologisches Wàrterbuch, I (A-L). Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Berneker, E. 1927. Russische Grammatik. 3rd ed. Revised by Max Vasmer. Berlin–Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter. Bernstein, S.B. 1965. Gramatica comparat) a limbilor slave. Bucure!ti: Editura Didactic" !i Pedagogic". Bertoldi, Vittorio 1931. Essai de la méthodologie dans le domaine préhistorique de la toponymie et du vocabulaire. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 32: 93–184. Bertoldi, V. 1933. Preellenico *+,-., /01,20 ‘cespuglio, rovo’ e preromanzo matta, mantia ‘cespuglio, rovo’. Glotta 22: 258–267. Bevan, Edwyn, Charles Singer (eds.) 1927. The Legacy of Israel. Oxford: Clarendon. Bezlaj, France 1948. Doneski k priznavanju glagolskega aspekta. Slavisti3na Revija 1, 3–4: 199–220. Bezlaj, F. 1956–1961. Slovenska vodna imena, 2 vols. Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Bezlaj, F. 1961. Die vorslavischen Schichten im slovenischen Namen- und Wortschatz.VI. Internationaler Kongress für Namenforschung, München 24.–28. August 1958, hgg. von Karl Puchner, vol. 2: 148–153. Bezlaj, F. 1969. Das vorslawische Substrat im Slowenischen. Alpes Orientales 5. Acta Quinti Conventus de Ethnographia Alpium Orientalium Tractantis Graecii Slovenorum 29. III – 1.IV. 1967. Redegit Niko Kuret. Ljubljana. Bezlaj, F. 1976 sq. Etimolo4ki slovar slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana. Bianchi, T.X., J.D. Kieffer 1850. Dictionnaire turc-français, 2 vols. Paris: Dardey-Dupre. __________________________________________________________________ 354

Bibliographia __________________________________________________________________ Biezais, Haralds 1955. Die Hauptgàttinen der alten Letten. Uppsala. Bîrlea, Ovidiu 1976. Mic) enciclopedie a pove(tilor române(ti. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic". Bla$ek, Václav 1999. Numerals. Comparative-etymological Analyses of Numeral systems and Their Implications (Saharan, Nubian, Egyptian, Berber, Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European Languages). Brno: Masarykova Univerzita. Bla%ek, Václav [2002?]. Celtic-Anatolian Isoglosses. Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie Band 52: 125–128. Bla$ek, Václav, Václav Klain [2002]. Etnonym 5ech v kontextu slovansk&ch a indoevropsk&ch etnonym. [In print when this paper is being prepared; an electronic copy was available to me]. Bláhová, Marie 1986. Evropská sidli4t6 v latinsk7ch pramenech období raného feudalismu. Praha: Univerzita Karlova. Blédy, Géza 1942. Influen8a limbii române asupra limbii maghiare. Sibiu. Bolocan, Gheorghe (ed.), Elena #ondulescu-Silvestru, Iustina Burci, Camelia Z"bav" 2002. Dic8ionar invers al numelor de localit)8i din România. Craiova: Editura Universitaria (EUC). Bonfante, Giuliano 1966. Influences du protoroumain sur le protoslave? Acta Philologica 5: 53–69. Bonfante, G. 1970. Il tipo delle radici indoeuropee. Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 19–26. Bonfante, G. 1970. Il tipo delle radici indoeuropee. Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 19–26. Bonfante, G. 1986. Metodologia e indoeuropeo. Scritti scelti di Giuliano Bonfante, I; a cura di Renato Gendre. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Bonfante, G. 1987. Latino e romanzo. Scritti scelti di Giuliano Bonfante, II; a cura di Renato Gendre. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Bonfante, G. 1994. La lingua parlata in Orazio. Venosa: Osanna (Italian edition of the initial work published in a low number of copies Los elementos populares en la lengua de Horacio, Madrid 1937). Bonfante, G. 1994. La lingua parlata in Orazio. Venosa: Osanna (Italian edition of the initial work published in a low number of copies Los elementos populares en la lengua de Horacio, Madrid 1937). Bonfante, G. 2001. Studii române. Bucure!ti: Saeculum I.O. (Original: Giuliano Bonfante, Studii romeni, Societá Accademica Romena, Collana di studii e saggi, VI, Roma, 1973). Borza, Alexandru 1968. Dic8ionar etnobotanic. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei. __________________________________________________________________ 355

Etymologica-anthropologica __________________________________________________________________ Brâncu%, Grigore 1983. Vocabularul autohton al limbii române. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic". Brâncu!, Gr. 1991. Istoria cuvintelor. Bucure!ti: Coresi. Brâncu!, Gr. 1999. Concordan8e lingvistice româno-albaneze. Bucure!ti: Institutul Român de Tracologie; Bibliotheca thracologica XXX. Brtek, Josef, Emmanuel Sobí&ek s.a. Das tschechische Zeitwort. Verlag I. Buschbaum, Mâhrisch-Ostrau (Ostrava). Brückner, Aleksander 1970. S9ownik etymologiczny j:zyka polskiego. Warszawa. Buchholz, O., W. Fiedler, G. Uhlisch 1977. Wàrterbuch albanisch-deutsch. Leipzig. Candrea, I.-A. 1927. Elemente de origine dubioas) în limba român) (text litografiat), vol. I, Bucure!ti. Candrea, I.-A., Ovid Densusianu 1914. Dic8ionarul etimologic al limbii române. Elementele latine (a-putea). Bucure!ti: Socec. Chantraine, Pierre 1968–1980. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: Klincksieck. Christol, Michel, Ségolène Demougin, Yvette Duval, Claude Lepelley, Luce Pietri 1992. Institutions, société et vie politique dans l'Empire Romain au IVe siècle ap.J.-C. Roma: École Française de Rome. Cihac, Alexandru de 1870–1879. Dictionnaire étymologique daco–romane, I– II. Frankfurt. Cior'nescu, Alejandro 1960 sq. Diccionario etimológico rumano. La Laguna. Cior'nescu, Alexandru (Alejandro) 2002. Dic8ionarul etimologic al limbii române. Edited and translated from Spanish by Tudora #andru Mehedin$i and Magdalena Popescu Marin. Bucure!ti: Saeculum I.O. Spanish original: Cocco, V. 1942. Lat. canth;rius ‘cavallo castrato’ e la nuova base mediterranea KANTH ‘curva, rotondità’. Studi Etruschi 16: 387–401. Collinder, Björn 1957. Survey of the Uralic Languages. Stockholm-Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Collinder, B. 1960. Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages. Stockholm-Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Com%a, Maria 1982. Quelques conclusions historiques concernant le I-er millénaire de n.è. fondées sur l'origine des mots se rapportant à la famille et aux liens de parenté dans la langue roumaine. Thraco-dacica 3: 76–84. __________________________________________________________________ 356

Bibliographia __________________________________________________________________ Condurachi, Emil 1969. Izvoarele greco-latine asupra etnogenezei vechilor popula$ii balcanice. Studii (i cercet)ri de istorie veche, 20, 3: 369–391. Condurachi, E. 1971. L'ethnogenÀse des peuples balkaniques: les sources écrites. Studia Balcanica (Sofia) 5: 249–269. Constantinescu, N.A. 1963. Dic8ionar onomastic românesc. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei. Coteanu, I., L. Seche, M. Seche (ed.) 1975. Dic8ionarul explicativ al limbii române. (DEX). Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei. Coteanu, Ion 1981. Originile limbii române. Bucure!ti. Coteanu, Ion, Marius Sala 1987. Etimologia (i limba român). Principii, probleme. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei. Curta, Florin 2006. Apari8ia slavilor. Istorie (i arheologie la Dun)rea de Jos în veacurile VI–VII. Târgovi!te: Ed. Cetatea de Scaun. [Original title: The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. 2001, Cambridge University Press]. Çabej, Eqrem 1976. Studime gjuhësorë, I–VI. Prishtinë: Rilindja. (ajkanovi", Veselin 1973. Mit i religija u srba. Beograd: Srpska knji%evna zadruga. (op, Bojan 1973. Prispevek k zgodovini labialnih pripon v indoevropskih jezikih. Beitrag zur Geschichte der Labialsuffixe in den indogermanischen Sprachen. (Raz'irjena doktorska disertacija). Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti (Dela/Opera vol. 29). (op, Bojan 1974. Indouralica. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti (Dela/Opera vol. 30). (op, Bojan 1975. Die indogermanische Deklination im Lichte der indouralischen vergleichenden Grammatik. Indoevropska sklanjatev v lu3i indouralske primerjalne slovnice. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti (Dela/Opera vol. 31). DA = Pu!cariu 1913–1948. Dan, Ilie 1983. Contribu8ii la istoria limbii române. Ia!i: Junimea. Dauzat, Albert 1947. Les noms de lieux, 2nd ed. Paris: Delagrave. __________________________________________________________________ 357

Etymologica-anthropologica __________________________________________________________________ Dauzat, A. 1960. La toponymie française. Paris: Payot. De Bray, R. G. A 1980. Guide to the Slavonic Languages, 3 vols. (1: South Slavonic; 2: West Slavonic; 3: East Slavonic). Columbus (Ohio): Slavica Publishers. De!ev (Detschew), Dimit'r 1929. Die thrakischen Pflanzennamen. Godi'nik na sofiiskaja universitet, ist.-fil., XXIV, nr. 1. De)ev, D. 1952. Charakteristik der thrakischen Sprache. Sofia. De)ev, D. 1957. Die thrakischen Sprachreste. Wien: R.M. Rohrer. Deeters, G., G.R. Solta, V. Inglisian 1963. Armenisch und kaukasische Sprachen. Leiden–Kàln: E.J. Brill. Delitzsch, Friedrich 1873. Studien über indogermanisch-semitische Wurzelverwandt-schaft. Leipzig: J.C. Hinnisch. Densusianu, Ovid 1901–1938. Histoire de la langue roumaine. Paris. Densusianu, O. 1925 a. Elementele latine ale limbei basce (litography). Craiova: Ramuri. Densusianu, O. 1925 b. P"storitul la bascii din Soule. Grai (i suflet 9–23. Devoto, Giaccomo 1939. PALA ‘rotonditá’, FALTER ‘le cupole’, PALATIUM ‘Caelius’. Studi Etruschi 13: 311–316. Devoto, G. 1954–1961. Le fasi della linguistica mediterranea. Studi Etruschi I: 23: 217–228; II: 29: 175–189. DEX = Coteanu et al. 1975. Dickenmann, Ernst 1939. Studien zur Hydronimie des Savesystems. Budapesta: Ostmitteleuropäische Bibliothek (2nd ed., Heidelberg 1966, unavailable to us). Diculescu, Constantin 1922. Die Gepiden. Halle. Diculescu, C. 1927. Elemente vechi grece!ti în limba român". Dacoromania IV: 394–516. Dimitrescu, Florica (ed.) 1978. Istoria limbii române. Fonetic", morfosintax", lexic. Bucure!ti: Editura Didactic" !i Pedagogic". Dimitrov, Pet'r 1994. Paleobalkanskijat vokaliz)m. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”. Domi, Mahir 1983. Problèmes de l'histoire de la formation de la langue albanaise. Résultats et tâches. Iliria: 5–38. Dostál, Antonín 1954. Studie o vidovém systému v staroslov6n4tin6. Praha Dr'ganu, Nicolae 1928. Toponimie (i istorie. Cluj. __________________________________________________________________ 358

Bibliographia __________________________________________________________________ Dr"ganu, N. 1933. Românii în veacurile IX–XIV pe baza toponimiei (i a onomasticii. Bucure!ti: Academia Român". Dumistr'cel, Stelian 1980. Lexic românesc. Cuvinte, metafore, expresii. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic". Dumitra%cu, C't'lina 1976. L'oscillation l/r en position intervocalique dans la langue des Thraco-Daces. Thraco-Dacica 1: 329–330. Duridanov, Ivan 1952. Mestnite nazvanija ot Lomsko. Sofia: B"lgarskata Akademija na Naukite. Duridanov, Iv. 1960. Der thrakische Einfluss auf die bulgarische Anthroponymie. Linguistique Balcanique 2: 69–86. Duridanov, Iv. 1969. Thrakisch-dakische Studien, I. Linguistique Balkanique 13, 2. Duridanov, Iv. 1975. Die Hydronimie des Vardar-systems als Geschichtsquelle. Köln-Wien: Böhlau Verlag. Duridanov, Iv. 1986. Pulpudeva, Plovdiv, Plovdin. Linguistique Balkanique 29, 4: 25–34. Duridanov, Iv. 1989. Nochmals zum namen PL
View more...

Comments

Copyright © 2017 DATENPDF Inc.