Professional Documents
Culture Documents
E Tym Anthropo Maior A
E Tym Anthropo Maior A
Etymologica et
Anthropologica Maiora
Indigenous
Sorin Paliga
Etymologica et
Anthropologica Maiora
Bucure"ti
2007
Contents / Cuprins
Cuvnt nainte
Foreword
7
9
I.
Thracian terms for township and fortress, and related place-names
13
21
39
43
Types of Mazes
61
77
91
95
113
151
175
183
195
209
II.
Ardeal, Transilvania
235
243
255
Toponimul Cluj
267
Pururi = focuri
281
Originea Albanezilor
285
291
295
299
III.
La divinit suprme des Thraco-daces
317
331
345
Bibliographia
353
Exordium dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Cuvnt nainte
Etymologica-anthropologica / Exordium
__________________________________________________________________
ini#iale, nici nu le!am retradus n limba romn". Cum timpul trece, ni s!a p"rut mai
util s" relu"m, cu noi argumente, datele mai vechi, astfel c" studiile n limba englez"
nu au, n general, versiuni n limba romn", de!i unele abordeaz" teme similare.
Partea a doua include studiile n limba romn", toate publicate dup" 1990 (dintre
care am eliminat studiul dedicat boieriei, acesta fiind deja inclus ca un subcapitol al
volumului precedent); cum acestea se refer" preponderent la mo!tenirea arhaic" a
limbii romne !i la rela#iile romno!slave (cteva !i la cele romno!maghiare), n
acest fel cititorul va avea !i o organizare tematic".
n sfr!it, ultimele studii sunt cele n limba francez", publicate n Dialogues
dhistorie ancienne.
Poate ar trebui s" argumentez de ce am ales titlul Etymologica et
Anthropologica Maiora. Fiecare dintre aceste studii n parte !i toate n ansamblu
arat", cum avem speran#a, c" Europa a cunoscut trei mari perioade etnice:
1. $ neoliticul !i eneoliticul, cu marile lor culturi !i civiliza#ii (cca. 75003500
a. $ Ch.); 2. $ invazia indo!european": conturarea limbilor !i culturilor antichit"#ii
(34001200 a. Ch.); 3. dezvoltarea civiliza#iilor antichit"#ii, c"derea lor !i
formarea limbilor !i culturilor Europei medievale (mileniul I a. Ch. !i primele
secole ale erei cre!tine).
Autorul are speran#a c" ansamblul acestor studii formeaz" un set coerent de
abord"ri preponderent lingvistice, dar !i antropologice n sens larg, privitoare la
probleme esen#iale ale cercet"rii etimologice: rolul stratului pre!indo!european n
conturarea profilului etno!cultural al Europei; problema mo!tenirii indo!europene !i
felul n care acest strat lingvistic mai nou s!a amalgamat cu cel str"vechi,
pre!indo!european; substratul limbilor slave !i problema rela#iilor slavo!romne;
elementele traco!dace ale limbii romne. Multe dintre aceste studii pot fi considerate
studii de caz ce completeaz" ori argumenteaz" datele prezentate n ampla lucrare
de sintez" Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in
Romanian.
Sorin 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 1980s, specifically because the Romanian scientific journals
repeatedly rejected them. Thus they gradually got an English garment and could be
published abroad. Consequently the versions published in Linguistica, World
Archaeology, The Journal of Indo!European Studies and, last but not least, in
Slavisti!na Revija (in Slovene, but translated from the English original) were
initially re-written following the Romanian former original. Generally I did not
revert to the original, older Romanian form, nor did I re-translate them back. As
__________________________________________________________________
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
dhistorie ancienne.
It should be perhaps useful to further expand on the title: Etymologica et
Anthropologica Maiora. Every study and all together point(s) to the three major
Ethnic Periods in Europe: 1. " Neolithic and Chalcolithic, with their major
cultures and civilizations (cca. 75003500 B.C.); 2."The Indo!European invasion,
which led to the making of ancient languages and cultures (34001200 B.C.);
3."The making of Ancient Civilizations, their fall and the making of Medieval
languages and cultures (first millennium B.C. and the Christian era).
The author hopes that these studies form a coherent set of linguistic and
anthropological approaches: the role of the Pre!Indo!European substratum in
contouring the ethno-cultural profile of Europe; the Indo!European heritage and
amalgamation of Pre!Indo!European and Indo!European stratum; the substratum in
Slavic and Romanian!Slavic relations; the Thracian heritage in Romanian. Many
studies may be labelled case!studies to complement or to backup the data in the
ample Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian.
Sorin Paliga
August 2006
__________________________________________________________________
10
I
In English
Anglice
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 Provenal and Catalan brac a moor, place-name (hereafter PN) SaintMartin-de-Brasque, Bresq, Briasq, Braux (<*br-aw-is), etc. (Rostaing 1950:
101 ff.). The same Preie. root is also witnessed in Thracian para, bara (see
below). The Thracian term bria does not seem to be preserved in any modern
form, excepting PN Neseb!r in Bulgaria which arguably reflects the old
Mesembria.
2. Dava, deva, dova, daba, deba. The typical terms (or versions of the
same term) for fortress among the North Thracians (Dacians or Getae) as
witnessed in the Greek writers (Hesychius; De!ev, 1957; Russu, 1967). The
term appears in many place-names like Aia-daba, Aci-dava, Argi-dava, Buridava, Capi-dava, Pulpu-deva > PN Plovdiv (Bulgaria). A satisfactory
etymon of the word was suggested a long time ago: IE *dh"- to set, put,
development *dh"-w- (Tomaschek 1893 II: 1: 9), and has been accepted by
all subsequent specialists like De!ev, Russu and Georgiev (1961: 7). The
North Thracian term dava, deva seems to be akin to PN Datos (De!ev: 120)
and Albanian dhat city and Greek #$%&' a place, centre. Beside the
Bulgarian place-name Plovdiv, which reflects the ancient Pulpu-deva, this
etymological group is well preserved in some Romanian place-names, such
as Deva, an important town in Transylvania. The Thracian origin of the
place-name has been sometimes denied on the feeble ground that intervocalic
b/v should have been lost as in the Latin elements preserved in Romanian
(e.g. Lat. caballus > Rom. cal horse). But it seems clear to us that the
Thracian phoneme v (like b) had a particular pronunciation different from the
Late Latin b/v, so its preservation as such is not only plausible but even
inevitable (Kisch 19291934: 181). Three other modern Romanian towns
preserve the same element: Deda, Deta (cf. Thr. Datos) and Dej (formerly
__________________________________________________________________
14
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
languages spoken in the Balkans, are still frequently explained by the Slavic
or Hungarian influence, though in these languages the terms are still more
obscure. The absence of or-/ur- forms in Albanian (often referred to in the
case of some Thracian elements preserved in Romanian) is not of course an
argument against their Thracian origin in Romanian.1
7. Para also bara. This term is very well attested in place-names in the
Thracian region south from the Danube: Bessa-para, Gelu-para, Drusi-para,
etc. (De!ev 1957: 3567) and Zuro-bara, Tamon-bari (De!ev 1957: 42). This
Thracian term has clear affinities with other para-/bara- forms of certain
Preie. origin (root *PaR-/*BaR- (*P-R-/*B-R-)): Catalan barri city, district;
Provenal rampart; PN Barras and PN Barga in Tuscany (Rostaing 1950:
88); PN Parium in Mysia; PN Parma in Gallia; and Greek PN Parnassos, PN
Paros, etc. (Trombetti 1925: 44; Faure 1977: 141). All these forms represent
the full a-grade of the root as compared to the zero-grade in bria analysed
above.
No modern form with the specific meaning township has been preserved,
but the root may be easily identified in several place-names in Romania:
B!r!gn, Brg?u (< *BaR-g-), and MN Par@ ng in the Transylvanian Alps
(primitive from *PaR-ang- or *PaR-ag- then nasalised to * PaR-a-n-g-)
Discussion
The examples analysed, despite the corrupted spellings of the Thracian
words in the Greek or Latin writers, complement the archaeological data very
well. It is obvious that the Thracians had a rich terminology for township
and/or fortress. Of course the terms under consideration reflect regional
(local, dialectal) differences: dava/deva was common among the North
Thracians (Dacians or Getae) while para/bara, bria and diza were more
1
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
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. 2329)
__________________________________________________________________
20
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
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
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. bn is a governor at the frontier of Hungary (Benk#
et al. 1967); this detail is interesting but ignored, perhaps unvoluntarily.
(b) Berneker assumes that Slavic ban is of Mongolian origin, the original form being bojan, hence ban (Berneker 19081913: 42; Bezlaj 1976
ff.: 10). But the phonetic changes are not explained and they are not at all
easily to be accepted as such 2 .
(c) It is sometimes hypothesized that Slavic ban is of Persian origin,
transmitted to Europe by the Avars (Onions 1969: 72). This reference to
Persian ban cannot be avoided but how to explain the route of the word to
Europe? Are the Avars (or, according to another version, the Turks) 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 mprumutat"? (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 18871888: 2448). This
explanation has been accepted by many other linguists (Tiktin 19031916:
151; !"ineanu 1929: 52; Macrea 1985: 66). A version of this hypothesis is
that the Romanian word is equally of Hungarian origin, an opinion much
advocated by Hungarian linguists (Tams 1967: 91; accepted, without
arguments, in Rosetti 1986: 384). The word under consideration cannot by
any means be of Hungarian origin for the simple reason that this meaning
is absent in Hungarian (dialectal Transylvanian forms are not relevant
because they may be and are under the Romanian influence).
(c) A particularly interesting and very original explanation, almost
forgotten, is exposed by Sextil Pu$cariu (DA I: 472; Pu$cariu 1923) who
considers that Rom. ban money, coin should be explained together with
Aromanian (Macedo-Romanian) verb a b"n to live (cf. Papahagi 1974:
191) as a heritage from a pre-Roman (i.e. Thracian) form *bann- life
cattle money, following the same change of meaning like Latin pecus
herd pecunia money.
According to this theory, there is no connection between the meanings
overlord, master and money, the similitude being therefore a result of
hazard, in change the antiquity of the word becomes considerable, assumed
of Thracian origin. It is what the author believes, but from completely other
reasons and with other arguments (see below). It should be now observed that
the Thracian reconstructed form *bann- is completely unfounded nor is it
supported by the testimonies in the Greek and Latin writers (cf. De%ev 1957).
(d) Finally, some scholars simply consider that the word is obscure
(Cioranescu 1960 ff.: 65; Coteanu et al. 1975: 72). In the given 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
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. csobny wooden pot, also csobn(y) shepherd;
Old Czech (bn, mod d)bn wooden pot.
As we know, these reciprocally significant forms have never been
considered together as an etymologically compact group, probably because
they require complex investigations and, perhaps much more important, to
abandon the deeply rooted preconceived idea that cioban, (oban shepherd
is a Turkish influence. The facts are, in our opinion, simple enough and do
not require special devices of investigation. Anyway, a brief review of the
topic is necessary.
In what concerns the Romanian forms, it was generally assumed that
cioban pot is a Hungarian influence (DA II: 435), the Hungarian word
being, in its turn, borrowed from Slovak with the specific phenomenon of
svarabhakti: Slovak bn > Hung. csobny (Benk# et al. 1967: 545), with
the observation that probably there is no connection between csobn
shepherd and csobn(y) pot (id.), yet without any further attempt in
explaining this strange similitude 4.
On the other hand, the situation of the Slavic terms is equally obscure to
the Slavists. The situation could be summarized thus:
4
(a) For Miklosich there should be a similitude of some terms like the
already quoted Romanian and Hungarian forms, plus Rom. zbanc" a
recipient, Lithuanian izbonas, zbonas, uzbonas. This similitude is striking,
yet zbanc" may be considered a deformation of the Czech and Slovak
d)bn [how?], the situation as a whole remaining as confuse as before
(Miklosich 1886: 37).
(b) For Berneker, the Slavic word is dunkel(obscure) (Berneker
19081913: 165).
(c) Referring to the Baltic forms, a Polish or White-Russian origin is
suggested (Pol. dzban, zban, WRuss. )ban), which is very probable but is
no solution to the problem as a whole (Fraenkel 19551965 : 188).
(d) V. Machek reconstructs an Old Slavonic form *(*van+ [?!] and even
a common Slavic *(*ban+ [?!] approaching the forms to Greek ,-./01 5
(Machek 1971: 138). Though the Czech scholar makes a bold attempt in
explaining these facts and suggests a radical solution (the common Slavic
origin) his hypothesis is feeble and completely unfounded, including the
approach to d)ber a recipient, Rom. ciub"r [(b2r], German Zuber,
which are considered pra-evropsk (pre-Indo-European? 6).
The facts could be therefore summarized thus:
(I) In Hungarian both csobn pot and csobn(y) shepherd are 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 19681980: 316 and Frisk 1960).
6
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
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: 95141;
the study had been initially published in 1874). He later abandoned this
brilliant hypothesis replacing it by an opinion suggesting a rather Tartar
origin (Hasdeu 18871898: 2298). It is no better solution, but it reflects his
preocupation of finding a plausible explanation, realizing that the Turkish
(Ottoman) influence is impossible.
The facts can be therefore summarized as follows:
(a) Rom. cioban shepherd is surely non-Turkish;
(b) Rom. cioban should be explained in its double meaning: pot,
recipient and shepherd.
If this is correctly understood, the problem is theoretically solved, the
real difficulty consisting in finding the primitive connection between the
two spheres of meaning, which is:
shepherd undestood as PROTECTOR of livestock;
recipient understood as PROTECTOR of liquids,
both derived from a primitive root meaning to cover, to protect, hence
to graze, to contain. Given the correspondences already observed
between the balkanic terms and Persian, it is understandable that we must
look for a primitive root in the Indo-European heritage, where two roots
could be considered:
(a) IE *kadh- to cover, to protect, preserved in forms like
(1) helmet, hat: Lat. cassis (*kadh-tis), OHG huot, etc.
__________________________________________________________________
29
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
The context in which these words are discussed leads to the reconstruction of a Thracian prototype *!upn-, possibly also *!up2n-, if we accept
the idea that Thracian had a neutral phoneme /2/. As compared with the
previously discussed form *(oban- (in Thracian) developed later into
modern forms like Rom. cioban, Alb. oban, Hung. csobn(y), etc. It is
quite clear that both forms support one another and should be anyway
analyzed together. If our hypothesis is accepted, we face a quite interesting
detail of Thracian (probably, more exactly, Late Thracian) phonetic alternance: *(o-b$n, *(u-b$n- as compared to *!u-p$n-, *!u-p2n-, i.e. (/! and
b$n-/p$n-, p2n-. The author has no miraculous solution in explaining this
particular phenomenon but facts are quite clear (see infra).
(4) St$pn a master, Slavic *stopan% id.
After the previous discussion, it has become hopefully clear that this
word should be discussed in this context. But not always happened so:
(a) It is generally assumed that the word is of Slavic origin in Romanian
(Cihac 18701879, II: 351; Tiktin 19031916: 1483; !"ineanu 1920: 613;
Rosetti 1978: 320; 1986: 287). Indeed similar parallels are present among
Slavic speakers but is the word Slavic?
(b) A Latin origin was also suggested, from *stipanus < stips a small
coin + -$nus (Giuglea 1923, reconsidered by Pu$cariu 1976: 283). It is
also the solution advocated for the previous case giupn (supra).
(c) Latin origin as well but from hospitanus (Bari 1919: 9394).
(d) Unknown origin (Coteanu et al. 1975: 189).
(e) Thracian origin from a prototype akin to German Stab, Sanskrit
sthapyami (Philippide 19231928, II: 14; Prvulescu 1974: 28; Iv"nescu
1980: 254).
__________________________________________________________________
32
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$- to graze, see supra). These forms should be discussed together with
Illyrian Panes (Russu 1969: 231).
It is interesting to observe that some b- forms (witnessing that the
postulated b/p was real in Thracian) appear with the meaning fortress (cf.
the sense house v. master in Persian), e.g. place-name C./D1, in Dacia
Mediterranea, also personal name Bantion (De%ev, 1957). The same
meaning appears with p- spelling in Panion, a city in Propontis, with the
corresponding ethnikon E./FG41, if these forms are really Thracian,
possibly also Scythian or Scythoid (Zgusta 1964: 355).
Giupn, for wich we expect a Thracian prototype *!up$n-, also *!up2n-,
is abundantly attested in somewhat unexpected spellings like Diuppaneus,
Diopanes, HIJB./.61, H0JB./.61, H0JB./.1, Dorpaneus, Diurpaneus
(De%ev 1957: 1941, 150; Russu 1967: 104). The name is mainly known as
that of a Dacian king Duras-Diurpaneus (in our hypothesis, a real 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"pn, Sl. stopan+ seemingly has no witness in the Greek and Latin
writers; yet the co-radical place-name PGQ/D1 is attested in the Thracian
__________________________________________________________________
34
__________________________________________________________________
35
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
This text was analyzed by J. Nmeth (1932) who assumed that the forms
RSTETU and RVTETU should be read *(aban, so Buta-ul (aban
would mean son of Bota [from the breed of] aban, Bujla-aban would
mean Buila [from the breed of] %aban. Nmeth is inclined to find a
support of his hypothesis in Constantin Porphirogenetos (De adm. imp.
37); in this view, the forms have nothing to do with Slavic )upan.
Following our hypothesis, it is most probable that the forms RSTETU,
RVTETU are nothing else than !upan/)upan as terms referring to the
social and political structure of the newcomers. This changes 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
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Rom. st"pn master and Slavic reconstructed form *stopan+ (with the
observation that the form is by no means proto-Slavic). Compound built up
as giupn, jupn, !upan.
In the light of the facts presented in this paper, we assume that both
phonetic changes from Proto-Indo-European via Thracian till modern times
and the semantic field do not allow to replace affinities by borrowings
from, e.g. from Turkish or another oriental language. Obviously enough,
the words considered are not Oriental or Slavic (in the sense of 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: 111126.
__________________________________________________________________
38
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.
Erdly is not at all feasible, mainly from reasons of phonetic evolution, as
long as the expected form should have been *Erdei or *Ardei.
We can better understand the situation of this PN if placing it in a 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 berwald (now replaced by
Siebenbrgen) are loan-translations (calques) after Ar-deal. Hung. Erdly is
also a calque but following the rules of derivation in Hungarian: noun +
particle, i. e. Erd!- forest and -elu/-elv > -ely (cf. el!re straightforward,
eltt in front of), as shown and accepted by all Hungarian linguists (cf. Kiss
1980 with further references). What is particularly interesting in this case is
that the calque was doubled by a fortuitous similarity between Ar-deal and
Erdly, which created a confusion of etymological analysis.
1
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):105108
__________________________________________________________________
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 Daltarba
NSt Delkos
Romanian
(via Thracian)
deal hill;
forest
NR Ar-deal
over the hill/
forest
NL Subdeal,
Sub-deal, La
Deal, Peste
deal etc.
NL Delea
NL Talma
Greek
NI Delos (The
Cyclades)
NM Delos (1)
(Boeotia)
NL Delphoi (2)
NL Tylissos
(Crete)
NM Talarus
NL Lepa-talea
(Caria)
Etrusco-Latin
Etr. tel hill
?tular
boundary
Georgian
Provence
NL Tallard (<
*Tal-arn-u-)
NL Toulon
talaki fertile
soil
No connection with Gr. !"#$%, !&'#$% obvious, evident, which reflects IE *dei-, *deiw- to shine.
By hazard similar to !'#()% uterus, matrix.
Lat. terra is derived from the parallel Preie. root *T-R-, *D-R- not analysed here.
Introduction
The numeral 10, given its importance in the archaic barter-based
societies, often puts interesting problems not only of strict linguistic analysis but of extra-linguistic realities as well. Slavic *s!to is a good example
which will be reconsidered below. Out of all the Slavic numerals it undoubtedly is the most interesting for the linguistic investigation thus compensating the somewhat obscure points connected with the prehistory of the Slavs
and the assumably rich inter-ethnic contacts.
The existence of similar forms in all the Slavic idioms converging to the
reconstruction of a unique form *s!to does not raise essential problems.
Things turn unexpectedly complicated when we try to refer to the ProtoIndo-European (hereafter PIE) form: *k" #t-m, *k" #t-$, as a variant of
*dk" #t-m, *dk" #t-$, obviously related to *dek" # 10. Therefore 10 was
viewed by the PIE speakers as ten times ten or amplified ten whereas
1000 was later interpreted as an amplified hundred or big hundred as
revealed by comparative analysis.
In what concerns the Slavic languages the basic problem is that the
reconstructable common form *s!to is not the expected one, i. e. *s%t&,
eventually *s%to; furthermore, not only the phoneme % replaced by ! is
discouraging, but the ending as well. By comparing 10 with 100 and
1000 (details below) then the general reconstructable form should be
*s%t&. To my knowledge this detail, not at all unimportant, has not been
properly considered. If we are to assume that exceptions from the current
phonetic changes occured (e.g. by frequent use of this numeral, cf. Ma!czak
1971) we must equally refer to the obviously related form for 10 and
__________________________________________________________________
43
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Old Church Slavonic (hereafter OCS) *t!ma is also attested with the meaning
very much, myriads sometimes even ten thousand. It was calqued in Old
Romanian by ntunerec darkness (L. Djamo-Diaconi$# 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
Macheks 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 between100 and 1000 is obvious, the latter
being ten hundred (cf. Table 2).
__________________________________________________________________
46
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 195558, 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: 1056), 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; Prvulescu 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 st+) 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
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
If our reconstruction has been sufficiently correct, then the most probable form
for 10 in Thracian should have been *dsunt (in southern dialects) and *d)sut (in
northern dialects). Also possible are the forms *d)snt, *d)st, if we accept the
idea (well supported by various data) that Thracian has at least one neutral vowel
of the type /)/.
__________________________________________________________________
50
purpose. Another possible example is offered by Rom. a se gudura (referring to dogs) to express happiness by rubbing the body against masters
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
guduls 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.
gudul!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.
guduls. 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:;<-76315, epithet for Dionysos. Our attention should therefore concentrate on the forms 0126412-, 0128412-, as well as 01234125. In our view
they pre-date the Romanian names sut+, Suteanu, Sutescu. In other words
they reflect as personal or god-names the reconstructed Thracian word for
100 which should have had the root *sunt-, *sut- (*sunt-, *sut-). Two
details should be noted:
(a) NP Sountous / Suntus reflects a nasal pronunciation which was
probably real; this leads to the conclusion that at least in certain dialects
(one of them being the dialect in which the form Suntus was recorded) IE *.
was treated to *um, *un. We can additionally observe that if we are to
suppose dialectal treatments in Thracian then we surely have here a good
example of reflection: some dialects knew a treatment of IE *. to *um, *un
(e.g. the dialects in which the nasalized forms quoted above were attested)
and others which innovated the treatment (desanalized) *um, *un to u; such
a dialect surely was a Northern dialect spoken in the vicinity of the Slavic
homeland because only such a form can plausibly explain Slavic *s!to.
(b) The god-names 0126412-76315, 0128412-76315 though with an
obscure second element, witness a first part with the meaning 100 the
name being translatable as the god with one hundred (? -l(nos). These forms
equally witness mis-spellings with 6 or 8 respectively. The real pronunciation should have been nasal as well, i. e. Sountou-: Sountous / Suntu-l(nos.
__________________________________________________________________
52
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
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-m, *(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
tasn
*tehun
taihun
deich
deg
Cornic
Breton
Tokh. A/B
Lat.
Greek
Eolic
dek
dek
A: (k/ B: (ak
decem
DEFG
cans
kant
A: knt/ B: knte
centum
<FG4H3
PIE
Ion.-Att.
1000
>
9
*ty-s%t&, *ty-s%ta
t@kstantis
t@ksto?, tukstuAts
sa-hsram
ha-za!r)m
haz$r
hazar (< N. Pers.)
*thus-hundi
C@-hundi
m'lle, m'lia
IE77818
I(<)J7818, IK7818
This would have been the normal, expected form as revealed by the forms 100
and 1000. It is likely that this form did exist before it was replaced by the
intrusive form s!to (Tables 3 and 4).
9
Intrusive element borrowed from another language (cf. Table 4; further discussions in the main text).
__________________________________________________________________
56
Table 2
Numerals 10, 100, 1000 in some non-Indo-European Languages
10
100
gruzin
finlandez
aLi
kymmenen
asi
sata (< Iran.)
maghiar
tz
10
1000
aLasi
tuhat, tuhannen (< germ.)
Table 3
Indo!European Sonants # $ % &
PIE
Thracian
Slavic
Lithuanian
Latin
Greek
__________________________________________________________
/
ur
ir, ur
ir
or
G:, :G
M
ul
il, ul
il
ol, ul
G7, 7G
#
um
%
im
em
G
.
un
%
in
en
G
__________________________________________________________
10
The similarity with the IE forms for 10 is obvious. At the same time, this form
is radically different from Finnish kymmenen.
__________________________________________________________________
57
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Table 4
Numerals 10, 100, 1000 in the Slavic Languages
10
100
Protosl.
*des%t&
*s!to
OCS
B.
S.-Cr.
Slv.
Cz.
Slk.
Pol.
R.
!"##$%
deset
ds(t
dest
deset
desaO, desiati
dziesi%N
dsjaO
#&$'
sto
st
st
sto
sto
sto
sto
1000
11
*ty-s%t&, *ty-s%ta
*ty-s*ta, *ty-s*t&
$(##)*, $(#+)*
(hiljada < n.gr.)
tisuNa (also hiljada < n.gr.)
tso=(a)
Old tisc > Modern tisc
tisc
tysiPc
tysja'a
11
The comparative analysis of these forms confirms our assertions in Table 1: the
Slavic numeral 100 witnesses an uncommon phonetic evolution, against the
normal evolution of the numerals 10 and 1000. The conclusion is inevitable: the
numeral 100 is intrusive and was borrowed from a neghbouring satem language.
Cf. Table 4; further discussions in the main text.
__________________________________________________________________
58
Table 5
Distribution of numeral 100 in the languages neighbouring the Slavic
Homeland
Fin. sata
let. simts
Germanic *hundan
Sl. *s!to
Iranic sata
_______________
Chart
On next page, the illustration loosely suggests the distribution of the ethnic groups
at the beginning of Christian era. It complements and clarifies the data in Table 5.
__________________________________________________________________
59
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Balts
Germanic groups
Uralic
groups
Slavs
Iranic
groups
Celts
Pannonia
(area of
interethnic
interference)
Illyrian
Thracians
Black
Sea
Romanisation
Greeks
Aegean Sea
__________________________________________________________________
60
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
Types of Mazes
Rodic uxori suaviter
Introduction
The labyrinth is beyond any doubt one of the most fascinating aspects of
human societies. Though its magic forms and implications are well known and
have been the subject of important analysesthe best known being perhaps P.
Santarcangeli's Il libro dei labirinti, now with many translations in various
languages, lately rediscussed by Krzak (1985)there still are unrevealed
aspects, some perhaps improperly understood. It is our purpose to examine
here (1) the pre-Indo-European (hereafter pre-IE) family of the fundamental
Greek form lab!rinthos (a term sometimes labelled Mediterranean, which is
not ultimately incorrect), (2) the pre-IE family of English forms maze / amaze
and their unexpected south and southeast European parallels (noticed a long
time ago, but unconnected to this context), and (3) the interpretation of the
available data in the sense that the labyrinth was initially a projection of the
Neolithic Goddess's sacred body.
Our investigation deals especially with linguistic data but will equally refer
to archaeological and cult aspects. It is our hypothesis that the initial meaning
of labyrinthic structures was not only initiatic but reflected the inner meanders
of Goddess's body, i.e. her sacred bowels. The purpose of this article is to
substantiate this assertion.
Greek form lab!rinthos and its family
After minute and not always easy investigations it is quite obvious now
that Gr. lab!rinthos belongs to a pre-IE root *L-B- (*LaB-, *LaP- etc.)
stone, slab, cliff. This root is very well represented on a large area in south
and south-east Europe, and even in western Europe. Table 1 and its notes
summarize the data available so far; we expect additional data to
__________________________________________________________________
61
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Italian dialects. On the other hand we find that Lat. matia is a mot de
glossaire (Ernout-Meillet 1959: 390 intestina unde matiarii dicuntur qui
eadem tractant aut uendunt). The origin of lat. matia is usually considered
Gr. '())*+ name of a delicate and delicious meal stirring the apetite
(Ernout-Meillet 1959; Walde-Hofmann 19381954: II: 52; Frisk 1960 ff. :
II: 185; Chantraine 19681980: 672 with further discussions).
Therefore (1) while in Romanian and the Italian dialects the meaning
refers to an anatomical detail, i. e. a part of the body, (2) in Latin as
supposed borrowing from Greek it clearly refers to cookery. The difference,
of course, is not insuperable, knowing that the bowels of different animals
are largely used for preparing various meals. The essential is that, anyway,
the very etymon of Gr. '())*+ (in its turn the suggested source of Lat.
matia) is obcure, so Pierre Chantraine ultimately supposes a term borrowed
from Macedonian (Chantraine 19681980: 672 On pourrait se demander si
n'est pas purement et simplement un terme emprunt au macdonien). But
following this line of thought, Macedonian means a territory closer to the
Thracian area, i. e. the substratum language of Romanian, a detail which
may ultimately clarify the situation of all these terms.
Though the primitive origin of the Greek term may not affect the red thread
of our demonstration, we assume that Chantraine's suggestion has a great
probability of being correct, especially in the context considered in these
pages, opening the perspective of an indigenous term most probably connected
to Rom. ma$(e), via a Thracian form easily reconstructable as *mats- if a
meaning intricate, confuse can be traced back to Gr. '())*+, the
Macedonian-Greek word being therefore another relic of the Mediterranean
root *mat(s)- as identified and analyzed by the Italian scholars.
In what concerns the relation between (1) Lat. matia Rom. ma$(e) and (2)
Lat. matia and the dialectal forms matt&e and matia, further considerations
will be possible after presenting the situation of another word.
Rom a ame$i (a am%$i) to make or become dizzy, to stun is still more
difficult to explain, three solutions being offered, as follows:
(1) An obscure term, perhaps an a- development from Slavic m,sti, m,st__________________________________________________________________
64
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
(b) Both Rom. a ame$i and Eng. amaze denote the same prefix a. The
parallel is striking yet interpretable without reffering to hazard. It is to
observe that in many European languages the prefix a- may be variously
explained. In English, there was a superposition of different influences, in
this case being a reflection of Old English #-. On the other hand, in
Romanian a- represents the evolution of Lat. ad. Yet in both cases it is better
to suppose a primitive pre-Germanic and pre-Celtic formation (in Britain)
and pre-Thracian (in Romanian) of the type *a-mats-, later assimilated to
more productive derivative means.
In this perspective, the relation between Romanian, on the one hand, and
the Italian and Macedonian-Greek terms on the other, should be
reconsidered. The alternatives are:
(1) Either there is no immediate connection between Rom. ma$(e) and the
Italian dialectal forms matt&e and matta from Lat. matia in its turn from Gr.
'())*+ , in which case the similarity between the Macedonian-Greek forms
and the Thracian-Romanian ones may be accounted for in terms of a
Balkanic element.
(2) Or, especially if considering the meaning of the Italian forms, one is
to suppose an east-Romance influence toward the west, the Latin form matia
therefore has no direct connection either with Rom. ma$ or with the Italian
forms. In this case too, a primitive relationship between the Rom. words
(via Thracian) and the Macedonian-Greek forms should be accepted.
No definite answer can be offered here, mainly because it is beyond the
purpose of this paper, secondly because it requires a comprehensive review
of other Balkanic elements migrated to the West, thirdly because the very
situation of Lat. matia and Gr. '())*+ is not at all clear. At this stage of
investigation it is essential (1) to note the relevant correspondence between
Romanian and English, and (2) to note the correspondence between these
forms and the other ones presented above, all preserving a primitive
meaning intricate, confused.
In order to have a clearer image of these terms, it is interesting to revert
to the obscure Latvian mats hair now comparing it to other Romanian
word: mo$ ($ = ts) tuft of hair. The similarity (if not quasi-identity) is
__________________________________________________________________
66
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
striking and, once again, cannot be result of hazard. The a/o vowel grade is
easily explainable. To approach these two words is relevant to the topic,
because it has not been observed so far. Just like Latv. mats, Rom. mo$ has
remained unexplained, being one of the very numerous Romanian words
without etymon. The word appears also as the name of a population living
in the West Carpathians in an isolated and linguistically very conservative
area. These people are characterized by a specifically cut tuft of hair. The
same word seemingly appears as the name of a Macedo-Romanian ethnic
group: the Mo$ani (Pu!cariu 19161948, Papahagi 1924: 2228; Pa!ca
1927: 10121013).
In addition to the parallel Rom. mo$ Latv. mats, Romanian may
ultimately clarify the facts presented by Klein (see above), namely an
approach of eng. maze / amaze to Norw. masast to doze off and Sw. masa
to be slow, sluggish. In this perspective, we cannot avoid the Romanian
verb a mo$%i to doze off, the root of which is identical to mo$ tuft of hair.
This similarity has probably been considered as mere hazard. Anyway, a
mo$%i is another enigma of the Romanian vocabulary. Finally, I should note
the verb a mototoli to crumple, seemingly a reduplicated form reductable
to mot-mot-ol-, with a simplified pronunciation to mot-ot-ol- (further
examples of such simplified reduplications are considered in our MS
Byzantion). We again have no reason to consider all these forms as a result
of mere hazard but as evidence of the real existence of an old non-IE root
*MaT(T)-, *MaT(s)- (eventually with a parallel with o- vowel grade, which
could result later as well by phonetic evolution).
Some remarks on Eng. maze / amaze and Rom. ma"(e) / ame"i
The situation of the words discussed and covering a large area of
different linguistic structure (Germanic, Romance, Hellenic, Baltic, Iberian)
may be summarized thus:
__________________________________________________________________
67
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
(a) The primitive pre-IE root may be fairly well reconstructed as *M-T-,
*M-Ts- (*MaTT-, *MaTs-, maybe also *MoTs-) intricate, confuse.
(b) Eng. maze / amaze (*mats-/a-mats-) answers Rom. ma$(e) / ame$i
(am%$i) bowels / to stun, the latter via a Thracian form *mats-/*a-mats(*a-m.ts-). Another parallel seems to be Eng. amaze, Norw. masast doze
off, Sw. masa be slow and Rom. a mo$%i doze off, the latter related in a
way or another to mo$ tuft of hair; such a relationship cannot be
understood but in the context of the primitive meaning of the root: unclear,
confuse. Rom. a mototoli (reduplicated) should also be discussed in this
context.
(c) Out of all senses, i. e. (1) maze, (2) bowels, (3) to amaze, to stun, (4)
to doze off, (5) bush, (6) hair, tuft of hair, different languages have
preserved one or more meanings (yet never all these meanings, according to
our investigations). In the light of data available so far, Romanian seems to
preserve most of these meanings: four of six, but the results are, of course,
incomplete and new data may enrich he list.
(d) The sense bush, bushiness is a group apart represented by Alb.
mand (from *mant < *matt-) mulberry, Italic mata, matta, matine bushy
land, bushiness, Basque mahats grape, possibly Uralic *mkt! bush,
*maij"a forest.
(e) Gr. '())*+ a type of meal, a sausage has an obscure position, with
more or less of an affinity with all the other forms discussed, first of all to
Rom. ma$(e) bowels (via Thracian, a substratum element in Romanian).
Pre-Indo-European Relics
All these terms are relics of a non-IE language (or closely related
languages) once spoken in Europe before Indo-Europeanization. The phonetic
__________________________________________________________________
68
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
changes as well as the meanings do not follow the laws known in the IE
idioms. The situation of the Uralic forms *maij"a and *mkt! is uncertain;
they most probably belong to the context discussed here, but a final solution
may be offered only when other correspondences between the Uralic family
and the pre-IE substratum have been identified and analyzed. In this view it is
perhaps better to reconstruct no primitive Uralic forms but to postulate a
borrowing from an old non-Uralic (and non-IE) idiom.
Undoubtedly, most of the words belonging to the pre-IE root *M-T(T)confused, labyrinthic had a magic symbolism. Eng. maze is a typical
example. Other had, or still have, implicit magic values, such as the creeds
connected to hair. All these forms may be a linguistic approach to a better
understanding of the pre-IE phenomena, to the numerous aspects linked to the
survival of pre-IE terms until modern times. But a better understanding of this
symbolism may be achieved if we refer to the labyrinthic phenomenon.
Gr. lab!rinthos, Eng. maze, Rom. ma"(e)
If there is now little doubt that the initial meaning of Gr. lab!rinthos was
structure of huge stones and also little doubt that the first meaning of Eng.
maze was intricate, confused, labyrinthic (meaning also shared by Rom.
ma$e), what could be the common features of both these semantic fields,
apparently distant (and distinct), and belonging to different cultural areas?
One first common feature is obvious: both semantic fields are well
represented in a large area of Europe, in the first case being forms derived
from a primitive pre-IE root *L- P- stone, cliff, in the second case forms
derived from a primitive (equally non-IE) root *M- T(T)-, *M- T(s).
Another common feature and the most important is that all the forms analyzed
reflect a pre-IE heritage. In order to understand the typological context of these preIE (Neolithic) cultures, it is imperative to observe that they were dominated by
female deities, as abundantly witnessed by archaeological evidence (Gimbutas
1982). Similarly, the megalithic monuments of Western Europe also copied the
Goddess's body: the vulva, vagina and uterus. The origin of this representation is
undoubtedly in Upper Palaeolithic. Several figures on the walls of the megalith have
clear parallels in the Neolithic cultures of south-east Europe (Gimbutas 1985 b).
In this view it becomes clear that the archaic symbolism of the megalith,
__________________________________________________________________
69
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
70
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________
Fig. 1 Model of a temple discovered at V#dastra, Olt district, Romania.
Comparative calibrated radiocarbon chronology for the corresponding layer
indicated first half of the 5th millennium B.C. Upper part of the figurine is
reconstructed. Labyrinthic model incised on the body corresponds to the facts
revealed by linguistic analysis. Courtesy Museum of National History and
Archaeology, Bucharest.
__________________________________________________________________
71
Table 1
The general distribution of the forms derived from the Pre-IE root *L-B-, *L-P- stone, cliff, hill
Mediterranean
Thracian
NL !1#"')*
NL !1#-//"
Iberian
NL Libana (Castilia)
NL Lebedontia
(Avieno)
Camp. lvera
NL !"7"8&"
French
NL Le
Lubron
Mediterranean
Thracian
Iberian
!"#$% (Pisidia)
NL !"#5%&* (Pisidia)
NL !"75;' (Lycia)
NL !"77" (Crete,
today Argyroupolis)
NL !57"-8"+5"
(Caria)
? +:"* stone **
Notes
* Uncertain because Myc. pu2 usually corresponds to Gr. 9- and da is used instead the expected la.
** In order to be regularly explained in this context, +:"* should suppose an initial form *lawas < *labas.
*** One of the seven terms for township in Thracian (see the 2nd study in this volume, above).
French
Table 2
Survey of the forms derived from the Pre-IE root *M-T(T)- (*MaT-, *MaTs-, *MoT-, *MoTs- etc.) intricate, confuse, labyrinthine
English
(& Germanic)
Romanian
a mototoli
(1) maze
maze *
ma"e
bowels
(2) bowels
(3) amaze
to
crumple
amaze (<
!masian)
(cf. line 1)
ame"i,
am#"i
(a-ma", cf.
English)
Albanian
Illyrian
Italic
Lat. matttia
(< Gr.
$%&&'();
Neap. ?
matt)e
bowels,
Logud. matta
womb,
stomach
Latvian
Uralic
Basque
(4) doze
off
Norw. masast
doze off;
Swed. masa
be slow
a mo"#i
doze off
(cf. mo",
below and
row 1)
mand
mulberry
(5) bush,
tree
(6) hair
(*mant- <
*matt-)
Dalmatia ***
forested hill
*mai*a
forest:
Lapp muoi*i
Fin. mets;
*mkt! bush
Fin. mts
Apul. matine
bushy land
NP Matese,
Meta
mo" tuft
of hair
Mo"ani,
name of
a
regional
group
mahats
grape
(mats`) ****
mats hair
Notes to Table 2
* From *mats- (see the main text) which answers Rom. *ma" (e) (" = ts).
** ? refers to the uncertainty regarding the ultimate source of both Greek and Italian dialectal forms: Macedonian in Greek? indigenous in
Italian? See the main text.
*** Further discussions on Dalmatia in Linguistica 28 (1988): 105108, reprinted in this volume, above.
**** According to present-day knowledge, it may be surmised that h is not etymological.
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
without the preconceived idea that nothing is known and nothing can be proven
about the Preie. substratum in southeast Europe or Europe in general. Evidence
allows us to reject Vladimir Georgievs view, advocated some three decades ago
(1961). His opinion that there is no Mediterranean substratum in the Balkans and,
what is worse, that southeast Europe was the PIE homeland, is basically incorrect
despite its quite large acceptance among linguists. Figure 1 loosely presents a
probable linguistic and ethnic tableau of Neolithic/Chalcolithic idioms
reconstructable both from archaeological and linguistic evidence.
________
An attempt to reconstructing the main ethno-linguistic groups in Europe and
Near East in the fifth millennium B.C. According to a hypothesis with more and
more arguments and supporters, Proto-Indo-European (PIE), Proto-Altaic (PA) and
Proto-Uralic (PU) formed the Proto-Boreal Group of speakers of closely related
languages which later had divergent evolution.
__________________________________________________________________
79
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Definitions
It must be stated from the very beginning that the term Pre-Indo-European
(Preie.) is rather vague despite its apparent clarity, It may be used
indiscriminately for any area where a non-IE idiom had been spoken before
Kurganization. There were Preie. idioms spoken over the vast area delimited
by the Mediterranean, Atlantic, Urals, Caspian Sea and the Indian Ocean. If
we refer only to south and southeast Europe (i. e. the area defined as Old
Europe by Gimbutas) the problem becomes somewhat simple; the convergent
features of Old Europe may lead to the conclusion (or at least the preliminary
observation) that in prehistory related idioms were spoken in Italy, the Balkans
and the Carpathian basin. Such a view was shared by some linguists a long
time ago (e. g., Trombetti 1925). Though his reconstruction must be now
corrected in many details, it remains valid in its essentials. K. O!tir (1931) also
adopted a position which enabled him to identify Slavic-Etruscan
correspondences, though, of course, his view is very debatable in many points
and even in its basic principle.
The most solid arguments regarding the existence of a convergent Preie.
(sometimes labeled Mediterranean) substratum in southeast Europe have been
brought by several Italian linguists (Alessio 193536; Battisti 1927, 1934,
1941, 1956; Bertoldi 1931; Devoto 19541961; Gerola 1943; Pieri 1912;
Ribezzo 1927, 1950; Trombetti 1927). Ch. Rostaings analysis of the
Provenal place-names (1950) remains valid with very few debatable or
uncertain facts. The existence of a rich Preie. substratum is well reflected in
the works of Faure 1977 and Glotz 1937: 439443 as well as in works
regarding place-names (such as Dauzat 1947, 1960; Kiss 1980). A little known
contribution to the identification of the Preie. elements in Greek and other
languages is that of Gh. Mu"u (1981); he extensively uses tautological placenames or forms in order to isolate and identify primitive Preie. roots.
The present author concentrated on the identification of Preie. elements in
Thracian and Romanian. Some results have already been published (1986
[rediscussed in 1988]; 1987; 1989 a and b [both studies are included in this
__________________________________________________________________
80
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
the#basic Greek god-names. With the exception of Zeus and very few others,
the Greek god-names are basically Preie.. This means that PIE should be
used linguistically as referring to only those terms reconstructed from
geographically distant IE idioms to exclude common Preie. influence. The
root *deiw- bright, to shine is obviously PIE (a root intimately connected
with Proto-Kurgan ideology), but *kannabis hemp which may be
considered with utmost certainty an intrusive term in the PIE vocabulary is
not. There are many examples which should be discussed separately. IE, or
Kurgan, tradition should be used archaeologically or culturally in order to
draw the diachronic contours of a society in continuous evolution.
(3) Pre-IE should be used appropriately to define any non-IE elements
presumably existent in a certain area or a certain idiom previous to
Kurganization (or Indo-Europeanisation) as understood in the terms above
mentioned.
I will turn below to some aspects connected with a better classification of
the term Preie. and the possible connections between Old European and
Preie..
Further Steps towards an Enlarged Pre-IE Glossary
elevated locations (hill, mountain, etc.) and witness related forms referring
to cavities (deep, hollow, etc.). The Preie. people (Old Europeans)
associated the notion high, elevated with deep, cf. Lat. altus (presumably
a Preie., not IE, element connected with the root *AL-) high also deep.
(b) For the roots denoting colors it is profitable to simply reconstruct
chromatic meaning; it seems that the Old Europeans connected names of
colors to intensity not to frequency of radiation as has become usual in
modern times (cf. Morris et. al. 1079: 263).
Another important observation is that the Preie. roots have been
reconstructed starting mainly from place-names towards a possible primitive
meaning. This involves certain dangers and requires caution. The
importance of place-names is reconstructing prehistoric facts cannot be
underestimated, but it is essential not to stop at this stage of place-name
investigation. As the following tables show (and they represent a very
restricted volume of available data) more than place-names can be grouped
under a presumed Preie. root. Errors are always possible, but errors cannot
be corrected without an effective analysis which may ultimately lead to
eliminating incorrect data.
The reconstruction of a Preie. root has been based on a number of data
both semantic and of course formal which exclude, at least to a high
degree of probability, an IE origin. The general principles of reconstruction
are those known from current comparative grammars applied to each field
(cf. Andreev 1986 who extends this reconstruction to Proto-Boreal). It is
our duty now to attempt an outline of a Preie. glossary and, if possible, even
an incipient grammar. In our view, the decipherment of Etruscan or Cretan
Linear A may be directly connected to the progress in working out a Preie.
glossary, i.e. a minimal list of basic roots.
Out of the numerous reconstructed or reconstructable Preie. roots, I have
selected only several examples relevant for either the geographical extension
of the facts analyzed or the unexpected connections to which they lead.
__________________________________________________________________
83
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
See note 1.
__________________________________________________________________
84
big structure. This detail leads irresistibly to the idea that the builders of
Neolithic townships in southeast Europe had a similar vision as the builders
of megalithic structures in west Europe (cf. Gimbutas 1985 a). The primitive
meaning of Gr. lab-yr-inthos was structure of big stones, Preie. roots *LaBUR-inthos: it was initially applied to natural caves (Paliga 1989 b)3.
(b) Rom. ora! (dialectally also ura!), the usual term for denoting the
township in general, is closely related to uria! (dialectally also oria!) huge,
giant (currently also the term used in tales), and to Lat. urbs. It is surely an
indigenous (substratum, Pre-Thracian) term which may have important
implications to understanding the origins of urban life in Dacia (cf. Paliga
1987; 1989 a).
(c) Greek oros mountain, also desert (< huge land) undoubtedly
belongs to this etymological group though Greek writing. Old European
graphemes are at least two millennia older than Sumerian writing, and this
could be a crucial point to the understanding of prehistoric phenomena (cf.
Winn 1981).
These observations require a reconsideration of the whole problem
connected with the emergence of urban networks in Europe. It should be
added that an urban settlement is not only a large village (a basic principle
to be applied at various levels to urban settlement) but also a sacred location
(further discussions in Assunto 1983/1988). Old European urban settlements
were not only of large size but were accompanied by a corresponding social
and religious organization.
A New Term and a New Definition of Old Europe
Starting from the premise that the term for township is essential for
defining a cultural tradition I suggest using UR tradition or Urbian
tradition. The people who created the first European civilization were the
(Urians or) Urbians; their language (idioms or related dialects) was Urian
or Urbian, and its relics have been preserved over a large area and
represented by the substratum element which affects the historically attested
3
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
90
Definition
In my paper focusing on the possible and/or probable relations between
terms like Proto-Indo-European and Pre-Indo-European (Paliga 1989 c,
reprinted in this volume above) I tried to introduce a new term Urbian
in order to define more accurately what we might understand by Pre-IndoEuropean (Pre-IE). Indeed, such a form is vague: Pre-Indo-European
may be termed anything prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans (in turn,
Proto-Indo-European or PIE is also vaguely and often badly explained,
but we cannot attempt a better definition here, for which see Paliga 1989
c). Our point was and is that the linguists and the archaeologists need a
better term which could circumscribe what we understand by Pre-IndoEuropean. For convenience, we should choose a term clearly distinct from
PIE just as Marija Gimbutas has for long introduced the term Kurgan in
order to define the PIE tradition, choosing a word for burial hill, i. e.
kurgan. Beyond any doubt, the burial ritual is highly conservative and is
distinct for distinct civilizational units.
But what is distinct for the Pre-IE complex? Obviously enough, the
burial customs too, as different of those of the Kurgan warriors the IndoEuropeans; of course, the gods as well. But these could hardly be useful for
a clear, short term. So we chose the term URBIAN derived from urbs
urban settelement. As we noticed in our paper already quoted, this term
long unexplained is akin to other Pre-IE words like those shown below
__________________________________________________________________
91
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Praha
Various works dedicated to the Slavic of generally European placenames are inclined to explain the place-name Praha from the root *preg[l] (thus in Miklosich 1886: 261) with the general meaning frigere (to
roast, to burn). Thus this major place-name is absent in a comprehensive
book like milauer 1970, it is nevertheless analyzed as derived from a verb
prahnout with a would-be meaning to dry out (the location being seen as
sunburnt which is entirely incorrect the clime of Prague is rather rainy
and cold). But the explanation Praha < prahnout is mentioned (it is true,
with the epithet probable, tending to attenuate the certainty of this
1
The study had initially two tables which are not necessary in this volume, as the
study A Pre-Indo-European Lexicon covers a larger area and is more relevant to
the topic; it was included in the Addenda of vol. I in this series.
__________________________________________________________________
92
__________________________________________________________________
93
Preliminaries
It is beyond any doubt that doina is the very essence of the Romanian
music. At least from this reason we assume to reconsider the topic and not
to ignore two recent studies which illuminate some obscure points. On the
one hand, to date the study of Ion Popescu-Sireteanu (1983) undoubtedly is
the most complete of the word doin!. In the light of this study, the problem
was reconsidered by Marc Gabinskij (1988).
We cannot accept any longer the assertion that the doina would be a relict
related to the Latin god Mars as initially assumed by Demetrie Cantemir, the
first to present a scientific analysis of the term:
Dacis usitatum nomen fuisse videtur, praeponitur enim cunctis, quae
fortiter in bello [gesta] referunt, canticis ac praeludiis, quibus gens
moldava ante cantum modulari consuevit, textum largitur.
(Descriptio Moldaviae, III, 1)
We do know, as comparative analysis shows, that doin! is an archaic
word. How old? It is a question we wish to answer in these pages. On this
occasion we should observe that there are two distinct things not to be
confused: (1) the word (or term) doin!, and (2) the doin! as musical folk
typology. We should observe that the doina, viewed as a certain folk song,
is used in order to classify Romanian songs into local variants (Bartok
1956; 1976). In this paper I shall focus on the word doina, on the certain or
possible related words, and on the origin of this word.
__________________________________________________________________
95
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
long time (starting from the assumption that the melody of a doin$ is slow
and long).
(5) Another derivative is considered to be duios, adjective, careful and
mild (used about mothers singing to babies, or to songs in general). Usually
these forms are explained as derivatives of Latin *doliosus, in its turn
derived from doleo be painful, related to dolor pain.
The observation is indeed correct, observing the inconsistent explanation
from a Latin etymon.
(6) dad!, dod! an older sister; grandmother. The primitive meaning
must have been woman lulling a child asleep (see further discussions
below).
(7) Daic!, doic!, wet nurse, related to the preceding. Usually, despite
the obvious relation to the preceding form, this word is considered a
derivative from Bulgarian doiti, dojti to suckle, to nurse (Georgiev, ed.
1971: 407), though it is assumed a Romanian origin for a similar Ukrainian
form (Me!ny"uk 1985, 2: 103). The very situation of this word can be of
secondary importance; nevertheless it is hardly believable that there is no
connection with the general situation of the forms discussed, i. e. the Slavic
origin is difficult, just as the Latin origin for duios.
(8) Many of the forms discussed have obvious corresponding personal
names, e. g.: Doina, Doinar(u), Doina", Doinescu, D!ineanu, Dada, Doda,
(cf. also Dida), Dodea, Duia, Duic!, etc (Iordan 1983, s.v.).
Though not discussed by Popescu-Sireteanu, I am inclined to add two
other forms, i. e. duduc! and duduie.
DEX refers to Turkish dudu (p. 284), but such an etymon is implausible
(especially in the context discussed in this paper). The Turkish popular form
dudu (bookish tuti) means, first of all, parrot, also used as a popular form to
denote a Greek woman (Bianchi and Kieffer 1850, 2, 199). Duduc! seems
to belong here, being a derivative just like m!muc! v. mam!, whereas duduie
is derived like mamaie from mam!.
Expounding on Ion Popescu-Sireteanu's hypothesis we can note the
following:
__________________________________________________________________
97
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
of similar forms in Basque poses abruptly the question: are there non-IndoEuropean words in Romanian and Baltic?
The Baltic area. The Baltic forms have been recently reconsidered in a
similar context of a rich family. Thus the situation in Romanian is
remarkably paralleled in Baltic! Another proof that all these words should
be considered as an archaic heritage (Urbutis 1972).
In Lithuanian, Urbutis quotes the interjection deja, obviously similar to
the Romanian interjection dai, doi, dui; as a noun this form has the meaning
sadness, lament; deinauti to court someone, to attract; deina pleasure,
favour. In Latvian, Urbutis quotes forms like: diet, first person deju, to
dance, to sing; divelis, divele quick, in motion. (The form divelet to tear
off, to torment, also discussed by Urbutis, does not seem to belong here,
but this detail does not affect the essential problem). Urbutis also considers
the most important words of the Baltic family, i. e. daina folk song.
Albanian. To my knowledge, forms similar to Romanian, Baltic and
Basque have not been identified in this language. Nevertheless I could
introduce in the equation the following forms (detailed discussions should
be anyway made by albanologists).
(a) dajr tambourine; apparently the only musical term, also with
rotacisation of the initial intervocalic !n!, as in the old, non!borrowed
elements.
(b) dad, dado, daj, daj(k)o uncle, father;
(c) dajesh mothers brothers wife (obviously an archaic term applied
to family relations);
(d) dojk wet nurse (identical in form and meaning to Romanian doic!).
I limit myself to only quoting these forms in order to underline the basic
idea that Albanian is not isolated, but has obvious parallels to Romanian;
this is not surprising to the connoisseurs of southeast European relations.
__________________________________________________________________
100
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
words, in their turn with the semantic parallel song wet nurse; woman;
(2) the second semantic sphere, related to the former, is represented by
forms with general meaning art, artist. In our view, Greek also witnesses
forms related to the Baltic latter words, i. e. Gr. daidallo to shape artfully,
hence the mythic name Daidalos, Daedalos, the mythic artist par
excellence. Seemingly the earliest form in Mycaenean Greek related to
daidallo and Daidalos is da-da-re-jo-de (Morpurgo, Mycaenae Graecitatis
Lexicon).
A first conclusion is that the primitive Pre-Indo-European root postulated
by us as *DA(I)- developed towards two main semantic spheres: (1) song,
to sing, hence wet nurse and woman; (2) an art, artist. The Baltic area
preserved the two semantic spheres, Romanian, Albanian and Basque the
former, and Greek the latter. It is not yet certain whether the Celtic and
Avestan forms should be included here. I limit myself to what seems to me
1
certain or highly probable (see the table at the end of this paper) .
Music and art in prehistory. The Thracians as famous musicians
The archaeological finds definitely support linguistic data. Recent
investigations have shown that some naturally created shapes in Palaeolithic
caves were then used for musical purposes (Dams 1985). The dialogue
between linguists and archaeologists in what concerns the possible relations
between the archaeological data referring to Neolithic, on the one hand, and
the linguistic analysis of the Pre-Indo-European relics, on the other hand, is
yet at its beginning. I made a survey of some important results in a recent
paper. On that occasion I introduced the term Urbian in order to define
both linguistically and archaeologically the Pre-Indo-European
civilisational complex which developed in southeast Europe beginning with
c. 6500 B. C. (calibrated radiocarbon dates). The European Neolithic
complexes, and the specific situation of the Romanian territory, have been
1
Our hypothesis that the Baltic forms are of Pre-Indo-European origin was
confirmed by late Marija Gimbutas in a letter to the author. The reader can also
refer to Sumerian sumun-DU, akind of musical instrument (see Klein, J. 1980).
__________________________________________________________________
102
much analyzed during the last years, so I shall no insist on this aspect (see
the Neolithic chronological scale in Gimbutas 1989 a, b).
Scholars have also pointed out the existence of prehistoric musical
instruments; this leads to the basic idea that, very probable, musical forms
existed at least since Neolithic, if not earlier (see above). Obviously, the
musical instruments had their evolution in time; what is now called a brass
instrument was earlier a bronze instrument, and even earlier an instrument
made up of wood, shells or antlers (Holmes and Coles 1981).
These generalities make us understand better the fame which surrounded
the Thracians in Antiquity; they were generally considered as very good
musicians (a characteristic observed and noted by all the classical authors; see,
for example, Oppermann 1984: 245 ff.; Cri&an 1986: 289292, etc.) . For the
sake of this paper I shall quote only several excerpts:
(a) Not only poetry, but music, both as rhythm and melody, is considered of
Thracian origin (Strabo 10, 3, 17).
(b) The Getians (Getae, Getai) play the kitharas when they carry a message
(Stephanos Byzantinos s. v. Getia).
(c) The Getic priests accompanied their prayers by music (Iordanes, Getica
71).
(d) The burials are an occasion of joy, and are accompanied by music and
dances (Pomponius Mela, 2, 2, 18).
A Thracian word magadis referring to a kind of harp with 20 strings is also
attested (De"ev 1957 s.v.). Well represented were the various types of wind
instruments like the pipe, Pan-Pipe, flute, horn, trumpet and a sort of long
wooden horns similar to present-day Romanian bucium (Cri&an 1986: 289
292). Very briefly, the Thracians were very well known as good musicians.
The ethnikon Daoi or Daci, Dacisci. The personal names Decebalus
and Deceneus. Other personal names relevant to the topic.
We know that some important Thracian personal names witness
strikingly similar forms with the Romanian personal names already quoted
above. Here is a selection of several relevant forms (after De"ev 1957):
__________________________________________________________________
103
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Dada, Dadas, Dades, m.; Dada, f. cf. Rom. dad!, dod!, Pers N Dada,
etc. (see above); Daei-pora (second part of this compound is surely related
to Latin puer son, child), Dada-lemes (5th century A. D., second part
obscure); Doid-alsos, Dys-alsos, Doudoupes. Another series is represented
by personal names with the second elements -docos, -docas, e. g. Amadocos, Ma-docos, Par-docas, etc. Cf. also Doudes, Dudis, Duda (compare
Romanian forms duduc!, duduie mentioned above). Of course, we cannot
be sure whether all these forms should be included in the large context of
the forms derived from the root *DA(I)-, also *DO(I)-, later *DU(I)-;
nevertheless the similarities with the Romanian, Baltic, Basque and Albanian
forms are striking. It seems simpler to assume that the Romanian personal
names continue the Thracians personal names with clear attestation.
Of particular interest is the ethnikon under which the northern branch of
the Thracians was known in the Antiquity. The attested forms are (forms
quoted always after De"evs Sprachreste):
(a) Daus, Davos, Davus; Greek spelling ()*+, (,-*+, pl. ()*.;
(b) Later the common form became Daci, Dacisci, Dagae, Daces; Greek
spellings (,/*0, ()/*., ()/,., (1/,., ()/2+;
(c) A parallel form used mainly by the Greek writers was also 3456+, pl.
345,., in Latin writers sometimes spelled as Geta, Getes, pl. Getae.
The alternative use the forms Daoi, Daci, Dacisci, on the one hand, and
Getae, on the other hand, raised endless discussions as whether they refer to
one of two different ethnic groups. We do not intend to resume these
discussions. For our purpose it is essential to observe these parallel forms
and to note that the most precious information on them and the inhabitants
evoked is found in Strabo 7, 3, 12-13:
(a) the older name of the Dacians is Daus (Gr. ()-*+);
(b) the Dacians and the Getae speak the same language:
7*89:;*55*. <=>.?.@ A. (,/*B 5*C+ 345,.+
The latter detail is extremely important. With the general observation that
Strabos information is extremely clear and not at all ambiguous. The terms
Dacus and Geta are two generic names of the northern tribes of the
Thracians, undoubtedly reflecting homoglottic speakers. It is not our
__________________________________________________________________
104
purpose to debate why two alternative forms were used in order to denote
the same ethnic group. We can briefly observe that, probably, one form was
used by the very ethnic group under consideration, whereas the other name
was used by the foreigners. Modern examples like Suomi for Finland,
Euskara for Basque or Hay for Armenian point once more towards the idea
that sometimes the native speakers of a language use a specific word to
denote themselves, another one than that used by foreigners. In such a light,
I assume that the forms Daus, Dacus were specifically used by the Dacians
themselves, whereas a form like Geta was used mainly by foreigners.
Difficult to say whether the Dacians had the conscience that they were a
compact ethnic group, and consequently had a specific term to denote
themselves. Notions like nation or people are modern. The form Geta
shall not be therefore discussed here. We shall concentrate on the forms
Daus, Dacus and the like.
What is the meaning of the ethnikon Daus, Dacus?
(a) For some scholars, Daus or Davus is an earlier variant of Dacus just
like Graeci as compared to 3D1.*.. In this view, the earlier form Daus,
Davus, pl. Daoi should be compared to a similar ethnikon in Old Persia:
()*+, (1*+ and to a Phrygian deity also called Daos. Further, a gloss in
Hesychius:
<)*+ E FGH ID-:J@ ;K/*+
daos is the name for wolf in Phrygian has been suggested (quoted as a
simple possibility in De"ev 1957: 117; the hypothesis has had a large
diffusion due to late Mircea Eliade; see also Protopopescu 1976).
(b) Other scholars consider that Daus/Davus, on the one hand, and Dacus,
on the other, have different origins: the former is related to the Phrygian word
for wolf, whereas the latter is to be explained by referring to the IE root
*dh%- to set, put (Tomaschek 18931894, 1: 101; 2: 29; Russu 1967: 100).
These two basic hypotheses are shared by different authors in various
studies (see also Lascu 1970, and many other studies referring to the Thracian
antiquity).
In our opinion, the linguists and historians implied in these polemic
discussions used too much apparent similarities, without a solid support in
__________________________________________________________________
105
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
the historical, ethnical or social context in which these forms were used. It is
of course possible that the meaning of Dacus was wolf as long as the wolf
was a sacred animal of the Indo-Europeans. But if so, there is no specific
use of such a name for the northern Thracians (whose badge was indeed a
wolf-headed dragon, as represented on Trajans column in Rome; probably
this detail supported too the idea that the meaning of the ethnic name would
be wolf). To us, it is quite clear that Daus/Davus and Dacus respectively
are two versions of one and the same name which is related to the rich
family derived from the root *DA(I)-, *DO(I)-; thus, the meaning of the
ethnikon was singers, instrument-players.
Our hypothesis is supported now by the whole context discussed in this
paper. I should also mention that many scholars have not often noticed the
obvious relations between the ethnikon and the other Thracian personal
names, relevant also for the topic. But the meaning singers of the ethnikon
Dacus is very well supported by the precious information in the Greek and
Latin writers, who present the Thracians in general, and the northern
Thracians in particular, as admirable singers and/or instrument players.
Once these aspects become clearer, another name should be analyzed:
Decebal, also spelled Decibalus, Greek (2/4L,;*+. The name is mainly
known as referring to the martyr-king of the Dacians who, followed by the
victorious Roman army, committed suicide in order to avoid the humiliating
slavery. De"ev, loc. cit., observed the probable approach to the forms in dokos (which is our conviction as well, see above) then compares the forms
to Gr. dkhomai, dkomai to receive, get, accept; dkos a solid piece of
wood, a beam. Lat. decus, decet. In his turn, I. I. Russu, loc. cit., accepts
De"evs explanation, but observes that, as long as the primitive root chosen
to explain these forms is IE *dekM - to take, honour, Thracian dek- would
require a certain centum influence. Additionally, Russu rightly observes the
probable relation between Decebalus and Deceneus, Greek spelling
(2/,0@2*+, Latin spelling also Dicineus these would be also related to
Umbrian (2/4@@.*+, Late Christian (2/4@.*+, Latin Decennius, Etruscan
tequnas, teccuni (analyzed also by De"ev, loc. cit.). The personal name
Deceneus is known mainly as that of a close adviser of king Burebistas
__________________________________________________________________
106
(dead in 44 B. C.), then a king after the death of Burebista (see Mateis
study quoted in n. 40).
In our opinion, the Thracian forms Dece-balus and Dece-neus are
obviously related in what concerns their first component of the
compounds. It is true, the second part in Dece-neus is not transparent to
an etymological analysis; this can be a subject of another paper. In
change, -balus should be related to relevant Romanian forms like bal!,
balaur a dragon (a typical term of the Romanian mythology), also
attested as personal name Bal!, Balaure, Balaur, Balaurea, Balaurescu;
cf. Albanian boll a snake. There are other relevant parallels in attested
Thracian forms (De"ev): Balas, Baleos, a by-name of Jupiter, Balis, a byname of Dyonisos. The primitive root is of course IE *bhel- to swell,
inflate. Very briefly, the personal name Dece-balus meant singing
dragon; a meaning in full accordance with the social and mythological
context of the Dacian civilization.
Final remarks and conclusions
This paper has reviewed the relevant data to the origin of a rich family
of words spread over a large area in Europe. All these forms have been
considered derived from a primitive Pre-Indo-European root *DA(I)-, also
*DO(I)-, *DU(I)- with the basic meaning mild, soft, gentle, hence to
sing, a song; wet nurse, woman; art, artistic. The general problems
connected to the Pre-Indo-European heritage were discussed on another
occasion. Anyway, it should be noticed that an Indo-European origin of
these forms cannot be acceptable on the basis of comparative linguistic
analysis. Probably, the archaic root *DA(I)- was initially an infant word,
but the meanings quoted above got their specific meaning already at a
very early date, in the idioms spoken in Neolithic. A general review is
given in the summarizing table at the end of this paper.
__________________________________________________________________
107
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Final note
The IE root for wolf was reconstructed as *wNkwos, hence forms like
Latin lupus, Slavic vlOkO, German wolf, Greek lPkos, etc. In terms of
statistics, it is highly probable that the Thracian language preserved a form
derived from IE *wNkwos. The comparative analysis (both mythological and
linguistic) shows that in fact probability is higher than 50% in favour of a
form preserved from the quoted IE root. A form like the personal name
Vlcu (Vlcu) in Romanian seems to continue rather a Thracian form
reconstructable as *vulk-, *vulk-u, not a borrowing from Slavic vlOkO
wolf. But this may be a generous topic for another paper.
__________________________________________________________________
108
Fig. 1
The existence of a close relationship between the Neolithic beliefs and music is
certified, among others, by these miniatural objects. Attention must be paid to the
three cylinder drums and to the specific symbols. Ov"arovo, Karanovo VI phase,
Bulgaria.
__________________________________________________________________
109
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
The most representative forms derived from the archaic Pre-IndoEuropean (Urbian) root *DA(I)-, *DO(I)-, *DU(I)- mild, soft, gentle,
hence: (1) to sing; song; wetnurse; woman, and (2) art, artist; to
model artfully
Thracian (attested forms)
NP: Dada, Dadas, Dades, Daei-pora, Dada-lemes, Doid-alsos, Dyd-alsos,
Doudou-pes;
-docos, -docas
(e.g. Ama-docos); Doudes, Dudis, Duda;
Dece-balus singing dragon Dece-neus;
NPp Daus, Davus, Dacus
Romanian (via Thracian)
dai, doi, dui; interjection
dain!, doin!, duin! folk-song;
a d!ini, a doini to sing a doina
a d!inui to last;
duios, doios gentle, mild
doic!, daic!, duic! wetnurse
dad!, dod!, a term used to address an older woman;
d!dac!, similar to dad!, dod!;
? duduc!, duduie, now a term to address an unknown woman;
NP: Doina, Doina",
Doineanu, Dudu, etc.
__________________________________________________________________
110
Albanian (Neo-Thracian)
dajr a tamburine
daj, daj(k)o uncle, father;
dajesh mothers brothers wife
dojk = Rom. doic!
Basque
doinu, donu a folk-song(identical to Romanian and Baltic)
Latvian
dej pity, lament
daina a song dainot to sing a daina;
dejotajs a dancer
di't, deju to jump, dance
divelis, divele active
daile beauty
dailava wonder
daildarbs artefact
dailkrasotajs painter
__________________________________________________________________
111
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Lithuanian
dej pity, lament
daina a song dainuoti = Latvian dejon lament
deina pleasure, favour
dail' beauty
dailumas refinement, elegance
NP: Dailida, Dailyde
Kas-dailis
Greek
Myc. da-da-re-jo-de
daidallo to create artfully
Daidalos, the mythic artist
__________________________________________________________________
112
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
still persist after more than 45 years from the discovery at the site of T"rt"ria, the topic can be approached with more certainty and more promising
perspectives.
Opinions, discussions, and radiocarbonists
The discoverer of T"rt"ria tablets was the first to suggest the Sumerian
origin of these inscribed artifacts both in his report and later, in written
studies and in discussions with various specialists from Romania or abroad.
He has so deeply convinced that we must face the problem of a major
Sumerian influence in southeast Europe that, in a subsequent paper, dated
the tablets around (2700?) 2600$2400 B.C., ironically naming the adepts
of radiocarbon dating as radiocarbonists (Vlassa 1970: 30 - the paper is
written in German where the arguably new term Radiokarbonisten is
used). Of course such a polemic tone cannot (and could not) solve the
problem, yet a similar polemic attitude was adopted soon after Vlassas
paper was published by S. Hood who, in order to suggest a Syrian origin of
the tablets, chose for analysis only one tablet (no. 1 in fig. 1, cf. also figs. 15
and 16), put down C14 dates and concluded that the artifact was a clay
impression of an early Mesopotamian cylinder seal (Hood 1973).
An objective analysis of such an attempt can easily observe that the
problems raised by the T"rt"ria tablets cannot be solved by arbitrarily
choosing for comparison one of the three tablets, ignoring the other two and
ignoring the more than 300 inscribed pieces discovered in the Vin#a-Turda!
complex and even outside this complex (in Karanovo sequence beginning
with phase 3 as well as in Tisza and even Cucuteni complexes). Unfortunately S. Hoods manner of solving this topic is not isolated. In a very brief
paper (of only two pages) published soon after Vlassas report, J. Harmatta
simply translated, without any further discussions, the three tablets as if
they had been written in Sumerian. No wonder that such an attempt was
__________________________________________________________________
114
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
far impossible ; yet this is not the only and most important aspect.
Radiocarbon dates have indisputably shown that the earliest writing
system identified so far was developed by the Vinians, of course if we do
not refer to Upper Palaeolithic abstract signs which are, in fact, the earliest
known attempts towards a written message (cf. Forbes and Crowder 1979;
Leroi-Gourhan 1979). We now have a comprehensive analysis of the Vin#aTurda! signs (Winn 1981) which, despite the inevitable imperfections
(mainly incorrect drawings of some artifacts, making this work not always
reliable) offers a solid base for further investigations (Fig. 5).
1
Given the additional burning of the tablets in an electric oven, made by N. Vlassa
in order to consolidate their fragile structure, thermoluminiscence analysis is also
impossible. The chemical analysis of the clay paste has shown that the three
T"rt"ria tablets were not made of local clay (at least from what we know so far) yet
similar clay paste has been identified in other Vin#a-Turda! sites, e.g. Balta S"rat"
(district of Cara!, Romanian Banat). Equally similar seems to be the paste used for
the seals found at Photolivos I at Sitagroi. It is hardly believable that the tablets
found at T"rt"ria were imported from such southern areas like Greece, but not even
such a hypothesis can change the problem in its essentials (Gh. Lazarovici,
personal communication).
__________________________________________________________________
117
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
This is in total contrast with the Sumerian texts which, one the one hand, are
never religious-magic, on the other hand are from the very beginning ready-to-use
(cf. Nissen 1986: 323, 326).
__________________________________________________________________
119
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
improbable that this seal shows signs drawn at mere hazard as E. Masson
believes (1984: 107). I am inclined to think that the reason of these somewhat clumsy marks escapes our understanding. They might have been
intentionally unclearly incised as a measure of protection against noninitiated readers.
The situation, brief as it has been presented in this paper, indicates that
the T"rt"ria tablets are not an isolated find. The striking similarities with
other objects do not allow any oversimplification of the problem and any
tendency (probably still irresistible among many scholars) to choose
convenient aspects ad usum Delphini in order to suggest the Oriental origin
of such inscribed objects. Obviously enough today, neither the T"rt"ria
tablets nor any other inscribed artifact belonging mainly to Vin#a-Turda!
complex (yet paralleled in other culture groups as well) reflect an Oriental
influence, be it imagined as an immigration in toto, trade influence or
simply know-how. In order to have a better perspective of the Old European
writing system, which was precisely a religious system of symbols and
graphemes, at a later stage even a syllabary, it is useful to make a brief
analysis of the possible connotations of these graphemes in the given social
context. In this sense, it should be noted that images emerge presumably
continuously in history when man imposes semantic values upon vaguely
suggestive shapes pre-existing in nature (Davis 1986: 199).
The main features and position of Vin#a-Turda! writing system may be
correctly understood starting from two basic observations; (1) it was a
writing system used in a complex social, economic and religious context
which had certain links with the previous Star#evo-Cri! substratum as well
as with Upper Palaeolithic cultures, when abstract signs the connotations
of which are still obscure had begun to be used in cave art; (2) Old
Europe in general, and the Vin#a-Turda! culture in particular, developed
much earlier than the Sumerian civilisation. The scholars who were accustomed to see any cultural manifestation in prehistoric Europe as simple
__________________________________________________________________
120
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
borrowings from the East should abandon such a view. Like often in history
preconceived ideas have had their role and the problem connected with the
emergence of an Old European writing system is a good example of how
preconceived ideas work.
If we refer to the often invoked Oriental influences and influxes into
Europe, we must now admit that food production (the impulse of the Neolithic revolution) did come from the Orient around 7,000 B. C. This led to settled
life in Greece before 6500 B. C. From this date on Neolithic Europe developed in its own way though links with the Orient indisputably continued down
to historical times. The Vin#a writing system cannot be now imagined as an
Oriental influx from the simple reason that writing emerged and developed
there much later. If we must estimate the role of the Orient in prehistory we
could think, for example, at the Oriental origin of the Christian faith which
soon became typically European. Arab influence on the European Medieval
thought did not lead to the arabisation of Europe, on the contrary. And such
examples may continue. In prehistory things probably happened similarly: the
Oriental influence was constant but did not impede the emergence of a
European way of life. Obviously enough, the Vin#a-Turda! writing system
was not a provincial reflection of Oriental achievements. To continue on this
way is to ignore evidence due not ultimately to radiocarbon dates. Without
them we would have had a very deformed chronological perspective and
would have placed Vin#a after Sumer.
These general observations may raise legitimate questions, namely: (1)
What can there be the link between the Vin#a writing system and other
seemingly similar European writing systems like Cretan writing or Cypriot
syllabary? (2) Is there possible a decipherment (even partial or approximate)
of this Chalcolithic writing? (3) Why did the Vin#a-Turda! writing system
disappear? In the final part of this paper I shall refer to the main points
leading to possible answers provided that a minimum co-operation of
several scholars is achieved.
__________________________________________________________________
121
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
The decipherment
In interpreting the symbolic or even syllabic values of the Vin#a
graphemes we must face major problems. In a way we must begin from
nothing not only that we do not know the exact (often not even approximate) values of the graphemes, but we still know very few things about the
social context in which these graphemes were used. A magic graphic system
where a sign is intended to suggest rather than to explain, like the cross in
Christianity may achieve full meaning only in a medium of connoisseurs.
The great amount of Vin#a-Turda! inscribed pottery shows that the Vinians
had a rich and complex spiritual life yet tell us very little about the very
meanings of certain signs. But is the situation really desperate?
I shall choose for exemplification the image inscribed on a vase bottom
(fig. 13) interpreted by N. Vlassa as the drawing of a sophisticated ship, the
best proof that the Turda! writing system is of Sumerian influence (Vlassa
1970). The presence of inscribed ships on pottery are not unknown in
Neolithic Europe yet they can in no way prove the Sumerian origin of these
cultures, but simply show that sea trade was practiced (compare fig. 14).
Nevertheless, in authors view the inscribed vase bottom is not at all a ship
but a series of typical Turda! signs which should be read from the lower
side upwards. i. e.:
(1) Sign
variants, e. g.
(this one with other variants too) or . A similar sign
reappears in Linear A where the syllabic value is ye (cf. fig. 17). The
meaning of the symbol (probably not yet with syllabic value) in the Vin#aTurda! system of signs is unknown. I hypothesize it was associated with
fertility and seeds as the rest of the image suggests.
(2) Lower right sign: comb pattern, a symbol of fertility (M. Gimbutass
interpretation in MS 1), very frequent on Vin#a-Turda! pottery (no 15, 16,
17 and 188 in Winns classification).
__________________________________________________________________
122
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
assumed. Despite the positive results already available (e.g. Trombetti 1925;
Rostaing 1950; Mu!u 1981; Paliga 1986, 1987, 1989, a.c.) we still lack a
coherent view of the pre-Indo-European heritage in Europe. In present authors
opinion, hopes for a possible decipherment of Vin#a ideographic and syllabic
writing could be summarized in the following points:
(1) The analysis of possibly (or probably) genetically related signs, i.e. Vin#a
signs, on the one hand, and Cretan or Cypriot syllabaries. How much is this
relation possible? The idea that Cretan hieroglyphic and Linear A noted a pre-IE
idiom (or pre-IE idioms) is now feasible; furthermore, it is very probable that this
idiom (or these idioms) is (are) genetically related to the idioms spoken in
Neolithic and Chalcolithic Europe. Though Vin#a-Turda! signs and Cretan
writing are divided by about three millennia we may assume that certain sign
preserved their function or, referring to their phonetic values, that certain signs
preserved the same phonetic value (cf. fig. 17). On the other hand, many signs
changed their values and we must carefully consider similar or identical signs in
the two cultures. Therefore, if we try to apply the phonetic values of Cretan or
Cypriot syllabaries to the signs inscribed on the third tablet of T"rt"ria (see figs.
1, 15, 16) then the result is (Cypriot values in brackets):
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
coherent system allowing us to draw more definite contours of the fascinating beginnings of European civilisation. I expect reactions to this paper and
eventually a careful preparation of an international debate which surely
would not be sterile. (Further discussions in Paliga 1989; here I used for the
first time the term Urbian as referring to the Pre-Indo-European complex).
The dusk of the Old European writing system
The writing system developed by the Old European (or Urbians, in
my terms) was only an aspect of this civilisation so convincingly reconstructed by Maria Gimbutas (1973; 1982; 1986). This magic writing system
lost its raison dtre when the very essence of this civilisation ceased to
exist this was due to the Indo-European expansion into Europe which
caused a radical change of the life patterns, religious beliefs, a.o. The
formidable military structure of the Kurgan people, associated with horsed
four-wheel vehicles, hard weapons and a fearful behaviour (i.e. the total
opposite of the Old European society) could not offer the necessary
background on which such a typically non-IE society can develop. The
disintegration of the Vin#a civilisation and of its writing system can be
traced back around 4,000 B. % C., i. e. in the wake of the first Kurgan (IE)
wave into Europe (Gimbutas 1973; 1979). Nevertheless kurganisation did
not mean a total destruction of Old European ideology which continued as
an underground (substratum) element down to proto-historic times, predominantly in the Aegean relative isolation. Cretan civilisation was a last
expression of what we can term Old Europe (Gimbutas 1986). In no way
should we understand kurganisation as a total destruction of previous
cultural achievements. If we must identify the phyletic tree of Cretan or
Cypriot writing then the most probable source is the sign system of the
Vinians in particular or Old Europeans in general. Saying this we must not
ignore the essential difference between Vin#a and Cretan or Cypriot writ__________________________________________________________________
127
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Marija Gimbutas for her constant
support of any kind. Warmful thanks are due to Dr. Al. Marshack for the
illustrations of the Lepenski Vir stone artifact (fig. 10) and Urania Verlag for
making available to me the pictures of the inscribed artifacts found in
Bulgaria (fig. 12). Last but not least, precious information about the position
of the Turda! aspect of the Vin#a complex was given to me by Dr. Gheorghe
Lazarovici (Muzeul de Istorie al Transilvaniei in Cluj). Dr. Nicolae Cordos,
director of the same museum, kindly allowed me to make pictures of some
relevant Turda! and T"rt"ria artifacts.
Dialogues dhistoire ancienne 19, 1 (1993): 943
__________________________________________________________________
129
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Fig. 1
The tablets of T"rt"ria as drawn by Nicolae Vlassa in his report (1963).
This not very accurate drawing was subsequently used by numerous scholars who approached the problem of the Vin#a!Turda! writing system. See
also figs. 1516.
Dimensions: (1) 5.2 by 3.5 cms; (2) 6.2 by 3 cms; (3) 6.1 by 6 cms
__________________________________________________________________
130
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Fig. 2
The revolution of radiocarbon dating. The multistratified Karanovo site
has been chosen as an example of evolution over millennia (after Quitta
1986).
__________________________________________________________________
131
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Fig. 3
Chronological table of the Vin#a complex as compared with other Chalcolithic cultures (courtesy Marija Gimbutas)
__________________________________________________________________
132
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Fig. 4
Map of the most important Vin#a!Turda! sites.
__________________________________________________________________
133
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Fig. 5
A review of the Neolithic signs (or graphemes) as they are recored and
analyzed in Winn 1981.
__________________________________________________________________
134
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Fig. 6
Cave painting at Lepenic, district of Vlor, Albania. Dated in Middle
Neolithic (after Korkuti 1984).
__________________________________________________________________
135
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Figs 789
Graphemes inscribed on Turda! pottery and spindlewhorls. Turda! ca.
5,0004,500 B.C. Courtesy Muzeul de Istorie al Transilvaniei, Cluj.
__________________________________________________________________
136
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Fig. 10
Three views of the Lepenski Vir stone object found in a Mesolithic context
(courtesy Alexander Marshack, Peabody Museum).
__________________________________________________________________
137
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
138
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
139
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Fig. 11
Clay artifact from Grade&nica, district Vraca, Bulgaria. Early Chalcolithic.
Dimensions: 15.5 by 10.5 cms. Courtesy Sofia National Museum.
__________________________________________________________________
140
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Fig. 12
Clay seal discovered in layer VI of Karanovo, district Sliven, Bulgaria. Late
Chalcolithic. Courtesy Sofia National Museum.
__________________________________________________________________
141
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Fig. 13
Incised bottom of a vase discovered at Cluj, Romania. One of the northernmost expressions of the Turda! facies. After Vlassa 1970.
__________________________________________________________________
142
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Fig. 14
A sailboat incised on a vase a symbol of maritime communication
throughout the existence of Old Europe. Grabak Cave, Lesina Island of the
Dalmatian coast. Fifth millennium B.C. Courtesy Marija Gimbutas.
__________________________________________________________________
143
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Fig. 15
The three famous tablets of T"rt"ria (see the following two pages)
__________________________________________________________________
144
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
145
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
146
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Fig. 16
Emilia Massons drawing of the T"rt"ria tablets (1984). Cf. figs. 1 and 15.
This accurate drawing came quite late, when various, often absurd, hypotheses had been already launched.
__________________________________________________________________
147
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Fig 17 a
Tentative comparison of Vin#a!Turda!, Cretan and Cypriot graphemes.
Numbers refer to Winns classification of Vin#a signs.
Old European signs
Cretan Hieroglyphic
and Linear A
Cypriot Syllabary
__________________________________________________________________
148
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
Fig. 17 b
Tentative comparison of T"rt"ria, Cretan and Cypriot graphemes. Numbers
refer to the usual order in which the T"rt"ria graphemes are analyzed.
T!rt!ria
__________________________________________________________________
149
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
150
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
Preliminaries
How can metallurgical terminology specifically names of metals
support archaeological investigation? Can comparative linguistics and
archaeology co-operate in order to identify the emergence and development
of metallurgical skills? How did Neolithic and Bronze Age man imagine the
taming of nature in order to achieve metal artifacts?
Such questions and many others may arise whenever we try to
investigate the beginnings and making of civilization. It is clear that the
various aspects connected to archaeometallurgy cannot be analyzed
separately from other aspects of human life, like agriculture, trade,
urbanization, religious beliefs, early writing systems, pottery techniques, a.
o. The earliest known (or identifiable) names of metals do reflect a certain
ideology and a certain way of seeing metals as imbued with magic
powers. It is certain that colours and reflections specific to metals made
early man interpret them as divine (Biek and Bayley 1979; Mu!u 1981,
chapter Symphony of colours, a first attempt in reconstructing pre-Greek
names of colours).
We can now accept that Neolithic Europe with all its specific cultural
achievements was not Indo-European. Neolithic southeast Europe c.
65003500 B. C. has been termed by Marija Gimbutas Old Europe, and
this term might be used in order to define this vast cultural bloc: a
matrifocal, matrilinear and equalitarian society whose people created a
__________________________________________________________________
151
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
wonderful pottery and did not use sharp weapons for war purposes but for
hunting and wood-cutting. They also used as a certain stage of
development a sacral writing system, probably locally developed from
Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic sacred signs and symbols (Gimbutas 1973 a;
1982; n.d.; Winn 1981). The survival of Old European ideology has also
been convincingly explained (Gimbutas 1986) and is supported by
numerous linguistic data (e. g. Alessio 1935; 1955; Gerola 1942; Paliga
1987, 1989; Ribezzo 1950; Rostaing 1950). Our analysis should therefore
concentrate on the question whether words (terms) of possibly pre-IndoEuropean (hereafter Preie.) origin have been preserved down to historical
times, even until modern times. As a good example, it should be observed
that only about 40% of the vocabulary of Greek can be attributed to the
Indo-European (hereafter IE) heritage (Chantraine 19681980: IX: Mais
aussi de nombreux vocables dont nous ignorons lorigine sont des termes
demprunt et que lon dsigne souvent par les termes dgen ou de
mditerranen qui dissimulent pudiquement notre ignorance). Despite the
(probably) largely spread opinion that the Preie. heritage is far too difficult
to be investigated, present authors view is that this heritage is surprisingly
high and associated with the IE heritage; the analysis is not only possible
but now even inevitable.
Of course, such an analysis can be profitably extended to the whole
European area or to any area where the distinction IE v. Preie. can be made.
It is pointless to await miraculous solutions to such complex aspects as the
Preie. heritage; such solutions do not exist. We are not very far from the
moment when tens, maybe hundreds, of Preie. terms have been properly
listed and analyzed in a coherent way, something like the way in which
primitive IE roots have been analyzed. Indeed, what we need is perhaps
more coherence in working with the Preie. phenomenon.
In the light of these preliminary data, the purpose of this paper is to
analyze the origin and distribution of some essential names of metals,
__________________________________________________________________
152
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Three terms are also relevant for the Preie. perspective the names for
copper, gold and lead. The etymological analysis is impeded, though it
is not a locus desperatus, by the very fact that we know very little (if
anything) about the phonetic structure of the substrate (Preie.) idioms of
southeast Europe.
__________
Fig. 1
Mycaenean symbols for (a) bronze and (b) gold. After Morpurgo 1963: XXIX
__________
Gr. khalks (Mycaenean ka-ko, cf. Morpurgo 1963: 125) cannot be surely
explained as an IE heritage (as formerly done, cf. Kretschmer 1952). Equally I
do not find it useful (or correct) to hypothesize an Oriental origin (Chantraine
19681980: 1244). But to invoke IE or Oriental heritage is for many scholars
preferable because we deal with known (or, at least, better known) facts.
Archaeological finds document an old indigenous copper metallurgy in SE
Europe (Com!a 1987: 102 ff.; Gimbutas 1973 a, b; "ernyh 1976: 17) and it is
therefore feasible that Neolithic man of SE Europe had no need to borrow
(when and how?) a term denoting a metal he had known from immemorial
times. Some similar terms spread in the Aegean and Mediterranean may be
due to the existence in prehistory of an archaic Preie. / pre-Semitic substratum
which could have included similar terms. It is also feasible to suppose that
even those languages had similar (or even identical?) structures.
__________________________________________________________________
154
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
Fig. 2
Graphemes for metal in the Middle East. (a) 1. Tenthfifth millennium B.C.; 2.
Sumerian pictogram; 3. New SumerianOld Babylonian; 4. Assyrian; 5. Babylonian.
(b) The evolution of Sumerian grapheme for copper: URUDU < *BURUDU. (c)
Sumerian signs for furnace (GIR4) and smith. After Limet 1960 and Ivanov 1983.
__________________________________________________________________
155
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________
Fig. 3
Alchemic signs for gold. Top left: Egyptian. After Ivanov 1983 and Junius 1985.
__________________________________________________________________
156
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
Fig. 4
Alchemic signs for copper (a) and brass (b). After Junius 1985.
__________________________________________________________________
157
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
If we really try to find a closely related word to khalks, then this might
be, among others, the ethnikon 34#./*&, a group of the south part of
Pontus (Chantraine, ibidem). If placed in this Preie. context, it is even
possible to suggest a Preie. root, identified as such a long time ago: *KaL-,
also *KaR- stone, cliff hill, mountain. The spelling (aspirated k) should
not impede an approach to other forms spelled without aspiration
(Trombetti 1925: 28; Alessio 1935; Rostaing 1950: 117). A whole series of
place-names could be quoted in this context, e. g. Callatis, Calabria,
Calais, etc. (Kiss 1980). We meet again the parallel term place-names
upon which I drew attention recently following previous observations
(Paliga 1987; Trombetti 1925; Rostaing 1950; Mu!u 1981). In this
perspective, one of the oldest names for copper, as attested in Greek, was
initially associated with mountainous areas, i. e. areas where this metal was
found in native form.
It is usually admitted that Gr. khryss gold (Myc. ku-ru-so, cf.
Morpurgo 1963: 171) reflects a Semitic influence (Chantraine 1968-1980:
1278 with reference to Masson, E. 1967: 37-38), the probable source being
Phoenician 5r6 (Akkadian 7ur86u, Ugaritic 7r6, Hebrew 78ru6). From
reasons which cannot be developed here, I am inclined to consider this
word inherited from the indigenous Preie. substratum with correspondences
in the pre-Semitic substratum. This term could be also named
Mediterranean. Many scholars would probably reject such a view because
we face a radical question: was there a Mediterranean substratum common
to such a vast area covering historical Semitic and SE European territories?
The answer seems to be positive, but this is too complex a question to be
answered in this paper. In my view, it is even possible to suggest a Preie.
root for the Greek term: *K-R(r)- *(KaR-, *KoR-, *KuR-), with a parallel
*K-L- *(KaL-), and with the reconstructed meaning stone, rock, mountain
(Trombetti 1925: 31-33; Rostaing 1950: 138 ff.; Paliga 1989). PN like
__________________________________________________________________
158
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
blybdos, blimos are corrupt; but this happens often with many pre-Greek
forms (cf. Faure 1977). Indeed, Lat. plumbum, though indisputably a nonIE term, can hardly be directly related to the same root *MoL-. I am
inclined to see here two different roots, both of Preie. origin: *MoL- *
(M!L-) and *P-L- (*PaL-, *PoL-, zero-grade from *PL-). Both roots are
well attested in the Preie. relics and have been analyzed in this context:
(a) Root *MaL-, *MoL- hill, mountain (further examples in Trombetti
1925: 38, with the observation that some formes quoted there do not belong
to this root; Rostaing 1950: 202; Paliga 1989). The parallel root *MaR- is
also well represented. Still preserved until modern times are Alb. mal hill,
Rom. mal riverside (< rocky river-side). Related place-names are
attested over a large area, e. g. Cretan Malla (today Malles), Malea
(Laconia and Lesbos), Maluentum (Dacia, cf. PN Malna; in Transylvania
and Rom. mal already mentioned), Iberian malh cliff, Basque malka<
rocky region.
Gr. mlybdos indicates once more that the term was initially associated
with the mountainous regions where this metal had been identified by
prehistoric man.
(b) Root *PaL- (also *PaR- and *BaL-/*BaR-) mountain, elevation is
one of the best known and most analyzed (Trombetti 1925: 43; Rostaing
1950: 230 ff.; Faure 1977: 141; Paliga 1989). PN Peleia (Caria), Pelarmos
(Caria), Pelakas (Misia), Alpine peglia hauteur nue et herbeuse reflect this
root.
In this perspective, the Latin name for lead plumbum is, once again,
connected to a Preie. root meaning elevation, hill, mountain. Of course,
the word should be explained from a zero-grade form *PL-umb- or from
*PuL-umb > *Pl-umb-. There can be no certainty in such cases as long as
we still have no coherent view of the Preie. heritage and, consequently, of
the possible phonetic structure of the Preie. idioms spoken in Neolithic and
Chalcolithic Europe.
__________________________________________________________________
160
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
Latin proves to be another language with solid links with the Preie.
substratum. From this point of view it is interesting to present the situation
of (aes) cyprium, later cuprum copper a term with a large diffusion in
many modern languages via Late Latin. What is the origin of his
fundamental term? At a first glance the answer is simple and immediate: the
word is derived from the name of the island Cyprus, Gr. =>?+,&. There are
some other details which can be clarified; for example the relation between
(aes) cyprium, cuprum and Sumerian zabar copper (i. e. gleaming
stone), Assyrian siparru id. is seemingly fortuitous (Frisk 1960 ff.: Lief.
11, 52). Indeed, it is difficult to derive non-IE terms present in European
languages from Asia Minor or Sumer, even if we are sometimes confronted
with radical assertions like le grec khryss est certainement driv du
terme smitique, Akk. 7ur86u, Heb. 78r@s, Arab 5rd (Limet 1960: 41 ff.).
Undoubtedly, metallurgy (just like agriculture) developed earlier in the
Orient, but facts rather indicate the diffusion of know-how from step to
step together with the preservation of many indigenous terms of premetallic age adapted to new techniques. Several such terms are discussed in
the present paper and the word for copper in Latin (hence in many
European languages) is a good example. If the island of Cyprus gave its
name to a certain metal, what can we expect from a deeper etymological
analysis? What can be the possible etymon of the place-name Kypros? Can
this ultimate linguistic perspective support a better explanation?
The origin of the PN Kypros should be looked for outside the IE
heritage, from a possible root *KuP-. The perspective opened by this nonIE view is once again promising.
(1) A first group is represented by Gr. $.?4+A'',& cypress, usually
presented as terme mditerranen dorigine inconnue; pass en latin, sous
la forme cupressus, peut-tre par intermdiaire trusque (Chantraine 1968
1980: 600). Though the situation of Lat. cupressus is of secondary
importance, it may be surmised that both Greek and Latin inherited more
__________________________________________________________________
161
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
or less independently the same term from the substratum. I do not see any
need to suppose an Etruscan intermediary which is too late on the
chronological scale. Gr. kyprissos and Lat. cupressus are paralleled by two
relevant terms: Albanian kopa and Romanian copac (dialectally also
cupaciu, ci = B) a tree. To my knowledge this obvious relationship of
Greek, Latin, Albanian and Romanian terms has not been observed (or was
simply considered fortuitous?). It can be little doubt that we may here
identify a Preie. heritage: root *KoP-, *KuP- bush, tree.
(2) Another group relevant to this topic is represented by the modern
form copil a child (in Romanian and Albanian, diffused all over southeast
Europe). The word is considered indigenous in Romanian (just like copac
tree), i. e. of Thracian origin, proved by the clear Albanian parallel. Yet
there is an almost identical parallel in the Uralic languages: Selkup kypa
small, little (Collinder 1957: 482). This unexpected similarity
(undoubtedly not a result of hazard) may clarify in a quite unexpected
way obscure facts. Starting from a minimum of information, we can
reconstruct another Preie. root *KoP-, *KuP- small, little, in this case preUralic as well. Once this view is accepted, I am inclined to include here
unexplained Greek terms like $>?"''A& little tunic worn by men and
women, $>?*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 kyprissos cypress, mainly because this
tree is abundant on the island (Guyot and Gibassier 1960: 334). 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-/KuPsmall, 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) kyprissos cypress. Pre-IE root *KoB-/*KoP-/*KuPsmall, 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:
kbdos 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 kbdos 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 vs 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
__________________________________________________________________
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 sdFros 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. sdFros 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. sdFros 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. Polom
__________________________________________________________________
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. sdFros 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 lau-del
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 Metallpyton (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 (19681980: 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. mtallon 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. mtallon in
the sphere of magic meanings connected to caves and labyrinths. If this
hypothesis is accepted, then mtallon 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 mtallon 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 gods 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!us 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, Hephaestuss
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
__________________________________________________________________
Now, see the Addenda to our Etymological Dictionary, vol. I in this series.
__________________________________________________________________
171
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
173
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 > uo/ua
(Althochdeutsch phase), finally to u/ (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 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 ! > 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: 359360
discussing Mure"; Giuglea 1988: 259; Poghirc 1969: 316).
2. D"n- 'river, stream': Latin-Celtic D!nuvius/D!nubius, Rom. Dn#re,
Sl. Dunav, Dunaj, Hung. Duna. The same phonetic change is met in the
case of Rom. Dn#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
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 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 , 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#, balur a
dragon (another usual term in Romanian tales), zn#, zn# a fairy, Snziene,
Snziene holy fairies, also the popular term for the Christian festivity
observed on June 24th (further discussions in Paliga 1989 a).
A mom 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 kodr a hill. Also related is seemingly mom% ie
a dummy, pejoratively also used in order to define a person lacking
energy.
A mur. 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 . 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 > o as in
mom# (Codru Moma), a momi and momie. 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
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
182
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
__________________________________________________________________
N.A.
G.D.
V.
____________
Pl.
Fem.
-a
-(e)i, -(i)i
-
Masc.
-i
-lor
Fem.
-le
-lor
__________________________________________________________________
184
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,
zogzogu 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, -t
Pl.
-t, -t
Type I
Type II
Type III *
Type IV
Type V **
Ind.
Def.
Ind.
Def.
Ind.
Def.
Ind.
Def.
Ind.
Def.
t, t
t, t
it
ut
s, s
it
ve
it
ut
s, s
it
ve
Ac.
in,
n
un,
n
n, n
t, t
t, t
Abl.
it
ut
s, s
it
sh,
ve
ve,
vet
ve,
vet
ve,
vet
__________________________________________________________________
185
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
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
cine/cine-le
G.D.
om/om-u-lui
cine/cine-lui
Pl.
N.A.
oameni/oameni-i
cini/cini-i
G.D.
oameni/oameni-lor
cini/cini-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
__________________________________________________________________
Feminine
N.A.
G.D.
*lui
*laei (= *l#i)
*li
__________________________________________________________________
188
Plural
N.A.
G.D.
D.
A.
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
190
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. tat, 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
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 > , 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
sounds pejorative. The word is really sometimes heard with the meaning a
priests 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
__________________________________________________________________
De vocabulis dominationis
__________________________________________________________________
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),
jupn (formerly giupn) a master, st!pn 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: 3436) 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
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
__________________________________________________________________
De vocabulis dominationis
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
De vocabulis dominationis
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
De vocabulis dominationis
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________
thrrim
qaf
ksul
fluturonj
ha, hams
avull
bardh white
__________________________________________________________________
203
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
(8) drdi to shiver
(9) zer, zar! whey
(10) zer, zar!
dhmb a tooth
lesh hair; wool
mal a hill
nn mother
vatr, vatra fire
z/dh; im/m;'/b4
l/l; '/sh
m/m; a/a; l/l
n/n; an/n; !/
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
Brncu$ 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'/-mb 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
__________________________________________________________________
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-, bojgreat; 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<% emperor. Borrowed from either Gothic kaisar in its turn from
Latin Caesar or directly from a Late Latin form caesarius (as Skok
believes). The term must have been borrowed quite early, before the second
palatisation. The term later spread, via documents, as referring to the
Bulgarian and Russian emperors. Romanian did not borrow this form; the
usual term is mp!rat < Lat. imperator. A more detailed discussion refers to
Alb. mbret emperor which reflects a Proto-Romanian borrowing rather
than the direct preservtion of Lat. imperator (the expected form would be
*mbrtur, as Landi 1986 argues). Romanian also preserves rege < Lat. rex,
regis, Acc. regem.
3. k&n=dz% a princeps. Borrowed from AHD kuning (cf. Germ. Knig,
Eng. king). This term was also borrowed in Romanian (cneaz), but now it is
out of use.
__________________________________________________________________
207
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
Stratification of terms
The forms briefly analysed above allow us to reconstruct their
stratification and also to postulate a certain chronology.
In Slavic, gospod> 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, jupn, st!pn, also cioban, the latter
with a restricted circulation, vatah/vata") or Germanic (c;sa<! and
k&n=dz%). Rom. boier is, we may now assume, an East Romance innovation:
bou, pl. boi ox, oxen > 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, jupn, st!pn, also cioban, and v!taf, v!tah,
v!ta( must reflect the indigenous Pre-Romance (Thracian) substratum;
mp!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, jupn, st!pn, 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
__________________________________________________________________
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 Brncu" 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
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
absolute truth. In fact, three topics were approached there: (a) that north Thr. ! did
not turn into > 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 khne Etymologie (khne
audacious2); (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 clich (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
__________________________________________________________________
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 3rd4th 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 lite 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 1960s, 1970s and 1980s 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 rgimes
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 1960s (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 then into Romanian o and u, with local (regional,
dialectal) differences: in some areas the evolution was ! > > o, in other areas the
evolution was ! > > 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"/Krs, Karanovo IIV, 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
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
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
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
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 1950s and 1960s.
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); IbruIb#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 (<*Trac#u, with metathesis),
Tarcea Trakana, Trakanje (presumably related to the ethnikon Thraex); Timi"
(several river-names in Romania, the best known flowing in the Romanian Banat)
Timok, Timava; Vede, Vedea, Videle Vidin , Vidbol/Vitbol; Vin&a, Vin&u V#%a,
Vin%a; and many other examples (Pre-Slavic and Pre-Romance Place-"ames in
Southeast Europe, to be published in the Proceedings of the Thracian Congress held in
Sofia-Jambol, September 2000; in print when this paper is being prepared).
Thesis 2. A reasonably good reconstruction of the phonetic evolutions may be
achieved by comparing ancient forms to modern forms in Romanian, Albanian and
12
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
south Slavic languages, and further to other languages of the IE family, especially the
satem group: Baltic, Iranic, Old Indian. The main differences as the compared to the
phonetic evolution from Latin to Romanian consists in:
intervocalic b/v IS ALWAYS PRESERVED; b is also preserved in the sequence
-br-; Examples: Deva, abur vapours (Alb. avull), Ibru, a "ov#i to hesitate, etc.
Out of these forms, only abur, though difficult to understand why, has now
become a usual example quoted in virtually all the books dedicated to the topic;
intervocalic -l- IS ALWAYS PRESERVED. Examples: c#ciul# a fur cap,
C#lan, C#liman etc.
These details were disconsidered or unknown to many linguists who hastened to
erroneously postulate that intervocalic b, v and l in the indigenous elements of
Romanian must follow the same rules of phonetic evolution as the Latin elements.
They simply ingored that letters b, v and l NOTED DIFFERENT SOUNDS IN
THRACIAN (when Thracian words were eventually noted) AND (LATE,
COLLOQUIAL) LATIN13.
The phonetic inventory included the palatal and fricative series specific to a satem
language: %, #, !, $, ts, possibly also dz (maybe only in some dialects), at least a neutral
vowel %, possibly also another neutral vowel akin to Romanian or (perhaps in some
dialects only). Albanian and Bulgarian have one such neutral vowel, spelled and #
($) respectively. They correspond to Romanian #.
At an archaic phase of Proto-Romanian, the existence of a laryngeal14 may be
postulated, for convenience transcribed here by *H, later lost in some dialects
(turned to h and f) as proved by Rom. a puf#i seemingly related to Fin. puhua to
13
So the Thracian (Daco-Mysian) form for Dun#re, Dunaj/Dunav was not D!nuvari (as Georgiev and Duridanov incorrectly assume) but simply D!n-ar-e or
D!n!%r!e as I wrote and argumented.
14
Many years ago I fully agreed with Giuliano Bonfantes antilaryngeal phrase
(Bonfante 1970) which assumes that the supposed laryngeals were rather mythic
sounds (suoni mitici, in the Italian original). Now I am inclined to be more
concessive to the theory, especially after the highly convincing study of Andreev
1986, who reconstructs an archaic Proto-Boreal language from which Proto-IndoEuropean, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Altaic later developed. Proto-Boreal is a
linguistic phase corresponding to the North Pontic Mesolithic (before 5000 BC).
__________________________________________________________________
220
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
speak15 (< to push air out by the mouth), an archaic feature preserved from
Proto-Boreal16. This sound has been preserved in the dialectal pronunciation of
the words beginning in a vowel: aia (< Latin) that (one, feminine) haie a
thing; erete herete a hen-hawk, etc. The phenomenon is indeed rare in
literary Romanian, somewhat more frequent at dialectal level, but this rather
stresses its archaic character17. The words of indigenous Thracian (Daco-Mysian)
origin in Romanian with f pose specific problems of etymological analysis, e.g.
(beside a puf#i) fluture a butterfly, a flutura to wave (seemingly related to
Eng. to flutter), ceaf# neck (Alb. qaf) which is dialectally replaced by h, as in
NM Ceahl#u (East Carpathians), instead of the expected form *Ceafl#u;
similarly, NSt Her#str#u instead of the expected *Fer#str#u (located near
Bucharest, now included in the developing city). (Proto)Thracian *H was
probably of the same type as in Hittite, but the reader is reminded that the Hittite
laryngeal had at least two different pronunciations (Friedrich 1960, 1: 32). I
would also add that the correspondences between Rom. f and h, on the one hand,
and Albanian f, h and th put specific, complex problems which rather indicate
that an archaic, specific sound was the origin of modern h, f and th (the latter only
in Albanian; Romanian and South Slavic do not have this sound). I would also
add here the archaic form h#u an abyss with correspondences in the Pre-IndoEuropean and Mediterranean area, in Greek and Egyptian (see Mu"u 1995: 68
15
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
ff.: Greek Hades and Egyptian h!d a pit, a hollow). Also the parallel buh#bufni&# owl18, and v#taf, v#tah, also preserved in South-Slavic as vatah, vata!,
cleary witness the existence of an archaic sound which was later lost and
preserved as either f or h or th or even ! in various languages of the area (Brncu"
1995: 75 ff.).
The comparative analysis of the available data shows that Thr. *H had at least
two, if not three, maybe four, variants depending on its position in a word. It was
for sure a complex bi- or tri-component sound, at the same time laryngeal and/or
glottal and labial. In the course of evolution, one component was stressed and the
other was lost. This is the only reasonable way of explaining how Thr. *H
resulted in Rom. h or f, sometimes the two sounds being preserved in the local,
regional variants of the same root (ceaf#/Ceahl#u, puh#i/puf#i, v#taf/v#ta",
Slavic vatah, vata! etc.).
The identification of such specific sounds in the Thracian nomina recorded by
the Greek and Latin writers is extremely difficult as neither of the two languages
could note such sounds in documents. Their existence may be gleaned from
some oscillating spellings. Thus the neutral vowel % may be identified behind
the hesitating Greek spellings with , or -; equally the spellings Diurpaneus,
Diupaneus, Diopanas may lead to the reconstructed real pronunciation *&upan-,
&up%n-, the prototype of Rom. giupn > jupn and Sl. $upan$ (I have not
changed my view exposed many years ago in Linguistica 27/1987). My
reconstruction may seem abusive, as Rom. jupn is on the list of the so-called
oldest borrowings from Slavic into Romanian, together with balt#, dalt#, gard,
m#gur#, m#tur#, smntn#, st#pn, stn#, 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
__________________________________________________________________
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 Brncu" 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) snt, s, -s (when preceded by a stressed form, e.g. mi-s aici I am here)
(tu) e"ti
(el, ea) e, este, i20
(noi) sntem
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) snte$i
(ei, ele) snt, s
"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 cnta) the identity is 3rd
person singular and 3rd person plural: el/ea cnt# ei/ele cnt#; 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 ! > > 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, Parng, 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 gnd a thought; a
preoccupation, a gndi to think; ora" township, related to uria" (1, noun) a
giant (term of Romanian tales); (2, adj.) huge, talp# a sole. Brief discussion:
gnd and a gndi 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
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
ora" can never be explained from Hung. vros; 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) song24; erete hen-hawk erelis eagle; gnd, a gndi
(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
dog25; 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- earth27; dar (adversative conjunction, sometimes adverb) but
dar (adverb) still; yet, iar and (in some special constructions, otherwise "i <
24
The Slavic origin of Rom. zmeu, from zmij0, is impossible, yet this is a generally
spread hypothesis!
__________________________________________________________________
228
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
229
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
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
n romn!
Dacoromanice
Studiile cuprinse n acest capitol au fost scrise de!a lungul a mul!i ani, ca
atare ortografia va fi, n bun" parte, cea de dinaintea reintroducerii lui #i,
desigur, #i cea de dinaintea ultimei revizuiri. Ne!am expus cndva 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 romne, nef"cnd altceva dect s" complice inutil nsu#irea
limbii romne, inclusiv de str"ini.
Cum nu polemica este rostul acestor preciz"ri, r"mne deschis" problema
unei ample dezbateri privind ortografia limbii romne. Cu aceast" ocazie
trebuie s" se r"spund" clar la cteva ntreb"ri, n primul rnd trebuie r"spuns
clar la o ntrebare esen!ial": este necesar" revizuirea ortografiei limbii
romne? $i, dac" da, cum trebuie f"cut"? Prin deciziile unui grup restrns
sau n urma unei ample dezbateri?
De nomine Transylvani
__________________________________________________________________
Ardeal, Transilvania
Secolul al XIX-lea, prima versiune a studiului nostru fiind publicat! n anul 1986,
dar scris! n 19811982.
2
Formula la o dat! foarte veche este salvatoare atunci cnd nu exist! explica"ii
ra"ionale sau #tiin"ifice, cum a fost - mult timp, dar nc! citat! pe alocuri - teoria
slavismelor vechi n limba romn!, mprumutate prin sec. VIVII e.n.
__________________________________________________________________
235
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
aceast! form! latin! medieval! este #i cea mai veche atestare pentru erd#
p!dure (Benk$ et al. 19671980, I, 782). O discu"ie ampl! se g!se#te la
Dr!ganu (1933: 421422), care ns! reprezint! un stadiu par"ial dep!#it de
analiza lingvistic!.
Aceste detalii ca #i alte cteva de care vom aminti imediat ne-au ap!rut ca
fiind destul de interesante pentru a reconsidera #i, eventual, corecta etimologia
admis! n mod curent ori, cel pu"in, a explica aceste cteva neclarit!"i de
tratament fonetic (#i care au devenit neclarit!"i de interpretare istoric!!).
Este interesant de remarcat, totu#i, c! anumite ncerc!ri timide de a
atrage aten"ia asupra unor posibile numiri nrudite 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
Ardilens 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 ntmpl!toare #i nu puteau fi altfel considerate, atta timp ct
forma Erdly se acceptase a fi originea cuvntului romnesc.
n sfr#it, este de men"ionat un cercet!tor incompetent, I. Mar"ian, care,
ntr-o serie de articole publicate n revista Bistri"a (ntre 19241925),
contest! originea maghiar! a formei romne#ti Ardeal, men"ionnd o
scrisoare a regelui Iosif al chazarilor (popula"ie de origine turcic!, convertit!
la religia mozaic!, ce #i-a ntemeiat un efemer regat n nord-estul M!rii
Negre) c!tre rabbi Chasdai din Crdoba, unde se vorbe#te de un "inut numit
Ardil n sec. VIII e.n., identificat de autorul articolelor cu Ardealul de
dinainte de sosirea maghiarilor, implicit negndu-se originea maghiar! a
numirii. Din p!cate, aceste afirma"ii nu au putut fi verificate de noi,
r!mnnd a fi reconsiderate n 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 ncerca s! demonstr!m n continuare. N. Dr!ganu
3
De nomine Transylvani
__________________________________________________________________
Toponimul Turda este, f!r! ndoial!, 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 cuvntului romnesc este prin filier! traco-dac! r!d!cina indoeuropean! *k$dh- a acoperi, a proteja #i tot astfel n albanez!; teoria care
propune latinul quodrum ~ quadrum pe motivul c! un codru de pine este
... p!trat (?!) este, fire#te, absurd! (vezi discu"ii la Gh. Mu#u 1982: 7785).
Revenind la toponimul Ardeal, observ!m deci c! el este asemeni
formelor latine #i germane un cuvnt compus, n 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 n a explica originea particulei ar- #i a lui deal. Vom
ncepe cu al doilea component, cel mai important.
2.1. Originea lui deal a fost considerat! n mod constant ca slavul d%l-, cu
sens identic. Este de observat c! acest cuvnt apare numai n unele limbi
slave moderne, mai exact n vechea srb!, n ucrainean! #i n polona
dialectal!, fapt ce arat! caracterul s!u de termen mprumutat. Originea slav!
a cuvntului romnesc de#i suficient!, poate, pentru a respinge teoria
originii maghiare a toponimului Ardeal nu poate fi ns! sus"inut!.
Semnal!m, exempli gratia, c! r!d!cina d%l- apare ntr-adev!r pe teritoriul
slav, dar n familii de cuvinte care nu au nici o leg!tur! cu semantismul
deal, n!l"ime. Este vorba, pe de-o parte, de familia reprezentat! de d%l-1
n cuvinte ca d%l-iti a mp!r"i #i, pe de alt! parte, de d%l-2 a face, n
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 cuvnt auzit de slavi de
la popula"ia local! romanizat! (viitorii romni), tot a#a cum este #i ab% din
textele slave vechi, ce red! romnescul abia (din lat. ab vix). Natural,
asemenea pronun"ii identice ori asem!n!toare au creat confuzii de tipul
etimologiilor populare. Este n orice caz incorect ca d%l- cu sensurile parte
#i deal s! fie considerat unul #i acela#i cuvnt; sunt n 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 Transylvani
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
De nomine Transylvani
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
De mulieribus clestibus
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Abrunca este, foarte probabil, cuvnt autohton tr.-dac de origine preie., cf. NL
Abrud !i abur.
2
Rora trebuie pus n 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
zn!, -ziene, -zun! etc.
__________________________________________________________________
244
De mulieribus clestibus
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
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 snt fire!ti.
__________________________________________________________________
246
De mulieribus clestibus
__________________________________________________________________
(c) Forma albanez" zan, cu sens identic cu al lui zn! din romn", este
una din cheile rezolv"rii problemei. Formele romne!ti !i albaneze trebuie
s" aib" un etymon comun. Albanologii consider", de asemenea, c" originea
formei zan ar fi tot lat. Di%na, explicnd anomalia de evolu#ie fonetic"
(forma a!teptat" fiind *djan, cf. djall < diabolus) printr-o asimilare dj > z
(abej 1976, II: 315316, unde semnaleaz" !i atestarea antic" trzie Thana:
Vidaso et Thana, cu th b"nuit ca influen#" ilir"; cf. Russu 1969, 255, cu
observa#ia c", n opinia sa, zeitatea respectiv" este probabil ilir").
Care s" fie rela#ia dintre alb. zan !i rom. zn!? Un studiu recent, ap"rut
dup" elaborarea ini#ial" a celui de fa#", sus#ine c" trebuie s" vedem n forma
romneasc" zn! o influen#" albanez" (Schtz 1984: 5258). Ipoteza este
greu admisibil", deoarece albaneza nu putea impune romnei un termen
mitologic esen#ial; n plus, autorul n discu#ie nu face referiri (ca, de altfel,
mul#i al#i autori) la formele paralele zn!, 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" mprumutat" din romn",
deoarece n intervocalic ar fi trebuit s" rotacizeze, astfel c" forma albanez"
modern" ar fi trebuit s" fie, n cazul unui cuvnt vechi, *zar sau *zr.
Ipoteza unui mprumut albanez n romn" trebuie cu des"vr!ire
abandonat" (de altfel, trebuie respins" global ipoteza nc" citat" n destule
lucr"ri conform c"reia ar exista albanisme n romn").
4
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
De mulieribus clestibus
__________________________________________________________________
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 romne: Snziene.
Snziene. Etimologii propuse. n credin#ele populare, Snziene este o
alt" denumire, emfatic", a znelor. Numirea s-a particularizat pentru
s"rb"toarea de la solsti#iul de var", reprezentat" n calendarul cre!tin de Sf.
Ioan, dar de evident" origine precre!tin" !i legat" de cea mai lung" zi a
anului.
Explica#iile date cuvntului Snziene au fost urm"toarele:
(1) Din lat. Sanctus Ioahnnes (Cihac I: 240; TDRG: 1432; Rosetti 1986:
129), plecndu-se de la ideea c" numirea ar fi n leg"tur" cu s"rb"toarea
cre!tin". Ipoteza este, desigur, greu acceptabil", deoarece ignor" att
semnifica#ia de facto a cuvntului, ct !i, nu mai pu#in important, evolu#ia
fonetic".
(2) Din lat. Sanctus dies Iohannes, conform unei evolu#ii fonetice ce se
poate descompune n: sanctus > rom. sn(t); dies > rom. zi; Iohannes,
Ioannes > Iuannes > Iane, Iane, deci sn-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 !
romnesc (1). Nu este sigur dac" traca va fi avut, cel pu#in n unele dialecte, !i alte
vocale neutre, de exemplu una similar" lui romnesc (!).
__________________________________________________________________
249
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
De mulieribus clestibus
__________________________________________________________________
cuvntului trac zena (postulat de noi mai sus), cu sensul cucut", mai exact,
numind specia Galium, cum ne arat" perpetuarea cuvintelor n romn" 6.
Atestarea ntr-un text antic a formei trace zena nu este ns" singular". Tot n
acest context trebuie discutat numele zei#ei preromane balcanice Zana
(devenit" n interpretatio romana zei#a vn"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 zn!, venerat" pentru
bravura !i frumuse#ea sa (Lrker 1984: 356 8). Ne afl"m, fire!te, n fa#a unei
zeit"#i ce preced" istoric credin#ele moderne influen#ate de cre!tinism.
Zeitatea antic" balcanic" Zana, precum !i alb. zan, rom. zn! !i Sn-ziene
snt versiuni ale aceleia!i zeit"#i antice, cu r"d"cini preistorice.
De asemenea, relevante pentru subiectul analizat aici snt cteva
antroponime trace cu radical zen-: -94+:<, -94+5<, -94+=4<, apoi Zania, f.,
Zanus, m., Zena, Zenas, m.f. >:+;<, >:+5< m. Credem c" trebuie s"
@ en- a na!te,
apropiem unele din aceste forme de grec )?+6<, radical i.-e. *g
a procrea (1957, 175, 176, 181, 184; Russu 1967: 128). Exist" ns" forme,
ca de exemplu antroponimul Zantiala, m., ori theonimul >:+A:< epitet
pentru Heros (De%ev 1957: 176, 184), care nu accept" o atare derivare.
Neavnd la dispozi#ie, cel pu#in deocamdat", un text trac, a!adar un context
6
De%ev a explicat forma trac" prin v. ind. jy%nay-, avestic zy%nay-, zy%na- a
r"ni (De%ev 1929: 18; 1957: 548; cf. Russu 1967: 128). Eruditul bulgar nu
cuno!tea formele romne!ti.
7
Cercet"torul german nu face nici o referin#" la vreun text antic, nici nu am putut
identifica n bibliografia lucr"rii sale de unde a luat aceast" informa#ie, pe care nu o
punem totu!i la ndoial". n orice caz, zei#a Zana va fi fost adorat" att de tracii
sudici, ct !i de cei nordici, daco-ge#ii.
__________________________________________________________________
251
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
al utiliz"rii cuvintelor, nu putem face dect supozi#ii. Ni se pare ns" firesc s"
b"nuim c", cel pu#in n unele din cazurile citate, antroponimele mai ales
cele feminine au la baz" radicalul indo-european *gw-n-%, n unul din
sensurile discutate aici: femeie, so#ie, divinitate feminin", zn", protejata
znei (ca nume de persoan"), plant"-zn", cucut". Spre o atare ipotez" ne
ndreapt" !i numiri romne!ti de persoan" ca Zana (cu paralel" bulgar"
identic"), Zean!, Zeana (Iordan 1983: 494, 497. Acesta consider" c"
formele romne!ti ar fi de origine bulgar", ceea ce este absurd 9; n fapt, nu
pot fi dect relicte autohtone traco-dace n romn", iar n bulgar" transmise
fie direct din trac", fie mprumutate din romn").
Zn!, un cuvnt magic n continu! tabuare. Datele prezentate n acest
studiu ne permit, prin analizarea coerent" a unor date aparent disparate, s"
tras"m liniile destul de clare ale unor figuri mitice esen#iale ale folclorului
romnesc !i european n general.
Din punct de vedere strict formal-fonetic, dup" ce am analizat familia
etimologic" n care trebuie ncadrate cuvintele romne!ti zn! !i Snziene,
reiese c" forma trac" trebuie reconstituit" ca fiind aproape de cea
romneasc" !i de cea albanez", a!adar *zena, *zana, poate !i *z1na (cf.
Iv"nescu 1980: 180). Fonemul originar pare a fi z (nu dz, cum apare la
Cantemir !i n aromn"); el este nu numai reconstruibil pe baza foneticii
comparate indo-europene, ci !i atestat n textele antice referitoare la lumea
10
n stadiul actual al cercet"rilor, este imposibil de stabilit dac" traca ori m"car
unele dialecte trace a (au) avut sunetul dz. n orice caz, chiar dac" va fi existat,
scriitorii antici nu l puteau nota cu acurate#e, dup" cum nu puteau nota nici alte
sunete specifice ale tracei: vocala neutr" 1 sau consoanele specifice B, C, ( etc.
__________________________________________________________________
252
De mulieribus clestibus
__________________________________________________________________
Vezi acum, n limba romn", lucrarea lui A.J. Greimas, Despre zei "i despre
oameni, Bucure!ti: Meridiane 1997. Acolo, cititorul va g"si !i un lexicon minimal
al divinit"#ilor lituaniene.
__________________________________________________________________
253
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
orice ndoial" .
Negnd, n aceste rnduri, originea latin" a doi termeni fundamentali ai
mitologiei romne zn! !i Snziene nu am negat, desigur, caracterul
romanic al romnei. n schimb, ncadrnd ace!ti termeni n ceea ce credem a
fi reala lor familie etimologic", am c!tigat mult n n#elegerea corect" a
mitologiei romne, continuatoarea unor credin#e ce coboar" adnc n timp
pn" n neoliticul carpato-danubian. Dar acesta este un subiect ce va fi
analizat n am"nunt cu alt" ocazie.
Limba romn! 38 (1989): 141149.13
12
Ne gndim la formele gog! fantom", stafie, NP Goga, Gog, alb. gog id..
13
Prima versiune a acestui studiu dateaz" din anul 1979 !i a fost prezentat" la
sesiunea de comunic"ri !tiin#ifice studen#e!ti de la Sibiu n toamna anului 1980. Ar
fi, astfel, primul nostru studiu de tracologie !i de rela#ii daco-romanice. Este !i
singurul studiu ap"rut, cu mult greu, n Limba Romn!!
__________________________________________________________________
254
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
Studiul rezum", n limba romn", cteva dintre studiile n limba englez" (vezi mai
sus, n prima parte a volumului).
__________________________________________________________________
255
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
permis s" acopere arii vaste n timp scurt , venerau zeul cerului senin.
Ideologia lor era patrifocal", iar societatea stratificat", denotnd un popor
r"zboinic. n jur de 4400 .e.n., primul val al acestor p"stori de step" este
atestat n arealul culturii Cucuteni !i de!a lungul Dun"rii. Expansiunea
indo!european" (n continuare abreviat IE) n Europa a continuat cu alte
trei valuri datate aproximativ pe la 3200, 3000 !i 1300 .e.n. !i au avut ca
rezultat kurganizarea (indo!europenizarea) popula#iilor autohtone.
Substratul pre!indo!european a influen#at !i afectat grupurile culturale
cunoscute nou" n zorii istoriei.
O alt" ipotez", folosind aproape exclusiv datele lingvistice (a!adar
nepermi#nd o distribu#ie geografic" adecvat" a culturilor preistorice !i nici
perpectiva cronologic", bazat" acum nu n ultimul rnd pe dat"ri cu
radiocarbon) a fost avansat" de lingvi!tii T. Gamkrelidze !i V. V. Ivanov.
Dup" p"rerea acestora, patria primitiv" PIE se afla situat" undeva ntre
Balcani !i Caucaz. Aceast" ipotez" a fost criticat" de M. Gimbutas cu
argumente solide, astfel nct nu este necesar a mai insista aici.
Defini!ii
Trebuie precizat de la bun nceput c" termenul pre!IE este suficient de
vag n ciuda unei aparente clarit"#i. El se poate folosi cu succes pentru
orice zon" unde s!a vorbit o limb" ne!indo!european" naintea kurganiz"rii.
Ca atare, au existat limbi pre!IE vorbite pe un areal vast cuprins ntre
Marea Mediteran", Atlantic, Urali, Marea Caspic" !i Oceanul Indian. Dac"
ne referim numai la sudul !i sud!estul Europei (a!adar la arealul definit ca
Vechea Europ"), problema devine oarecum mai simpl". Caracteristicile
convergente ale Vechii Europe duc la concluzia (sau, cel pu#in, la
observa#ia preliminar") c", n preistorie, limbi (idiomuri) nrudite se
vorbeau n Italia, Balcani !i bazinul carpatic. Un asemenea punct de vedere
__________________________________________________________________
256
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
acestor forme nu poate fi luat" n considerare, dat fiind c" acestea snt
atestate din abunden#" n Europa, nu n Sumer. Dup" p"rerea mea, acest
lucru trebuie pus n leg"tur" cu evidentele coresponden#e dintre grafemele
europene neolitice !i eneolitice (n special din cultura Vin$a!Turda!, dar nu
numai) !i scrierea sumerian". dat fiind c" grafemele vechi europene snt
cu cel pu#in dou" milenii mai vechi dect cele sumeriene, acest fapt ar putea
fi crucial n n#elegerea unor fenomene preistorice.
Aceste observa#ii cer reconsiderarea ntregii probleme legate de apari#ia
re#elelor urbane din Europa. Trebuie ad"ugat c" o a!ezare urban" nu este
numai un sat mare (un principiu de baz" ce poate fi aplicat, la diverse
nivele, a!ez"rilor urbane), ci !i o amplasare sacr" (discu#ii la R. Assunto).
A!ez"rile urbane vechi europene nu erau numai de dimensiuni mai mari
ci erau nso#ite de o organizare social" !i religioas" corespunz"toare.
Un nou termen #i o nou" defini!ie a Vechii Europe
Plecnd de la premisa c" termenul denotnd a!ezarea urban" este esen#ial
pentru definirea unei tradi#ii culturale, propun s" se foloseasc" termenul
tradi#ie UR sau urbian"; oamenii care au creat prima civiliza#ie
european" au fost URIENII sau URBIENII: limba lor (idiomuri sau dialecte
nrudite) era limba URIAN# sau URBIAN# urmele acesteia s!au p"strat
pe un areal vast !i au reprezentat substratul care a afectat limbile atestate
istoric, n mod curent etichetate IE, de!i caracterul IE este doar un aspect
al unui ndelungat !i complex proces de hibridare etnic" !i lingvistic".
Limba urbian" a constituit, cu siguran#", baza limbii etrusce sau linearului
A chiar dac" snt depistabile !i unele influen#e IE. Acest termen este
aplicabil unei realit"#i complexe, fiind a!adar eticheta unei tradi#ii culturale,
tot a!a cum este kurgan; dar kurgan !i urbian reflect" dou" realit"#i
net diferite. Rezumnd:
__________________________________________________________________
262
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
266
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
Toponimul Cluj
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
(m) 1573 Claudiopolis (prima atestare a formei latine medievale, care mai
apare "i ntr!un document din 1733);
(n) dup# alte atest#ri, avem n anul 1808 atestat# forma Clu!.
n lumina celor prezentate mai sus, cteva observa!ii preg#titoare snt necesare:
(1) Atest#rile cele mai vechi nregistreaz# forma romneasc# grafiat# Clus,
fire"te din cauz# c# n textele medievale redactate n limba latin# nu exista un
semn stabilit pentru sunetul ! care trebuie b#nuit ca original, a"a cum indic# "i
atestarea din anul 1808 (vezi supra, exemplul n).
(2) Atestarea citat# mai sus la punctul (a), care red# pronun!area maghiar# a
toponimului (alte discu!ii mai jos), trebuie ntr!adev#r considerat# suspect#,
deoarece pronun!area maghiar# apare mult mai trziu "i nici atunci definitiv, ci
alternnd cu cea romneasc#.
(3) Forma german# apare la mai bine de un secol dup# prima atestare cert# "i
ea trebuie considerat# o adaptare la specificul limbii germane pe baza unor
asocia!ii libere de tipul etimologiei populare. Nu ne este greu s# observ#m c# s!a
plecat de la forma romneasc# grafiat# Clus (pronun!at# cu siguran!# Clu!), dar
"i de la calchierea celei maghiare (Kolozs!vr), ajungndu!se astfel la o form# de
compromis: Clusen!burg, Clussen!berch (grafia cu ss poate fi nc# o dovad# a
existen!ei sunetului ! n pronun!ia popula!iei locale romne"ti). Ulterior, forma
german# s!a stabilit la Klausenburg, cu siguran!# prin apropierea de numele
propriu Klaus, a"adar prin etimologie popular#.
(4) Relativ trziu apare, surprinz#toare dar extrem de pre!ioas#, forma latin#
Claudio!polis ora"ul lui Claudius. Despre care Claudius s# fie oare vorba? Sau
este o simpl# grafie fantezist#, f#r# nici un suport istoric real?
Paginile ce urmeaz# "i propun s# analizeze n detaliu situa!ia toponimului,
f#cnd apel la toate datele ce pot fi relevante problemei n discu!ie.
__________________________________________________________________
268
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
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 romn#. A existat
"i exist# impresia, preluat# de la autor la autor, f#r# discern#mnt, n 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 ns# c#, sub acela"i nveli" grafic, se pot ascunde foneme (sunete)
diferite, uneori net diferite. n 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. n ciuda faptului c# nu exist# nc# 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 ndoial# c# sunetele specifice tracei, ca 0, 1, ", 2, ts (-) etc., inexistente n
latin#, au avut o soart# n mod necesar specific# atunci cnd ele au existat
ntr!un cuvnt 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, romna. Influen!a substratului
asupra foneticii proto!romne"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 n italian# "i n romn#,
trebuie explicat ca evolu!ie n primul caz, dar ca influen!# a foneticii trace n al
doilea caz. $i astfel de exemple ar putea continua.
De altfel, ntr!un alt plan, n unele cuvinte romne"ti de substrat cercet#torii
au acceptat tacit unele aparente anomalii: n abur (alb. avull) ntlnim /b/
intervocalic, n c$ciul$ (alb. ksul) avem /l/ intervocalic (nimic nu ne permite
1
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
de la gradul zero al r#d#cinii "i o dezvoltare de tip *kl!en!t! (a se vedea alte raport#ri
la fondul indo!european la Pokorny 1959: 548 "i n AHD p. 1521).
Al doilea exemplu l constituie clan-$, dup# p#rerea noastr# eronat explicat
prin derivare din clan-. Situa!ia pare exact invers#: clan- este un derivat regresiv
de la clan-$, iar acest din urm# cuvnt trebuie ncadrat n categoria celor derivate
din radicalul indo!european *kl%u! discutat mai sus, fiind a"adar un cuvnt nrudit
cu lat. clavis, gr. kleis cheie, n romn# cu sensul nchiz#toare. Nici pentru
acest cuvnt nu g#sim o explicare mai bun# dect tot prin fondul autohton. (n
DEX : 161, clan- este consderat onomatopee, iar clan-$ ar fi derivat din clan-).
Acest ultim exemplu ne arat#, pe lng# aspectele legate de evolu!ia fonetic#, "i
faptul c# limba traco!dac# a p#strat foarte bine sensurile derivate de la r#d#cina
indo!european# *kl%u! curb, ndoit, "i anume:
(a) ngr#ditur#, cetate toponimele Cles!bestita, Clepi!dava (vezi supra);
(b) nchiz#toare trac *klan!ts!, rom. clan-$ (lat. clavis, gr. kleis);
(c) "chiop trac Kl#" (antroponim = lat. Claudius, din acela"i radical) > rom.
Clu!, Cluj.
Cercet#rile viitoare vor putea reconsidera "i alte exemple cu cl! (kl!) ini!ial, ce
pot reflecta, n principiu, mo"teniri autohtone. Consider#m c# formele analizate
aici snt suficiente scopului propus: discutarea toponimului Cluj din perspectiva
mo"tenirii autohtone. Am cita, n treac#t, cazul formei clon- cioc, plisc, de
asemenea gur# (peiorativ) precum "i forma cloan-$ gur# (peiorativ), care par
a fi strns nrudite cu clan-$, p#strnd un sens vechi nchiz#toare gur#.
n sfr"it, am putea aminti aici "i cazul toponimului Cleja, n apropiere de Cluj,
absent la Suciu, dar explicat de Iordan (1983: 135) ca derivat din clej$ < eclejie
parohie. Avem mari rezerve fa!# de aceast# explica!ie, nclinnd mai degrab#
tot spre ipoteza unui toponim (respectiv antroponim, ultimul se pare derivat din
toponim) autohton, poate reflectnd sensul localitate al toponimelor trace
analizate mai sus. Ipoteza noastr# este sprijinit# de existen!a antroponimului Clej,
amintit de Iordan, care are evidente afinit#!i cu forma Cluj/Clu!. Subliniem din
nou c# asemenea forme au fost b#nuite de orice alt# origine dect autohton#,
probabil din cauza persistentei idei preconcepute c# tratamentul fonetic al
formelor trace trebuie s# urmeze tratamentul fonetic al formelor latine populare.
__________________________________________________________________
278
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
ilira este nrudit# clar cu traca, a"adar este foarte posibil ca antroponimul s# fi
fost folosit de ambele grupuri etnice. Atestarea medieval# pentru Bla!/Blaj
(Blasius, gen. Blasii) clarific#, n opinia noastr#, "i pronun!area real# a
antroponimelor trace, care trebuie reconstituit# la *Bla"(a), *Bla"!as
(termina!iile fiind grecizate ori latinizate snt incerte, dar acesta este un detaliu
de mic# importan!# aici). Semnificativ n acest sens este "i toponimul Blaja (n
apropiere de Carei), cu atest#ri mai trzii: a. 1454 Balashaza, 1733 Blasa.
Nu poate fi ndoial# c# atestarea cea mai timpurie, ce tr#deaz# pronun!ia
maghiar#, presupune c#, totu"i, a"ezarea este mai veche "i s!a numit *Bla!a,
a"a cum "i apare atestat# ulterior. Evident, tot de la un antroponim Bla!/Blaj
sau Bla!a/Blaja deriv# "i un toponim Blajova, n Banat.
n toate aceste cazuri, toponimele au la baz# un antroponim Bla!/Blaj sau
Bla!a/Blaja care este de origine autohton#. Dar situa!ia antroponimelor
traco!dace p#strate n romn# "i uneori reflectate n textele medievale este
subiectul altui studiu.
__________________________________________________________________
280
Pururi = focuri
Pururi este, f!r! ndoial!, unul dintre cele mai importante cuvinte ale
limbii romne. Analiza originii sale ne va conduce, a"a cum vom ncerca
s! ar!t!m n continuare, spre reconstituirea unei mentalit!#i arhaice, aflate
n lupt! att cu doctrina cre"tin! (n plin! afirmare n primele secole ale erei
noastre, cre"tine) dar "i cu numeroase culte orientale, bine atestate n
Dacia roman!. M!rturisim faptul c! etimologia lui pururi (aceasta este,
cum vom ar!ta, forma cea mai veche; de asemenea pururea, de-a pururi la
care vom reveni mai jos) ne-a preocupat de mai mul#i ani, dar nu am putut
g!si o explica#ie mai bun! dect cea oferit!, de mult, de I. I. Russu n
Etnogeneza romnilor. Nu poate fi ndoial!, a"a cum a ar!tat just regretatul
profesor clujean, c! ne afl!m n fa#a unui cuvnt str!vechi, probabil de
origine traco-dac!, a"a cum ne arat! paralela albanez! prher, cu sens
identic formei romne"ti. Mai pu#in conving!toare au fost demersurile
pentru a identifica o r!d!cin! primitiv! care s! explice formele romneasc!
"i albanez!. A"adar, pururi pare a fi o mo"tenire str!veche, dar nu putem
argumenta "i de ce; doar albaneza ne-ar indica faptul c! ne afl!m, cu mare
probabilitate, n fa#a unei forme pre-romane (au fost, fire"te, "i alte ipoteze,
unele hilare, citate "i discutate de I. I. Russu, motiv pentru care nu are rost
s! insist!m nici asupra lor).
R!d!cina pur foc
ncepem demonstra#ia noastr! abrupt, cu ceea ce ar trebui s! fie, poate,
concluzia: pururi nseamn!, literalmente, focuri: este vorba, altfel spus,
de un substantiv neutru plural (a"a cum este, de altfel, "i forma focuri!), al
c!rui sens s-a pierdut dup! romanizare, cnd a fost nlocuit cu foc, din latin
__________________________________________________________________
281
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
focus ce nsemna ini#ial vatr!. Existen#a unor forme trace cu radical puravnd sensul foc a fost demonstrat! de mult. Astfel, nc! din anul 1957,
cnd ap!rea lucrarea sa de referin#! Die thrakishen Sprachreste, Dimit!r
De$ev observa (pag. 386) c! o serie de nume trace precum i se explic! prin
radicalul pur- foc, nrudit cu grec pyr, pyrs foc, german Feuer, englez
fire etc. Ulterior, Gh. Mu"u a reluat discutarea acestor forme n lucrarea sa
de excep#ie Din mitologia tracilor (cap. Focul la frigieni, pag. 148151).
Dup! cum se observ! ("i am putea n"irui aici "i alte exemple), nu exist!,
nu pot exista dubii, privind existen#a unor forme cu radical pur- n limba
trac! ori traco-dac! al c!ror sens nu putea fi dect foc ori un sens derivat,
s! zicem ro"u ca focul, soare, nsorit etc. Problema esen#ial! este de a
c!uta o motiva#ie extralingvistic!, anume de ce sensul str!vechi foc va fi
c!p!tat, n trecerea de la daco-roman! la daco-romn!, sensul nea"teptat,
este drept, dar cu att mai interesant etern.
Focurile eterne
Explica#ia nu poate porni dect de la dou! componente necre"tine ale
cultelor din Dacia: o component! autohton!, traco-dac!, "i o alta oriental!,
"tiut fiind faptul c! n Dacia snt bine reprezentate cultele de origine
oriental! (n acest sens, r!mne fundamental! lucrarea lui Silviu Sanie,
Cultele orientale n Dacia roman!, ap!rut! n anul 1981). A"adar, pe de o
parte, sunt bine cunoscute ritualurile legate de s!rb!torile focului de la
solsti#iile de var! "i de iarn!, un loc principal avndu-l aici s!rb!torile de
iarn! ale focului celebrate aproximativ la data cnd se celebreaz! n lumea
cre"tin! Sf. Ignat (prin etimologie popular! apropiat n mod irezistibil de
latin ignis foc!) "i, mai ales, Cr!ciunul. (Asupra acestor aspecte deosebit
de interesante s-a oprit, n cteva rnduri, regretatul Gh. Mu"u, ale c!rui
lucr!ri r!mn, deocamdat! neegalate n domeniul tracologiei). n plus, nu
putem uita faptul c!, pn! trziu n sec. V e.n., dacii au fost incineran#i, cu
__________________________________________________________________
282
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
considerat! cea mai veche, ea fiind un plural neutru, a"a cum este focuri.
Plecnd de la forma de baz!, pururi, s-a creat ulterior "i o paralel! pururea
(cf. de asemeni/de asemenea etc.) "i a intrat n uz construc#ia de-a pururi
de-a focuri(le) (eterne) n care forma pururi apare cu claritate drept un
substantiv arhaic, lipsit azi de sens pentru vorbitori, dar perfect analizabil
din punct de vedere etimologic. C!ci pururi este un relict lingvistic al unor
culte necre"tine din Dacia "i din Imperiu, r!spndite n primele secole ale
erei noastre. Pururi aduce aminte de venerarea focului etern.
Academica nr. 8 (20), iunie 1992, p. 14
__________________________________________________________________
284
De origine Albanorum
__________________________________________________________________
Originea Albanezilor 1
Aceste rnduri au fost scrise n 1992 "i nu au mai fost publicate n Academica.
Anticipau, pe de o parte, capitolul dedicat etnogenezei sud!est europene din
lucrarea noastr! Influen!e romane "i preromane n limbile slave de sud (volumul al
II!lea al acestei serii). Vom relua problema etnogenezei albaneze, cu o dezbatere
ampl!, n Istoria slavilor, pe care o sper!m publicat! n anul 2007. Aceste rnduri
au fost "i snt doar o schi#!, sper!m de larg interes.
__________________________________________________________________
285
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
De origine Albanorum
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Ast!zi, nceputul expansiunii slave n sec. al V!lea pare o dat!, mai degrab!,
ideal!. Expansiunea a nceput, mai probabil, la nceputul sec. al VI!lea, concesiv la
final de secol V e.n.
__________________________________________________________________
288
De origine Albanorum
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
290
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
pentru unii (n sensul persisten"ei #i ponderii apreciabile a fondului tracodac n conturarea profilului limbii romne), m-au condus #i la elaborarea
unui sistem propriu, ct se poate de simplu, dar eficient, de clasificare a
denumirilor, cu speran"a c! el va putea fi discutat #i, eventual, nsu#it #i de
al"i cercet!tori (am mereu speran"a c!, pn! la urm!, se va putea njgheba un
colectiv de lingvi#ti tracologi care s! ac"ioneze rapid, concis #i coerent n
acest domeniu att de dificil al cercet!rii). Fire#te, amintesc faptul c! exist!
sisteme sofisticate de clasificare a toponimiei (cum ar fi cel propus de
Vladimir $milauer n Handbuch der slavischen Toponomastik), pe care le
g!sesc nc! nejustificat de complicate #i, ca atare, lipsite de calitatea
indispensabil! unei clasific!ri simplitatea.
n principiu, am pornit de la observa"iile c!: (a) n ce prive#te
antroponimia, snt necesari doi termeni care s! deosebeasc! numele de
persoan! de numele de popoare (etnonime); (b) este necesar un termen care
s! noteze clar theonymele (numele de divinit!"i); (c) n cazul denumirilor de
ape, se justific! diferen"ierea unei ape curg!toare (pru, ru, fluviu) de un
lac ori de o balt!; (d) numele de locuri trebuie s! deosebeasc! nume
propriu-zise de locuri, de insule, de caverne, de mun"i (oronime) #i de
regiuni. n aceast! situa"ie, terminologia preopus! de noi este, n ordine
alfabetic!:
NC
nomen cavernae: nume de cavern!, grot!, pe#ter!
ND
n dei: teonim, nume de divinitate
NFI
n. fluminis: nume de ru (sau de pru)
NI
n. insulae: nume de insul!
NL
n. loci: nume de loc ori de localitate
NM
n. montis: nume de munte (oronim)
NP
n. personae: nume de persoan!
NPp
n. populi: nume de grup etnic, etnonim
NR
n. regionis: nume de regiune
NSt
n. stagni: nume de lac
__________________________________________________________________
297
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
298
Taba/Teba, Dava/Deva
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Taba/Teba, Dava/Deva
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Taba/Teba, Dava/Deva
__________________________________________________________________
dou! mii sau numai o mie sau numai cinci sute. n orice caz, cuvintele
autohtone ale romnei sunt mult mai numeroase dect arat! listele uzuale
(Russu, Poghirc, Brncu# pentru a cita doar pe ace#ti trei autori), care
niciodat! nu trec de pragul psihologic de dou! sute, pornindu!se
probabil de la premisa c!, dac! franceza are vreo dou! sute de galicisme,
atunci #i romna trebuie s! aib! vreo dou! sute de tracisme.
Pe de alt! parte, dificultatea problemei persist!, dar cu atrac"ia, chiar
fascina"ia ei: limba romn! este una dintre cele mai interesante limbi ale
Europei prin romanitatea sa, dar #i prin arhaicitatea sa, prin mo#tenirea sa
str!veche indo!european! #i pre!indo!european! ce ne vine, nu putem gre#i,
prin filier! trac!. De ce attea ezit!ri n abordarea mo#tenirii autohtone? De
ce attea sinusoide, uneori de!a dreptul ilogice? Observ c! majoritatea
lingvi#tilor romni prefer! s! nregistreze (n DEX de exemplu, toate
edi"iile) sute/mii de cuvinte de origine necunoscut! ori de fals! origine slav!
sau maghiar!, dect s! afirme, fie #i m!car ca principiu provizoriu de lucru,
c! majoritatea acestor forme ar trebui s! fie de origine autohton!. De altfel,
n DEX, nu apare niciodat! explicit vreo formul! de tipul element
autohton, element probabil/posibil autohton etc., ci referiri (cf.) la
albanez!, n cel mai fericit caz. Formula, cu toat! stima pentru autorii
dic"ionarului, este nefericit!, deoarece ar l!sa se se n"eleag! faptul c!
respectivele cuvinte ar fi de origine albanez!. De altfel, nu lipsesc chiar n
lucr!ri de prestigiu ipotezele conform c!rora ar fi elemente albaneze n
limba romn!! Aceasta n condi"iile n care ns!#i originea limbii albaneze a
fost mereu #i repetat revizuit!: de la ipoteza unui idiom neo!ilir la ipoteza
unui idiom neo!trac, a c!rei vatr! de formare (Urheimat) trebuie s! fi fost
mai nordic!, poate chiar nord!dun!rean!.
Limba romn! este aceea#i, cum ziceam, cu fascina"ia ei de limb! greu
accesibil! cercet!rii etimologice, fie c! spunem/scriem c! sunt (s! zicem)
patru mii de tracisme ori dou! mii de tracisme #i vreo cteva sute de
__________________________________________________________________
303
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Taba/Teba, Dava/Deva
__________________________________________________________________
italian! n anul 1966, retip!rit n Studii romne 2001; desigur, titlul edi"iei
romne#ti ar fi trebuit s! fie *Studii de limba romn! sau, eventual, *Studii
romne"ti). $i ar mai trebui clarificate alte cteva probleme conexe, legate
de influen"a grupurilor traco!dace din perioada postclasic! precum #i a
romanit!"ii r!s!ritene asupra etnogenezei slave (a#a cum bine au fost
analizate de arheologul polonez Kazimierz God%owski; studiile sale
esen"iale privind etnogeneza slavilor au fost publicate n anul 2000).
Thr. Dava/Deva > Rom. Deva sau despre b/v !i l intervocalic n
elementele autohtone
Da, Adrian Poruciuc are dreptate, n studiul amintit mai sus, atunci cnd
scrie tran#ant c! toponimul ardelean are origine trac!, mai exact din tr. dava,
deva cetate. Acest fapt evident pare la fel de imposibil multor lingvi#ti,
convin#i fiind c! b/v intervocalic nu poate persista ntr!un element vechi,
preroman. $i totu#i, cercetarea atent! a mo#tenirii autohtone ne arat! acum,
f!r! dubiu, c! b/v intervocalic este p#strat ntotdeauna n elementele
autohtone. Este p#strat, de asemenea, l intervocalic. Pe ct de simplu
pare a scrie acest lucru, pe att de greu le!a fost lingvi#tilor s! demonstreze
c! aceasta este regula, nu excep"ia. Amintesc, n context, tentativele inverse
cum ar fi Dumitra#cu 1976, n chiar primul num!r al publica"iei
Thraco!Dacica care, pe noi, nu ne!au convins: ncearc! s! demonstreze c!
evolu"ia fonetic! a elementelor autohtone trebuie s! fie totdeauna aceea#i cu
a elementelor latine. Este adev!rat c!, de exemplu, alternan"a l/r apare nu
rareori n fondul pre!indo!european (urbian), dar acesta este un fenomen
fonetic str!vechi, analizabil pe un areal vast, nu numai n zona
carpato!dun!rean!.
De ce au fost, sunt #i vor fi neconving!toare (#i incorecte) asemenea
tentative? Deoarece au f#cut, fac !i vor face confuzia ntre liter# !i sunet
__________________________________________________________________
305
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Taba/Teba, Dava/Deva
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Taba/Teba, Dava/Deva
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Taba/Teba, Dava/Deva
__________________________________________________________________
Etc. din final l!sa #i las! s! se n"eleag! faptul c! oricnd se pot ad!uga alte
exemple; desigur, cu argumente, se pot corecta #i cele deja prezentate acolo.
Nu putem face aici discu"iuni de am!nunt, bun!oar! de ce unele forme au
t altele #. Am scris despre asta cu alte ocazii. Reamintesc doar c! alternan"ele
a/!, b/p, f/h/v, s/", t/# #i altele apar nu rareori n elementele autohtone #i nu se
pot explica dect uneori prin evolu"ia fonetic! a limbii romne. Alteori este
vorba, nu ne putem ndoi, de realit!"i #i de evolu"ii fonetice n trac! #i,
poate, chiar n str!vechiul fond pre!trac/pre!indo!european, atunci cnd este
vorba de atari exemple. Tot pe scurt aici, pe larg n alte lucr!ri, am ar!tat c!
unele alternan"e fonetice trebuie s! fi fost mo#tenite din trac!, precum
alternan"a b/v, uneori atestat! n chiar cazul formei mai sus amintite: dava/
daba, deva/deba (lucru de mult observat #i corect analizat de Duridanov).
n final, o precizare: ne ndoim de nrudirea dintre Dava/Deva #i formele
derivate de la radicalul pre!indo!european *T!B!/*T!P. Nici sensul, nici
evolu"ia fonetic! (dac! avem r!bdare s! facem analize detaliate, de
am!nunt) nu permit o asemenea apropiere. Desigur, putem gre#i. Pentru a se
argumenta o asemenea Urverwandtschaft ar trebui aduse argumente
suplimentare, dac! nu dorim s! facem apropieri de tipul maghiar most [a se
citi mo#t], adverb, acum #i ceh most [a se citi cum se scrie] pod, punte.
Uneori aceea#i limb! ne conduce spre asemenea capcane: mierl! nu are
nimic a face cu a (o) mierli; noi credem c! primul este un latinism, iar al
doilea un tracism, din radicalul str!vechi ce exprim! o inevitabilitate
moartea; acela#i radical p!strat n latin mors, mortis, slav s!m"rt", lituanian
mirtis etc. Asem!narea dintre forma romneasc! #i cea lituanian! nu poate fi
ntmpl!toare, dup! cum nu credem a fi ntmpl!toare paralele precum:
romn!
lituanian!
doin!, dain!
erete
"o
daina
erelis vultur, acvil!
,uo cine etc.
__________________________________________________________________
311
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
Taba/Teba, Dava/Deva
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
On TABA/TEBA, DAVA/DEVA, on other aspects of the Pre"Indo"European,
Indo"European, Proto"Boreal, !ostratisms, and not ultimately on coherence
in linguistic thracology
Starting from the paper of Adrian Poruciuc in THRACO"DACICA (XXII, 12,
2001) the author resumes the main problems connected to the indigenous heritage
of Romanian. The main issues pointed out refer to the lack of coherence in
linguistic analysis, the lack of clear reference points in the field of linguistic
thracology, the large absence of references to the archaic Pre"Indo"European v.
Proto"Boreal/Indo"European heritage.
As the author has repeatedly approached the Pre"Indo"European and Indo"
European heritage in southeast Europe, including Romania and Romanian, he
suggests a large debate, in a scientific meeting for example, on the major
challenges referring to the linguistic Thracian studies. The absence of an updated
etymological dictionary of the Romanian language is the obvious sign that the
approach must be profound and committed to identifying those elements which
represent the substratum of Romanian. It is probable that the indigenous (Thracian)
heritage of Romanian is much richer than the current hypothesis that it refers to
only some 180200 words. An ample work on this topic is planned for the
International Congress of Thracology, Chi"in!u, 2004.
__________________________________________________________________
314
III
En franais
Gallice
La forme thrax (avec quelques variantes graphiques, voir chez De"ev 1957 s.v.)
se refre au groupe thrace en gnral, qui occupait une vaste aire (Oppermann
1984). Le groupe thrace nordique (nord-danubien) tait connu sous deux noms:
getae, getai et dakoi, daci, dacisci. Pour faire la distinction, les modernes utilisent
les termes Daco-gtes, Gto-daces, Daco-thraces, Gto-thraces, Daco-gto-thraces
pour dlimiter les tribus thraces nordiques.
__________________________________________________________________
317
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
(Charmide, 156 d), Diodore (1, 94, 2), Strabon (7, 3, 5), ainsi que par dautres
sources (voir De"ev 1957: 173175). Voici un rsum de ces informations:
(1) Les graphies utilises par les textes grecs taient !"#$%&'(, )"#$%&'(,
)"$%#&'(; la divinit tait vue par les Grecs comme *+,$%-, ./0(, esclave de
Pythagore ou prophte, selon les informations orales; dans Iordanes (Getica
39) le dieu est nomm rex.
(2) La divinit suprme tait nomme aussi par les mmes
Thraces (c.##d. par les mmes groupes ou tribus thraces, les Thraco-daces)
Gebeleizis. Cette information est fournie par une seule source (Hrodote), en
accusatif (1/2/#/34'-, deux manuscrits), aussi Beleizis (5/#674'-, un
manuscrit) et Beleixis (5/#6'&'-, un manuscrit).
(3) Les croyances des Thraco-daces limmortalit taient souvent
mentionnes par les sources antiques.
(4) Chaque cinquime anne, un missaire tait envoy Zamolxis; cet
missaire tait sacrifi pour aboutir au dieu.
(5) En cas de tempte, les mmes Thraces (les Thraco-daces) tirent avec
des flches sur leur dieu, en le menaant (Hdt.)
(6) Selon une tradition, Zamolxis aurait t lesclave de Pythagore Samos.
(7) Zamolxis avait une demeure souterraine, une caverne, do il revenait
chaque quatrime anne. Selon Strabon, la montagne sacre tait nomme
Kogaion(on).
(8) !"#$%&'(8 9 :;0-%( <+= >;?@A'( <+= B*C (Hes.). Un cas trs rare o
la divinit suprme a t juge quivalente une divinit grecque, sans succs
dailleurs. Mais lassociation avec la sphre musicale correspond
limportance de la musique dans la socit thraco-dace. Ce sujet est trop ample
pour tre discut ici (voir Paliga 1992; also above, under the study on DoinD).
Sans doute, nous avons disposition un complexe dinformations qui
semblent parfois incohrentes, do limpression que lanalyse este impossible
ou, en tout cas, entache de subjectivit. Tentons de dchiffrer cet horizon
complexe.
__________________________________________________________________
319
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
Nous avons utilis (Paliga 1989) le terme urbien (en anglais Urbian) pour dfinir
le complexe archologique, cultuel, culturel et linguistique pr-ie., correspondant
aux phases pipalolithique, nolithique et chalcolithique, ca. 70003500 av.J.-C.
(dates C14 calibres, cf. Gimbutas 1989, 1991). Le terme urbien est une tiquette
pratique pour le complexe Ancien Europen (Old European) analys par Marija
Gimbutas et veut imposer un terme simple, oppos au kourgan. Voir les tudes
dans ce volume-ci.
__________________________________________________________________
320
mutil, avec ses forces rduites, contrlables . Suivant une telle mentalit, les
Thraces tiraient avec des flches sur leur dieu, cette fois en hypostase de
divinit du tonnerre, pour le mutiler, pour rduire ses forces et pour calmer la
fureur du ciel, pour appeler le soleil revenir.
Jusquici, il est clair que les informations fournies par les anciens
concernant le dieu suprme de Thraco-dace sont, en gnral, correctes, avec
quelques dformations invitables, mais entirement sous contrle. Il nest pas
ncessaire dinventer rien qui ne corresponde notre rationalit moderne.
Le rle des linguistes
Les mots thraces sont attests chez les auteurs grecs et latins, donc
invitablement dforms. La langue thrace tait nous le savons de type
satem, avec un systme phontique spcifique, similaire aux groupes
linguistiques balte, slave et indo-iranien, donc impossible noter avec
prcision en grec ou latin, idiomes de type centum. Les dformations sont
4
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
Mircea Eliade a fort influenc les tentatives, trs frquentes, danalyser les
informations concernant la divinit suprme des Thraco-daces. Vnr en
Roumanie, presque tous les analystes se sont sentis obligees de rpter ses
affirmations, qui malheureusement ne sont pas toujours daccord avec les
donneees historiques, linguistiques et archologiques. Eliade est responsable
davoir introduit la fausse tymologie dacus < phrygien daos loup (do
lexplication que les Daces avaient des confrries de loups). Il soutient aussi lide
fausse que Gebeleizis serait un autre dieu, ainsi que la fausse tymologie Zalmoxiszalmos. Mais il est possible quil ait suivi le got pour le sensationnel des
Occidentaux, pas une conviction intrieure (cf. Stoica 1982).
__________________________________________________________________
322
qui soutenait une sorte dtymologie populaire. Si cest le cas, les mots qui
nous aident rsoudre le problme sont: roumain balD, balaur dragon (mots
usuels dans les contes populaires attests aussi comme anthoponymes),
albanais boll, serpent. Ces mots sont accepts aujourdhui comme dorigine
thrace, donc ils confirment lexistence dune racine avec le sens primitif de
puissant, fort, acceptable pour le thonyme et les autres mots cits.
En gnral, nous ne pouvons pas douter des informations de Hrodote; elles
semblent raisonnables et assez cohrentes, avec une dformation invitable de
la prononciation relle thrace. Gebeleizis/Beleizis sont, sans doute raisonnable,
une pithte de la divinit suprme, avec le sens (dieu de l) clair (la graphie
Gebeleizis), ventuellement avec une autre pithte le puissant, si la graphie
Beleizis ne reflte pas une simple erreur du copiste (ce qui est fort probable).
Mais la discussion essentielle est lie aux formes Zalmoxis/ Salmoxis/
Zamolxis. Tentons une approche graduelle.
Zalmoxis-zalmos cuir, fourrure. Cette tymologie circulait dj parmi
les Grecs. Elle fut alimente par lexistence dun mot zalmos. son tour, cette
tymologie a aliment la tradition que Zamolxis avait t lesclave de
Pythagore et quil portait une fourrure dours. On peut accepter lide que de
telles explications tymologiques taient fabriques par les Thraco-daces
eux-mmes, ayant deux buts: (1) de cacher le sens rel, srieux, de leur
divinit et (2) doffrir aux Grecs une explication pseudo-tymologique,
selon leur got et leur orgueil (cf. n. 6). De telles explications exportables
ne peuvent pas tre tenues pour srieuses. Dailleurs, Hrodote mme ne croit
pas en cette tymologie, en laissant le lecteur in medias res.
Les linguistes ont signal que la forme Zalmoxis doit tre le rsultat dune
mtathse, Zalmoxis < Zamolxis (autres discussions chez Mu!u 1971 et Russu
1967: 128). Ds le 17e sicle, Praetorius avait observ que la forme Zamolxis
doit tre apparente la forme lithuanienne Ziameluks (graphie mdivale), cf.
lithuanien HemO terre. Le sens gnral tait donc dieu de la terre, ce qui
serait en accord avec le caractre chthonien principal de cette divinit. Cette
__________________________________________________________________
323
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
tymologie remarquable, mme gniale pour le 17e sicle et qui est reste
ltymologie la plus accepte aujourdhui ne reflte quun aspect plus tardif
dans lvolution du thonyme et de son culte (voir plus bas).
Mais la situation nest pas encore compltement clarifie. Pour compliquer
les choses au maximum, les textes grecs signalent aussi la forme Salmoxis. Il
est intressant dobserver que cette graphie rare a t jusquici ignore par les
analystes! Est-elle un simple erreur? Si cest le cas, la discussion peut sarrter
ici. Mais si cette graphie reflte une situation relle, elle doit continuer.
Nous avons vu que la forme Zamolxis est antrieure la forme Zalmoxis, la
dernire tant, en fait, une dformation intentionnelle, un produit made in
Dacia. Si nous tenons compte de ce que lvolution linguistique est, en
gnral, de la consonne sourde vers la consonne sonore et en considrant aussi
la mtathse zam-ol- > zalmo-, la plus ancienne forme reconstructible pour ce
thonyme est *Samolxis. Une complication qui ouvre les portes de lhritage
urbien, pr-indo-europen!
La racine pr-ie. *SaM-, *SeM-, *SoM- a dej t analyse pour quelques
formes typiques, comme Samos, rpandue dans lespace sud-est europen, y
compris sur le territoire thrace. Cette racine archaque est prsente aussi dans
lhydronyme SomeP, apparent lhydronyme franais Somme (analyse de
cette racine chez Mu!u 1981: 192 et Paliga 1989 b: 328). Sens primitif
reconstitu: haut et profond (cf. le cas du latin altus, avec ces deux sens).
Lexistence dans la langue thrace dune famille racine *SaM-, *SeM-, *SoMest confirme par les textes antiques (voir les formes chez De"ev 1957: 417)
ainsi que par quelques mots roumains: semeQ haut, altier, sens figuratif fier,
orgueilleux, oronyme Semenic, anthroponyme Semenescu etc. On peut voir
que le sens de semeQ peut tre appliqu avec succs pour reconstituer la
substance de la divinit suprme de Thraco-daces.
Lanalyse linguistique est daccord avec lanalyse du culte: un mlange
dlments archaques urbiens (pr-ie.) et kourgan (ie.), faits rels et
dformations invitables, mais contrlables. Tentons maintenant lanalyse du
__________________________________________________________________
324
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
Laniconisme
Les reprsentations visuelles dans le monde thrace sont limites : (1) Sous
linfluence hellnistique, le Cavalier thrace (analyse classique par G. Kazarov
en Pauly-Wissowa, revue par Mu!u 1982). (2) Aprs la conqute, des divinits
romaines, parfois assimilables avec une divinit locale, par exemple lassociation
Diana-Bendis. (3) Les monnaies (Donoiu 1980). Ces cas ne nous intressent pas
ici. Autrement, il ny a aucune reprsentation dune divinit thraco-dace
proprement dite, donc aucune reprsentation de la divinit suprme ou dune
quelconque divinit thraco-dace. Dailleurs, les sources antiques nindiquent pas
une autre divinit thraco-dace que Zalmoxis. Laniconisme est donc la
caractristique essentielle de la religion thraco-dace. Du point de vue
typologique, le systme religieux thraco-dace parat tre similaire aux religions
aniconiques comme le judasme et lIslam. Cela explique pourquoi les Grecs
nont pas compris lessence dun tel systme et pourquoi les Thraco-daces
mmes ont senti la ncessit de fabriquer des explications exportables, pour le
got des Grecs. On peut faire une comparaison avec lincapacit des Grecs de
comprendre la religion juive. En fait, les origines de lantismitisme datent du 3e
sicle av. J.-C. Alexandrie (Bevan en Bevan et Singer 1927: 2968).
De plus, malgr la forte influence grecque, puis romaine, les Thraco-daces
nont jamais adopt lcriture phontique, mais il est probable quils avaient un
systme de graphmes symboliques et initiatiques. Il sagit, trs probablement,
dune interdiction totale de toutes les reprsentations visuelles, y compris
7
Les textes en thrace sont vraiement trs rares. Il sagit, en fait, de trs courtes
inscriptions (parfois il nest pas du tout sr quils sont en thrace). Le plus long est
lanneau dEzerovo, Bulgarie, indchiffrable (prsentation et discussions chez
De"ev 1957: 566 sq.). En ce qui concerne la prtendue inscription thraco-dace de
Sarmizegetusa sur lintrieur dun grand rcipient (maintenant expos dans le
Muse National dHistoire et dArchologie de Bucarest) DECEBALVS PER
SCORILO, traduite par le regrett H. Daicoviciu Decebalus fils de Scorilo, il
sagit dune banale inscription ddicatoire en latin populaire, avec per au lieu de
pro. Linscription est intressante, parce quelle atteste vraiement deux noms
thraces, ceux des rois Decebalus et Scorilus.
__________________________________________________________________
326
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
328
Conclusions
Lanalyse mythologique et linguistique rvle que le systme religieux
thraco-dace tait un mlange dlments urbiens (pr-ie.) et kourgan (ie.).
Linfluence urbienne est visible dans le caractre archaque cyclique et
chthonien de la divinit suprme, ainsi que dans la signification reconstitue
du thonyme *Sam-ol-E-is la grande divinit des abmes, des cavernes et/ou
des hauteurs, le HAUT GRAND. Linfluence kourgan est visible dans
lpithte lumineux, ainsi que dans lassimilation tardive avec un mot ie.
signifiant terre, do la forme Zamolxis, associe *zam-, *zem- terre.
Lanalyse rvle encore lexplication-dformation du thonyme, en lassociant
avec un mot zalmos cuir, fourrure; cest une explication dexportation,
pour satisfaire le got des Grecs.
Lanalyse rvle aussi le caractre aniconique et initiatique de la religion
zalmoxienne (do lassociation grecque, assez raisonnable, avec Pythagore),
une religion nationale, pas assimilable avec nimporte quel systme religieux.
Du point de vue typologique, en considrant laniconisme comme un trait
fondamental, le zalmoxianisme avait des correspondances avec le judasme. Il
est probable que limpact entre le zalmoxianisme et les premiers chrtiens na
pas t aussi choquant, parce que les deux systmes religieux avaient deux
traits fondamentaux communs: laniconisme (perdu plus tard par le
christianisme) et la rsurrection.
Linterdiction sacrale des reprsentations visuelles chez les Thraco-daces sest
perptue plus dun millnaire dans le jus Valachicum (ou la lex Olachorum), la
tradition orale des Roumains pendant le Moyen Age. Le roumain rvle aussi,
dans son vocabulaire religieux et mythologique, des survivances thraco-daces,
comme CrDciun Nol et bche et znD, znD, fe.
Il est plus difficile de reconstituer les rites thraco-daces, mais on peut
imaginer des rituels initiatiques, le rle essentiel de la musique dans la socit,
une symbolique religieuse, une fiert nationale de protger la signification
__________________________________________________________________
329
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
330
Devenir et aspectualisation
Encore une fois sur le verbe slave
Prliminaires
Le problme de laspect verbal dans les langues slaves, concrtement en
tchque, puis en slovne, nous a proccup ds 1976, quand lauteur de cet
article commenait ltude du tchque et, en 1978, ltude du slovne. Un
premier rsultat de nos tudes a t notre thse de licence (1980). Entretemps, nous avons tudi divers problmes lis lhritage indo-europen
et pr-indo-europen et aux relations entre les Roumains et les Slaves.
Donc, pour quelques annes, nous avons abandonn nos proccupations
concernant laspect slave. Notre intret a t ractualis en 19911992,
loccasion dun cours de tchque la Facult des Lettres de Bucarest. Un
problme frequemment pos par les tudiants tait, bine-sr, laspect verbal.
Le but de cet article est de rsumer et de ractualiser nos rsultats et
conclusions, et de suggrer une autre interprtation de laspect slave. Il ne
sagit point dune uvre drudition, mais dun essai pour comprendre le
__________________________________________________________________
331
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
Ou mieux dire: les locuteurs non-slaves, ont (peut-tre) limpression (rone) que
laspect et le temps sont deux faces de la mme chose.
__________________________________________________________________
333
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
Marc Vey (1958) a suggr une categorisation trinaire. Son tude fut
publie en thque, o il utilise la formule:
nst porter
aktulnost (actualit)
nosit
nikoli-aktulnost (approx. pas du tout actualit)
nosvat
neaktulnost (non-actualit)
Marc Vey prsente dautres exemples qui soutiendraient son hypothse.
En son temps, son tude a t fort analyse (Isa!enko 1960; Kope!n# 1960;
Seidel 1960). La formule trinaire nous semble raisonnable, mais dpourvue
de toute connotation temporelle qui, encore une fois, semble aussi tentente,
irrsistible.
Les Actes du colloque Linguistique et smiotique I, Le discours
aspectualis (Fontanille, d. 1991) ont apport quelques nouvelles
contributions au problme aussi complexe et dbattu de laspect. Lavant
propos (Greimas-Fontanille) rsume les points plus importants du colloque.
Nous sommes daccord avec les observations de Zlatka Guentcheva (pp.
4965). Je cite comme trs importante lobservation: Nous avons adopt
depuis longtemps lattitude de considrer temps et aspect comme deux
faces dune mme catgorie (p. 55) et, sur la page suivante, n. 7, elle
observe le dsordre terminologique en aspectologie (lauteur cite une
tude de Dahl, inaccessible pour nous). En analysant G. Guillaume, J.
Fontanille (pp. 127143) fait lobservation que non seulement la thorie de
laspect et du temps, mais aussi celle des prpositions, du nombre et de
larticle sont intrinsquement aspectuelles (p. 129).
Sur ce point, qui ouvre les portes pour notre hypothse, on doit
mentionner une vielle tude, peut-tre oublie, de Ji$ Krmsk# (1968).
Lauteur soccupe ici de la catgorie de dtermination (determinedness) qui
a, selon lui, lopposition (prot"j#ek) individualit v. genus. Il apporte
comme exemple qui soutient son hypothse le cas de larticle (dans la
sphre du nom) qui sest dvelopp partir de ladjectif-pronom
__________________________________________________________________
334
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
340
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
Conclusions
La dtermination dans la sphre du
NOM
Larticle dfini et indfini. Simplification radicale de la flexion
nominale. Disparition des anciens cas, remplacs par des moyens
analytiques.
On distingue deux types principaux: (a) avec article dfini proclitique:
la plupart des langues no-latines et germaniques, sauf roumain et sudois,
le grec. Origine: le dmonstratif. (b) Avec article dfini enclitique
(agglutin): albanais, roumain, sudois, armnien, basque et, trs
probablement, ltrusque. Ce groupe perptue, trs probablement, une
typologie archaque pr-indo-europenne. Dans ces langue larticle indfini
est proclitique.
La sphre du verbe reste trs dveloppe si bien que relativement
simplifie en rapport avec les prototypes anciens.
VERBE
Larticle verbal (selon notre dfinition), nomm aspect verbal, avec
lopposition perfectif / imperfectif / itratif. Origine: lancien processus de
prfixation et de suffixation indo-europen mais qui, au cours du temps,
achve le rle de dtermination gauche (perfectivisation ou article
verbal dfini) et de d-dtermination droite (imperfectivisation), aussi de
double d-dtermination (double dveloppement en -a-): itrativisation
(article verbal indfini). Procd spcifique aux langues slaves. volution
parallle lvolution de larticle nominal proclitique. Simplification
radicale des temps verbaux dans la plupart des langues slaves.
__________________________________________________________________
342
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
Remerciements
La premire version de cette brve tude a t commente par Dr. Jo%e
Topori"i! et Dr. Alenka &ivic-Dular de lUniversit de Ljubljana. Je leur
adresse mes remerciements pour leurs commentaires qui ont influenc la
forme finale y prsente. Bien-sr, les eventuelles erreurs et inadvertances
du discours appartiennent lauteur, toujours le seul responsible.
__________________________________________________________________
344
De compositione etymologica
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
De compositione etymologica
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
348
De compositione etymologica
__________________________________________________________________
sens de feu. Le mot est certainement dorigine thrace (si bien que
ltymologie nest pas claire). Les auteurs du dictionnaire ont pens
probablement que le roumain a emprunt comme telle une forme drive du
bulgare et/ou serbo-croate de vatra qui est, son tour, un lment protoroumain dorigine 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 driv
purement et simplement de vatr!? Il est vrai, un telle explication doit
rsoudre un autre point difficile, cest--dire la drivation de type vatr! + -i
qui nest pas frquente mais bien prsente en quelques mots obscurs, par
exemple m!lai farine de mas, sens primitif farine de millet de *mal!,
sens inconnu. Il est inutile de dire que ce suffixe -i doit tre indigne (cest-dire thrace) et ne peut avoir rien faire avec li hongrois, sens locatif
(budapesti de Budapest).
Il est significatif que le roumain na pas encore de dictionnaire
tymologique-historique complet de haut niveau scientifique: celui de Cihac
est inutilisable aujourdhui et ne peut constituer ventuellement quun
exemple de comment on ne doit pas faire un dictionnaire tymologique;
celui de Gabinskij et de Raevskij (1978) est un dictionnaire scolaire pour ne
pas dire pire; celui de Candrea et Densusianu est admirable comme mthode
scientifique mais malheureusement incomplet (1914, aputea, seulement
pour les lments latins).
Un beau jour, le roumain aura son dictionnaire tymologique. mais pour
achever une telle tche et pour ne pas rpter ou bien amplifier les erreurs
habituelles, je suggre une rorganisation (aussi radicale que possible) des
mthodes utilises et du matriel linguistique. Je les rsume en quelques points.
1e Une analyse profonde et complte des mots prsents dans tous les
langues dites balkaniques et la prcision sil sagit vraiment des mots
slaves ou des emprunts au substrat thrace, illyrique ou dautres langues. La
simple prsence dun mot en roumain et dans une ou plusieurs autres
langues slaves ne peut signifier automatiquement que ce mot roumain doit
__________________________________________________________________
349
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
tre slave mais il peut tre 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 tre ranalyses
en profondeur. Il y a des dizaines de mots communs aux deux langues
considres en roumain comme lments hongrois et en hongrois comme
des mots dorigine obscure; de tels mots semblent parfois tre des mots
roumains en hongrois (le cas de gond, hatr, talp, vros, oris etc.).
3e Une analyse approfondie sans ides prconues (qui sont toujours le
fruit de la commodit et de lignorance) en ce qui concerne les relations entre
le roumain et les autres langues balkaniques dune part, et les autres langues
indo-europennes ou non-indo-europennes (aussi pr-indo-europennes).
Dautre part, pour noter les correspondances lexicales videntes ou possibles.
Cela implique une bonne prparation dans le domaine comparatif. Il nest pas
tonnant dobserver que les meilleures histoires ou analyses de la langue
roumaine sont dues aussi aux linguistes spcialiss en langues romanes qua
ceux spcialiss en langues indo-europennes (B. P. Hasdeu, Gh. Iv!nescu, A.
Vraciu). Jajouterais les ouvrages remarquables de M. M. R!dulescu (par
exemple 1981, 1984, 1987) qui, selon notre avis, ont rendu clairs beaucoup
daspects de lhritage dace en roumain.
4e On ne peut pas simaginer une analyse profonde, ample, srieuse et
aussi complte que possible du vocabulaire roumain sans coopration entre
les linguistes et les archologues dune part, et entre diverses branches de la
linguistique compare (les langues slaves, romanes, germaniques, turciques,
balkaniques ce qui implique, encore une fois, la thracologie) dautre part. Il
est vident que les problmes complexes lis au substrat Thrace dans les
Balkans ne sont pas une affaire roumaine ou bulgare mais quils impliquent
et rclament une coopration internationale. Et je pense quen premier lieu, il
ny a que de linguistes yougoslaves et bulgares qui puissent offrir des sujets
de discussion intressants.
__________________________________________________________________
350
De compositione etymologica
__________________________________________________________________
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
Le roumain nest pas, bien-sr, une langue balkanique proprie dictu, mais,
pour simplifier les choses, on adopte ici cette formule utilise parfois dans la
littrature linguistique.
__________________________________________________________________
352
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Bibliographia
Aleksova, Vasilka 19971998. lments communs dans la terminologie
nuptiale bulgare et roumaine: bulg. !"#$%&'/roum. pocnzu. Linguistique
Balkanique 39 (19971998), 34: 159164.
Alessio, Giovanni 19351936. Le base preindo-europee KAR(R)A/GAR(R)A
pietra. Studi Etruschi IX: 133152 and X: 165189.
Alessio, G. 1955. Le lingue indoeuropee nellambiente 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 2426, 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 2830, 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 n limba romn). Bucure!ti:
Editura Academiei.
Bari", Henrik 1919. Albano-rumnische Studien. Sarajevo: Institut fr
Balkanforschung.
Battisti, C. 1934. Letrusco e le altre lingue preindoeuropee dItalia. Studi
Etruschi 8: 179196.
Battisti, C. 1941. Alfredo Trombetti ed il problema dellorigine mediterranea
della lingua etrusca. Studi Etruschi 15: 165170.
Battisti, C. 1956. I Balcani e lItalia nella preistoria. Studi Etruschi 24: 271299.
Battisti, Carlo 1927. Per lo studio dellelemento etrusco nella toponomastica
italiana. Studi Etruschi 1: 327349.
__________________________________________________________________
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#, Lornd (ed.) 19671980. A magyar nyelv trtnetietimolgiai
sztra, IIV, Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad.
Benveniste, Emile 1962. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-europen.
Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve.
Beranov, Magdalena 1988. Slovan. Praha: Panorama.
Berneker, Ernst 19081913. Slavisches etymologisches Wrterbuch, I (A-L).
Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Berneker, E. 1927. Russische Grammatik. 3rd ed. Revised by Max Vasmer.
BerlinLeipzig: Walter de Gruyter.
Bernstein, S.B. 1965. Gramatica comparat) a limbilor slave. Bucure!ti:
Editura Didactic" !i Pedagogic".
Bertoldi, Vittorio 1931. Essai de la mthodologie dans le domaine
prhistorique de la toponymie et du vocabulaire. Bulletin de la Socit Linguistique
de Paris 32: 93184.
Bertoldi, V. 1933. Preellenico *+,-., /01,20 cespuglio, rovo e preromanzo
matta, mantia cespuglio, rovo. Glotta 22: 258267.
Bevan, Edwyn, Charles Singer (eds.) 1927. The Legacy of Israel. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Bezlaj, France 1948. Doneski k priznavanju glagolskega aspekta. Slavisti3na
Revija 1, 34: 199220.
Bezlaj, F. 19561961. 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 fr Namenforschung, Mnchen 24.28.
August 1958, hgg. von Karl Puchner, vol. 2: 148153.
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-franais, 2 vols. Paris:
Dardey-Dupre.
__________________________________________________________________
354
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Biezais, Haralds 1955. Die Hauptgttinen der alten Letten. Uppsala.
Brlea, Ovidiu 1976. Mic) enciclopedie a pove(tilor romne(ti. Bucure!ti:
Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Bla$ek, Vclav 1999. Numerals. Comparative-etymological Analyses of
Numeral systems and Their Implications (Saharan, Nubian, Egyptian, Berber,
Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European Languages). Brno: Masarykova
Univerzita.
Bla%ek, Vclav [2002?]. Celtic-Anatolian Isoglosses. Zeitschrift fr celtische
Philologie Band 52: 125128.
Bla$ek, Vclav, Vclav 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].
Blhov, Marie 1986. Evropsk sidli4t6 v latinsk7ch pramenech obdob ranho
feudalismu. Praha: Univerzita Karlova.
Bldy, Gza 1942. Influen8a limbii romne asupra limbii maghiare. Sibiu.
Bolocan, Gheorghe (ed.), Elena #ondulescu-Silvestru, Iustina Burci, Camelia
Z"bav" 2002. Dic8ionar invers al numelor de localit)8i din Romnia. Craiova:
Editura Universitaria (EUC).
Bonfante, Giuliano 1966. Influences du protoroumain sur le protoslave? Acta
Philologica 5: 5369.
Bonfante, G. 1970. Il tipo delle radici indoeuropee. Accademia Toscana di
Scienze e Lettere La Colombaria. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1926.
Bonfante, G. 1970. Il tipo delle radici indoeuropee. Accademia Toscana di
Scienze e Lettere La Colombaria. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1926.
Bonfante, G. 1986. Metodologia e indoeuropeo. Scritti scelti di Giuliano
Bonfante, I; a cura di Renato Gendre. Alessandria: Edizioni dellOrso.
Bonfante, G. 1987. Latino e romanzo. Scritti scelti di Giuliano Bonfante, II; a
cura di Renato Gendre. Alessandria: Edizioni dellOrso.
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 romne. Bucure!ti: Saeculum I.O. (Original: Giuliano
Bonfante, Studii romeni, Societ Accademica Romena, Collana di studii e saggi,
VI, Roma, 1973).
Borza, Alexandru 1968. Dic8ionar etnobotanic. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
__________________________________________________________________
355
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Brncu%, Grigore 1983. Vocabularul autohton al limbii romne. Bucure!ti:
Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Brncu!, Gr. 1991. Istoria cuvintelor. Bucure!ti: Coresi.
Brncu!, Gr. 1999. Concordan8e lingvistice romno-albaneze. Bucure!ti:
Institutul Romn de Tracologie; Bibliotheca thracologica XXX.
Brtek, Josef, Emmanuel Sob&ek s.a. Das tschechische Zeitwort. Verlag I.
Buschbaum, Mhrisch-Ostrau (Ostrava).
Brckner, Aleksander 1970. S9ownik etymologiczny j:zyka polskiego.
Warszawa.
Buchholz, O., W. Fiedler, G. Uhlisch 1977. Wrterbuch albanisch-deutsch.
Leipzig.
Candrea, I.-A. 1927. Elemente de origine dubioas) n limba romn) (text
litografiat), vol. I, Bucure!ti.
Candrea, I.-A., Ovid Densusianu 1914. Dic8ionarul etimologic al limbii
romne. Elementele latine (a-putea). Bucure!ti: Socec.
Chantraine, Pierre 19681980. Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue
grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.
Christol, Michel, Sgolne Demougin, Yvette Duval, Claude Lepelley, Luce
Pietri 1992. Institutions, socit et vie politique dans l'Empire Romain au IVe
sicle ap.J.-C. Roma: cole Franaise de Rome.
Cihac, Alexandru de 18701879. Dictionnaire tymologique dacoromane, I
II. Frankfurt.
Cior'nescu, Alejandro 1960 sq. Diccionario etimolgico rumano. La Laguna.
Cior'nescu, Alexandru (Alejandro) 2002. Dic8ionarul etimologic al limbii
romne. Edited and translated from Spanish by Tudora #andru Mehedin$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, rotondit. Studi Etruschi 16: 387401.
Collinder, Bjrn 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
millnaire de n.. fondes sur l'origine des mots se rapportant la famille et aux
liens de parent dans la langue roumaine. Thraco-dacica 3: 7684.
__________________________________________________________________
356
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Condurachi, Emil 1969. Izvoarele greco-latine asupra etnogenezei vechilor
popula$ii balcanice. Studii (i cercet)ri de istorie veche, 20, 3: 369391.
Condurachi, E. 1971. L'ethnogense des peuples balkaniques: les sources
crites. Studia Balcanica (Sofia) 5: 249269.
Constantinescu, N.A. 1963. Dic8ionar onomastic romnesc. Bucure!ti: Editura
Academiei.
Coteanu, I., L. Seche, M. Seche (ed.) 1975. Dic8ionarul explicativ al limbii
romne. (DEX). Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Coteanu, Ion 1981. Originile limbii romne. Bucure!ti.
Coteanu, Ion, Marius Sala 1987. Etimologia (i limba romn). Principii,
probleme. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Curta, Florin 2006. Apari8ia slavilor. Istorie (i arheologie la Dun)rea de Jos
n veacurile VIVII. Trgovi!te: Ed. Cetatea de Scaun. [Original title: The Making
of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500700.
2001, Cambridge University Press].
abej, Eqrem 1976. Studime gjuhsor, IVI. Prishtin: 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 19131948.
Dan, Ilie 1983. Contribu8ii la istoria limbii romne. Ia!i: Junimea.
Dauzat, Albert 1947. Les noms de lieux, 2nd ed. Paris: Delagrave.
__________________________________________________________________
357
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Dauzat, A. 1960. La toponymie franaise. 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. LeidenKln: E.J. Brill.
Delitzsch, Friedrich
1873. Studien ber indogermanisch-semitische
Wurzelverwandt-schaft. Leipzig: J.C. Hinnisch.
Densusianu, Ovid 19011938. 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 923.
Devoto, Giaccomo 1939. PALA rotondit, FALTER le cupole, PALATIUM
Caelius. Studi Etruschi 13: 311316.
Devoto, G. 19541961. Le fasi della linguistica mediterranea. Studi Etruschi I:
23: 217228; II: 29: 175189.
DEX = Coteanu et al. 1975.
Dickenmann, Ernst 1939. Studien zur Hydronimie des Savesystems.
Budapesta: Ostmitteleuropische Bibliothek (2nd ed., Heidelberg 1966,
unavailable to us).
Diculescu, Constantin 1922. Die Gepiden. Halle.
Diculescu, C. 1927. Elemente vechi grece!ti n limba romn". Dacoromania IV:
394516.
Dimitrescu, Florica (ed.) 1978. Istoria limbii romne. 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. Problmes de l'histoire de la formation de la langue
albanaise. Rsultats et tches. Iliria: 538.
Dostl, Antonn 1954. Studie o vidovm systmu v staroslov6n4tin6. Praha
Dr'ganu, Nicolae 1928. Toponimie (i istorie. Cluj.
__________________________________________________________________
358
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Dr"ganu, N. 1933. Romnii n veacurile IXXIV pe baza toponimiei (i a
onomasticii. Bucure!ti: Academia Romn".
Dumistr'cel, Stelian 1980. Lexic romnesc. 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: 329330.
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: 6986.
Duridanov, Iv. 1969. Thrakisch-dakische Studien, I. Linguistique Balkanique
13, 2.
Duridanov, Iv. 1975. Die Hydronimie des Vardar-systems als Geschichtsquelle.
Kln-Wien: Bhlau Verlag.
Duridanov, Iv. 1986. Pulpudeva, Plovdiv, Plovdin. Linguistique Balkanique 29,
4: 2534.
Duridanov, Iv. 1989. Nochmals zum namen PL<PDIV<, PLOVDIV.
Linguistique Balkanique 32, 1: 1922.
Duridanov, Iv. 1991. Die ltesten slawishen Entlehnungen im Rumnischen.
Linguistique Balkanique 34, 12: 319.
Duridanov, Iv. 1993. Bulgarian B)dni (ve3er), b)dnik again. Linguistique
Balkanique 36, 2: 101104.
Duridanov, Iv. 1995. Thrak. DEVA, DIVA. Studia in honorem Georgii Mihailov,
ed. by Alexandre Fol (ed. in chief), Bogdan Bogdanov, Pet"r Dimitrov, Dimit"r
Bojad%iev. Sofia: Institute of Thracology, Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski.
Duridanov, Iv. 19971998. Zur Mythologie der Thraker. Linguistique
Balkanique 39 (19971998), 34: 105108.
Duridanov, Iv. 19992000. Beitrag zur pelasgischen Toponymie. Linguistique
Balkanique 40 (19992000), 1: 312.
Duridanov, Iv. 19992000. Slaw. *Perun balt. Perk=nas heth. Peruna? Das
Ende eines Mythos. Linguistique Balkanique 40 (19992000), 2: 93108.
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Eliade, M. 1995. De la Zalmoxis la Genghis-han. Studii comparative despre
religiile (i folclorul Daciei (i Europei Orientale. Bucure!ti: Humanitas. (1st ed.:
Bucure!ti 1980).
Erhart, Adolf 1970. Studien zur indoeuropischen Morphologie. Brno:
Universita J. E. Purkyn*.
Erhart, A. 1989. Das indoeuropische Verbalsystem. Brno: Univerzita J. E.
Purkyn*.
Ernout, A., A. Meillet 1959. Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine. 4th
ed., Paris.
Fassel, Lumini)a 1987. Sprachreste aus vorrmischen Zeit im Rumnischen.
Akten der Theodor Gartner-Tagung in Innsbruck 1985. Innsbruck: 289296.
Faure, P. 1977. Via$a de fiecare zi n Creta lui Minos. Bucure!ti: Eminescu (French
original: La vie quotidienne en Crte au temps de Minos. Paris: Hachette 1973).
Fischer, I. 1985. Latina dun)rean). Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i
Enciclopedic".
Flora, Radu 1985. Onomastique des V(a)laques balcaniques et celle des
istroroumains actuels. Linguistica 25, 2: 8193.
Fol, Al. (editor-in-chief), K. Jordanov, K. Poro$anov, V. Fol 2000. Ancient
Thrace. Sofia: International Foundation Europa Antiqua, Institute of Thracology
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Fol, Al. 2002. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Thracology
THRACE AND THE AEGEAN, Sofia-Jambol, 2529 September 2000. Sofia:
International Foundation Europa Antiqua - Sofia; Institute of Thracology Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 vols.
Fontanille, Jacques d. 1991. Le discours aspectualis. Actes du colloque
LINGUISTIQUE ET SEMIOTIQUE tenu lUniversit de Limoges du 2e au 4e
fvrier 1988. Limoges: Pulim/Benjamins.
Fraenkel, Ernst 19551965. Litauisches etymologisches Wrterbuch.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Franck, Otto 1932. Studien zur serbokroatischen Ortsnamenkunde. Leipzig:
Markert & Petters.
Fr')il', Vasile 1987. Lexicologie !i toponimie romneasc". Timi!oara: Facla.
Frisk, Hjalmar 1960 sq. Griechisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter.
__________________________________________________________________
360
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Gabinskij, Mark 1988. Doin". Limba (i literatura moldoveneasc) (Chi!in"u)
31, 1: 5667.
Galton, Herbert 1969. Slovesn& vid a )as. Slovo a slovesnost 30: 110.
Gamillscheg, Ernst 1935. Romania Germanica. Berlin-Leipzig.
Gamkrelidze, T., V.V. Ivanov 1984. Indoevropejskij prayazyk i indoevropejcy.
Tbilisi: University Press.
Garelli, P. 1963. Les Assyriens en Cappadoce. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve.
G'mulescu, Dorin 1983. Influen8e romne(ti n limbile slave de sud. I.
Srbocroata. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Georgiev, Vladimir 1957. Trakiiskijat ezik. Sofia.
Georgiev, Vl. 1958. >??@AB"CDEFG !" ?HDCEFIA@JE"F?I"HFKA?L"MN
G%OL"%EDEFP (Q"B?ICAEEOA "IE"RAEFG FEB"ACH"!A'?LFS G%OL"C). Moskva:
Izdate+stvo inostrannoj literatury.
Georgiev, Vl. 1960 a. B)lgarska etimologija i onomastika. Sofia: B"lgarska
Akademija na Naukite.
Georgiev, Vl. 1960 b. Albanisch, dakisch-mysisch und rumnisch. Die Herkunft
der Albaner. Linguistique balkanique 2: 119.
Georgiev, Vl. 1961. La toponymie ancienne de la pninsule balkanique et la
thse mditerranenne. Sofia: B"lgarska Akademija na Naukite.
Georgiev, Vl. 1964. Die dakische Glossen und ihre Bedeutung zum Studium der
dakische Sprache. Linguistique balkanique 8: 514 (continues study 1960 b).
Georgiev, Vl. 1968. Illyrier, Veneter und Urslaven. Linguistique Balcanique 13,
1: 513.
Georgiev, Vl. 1971. Lethnogense de la pninsule balkanique daprs les
donnes linguistiques. Studia Balcanica (Sofia) 5: 155170.
Georgiev, Vl., Iv. G'l'bov, J. Zaimov, St. Il!ev et alii 197119791986 (3
vols., to be continued). B)lgarski etimologi3en re3nik (BER). Sofia: B"lgarskata
Akademija na Naukite.
Georgieva, Ivani!ka 1993. B)lgarska narodna mitologija. Sofia: Izdatelstvo
nauka i izkustvo.
Gerola, B. 1942. Substrato mediterraneo e latino. Studi Etruschi 16: 345368.
Ghe)ie, Ion 1988. Review of Nagy 1984. Limba Romn) XXXVII nr. 2, 199
200.
Ghinoiu, I. 1995. Le Calendrier populaire. Mort et rennaissance annuelle des
divinits. Ethnologie franaise 25, 3: 462472.
Ghinoiu, Ion 1988. Vrstele timpului. Bucure!ti: Meridiane.
__________________________________________________________________
361
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Gieysztor, Aleksander 1986. Mitologia S9owian. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa
Artystyczne i Filmowe.
Gimbutas, Marija 1971. The Slavs. London: Thames & Hudson.
Gimbutas M. 1985 a. The Pre-Indo-European Goddesses in Baltic Mythology.
The Mankind Quaterly 1925.
Gimbutas M. 1985 b. The Megalithic Tombs of Western Europe and Their
Religious Implications. The Quaterly Review of Archaeology 6, 3: 18.
Gimbutas, M. 1973 a. Old Europe c. 70003500 B.C.: the earliest European
civilization before the infiltration of the Indo-European peoples. The Journal of
Indo-European Studies 1, 12: 120.
Gimbutas, M. 1973 b. The beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and the IndoEuropeans. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 1, 34: 163214.
Gimbutas, M. 1974. An archaeologists view of PIE in 1975. The Journal of
Indo-European Studies, 2, 34: 289307.
Gimbutas, M. 1979. The three waves of the Kurgan people into Old Europe,
45002500. Archives suisses danthropologie gnrale 43, 2: 113137.
Gimbutas, M. 1982. Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Gimbutas, M. 1984. The Religion of Old Europe and its legacy in the Bronze
Age. 4the International Thracian Conference, Boston 710 June 1984. Milano
1986: Dr"gan Foundation.
Gimbutas, M. 1985 c. Primary and secondary homeland of the Indo-Europeans.
Comments on Gamkrelidze-Ivanov articles. The Journal of Indo-European Studies
13, 12: 185202.
Gimbutas, M. 1986 a. Remarks on the Ethnogenesis of the Indo-Europeans in
Europe. Ethnogenese europischer Vlker ed. by Bernhard Kandler-Plsson: 520.
Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
Gimbutas, M. 1986 b. The religion of Old Europe and its legacy in the Bronze
Age. 4th International Thracian Conference, Boston 710 June 1984. Milano:
Dr"gan Foundation: 249285.
Gimbutas, M. 1989 a. The Language of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Gimbutas, M. 1989 b. Civiliza8ie (i cultur). Vestigii preistorice n sud-estul
european. Bucure!ti: Meridiane (Romanian version of the studies 1973 a, b, 1974,
1979, 1985).
Gimbutas, M. 1991. The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
__________________________________________________________________
362
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Giuglea, George. 1922. Cuvinte !i lucruri. Dacoromania II: 327400.
Giuglea, G. 1923. Crmpeie de limb" !i via$" str"veche romneasc". Elemente
autohtone (pre-romane), greco-latine, vechi germanice. Dacoromania III: 561628.
Giuglea, G. 1983. Cuvinte romne(ti (i romanice. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific"
!i Enciclopedic".
Giuglea, G. 1988. Fapte de limb). M)rturii despre trecutul romnesc.
Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Glotz, G. 1937. La civilisation genne. Nouvelle dition mise jour par Ch.
Picard. Paris: Albin Michel.
Gluhak, Alemko 1993. Hrvatski etimolo4ki rje3nik. Zagreb: August Cesarec.
God*owski, Kazimierz 2000. Pierwotne siedziby S9owian. Wybr pism pod
redakcij, Micha-a Parczewskiego. Krakw: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu
Jagiello.skiego.
Grafenauer, Bogo 1979. Slovani pred prihodom na Balkanski polotok.
Zgodovina Slovencev, ed. by Meta Sluga. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva Zalo%ba.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien 1997. Despre zei (i despre oameni. Bucure!ti:
Meridiane. (French original: Des dieux et des hommes, Paris, PUF 1985).
Grkovi", Milica 1983. Imena u de3anskim hrisovuljama. Novi Sad: Filozofski
fakultet.
Grkovi/, M. 1986. Re3nik imena banjskog, de3anskog i prizrenskog
vlastelinstva u XIV veku. Beograd: Narodna knjiga.
Gu)u, G. 1983. Dic8ionar latin-romn. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i
Enciclopedic".
Guyot, L. , P. Gibassier 1960. Les noms des arbres. Paris: PUF.
Harva, U. 1946. Ilmarinen. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 29: 89104.
Hasdeu, B.P. 1877. Zina Filma. Go$ii !i Gepizii n Dacia. Columna lui Traian
153182.
Hasdeu, B.P. 1882 a. Originea poeziei poporane la romni. Columna lui Traian
9, 79: 397406.
Hasdeu, B.P. 1882 b. Doina r"stoarn" pe Roesler. Columna lui Traian 9, 1012:
529536.
Hasdeu, B.P. 1887-1898. Etymologicum magnum Romaniae. Bucure!ti.
Hasdeu, B.P. 1973. Scrieri istorice, III, Bucure!ti.
__________________________________________________________________
363
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Hasdeu, B.P. 1988. Studii de lingvistic) (i filologie. Ed. by Gr. Brncu!, 2 vols.
Bucure!ti: Minerva.
Hnsel, Bernhard and Walter Althammer ed. 1987. Die Vlker
Sdosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert. Sdosteuropa Jahrbuch 17.
Higounet, Ch. 1964. Lcriture. Paris: PUF.
Hoad, T.F. 1993. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.
Oxford: University Press.
Holub, Josef, Stanislav Lyer 1978. Stru3n7 etymologic7 slovnk jazyka
3eskho, 2nd ed. Praha: Sttn pedagogic nakladatelstv (1st ed.: 1952).
Holzer, Georg 1999. Zur Auswertung von Toponymen antiken Ursprungs fr
die kroatische Lautgeschichte. Folia onomastica Croatica 8: 8196.
Horn, Paul 1893. Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie. Strassburg.
Hristov, Georgi 1964. Mestnite imena v Madansko. Sofia: B"lgarska
Akademija na Naukite.
Hubschmid, J. 1971. Elments prromans du roumain. Actele celui de-al XIIlea congres interna$ional de filologie romanic", ed. by Al. Rosetti, vol. 2: 975979.
Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Huld, Martin E. 1984. Basic Albanian Etymologies. Columbus (Ohio): Slavica
Publishers.
Il!ev, Stefan 1969. Re3nik na li3nite i familni imena u B)lgarite. Sofia:
Izdatelstvo na B"lgarskata Akademija na naukite.
Iliescu, Maria 1977. Retoromana !i cuvintele romne!ti de substrat. Studii (i
cercet)ri lingvistice 28, 2.
Ilievski, Petar Hr. 1988. Balkanolo4ki lingvisti3ki studii. Skopje 1988: Institut
za makedonski jazik Krste Misirkov, Posebna izdanija 14.
Illi!-Svity!, V. M.
1971. Opyt sravnenija nostrati3eskih jazykov
(semitohamitskij, kartveTskij, indoevropejskij, uraTskij, dravidijskij, altajskij).
Vvedenie. SravniteTnyj slovar. Moskva: Nauka.
Ionescu, Anca Irina 1978. Lingvistic) (i mitologie. Bucure!ti: Litera.
Ionescu, Christian 1975. Mic) enciclopedie onomastic). Bucure!ti: Editura
#tiin$ific" !i enciclopedic".
Ioni)', Vasile 1982. Nume de locuri din Banat. Timi!oara: Facla.
Iordache, Gh. 1980. M)rturii etno-lingvistice despre vechimea meseriilor
populare romne(ti. Craiova: Scrisul Romnesc.
Iordan, Iorgu 1960. Lingvistica romanic). Bucure!ti.
Iordan, I. 1963. Toponimia romneasc). Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
__________________________________________________________________
364
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Iordan, I. 1963. Toponimia romneasc). Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Iordan, I. 1983. Dic8ionar al numelor de familie romne(ti. Bucure!ti: Editura
#tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Iordan, I. 1983. Dic8ionar al numelor de familie romne(ti. Bucure!ti: Editura
#tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Isa!enko, A. V. 1960. Slovesn& vid, slovesn akce a obecn& charakter
slovesnho d*je. Slovo a slovesnost 16: 2326.
Ivanov, V. V. 1983. Istorija slavjanskih i balkanskih nazvanij metallov. Moskva:
Nauka.
Iv'nescu, Gheorghe 1980. Istoria limbii romne. Ia!i: Junimea.
Iv"nescu, Gh. 1983. Lingvistic) general) (i romneasc). Timi!oara: Facla.
Jordanov, Stefan 1997-1998. Reflexions sur un toponyme bulgare de substrat
dorigine Thrace: Linzipar. Linguistique Balkanique 39 (19971998), 12: 5558.
Kammenhuber, A. 1969. Altkleinasiatische Sprachen. Leiden-Kln: E.J. Brill.
Kdderitzsch, Rolf 1988. Gedanken zur Ethnogenese der Albaner (aus
sprachlicher Sicht). Linguistique Balkanique 31, 34: 105116.
Kernbach, Victor 1983. Dic8ionar de mitologie general). Bucure!ti: Albatros.
Kernbach, V. 1984. Biserica n involu8ie. Bucure!ti: Editura Politic".
Kernbach V. 1989. Dic8ionar de mitologie general). Bucure!ti: Editura
#tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Kernbach, V. 1994. Universul mitic al romnilor. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific".
Kirly, Francisc
1990. Contacte lingvistice. Adaptarea fonetic) a
mprumuturilor romne(ti de origine maghiar). Timi!oara: Facla.
Kiss, Lajos 1980. A fldrajzi nevek etimolgiai sztra. Budapest: Akadmiai
Kiad.
Klein, Ernst 1971. A comprehensive etymological dictionary of the English
language. Amsterdam-London-New York: Elsevier.
Klein, J. 1980. Some rare Sumerian words gleaned from the royal hymns of
Sulgi. Studies in Hebrew and Semitic Languages Dedicated to the Memory of Prof.
Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher. Ramat-Gan: Barllan University Press
Kluge, Friedrich 1963. Etymologisches Wrterbuch der deutschen Sprache,
19. Auflage, bearbeitet von Walther Mitzka. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Kondratieva, Tamara 2000. Vechea Rusie. Bucure!ti: Corint. (French original:
Tamara Kondratieva, La Russie ancienne, PUF, 1996).
__________________________________________________________________
365
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Kope!n+, Fr. 1960. Je't* o nedokonavosti futura typu ponesu, povezu... a o
)asovm v&znamu typu dovede to, ujde to. Slovo a slovesnost 21: 187192.
Kope)n&, Fr. 1962. Slovesn7 vid v 3e4tin6. Praha.
Krahe, Hans 1925. Die alten balkan-illyrischen geographischen Namen.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Krahe, H. 1942. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Krahe, H. 1955. Die Sprache der Illyrier. Wiesbaden: Otto Harraschowitz.
Krmsk+, Ji,
1968. Some Ways of Expressing the Category of
Determinedness. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 3: 241253.
Kretschmer, P. 1952. Zu den ltesten Metallnamen. Glotta 32: 1 ff.
Krzak, Zygmunt 1985. The Labyrinth a path of initiation. Archaeologia
Polona 24: 135148.
Kuli&i", -., P. .. Petrovi", N. Panteli" 1970. Srpski mitolo4ki re!nik. Beograd:
Nolit.
Landi, Addolorata 1986. Considerazioni sulla nota di Al. Rosetti. Studia
Albanica 23, 2: 139144.
Lascu, N. 1970. Daos, Davos (Davus). Acta Musei Napocensis 7: 7991.
Lbel, Theophil 1894. Elemente turce(ti, arabe(ti (i persane n limba romn).
Constantinopol & Leipzig: Otto Kiel & Franz Wagner.
Lehmann, W.P. 1987. Linguistic and archaeological data for handbooks of
protolanguages, in Skomal and Polom (eds.) 1987: 7287.
Lhande, Pierre 19261936. Dictionnaire basque-franais. Paris: Gabriel
Beauchesne.
Lidn, E. 1908. Baunamen und Verwandtes. Indogermanische Forschungen
23: 485509.
Lloyd, Paul M. 1971. Laction du substrat et la structure linguistique. Actele
celui de al XII-lea congres interna8ional de lingvistic) (i filologie romanic) (ed. by
Al. Rosetti) Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei, vol. 2: 953963.
Logar, Tine 1975. Slovenska nare3ja. Ljubljana: Mladinska Knjiga.
Loma, Aleksandar 1993. Neue Substratnamen aus Dacia Mediterranea.
Linguistique Balkanique 36, 3: 219240.
Lozovan, Eugen 1968. Dacia Sacra. History of Religions, VII.
Lutterer, Iv., Krop!ek, L., Hu/!ek, V. 1976. PUvod zem6pisn7ch jmen.
Praha: Mlad Fronta.
Lrker, Manfred 1984. Lexikon der Gter und Dmonen. Stuttgart: Alfred
Krner.
__________________________________________________________________
366
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Macdonald, A.M. (ed.) 1972. Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary.
Edinburgh: W & R Chambers.
Machek, Vclav 1971. Etymologick7 slovnk jazyka 3eskho. Praha: Academia.
Macrea, D. (ed.) 1958. Dic8ionarul limbii romne moderne. Bucure!ti.
Macrea, D. 1982. Probleme ale structurii !i evolu$iei limbii romne. Bucure!ti:
Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Mallory, J.P. 1973. A history of the Indo-European problem. The Journal of
Indo-European Studies 1, 12: 2165.
Malten, L. 1913. Hephaistos. Paulys Realencyclopdie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, 8. Band, ed. by W. Kroll, pp. 311366. Stuttgart: J.B.
Metzler.
Ma0czak, Witold 1971. Evolu$ia fonetic" neregulat" datorat" frecven$ei. Studii
(i cercet)ri lingvistice 22, 6: 579586.
Mareti", T. 1886. O narodnim imenima i prezimenima u Hrvata i Srba. Rada
Jugoslovenske akademije znanosti i umetnosti, fil.-hist. razred. I, 81: 81146; II,
82: 69154.
Masson, E. 1984. Lcriture dans les civilisations danubiennes nolithiques.
Kadmos 23: 89123.
Masson, Emilia 1967. Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts smitiques en
grec. Paris:.
Matei, Horia C. 1983. Civiliza8ia lumii antice. Bucure!ti: Eminescu.
Matzenauer, A. 1870. Ciz slova ve slovansk7ch Ve3ech. Brno.
Mayrhofer, M. 1953. Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wrterbuch des
Altindischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Mazon, A. 1958. Laspect des verbes slaves. Moskva.
Meillet, Antoine. 19021905. tudes sur ltymologie et le vocabulaire du
vieux slave, 2 vols. Paris: mile Bouillon.
Meillet, A. 1922. Introduction l'tude comparative des langues indoeuropennes, 5th ed., Paris.
Meillet, A. 1922. Introduction l'tude comparative des langues indoeuropennes, 5th ed., Paris.
Me1ny!uk, O.S. 1985. Etymologi3nyj slovnyk ukrajnskoj movi, 2 vols, Kiev.
Mettke, Heinz 1978. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Laut- und Formenlehre.
4th ed. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.
__________________________________________________________________
367
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Meyer, Gustav 1891. Etymologisches Wrterbuch der albanesischen Sprache.
Strassburg.
Meyer-Lbke, G. 1935. Romanisches etymologisches Wrterbuch, 3rd ed.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Mihail, Z. 1981. La terminologie de lexploitation minire et mtallurgique
dans les langues du sud-est europen. Cahiers balkaniques (Paris) 2: 3356.
Mih'escu, Haralambie 1978. La langue latine dans le sud-est de l'Europe.
Bucure!ti-Paris: Editura Academiei-Les Belles Lettres.
Mih'il', Gheorghe 1971. Criteriile determin"rii mprumuturilor slave n limba
romn". Studii (i cercet)ri lingvistice 22, 4: 351366.
Mih"il", G. 1973. Studii de lexicologie (i istorie a lingvisticii romne(ti.
Bucure!ti: Editura Didactic" !i Pedagogic".
Mih"il", G. 1973. Studii de lexicologie (i istorie a lingvisticii romne(ti.
Bucure!ti: Editura Didactic" !i Pedagogic".
Mih"il", G. 1974. Dic8ionar al limbii romne vechi (sfr(itul sec. X nceputul
sec. XVI). Bucure!ti: Editura Enciclopedic" Romn".
Mih"il", G. 1974. Dic8ionar al limbii romne vechi (sfr(itul sec. X nceputul
sec. XVI). Bucure!ti: Editura Enciclopedic" Romn".
Mikkola, J.J. 19131950. Urslavische Grammatik, 3 vols. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter.
Miklosich, Franz 1884. Die trkischen Elemente in den sdost- und
osteuropischen Sprachen, III. Wien.
Miklosich, F. 1886. Etymologisches Wrterbuch der slavischen Sprachen.
Wien: Wilhelm Braumller.
Miklosich, F. 1886. Etymologisches Wrterbuch der slavischen Sprachen.
Wien: Wilhelm Braumller.
Mitrea, Ioan 1980. Regiunea central" a Moldovei dintre Carpa$i !i Siret n
secolele VIIX e.n. Carpica 12: 55190.
Mitrea, I. 1994. A!ezarea din secolele VVII de la Davideni, jud. Neam$.
Cercet"rile arheologice din anii 19881991. Memoria Antiquitatis 19: 279332.
Mitrea, I., C. Eminovici, V. Momanu 1987. A!ezarea din secolele VVII de la
#tefan cel Mare, jud. Bac"u. Carpica 1819: 215250.
Mladenov, Stefan 194l. Etimologi3eski i pravopisen re3nik na b)lgarski ezik. Sofia.
Monier-Williams, Sir Monier 1976. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford (1st
ed.: 1899).
__________________________________________________________________
368
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Morpurgo, Anna 1963. Mycenaeae Graecitatis Lexicon. Roma: Atheneum.
Morris, William (ed.) 1979. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Moszy0ski, Kazimierz 1962. O sposobach badania kultury materialnej
Pras9owian. Wroc-awKrakwWarszawa: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii
Nauk.
Mu%u, Gheorghe 1972. Zei, eroi, personaje. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific".
Mu!u, Gh. 1973. Din formele de cultur) arhaic). Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific".
Mu!u, Gh. 1981. Lumini din dep)rt)ri, Civiliza8ii prehellenice (i microasiatice.
Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Mu!u, Gh. 1982. Din mitologia tracilor. Bucure!ti: Cartea Romneasc".
Mu!u, Gr. 1995. Voci din dep)rt)ri. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific".
Nagy, Bla (ed.) 1984. Magyar-romn filolgiai tanulmnyok. Budapest: Elte
romn filolgiai tanszk.
Nmeth, Jnos 1932. Die Inschriften des Schatzes von Nagy-Szent Mikls
(Snnicolau-Mare). Budapest-Leipzig.
N2mec, Igor 1958. Iterativnost a vid. Slovo a slovesnost 19: 189199.
Nica-Cmpeanu, Ioana 1979. Riturile funerare n Transilvania de la sfr!itul
secolului al III-lea e.n. pn" n sec. V e.n. Acta Musei Napocensis 16: 157170.
Nikou Tegeridi, Yoanna 19971998. Groupes smantiques des emprunts
turques dans la langue grecque. Linguistique Balkanique 39 (19971998), 34:
125140.
Nissen, H. 1986. The archaic texts from Uruk. World Archaeology 17, 3: 317
334.
Ni)u, George 1988. Elemente mitologice n crea8ia popular) romneasc).
Bucure!ti: Albatros.
Normier, Rudolf 19992000. Neue Wege zum etymologischen Verstndnis des
Armenischen. Linguistique Balkanique 40 (19992000), 1: 1326.
Novakovi", Stojan 1913. Ba4tina i boljar u jugoslovenskoj terminologiji
srednjega veka. Glas kraljevske Akademije, Beograd, 92: 210255.
Ogibenin, B. L. 1974. Baltic Evidence and the Indo-Iranian Prayer. The
Journal of Indo-European Studies 2, 1: 2345.
Olivier, J.-P. 1986. Cretan writing in the second millenium B.C. World
Archaeology 17, 3: 377389.
__________________________________________________________________
369
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Olteanu, Pandele (ed.) 1975. Slava veche (i slavona romneasc). Bucure!ti:
Editura Didactic" !i Pedagogic".
Olteanu, 3tefan 1983. Societatea romneasc) la cump)n) de milenii (sec.
VIIIXI). Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Onions, C.T. (ed.) 1969. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford.
Oppermann, Manfred 1984. Thraker zwischen Karpatenbogen und gis.
Leipzig-Jena-Berlin: Urania.
O&tir, Karel 1921. Beitrge zur alarodischen Sprachwissenschaft, I. WienLeipzig: Beyers Nachfolger.
O'tir, Karel 1930. Drei vorslavisch-etruskische Vogelnamen. Ljubljana:
Znanstveno dru'tvo v Ljubljani.
Ovsec, Damjan J. 1991. Slovanska mitologija in verovanje. Ljubljana: Domus.
Paliga, Sorin 1980. Jazyk a 3as. Se zvl4tnm zVetelem ke vztahu mezi 3asem a
videm. Thse de licence lUniversit des Lettres de Bucarest (Bibliothque de
slavistique).
Paliga S. 1986. Ardeal, Transilvania. Tribuna (Cluj), nr. 8, 2o feb., pp. 1 !i 6.
Paliga S. 1997. Influen8e romane (i preromane n limbile slave de sud. Doctoral
thesis. Bucure!ti: Lucretius Publishers.
Paliga, S. 1987 a. Thracian terms for township and fortress, and related
place-names. World Archaeology 19, l: 2329.
Paliga, S. 1987 b. The social structure of the southeast European societies in the
Middle Ages. A linguistic view. Linguistica 27: 111126.
Paliga, S. 1988 a. A Pre-Indo-European place-name: Dalmatia. Linguistica
28:105108.
Paliga, S. 1988 b. Slovansko *s0to izzivalen problem? (in Slovene with an
English abstract: Slavic *s0to a challenging problem?). Slavisti3na Revija 36,4:
349358.
Paliga, S. 1989 a. Zeit"$i feminine ale basmelor romne!ti: zn", Snziene.
Originea cuvntului !i a cultului profan. Limba romn) 38, 2: 141149.
Paliga, S. 1989 b. Types of mazes. Linguistica 29: 5770.
Paliga, S. 1989 c. Old European, Pre-Indo-European, Proto-Indo-European.
Archaeological Evidence and Linguistic Investigation. The Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 17, 34: 309334.
__________________________________________________________________
370
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Paliga, S. 1989 d. Ora!. Fascina$ia unei etimologii. Noi Tracii 18 (no. 172,
Feb.): 1621
Paliga, S. 1990. Este boieria o institu$ie mprumutat"? Revista Arhivelor 67, vol.
52, 3: 250260.
Paliga, S. 1991 a. Aperu de la structure tymologique du roumain. Linguistica
31: 99106 (Paulo Tekav)i/ sexagenario in honorem oblata).
Paliga, S. 1991 b. Civiliza$ia vechilor urbieni. Academica nr. 5: 1112.
(Abridged version of 1989 c).
Paliga, S. 1992 a. Toponimul Cluj. Academica 2, 5 (17): 8 !i 27.
Paliga, S. 1992 b. Pururi: focuri. Academica 2,8 (20): 14.
Paliga, S. 1992 c. Ali obstajo urbske prvine v slovanskih jezikih? (in Slovene
with an English abstract : Are there Urbian elements in Slavic?). Slavisti3na
Revija 40, 3: 309313.
Paliga, S. 1992 d. Un cuvnt str"vechi ora!. Academica 2, 10 (22): 25.
Paliga, S. 1992 e. Un cuvnt str"vechi doin". Euchronia 1, 2: 2232.
Paliga, S. 1993 a. Slovani, Romunci in Albanci v 1. tiso)letju. Slavisti)na
Revija 41, 2: 237243.
Paliga, S. 1993 b. The Tablets of T"rt"ria an Enigma? A Reconsideration and
Further Perspectives. Dialogues d'histoire ancienne 19, 1: 943.
Paliga, S. 1993 c. Metals, Words and Gods. Archaeometallurgical Skills and
Reflections in Terminology. Linguistica 33: 157176.
Paliga, S. 1994 a. An Archaic Word: Doin). Relations thraco-illyro-hellniques.
Actes du XIVe symposium national de thracologie ( participation internationale),
B"ile Herculane (1419 septembre 1992), d. par Petre Roman et Marius Alexianu.
Bucarest: Institut Roumain de Thracologie.
Paliga, S. 1994 b. La divinit suprme des Thraco-Daces. Dialogues d'histoire
ancienne 20, 2: 137150.
Paliga, S. 1998. A Pre-Indo-European Lexicon. The Thracian World at the
Crossroads of Civilizations ed by Petre Roman, Saviana Diamandi and Marius
Alexianu. Bucure!ti: Romanian Institute of Thracology.
Paliga, S. 1999. Thracian and Pre-Thracian Studies. Bucure!ti: Lucretius Publishers.
Paliga, S. 1999. Thracian and Pre-Thracian Studies. Bucure!ti: Lucretius
Publishers.
__________________________________________________________________
371
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Paliga, S. 2001 a. Oris zgodovine Slovanov. Slavisti3na Revija (Ljubljana) 49,
4: 327349 (in Slovene with an English abstract: Sketching a History of the Slavs).
Paliga, S. 2001 b. Ten Theses on Thracian Etymology. Thraco-Dacica XXII, 1
2: 3346.
Paliga, S. 20012002. Pre-Slavic and Pre-Romance Place-Names in Southeast
Europe. Orpheus (Sofia) 1112: 85132.
Paliga, S. 2002 a. Pre-Slavic and Pre-Romance Place-Names in Southeast
Europe (South Slavic and Romania) in Fol, Al. 2002. Proceedings of the Eighth
International Congress of Thracology THRACE AND THE AEGEAN, SofiaJambol, 2529 September 2000. Sofia: International Foundation Europa Antiqua Sofia; Institute of Thracology - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: I, 219229.
Paliga, S. 2002 b. Despre TABA/TEBA, DAVA/DEVA, despre alte aspecte ale
fondului pre-indo-european, ale celui indo-european, ale celui proto-boreal, despre
nostratisme precum !i despre coeren"# n tracologia lingvistic#. Thraco-Dacica
23, 12/2002 (Bucure!ti: Institutul Romn de Tracologie): 714.
Paliga, S. 2002 c. Herrscherschaft and Herrschersuffix in Central-East
European Languages. Linguistica (Ljubljana): 918.
Paliga, S. 2002 d. Archaic Place-Names in Slovenia: Pre-Indo-European, IndoEuropean (Illyrian, Celtic, Thracian), Early Romance. Simpozij Obdobja, Ljubljana.
Paliga, S. 2003 a. Toponimia slav) (i preslav) n sud-estul european.
Introducere n studiul toponimiei slave arhaice. Bucure!ti: Editura Universit"$ii din
Bucure!ti.
Paliga, S. 2003 b. Some Archaic Place-Names in Czech and Slovak. (Paper for
the Etymologick Symposion, Brno, September 2002). Studia Etymologica
Brunensia 2 (Brno): 433448.
Paliga, S. 2004 a. The Pre!Romance (Thracian) Heritage: Basic Principles for a
Good Etymological Dictionary of Romanian. Thracians and Circumpontic World.
Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Thracology, Chi!in"uVadul lui
Vod", ed. by Ion Niculi$", Aurel Zanoci and Mihai B"$, vol. III: 144175.
Paliga, S. 2004 b. 100 Slavic Basic Roots: once again on Slavic s!to and the
Slavic ethnogenesis. Romanoslavica 40 (Bucure!ti: Asocia$ia Slavi!tilor din
Romnia): 6786.
Paliga, S. 2006 a. Mitologia slavilor. Bucure!ti: Ed. Meteor!Press.
Paliga, S. 2006 b. An Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian)
Elements in Romanian. Bucure!ti: Ed. Evenimentul. [Series Sorin Paliga, Opera
Omnia, vol. I).
Paliga, S. 2006 c. Influen8e romane (i preromane n limbile slave de sud. Ed. a
2a. Bucure!ti: Ed. Evenimentul. [Series Sorin Paliga, Opera Omnia, vol. II].
__________________________________________________________________
372
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Panevov, J., Eva Bene&ov, Petr Sgall 1971. 5as a modalita v 3e4tin6. Praha.
Papahagi, Tache 1924. Cercet"ri n Mun$ii Apuseni. Grai "i suflet 2: 2288.
Papahagi 1963 = Papahagi 1974.
Papahagi, T. 1974. Dic8ionarul dialectului aromn, 2nd ed. Bucure!ti. 1st ed.: 1963.
Papahagi, T. 1979. Mic dic8ionar folkloric. Ed. by Valeriu Rusu. Bucure!ti:
Minerva.
Papazoglu, Fanula 1957. Makedonski gradovi u rimsko doba. Skopje: 1iva
antika, posebna isdanja, knjiga I.
Papazoglu, F. 1969. Srednjobalkanska plemena u predrimsko doba. Sarajevo:
Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.
Parpola, A. 1986. The Indus script: a challenging puzzle. World Archaelogy 17,
3: 399419.
Pa%ca, 3tefan 1927. Commentary on Papahagi 1924. Dacoromania 4: 1009
1017.
Pauliny, Jn 1999. Arabsk sprvy o Slovanoch. Bratislava: Veda.
Prvan, Vasile 1923. Considera8ii asupra unor nume de ruri daco-scitice.
Bucure!ti.
Prvan, V. 1926. Getica. Bucure!ti.
Prvulescu, Adrian 1974. Demtre Cantemir et ltymologie de roum. stejar.
Dacoromania (N.S.) 2: 278287.
P'tru), Ioan 1971. Le roumain sut) cent et le problme des premires
relations linguistiques slavo-roumaines. Actele celui de-al XII-lea Congres
interna8ional de lingvistic) (i de filologie romanic), vol 2: 10611068.
P"tru$, I. 1980. Onomastic) romneasc). Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i
Enciclopedic".
P"tru$, I. 1984. Nume de persoane (i nume de locuri romne(ti. Bucure!ti:
Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Perotti, Pier Angelo 1985. Les mots latins dsignant les dizaines et les
centaines et le nombre mille. Latomus 44, 2: 603608.
Petolescu, Constantin 1992. Troianus dans lpigraphie latine. Symposia
thracologica 9: 173.
Petr, Jan 1984. Zklady slavistiky. Praha: SPN.
Petrovici, Emil 1970. Studii de dialectologie (i toponimie. Bucure!ti: Editura
Academiei.
Philippide, Alexandru 19231928. Originea romnilor, III. Ia!i.
__________________________________________________________________
373
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Pieri, Silvio 1912. Dalcuni elementi etruschi nella toponomastica toscana.
Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei 21: 145190.
Poghirc, Cicerone 1968. B. P. Hasdeu, lingvist (i filolog. Bucure!ti: Ed. #tiin$ific".
Poghirc, C. 1969. Influen8a autohton), n Rosetti et alii (ed.) 19651969, 2: 313364.
Poghirc, C. 1976. Thrace et daco-msien: langues ou dialectes? Thraco-dacica
1: 335347.
Poghirc, C. 1987. Latin balkanique ou roumain commun? Romanica
Aenipontana 14: 341348.
Pokorny, Julius 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. BernMnchen: Francke Verlag.
Polom, E.C. 1987. Who are the Germanic people? in Skomal and Polom
(eds.) 1987: 216244.
Popovi", Ivan 1960. Geschichte der serbokroatischen Sprache. Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz.
Poruciuc, Adrian 1987. The Japhetic connection as suggested by etymologicmythologic correspondences like Hittite Istanus Hungarian Isten and Old Norse
Thunnar Turkish Tanri. Analele (tiin8ifice ale Universit)8ii A.I. Cuza din Ia(i,
N.S. (series Linguistica) 33: 2732.
Poruciuc A. 1990. Lexical relics (Rom. teaf)r, Germ. Zauber, Eng. tiver): a
reminder of prehistoric red-dye rituals. The Mankind Quaterly 30, 3: 205224.
Pospelov, E.M. 1988. WkoTnyj toponimi3eskij slovar. Moskva: Prosve'tenie.
Preda, Constantin, Alexandru Vulpe, Cicerone Poghirc, eds. 1976. ThracoDacica. Recueil dtudes loccasion du IIe Congrs International de thracologie,
Bucarest, 410 septembre 1976. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Pu%cariu, Sextil 1905. Etymologisches Wrterbuch der rumnischen Sprache,
I. Heidelberg.
Pu!cariu, S. (ed.) 19131948. Dic8ionarul Academiei Romne, A-L. Bucure!ti. (= DA).
Pu!cariu, S. 1923. Contribu$iuni fonologice. Dacoromania 3: 378397.
Pu!cariu, S. 1943. Biata cum"tr" e departe. Langue et littrature, section
littraire, 2: 519.
Pu!cariu, S. 1976. Limba romn). Bucure!ti: Minerva (1st ed.: Bucure!ti 1940).
Pyles, Thomas 1964. The origins and development of the English language.
New York.
__________________________________________________________________
374
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Ra!eva, Maria 19971998. Zu den bulgarisch-rumnischen lexikalischen
Wechselbeziehungen: bulg. !DX@DC weiss. Linguistique Balkanique 39 (19971998), 3
4: 165167.
Raevskij, N.D. 1988. Contactele romanicilor r)s)riteni cu slavii. Chi!in"u: #tiin$a.
Raevskij, Nikolaj Dmitrievi!, Mark Gabinskij (eds.) 1978. Scurt dic8ionar
etimologic al limbii moldovene(ti. Chi!in"u: Redac$ia Enciclopediei Sovietice
Moldovene!ti.
Ramov&, Fran 1936. Kratka zgodovina slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana:
Akademska zalo%ba.
R'dulescu, Mircea Mihai 1981. Daco-RomanianBaltic Common Lexical
Elements. Ponto-Baltica 1 (Editrice Nagard): 15113.
R"dulescu, M. M. 1984. Illyrian, Thracian, Daco-Mysian, the substratum of
Romanian. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 12, 12: 77131.
R"dulescu, M. M. 1984. Illyrian, Thracian, Daco-Mysian, the substratum of
Romanian. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 12, 12: 77131.
R"dulescu, M.M. 1987. The Indo-European Position of Illyrian, Daco-Mysian
and Thracian. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 15: 239271.
R"dulescu, M.M. 1987. The Indo-European Position of Illyrian, Daco-Mysian
and Thracian. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 15: 239271.
Redhouse 1968. New Redhouse Turkish-English Dictionary (with etymological
references). Istanbul.
Reichenkron, Gnther 1966. Das Dakische. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Ribezzo, Francesco 1927. Le origini etrusche nella toponomastica: fatti, fonti e
metodi. Studi Etruschi 1: 313326.
Ribezzo, F. 1950. Di quattro nuove voci mediterranee gi credute celtiche:
bhura tasso, leme olmo, tmara uva di sepe, smara fosso dacqua. Revue
internationale donomastique 2, 1: 1325.
Rosetti, Alexandru 1978. Istoria limbii romne, 2nd ed. Bucure!ti: Editura
#tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Rosetti A. 1986. Istoria limbii romne, fully revised, final edition. Bucure!ti:
Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Rosetti, Al., B. Cazacu, I. Coteanu (eds.) 1965-1969. Istoria limbii romne, 2
vols. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Rostaing, Charles 1950. Essai sur la toponymie de la Provence. Paris: d. d'Artrey.
Rostaing, Ch. 1969. Les noms de lieux, 7th ed. Paris.
__________________________________________________________________
375
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Russu, Ion I. 1967. Limba traco-dacilor, 2nd ed. Bucure!ti.
Russu, I.I. 1969. Illirii. Bucure!ti.
Russu, I.I. 1981. Etnogeneza romnilor. Bucure!ti.
Rusu, Grigore 1983. Structura fonologic) a graiurilor dacoromne. Bucure!ti:
Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Rusu, Mircea 1979. Aspecte ale rela$iilor dintre romanitatea oriental" !i slavi. Acta
Musei Napocensis 16: 189200.
Sadnik, Linda, R. Aitzetmller 1955. Handwrterbuch zu den
altkirchenslavischen Texten. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Sala, Marius 1976. Contributions la phontique historique du roumain. Paris:
Klincksieck.
Sala, M. (ed.) 1988. Vocabularul reprezentativ al limbilor romanice. Bucure!ti:
Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Sala, M. (ed.) 1989. Enciclopedia limbilor romanice. Bucure!ti: Editura
#tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Sala, M. (coord.) 2001. Enciclopedia limbii romne. Bucure!ti: Univers
Enciclopedic.
Samsaris, Dimitrios Const. 1993. Les Thraces dans l'Empire Romain dOrient
(le territoire de la Grce actuelle). Etude ethno-dmographique, sociale,
prosopographique et anthroponymique. Jannina: Ektypose Typographeio
Panepistemion Ioanninon.
Sanie, Silviu 1981. Civiliza8ia roman) la est de Carpa8i (i romanitatea pe
teritoriul Moldovei, secolele II .e.n.III e.n. Ia!i: Junimea.
Schmid, Heinrich 1964. Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der romanischen
Zahlwrter. Vox Romanica 23, 2: 186238.
Schtz, Istvn 1984. A propos de quelques lments communs du lexique
roumain et du lexique albanais, in Nagy Bla (ed.), Magyar-romn filolgiai
tanulmnyok. Budapest: Elte romn filolgiai tanszk: 522537.
Seidel, Eugen 1960. O problmech vidu. Slovo a slovesnost 21: 249256.
Simenschy, Theofil, Gheorghe Iv'nescu 1981. Gramatica comparat) a
limbilor indo-europene. Bucure!ti: Editura Didactic" !i Pedagogic".
Sireteanu, Ion Popescu 1983. Limb) (i cultur) popular). Din istoria lexicului
romnesc. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Srbu, Valeriu 1993. Credin8e (i practici funerare, religioase (i magice n
lumea geto-dacilor (pornind de la descoperiri arheologice din Cmpia Br)ilei).
Gala$i: Porto Franco.
__________________________________________________________________
376
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Skeat, W.W. 1879. An etymological dictionary of the English language. Oxford
(many subsequent editions).
Skeat, W.W. (ed.) 1913. The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Oxford.
Skeat, W.W. (ed.) 1913. The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Oxford.
Skok, Petar 1917. Studije iz ilirske toponomastike. Glasnika zemeljskog
muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini (Sarajevo): 29: 117144.
Skok, P. 1920. Prilozi k ispitivanju srpsko-hrvatskih imena mjesta. Primljeno u
sjednici razreda histori)kofilologi)koga od 16. junija.
Skok, P. 1936. Ju%ni Sloveni i turski narodi. Jugoslovenski istoriski 3asopis 2.
Skok, P. 1950. Slavenstvo i romanstvo na jadranskim otocima. Toponomasti3ka
ispitivanja. Zagreb: Jadranski institut Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i
umetnosti.
Skok, P. 19711974. Etimologijski rje3nik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, IIV.
Zagreb.
Skomal, S.N., E.C. Polom (eds.) 1987. Proto-Indo-European: the
archaeology of a linguistic problem. Studies in honor of Marija Gimbutas.
Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.
Slavova, Mirena 19971998. Greek Female Names in the Greek Inscriptions in
Bulgaria. Linguistique Balkanique 39 (19971998), 34: 109124.
Spinei, Victor 1982. Terminologia politic" a spa$iului est-carpatic n perioada
constituirii statului feudal de sine st"t"tor. Stat, societate, na8iune ed. by N. Edroiu,
A. R"du$iu and P. Teodor, Cluj 1982: 6679.
Stamati, C. s.a. Musa romneasc), III. Ia!i.
Suciu, Coriolan 1967. Dic8ionar istoric al localit)8ilor din Transilvania, 2 vols.
Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
3'ineanu, Laz'r 1885. Elemente turce(ti n limba romn). Bucure!ti.
#"ineanu, L. 1896. Ielele, Dnsele, Vntoasele, Frumoasele, !oimanele,
M"iestrele, Znele. Revista pentru istorie, arheologie (i filologie. Bucure!ti.
#"ineanu, L. 1900. Influen8a oriental) asupra limbei (i culturei romne, III.
Bucure!ti.
#"ineanu, L. 1929 (DU). Dic8ionar universal al limbii romne, 6th ed. by M.
St"ureanu. Craiova.
-aur, Vladimr 1975. Etymologie slovansk7ch pVbuzensk7ch termnU. Praha:
Academia.
__________________________________________________________________
377
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
-milauer, Vladimr 1970. Handbuch der slavischen Toponomastik. Praga:
Academia.
Tagliavini, Carlo 1928. Divagazioni semantiche rumene. Archivum romanicum
XII, 12: 161231; review: #t. Pa!ca n Dacoromania VI/1931: 451458.
Tagliavini, C. 1977. Originile limbilor neolatine. Introducere n filologia
romanic). Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Tams, Ljos 1967. Etymologisches-historisches Wrterbuch der ungarischen
Elemente im Rumnischen. Haga: Mouton. Reprinted after the 1966 edition,
Budapest: Adadmiai Kiad.
T'pkova-Zaimova, V. 1962. Sur les rapports entre la population indigne des
rgions balkaniques et les barbares du VIeVIIe sicle. Byzantinobulgarica 1: 6778.
T"pkova-Zaimova, V. 1972. La comptence des sources byzantines sur la
survivance de l'ethnie thrace. Thracia 1: 223230.
Teodor, Dan Gh. 1981. Romanitatea carpato-dun)rean) (i Bizan8ul, secolele
VXI e.n. Ia!i: Junimea.
Teodor, D. Gh. 1984. Continuitatea popula8iei autohtone la est de Carpa8i.
A(ez)rile din secolele VIXI e.n. de la Dode(ti-Vaslui. Ia!i: Junimea.
Tiktin, H. 19031925. Rumnisch-deutsches Wrterbuch. Bucure!ti.
Tomaschek, Wilhelm 18931894. Die alten Thraker. Sitzungsberichte der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. I: 128, 4: 1130; II, 1: 130, 2: 170; II, 2:
131, 1: 1103.
Topori&i!, Jo$e, T. Logar, F. Jakopin (eds.) 1992. Miklo4i3ev Zbornik.
Mednarodni simpozij v Ljubljani od 26. do 28. junija 1991. Ljubljana: Slovenska
Akademija.
Trajanovski, Todor 1979. Vla4kite rodovi vo Stru4ko. Prilog kon istorijata na
narodnostite vo Makedonija. Skopje: Prosveten Rabotnik.
Trautmann, Reinhold 1970. Baltisch-slavisches Wrterbuch. Gtingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (1st ed.: 1923).
Trombetti, Alfredo 1925. Saggio di antica onomastica mediterranea. Arhiv za
arbanasku starinu, jezik i etnologiju 3: 1116. (Reprinted in Studi Etruschi
13/1939: 263310).
Trombetti, A. 1927. La lingua etrusca e le lingue preindoeuropee del
Mediterraneo. Studi Etruschi 1: 213238.
__________________________________________________________________
378
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
Trombetti, A. 1927. La lingua etrusca e le lingue preindoeuropee del
Mediterraneo. Studi Etruschi 1: 213238.
Trummer, Manfred
19971998. Die Entwicklung des albanischen
Vokalsystems Versuch eines Modells. Linguistique Balkanique 39 (19971998),
34: 149158.
Ujevi", Mate 1956. Toponimika zapadne Istre. Anali, Leksikografski zavod
FNRJ.
Urbutis, V. 1972. Lie. deinauti, La. divelet ir ju gimimei)iai. With an abstract in
German: Lit. deinauti, Lett. divelet und Ihre Verwandten. Baltistika 8, 2: 119131.
Vasmer, Max 1924. Iranisches aus Sdrussland, n Streitberg Festgabe.
Leipzig.
Vasmer, M. 19531958. Russisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter.
Vmbry, Armin (Hermann) 1878. Etymologisches Wrterbuch der
turkotatarischen Sprachen. Leipzig.
V/a, Zden2k 1983. Sv6t dvn7ch Slovan2. Praha: Artia.
V't'%escu, C't'lina 1997. Vocabularul de origine latin) din limba albanez) n
compara8ie cu romna. Bucure!ti: Institutul Romn de Tracologie, Bibliotheca
Thracologica XIX.
Velkov, Velizar 1962. Les campagnes et la population rurale en Thrace au IVe
VIe sicle. Byzantinobulgarica 1: 3166.
Velkov, V. 1972. Thrakien in der Sptantike (IVVI Jhdt.). Thracia 1: 213222.
Vey, Marc 1958. O slovesn aktulnosti a jejm vyjad3ovn v )eskm jazyce.
Slovo a slovesnost 19: 182188.
Vlahov, Kiril 1963. Nachtrge und Berichtungen zu den thrakischen
Sprachresten und Rckwrterbuch. Godi4nik na Sofiskija universitet, ist.-fil. fak.
57, 2: 219372.
Vlahovi", Petar 1972. Obi3aji, verovanja i praznovernice naroda Jugoslavije.
Beograd: Izdava)ko-grafi)ki zavod.
Vraciu, Ariton 1972. Studii de lingvistic) general). Ia!i: Junimea.
Vraciu, A. 1976. Sur la mthodologie des recherches dans le domaine des
rapports linguistiques du thraco-dace et des autres langues indo-europennes.
Thraco-dacica 1 (ed. by C. Preda, A. Vulpe, C. Poghirc): 315326. Bucure!ti.
Vraciu, A. 1980. Limba daco-ge8ilor. Timi!oara: Facla.
__________________________________________________________________
379
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
Vraciu, A. 1981. Unele probleme ale cercet"rii limbii traco-dace !i ale urmelor
ei n romn". Limba romn) 30, 1: 2735.
Vraciu, A. 1984. Foreword to: A. Berinde, S. Lugojan, Contribu8ii la
cunoa(terea limbii dacilor. Timi!oara: Facla.
Vries, Jan de 1962. Altnordisches etymologisches Wrterbuch, 2nd ed. LeidenKln: E.J. Brill.
Vulpe, Radu (ed.) 1976. Actes du IIe Congrs International de Thracologie.
Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Wald, Lucia, Dan Slu%anschi 1987. Introducere n studiul limbii (i culturii
indo-europene. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ific" !i Enciclopedic".
Wald, Lucia, I. Fischer, Constantin Dominte (ed.) 2000. Alexandru Graur
centenarul na(terii. Omagiul fo(tilor elevi (i colaboratori. Bucure!ti: Editura
Academiei.
Walde, Alois, J.B. Hofmann 19381954. Leteinisches etymologisches
Wrterbuch, 3rd ed., 3 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Wasserzieher, Ernst 1979. Kleines etymologisches Wrterbuch der deutschen
Sprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.
Zaimov, Jordan 1959. Mestnite imena v Pirdopsko. Sofia: B"lgarska
Akademija na Naukite.
Zaimov, J. 1977. Mestnite imena v Panagjursko. Sofia: B"lgarska Akademija na
Naukite.
Zaimov, J. 1988. B)lgarski imennik. I. Li3ni imena u b)lgarskite ot VI do XX
vek; II. Familni imena ot 3uYd proizhod. Sofia: B"lgarska Akademija na Naukite.
Zgusta, Ladislav 1964. Kleinasiatische Personennamen. Praha.
__________________________________________________________________
380