Etymologica Et Anthropologica Maiora

Sori n Pal i ga
E t y m o l o g i c a e t
Anthropologica Maiora
Already published in the series
Sorin Paliga, Opera Omnia
I Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous
(Thracian) Elements in Romanian
II Inuen!e romane "i preromane n limbile slave
de sud
III Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora
Forthcoming
IV Lexicon Proto!Borealicum et alia lexica
etymologica minora
V Istoria vechilor slavi
A History of the Old Slavs
VI Introducere n tracologia lingvistic#
An Introduction to Linguistic Thracology
Etymologica et Anthropologica Maiora
Apari!ia volumului s-a bucurat de sprijinul pre!ios al
S.C. ROSAL GRUP S.R.L. Bucure"ti
This volume has been published by generous support of
ROSAL GRUP Ltd. Bucharest
Coperta / Cover: Sorin Paliga
Ilustra!ia copertei / Cover Picture: Vidra-Zmbreasca artefact
Revizia "tiin!ic# "i tehnoredactarea apar!in autorului
Revision and page setting by author
Copyright: Funda!ia Evenimentul 2007
Funda!ia Evenimentul pentru Cultivarea P#cii "i a Spiritului Tolerant
Str. Constantin Nacu nr. 4, sector 2
Sector 2, Bucure"ti
Romnia
telefon: (4)021 / 781 2490
fax: (4)021 / 211 4779
Director General: Paul Tutungiu
Pre"edintele Funda!iei Evenimentul pentru Cultivarea P#cii
"i a Spiritului Tolerant
I.S.B.N. - 13 978-973-87920-2-9
Sorin Paliga
E t y m o l o g i c a e t
Anthropologica Maiora
Bucure"ti
2007
Contents / Cuprins
Cuvnt nainte 7
Foreword 9
I.
Thracian terms for township and fortress, and related place-names 13
The Social Structure of the South-East European Societies
in the Middle Ages. A Linguistic View 21
A Pre-Indo-European Place-Name: Dalmatia 39
Slavic *s!to - a challenging problem? 43
Types of Mazes 61
Proto-Indo-European, Pre-Indo-European, Old European:
Archaeological Evidence and Linguistic Investigation 77
Are There Urbian Elements in Slavic? 91
An Archaic Word: doin" 95
The Tablets of T!rt!ria an Enigma?
A reconsideration and further perspectives 113
Metals, Words And Gods. Early Knowledge of Metallurgical Skills in
Europe, and Reections in Terminology 151
Two river-names revisited.
Once again on the opposition north-south in late Thracian 175
Romanian Denite Article Revisited 183
Herrscherschaft and Herrschersuffix
in Central-East European Languages 195
Ten Theses on Romanian Etymology 209
II.
Ardeal, Transilvania 235
Zeit#!i feminine ale basmelor romne"ti: znele "i snzienele.
Originea cuvintelor "i a cultului profan 243
Civiliza!ia vechilor urbieni 255
Toponimul Cluj 267
Pururi = focuri 281
Originea Albanezilor 285
Un cuvnt str#vechi ora! 291
Toponimia arhaic# a Romniei 295
Despre TABA/TEBA, DAVA/DEVA, despre alte aspecte
ale fondului pre-indo-european, ale celui indo-european,
ale celui proto-boreal, despre nostratisme
precum "i despre coeren!# n tracologia lingvistic# 299
III.
La divinit suprme des Thraco-daces 317
Devenir et aspectualisation. Encore une fois sur le verbe slave 331
Aperu de la structure tymologique du Roumain 345
Bibliographia 353
Rodic uxori suaviter,
Ror Dain Mari li dulcissim,
Atque liis Michaeli Uaro et Bucuro Johanni
dedicatur
Exordium dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
7
Cuvnt nainte
Al treilea volum al acestei serii cuprinde majoritatea studiilor publicate n diverse
reviste de specialitate. Fiind vorba de studii scrise de!a lungul a aproximativ 25 de
ani, unele revizuite !i completate, iar altele incluse n alte lucr"ri (cum ar volumele
precedente ale acestei serii, alte cteva ind incluse n volumul urm"tor, al patrulea),
a fost necesar" o reorganizare a materialului.
Pe de o parte, am eliminat acele studii care fac deja parte din alte volume
publicate precum !i pe cele care se ncadreaz" mai bine volumului urm"tor, care va
cuprinde cteva dic#ionare etimologice de volum limitat, dar esen#iale, credem noi,
demersului etimologic (Lexiconul Proto!Boreal, lexiconul celor o sut" de r"d"cini
slave esen#iale, un extras al cuvintelor autohtone care permit reconstruirea unei
spirante velare n trac"). Dat ind c" unele studii au ap"rut deja n Thracian and
Pre!Thracian Studies (ed. Lucretius, Bucure!ti 1999), iar ntre timp num"rul
acestor studii a crescut semnicativ, am considerat necesar" reordonarea lor nu
numai pe principiul cronologic. Cum frontiera dintre temele abordate (cum ar , de
exemplu, mo!tenirea trac" a limbii romne, rela#iile slavo!romne, inuen#ele de
substrat asupra limbilor slave etc.) nu este simplu de trasat, am considerat util"
ordonarea pe criteriul limbii n care au fost publicate studiile care este, n bun"
m"sur", !i o ordonare tematic".
Primele sunt studiile n limba englez", cele mai numeroase de altfel !i, de fapt, cu
acestea am debutat n lumea !tiin#ic" n anii 80, pe cnd revistele de specialitate
din Romnia au amnat sistematic publicarea acelor studii !i care, astfel, au c"p"tat
gradual versiune englez" pentru a putea ap"rea. Urmarea acestui fapt este c"
versiunile ap"rute n Linguistica, World Archaeology, The Journal of
Indo!European Studies !i, nu n ultimul rnd, n Slavisti!na Revija (n limba
sloven", dar ind traduceri dup" originalul n limba englez") au fost ini#ial rescrise
de autor pe baza versiunii n limba romn". Nu am mai revenit asupra formei
Etymologica-anthropologica / Exordium
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
8
ini#iale, nici nu le!am retradus n limba romn". Cum timpul trece, ni s!a p"rut mai
util s" relu"m, cu noi argumente, datele mai vechi, astfel c" studiile n limba englez"
nu au, n general, versiuni n limba romn", de!i unele abordeaz" teme similare.
Partea a doua include studiile n limba romn", toate publicate dup" 1990 (dintre
care am eliminat studiul dedicat boieriei, acesta ind 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 prolului 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 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
Exordium anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9
Foreword
The third volume in this series contains most of the studies published in various
scientic journals. As these cover over 25 years of research, some being revised and
completed and others already included in other works (as the preceding volumes of
the series, others in the forthcoming volumes), reorganising the material has been
mandatory.
I have therefore removed those studies already published in other volumes and
some, which are rather appropriatre for the forthcoming volume, to include limited
etymological dictionaries, but I do hope essential for a solid etymological
approach (Proto!Boreal Lexicon, the etymological lexicon of 100 Slavic roots, an
extras of indigenous elements witnessing a former velar spirant in Thracian). As
some studies were already published in Thracian and Pre!Thracian Studies
(Lucretius, Bucure!ti 1999), and the number of these studies has meanwhile
become higher, their re-organisation has become imperious, not necessarily
following the chronological order. As the fronteer between topics approached over
years is not so easy to mark (e.g. the Thracian heritage of Romanian, Slavic-
Romanian relations, substratum inuences 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
scientic debut in the 1980s, specically because the Romanian scientic journals
repeatedly rejected them. Thus they gradually got an English garment and could be
published abroad. Consequently the versions published in Linguistica, World
Archaeology, The Journal of Indo!European Studies and, last but not least, in
Slavisti!na Revija (in Slovene, but translated from the English original) were
initially re-written following the Romanian former original. Generally I did not
revert to the original, older Romanian form, nor did I re-translate them back. As
Etymologica-anthropologica / Exordium
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
10
time passes by, I found a lot more useful to resume older data by using new
arguments. Therefore the studies in English do not generally have a Romanian
translation, even if some may loosely approach similar topics.
The second part includes the studies in Romanian, all of them published after
1990. I removed the study dedicated to boier (a chapter in the preceding volume of
this series); as these mainly refer to the archaic heritage of Romanian and to
Romanian!Slavic relations (a few to Romanian-Hungarian relations), there is also a
thematic organisation of material.
Finally, there are also three studies in French, as published in the Dialogues
dhistorie ancienne.
It should be perhaps useful to further expand on the title: Etymologica et
Anthropologica Maiora. Every study and all together point(s) to the three major
Ethnic Periods in Europe: 1. Neolithic and Chalcolithic, with their major
cultures and civilizations (cca. 75003500 B.C.); 2. The Indo!European invasion,
which led to the making of ancient languages and cultures (34001200 B.C.);
3. The making of Ancient Civilizations, their fall and the making of Medieval
languages and cultures (rst 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 prole of Europe; the Indo!European heritage and
amalgamation of Pre!Indo!European and Indo!European stratum; the substratum in
Slavic and Romanian!Slavic relations; the Thracian heritage in Romanian. Many
studies may be labelled case!studies to complement or to backup the data in the
ample Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian.
Sorin Paliga
August 2006
I
In English
Anglice
Urbs et civitas apud Thraeces
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
13
Thracian terms for township and fortress,
and related place-names
Piae memoriae Patris
Introduction
Though the Tracians had no written tradition, some essential terms
connected with their everyday life and especially many place-names can be
fairly well identied and interpreted on the basis of (1) the information given
by the Greek and Latin writers, and (2) the analysis of some words, arguably
of Thracian origin, preserved in the modern languages spoken in southeastern
Europe, especially in Romanian, Albanian and Bulgarian. Though the gap in
time is important, we assume that relevant terms may be identied and
analysed in such a way as to complement the archaeological data. In our
attempt we shall try (1) to determine the Thracians terms specically express-
ing the notion township and/or fortress, (2) to connect these terms to evident-
ly (or probably) related place-names inside or outside the Thracian area, and
(3) to consider them in their historical evolution, i. e. whether the terms are
still in use either in denoting a certain place-name or used as such in the
everyday vocabulary. In every case it is useful to refer to the etymon of the
word analysed, knowing that the sense is a strong support for the social
context in which a word (term) is used.
Thracian terms for township and fortress
1. Bria. The Thracians called the polis bria (Strabo 7: 6: 1; Stephanes Byz.
446: 15). Bria also appears as second element in many place-names like:
Alai-bria, Bolba-bria, Mesem-bria, Selym-bria, etc. (De!ev 1957: 86; Russu
Etymologica-anthropologica / Anglice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
14
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
15
1967: 96). Closely related is the place-name Brea (De!ev 1957: 85). The
word is compared to the Indo-European (hereafter IE) root *wer- to close, to
cover (Pokorny 1959: 1162; AHD 1549). In our opinion the term under
consideration is an obvious Preie. relic derived from the root *B-R-/*P-R-
identied in the Mediterranean region and whose meaning should be recon-
structed as elevation; high, zero-grade form *BR-i-a. In this respect, the
Thracian word has clear afnities with terms and place-names of this type
like Provenal and Catalan brac a moor, place-name (hereafter PN) Saint-
Martin-de-Brasque, Bresq, Briasq, Braux (<*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 reects 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, Buri-
dava, 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 reects 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
15
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
16
*De-e(, in two syllables, conrmed by the medieval Latin spelling Dees).
These place-names undoubtedly preserve the parallel Thracian forms *d"-t-,
*de-e(- (attested only once in PN Datos) against the classical form dava,
deva.
3. Dina, deina. This word is witnessed in a few place-names like Asbolo-
dina, Bassi-dina, Pesi-dina, etc. (De!ev 1957: 136). It may have the same
etymon as deva/dava but with a different development (of the type *dh"-n-),
or it might be related to Cymric din township as De!ev unconvincingly
suggested. No related place-names have been clearly identied so far. We
suggest a possible approach to PN Dindryme (? Din-dryme) and mountain-
name (hereafter MN) Din-dyma, Din-dymon which are differently analysed
in De!ev (1957). This suggestion nds some support in Rom. PN Dinga and
PN Dinia) (< *din-g- and *din-i-a( respectively) which should probably be
regarded as having a Thracian origin in the context discussed.
4. Diza, dizos, deize, witnessed in many place-names like Bur-dizos,
Diza-zelmis, Diza-pes, Diza-polis, Oru-disza, Tyro-diza, etc. (De!ev 1957:
132). If the word is related to Greek *+,-&' city-wall (Chantraine 1968:
1098) then the IE root is *dheig. ho- (Pokorny 1959: 244), as in Avestan pairi-
da"za fence, garden, Armenian d"z heap, multitude. These extra-Thracian
parallels are irresistible and they seem to support the attested Thracians
forms. We might equally refer to the same IE root *dh"- with a different
development of the type *dh"-g. (h)-/, *dh"-g. (h)-os. As often in the eld of
comparative grammar no denite solution exists, but this is less important in
the context of this paper. The term diza/dizos may not be preserved in any
modern form, except perhaps Rom. PN Dezna (district Arad, W. Romania)
for which it is difcult to suggest any other origin.
5. Leba: 01234560,' 758 9:3%;< (Hesychius). De!ev (1957), following
Tomaschek (1893), considers that leba is a misspelling for deva. However,
we will assume here that the form given in Hesychius is correct. This fact is
proved by the existence of clearly related Thracian place-names like MN
Abro-lebas, PN Libon, Libum in Bythinia, and PN Libyssa, Libissa on the
river Libyssos (De!ev 1957: 3 and 275). The leba/liba forms have clear
afnities with similar Preie. place-names derived from a root *L-P-/*L-B-
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
15
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
16
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
17
stone, mountain, from which come PN Lebena in Crete (Faure 1977: 141),
PN Libana located in the mountainous region of Castilia (Ptolemy 2: 6: 57),
PN Labro > Livorno, and Lat. lapis stone (analysis in G. Alessio, Studi
Etruschi 9/1935: 133 ff). The primitive meaning of the root leba was there-
fore stone, hence stone-wall, fortress. It is possible that the Thracians used
leba to denote the stone-walls of their townships and fortress (cf. the so-
called murus dacicus the Dacian wall).
6. Ora, oros, oron. This term is attested in several place-names: Al-oros,
Az-oros, El-oros, Gaz-oros, Thest-oros, Milk-oros, Tarp-oron, Clev-ora,
Cap-ora (De!ev 1957: 535). Other related forms are known from the Thra-
cians area: MN Orb-elos, PN Org-ame, Ur-briana. All these examples are
undoubtedly Preie., belonging to the root reconstructed *OR-/*UR- very big,
huge, high, well represented in the ancient place-names, such as Urgo/Orgo,
an island between Corsica and Etruria (Pliny 3:81), PN Orgon, Provence
(Rostaing 1950: 70); Basque uri city, township; PN Uri, in Switzerland; Hatti
ure huge, big; Greek =:>< etc. (Mu"u 1981: 199 ff). Of course, Lat. urbs
should be also discussed in this context, as it has long been observed. We
assume here that the similarity of Basque uri, Latin urbs and Thracian oros,
ora cannot be mere chance. As Prof. Mu"u has observed, the meaning of this
root is big, huge, high, hence mountain, hill or/and township (on elevated
location).
The Thracian ora, oros, oron forms discussed here are preserved in some
Romanian terms and place-names. The most important of all is surely ora)
(dialectically also ura)) the usual word for the meaning city, township,
obviously akin to uria) (dialectically also oria) with the same o/u alternation)
huge, very big. Some place-names are clearly related: Oradea, Or)ova
(Or)-ova, probably with a sufx 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 inuence, a theory much sup-
ported by Hungarian scholars (cf. Kiss 1980: 453) simply because Rom.
ora)/ura) township and uria)/oria) huge, giant have clear afnities 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
17
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
18
languages spoken in the Balkans, are still frequently explained by the Slavic
or Hungarian inuence, 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 afnities 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 specic meaning township has been preserved,
but the root may be easily identied 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 reect regional
(local, dialectal) differences: dava/deva was common among the North
Thracians (Dacians or Getae) while para/bara, bria and diza were more
1
The existence or non-existence of the root *OR-/ *UR- in Albanian remains to be
demonstrated. One example: Alb. yll star must derive from preie. *OR- or *OL-,
*UL-. The form ora), and its tortuous etymological history, will be discussed in
another paper, below.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
17
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
18
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
19
common among the South Thracians. Yet this is not an argument for the
existence of a Dacian bloc versus a Thracian bloc as sometimes suggested
(Georgiev 1961: 54; Duridanov 1976: 39 ff). This opposes not only known
historical information but also surviving linguistic evidence. For example,
Rom. PN Deva reects 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 reected
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 ofcial 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 reect a
particular aspect of Old Europe (Gimbutas 1973: 23, 89). The Indo-Euro-
peanisation of Europe did not mean total destruction of the previous cultural
achievement but consisted in an amalgamation (hybridization) of racial and
cultural phenomena (Gimbutas 1974: 302). Linguistically, the process may
(and must) be regarded in a similar way: the Indo-Europeans imposed an
idiom, which itself then adopted certain elements from the autochtonous
languages spoken previously. These non-IE (Preie.) elements are numerous
in Greek, Latin and, arguably, Thracian though in the last case the analysis is
more difcult because of the lack of a written tradition. But difculty 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
19
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
20
ring only to the examples analysed, the preservation of some Preie.
place!names and terms expressing the notion township in Thracian and, via
Thracian, in Romanian or Bulgarian can be better understood in the light of
historical and archaeological data. Thus, in the Thracian area locations which
can be described as township or fortress were already present in the Neolithic
(Cri"an 1986: 145; Childe 1946: 98 ff; Opperman 1984: 11 ff). In this
respect, the Thracian territory has parallels in the Celtic area (Cri"an 1986:
150). Thus and we want to stress this detail the Daco-Thracian davae did not
borrow the Greek pattern but conserved a very old type (Cri"an 1986: 168).
In other words, the Thracians were highly conservative in their idea of
urbanism; their language reects this reality in terms (words, place-names)
the origin of which can be traced back to the idioms spoken in the Neolithic
(Preie.) times. Surprisingly or not, the facts are quite obvious and must be
considered as such. One more detail: as has been well observed, the Thracian
davae or parae were at the same time oppida and urbes (Braga 1980: 9) and
have parallels in the Celtic area (cf. Caesar, De Bello Gallico). Militarily,
these locations were fortresses while economically they were towns or
markets.
The survival of several important Thracian terms connected with the
notion township, as well as of some major place-names, is interesting.
Bulgaria was initially a Romanized region, then Slavonized; Romania is
represented by the Romanized Daco-Thracian territory and population. The
latter is undoubtedly the most conservative both culturally and linguistical-
ly, the Thracians elements of the vocabulary being quite important (cf.
Russu 1981), although they have not been analysed in full. It is equally
interesting to note that the Thracian (pre-Roman) place-names of Romania
are mainly preserved in Transylvania and the neighbouring regions, the
mountainous zones. The Romanian name for Transylvania, Ardeal, is one
of the clearest Preie. relics: root *AR- high, elevated; far away and *DaL-,
*DeL- hill, forest, mountain (Paliga 1986). Again, place-names are of great
importance in the reconstruction of vanished civilisations and it is almost
inevitable that the identiable Preie. elements come down from the Ne-
olithic times: the dawn of the European civilization.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
19
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
20
Conclusions
Thracian terms denoting township are fairly well attested in Latin and
Greek writers, and reect both IE and Preie. elements. The existence of these
terms reecting 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 reected an IE structure
but preserved a certain number of terms of Preie. origin; these terms can
easily be identied and analysed in several cultural or ethnic areas. Important
place-names closely connected to an initial meaning township can be identi-
ed and analysed over a large area reecting both the IE and Preie. heritage.
The Thracian territory roughly corresponding to that of present-day Romania
and Bulgaria despite the lack of a written tradition, witnesses such forms,
some of them preserved into the modern period. Such terms have been
adopted to successive historic and social realities, and some have proved to
be resistant to linguistic erosion and are still in use. The case of Romanian
ora)/ura) city, township is typical: its origin should be traced back to a Pre-
Thracian (Preie.) idiom spoken in the Neolithic. As Latin urbs has not been
preserved in any Romance language, it is interesting to observe that the
Romanian term, together with Basque uri (of identical meaning) are the only
pre-Indo-European words with this connotation still in use.
(World Archaeology 1987, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 2329)
De structura societatis Europ vulturn
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
21
The Social Structure of the South-East European Societies
in the Middle Ages. A Linguistic View
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to review several terms spread over a quite
large area in south-east Europe. The starting point of our investigation is
the Romanian language understood as inheriting an important Thracian
vocabulary, specically referring to the social and political structure of the
Early Middle Ages. The terms discussed are not exclusively Romanian. In
fact, they reect 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
Yugoslavia
1
.
Speaking of the Thracian words transmitted till modern times via Roma-
nian we must of course understand via late-Latin/Proto-Romanian in still
confuse times when linguistic and cultural changes diffused without
control. It was an age of fundamental changes but not without solid links
with the previous cultural achievements. It is by no means our intention to
over-estimate the importance of the Late-Latin/Proto-Romanian elements
in southeast Europe, more or less affected by the Thracian substratum, but
to point out that the only plausible manner of explaining these forms is to
assume even if only as a hypothesis of rst-stage investigation a substra-
tum inuence quite homogeneous in its phonetic changes and, generally, in
its linguistic phenomena.
1
The Thracian tribes inhabited a large part of contemporary Serbia.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
22
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
23
We shall therefore focus on the following forms in Romanian together
with their parallels in other neighbouring idioms: (1) ban overlord, master
and ban money, coin; (2) cioban recipient, pot and cioban shepherd;
(3) giupn (pronounced !upn), later jupn master (cf. ban); (4) st"pn
master. At a rst sight, all these forms witness a common component: -
ban, -pan > -pn, with the probable meaning master, leader. Does this
reect a real old heritage or are we victims of an illusion? Or, otherwise
put, do all these forms reect a common origin, from one language spoken
in south-east Europe? How shall we explain the large diffusion of some of
these terms?
Before giving a coherent answer it is imperious to reconsider these very
forms.
(1) Ban overlord, master and money, coin.
The word was generally analysed separately for these two meanings, as
follows:
1.1 The sense overlord, master has been interpreted as:
(a) Slavic heritage, now accepted by several scholars (Cihac 18701879,
II: 8; Macrea 1958: 66; Rosetti 1978: 297, 431). This hypothesis was
supported by the fact that similar forms are witnessed in Serbo-Croatian,
Bulgarian and Hungarian (ban, bn)
(b) A version of the previous hypothesis is that in Romanian the word
should be explained as a Hungarian inuence (Tiktin 19031916: 152; DA
I: 471; Iorga 1905, I: 135; !"ineanu 1929: 52; Cior"nescu 1960 ff.: 64,
with hesitations; Tams 1967: 90; Mih"il" 1974: 74).
(c) Slavic or Hungarian origin (Coteanu et al. 1975: 72). Such an unde-
cided opinion was surely supported by the fact that in both Slavic and
Hungarian the word is not satisfactorily explained. A very brief review of
the etymological analysis from this non-Romanian perspective is useful:
(a) For Miklosich the word is of Persian origin; from Persia it was
supposedly transmitted into Europe by the Turks (Miklosich 1884, I: 11;
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
22
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
23
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
24
1886: 7; Matzenauer 1870: 103). It can be easily argued that such a hypoth-
esis is feeble, as long as Turkish ban is a rare word. Besides, the Turkish
inuence was quite late and could not impose a term of social structure. On
the other hand, Hung. bn is a governor at the frontier of Hungary (Benk#
et al. 1967); this detail is interesting but ignored, perhaps unvoluntarily.
(b) Berneker assumes that Slavic ban is of Mongolian origin, the origi-
nal form being bojan, hence ban (Berneker 19081913: 42; Bezlaj 1976
ff.: 10). But the phonetic changes are not explained and they are not at all
easily to be accepted as such
2
.
(c) It is sometimes hypothesized that Slavic ban is of Persian origin,
transmitted to Europe by the Avars (Onions 1969: 72). This reference to
Persian ban cannot be avoided but how to explain the route of the word to
Europe? Are the Avars (or, according to another version, the Turks) respon-
sible for the spread of the word in South-East Europe?
We basically doubt such a hypothesis. But before giving an answer to
this question it is useful to review some opinions regarding the homophone
ban money, coin.
1.2 Ban money, coin (preserved as a vivid form only in Romanian; also
Polish and Bulgarian dialectally, obsolete).
(a) Isolatedly, some linguists speak of a Slavic element (Cihac 1870
1879, II: 8). It is, of course, a difcult point, as long as the meaning
money, coin is not at all specically Slavic, on the contrary. The distribu-
tion of this meaning clearly proves that a discussion regarding the ultimate
origin of this semantic eld 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 rst meaning discussed
2
It should be remembered that bojan was other times assumed as being the origin
of boier, a specic 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
24
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
25
above] just as the Italians call the coin of a duke ducato and the English
call the coin of a Sovereign sovereign (Hasdeu 18871888: 2448). This
explanation has been accepted by many other linguists (Tiktin 19031916:
151; !"ineanu 1929: 52; Macrea 1985: 66). A version of this hypothesis is
that the Romanian word is equally of Hungarian origin, an opinion much
advocated by Hungarian linguists (Tams 1967: 91; accepted, without
arguments, in Rosetti 1986: 384). The word under consideration cannot by
any means be of Hungarian origin for the simple reason that this meaning
is absent in Hungarian (dialectal Transylvanian forms are not relevant
because they may be and are under the Romanian inuence).
(c) A particularly interesting and very original explanation, almost
forgotten, is exposed by Sextil Pu$cariu (DA I: 472; Pu$cariu 1923) who
considers that Rom. ban money, coin should be explained together with
Aromanian (Macedo-Romanian) verb a b"n to live (cf. Papahagi 1974:
191) as a heritage from a pre-Roman (i.e. Thracian) form *bann- life
cattle money, following the same change of meaning like Latin pecus
herd pecunia money.
According to this theory, there is no connection between the meanings
overlord, master and money, the similitude being therefore a result of
hazard, in change the antiquity of the word becomes considerable, assumed
of Thracian origin. It is what the author believes, but from completely other
reasons and with other arguments (see below). It should be now observed that
the Thracian reconstructed form *bann- is completely unfounded nor is it
supported by the testimonies in the Greek and Latin writers (cf. De%ev 1957).
(d) Finally, some scholars simply consider that the word is obscure
(Cioranescu 1960 ff.: 65; Coteanu et al. 1975: 72). In the given circum-
stances this undoubtedly is a correct position.
1.3. It is our hypothesis that we can explain fairly well both the meaning
overlord, master and money, coin in a wholesome way. Before referring
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
24
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
25
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
26
to other forms, we hypothesize that the word really is of Thracian origin, as
Pu$cariu brilliantly observed, from a reconstructed form *b$n- assumed
akin to Persian b$n master, also house (Horn 1893: 40) and p$n (p/b as
an old Indo-European alternation, already analyzed by Benveniste 1962:
168 in the case of the root *pH
3
> *p%- to drink). The Indo-European
root of these forms is quite clear: on the one hand *p$- to protect, to feed,
on the other hand *p%i- to protect the cattle, to graze. These two roots are
separtely analyzed by Pokorny (1959: 782, 839), also separately but
nothing their probable initial kinship in Morris et al. 1979: 1532, 1535.
Secondly, the meaning coin, money of ban seems to have cognate
parallels in Old Indian: pa&a' a kind of coin (Mayrofer 1953, II: 196),
pa& to honor, buy, negotiate, pa&a to play for winning; coin;
house (Monier 1976: 580).
Are these similarities simple hazard? They might be, though it is dif-
cult to think so. In this perspective, it would be perhaps useful to revert to
Hasdeu's opinion that the ban is the coin used under the authority of a
Ban, observing that the parallel lord, master coin seems to be much
older than Hasdeu thought, perhaps preserving a sense developed in the
satem area. We suggest therefore to consider the double meaning of ban
not a result of simple hazard but the preservation of very old parallel of
sense overlord, master coin
3
. It is not the purpose of this paper to
consider the beginnings of trade and coinage, but to draw attention on
some interesting aspects.
Summing up, it can be surmised that Thracian had a form *b$n master,
overlord and, very probably, a parallel form *b$n money, coin. Further
facts should substantiate this hypothesis.
3
A third meaning, house, is also witnessed by Old Indian and Persian.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
25
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
26
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
27
(2) Cioban [!oban] recipient, pot and shepherd. (Meaning shep-
herd spread over a large area in southeast Europe).
As in the case discussed above, where the parallel master, lord coin
occured, in this case another parallel awaits a proper consideration. The
forms to start with are:
Rom. cioban [(oban]; common sense shepherd, but also wooden pot,
recipient (Transylvania);
Hung. csobny wooden pot, also csobn(y) shepherd;
Old Czech (bn, mod d)bn wooden pot.
As we know, these reciprocally signicant 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 inuence. 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 inuence (DA II: 435), the Hungarian word
being, in its turn, borrowed from Slovak with the specic phenomenon of
svarabhakti: Slovak bn > Hung. csobny (Benk# et al. 1967: 545), with
the observation that probably there is no connection between csobn
shepherd and csobn(y) pot (id.), yet without any further attempt in
explaining this strange similitude
4
.
On the other hand, the situation of the Slavic terms is equally obscure to
the Slavists. The situation could be summarized thus:
4
It is again a case when obviously uncomfortable details are ignored ad usum
Delphini.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
26
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
27
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
28
(a) For Miklosich there should be a similitude of some terms like the
already quoted Romanian and Hungarian forms, plus Rom. zbanc" a
recipient, Lithuanian izbonas, zbonas, uzbonas. This similitude is striking,
yet zbanc" may be considered a deformation of the Czech and Slovak
d)bn [how?], the situation as a whole remaining as confuse as before
(Miklosich 1886: 37).
(b) For Berneker, the Slavic word is dunkel(obscure) (Berneker
19081913: 165).
(c) Referring to the Baltic forms, a Polish or White-Russian origin is
suggested (Pol. dzban, zban, WRuss. )ban), which is very probable but is
no solution to the problem as a whole (Fraenkel 19551965 : 188).
(d) V. Machek reconstructs an Old Slavonic form *(*van+ [?!] and even
a common Slavic *(*ban+ [?!] approaching the forms to Greek ,-./01
5
(Machek 1971: 138). Though the Czech scholar makes a bold attempt in
explaining these facts and suggests a radical solution (the common Slavic
origin) his hypothesis is feeble and completely unfounded, including the
approach to d)ber a recipient, Rom. ciub"r [(b2r], German Zuber,
which are considered pra-evropsk (pre-Indo-European?
6
).
The facts could be therefore summarized thus:
(I) In Hungarian both csobn pot and csobn(y) shepherd are borrow-
ings; the topic cannot be therefore solved starting from this point.
(II) The bizar parallel pot, recipient shepherd is preserved only in
Romanian and Hungarian, but as long as the latter cannot be the lending
idiom, it is feasible that some brighter perspectives may arise referring to
the Romanian forms.
5
,-./01 pot, recipient and ,-341 orice are derived from 56-7 to spread out,
to ow (cf. Chantraine 19681980: 316 and Frisk 1960).
6
Indeed the term pra-evropsk8 used by Machek is often confuse as he is not
denite whether it refers to Proto-Indo-European (PIE) or Pre-Indo-European,
which is essential for an accurate linguistic analysis.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
27
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
28
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
29
These preliminary conclusions are, in our opinion, obvious and generally
not contradicting the suggestions presented by some prominent scholars. It
should be also observed that a sense of borrowing of the type Slovak >
Hungarian > Romanian is hardly conceivable. Futhermore, it is observable
that the Slavic forms represent an assimilation (autochthonization) of a
foreign word heard *(oban or *(uban ((uban in Macedo-Rom., cf. Flora
1985: 89).
These observations will be reconsidered after reviewing the situation of
the homophone cioban shepherd in Romanian. First of all it is to observe
that many other synonyms are used, e.g.:
(1) p"curar < Lat. pecurarius, from pecus;
(2) p"stor < Lat. pastor, akin to pasco, pascere;
(3) oier, derived from oaie, pl. oi < Lat. ovis;
(4) mocan, unknown origin, very probably old archaic indigenous
(Thracian) term;
(5) baci unexplained;
(6) cioban considered, in general, as a Turkish inuence (Cihac 1870
1879, II: 565; Tiktin 19031916: 354, balkanisches Wort; Lbel 1894:
32; !"ineanu 1900, II: 128; 1929: 130; Pu$cariu et al. 1916 ff., II: 435,
with the precious observation that the word occurs rarely in Macedo-
Romanian; Pu$cariu 1976: 313, 347; Macrea et al. 1958: 145; Cior"nescu
1960 ff.: 185; Coteanu et al. 1975: 151).
This rich synonymy in Romanian, unique perhaps in Europe, is not a
simple hazard but reects the importance of this activity among the Roma-
nians. If so, a serious question arises: why should have the Romanians
borrowed a Turkish word for denoting an activity in which they were
perfect specialists all over the Balkans (the word Vlach Romanian is often
synonymous with shepherd) and for which their own language offered
and offers many other equivalents? Did the Romanians like the Turkish
word so much that they simply wanted un de plus? It seems that this aspect
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
28
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
29
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
30
passed ignored by all those who studied this topic, though it appears to us
of the highest importance. But not only the synonymic aspect has been
ignored, but also the historical facts: could the late Ottoman inuence
impose such a word which belongs to the basic vocabulary? And, impor-
tant as well, how should we explain the sense pot, recipient?
Among all these hypothesis, unacceptable as we can see, one remarkable
exception: B. P. Hasdeu, who rsty assumed a pre-Roman, Thracian origin
of the word akin to Avestan f9u-b$n herdsman (Hasdeu 1973, II: 95141;
the study had been initially published in 1874). He later abandoned this
brilliant hypothesis replacing it by an opinion suggesting a rather Tartar
origin (Hasdeu 18871898: 2298). It is no better solution, but it reects his
preocupation of nding a plausible explanation, realizing that the Turkish
(Ottoman) inuence is impossible.
The facts can be therefore summarized as follows:
(a) Rom. cioban shepherd is surely non-Turkish;
(b) Rom. cioban should be explained in its double meaning: pot,
recipient and shepherd.
If this is correctly understood, the problem is theoretically solved, the
real difculty consisting in nding the primitive connection between the
two spheres of meaning, which is:
shepherd undestood as PROTECTOR of livestock;
recipient understood as PROTECTOR of liquids,
both derived from a primitive root meaning to cover, to protect, hence
to graze, to contain. Given the correspondences already observed
between the balkanic terms and Persian, it is understandable that we must
look for a primitive root in the Indo-European heritage, where two roots
could be considered:
(a) IE *kadh- to cover, to protect, preserved in forms like
(1) helmet, hat: Lat. cassis (*kadh-tis), OHG huot, etc.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
29
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
30
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
31
(2) care, defence: OHD huota Germ. Hut, f.
(3) to graze, shepherd: MHG heten, OHG huotan, huoten Germ.
Hter shepherd, behten to graze.
(Forms in Pokorny 1959: 516; Morris et al. 1979: 1520).
(b) IE *(s)keu- to cover, in forms like
(1) roof, protection, cover: OInd. ku-k:la a pod, p$;su-k:la priest
garment, Arm. c < iw roof, shelter;
(2) room, house: Arm. xuc < room, Oir. c:l shelter;
(3) genitals: Latvian kja, Gr. =>?301 female genitalia, Cymric cwd
Hodensack;
(4) pot, recipient: OInd. k@a, ku@apa-, ku@ay-;
(Pokorny 1959: 951; Morris et al. 1979: 1540).
It is clear now that Rom. cioban [oban] together with its Persian corre-
spondent forms (oban, (uban, (upan, which are for long known as the
origin of the turkish word (oban shepherd must be explained as a com-
pound with the rst part IE *(s)keu- to cover, to protect and the second
part b$n analyzed above, with the expected treatment of IE group *keu- to
( in Persian and Thracian; from the latter language the word spread
throughout the Balkans where is surely is much older than its Turkish
equivalent of Persian origin.
The Balkanic term (oban cannot be of Turkish origin. The confusion was
produced by the similar forms existing from Persia to southeast Europe. But
this cannot confuse us and lead to an erroneous analysis. It should be equally
reminded that Turkish oban is a bookish word (Redhouse 129, 258, 262)
another detail proving that the Balkanic words cannot be derived from
Turkish but, quite precisely, from Thracian, like all the other forms consid-
ered in this paper. This will be clearer if referring to other examples.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
30
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
31
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
32
(3) Cioban, !oban shepherd and giupn, "upan, jupn, #upan
master, lord.
The following solutions were offered in explaining the origin of the
word:
(a) In Romanian it is assumed that the term is of Slavic origin (Cihac
18701879, II: 161; Tiktin 19031916: 880; Dragomir 1921: 147, 165;
!"ineanu 1929: 351; Rosetti 1978: 318, 344), though is sometimes pointed
out that the oldest Romanian form witnesses the phonetic structure with !:
giupn [!upn], which is a difcult detail, showing that this form is older
than that with !/j, in Romanian. It was suggested that this detail would
witness an immediate borrowing from the Slavs (Skok 1936: 34;
Popovi& 1960: 609; Mih"il" 1971: 360). But the hypothesis of an immedi-
ate borrowing does not clarify the problem in its complexity.
(b) For other linguists the origin of the word is unknown (Giuglea 1922:
361; Pu$cariu 1976: 256; Cioranescu 1960 ff.: 458; Coteanu et al. 1975:
482). This undoubtedly is a correct interpretation of the available data but
still does not solve the topic.
(c) Even a Latin origin was once suggested, namely a Late Latin form
*giupanus < Gr. gypA + -*-$nus (Giuglea 1923: 604; reconsidered in
Diculescu 1927).
In our opinion, Rom. giupn and Slavic upan should anyway be dis-
cussed closely connected with cioban, (oban, as long as the two groups
show a similar composition: (o-, (u- as compared to (u- (the Romanian
phonetism is surely the oldest) or )u- in the Slavic area also later in Roma-
nian, in the latter case the phonetic evolution being explainable either as a
normal change from ! [spelled gi] to ) [spelled j] (following the same
phonetic rules like the Latin elements, e.g. Lat. jocus > *!ocu > joc, cf. It.
giuoco) or a Slavic inuence supported (and supporting) the normal
internal evolution. This is a secondary aspect, a denite answer being
possible after a general consideration of the forms.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
31
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
32
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
33
The context in which these words are discussed leads to the reconstruc-
tion of a Thracian prototype *!upn-, possibly also *!up2n-, if we accept
the idea that Thracian had a neutral phoneme /2/. As compared with the
previously discussed form *(oban- (in Thracian) developed later into
modern forms like Rom. cioban, Alb. oban, Hung. csobn(y), etc. It is
quite clear that both forms support one another and should be anyway
analyzed together. If our hypothesis is accepted, we face a quite interesting
detail of Thracian (probably, more exactly, Late Thracian) phonetic alter-
nance: *(o-b$n, *(u-b$n- as compared to *!u-p$n-, *!u-p2n-, i.e. (/! and
b$n-/p$n-, p2n-. The author has no miraculous solution in explaining this
particular phenomenon but facts are quite clear (see infra).
(4) St$pn a master, Slavic *stopan% id.
After the previous discussion, it has become hopefully clear that this
word should be discussed in this context. But not always happened so:
(a) It is generally assumed that the word is of Slavic origin in Romanian
(Cihac 18701879, II: 351; Tiktin 19031916: 1483; !"ineanu 1920: 613;
Rosetti 1978: 320; 1986: 287). Indeed similar parallels are present among
Slavic speakers but is the word Slavic?
(b) A Latin origin was also suggested, from *stipanus < stips a small
coin + -$nus (Giuglea 1923, reconsidered by Pu$cariu 1976: 283). It is
also the solution advocated for the previous case giupn (supra).
(c) Latin origin as well but from hospitanus (Bari 1919: 9394).
(d) Unknown origin (Coteanu et al. 1975: 189).
(e) Thracian origin from a prototype akin to German Stab, Sanskrit
sthapyami (Philippide 19231928, II: 14; Prvulescu 1974: 28; Iv"nescu
1980: 254).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
32
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
33
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
34
It is interesting enough to observe that only this word was tentatively
explained as a Thracian heritage though obviously enough the other forms
are also eloquent in this respect. This solution rstly suggested by Philip-
pide is indoubtedly the only feasible. It is now reconsidered in the light of
the data presented here. The closest parallels are in Sanskrit: staphti,
sth$pana to stay, to maintain, sth$pin image-maker, etc. (cf. Monier
1976: 1262). It is clear therefore that the rst of the compound reects IE
*st$- to be, to stay (Pokorny 1959: 1004; Morris et al. 1979: 1542). The
second part -pn (in Romanian), -pan (among the Slavic speakers) clearly
reects the already analyzed form -ban, -pan master, lord, leader.
(5) Early attestations of the Thracians forms
A decisive proof of our hypothesis would be the ancient witnesses, the
written testimonies. As long as the Thracian did not write (at least according
to present-day knowledge) the situation seems desperate. Yet, there are
precious Thracian words mainly place-names and personal names preserved
in the Greek and Latin writers. Are these useful to our purpose? Surely yes,
but before analyzing such Thracians forms in Greek or Latin spelling an
important observation: Greek, like Latin, had no special graphic sign for a
series of phonemes like (, !, ), 9 and others, specic even inevitable in a
satem language like Thracian. If a Thracian word had such a specic
phoneme, it is clear that the Greeks could not spell it correctly, deforming it
more or less. Of course, the Greek (or Latin writers) cannot be blamed for
this, as their purpose was not to offer a scientic notation of the words heard
(such a notation would have been impossible anyway), neither could they
foresee the extraordinary importance of their clumsy notations. They simply
aimed at informing their co-nationals about an ethnic or geographic reality. If
these preliminary observations are correctly understood, some Thracian
forms in Greek or Latin spelling are of paramount importance to us.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
33
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
34
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
35
Thus, the reconstructed Thracian word *ban- and *pan-, possibly also
*p2n- is attested in some personal names ending in -paneus, -
B./.1, !B./.61, -panes (De%ev 1957: 42, with reference to the IE root
*p$- to graze, see supra). These forms should be discussed together with
Illyrian Panes (Russu 1969: 231).
It is interesting to observe that some b- forms (witnessing that the
postulated b/p was real in Thracian) appear with the meaning fortress (cf.
the sense house v. master in Persian), e.g. place-name C./D1, in Dacia
Mediterranea, also personal name Bantion (De%ev, 1957). The same
meaning appears with p- spelling in Panion, a city in Propontis, with the
corresponding ethnikon E./FG41, if these forms are really Thracian,
possibly also Scythian or Scythoid (Zgusta 1964: 355).
Giupn, for wich we expect a Thracian prototype *!up$n-, also *!up2n-,
is abundantly attested in somewhat unexpected spellings like Diuppaneus,
Diopanes, HIJB./.61, H0JB./.61, H0JB./.1, Dorpaneus, Diurpaneus
(De%ev 1957: 1941, 150; Russu 1967: 104). The name is mainly known as
that of a Dacian king Duras-Diurpaneus (in our hypothesis, a real pronun-
ciation *Duras- !upan-/!up2n, see infra), mentioned to have reigned
between the death of Burebista and the advent of Decebalus, i.e. rst
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 reect any
actual sound /r/ but a pseudo-spelling. The word should have been pro-
nounced *!up$n, *!up2n-, as the parallels clearly show.
Cioban, (oban, with a reconstructed Thracian prototype *(oban-,
*(uban- is identiable 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
36
territory (Procopius, De aediciis 4, 4), for which cf. Rom. stn"
sheepfold with Balkanic parallels. The absence of this form in the Greek
or Latin writers dealing with Thracian realities should not impede the
correct understanding of the word as Thracian. It is interesting though that
despite this detail, this was the only word out of all analyzed in this paper
for which the Thracian origin has lately become accepted by several
scholars. It should be anyway viewed in the light of the other parallels with
the similar meaning master, leader.
A similar situation connected to the approximative spelling of the
Thracian words is found in the Mediaeval attestation of giupn/!upan/
)upan. In this respect a particular consideration should be given to an
interesting testimony in an Avar text found in Snnicolau-Mare (Romanian
Banat, West Romania). This testimony is sometimes considered as the
earliest witness in the Middle Ages of a term connected to the social and
political structure of South-East Europe. It is true that the term was in-
tepreted as an Avar inuence, but this was in accordance with the largely
spread conceptions concerning the Balkanic civilisation (Machek 1971).
Here is the text:
'()*+ ,(+-+. /012 3)40/(542
'()/+()* ,6+-+. /+47(42 2/,542 /+512
Buila zoapan tsi dgtugi
Butaul zoapan taMruMi i(igi tsi
Buila-8upan made the cup, (this) cup
which Butaul-8upan ordered to be adapted for being hung.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
35
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
36
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
37
This text was analyzed by J. Nmeth (1932) who assumed that the forms
RSTETU and RVTETU should be read *(aban, so Buta-ul (aban
would mean son of Bota [from the breed of] aban, Bujla-aban would
mean Buila [from the breed of] %aban. Nmeth is inclined to nd a
support of his hypothesis in Constantin Porphirogenetos (De adm. imp.
37); in this view, the forms have nothing to do with Slavic )upan.
Following our hypothesis, it is most probable that the forms RSTETU,
RVTETU are nothing else than !upan/)upan as terms referring to the
social and political structure of the newcomers. This changes fundamental-
ly classical conceptions which view early south-east European civilisation
as a result of important Oriental (Avar or Turkic in general) inuences. In
our view, the newcomers borrowed civilisational terms from the au-
tochthonous inhabitants who anyway had more complex social organisa-
tion. Indeed no Oriental inuence can be postulated in either case of those
analysed in this paper.
Discussion
The words analyzed in this paper represent an old Indo-European
heritage transmitted until modern times via Thracian to the whole south-
east area. We started our investigation from Romanian, considered here as
reecting conservative aspects of the Thracian substratum inuence. The
terms considered as Thracian ll 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
signicant spread of the terms in modern times roughly corresponds to the
territory inhabited by thracians. Linguistically, the situation can be summa-
rized thus:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
36
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
37
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
38
(a) IE *p$-, also *p%i- to protect; to graze
Thracian *b$n- overlord, master, also *-p$n (seemingly only in
compounds).
Rom. ban, Hung. bn (undoubtedly a Romanian inuence, not vice-
versa), Serbo-Croatian bn overlord (a specic term of the political
structure). The meaning coin is seemingly derived from that of master,
overlord, possibly at a very early time (late Proto-Indo-European preced-
ing the expansion) as shown by the Old Indian forms (supra).
(b) IE *(s)keu- to cover, to protect
(1) Thracian *(u-b$n-, *(o-b$n- shepherd; (u- forms seem the oldest
reecting the treatment IE *eu > Thr. :.
Rom. cioban shepherd also recipient, a parallel witnessing an early
development of the meaning to cover (1) to graze sheep, shepherd and
(2) cover, recipient. Meaning recipient is preserved only in Hungarian
and Czech/Slovak as an obvious Romanian inuence. Meaning shepherd
is preserved all over the Balkans:: Bulg. (oban, (obanin, S.-Cr. (ban,
(obanin, Alb. oban, Mod. Gr. G?0-W/61; Turkish oban should be regard-
ed as a Persian inuence. The Turkish word made the analysis difcult as
many linguists were inclined to consider the south-east European words of
Turkish origin. It is obvious that the Turks could not inuence these
languages as long as pastoralism was very developed in this area and could
not be inuenced in a way or another by the Turks or the Turkish language
respectively.
(2) Thracian *!u-p$n-, !u-p2n- a lord, master, reected in Rom. giupn
[!upn], later jupn, also among Slavic speakers in the form )upan.
(c) IE *st$- to stay, to be
Thracian *sta-p$n-, probably also *st2-p2n- master, with second element
like in *ban, *(oban-, *!upan- and their modern preserved equivalents.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
37
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
38
Rom. st"pn master and Slavic reconstructed form *stopan+ (with the
observation that the form is by no means proto-Slavic). Compound built up
as giupn, jupn, !upan.
In the light of the facts presented in this paper, we assume that both
phonetic changes from Proto-Indo-European via Thracian till modern times
and the semantic eld do not allow to replace afnities by borrowings
from, e.g. from Turkish or another oriental language. Obviously enough,
the words considered are not Oriental or Slavic (in the sense of Proto-
Slavic). The presence or these forms on a large area in South-East Europe
is normal, reecting a common cultural pattern (Thracian) and cultural
diffusion.
An interesting question arises: if Romanian may be assumed as preserv-
ing a substratum inuence 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 rst Slavs still hear Thracian spoken? These
are complex aspects which require complex investigations. These questions
will not be answered here. We expect further discussions to our paper and
further consideration of the beginnings of early southeast European civili-
sations.
Linguistica (Ljubljana) 27: 111126.
Dalmatia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
39
A Pre-Indo-European Place-Name: Dalmatia
Two years ago I ventured to suggest another etymon of the place name
(hereafter PN) Ardeal, the Romanian form for Transylvania and, connected
to this, I also explained the PN Dalmatia (Paliga 1986)
1
. I shall not rediscuss
the whole topic, yet it is useful to briey point the essentials of my hypothe-
sis for a larger discussion. I started from the observation that the largely
accepted hypothesis which sees Rom. PN Ardeal as a reection of Hung.
Erdly is not at all feasible, mainly from reasons of phonetic evolution, as
long as the expected form should have been *Erdei or *Ardei.
We can better understand the situation of this PN if placing it in a reason-
able linguistic-comparative context. As a matter of fact the situation is
simple enough: Ardeal is a compound of the type Ar-deal, ar- (a particle lost
in vocabulary, probably akin to a arunca, a aruca to cast away, throw)
with the reconstructable meaning over, far away, and deal hill, also
forest, very frequent in Romanian place-names. The fact that Ar!deal is a
compound is also supported by obviously similar forms like Subdeal (also
spelled Sub Deal) at the foothill, Pe deal on the hill, La deal uphill. All
these forms are frequent in the so-called minor toponimy as well as in
vocabulary. Reverting to Ar-deal, it should be also observed that the Me-
dieval Latin form Trans-silvania and German berwald (now replaced by
Siebenbrgen) are loan-translations (calques) after Ar-deal. Hung. Erdly is
also a calque but following the rules of derivation in Hungarian: noun +
particle, i. e. Erd!- forest and -elu/-elv > -ely (cf. el!re straightforward,
eltt in front of), as shown and accepted by all Hungarian linguists (cf. Kiss
1980 with further references). What is particularly interesting in this case is
that the calque was doubled by a fortuitous similarity between Ar-deal and
Erdly, which created a confusion of etymological analysis.
1
See the study in the next, 4
th
volume, of this series.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
40
Another important point I tried to solve was to observe that what the
linguistic investigation had to clarify was the situation of Rom. deal hill,
also forest as compared to the rare Slavic form d"l# hill. My hypothe-
sis, proved by other parallels (see Table 1 below), is that this Slavic form
has nothing to do with other two homophone roots: d"l-
a
to make, create
(d"lo work, artifact, etc.) and d"l-
b
to divide, to part (d"liti, etc). Thus
d"l-
c
hil' is, unlike the other two roots, non-Slavic, probably borrowed
from the Balcanic substratum. In this case, we must identify, obviously
enough, a Preie. root *D-L/ *T-L (*DaL-, *DeL-, *TaL-, *TeL-, etc.) well
analyzed by various linguists (e.g. Trombetti 1925, Rostaing 1950, Faure
1977). PN Dalmatia is also analyzable from this perspective, being a
compund of the type *DaL-MaT-ia. The second part of the PN is also of
Preie. origin, namely the root *MaT(T)- confused, labyrinthine, from
which several meanings are derived, in this case the most probable being
bush, tree. The general meaning of the compound Dal-mat-ia is there-
fore forested highland. The spread of the Preie. root *DaL- / *DeL- is
briey sketched in Table 1. The Preie. origin of the PN Dalmatia is in full
agreement with archaeological nds, a very early Neolithic civilization
being well documented along the Adriatic. The PN should be considered
pre-Illyrian.
Linguistica (Ljubljana) 28 (1988):105108
Table 1
Survey of the forms derived from the Preie. root *D-L-, *D-L- prominence, hill, mountain
1 No connection with Gr. !"#$%, !&'#$% obvious, evident, which reects IE *dei-, *deiw- to shine.
2 By hazard similar to !'#()% uterus, matrix.
3 Lat. terra is derived from the parallel Preie. root *T-R-, *D-R- not analysed here.
Illyrian
NPp Dalmatae,
Delmatae,
Delmateis
NR Dalmatia
NL Dalmatas
Thracian
NL Daltarba
NSt Delkos
Romanian
(via Thracian)
deal hill;
forest
NR Ar-deal
over the hill/
forest
NL Subdeal,
Sub-deal, La
Deal, Peste
deal etc.
NL Delea
NL Talma
Greek
NI Delos (The
Cyclades)
NM Delos (1)
(Boeotia)
NL Delphoi (2)
NL Tylissos
(Crete)
NM Talarus
NL Lepa-talea
(Caria)
Etrusco-Latin
Etr. tel hill
?tular
boundary
Lat. tellus (3)
earth
Provence
NL Tallard (<
*Tal-arn-u-)
NL Toulon
Georgian
talaki fertile
soil
Centum in lingua Sclavenorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
43
Slavic *s!to - a challenging problem?
In memoriam Francisci Miklosich
Introduction
The numeral 10, given its importance in the archaic barter-based
societies, often puts interesting problems not only of strict linguistic analy-
sis but of extra-linguistic realities as well. Slavic *s!to is a good example
which will be reconsidered below. Out of all the Slavic numerals it undoubt-
edly is the most interesting for the linguistic investigation thus compensat-
ing the somewhat obscure points connected with the prehistory of the Slavs
and the assumably rich inter-ethnic contacts.
The existence of similar forms in all the Slavic idioms converging to the
reconstruction of a unique form *s!to does not raise essential problems.
Things turn unexpectedly complicated when we try to refer to the Proto-
Indo-European (hereafter PIE) form: *k
"
#t-m, *k
"
#t-$, as a variant of
*dk
"
#t-m, *dk
"
#t-$, obviously related to *dek
"
# 10. Therefore 10 was
viewed by the PIE speakers as ten times ten or amplied ten whereas
1000 was later interpreted as an amplied 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
44
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
45
1000 respectively which witness normal phonetic changes. If so, is the
situation of Slavic *s!to really challenging?
10, 100, 1000
Linguistic reconstruction allows to assume a basic PIE form *d(e)k
"
# 10
as well as a derivative *(d)k
"
#-t-om > Lat. centum ten times ten (Perotti
1985: 606). It is therefore conceivable that the basic numeral of the PIE
society meant all [ten] ngers of the [two] hands. But as such a small or
low quantity as expressed by this numeral cannot cover important barter
transactions like 100 sheep, 100 cows, 100 pots, etc., which occur very
often,10 became the most important numeral in such instances. This
explains why Finno-Ugric languages witness a borrowing from an Iranic
idiom: Finnish sata, Hungarian szz (Benk" et. al. 19671976, 3, s.v. szz).
The extralinguistic reality was therefore that Iranian tribes, neighbouring the
Finno-Ugric homeland in prehistory, inuenced trade life and terminology
as well.
Yet this is not at all an isolated case. Armenian preserves only tasn 10
as an IE heritage. The numeral 100 is unexplained (probably indigenous)
while the form for 1000 is borrowed (Table 1). Albanian witnesses mixed
indigenous and Latin forms, though in some instances it is very difcult to
decide in favour of one of the two possible origins as long as early texts are
not available and contamination had its role. Anyway, Alb. dhjet 10 seems
indigenous, cind 100 reects Latin centum and mij reects Lat. mille,
milia (cf. Rom. mie).
The numeral 1000 also poses interesting problems. Though it is not
directly illuminating our topic it is useful for a general background. First of
all it should be noted that PIE probably had no specic form for 1000, the
various IE idioms developing specic forms at later periods. The recon-
structed pseudo-PIE form *g " heslo- with the would-be meaning 1000 is
based on too little solid data (Pokorny 1959: 446; Morris et al. 1979: 1518).
Anyway it is supposed to explain Greek forms for 1000 (*g " hsl!yo!) as well
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
44
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
45
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
46
as Latin form (*sm'- one + a form *gzhl'!). These opinions seem to be
rather desperate attempts in instances when the PIE vocabulary can hardly
explain later realities.
The Indo-Iranian group witnesses forms derived with sa- one + a form
considered derived from the same primitive root *g " heslo-, though a relation-
ship with Skr. shas- power, force is also possible (Simenschy and Iv#nes-
cu 1981: 311).
Other languages like Armenian and Hungarian borrowed Iranic forms for
1000 (see table 1) whereas Finnish borrowed the corresponding numeral
from the Germanic neighbours. On the other hand Georgian developed this
numeral as ten hundred (Table 2).
Most relevant for our topic and preparing further developments regarding
the situation of the numeral 10 in Proto-Slavic is the situation of the
numeral 1000 in Slavic
1
, Baltic and Germanic. As Table 4 shows, both
numerals for 10 and 1000 in Proto-Slavic witness forms with normal
phonetic evolution, in the latter case with a construction of the type *tu- >
*ty- +10, i.e. *ty-s%t&, *ty-s%ta amplied hundred or big hundred. These
are important details showing that, quite probably, the archaic Proto-Slavic
form for 10 had been *s%t&, later replaced by *s!to. But before developing
this point it should be noted that similar constructions for 1000 are wit-
nessed in Baltic and Germanic. If the convergent forms in Baltic and Slavic
put no major problems as long as the two linguistic group developed many
similar forms, the existence of a similar numeral in Germanic (built there-
fore on the same model *tu- + 100) poses some uncomfortable problems.
Machek (1971: 643) tried to solve this difcult problem by assuming that
Germanic forms are not indigenous (i. e. not following phonetic rules of
evolution from PIE to Germanic) but borrowed from Slavic. Yet Germanists
1
Old Church Slavonic (hereafter OCS) *t!ma is also attested with the meaning
very much, myriads sometimes even ten thousand. It was calqued in Old
Romanian by 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
46
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
47
usually suppose a proto-form *tus-hundi therefore *tus- + 100), the rst 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 recon-
structable 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 Proto-
Slavic 1000 was probably (or at least possibly) borrowed by the neigh-
bouring Germanic speakers at a quite early stage, why 100 poses such
2
To my knowledge the hypothesis that Baltic, Slavic and Germanic might reect 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 reect 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
47
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
48
problems of phonetic evolution? Of course, we might think there may have
been exceptions from the normal phonetic evolution or that usage changed
the initial form. These are, in fact, hypotheses advanced faute de mieux. If
we really attempt to giving a reasonable explanation we should adopt the
hypothesis that Slavic form was probably borrowed. This was evident to
many scholars (e. g. Mikkola 19131950, 1: 69). Other Slavists quote this as
a possibility though are not inclined to adopt it (e. g. Vasmer 19531958, 3:
15; Skok 1971 1974, 3: 336, both with further references). Indeed, Iranic
may be a plausible source as long as Finno-Ugric languages also borrowed
an Iranic form. The problem is that Iranic forms witness a vowel grade of
the root (Avestan sat)m) whereas Slavic form leads to a basic form *sut-
(therefore *sut)m, in the hypothesis of an Iranic source), to my knowledge
never attested or reconstructable for an Iranic idiom. In present authors
view, the Iranian connection cannot offer a good explanation and it should
be abandoned. The fact that many Slavists have not adopted it may also be a
proof that it is not convincing enough. But what other source can be
invoked? Obviously, it should be a satem language spoken by an ethnic
group neighbouring the Slavic homeland which can be now assumed as
being north from the Carpathians, in what is today south Poland and south-
west Ukraine (Gimbutas 1971; V!a 1983). The geographical distribution of
the Slavs and their neighbours is shown in Figure 1.
In the light of the data known it may be therefore assumed that:
(1) Slavic *s!to cannot be borrowed from any centum idiom, therefore
Germanic and Celtic cannot be invoked;
(2) Baltic idioms cannot equally explain the Slavic form though they are
closely related;
(3) Iranian cannot be invoked either, as long as no proto-form like *sut)m
can be plausibly reconstructed.
Eliminating these possibilities our analysis can now refer to the last two
ones: Illyrian and Thracian. Illyrian can be practically excluded because
historical, archaelogical or linguistic data do not allow to invoke Illyrian as
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
47
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
48
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
49
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 nally 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 reecting a Slavic borrowing
(%#ineanu 1929: 632; Pu&cariu 1976 [1
st
ed. 1940] :275; Schmid 1964: 196;
Vasmer 195558, 3: 15; Rosetti 1986: 135, 280 who invokes a very old borrow-
ing 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 specically consider Rom. sut+ a substratum (North-Thra-
cian 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 reect a north-Thracian (Dacian) borrow-
ing was rstly advanced by C. Daicoviciu (1956: 120). It was a brilliant observa-
tion 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+ reects
a Slavic inuence 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
49
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
50
Reviewing the various hypotheses advanced to explaining rom. sut+ we
can observe that the Slavic origin, formerly usually admitted, is now
difcult to be accepted. Such a hypothesis was once advanced and then
rapidly adopted (already in the 19
th
century) when the problems connected
with the substratum heritage in Romanian were not properly approached.
For many linguists it was (and sometimes still is) easier to equate Rom. sut+
< Sl. *s!to (formerly spelled *s,to, a graphic illusion which supported the
hypothesis of the Slavic origin of this numeral in Romanian) then to
assume, for instance, that both forms might be in fact related, urverwandt, at
a larger IE scale. Finally, the isolated hypothesis advanced by D. Slu&anschi
(mentioned above) does not solve this complex problem, moreover compli-
cates it without reason and without perspective.
These facts require answers to other details essential to a correct under-
standing of the topic in its complexity, i. e.:
(1) The treatment of IE sonants in Thracian as compared to other IE
idioms, Slavic included;
(2) The possible witnesses of ancient texts referring to Thracian forms,
and
(3) When and how the Slavs presumably borrowed a North-Thracian
(Dacian) form for 100 which subsequently replaced the inherited Proto-
Slavic form *s!to.
The nal part of this paper is dedicated to these aspects.
(1) IE sonants in Thracian and connected problems (Table 3)
As long as both Thracians and Proto-Slavs did not use writing what can
the linguistic analysis illuminate in such a difcult point of investigation?
Of course, the linguist cannot offer miraculous solutions but can infer data
from known elements. Such a case is the reconstructable (as plausible as
possible) evolution of the IE sonants to Thracian as compared to other IE
idioms.
Investigations of the last 2030 years have shown that indeed IE *# and
*. resulted in Thracian *u
m
, *u
n
(Georgiev 1957: 81, reviewed in Poghirc
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
49
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
50
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
51
1969: 316317). Nevertheless a major corrigendum is necessary at this
point: the phonetic treatment IE *#, *. > Thr. *u
m
, *u
n
is not specic to
only the southern branch of the Thracian family but obviously enough to its
northern branch as well (with a slight difference, see below), fact proved
among other details by the inheritied substratum form sut+ in Romanian and
by the borrowed form *s!to in Slavic. But not only by this. A recent obser-
vation due to the late Professor Gh. Iv#nescu (1980: 258) noted that Rom.
burt+ belly, womb (used when referring to a pregnant woman, also to a fat
person in general) reects IE *bh/t-, root *bher- to carry, to bear
children (Pokorny 1959: 128; Morris et. al. 1979: 1509). The Romanian
form has immediate parallel in German Ge-burt, related to Bahre a stretch-
er (Wasserzieher 1979: 24), detail showing that IE */ had similar treatments
in Thracian and Germanic.
In the light of these data, we have therefore at least two clear examples
proving the treatment of IE sonants into Thracian:
IE *# > Thr. *u
m, n
, later also u (in some northern dialects, including the
dialect from which Slavic *s!to was borrowed), e. g. IE *k
"
#t!$ > Thr.
*sunt-, sut- (most probably *su
n
t) and *sut)), hence Rom. sut+ (nal -+ very
probably reects a similar or identical phoneme in Thracian).
5

IE */ > Thr. *ur, e. g. *bh/t- (root *bher-) > Thr. *burt- > Rom. burt+
belly, womb.
Is there possible to identify other examples reecting the same treatment
of the IE sonants into Thracian? The success depends, as always in such
instances when written texts are absent, on the good intuition of the linguist
when choosing the possible primitive root and the possible parallels. It also
depends on other linguists accepting or not a given example. In authors
view, the two examples quoted above are a minimum sufcient for our
5
If our reconstruction has been sufciently correct, then the most probable form
for 10 in Thracian should have been *dsu
n
t (in southern dialects) and *d)sut (in
northern dialects). Also possible are the forms *d)s
n
t, *d)st, if we accept the
idea (well supported by various data) that Thracian has at least one neutral vowel
of the type /)/.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
50
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
51
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
52
purpose. Another possible example is offered by Rom. a se gudura (refer-
ring 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)e-
hendere, 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 witness-
es 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 reect 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
52
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
53
too (though not necessarily ironically given) reecting 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 concen-
trate 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 reect 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 reects 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 *u
m
, *u
n
. We can additionally observe that if we are to
suppose dialectal treatments in Thracian then we surely have here a good
example of reection: some dialects knew a treatment of IE *. to *u
m
, *u
n

(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 rst 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 pronuncia-
tion should have been nasal as well, i. e. Sountou-: Sountous / Suntu-l(nos.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
52
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
53
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
54
(3) Slavic *s!to and a possible chronological tableau
The facts presented allow to postulate the existence of a Proto-Slavic
form *s%t& which is consonant with the other relevant numerals for
10 (*des%t&) and for 1000 (*ty-s%t&), also *ty-s%t&). At a certain pre-
historic or proto-historic time this form was replaced by a North-Thracian,
even North-Dacian form (reconstructable as *sut-) which subsequentely
became the pan-Slavic word for 100. Such a borrowing can be understood
only if referring to extra-linguistic realities, the same (or similar) realities
which led to Iranic forms for 100 in Finno-Ugric languages: commerce
and trade. Similar extra-linguistic realities are responsible for the probable
(or, at least, possible) Slavic origin of the Germanic word for 1000.
If this is accepted a legitimate question arises: when was proto-Slavic
*s%t& replaced by the post-Proto-Slavic form *s!to of arguably North-
Thracian origin? The answer is inevitably difcult because we lack a
reasonable North-DacianProto-Slavic table of correspondences, though
quite often now the Dacian inuence on Slavic has been observed (e. g.
Gimbutas 1971: 22 ff.; V!a 1983: 88). In these circumstances the answer
could only be one of simple hypothesis based on few historical data. Indeed
the most probable chronological interval when the Dacians could have had
an important inuence on the Slavs and their language was the 1st century
B. C. to the 1
st
century A.D., i. e. the interval when the Dacians had an
important role in southeast Europe beginning with the reign of Burebista in
the 1
st
century B. C. and ending with the second Daco-Roman war in 105
106. After this date the Dacians, and the Thracians in general, went the
inexorable way of gradual romanization; they could not probably impose
key-terms like 100 and others though the free Dacians still put problems to
the Roman empire down to the 4
th
century. On the other hand, a date of
borrowing of the numeral 100 by the Slavs before the 1st century B. C. is
of course possible but I do not see a quite plausible social and economic
context.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
53
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
54
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
55
Finally if we accept the hypothesis that Germanic numeral for 1000 is
borrowed, then it is most probable to suppose that this borrowing was made
before the 1
st
century B. C. when the Slavs should have had a certain
inuence on the Germanic peoples. For the time being historical and
archaelogical evidence do not support such a view but future data will
surely clarify this details as well. It is anyway a chapter of Slavic-Germanic
relations which cannot be aproached here in full.
Final remarks and conclusions
Summing up the data presented above we can infer that the situation of
Slavic *s!to may be better understand in a larger, IE context. Indeed,
numerals for 100 and 1000 may be often borrowed from another neigh-
bouring language. The situation in Finnish, Hungarian and Slavic is typical.
Also interesting is the situation in Romanian where sut+ reects an indige-
nous pre-Roman (north-Thracian) form (as opposed to former hypotheses
which assumed mainly on the basic of a graphic illusion when Sl. s!to was
parallelled to sut+ a Slavic origin of the Romanian numeral). It is a form
intrusive among the other numerals of Romance origin. A similar situation,
though somewhat reversed, in met in Albanian, where qind 100 ( < Lat.
centum) is used in the context of indigenous numerals. Armenian tasn 10
reects an IE origin, but harivr 100 is presumably indigenous while hazar
is a borrowing from Persian. And such examples may continue.
Reverting to the situation of Slavic *s!to, linguistic analysis may postu-
late that Proto-Slavic form for 100 was *s%t& as supported by the forms for
10 and 1000: *des%t& and *ty-s%t&, *ty-s%t& respectively. Proto-Slavic
*s%t& was therefore replaced (very probable in the interval 1
st
century B. C.
1
st
century A. D.) by an intrusive form of North-Thracian (Dacian) origin
as conrmed by the phonetic evolution identiable as such, i.e. the treat-
ment of IE *#, *. to*u
m
, *u
n
(south dialects) and *u
m
, *u
n
> *u (north
dialects, including the dialects from which Slavic form was borrowed). The
hypothesis that Sl. *s!to might reect an Iranian inuence should be
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
54
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
55
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
56
abandoned because it is not supported by the phonetic laws reconstructed
for the Iranic branch of the IE family.
To the question: was *s!to the only north-Thracian inuence on Slavic?
The answer is: of course not. Slavists have lately agreed that north-Thracian
(Dacian) inuence on Slavic should have been important though we are still
far from a coherent view in this sense. The present paper has shown only
one aspect out of many others to be analyzed in this; it is therefore mainly
an invitation to further discussions
7
.
First version in Slovene with an English abstract in
Slavisti=na Revija (Ljubljana) 36, 4 (1988): 349358.
7
See also the study 100 Slavic Basic Roots, in volume 4 of this series .
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
55
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
56
__________________________________________________________________
Table 1Table 1
Numerals 10, 100, 1000 in the Indo-European Languages
10 100 1000
PIE *dek
"
# *(d)k
"
#-t-m, *(d)k
"
#-t-$ >
OCS *des%t& (*s%t&)
8
replaced by *s!to
9
*ty-s%t&, *ty-s%ta
Baltic: Lith. de?imt ?imtas t@kstantis
Latv. desmit simts t@ksto?, tukstuAts
O. Ind. daBa Batm sa-hsram
Avestan dasa sat)m ha-za!r)m
N. Pers. haz$r
Arm. tasn harivr (< Preie.) hazar (< N. Pers.)
Germanic *tehun *hundan *thus-hundi
Gothic taihun hund C@-hundi
Celtic: O.I. deich c(t
Kimric deg cant
Cornic dek cans
Breton dek kant
Tokh. A/B A: (k/ B: (ak A: knt/ B: knte
Lat. decem centum m'lle, m'lia
Greek DEFG <FG4H3
Eolic IE77818
Ion.-Att. I(<)J7818, IK7818
8
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 discus-
sions in the main text).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
56
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
58
Table 2
Numerals 10, 100, 1000 in some non-Indo-European Languages
10 100 1000
gruzin aLi asi aLasi
nlandez kymmenen sata (< Iran.) tuhat, tuhannen (< germ.)
maghiar tz
10
szz (< Iran.) ezer (< Iran.)
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
58
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
59
Table 4
Numerals 10, 100, 1000 in the Slavic Languages
10 100 1000
Protosl. *des%t& *s!to
11
*ty-s%t&, *ty-s%ta
*ty-s*ta, *ty-s*t&
OCS !"##$% #&$' $(##)*, $(#+)*
B. deset sto (hiljada < n.gr.)
S.-Cr. ds(t st tisuNa (also hiljada < n.gr.)
Slv. dest st tso=(a)
Cz. deset sto Old tisc > Modern tisc
Slk. desaO, desiati sto tisc
Pol. dziesi%N sto tysiPc
R. dsjaO sto tysja'a
11
The comparative analysis of these forms conrms 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
59
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
60
Table 5
Distribution of numeral 100 in the languages neighbouring the Slavic
Homeland
Baltic lit. ?imtas Fin. sata
let. simts
Germanic *hundan Sl. *s!to Iranic sata
Celtic breton kant, etc. Tr.-d. *sut' >
rom. sut"
_______________
Chart
On next page, the illustration loosely suggests the distribution of the ethnic groups
at the beginning of Christian era. It complements and claries the data in Table 5.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
59
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
60
Germanic groups
Balts
Slavs
Celts
Illyrian
Thracians
Black
Sea
Iranic
groups
European ethnic groups at the beginning of the Christian era.
Romanisation
Uralic
groups
Greeks
Aegean Sea
Pannonia
(area of
interethnic
interference)
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
61
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 reected 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
62
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
63
complement present-day knowledge. Yet it is already clear that the primitive
meaning of labyrinth or, better, of the labyrinth common to the Greek-
Aegean world was stone structure, more exactly structure of big stones.
The word is indeed a compound of the type *LaB-UR-inthos, i. e. root
*LaB- stone, cliff and *OR-/*UR- big, huge, already analyzed by various
linguists (Trombetti 1925; Mu!u 1981; Paliga 1987; 1989). The primitive
meaning structure of big stones shows that the Aegean-Greek labyrinths
were typologically, if not even genetically, close to the megalithic
monuments of Western Europe. We shall revert to this aspect in the nal
part of this paper. But before drawing conclusions it is of much use to
analyze in detail Engl. maze, the etymological context of which is less clear.
English forms maze/amaze and related parallels
It is well known that no other parallel of Engl. maze has been identied
so far, this word being practically unexplained. The only clear connection
can be traced to the verb maze, in Middle English still preserving the
meaning to bewilder, to confuse. The Old English attested form is the past
participle amasod (Skeat 1879; Onions et al. 1969; Morris et al. 1979).
Klein's approach (1971), together with the epithet probable to Norv. masast
to dose off and Swed. masa be slow, sluggish is doubtful, though not
impossible, as we see bellow. In Cantebury Tales, the old meaning of amaze
is still preserved:
Ye maze, maze, gode sire, quod she,
This thank have I for I have maad you see;
Allas! quod she, that ever I was so kinde!
Now, dame, quod he, lat al passe out of minde.
(Merchant's tale, v. 23872390; quoted from Skeat 1913).
Despite the almost desperate situation concerning the origin of these
closely related words, at least one fact is clear: the primitive meaning should
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
62
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
63
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
64
have been intricate, confused situation. No other parallels have been
found, except Klein's approach quoted above.
The following forms should be considered in this context:
a) A Pre-IE (Mediterranean) root reconstructed as *mat(t)a bushy land,
bushiness has been identied as the etymon of Alb. mand mulberry (the
plant Morus), from a primitive form *mant- < *matt-, very probable akin to
Basque mahats grape. An Apullian form matine bushy land is also
attested, also the Italic personal name Matese, Meta (Bertoldi 1931: 258 ff.;
Ribezzo 1950).
b) Perhaps (or probably) related to these, a primitive Uralic form *maij"a
forest has been reconstructed, out of which the Lappish muoi"i and
Finnish mets are explained, both preserving the primitive meaning.
Another primitive Uralic form *mkt! bush, shrub has been also supposed
for Fin. mts, Gen. mttn (Collinder 1957: 1156, 178; 1960: 407).
c) A particularly interesting word, supporting the facts stated so far and
opening further perspectives, is Latvian mats hair wich has equally
remained unexplained (Fraenkel 19551965 s. v. m#taras a stake, a pile;
Lidn 1908: 493; both linguists assert that Latv. mats is an obscure word).
Some Romanian words also accept an explanation in this context, i. e. as
derivatives from an old, primitive root having the meaning intricate,
confuse. A signicant parallel is ma$, pl. ma$e gut(s), bowels together
with the verb a ame$i (from an older form am%$i, cf. Pu!cariu 19161984: I:
147) to make/become dizzy, to stun which was from the very beginning
supposed by the author as the exact parallel of Engl. maze / amaze. But, as
this detail has not been noticed so far, a brief discussion is necessary. Thus,
Rom. ma$(e) is usually compared to the Napolitan matt&e id. and
Logudorese matta womb, stomach for which a Latin form matia is
supposed (Meyer-Lbke 1935; Rosetti 1978: 139 the same solution is
accepted, whereas on p. 598 a primitive meaning string [?!] is suggested).
The facts seem to be very debatable, yet it is obvious that, on the one
hand, Lat. matia has not developed further pan-Romance forms but is
preserved (better said, is considered to be so) only in Romanian and in two
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
63
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
64
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
65
Italian dialects. On the other hand we nd 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$(e), via a Thracian form easily reconstructable as *mats- if a
meaning intricate, confuse can be traced back to Gr. '())*+, the
Macedonian-Greek word being therefore another relic of the Mediterranean
root *mat(s)- as identied and analyzed by the Italian scholars.
In what concerns the relation between (1) Lat. matia Rom. ma$(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
difcult 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
65
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
66
dim, confused (Tiktin 19011916: 60; Slavic forms in Miklosich 1886:
189). This etymon is obviously impossible as the details regarding the
phonetic changes of Sl. , and the group -st- cannot be avoided.
(2) A Latin origin from (sensus) ammittere to affect the senses, aimed
mainly at explaining the dialectal form a amte (in Transylvania), but
disconsidering the oldest a am%$i, which is a fundamental detail ("#ineanu
1929: 22).
(3) The common explanation now is by Lat. *ammattire < mattus
drunken (Pu!cariu 1916-1940, I: 147; accepted in Coteanu et. al. 1975: 31
also in Meyer-Lbke 1935: 445/5428, in the latter case without the
Romance parallels as presented by Pu!cariu, i. e.. It. matto mad, crazy, Fr.
mat powerless, weak which are considered separately, under entry 5401
and 5424 respectively).
In our opinion these explanations should be now abandoned. They are
not supported either by phonetic analysis or by certain mythological
implications as shown below.
The Romanian words already analyzed, i. e. ma$(e) bowels and a ame$i
to stun may offer as the author believes the very solution for many
obscure facts. In other words, Rom. ma$(e) and a ame$i is the exact parallel
of Eng. maze / to amaze, both in form and meaning, from a primitive root
*MaT(T)-, very probably also *MaTs- intricate, confused, already
identied and analyzed by Bertoldi and Ribezzo. For a complete analysis
two details should be mentioned.
(a) The spelling of Eng. maze / to amaze is very well claried by the
Rom. form as well as by Basque mahats; both arguably preserve the original
phoneme /ts/, which, in the case of Romanian, should be accepted as
existing in Thracian, the substratum language of Romanian. Indeed, the
same phoneme should be postulated for the oldest form which resulted in
Eng. maze / amaze. It is known that in Old and Middle English the situation of
s and z is confusing, sometimes one letter being used instead of the other,
sometimes z being used for denoting a phoneme like /ts/ (e.g. Pyles 1964: 38
39). This original phoneme is also witnessed by Latvian mats (see below).
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
65
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
66
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
67
(b) Both Rom. a ame$i and Eng. amaze denote the same prex a. The
parallel is striking yet interpretable without reffering to hazard. It is to
observe that in many European languages the prex a- may be variously
explained. In English, there was a superposition of different inuences, in
this case being a reection 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$(e) and the
Italian dialectal forms matt&e and matta from Lat. matia in its turn from Gr.
'())*+ , in which case the similarity between the Macedonian-Greek forms
and the Thracian-Romanian ones may be accounted for in terms of a
Balkanic element.
(2) Or, especially if considering the meaning of the Italian forms, one is
to suppose an east-Romance inuence toward the west, the Latin form matia
therefore has no direct connection either with Rom. ma$ 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 denite 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
67
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
68
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 specically 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$%i is another enigma of the Romanian vocabulary. Finally, I should note
the verb a mototoli to crumple, seemingly a reduplicated form reductable
to mot-mot-ol-, with a simplied pronunciation to mot-ot-ol- (further
examples of such simplied reduplications are considered in our MS
Byzantion). We again have no reason to consider all these forms as a result
of mere hazard but as evidence of the real existence of an old non-IE root
*MaT(T)-, *MaT(s)- (eventually with a parallel with o- vowel grade, which
could result later as well by phonetic evolution).
Some remarks on Eng. maze / amaze and Rom. ma"(e) / ame"i
The situation of the words discussed and covering a large area of
different linguistic structure (Germanic, Romance, Hellenic, Baltic, Iberian)
may be summarized thus:
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
67
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
68
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
69
(a) The primitive pre-IE root may be fairly well reconstructed as *M-T-,
*M-Ts- (*MaTT-, *MaTs-, maybe also *MoTs-) intricate, confuse.
(b) Eng. maze / amaze (*mats-/a-mats-) answers Rom. ma$(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 afnity with all the other forms discussed, rst of all to
Rom. ma$(e) bowels (via Thracian, a substratum element in Romanian).
Pre-Indo-European Relics
All these terms are relics of a non-IE language (or closely related
languages) once spoken in Europe before Indo-Europeanization. The phonetic
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
68
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
69
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
70
changes as well as the meanings do not follow the laws known in the IE
idioms. The situation of the Uralic forms *maij"a and *mkt! is uncertain;
they most probably belong to the context discussed here, but a nal solution
may be offered only when other correspondences between the Uralic family
and the pre-IE substratum have been identied and analyzed. In this view it is
perhaps better to reconstruct no primitive Uralic forms but to postulate a
borrowing from an old non-Uralic (and non-IE) idiom.
Undoubtedly, most of the words belonging to the pre-IE root *M-T(T)-
confused, labyrinthic had a magic symbolism. Eng. maze is a typical
example. Other had, or still have, implicit magic values, such as the creeds
connected to hair. All these forms may be a linguistic approach to a better
understanding of the pre-IE phenomena, to the numerous aspects linked to the
survival of pre-IE terms until modern times. But a better understanding of this
symbolism may be achieved if we refer to the labyrinthic phenomenon.
Gr. lab!rinthos, Eng. maze, Rom. ma"(e)
If there is now little doubt that the initial meaning of Gr. lab!rinthos was
structure of huge stones and also little doubt that the rst meaning of Eng.
maze was intricate, confused, labyrinthic (meaning also shared by Rom.
ma$e), what could be the common features of both these semantic elds,
apparently distant (and distinct), and belonging to different cultural areas?
One rst common feature is obvious: both semantic elds are well
represented in a large area of Europe, in the rst 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
reect a pre-IE heritage. In order to understand the typological context of these pre-
IE (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 gures 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,
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
69
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
70
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
71
labyrinths and bowels is now obviously derived from Upper Palaeolithic/Early
Neolithic references to the Goddess's sacred body in her various hypostases:
Creatrix (Life-Giver) or Death-Giver. If the megalithic monuments tried to copy the
Goddesss body (just like certain caves chosen for ritual practices), the labyrinth (i. e.
the structure of huge stones) copied the Goddess's bowels. The parallel Eng. maze
Rom. ma$e is relevant and inevitable. The fact that the labyrinth was sometimes
viewed as the house of entrails is once again relevant (Santarcangeli 1974, with a
sub-chapter thus entitled). The association between the labyrinth in its later,
derived sense of intricate, confused and bowels is obvious and based on a
profound knowledge of the human body. It is therefore no wonder that in various
cultural areas (Southeast Europe, Western Europe, Iberia, Italy) the labyrinth, in its
endless versions, was (and perhaps still is) continuously imbued with magic powers.
Conclusions
In the light of the data presented here, we hope it has become evident that the
labyrinth initially functioned as a cult place, as so well represented in the Aegean
(cf. Rutkowski 1972), and more exactly a cult place similar to the megalithic
monuments of Western Europe which copied the Neolithic Goddesss body. It is
only later when the initial meaning was lost, as always happens in the history of
culture, that the labyrinth became associated with other functions and was
interpreted mainly as a way of redemption (cf. Krzak 1986).
The labyrinth was initially another form of revering the Neolithic Goddess and
any interpretation of its meanings and functions should comply with the age when
these genuine cult places were built and when they had their meaning, later
forgotten or reinterpreted according to the fashion of the day.
To commemorate the labyrinth is to commemorate the beginnings of
European cult activities which go back in time to the Upper Palaeolithic or
maybe still earlier.
Linguistica 29 (1989): 5770
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
70
De labyrintho
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
71
__________
Fig. 1 Model of a temple discovered at V#dastra, Olt district, Romania.
Comparative calibrated radiocarbon chronology for the corresponding layer
indicated rst half of the 5
th
millennium B.C. Upper part of the gurine is
reconstructed. Labyrinthic model incised on the body corresponds to the facts
revealed by linguistic analysis. Courtesy Museum of National History and
Archaeology, Bucharest.
Table 1
The general distribution of the forms derived from the Pre-IE root *L-B-, *L-P- stone, cliff, hill
Greek and gean
Myc. ? dupu
2
ritojo*
potinija lady of the
labyrinth
dapurito *
!"#$%&'()* (*LaB-
UR-) structure of big
stones
+,#%-* double-axe
NL !"#"%" (Caria)
NL ."/)-+"#0
(Caria)
Mediterranean
NL !1#"')*
Thracian
+2#"
township ***
(< stone structure)
NL !3#)', Libum
NL !1#-//"
Italic (Etruscan, Latin,
Italian)
Lat. labrum
Etr. Labrius, Laberius

Puliese labbi coltello
Sard. lera a pebble
Camp. lvera
Friulan lvara a slab
Etr. +"45, Lappa
NL Lepta
NL L6bro > Livorno
Lat. lapis
Iberian
NL Libana (Castilia)
NL Lebedontia
(Avieno)
Iber. *lappa a cave
Port. lapa a cave
NL !"7"8&"
French
NL Le
Lubron
Notes
* Uncertain because Myc. pu
2
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 2
nd
study in this volume, above).
Greek and gean
!"#$% (Pisidia)
NL !"#5%&* (Pisidia)
NL !"75;' (Lycia)
NL !"77" (Crete,
today Argyroupolis)
NL !57"-8"+5"
(Caria)
? +:"* stone
**
Mediterranean Thracian
Italic (Etruscan, Latin,
Italian)
Iberian French
Table 2
Survey of the forms derived from the Pre-IE root *M-T(T)- (*MaT-, *MaTs-, *MoT-, *MoTs- etc.) intricate, confuse, labyrinthine
(1) maze
(2) bowels
(3) amaze
English
(& Germanic)
maze *
amaze (<
!masian)
(cf. line 1)
Romanian
a mototoli
to
crumple
ma"e
bowels
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
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.
(4) doze
off
(5) bush,
tree
(6) hair
Norw. masast
doze off;
Swed. masa
be slow
a mo"#i
doze off
(cf. mo",
below and
row 1)
mo" tuft
of hair
Mo"ani,
name of
a
regional
group
mand
mulberry
(*mant- <
*matt-)
Dalmatia ***
forested hill
Apul. matine
bushy land
NP Matese,
Meta
mats hair
*mai*a
forest:
Lapp muoi*i
Fin. mets;
*mkt! bush
Fin. mts
mahats
grape
(mats`) ****
De linguis archaicis Europ
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
77
Proto-Indo-European, Pre-Indo-European, Old European:
Archaeological Evidence and Linguistic Investigation
Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets (Burnt Norton)
Archaeological data support, and are supported by, linguistic analysis
leading to the conclusion that the Old European (pre-Indo-European)
group (labeled Urbian in this paper) was fundamentally opposed to
the Kurgan (PIE) group but was presumably relatedat least
typologicallyto the West European Neolithic bloc (labeled Mega).
The term for township is considered basic for sketching the
essentials of the Urbian-Mega complex opposed to Proto Boreal.
The investigation of the Proto-Indo-European (hereafter PIE) problem and
the Pre-Indo-European substratum (hereafter Preie.) inuence in territories
subsequently Indo-Europeanized must now consider two main views. One
belongs to Maria Gimbutas who on various occasions has advanced a theory
mainly considering archaeological but also linguistic and mythologic data to
reconstruct two important cultural foci in European prehistory: Old Europe or
Old European Civilization whose development began with c. 6500 B. C. and
lasted to c. 3500 B. C., and the PIE area in the Volga basin and the north
Pontic steppes. These two cultural blocs present distinctive features: Old
Europe was a matrifocal and equalitarian society which developed a local
system of sacral writing not later than the end of the 6th millennium B. C. as
well as metallurgical skills for processing copper and gold. The Old Europeans
produced rened ceramics and, at a certain stage, lived in large settlements
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
78
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
79
which may be termed proto-urban. Sophisticated religious structures and
rituals are well documented.
Opposed to this is the PIE tradition which is labeled Kurgan because of
tumulus burials which represent a conservative element of a cultural tradition.
The Indo-Europeans (Kurgan people) were pastoralists, who domesticated the
horse which allowed them to cover vast areas within a short time and adored
the god of the shining sky. Their ideology was patrifocal and their society
stratied, denoting a warlike people. Around 44004200 B. C., the rst wave
of these steppe pastoralists is attested along the Danube. The Indo-European
(hereafter IE) expansion into Europe continued in three other subsequent
waves (c. 3200, c. 3000, c. 1300 B. C.) and resulted in the gradual
Kurganization (or Indo-Europeanisation) of the indigenous population to
different degrees. The Preie. substratum inuenced and affected the cultural
groups known to us at the dawn of history (Gimbutas 1973 a, b; 1974; 1979;
1982; 1986; 1989; 1990).
Another view, using almost exclusively linguistic evidence (which
therefore does not allow either a proper geographical distribution of prehistoric
cultures or a chronological perspective based on radiocarbon dates) has been
proposed by T. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov (1894). In their view, the PIE
homeland is seen somewhere between the Balkans and the Caucasus. This
hypothesis was criticized by Gimbutas (1985 c) with arguments too solid to
require repetition.
This paper will focus primarily on the linguistic evidence regarding the
Preie. substratum mainly in southeast Europe or generally wherever our
present knowledge allows plausible conclusions. Our view is that the Preie.
substratum was a strong reality. It inuenced with various degrees of intensity
the European ethnogenesis in prehistory and is traceable from the earliest
written texts till modern times. It is understandable that this paper cannot offer
a complete analysis of the Preie. substratum but will give a summary of the
main relevant data as well as suggestions for a possible dialogue between
linguists and archaeologists. Indeed the hypothesis considering the north
Pontic steppes as the PIE homeland as opposed to Old Europe is strongly
supported by linguistic evidence provided that the investigation is carried out
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
78
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
79
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
80
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 fth 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
80
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
81
Denitions
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 dened 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 reected 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 identication of the Preie. elements in Greek and other
languages is that of Gh. Mu"u (1981); he extensively uses tautological place-
names or forms in order to isolate and identify primitive Preie. roots.
The present author concentrated on the identication 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
81
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
82
volume]). The necessity of including Romanian territory in the analysis of the
Preie. substratum is required by other facts. The chief of these is the existence
of hundreds of forms in vocabulary or place-names which are unexplained and
unexplainable through the IE perspective and even less interpretable as
adstratum (mainly Slavic) inuences (cf. Hubschmid 1971).
A rst observation is that Romanian forms support, and are supported by,
the data revealed by pre-Greek, pre-Italic and pre-Celtic facts. Indeed it cannot
be mere chance that similar or identical forms, presumably Preie. elements,
have been identied on such a vast area. Rostaings Preie. glossary (1950),
which had its origin in Provenal place-names, should and can be augmented
with new data. This implies another observation of principle: there were
similar Preie. forms spread over a large area in south and southeast Europe as
proven by many examples. They roughly correspond to the geographical
extension of Old Europe as dened by Gimbutas. Undoubtedly we are now in
a better position than the linguists who analyzed the Preie. (or Mediterranean)
substratum some decades ago. A true dialogue between linguists and
archaeologists may not be entirely possible; nevertheless, the two elds
complement each other. This is a major achievement which should be enlarged
both horizontally and vertically. It should be remembered that the
investigation of the Preie. substratum follows known rules, applicable to
linguistic (and ethnic) substrata in general (Lloyd 1971).
The general principles presented so far lead to the following observations:
(1) Old Europe is an archaeological term which denes the specic
features (social and religious structure, ceramic art, etc.) of Neolithic and
Chalcolithic non-IE cultural groups which form a unity in the interval c.
65003500 B. C.
(2) Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is a term used archaeologically or
linguistically in order to dene the basic features of the Kurgan (or IE)
tradition whose homeland or area of formation is located in the north Pontic
Steppes. PIE should not be extended or abusively used linguistically to refer
to any feature, such as a term or word, attested in historical times because
many aspects denote a substratum inuence, e. g., technical terms, names of
plants, place-names, etc. Gh. Mu!u has recently reconsidered (1981)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
81
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
82
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
83
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. inuence. 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 dene 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 classication of
the term Preie. and the possible connections between Old European and
Preie..
Further Steps towards an Enlarged Pre-IE Glossary
1

Ch. Rostaings attempt (1950) at reconstructing a tentative Preie.
glossary is a remarkable achievement unsurpassed so far. In order to avoid
any confusion with PIE roots, I have also adopted Rostaings reconstruction
of Preie. roots in capital letters (a technique previously used by the Italian
scholars, mainly in their studies published in the Studi Etruschi).
The Preie. roots (also termed bases) are represented by two basic types:
consonant-vowel-consonant (C-C) and vowel-consonant (C), the latter
seemingly the result of a reduction (C-C > C). In addition two observations
are useful (Mu"u 1981): (a) The Preie. roots refer to prominences or
1
See also the study A Pre-Indo-European Lexicon published in the Addenda of An
Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian, and
previously in Thracian and Pre-Thracian Studies, p. 131 ff.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
82
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
83
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
84
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 protable 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 eld
(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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
84
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
85
Proto-Indo-European Townships and Related Terms
Several years ago, on the occasion of analyzing seven Thracian terms
connected to the sphere township and/or fortress, I sketched the basis of
another interpretation of historically documented terms of IE and Preie.
origin (Paliga 1987 [reprinted in this volume, above]). The hypothesis was
accepted in principle with some observations (Taylor 1987 in the same
issue). Further developments are now possible. It should be stressed that the
idea of postulating a Preie. term for township is now based on
archaeological evidence (Com"a 1987; Gimbutas 1973; 1982; 1989;
Renfrew 1979).
The emergence of a sacral writing system in Neolithic southeast Europe
(Winn 1981; Masson 1985; Gimbutas 1984, 1985, 1985 b) should be
connected with an incipient tendency towards habitation in concentrated
settlements which may be termed proto-urban. Historically documented
forms like Lat. urbs (related to orbs, later orbis a round form, a circle),
Thracian ora, oros (attested in several place-names: Az-oros, Al-oros, El-
oros, Thest-oros, Milk-oros, Pil-oros possibly also Tarp-orom, equally Cap-
ora, Cep-ora, Clev-ora and Ur-briana, cf. De$ev 1957:535), Basque uri,
also iri township, Helvetic place-name Uri (a canton in Switzerland), and
Sumerian UR, URUK raise the problem of their origin. They cannot be IE
ultimately because there were no urban settlements in the PIE homeland;
consequently, no term meaning urban settlement may be reconstructed.
But it is possible to trace back and reconstruct a plausible Preie. root to
denote the Neolithic or Chalcolithic proto-urban settlements? The answer to
this question is offered by the numerous examples of forms derived from
Preie. root *OR/UR-, (also *OL/UL-) huge, big, elevated
2
. The Preie. term
for township was derived from a basic root of this meaning. Some
observations are useful:
(a) As the primitive meaning of the root *OR/UR- was big, huge , it may
be surmised that the earliest Preie. townships were connected to the idea of
2
See note 1.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
84
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
85
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
86
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 *LaB-
UR-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 Denition of Old Europe
Starting from the premise that the term for township is essential for
dening a cultural tradition I suggest using UR tradition or Urbian
tradition. The people who created the rst 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
See the study Types of Mazes, above.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
85
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
86
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
87
languages (usually labelled IE even though the IE character has only an
aspect of a complex ethnic and linguistic hybridization). Urbian surely
formed the basis of Etruscan or Linear A even if certain IE tracts are
observable. This term is applicable to a complex reality as a label for a
cultural tradition just like Kurgan; but Urbian and Kurgan reect two
fundamentally different realities. Summing up:
(a) Old European was obviously of Urbian character.
(b) The Urbian tradition of prehistoric and early historic cultural groups of
Europe as well as the linguistic aspects connected to it, i.e. terms, words and
place-names inherited from the substratum represented the indigenous Preie.
component of prehistorically attested cultural groups whereas the Kurgan
tradition was the intrusive, mobile and warlike element. The bronze artifacts,
horse, spear, god of the shining sky, burials under Kurgans or mounds,
stratied society, etc. represent the Kurgan tradition; it is linguistically attested
by a certain number of specic features well known to specialists. The Urbian
tradition, based on the idea of large, huge structures, at least typologically
related to the idea of megalithic structures of Western Europe (I call this
tradition MEGA), the matrifocal society, female goddesses with various
functions and epithets, worshipped in sophisticated sanctuaries, a rened
pottery, sacred writing, and as many corresponding terms, words and place-
names preserved down to modern times, represented the archaic indigenous
tradition. The amalgamation of Urbian and Kurgan elements, at various
degrees of intensity, led to the information of new cultural groups.
(c) The words, terms or names which cannot be plausibly termed PIE (not
can they be ascribed to an inuence, usually considered Oriental) represent the
survival of Urbian idioms. Furthermore, the convergence of forms, identied
as Urbian, allows us to postulate that these idioms were related; this implies
that there was a quite restricted homeland (Urheimat). It may be postulated,
until eventual counter arguments might be invoked, that the Urbian tradition
emerged and developed in the region of the Lepenski Vir-Schela Cladovei
culture along the Danube. Here the evolution from Mesolithic to Neolithic
typology is clearly attested (Mogo"anu 1978: 139-140; Necrasov 1986; Ro"u
1987: 57-59).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
86
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
87
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
88
(d) The homeland of the Urbian proto-language cannot be either Anatolia
or Sumer on the ground of clear linguistic evidence, which considers the
distribution of the forms analyzed. In order to better delimit the genesis area
of the Urbian tradition in the region of the Lepenski Vir culture I suggest to
use the term Danube-Urbian which is similar, in my view, to Proto-Urbian
(or proto-UR) and fundamentally opposed to PIE.
(e) The relations between the Urbians and the Western European
Neolithic groups characterized by the Mega tradition should be carefully
considered by future investigations. Typologically the Urbian tradition
seems related to the tradition of building megalithic structures, but this is
not sufcient in order to postulate closer linguistic or ethnic afnities (cf.
Pokorny 1949). It is not impossible, however, that certain Urbian terms
might have been borrowed by the Mega-builders. The alternative is that the
Mega-tradition and the Urbian tradition are two aspects of the same culture
which might be labelled MEGA-URBIAN. A strong linguistic support is
that both the idea of labyrinth and of intricate things has been well
preserved over a large area (Paliga 1989 b). Only careful future
investigations may clarify whether Mega and Urbian as dened here were
more or less synonymous or reected similar, typologically related aspects
based on parallel cultural features and development.
(f) The relations between Urbians and Anatolians should be also
considered by careful linguistic and archaeological investigation. As long as
present-day knowledge (based not ultimately on C
14
dates) does not allow
us to postulate a massive Anatolian inux of population into southeast
Europe, it is reasonable to assume the neolithisation was due not mainly to
immigration but to cultural (and of course linguistic) contacts (Gimbutas
1973 a; Benac 1971; cf. Odner 1983). Linguistically the problem may be
solved if we assume a circulation of terms between Anatolia and southeast
Europe and vice-versa (cf. Kammenhuber 1969; Poruciuc 1987). This
inevitably led to convergent cultural tendencies and convergent idioms.
Given the proximity of Anatolians and Urbians it is not difcult to explain
such a process in either senses. Nevertheless it is not in the linguists power
to determine whether the Proto-Urbians or Danube-Urbians represented an
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
87
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
88
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
89
immigrated ethnic group, an indigenous group or an amalgamation of both;
nevertheless linguists may observe that the indigenous element was
probably predominant. This already seems to be the opinion of
anthropologists (Necrasov 1986; Ro"u 1987:131).
Kurgan Expansion, Urbian Diffusion and Further Aspects
The data now available permit us to draw clearer contours of ethno-
linguistic realities in prehistory. It is obvious that the extraordinary IE
expansion had been preceded by a no less important diffusion of the Urbians.
We should use therefore two terms: expansion in order to dene the Kurgan
rapid, aggressive move, and diffusion in order to dene the Urbian slower
move. The distinction is imperious inasmuch as the two cultural traditions
were radically different. The Urbian diffusion was a gradual non-violent move
from a center or focus (assumed by the author in the region of the Lepenski
Vir culture) over ever larger regions. The Mega-Urbian correspondences
might be explained in this way. The Kurgan expansion was sudden, violent, on
horse-back and accompanied by radically different social and religious
structures. There can be little doubt that these radically different cultural
groups spoke different languages. The eventual similarity of Kurgan and
Urbian terms is due to chance or, at a later stage, to borrowings from Urbian
into PIE. Linguistic investigation is capable of inferring that the Urbians had a
word for wheel derived from the root *R-B/R-M- to curve, bend; round (see
the quoted A Pre-Indo-European Lexicon) as preserved in the otherwise
obscure Romanian form roab" wheel-barrow. Such a reconstruction implies
that the Urbians presumably used wheelbarrows in their activities. We may
credit them with this simple invention as long as they were capable of
producing much more complex artifacts some of them requiring specialization
(e. g. metallurgy). This assumption is supported by the frequent presence of
circles and curvilinear forms or pottery. In order to invent the wheel the
Urbians had just to copy the form of the full moon.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
88
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
89
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
90
Final Remarks and Conclusions
Archaeological and linguistic evidence allows to assume that in
prehistory two major cultural blocs fused resulting in what we usually call
historical cultural groups. The amalgamation of the Kurgan (or IE) and the
Preie. (indigenous) elements, termed here Urbian (referring mainly to south
and southeast Europe) and Mega (referring to western Europe) was a long-
lasting process represented by complex social, cultural and ethnic changes
with an archaic matrix due primarily to the substratum.
In the present authors view the Kurgan (IE) invaders were opposed to the
non-IE Urbian group whose society was matrifocal with religious
manifestations based on the idea of huge structures as proved by numerous
words derived from a prehistoric root *OR-/UR- big, huge, giant; high,
elevated. Present day knowledge suggests that the Urbian and Mega
cultural blocs were related as proved by the typological relationship of
religious symbolism as well as common terms or names. Nevertheless,
future investigations are called to clarify whether these common features are
due to an Urverwandtschaft or reect later ethnic changes.
As historically attested languages are never purely IE, sometimes
reecting an obvious non-IE character, it would be fair to label the
languages predominantly IE as IE-Urbian or IE-Mega respectively, or
Urbian-IE (Mega IE possibly in the case of Basque) if the Urbian
(substratum) inuence is predominant. Latin is of IE-Urbian character
whereas Greek or Hittite are obviously Urbian-IE (assuming that the non-IE
Anatolian linguistic and ethnic bloc was closely related to the Urbian group
proper being therefore assimilable with the latter as a variant of it).
On the other hand the language noted by Linear A and Etruscan reect an
obvious non-IE pattern, an Urbian survival down to historical times. In a
further development, Armenian is (according to present-day data) an IE-
Caucasian idiom (from the IE perspective it is related to the satem group).
Future investigations are also called to answer the question whether the
Caucasian linguistic group was related (typologically or even genetically)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
89
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
90
with the Anatolian-Urbian group and if so to what extent. It is evident that
PIE developed between two major cultural blocs: Urbian and Caucasian.
Given the striking cultural unity of Old Europe, an entry under which I
would group Urbian, Mega, Anatolian and, eventually, Caucasian, it cannot
be strange that these archaic languages, some of them surviving till modern
times, like Georgian or Basque, shared common features and presumably
common words. This prehistoric community must not be necessarily
understood as reecting the same origin; its relative unity was due to
circulation of ideas together with circulation of technical terms. We cannot
fairly postulate the remarkable cultural unity of such distant cultures without
presuming an (even relative) linguistic unity.
The identication of Preie. (or generally non-IE) words and their
grouping together either as Urbian or Mega is a future task. A successful
investigation depends on the cooperation of various linguists from different
branches; it is not easy to nd a common language for elds of investigation
like pre-Greek, Pre-Italic, Pre-Thracian, etc. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine
a coherent analysis of the Preie. phenomenon without such a co-operation
and without a constant confrontation of the linguistic and archaeological
data.
Final note
The original was added a glossary of Pre-IE terms, which has been
meanwhile revised; it was included in the Addenda to our Etymological
Lexicon, vol. I in this series.
The complex problem of the so!called Proto!Boreal group (as labelled
and dened by Nikolaj Dmitrievi$ Andreev) will be analyzed and
substantiated in the fourth volume of this series.
Vocabula Urbianica lingu Sclavenorum?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
91

Are There Urbian Elements in Slavic?
Denition
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 dene more accurately what we might understand by Pre-Indo-
European (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 denition 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-Indo-
European. 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 dene 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 Indo-
Europeans; 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
92
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
93
under the study A Pre-Indo-European Lexicon
1
. As we can easily see, there
was an archaic, surely Pre-IE root *OR-/*UR- with the basic meaning
huge, big hence mountain, peak, high elevation and the like. This is
entirely consonant with what we know about the Pre-IE complex labelled
Old European by Marija Gimbutas (e. g. 1982, 1989). Our term URBIAN
denes this Pre-IE complex starting from the basic principle that the urban
tradition of the Pre-IE complex was relevant for their social life. URBIAN
is therefore opposed to KURGAN the former denes the Pre-IE tradition,
the latter the PIE tradition. It is highly probable that the Urbian complex
was akin to the Western Mega-Tradition of the megalith builders (more in
Paliga 1989 c, reprinted in this volume, above).
A question arises were there Urbian (i.e. Pre-IE) elements in Slavic?
Before a complete and coherent answer to such a difcult question we try
here to prove that there are at least Urbian place-names in the present day
Slavic area. Lets begin with a symptomatic example, ignored so far.
Praha
Various works dedicated to the Slavic of generally European place-
names 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
hypothesis) in works like Tams 1980: 524 (this hypothesis is considered
most probable, i. e. legvalsznbb), Lutterer et al. 1976: 218 (with the
same addition probable nejv!rohodn!j"); Pospelov 1988: 156 (in this
case asserting that the explanation by prh threshold is improbable).
In our view, neither prahnout to dry out nor prh threshold may offer
the correct explanation. The oldest attestations of the place-name, i.e.
Far!ga and Bar!ga, noted down in the year 965 by the Arab traveller
Ibr#h$m ibn Yak%b (Lutterer et al. 1976: 218) are sufcient though not
entirely accurate phonetically to showing that the two etyma still in
fashion are impossible. In change, we can easily observe that the place-
name Praha (*Pra"a > Praga, but possibly also *Paraga and/or *Baraga)
is perfectly consonant with other Pre-IE (Urbian) place-names derived
from the primitive root *P-R-/*B-R- stone, cliff, peak, mountain, as
shown in our A Pre-Indo-European Lexicon.
Very briey, Praha is a Pre-IE place-name, its characteristics are strik-
ingly similar to those of other place-names derived from the Urbian root
*P-R-/*B-R-. Of course, it is not the only such example in Slavic.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
93
Doina, carmen Dacoromanorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
95

An Archaic Word: doin!
Caritas soli cui assuescitur
(Tacit, Germania)
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
rst to present a scientic 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.
Etymologica-anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
96
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
97
In what concerns the typological classication of the doinas, the topic
belongs of course to musicians (Tomescu, Musica daco-romana).

Doina and Its Linguistic Family

The most important contribution of Ion Popescu-Sireteanu was to
illuminate unknown facts so far. In order to better understand the general
situation of the topic, I shall resume the main points as presented by
Sireteanu (see note 1). First of all, doina is considered as a member of a rich
family, thus:
(1) The interjection dai, doi, dui is the basic element of this rich family; it
appears in many folk songs. On the other hand, the author assumes that the
origin of this interjection is the construction (cntec) de oi sheep song,
hence doi, doi with unexplained parallels dai and dui.
(In fact the following demonstration of Popescu-Sireteanu is much affected
starting from this false etymon; in other words, a chain reaction of errors.)
(2) Dain! (dialectal, now obsolete form), doin! (now the usual literary
form), also duin! (rare and obsolete form). The most important word of the
family. It is not my intention to rediscuss the whole problem connected to this
form. It should be only observed that from Romanian the word was borrowed
in Ukrainian (Me!ny"uk 1985, 2: 11) and Hungarian (Benk# 19671980, 1:
113). It is most interesting that Popescu-Sireteanu assumes the same
Romanian origin even for the Lithuanian form (daina), ignoring that a similar
word (daina) is attested in Latvian as well. As an argument he invokes the
much closer contacts between Romanians an Lithuanians in the Middle Ages,
specically the good relations between the Moldavian hospodar Alexander the
Good and the Lithuanian duke Vitold (beginning of the 15
th
century). Other
trade links are also considered.
(3) Another important derivative is the verb a doini, also (today rare) a
d!ina, a doina, a d!ini; all these forms have the general meaning to sing a
doina.
(4) Another interesting form is a d!inui to last for a very long time,
eternally, a meaning derived from the basic meaning to sing a doina for a
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
96
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
97
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
98
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 difcult, 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, rst 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
98
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
99
(a) Doin! is considered and discussed not as an isolated word, but as a
component of a rich family. In this light, it is therefore convincing to
consider duios as also a term of this family, not derived from Latin doliosus
(arguably, such a late Latin form never existed!); similarly, forms like doic!,
daic! cannot be anymore derived from Bulgarian do(j)iti. Future
investigations will of course establish whether forms like duduc! and
duduie, both referring to a woman, should be considered in this context. We
incline to a positive answer.
(b) On the other hand, it is difcult to accept this authors hypothesis,
namely that the interjection dai, doi, dui, i. e. the root of the whole family
under consideration, can be derived from (cntec) de oi sheep song, song
for sheep. Such an explanation, beside its obvious clumsy approach to the
history of phonetic evolution in Romanian, forces the author to postulate a
Romanian origin of the Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian) forms; this is of
course impossible.
Such popular terms, reecting an important aspect of folk songs and
mentality, both in Romanian and in the Baltic languages, cannot be simply
borrowed from one language to another (e. g. like the word for tea, etc.),
via trade or political contacts. It should be also remembered that Lithuanian
and Latvian melodies of daina once had magic values (Biezais 1955: 50 ff.).
The same is valid for the Romanian melodies. The magic aspects of the
doina melodies cannot be considered in this paper.
Despite the obviously erroneous etymon, Popescu-Sireteanus hypothesis
brings forth solid arguments (strangely enough, not observed by the author!)
for the idea that the rich family derived from the interjection dai, doi, dui is
of archaic origin. The same archaic origin should be postulated for the
Baltic area as well as for other ethnic-linguistic areas considered in this
paper (see the summarizing table). A preliminary conclusion is that the
Romanian forms are derived from the basic root-interjection dai, doi, dui
with the basic meaning mild, gentle, hence to lull a baby (by singing),
and singing woman, later woman with specic connotations for this
semantic sphere.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
98
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
99
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
100
An unexpected parallel. After drafting this study, I took notice of a
recent reconsideration of the word doin!, which starts also from Popescu-
Sireteanus hypothesis. Some new facts are illuminating the situation of the
family, by considerably enlarging the linguistic area of the forms. In the rst
part of his paper, this latter linguist presents Popescu-Sireteanus paper,
reviewing its mains points, and criticizing the basic hypothesis in similar
terms as ours. But the most important aspect is that he includes in the
discussions the Basque forms doinu, doina, donu melody, (Basque)
song (Gabinskij 1988).
Romanian-Basque parallels? This is a eld of investigation indeed rarely
approached by scholars. I have in mind Ovid Densusianus contribution, to
my knowledge the only author % not only in Romania who has ever
drawn some parallels between Romanian and Basque. Ovid Densusianus
hypothesis is that there was an archaic linguistic (and ethnic) substratum
which affected the ethnogenesis of historically attested languages and
peoples (Densusianu, Elementele latine ale limbei basce and 1925).
I drew attention on some interesting Romanian-Basque parallels.
Connected to this, I would briey note examples like: Rom. ora", ura" (cf.
Thracian place names with the second element -ora, -oros) and Basque uri, iri
place, location; Rom. mutr! face (with pejorative meaning against the usual
form fa#! of Latin origin) Basque mutur face; Rom. sur (cf. also the hill-
name Suru) grey, white and black (now referring mainly to the colour of
horses) Basque txuri (x=$) whitish(forms quoted after Lhande 19261936).
I have wished to note these forms just to support Gabinskis hypothesis, in the
sense that such Romanian-Basque linguistic correspondences cannot be
considered surprising.
Reverting to the essence of Gabinskis hypothesis, we should observe
that the general situation of these forms does not become more complicated.
He has brought forth a new proof that all these words are of archaic origin.
On the other hand it is difcult to accept this authors hypothesis that the
Basque, Romanian and Baltic forms are of Celtic origin. Such a view should
be rejected from the same reasons by which it is to reject a Romanian origin
for the Baltic words (Popescu-Sireteanus variant). Of course, the existence
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
99
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
100
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
101
of similar forms in Basque poses abruptly the question: are there non-Indo-
European 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, rst 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 identied 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
101
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
102
Various hypotheses regarding the origin of the word

The rst attempt to explain the Romanian forms dain!, doin! was that of
Hasdeu (1882 a, b); he compared these forms with Lithuanian daina; the
rst attempt was, at the same time, entirely correct linguistically. In fact,
Hasdeu assumed a Thracian origin of the Romanian word with obvious
Baltic parallels. Generally Hasdeus hypothesis has been accepted by many
scholars who have analyzed the Thracian heritage of Romanian (Poghirc
1969: 355; Iv!nescu 1980: 257; also quoted by Fraenkel 1955 ff.: 80). In a
large comparative context, Hasdeu assumed that the Romanian and Baltic
forms should be compared with Avestan da"na a sung law, Persian danah
female voice, Irish dan song, poem. This latter form is considered by
Gabinski to be the origin of the Basque, Romanian and Baltic forms (see
above). As I already mentioned, an Irish origin (or Celtic in general) of all
these forms is of course impossible; it is also debatable whether the Celtic
forms should be included in the large family discussed in this paper this is
a problem of Celtology beyond our competence. Sometimes Hasdeus
hypothesis has circulated among linguists without being properly quoted
(thus in Ogibenin 1974). Another opinion which tries to explain all these
forms refers to the Indo-European root *deya-, *d#- to turn, to
oscillate (Pokorny 1959: 187).
In the light of the new data available, these hypotheses cannot be accepted
any longer. As we showed above, the primitive sense of the root reconstructed
by us *DA(I)- must have been mild, gentle, slow(ly), the only to explain all
the forms in all these languages. The presence of obviously related terms in
Basque suggest an archaic Pre-Indo-European origin. An archaic Pre-Indo-
European origin was postulated by the author of this paper before knowing the
Basque forms. In addition, I would also note other Baltic forms which in our
view illuminate the general situation of these words. Thus: Lith. dail$ art,
belle-arte, Latvian daile beauty; and other forms derived from this basic
forms (see the summarizing table at the end of this paper).
In our view, the Baltic area witnesses two semantic spheres: (1) song,
folk song, strictly akin to the Basque forms as well as to the Romanian
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
101
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
102
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
103
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 rst 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
certain or highly probable (see the table at the end of this paper)
1
.

Music and art in prehistory. The Thracians as famous musicians

The archaeological nds denitely 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 dene
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 specic situation of the Romanian territory, have been
1
Our hypothesis that the Baltic forms are of Pre-Indo-European origin was
conrmed 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
103
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
104
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, ute, horn, trumpet and a sort of long
wooden horns similar to present-day Romanian bucium (Cri&an 1986: 289
292). Very briey, 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
104
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
105
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 (5
th
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. Ama-
docos, 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 %),'-, %&,'+, %&,)+, %.,)+, %&,/(;
(c) A parallel form used mainly by the Greek writers was also 0123(, pl.
012)+, 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:
4'5678'22'+ 9:;+<+= >+ %),'? 2'@( 012)+(
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 reecting homoglottic speakers. It is not our
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
104
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
105
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
106
purpose to debate why two alternative forms were used in order to denote
the same ethnic group. We can briey 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 specic word to
denote themselves, another one than that used by foreigners. In such a light,
I assume that the forms Daus, Dacus were specically used by the Dacians
themselves, whereas a form like Geta was used mainly by foreigners.
Difcult to say whether the Dacians had the conscience that they were a
compact ethnic group, and consequently had a specic 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 0A.+'+. In this view, the earlier form Daus,
Davus, pl. Daoi should be compared to a similar ethnikon in Old Persia:
%&'(, %.'( and to a Phrygian deity also called Daos. Further, a gloss in
Hesychius:
9&'( B CDE FA*7G= 8H,'(
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
*dhI- 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
106
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
107
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 specic
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 %/,1J)8'(. 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 *dek
K
- to take, honour, Thracian dek- would
require a certain centum inuence. Additionally, Russu rightly observes the
probable relation between Decebalus and Deceneus, Greek spelling
%/,)-=/'(, Latin spelling also Dicineus these would be also related to
Umbrian %/,1==+'(, Late Christian %/,1=+'(, 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
107
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
108
(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 rst 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 by-
name of Dyonisos. The primitive root is of course IE *bhel- to swell,
inate. Very briey, the personal name Dece-balus meant singing
dragon; a meaning in full accordance with the social and mythological
context of the Dacian civilization.


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 specic 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
108
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
109

Final note

The IE root for wolf was reconstructed as *wLk
w
os, hence forms like
Latin lupus, Slavic vlMkM, German wolf, Greek lNkos, etc. In terms of
statistics, it is highly probable that the Thracian language preserved a form
derived from IE *wLk
w
os. 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 vlMkM
wolf. But this may be a generous topic for another paper.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
108
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
109
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
110
Fig. 1
The existence of a close relationship between the Neolithic beliefs and music is
certied, among others, by these miniatural objects. Attention must be paid to the
three cylinder drums and to the specic symbols. Ov"arovo, Karanovo VI phase,
Bulgaria.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
109
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
110
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
111
The most representative forms derived from the archaic Pre-Indo-
European (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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
111
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
112
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
diOt, deju to jump, dance
divelis, divele active
daile beauty
dailava wonder
daildarbs artefact
dailkrasotajs painter
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
111
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
112
Lithuanian
dej pity, lament
daina a song dainuoti = Latvian dejon lament
deina pleasure, favour
dailO beauty
dailumas renement, elegance
NP: Dailida, Dailyde
Kas-dailis
Greek
Myc. da-da-re-jo-de
daidallo to create artfully
Daidalos, the mythic artist
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
113
The Tablets of T!rt!ria an Enigma?
A reconsideration and further perspectives
The archaic bright triad, now
giving light through the night of
ages, dawn of history. Gh. Mu!u
Introduction
During the 1961 excavations at the site of T"rt"ria, Nicolae Vlassa (then
aged 27, dead prematurely in 1984) discovered three clay tablets in an early
Turda! layer. The report (published in 1963) offered less details concerning
this discovery but a quite extensive comparison regarding the would-be
Sumerian inuences in the Vin#a-Turda! complex. Few archaeological
discoveries have provoked such a world-scale polemic discussions connect-
ed to both the report and the important relations between the Orient and
southeast Europe or Transylvania in prehistory.
The scholars who took part in this international dispute can be grouped
into two categories: supporting and non-supporting the Sumerian (or
generally Oriental) origin of the three clay tablets. The history of these
disputes could be interesting in itself, and even a brief review of every study
dedicated to this topic would require many pages this is not the purpose of
this paper. Yet I shall resume myself to quoting the main points of this
dispute. As we shall see, the world-famous tablets cannot be any longer
considered a chapter apart in the Vin#a-Turda! culture. Nevertheless they
may very well be a good opportunity to reconsidering the emergence of an
early writing system in Chalcolithic Europe. Though some obscure points
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
114
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
115
still persist after more than 45 years from the discovery at the site of T"r-
t"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 rst 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 inuence 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 g. 1, cf. also gs. 15
and 16), put down C
14
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). Unfortu-
nately 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
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
115
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
116
termed dechiffrement fantaisiste (Masson 1984: 114, n. 61). This was
anyway an extreme example, never repeated or followed by the partisans of
the Oriental inuence in Chalcolithic Transylvania. However other more
rened arguments were used, e.g. that the centre of early writing was
Mesopotamia not Egypt (M. S. E. Hood 1967) or that the T"rt"ria tablets are
not an isolated phenomenon but a manifestation of a inux of Near Eastern
elements into the Aegean around 3000 B.C. (Charvt 1975). To my knowl-
edge the best argument invoked by the partisans of the Sumerian origin of
the three tablets was used by Jnos Makkay who, defending Vlassa against
some accusations, observed the place of the tablets in the Vin#a-Turda!
complex. He also added that the problems raised by these tablets cannot be
solved by C
14
dating, but by analyzing the system of writing. Further, the
hypothesis of an independent invention of writing in southeast Europe is
termed an absurdity on the basis of the general laws of social, economic
and cultural development, namely because writing may only develop and
function in societies characterized by a series of complex phenomena:
developed agriculture, full metallurgy, cities with large public buildings and
monumental art (Makkay 1975).
All these ways of understanding and interpreting the various civilisation-
al phenomena in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Europe, mainly as inuences
from the Orient (seen either as ethnic movements in toto or as trade or
know-how impulses) are counterbalanced by the more and more numerous
group of scholars who base their work on radiocarbon dates, comparative
analysis of culture developed in Neolithic and Calcholithic Europe (e. g.
Benac 1971, and many others) and, eventually (yet not at all unimportant in
authors thinking) on the possible linguistic correspondences between these
cultural blocs.
Indeed radiocarbon method cannot be now doubted any longer it offers
a sound and clear chronology of cultural sequences. Despite the (still) large
upper and lower limits of dating, it is unimaginable that prehistoric cultures
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
115
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
116
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
117
can be now understood without the precious chronological succession
offered by radiocarbon investigation. Of course, when the three tablets of
T"rt"ria were discovered, neither Vlassa nor many other archaeologists
could foresee the extraordinary revolution to be produced by radiocarbon. It
is regrettable that not even later Vlassa (and others) could abandon such a
rigid position regarding C
14
method. (In this sense, it is altogether remark-
able that Vl. Dumitrescu, for a long time an adept of short-chronology, in
the wake of radiocarbon dates changed his previous views, then criticized
Vlassa for his rigid position regarding dating Dumitrescu 1972). (Fig. 2
shows the radical change of the chronological perspective produced by C
14

dates the very well stratied site of Karanovo in Bulgaria has been chosen
as a good example. Fig. 3 shows the approximate chronological position of
the Vin#a culture). Unfortunately there are no radiocarbon dates for the
Turda! facies of the Vin#a complex. During the discussions I had in Cluj
with Dr. Gh. Lazarovici, author of a reference book regarding the Neolithic
cultures in Banat (1979), I was drawn attention on the fact that the Turda!
facies cannot be entirely identied with Vin#a. The main differences are: (1)
to date only phases Vin#a 2 and 3 have been identied in Transylvania; (2)
the Cri! (Krs) inuences as substratum elements are more visible in
Transylvania than in southern areas; (3) the earliest Turda! phases are
somewhat later than the earliest Vin#a phases. (Connected to this latter
point, we can once more regret the absence of C
14
dates for the Turda!
aspect; they would easily clarify what somewhat later means as well as
the very beginnings of the Turda! culture). The immediate conclusion is that
the stratigraphical context in which the three tablets were found suggests a
later position, therefore not c. 53005000 B. C. (by comparison with other
radiocarbon dated Vin#a layers) as some archaeologists believe (e. g.
Gimbutas 1973 and personal communication), but a date around 4800 B. C.,
eventually later if we must really admit a mixed stratigraphy at T"rt"ria. In
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
116
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
117
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
118
the absence of C
14
dates is pointless to speculate on this detail. It should be
anyway remembered that the site of T"rt"ria is not yet fully excavated; N.
Vlassa never resumed the excavations initially made in 1942 and 1943 by
Kurt Horedt and to date no other archaeologist has assumed this task.
Graphemes, signs and symbols
In present authors view, a real progress in the analysis of the Vin#a-
Turda! graphemes is to be expected not from endless polemic discussions
concerning the stratigraphy of T"rt"ria (and the chronological implications
of this), but from internal and comparative analysis of the signs. It is
understandable now that the three tablets have been paid perhaps too much
attention. Given the circumstances, an accurate chronological position is so
far impossible
1
; yet this is not the only and most important aspect.
Radiocarbon dates have indisputably shown that the earliest writing
system identied 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#a-
Turda! 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 identied 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).
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
117
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
118
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
119
J. Makkay quoting Gelb correctly observed that a writing system can
emerge only in a certain social context. Now we do know that the Vin#a-
Turda! complex as a chapter of the Old European civilisation as dened
by M. Gimbutas (1973; 1982; 1989) is exactly the required context:
tendency towards concentrated settlements the beginnings of urban
networks, rened art, sophisticated religious organization and ritual. A
similar social context can be reconstructed for the Turda! facies of the Vin#a
complex (cf. Com!a 1982, 1987). Indeed all these facts show that the Vin#a
writing system did not emerge and develop anachronically but as a logical
manifestation of the social context in which it was used. It can be little
doubt that the Vin#a-Turda! graphemes had religious function I should
stress: exclusively religious-magic function, and it is only in such a context
that they can (and must) be interpreted and understood.
Perhaps for many scholars such an early writing system seemed impossi-
ble as a local development because these graphemes had no local Upper
Palaeolithic ancestors. But in the 1970s the discovery of the Upper Palae-
olithic cave of Cuciulat, north of Cluj (S"laj district) changed the situation
radically. Some other examples of cave art have been found in Romania
during the last two decades, though to date none except Cuciulat can be
surely ascribed to Upper Palaeolithic. The complex problem of the cave art
in Romania and the corresponding European context has been recently
updated in the wake of several breathtaking discoveries in the 70s and 80s
(Crciumaru 1987). Future nds of Upper Palaeolithic art in Romania and
southeast Europe are very probable because it is implausible that the cave of
Cuciulat is an isolated case. From the perspective discussed in this paper, it
is interesting to note the cave graphemes found at Lepenic, district of
Vlor in Albania (g. 6, discussed in Korkuti 1984 who places the nd in
the Middle Neolithic).
What may there be the phylatic tree of southeast European Chalcolithic
writing system? Surely some signs had Upper Palaeolithic origin as lately
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
118
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
119
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
120
revealed (Forbes and Crowder 1979; Gimbutas, various studies, especially
The Language of the Goddess and The civilisation of the Goddess). We still
do not know whether these signs preserved their ancestral meaning in
certain instances certainly yes (at least partially), yet we must be sure that a
similar grapheme also had similar (or identical) meaning. We must have no
illusion that to understand and interpret the meaning of Neolithic graphemes
is an easy task. Maybe we will never be able to interpret all these signs and
reconstruct their original meaning. An international conference on this
subject would be the ideal occasion for exchanging ideas and hypotheses.
The data available so far indicate that Vin#a symbolism and graphemes
are not a token system as recently analyzed in the case of some Oriental
artifacts (Schmandt-Besserat 1979; 1986). A series of inscribed graphemes
and/or symbols of Vin#a-Turda! pottery and spindle whorls clearly show
that there was an evolution from simple to more and more complicated
signs, some of them genuine samples of Chalcolithic writing (g. 79). The
earliest inscribed artifact found so far is the ovoidal object discovered at
Lepenski Vir in a very early (Mesolithic) context (g. 10)
2
. It is possible in
this case that the archaeological layers were affected by the location of the
site in the Iron Gates region of the Danube. Given the circumstances no
exact chronological position can be advanced; the Mesolithic context really
seems too early yet not at all impossible. As we can see not only the T"rt"ria
tablets pose problems of chronological position. Anyway the signs inscribed
on the stone object have obvious similitudes with Vin#a-Turda! graphemes.
Based only on typological comparison the object should be included in the
Vin#a horizon at the latest though an earlier origin is also feasible (Winn
1981: 258 ff.).
Another artifact, obviously similar to those found at T"rt"ria, was
discovered in Bulgaria (g. 11). The clay seal found at Karanovo (phase VI)
also proves afnities with Vin#a-Turda! artifacts (g. 12). However it is
2
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).
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
119
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
120
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
121
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 some-
what clumsy marks escapes our understanding. They might have been
intentionally unclearly incised as a measure of protection against non-
initiated readers.
The situation, brief as it has been presented in this paper, indicates that
the T"rt"ria tablets are not an isolated nd. The striking similarities with
other objects do not allow any oversimplication 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) reect an Oriental
inuence, be it imagined as an immigration in toto, trade inuence 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 accus-
tomed to see any cultural manifestation in prehistoric Europe as simple
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
120
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
121
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
122
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 inuences and inuxes into
Europe, we must now admit that food production (the impulse of the Neolith-
ic 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 devel-
oped 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 inux 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 inuence 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 inuence 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 reection 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 nal 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.
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
121
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
122
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
123
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 approxi-
mate) 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 exemplication the image inscribed on a vase bottom
(g. 13) interpreted by N. Vlassa as the drawing of a sophisticated ship, the
best proof that the Turda! writing system is of Sumerian inuence (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 g. 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 (n 69 in Winns classication) (cf. g. 5), with several
variants, e. g. (this one with other variants too) or . A similar sign
reappears in Linear A where the syllabic value is ye (cf. g. 17). The
meaning of the symbol (probably not yet with syllabic value) in the Vin#a-
Turda! 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 classication).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
122
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
123
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
124
(3) Central part: seeds in an open pod.
(4) Upper part: a tree (or a plant) the trunk (or stalk) of which divides
vertically the round bottom into two (left-right) parts. The roots of the tree
(or plant) seem to be the sign analyzed above.
If we attempt a general translation of this image then we must see here
a dedication viewed as a succession of important stages: symbol of fertility,
seeds, plant. All should be read from the lower side upwards. The artist
tried to suggest a prayer or a fertility ritual. All these signs are at the same
time simple and profound in their artistic or cult symbolism. I do not see
any need to invoke the Orient in order to explain such a simple image.
One of the T"rt"ria tablets should be explained in the same way (n 1 in
gs. 15 and 16; see also the drawing in Vlassas report, n 1, g. 1). The
interpretation recently given by E. Masson seems correct: two animals
turned right, the right side animal being better drawn (or with better pre-
served contours). The animals are separated by an lment vgtal en
forme dpi (Masson 1984: 1178). One of the animals (in the right side) is
a goat, also frequently inscribed on Vin#a-Turda! pottery (n 193 in Winns
classication). The goat also frequently appears in many modern creeds of
southeast Europe as a symbol of fertility and annual renewal.
The second tablet is an intermediate stage between simple graphemes
and writing proper. We may discern here a division into three parts by
vertical lines. It is feasible to suppose that this succession of signs proba-
bly from left to right means that the people who produced such objects
discovered that a certain message could be transmitted in written forms by
successive drawing of signs, precursor of syllabic notation of words which
also implies a certain succession of graphemes which are to be decoded by
reader following the order in which they had been drawn or written. This
decodication implies the existence of generally accepted rules (by the
people at large or by those who were called to read these messages,
probably priests or priestesses who interpreted them for the people at large
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
123
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
124
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
125
and in communion with the gods of their Pantheon). The decodication of
such a message is not at all easy. We can observe, reading from left to
right, a vegetal motif above which three signs were drawn. It is highly
probable that the presence of three signs is not a result of hazard as long as
three and its symbolism occurs frequently on Vin#a-Turda! artifacts (cf.
gs. 7, 8, 9). In connection with this, it is probable that the number of three
tablets also had its function the more so as every tablet is of different type
and shape; they probably had different ritual function. The rst division of
the tablet contains a sign similar to Y and another one similar to 8 (? a
recipient). The latter form is repeated in the third compartment. (The
symbolism of three has been recently reviewed in Gimbutas 1989: 8997).
The second compartment shows another vegetal motif and the head of an
animal separated by a vertical line. The third compartment contains the
same 8-like sign. E. Masson interprets this last division as containing a head
of animal and the 8-like sign (Masson 1984: 118). The interpretation is, of
course, possible. Nevertheless I am inclined to see here two recipients in a
ritual act libation: the upper recipient pours a liquid into the lower one. If
this interpretation is correct (unfortunately, in interpreting Vin#a-Turda!
symbolism if occurs very often), then the second tablet presents a ritual
scene culminating with the act of libation. It is normal therefore to suppose
that the scene should be read from left to right.
The third tablet is of totally different type, showing a typical syllabic system
or writing. The division into four compartments also indicates a ritual meaning.
How could we decipher this syllabic system? The question is radical and the
answer inevitably difcult. Obviously enough, Sumerian cannot be invoked from
the simple reason that these tablets are not written in Sumerian (despite the
vivacious attempts trying to impose such a view). To understand and decipher
the beginnings of a syllabic writing system in Europe which occurred in the
Vin#a-Turda! complex would imply the comparative analysis of European
syllabic systems historically attested, i.e. Linear A and B. The linguistic analysis
of pre-Indo-European relics is another step, indispensable for the purpose
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
124
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
125
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
126
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. g. 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 gs.
1, 15, 16) then the result is (Cypriot values in brackets):
The result may be regarded, in turn, as discouraging or, on the contrary,
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
125
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
126
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
127
promising enough. Anyway, it is really discouraging that we do not know
which phonetic values are correct and which are not. We must never have
the illusion that Vin#a-Turda! graphemes can be simply transcribed via
Cretan linears or Cypriot syllabary (the scholars do know that similar signs
have different phonetic values in Cretan and Cypriot syllabaries). A rst
conclusion is therefore that circumspection should accompany the attempts
to deciphering Vin#a-Turda! graphemes. Reverting to the kind tablet of
T"rt"ria all what can be now said is that it is not yet decipherable, even we
admit that the transcription is correct.
(2) What can there be the relations between the Vin#a-Turda! writing
system and Sumer? Did the Sumerians learn writing from southeast Euro-
peans? Such a question would have seemed absurd to Gordon-Childe, but I
am sure he would now reconsider it carefully without preconceived ideas.
An answer to such a radical question should consider not only the writing
systems implied, but also the possible origin of the Sumerian language and
civilisation. Was Sumerian related to the pre-IE languages spoken in
Neolithic and Chalcolithic Europe? To my knowledge no denite answer
has been advanced in this sense and it is too early to offer a clear conclusion
in either sense. In fact we know very few things about the pre-IE idioms
spoken in Europe, Asia Minor, and the Orient. Were all these idioms (or
some of them) related just like the IE languages? Or must we imagine that,
after neolithisation, southeast Europe was the centre of a civilisation process
spreading not only towards north or west but towards east as well? These
questions are too important and complex to be put down or disconsidered
on the ground that they might be uncomfortable. A real and serious discus-
sion concerning the emergence of writing should carefully consider these
aspects as well as others more or less tangent to the topic: the origin of the
Indus valley civilisation (cf. Kumar 1973), the origin of the Basques,
Georgians and Etruscans, the situation of the pre-IE relics spread over a
large area in Europe. These relics can and must be gathered together in a
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
126
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
127
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
128
coherent system allowing us to draw more denite contours of the fascinat-
ing 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
rst 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 recon-
structed 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 rst 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, predom-
inantly 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-
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
127
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
128
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
129
ings: the sacred v. non-sacred character respectively. Old Europe survived
by sacricing its very essence: sacredness and non-violence.
Thirty years ago the hypothesis that Neolithic European civilisation can
be uniquely explained as an Oriental inuence was the only feasible. In the
wake of radiocarbon dates this view underwent a radical turn by 180 or
almost. If food production and animal domestication did come from Anato-
lia into Europe around 7,000 B.C., later the Oriental inuences into Europe
must be understood otherwise: as an exchange of ideas or know-how. We
must now envisage that Europe achieved her own personality and that
cultural and civilisational innovations found here good conditions to
develop, among these writing too. It is now obvious that in order to explain
Vin#a-Turda! signs and graphemes it is incorrect to invoke Oriental inu-
ences. Furthermore, some 20 or 30 years ago the hypothesis that Europe
could inuence the Orient in prehistory would have seemed absurd. Now
we can wonder seriously whether Neolithic and Chalcolithic Europeans did
have their role in spreading local innovations among these writing
towards east. The ironical question haben die Sumerer in Rumnien
schreiben gelernt? must be deprived of any irony. Maybe a more correct
question would be: was Sumerian writing (and Sumerian language perhaps)
of European origin? An answer to such a radical question should consider
archaeological and linguistic data concurrently. It is not the purpose of this
paper to answer such a complex question but only to suggest that a positive
answer cannot be considered absurd any more. On the other hand, we can
be now sure that the origin of Cretan or Cypriot syllabaries can be traced
back to Old European graphemes (Paliga 1989).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
128
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
129
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
130
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 (g. 10) and Urania Verlag for
making available to me the pictures of the inscribed artifacts found in
Bulgaria (g. 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
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
129
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
130
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
131
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 schol-
ars who approached the problem of the Vin#a!Turda! writing system. See
also gs. 1516.
Dimensions: (1) 5.2 by 3.5 cms; (2) 6.2 by 3 cms; (3) 6.1 by 6 cms
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
130
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
131
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
132
Fig. 2
The revolution of radiocarbon dating. The multistratied Karanovo site
has been chosen as an example of evolution over millennia (after Quitta
1986).
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
131
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
132
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
133
Fig. 3
Chronological table of the Vin#a complex as compared with other Chalcol-
ithic cultures (courtesy Marija Gimbutas)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
132
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
133
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
134
Fig. 4
Map of the most important Vin#a!Turda! sites.
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
133
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
134
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
135
Fig. 5
A review of the Neolithic signs (or graphemes) as they are recored and
analyzed in Winn 1981.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
134
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
135
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
136
Fig. 6
Cave painting at Lepenic, district of Vlor, Albania. Dated in Middle
Neolithic (after Korkuti 1984).
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
135
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
136
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
137
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
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
137
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
138
Fig. 10
Three views of the Lepenski Vir stone object found in a Mesolithic context
(courtesy Alexander Marshack, Peabody Museum).
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
137
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
138
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
139
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
138
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
139
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
140
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
139
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
140
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
141
Fig. 11
Clay artifact from Grade&nica, district Vraca, Bulgaria. Early Chalcolithic.
Dimensions: 15.5 by 10.5 cms. Courtesy Soa National Museum.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
140
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
141
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
142
Fig. 12
Clay seal discovered in layer VI of Karanovo, district Sliven, Bulgaria. Late
Chalcolithic. Courtesy Soa National Museum.
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
141
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
142
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
143
Fig. 13
Incised bottom of a vase discovered at Cluj, Romania. One of the northern-
most expressions of the Turda! facies. After Vlassa 1970.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
142
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
143
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
144
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.
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
143
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
144
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
145
Fig. 15
The three famous tablets of T"rt"ria (see the following two pages)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
144
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
145
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
146
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
145
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
146
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
147
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
146
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
147
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
148
Fig. 16
Emilia Massons drawing of the T"rt"ria tablets (1984). Cf. gs. 1 and 15.
This accurate drawing came quite late, when various, often absurd, hypothe-
ses had been already launched.
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
147
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
148
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
149
Fig 17 a
Tentative comparison of Vin#a!Turda!, Cretan and Cypriot graphemes.
Numbers refer to Winns classication of Vin#a signs.
Old European signs Cretan Hieroglyphic Cypriot Syllabary
and Linear A
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
148
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
149
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
150
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 Cretan Hieroglyphic Cypriot Syllabary
and Linear A
Tabul Tartarienses
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
149
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
150
Note (October 2006)
The analysis of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic graphemes has become a
challenging eld of investigation. We are still far from deciphering these
symbols as we lack the social and religious context in which they were used.
On the other hand, it is obvious to me that they must reect the
Pre!Indo!European (or Urbian) heritage of Europe. As far as both linguists
and archaeologists may ever nd a common denominator, then the task of
interpreting these symbols will be considerably easier.
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
151
Metals, Words And Gods. Early Knowledge of Metallurgical
Skills in Europe, and Reections in Terminology
Preliminaries
How can metallurgical terminology specically 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 identiable) names of metals do reect a certain
ideology and a certain way of seeing metals as imbued with magic
powers. It is certain that colours and reections specic to metals made
early man interpret them as divine (Biek and Bayley 1979; Mu!u 1981,
chapter Symphony of colours, a rst attempt in reconstructing pre-Greek
names of colours).
We can now accept that Neolithic Europe with all its specic 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 dene this vast cultural bloc: a
matrifocal, matrilinear and equalitarian society whose people created a
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
152
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
153
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-Indo-
European (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 difcult
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 protably 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
153
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
154
mainly in European languages, beginning with the names of earliest known
metals copper and gold and continuing with the names for bronze and
iron. In our view there still are unobserved (or not properly interpreted)
data; it is not therefore our purpose just to summarize or up-date already
known facts as stated mainly in two fundamental studies dedicated to
names of metals: the older one of Paul Kretschmer (1952) and the newer
one of V. V. Ivanov (1983). The importance of the Dii Fabri gods
supervising metallurgical activities will be briey pointed out at the end.

Copper, Gold, Lead
In the 1930s it already became clear that important metallurgical terms of the
Aegean civilization should be accepted as pre-Greek, i. e. inherited from the
Mediterranean substratum. Such words were !"#$%& copper, later also
bronze, $"''()*+,& tin, -%#./0,& lead, !+.',& gold, '(0*+,& iron,
$(/0,& slag, #1/2& cauldron (Glotz 1937: 441). Though their Preie. origin
was sometimes doubted (see further discussions and references in Frisk 1960 ff.
and Chantraine 19681980, s.v.) there can be little doubt that these forms really
reect a Preie. heritage. Doubts have persisted (and will surely persist) because
we still lack a reasonable denition of what Old European (Gimbutas's term),
Preie., pre-Greek mean, and what the relations between these terms are. Given
the limited scope of this paper I shall focus not on generalities but on some
particular details. Indeed for a word like lbs, already quoted, it is even possible
to identify that the Preie. root *L-B-/*L-P- stone, rock, one of the rst to be
analyzed in this perspective (Trombetti 1925: 33 and 36; Paliga 1987: 25). The
etymological analysis shows that prehistoric cauldrons were initially made of
stone, probably naturally concave stone slabs. This term is clearly related to an
important number of place-names (hereafter PN), undoubtedly of Preie. origin,
spread over a large area in southeast and south Europe. I shall revert to the
situation of Gr. kbdos below, in a quite unexpected context.
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
153
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
154
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
155
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 nd 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 nds 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
155
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
156
Fig. 2
Graphemes for metal in the Middle East. (a) 1. Tenthfth 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 (GIR
4
) and smith. After Limet 1960 and Ivanov 1983.
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
155
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
156
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
157
__________
Fig. 3
Alchemic signs for gold. Top left: Egyptian. After Ivanov 1983 and Junius 1985.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
156
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
157
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
158
Fig. 4
Alchemic signs for copper (a) and brass (b). After Junius 1985.
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
157
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
158
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
159
If we really try to nd 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, identied 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) reects a Semitic inuence (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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
159
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
160
Krpatos (island in the Aegean) or the Carpathians (Rom. Carpa9i) are
typical examples for this context. (It should be remembered that rich gold
bearing ores have been exploited in the Carpathians from immemorial
times). In explaining Gr. khryss we should start either from an initial form
*KuR-us- or from an initial zero-grade form *KR-us. Mycaenean kuruso
does not necessarily imply that the rst variant is the only possible, because
in a syllabary the combination consonant + consonant cannot be accurately
spelled. Zero-grade parallel forms of this root are well documented in
place-names (cf. Rostaing 1950: 153 ff.). If this interpretation is accepted,
the implication is immediate: the Greek name for gold is also connected
with archaic roots denoting mountainous areas where this metal was
exploited. This detail is conrmed not only by logic or linguistic analysis
but by archaeological evidence as well (cf. "ernyh 1976).
Gr. mlybdos lead (also spelled mlibdos, mlibos, Myc. moriwodo, i.e.
*moriwdo, cf. Morpurgo 1963: 192-3) is one of the terms for which a non-
IE origin has been lately accepted, being analyzed in connection with Lat.
plumbum lead. There are discussions of the type: in which way should be
understand the alleged relationship between mlybdos, mlib(d)os, and
plumbum? There are some possible answers like (1) Eine Entlehung aus
einer nicht nher bestimmbaren mittelmeerlndischiberischen Quelle, vgl.
Iber. ethnikon Plumbarii, :#,.-"+(", Georg. brpeni, prpeni Blei, Zinn,
Bask bern Blei (Walde-Hofmann 19381954: 3256), or (2) terme
emprunt, aux formes varies, ce qui ntonne pas pour un nom de
mtal. /.../ En gnral, on pense que le mot est un emprunt parallle lat.
plumbum et que les deux termes viendraient de libre (Chantraine
1968-1980: 710), or (3) speaking about Lat. plumbum, that it is a noun
borrowed from the same unidentied source as Greek mlybdos (AHD
1535). The analysis is difcult because of the divergent forms in Greek and
Latin. Yet for Greek it can be surmised that we can refer to a basic form
mlybdos, mlib(d)os, therefore a Preie. root *MoL-, whereas parallels like
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
159
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
160
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
161
blybdos, blimos are corrupt; but this happens often with many pre-Greek
forms (cf. Faure 1977). Indeed, Lat. plumbum, though indisputably a non-
IE 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 identied 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 reect 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
161
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
162
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 rst 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 claried; 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 difcult 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 pre-
metallic 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 non-
IE view is once again promising.
(1) A rst 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
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
161
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
162
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
163
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 pre-
Uralic 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
163
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
164
(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 reect 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 conrm 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 difcult and extremely delicate problem may be
Rom. a cople;i to press, to squeeze, to overwhelm, i. e. to make, turn
small, a verb now accepted as probably indigenous, of Thracian origin. I
should add: of Pre-Thracian origin, derived from the same root *KoP-/KuP-
small, little, i. e. to turn small, to squeeze. In a similar way, a pre-Greek
form *KuP-ro- was used to denote the soft metal (copper), literally the metal
which could be squeezed, hammered into small pieces.
In the light of the data presented, there are two ways of explaining the
Latin name for copper;
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
163
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
164
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
165
(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-/*KuP-
small, little > name for cypress (initially small plant/tree) > name of
island > name of metal.
(2) The other possibility to which I incline may be summarized:
Preie. root *KoB-/*KoP-/KuP- small, little > name for copper (name
which can be turned small) > name of island (from its copper bearing
ores). At a later stage, when the initial Preie. idiom became extinct, folk-
etymology 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
165
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
166
Bronze: An Indo-European Metal
The only IE name of metal reconstructable from forms preserved all over
the IE area is *ayos: lat. aes (initially ais) bronze, sometimes
copper (i. e. copper alloy), Gothic aiz (Gen. aizis), ore. Sanskrit ya5
(Gen. yasa5), Avestan ayE (Gen. ayanhE), etc. (Pokorny 1959: 15; Morris
et. al. 1979: 1507; Ivanov 1983: 32; Lehmann 1987: 78). This term places
us on the more rm ground of the comparative grammar of the IE
languages. This conrms archaeological nds which now indicate that
intentionally produced copper alloys were introduced into Europe by the
Kurgan People: the Indo-Europeans (Gimbutas 1973 a, b; 1979).
An Unexpected Difculty: iron
The name for iron poses unexpected problems to linguists because in a
series of languages it has no accepted or acceptable etymon. Gr. sdFros and
Lat. ferrum are two typical examples. Both IE and Preie. perspectives are
obscure from the very beginning: the Indo-Europeans did not know or use
iron, and the same thing is valid for their indigenous (Neolithic and
Chalcolithic) predecessors. The etymological analysis is confronted with a
serious problem. If the term is surely non-IE (non-Proto-Indo-European)
can it be Preie.? A positive answer implies a total anachronism whereas a
negative answer leads to an even more disconcerting position: where was
this term taken from or how was it invented? An authority in Greek
etymology rejected a hypothesis which in the present authors opinion
has good chances to be real: iron was initially known from meteorites.
The argument invoked is purely phonetical: the presence of initial s-
(Chantraine 19681980: 10023). But the phonetic treatment of initial s in
Greek is clear enough only in the case of the IE heritage. But what can we
say about the treatment of initial s in the substratum elements? Tens other
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
165
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
166
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
167
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 difcult 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 lled 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
167
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
168
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
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
167
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
168
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
169
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. re.
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 gure 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 gure of the Kalevala; this god was
initially associated with nature and weather (cf. ilma good weather,
formerly also sky) (Harva 1946). Another interesting gure, 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 rst
part is yet perfectly analyzable etymologically, reecting the IE root
*dhabh- to t together, hence also Lat. faber (initial IE *dh > Lat f), also
modern Romanian form dibaci (ci = B) skillful, undoubtedly an archaic
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
168
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
169
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
170
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 nal part of this study I shall concentrate on two important gures
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
difculty 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 He-
phaistos. Following Gh. Mu!us hypothesis concerning Pre-Hellenic
heritage, aspirated or non-aspirated vowels in ante-position seem to have
the role of a prex (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
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
169
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
170
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
171
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 gure usually represents a god tamed by mutilation.
Hephaestus, supervising the terrible re 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
171
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
172
relics (Rostaing 1950). I see this god-name related to vultur (usually
explained as deriving from the IE root *g
w
Ltur-, Pokorny 1959: 482 and
AHD 1979: 1520) and to many other PN, e. g. lympos; Ulcinium, Ulcirus,
Ululeus (Illyria); Oloros, lynthos (Thracia), Olomouc (Czech Republic),
etc. (further examples in Paliga 1989
1
). Once again we can identify a word
of Preie. origin connected with the mountainous elevations, in this very
case with the volcanic mountains.

Final Remarks and Conclusions
The beginnings of metallurgical activities have a particular signicance
for understanding the civilisational process. This paper concentrated on
south and southeast Europe, where archaeological nds document the
emergence of the earliest European civilization termed Old Europe by M.
Gimbutas and Urbian by the author of this paper (1989). It is clear that
metallurgy is only one aspect of the complex social activities of the Old
Europeans. It can be no doubt that metallurgical skills developed in Europe
much time before the IE expansion and this is proved not only by
archaeological evidence but also by linguistic analysis. Many fundamental
terms of earliest documented metallurgical activities are not IE nor can they
be attributed to an Oriental inuence. Though metallurgy (like agriculture)
developed earlier in Anatolia it is little probable that Neolithic and
Chalcolithic Europeans imported terms from there. It is anyway unknown
whether the Preie. languages of Anatolia had a similar (or even identical)
structure to (with) the Preie. idioms of SE Europe. This may be very
possible as proved by the extraordinary diffusion of many Preie. terms over
a large area. In this perspective it is of course problematic to say who
borrowed from where. Several terms analyzed in this paper indicate that the
indigenous Europeans rather adapted local realities to new socioeconomic
1
Now, see the Addenda to our Etymological Dictionary, vol. I in this series.
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
171
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
172
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
173
achievements, which for those times could be termed technological
revolutions. A number of words analyzed prove their afnities with local
names, especially in mountainous areas. A careful analysis proves that
indigenous people of SE Europe associated names of metals with the rocky
regions where the respective metals were probably found. Another term like
Gr. lbes cauldron proves that cauldrons were initially made of stone,
probably naturally concave stone-slabs. The evolution from a lithic to a
metallic civilization is obvious.
Of course, not all the aspects connected to a prehistoric metallurgy are so
clear. We are sometimes forced to use our imagination in order to
reconstruct a possible prehistoric tableau, e. g. the feasible hypothesis that
meteoric iron was known by primitive man from immemorial times. Later
man was surprised to observe that he himself could process and produce
this metal known by his ancestors. It cannot be therefore surprising that iron
was imagined imbued with magic powers.
It would be interesting to extend the investigation of metallurgical terms
at a general European (or Euro-Asiatic) scale, from reconstructable
prehistoric times down to present-day. Such an attempt (though to a
restricted scale) was recently done (Ivanov 1983, with a misguiding title)
yet many questions remain unanswered and there still is much uncertainty
is working with the Preie. substratum. I do not see any real progress in
comparative linguistic unless the Preie. heritage becomes more coherently
analyzed.
It would be also interesting to investigate the situation of metallurgical
terminology in certain areas, e. g. Modern southeast Europe (cf. Mihail
1981), in Romance, Germanic or Celtic languages. Basque, Albanian and
the Fenno-Ugric languages may also offer valuable data.
The close connection between metals, skills and the mythological
representations may also be a fruitful theme. I pointed here only several
essential aspects, among which is of particular importance to note the
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
172
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
173
analogy of derivation of the type: mountainous area metal/mountainous
area god-name. Such details show that the Preie. heritage requires a
change (or a radical revision) of what we know from the comparative
grammar of the IE languages. Linguists should be prepared to see and
interpret complex realities otherwise. The Indo-Europeans represented only
one component of European ethnogenesis and we cannot expect a real
progress without taking into consideration the other essential component:
the Preie. substratum. Such a large and deep perspective cannot be
practically approached without the co-operation of any linguists and
without the constant comparison of linguistic and archaeological data. The
metallurgical terminology is an example but must not remain the only
example. Faute de mieux we must still refer to place-names in order to
explain archaic realities. If this is still inevitable, we must anticipate the day
when we have achieved a more coherent and ampler Preie. glossary. I do
not see possible the decipherment of Linear A or Etruscan without
previously accomplishing this condition.

Acknowledgements
Many of the opinions presented here are due to the long discussions I
once had with prof. Gh. Mu!u. Unfortunately, his works, and especially his
essential contribution to a better nderstanding of the Pre-Hellenic heritage,
are little known. I also wish to express, over years, my gratitude to late
Prof. Marija Gimbutas for her constant and warmful assistance.
De metallis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
173
Duo umina Thraecorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
175

Two river-names revisited.
Once again on the opposition north-south in late Thracian
It is generally known that place- and river-names offer a good occasion
of analysing the distribution of local, dialectal differences. In the case of
Thracian, place-names are a precious means of identifying the long, but
obscure, evolution of Thracian. The problem is complex. I shall refer here to
only two basic examples showing a divergent evolution in north v. south
Thracian approximately after the second century A.D.
1. Marisia: Mure! - Marica. The Indo-European (hereafter IE) root
*m!r-, *mor- wet; a pond, a lake, with a large distribution in the IE area,
developed in Thracian as the attested river-name (hereafter NFl) Marisia,
today surviving in the Transylvanian river-name Mure" (dialectally
pronounced Mur#") and the Bulgarian NFl Marica. It cannot be any
reasonable doubt that the Thracian form had a root *m!r- which later had
the interesting evolution to u in Romanian, but was preserved as a in
Bulgarian. This detail (and other similar details) puzzled many linguists
who sometimes considered that the archaic pre-Roman (Thracian or Daco-
Thracian) place- or river-names were not transmitted directly to Romanian,
but via an intermediary, presumably Slavic or eventually Hungarian (in Kiss
1980, under various entries, we can read the assertion that all the Thracian
river!names in Transylvania were transmitted to Romanian via Hungarian
exclusively, which is at least debatable, if not entirely wrong).
The details of phonetic evolution show something different. A rst
observation is simple: if all the pre-Romance river-names were transmitted
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
176
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
177
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 $ rst, then to > uo/ua
(Althochdeutsch phase), nally 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
nal, post-Romanisation phase of Thracian (approximately after the second
century A.D.) as conrmed 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 3
rd

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 inuence as proved by not only the
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
176
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
177
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
178
normal shift ! > u, but also by the sufx -#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 4
th
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 simplied (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 rst then u.
I have not identied 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 reecting 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
178
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
179
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 specic 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 24
th
(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 dene 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 specic phonetic treatment of late
north Thracian ! to later develop as . Then two dialectal (or better
subdialectal) evolutions could be identied: (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 difcult 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
179
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
180
(stressed/unstressed respectively). The subdialectal treatment Thr. ! > > o
against ! > > u belongs anyway to the large north Thracian (Daco-
Moesian) area. I have not identied a similar phenomenon is south Thracian
(or Thracian proprie dictu). This phonetic change seemingly began in the
late phase of Thracian, after the second century A.D. and was presumably
completed by the fth century.
4. The discussion should also take into consideration other specic
phonetic treatments in place-, river- and mountain-names as toponymy may
offer valuable data of phonetic treatments in Thracian, specically in late
Thracian before the complete Romanisation (further discussions in Paliga
1991). The complex problem of the possible chronological horizon when
Thracian ceased to be spoken cannot be analysed here in detail. According
to reliable sources, archaeological and linguistic analyses, it may be
surmised that Thracian was still spoken in the fth century A.D., and
continued to be spoken for at least a century in isolated areas in both the
Balkan mountains and Carpathian-Moldavian region as revealed by recent
archaeological discoveries which have identied specic Thracian cultural
elements as late as (at least) the 6
th
century A.D., possibly later
1
. Specic
Daco-Thracian burial rites (implicitly indicating the preservation of certain
linguistic elements) are identied in the former area of the so-called Free
Dacians (Daci Liberi) as late as the seventh century A.D. (Bichir 1973;
Ioni"# 1982; Ioni"# and Ursachi 1988). Afterwards the archaeological data
are no longer relevant because the material culture became more and more
uniform on a large area in southeast Europe, therefore the usual or
traditional connection material culture - ethnos/language is no longer
relevant.
1
It may be surmised that Albanian ethnogenesis is connected to the survival of
these Thracian groups, which moved southwards concurrently with the Slavic
groups proper. This hypothesis will be developed and expanded in our History of
the Slavs (in preparation, when this book is being prepared for print).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
179
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
180
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
181
These principles may explain why it is simplistic to assume that
Romanisation was entirely concluded in the fourth century A.D.. The
indigenous Thracians (north- and south-Danubian) surely continued to be an
important ethno-linguistic element, and the substratum elements in
Romanian, Bulgarian and Albanian cannot be simply regarded as relics of a
presumed pre-fourth century reality. The gradual integration of the Thracian
elements in the archaic phase of Proto-Romanian (fourth-fth centuries
A.D.) is much more complex because in the course of time the specic
phonetic changes followed chronologically discriminated rules. The above
quoted shift ! > > o/u is an example. But there must be other examples so
far little investigated, if at all. This brief study cannot approach all these
complex realities.
5. In change the present paper can note some other details of phonetic
analysis. An example may be NFl Some" < Thr. Samus and NFl Olt < Thr.
Alutus. Again the specic phenomenon a > o. This time the analysis is more
difcult, mainly because unlike the forms Mure" and Dun#re the
etymon is not quite clear, therefore it is difcult to determine whether the
initial phoneme was ! or #. Anyway, Thr. Samus > Rom. Some" seems to
admit a Pre-Indo-European (Pre-IE) etymon, root *SaM-, *SoM- deep and
high (cf. Lat. altus with both meanings). Anyway the phonetic evolution is
similar in the already quoted case Samara > Somme (supra) with which
Samus/Some" is obviously related.
Thr. NFl Alutus > Rom. Olt poses a similar problem. It is tempting to
compare the river-name with Latvian aluots a water spring or source, but
other parallels, possibly derived from the Pre-IE root *AL- are also possible
(see Paliga 1989 b, where I sketched the major problems of the Pre-Indo-
European heritage). Equally NFl Alta, a tributary of the Dnjepr, may be
relevant. In this case again, the original a-grade root has been preserved as
such. That is why the postulated Slavic phonetic inuence in the case of
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
180
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
181
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
182
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 specic 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 specic to either Slavic or, still less,
Hungarian. It cannot be admitted that, in the same area, some river-names
followed specic 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 specic 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 superuous
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 specic treatments in the Latin elements,
but the explanation is simple: they reected an alteration already in post-
classical 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
182
phenomenon had late-Latin, post-classical roots. The examples are banal
and may be found in any history of the Romanian language.
But how did the Thracian phonemes develop? Did they follow the same
rules? As long as the phonemes were different, even though they were
sometimes spelled similarly, their evolution must have been different. By
spelling the letter b, for example, we denote different sounds in Spanish,
Romanian and English, and the situation was similar in the case of Latin v.
Thracian. There cannot be any reasonable doubt that Thracian b, v and l were
pronounced with force, and were not affected in the course of evolution like
their late Latin counterparts which must have had a weak pronounciation. That
is why intervowel b, for example, in the Thracian elements of Romanian is
regularly preserved, like abur, aburi vapour(s), Alb. avull. The importance
of this word should not be discarded as it clearly shows that intervowel b/v in
Thracian has been preserved in Romanian (unlike intervowel b/v in Latin
which has been lost). Again Rom. NFl Ibru, obviously related to Bulgarian
NFl Ib#r, does not follow the expected phonetic evolution from Latin to, but
the evolution from Thracian to Romanian (Fr#"il# 1987: 118-123).
7. Summing up, there are some basic principles we can further adopt in
analyzing the Thracian or Daco-Thracian (otherwise labelled Daco-Moesian)
heritage in Romanian. There was a specic evolution of Thracian phonemes
as reected in both toponymy and vocabulary, as there was - in the late phase
of Thracian - diverging evolutions in south Thracian and north Thracian
(Daco-Moesian) respectively. I have focused on the specic evolution of Thr.
! > Rom. > o/u against Thr. ! > Bulg. a as the parallel Mure" - Marica
clearly shows. This specic treatment is also visible in the case of NFl
Dun#re, but also in mum#, a momi, NM Codru Moma.
Future analyses should concentrate on identifying other specic evolutions.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands of probable words of Thracian origin in
Romanian. They should be analyzed with care, and trying to identify those
phonetic details relevant to the topic.
De denitione lingu dacoromanic
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
183
Romanian Denite Article Revisited
Introduction
I shall attempt to resume a long, almost endless discussion: the origin of the
Romanian denite 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
denite 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 nally 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 denite
article, its typological relations with other linguistic areas, and shall attempt to
explain this isolated situation in the eld of Romance linguistics. For sure, the
Romanian denite article mainly reects 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 reects 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.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
184
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
185
The denite article of nouns and adjectives
Though the facts are well known, I shall resume the basic facts and point
out less known details. At a rst glance things are so simple: the denite
article reects the agglutinated Latin demonstrative. And yet...
____________
Sing. Pl.
Masc. Fem. Masc. Fem.
N.A. -u, -ul, -le* -a -i -le
G.D. -lu(i) -(e)i, -(i)i -lor -lor
V. -ul-e -
____________
* The form -u is always colloquial and is attested in the oldest Romanian
texts, whereas -ul is bookish. Both are used with the former Latin nouns of
second declension or assimilated with them (e.g. lupus > Rom. lup). The
form -le is both colloquial and bookish and is used with former nouns of
third declension (e.g. canis, Acc. canem > Rom. cine).
Therefore the denite forms are, e.g., lup-lupul, but cine-cinele.
Lu is always colloquial, lui (with i pronounced as semivowel y) belongs
almost exclusively to the written language. Identical to the personal
pronoun, genitive-dative.
Identical to the personal pronoun plural, genitive-dative.
Common nouns like om omule, fecior son feciorule, but copil
child copile. The pattern is therefore: sometimes noun + denite article -
ul + ending e (< Latin vocative -e), sometimes the denite article is not
required (no rule). See below the case of personal names.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
184
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
185
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
186
Masc. sing. N.A. -u is as old as the form -ul, despite the largely spread
hypothesis that the colloquial form -u would be simplied 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 Denite Article
Forms in the Nominative singular
Masc. -i or -u
Fem. -a
N. -t, -t
Pl. -t, -t
N
G
D
Ac.
Abl.
Type I
Ind.
-
i
i
-
i
Def.
i
it
it
in,
n
it
Type II
Ind.
-
u
u
-
u
Def.
u
ut
ut
un,
n
ut
Type III *
Ind.
-
e
e
-
e
Def.
a
s, s
s, s
n, n
s, s
Type IV
Ind.
-
i
i
-
i
Def.
t, t
it
it
t, t
it
Type V **
Ind.
-
ve
ve
-
sh,
ve
Def.
t, t
ve,
vet
ve,
vet
t, t
ve,
vet
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
185
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
186
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
187
Includes most masculine names.
Includes some masculine forms which end in -g, k, -h or in a stressed
vowel.
* Feminine; includes also a few personal masculine names which end in -
or -o, like tat, tata.
Includes all neuter forms.
** Plural forms.
First conclusions: (1) form -u is as old as the form -ul, perhaps even older
(see below); it is identical to Albanian paradigm in -u; (2) form -ul reects
indeed Latin ille with the link vowel -u-.
Masc. sing. N.A. form -le is used in case of words ending in -e e.g.
cine < Lat. cane(m), i.e. former Latin names of third declension or
assimilated to it. It obviously reects Lat. ille.
Fem. sing. N.A. -a reects Latin illa. Things are more complicated with
the G.D. form -ei and sometimes -ii. It is well known that Fem. sing. G.D.
forms are identical to Fem. pl. N.A. forms (non-articled), e.g. fat! girl
fete which is both G.D. sing. and N.A. pl. The denite article is called to
clarify the case: fetei to the girl fetelor to the girls. So we may question
whether the article of the fem. sing. G.D. is -i, identical to Albanian -i, or -ei
as hypothesised by many linguists, it is true not taking into account the
Albanian forms. Difcult to decide: if the old paradigm in Romanian for
fem. sing. is (indenite v. denite respectively) -! v. -e (e.g. fat! fete),
then the denite article for fem. gen. is INDEED -i (pronounced as a
semivowel y, not -ei, pronounced ey). It is true that the corresponding
personal pronoun G.D. is ei (v. masc. lui), but for both genders the short
(unstressed) form is i. I would not dare to derive it from Latin as many other
linguists do.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
186
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
187
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
188
Fem. pl. N.A. -le reects 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 (indenite/denite)
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
denite article -i; it is pronounced as vowel i, against the indenite plural
form in -i which is pronounced as a very short i, in fact a palatalisation of
the previous consonant. Therefore, the pl. indenite form lupi is pronounced
/lup
i
/, whereas the pl. denite form lupii is prounced /lupi/ proper. The
various pronounciations of graphic i represent a hard try for the foreigners
who study Romanian.
Feminine (denite/indenite)
Sing.
N.A. fat-!/fat-a femei-e/femei-a
G.D. fet-e/fete-i femei/femei-i (i-i is pronounced /i/)
Pl.
N.A. fete/fete-le femei/femei-le
G.D. fete/fete-lor femei/femei-lor
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
187
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
188
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
189
Note: In feminine singular, the opposition denite-indenite of the rst
class (ending in -!) is the opposition !/a. ! is the neuter vowel ", usually the
quality of a in unstressed position; a similar sound is Alb. and Bulg. !.
Again, the spelling ii reects a normal /i/, against the spelling i which in
Romanian usually reects the semivowel /y = i ! /.
Romanian neuter has no special forms. It uses the masculine forms in the
singular, and the feminine forms in the plural, with (sometimes) the mark of
plural -uri which is only for neuter plural. Otherwise the paradigm follows
the same rule: the neuter is masculine in the singular and feminine in the
plural.
The latin ille, illa, illud has been considered and accepted as the origin of
the Romanian denite article. It is indeed so, yet NOT ALL THE FORMS
reect this origin. And, if we refer to Albanian, with which Romanian has
indeed much in common, we can realise that the situation is not so simple. It
is not simple indeed even if we ignore the Albanian forms, as usual with
most linguists who have analysed the topic.
The popular Latin forms which explain the denite article not only in
Romanian, but also in Western Romance languages, are:
Singular
Masculine Feminine
N.A. *ellu (str.), *lu (unstr.) *ella (str.), *la (unstr.)
G.D. *lui *laei (= *l#i)
D. *li (cf. Arom. li, Rom. i) *li
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
188
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
189
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
190
Plural
N.A. *elli (str.), *li (unstr.) *elle (str.), *le (unstr.)
G.D. *loru *loru
D. *le (Rom. le, It. le) *le
A. *lo(s) (cf. Old Rom. l!) *lo(s) (cf. Old Rom. l!)
This reconstruction (Iv!nescu 1980: 133134), one of the best I have
knowledge of, does not explain all the Romanian forms, among these the
feminine singular form -a and accusative sing. of the feminine pronoun -o.
Iv!nescu justly notes, on the next page, that the agglutinated position of the
Romanian denite article should be explained as a Thracian inuence. He
refers, of course, to the known fact that both the denite article and the
adjective follow the rule rst the noun, then the article and/or adjective. This
is the usual form in Romanian, though dialectally some forms of the denite
article are placed before the nouns and, from various stylistical reasons, the
adjective may be placed before the noun. But the standard, also archaic, order
is noun + denite article or noun + adjective. He does not dare mention that
those forms difcult to explain via Latin may very well be inheritied from the
Thracian substratum, like on the other hand the colloquial and dialectal
forms of the verb a to be: s I am, they are, i he, she is, which can
NEVER be explained from Latin, but rather reect a Thracian heritage.
The limited purpose of this paper does not allow me to extend the
discussion. It is high time to pass to the next step:
The denite article of demonstratives and adverbs!
Romanian is different from any other Romance or Germanic language by
using a specic form of the denite article. The situation has not been
properly observed by most linguists and grammarians, so I shall concentrate
on it.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
189
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
190
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
191
Romanian uses an invariable denite article -a for both demonstrativa
and adverbia. The invariable form -a should NOT be confused with the
feminine denite article of singular forms. Many linguists, by not
confusing the situation, simply claim that this specic -a is a particle. It is
not a particle, it is a genuine and very clear denite article. Some
examples may prove relevant.
Demonstrativa
The invariable denite article for demonstratives is used for masc. and
fem. sing and masc. and femine plural forms. It is always -a. Examples:
acest this (masc. sing.) acesta this (plus the denite article); no
equivalent translation. approx. this [person] I am talking about.
Acest om este s!rac this man is poor
Acesta este s!rac this (denite: man I am talking about) is poor
same construction is applied to similar forms like acel that acela
aceast! this (fem. sing.) aceasta this (plus the denite article); no
equivalent translation. approx. this [woman] I am talking about.
Aceast! femeie este s!rac! this woman is poor
Aceasta este s!rac! this (denite: woman I am talking about) is poor
ace$ti these (masc. pl.) ace$tia (same meaning plus denite article);
no equivalent translation, approx. these [persons] I am talking about.
acei those (masc. pl.) aceia; identical construction as above.
aceste (fem. pl.) acestea these [women] without and respectively
with the denite article.
acestor (G.D. plural forms for both masc. and fem.) to these [men or
women] acestora.
acelor (G.D. plural forms for both masc. and fem.) to those [men or
women] acelora.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
190
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
191
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
192
Adverbia
Few adverbs very frequently used witness the same denite article -a.
Examples:
ades (from adj. des < Lat. densus) frequently adesea (with link-
vowel -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 denite 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 sacrices. Rom. pop! is also exclusively colloquial
(against the formal, ofcial term preot < Lat. presbiterum). Indeed the
Slavic form pop cannot be avoided, nevertheless things are not so simple,
because Slavic pop! cannot result in Rom. pop!. This origin is to be
2
Pururi was initially a noun, of neuter gender, *pur, pl. pur-uri, presumably of
Thracian origin and having the meaning re i.e. eternal re. For the peculiar
evolution of this meaning see Paliga 1992, reprinted in Paliga 1999. See below,
next chapter (Studies in Romanian).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
191
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
192
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
193
identied 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-nal 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 rst declension, preserved in
Romanian as tat! and pop! respectively, use the denite 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-nal 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 reecting
Gr.-Lat. papas should not be rather replaced by a less comfortable theory, implied
in this text, that it reects 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
193
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
194
sounds pejorative. The word is really sometimes heard with the meaning a
priests wife.
The denite 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 denite 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 Soa, 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 reect 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
r 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 specic semivowel e!, dialectally pronounced i !): Bradea,
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
193
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
194
Lupea, Toma, Nicula, Mircea etc. As easily observable, a is the (masculine)
denite article, not an -a ending as suggested by most scholars. If there are
still doubts, I must add that in all such forms, the -a denite article may be
replaced by the usual masculine denite article -u, without any change of
sense, even though sometimes the -u-articled forms are not usual or never used
as such.
Discussion
Romanian shares with Albanian and Bulgarian the specic agglutination of
the denite article. Typologically this construction is also met in Swedish,
Armenian, Basque and according to recent theories in Etruscan. By analysing
all the available relevant data we can observe that:
Most of the forms of the Romanian denite article are of Latin origin, but
some reect the indigenous Pre-Romance (Thracian) inuence.
Romanian is closely related to Albanian in many aspects, specically the
masc. sing. form N.A. -u (colloquial in Romanian) and fem. sing. G.D. -i.
Romanian is unique in preserving an invariable denite article -a for
both adverbs and demonstratives. This form should not be confused with
the fem. sing. form -a of presumably Latin origin. This article is also used in
the case of two words belonging to the basic vocabulary: tat! and pop!, both
of masculine gender.
The other forms reect Latin ille, illa and, for plural, the oblique cases of the
personal pronouns are agglutinated and used as the denite article.
The Bulgarian and Macedonian denite article is a calque after Thracian
and/or Romanian. An accurate analysis could be made only after deciding
whether Thracian was still spoken at the arrival of the rst Slavic groups in the
South Danubian region, which is very probable (a hypothesis well argumented
by the Bulgarian School of Thracian Studies). It is feasible to admit that the
agglutinated denite article in Bulgarian and Macedonian is a calque after the
indigenous Thracian substratum, later consolidated under the Romanian
inuence.
De vocabulis dominationis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
195
Herrscherschaft and Herrschersuffix
in Central-East European Languages
Introduction
In a paper written some 15 years ago (Paliga 1987, in Linguistica,
Ljubljana)
1
I dared suggest that a series of Romanian and Slavic terms
referring to social and political organisation, specifically ban (1) master,
local leader and (2) coin, money (2
nd
sense derived from the 1
st
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
origin
2
). 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
See the second study in English, above.
2
Indeed, intervocalic -b- and -v- are lost in Romanian in the words of Latin origin,
NEVER in the case of the indigenous Thracian elements as clearly shown by
numerous examples, see below further discussions.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
196
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
197
2. to rediscuss them in the light of new data, and if required to make
the appropriate corrections and additions;
3. to try a plausible reconstruction of those remote times, and of those
remote societies in which these forms were in current use as all these terms
refer to essential forms of social, economical and political organisation; and
some of them are still in current use (e.g. Slovene !upan, Romanian ban
money, coin and st!pn a master).
4. to suggest further directions of research and discussions.
The forms
Series ban, cioban, jupn, st!pn and the archaic Herrshersuffix -n-
I shall only sum up the data presented in my papers mentioned above.
The first series is represented by the forms with the basic root *ban-, *pan-,
sometimes in compounds (detailed analysis in Paliga 1987):
Ban a master, also coin, money. Spread in Romanian, Bulgarian,
Serbian-Croatian and Hungarian; in these languages the spelling is ban, bn,
and the general meaning is local leader; the sense coin is specific only to
Romanian (general, usual sense) and Polish, at dialectal level. The meaning
coin is derived from master as Hasdeu brilliantly observed more than a
century ago: The coin (ban) is made under the authority of the local leader
(the ban), just as the old English coin sovereign was made under the
authority of the sovereign. Similar forms are recorded in: (a) Croatian,
Bulgarian ban a leader; (b) Hungarian bn a leader at the Hungarian
border (i.e. Croatia); (c) Polish ban a coin. All these forms are not used
any more, with the exception of the form ban coin which is the usual
modern Romanian form for money, and also the subdivision of the
national currency leu, lit. lion.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
196
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
197
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
198
Many analyses have been inclined to generally consider the two
meanings as two different forms of different origin, even though the
derivation is clear: ban coin, money is the consequence of the first
meaning master, lord as already suggested by Hasdeu in the 19
th
century.
What was clear for long is that a similar form is attested in Persian, hence
some assumed was borrowed by the Turkic groups and then spread all
over southeast Europe. This hypothesis puts, first of all, an essential
problem: the term ban, just like the others discussed below, are not specific
terms to any Turkic language which might be considered as the intermediate
idiom between Persian and Central-Southeast Europe. But the situation will
become clearer if we refer to the other terms. Such hypotheses rather reflect
the once current recourse to Oriental influences, via Turkish or Persian,
whenever no other explanation seemed plausible.
Cioban shepherd, also a recipient, a pot; meaning shepherd spread
over a large area in Southeast and East Europe. Again the two meanings of the
same word have been largely analysed separately. To most linguists, they
seem to be so remote from each other, that they may be considered as two
different words. In fact, both shepherd and recipient reflect an archaic
heritage of the same basic meaning: to cover, to protect (1) sheep, and (2)
liquids. In addition, the indigenous Thracian origin of cioban was rarely
considered starting from the largely spread opinion that intervocalic -b- should
have been lost in Romanian words of Thracian origin. This was an automatic
hypothesis starting from the erroneous conception that all the Thracian
elements of Romanian must follow the rules of phonetic evolution like the
Latin elements; this view was common in the 19
th
century and, to a large
extent, it is still common among many linguists, despite the obvious reality
that, in the indigenous elements of Romanian, intervocalic b and v NEVER
disappear, and intervocalic l NEVER turns to r. About this see below.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
197
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
198
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
199
Therefore, if cioban is to be rejected its indigenous origin, then other
arguments must be looked for. Perhaps decisive in this sense is a still largely
spread view that Thracian and Proto- and Early Romanian could not
influence the neighbouring languages to such a great extent. Fortunately, in
the wake of the remarkable contribution of the Bulgarian school of Thracian
studies, we now know that Thracian was still a spoken language when the
first Slavic groups passed the Danube at the beginning of the 6
th
century
A.D., and therefore re-analysing now these (and other) terms does not look
so absurd as it seemed some years ago. Many false theories have been built
up starting from such erroneous principles, and I feel it is high time to
correct them or, at least, to draw attention to their being re-analysed.
Briefly, I only note that cioban is a compound: cio-ban (pronounced "o-
ban), the second part of which is ban mentioned above.
In order to have a larger and, hopefully, more convincing view of the
topic, let us briefly mention two other forms.
34. Jupn, also spelled jupn, formerly #upn and st!pn, also spelled
st!pn. Obviously both are again compound forms of the same type like
cioban: #u-pn > jupn, st!-pn. The only difference is that the second part
of the compound witnesses the voiceless parallel p to the voiced b, whereas
#u- in #u-pn is the voiced parallel to the voiceless "o-, "u- in cioban,
ciuban.
The semantic sphere is also a (local) leader, a master. The term is
specific to Romanian (now obsolete, but preserved in the compound a
st!pni to master, to be master of), and to some neighbouring languages.
The form !upan is still preserved in Slovene with the meaning mayor, and
clearly reflects the archaic, basic meaning: a local leader, a master. Old
Slavonic !upan$ and stopan$ are also attested. It should be remembered
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
198
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
199
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
200
that st!pn was correctly noted as a probable Thracian element in Romanian
and the neighbouring languages, and this view has been adopted by more
and more linguists (this hypothesis was initially sustained by Al. Philippide,
who approached the form to German Stab and Sanskrit sthapyami; this
hypothesis was later adopted by Prvulescu and Gh. Iv!nescu).
In an attempt to overview the problem connected to the four forms (ban,
cioban, jupn and st!pn), I suggest the following reference points:
(a) All these forms reflect IE *p%- to protect, to feed and/or *p&i- to
protect the cattle, to graze. The two roots are separately recorded in
Pokorny and AHD, in the latter case mentioning their probable relationship
in Proto-Indo-European (hereafter PIE).
(b) The semantic sphere is to protect (cattle and/or people), to be a
master of (cattle, people), in one case only preerving an archaic parallel to
protect recipient (in Romanian only, and only at dialectal level, in
Transylvania).
(c) Seemingly there was an early specialisation of the forms: ban and
cioban ("o-ban), therefore with voiced explosive, refer to PROTECTING
LIVING BEINGS (cattle and/or people), whereas the forms with unvoiced
explosive (st!pn and jupn) refer to PROTECTING A TERRITORY,
therefore got an early administrative and political meaning. The opposition
voiced-unvoiced (b v. p) was seemingly due to a laryngeal (see below our
brief hypothesis about the Thracian laryngeal) or due to a phonetic sequence
"-b as opposed to #-p in Thracian.
(d) All these forms preserve the specific Indo-European Herrschersuffix -n-.
(e) All these forms must have the same origin as they refer to a specific
semantic sphere, have a quite clear IE etymon, have the same development:
the Herrschersuffix -n-, and are spread specifically in those southeast
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
199
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
200
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
201
European languages which reportedly have a Thracian and/or Illyrian
influence; some forms are also attested in Persian.
(f) All these forms represent an etymologically compact group; but
cioban should probably deserve a more detailed discussion. Anyway, they
should not be discussed and analysed separately, or to assume that only
some of them may be of indigenous Thracian origin whereas others might
be of Turkic (Pre-Ottoman Turkish, as they are attested many centuries
before the arrival of the Turks in Europe). A disparate analysis cannot note
the common origin and meaning of these forms.
I assume the form cioban is essential to understanding the evolution and
distribution of these forms. Practically the indigenous (Thracian or Dako-
Mysian) origin of this form in Romanian was rejected on the erroneous ground
that intervocalic b/v in Thracian elements must have disappeared in Romanian
as it happened in the Latin elements. This is a topic I have repeatedly
approached in some of my papers, and am forced to approach it again. It
should be remembered that intervocalic b/v is exceptionally preserved in Latin
elements too, as in a avea to have, avem, ave'i we have, you have) or turns
to # as in uber > uger udder. This reflects the special situation of b/v in Late
Latin, not in Late Thracian. IN ALL THE EXAMPLES I KNOW,
THRACIAN INTERVOCALIC b/v IS REGULARLY PRESERVED IN
ROMANIAN, as in abur vapours (= Albanian avull, meanwhile accepted as
one of the obvious Thracian elements in Romanian, and with obvious
intervocalic b); equally the remarkable parallel of river-names: Rom. Ibru,
Bulg. Ib!r, Serbian Ibar (in the sequence -br-, b would also have disappeared
in a word of Latin origin); place-name Deva Bulg. Plovdiv (Thr. dava, deva
a fortress), and many other examples prove the same: intervocalic b/v is
always preserved in the indigenous Thracian (Dako-Mysian) elements.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
200
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
201
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
202
Another argument invoked for the non-indigenous Thracian origin of
cioban is the ending -an, which, also according to the Latin heritage of
Romanian, would have closed to -n. Again the reference is not complete, as
there are indeed obvious indigenous forms which preserve this ending
(formerly it must have been a suffix), e.g. suffix -man in place-names like
Caraiman, C!liman (with South Slavic parallels also of Thracian and/or
Illyrian origin, see extensively our paper for the 8
th
Thracian Conference in
Sofia-Jambol, September 2000, in print, when this paper is being prepared),
ortoman (obsolete, rare) rich (obscure origin, most probably indigenous
Thracian) etc. Briefly, the existence of forms with final -an, -in, -un (instead
of the expected closed vowel + n) is not an argument against the archaic,
indigenous character of these forms as some words of unknown, possibly or
probably of Thracian origin, clearly show.
So if Rom. cioban is to be really considered a Turkish (or generally
Turkic) influence, other arguments should be invoked. The current
hypothesis I know is that indeed cioban ultimately is of IE origin, but via
Turkish where it was borrowed from Persian. This is indeed tortuous, and
also unsustainable at a forensic analysis. The word is rare in Aromanian
(Macedo-Romanian), but if of Turkish origin we would expect it to be
the current term there; in fact, the current term for shepherd in Aromanian
is picurar = Daco-Romanian p!curar < Latin pecurarius pecus, pecoris.
Besides, Romanian has many other terms for the same semantic sphere (the
richest in the area): oier < oaie (Latin ovis), p!stor < pastor, baci (archaic
indigenous term, probaby of Pre-Indo-European origin), mocan, also of
unknown origin, perhaps of Pre-Indo-European origin as well. In these
circumstances, it would be difficult indeed to accept that cioban is a late
borrowing from Turkish where, in its turn, was borrowed from Persian.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
201
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
202
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
203
We must admit that the etymology of cioban is a key point in further
investigations; and the same should be said about du(man an enemy, an
old IE term, but also considered of Turkish origin in Romanian. The
arguments are again feeble, and based on the same erroneous assumption
that the phonetic evolution in the case of indigenous Thracian words must
follow exactly the phonetic evolution from Latin to Romanian. This is valid
indeed when the sounds (phonemes) involved were identical, which is not
always the case.
V!taf and a brief survey of the Thracian laryngeal
I also discussed this form connected to related forms in Romanian
dialects (v!tav, v!ta(, v!taj, v!tah) and the neighbouring languages: Ukr.
vataha, Pol. wataha, Bulg. vatah, and Serbian-Croatian vatak. In the Slavic
languages, the sense, according to the available dictionaries, is always a
leader, a master (therefore similar to the ban-series analysed above). In
Romanian, the basic sense is the same, with some peculiarities: (1) a leader
of the servants in a boyars court and/or in a monastery; (2) leader of a
hospodars group; (3) an essential character of the indigenous magic dance
of C!lu(.
3

The word must ultimately be of indigenous Thracian-Illyrian origin, and
some Ancient forms may witness the proto-form: )*+,+-./01, 2+,+-./01,
Vetespios, Betespios an epithet for Heros. In the series of the etymological
explanations of Kretschmer, Bari", De#ev, i.e. the possible relation may be
with Alb. vet self, a person. I also agree that it must be of archaic origin,
and also consider that other related Thracian forms may be relevant or
illuminating: NP Vitupaus, Vithopus, 2+/3/.41 (De#ev 1957: 47).
3
The C!lu( is one of the main attractions for the foreign tourists in Romania. The
complexity of this dance cannot be discussed here.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
202
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
203
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
204
Nevertheless the etymon cannot be followed as related to Albanian vet, but
as derived from the IE root *wat-, *wet- to inspire, to elevate spiritually,
hence also Lat. vates, -is a wit, a prophet, Old Irish faith a visionary, a
prophet, Germanic god-name Woden, hence Eng. Wednesday, and Norse
Odhinn (sometimes identified with Woden).
This ultimate origin is, in my view, the only possibility to explain ALL
these forms, both formally and semantically. The spread of these forms all
over Central-East Europe cannot be a mere hazard, but the common
Thracian or Thraco-Illyrian heritage, even though Romanian must be the
intermediary for Ukrainian and Polish forms. The family represented by
Rom. v!taf also puts a particularly interesting problem of phonetic
evolution: the relations and correspondences between f, h,(/j, " and k as
witnessed in the languages mentioned, including the Thracian forms attested
in the Antiquity. The task is not easy, but we may surmise that the proto-
forms had a sound impossible to spell in Greek and Latin. It must have been
of laryngeal type, later lost in Romanian, Albanian and also in the Slavic
languages which borrowed the term. My view may be better understood if
comparing the following examples:
Romanian Albanian Rom./Alb.
____________________________________________________
(1) f!rm! a small piece thrrim f/th (< *H); !/; r/rr; m/m
(2) ceaf! (neck) nape qaf ci(")/q; f/f
(3) c!ciul! a cap ksul c/k; ci(")/s; l/l; !/
(4 ) fluture, a flutura fluturonj f/f (fl/fl); t/t; u/u
a butterfly; to flutter
(5) hali, h!mesit ha, hams h/h (< *H); m/m
to eat; hungry
(6) abur vapours avull a/a; b/v; r/ll
(7) barz!, pl. berze stork bardh white b/b; r/r; z/dh
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
203
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
204
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
205
(8) drdi to shiver dergjem Im ill, sick d/d; er/r
(9) zer, zar! whey dhall buttermilk z/dh; r/ll, but also:
(10) zer, zar! hirr whey z/h (< *H); r/ll
(11) zim' a dent; a tooth dhmb a tooth z/dh; im/m;'/b
4
(12) la'e (long) hair lesh hair; wool l/l; '/sh
(13) mal river-side mal a hill m/m; a/a; l/l
(14) nan!, nene older person nn mother n/n; an/n; !/
(15) vatr! a hearth vatr, vatra fire 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
205
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
206
The complex correspondences between Romanian and Albanian cannot
be discussed here. They just reflect, as stated in some of my previous
papers, the complex, multi-stratified origin of Albanian: Romanised Illyrian
(very few reliable examples), Proto-Dalmatian, Proto-Romanian and Late-
Thracian origins. Albanian, in agreement with most linguists now, must be a
Neo-Thracian, not Neo-Illyrian, language with an important Romance
heritage, in its turn via at least three routes: Romanised Illyrian, Proto-
Dalmatian and Proto-Romanian.
An East-Romance innovation: boier
In Paliga 1990 I made an extensive analysis of Rom. boier in relation
with its obviously related forms spread over a large area in Central-East
Europe: S.-Cr. bljarin, pl. boljri; Alb. bujar; Russ. bujarin; Lith. bajoras.
These forms refer to a specific social and economic function in the Middle
Ages in the areas where these languages were and are spoken. Other forms,
like Hung. bo(j)er, Turk. boyar, Pol. bojar refer to such an organisation in
the neighbouring areas. Also Med. Lat. boiarones and the institution of
boieronatus, boeronatus reflect a reality specific mainly to Central and
Southeast Europe, and also to Russia (see analyses in Arion 1940; Filitti
1925; Filitti 1935; Nistor 1944; Novakovi" 1913; Stoicescu 1970).
The term is first mentioned by Constantine Porphirogenetos in De
ceremoniis aulae byzantinae at the beginning of the 10
th
century A.D. (905
909). There he mentiones that the first six boyars (607/85+1) were the
great boyars, i.e. 9+:870/ 607/85+1.
There is an impressive literature referring to the boyars (for which see
Paliga 1990). I shall resume here only the main ideas and references. Thus,
summing up the historical realities offered by Romanian, Serbian-Croatian
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
205
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
206
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
207
and Russian, where the term refers to specifically local realities, and as a
step towards explaining the origin of the term, we may assert that:
The boyars were ALWAYS land-owners; and they were ALWAYS
cattle-owners.
In the course of time, they also acquired certain political, economic and
military functions, for the simple reason that they had the financial means to
protect not only their properties, but also their country as a whole.
Generally many linguists were tempted to consider boyar a term of
Turkic origin as initially suggested by Miklosich in 1886: 17, root baj-, boj-
great; high. There are several variants of this basic theory, all suggesting
that the term had been spread a long time before the extension of the
Ottoman Empire, so the origin might be Petcheneg or Cuman. There is a
major and essential impediment of this old theory: this term is not at all
specific to the Turkic area; in Turkish, boyar refer to the Romanian boyars,
and there is no argument supporting the idea that this term would have ever
been specific in the social and economic organisation of the Turkic groups.
The term must be, as I suggested many years ago, of East-Romance origin,
in other words it must be a Proto-Romanian innovation: it is simply derived
from bou, pl. boi ox, oxen (< Lat. bos, bovis, Acc. bovem) just like oier
shepherd < oaie, pl. oi < Lat. ovis, Acc. ovem. Therefore, the Romanian
boier initially meant owner of cattle, and this is in full agreement with the
traditional, archaic view that owner of cattle or owner of sheep was similar
to richness. This obvious association has been preserved over millenia by the
association pecus pecunia group of sheep money.
This East-Romance term spread to the neighbouring areas, just like
k$motra < Rom. cum!tr! < Post-Classical Latin *comatra, *cumatra,
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
206
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
207
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
208
Classical commater (see other examples in Paliga 1996: Romance and Pre-
Romance 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
208
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 (4
th
to 8
th

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 21
st
millenium.
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
209
Ten Theses on Romanian Etymology
Piae memoriae Ivani Duridanov
Introduction
Several years ago the Linguistique Balkanique generously published my paper
Two river-names revisited, preceded by a commentary of Prof. Ivan Duridanov (LB
38, 3). I hesitated a long time whether to write the following lines or just let time
judge. In the field of linguistic studies, the Bulgarian school of thracology is
obviously more articulated and coherent than its Romanian equivalent, if really a
Romanian school of linguistic thracology exists. I would rather mention some
remarkable studies scattered in various journals like those of Mircea Mihai
R!dulescu (1981, 1984, 1987), now unjustly forgotten by my colleagues, and the
works of Gh. Mu"u dealing with the Pre-Indo-European heritage in south-east
Europe (Mu"u 1981, 1995) and the Thracian mythology and religion (Mu"u 1972,
1973, 1982); Mu"u wrote exclusively in Romanian and his remarkable
contributions are practically unknown abroad
1
. 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
I am embarrassed to note that Mu"us fellow Romanian colleagues have rarely
quoted his works, and thus contributed to his being unknown or too little known
abroad. This footnote cannot radically improve the situation, but at least lets my
conscience free of a burden.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
210
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
211
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
audacious
2
); (3) river-name Olt may be explained only if a Slavic intermediary in
supposed. In order to justify his observations (and therefore putting down my
arguments which were extracted to exactly fit the purpose), Prof. Duridanov
invoked nomina sacra of the Romanian and European linguistics, specifically
Pu"cariu, Petrovici, Russu and Schramm. Embarrassed as I was I still am,
nevertheless I shall put it plainly: THEY WERE/ARE WRONG; sometimes. I shall
explain below why they were and some others still are wrong, but I hasten to add
that indeed a certain detailed discussion is necessary in the case of Olt < Alutus,
where a Slavic influence is possible, yet not certain as many still believe. This
would anyway be a very rare case where the substratum nomina were affected by
the Slavic influence. But this has for long become a 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
211
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
212
Thraco-Dacian, sometimes Geto-Dacian or Daco-Getian or Daco-Geto-Thracian
or Geto-Daco-Thracian or simply Dacian rarely Getian, referring specifically to
the north Danubian Thracian groups, i.e. those which inhabited present Romania.
By !orth Thracian my Romanian colleagues (and I) understand Geto-Dacian etc.
It corresponds to Daco-Mysian (for which see below a brief commentary).
In Bulgaria, the usual terms are Thracian (Thrakisch) or Thracian proper or
even Pure Thracian (echtthrakisch
3
) and Daco-Mysian (Dako-Mysisch) which
would correspond to Thraco-Dacian in the Romanian terminology. But M.M.
R!dulescu also uses the term Daco-Mysian in his studies written in English.
This parallel terminology made Prof. Duridanov say that my postulated
evolution North Thracian (i.e. Daco-Mysian) ! > * > Rom. o and u (regional and/
or dialectal differences) is not correct; if I justly understand what he writes in the
quoted article everything would have been acceptable, if not entirely correct, if I
had used the term Daco-Mysian, not north Thracian, for the mentioned phonetic
treatment. Thus do I surmise after reading 4 in Duridanov 1996: 223.
This is, I feel, the long-term consequence of the largely spread hypothesis in the
Bulgarian school of Thracian studies that Thracian (proper or echtthrakisch) is
radically different from Daco-Mysian (i.e. north Thracian in my terminology). I am
afraid that this is a simplistic way of approaching the Thracian heritage. In more
elegant words than mine, the same idea is expressed in Janakieva 1995: 241, who
belongs to the same Bulgarian school of Thracian studies; still more remarkable
from this perspective is the recent synthesis of Fol et alii 2000, which definitely
speaks of the whole Thracian world, south- and north-Danubian. This is, in fact, the
standard view expressed, among others, in Oppermanns Thraker zwischen
Karpatenbogen und gis. Differences between the Thracian dialects grew along
time and, of course, while history, political relations and economic interests had
their way ahead. I assume, or at least imagine, that more rapid divergent evolutions
3
Duridanov 1995: 169, speaking about Thr. deva, diva, labels it as echttrakisch.
The term would require at least a clearer definition, if not an abandon.
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
211
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
212
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
213
in the Thracian world began in the first century BC and became rapid indeed
beginning with the 2
nd
century AD. In the 3
rd
4
th
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 10
th
century AD. Those Sclavini, Bulgari, Blachi
ac pastores Romanorum mentioned by Anonymus
4
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. 6
th
even 7
th
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
10
th
century A.D., but rapidly came into extinction in the 11
th
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
213
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
214
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 (Daco-
Mysian) 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,
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
213
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
214
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
215
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 seemingly
5
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 tales
6
),
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 Indo-
European: 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 substratum
8
. How important was this component of the
5
I say seemingly to not induce the idea that I have discovered a Thracian text I do
not want to publish, and thus keep this precious document for myself only.
6
As compared to mam# < Lat. mamma and maic# < S.-Cr., Bg. majka.
7
Discussed in Ljubljana at the Simpozij Obdobja. The papers of the symposium
were published in 2002.
8
According to reliable sources, e.g. Chantraine, only 40% of the Greek vocabulary
admits an Indo-European etymon; some other words reflect various influences
from the Mediterranean languages, and more than 50% reflect, beyond any doubt,
the indigenous (Pre-Indo-European) heritage. And Hittite also had an important
Pre-Indo-European (Hatti) heritage, especially in the religious vocabulary.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
214
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
215
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
216
Thracian language is difficult to estimate now; it probably was much more
important than I was inclined to admit some 20 years ago and much more
important than many linguists still admit. Some of them do not discuss this topic at
all, probably because it was not included in the textbooks of the 1950s and 1960s.
So much the worse, as it was well sustained and fundamented in the 1920s and
our knowledge has gradually increased ever since. We can now identify tens of
Pre-IE roots, and their number is increasing. The progress cannot be rapid; I only
remind that Etruscan is still largely unknown, despite the strenuous efforts of the
last decades. I gladly agree with Prof. Duridanov (alas!) that Some" is indeed
related to Slavic som$ and Lith. !amas, Latvian sams the fish Silurus, BUT I AM
INCLINED TO CONSIDER ALL THESE FORMS AS PRE-INDO-
EUROPEAN too as I put on paper some 18 years ago in my book Byzantion
9
.
This is indeed normal, as some archaic place-names and fish-names prove their
common etymon (among these, the relation between NM Carpathians and the fish
carp, with similar, related forms in many European languages, e.g. Rom. crap, cf.
NPp Carpi, Korpiloi, a North-Danubian Thracian group, located in modern
Moldavia). Pre-IE words in Slavic? Why not: add to this form ryba or the place-
name Praha (and many others, of course) and we are slowly getting to the great
truth: Slavic also has a Pre-IE heritage (as I briefly wrote in Slavisti%na Revija 40,
3/1992: 309313). And Slavic, as a satem Indo-European language, could not be
very far from Thracian; or, otherwise put, was quite close to the northernmost
Thracian dialects spoken in what is today Bukovina (north Romania) and
9
Unpublished in the initial form. Large parts of it have been published as
independent papers, and some other parts were included in Paliga 1996.
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
215
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
216
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
217
southwest Ukraine
10
. Briefly, I do NOT think that Romanian somn the fish
silurus was borrowed from Slavic som$; if there still are linguists inclined for such
an etymon, let them explain the phonetic evolution step by step and sound by
sound: how that Slavic $ resulted in Romanian n? Was there the homophonous
somn sleep, which helped this confusion? Was the sequence mn in somn
something created for an easier pronunciation? It is indeed a specific Romanian
sequence like in Lat. lignum > Rom. lemn, or Lat. signum > Rom. semn, and just
from that reason I think that Rom. somn the fish Silurus is older than Sl. som$. It
is clear to me, and hopefully to others, that Sl. som$ belongs to the category of
archaic terms related to fishing and this Urverwandtschaft should be analysed
correspondingly. Slavic som$ may be further explained as either an indigenous
Slavic form or rather borrowed from a neighbouring idiom just because the
sequence mn in final position is unusual in Slavic and thus replaced by the
sequence -m$. I would just remind that there is a series of old borrowings from
(Boreal) Thracian and Proto-Romanian into Pre-Expansion-Slavic, sometimes
incorectly labelled common Slavic (see below Thesis 9).
So, Some" is indeed related to somn the fish silurus (and with Sl. som$ and
Lith. !amas and Latvian sams, indeed), but as we may surmise according to
available data - not via Slavic, but from the Thracian substratum, which in its turn
may have also had its contribution to the Slavic ethnogenesis. And, to add even
more difficulty to the analysis, I add other Romanian forms derived from the same
Pre-IE root *S-M-:
seme& high (about a peak); proud (about persons);
10
If north Thracian is to be equalled to Daco-Mysian, so northernmost Thracian
or Boreal Thracian must be that Thracian dialect(s) spoken in north Romania and
south Ukraine; their speakers must have had an important role in the Slavic
ethnogenesis together with the Baltic speakers; the Germanic and Iranic speakers
must have had a less important role, yet identifiable in vocabulary. On the complex
Slavic ethnogenesis, see our brief survey in Slavisti%na Revija (in press when this
paper in being prepared).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
216
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
217
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
218
Semenic (a peak in the West Carpathians), closely related to the preceding;
'imleu, place-name in west Romania;
"oim a falcon (not from Hungarian salyom, which I suppose is from Romanian,
ultimately in agreement with the Hungarian linguists, who assume it is of
unknown origin, but avoiding to quote the Romanian form);
'oimu", a village near Jibou, district S!laj; related to "oim; etc.
River-name Some" is only one example OUT OF OTHER NUMEROUS
EXAMPLES OF ROMANIAN WORDS OF PRE-INDO-EUROPEAN ORIGIN,
preserved via Thracian, and showing that the Pre-Indo-European component of
Thracian was important. If there still are linguists in the area who simply ignore the
Pre-Indo-European heritage of Southeast Europe, this is exclusively their own risk
and their own raison dtre, not to be used as an argument. To put it straight, if my
Romanian and Bulgarian colleagues still ignore the Pre-Indo-European heritage of
Thracian, I warmly invite them to read the fundamental works of Skok and Bezlaj,
two authors whose contributions are indeed relevant to the topic and still
unsurpassed in many aspects. The investigation of the Pre-Indo-European
substratum already had a quite long history, which started to have a coherent
structure after WW1 mainly by the works of the Italian linguists (see our preview in
Paliga 1989 c, 1988; both reprinted in Paliga 1999, which summarises our main
studies in the field).
Deva-dava, deva, Moldova, Pulpudeva/Plovdiv, and Kokodiva or about the
legendary intervocalic b/v in Thracian elements preserved in Romanian.
The town of Deva is located in south Transylvania and visitors can still see the
ruins of an early medieval fortress on the hill nearby. Despite the obvious origin of
the place-name, Thr. dava, deva fortress, I identified only one explanation in
Iordan 1963 which assumes that the origin would be Sl. d(va a girl! The reason
was, of course, the largely spread idea that Thracian intervocalic b/v should have
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
217
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
218
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
219
followed the same evolution to Romanian as Latin b/v, A WRONG
ASSUMPTION based on theoretical considerations without support and, strangely
enough, confusing the notion letter and sound: Thracian b/v IS REGULARLY
PRESERVED IN ROMANIAN as observed by other linguists, e.g. abur (Alb.
avull) vapour(s) (meantime a largely accepted Thracian element in Romanian).
And, to be clear, c#ciul# a (fur) cap preserves intervocalic -l- which, in the Latin
elements of Romanian, would have turned to r; but it didnt! And it didnt in any
other identifiable case: it was preserved as such in Romanian. And river-name Ibru
(of course related to Bg. Ib#r and to Serb Ibar) did not lose b in the sequence -br-
and so on and so forth: NP C#lin, NM C#liman (related to Caraiman and to
Carpa&i), etc. Other examples in R!dulescu 1981 passim. The Bulgarian forms
Plovdiv and Kokodiva/Kukudiva have been analysed in Duridanov 1986 and 1989;
the author did not note the obvious relationship with the Romanian place-name
Deva. But in that case he could not mention that deva is echtthrakisch, because it
is indeed audacious to assert that a south Transylvanian place-name with obvious
relations in south Thracian (or echtthrakisch) is echtthrakisch too. Or, in more
clear terms, I think Transylvanian Thracian was as echtthrakisch as any other
Thracian dialect, north or south from the Danube.
Ten Theses on Romanian, Thracian and Slavic Elements in Southeast
Europe
I shall try to summarise the results of my research in the field, hoping that it
might be useful for my colleagues preoccupied with Thracian studies. It reverts to
the same topic briefly approached in Linguistica 31/1991, with some important
additions.
Thesis 1. The Thracian-speaking area was large enough
11
to assume that local
11
Modern territories of Romania, Republic of Moldova, Bulgaria, Serbia, East
Hungary, East Slovakia, South Ukraine with radial transitory expansions.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
218
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
219
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
220
(dialectal, regional) differences existed. I surmise that a more rapid divergent evolution
began in the 1
st
century BC and accelerated at the beginning of the 2
nd
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 Thracian
12
) 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
Boreal Thracian is my coined term in order to underline the (probable) existence
of northernmost Thracian speakers who must have had an important contribution,
together with Baltic speakers, to the Slavic ethnogenesis. These must have been
represented by the tribe of the Costoboci or Costobocae or another neighbouring
northernmost Thracian tribe.
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
219
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
220
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
221
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) LATIN
13
.
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 laryngeal
14
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!nu-
vari (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-Indo-
European, 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
221
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
222
speak
15
(< to push air out by the mouth), an archaic feature preserved from
Proto-Boreal
16
. 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 character
17
. 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-Indo-
European and Mediterranean area, in Greek and Egyptian (see Mu"u 1995: 68
15
I am aware of the risk implied by comparing a Romanian (indigenous, archaic)
form to Finnish; there are some other examples; in the perspective of Andreevs
Proto-Boreal theory such approaches may multiply in the future.
16
For the definition of Proto-Boreal, see Andreev 1986, and also our paper in
preparation for the Internation Congress of Slavic Studies, Ljubljana, 2003.
17
Many linguists incorrectly assume that sound h was borrowed by the Romanian
speakers from Slavic, forgetting that speakers of a given language borrow words,
not sounds (phonemes) and also forgetting that Rom. h occurs in specific cases of
non-Slavic influence. Usually Slavic words with h borrowed in Romanian have f
for the original Slavic h (ch or Cyrillic *). This shows that, at the stage of the first
borrowings from Slavic, the Romanians heard Slavic h (ch) as f, and Slavic y (+) as
i; in other words, these sounds must have been at that time different, even if later
their pronunciation became similar or identical.
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
221
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
222
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
223
ff.: Greek Hades and Egyptian h!d a pit, a hollow). Also the parallel buh#-
bufni&# owl
18
, 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
223
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
224
STEREOTYPE THAT THERE WERE SUCH VERY EARLY
BORROWINGS AS THE VIVII
th
CENTURIES A.D. In reality, the oldest
Slavic elements in Romanian cannot be dated earlier than the XII
th
century, more
probably XIII
th
century. The famous list of old borrowings is entirely fictitious
and led to false conclusions. Most of the words in the famous list are of certain or
very probable Thracian origin (including sut#
19
), others reflect Urverwandtschaft,
not borrowings, e.g. Rom. gard a fence, balt# a pond Sl. grad$, blato
respectively. It is important to note that ALL the quoted forms put MAJOR
PROBLEMS of etymological and/or historical interpretation in Slavic, so at least
a more cautious approach would be required.
Anyway, "chiau, pl. "chei a Slavic speaker should not be discussed in this
context, but rather together with the other two old ethnonyms in Romanian, i.e.
rumn (< Romanus) a Romanian (in modern times spelled romn, as a bookish
influence, of course); frnc, frnc (< Francus) a west European speaker of a
Romance language (the technical term by which the Romanians identified the
non-Romanian speakers of a neo-Latin idiom). There can be a long discussion
about the very presence of the form Sclavus > (Proto-)Romanian "chiau, "chei in
east Romance as a colloquial, non-bookish form.
Sut# has a special position in both Slavic (for which see Paliga 1988 b with
full argumentation and references) and Romanian, ultimately showing its non-
Slavic and non-Romance character and leading to the only logical conclusion: it
is an intrusive element in both Romanian (as an indigenous Thracian numeral
among the other numerals of Latin origin) and Slavic (as a borrowed form from a
neighbouring language).
Jupn and st#pn should be discussed together with ban and cioban
shepherd; ban, jupn and st#pn have similar meanings: a local leader, a small
king, a princeps (see extensively in Paliga 1987 b, reprinted in Paliga 1989).
19
For which see Paliga 1988 b (in Slovene with an abstract in English); an English
version was published in Paliga 1999, and is also included in this volume, above.
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
223
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
224
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
225
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 Pan-
Thracian 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, i
20
(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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
225
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
226
(voi) snte$i
(ei, ele) snt, s
"ote. Most of the forms above look like obviously Latin; nevertheless note
that the identity of 1
st
person singular and 3
rd
person plural is an indigenous
innovation; for the verbs of the first conjugation (like a cnta) the identity is 3
rd

person singular and 3
rd
person plural: el/ea cnt# ei/ele cnt#; a substratum
influence may be surmised.
Other examples may be: o (3
rd
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 Carpo-
Thracian) where a certain Scythian influence occurred; Boreal Thracian or northernmost
Thracian, i.e. the Thracian groups which influenced the emergence of the Slavic
speakers
21
.
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..
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
225
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
226
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
227
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
227
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
228
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-Indo-
European 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 etymon
23
;
22
With the same intervocalic b, normal in the indigenous elements in Romanian
(see above other examples).
23
It is obviously borrowed from Romanian, but the topic has been avoided in
Hungary as long as most Romanian linguists erroneously consider that the
Romanian form is borrowed from Hungarian; in this way, we turn around a vicious
circle.
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
227
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
228
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
229
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) song
24
; 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
dog
25
; zmeu, a specific term of Romanian tales: a (fantastic) person living in
the underground (usually malefic, but benefic values are also possible); related
to zmeur# raspberry ( = German Erdbeere, lit. earthberry)
26
$mogus a
man, .mon/s people, related (Urverwandt) to .emuog/ (wild) strawberry, all
from IE *g' (e)m- earth
27
; dar (adversative conjunction, sometimes adverb) but
dar (adverb) still; yet, iar and (in some special constructions, otherwise "i <
24
Of Pre-Indo-European origin in both Romanian and Baltic; similar forms also in
Basque (for which see Paliga 1992 e and 1994 a; reprinted in Paliga 1999).
25
Rom. cine dog ( < Latin) has replaced the archaic word in the common
vocabulary.
26
The (obvious) relationship between zmeu and zmeur# HAS NEVER BEEN
OBSERVED so far; it has probably been considered a fortuitous similarity! Its
relation with Slavic zmij0 should be discussed separately.
27
The Slavic origin of Rom. zmeu, from zmij0, is impossible, yet this is a generally
spread hypothesis!
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
228
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
229
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
230
Lat. sic) Lith. ir and.
I must add that the studies dedicated to the Thracian/Romanian Baltic
correspondences are indeed rare. To date there is no coherent approach to the
topic; a rare exception is R!dulescu 1981: an outstanding, dense (maybe too
dense) study, unfortunately unknown to many specialists in the field
28
.
Thesis 8. Thracian seemingly still was a vivid tongue when the first Slavic
groups moved south in the 6
th
century and, according to reliable information,
continued to be spoken in more and more restricted areas; it is not excluded that
the first Magyar groups still heard Thracian speakers until the 11
th
century. Such
details are not unimportant as they show that Thracian elements were integrated
into Romanian and Bulgarian along several centuries, not all of a sudden within a
(very) limited period of time. It is noteworthy also that, according to recent
research, Bulgarian had a double substratum: Romance (Proto-Romanian) and
Thracian. This changes a lot the former compressed view which assumed that
Thracian was extinct in the 4
th
century at the latest. It should also change the
view that the numerous Thracian elements in Romanian should follow uniform
and simple phonetic rules as established from studying the evolution of the Latin
elements. The situation was indeed complex in the first centuries A.D. in the
Thracian speaking area as it was, in fact, all over Europe. We are called to
identify those specific features which are relevant to the topic.
These details are relevant in assuming that the Thracian words were integrated
into Romanian, Albanian and Bulgarian over several centuries, not in a very
limited period of time as was the former view. The Bulgarian substratum is thus
double: Romance (Proto-Romanian) and (Late) Thracian; Albanian is for sure a
28
Mircea-Mihai R!dulescu was a physician (doctor), and approached the Thracian
studies as a passion of his mature years; many (local) linguists considered him an
intruder and an incompetent pseudo-linguist; facts show that his studies are
remarkable.
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
229
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
230
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
231
stratified idiom with Romanised Illyrian elements (Proto-Dalmatian), Thracian
elements, Thraco-Roman and Proto-Romanian elements, hence the (apparently)
incoherent phonetic correspondences between Romanian and Albanian
29
. These
may seem chaotic only if we attempt simplistic analyses; they get full meaning
when we try to find the reasons why these correspondences are such as they are.
See some examples in the preceding study.
Thesis 9. There is evidence of very early borrowings from both a certain phase of
Thracian and also a very early phase of Proto-Romanian into common (Pre-
Expansion) Slavic. I briefly refer to only two examples, already analysed on another
occasions:
Sl. s$to 100 reflects a borrowing from a neighbouring language, and that
language cannot be else than a northernmost dialect of Thracian; see further
discussions in Paliga 1988 b.
Sl. k$motra reflects a very early borrowing from Proto-Romanian *kumatra,
Classical Latin commater. This form may offer a sound approach to the topic as its
origin is limpid and uncontroversial (further discussions in Paliga 1997).
There are many other examples, e.g. the case of Sl. $upan, pan, ban and their
relations to Rom. giupn, st#pn, ban (Paliga 1987); they reflect a larger, but
somewhat limited, area of influence, in our case southeast Europe, where the quoted
forms were, sometimes still are, largely spread (in Slovene, $upan still is a usual form
with the meaning mayor).
The relations between the Pre-Expansion Slavs, the northernmost Thracian groups
and Proto-Romanians were indeed complex and require serious investigations; many
of the finds largely accepted thus far should, I think, be basically revised, even if they
belong to various nomina sacra of international linguistics. Quoting a famous name is
not an argument in itself, or cannot be the unique argument in a scientific debate.
29
Many linguists are tempted to (erroneously) consider Albanian as a language
directly derived from Indo-European; consequently thousands of pages have been
written starting from this assumption.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
230
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
231
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
232
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 Indo-
European 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,
Decem theses
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
231
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
232
politics-free. I suggest a more decisive approach to the PRE-INDO-
EUROPEAN 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.
II
n romn!
Dacoromanice
Studiile cuprinse n acest capitol au fost scrise de!a lungul a mul!i ani, ca
atare ortograa va , 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 cuvenit. De
altfel, asemenea modic"ri nu rezolv" nimic din marile probleme ale
graerii 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 ortograa 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 ortograei limbii
romne? $i, dac" da, cum trebuie f"cut"? Prin deciziile unui grup restrns
sau n urma unei ample dezbateri?
De nomine Transylvani
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
235
Ardeal, Transilvania

...ci Ardealul se cheam! mijlocul "!rii...
1. Ne propunem ca n rndurile ce urmeaz! s! relu!m, cu date
esen"ialmente noi, etimologia toponimului Ardeal. Dup! cum este n general
cunoscut, s-a acceptat c! numirea Ardeal #i are originea n forma maghiar!
Erdly, care este un derivat de la erd# p!dure, "inutul nsemnnd deci
dincolo de p!duri. Aceast! etimologie a fost lansat! nc! din secolul
trecut
1
de Pl Hunfalvy #i a fost acceptat! de to"i cercet!torii competen"i,
cum spune Gh. Iv!nescu (1980: 483). Este totu#i interesant de remarcat c!,
n ciuda accept!rii acestei solu"ii etimologice, ea nu este deloc indubitabil!,
cum ne-am a#tepta, nici nu s-a ncercat vreodat! (ori, mai bine zis, practic
niciodat!, cum vom vedea imediat) s! se explice cteva anomalii; n adev!r,
presupunnd c! forma maghiar! Erdly ar cea mai veche, ar de a#teptat
ca s! e redat n romn! prin e sau i #i nu prin diftongul ea, iar ly ar
trebuit s! e redat prin i, ceea ce nseamn! c! n romn! numirea ar trebuit
s! sune *Erdei sau *Ardei (e ini"ial din maghiar! poate redat n romn!
prin a; pentru asemenea coresponden"e fonetice a se vedea Rosetti 1986:
382 sq.). S-ar putea replica ns! c! romna ar putut mprumuta cuvntul
la o dat! foarte veche
2
(?) pe cnd n maghiar! el apare Erdel, Erdelv,
Erdel, Erdeel (cum semnaleaz! Hunfalvy n studiul s!u) sau Erdeuelu (sec.
XIIIXIV) cum apare la Anonymus, cap. XI, ocazie cu care reamintim c!
1
Secolul al XIX-lea, prima versiune a studiului nostru ind 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"ice, cum a fost - mult timp, dar nc! citat! pe alocuri - teoria
slavismelor vechi n limba romn!, mprumutate prin sec. VIVII e.n.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
236
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
237
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
ind 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 ind probabil
asem!n!ri ntmpl!toare #i nu puteau altfel considerate, atta timp ct
forma Erdly se acceptase a 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., identicat de autorul articolelor cu Ardealul de
dinainte de sosirea maghiarilor, implicit negndu-se originea maghiar! a
numirii. Din p!cate, aceste arma"ii nu au putut vericate de noi,
r!mnnd a reconsiderate n viitor. Dar drumul spre claricarea 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
Forma Ardil se refer!, foarte probabil, dac! trebuie s! ne referim la aceasta, la o
regiune cu acest nume din Caucaz, unde se stabiliser! chazarii.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
236
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
237
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
238
crede (Societatea de mine, II/1925, p. 38 #i 1928: 420 sq.) c! forma Ardil
#i, ad!ug!m noi, #i altele similare nu poate anterioar! (respectiv, nu pot
anterioare) venirii maghiarilor, deoarece Ardealul nu este men"ionat n
tot secolul al XI-lea dect foarte rar, n documente doar o singur! dat! n
forma castrum quod vocatur Turda, dar nu Ardealul ca nume (dup! Fr.
Mller, Archiv des Vereines fr siebenbrgische Landeskunde, nr. II, p. 318).
Aceast! observa"ie interesant! nu se opune ns! ideii c! numirea Ardeal
poate (cel pu"in teoretic) anterioar! secolului al XI-lea, ci arat!, ct se
poate de clar, c! n acel timp maghiarii #i alte popoare nc! nu foloseau
numirea Erdly/Ardeal, ce avea s! apar! o dat! cu Anonymus, cu dou!-trei
secole mai trziu #i c! cetatea Turda
4
avea o deosebit! importan"! strategic!,
detaliu care nu intereseaz! aici.
2. Vom ncepe partea dedicat! ipotezei noastre chiar cu ceea ce ar trebui
s! e concluzia: originea de fapt a toponimicului Ardeal, echivalat n textele
medievale germane ca berwald, iar n cele latine#ti ca Ultra silvas,
Ultrasilvania #i Transilvania, traduceri care, n modul cel mai simplu, ne
dau #i solu"ia: Trans-silvania ori Ultra-Silvania nseamn! PESTE DEAL
adic! AR-DEAL, n care trans-/ ultra- echivaleaz! pe ar- ce va
nsemnat, re#te, peste, dincolo de, cuvnt pierdut n limba curent!, dar
perfect ncadrabil etimologic, cum vom vedea imediat, iar silvania #i
germanul Wald traduc romnescul deal, n sensul pe care l-a avut cndva:
deal, n!l"ime #i p!dure. Trebuie precizat c! aceast! paralel! deal-
p!dure exist! #i la alte popoare europene, cum ar german Wald fa"! de
englez wold regiune de dealuri #i p!duri apoi mla#tin! ori Berg munte
fa"! de suedez berg deal #i p!dure (de la o r!d!cin! *welt- p!dure,
s!lbatic), la slavi gora desemneaz! att muntele (la slavii de r!s!rit #i de
apus) ct #i p!durea (la slavii de sud), iar la romni codru p!dure deas!
avea ini"ial #i sens de deal, precum forma albanez! kodr. De observat c!
4
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
238
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
239
etymonul cuvntului romnesc este prin lier! traco-dac! r!d!cina indo-
european! *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, re#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 sucient!, poate, pentru a respinge teoria
originii maghiare a toponimului Ardeal nu poate 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!, re#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! e 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
239
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
240
semantismul deal apare n ariile vecine romnilor, adic! n bulgar!,
ucrainean!, polon! (este vorba de r!spndirea medieval!), fapt ce arat! nc!
o dat! caracterul de termen mprumutat al formei d%l- deal, suprapus!
peste cele slave vechi #i confundat! cu acestea. De altfel, faptul c! deal
apare deosebit de frecvent n toponimia romneasc! #i c! a fost mprumutat
#i de popoarele din jur este un fapt n general cunoscut (a se vedea Iordan
1963: 26 #i Balkan Archiv, II, p. 40, pentru mprumuturile la slavi).
Vechimea cuvntului romnesc va deveni nc! mai clar! o dat! cu
ncadrarea lui corect! n familia etimologic!. n primul rnd, r!d!cina dal-,
del- apare frecvent n numirile trace, chiar dac! nu ntotdeauna putem
sugera #i un etymon acestor numiri, ind posibil a#adar ca n spatele lor s!
se ascund! sensuri #i origini diferite. Din perspectiva care ne intereseaz! pe
noi aici, cit!m doar (dup! De%ev 1957: 113) toponimul Daltarba #i Dlkos,
un lac bogat n pe#te. Dar cuvntul care este poate cel mai aproape de forma
#i sensul cercetate de noi este etnonimul illyr Dalmatae, Delmatae, numire a
c!rei prim! parte (dal-, del-) a fost divers explicat! (e r!d!cina indo-
european! *dhel-, *dhal- bolt!, e apropierea de alb. dle oaie).
n"elesul real al numirii acestui etnonim #i al regiunii corespunz!toare,
Dalmatia, nu poate dect unul singur, n deplin! concordan"! cu realitatea
geograc! respectiv! : Dalma!ia este o regiune de dealuri
5
. R!d!cina dal-,
del- apare ns! #i n afara zonei traco-illyre, anume ntr-o alt! numire topic!
pe teritoriul grec: Delos, de gen feminin, ca numele unei insule muntoase
din Cyclade, iar de gen masculin ca numele unui munte n Beo"ia. Fire#te,
apropierea de delos vizibil, evident este rezultatul hazardului #i atari
confuzii apar frecvent pe teritoriul grecesc n cazul mo#tenirii pre-hellenice.
n sfr#it, semnal!m #i cteva forme de sens similar cu consonantism ini"ial
t- (fa"! de d-), cum sunt latin tellus p!mnt, gruzin talaki p!mnt fertil,
arab tall, ebr. tell, etr. tel, toate nsemnnd deal!
Am citat toate aceste exemple nu pentru a deruta cititorul, ci pentru a
5
Vezi mai sus, n acest volum, #i studiul dedicat toponimului Dalmatia.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
239
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
240
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
241
sublinia r!spndirea remarcabil! a acestei r!d!cini, uneori de tip DaL-, DeL-,
alteori de tip TaL, TeL-. Prezen"a sa pe o arie att de mare #i n limbi
apar"innd unor familii diferite (indo-europene, caucazice, semite, ca #i n
etrusc!, un idiom vechi pre-latin) ne arat! originea str!veche,
mediteranean!, pre-indo-european! a acestei r!d!cini. Ceea ce este esen"ial
n explicarea originii cuvntului romnesc deal este c! el se apropie formal
#i semantic de cuvintele evident nrudite din limbile trac! #i illyr!, e
acestea #i imprecis notate n grae greac! ori latin!, ca #i de cele din greac!.
2.2. Raportarea etimologic! a particulei ar-, pierdut! azi n limba romn!
dar aparent nc! avnd sens n clipa n care Ar-deal a fost echivalat cu
Trans-silvania ori Ultra-silvania, nu poate merge dect tot spre limba traco-
dacilor, unde ar- va nsemnat dincolo, departe, peste. Cea mai probabil!
cu #anse mari de certitudine raportare este de r!d!cina verbului a arunca
(la romnii sud-dun!reni #i a aruca), al c!rui sens este de asemeni
dep!rtare. Dup! cum se #tie, a arunca (aruca) este de mult recunoscut #i
acceptat ca termen autohton trac (vezi I. I. Russu 1981: 252). Este ns! cel
mai bine a c!uta originea ultim! a acestui cuvnt nu n lexicul primitiv indo-
european cum face profesorul clujean ci n acela#i fond str!vechi pre-
indo-european, unde r!d!cina ar- apare frecvent, inclusiv pe teritoriul traco-
dac, avnd semantismul mare, nalt, de aici dep!rtare, aruncare.
3. Ar-deal este o mo#tenire pre-roman!, o numire preluat! ca atare din
limba traco-dac! (unde va sunat *Ar-del-; termina"ia cazual! nu este,
re#te, cunoscut!). S! e a#adar numirile antice amintite mai sus (Ardilens,
Ardalus, etc) atestarea numirii Transilvaniei? nclin!m s! credem c! n
adev!r acestea sunt, n cea mai mare parte, asem!n!ri ntmpl!toare,
deoarece toate aceste nume par a avea o r!d!cin! ard-. Natural, cercet!ri
ulterioare vor putea preciza dac! vreuna din aceste numiri este reala atestare
antic! a numirii Ardealului. Deosebit de interesant!, dac! se dovede#te real!,
este #i forma Ardil din scrisoarea regelui cazarilor. Consider!m ns! c! #i
f!r! o asemenea atestare care, ca mai totdeauna n cazul numelor traco-
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
240
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
241
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
242
dace, st! sub semnul hazardului originea numelui romnesc al
Transilvaniei este sucient de clar!.
4. Ar!tam c! denumirea AR-DEAL a fost echivalat! nc! o dovad! c!
n epoca timpurie medieval! toponimul avea sensul viu al regiunii de
dincolo de dealuri ca Ultra-silvania, Ultra-silvas, Trans-silvania iar n
german! ca berwald. Cum se explic! forma maghiar!? R!spunsul este
deosebit de simplu: asemeni numirilor latine #i germane, maghiarii au tradus
la rndul lor cuvntul, dar n maniera specic! unui idiom no-ugric, nu prin
particul! antepus! a#a cum era n originalul romnesc #i n echival!rile
latine ori germane ci prin particul! postpus!, precum au ar!tat cercet!torii
maghiari: erd-el, erd-elv, devenit ulterior Erdly. Extraordinar a fost ns!
faptul c! prin pur hazard traducerea n maghiar! se asem!na aproximativ
numirii romne#ti, fapt care a #i ncurajat probabil echivalarea iar, mai
trziu, a ajutat s! se presupun!, n mod eronat, c! prototipul ar fost
numirea maghiar!. Confuzia, de tipul etimologiei populare, a condus #i spre
o eronat! etimologie #tiin"ic!.
5. n nalul rndurilor noastre este necesar, #i interesant pentru cititor, s!
preciz!m c! deal #i Ardeal nu sunt izolate relicte toponimice de o atare
vechime, nu numai pre-latin! ci precum sper!m c! am demonstrat chiar
pre-trac!, numirea Ardealului ca atare cobornd spre zorii civiliza"iei
neolitice. Fire#te, nu putem insista aici asupra unor aspecte att de complexe
care, ecare n parte, se pot trata n volume separate. Am analizat n
Byzantion
6
peste o sut! de nume comune #i proprii (onomastice) care se
explic! n modul cel mai clar prin mo#tenirea trac!, unele prin lier! indo-
6
Este vorba de lucrarea noastr! Byzantion, pe atunci [1986] n manuscris. De#i nu
a fost niciodat! publicat! ca atare, capitole din aceasta au ap!rut ca studii
independente, o parte ind inclus! #i n lucrarea noastr! Inuen"e romane &i
preromane n limbile slave de sud (1996). Altele snt incluse n acest volum.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
241
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
242
european! (cum este, de exemplu, cazul hidronimului Mure&
7
), altele ca
relicte arhaice ale civiliza"iei neoliticului, precum exist! numeroase
asemenea urme n ntreg spa"iul sud-est european #i cum sunt #i pe teritoriul
romniei: Ardeal, deal, Some&, #i nc! multe altele, sunt exemple de atari
numiri pre-indo-europene.
n sfr#it, observ!m c! n"elesul peste deal al Ardealului nu se aplic!
numai dinspre partea de vest a sa dinspre Ungaria ci, precum #tim cu
to"ii, din toate punctele cardinale: Ardealul este o fortica"ie natural! de
peste dealuri orideunde am pleca. Ardealul a fost, f!r! ndoial! #i f!r! nici
o tendin"! de exagerare, vatra civiliza"iei carpatice, a fost #i este centrul
"!rii cum explica Simion Dasc!lul, transcriind memoria unei realit!"i
imemoriale.
(Tribuna, Cluj, an XXX, nr. 8 (1522) din 20 februarie 1986, pp. 1, 6)
7
Vezi #i studiul Two river-names revisited (unde detaliem situa"ia hidronimelor
Mure& #i Dun!re), mai sus n acest volum.
De mulieribus clestibus
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
243
Zeit!"i feminine ale basmelor romne#ti:
znele #i snzienele.
Originea cuvintelor #i a cultului profan
Prezentul studiu !i propune discutarea critic" a originii !i semnica#iei a
doi termeni fundamentali ai mitologiei romne: zn! !i Snziene, analiza#i n
contextul existen#ei unor personaje similare !i n mitologia altor popoare
europene.
Indiferent de numele pe care l poart" n diverse limbi (rom. zn!, engl.
fairy, germ. Fee, prov. fada, sp. fada, scr. vila, bulg. samovila etc.), zeit"#ile
feminine au o importan#" deosebit" n mitologiile popoarelor respective. Ele
snt, n general, imaginate ca reprezent"ri fantastice, de regul" malece, dar
avnd !i ipostaze benece, tr"ind n locuri izolate !i fermecnd prin
frumuse#ea lor (Bernea 1985, 27 sq., Papahagi 1979). Fiind legat totdeauna
de magie, cu r"d"cini adnci n preistorie, numele znei este adesea tabuat.
Exemple clare ne snt oferite de chiar limba romn", unde exist" paralele
semnicative: iele, una dintre cele mai clare urme de tabuare a cuvntului
(grae pentru ele; considerat de Hasdeu, Columna lui Traian 1874: 176,
cuvnt autohton tr.-dac, ipotez" greu de admis); dnsele, m!iestrele, sntele,
"oimanele, frumoasele, fecioarele, mp!r!tesele v!zduhului, vntoasele
($"ineanu 1886; Brlea 1976).
Zna cea frumoas" a basmelor romne!ti n ipostaza sa benec" este Ileana
Cosnzeana, fata idealizat" nzestrat" cu frumuse#e zic" !i moral" des"vr!it",
purtnd !i ea alte nume, cum ar (Brlea 1976, 201203): Ileana Simziana (a
se remarca pronun#area ziana fa#" de zeana); Rujuleana (compus din ruj!
roz" !i Ileana); Floarea Florilor; Frumoasa lumii; Zna dobrozna (repeti#ie-
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
244
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
245
reduplicare cu intercalarea epitetului bun tradus ntr!un idiom slav: dobr#
bun; cf. antroponimul Dobre, toponimul Dobra); Abrunca
1
mndr! "i
frumoas! din $ara femeiasc!; Rora
2

cea frumoas!, probabil un nume asociat
cuvntului rou!, ceea ce duce la ideea unei ipostaze de divinitate str"veche a
zorilor !i vegeta#iei; Rozuna (aparent o contaminare ntre rou!, respectiv Rora,
!i zn!, cu pronun#area nea!teptat" zun!).
Fa#" de F!t-Frumos, eroul idealizat al basmelor noastre !i care continu" o
zeitate precre!tin" a perioadei calde a anului !i avnd origine htonic" (Mu!u
1982, 20, n. 2; 9193), Ileana Cosnzeana are o origine miraculoas" !i
locuie!te n cer (Stamati, f. a. II, 269 sq.; Brlea 1976, 201203).
Zn!. Etimologii propuse. Este interesant ca, n contextul schi#at mai
sus, s" ncerc"m o trecere n revist" a etimologiilor propuse pentru acest
cuvnt.
(1) Prima ncercare de a explica pe zn! apar#ine lui Dimitrie Cantemir,
ind de altfel !i prima prezentare erudit" a credin#elor legate de zeit"#ile
feminine la poporul romn. nv"#atul-domnitor considera c" originea
cuvntului este lat. Di%na. Iat" ntregul pasaj (Descriptio Moldaviae 3, 1):
Dzina, quam vocem a Dianae denominatione suspicareris, raro tamen
singulari numero eam celebrant, sed plerumque plurali Dzinele utuntur
feruntque virgines esse formosissimas et venustatis largitrices.
Explica#ia lui Cantemir a r"mas, pn" ast"zi, acceptat" de majoritatea
cercet"torilor (TDRG; Tagliavini 1928; REW; DEX; Rosetti 1986: 362) Cihac
a explicat forma romneasc" prin lat. divina, devenit, prin c"derea lui v
intervocalic !i contragerea celor doi i: *diina > dzin! > zin!, zn! (Cihac,
233). Explica#ia a fost acceptat" doar de $"ineanu (1929: 709).
1
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" reasc"
ar cea din Rora, nu cea din rou!. Ar putea 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
245
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
246
(3) Hasdeu, abordnd problema mitului znei Filma n Banat, propune
explicarea prin gotic", mai exact provenind de la gepizii de la Tisa, dintr!o
form" Dina Filma (Hasdeu 1877: 32).
Din citarea solu#iilor oferite pentru etimologia cuvntului zn! a reie!it cu
sucient" claritate c" r"mn nesolu#ionate cteva aspecte fundamentale:
(a) Evolu#ia fonetic" de la lat. Diana la rom. zn! nu este tocmai n
regul", fapt de care snt con!tien#i !i unii cercet"tori; n DEX, de exemplu,
apare men#iunea c" originea cuvntului romnesc ar probabil lat. Diana,
ceea ce poate o manier" de a recunoa!te, implicit dac" nu explicit, c" ne
a"m n fa#a unui punct dicil al cercet"rii etimologice romne!ti.
(b) Pe de alt" parte, ipoteza originii din lat. diuina rezolv" ntructva
aceast" dicultate de evolu#ie fonetic", de!i paradoxal ea nu a fost
acceptat" dect rareori. F"r" ndoial", dac" ar s" c"ut"m originea
cuvntului n fondul mo!tenirii latine, diuina ar o solu#ie cel pu#in la fel de
plauzibil" ca !i Diana.
(c) Exist" nc" un aspect neelucidat, de!i bine cunoscut, cel pu#in de
folclori!ti: paralelele, uzuale sau dialectale, zin! (grae preferat" de
$"ineanu 1929: 709, probabil pentru a-l ajuta suplimentar n a-!i impune
ipoteza deriv"rii din lat. diuina, de!i forma aceasta nu este deloc cea mai
r"spndit"), ziana (n compusele Snziana, Simziana, pe care le vom analiza
detaliat mai jos), zeana (n compusul Cosnzeana), zun! (n Rozuna), care
doar aparent complic" !i mai mult o situa#ie deja complicat".
Ipoteza noastr!. Sensul prim al cuvntului, ca !i forma acestuia, trebuie
c"utate, n principiu, ntr-o sfer" semantic" formal" delimitat" de sensurile deja
subliniate mai sus: femei frumoase, magiciene des"vr!ite, care farmec" !i iau
min#ile. Asocierea numelui lor cu un cuvnt oarecare al limbii duce implicit la
tabuarea acestuia !i la crearea, n continuare, a unor paralele eufemistice, cum
snt iele, frumoasele, mp!r!tesele v!zduhului etc. (vezi mai sus).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
245
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
246
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
247
Cu aceste preciz"ri, solu#ia va reie!i sper"m de la sine prin ncadrarea
cuvntului n familia sa etimologic": vechi indian gn% zeitate
feminin" (Gtterweib); neopersan zan femeie, zen%na, zan%na parte a casei
destinat" femeilor, gynaeceum; Tocharic A &', B &ana femeie; slav (ena
femeie, so#ie; grec )*+, femeie; tot aici trebuie ncadrat" !i forma
albanez" zan zn", care pare a n leg"tur" cu zonj femeie (vezi mai
jos rela#ia dintre zot domn !i zonj). Toate aceste forme snt derivate de la
r"d"cina indo-european" *g
w
-n-%, *g
w
.n-% femeie, so#ie (Pokorny 1959:
474; pentru formele persane vezi !i Horn 1893: 148).
Expunnd ipoteza noastr" trebuie totodat" s" facem cteva preciz"ri
asupra problemei n discu#ie:
(a) Apare evident faptul c" zn! trebuie discutat n strns" leg"tur" cu alb.
zan, cu sens identic, !i cu forma indian" veche gn% Gtterweib, apoi cu
formele persane !i slave. ncadrarea formei romne#ti n aria satem
(vechea indian!, persana, slava, albaneza) ne arat!, ct se poate de clar,
c! ne a!m n fa"a unui cuvnt str!vechi de substrat traco-dac.
(b) Ni se pare inevitabil, n urma datelor prezentate, s" e discutate
mpreun" !i formele albaneze zan zn" !i zonj, de!i n ultimul caz este
vorba de un nea!teptat vocalism o al r"d"cinii, care face dicult"#i (Meyer
1891: 486). Din cte !tim, formele albaneze nu au fost niciodat" al"turate !i
discutate mpreun". Din perspectiva propus! de noi aici, formele romne#ti
#i cele albaneze se dovedesc reciproc revelatoare. Fire!te, claricarea
situa#iei din albanez" este o problem" de albanologie, care nu poate
aprofundat" aici. Dorim doar s" semnal"m faptul c" nea!teptatul vocalism o al
formei zonj pare a avea aceea!i motiva#ie ca !i anomaliile de tratament
fonetic din formele romne!ti zn!, zin!, zian!, zean!, zun!, !i anume
tabuarea
3
.
3
Un exemplu tipic de tabuare este ie. *w/k
w
o- lup, care a dat *w/po- pentru
germanic *wulfaz, *lupo pentru lat. lupus, *luk
w
o- pentru gr. l0kos etc. Lupul a fost
animalul sacru al indo-europenilor, iar deform"rile fonetice ca rezultat al tabu-ului
lingvistic snt re!ti.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
246
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
247
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
248
(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 tot lat. Di%na, explicnd anomalia de evolu#ie fonetic"
(forma a!teptat" ind *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 inuen#" ilir"; cf. Russu 1969, 255, cu
observa#ia c", n opinia sa, zeitatea respectiv" este probabil ilir").
Care s" e 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 inuen#" 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 trebuit s" rotacizeze, astfel c" forma albanez"
modern" ar trebuit s" e, 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
Conform ultimelor cercet"ri, albaneza trebuie privit" ca un amalgam de elemente
autohtone ilire romanizate (ilirii fuseser" complet romaniza#i n secolul II e.n.),
peste care s-au suprapus elemente trace tardive; limba trac" era nc" vorbit" n
secolul VI e.n., att la nord de Dun"re, cu siguran#" n zona dacilor liberi, ct !i la
sud de Dun"re.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
247
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
248
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
249
Esen#ial n n#elegerea problemei originii cuvntului zn! este faptul c", n
credin#ele populare, sensul a fost (!i este) divinitate feminin". Solu#ia
etimologic" va trebui s" explice, deci, n primul rnd acest cmp semantic. n
al doilea rnd, trebuie discutat" situa#ia formelor celor mai vechi din romn"
dzn! (dzinele la Cantemir), care se conrm" prin existen#a formei aromne
dzn! (Papahagi 1963, 435) !i, pe de alt" parte, raportul dintre forma
romneasc" !i cea albanez". Putem arma, cu certitudinea pe care ne-o
poate da analiza etimologic" ntr-un domeniu att de fragil uneori cum este
mo!tenirea autohton", c" alb. zot domn, Dumnezeu nu are nimic de-a face
cu formele discutate (cf. Bari 1919, 121, care nu aminte!te, totu!i, pe zan;
dup" opinia noastr", nu pare a vreo leg"tur" ntre zot !i zonj amintit mai
sus, ultima form" ind u!or ncadrabil" n familia, bine reprezentat",
derivat" din radicalul indo-european pentru femeie, so#ie; cf. !i abej
1976, IV: 25 sq.).
(d) Forma cea mai veche romneasc" va fost dzn!, a!a cum apare la
Cantemir !i n aromn". Apari#ia sunetului dz nu trebuie c"utat", dup" opinia
noastr", prin ac#iunea (ori nu) a legilor fonetice de trecere de la latin" la romn",
ci n acelea de trecere de la faza trzie a traco-dacei la romn". Reconstruc#ia
trebuie s" porneasc" de la i.-e. *g
w
e- > trac dz, alb. z. Problema este, credem,
ceva mai complicat" dect pare, deoarece este foarte posibil ca numai anumite
dialecte trace s" cunoscut evolu#ia fonetic" i.-e. *g
w
e > dz, n alte dialecte
putnd exista evolu#ia i.-e. *g
w
e- > z (ca n persan" !i, similar, n slav", unde
avem () ori *g
w
e- > dz > z, a!adar o trecere a lui dz la z n faza trzie a tracei.
Acest fenomen fonetic, negeneralizat n arealul tracic, s-a continuat pn" trziu n
romn". (Natural, discu#iile de acest tip trebuie f"cute pe un num"r mai mare de
exemple, singurele n m"sur" s" reduc" la minimum posibilit"#ile de eroare.)
n explicarea formelor cu dz (care nu snt, cum vom vedea mai jos, chiar
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
248
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
249
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
250
cele mai vechi atest"ri !) am putea porni de la ipoteza unei inuen#e de
pronun#are datorate formelor cu dz ini#ial de origine latin": dzi (zi), dzice
(zice) etc. Dac" accept"m o atare ipotez", atunci evolu#ia fonetic" trebuie
n#eleas", de fapt, ca o alterare a pronun#"rii originare, cu z, nu numai
datorit" analogiilor cu alte cuvinte de origine latin", ci, poate, tabu"rii,
deosebit de puternice n cazul termenilor mitologici.
Faptul c" forma trac" a fost, foarte probabil, *zana, *zena, *z1na (ultima
form" reconstruibil" dac" accept"m ideea c" traca a avut un fonem neutru de
tipul lui 1
5
; 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 n leg"tur" cu s"rb"toarea
cre!tin". Ipoteza este, desigur, greu acceptabil", deoarece ignor" att
semnica#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 dubiu c" traca a avut cel pu#in o vocal" neutr" de tipul lui !
romnesc (1). Nu este sigur dac" traca va avut, cel pu#in n unele dialecte, !i alte
vocale neutre, de exemplu una similar" lui romnesc (!).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
249
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
250
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
251
ea ignornd, pur !i simplu, sensul evident de zne al Snzienelor.
(3) Din lat. Sancta Di%na, ipotez" care acceptnd etimonul Diana pentru
zn! sesizeaz" corect leg"tura dintre zn! !i Snziene (Prvan 1982: 163;
Lozovan 1968: 230; Vulc"nescu 1985: 439; Eliade 1970: 73).
Ipoteza noastr" privind etimonul cuvntului zn! sprijin" (!i este sprijinit"
de) forma snziene, care este a!a cum bine a observat Prvan un compus
din forma popular" sn(t) (din lat. sanctus) !i zn! n versiunea dialectal"
ziene (plural), ntlnit" !i n Sn-ziana, Sim-ziana.
Mergnd pe drumul deschis de ipoteza noastr", ni se pare resc s" credem
c" Snziene este o form" ce coboar" spre perioada unui bilingvism daco-
roman, singurul n opinia noastr" care poate explica forma romneasc",
dintr-un prototip *sanctae zenaae (eventual !i *sanctae zanae, *sanctae
z1nae, poate !i *sanctae dzenae, etc.), cu primul element latin, iar al doilea
autohton traco-dac. Ipoteza noastr" este sprijinit" de atestarea formei trace.
Plantele-zne #i atestarea cuvntului trac. Snziene se nume!te popular
!i o specie de cucut" numit" !tiin#ic Galium. Iat" cteva forme
semnicative pentru demersul nostru (Borza 1968, 74-75):
Galium mollugo Snziene, Snz"nie, Snzenie alb", Snzian" alb",
Snziene albe
Galium schultesii Cucut" de p"dure, Snziene de p"dure
Galium varium Snziene, Samziene, S"nziene, Smziene, Stnjene
Aceste denumiri populare, care se leag", nc" o dat", de str"vechi
credin#e, explic" (!i, totodat", snt explicate de) atestarea nea!teptat"
ntructva a znelor n ipostaza de plant". Aceste denumiri populare ne duc
ns", mai departe, spre claricarea unei atest"ri antice (De%ev 1957, 548):
23+456+ : 78265 9:+; (Dioscorides 4, 78), adic" Dacii numesc cucuta
zena, ultima form" ind, nu ne putem ndoi, chiar atestarea antic" a
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
250
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
251
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
252
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 a"m, re!te, n fa#a unei
zeit"#i ce preced" istoric credin#ele moderne inuen#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"
apropiem unele din aceste forme de grec )?+6<, radical i.-e. *g @ en- a na!te,
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
Asimilarea zei#ei autohtone balcanice cu Diana roman" intr" n categoria
uzualei interpretatio romana. Este interesant c" aceea!i interpretare s-a repetat n
epoca modern", cu alte argumente !i de pe alte pozi#ii, ncepnd cu Dimitrie
Cantemir pn" n epoca noastr".
8
Cercet"torul german nu face nici o referin#" la vreun text antic, nici nu am putut
identica n bibliograa 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 fost adorat" att de tracii
sudici, ct !i de cei nordici, daco-ge#ii.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
251
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
252
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
253
al utiliz"rii cuvintelor, nu putem face dect supozi#ii. Ni se pare ns" resc s"
b"nuim c", cel pu#in n unele din cazurile citate, antroponimele mai ales
cele feminine au la baz" radicalul indo-european *g
w
-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 de origine bulgar", ceea ce este absurd
9
; n fapt, nu
pot dect relicte autohtone traco-dace n romn", iar n bulgar" transmise
e direct din trac", e 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 guri 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 ind aproape de cea
romneasc" !i de cea albanez", a!adar *zena, *zana, poate !i *z1na (cf.
Iv"nescu 1980: 180). Fonemul originar pare a 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
trac" (cf. Iv"nescu 1980: 209210)
10
.
Faptul c" n trac" este atestat" forma zena cucut" ne indic" existen#a
9
De altfel, este metoda folosit! de autor n numeroase alte cazuri: dac! un
antroponim romnesc are corespondent n bulgar!, acesta este de origine bulgar!!
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 existat,
scriitorii antici nu l puteau nota cu acurate#e, dup" cum nu puteau nota nici alte
sunete specice ale tracei: vocala neutr" 1 sau consoanele specice B, C, ( etc.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
252
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
253
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
254
sensurilor femeie !i femeie sfnt", zn" (*sancta zena, n versiunea
bilingvismului daco-roman). Sensul evolu#iei semantice a cuvntului, nso#it
de o permanent" tabuare (puternic" ra#iune extralingvistic"), va fost
femeie, femeie sacr", zn", plant" sacr", cucut". n aceast" lumin" este
limpede c" forma trac" *zena zn" este conform fenomenului de tabuare
bine eviden#iat mai trziu n romn" deja o form" tabuat" , utilizat" n locul
celei reale, pe care nu o cunoa!tem. n clipa cnd traca s!a stins ca idiom viu !i
zn! !i-a pierdut sensul ini#ial de femeie, ind folosit exclusiv pentru sfera
semantic" divinitate feminin", s-a sim#it nevoia cre"rii unor forme noi
eufemistice tabuate, ap"rnd astfel ielele, frumoasele, mp!r!tesele, vntoasele
etc. n mentalitatea arhaic" popular", cu supravie#uiri pn" n zilele noastre,
znele erau nzestrate cu puteri magice ce provocau pierderea ra#iunii, oamenii
devenind z!natici, cuvnt derivat, evident, de la zn!, mai precis de la o form"
de tip participial *z!nat > z!natic, persoan" avnd atributele nebuniei divine.
Este clar c" cele care duceau la asemenea st"ri paranormale aveau un nume
protejat de legea tabuului (cf. Kernbach 1983: 665666).
Venerarea unei zeit"#i feminine, atestat" pn" azi la diverse popoare
europene, coboar" adnc n timp c"tre epoca neolitic" !i a paleoliticului
superior, unde zei#a era o component" principal" a panteonurilor
preindoeuropene (Gimbutas 1982; 1984). De!i numele romnesc !i albanez
al znelor este clar analizabil din perspectiva mo!tenirii autohtone ce poate
reconstituit" pn" la vocabularul primitiv indo-european, este nendoielnic
c" venerarea lor, n diverse forme, coboar" adnc n timp, a!a cum ne arat",
similar, venerarea zeit"#ilor feminine la lituanieni !i letoni, a c"ror mitologie
d" dovad" de un pronun#at arhaism (Biezais 1955; Gimbutas 1985)
11
. De
altfel, similitudinile dintre mitologia romneasc" !i cea baltic" nu au fost
nc" analizate n mod corespunz"tor, aceasta r"mnnd o sarcin" a viitorului.
11
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
254
Asemenea paralele trebuie n#elese ns" ntr-un context mai larg, al
mitologiilor comparate europene, precum !i al termenilor mitici arhaici din
romn" mul#i nc" neanaliza#i a c"ror origine autohton" trac" este dincolo de
orice ndoial"
12
.
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
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
analizat n am"nunt cu alt" ocazie.
Limba romn! 38 (1989): 141149.
13
12
Ne gndim la formele gog! fantom", stae, 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#ice studen#e!ti de la Sibiu n toamna anului 1980. Ar
, astfel, primul nostru studiu de tracologie !i de rela#ii daco-romanice. Este !i
singurul studiu ap"rut, cu mult greu, n Limba Romn!!
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
255
Civiliza!ia vechilor urbieni
1
Investigarea problemelor legate de mo!tenirea proto!indo!european" (n
continuare abreviat PIE) precum !i de inuen#a substratului
pre!indo!european (n continuare pre!IE) n acele teritorii ulterior
indo!europenizate se poate baza acum pe dou" ipoteze principale. Una
apar#ine Marijei Gimbutas care, n numeroase ocazii, !i!a expus teoria care
porne!te, n principal, de la date arheologice, #innd ns" seama !i de
rezultatele cercet"rii lingvistice !i mitologice care permit reconstruirea a
dou" focare culturale ale Europei preistorice: Vechea Europ" sau Vechea
Civiliza!ie European" ce a avut o dezvoltare continu" ncepnd cu circa
6500 .e.n. pn" pe la 3500 .e.n. !i, pe de alt" parte, arealul PIE aat n
stepele nord!pontice. Aceste dou" blocuri culturale prezint" tr"s"turi
distincte:
Vechea Europ" era reprezentat" de o societate matrifocal" !i egalitar"
care a dezvoltat un sistem propriu de scriere sacr" nu mai trziu de sfr!itul
mileniului VI .e.n. precum !i aptitudini metalurgice pentru prelucrarea
cuprului !i aurului. Vechii europeni au produs o ceramic" ranat" iar, la
un anumit stadiu, locuiau n a!ez"ri mari ce pot numite proto!urbane. Snt
bine atestate !i structuri ori ritualuri religioase.
Opus" acestui grup cultural, tradi!ia PIE a fost numit" a kurganelor
(gorganelor) plecndu!se de la ideea c" nmormnt"rile reprezint" un
element conservator al unei tradi#ii culturale. Indo!europenii (adic"
popula#ia de tradi#ie kurgan) erau p"stori, au domesticit calul ceea ce le!a
1
Studiul rezum", n limba romn", cteva dintre studiile n limba englez" (vezi mai
sus, n prima parte a volumului).
Etymologica!anthropologica / Dacoromanice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
256
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
257
permis s" acopere arii vaste n timp scurt , venerau zeul cerului senin.
Ideologia lor era patrifocal", iar societatea straticat", 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 inuen#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 geograc" 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 aa 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.

Deni!ii
Trebuie precizat de la bun nceput c" termenul pre!IE este sucient 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 denit 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
257
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
258
a fost adoptat de lingvi!ti nu mult timp n urm", de exemplu de Alf.
Trombetti (1925). De!i reconstruc#iile propuse de acesta trebuie acum
corectate n numeroase detalii, ele r"mn valabile n esen#a lor.
Cele mai solide argumente privind existen#a unui substrat convergent
pre!IE (uneori numit mediteranean) n sud!estul Europei au fost aduse de
o serie de lingvi!ti italieni (Alessio, Battisti, Bertoldi, Devoto, Gerola,
Pieri, Ribezzo, Trombetti). Analiza ntreprins" de Ch. Rostaing asupra
toponimiei provenale (1950) r"mne valabil", cu foarte pu#ine date
discutabile sau incerte. Existen#a unui bogat substrat pre!IE este bine
refelectat" n unele lucr"ri, de exemplu a lui P. Faure (1977), Glotz (1937),
precum !i n unele lucr"ri de sintez" privind toponimia european" (Dauzat,
Kiss).
O contribu#ie pu#in cunoscut" la identicarea elementelor pre!IE n
greac" !i n alte limbi se datoreaz" lui Gh. Mu!u (1981), care utilizeaz"
toponime sau forme tautologice pentru a izola !i identica r"d"cini pre!IE.
Autorul acestui studiu s!a concentrat asupra identic"rii unor elemente
pre!IE n trac" !i romn", unele rezultate ind deja publicate. Necesitatea
de a include teritoriul Romniei n analiza substratului pre!IE este
subliniat", ntre altele, !i de existen#a a sute de forme (n lexic !i
toponimie) neexplicate !i inexplicabile prin perspectiva indo!european" !i
cu att mai pu#in interpretabile ca inuen#e de adstrat (n special slav).
A!adar:
(1) Vechea Europ! este un termen arheologic care dene!te tr"s"turile
specice (din via#a social" !i religioas", arta ceramic", etc.) ale grupurilor
culturale neolitice !i eneolitice ne!indo!europene care formeaz" o unitate n
intervalul cuprins ntre cca. 6500 !i 3500 .e.n.
(2) Proto!indo!european (PIE) este un termen folosit arheologic sau
lingvistic pentru a deni tr"s"turile de baz" ale tradi#iei kurgan (IE) a c"rei
vatr" sau zon" de dezvoltare a fost n stepele nord!pontice. PIE nu trebuie
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
257
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
258
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
259
extins sau folosit abuziv pentru a se referi la orice tr"s"tur" atestat" n
epoca istoric" deoarece numeroase aspecte indic" o inuen#" de substrat
(pre!IE sau vechi european), cum ar termenii tehnici, numele de plante,
toponimele etc.: *deiw luminos, a str"luci este evident o r"d"cin" PIE
(strns legat" de ideologia proto!kurgan), dar nu *kannabis cnep" care
poate considerat cu certitudine un termen intrus n lexicul PIE (nsu!i
cuvntul romnesc pare a autohton pre!trac !i nu latin). Exist" multe alte
exemple care trebuie discutate separat.
Tradi#ia IE (sau kurgan) trebuie s" e folosit" din punct de vedere
arheologic sau cultural pentru a trasa contururile diacronice ale unei
societ"#i n permanent" evolu#ie.
(3) Termenul pre!IE trebuie folosit adecvat pentru a deni orice
element ne!IE care a existat ntr!o anumit" zon" sau pentru acele limbi de
dinaintea kurganiz"rii (indo!europeniz"rii), fenomen n#eles n cadrul
amintit mai sus.

Pa#i spre un glosar pre!IE amplicat
R"d"cinile pre!IE (numite !i baze) snt reprezentate de dou" tipuri de
baz": consoan" ! vocal" ! consoan" (C!C) !i vocal" ! consoan" (! C),
ultimul caz ind probabil un rezultat al unei reduceri (C!C > !C). Snt utile
aici dou" observa#ii (datorate lui Gh. Mu!u):
(a) R"d"cinile pre!IE care se refer" la proeminen#e sau amplas"ri pe
n"l#imi (deal, munte etc.) dau dovada unor forme nrudite referitoare la
cavit"#i (adnc, groap" etc.). Popula#iile pre!IE (vechi europene)
asociau no#iunea nalt, seme# de adncime, cavitate, cf. lat. altus, cu
ambele sensuri.
(b) n cazul r"d"cinilor denotnd culori este util s" reconstruim un
n#eles cromatic. Se pare c" vechii europeni legau numele de culori de
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
258
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
259
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
260
intensitate, nu de frecven#a de radia#ie, a!a cum a devenit uzual
n timpurile moderne.
O alt" observa#ie important" este c" r"d"cinile pre!IE au fost
reconstruite pornindu!se, mai ales, de la toponime spre un posibil n#eles
prim. Acest fapt atrage anumite pericole !i solicit" precau#ie. Importan#a
toponimelor n reconstruirea unor fapte str"vechi nu poate subestimat",
dar este esen#ial s" nu ne limit"m la acest stadiu al investig"rii toponimelor,
c"ci nu numai toponimele pot grupate sub o presupus" r"d"cin" pre!IE.
Erorile snt totdeauna posibile, dar erorile nu pot nl"turate f"r" o analiz"
efectiv" care poate duce, n ultim" instan#", la nl"turarea datelor incorecte.
Reconstruirea r"d"cinilor pre!IE s!a bazat pe un anumit num"r de date
semantice !i formale care exclud, cu certitudine ori m"car cu un grad
nalt de probabilitate, o origine IE. Principiile generate de reconstruc#ie snt
acelea cunoscute din gramaticile comparante curente, aplicate ntr!un
domeniu specic, a!a cum N. D. Andreev le!a extins spre reconstruirea
unei limbi proto!boreale, un stadiu anterior celui PIE #i care include
grupul IE, altaic #i uralic
2
.

Re!elele urbane pre!IE #i termeni nrudi!i
n urm" cu patru ani, cu ocazia analiz"rii a !apte termeni traci !i
traco!daci lega#i de sfera semantic" a!ezare urban" !i/sau fort"rea#"
3
, am
schi#at bazele unei alte interpret"ri privind termenii atesta#i istoric, att din
perspectiva mo!tenirii arhaice IE ct !i pre!IE. Ipoteza a fost acceptat" ca
principiu, cu unele observa#ii. Sntem acum n m"sur" s" aducem
2
Lexiconul proto!boreal va fi publicat n volumul urm!tor, al patrulea, al acestei
serii. O form! abreviat! a unui lexicon minimal pre!indo!european a fost publicat!
n anexa la primul volum al acestei serii.
3
Vezi mai sus studiul Thracian terms for township and fortress and related
place!names.
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
259
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
260
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
261
complet"ri datelor prezentate atunci. Trebuie precizat c" ideea de a postula
un termen pre!IE pentru no#iunea de a!ezare urban" se bazeaz" acum pe
eviden#a arheologic".
Apari#ia unei scrieri sacre n neoliticul sud!est european trebuie legat"
de tendin#ele incipiente c"tre habitatul n a!ez"ri concentrate care pot
numite proto!urbane. Formele atestate istoric, cum snt lat. urbs
ora! (nrudit cu orbs, apoi orbis form" circular", cerc, sfer"), trac ora,
oros (atestat n cteva toponime), basc uri, iri ora!, toponimul elve#ian
Uri (un canton), sumerian UR, Uruk, cu sens ora!, de asemeni toponime,
pun deodat" problema originii lor. Ele nu pot de origine IE, n ultim"
instan#" deoarece nu existau a!ez"ri urbane n patria primitiv" IE, ca atare
nu se poate reconstrui nici un cuvnt cu asemenea n#eles. Dar este oare
posibil s" tras"m, !i deci s" reconstruim, o r"d"cin" pre!IE plauzibil"
pentru a desemna a!ez"rile proto!ubane din neolitic !i eneolitic? R"spunsul
la ntrebare ni!l dau formele care duc la r"d"cina pre!IE *OR!, *UR! mare,
uria!, nalt. Termenul pre!IE pentru a!ezare urban" a fost derivat de la
acest n#eles de baz". Cteva observa#ii snt utile n acest punct:
(a) Deoarece n#elesul primitiv al r"d"cinii *OR!, *UR! a fost mare,
uria!, putem infera cu sucient" precizie c" cele mai timpurii a!ez"ri
urbane au fost legate de no#iunea structuri uria!e. Acest detaliu conduce
n mod irezistibil la ideea c" oamenii care au edicat a!ez"rile urbane
neolitice din sud!estul european aveau o viziune asem"n"toare
constructorilor de megali#i din Europa occidental". n#elesul primitiv al
formei grece!ti labyrinthos labirint a fost structur" de lespezi uria!e,
r"d"cinile pre!IE LaB!UR!inthos; termenul s!a aplicat ini#ial unor pe!teri.
(b) Forma romneasc" ora" (dialectal !i ura"), termenul pentru a
desemna a!ezarea urban", n general, este strns nrudit cu uria!, (dialectal
!i oria") termen uzual al basmelor dar !i lat. urbs (de aici neologismele
urban, urbanism). Este vorba, cu siguran#", de un termen autohton
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
260
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
261
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
262
(pre!trac), fapt ce are implica#ii extraordinare pentru n#elegerea originii
vie#ii urbane n Dacia.
(c) Forma greac" oros munte apar#ine, f"r" ndoial", acestui grup
etimologic, de!i greaca nu a p"strat sensul a!ezare urban" al r"d"cinii
*OR!, *UR!.
(d) Probleme speciale de interpretare pun formele basce uri, iri !i
sumeriene UR, Uruk, att timp ct ele se refer" la zone din afara sud!estului
european. O prim" posibilitate ar c" limbile pre!IE vorbite n Iberia erau
nrudite cu cele din Balcani !i chiar cu cele pre!semite din Sumer. Dar nu
este deloc u!or s" accept"m ideea c" n preistorie au existat limbi nrudite
r"spndite pe un areal colosal; cercet"rile viitoare vor putea clarica
problema. Cealalt" alternativ", pe care snt nclinat s" o adopt, este c" vatra
(zona de genez" !i de formare a) limbilor care au derivat n#elesul a!ezare
urban" dintr!un sens de baz" uria!, mare a fost sud!estul european sau, n
linii mari, Vechea Europ". ntr!o asemenea perspectiv", limba basc" ar
reecta o form" imigrat" ca rezultat al unei mi!c"ri de popula#ie veche
european" spre vest, probabil ca rezultat al expansiunii indo!europene.
Dac" se accept" o asemenea ipotez", etnogeneza bascilor apare ca
rezultatul amalgam"rii a dou" componente: unul autohton (iberic
propriu!zis) !i altul vechi european. Un sprijin pentru aceast" ipotez" l
ofer" !i alte similarit"#i enigmatice dintre cuvinte romne!ti !i basce, de
exemplu: basc mutur fa#" / rom. mutr!; basc txuri / rom. sur, n ambele
limbi denotndu!se culori alburii; basc doinu, doiu, dou cntec popular /
rom. doin!, dain! (existnd paralele !i n leton" !i lituanian"). Toponimul
elve#ian Uri (format identic cuvntului basc) ar putea conexiunea
central!european" care leag" Iberia de Balcani.
(e) Formele sumeriene pun probleme asem"n"toare, reectnd n
principiu o extindere a Vechii Europe spre est !i o amalgamare cu
elemente autohtone pre!semite. Trebuie semnalat c" originea sumerian" a
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
261
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
262
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
263
acestor forme nu poate luat" n considerare, dat ind 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 ind c" grafemele vechi europene snt
cu cel pu#in dou" milenii mai vechi dect cele sumeriene, acest fapt ar putea
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 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" deni!ie a Vechii Europe
Plecnd de la premisa c" termenul denotnd a!ezarea urban" este esen#ial
pentru denirea 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 inuen#e IE. Acest termen este
aplicabil unei realit"#i complexe, ind a!adar eticheta unei tradi#ii culturale,
tot a!a cum este kurgan; dar kurgan !i urbian reect" dou" realit"#i
net diferite. Rezumnd:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
262
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
263
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
264
(a) Vechea Europ" a fost, evident, de caracter urbian.
(b) Tradi#ia urbian" a grupurilor culturale preistorice !i proto!istorice
din Europa, precum !i aspectele lingvistice legate de aceasta (termeni,
cuvinte sau toponime mo!tenite din substrat) reprezint" componenta
autohton" pre!IE a grupurilor atestate istoric, pe cnd tradi#ia kurgan a fost
elementul intrusiv, mobil !i r"zboinic. Obiectele de bronz, calul, lancea,
zeul cerului senin, nmormnt"rile n kurgane (gorgane), societatea
straticat" etc. reprezint" tradi#ia kurgan. Din punct de vedere lingvistic,
aceasta este atestat" printr!un num"r de caracteristici specice bine
cunoscute speciali!tilor. Tradi#ia urbian", bazat" pe ideea unor construc#ii
mari, uria!e, cel pu#in din punct de vedere tipologic nrudite cu ideea
structurilor megalitice din Europa occidental" (numesc aceasta tradi#ia
Mega), societatea matrifocal", zeit"#ile feminine cu diverse func#ii !i
epitete, venerate n sanctuare elaborate, o ceramic" ranat", scrierea sacr"
precum !i numero!i termeni corespunz"tori p"stra#i pn" n timpurile
moderne toate acestea reprezint" tradi#ia autohton" urbian".
Amalgamarea elementelor urbiene !i kurgan, n diverse propor#ii, a dus la
apari#ia unor noi grupuri culturale.
(c) Cuvintele, termenii sau numele care nu pot catalogate n mod
plauzibil drept PIE (!i nici nu poat puse n seama vreunei inuen#e, n
mod curent considerat" oriental") reprezint" supravie#uirea unor idiomuri
urbiene. Mai mult chiar, formele convergente identicate ca urbiene ne
permit s" postul"m c" aceste limbi au fost nrudite, ceea ce duce la
concluzia c" a existat un areal relativ restrns de genez" (Urheimat). Se
poate postula, pn" cnd s!ar putea invoca eventual cotraargumente, c"
tradi#ia urbian" a ap"rut !i s!a dezvoltat n regiunea culturii Lepenski
Vir!Schela Cladovei de!a lungul Dun"rii. Aici, evolu#ia de la mezolitic la
neolitic este bine atestat" arheologic.
(d) Vatra limbii proto!urbiene nu poate nici Anatolia nici Sumerul, a!a
cum rezult" din eviden#a datelor lingvistice care iau n considerare
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
263
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
264
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
265
distribu#ia formelor. Pentru a delimita mai bine aria de genez" a tradi#iei
urbiene n cadrul culturii Lepenski Vir, sugerez s" se foloseasc" termenul
urbian!dun"rean care este similar, dup" p"rerea mea, no#iunii de
proto!urbian (proto!UR) !i esen#ial opus no#iunii de civiliza#ie PIE.
(e) Leg"turile dintre grupurile neolitice urbiene !i vechi europene
denite prin tradi#ia Mega (a constructorilor de megali#i din Europa
occidental") trebuie analizate cu aten#ie prin cercet"ri viitoare. Din punct
de vedere tipologic, tradi#ia urbian" pare nrudit" construc#iilor megalitice,
dar acest fapt nu este sucient pentru a postula anit"#i mai strnse, etnice
sau lingvistice. Cu toate acestea, nu este imposibil ca anumi#i termeni
urbieni s" fost mprumuta#i de popula#ia care a edicat megali#ii. Cealalt"
alternativ" este c" tradi#ia urbian" !i tradi#ia Mega reprezint" dou" aspecte
ale aceleia!i culturi care poate etichetat" Mega!urbian". Un puternic
sprijin pentru aceast" ipotez" l constituie observa#ia c" att ideea de
labirint ct !i de lucruri sau de locuri labirintice s!au p"strat pe o arie vast"
(discu#ii n studiul nostru Types of mazes, Linguistica 29/1989; republicat !i
n acest volum, vezi mai sus). Numai investiga#iile viitoare vor putea
clarica dac" tradi#ia Mega !i tradi#ia urbian" a!a cum au fost denite
aici au fost sinonime sau au reectat numai aspecte asem"n"toare,
tipologic nrudite, bazate pe tr"s"turi !i o dezvoltare cultural" comune.
(f) Leg"turile dintre urbieni !i anatolieni trebuie de asemenea analizate
cu aten#ie, att din punct de vedere lingvistic ct !i arheologic. Atta timp ct
cuno!tin#ele noatre actuale (bazate nu n ultimul rnd pe dat"ri cu C
14
) nu
mai permit postularea ideii c" a existat un inux masiv de popula#ii dinspre
Anatolia n sud!estul european, este rezonabil s" presupunem c"
neolitizarea s!a datorat nu imigr"rii ci,mai ales, unor contacte culturale (!i,
desigur, lingvistice). Problema se poate rezolva dac" presupunem o anume
circula#ie de termeni dinspre Anatolia spre Balcani !i invers, fapt ce ar
dus la inevitabile tendin#e convergente, inclusiv la limbi apropiate. Cu toate
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
264
De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
265
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
266
acestea, nu st" n puterea lingvistului s" determine dac" proto!urbienii sau
urbienii dun"reni au fost un grup imigrat, autohton sau o amalgamare a
celor dou". Totu!i, lingvistul poate observa c" elementul autohton a fost,
probabil, decisiv. Acesta pare, de altfel, !i punctul de vedere adoptat de
antropologi (O. Necrasov, L. Ro!u etc.).

Expansiunea kurgan, difuziunea urbian" #i alte aspecte
Datele de care dispunem ast"zi ne permit s" tras"m contururi mai clare ale
realit"#ilor etno!lingvistice din preistorie. Este evident c" extraordinara
expansiune a indo!europenilor a fost precedat" de o nu mai pu#in important"
difuziune a urbienilor. Vom folosi a!adar doi termeni: expansiune pentru a eni
deplasarea rapid" !i agresiv" a popula#iei kurganelor !i difuziune pentru a deni
deplasarea lent" a urbienilor. Distinc#ia este important", atta timp ct cele dou"
tradi#ii erau radical diferite. Difuziunea urbian" a fost o deplasare treptat",
neviolent" dinspre centru sau focar (presupus de noi n zona culturii Lepenski
Vir ! Schela Cladovei) pe arii tot mai mari. Coresponden#ele mega!ubiene se pot
explica n acest fel. Expansiunea popula#iei kurganelor a fost brusc", violent",
c"lare !i nso#it" de structuri sociale !i religioase net diferite. Nu poate ndoial"
c" aceste grupuri culturale net diferite vorbeau limbi diferite. Eventuala
asem"nare dintre cuvinte ubiene !i IE se datoreaz" ntmpl"rii sau, la un stadiu
ulterior, mprumuturilor din urbian" n PIE. Analiza lingvistic" este capabil" s"
infere c" urbienii aveau un cuvnt pentru a desemna roata, derivat de la r"d"cina
*R!B!, *R!M! a se ndoi, curba; curb, rotund a!a cum a fost p"strat" n cuvntul
romnesc roab!, neexplicat pn" acum. O atare reconstruc#ie implic" faptul c"
urbienii au folosit probabil roabele n construc#iile lor. i putem credita cu o
atare inven#ie simpl", atta timp ct au fost capabili de inven#ii mult mai
complexe, unele cernd specializarea (cum ar metalurgia). Aceast"
presupunere este sprijinit" de prezen#a frecvent" a cercurilor !i liniilor curbe pe
ceramica neolitic". Pentru a inventa roata, urbienii nu aveau dect s"
copieze forma lunii pline.

De cultu Urbienorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
265
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
266
Remarci nale #i concluzii
Eviden#a oferit" de cercet"rile arheologice !i lingvistice ne permit s"
presupunem c" n preistorie au fuzionat dou" blocuri culturale majore, ce au
avut ca rezultat grupurile cunoscute n zorii istoriei. Amalgamarea elementelor
kurgan (IE) !i pre!IE (autohtone), ultimele numite aici urbiene (cu referire,
mai ales, la sudul !i sud!estul european) !i mega (cu referire la blocul cultural
vest!european) a fost un proces ndelungat, reprezentat de schimb"ri complexe,
sociale, culturale !i etnice, toate grefate pe o matrice autohton".
Dat ind faptul c" limbile atestate istoric nu snt niciodat" pur IE,
reectnd uneori un evident caracter ne!IE, este mai corect s" etichet"m acele
limbi predominant IE ca IE!urbiene sau IE!Mega, ori urbiene!IE dac"
inuen#a urbian" (autohton") a fost predominant". Limba latin" a fost de tip
IE!urbian, pe cnd greaca !i hitita sun urbiene!IE.
Pe de alt" parte, limba notat" prin linearul A !i etrusca reect" un evident
model ne!IE, o supravie#uire urbian" pn" n timpurile istorice. n alt" ordine de
idei, armeana este (conform datelor de care dispunem) un idiom IE!caucazian
(din perspectiva IE apar#innd ramurii satem). Tot cercet"rile viitoare vor trebui
s" clarice dac" grupul lingvistic caucazian a fost nrudit (tipologic sau chiar
genetic) cu grupul urbian!anatolian !i dac" da, n ce grad. Este clar c" PIE s!a
dezvoltat ntre dou" blocuri culturale majore: cel urbian !i cel caucazian.
Dat" ind remarcabila unitate cultural" a Vechii Europe, termen sub care snt
tentat s" grupez urbienii, popula#ia tradi#iei Mega, anatolienii !i, eventual,
caucazienii, nu poate straniu c" aceste limbi arhaice, unele supravie#uind pn"
n timpurile moderne, cum ar gruzina !i basca au tr"s"turi !i cuvinte comune.
Aceast" comunitate preistoric" nu trebuie n#eleas" neap"rat ca avnd aceea!i
origine; relativa sa unitate s!a putut datora circula#iei ideilor al"turi de circula#ia
unor termeni tehnici. Nu putem postula ct de ct plauzibil remarcabila unitate
cultural" a unor culturi dep"rtate f"r" a presupune, e !i o relativ", unitate
lingvistic".
Academica (1991) 5 : 1112
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
267

Toponimul Cluj

Toponimul Cluj avnd n vedere importan!a ora"ului n ansamblul a"ez#rilor
urbane ardelene a fost adesea subiectul unor analize din perspectiv# istoric# "i
lologic#, c#utndu!se (adesea deloc conving#tor, cum vom ar#ta mai jos) s# se
explice originea unei numiri deloc u"or de analizat, de"i dovezile arheologice ne
arat# c# ne a#m, f#r# ndoial#, n fa!a unei a"ez#ri urbane (cndva castrum) cu o
tradi!ie de continuitate ce coboar# n perioada autohtonilor traco!daci (Pascu "i
Marica 1969: 7; Pascu 19721989, 2, trimiterile de la pag. 538). Nici atest#rile
medievale timpurii nu lipsesc, dovedind nc# o dat# c# ne a#m n fa!a unei
a"ez#ri de o importan!# deosebit#, a"adar "i unei numiri ce apare frecvent n
textele mai vechi. Iat# cele mai vechi atest#ri ale ora"ului, semnicative analizei
noastre (Suciu 1967, 1: 158):
(a) 1183 (document suspect) Culusienses comes;
(b) 1213 castrenses de Clus, castrum Clus;
(c) 1214 ioubagiones ecclesie de Clus;
(d) 1222 abbas et conventus monasterii beate Marie de Clus;
(e) 1229 ioubagiones castri Clus;
(f) 1235 civis Clusiensis;
(g) 1275 villa Clwsvar;
(h) 1280 Culuswar;
(i) 1282 Villa Kuluswar;
(j) 1297 Cluswar;
(k) 1299 Klusuar; (urmeaz# o serie de atest#ri care oscileaz# ntre forma ce
tr#deaz# pronun!area romneasc# "i cea tr#dnd pronun!area maghiar#: Clus,
respectiv Kolus! /Colus!);
(l) 1348 Clusenburg, Clussenberch (prima atestare a formei germane);
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
268
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
269
(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# graat# Clus,
re"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 denitiv, 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 specicul 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# graat# 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 (graa cu ss poate 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# e oare vorba? Sau
este o simpl# grae 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 relevante problemei n discu!ie.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
268
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
269
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
270
Ipoteze privind originea toponimului Cluj
Discu!ia cea mai ampl# privind originea toponimului o face N. Dr#ganu
(1933: 437 sq.) care, de"i este un exemplu dep#"it de analiz#, trebuie amintit,
cu att mai mult cu ct studiile mai noi nu propun, n esen!#, direc!ii ori
modalit#!i noi de cercetare. Se citeaz#, a"adar, o serie de explica!ii propuse:
slovac klu"ov, maghiar klus, klyuss, latin medieval Claudius, toate
prezentnd, re"te, insurmontabile dicult#!i formale "i semantice, motiv
pentru care nsu"i Dr#ganu le citeaz# doar ca simple ipoteze de lucru. $i totu"i,
forma Claudius este cea care n opinia noastr# este cheia ntregii
probleme, dar ntr!un mod oarecum nea"teptat.
Un cercet#tor maghiar, Andrs Huszti (1791: 31) a propus pentru
explicarea toponimului lat. clusa(din aceea"i familie cu cl#do, claudo a
nchide, vezi infra), de la care ar deriva apoi Clu! > Cluj "i, n continuare,
maghiar Kolozs!vr. Explica!ia aceasta, sobr# "i corect# n principiu, observ#
c#, ntr!adev#r, maghiar Kolozs!vr este o form# mprumutat# din romn# prin
fenomenul fonetic, specic maghiarei, de svarabhakti (epenteza vocalic#) ce a
avut ca rezultat forma Kolozs "i apoi compunerea cu vr cetate, ce apare
frecvent n toponimia maghiar# (despre situa!ia formelor ora! "i vros, vezi
Paliga 1987 a "i 1991 a; n acest volum, supra).
n general, faptul c# maghiarii au preluat numirea de la romni, adaptnd!o
specicului limbii lor, este un fapt clar, dar acest detaliu nu este nc# sucient
pentru a aprecia vechimea, originea "i n!elesul toponimului. Ipoteza lui Huszti
este ns# respins# de Dr#ganu (loc. cit.) deoarece, argumenteaz# acesta, o form#
latin# clusa ar trebuit s# aib# ca rezultat n romn# *chius$, iar dintr!o form#
latin# trzie am avea *clus$. Observa!ia lui Dr#ganu este, ntr!adev#r,
judicioas#, de"i nu ar fost cu totul exclus# o perpetuare a unei forme cu un
tratament fonetic diferit n cazul unui toponim att de important cum este Cluj.
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
269
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
270
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
271
Nu ader#m, totu"i, la aceast# explica!ie, sobr# "i relativ bine argumentat# de
cercet#torul maghiar, cu totul remarcabil#, ca !inut# "tiin!ic#, pentru sfr"itul
secolului al XVIII!lea.
H. Tiktin (19031925: 378) ncearc#, la rndul s#u, o explica!ie prin
intermediul unei forme germane Kluse!Klause, respins# ns#, "i pe bun#
dreptate, de Kisch (19291934, 1: 69), deoarece germanii au ajuns aici d u p #
atestarea ora"ului ("i ad#ug#m noi, nici evolu!ia fonetic# nu este tocmai n
regul#). n mod evident, nici aceasta nu poate explica!ia mult a"teptat#, real#
"i plauzibil#.
N. Dr#ganu, loc. cit., expune "i ipoteza sa: Mai r#mne o explicare care se
pare c# ndestule"te toate preten!iile Cluj ca derivat din Clus ca hypocoristic
slav al lui Nicolaus, a"a cum este la germani Klaus. [...] n sloven# este atestat
hypocoristicul Klou". Din acesta se explic# u"or [sic!] Kolozs!vr [??!] n mod
evident, explica!ia nu ndestule"te toate preten!ile unei analize "tiin!ice
serioase. Dincolo de mari dicult#!i formale ori geograce (slovenii nu au intrat
n contact cu romnii nord!dun#reni, forma maghiar# nu se poate explica din
sloven# etc.), este greu (cite"te: imposibil) de presupus c# un hypocoristic
echivalent, s# zicem, cu Mi"u < Mihai, ar sta la baza toponimului ardelean.
Ipoteza a fost acceptat#, f#r# discern#mnt, de Pascu "i Marica 1969: 10).
Un dic!ionar etimologic toponimic publicat n Ungaria (Kiss 1980: 350)
consider#, de asemenea, c# originea toponimului este obscur#, trecnd n
revist# patru posibilit#!i de explicare: (1) un nume de persoan# maghiar,
atestat n anul 1387 n forma kolus. Ipoteza este, re"te, imposibil#, deoarece
numele este atestat mult dup# atestarea toponimului n forma Clus, deci f#r#
inuen!a pronun!#rii maghiare (c#ci n ipoteza unui prototip maghiar, forma
romneasc# ar fost *C$luj, vezi mai jos situa!ia toponimuli Blaj). (2) Un
antroponim slav asem#n#tor celui srb!croat Klu", care ar avut ca rezultat
Klu". (3) O form# mittelhochdeutsch kl#s trec#toare, de respins din acea"i
motiv pentru care s!a respins etymonul Kluse!Klause: germanii au venit aici
dup# atestarea formei Clus. (4) Un antroponim german Klaus!Nicolaus,
deoarece numirea german# a ora"ului este Klausenburg, care este evident
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
270
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
271
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
272
ulterioar# "i adaptat# dup# modelul romnesc (vezi supra).
Dup# cum se observ#, maniera n care se ncearc# rezolvarea dicult#!ilor
(majore) de explicare a numelui topic Cluj este, n linii mari, aceea"i utilizat#
de Dr#ganu acum o jum#tate de secol, n plus, dorindu!se a se sugera, e
m#car cu minime "anse de probabilitate, ipoteza unei origini maghiare a
numirii, ceea ce este nu numai greu acceptabil ci, pur "i simplu, imposibil. n
mod cert, Andrs Huszti era mult mai aproape de explica!ia corect#.
n dic!ionarul toponimic Lutterer, Krop%ek "i Hu&%ek (1976: 62) se
precizeaz# n mod egal dicultatea de a analiza r#d#cina clu!/cluj, autorii
lucr#rii nclinnd spre o explica!ie din lat. clausum clusum nchidere =
cetate (fr. cluse) sau din antroponimul Claudius de la numele unui posibil
conduc#tor al legiunii a XVII!a sta!ionat# pe aceste locuri dup# cucerirea
roman#. Ipoteza este "i ea ncadrabil# n sfera celor deja criticate de Dr#ganu
(supra).
Ad#ug#m, n sfr"it, c# o analiz# sobr# "i n# a ctorva numiri topice
romne"ti face "i un istoric azi uitat, Iosif $chiopul (1945, passim), inclusiv
numirea Cluj, semnalnd "i atest#rile medievale timpurii, inclusiv forma latin#
Claudiopolis. A"a cum bine a observat Dr#ganu, un antroponim latin Claudius
nu poate avea ca rezultat Clu!/Cluj, dar a"a cum semnalam mai sus
numele latin ofer# mult a"teptata cheie a rezolv#rii acestei adev#rate
enigme toponimice.

Ipoteza noastr!
Toate aceste ncerc#ri, numeroase cum am v#zut, dovedesc dicultatea
real# a problemei. n mod clar, Cluj nu "i v#de"te vreo anitate
semantic!formal# cu vreo numire echivalent# (ori echivalabil#) din limbile de
adstrat ale romnei, a"adar maghiara, diversele idiomuri slave, germana,
trebuie nl#turate dintr!o ncercare de explicare plauzibil#. Nici latina nu
explic# satisf#c#tor numirea. Din cte "tim, idiomurile turcice nu s!au invocat
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
271
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
272
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
273
niciodat# ntru explicarea toponimului "i pe bun# dreptate.
Preciz#m c# "i pe Eminescu l!a tentat s# ncerce o explicare a toponimului
romnesc prin compararea cu forma etrusc# Clusium, azi Chiusi (Eminescu
1981: 613). Observa!ia, penetrant#, deloc romantic#, ce propune o foarte
posibil# nrudire, nu poate folosit# n discu!ie "i nici n demonstra!ie,
deoarece am explica obscura per obscuriora. Eminescu se gndea, f#r#
ndoial#, la o nrudire str#veche dintre toponimul romnesc, prin lier#
traco!dac#, "i cel etrusc. Este ceea ce credem "i noi, nereferindu!ne
deocamdat# la forma etrusc#, dicil de analizat atta timp ct nu "tim exact n
ce grup# lingvistic# s# ncadr#m etrusca "i nici care ar putea eventualele sale
rela!ii cu traco!daca.
Tot spre un toponim autohton se ndreapt# n explica!ia sa "i A. Riza (1982:
11 sq.), f#r# a aduce ns# o argumentare coerent# "i conving#toare.
Spuneam mai sus c# interesant# "i util# pentru noi este forma latin#
medieval# Claudiopolis care, prin n!elesul s#u ora"ul lui Claudius, ne ofer#,
ntr!un mod nea"teptat, solu!ia problemei. Pentru a face n!eleas# ipoteza
noatr#, trebuie precizat c# semantismul antroponimului Claudius este "chiop,
din grupul reprezentat de verbele claudeo, claudico a "chiop#ta, precum "i
de verbul claudo a nchide, derivate de la r#d#cina indo!european# *kl%u!,
*kl&u! a ncovoia, a ndoi, de unde sensurile: (1) ndoit, curb "chiop "i
(2) ndoitur#, mprejmuire cetate, fort#rea!#. Cu aceste detalii din sfera
ndoiturilor "i lucrurilor curbe ne a#m, n drumul nostru spre explicarea
numirii Cluj, ntr!o pozi!ie mult mai bun# "i putem face nc# un pas mai
departe, referindu!ne la numiri trace cum snt antroponimele graate '()*+,,
'()+, (De%ev 1957: 248). Tentnd o raportare etimologic#, credem c# aceste
forme reprezint# echivalentul deplin al formei latine Claudius, derivate de la
aceea"i r#d#cin# indo!european# "i cu acela"i n!eles: "chiop. Ni se pare a
de domeniul eviden!ei, ori cel pu!in al maximei probabilit#!i, c# antroponimul
trac atestat n grae greac# (a"adar cu echivalarea aproximativ# a pronun!#rii
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
272
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
273
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
274
reale) este etymonul toponimului Cluj. Nu este inutil s# preciz#m c# exist# o
izbitoare asem#nare ntre graa antic# a numelor trace "i cea medieval# pentru
Cluj. Asem#narea devine, practic, identitate dac# transcriem graerea greac#
cu caractere latine: Cleus, pronun!area real# ind, foarte probabil, *kl#".
Preciz#m, adiacent problemei n discu!ie dar strns legat de aceasta, c# tot
de la acela"i radical indo!european trebuie explicate "i toponimele trace
Clev!ora, Cleb!ora, Cles!bestita, Clepi!dava (Deev, loc. cit.), de data aceasta
p#strnd sensul (2): ngr#ditur#, cetate. Aceste forme trace, al c#ror n!eles va
fost, foarte probabil, cetate, trg, ora", ar putea nc# o denumire a a"ez#rii
urbane n lumea trac# (vezi mai sus Thracian terms for township and
fortress, and related place!names).

Ora"ul lui Claudius. Argumentul numismatic
Ne putem gndi, re"te, c# cel care a dat numele s#u ora"ului atestat n
antichitate n forma Napoca, pe care a nlocuit!o, ar putut , cum au sugerat
autorii cehi aminti!i mai sus, un anume conduc#tor al legiunii a XVII!a. Ne
gndim ns# c# acel Claudius care a dat numele s#u ora"ului, nume autohtonizat
de popula!ia locului la *Kl#", va fost, foarte precis, mp!ratul Claudius II
Goticul (Marcus Aurelius Claudius Gothicus), 219270, mp#rat ntre 268
270, comandant al trupelor imperiale din Balcani sub mp#ratul Galienus "i
devenit mp#rat dup# asasinarea acestuia (Matei 1983: 142; idem, 1984: 307).
Este resc s# credem c# toponimul Cluj "i are originea n numele mp#ratului "i
nu provine de la vreun obscur comandant local. Dac# este a"a ("i faptele
men!ionate sprijin# acest lucru), atunci toponimul Cluj, antroponim la origine,
trebuie ncadrat n sfera toponimelor de tip comemorativ: Constantinopolis, de la
numele lui Constantin cel Mare (306337); tot de la numele acestuia provine "i
numele portului romnesc Constan-a, dar prin intermediar italian!genovez. n
mod similar, Alexandria "i!a luat numele de la Alexandru cel Mare (356323
.e.n.), etc. (vezi la Kiss 1980 s.v.).
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
273
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
274
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
275
Un sprijin important al ipotezei noastre l g#sim n egiile dedicate lui
Claudius II Goticul. Monedele b#tute cu chipul lui Claudius II atest#
extraordinara cinste ce i s!a acordat timp de mul!i ani dup# moarte, cu o
remarcabil# revitalizare n timpul lui Constantin cel Mare (n#scut n jur de 280
e.n.) care se considera, de altfel, urma"ul lui Claudius II (Webb 1968: 202 "i,
n general, 201237; Kent 1978, pl. 525). Pe teritoriul Romniei s!au g#sit
relativ pu!ine monede cu egia lui Claudius II (Donoiu 1980: 159), ceea ce
face ca situa!ia toponimului Cluj s# e cu att mai important#, completnd "i
claricnd ceea ce datele arheologice "i istorice nu au putut clarica.
La ntrebarea cnd s!a impus numele Clu!/Cluj n locul mai vechiului
Napoca?, r#spunsul este mai greu de dat. Cel mai plauzibil este s#
presupunem c# noul nume de loc a nceput s# intre n uz n timpul scurtei
domnii a lui Claudius, consolidndu!se dup# moartea acestuia, avnd n vedere
onorurile ce i!au fost acordate post mortem "i extraordinara memorie a
numelui s#u. Nu este exclus ca numirea s# se impus denitiv n timpul lui
Constantin cel Mare, chiar dac# Dacia nu mai f#cea parte, formal, din Imperiu.
Evident, nu putem da aici un r#spuns denitiv, ci doar a sugera o posibilitate.
Ad#ug#m doar c# NL Napoca, graat "i Napuca, este probabil nrudit cu NFl
Naparis (n Sci!ia, cf. De%ev 1957: 317) "i se explic# prin r#d#cina preie.
*N!P! piatr#, stnc#, radical ce pare a sta "i la baza unui alt termen autohton:
n$prc$, de aici "i a n$prli, cu sensul ini!ial animal de stnc#, probabil de la
obiceiul n#prcilor de a se nc#lzi ntinse pe stnci. Fire"te, problemele legate
de mo"tenirea pre!ie. n romn# snt mult prea complexe "i complicate pentru
a analizate aici. Ne rezum#m doar la unele observa!ii en passant.
Dac# accept#m ipoteza c# antroponimul autohton *Klu", ce calchia la
rndul s#u numele latin Claudius, s!a impus denitiv n timpul lui
Constantin cel Mare, atunci motiva!ia poate de natur# social#, militar# "i
religioas#, "tiut ind rolul major al lui Constantin n r#spndirea cre"tinismului
precum "i faptul c# el se considera urma"ul lui Claudius. F#cnd un pas mai
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
274
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
275
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
276
departe, putem presupune c# popula!ia local# cre"tin# (sau n curs de
cre"tinare) din zona Clujului de azi a dorit s#!i e recunosc#toare lui
Constantin, onorndu!l pe str#mo"ul acestuia, pe Claudius. Natural, este o
posibilitate care deschide noi c#i de cercetare, inclusiv din perspectiva
r#spndirii cre"tinismului primitiv n Dacia.

Un detaliu important: evolu#ia fonetic!
Din cele expuse pn# acum s!ar p#rea c# exist# un impediment serios n a se
accepta ipoteza noastr#: evolu!ia fonetic#. Se "tie c# grupul cl! (kl!) ini!ial din
latin# a avut ca rezultat n romn# kl > k (graat che, chi), de exemplu lat.
clavis, !em > cheie. Fenomenul nu este specic numai latinei populare din
Dacia, c#ci n italian# avem, plecnd de la acela"i cuvnt latin, chiave iar n
portughez# chave (pronun!at .v). Tot a"a, de la latin clamare avem n
romn# chema, it. chiamare, port. chamar (./mr) etc. Alte exemple se pot
g#si n REW
3
s.v.Situa!ia lui cl! n latina postclasic# fa!# de cea din posibilele
elemente autohtone nu a strnit aten!ia cuvenit#. Studiul de fa!# dore"te s#
corecteze ntructva situa!ia, neind totu"i un nlocuitor al unui studiu
am#nun!it din acest unghi. Exemplele date snt suciente pentru a ar#ta c#
aceast# evolu!ie fonetic# s!a datorat unei pronun!#ri /kl!/ deja n latina
popular# postclasic# de pe o arie vast# (franceza nu a cunoscut totu"i acest
tratament fonetic, cf. clef, cl cheie).
Ce se ntmpl# ns# cu elementele autohtone ale romnei care au avut
grupul kl! n pozi!ie ini!ial#? Au urmat oare tot evolu!ia fonetic# din latina
popular#? Discu!ia ideal# ar trebui f#cut# pe ansamblul fenomenelor de
evolu!ie fonetic# de la trac# (traco!dac#) la romn#. Cum acesta este un
subiect mult prea amplu pentru scopul studiului nostru, ne vom limita numai
la cteva puncte relevante demersului nostru.
Cercet#rile de tracologie de pn# acum s!au ndreptat mai ales spre
reconstituirea unui posibil tablou al structurii fonetice trace ori traco!dace "i
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
275
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
276
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
277
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. Arma!ia pare, evident, rezonabil#. S!a
uitat ns# c#, sub acela"i nveli" grac, se pot ascunde foneme (sunete)
diferite, uneori net diferite. n plus, pare a se uita adesea c# inventarul fonetic
trac (traca ind 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 ind, practic, ireconciliabile
1
) nu poate
ndoial# c# sunetele specice tracei, ca 0, 1, ", 2, ts (-) etc., inexistente n
latin#, au avut o soart# n mod necesar specic# atunci cnd ele au existat
ntr!un cuvnt integrat latinei dun#rene, nemaivorbind de faptul c# tocmai
fonetismul trac este cel care va inuen!at "i latina popular# din Dacia "i care
a creat premisele evolu!iei la un idiom specic, romna. Inuen!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 inuen!# 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
Asupra caracterului ireconciliabil al diverselor formule de reconstituire a foneticii
trace atr#geam aten!ia, foarte pe scurt, n Luceaf$rul nr. 36, 6 septembrie 1986
vorbind despre lucrarea lui I.H. Cri"an Spiritualitatea geto!dacilor. Am revenit (n
Contemporanul nr. 42, 21 octombrie 1988, p. 11) asupra polemicilor, adesea sterile,
din lumea tracologilor.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
276
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
277
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
278
s# credem c# am putea reconstitui, n mod salvator, un prototip trac cu /!ll!/; n
Ibru (cf. paralela bulgar# Ib$r) grupul !br! se p#streaz# nealterat la /wr/.
Situa!ia hidronimului Ibru a fost bine analizat# de Fr#!il# (1987: 118125).
Autorul sprijin# ipoteza c# avem de a face cu un hidronim autohton, bine
reprezentat n arealul tracic. mp#rt#"im aceast# ipotez#, cu observa!ia c#
unele re!ineri ale autorului timi"orean "i au originea tocmai n ideile
preconcepute privind situa!ia sunetelor trace n elementele autohtone.
Demersul s#u poate un bun argument pentru ceea ce sus!inem n acest studiu
("i n altele): sunetele trace au avut acela"i tratament fonetic n evolu#ia la
romn! ca "i cele latine numai atunci cnd au fost identice celor latine "i
n mod necesar un tratament diferit atunci cnd au fost diferite. Kl! (cl!)
este un caz tipic "i tot tipic este "i cazul b/v intervocalic. n ultimul caz, cele
dou# sunete ini!ial diferite au ajusns# se confunde ntr!unul singur: o siant#
bilabial# asem#n#toare celei din spaniola contemporan#. O atare pronun!are a
dus la c#derea sunetului n romn#. Natural, n cuvintele autohtone, b "i v se
vor pronun!at distinct "i, ca atare, s!au p#strat, n principiu, nealterate. Este
regretabil c# asemenea detalii esen!iale au fost ignorate. $i exemplele pot
continua.
Revenind la situa!ia grupului kl! ini!ial n elementele autohtone, facem
observa!ia preliminar# c# antroponimul trac atestat cu graa '()*+,, '()+,
(pronun!ie real# reconstituit# *Kl#"), considerat de noi a sta la baza toponimului
Cluj (<Clu!), ne arat# ct se poate de clar c# grupul /kl!/ din trac#, aat n pozi!ie
ini!ial#, nu a cunoscut alterarea la /kl/ ca n elementele latine, a"adar s!a p#strat
nealterat.
Snt "i alte exemple care sprijin# ipoteza noastr#. Ne vom opri la dou#. Primul
este constituit de verbul a clinti, neexplicat satisf#c#tor pn# acum. n DEX (165), a
clinti este considerat de origine necunoscut#. Este nefericit# tentativa de a explica
forma din sl. kl3tati, a"a cum ncearc# Raevski "i Gabinski (1978: 185). Cuvntul se
poate u"or explica prin radicalul indo!european *kel! (grad zero *kl!) a pune n
mi"care, a urni, a clinti, de aici "i lat. celer iute, rapid; gr#bit, gr. klonos agita!ie.
Ne este greu s# presupunem o alt# origine a cuvntului dect cea autohton#, plecnd
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
277
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
278
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
279
de la gradul zero al r#d#cinii "i o dezvoltare de tip *kl!en!t! (a se vedea alte raport#ri
la fondul indo!european la Pokorny 1959: 548 "i n AHD p. 1521).
Al doilea exemplu l constituie clan-$, dup# p#rerea noastr# eronat explicat
prin derivare din clan-. Situa!ia pare exact invers#: clan- este un derivat regresiv
de la clan-$, iar acest din urm# cuvnt trebuie ncadrat n categoria celor derivate
din radicalul indo!european *kl%u! discutat mai sus, ind a"adar un cuvnt nrudit
cu lat. clavis, gr. kleis cheie, n romn# cu sensul nchiz#toare. Nici pentru
acest cuvnt nu g#sim o explicare mai bun# dect tot prin fondul autohton. (n
DEX : 161, clan- este consderat onomatopee, iar clan-$ ar 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 reecta, n principiu, mo"teniri autohtone. Consider#m c# formele analizate
aici snt suciente 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 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 reectnd sensul localitate al toponimelor trace
analizate mai sus. Ipoteza noastr# este sprijinit# de existen!a antroponimului Clej,
amintit de Iordan, care are evidente anit#!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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
279
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
280

n loc de concluzii: toponimul Blaj
Situa!ia toponimului Cluj sprijin#, "i este sprijinit#, de situa!ia toponimului
Blaj, de asemenea cu atest#ri timpurii n textele medievale. (Formele snt
citate dup# Suciu 1967):
(a) 1271 terra seu villa Herbordi vaivode
(b) 1313 terra Blasii lii Herbordi
(c) 1332 sacerdos de villa Blasii, sacerdos de villa Blasy
(d) 1346 Balasfalva, Balaschfalva ("i alte atest#ri ulterioare), apoi
(e) Bla! (a. 1900)
Formele din textele medievale ne permit cteva observa!ii:
(1) La sfr"itul secolului al XIII!lea, a"ezarea era centrul unui voievod, f#r# ndoial#
romn; numele face dicult#!i de analiz#, ind probabil deformat (?Arbore).
(2) O genera!ie mai trziu, a"ezarea a fost condus# de ul acestuia, al c#rui nume
a fost graat n forma de genitiv Blasii (nom. *Blasius), rednd o pronun!are real#
Bla!, a"a cum apare nc# n anul 1900 (cf. supra Clus/Clu!/Cluj).
(3) O jum#tate de secol mai trziu, numele este maghiarizat la Balas/Balasz
(graat Balas n textele medievale), toponimul ind compus cu falu sat, deci
nsemnnd satul lui Bla". Analizarea acestor atest#ri ne arat# c# numele
maghiar Balzs este de origine romneasc#, romnii remprumutndu!l n
forma B$laj. Iordan (1983: 66) crede c# antroponimul Blaj deriv# din sl. Bla2,
iar Blaja ar femininul [sic!] lui Blaj. Existen!a unor antroponime slave de
tip Bla2 (!a, !o) nu poate mpiedica analiza noastr#, ele ind, n ultim#
instan!#, de aceea"i origine neslav#.
(4) Toponimul Blaj (Bla!), ca "i Cluj (Clu!) de altfel, a fost la origine un
antroponim, a"a cum snt, de altfel, numeroase alte toponime, diferen!a
constnd n faptul c#, n timp ce Cluj este un toponim de tip comemorativ, Blaj
este unul impus prin uz local.
Care este originea antroponimului Bla!/Blaj? Ne este greu s# desp#r!im
aceast# form# de antroponimele trace Blasa, 4(565, (Blasas), ultimul posibil
ilir (De%ev 1957: 73; Russu 1969: 181). Faptul c# forma Blasas este
considerat# trac# sau ilir# nu poate mpiedica demersul nostru. n orice caz,
Claudiopolis
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
279
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
280
ilira este nrudit# clar cu traca, a"adar este foarte posibil ca antroponimul s#
fost folosit de ambele grupuri etnice. Atestarea medieval# pentru Bla!/Blaj
(Blasius, gen. Blasii) claric#, n opinia noastr#, "i pronun!area real# a
antroponimelor trace, care trebuie reconstituit# la *Bla"(a), *Bla"!as
(termina!iile ind grecizate ori latinizate snt incerte, dar acesta este un detaliu
de mic# importan!# aici). Semnicativ n acest sens este "i toponimul Blaja (n
apropiere de Carei), cu atest#ri mai trzii: a. 1454 Balashaza, 1733 Blasa.
Nu poate 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 reectate n textele medievale este
subiectul altui studiu.

Academica 2, 5 (17), 1992: 8 "i 27
Postdat# mai 1998
Dup# publicarea studiului, am identicat alte dou# lucr#ri ce se refer#
preponderent la perioada istoric# avut# n vedere: Gh. Poenaru!Bordea,
Descoperirile monetare din cet#!uia romano!bizantin# de la Sucidava, cu
special# privire asupra perioadei 260328. Studii !i cercet$ri de
numismatic$ 6 (1975): 69106; A. Bodor, Contribu!ii la istoria ora"ului
Napoca "i a monumentelor sale sculpturale n piatr#. Acta Musei Napocensis
2223(1986): 185199. Acestea sprijin# ipoteza avansat# de noi mai sus.
Ignis sive ternus
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
281

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, aate
n lupt! att cu doctrina cre"tin! (n plin! armare 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 ndoial!, a"a cum a ar!tat just regretatul
profesor clujean, c! ne a!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 identica o r!d!cin! primitiv! care s! explice formele romneasc!
"i albanez!. A"adar, pururi pare a o mo"tenire str!veche, dar nu putem
argumenta "i de ce; doar albaneza ne-ar indica faptul c! ne a!m, cu mare
probabilitate, n fa#a unei forme pre-romane (au fost, re"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! e, 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
282
Ignis sive ternus
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
283
focus ce nsemna ini#ial vatr!. Existen#a unor forme trace cu radical pur-
avnd 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
re 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 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
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 ind 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
Ignis sive ternus
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
283
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
284
alte cuvinte ritualurile lor de nmormntare se caracterizau prin arderea
mor#ilor: a"adar un alt moment n care apare clar rolul focului n cadrul
credin#elor autohtonilor.
n Dacia este bine atestat! venerarea divinit!#ilor orientale cunoscute
sub numele romanizat de Sol Invictus, cu alte cuvinte soarele nepieritor,
am putea traduce chiar, n contextul demersului nostru, soarele-de-a-
pururi (vezi discu#ii n lucrarea lui Silviu Sanie deja amintit!). Pe de alt!
parte, n anul 321 se instituie ziua de duminic! drept zi a soarelui (dies
solis), zi de odihn! (cf. la englezi Sunday ziua soarelui ce calchiaz! de
fapt latinul dies solis). Acestea se ntmplau pe vremea lui Constantin cel
Mare, pe atunci mp!rat al Occidentului, apoi (n 324), mp!ratul unic al
Imperiului, o dat! cu capturarea "i asasinarea lui Licinius.
n lumina celor spuse aici, reiese cu destul! claritate rolul "i locul
credin#elor legate de foc "i de soare (ca simbol al focului etern). De"i este
imposibil s! determin!m dac! schimbarea de sens foc etern s-a f!cut
sub inuen#a credin#elor autohtone ori sub cea oriental!, nclin!m s!
credem c! inuen#a oriental!, puternic! atunci n tot imperiul, a jucat rolul
hot!rtor. Este vorba, evident, de o ambian#! spiritual! ce explic! un
moment din istoria mentalit!#ilor secolului al IV-lea e.n. "i, implicit, "i un
foarte interesant cuvnt romnesc.
n nal revenim la paralela albanez! deja amintit! prhr, prhra
etern, de-a pururi. n mod cu totul surprinz!tor, cercet!torii nu au
observat (probabil puternic inuen#a#i de ideea preconceput! c! sensul
prim al al formei pururi trebuie c!utat n sfera semantic! temporal!) c!
albaneza mai ofer! un exemplu ct se poate de gr!itor prhin a acoperi
cu cenu"!, n mod evident nrudit cu prhr, n m!sura n care eviden#a
va judecat! ntr-un larg context comparativ (n context, alb. prhin se
apropie semantic de ceh p"# jar acoperit cu cenu"!). Desigur, sunt detalii
de coresponden#e fonetice romno-albaneze ce nu pot discutate aici
(rom. pur- fa#! de alb. pr-). Oricum, forma romneasc! pururi trebuie
Ignis sive ternus
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
283
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
284
considerat! cea mai veche, ea ind 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
De origine Albanorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
285
Originea Albanezilor
1
nainte de toate, ncerc!m s! justic!m abordarea, e "i pe scurt, a unei
probleme mult dezb!tute "i care, n esen#!, s-ar cuvenit s! "i g!seasc!
pn! acum cuvenita rezolvare. A"a cum sugereaz! titlul, originea
albanezilor claric!, dac! nu toate, m!car unele aspecte ale originii
romnilor. Este "i motivul pentru care chestiunile legate de originea
albanezilor intereseaz! "i istoria limbii romne ori, ntr-un plan mai larg,
istoria sud!estului european.
Nu poate dubiu c!, pn! acum, etnogeneza albanez! a ridicat
numeroase discu#ii "i dezbateri, adesea polemice, din cauza nc!rc!turii
emo#ionale "i, nu n ultimul rnd, din cauza unei nc!rc!turi politice pe
care cercet!torul nu o poate ocoli, dar pe care nu o poate introduce n
ecua#ie. n al doilea rnd, trebuie creionate cteva principii c!l!uzitoare,
trebuie eliminate nen#elegerile datorate folosirii unei terminologii
inadecvate. A"a stnd lucrurile, trebuie denit un termen precum
continuitate a"a cum "tim, de intens!, chiar obsesiv! circula#ie, mai ales
n #!rile est-europene comuniste, Romnia nef!cnd excep#ie. n mod
evident, cercet!torii albanezi, ca "i cei romni atunci cnd a fost vorba de
istoria romnilor, au accentua mereu ideea continuit!#ii de habitat a
teritoriului albanez de azi. n acest punct, r!spunsul este foarte clar
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! Inuen!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.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
286
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
287
exceptnd unele zone, n anumite perioade istorice, ntreg teritoriul
european a fost ncontinuu locuit, din neolitic "i pn! azi. Acest lucru este
valabil, n integralitatea sa, n cazul sud-estului european, ce dovede"te o
continuitate de habitat nainte de 6500 .e.n. pn! azi. Altfel spus,
continuitatea locuirii teritoriului de azi al Albaniei ori al oric!rui stat (ca s!
folosesc un termen politic) din sud-estul european este clar! "i evident!.
Problema nu const! n a g!si ori a nu g!si terrae desertae n aceast! parte
a Europei, ci n a g!si acele componente etnice "i lingvistice care, la un
moment dat, prin amestec de popula#ie ca rezultat al unor imigr!ri ori
coloniz!ri, au dus la na"terea unor noi popoare. Pe ct de simpl!, pe att de
ocolit! ori inadecvat denit! a devenit acest! chestiune, n fond
elementar!. Pentru a da un exemplu limpid, ne-am putea referi la
continuitatea de locuire, pentru a nu ne dep!rta prea mult de teritoriul
albanez, a Bulgariei ori Iugoslaviei (n sens etnic-lingvistic, nu neap!rat
politic), unde este vorba de imigr!ri succesive, de asimil!ri ce au dus, spre
sfr"itul Evului Mediu timpuriu, la conturarea unor frontiere etnic-
lingvistice, perpetuate pn! azi. n termeni de antropologie cultural!, cnd
vorbim de etnogeneza albanez!, trebuie s! c!ut!m elementele componente
ce au dus la na"terea unui popor albanezii "i a unei limbi albaneza. n
nici un caz nu poate vorba de a identica perioade de gol biologic n
Albania.
Problema etnogenezei albaneze a fost admirabil abordat! ntr-o
comunicare ce poate numit! istoric!, #inut! n aula mic! a Academiei
romne la 4 aprilie 1981 de, azi, regretatul I. I. Russu. Din cte "tim,
comunicarea respectiv! nu a fost publicat!. Este motivul pentru care
merit! s! e readus! n discu#ie deoarece atunci, la 4 aprilie 1981, s-au
trasat, n linii mari, principiile de a explica corect etnogeneza albanez!.
Foarte pe scurt, punctele principale ale demonstra#iei lui I. I. Russu erau:
(1) Illyrii nu mai sunt nota#i ca un popor aparte ncepnd cu secolul al
II!lea e.n. "i nu poate ndoial! c! acest lucru semnala o situa#ie de facto
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
286
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
287
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
288
romanizarea illyrilor ce va dus la na"terea unui popor romanic de-a
lungul coastelor Adriaticii; (2) Originea albanezilor trebuie c!utat!, a"adar,
n amalgamarea popula#iei autohtone romanizate cu o popula#ie mai
nordic!, provenit! dintr-o insul! neromanizat!, marea problem! constnd
n a identica aceast! insul! neromanizat! (mai) nordic!.
n acest fel este bine delimitat! problema continuit!#ii de habitat a
Albaniei care, a"a cum spuneam, nu pune nici un fel de probleme, ea ind
rezolvat! de mult, n acord cu situa#ia din alte zone europene. Care s!
fost, a"adar, acel grup etnic ce, la un moment dat, a dus la na"terea unui
nou popor "i a unei noi limbi. Urm!rind harta Imperiului Roman la
maxima sa expansiune, observ!m c! toat! regiunea sud-dun!rean! era, la
nceputul erei noastre, complet romanizat!, neexistnd nici o dovad! c! ar
mai putut supravie#ui grupuri ori triburi compacte de illyri ori de traci
neromaniza#i (ori romaniza#i par#ial). La nord de Dun!re, era romanizat!
mare parte din Dacia, neind dect par#ial romanizat!, prin inuen#! doar,
partea nordic! a Daciei, mai exact Moldova "i Maramure"ul de azi. N
ACESTE ZONE MOLDOVA $I MARAMURE$ TREBUIE
C%UTAT% SUPRAVIE&UIREA UNOR GRUPURI COMPACTE
NEROMANIZATE. Din punct de vedere arheologic "i istoric, situa#ia este
cunoscut! carpii, ramura r!s!ritean! a traco-dacilor, "i alia#ii lor au
reprezentat cel mai puternic nucleu trac neromanixzat, el ind "i un
du"man serios al Imperiului n secolele IIIV e.n. Gh. Bichir este cel care
a analizat n detaliu situa#ia acestor grupuri etnice trace, bine atestate
documentar "i arheologic n intervalul secolelor IIV e.n., dup! care, de"i
nu mai sunt nota#i cu numele de carpi (karpi, carpi, korpiloi) sunt ns!
nota#i drept traci a"adar cu numele generic pn! prin secolul al VII-lea,
dup! care documentele nu mai pomenesc de traci ca o etnie aparte. $i din
punct de vedere arheologic, pn! n secolul al V-lea sunt atestate rituri de
nmormntare specic traco-dace, urmnd dou! secole de nmormnt!ri
tipic romanice trzii, pentru ca, n intervalul secolelor VIIIX, s! asist!m
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
287
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
288
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
289
la o revigorare a cultelor autohtone, caracterizate prin incinera#ie, poate "i
ca rezultat al reactiv!rii lor prin slavi, "i ei incinera#i nainte de cre"tinare.
Singurul grup etnic ce s-a putut p!stra neromanizat, ori, mai bine, par#ial
romanizat, este reprezentat de carpi precum "i de grupurile de daci din
Maramure". n nici o alt! parte a sud-estului european nu mai putem
admite perpetuarea unor grupuri neromanizate "i, de la un moment dat
ncolo, supuse "i inuen#ei slave. De altfel, spunea prof. I. I. Russu la
amintita comunicare de la Academia romn!, deplasarea unor grupuri
compacte de carpi spre sud, dincolo de Dun!re, s-a datorat presiunii
slavilor, a c!ror formidabil! expansiune pe teritorii vaste ncepea prin
secolul al V-lea
2
. Nu trebuie ocolit faptul c! unele grupuri de carpi
fuseser! colonizate la sud de Dun!re nc! pe timpul Imperiului, dar este
pu#in probabil c! acestor coloni"ti li se datoreaz! modicarea substan#ial!
a structurii etnice a Albaniei de azi.
Din punct de vedere istoric "i lingvistic, asem!n!rile dintre romn! "i
albanez! "i g!sesc o perfect! explicare prin ipoteza lui I. I. Russu. Trebuie
spus aici c!, nici pn! azi, nu avem un tablou complet al coresponden#elor
romno-albaneze n ceea ce prive"te mo"tenirea str!veche traco-dac!. n ceea
ce prive"te fondul romanic, foarte important "i n albanez!, putem cita acum
lucrarea de referin#! V!t!"escu 1997. Dar despre coresponden#ele romno-
albaneze nu este locul s! vorbim acum. Ipoteza amintit! explic!, n plus, "i
de ce fondul autohton al romnei s-a integrat romanit!#ii r!s!ritene n
perioade discriminate cronologic ntr-o prim! faz! prin asimilarea
autohtonilor n timpul ocupa#iei romane, apoi datorit! revenirii n Dacia a
unor grupuri de daci liberi, dup! p!r!sirea acesteia de administra#ia roman!.
De altfel, conform estim!rilor altui tracolog ce nu mai este printre noi, Ariton
Vraciu, lexicul romnesc autohton este deosebit de puternic, putnd urca
2
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
nal de secol V e.n.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
288
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
289
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
290
pn! la 4000 de r!d!cini, fa#! de circa 2100 de r!d!cini romanice
3
. Sntem
nc! departe de a analizat cum se cuvine mo"tenirea autohton! a lexicului
romnesc tradi#ional. n ne, ipoteza Russu explic! "i diferen#ele dintre
romn! "i albanez! la baza romnei andu-se dialectele traco-dace din
Ardeal, Banat, Oltenia "i Muntenia, pe cnd la baza albanezei se a!, pe de-o
parte, elemente traco-dace r!s!ritene, iar pe de alt! parte elemente illyre "i
romanice locale arbere.
A"a cum a fost ea formulat! n aprilie 1981, ipoteza Russu privind
originea albanezilor r!mne singura capabil! s! explice complexitatea
etnogenezei sud-est europene "i, n mod specic, s! explice etnogeneza
albanez! "i, implicit, un aspect al etnogenezei romne"ti. Desigur, sunt
cteva specte nc! neclare cronologizarea ct mai precis! a stabilirii unui
grup compact de carpi (eventual "i a unor grupuri de daci maramure"eni)
n Albania de azi, coresponden#ele lexicale romno-albaneze (un lexicon
etimologic al acestor paralele "i mo"teniri comune ar un instrument de
lucru indispensabil, din p!cate realizat cu totul par#ial "i incomplet,
nepermi#nd o privire de ansamblu, absolut indispensabil! unei bune
abord!ri) "i poate nc! alte chestiuni de am!nunt asupra c!rora nu putem
insista aici. n orice caz, ipoteza Russu cheam! la claricarea unor aspecte.
Cel mai bun mod de a aborda chestiunea etnogenezei albaneze ar un
symposion romno-albanez, ce ar putea g!zduit de un ora" din Romnia,
Ia"i ori Piatra-Neam#, s! zicem. Noile date ale ecua#iei "i noile schimb!ri
politice din estul european ar justica, o dat! n plus, un asemenea
symposion. De c"tigat nu ar avea dect cercetarea trecutului ambelor
popoare, att de apropiate prin dep!rtare.
3
De fapt, estimarea nu era corect!: DEX noteaz! 1220 de cuvinte de origine
necunoscut!. Vezi alte discu#ii n primul volum al acestei serii. Reamintim c!
sintagma et. nec. din DEX nu este nicidecum sinonim! sintagmei element
autohton traco!dac, care de altfel nu apare niciodat! n DEX! Aduc aici calde
mul#umiri lui C!t!lin Frncu, entuziastul mentor al www.dexonline.ro
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
289
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
290
Postdat! octombrie 2006
Problema originii albanezilor "i, n sens larg, etnogeneza central
est!european! "i sud!est european! ne apare, ntr!adev!r, un fenomen
complex, n orice caz mult mai complex dect p!rea el n cursurile de istorie
marxist!leninist!.
n fapt, etnogeneza romnilor, slavilor "i albanezilor trebuie analizat! ca
un ansamblu de transform!ri etno-lingvistice "i culturale ce au avut loc n
intervalul secolelor IVVI e.n. Nu altfel reiese "i din recent publicata
sintez! a lui Florin Curta privind apari#ia slavilor (Curta 2006).
A" dori doar s! adaug detaliul c!, foarte probabil, forma postclasic!
Sclavus, Sclavenus, Sclavinus, sub care au nceput a denumi#i slavii
ncepnd cu secolul al VIlea e.n. "i care, nu ne putem ndoi, a circulat la
nivel colocvial, dup! cum arat! forma romneasc! "chiau, pl. "chei, este "i
originea formei shqip, adj. albanez, dintr!o form! postclasic! *skljab. Nu
trebuie uitat c! "i arabii au mprumutat forma ca Saq # lab, pl. Saq # alaba slav
= Sclavenus. Pare probabil c!, ini#ial, byzantinii foloseau etnonimul
Sclavus, Sclavenus ntr!un sens ce azi ar p!rea curios, dar adecvat acelor
timpuri: venit din nord "i du"man al Imperiului. Este "i dovada c!
barbarii mai nordici, Sclavenii, nu puteau un grup etnic omogen, ci un
amalgam de vorbitori ai unor idiomuri protoslave, trace tardive "i iranice.
Albanezii trebuie s! e descenden#ii unui grup neslav, de tip tracic tardiv,
mai degrab! de origine nord!dun!rean!, carpic!. Nu trebuie exclus! nici
ipoteza, intens sus#inut! de "coala bulgar! de tracologie, c! albanezii ar
descdenden#ii unor grupuri trace sud!dun!rene.
Asemeni formei "chiau, "chei din romn!, forma albanez! shqip trebuie
s! e perpetuarea aceli forme postclasice Sclavus, Sclavenus ce apare n
documentele byzantine ncepnd cu secolul al VIlea e.n.
Urbs apud Dacoromanos
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
291
Un cuvnt str!vechi ora!

n studiul nostru Civiliza!ia vechilor urbieni din Academica
1
nr. 5/1991 am
propus, ntre altele, o nou! ipotez! privind originea unui cuvnt esen"ial de
civiliza"ie, ora". Studiul respectiv reprezint!, n linii mari, o sintez! a cercet!rilor
noastre n domeniul limbilor #i civiliza"iilor pre-indo-europene. De fapt,
propuneam acolo un nou termen generic care s! caracterizeze ansamblul
culturilor neolitice #i eneolitice din sud-estul european, pornind de la cuvntul
latin ce desemna a#ezarea urban! urbs. n interpretarea noastr!, ce ncerca o
sintez! a cercet!rilor arheologice #i lingistice din ultimele decenii, am c!utat un
nou termen care, pe de o parte, s! surprind! ceea ce era specic acestor culturi
pre-indo-europene, iar pe de alt! parte s! ncerc!m a elimina ambiguitatea unor
termeni ca pre-indo-european ori vechi european (ultimul apar"ine Marijei
Gimbutas, ale c!rei cercet!ri sunt esen"iale). Dat ind c! am propus, en passant,
f!r! o discu"ie aprofundat!, #i o nou! explica"ie a cuvntului romnesc ora", ne
sim"im datori cu cteva preciz!ri.
n mod tradi"ional, dac! ne putem exprima astfel, n explicarea cuvntului
romnesc ora" s-a propus forma maghiar! vros ora#. Odat! ipoteza avansat!
de Cihac, bazndu-se, evident, pe o consonan"! a formei romne#ti #i a celei
maghiare, a fost preluat!, practic, de to"i cercet!torii de prestigiu, neind
contestat! pn! azi (de fapt, pn! la apari"ia studiului nostru amintit mai sus #i,
anterior, ntr-o scurt! not! etimologic! a noastr! din Noi Tracii, februarie 1989).
F!r! ndoial!, nu este, cum am ar!tat #i n alte rnduri, unica explica"ie gre#it!
privitoare la un cuvnt romnesc (vezi o scurt! discu"ie de ansamblu n
Linguistica 31/1991, pp. 99-106 [republicat n acest volum, mai jos: Aperu de la
1
Versiunea romneasc! abreviat! a studiului Paliga 1989 c (republicat n acest
volum, mai sus).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
292
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
293
structure tymologique du roumain]). Dat! ind ns! importan"a acestui cuvnt n
ansamblul lexicului romnesc #i n general, locul termenului care desemneaz!
a#ezarea urban! ntr-o limb! oarecare, o discu"ie de am!nunt este absolut
necesar!. De fapt, exist! p!rerea larg r!spndit! c!, dup! retragerea din Dacia,
romanii au l!sat n urma lor un "inut ce avea s! cunoasc! dec!derea total! a vie"ii
urbane #i, implicit, #i pierderea termenului corespunz!tor din faza str!veche a
romnei, altfel numit! proto-romn! (termenul romna comun!, mult folosit n
unele cercuri, este esen"ialmente incorect, a#adar nu l adopt!m aici). $i totu#i,
datele lingvistice spun altceva. Termenul latin civitatem, de unde provine cetate
(n italian! citt ora#) ne arat! c!, n orice caz, limba romn! a avut cel pu"in un
termen pentru a desemna a#ezarea urban!, n acest caz specializat pentru a
desemna a#ezarea forticat!. De discutat r!mne #i situa"ia formei trg, n mod
tradi"ional considerat! de origine slav!, de#i cuvntul pare mai degrab!
mprumutat de slavi dintr-un idiom sud-est european; n orice caz, illyra ne ofer!
cele mai vechi forme apropiate de sonoritatea cuvntului slav. Dar despre trg
vom vorbi, poate, alt!dat!.
S! ne oprim o clip! asupra originii formei maghiare vros, un derivat din vr
cetate. Ini"ial, n secolul al 19!lea, J. Budenz sugerase o origine ugro-nic! a
formei maghiare, ipotez! abandonat! ulterior. ntr-adev!r, no-ugrienii nu puteau
avea un cuvnt vechi pentru a desemna a#ezarea urban!; nici nlandezii nu au un
asemenea cuvnt str!vechi, ci dou! cuvinte de origine germanic!: kaupunki ora#
#i kauppala, trg, ora#. Finlandeza este un punct de referin"! important,
deoarece este limba vorbit! de un grup nic stabilit n locurile actuale nc! din
primul secol al erei noastre. Ipoteza lui Budenz a fost apoi sprijinit! de Pl
Hunfalvy (ambii au scris n Nyelvtudomnyi kzlemenyek 1/1862 #i respectiv
11/1875). Ipoteza acceptat! actualmente de lingvi#tii maghiari este cea avansat!
de Armin Vmbry n lucrarea sa A magyarok eredete (Originea ungurilor),
Budapesta, 1882, p. 253. Vmbry, care era orientalist, sugerase o explica"ie din
forma persan! bar mprejmuire. Ulterior, s-a abandonat aceast! ipotez!, pentru
a se ncerca o explica"ie prin avestic vara ad!post, form! derivat! din indo-
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
292
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
293
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
294
european *wer- a nchide, a mprejmui. $i a#a, ipoteza ridic! mari probleme,
deoarece un mprumut din avestic! nu poate att de u#or acceptat pentru
maghiar!, cu att mai mult cu ct popula"iile iranice de la nordul M!rii Negre,
ossetinii de pild!, nu cunosc acest cuvnt. Astfel, n ultimul dic"ionar etimologic
al limbii maghiare, cuvntul vros are o etimologie probabil! (Benk% 1967
1980, vol. 3, p. 1090 #i 1093, vr #i vros, cu bibliograa maghiar! a problemei).
A#adar, ipoteza c! forma romneasc! ora" ar de origine maghiar! nu se
bazeaz! deloc pe o demonstra"ie solid!, cu acribia #tiin"ic! de rigoare, ci mai
degrab! pe o ipotez! avansat! faute de mieux, ca n attea alte cazuri n
raporturile romno-maghiare. n plus, exist! n romn! o form! dialectal! ura!,
foarte interesant!, a#a cum vom vedea imediat #i care, oricum, se opune din capul
locului unei ncerc!ri de a salva explica"ia prin maghiar! #i care apar"ine lui Emil
Petrovici (Studii "i cercet#ri "tiin!ice, Ia#i-Bucure#ti, 5, p. 443), care propune o
form! romneasc! veche *u#ra". Dicultatea explica"iei prin maghiar! l-a
determinat #i pe Adrian Riza (Transilvania 1/1983, p. 15) s! propun! o explica"ie
a formei romne#ti prin traco-dac!, din radicalul *wer- amintit mai sus. Din
p!cate, ipoteza sa nu este sus"inut! cu aparatul #tiin"ic necesar (asemeni altor
ncerc!ri ale lui A. Riza), ca atare nu poate citat! dect tot en passant.
TRAC oros, ora, oron. Este adev!rat c! limba trac! ne poate deschide o poart!
spre explicarea cuvntului romnesc ora", ura". Cteva toponime trace sunt, n acest
sens, deosebit de gr!itoare, cum ar Al-oros, Tarp-oron, Cep-ora, Cap-ora, Clev-
ora (pe acesta l-am mai amintit cnd am discutat toponimul Cluj, n nr. 5/1992 al
revistei Academica [republicat n acest volum]), Scap-ora (vezi De&ev 1957: 535).
Aceste atest!ri antice ale unor a#ez!ri trace sunt, credem, gr!itoare. Formele
men"ionate arat! n toponime compuse din dou! elemente, al doilea ind oros,
ora, oron precursorii formelor romne#ti ora", #i -oara (forma din urm! n
toponime precum Timi"-oara). Din punct de vedere al analizei lingvistice, nu ne
este greu s! vedem n atestarea Al-oros o form! compus!, n care al doilea element
nu poate dect str!mo#ul formei moderne ora". Evident, ind vorba de atest!ri n
grae greac! ori latin!, sunetul " nu putea notat ca atare (uneori, n cazuri
asem!n!toare, este notat cu ss, dar nu obligatoriu). Am mai amintit despre atestarea
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
293
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
294
unor forme trace n studiul dedicat toponimului Cluj. n mod asem!n!tor,
forma !ora din atest!rile antice nu poate dect precursorul formei moderne oara,
azi uzual! doar n toponime, desigur din cauza omofoniei cu oar# (din latin hora).
Pe de alt! parte, o form! oar# trebuie admis! ca nc! folosit! n limbajul de zi cu zi
la primele contacte dintre romni #i unguri, a#adar n secolele XXI d. Ch., c!ci din
forma romneasc! oar# ora#, cetate trebuie explicat maghiarul vr cetate, cu
redarea grupului (diftongului) oa (wa) prin maghiar v (ini"ial pronun"at wa). Un
asemenea tratament fonetic este f!r! dicult!"i, conrmat de o form! dialectal!
maghiar! precum vakisa, reex al formei romne#ti oache"#. Forma maghiar! este
vr deoarece, n maghiar!, termina"ia -a, -ja (n armonie vocalic!) folose#te la
construc"ia de tip genitival. Un tratament fonetic asem!n!tor se g!se#te #i n
mprumuturi vechi din romn! n maghiar! precum talp din talp# ori lb din lab#
(uneori considerate a n romn! din maghiar!, n ultimul caz #i din cauza
acelui !b! intervocalic, care este normal n cazul elementelor autohtone traco-dace).
Revenind la situa"ia formelor romne#ti ora" (dialectal #i ura") #i oara cetate,
ora#, ele ne apar acum cu deosebit! claritate, a perpetua cuvinte din fondul autohton
traco-dac. n studiul amintit, dedicat civiliza"iei vechilor urbieni, am discutat familia
etimologic! n care ncadram formele romne#ti #i traco-dace, anume radicalul pre-
indo-european (urbian) *OR-/*UR- mare, nalt, uria#. Nu putem relua aici
discu"ia. Rezum!m situa"ia n tabelul al!turat, care include #i o serie de toponime
romne#ti. Nu ne propunem s! facem aici discu"ii detaliate pentru ecare caz n
parte; de altfel, consider!m c! ncadrarea etimologic! reiese cu deosebit! claritate
din tabel. Observ!m totu#i paralela, gr!itoare, ora"/ura" uria"/oria". Cuvntul
uria", termen esen"ial n basmele romne#ti, este un cuvnt str!vechi ale c!rui
r!d!cini coboar! spre zorii civiliza"iei vechilor urbieni.

Academica 2, 10 (22, 1992): 25.
Not! nal!. Pentru a urm!ri ncadrarea etimologic! a formelor ora", ura", uria",
oria", a se vedea acum A Pre-Indo-European Lexicon, radical *OR-, *UR-,
republicat n primul volum al acestei serii, n Addenda.
Toponymia archaica Dacoromani
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
295
Toponimia arhaic! a Romniei
n num!rul 5(17) al Academicii am ncercat s! expun ct mai coerent
ipoteza privind originea autohton!, traco-dac!, a toponimuli Cluj, la origine
un antroponim ce calchiaz! numele latin Claudius. Tot cu aceast! ocazie am
sugerat c! ntr-o situa"ie asem!n!toare se a! #i toponimul Blaj, la origine
tot un antroponim traco-dac. Dat ind c! ipoteza noastr! difer! radical de
altele avansate pn! acum, cred c! se impun cteva preciz!ri.
Cercetarea onomasticii romne#ti domeniu complex, dicil #i, n
general, evitat de cercet!tori a ocolit, a# zice sistematic, problema mereu
actual! a mo#tenirii autohtone. Este adev!rat, lucrurile nu snt deloc u#oare,
deoarece avem de cercetat inuen"a asupra limbii romne a unui idiom
neatestat n scris, traco-dac!. Cu toate acestea, cred c! cercet!rile bat prea
mult pasul pe loc, nu att din lipsa unor date concrete (exist! un inventar
valoros, nc! pu"in exploatat, al numelor #i denumirilor trace din
antichitate), ct mai ales deoarece cuvntul tracologie a fost mereu
nconjurat de conota"ii ciudate (m! refer, n primul rnd, la tracologia v!zut!
din perspectiv! lingvistic!, tracologia arheologic! pentru a o numi a#a
avnd certe #i valoroase rezultate). Pur #i simplu majoritatea covr#itoare a
lingvi#tilor ocolesc problema mo#tenirii autohtone, pe care o arunc! undeva,
ntr-o gr!din! necunoscut! a c!l!toriilor n viitor. n asemenea condi"ii nu
este de mirare c! cercetarea toponimiei arhaice, strns legat! de progrese n
domeniul tracologiei, are #i ea o situa"ie deloc fericit!. Este semnicativ de
observat c! la ultimele dou! symposioane de onomastic!, organizate la
ecare trei ani la Cluj, a#adar n 1987 #i n 1990, nici un cercet!tor nu a
abordat frontal problema toponimiei str!vechi a Romniei. La edi"ia din
1987 a acestui symposion am prezentat o prim! versiune a studiului privind
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
296
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
297
toponimul Cluj. Studiul nu a putut ap!rea atunci, ca #i cum a studia
mo#tenirea autohton! traco-dac! face parte din categoria ac"iunilor de
destabilizare a statului!
Am f!cut aceast! parantez! pentru a sublinia, o dat! n plus, situa"ia
aproape disperat! n care se a! cercet!torul tracolog, lipsa unor cercet!ri
ample, coerente, ce ar trebui s! duc! la crearea unei #coli na"ionale de
tracologie, a#a cum s-a ntmplat n Bulgaria. Este pur #i simplu inadmisibil
ca atunci cnd vorbim despre inuen"a limbii trace asupra limbii romne, s!
ne referim mereu la cele vreo 180 de cuvinte analizate demult, de Cicerone
Poghirc #i de I. I. Russu. n ce prive#te toponimia, situa"ia este nc! mai
confuz!, confuzie accentuat! #i de arma"ia ciudat! #i paradoxal! a lui I. I.
Russu, conform c!reia n Romnia nu ar exista toponime str!vechi
autohtone. Cercetarea atent! a faptelor inrm! acest lucru. Astfel, nc! din
1986 (n Tribuna, nr. 8 din 20 februarie) am analizat dintr-o alt! perspectiv!
toponimul Ardeal #i care, n ciuda unei ipoteze de larg! difuzie, nu poate
proveni din maghiar Erdly, ci reect! o construc"ie de tip *ar-deal peste
deal sau peste p!duri, construc"ie calchiat! att din forma latin! medieval!
Trans-silvania #i de cea german! ber-wald (ulterior nlocuit! de forma
Siebenbrgen), ct #i de cea maghiar! Erdly din erd! p!dure #i o particul!
aglutinat!, procedeu de derivare specic maghiarei.
Problema major! nu este ns!, cum s-ar p!rea, a demonstra imposibilitatea
deriv!rii formei romne#ti Ardeal (Ar-deal) din Erdly (care este, totu#i,
evident!), ci n a analiza ct de ct coerent etimologia lui deal (foarte frecvent
n toponimia romneasc!) #i a explica modalitatea de compunere de tip
*ar!deal, este drept rar!, dar cu att mai interesant!. Nu putem intra aici n
am!nunte, deoarece acest lucru ar nsemna s! transcriem cele scrise n 1986.
Foarte pe scurt, deal este un cuvnt str!vechi, autohton, dintr-un fond pre-indo-
european bine reprezentat n sud-estul european.
ncerc!rile de a aborda onomastica romneasc!, #i n special toponimia,
unde apreciez c! cercet!rile viitoare vor revela fapte de-a dreptul incredibile
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
296
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
297
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
298
pentru unii (n sensul persisten"ei #i ponderii apreciabile a fondului traco-
dac n conturarea prolului limbii romne), m-au condus #i la elaborarea
unui sistem propriu, ct se poate de simplu, dar ecient, de clasicare a
denumirilor, cu speran"a c! el va putea 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 dicil al cercet!rii). Fire#te, amintesc faptul c! exist!
sisteme sosticate de clasicare a toponimiei (cum ar cel propus de
Vladimir $milauer n Handbuch der slavischen Toponomastik), pe care le
g!sesc nc! nejusticat de complicate #i, ca atare, lipsite de calitatea
indispensabil! unei clasic!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 justic! diferen"ierea unei ape curg!toare (pru, ru, uviu) 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. uminis: 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
298
Desigur, clasicarea se poate extinde, att pe vertical! ct #i pe orizontal!,
dar, a#a cum am precizat, consider!m c! un sistem de clasicare prea
sosticat risc! s! #i piard! din manevrabilitate, ca s! m! exprim astfel.
Not! octombrie 2006.
Volumul I al acestei serii, Dic"ionarul etimologic al elementelor
autohtone (traco!dace) ale limbii romne, cuprinde o ampl! list! a
toponimiei arhaice a Romniei. Nu este o list! complet!, desigur, dar
include majoritatea formelor relevante unui demers etimologic complex.
n acela#i volum, n Addenda, snt incluse liste toponimice #i
antroponimice relevante demersului nostru, respectiv glosare cuprinz!toare
ale toponimelor arhaice, trace #i ilire, din zona sud!slav!.
Taba/Teba, Dava/Deva
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
299
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#
n ultimul num!r al publica"iei THRACO!DACICA (tomul XXII, 12,
2001), colegul Adrian Poruciuc provoac! o discu"ie interesant! despre dava/
deva cetate (n trac!) #i apoi despre ntr!adev!r larg r!spnditele forme
derivate de la un radical (pre!indo!european mediteraneean) *TAB!, c!ruia
i g!se#te coresponden"e n egiptean! (egipteana veche). F!r! ndoial!, are
dreptate atunci cnd consider! toponimul Deva ca reectnd tr. deva,
asemeni ntre altele toponimului bulgar Plovdiv: printr!o destul de
complicat! evolu"ie fonetic!, explicat! conving!tor de Ivan Duridanov
(1986, 1989, 1995), ultimamente din tr. Pulpu!deva, la rndul s!u un calc
dup! Philippo!polis ora#ul/cetatea lui Filip.
n rndurile de mai jos ne!am propus s! relu!m discu"ia (nceput! n
urm! cu ani mul"i #i, de atunci ncoace, mereu discutat!, n diverse ocazii)
privind:
1. Evolu"ia fonetic! aparte a unor foneme autohtone traco!dace, specic
situa"ia fonemelor b/v #i l n pozi"ie intervocalic! (cum este #i n cazul Deva
#i nc! n multe alte cazuri).
2. Situa"ia formelor derivate de la radicalul pre!indo!european *TAB!/
*TAP! #i perpetuarea sa n cteva forme romne#ti, toponime #i nu numai.
Noi am numit cndva acest strat lingvistic urbian, dat ind c!
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
300
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
301
pre!indo!european ori mediteraneean sufer! de imprecizie #i poate
genera confuzii. Deni"ia dat! de noi atunci (Paliga 1989, apoi reluat! n
cteva rnduri: Paliga 1991, 1992 a, b) era c! acel strat lingvistic etichetat
pre!indo!european ori, uneori, mediteraneean trebuie s! e acel strat
lingvistic ce corespunde revolu"iei neolitice, cu alte cuvinte reect! acele
idiomuri, probabil nrudite, ce s!au vorbit n sud!estul european #i, gradual,
n alte p!r"i ale Europei de sud #i centrale nainte de venirea
indo!europenilor. Am folosit termenul urbian derivat de la latin urbs, urbis
pe care l putem considera generic #i reprezentativ, ca termen, pentru acel
strat lingvistic. Este posibil, chiar probabil, ca acest fond urbian s! aib!
puncte comune cu fondul pre!semit, circum!mediteraneean. De altfel, spre o
atare ipotez! converg #i teoriile altor lingvi#ti #i ar n acord cu cercet!rile
arheologice: rsp!ndirea revolu"iei neolitice dinspre Anatolia spre vest
(sud!estul european) #i spre estsud!est (Fertila Semilun!, Orientul
Apropiat #i Mijlociu, zona maghrebian!).
3. Teoria protoboreal! (Andreev 1986, 1986 a, 1987) #i implica"iile sale
pentru studierea ansamblului lingvistic euro!asiatic reprezentat de grupurile
indo!european, uralic, altaic #i coreean, inclusiv pentru tracologie precum #i
pentru alte limbi vechi din zona sud!est european!.
Facem acest lucru din cel pu"in trei motive:
1. Pentru a sus"ine, cel pu"in par"ial, cele spuse de colegul Adrian
Poruciuc, de#i nu citeaz! cteva lucr!ri esen"iale n domeniu #i altele
neesen"iale; n aceast! ultim! categorie voi aminti #i cteva studii ale
noastre, e #i numai pentru bun! regul!. Sper c! rndurile noastre vor
n"elese n bunul sens al emula"iei #tiin"ice (disputatio linguistica), nu al
unei (de altfel inutile) disputatio personalis.
2. Pentru a sus"ine ntr!adev!r originea str!veche, pre!indo!european!,
posibil circum!mediteranean!, am zice originea urbian#, a formelor
derivate de la radicalul *TAB!/*TEB!.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
300
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
301
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
302
3. Pentru a pleda n favoarea unei $coli romne!ti de tracologie
lingvistic#, absolut necesar! unei coeren"e minimale n domeniu #i pentru a
atinge, e #i mai trziu, nivelul coeren"ei atins de $coala bulgar! de
tracologie. O citez pe aceasta numai din simplul motiv c! vestigiile directe,
str!vechi, ale tracilor sunt mo#tenite preponderent nu ns! exclusiv de
limba romn! #i de limba bulgar!. Ar trebui s! citez aici, desigur, #i limba
albanez!, dar aici persist! nc! discu"ii, uneori aprinse, privind caracterul
neo!trac sau neo!ilir ale acestei limbi. Noi credem n acord cu tot mai
mul"i cercet!tori n ultimii ani c! albaneza este un idiom neo!trac, nu
neo!ilir. Aceasta nu nseamn! c! nu ar putut mo#teni, eventual, cteva
elemente ilire. Dac!, a#adar, accept!m ipoteza c! limba albanez! este un
idiom neo!trac, atunci fraza de mai sus trebuie reformulat! astfel: romna,
albaneza #i bulgara sunt mo#tenitoarele principale ale fondului trac, n
propor"ii #i n situa"ii diferite, care trebuie analizate #i discutate ca atare.
Nu trebuie a ne nici jen!, nici team! n a recunoa#te c! vecinii bulgari
au reu#it, nu f!r! eforturi conjugate de!a lungul deceniilor, s! njghebe mai
devreme dect noi o #coal! de tracologie lingvistic!. Cu mhnire constat c!
lingvi#tii romni (nc!) nu au reu#it acest lucru, n ciuda str!lucitului nceput
proto!cronic reprezentat de Hasdeu la nal de secol XIX. Tot cu mhnire
constat c! nc! prea multe abord!ri lingvistice de la noi, mai ales n
domeniul etimologiei, reect! mai degrab! un stadiu pre!hasdeuan.
Tracologia, mai ales tracologia lingvistic!, reprezint! la noi, mai degrab!, o
zon! periferic! a cercet!rii lingvistice comparate, cu consecin"e directe sau
indirecte pentru nivelul cercet!rii comparatiste n general. Pentru mul"i
lingvi#ti de la noi, tracologia lingvistic! este, mai degrab!, un soi de hobby,
o zon! a teribilismului lingvistic, nu cum este la vecinii bulgari, la care
sunt nevoit s! revin o disciplin! studiat! la nivel de catedr! universitar!.
De altfel, unele dintre aceste aspecte le!am atins #i n studiul publicat n
acela#i num!r al publica"iei THRACO!DACICA, n limba englez!, cteva
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
301
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
302
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
303
pagini mai ncolo de amintitul studiu al colegului Adrian Poruciuc. De ast!
dat! folosim limba romn!: am avut tot mai acut senza"ia c! marile
probleme ale mo#tenirii arhaice a limbii romne sunt, de acum, mult mai
clare cercet!torilor din alte "!ri, inclusiv celor din Bulgaria, din Serbia, din
Croa"ia, din Slovenia etc. (pentru a cita doar "!ri vecine sau aate n
imediata proximitate), relativ clare ori m!car mai clare lor dect nou!. Cu
ocazia bursei de doctorat de la Ljubljana (octombrie!decembrie 1993) am
putut constata c! lingvi#tii str!ini discutau de prin anii 50 ai secolului 20
despre fondul pre!indo!european (cum ar nc! nedep!#ita lucrare a lui
Skok, 1950). Nici una dintre lucr!rile romne#ti publicate n acea perioad!
#i cu totul excep"ional dup! aceea, pn! n zilele noastre nu fac referire la
fondul pre!indo!european #i de asemenea rar la fondul, ceva mai mult
studiat, indo!european.
Observ tangent, dar semnicativ c! limba romn# este singura
limb# romanic# f#r# un dic"ionar etimologic corespunz#tor (ceea ce nu
nseamn! c! n!ar fost tentative, unele de!a dreptul l!udabile); #i,
continund, una dintre pu"inele limbi europene f!r! un asemenea dic"ionar
etimologic. Amintesc faptul c! limbi precum engleza sau franceza au cteva
asemenea dic"ionare etimologice, ceha are deja trei dic"ionare etimologice,
elaborate de autori diferi"i #i publicate n repetate edi"ii; slovena are deja
dou! dic"ionare etimologice etc. Situa"ia, jenant! sau penibil!, reect!
cred o anume nclinare spre fatalism lingvistic: limba romn! este grea,
foarte grea, pur #i simplu nu putem p!trunde sensul sutelor, miilor de
cuvinte de origine necunoscut!. Regretatul Ariton Vraciu (1984) consider!
c! ar peste 4000 (patru mii) de cuvinte romne#ti de origine necunoscut!.
Nu #tiu care a fost criteriul folosit n aceast! evaluare, iar num!rul ar putea
exagerat: s!au num!rat numai r!d!cinile sau #i derivatele?
1
Poate sunt numai
1
Reamintim observa"ia dintr!un studiu anterior: DEX folose#te calicativul et.
nec. de 1220 de ori, cu precizarea c! et. nec. nu este deloc sinonim cu element
autohton traco!dac.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
302
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
303
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
304
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, dicultatea 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 lier! 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! arme, e #i m!car ca principiu provizoriu de lucru,
c! majoritatea acestor forme ar trebui s! e 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 de origine albanez!. De altfel, nu lipsesc chiar n
lucr!ri de prestigiu ipotezele conform c!rora ar 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! 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, e c! spunem/scriem c! sunt (s! zicem)
patru mii de tracisme ori dou! mii de tracisme #i vreo cteva sute de
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
303
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
304
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
305
slavisme. Din punct de vedere tipologic, limba romn! r!mne aceea#i
limb! romanic! dac! spunem c! are n jur de 2200 r!d!cini latine, 200 de
r!d!cini traco!dace #i cteva sute/mii de cuvinte a c!ror origine nu poate
stabilit!; sau dac! spunem c! are 2200 de r!d!cini latine, 4000 de r!d!cini
probabil/posibil autohtone (traco!dace).
Dup! aceste oarecum nervoase #i, inevitabil, polemice cuvinte de
nceput, ncerc!m s! trecem n revist! marile probleme ale etimologiei
limbii romne #i, poate, s! ncerc!m a r!spunde la ntrebarea de ce limba
romn! nc! nu are un dic"ionar etimologic corespunz!tor, n ciuda a
numeroase tentative, ncepnd cu Cihac #i pn! n zilele noastre, cu
ndelung elaboratul peste decenii #i nenalizatul dic"ionar etimologic
sub egida Institutului de Lingvistic!.
mi imaginez zmbetul ironic al multor lingvi#ti romni ori de cte ori
vine vorba de tracologie, de fondul proto!boreal (n sensul denit de
lingvistul rus N. D. Andreev, vezi mai jos pe scurt #i, pe larg, n lucrarea
noastr! pentru Congresul Interna"ional al Slavi#tilor, Ljubljana, 1521
august 2003) ori de fondul pre!indo!european (urbian n terminologia
noastr!). Nu vreau s! accentuez inutil aceast! realitate. Observ doar
consecin"a clar! #i inevitabil! a acestui tip de abordare: lipsa unui dic"ionar
etimologic al limbii romne. $i, dac! mi se permite o anticipare, cu
asemenea tip de abordare, acest dic"ionar nici nu va ap!rea prea curnd: c!ci
un dic"ionar etimologic unde apar mii de cuvinte neexplicate nu este un
dic"ionar etimologic. Iar un adev!rat dic"ionar etimologic al limbii romne
nu va putea ap!rea atta timp ct nu se vor clarica problemele legate, n
principal (c!ci acolo este marea problem!!), de mo#tenirea autohton!:
mo#tenirea proto!boreal!, mo#tenirea pre!indo!european!, toponimia
arhaic!, inuen"a (profund! a) limbii romne asupra limbilor vecine (slave
#i maghiara), mult mai mare dect se consider! n mod uzual (reiau aici
acuta observa"ie a lui Bonfante; studiul respectiv a ap!rut ini"ial n limba
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
304
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
305
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
306
italian! n anul 1966, retip!rit n Studii romne 2001; desigur, titlul edi"iei
romne#ti ar trebuit s! e *Studii de limba romn! sau, eventual, *Studii
romne"ti). $i ar mai trebui claricate alte cteva probleme conexe, legate
de inuen"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 ind 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 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! e 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 neconving!toare (#i incorecte) asemenea
tentative? Deoarece au f#cut, fac !i vor face confuzia ntre liter# !i sunet
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
305
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
306
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
307
(fonem)! Orict ar p!rea de banal! (unui lingvist) aser"iunea c! litera #i
sunetul (fonemul) sunt dou! lucruri diferite, mult prea adesea aceast!
confuzie s!a f!cut, mai ales atunci cnd s!a studiat fondul autohton.
ncerc!m s! explic!m acest lucru mai departe.
Situa"ia special! a fonemelor b, v #i l n pozi"ie intervocalic! precum #i n
pozi"ii speciale, cum ar b/v + r, apoi c!derea lor (b/v) respectiv rotacizarea
(l) sunt fenomene specice NUMAI latinei colocviale, nu #i elementelor
autohtone ale romnei. De ce? R!spunsul este dezarmant de simplu:
deoarece era deja o tendin"! a latinei postclasice, iar Dacia ultima cucerit!
reect! cel mai bine aceast! tendin"!, cvasigeneral! n romn!, cu cteva
excep"ii: avem, ave#i (poate sub inuen"a unor forme similare n trac!?),
uger < lat. uber (deci lat. b intervocalic > rom. $) etc. N NICI UN
CUVNT IDENTIFICABIL CA AUTOHTON TRACO!DAC ACEAST&
EVOLU'IE NU ESTE NTLNIT&. Repet!m exemple oferite de
cercet!tori n domeniu (Gr. Brncu#, n principal, c!ruia i revine meritul de
a aduce dovezi n anii din urm!), pe care noi doar le prelu!m: c!ciul! ! alb.
ksul; abur ! alb. avull (unde r din romn! este mai vechi dect alb. ll);
abe" etc. Acestea par a , deocamdat!, elementele autohtone nelipsite din
listele minimale ale mo#tenirii autohtone.
Ne gr!bim s! ad!ug!m alte exemple care dovedesc faptul c!, n cazul
elementelor autohtone, b/v #i l intervocalice nu dispar, respectiv nu
rotacizeaz! (toponimele citate sunt trace #i/sau ilire): Deva bulg. Plovdiv;
Ibru bulg. Ib!r, srb Ibar (#i aici, n romn! ar trebuit s! dispar! b n
secven"a b!r!, dac! ar fost s! aplic!m automat legile evolu"iei de la latin!
la romn!); Chilia bulg. Kilia (antic Coelia) sloven Celje (n romn!,
prin etimologie popular!, asociat formei chilie) etc. Nu continu!m lista,
mult mai lung! (vezi lucr!rile noastre citate mai jos). Am insistat #i vom
insista asupra toponimiei, deoarece de aici pot veni numeroase #i pre"ioase
observa"ii privind mo#tenirea autohton!. Ni s!a p!rut #i ni se pare de!a
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
306
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
307
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
308
dreptul inacceptabil! absen"a sistematic! a numeroaselor toponime
autohtone din listele uzuale de elemente autohtone (exceptnd listele
ntocmite de Poghirc 1969 #i de Iv!nescu 1980, incomplete; vezi recent
Paliga 2002, de asemenea incomplet!, unde ns! includem multe forme noi,
absente n lucr!rile precedente).
A#adar, Deva este doar una dintre numeroasele forme topice absente din
listele uzuale ale mo#tenirii autohtone. Mai important ni se pare acum s!
ncerc!m, pe baza situa"iilor tot mai clare, o sistematizare a situa"iilor
analizate ori analizabile n viitor #i, astfel, s! ncerc!m o reconstruc"ie
probabil! ori m!car plauzibil! a evolu"iilor fonetice. Ni se pare clar c!
evolu"ia fonetic! n cazul mo#tenirii autohtone nu urmeaz! totdeauna legile
stabilite prin analizarea mo#tenirii latine.
Am men"ionat mai sus cazul fonemelor b, v, l n pozi"ie intervocalic!.
Trebuie s! ad!ug!m aici situa"ia fonemului h. n ultimele studii publicate,
Gr. Brncu# a dus argumente clare c!, n unele cazuri, acesta este mo#tenit
din substrat. De altfel, limbile mprumut! cuvinte, nu foneme. Dac! un
fonem este absent n limba care mprumut!, acesta este aproximat unui
fonem/sunet existent.
Situa"ia lui h n romn! ni se pare mult mai interesant!. A#a cum ar!tam
n studiul publicat n Thraco!Dacica XXII, n unele forme autohtone, h, f,
probabil #i v, reect! o mai veche laringal! (Andreev, vorbind de fondul
proto!boreal, o nume#te, mai corect, spirant! velar!). Nu #tim pn! cnd a
supravie"uit acest sunet n trac!. Este posibil s! existat nc! n
proto!romn! #i este de asemenea posibil s! existat nc! la ora cnd slavii
au convie"uit cu proto!romnii n secolele VIVIII. Forme precum a hali,
h!mesit (alb. ha, hams), a hui/a vui (considerat onomatopeic n DEX, dar
avnd paralele n alte limbi indo!europene #i uralice), v!taf/v!tah (srb
vatak) #i nc! alte forme greu analizabile, este drept, cum ar a puf!i/a
puh!i n. puhua a vorbi (< a arunca aer pe gur!; forme admirabil
analizate de Andreev); Ceahl!u v. ceaf!/ alb. qaf (#i cu sensul toponimic
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
307
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
308
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
309
ceafa dealului/muntelui), %ech, %echy ceh, Cehia etc. (pe larg n
lexiconul D din Paliga 2006 b: 319 sq., unde compar!m formele %ech ceh,
%echy Cehia de ceaf! bine reprezentat #i n toponimia minor! a
Romniei , Ceahl!u, alb. qaf, cu alternan"a f/h pe care noi o consider!m
reexul unei str!vechi spirante velare, altfel numit!, simplicator, laringal!).
Nu este locul s! extindem exemplele. Vom dori s! facem acest lucru n
lucrarea pentru Congresul de Tracologie de la Chi#in!u, 2004, al!turi de
considera"ii de ansamblu #i de un tabel privind evolu"ia fonetic! (probabil!
ori m!car posibil!) n cazul elementelor autohtone fa"! de cele de origine
latin!. Deocamdat!, dorim s! ridic!m cteva probleme, esen"iale,
preg!titoare spre elaborarea unui dic"ionar etimologic al limbii romne. Am
dori doar s! preciz!m c! autorul acestor rnduri nu este neap!rat adeptul
teoriei nostratice (termen folosit de Illy(!Svity(), cu alte vorbe teoria care
presupune originea comun! a tuturor limbilor lumii. Acest lucru este posibil,
deocamdat! nedemonstrabil. Noi spunem doar, n acord cu mul"i cercet!tori
ai domeniului (nu neap!rat majoritari, c!ci n cercetare rezultatele nu se
supun votului popular), c! limba romn! este mo#tenitoarea unui bogat,
str!vechi #i fascinant strat lingvistic preroman ce trebuie analizat cu rigoarea
necesar! dac! dorim s! aducem lingvistica romneasc! la nivelul cerut de
mileniul al treilea al erei noastre.
TAB!/TAB!/TAP!/TAP! !i despre fondul egeo!egiptean
Adrian Poruciuc provoac!, n amintitul articol, #i o discu"ie privind
rela"iile posibile dintre mo#tenirea autohton! (traco!dac!) #i fondul egiptean.
Aceasta este concluzia spre care tinde r!sfoind o edi"ie recent! a unui
dic"ionar al limbii egiptene. $i aici are dreptate, uitnd ns! s! citeze dou!
lucr!ri fundamentale (dup! #tiin"a noastr! singurele n limba romn!)
datorate regretatului Gheorghe Mu#u: Lumini din dep!rt!ri (1981) #i Voci
din dep!rt!ri (1995, ap!rut! postum). Gheorghe Mu#u a scris numai n
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
308
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
309
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
310
limba romn! #i, ca atare, este complet necunoscut cercet!torilor str!ini. Cu
repetat! mhnire constat c! nu este cunoscut nici cercet!torilor romni,
primii care sub specie morali ar trebuit s!!l citeze. mi fac datoria de a
prezenta, pe scurt, doar cele dou! lucr!ri citate, cel pu"in din dou! motive:
(1) reprezint! o culme a #tiin"ei (e #i nsingurate) de la noi; (2) deschid larg
por"ile n"elegerii complexelor fenomene ce au stat la baza apari"iei marilor
civiliza"ii neolitice #i eneolitice din sud!estul european (inclusiv de pe
teritoriul Romniei) precum #i a rolului acestora n evolu"iile ulterioare dup!
indo!europenizare.
n Lumini din dep!rt!ri, Gh. Mu#u prezint! pas cu pas zeit!"ile mai
mari #i mai mici ale grecilor: Ath&na, Tr't(n, H&ra, H&r(es, Dionysos,
Odysseus/Olysseus, )ri(n etc. Este, ntr!adev!r, o carte dicil!. Este ns!, n
acela#i timp, marea deschidere spre civiliza"iile neolitice #i spre limbile ce
se vor vorbit atunci, acum mai bine de cinci!#ase mii de ani. Este pentru
prima oar! cnd se abordeaz! o asemenea tem! n cultura romn!,
deocamdat! neegalat! nici la noi, nici m! ncumet s! scriu nici n alte
p!r"i ale lumii.
Voci din dep!rt!ri apare postum (n 1995). Aici, pornind de la principiile
#i de la stilul folosit #i expus n Lumini din dep!rt!ri, Mu#u abordeaz!
nc! #i mai dicila problem! a fondului pre!indo!european n rela"ie cu cel
pre!semit, analiznd zeci de forme #i aducnd argumente c! trebuie s!
existat un str!vechi fond circum!mediteraneean, pre!indo!european #i
pre!semit totodat!. Teoria sa, a#a cum scriam mai sus, este n acord cu
ipotezele arheologice privind r!spndirea revolu"iei neolitice dinspre
Anatolia spre vest #i spre estsud!est. Lucrare iar!#i f!r! egal n cultura
romn! #i, din cte #tim, neegalat! nici prin alte p!r"i ale lumii. Despre
Theba, Teba n spa"iile italic, illyr, egeean #i egiptean scrie la pp. 128 #i
urm!toarele, inclusiv despre rela"ia T(h)eba Taphos.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
309
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
310
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
311
Desigur, ne vin imediat n minte posibilele rela"ii cu formele romne#ti
*ebea, *ible" apoi Tmpa; de asemenea cu toponimul Tapia, T!pia (antic
Tapae), de#i cu atestare trzie #i b!nuit a o recrea"ie cult! dup! modelul
antic (de#i C. Poghirc nu nclin! spre o asemenea ipotez!). $i noi credem c!
formele romne#ti (cu sau f!r! T!pia pe list!) sunt nrudite cu cele antice #i
reect! o perpetuare continu! a unor forme trace, cu acela#i fenomen al
p!str!rii nealterate a lui b intervocalic n cazul *ebea #i, posibil, cu
nazalizare n secven"a * t+p!a > Tmpa: presupunem, a#a cum ne las! s!
credem alte exemple, c! #i traca va avut o vocal! neutr! similar! ori
identic! celei romne#ti !, celei bulg!re#ti ! precum #i celei albaneze .
Totu#i, Tmpa ar putea derivat din radicalul pre!indo!european urbian
*T!N!p!; n orice caz, vechimea oronimului ni se pare clar!.
Am ntocmit cu ani n urm! (1998) un lexicon minimal pre!indo!european
(urbian) pornind de la datele deja accesibile n anii 80, cnd a fost elaborat
n bun! parte, #i nu ezitam s! consider!m acolo c! ntr!adev!r formele *ebea,
*ible", T!pia sunt autohtone, ba nc! de origine pre!indo!european!. Am
republicat studiul un an mai trziu ntr!un volum de sintez!, c!ci astfel
ziceam noi lucrurile puse (bine) laolalt! pot mai conving!toare. Cteva
exemplare au ajuns #i la Ia#i #i avem speran"a c!, m!car n unele cazuri, au fost
#i citite. Scriam, a#adar, n studiul amintit (n englez!):
[radical pre!indo!european] *T!P!, *T!B! projection;
peak [proeminen"!, culme, pisc]
[trac] Tapae
[romn] T!pia and tipie hill; #eap! thorn and a n#epa to sting; #ipar
eel; #ap he!goat (after the thorn!like beard) [adic! numele "apului este
luat de la forma de "eap! a b!rbu"ei dumisale]; NM (nume de munte) *ible",
NL (nume de loc) *ebea; NL *ibana; NP (nume de persoan!) *ibuleac etc.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
310
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
311
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
312
Etc. din nal 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! 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 nal, 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
ntmpl!toare, dup! cum nu credem a ntmpl!toare paralele precum:
romn! lituanian!
doin!, dain! daina
erete erelis vultur, acvil!
"o ,uo cine etc.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
311
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
312
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
313
Revenind la formele dava/deva rom. Deva bulgar Plovdiv etc., noi
credem c! etimonul corect este cel sugerat #i argumentat de Wilhelm
Tomaschek n 18931894: i.!e. *dh&!, *dh&!w!-; iar acesta, din cte putem
noi observa, nu are nimic de a face cu radicalul pre!indo!european
(urbian) #i, posibil, pre!semit *TAB!, *TEB!.
Teoria proto!boreal# !i teoria nostratic#
Pe scurt, teoria nostratic! (termen lansat de lingvistul rus Illi(!Svity()
presupune originea comun! a tuturor limbilor globului. De#i acest lucru este
sau poate eventual posibil, pn! a ajunge la o coeren"! conving!toare, de
sistem lingvistic, ni se par mai utili pa#ii m!run"i. n acest sens suntem mai
degrab! nclina"i s! cit!m remarcabila lucrare a lui N. D. Andreev (1986),
completat! cu dou! studii ap!rute imediat dup! publicarea lucr!rii de baz!
(Andreev 1986 a, 1987). Acolo Andreev aduce n discu"ie 203 radicali primari
proto!boreali, respectiv 203 r!d!cini comune limbilor indo!europene, uralice
#i altaice. Ulterior, n studiile amintite, adaug! aici #i forme coreene, a#adar
ind adeptul teoriei (sus"inut! de unii lingvi#ti) c! limba coreean! ar derivat!
din ramura Man(ur!Tungus! a limbilor altaice. Despre o origine str!veche
comun! a limbilor ap!rute cndva n arealul nord!ponticbalticuralic
scriseser! #i al"i lingvi#ti, cum ar slovenul Bojan )op. Este ns! pentru prima
oar! cnd se reu#e#te o discu"ie coerent! #i, n mare parte cel pu"in plauzibil!,
despre nrudirea str!veche (ce ar corespunde fazei mezolitice) a celor trei mari
grupuri lingvistice: indo!european, uralic #i altaic.
Despre teoria lui Andreev, de o mare importan"! pentru reconstituirea limbilor
str!vechi din Europa de est, n contrast cu limbile neoliticului egeo!carpato!adriatic,
ce reect! n esen"! un alt grup lingvistic, probabil nrudit cu cel pre!semit (#i
care corespunde marilor culturi neolitice sud!est europene, inclusiv despre teritoriul
Romniei) vom prezenta o ampl! comunicare la Congresul Interna"ional al
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
312
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
313
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
314
Slavi#tilor (Ljubljana, august 2003). Aici dorim doar s! subliniem c! perspectiva
deschis! de Andreev claric! numeroase probleme legate de marile grupuri
culturale #i lingvistice ale mezoliticului #i neoliticului nord!ponticuralic, despre
rela"iile dintre cele trei mari grupuri lingvistice amintite #i n contrast cu grupurile
neo!eneolitice ale sud!estului european. Noi consider!m c! anii ce vin vor clarica
multe detalii, completnd #i eventual corectnd unele date prezentate de
Andreev. Pentru tracologie, teoria lui Andreev are o importan"! aparte, deoarece
claric! dac! nu explicit, n orice caz implicit sau prin reex unele date obscure
privind caracterul arhaic al tracei, n dubla sa calitate de mo#tenitoare a str!vechiului
fond pre!indo!european #i a celui mai nou, intrusiv, imigrat cel indo!european.
Analiza comparat! #i contrastiv! a celor dou! mari areale etno!culturale
(proto!boreal #i urbian pre!indo!european) va aduce noi date utile, unele
inevitabile, elabor!rii mult a#teptatului dic"ionar etimologic al limbii romne.
Concluzii
Nu am dorit aici s! arunc!m o provocare colegilor de breasl!. Am dorit doar s!
atragem aten"ia asupra complexit!"ii problemei fondului autohton, asupra frumuse"ii
limbii romne #i, mai ales, asupra faptului c! ne trebuie coren"! n analiza
lingvistic!. Apoi, trebuie s! facem eforturi conjugate pentru nchegarea unei #coli
na"ionale de tracologie lingvistic!. Am sugera organizarea unui simpozion na"ional
sau interna"ional pe aceast! tem!, unde aspectele lingvistice ale tracologiei s! e
preponderent analizate, apoi interdisciplinaritatea tracologiei: arheologii, lingvi#tii,
folclori#tii, etnologii, muzicologii componentele esen"iale ale acelei #coli
romne#ti de tracologie ce ncepe s! prind! contur. n m!sura n care dorim
conjugarea unor eforturi na"ionale spre coeren"! #i competen"! #tiin"ic!, va trebui
s! ajungem e #i mai trziu la ideea c! tracologia nu mai este pasiunea ctorva
lingvi#ti, ci o disciplin! n sine ce va trebui studiat! n cadrul unor catedre la marile
universit!"i din Romnia. F!r! o asemenea abordare #i f!r! un asemenea demers,
tracologia va r!mne mereu un domeniu marginal, nu unul esen"ial al culturii,
civiliza"iei #i tradi"iei noastre dup! cum se cuvine.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
313
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
314
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.
III
En franais
Gallice
Deus supremus Dacorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
317

La divinit suprme des Thraco-daces
Et reuerberasti inrmitatem aspectus mei radians in me uehementer,
et contremui amore et horrore: et inueni longe me esse a te in regione
dissimilitudinis, tamquam audirem uocem tuam de excelso...
(Confessiones 7, X, 16)
Lanalyse comparative des donnes mythologiques, linguistiques et
archologiques concernant la divinit suprme des Thraces nordiques, les
Thraco-daces
1
, a offert un sujet intressant, parfois passionnant, souvent
passionnel, dinvestigations. Le but de cette tude nest pas de rsumer les
hypothses avances (voir par exemple Cri!an 1993 ou les tudes de
Kernbach), mais de reconsidrer les donnes, de suggrer une mise au point,
ainsi quune nouvelle perspective danalyse.
Le contexte mythologique
Il est vident quune analyse srieuse minimale doit tenir compte, en
premier lieu, du contexte mythologique et social. Le danger principal, notre
avis, est la tendance, parfois irrsistible, de quelques spcialistes dimposer
leur hypothses, en vitant soit une vision densemble sur ce problme
difcile, soit les dtails.
1
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.
Etymologica-anthropologica / Gallice
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
318
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
319
Le regrett Gh. Mu!u en quelques tudes remarquables (1972, 1973,
1982), encore peu connues, mme en Roumanie, et encore moins connues des
spcialistes trangers est le seul qui a tent une analyse du complexe
mythologique et religieux thrace, y compris thraco-dace.
Il y a quelques moyens daborder lhritage thrace en gnral,
spciquement lensemble religieux: (1) les informations fournies par les
crivains antiques, assez limites dailleurs, mais prcieuses; (2) lanalyse
comparative du contexte social, mythologique et religieux; (3) les survivances
dans les langues et dans les croyances populaires modernes (en roumain et
albanais, en premier lieu, aussi en bulgare et serbo-croate). La conclusion
gnrale des tudes de Mu!u est que la religion thrace et, dans un sens plus
restreint, la religion et les croyances
2
des Thraco-daces, reprsentent un
systme complexe et profond, analyser avec attention et prcaution.
La divinit suprme
Nous connaissons environ 160 thonymes ou nomina sacra thraces, mais
seulement deux sont mentionns dans les textes antiques comme spciquement
thraco-daces: la divinit suprme, graphie par les Grecs Zalmoxis, Zamolxis et
Salmoxis, et un deuxime nom graphi Gebeleizis, parfois Beleizis. Il y a deux
problmes essentiels lis ces formes: (1) la graphie oscillante Zalmoxis/
Salmoxis/Zamolxis et (2) la question de savoir si (Ge)beleizis serait un autre dieu
ou bien un pithte de la divinit suprme. Malgr toutes les afrmations et
spculations sur ce sujet, la situation este assez claire.
Les informations concernant la divinit suprme des Thraco-daces et les
rituels associs sont fournis, en principal, par Hrodote (4, 9396), Platon
2
Religion et croyances ne sont pas synonymes. Religion signie un systme
labor, avec des structures institutionelles spciques (lieux de culte, prtres etc.).
Croyances este un mot qui se rfre aux conceptions populaires, pas organises en
institutions.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
318
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
319
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
320
(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 sacri pour aboutir au dieu.
(5) En cas de tempte, les mmes Thraces (les Thraco-daces) tirent avec
des ches 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
320
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
321
Le rituel cyclique et chthonien: le retour dans la grotte. Erwin Rohde
avait dj soulign le caractre archaque des dieux des cavernes, dieux
typiquement chthoniens. Mme la demeure permanente de Zeus tait dans la
montagne Ida (Psych, ch. III, III, 12, V, 1). Les divinits chthoniennes
taient le trait essentiel des systmes pr-indo-europens (pr-ie.), analyss en
dtail par Marija Gimbutas (1982, 1989, 1991). Il faut noter ici que le
panthon grec tait aussi peupl avec beaucoup de divinits pr-ie., en fait la
majorit (Mu!u 1981; voir aussi nos considrations gnrales en Paliga 1989
b), ce qui est daccord avec limportance de lhritage pr-ie. en grec. Donc,
pour le rituel zamolxien, il faut accepter lide dune survivance pr-ie. Pour
dnir ce complexe nolithique pr-ie. nous avons suggr le terme urbien
3
,
oppos au terme kourgan utilis par Gimbutas pour dnir le complexe indo-
europen (Paliga 1989 b). Il semble que les anciens taient conscients de
archacit de Zamolxis, do lassociation grecque Zamolxis Kronos note
par Hesychius. Kronos reprsentait la premire gnration des dieux: les
divinits pr-ie. (ou urbiennes selon notre terminologie).
Dans le mme plan archaque se situe lassociation Zamolxis -Pythagore.
videmment, lide que Zamolxis aurait t lesclave de Pythagore est
absurde. Elle rete une tradition populaire grcise (cf. Dodds 1983, ch. 5 et
n. 61). Toutefois, cette tradition doit avoir un noyau de raison: le pythagorisme
tait une doctrine dinitiation comme sans doute la doctrine zamolxienne.
Donc lassociation Zamolxis Pythagore, dune part, et PythagoreOrphe et
3
Nous avons utilis (Paliga 1989) le terme urbien (en anglais Urbian) pour dnir
le complexe archologique, cultuel, culturel et linguistique pr-ie., correspondant
aux phases pipalolithique, nolithique et chalcolithique, ca. 70003500 av.J.-C.
(dates C
14
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
321
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
322
Zamolxis-Kronos, de lautre, a des explications typologiques (linitiation)
4
,
tant lie lhritage urbien. Orphe appartient aussi lhritage pr-ie. ou,
selon notre terminologie, urbien (cf. Mu!u 1981 et son manuscrit Kronos et la
cration, en roumain).
La composante ie. de Zamolxis est vidente dans laspect de dieu du ciel
nuageux, quand les Thraces mentionns par Hrodote, les Gtes, tiraient avec
des ches sur leur dieu. Ce passage nest pas du tout incomprhensible. Pour
les anciens, dieu signie force. Pour rduire la force colossale dun dieu, il
tait ncessaire de trouver une modalit pratique, humaine, de calmer la fureur
divine. Cest pourquoi le dieu-forgeron Hphaistos tait boiteux, c. . d.
mutil, avec ses forces rduites, contrlables
5
. Suivant une telle mentalit, les
Thraces tiraient avec des ches 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 spcique, 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
Pythagore est considr aussi comme un des prcurseurs de la francmaonnerie
moderne (Jacq 1994, ch. IV). Une loge fonde en Roumanie la n du 19
e
sicle
tait nomm Les Disciples de Pythagore (Nestorescu-B$lce!ti 1993: 10).
5
Voir ltude sur larchomtallurgie dans ce volume.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
321
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
322
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
323
parfois invitables, o nous pouvons reconstituer des phonmes comme E, F, G,
H, ts et I (voyelle neutre, note D en roumain, en albanais et J en bulgare). En
changeant les donnes, une dformation similaire serait normale, si nous
tentions par exemple de noter en grec moderne des mots franais ou
anglais, slaves ou lithuaniens, roumains ou albanais.
Cette mise au point est indispensable pour accepter lide de principe que
les thonymes analyss (et, en gnral, tous les mots thraces attests chez les
auteurs antiques) ne sont pas graphis correctement. Ils ne retent point la
prononciation thrace relle, mais la forme dforme par les Grecs ou les
Romains. Une analyse linguistique minimale doit donc tre de type
comparatif, sans aucune illusion quelle pourrait tre parfaite.
Commenons par la forme dimportance secondaire: Gebeleizis, aussi
beleizis. En premier lieu, la forme Gebeleizis. Il est probable que ce thonyme
est apparent au thonyme thrace (sud-danubien) Zbeltiurdos, )2/#K'%L;*%(
(avec quelques variantes graphiques, voir De"ev 1957: 177-8). En tout cas, le
rapprochement logique serait avec les formes lithuaniennes ayant le sens
primitif de lumire, clair: Haibas clair, Hiburys lumire (avec une riche
famille en lithuanien). Si cest le cas, il est probable que la prononciation
thrace tait *Mebeleizis, *MIbeleizis ou mme *NIbeleizis, dieu du ciel ou,
comme le dit Hrodote, pithte du dieu suprme
6
.
En ce qui concerne la deuxime forme, Beleizis, elle peut tre une simple
dformation. Toutefois, cette dformation peut reter lexistence dun mot
6
Mircea Eliade a fort inuenc 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
afrmations, 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 Zalmoxis-
zalmos. Mais il est possible quil ait suivi le got pour le sensationnel des
Occidentaux, pas une conviction intrieure (cf. Stoica 1982).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
322
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
323
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
324
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 conrment 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 rete 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 17
e
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
324
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
325
tymologie remarquable, mme gniale pour le 17
e
sicle et qui est reste
ltymologie la plus accepte aujourdhui ne rete quun aspect plus tardif
dans lvolution du thonyme et de son culte (voir plus bas).
Mais la situation nest pas encore compltement clarie. 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 rete 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-, *SoM-
est conrme par les textes antiques (voir les formes chez De"ev 1957: 417)
ainsi que par quelques mots roumains: semeQ haut, altier, sens guratif er,
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
325
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
326
dveloppement de la racine: ol-x-is, en commenant par la n. -is est une
terminaison grecque, qui peut ventuellement cacher une terminaison thrace
(il y a des formes roumaines, probablement dorigine thrace, qui montrent que
le sufxe -eP, -iP ou P marque le phonme G not sh en albanais). La lettre
grecque & pose de difcults; elle note, trs probablement, un phonme
thrace E. Cest pourquoi il est tonnant que De"ev (1957) compare la
nale !xis avec la forme persane ?saya roi; donc on rapproche un sufxe et
la terminaison dune racine! Cette explication doit tre rejete (cf.
lanthroponyme thrace Mamoxis, Mam-oxis, avec une racine signiant mre,
De"ev 1957: 284). En ce qui concerne -ol-, il peut tre apparent la racine
pr-ie. *OL-, *UL- (variante de *OR-, *UR-), grand, gant (voir une analyse
dans Paliga 1989 b et 1992 a). Si cest le cas, lensemble de la forme
*Sam!ol!E!is peut tre analys comme un mot compos de: (1) pr-ie. *SaM-
haut, er; (2) pr-ie. *OL- grand, gant; (3) sufxe -E-; (4) terminaison
(grcise) -is (peut tre une forme relle thrace -iG, -eG). Sens primitif: la
grande divinit (dieu ou desse) des abmes et/ou des hauteurs. Sens spirituel:
le HAUT GRAND.
Lvolution de la substance et de la forme de la divinit suprme des
Thraco-daces peut tre reconstitue: (1) Divinit pr-ie. (urbienne)
chthonienne, la forme initiale du thonyme tant *SamolEis. (2) Une inuence
indo!europenne, qui peut tre remarque par la connotation de divinit du
ciel, ainsi que par lassociation avec un mot signiant terre, driv de lie.
*gR hSem-, *gR hem- > thr. *zem-, *zam-. Dformation-volution de la forme
initiale *SamolEis > *ZamolEis. (3) La dformation continue par la mtathse
zamol- > zalmo-, qui aide lassociation avec zalmos cuir, fourrure; cette
dernire explication a t, trs probablement, fabrique par les Thraces, pour
cacher la signication relle, srieuse, de leur divinit suprme.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
325
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
326
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
327
Laniconisme
Les reprsentations visuelles dans le monde thrace sont limites : (1) Sous
linuence 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 inuence 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
lcriture
7
. Ni linuence hellnistique, ni la forte romanisation nont pu
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 ls 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
327
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
328
changer cette mentalit archaque, rtrograde pour notre mentalit moderne,
ainsi que pour la mentalit des Grecs et des Romains. Une telle interdiction ne
peut fonctionner quavec un fort substrat religieux, conventionnellement
appel la religion zalmoxienne. Une telle mentalit archaque a survcu
jusquau 17
e
sicle, dans le jus Valachicum (ou lex Olachorum), la tradition
juridique et coutumire, toujours orale, des Roumains pendant le Moyen Age
(Sachelarie et Stoicescu 1988: 176-178; autres discussions chez Paliga 1991)
8

.
Il semble vident que la synthse entre le systme religieux aniconique des
Thraco-daces et le christianisme sest ralise dans des conditions spciales.
Cest un sujet pour une autre tude, mais signalons quelques aspects
essentiels.
Les survivances
Lanalyse des survivances du systme religieux thraco-dace peut se faire
dans le contexte des survivances linguistiques et mythologiques thraces en
roumain et en albanais (discussions Paliga 1991). En gnral, on a signal
archacit du systme mythologique roumain (Vulc$nescu 1972, 1985;
Ghinoiu 1988); on peut aussi faire de comparaisons intressantes avec la
mythologie lithuanienne (Greimas 1985). Pour le but de cette tude, nous
essayons de signaler quelques faits moins connus des survivances
mythologiques thraco-daces.
Un premier exemple est la situation du roum. CrDciun Nol et pice de
bois, bche (cf. alb. krc bche). Une situation similaire existe en italien:
Ceppo Nol, mais aussi bche. Il sagit dune survivance prchrtienne: les
ftes du feu du solstice dhiver, quand on brlait des bches (discussions et
analyse chez Mu!u 1973, 1982; lhypothse que roum. CrDciun rete lat.
8
Linterdiction de lcriture a t signale dans les croyances roumaines jusquau
20
e
sicle (information orale de Ion Ghinoiu).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
327
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
328
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
329
creationem doit tre rejete dnitivement). La perptuation dun mot
prchrtien et prroman (thraco-dace) dans le vocabulaire chrtien
fondamental du roumain ne doit pas faire de problmes; cf. aussi la situation
de langlais Easter Pques < nom dune desse germanique.
Nous avons dj analys le cas de roum. znD (graphi aussi znD)
fe (mot essentiel des contes populaire) qui rete un mot thraco-dace
*zanI, *zInI, initialement avec le sens de femme, puis femme sacre >
fe (Paliga 1989 a).
Un cas intressant est offert par lappellation de la divinit chrtienne en
roumain: Dumnezeu < Domine deus (ailleurs, le latin deus est prserv en
roumain, zeu, avec le sens dieu paen). notre connaissance, la forme
appellative-vocative Domine deus a t prserve seulement en roumain. On
peut discuter si cette forme ne cache pas, comme nous sommes inclins
croire, une appellation initiale de la divinit suprme thraco-dace.
Nous nous limitons ces trois exemples, qui nous semblent sufsants
pour conclure que le systme religieux thraco-dace a inuenc
considrablement les croyances des Roumains. Gh. Mu!u a observ (1982)
quon doit imaginer la socit thraco-dace reprsente, dune part, par llite
politique, militaire et religieuse des initis zalmoxiens; dautre part, par les
masses qui vnraient aussi les fes et le dmons. En tout cas, on peut
accepter lide que cette lite sociale cultivait un systme religieux de type
hnothiste ou mme monothiste, o Zalmoxis occupait une place centrale,
peut-tre exclusive.
En gnral, la situation des mots prchrtiens et des mythmes intgrs
dans le systme religieux chrtien reprsente un chapitre part dans
lhistoire europenne, analyser dans une tude dtaille.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
328
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
329
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
330
Conclusions
Lanalyse mythologique et linguistique rvle que le systme religieux
thraco-dace tait un mlange dlments urbiens (pr-ie.) et kourgan (ie.).
Linuence urbienne est visible dans le caractre archaque cyclique et
chthonien de la divinit suprme, ainsi que dans la signication reconstitue
du thonyme *Sam-ol-E-is la grande divinit des abmes, des cavernes et/ou
des hauteurs, le HAUT GRAND. Linuence kourgan est visible dans
lpithte lumineux, ainsi que dans lassimilation tardive avec un mot ie.
signiant 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 difcile 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 ert nationale de protger la signication
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
329
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
330
sacrale de la divinit suprme, une mentalit compltement diffrente de celle
des Grecs, mentalit modele par laniconisme (ce qui signie, en essence,
une relation acoustique et mentale avec le divin), une mentalit sans
aucune doute fanatique, les croyances en limmortalit. En un mot, un
ensemble de mentalits, conceptions et pratiques spciques qui a fascin les
Grecs, mais aussi les modernes.
En ce qui concerne la vre religieuse, le sentiment ineffable de la
communaut avec le divin, cest une question de raction intrieure, pas
analysable avec les mthodes rationnelles (cf. Masson 1970).
Qiud autem ista loquor? Non enim tempus quaerendi nunc est, sed
contendi tibi. (Conf. 4, VI, 11)
Dialogues dhistoire ancienne 20, 2 (1994): 137150
De aspectu verborum Sclavenorum
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
331

Devenir et aspectualisation
Encore une fois sur le verbe slave
Clearly it is difcult to imagine human communication
without some notion of semiotic systems
(Arndt & Wayne Janey: 91)
La force des langues slaves est comprise dans le verbe
(Bezlaj 1948: 201)
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). Entre-
temps, 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
332
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
333
subtil processus subi par le verbe slave. Secondement, pour ne pas
compliquer notre dmarche et nous limiter aux frontires raisonnables
dune tude, les langues tchque et slovne sont analyses en premier lieu.
En tenant compte de quelques diffrences, notre hypothse et notre systme
peuvent tre appliqus aux systmes verbaux slaves en gnral.
Aspect et temps. Dnir le problme
Laspect et ses relations (ou non-relations) avec le temps (grammatical
ou objectif) ont t un immense sujet dinvestigations. Il est intressant
de noter, en passant, que les spcialistes ont souvent prfr dexaminer les
problmes lis laspect plutt que de dnir laspect. Il est vrai quune
question aussi pineuse reste dicile dnir. Selon Dostl (1954), il y a
plusieures tendences dans les dnitions de laspect (voir aussi Bezlaj
1948):
Une caractristique ou une conception de laction verbale.
Une modalit de dveloppement de laction verbale.
Une partie de la racine verbale qui montre le dveloppement de laction
verbale.
Lvolution ou, au contraire, lachvement de laction verbale.
La vue (vision) du locuteur concernant laction verbale (cf. Kurz 1969:
102). On peut ajouter quil sagit ici dune conception qui spare laction
extrieure, relle ou possible, dune part, de lexpression linguistique. Une
telle vue concerne une analyse de lexperience humaine (Erlebnis) qui peut
tre un sujet pour dautres tudes (voir plus rcemment Arndt & Wayne
Janney 1987).
La durativit a t parfois invoque comme reprsentant la plus claire
diffrence entre perfectif v. imperfectif. Une telle dnition est un critre
imprcis pour limperfectif et entirement inadquat pour le perfectif.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
332
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
333
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
334
La notion de nalit ou dachvement (skon!enost) a t aussi invoque.
Un autre critre imprcis.
Le perfectif a t aussi caracteris par la ponctualit de laction verbale
(mthode applique par Brtek et Sob"ek dans leur dictionnaire des verbes
tchques). La ponctualit est toutefois une situation relativement
indtermine.
La rsultativit, laccomplissement ou le rsultat de laction verbale.
Une telle dnition de la perfectivit limine tous les verbes qui nont pas
un sens rsultatif.
La perfectivit vue comme frontire (ohrani!enost frontiret).
La perfectivit serait le sens de laction verbale du futur vers le pass et
limperfectivit le sens contraire, du pass vers le futur. Une dnition
typique (et assez complique, pour ne pas dire de pire) pour les hypothses
qui suggrent une liaison entre la sphre du temps et celle de laspect. Cf.
Galton (1969): laspect est troitement li au temps
1
.
Laction perfective vue comme action pure et simple (Meillet 1902
1905, 1: 100).
Laction perfective serait culminante son point daboutissement,
mais limperfectivit est dnie comme dveloppement dans le temps.
Une autre tendance qui consiste lier la sphre de laspect la sphre du
temps.
La perfectivit aurait une nuance de possibilit (Kannbedeutung).
Une dnition assez intressante est lie au concept de complexit,
dentiret et de concentration de laction verbale, mais limperfectivit fut
dnie comme action cursive, c..d. pas comme lenvers de la perfectivit.
Une version de cette dnition utilise les concepts de concentration v.
expansion pour le perfectif, mais limperfectif nest pas lenvers du
perfectif, donc non-concentration ou non-expansion.
1
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
334
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
335
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
335
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
336
dmonstratif (voir plus bas). Larticle, ajoute Kramsk#, reprsente la
dtermination et, de plus, modie le sens de la parole.
Notre hypothse
Notre hypothse tait esquisse il y a plus de dix ans. Entre-temps, elle
sest consolide et maintenant est soutenue par dautres observations cites
ici. Quelques considrations prliminaires sont toutefois ncessaires.
Premirement, le dsordre terminologique est li la diversit des
faits aspectuelles. Dune part, les langues slaves, o les situations sont plus
ou moins similaires, dautre part les langues comme langlais, lespagnol, le
portugais, o laspect est ralis par dautres modalits. En effet, selon
nous, laspect dans ces trois langues est plutt une modalit dexpansion
temporelle dans la exion verbale cest une situation totalement diffrente
des langues slaves. Mais il est difcile de tenter dintroduire une nouvelle
terminologie, voir une terminologie spciale pour chaque groupe
linguistique. Il suft, pour le moment, de prciser en quoi consiste le
caractre spcique des langues slaves et, enn, de tenter une dnition
claire, simple et concise de laspect dans les langues slaves v. autres
langues.
Une deuxime question, qui me semble fondamentale, est de se
demander pourquoi beaucoup de linguistes ont t tents de lier laspect
la catgorie du temps, si bien que dautres linguistes se sont opposs
catgoriquement cette hypothse. Je trouve deux explications possibles.
Dune part, lassociation troite entre verbe et temps. Noublions pas
quen allemand, par exemple, le verbe est nomm Zeitwort parole du
temps. Les premires investigations des langues slaves ont t entreprises
par des linguistes comme Jernej Kopitar ou Franz Miklosich (Slovnes),
probablement fort inuencs par la culture et la langue allemande. En
gnral, lanalyse du phnomne linguistique slave a t fortement
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
335
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
336
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
337
inuence par la terminologie applique (et applicable) aux langues
classiques ou occidentales, donc une terminologie inadquate pour les
langues slaves, parfois inadquate mme pour quelques langues
occidentales (voir ici les observations profondes de Bezlaj 1948: 199).
Dautre part, il est trs connu que toute traduction dune langue slave
dans une langue non-slave doit convertir laspect par des modalits
temporelles. La situation inverse la tche de convertir limparfait et
laoriste grecs en vieux slave, par bon exemple a t analyse par Meillet
(19021905, 1: 1100). Ltude de Meillet concernait un stade incipient
dvolution du systme aspectuel, mais mme Meillet observait que: le
prsent est dailleurs la seule forme o la diffrence daspect serve, en un
certain sens, exprimer une diffrence de temps. Partout ailleurs le temps et
laspect sont rigoureusement distincts et indpendants (p. 99). On peut
citer une autre observation intressante: La majorit des dialectes slovnes
ont perdu lancien imperfait et laoriste au plus tard au 15
e
sicle. Ses
fonctions ont t remplaces par laspect verbal (Logar 1975: 15).
Ces dates nous semblent sufsantes pour expliquer la tendance,
irresistible pour beaucoup de linguistes et critiques par dautres linguistes,
de lier laspect verbal au temps. En effet, temps et aspect sont deux
phnomnes synkintiques, qui se retrouvent et/ou se rencontrent dans la
psychologie des locuteurs et dans lexpression verbale de leur psychologie.
Du point de vue grammatical, temps et aspect sont distincts (voir la ferme
mise au point par Bezlaj 1948).
*
* *
Le trait caractristique du processus de perfectivisation
dperfectivisation itrativisation est un jeu gauche-droite selon le
schma:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
336
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
337
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
338
Un prxe verbal (prverbe), formellement identique dans la
plupart des cas avec la prposition correspondante, attach un
verbe imperfectif (nommons-le forme neutrale), (1) dtermine ou,
selon notre terminologie, articule laction verbale et, de plus, (2) change
le sens de la racine verbale selon le sens du prverbe.
Cette fonction double du prverbe a pos des questions troublantes. Il
sagit, en effet, dun article verbal + changement du sens. Ce changement
du sens peut tre minimal, c..d. un prverbe purement articulatif, ou
maximal, c..d. changement total du sens.
Comme le systme verbal slave fonctionne par paires, larticle verbal
ainsi dni ci-dessus rclame la cration dune paire non-articule (non-
dtermine), qui se ralise par sufxation. Le dveloppement typique est le
sufxe -je-, donc tous les verbes en -ati/-ajo
n
, -ovati/-ujo
n
et -ti/-"jo
n
sont
imperfectifs (Meillet 19021905, 1: 20). Trs brivement, la dveloppement
en -a- est la marque typique de limperfectivit. Comme le discours est
successif, il en rsulte que le dveloppement en -a- annule le rle
articulatif (dterminatif) du prverbe, mais pas le composant smantique,
selon le principe la dernire loi annule toutes les lois prcdentes qui sy
opposent.
En ce qui concerne les itratifs, la situation nest pas identique dans
toutes les langues slaves. En tchque, les itratifs forment une catgorie
distincte. Ils se ralisent, en gnral, par un double dveloppement en -a-,
par exemple pracovat, ipf. travailler, pracovvat, itr. A partir de hodnota
valeur, on a hodnotit apprcier ipf. zhodnotit, pf. zhodnocovat, ipf.
(dv. en -a-) zhodnocovvat (double dv. en -a-), itr. Dans la plupart des
cas, litrativit est limite aux verbes dont la sphre smantique justie
litrativit smantique, mais pour des raisons stylistiques, souvent
ironiques tout verbe imperfectif est itrativable.
En slovne, le nombre des itratifs est plus limit. Il sagit, en gnral,
des itratifs smantiques hrits comme tel du fond slave, par exemple les
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
337
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
338
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
339
itratifs classiques, sans dveloppement en -a: hoditi aller, nositi
porter, voditi conduire. Ils sont, en effet, des imperfectifs
smantiquement itratifs, situation prouve par les formes tchques
chodvat, nosvat qui sont des itratifs clairs, drivs de limperfectif,
smantiquement itratif.
Ces diffrences montrent que litrativisation est plus rcente et en
cours de consolidation. Dailleurs, du point de vue chronologique, les
processus de la prxation et de la sufxation sont danciens traits indo-
europens. Lessentiel est de comprendre pourquoi cet ancien hritage sest
converti partir dun certain moment en un procd si typiquement
slave, un nouvel dice construit avec des briques archaques.
Larchacit matrielle et linnovation systmique sont montrs par le
processus darticulation verbale subi par quelques anciens verbes comme
iti, jiti aller pied (c)hoditi, itr., dun part, et jeti aller cheval
jezditi, itr. Le slovne a abandonn, au cours de lvolution, la dernire
forme, en gnralisant iti, mais hoditi signie toujours aller pied v.
peljati aller avec un vhicule qui, son tour, se comporte spciquement:
pripeljati, pf. arriver avec un vhicule pripeljavati, ipf.; odpeljati, pf.
partir (avec un vhicule) odpeljavati, ipf.
Quelques analystes considrent iti comme un verbe aussi perfectif
quimperfectif. En ralit, il est un verbe imperfectif, mais limpratif,
mode smantiquement articul, dtermin, est ralis avec po-: pojdi! va!.
En tchque, po- sert aussi pour raliser un futur de jiti, nsti porter et
dautres, peu nombreux, verbes archaques. Il sagit, en effet, dun verbe
articul avec po-.
Le sens de la forme perfective du prsent se traduit, dans une autre
langue non-slave, par un futur, dtail qui a beaucoup affect les analystes
adeptes de la fusion aspect-temps en slave. En slovne, le futur (analytique)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
338
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
339
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
340
sapplique aux perfectifs et aux imperfectifs, sans distinction, signe clair de
lindpendance des deux sphres temps et aspect.
Le rle articulatif de po- dans le cas des quelques verbes archaques
montre que, trs probablement, le processus darticulation verbale a
commenc par cette prposition-prverbe, multismantique, difcile
traduire: il y a des sens temporels, locatifs et modaux. Le caractre
archaque du prverbe-article po- est aussi montr par une drivation
comme v"d"ti savoir, ipf. pov"d"ti raconter. En tchque v"d"ti
pov"d"ti povdati se construisent aussi avec un double prverbe po-po-
(rduplication): popov"d"ti popovdati. En slovne, povedati et re!i sont
suppltifs avec govoriti, ipf. parler.
On ne peut pas ignorer le cas de tch. $ci $kat $kvat, pf. ipf.
itr., o la premire forme est articule avec larticle zro (sans prverbe).
Cest un verbe ancien ou le procssus de perfectivisation a commenc par le
contenu de la racine, puis sest dvelopp selon les canon classique: le jeu
gauche-droite dj present.
Un dernier exemple de suppltivisme. Slovne vzeti (*v%z-(j)&ti) jemati
prendre a pour quivalent le tchque vzt brt (en slovne, brati a
dvelopp le sens lire, mais prserve lancien sens prendre en composs)
p$evzt, pf. p$ebrat, pf. p$ebrat, ipf. Cet vantail des ralisations
concrtes de larticulation verbale a boulvers et dconcert les linguistes.
Pour comprendre mieux ce processus, trs difcile catgoriser avec les
instruments linguistiques disponibles, do notre terme article verbal,
imaginons-nous une langue slave idale dans laquelle la perfectivisation
se raliserait avec un seul prverbe, disons po- (ce qui tait,
probablement, la situation pendant les premiers sicles de notre re).
Dans un tel cas, il en rsulterait plus clairement que la prxation verbale
fonctionnerait comme un vrai article verbal. De mme, il aurait t plus
facile de trouver lessence de la perfectivisation / articulation verbale si le
nombre des prverbes (articles verbaux) tait rduit, disons deux, trois
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
339
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
340
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
341
ou quatre. En pratique, et pour sortir du monde idal, larticulation verbale
se ralise par tous les prxes verbaux. De plus, et il me semble que cela a
conduit aux formules confuses de laspect slave, ces prxes modient le
contenu smantique du verbe. Ils ont donc deux fonctions: une,
grammaticale (articulative); la seconde, smantique.
Labsence / prsence de larticle verbal est une formule binaire. Le
tchque a aussi dvelopp litratif, un itratif clairement grammatical, qui
se ralise par sufxation (double dveloppement en -a-), et non un simple
imperfectif smantiquement itratif (le cas du slovne). En tchque on doit
accepter une formule trinaire, imperfectif-perfectif-itratif. Pour terminer
notre comparaison avec la sphre nominale, nous suggrons de rapprocher
litratif de larticle indni.
Selon notre hypothse, laspect est un processus aussi grammatical
que lexical, synkintique au temps verbal, qui modie le sens du verbe
ou qui lui donne une nuance supplmentaire, presque toujours difcile
ou mme impossible traduire dans une langue trangre. La
conversion se ralise vers le jeu des temps verbaux et qui, de plus,
dtermine ou articule laction verbale. Ce processus se ralise par
prxation et sufxation vebales, parfois (rarement) par des changements
dans la racine du verbe, sans prxation (article verbal inclu dans la racine
verbale). Ce processus est (1) binaire: imperfectif (ou neutral) perfectif
(ou larticle verbal dni) ou bien (2) trinaire, quand litratif (larticle
verbal indni) devient une troisime forme grammaticalement distincte (le
cas du tchque), non pas un simple imperfectif, smantiquement itratif. Ce
processus de perfectivisation dperfectivisation itrativisation est
continu et reprsente lexpression la plus spcique des langues slaves.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
340
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
341
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
342
Les poques du devenir
La perfectivisation verbale, ou larticulation verbale, sest consolide
approximativement quand, dans les langues occidentales, se consolidait
larticle dans la sphre nominale. Ctait la priode de lantiquit tardive
et du passage au fodalisme (du 5
e
au 10
e
sicles), donc une priode de
changements majeurs dans la mentalit des peuples, des murs, des
coutumes, lpoque des grandes migrations qui ont conduit une nouvelle
carte ethnique de lEurope. Tous ces facteurs ont inuenc les langues en
cours de profondes transformations. Ctait une priode dun intense sens
du devenir, ret dans la structure mme des langues.
Du point de vue typologique, on ne doit pas sinquieter du fait quil y a
un article verbal dans les langues slaves. Il est instructif de constater que
larticle verbal slave se consolidait dans la mme priode quand les langues
no-latines et germaniques consolidaient larticle nominal qui, son tour, a
son histoire, comme le montre lvolution du dmonstratif.
La dtermination nominale, dune part, et la dtermination verbale slave,
dautre part, ne sont pas incompatibles. Il y a des langues qui connaissent
les deux modalits dterminatives, comme le groupe bulgare-macdonien-
2

et le hongrois. Ce sont des langues qui, au cours du temps, ont subi des
diverses inuences et pour lesquelles lanalyse doit tenir compte des
donnes spciques.
Un groupe intressant est reprsent par les langues comportant un
article dni enclitique (ou agglutin). Cest le cas du roumain, de
lalbanais, du groupe bulgaro-macdonien, de larmnien, du basque ainsi
que, selon les derniers rsultats, de ltrusque lui-mme. Il sagit dun
hritage archaque, sans doute pr-indo-europen du point de vue
typologique. Mais cest le sujet dune autre tude possible concernant le
sens du devenir.
2

Il sagit de la langue macdonienne moderne, une langue slave parle dans la
Macdoine ex-Yougoslave.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
341
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
342
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
343
Conclusions
La dtermination dans la sphre du
NOM
Larticle dni et indni. Simplication radicale de la exion
nominale. Disparition des anciens cas, remplacs par des moyens
analytiques.
On distingue deux types principaux: (a) avec article dni proclitique:
la plupart des langues no-latines et germaniques, sauf roumain et sudois,
le grec. Origine: le dmonstratif. (b) Avec article dni 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 indni
est proclitique.
La sphre du verbe reste trs dveloppe si bien que relativement
simplie en rapport avec les prototypes anciens.
VERBE
Larticle verbal (selon notre dnition), nomm aspect verbal, avec
lopposition perfectif / imperfectif / itratif. Origine: lancien processus de
prxation et de sufxation indo-europen mais qui, au cours du temps,
achve le rle de dtermination gauche (perfectivisation ou article
verbal dni) et de d-dtermination droite (imperfectivisation), aussi de
double d-dtermination (double dveloppement en -a-): itrativisation
(article verbal indni). Procd spcique aux langues slaves. volution
parallle lvolution de larticle nominal proclitique. Simplication
radicale des temps verbaux dans la plupart des langues slaves.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
342
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
343
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
344
La sphre nominale de la plupart des langues slaves reste sans
dtermination, donc fortement exionelle ( lexception du bulgare et du
macdonien).
Observation: laspect verbal en anglais, espagnol et portugais est
radicalement diffrent de laspect slave. Il sagit ici dun procd analytique
dexpansion du temps verbal.
CAS SPCIAUX
Le bulgare et le macdonien ont aussi dvelopp un article dni
enclitique (agglutin), comme en roumain et en albanais, dont lorigine est
aussi le dmonstratif. Les slavistes disputent encore de lorigine de cet
article: quelques uns veulent y voir un prototype slave, en invoquant la
situation en russe dialectal, une tendance vers la position enclitique du
dmonstratif, mais qui sexplique par linuence du substrat ouralien, de
type agglutinant. En tout cas, il ny a pas un article dni en russe dialectal;
dautres considrent que larticle dni en bulgare et en macdonien rete
une inuence du roumain primitif (proto-roumain), ce qui est trs
probable. Cer article est, en tout cas, spcique au roumain et au albanais.
Le hongrois a dvelopp un article dni proclitique, dont lorigine est
aussi le dmonstratif, et un article indni proclitique, de plus une
conjugaison avec ou sans complment direct (hritage ouralo-altaque) ainsi
que un systme prxatif (articulatif) du verbe similaire au systme slave.
Il sagit ici des diverses inuences dans lhistoire de cette langue.
Conclusion gnrale
Les dtermination dans la sphre du nom, dune part, et dans la sphre
du verbe, dautre part, sont indpendantes, mais pas du tout incompatibles.
Quelques langues ont dvelopp une dtermination nominale ainsi que
verbale.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
343
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
344
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 inuenc la
forme nale y prsente. Bien-sr, les eventuelles erreurs et inadvertances
du discours appartiennent lauteur, toujours le seul responsible.
De compositione etymologica
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
345
Aperu de la structure tymologique du Roumain
Il est bien connu que le roumain a une position particulire dans le
monde no-latin. Cest videmment une langue no-latine contenant
beaucoup de particularits qui ne permettent pas de rduire les problmes
lhritage latin seulement. La plupart, pour ne pas dire tous les ouvrages
ddis ltude du roumain notent ses relations avec les autres langues
romanes (par exemple Coteanu et Sala 1987; Sala et al. 1988); on peut
ajouter, bien sr, les inuences des adstrats, en premier lieu slave mais aussi
des autres langues. Cest le cas du dernier livre de N. D. Raevskij (1988).
Pour faire justice lauteur, il faut prciser brivement que cest un livre
utile ltude de la romanit orientale. Lauteur utilise souvent une mthode
originale pour dlimiter les priodes historiques de la cristallisation dun
spcique roman danubien. Il introduit ( ma connaissance) la formule
perioad! etnic! (priode ethnique). Le but de cette discussion nest pas
danalyser cet ouvrage mais de signaler quelques aspects dordre plus
gnral lis un problme qui me semble fondamental: le rle du substrat
thrace (ou thraco-dace, selon une autre formule) dans la formation de la
langue roumaine.
Il faut dire que N. D. Raevskij, le coauteur dun dictionnaire
tymologique de la langue moldave (1979) rduit comme dailleurs la
plupart des auteurs le rle du substrat thrace dans la formation de la
romanit orientale quelques dizaines de mots. Cest vrai que cette mthode
(adopte par une autorit comme Al. Rosetti, 1986) a ses raisons bien
connues. Les linguistes aiment utiliser des donnes crites qui leur
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
346
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
347
permettent de tracer une volution plus sre dun phnomne phontique, en
rfutant en gnral les reconstructions, tant donn le risque derreur. Ce
principe gnral doit avoir des exceptions, car il est absurde dafrmer que
le roumain ne peut avoir que (disons) 180 mots dorigine thrace parce quon
ne possde pas de textes anciens thraces ou proto-roumains. Il est vident
que la structure tymologique dune langue na presque rien faire avec ses
attestations crites. Je dis presque parce que lapparition de lcriture est
lie au contacts culturels qui peuvent inuencer le vocabulaire. Donc, le
roumain doit avoir un certain nombre dlments indignes non parce quil
y a ou il ny a pas de textes anciens mais purement et simplement parce que
la civilisation thrace si originelle, celle qui avait toujours fascin les grecs,
fut trop puissante et trop bien reprsente par les autochtones conquis. Les
donnes archologiques (il y a des centaines dtudes quon ne peut pas
citer ici) prouvent que la romanisation na pas t un phnomne de
prpondrance numrique de la part des colonistes romans, bien au
contraire: les indignes eurent la supriorit. La romanisation a t un
phnomne de prestige culturel comme rsultat dun prestige militaire.
Enn, un autre dtail: il y a des diffrences nettes entre le substrat du
roumain (thrace, cest--dire un idiome satem) et les autres langues romanes
o le substrat a t celto-italique ou ibro-celte (idiome centum, aussi non-
indo-europen, voire le basque).
Beaucoup de linguistes dautorit (parmi eux Al. Rosetti) invoquent le
fait quon ne peut pas analyser un mot roumain dorigine obscure en se
rapportant directement une racine indo-europenne (jajoute, horribile
dictu, pr-indo-europenne aussi). Autrement dit, la langue roumaine sera
perptuellement non-analysable aussi compltement que possible parce
quon ne peut pas invoquer une racine primitive reconstruite en utilisant
les lois de la reconstruction linguistique. Il est difcile de comprendre
pourquoi le lithuanien et le letton, langues trs archaques et avec des
textes crits plus tardifs que ceux en roumain, sont entres dans tous les
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
346
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
347
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
348
manuels de grammaire indo-europenne compare tandis que le mots
roumains nen ont pas eu ce droit.
Les similitudes du roumain et des langues baltiques ne sont pas
seulement typologiques mais elles sont plus profondes. Roumain iar
et (en quelques constructions typiques) est videmment apparent au
lithuanien ir et. Aussi roum. dain! (forme dialectale en Transylvanie),
doin! (forme littraire courante) - lith. dain, let. daina chant populaire. Et
les exemples peuvent continuer.
Les relations roumaines-hongroises sont, mon avis, plus complexes que
certaines linguistes le veulent (non seulement hongrois). Il est courant de
considrer que roum. hotar limite, frontire rete le mot hongrois hatr ;
mais il y a un mot presque identique en albanais: htr, hatr. Lexemple le
plus sensationnel est reprsent par le rapport entre roum. ora" (dial. aussi
ura") et hong. vros. Il est habituel de considrer le mot roumain comme
une inuence hongroise. Mais les Thraces avaient un terme presque
identique pour dsigner la ville: ora, oros, oron. Un simple hasard? Une
analyse attentive nous permet de conclure quon ne peut pas invoquer ici le
hasard (Paliga 1987 a; 1989 a). Le mot roumain fait partie dun hritage trs
ancien: le substrat pr-indo-europen do proviennent aussi le latin urbs,
basque uri, aussi iri (cf. le canton helvtique Uri) et, plus ou moins
pouvantable, le sumrien Ur, Uruk. Tous ces formes retent un vieux
terme pour dsigner la structure urbaine plus ou moins primitive. Jai
signal tout lheure importance capitale du fond pr-indo-europen pour
expliquer des aspects importants de lhritage culturel du sud-est europen
(Paliga 1986; 1987 a; 1988 a; 1989 a, c). Je ny insisterai plus.
Bien sr, le substrat pr-indo-europen est seulement un aspect, mais il
est bien fondamental. Il y a beaucoup de problmes presque aussi
intressants quimportants. On dit, par exemple, que le roumain a 4000 mots
environ dorigine inconnue (Vraciu 1984). Dans un livre rcent (Coteanu et
Sala 1987: 112) le lecteur est averti quon ne peut pas prtendre, comme on
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
347
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
348
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
349
faisait lpoque romantique, que tous les mots roumains ltymologie
inconnue sont dorigine thrace. Une telle prcaution me semble inutile. A
ma connaissance, personne na afrm une telle absurdit (et, moi, je ne
comprends pas ce que les auteurs veulent dire par poque romantique non
prcise dans le texte). Mais ces auteurs-ci, comme la majorit dailleurs, ne
proposent aucune mthode plus ou moins radicale pour rduire le nombre
impressionnant de black holes du vocabulaire roumain. En effet, le
nombre de 4000 mots dont lorigine reste inconnue semble trop grand.
Malheureusement, le nombre exacte de tels mots ne peut pas tre tabli
purement et simplement parce que le dictionnaire explicatif (DEX) qui a
probablement t la source dinspiration de cette estimation, contient
beaucoup dincertitudes pour ne pas dire de graves erreurs. En premier lieu,
ce dictionnaire ne fait jamais distinction entre: (1) mots dorigine thrace
(certaine ou probable), (2) mots dorigine discutable (pour lesquels on a
suggr quelques explications), (3) mots non expliqus plausiblement.
Toutes ces catgories sont analyses en bloc comme dorigine inconnue. Il
nest pas tonnant donc quon enregistre 4000 mots dorigine inconnue.
Avec de telles manires commodes de rsoudre les problmes complexes de
ltymologie roumaine, on peut citer 5000 ou bien 10000 mots obscurs si
nous ajoutons les formes dialectales. Deux exemples y seront utiles.
Naiba, mot populaire pour diable, est considr dorigine inconnue.
Mais il est vident que son tymologie est trs simple: n-aib! (parte) quil
nait pas (part). Cest donc une cration euphmique parce que le nom du
diable tait un tabou (cf. Paliga 1989 b o on analyse la situation similaire
de zn! fe)
1
.
Un autre exemple. V!trai tisonnier, attisoir est considr un emprunt au
bulg. vatral, s.-cr. vtralj id. Il est vident que v!trai doit tre apparent
vatr! foyer, tre qui se trouve aussi en bulgare, serbo-croate ainsi que dans
dautres langues balkaniques ou est-europennes (alb. vatr etc.) o a le
1
Voir cette tude dans ce volume!ci.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
348
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
349
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
350
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 proto-
roumain 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 difcile, 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 sufxe -i doit tre indigne (cest-
-dire thrace) et ne peut avoir rien faire avec li hongrois, sens locatif
(budapesti de Budapest).
Il est signicatif que le roumain na pas encore de dictionnaire
tymologique-historique complet de haut niveau scientique: 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
scientique 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 amplier les erreurs
habituelles, je suggre une rorganisation (aussi radicale que possible) des
mthodes utilises et du matriel linguistique. Je les rsume en quelques points.
1
e
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 signier automatiquement que ce mot roumain doit
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
349
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
350
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
351
tre slave mais il peut tre aussi bien un mot roumain en une langue slave
ou thrace en roumain et en slave.
2
e
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.).
3
e
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.
4
e
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
351
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
352
Evidemment, cette note ne peut pas puiser tous les problmes
concernant le substrat thrace. En ce qui concerne le problme de lcriture
thrace, je soutiens lhypothse avance il y a trois ans (Paliga 1988 c)
fonde sur les donnes archologiques et historiques, que la socit thrace
en gnral ainsi que la socit thraco-dace en particulier, a t de type
initiatique et aniconique et, de plus, avec linterdiction sacrale des
reprsentations visuelles y compris lcriture. Les reprsentations
visuelles dans le monde Thrace sont le rsultat des inuences trangres ou
bien une volution tardive comme rsultat du syncrtisme religieux. Le fait
que la socit thrace a eu un caractre aniconique peut avoir des
consquences essentielles pour la comprhension du caractre spcique de
cette civilisation qui a fascin les Grecs et qui a inuenc lethnognse du
sud-est europen. Comme jai soulign dans ltude cit, on peut observer
laura magique qui entoure les Thraces et les Etrusques, une aura amplie
par notre ignorance double par lignorance des Grecs et des Romans vis--
vis de la civilisation des Thraces. Cest la tche des recherches venir de
prciser si lapparition tardive de lcriture chez les Roumains ne constitue
pas une survivance de linterdiction sacrale des reprsentations visuelles
dans le monde thraco-dace. Cela peut prouver indirectement que
linuence subie par la civilisation daco-romaine/proto-roumaine de la part
de la civilisation thraco-dace a t considrable, beaucoup plus ample et
profonde de ce quon admet dhabitude. Si cest le cas (que je suis inclin
soutenir par des donnes linguistiques et mythologiques), il est vident
quon ne doit pas utiliser des principes simplistes pour expliquer le rle du
substrat thraco-dace dans lethnognse roumaine ou, en gnral, le rle du
substrat dace ou thrace dans les Balkans. Un tel problme rclame de
profondes et srieuses recherches absentes pour le moment dans la plupart
des ouvrages consacrs la langue roumaine et dautres langues
balkaniques.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
351
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
352
Je voudrais accentuer lide que la cause principale de labsence dun
dictionnaire tymologique du roumain haut niveau scientique est due en
premier lieu une optique dpasse et dforme pour ne pas dire errone et
dpourvue de fondement (malgr les afrmations contraires de ceux qui
ladoptent). Si on changeait radicalement une telle optique, on pourrait
esprer quun dictionnaire tymologique du roumain pourrait tre crit au
moins dans une premire forme provisoire. Celui-ci devrait tre un
dictionnaire qui comprendrait une analyse srieuse de toutes les
correspondances possibles entre le roumain et les autres langues antiques et
modernes (y compris les formes thraces enregistres par Deev et dautres).
Il devrait aussi faire allusion au fond pr-indo-europen sans lequel on ne
peut pas esprer une analyse tymologique srieuse. Cette tche une fois
accomplie, on pourrait faire un autre pas plus difcile: le dictionnaire
tymologique thesaurus des langues balkaniques
2
qui offrirait une vision
densemble sur le rle du substrat Thrace et encore pr-thrace (pr-indo-
europen) dans lvolution ethnolinguistique du sud-est europen. Pour le
moment, cest encore un rve, mais il y a beaucoup dexemples qui
montrent que parfois les rves deviennent des ralits vivantes.
2
Le roumain nest pas, bien-sr, une langue balkanique proprie dictu, mais,
pour simplier les choses, on adopte ici cette formule utilise parfois dans la
littrature linguistique.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
353
Bibliographia
Aleksova, Vasilka 19971998. lments communs dans la terminologie
nuptiale bulgare et roumaine: bulg. nozzie/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 si 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.
Etymologica-anthropologica
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
354
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
355
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. 3
rd
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 oo, ovo 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. Slavisticna
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. Etimoloski slovar slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana.
Bianchi, T.X., J.D. Kieffer 1850. Dictionnaire turc-franais, 2 vols. Paris:
Dardey-Dupre.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
354
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
355
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
356
Biezais, Haralds 1955. Die Hauptgttinen der alten Letten. Uppsala.
Brlea, Ovidiu 1976. Mic enciclopedie a povestilor romnesti. Bucure!ti:
Editura #tiin$ic" !i Enciclopedic".
Bla$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 Cech 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 sidlist v latinskch pramenech obdob ranho
feudalismu. Praha: Univerzita Karlova.
Bldy, Gza 1942. Inuenja limbii romne asupra limbii maghiare. Sibiu.
Bolocan, Gheorghe (ed.), Elena #ondulescu-Silvestru, Iustina Burci, Camelia
Z"bav" 2002. Dicjionar invers al numelor de localitji din Romnia. Craiova:
Editura Universitaria (EUC).
Bonfante, Giuliano 1966. Inuences 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. Dicjionar etnobotanic. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
355
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
356
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
357
Brncu%, Grigore 1983. Vocabularul autohton al limbii romne. Bucure!ti:
Brncu!, Gr. 1991. Istoria cuvintelor. Bucure!ti: Coresi.
Brncu!, Gr. 1999. Concordanje 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. Slownik etymologiczny jzyka 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
litograat), vol. I, Bucure!ti.
Candrea, I.-A., Ovid Densusianu 1914. Dicjionarul 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. Dicjionarul 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. cantharius 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
357
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
358
Condurachi, Emil 1969. Izvoarele greco-latine asupra etnogenezei vechilor
popula$ii balcanice. Studii si cercetri de istorie veche, 20, 3: 369391.
Condurachi, E. 1971. L'ethnogense des peuples balkaniques: les sources
crites. Studia Balcanica (Soa) 5: 249269.
Constantinescu, N.A. 1963. Dicjionar onomastic romnesc. Bucure!ti: Editura
Academiei.
Coteanu, I., L. Seche, M. Seche (ed.) 1975. Dicjionarul explicativ al limbii
romne. (DEX). Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Coteanu, Ion 1981. Originile limbii romne. Bucure!ti.
Coteanu, Ion, Marius Sala 1987. Etimologia si limba romn. Principii,
probleme. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Curta, Florin 2006. Aparijia slavilor. Istorie si arheologie la Dunrea 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 Labialsufxe 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 luci
indouralske primerjalne slovnice. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in
umetnosti (Dela/Opera vol. 31).
DA = Pu!cariu 19131948.
Dan, Ilie 1983. Contribujii la istoria limbii romne. Ia!i: Junimea.
Dauzat, Albert 1947. Les noms de lieux, 2
nd
ed. Paris: Delagrave.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
357
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
358
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
359
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 Panzennamen. Godi'nik
na soiskaja universitet, ist.-l., XXIV, nr. 1.
De)ev, D. 1952. Charakteristik der thrakischen Sprache. Soa.
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 si suet 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 vokalizm. Soa: 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 staroslovnstin. Praha
Dr'ganu, Nicolae 1928. Toponimie si istorie. Cluj.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
358
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
359
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
360
Dr"ganu, N. 1933. Romnii n veacurile IXXIV pe baza toponimiei si a
onomasticii. Bucure!ti: Academia Romn".
Dumistr'cel, Stelian 1980. Lexic romnesc. Cuvinte, metafore, expresii.
Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic" !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. Soa: B"lgarskata
Akademija na Naukite.
Duridanov, Iv. 1960. Der thrakische Einuss 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 PLJPDIVJ, PLOVDIV.
Linguistique Balkanique 32, 1: 1922.
Duridanov, Iv. 1991. Die ltesten slawishen Entlehnungen im Rumnischen.
Duridanov, Iv. 1993. Bulgarian Bdni (vecer), bdnik 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. Soa: Institute of Thracology, Soa 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. Perkunas heth. Peruna? Das
Ende eines Mythos. Linguistique Balkanique 40 (19992000), 2: 93108.
Eisenhut, W. 1974. Volcanus. Volcanal. Volcanalia. Paulys Realencyclopdie
der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Supplementband XIV, ed. by Hans Grtner,
pp. 948962. Mnchen: Alfred Druckenmller.
Eliade, Mircea 1992. Istoria credinjelor si ideilor religioase. 3 vol. Chi!in"u:
Universitas.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
359
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
360
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
361
Eliade, M. 1995. De la Zalmoxis la Genghis-han. Studii comparative despre
religiile si folclorul Daciei si Europei Orientale. Bucure!ti: Humanitas. (1
st
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. 4
th

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$a de ecare zi n Creta lui Minos. Bucure!ti: Eminescu (French
original: La vie quotidienne en Crte au temps de Minos. Paris: Hachette 1973).
Fischer, I. 1985. Latina dunrean. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic" !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. Soa: 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, Soa-Jambol, 2529 September 2000. Soa:
International Foundation Europa Antiqua - Soa; 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 2
e
au 4
e

fvrier 1988. Limoges: Pulim/Benjamins.
Fraenkel, Ernst 19551965. Litauisches etymologisches Wrterbuch.
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
361
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
362
Gabinskij, Mark 1988. Doin". Limba si 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. Inuenje romnesti n limbile slave de sud. I.
Srbocroata. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic" !i Enciclopedic".
Georgiev, Vladimir 1957. Trakiiskijat ezik. Soa.
Georgiev, Vl. 1958. Hcc:eoeauun no cpaeuume:iuoucmopuuecrovy
niiroiuauuu (Hocmeeuuie omuoueuun uuoeeponecrux niiroe). Moskva:
Izdate+stvo inostrannoj literatury.
Georgiev, Vl. 1960 a. Blgarska etimologija i onomastika. Soa: B"lgarska
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. Soa: 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 (Soa) 5: 155170.
Georgiev, Vl., Iv. G'l'bov, J. Zaimov, St. Il!ev et alii 197119791986 (3
vols., to be continued). Blgarski etimologicen recnik (BER). Soa: B"lgarskata
Georgieva, Ivani!ka 1993. Blgarska narodna mitologija. Soa: 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.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
361
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
362
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
363
Gieysztor, Aleksander 1986. Mitologia Slowian. 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 inltration 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 Indo-
Europeans. 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. Civilizajie si 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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
363
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
364
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 romnesti si romanice. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic"
!i Enciclopedic".
Giuglea, G. 1988. Fapte de limb. Mrturii despre trecutul romnesc.
Glotz, G. 1937. La civilisation genne. Nouvelle dition mise jour par Ch.
Picard. Paris: Albin Michel.
Gluhak, Alemko 1993. Hrvatski etimoloski rjecnik. Zagreb: August Cesarec.
God*owski, Kazimierz 2000. Pierwotne siedziby Slowian. Wybr pism pod
redakcij, Micha-a Parczewskiego. Krakw: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu
Jagiello.skiego.
Grafenauer, Bogo 1979. Slovani pred prihodom na Balkanski polotok.
Zgodovina Slovencev, ed. by Meta Sluga. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva Zalo%ba.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien 1997. Despre zei si despre oameni. Bucure!ti:
Meridiane. (French original: Des dieux et des hommes, Paris, PUF 1985).
Grkovi", Milica 1983. Imena u decanskim hrisovuljama. Novi Sad: Filozofski
fakultet.
Grkovi/, M. 1986. Recnik imena banjskog, decanskog i prizrenskog
vlastelinstva u XIV veku. Beograd: Narodna knjiga.
Gu)u, G. 1983. Dicjionar latin-romn. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic" !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$ii !i Gepizii n Dacia. Columna lui Traian
153182.
Hasdeu, B.P. 1882 a. Originea poeziei poporane la romni. Columna lui Traian
9, 79: 397406.
Hasdeu, B.P. 1882 b. Doina r"stoarn" pe Roesler. Columna lui Traian 9, 1012:
529536.
Hasdeu, B.P. 1887-1898. Etymologicum magnum Romaniae. Bucure!ti.
Hasdeu, B.P. 1973. Scrieri istorice, III, Bucure!ti.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
363
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
364
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
365
Hasdeu, B.P. 1988. Studii de lingvistic si lologie. Ed. by Gr. Brncu!, 2 vols.
Bucure!ti: Minerva.
Hnsel, Bernhard and Walter Althammer ed. 1987. Die Vlker
Sdosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert. Sdosteuropa Jahrbuch 17.
Higounet, Ch. 1964. Lcriture. Paris: PUF.
Hoad, T.F. 1993. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.
Oxford: University Press.
Holub, Josef, Stanislav Lyer 1978. Strucn etymologic slovnk jazyka
ceskho, 2
nd
ed. Praha: Sttn pedagogic nakladatelstv (1
st
ed.: 1952).
Holzer, Georg 1999. Zur Auswertung von Toponymen antiken Ursprungs fr
die kroatische Lautgeschichte. Folia onomastica Croatica 8: 8196.
Horn, Paul 1893. Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie. Strassburg.
Hristov, Georgi 1964. Mestnite imena v Madansko. Soa: B"lgarska
Hubschmid, J. 1971. Elments prromans du roumain. Actele celui de-al XII-
lea congres interna$ional de lologie 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. Recnik na licnite i familni imena u Blgarite. Soa:
Izdatelstvo na B"lgarskata Akademija na naukite.
Iliescu, Maria 1977. Retoromana !i cuvintele romne!ti de substrat. Studii si
cercetri lingvistice 28, 2.
Ilievski, Petar Hr. 1988. Balkanoloski lingvisticki studii. Skopje 1988: Institut
za makedonski jazik Krste Misirkov, Posebna izdanija 14.
Illi!-Svity!, V. M. 1971. Opyt sravnenija nostraticeskih jazykov
(semitohamitskij, kartvelskij, indoevropejskij, uralskij, dravidijskij, altajskij).
Vvedenie. Sravnitelnyj slovar. Moskva: Nauka.
Ionescu, Anca Irina 1978. Lingvistic si mitologie. Bucure!ti: Litera.
Ionescu, Christian 1975. Mic enciclopedie onomastic. Bucure!ti: Editura
#tiin$ic" !i enciclopedic".
Ioni)', Vasile 1982. Nume de locuri din Banat. Timi!oara: Facla.
Iordache, Gh. 1980. Mrturii etno-lingvistice despre vechimea meseriilor
populare romnesti. Craiova: Scrisul Romnesc.
Iordan, Iorgu 1960. Lingvistica romanic. Bucure!ti.
Iordan, I. 1963. Toponimia romneasc. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
364
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
365
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
366
Iordan, I. 1963. Toponimia romneasc. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Iordan, I. 1983. Dicjionar al numelor de familie romnesti. Bucure!ti: Editura
#tiin$ic" !i Enciclopedic".
Iordan, I. 1983. Dicjionar al numelor de familie romnesti. Bucure!ti: Editura
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 si romneasc. Timi!oara: Facla.
Jordanov, Stefan 1997-1998. Reexions 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. Dicjionar de mitologie general. Bucure!ti: Albatros.
Kernbach, V. 1984. Biserica n involujie. Bucure!ti: Editura Politic".
Kernbach V. 1989. Dicjionar de mitologie general. Bucure!ti: Editura
Kernbach, V. 1994. Universul mitic al romnilor. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic".
Kirly, Francisc 1990. Contacte lingvistice. Adaptarea fonetic a
mprumuturilor romnesti 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. Auage, 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).
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
365
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
366
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
367
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. Slovesn vid v cestin. Praha.
Krahe, Hans 1925. Die alten balkan-illyrischen geographischen Namen.
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 mitoloski 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 turcesti, arabesti si 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 internajional de lingvistic si lologie romanic (ed. by
Al. Rosetti) Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei, vol. 2: 953963.
Logar, Tine 1975. Slovenska narecja. Ljubljana: Mladinska Knjiga.
Loma, Aleksandar 1993. Neue Substratnamen aus Dacia Mediterranea.
Lozovan, Eugen 1968. Dacia Sacra. History of Religions, VII.
Lutterer, Iv., Krop!ek, L., Hu/!ek, V. 1976. Puvod zempisnch jmen.
Praha: Mlad Fronta.
Lrker, Manfred 1984. Lexikon der Gter und Dmonen. Stuttgart: Alfred
Krner.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
366
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
367
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
368
Macdonald, A.M. (ed.) 1972. Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary.
Edinburgh: W & R Chambers.
Machek, Vclav 1971. Etymologick slovnk jazyka ceskho. Praha: Academia.
Macrea, D. (ed.) 1958. Dicjionarul limbii romne moderne. Bucure!ti.
Macrea, D. 1982. Probleme ale structurii !i evolu$iei limbii romne. Bucure!ti:
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
si cercetri lingvistice 22, 6: 579586.
Mareti", T. 1886. O narodnim imenima i prezimenima u Hrvata i Srba. Rada
Jugoslovenske akademije znanosti i umetnosti, l.-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. Civilizajia lumii antice. Bucure!ti: Eminescu.
Matzenauer, A. 1870. Ciz slova ve slovanskch recech. 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 indo-
europennes, 5
th
ed., Paris.
Meillet, A. 1922. Introduction l'tude comparative des langues indo-
europennes, 5
th
ed., Paris.
Me1ny!uk, O.S. 1985. Etymologicnyj slovnyk ukrajnskoj movi, 2 vols, Kiev.
Mettke, Heinz 1978. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Laut- und Formenlehre.
4
th
ed. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
367
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
368
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
369
Meyer, Gustav 1891. Etymologisches Wrterbuch der albanesischen Sprache.
Strassburg.
Meyer-Lbke, G. 1935. Romanisches etymologisches Wrterbuch, 3
rd
ed.
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 si cercetri lingvistice 22, 4: 351366.
Mih"il", G. 1973. Studii de lexicologie si istorie a lingvisticii romnesti.
Bucure!ti: Editura Didactic" !i Pedagogic".
Mih"il", G. 1973. Studii de lexicologie si istorie a lingvisticii romnesti.
Bucure!ti: Editura Didactic" !i Pedagogic".
Mih"il", G. 1974. Dicjionar al limbii romne vechi (sfrsitul sec. X nceputul
sec. XVI). Bucure!ti: Editura Enciclopedic" Romn".
Mih"il", G. 1974. Dicjionar al limbii romne vechi (sfrsitul 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. Etimologiceski i pravopisen recnik na blgarski ezik. Soa.
Monier-Williams, Sir Monier 1976. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford (1
st

ed.: 1899).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
368
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
369
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
370
Morpurgo, Anna 1963. Mycenaeae Graecitatis Lexicon. Roma: Atheneum.
Morris, William (ed.) 1979. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language. Boston: Houghton-Mifin.
Moszy0ski, Kazimierz 1962. O sposobach badania kultury materialnej
Praslowian. Wroc-awKrakwWarszawa: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii
Nauk.
Mu%u, Gheorghe 1972. Zei, eroi, personaje. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic".
Mu!u, Gh. 1973. Din formele de cultur arhaic. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic".
Mu!u, Gh. 1981. Lumini din deprtri, Civilizajii prehellenice si microasiatice.
Mu!u, Gh. 1982. Din mitologia tracilor. Bucure!ti: Cartea Romneasc".
Mu!u, Gr. 1995. Voci din deprtri. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic".
Nagy, Bla (ed.) 1984. Magyar-romn lolgiai tanulmnyok. Budapest: Elte
romn lolgiai tanszk.
Nmeth, Jnos 1932. Die Inschriften des Schatzes von Nagy-Szent Mikls
(Snnicolau-Mare). Budapest-Leipzig.
N2mec, Igor 1958. Iterativnost a vid. Slovo a slovesnost 19: 189199.
Nica-Cmpeanu, Ioana 1979. Riturile funerare n Transilvania de la sfr!itul
secolului al III-lea e.n. pn" n sec. V e.n. Acta Musei Napocensis 16: 157170.
Nikou Tegeridi, Yoanna 19971998. Groupes smantiques des emprunts
turques dans la langue grecque. Linguistique Balkanique 39 (19971998), 34:
125140.
Nissen, H. 1986. The archaic texts from Uruk. World Archaeology 17, 3: 317
334.
Ni)u, George 1988. Elemente mitologice n creajia popular romneasc.
Bucure!ti: Albatros.
Normier, Rudolf 19992000. Neue Wege zum etymologischen Verstndnis des
Armenischen. Linguistique Balkanique 40 (19992000), 1: 1326.
Novakovi", Stojan 1913. Bastina i boljar u jugoslovenskoj terminologiji
srednjega veka. Glas kraljevske Akademije, Beograd, 92: 210255.
Ogibenin, B. L. 1974. Baltic Evidence and the Indo-Iranian Prayer. The
Journal of Indo-European Studies 2, 1: 2345.
Olivier, J.-P. 1986. Cretan writing in the second millenium B.C. World
Archaeology 17, 3: 377389.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
369
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
370
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
371
Olteanu, Pandele (ed.) 1975. Slava veche si slavona romneasc. Bucure!ti:
Editura Didactic" !i Pedagogic".
Olteanu, 3tefan 1983. Societatea romneasc la cumpn de milenii (sec.
VIIIXI). Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic" !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. Wien-
Leipzig: 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 cas. Se zvlstnm zretelem ke vztahu mezi casem 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. Inuenje romane si 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?). Slavisticna Revija 36,4:
349358.
Paliga, S. 1989 a. Zeit"$i feminine ale basmelor romne!ti: zn", Snziene.
Originea cuvntului !i a cultului profan. Limba romn 38, 2: 141149.
Paliga, S. 1989 b. Types of mazes. Linguistica 29: 5770.
Paliga, S. 1989 c. Old European, Pre-Indo-European, Proto-Indo-European.
Archaeological Evidence and Linguistic Investigation. The Journal of Indo-
European Studies 17, 34: 309334.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
370
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
371
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
372
Paliga, S. 1989 d. Ora!. Fascina$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?). Slavisticna
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
Reections 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.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
371
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
372
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
373
Paliga, S. 2001 a. Oris zgodovine Slovanov. Slavisticna 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 (Soa) 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, Soa-
Jambol, 2529 September 2000. Soa: International Foundation Europa Antiqua -
Soa; 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 Herrschersufx in Central-East
European Languages. Linguistica (Ljubljana): 918.
Paliga, S. 2002 d. Archaic Place-Names in Slovenia: Pre-Indo-European, Indo-
European (Illyrian, Celtic, Thracian), Early Romance. Simpozij Obdobja, Ljubljana.
Paliga, S. 2003 a. Toponimia slav si 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. Inuenje romane si preromane n limbile slave de sud. Ed. a
2a. Bucure!ti: Ed. Evenimentul. [Series Sorin Paliga, Opera Omnia, vol. II].
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
372
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
373
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
374
Panevov, J., Eva Bene&ov, Petr Sgall 1971. Cas a modalita v cestin. Praha.
Papahagi, Tache 1924. Cercet"ri n Mun$ii Apuseni. Grai "i suet 2: 2288.
Papahagi 1963 = Papahagi 1974.
Papahagi, T. 1974. Dicjionarul dialectului aromn, 2
nd
ed. Bucure!ti. 1
st
ed.: 1963.
Papahagi, T. 1979. Mic dicjionar folkloric. Ed. by Valeriu Rusu. Bucure!ti:
Minerva.
Papazoglu, Fanula 1957. Makedonski gradovi u rimsko doba. Skopje: 1iva
antika, posebna isdanja, knjiga I.
Papazoglu, F. 1969. Srednjobalkanska plemena u predrimsko doba. Sarajevo:
Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.
Parpola, A. 1986. The Indus script: a challenging puzzle. World Archaelogy 17,
3: 399419.
Pa%ca, 3tefan 1927. Commentary on Papahagi 1924. Dacoromania 4: 1009
1017.
Pauliny, Jn 1999. Arabsk sprvy o Slovanoch. Bratislava: Veda.
Prvan, Vasile 1923. Considerajii asupra unor nume de ruri daco-scitice.
Bucure!ti.
Prvan, V. 1926. Getica. Bucure!ti.
Prvulescu, Adrian 1974. Demtre Cantemir et ltymologie de roum. stejar.
Dacoromania (N.S.) 2: 278287.
P'tru), Ioan 1971. Le roumain sut cent et le problme des premires
relations linguistiques slavo-roumaines. Actele celui de-al XII-lea Congres
internajional de lingvistic si de lologie romanic, vol 2: 10611068.
P"tru$, I. 1980. Onomastic romneasc. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic" !i
Enciclopedic".
P"tru$, I. 1984. Nume de persoane si nume de locuri romnesti. Bucure!ti:
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 si toponimie. Bucure!ti: Editura
Academiei.
Philippide, Alexandru 19231928. Originea romnilor, III. Ia!i.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
373
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
374
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
375
Pieri, Silvio 1912. Dalcuni elementi etruschi nella toponomastica toscana.
Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei 21: 145190.
Poghirc, Cicerone 1968. B. P. Hasdeu, lingvist si lolog. Bucure!ti: Ed. #tiin$ic".
Poghirc, C. 1969. Inuenja autohton, n Rosetti et alii (ed.) 19651969, 2: 313364.
Poghirc, C. 1976. Thrace et daco-msien: langues ou dialectes? Thraco-dacica
1: 335347.
Poghirc, C. 1987. Latin balkanique ou roumain commun? Romanica
Aenipontana 14: 341348.
Pokorny, Julius 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. Bern-
Mnchen: Francke Verlag.
Polom, E.C. 1987. Who are the Germanic people? in Skomal and Polom
(eds.) 1987: 216244.
Popovi", Ivan 1960. Geschichte der serbokroatischen Sprache. Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz.
Poruciuc, Adrian 1987. The Japhetic connection as suggested by etymologic-
mythologic correspondences like Hittite Istanus Hungarian Isten and Old Norse
Thunnar Turkish Tanri. Analele stiinjice ale Universitjii A.I. Cuza din Iasi,
N.S. (series Linguistica) 33: 2732.
Poruciuc A. 1990. Lexical relics (Rom. teafr, Germ. Zauber, Eng. tiver): a
reminder of prehistoric red-dye rituals. The Mankind Quaterly 30, 3: 205224.
Pospelov, E.M. 1988. Skolnyj toponimiceskij slovar. Moskva: Prosve'tenie.
Preda, Constantin, Alexandru Vulpe, Cicerone Poghirc, eds. 1976. Thraco-
Dacica. Recueil dtudes loccasion du IIe Congrs International de thracologie,
Bucarest, 410 septembre 1976. Bucure!ti: Editura Academiei.
Pu%cariu, Sextil 1905. Etymologisches Wrterbuch der rumnischen Sprache,
I. Heidelberg.
Pu!cariu, S. (ed.) 19131948. Dicjionarul Academiei Romne, A-L. Bucure!ti. (= DA).
Pu!cariu, S. 1923. Contribu$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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
375
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
376
Ra!eva, Maria 19971998. Zu den bulgarisch-rumnischen lexikalischen
Wechselbeziehungen: bulg. na` :ae weiss. Linguistique Balkanique 39 (19971998), 3
4: 165167.
Raevskij, N.D. 1988. Contactele romanicilor rsriteni cu slavii. Chi!in"u: #tiin$a.
Raevskij, Nikolaj Dmitrievi!, Mark Gabinskij (eds.) 1978. Scurt dicjionar
etimologic al limbii moldovenesti. Chi!in"u: Redac$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, 2
nd
ed. Bucure!ti: Editura
Rosetti A. 1986. Istoria limbii romne, fully revised, nal edition. Bucure!ti:
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, 7
th
ed. Paris.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
375
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
376
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
377
Russu, Ion I. 1967. Limba traco-dacilor, 2
nd
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:
Rusu, Mircea 1979. Aspecte ale rela$iilor dintre romanitatea oriental" !i slavi. Acta
Musei Napocensis 16: 189200.
Sadnik, Linda, R. Aitzetmller 1955. Handwrterbuch zu den
altkirchenslavischen Texten. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Sala, Marius 1976. Contributions la phontique historique du roumain. Paris:
Klincksieck.
Sala, M. (ed.) 1988. Vocabularul reprezentativ al limbilor romanice. Bucure!ti:
Sala, M. (ed.) 1989. Enciclopedia limbilor romanice. Bucure!ti: Editura
Sala, M. (coord.) 2001. Enciclopedia limbii romne. Bucure!ti: Univers
Enciclopedic.
Samsaris, Dimitrios Const. 1993. Les Thraces dans l'Empire Romain dOrient
(le territoire de la Grce actuelle). Etude ethno-dmographique, sociale,
prosopographique et anthroponymique. Jannina: Ektypose Typographeio
Panepistemion Ioanninon.
Sanie, Silviu 1981. Civilizajia roman la est de Carpaji si romanitatea pe
teritoriul Moldovei, secolele II .e.n.III e.n. Ia!i: Junimea.
Schmid, Heinrich 1964. Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der romanischen
Zahlwrter. Vox Romanica 23, 2: 186238.
Schtz, Istvn 1984. A propos de quelques lments communs du lexique
roumain et du lexique albanais, in Nagy Bla (ed.), Magyar-romn lolgiai
tanulmnyok. Budapest: Elte romn lolgiai tanszk: 522537.
Seidel, Eugen 1960. O problmech vidu. Slovo a slovesnost 21: 249256.
Simenschy, Theol, Gheorghe Iv'nescu 1981. Gramatica comparat a
limbilor indo-europene. Bucure!ti: Editura Didactic" !i Pedagogic".
Sireteanu, Ion Popescu 1983. Limb si cultur popular. Din istoria lexicului
romnesc. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic" !i Enciclopedic".
Srbu, Valeriu 1993. Credinje si practici funerare, religioase si magice n
lumea geto-dacilor (pornind de la descoperiri arheologice din Cmpia Brilei).
Gala$i: Porto Franco.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
376
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
377
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
378
Skeat, W.W. 1879. An etymological dictionary of the English language. Oxford
(many subsequent editions).
Skeat, W.W. (ed.) 1913. The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Oxford.
Skeat, W.W. (ed.) 1913. The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Oxford.
Skok, Petar 1917. Studije iz ilirske toponomastike. Glasnika zemeljskog
muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini (Sarajevo): 29: 117144.
Skok, P. 1920. Prilozi k ispitivanju srpsko-hrvatskih imena mjesta. Primljeno u
sjednici razreda histori)kolologi)koga od 16. junija.
Skok, P. 1936. Ju%ni Sloveni i turski narodi. Jugoslovenski istoriski casopis 2.
Skok, P. 1950. Slavenstvo i romanstvo na jadranskim otocima. Toponomasticka
ispitivanja. Zagreb: Jadranski institut Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i
umetnosti.
Skok, P. 19711974. Etimologijski rjecnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, IIV.
Zagreb.
Skomal, S.N., E.C. Polom (eds.) 1987. Proto-Indo-European: the
archaeology of a linguistic problem. Studies in honor of Marija Gimbutas.
Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.
Slavova, Mirena 19971998. Greek Female Names in the Greek Inscriptions in
Bulgaria. Linguistique Balkanique 39 (19971998), 34: 109124.
Spinei, Victor 1982. Terminologia politic" a spa$iului est-carpatic n perioada
constituirii statului feudal de sine st"t"tor. Stat, societate, najiune ed. by N. Edroiu,
A. R"du$iu and P. Teodor, Cluj 1982: 6679.
Stamati, C. s.a. Musa romneasc, III. Ia!i.
Suciu, Coriolan 1967. Dicjionar istoric al localitjilor din Transilvania, 2 vols.
3'ineanu, Laz'r 1885. Elemente turcesti n limba romn. Bucure!ti.
#"ineanu, L. 1896. Ielele, Dnsele, Vntoasele, Frumoasele, !oimanele,
M"iestrele, Znele. Revista pentru istorie, arheologie si lologie. Bucure!ti.
#"ineanu, L. 1900. Inuenja oriental asupra limbei si culturei romne, III.
Bucure!ti.
#"ineanu, L. 1929 (DU). Dicjionar universal al limbii romne, 6th ed. by M.
St"ureanu. Craiova.
-aur, Vladimr 1975. Etymologie slovanskch prbuzenskch termnu. Praha:
Academia.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
377
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
378
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
379
-milauer, Vladimr 1970. Handbuch der slavischen Toponomastik. Praga:
Academia.
Tagliavini, Carlo 1928. Divagazioni semantiche rumene. Archivum romanicum
XII, 12: 161231; review: #t. Pa!ca n Dacoromania VI/1931: 451458.
Tagliavini, C. 1977. Originile limbilor neolatine. Introducere n lologia
romanic. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic" !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-dunrean si Bizanjul, secolele
VXI e.n. Ia!i: Junimea.
Teodor, D. Gh. 1984. Continuitatea populajiei autohtone la est de Carpaji.
Asezrile din secolele VIXI e.n. de la Dodesti-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. Miklosicev Zbornik.
Mednarodni simpozij v Ljubljani od 26. do 28. junija 1991. Ljubljana: Slovenska
Akademija.
Trajanovski, Todor 1979. Vlaskite rodovi vo Strusko. Prilog kon istorijata na
narodnostite vo Makedonija. Skopje: Prosveten Rabotnik.
Trautmann, Reinhold 1970. Baltisch-slavisches Wrterbuch. Gtingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (1
st
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
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
379
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
380
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. Svt dvnch Slovan2. Praha: Artia.
V't'%escu, C't'lina 1997. Vocabularul de origine latin din limba albanez n
comparajie 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. Godisnik na Soskija universitet, ist.-l. fak.
57, 2: 219372.
Vlahovi", Petar 1972. Obicaji, verovanja i praznovernice naroda Jugoslavije.
Beograd: Izdava)ko-gra)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-gejilor. Timi!oara: Facla.
Bibliographia
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
379
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
380
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, Contribujii la
cunoasterea limbii dacilor. Timi!oara: Facla.
Vries, Jan de 1962. Altnordisches etymologisches Wrterbuch, 2nd ed. Leiden-
Kln: E.J. Brill.
Vulpe, Radu (ed.) 1976. Actes du IIe Congrs International de Thracologie.
Wald, Lucia, Dan Slu%anschi 1987. Introducere n studiul limbii si culturii
indo-europene. Bucure!ti: Editura #tiin$ic" !i Enciclopedic".
Wald, Lucia, I. Fischer, Constantin Dominte (ed.) 2000. Alexandru Graur
centenarul nasterii. Omagiul fostilor elevi si 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. Soa: B"lgarska
Zaimov, J. 1977. Mestnite imena v Panagjursko. Soa: B"lgarska Akademija na
Naukite.
Zaimov, J. 1988. Blgarski imennik. I. Licni imena u blgarskite ot VI do XX
vek; II. Familni imena ot cuzd proizhod. Soa: B"lgarska Akademija na Naukite.
Zgusta, Ladislav 1964. Kleinasiatische Personennamen. Praha.

Etymologica Et Anthropologica Maiora

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Etymologica Et Anthropologica Maiora

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sori n Pal i ga

You might also like