Re: [tied] Re: Thracian Toponyms

----- Original Message -----
From: <x99lynx@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 4:47 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Thracian Toponyms


alexmoeller@... wrote:
<<....the origin of this suffix (-esc) must be looked in
thracian, because
the latin sufix -iscus, like the greek suffix -iskos, makes
only
diminiutives. But in thracian, -isk appears in name of
toponyms and in
antroponyms too and, it makes adjectives which shows the
origin and the
relation of belonging to, exactly like in romanian.

[Steve]
Just a few small points.
1) I'm not sure why Clementianesce, Koriskos or Saturnicus are
to be taken as
Thracian words in the first place. I don't recognize the
other words, but
even if they are ancient and Thracian, there is no reason to
think that the
derivative endings are not Greek.

[Moeller]
You must not take them as thracian. They are given by ancient
sources as beeing thracians but the ancient sources can be
wrong too. We remember even of Cesar writing about celtic from
Galia resembling latin, don't we?And of course they could be
greek or they coul not be. If these suffixes are to find by
slavs and germans and greeks how would you aregue the
thracians does not have a such suffix?Is this suffix "-iscus"
just in IE of european layer to find and just at some of them
or this sufix is the others IE-languages like sansk, avst,
hitit., tocharian , or at leas, in one of them too?

[Steve]
2) The diminutive IS used often enough in georaphical names,
in everything
from Little Poland to Little Italy in New York to the Little
Big Horn River.
The concept of major (Graecia Major, I think, and Graecia
Magna for sure) and
minor (Asia Minor), and greater (the Greater Hebrides) and
lesser (the Lesser
Antilles), etc., is very common. And I don't see why the
same might not
hold for people. (E.g., Jordanes' description of the "Lesser
Goths",
mentioned in some earlier posts.)

So there is no reason why these toponyms and anthroponyms can'
t be
diminutives -- unless there's some reason to think they are
not.

[Moeller]
mmmm, let us think about the function of diminutives. Would
you think when you see a very big river for instance at
something suave, at something small and kindly and childish,
something which "asks" for a diminutival form?I wont argue for
the toponims given by Rosetti as example there but I will try
to see if for the given example there are "master" forms. So,
from the given example, we will take the suffix which is
supposed to be used for making the diminutiv and let se if we
get something like aster versus asteriscus.
ciniscus, clementianesce,coriscus, etriscus, laiscus,
lo(i)scus, saturisc(us), surisca
cin-,clementian-,etr-,la-,lo-,satur,-sur,-dac,-thrac,-bal-
But for having a better view of these I will give the
supplimentary date for all o f them:
Ciniscus= name of a village in CIL, VI, 2730;6-7
Clementianesce= village in Moesia inferior (Pârvan, Ulmentum,
II, 2, nr. 17, AARom, XXXVI, ist., 370
Coriscus= name personal masculine (CIL III 729;3; Rodosto,
Thrace)
Etriscus, name personal masculine ( CIL III, 1502; 5-6; Dacia)
Laiscus= name personal masculine (CIL III, 13.860;5-6
;Dalmatia)
Lo(i)iscus= name personal masculine (CIL III 3059;3;near
Albona, Dalmatia)
Saturisc(us) name personal masculine (CIL III, 2378;3;5-6,
Salonae, Dalmatia)
Surisca name personal feminine (CIL, III, 2126, 3-4:Salonae,
Dalmatia)
daciscus: in exp(editione) dacisca (CIL , III,
5218;3-4:Celeia, Noricum) / negotiat(ore)dacisco (CIL , V
1047:5: Aquileia)
thraciscus (Iul. Capitolinus, Maximin, III, 3; Iordanes, Get.
XV,86)
balisca vitis (Plinius Hist. Nat. XIV,30) "baliscam Dyrrachini
celelbrant, Hispaniae cocolobin, vocant" quoted by Graur in
Romania, LIII, 544

Are now these words looking out like diminutives ?

[Steve]
3) On a more basic level, a diminutive IS a derivative. And I
don't mean as
just a matter of morphology. Conceptually, you can't have
<basiliskos>, a
prince or little king, unless you already have the concept of
a king,
<basileus>. You can't have a <asteriskion>, little star,
unless you have a
regular star, <aster>. A relationship is implied that may go
beyond a size
comparison.

[Moeller] I very agree with you. This is why I gave the
explanation before and took the word without suffix for seeing
if there could be a relation like aster-asteriskion.

The fact that there other strategies developed for expressing
diminutives
doesn't necessarily eliminate the the greek -iskos as a way of
expressing
"origin or belonging to" at some point in time and space.

[Moeller] in other languages could be true. But not in
romanianHow explained, in romanian this sufix does not work:
Someone from Muntenia (Walachien) meant for pointing the
origin muntean, so you have Muntenia-muntean,
Moldova-moldovean, Ardeal-ardelean


4) It might also be pointed out that words like <thraikizo:>
are attested --
using the versatile Greek -izo: -- and might have moved into
other tongues
and been nativized into some other phonetic shape.

Steve Long

[Moeller] even once asked how much the greeks loaned from
otheres?If I remember right, there was people from north
coming over greek, and they have been called Ionians and
Dorians. Of course, I do not intend to suggest nothing when I
say that in romanian "Ion" is the most banal name of a male
and "Doru" is too a name. I never looked for to see what about
this names. For Ion I could swear this is a chrisian name, but
for Doru, I am not sure if this is a christian one, if this is
a new name in romanian or is an old name. Fact is, in the
small village where I was born, Doru was normal common name
and I don't know if these uncultivied pesants could learn from
somewhere that Doru as name, appears at Strabo too..