alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>Hello All,
> Could you validate if the transformation :
>
> Samus (sec I en) -> Zomus ( sec XII en) represents a normal
>Albanian transformation. (In my opinion, yes, it represents).
>
> "Qui cum fugeret, properans ad castrum suum iuxta fluuium
>Zomus positum, milites Tuhutum audaci cursu persequentes, ducem
>Geloum iuxta fluuium Copus interfecerunt."
First of all, we should pay heed to how medieval authors
rendered hoponyms, hydronyms and anthroponyms in Latin
texts concerning Hungary in general, and how king Bela's
anonymous notary P. (probably called Pósa ['po:-SO]) did
this himself. (Towards the end of the 12th century.)
Thus, "z" in Zomus, is the general rendering of the Hung.
"sz", pronounced as a simple [s]. The "o," as in Zomus,
also can be the representation for Hungarian "a", which is
pronounced [O] (or like o in British English "hot") and
which medieval scribblers couldn't otherwise render in
Latin.
Cf. the name Zobolsu in the same text by the same
author (in modern Hungarian it's Szabolcs ['sO-bolc^]
(which, BTW, Romanianized, looks like this S&bolciu; e.g.
a village near Oradea). Or Zuard -> Szovárd. Moreover,
the same author in many cases wrote "s" meaning "sh" [S]
(e.g. Borsu) or "zh" [Z] (e.g. Usubuu) and even "tch"/"c^"
[tS] (Ousad, Bolsuu, Zobolsu/Zobulsu). And one almost never
knows when "u" is meant to be [u] or [ö] or [ü] (e.g.
Tuhutum or Tühütüm or Töhötöm).
The ending -us can also be seen as a mere Latinization
for the Slavic-Hungarian-Turkic(-Germanic) suffix
-<vowel>S (usu. -oS, -uS -eS, -iS and -öS, -üS).
On the other hand, it has to be taken into consideration
that the author's spelling is highly... sloppy: the
very same name heavily varying in the same few paragraphs
(which is annoying).
George