From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 57915
Date: 2008-04-24
>Brian, It's you that you didn't understand.
> At 5:23:43 AM on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, alexandru_mg3
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 8:52:05 PM on Tuesday, April 22, 2008, alexandru_mg3
> >> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> George, Gyula is obviously from Iuliu(s)
>
> >> And yet the name regularly appears in medieval records as
> >> <Gyula>, occasionally <Geula> or <Gula>, even in Latin
> >> contexts: e.g., <Gyula filius Ladizlai>, <Tiburtius, Gyula,
> >> Alexander et Helias comites vice regia discutientes>,
> >> <magistri Gyule filii comitis Baldini iuvenis nostri ...
> >> magister Gyula simul cum Stephano fratre suo>, <venerabilis
> >> uir magister Nycholaus sancte Strigoniensis ecclesie electus
> >> eiusdemque loci comes perpetuus aule nostre cancellarius et
> >> magister Gyula filius Ladislay woyewode frater eiusdem>,
> >> <Thomas ... pro se et pro duobus filys suis Gula et Paulo
> >> vocatis>, <Fassio Comitis Mathie et Ratholdi filiorum condam
> >> Rolandi Bani fratris Comitis Giula Judicis Curiae Regiae
> >> super possessione Aravicah in Comitatu Posegensi pro matre
> >> sua relicta ... condam Rolandi>, <Stephanus filius Gule de
> >> Puruzlov>, etc. One also occasionally find <Jula> ~ <Iula>,
> >> but not <Iulius> or the like, though <Julian> and <Julianus>
> >> are found. (Citations from Fehértói Katalin, Árpád-kori
> >> szemalynévtár (1000-1301).)
>
> > Of course is not Iulius because yu > gj of Proto-Albanian
> > is ended end-of-the-Roman Period
>
> You missed the point completely. In a Latinizing context in
> which other names are given Latin forms, this one isn't,
> even though the <Julian(us)> is. I could say more, but
> George has already said more than that.
>
> Brian
>