From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 3009
Date: 2000-08-08
----- Original Message -----From: kalyan97@...Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 5:32 PMSubject: [tied] Croatian: EtymologyDear Dr Kalanaraman,Let me say I like your queries. They touch upon some really fascinating problems.The most widely accepted etymology of Slavic *xUrvat(in)U 'Croat (Hrvat)' (x = "kh", a velar fricative) is the one attributed to Alemko Gluhak in the article, but in fact proposed by Trubachev (AFAIK) and discussed in the Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages (edited by Trubachev). It derives *xUrvat- from Iranian *xar-wa(n)t- 'having many women, abounding in women' (with the same suffix as that occurring in Sarasvati). The authors of the Dictionary further claim that *sarmat- is parallel to *xarwat-, being in fact the same name in two different Indo-Iranian languages: an "s-language" (Indic) and an "x-language" (Iranian). (The suffixes *-ma(n)t and *-wa(n)t had the same function.)An Iranian tribal name inherited by a Slavic people is not particularly surprising, given the proximity of their respective homelands and the well-evidenced Iranian impact on the neighbouring cultures as a result of their dominance in the north Pontic region (see my earlier comments on Slavic religious terms). However, its Iranian etymology doesn't mean that "Croatians are of Scythian stock". After all, the name of the Slavic Bulgarians was borrowed from the Turkic Bulgars (ancestors of the Chuvash), and the Slavic Macedonians took their name from the land where they settled. The name of the French is Germanic, their language is Romance, their historical roots are partly Gaulish, and their genes come from all over the place.BTW, the Polish nobility from the 16th century onwards firmly believed they were descended from the historical Sarmatians. That theory was developed by Maciej of Miechów in his Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis, Asiana et Europiana (1517), based on the ideas of Roman geographers. The Sarmatian myth indirectly reflects the importance of the Iranian element in ancient eastern Europe. It seems that the Arachosia story is another romantic attempt to answer the question "who we are and where we come from" by creating a latterday nationalistic myth. The "possible chronological progression" from Sarasvati to Hrvat is arbitrary, based on the similarity of sound, and makes no sense in terms of known linguistic processes.To sum up briefly: it's very likely that the word "Croat" has an Iranian etymology (and may even be equivalent to "Sarmatian"), but in this case Iranian (in the linguistic sense) means north Pontic, definitely not Persian.Piotr
Here is an URL link to an ongoing debate on the etymology of
'Croatian'.
http://www.dalmatia.net/croatia/history/arachosia/index.htm
I would deeply appreciate insights and comments on the etymological
problem.
Regards.
Dr. S. Kalyanaraman