--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
gpiotr@...> wrote:
the Old Ossetic speakers' term for
> themselves was not Iron -- a more recent formation
> from Ir 'Ossetia', which is foreign-influenced --
> but apparently Alan- (*�lan- < *arya:n-; had it
> survived, it would be *�lon today), the plural of
> which was (I suppose) *�lant� < *arya:ni-ta:.
>
> Piotr
****GK: A follow up. Using "Cuman" or "Kipchak" as a
designation for the 12th c. Polovtsians, and wanting
to distinguish the Ossetians of the Donetz from those
of the Caucasus as "the Ossetians of the Polovtsians"
would the proper grammatical form be something like
"AELANTAE-I-CUMAN/or KIPCHAK"? I'm interested in the
use of this linkage particle "I" (of) which is
apparently identical in Iranic and Turkic. (1) Would
the second "AE" in AELANTAE be imperative at this
stage of the Ossetic language? I.e. could it be just
"AELANT-I-KIPCHAK"? (2) Would a Turkic rendition use
AELANTAEetc. AELANTetc. or something else altogether?***
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1