Re: [tied] Re: Scythians, Zoroastrians, etc.

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 12552
Date: 2002-02-28

The name is Getic, in the first place, and I don't think a careful distiction between Getic (Dacian) and Thracian is unnecessary pedantry. Secondly, its etymology is anything but certain; it's even hard to tell if the first element was <zamol-> or <zalmo->. <zalmos> is cited by Porphyry as the Thracian word for 'a skin', which is a rather far shot from <hilms> (*xelmaz < *k^el-mo-), and shows non-matching vocalism.
 
I do not trust Thracian etymologies based on loose similarities and unverifiable interpretations. The Greeks may have hesitated occasionally over the choice of zeta or sigma to represent foreign /z/, but there's no real evidence of s-voicing in the Thracian. Sure cases of etymological *s and *k^ (e.g. hydronyms like Serme:/Sermius < *ser-mo- 'current, flow') contain <s> in Greek and Latin orthography.
 
Piotr
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:05 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Scythians, Zoroastrians, etc.

For what it's worth: Detschew and others relate *zalmo- of Zalmoxis with Goth. hilm-s "helmet" etc. In other words Thracian z- should be cognate with PIE *k. Perhaps Thracian voiced initial <s> like German (at least in some contexts)? Thus *sura > zura?