Re: [tied] Re: Kastamonitu

From: george knysh
Message: 15278
Date: 2002-09-08

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
If the name
> Blachernae is sufficiently old, the initial was
> originally [bl-] rather than [vl-].

*****GK: True. How old would it have to be, i.e. what
is the accepted terminus date for "classical Greek"?

> >(GK) P.S. Your point about the metathesis of
liquids in
> So.
> > Sl. seems to rule out "Vlachernai" having anything
> to
> > do with Vlakhs. It is firmly attested at least
> from
> > the mid-5th century. I take it that a metathesis
> in
> > Greek (Vlach- from Valch-) is impossible?
> >
> Not impossible, perhaps, but too ad hoc to be
> credible.

*****GK: Do you mean that, while not impossible, there
are no other known or recorded instances of such a
metathesis ?******

Remember that despite the phonetic
> similarity there is no Byzantine tradition linking
> Blachernae with the Blachi (Vlachs).

*****GK: At first glance this is an interesting point.
But there are problems with it. If the tradition
recorded in the 10th c. Chronicle was very recent,
then the point holds. Yet we have no assurance that
this is so, and as I think more on the matter, have no
way of concluding that the story about "Vlachern duke
of the Scythians" only arose in the 10th c. And while
Byzantine "Vlach-" is not regularly attested prior to
the 10th c. (unless we include the bit about the
invasion of Bulgaria by "Rhincos" Vlachs), the
existence of Romanic-speaking elements which would be
referred to as "foreigners" by Germanic-speakers is
centuries older. The question is: could these "Valh"
populations be called "Scythians" by the Greeks? And
the answer is: certainly. Alex's incoherently
organized list of authorities about Getae=Goths
includes a citation from Philostorgius to that effect.
So much for the historical aspect. I won't pursue the
linguistic issue further for the moment, but am
curious about the -ern material provided by George
> Piotr

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes