richard.wordingham@... wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001 <gs001ns@...>"
> <gs001ns@...> wrote:
>> Latin origin, since in the territory of the ancient Dacian-Moesian-
>> Thracian & Illyrian populations there were toponyms such as
>> "Alboca", as well as populaces known (in Latin) as "Albocensi">>
>
> Is the plural 'Albocensi' or 'Albocenses'?
Well Richard, this is a good question.
In the Greek form the name appears as "Albokensioi".
If we suppose just "-oi" is the Greek suffix then we have an
"Albokensi".
For me is too relevant the sufix "-ean" in Romanian which seems to be
the evolution of "en".
Somone who is living in Bucharest is caled " bucurestean", one from
PloieSti= ploieStean and so on.
So We have the city AlbeSti and one from there is AlbeStean. We do not
have a city called Alboca now, but if should have one , every one who
lives there will be an "albocean", and when we speak about "they, the
people of Alboca" they would be "alboceni".
Cf. Rosetti, the romanian suffix masc. sg "-eanu", masc. pl. "-eni",
fem. sg "-eancã", fem.pl "-ence" is a slavic one. The slavic "-jan-ino-,
en-ino"
He gives examples from OCS like: RimljaninU ( Roman), seljaninU (a
peasant).
If the salvic suffix could explain bad or right the masculine form of
the rom. suffix, the feminine one is in no way to explain trough slavic
or latin.
If romanian "ean" should be a thracian one like "ens" there is not to
explain why "s" is gone. So far, I don't have now one explanation and I
don't guess it is adequate to try to put a presumably Thracian *-ens in
connection with rom. "-ean"
Bad mouths will say this is an Inca suffix since it seems, the only one
language where from the Romanians still did not borrowed words should be
the Inca one:-))