v.karloukovski@... wrote:
> Moreover, Vl. Georgiev
> claims that the same boundary existed in pre-Slavic times village
> names to the west of Olt had been recorded as ending in -deva, and
> others to the east - in -dava. Also, the modern river name Cib&r to
> the south of the Danube had also been recorded as either Kebros or
> Kiabros. What is the nature of this dialectal boundary in Romanian
> and what are the current views on its origin there? Could it be
> really due to a substrate or it is thought it has (re)established
> itself with time over an initially homogeneous population? Is there
> evidence from elsewhere of dialectal (?) differences in a substrate
> affecting dialectal changes in a newly imposed language?
>
> Regards,
> Vassil
I don't have the work of Georgiev on the table (unfortunatelly). From
the bulgarian scholars I have the work of Decev and Duridanov here on my
table. Regarding the east and west relation, it seems the relation is
not very exactly.
At least I can see just as follow from the maps I have:
Example of "-dava" west of Olt:
Singidava, Arcidava, Sacidava, Dokidava
Example of "-dava" east of Olt:
Zargidava, Tamasidava, Ramidava,Piroboridava, Petrodava
North of Donau is no difference which should allow to think about a
dialectal diference.South of Donau we have as follow:
-in Moesian theritory:
Aedaba, Giridava, Sacidava, Dausadava, Murideba, Sagadava, Sucidava
-in the properly theritory of Thrace:
Bregedaba, Cumudeva, Zisnudeva, Pulpudeva ( actualy Plovdiv?)
-in dalmatian theritory:
Desudaba, Danedebai, Itadeba, Aidaba, Thermidava
It seems that the dialectally difference is a little bit hard to make
but if one wants it, then we can se a difference there. But even in
south of Donau, there are -deba, -deva mixed with -dava and not
just -deba or -deva.
Regards,
Alex