Re: [tied] Fata morgana [Re: Lusitanians]

gs001ns@... wrote:

> alex_lycos wrote:
>
>> "Câlnic, Cornesti, Corbesci, Comanesti, Mãgura,
>> Erghevita (considered slavic) versus Ergavicenses in Spain)
>> If these entries are not wrong here, what are they for
>> evidences then? Aren't they linguistic evidences?
>
> For instance, Comane$ti is reminiscent of the Oguz Turks
> branch of the Cumans, who were the overlords in what's
> today's trans-Carpathian Romania & Ukraine - until the
> Mongol empire destroyed them (some of them settled down
> in Hungary forever, some of them went back to the
> steppes North of the Black Sea, disappearing in the
> "Golden Horde")
>
> As of Corne$ti, Corbe$ti & Magura... for a Romanian
> native speaker to believe in such <watchamacallit>...,
> well, hmmm... ya know whaddah mean. :-)
>
> George
>

I don't belive. There is just a compilation of ancient tribes names in
Europe wherefrom I exstracted for Spain some and I showed the
corespondance in Romanian.
If there is "comanesti" in conection with "cumans" ( BTW you know how
they called themselves and who told them "cummans"?) I am not sure. Fact
is, such a root "coman-" is atested centuries ago as the frist "cuman"
appeared in the region.
Until the Mongol EMire destroyed them?. Can it be there have been not
destroyed but as the great Mongol Invasion came, tehy have been already
moved in Hungary? I can make a mistake here, but maybe not.
CorneSti, CorbeSti, Magura.. I don't know what you mean. Do you intend
to say there are not village's name or what should mean here this
"watchamacallit"?