alex_lycos wrote:
>Common George, let us forget about. If you say that Geta
>is a ultrarecent name, you said all.
For God's sake: Geta being in use in our times is that.
So, this Geta is not the same Geta 2 thousand years
ago. Between these two Getas there is a hiatus of almost
two millennia. There was no Geta among the, say, 15th
century Romanians.
>With all the respect for your age, I must tell you I am
disappointed.
>I don't want to comment on yours "Gherghe" and I don't want to give
>a pay to your sweet allusions of "Cunoste-ti patria".
I'm warranted to have said that. And, if you don't believe me
that thare's the variant "Gherghe" (i.e. without "o"),
then have a browsing in them wise books before concluding
you're disappointed. (After all it's me the George, not you,
so the probability to know something of George's realm
is a bit higher, doesn't it? ;)
>I very understand your point of view. You have no arguments but it is
>wise to assume there is everything new from Hungarians, Pethcengs,
>Cumans, Golden Horde, and they words just happened to take the same
>shape as we find them in some ancient sources. I can believe in a
>coincidence
It is no coincidence: the group of words pertaining
to the etnonym of that Turkic branch is *in Romanian*
connected only to them. If in ancient times there existed
similar words in one or another language of Europe, those
words have nothing to do with the *Romanian language*.
If they do, then it's your turn to prove it - be it only
by logical judgments.
>Until you will find the forms where from the actually form in Rom.
>should have been borrowed, I prefer to link them to the old forms I
>know.
You still don't know what you're talking about. Moreover,
some of the gentlemen who are regulars on this list and
who have solid and rich knowledge of the emergence of
Neo-Romance languages explained to you many a thing - far
better than I myself would've been able to do. In any case,
you've been given rich food for thought (nutrimentum spiriti).
In spite of all that, you insist to deem the entire stuff as
nebulous and not trustworthy. At the same time you in vain
insist to persuade the participants to believe in... actually
what? In esoteric things (to put it euphemistically).
>I consider I have to tell nothing more until you don't come with
>Hungarians or Cuman or other attested sources for Romanain actualy
>names as Dada, Dolea, Doclea, Duda, Zâna, Sira, Tsinta, etc,
What the heck are you talking about again?! We were
discussing only the toponyms and anthroponyms having
the root "Coman-".
>coincidentaly- names , which are to find in the thracian glosses.
>Until you do not find attested alternatives in other languages
>for these names where from Romanians could borrow them, I have
>nothing more to say.
No, the other way around: where is the proof that there is
a *direct link over 2 millennia* between the ancient names
and the Romanian names that seem to be similar to the old ones?
I haven't studied the etymology of those Romanian names, but I'm
quite sure there's hardly any link to the old ones. "dada" must
be some onomatopeic or baby language word, which is after all
popular in neighboring languages (perhaps more characteristic
of those languages than of ours; also note that "dada" and
"doda" is more frequently in the South and South-Western areas
of the Daco-Romanian dialect). Also note that Dudás [du:-da:$]
is a highly frequent Hungarian (incl. Gypsy) family name, the
'doodash' being the one... "der Ahnung hat vom *Tuten* und
Blasen" (in the trumpet). OTOH, "duda" in Romanian means
"mulberry", and "dud" = mulberry tree. A tree which is
wide-spread in Romania.
So, be cautious; and stop being so gullible: "all that glitters
is not gold."
George