Brian M. Scott wrote:
> At 11:39:03 PM on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, alex_lycos wrote:
>
>> 3)the name for slavs in Romanian is "schiau" and this is
>> not because of Latin "sclabus" > schiau .See for this the
>> article here:
>>
http://www.jesus1053.com/l2-wahl/l2-autoren/l3-Uwe-Topper/slawentum.html
>
> Alex, <www.jesus1053.com> is a complete waste of time
> Unless he's changed his mind in the last few years, Uwe
> Topper accepts Heribert Illig's ludicrous thesis that
> ca.300 years of the early Middle Ages never existed, and
> ideas of that sort are the site's raison d'être
>
> Brian
That may be true Brian. For me is not interesting everything what is
written there. For me is interesting the fact there is the word
"Sciaveni" and in Romanian is the word 'schiau' for slave, better say,
the word with the bulgars have been denominated by Romanians in ancient
times.
Now why it is so interesting ? It is so interesting because the usual
explanation of the rom. word is given as Latin sklavus with
palatalisation of "l" sklavus > skiavus > skiau. But this is a Greek
word which entered Medieval Latin too. And if we accept this explanation
, that will mean that there are phonetically changes which worked in the
time the Romanians learned the Slavs. And here we have the contradiction
because the "Slavic" words, doesn't show the same treatment as the Latin
words.
And here is funny. There _has been_ the word "Skiavin" by default , but
in Romanian it is supposed to reach the same form trough derivation from
Latin. And this is a very interesting point for me in this case.
The historical data have an another path here and I am pretty intrigued
that there is a zig-zag for "find the ancient Slavs" therefore being
made several hypothesis as Old-Slavs in the neighbourhood of
Thessaloniki, the Panonian-Slavs ( renounced at this) the Daco-Slavs
(renounced at this too).
In fact the link sklavus = slav it seems not so solid argued.
Alex