Re: [tied] Dabragezas

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: george knysh
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Oguzname [Re: Klaproth]
>
>
> *****GK: [of "Dabragezas"] This is one of the "Antic" names that
> Struminski considered to be likely Gothic. I can certainly see the
> argument for the second part thereof, but the first sounded Slavic to
> me. Perhaps Piotr might clarify.

****** What's the exact form in which

> the name is attested? Is it really <dabragezas>? The adjective
> *dHabHro- does not seem to have any known reflexes in Germanic,
> whilst Slavic names in <dobro-> (early common Slavic *dabra-), such
> as Dobrogost, are numerous. I wouldn't like to speculate further
> before I can verify the accuracy of Alex's quotation. In some cases
> (remeber our discussion of Ardagast?) a name can be etymologised
> equally well as Slavic or Gothic, and it's very likely that the
> upper-class Slavs both borrowed and calqued Gothic names (Slavic
> *a:rdagastU would have been a folk-etymologised loan translation of
> <ardagasts>).
>
> Piotr

It ought to remember here that the germanist see everywhere Germanic
name, the turkologist see everywhere Turkish name, the slavists see
everywhere Slavic names.
The begin "dabra-" is so slavic-like that it can hardly be something
else. The Protoslavic root should be "dobrU"= good or "dUbrU" Valley,
Stream, othe roots I don't remember about which can fit. because of the
known a > o in Slavic I assume the root is the first, the "dabra-" =
good and not "dUbrU-".

The other roots as "dorog-" should be excluded since there is the "g".
The question is Piotr, why "dabra-"? in the V century? Should we think
the a > o was stil not changed in that time?

The "-geza" should be explained by Piotr .

P.S. the right form given by author is "dabragezas"

Alex