Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> 31-08-03 00:50, alex wrote:
>
>> Since it seems you are pointing allways to that ominos "Esbenos" and
>> you are convinced about the fact this name meant horse, be my way,
>> belive it.
>
> I'm not talking about an isolated name but about a whole set of
> pesonal names containing the element <esb->.
The whole set you are talking about should be:
Esbenios, Esbenus, Hesbenus ( in my opinion the same name written in
several manners)
Betesbios, Outasbios
These are the whole I know; I should be thankfully to you if you -
knowing more of them - will show them here.
We have to keep in minde that the Betesbios, Outasbios cannot be
componded from the same words as Esbenus, I mean, if in one of this
words any particle should mean "horse" then apparently just in the
Betesbios and Outasbios. But I guess none of them has this root as
compositional part. The words which are known for *ek'uus- are:
Skt: asva, Avest: aspa; Lit: as^va; Leth: es^va; Old Prus: asa(< aspa)
One can argue in Thracian the "n" is an infix there or a part of a
suffix thus esb-enus or esbe-nus if one want to have there a horse. If
one choice "Esbenus" then Outasbios and Betesbios have in common with
Esbenos just the cluster "-esb-".
Is this enough for being sure this particle "esb" is indeed from PIE
cluster *-kwuu-"?
>
> Dechev is too inconsistent. He accepts both <den-> and <zen-> as
> reflexes of *g^enh1-, and generally <d>/<z> for *g^(H) and <tH>/<s>
> for *k^, and shows no caution whatsoever when comparing Thracian
> names with some hopelessly *k^rappy roots. I'd reject most of the
> above material together with the proposed derivation of Thracian /d/
> and /tH/ from PIE satemised velars.
I agree with the inconsistentness of him and I reject too the material
brought in discution . In fact there are two words which make the whole
situation to be very strange. He assumes Asamus and Samos are from PIe
*ak'- but he forget the Dacian toponym "Akmonia" at this capitol ( he
speaks later about it where is seen as a "celtic" one).
About "Arzos, Arsos" ( < PIE arg'-) this should be the actualy "ArgeS"
in Rom. The pure question of logic is how do the Rom. have the word with
"-ge-" inside? If the Thracians/Dacians used "arzos/arsos" the Romans
could get just this form from them, the Greek too, the comming migrators
too. I very doubt the Goths/Gepides or the Romans ( as the only centum
speakers in that space after Roman conquest) have ever thought: "Aha!
The Dacians use Arzos and this word is derived from PIE *arg'-, thus we,
as centum speakers have to say "arg-" to this river". The slavs as satem
group should have got it too in the same manner with "z/s" and there is
no way of making of "arzos/arsos" an "ArgeS" in Rom.
As for Richard's question regarding the period of time as the Thracian
words have been recorded, I am missing these information too. None of to
me known linguists shows the period of time as the the words have been
recorded. They point to the "the whole material is by Jokl". My failure:
Jokl is the only one I stil did not read into this respect.
The only one, Deçev shows forms wich appear to be one and the same word
recorded at different period of time. But he use just "earlier" and
"later"; a precisely century is not given:-(
Some examples ( cap.XII "Affrikaten im Spätthrakischen") where the group
"ki" > "Ti" and of "ti" > "Ti" & of "s/z" becoming too "Ts" or "dz"("ki"
> "Ti" usual in Aromanian, not in DacoRomanian, and explained in Romance
as "debile-group" by Miguel) ( Late form / Old Form):
Tzinto - Kinta
Moutzipara - Mucipara
Bitzimaia - Bitimas
Burtsitsini - Burtilinus
Koutses - Cutius
Tsiernensis - Tierna
Tsita - Zita
Tzitzis - Sissis
Doritzes - Dorisos
Mamutzis - Mamouzeis
Tsukuleizis - Zukoulesis
Kabetzos - Kabessos
He regrets there are some Thracians name attested later where one miss
the older form. I give them here too and I have to say, I regret too I
don't know the older forms:
Bétsas, Brátzista, Gérmatsa, Pretsuries, Tsertsenutsas, Tsines, Tsoidas,
TsompolegonTsolutus, Tsurato.
Alex.