Re: [tied] Re: Decebalus, help needed

george knysh wrote:

> *****GK: Actually Alex, there is a bit of a difference
> between "Rus'kiy" (sometimes "Rus'skiy", where the '
> is the "soft sign" (b)), and "Russkiy" (hard double
> "s"). To be a Rus' King is not to be a Russian King.
> My grandfather still called his language "Rus'ka mova"
> (Galicians long kept the older terminology), but it
> was Ukrainian rather than Russian (Russkaya
> rech')*****

I understand. In Rom. there is never used a such kind of denomination
for own rulers. There is allways just "the king"
(actually voevodul nostru. If the one was still alive as the writer
wrote , the writer used "Mãria sa" instead of "voevod". "Mãria sa"= His
Majesty)

>
> I just know beginning with the 14 century
>> the valachs made the
>> difference between Ukrainians and Russians.. more,
>> the Zaporojans have
>> been considered very good "avant garde" soldiers in
>> the valachians
>> armies.
>
> *****GK: And about 10% of the Registered Zaporozhian
> Host of 1649 were of Moldavian descent. They were good
> Ukrainian Kozaks.******

That remembers me of Anna Comnena:"these Scythians!!! Allways bearing
other names but being allways the same":-))))
Pretty funny mixture in the frontier area there, aren't they?:-)

>>
>> what should mean SPQR?
>
> *****GK: Senatus Populusque Romanus.*****
>>
>> Alex

Sorry for my ignorance. It seems I am indeed a descendant of some people
who never heard of "Senatus" , even if they should be "populus Romanus".
Don't wonder, these people even don't have the word "senex" for "old"
but the another one from some free becoming and around vagabunding
"veterans":-)


Alex