Hello George,
You said :
> On the other hand, it has to be taken into consideration
> that the author's spelling is highly... sloppy: the
> very same name heavily varying in the same few paragraphs
> (which is annoying).
[...]
> Moreover,
> the same author in many cases wrote "s" meaning "sh" [S]
> (e.g. Borsu) or "zh" [Z] (e.g. Usubuu) and even "tch"/"c^"
> [tS] (Ousad, Bolsuu, Zobolsu/Zobulsu).
In case of "Zomus" more probably we have here a "z". Why?
Because there are other documents :
-------------------------------------------------------------------
see : 1268: Zhomos, aqua (Gy. 1: 553 [itt Zhomus alakban], 563).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
url :
http://nevarchivum.klte.hu/nevarchivum/archivum/main/main_beszterce.ht
ml
where is written with 'zh'.
As yourself said "zh" indicates a "Z" .
2.
<< Thus, "z" in Zomus, is the general rendering of the Hung.
"sz", pronounced as a simple [s]. The "o," as in Zomus,
also can be the representation for Hungarian "a", which is
pronounced [O] (or like o in British English "hot") and
which medieval scribblers couldn't otherwise render in
Latin. >>
Your method is wrong. You present here TODAY hungarian
pronunciation that is not relevant AT ALL for our subject.
(I learned this from Piotr during Bessa topic)
Do you know the Hungarian situation around 900-1000AC, when the
Hungarians arrive in Panonia ?
I said this because you have to present the situation
of Hungarian Language around this date and to show how this is
reflected in the Hungarian loaned toponimy (as we found it
in the medieval documents).
In any case, in case of "Zomus" we have another document with
a 'zh' spelling "Zhomus" (see above). Honestly I don't know the
history of Hungarian language, but is hard to believe that the
written 'zh' was pronounced 's' in Hungarian around 1000-1200AC.
3. " The ending -us can also be seen as a mere Latinization
for the Slavic-Hungarian-Turkic(-Germanic) suffix
-<vowel>S (usu. -oS, -uS -eS, -iS and -öS, -üS). "
I understand from here that this written '-us' could arrive from
everywhere like a "Slavic-Hungarian-Turkic(-Germanic) suffix" (long
construction, here isn't it?)
but in any case NOT from a Romanian or Albanian one....
If this is what you said, is this a good method?
If yes, please present the complete transformation for Samus ->
Zomus (taking into account rom. Somesh) using your
"Slavic-Hungarian-Turkic(-Germanic)" transformations.
4. "And one almost never knows when "u" is meant to be [u] or [ö] or
[ü] (e.g. Tuhutum or Tühütüm or Töhötöm)."
In case of Tuhutum your are right : we will never know.
But I can tell you that in case of TURDA (ancient Potaissa) that
is attested in 1075 as TURDA with U, like in today and also in the
ancient Romanian pronunciation. (and not as in today magh.
pronunciatian TORDA with O) we have an U :
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Ultra silvam ad castrum quod vocatur Turda...in loco, qui
dicitur hungarice Aranas, latine autem Aureus "
(1075 A.D.),
------------------------------------------------------------------
This shows that the Hungarians learned 'TURDA' from a population
that pronounced it with U.
What is 'strange' also, is that the Hungarians knew very well
that the surround place in Latin is called : "Aureus". (This happens
77 years after their arrival in Panonnia and about less than 50 years
after their arrival in Turda)
From where they could learn, how the place is named in Latin ?
(maybe from the Slavs, Turks or Germans, isn't it?)
Best Regards,
marius alexandru
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <st_george@...> wrote:
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> >Hello All,
> > Could you validate if the transformation :
> >
> > Samus (sec I en) -> Zomus ( sec XII en) represents a normal
> >Albanian transformation. (In my opinion, yes, it represents).
> >
> > "Qui cum fugeret, properans ad castrum suum iuxta fluuium
> >Zomus positum, milites Tuhutum audaci cursu persequentes, ducem
> >Geloum iuxta fluuium Copus interfecerunt."
>
> First of all, we should pay heed to how medieval authors
> rendered hoponyms, hydronyms and anthroponyms in Latin
> texts concerning Hungary in general, and how king Bela's
> anonymous notary P. (probably called Pósa ['po:-SO]) did
> this himself. (Towards the end of the 12th century.)
>
> Thus, "z" in Zomus, is the general rendering of the Hung.
> "sz", pronounced as a simple [s]. The "o," as in Zomus,
> also can be the representation for Hungarian "a", which is
> pronounced [O] (or like o in British English "hot") and
> which medieval scribblers couldn't otherwise render in
> Latin.
>
> Cf. the name Zobolsu in the same text by the same
> author (in modern Hungarian it's Szabolcs ['sO-bolc^]
> (which, BTW, Romanianized, looks like this S&bolciu; e.g.
> a village near Oradea). Or Zuard -> Szovárd. Moreover,
> the same author in many cases wrote "s" meaning "sh" [S]
> (e.g. Borsu) or "zh" [Z] (e.g. Usubuu) and even "tch"/"c^"
> [tS] (Ousad, Bolsuu, Zobolsu/Zobulsu). And one almost never
> knows when "u" is meant to be [u] or [ö] or [ü] (e.g.
> Tuhutum or Tühütüm or Töhötöm).
>
> The ending -us can also be seen as a mere Latinization
> for the Slavic-Hungarian-Turkic(-Germanic) suffix
> -<vowel>S (usu. -oS, -uS -eS, -iS and -öS, -üS).
>
> On the other hand, it has to be taken into consideration
> that the author's spelling is highly... sloppy: the
> very same name heavily varying in the same few paragraphs
> (which is annoying).
>
> George