petusek wrote:
>
> In Czech, the feminine of "kra:l" is "kra:lovna" < OCz kra:lovna =
> "king's daughter" (kra:lov being probably gen.sg. of kra:l, and -na =
> feminine noun deriv.)
>
> Petusek
it won't explain the missing of "n" in "Craiova". But what if the name of
the city was not a feminine but something like in the name of the rivers? If
we get into the name of the rivers we will have for instance the river
"prahova" , the region "moldova", and the river Moldova in Czech. But the
river Molova in Czech is "vlatava", isn't it? WIth the change of an older
"mold-" to "vlat-"?"m" and "v" they are both labials, the change of "b" with
"m" is known in some languages, the reduction of the cluster "mb" to "m" or
"b" as well, but do we have the same change of "m" with "v"?
Anyway, we are to another suffix here. We got the starting point from
"-ovia" which Piotr considered a fancy latinised form and we are now to
"-ova" due my mention of ancient "ava" and Sava & Morava.
BTW; if "-ovia" is a Latinisation of an Slavic name in "-ova", then can onse
say Trajan did the same and he latinised the Dacian "bersova" into Latin
"bersobia" as he mentioned this village? Even if he did so, we cannot
demonstrate (it I think)
Alex