-------------------------------------------------------------
Mind you, I don't
see why Alexandru finds Roman use of <-dava> so improbable,
-------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Probability is defined as: 'Number of expected cases /
Number of total cases'.
So it's improbable: because I don't know any other case when the
Romans built a NEW city and named it using '-dava' particle with no
link with an OLDER one.
Did you know a NEW '-dava' city build by Romans ?
If yes, please post it here (will be a big historical discovery
in my opinion), and I will count +1 in the 'Number of expected cases'
variable that have a zero value inside it at this moment.
If not, remain as I said : is 'improbable' that such a thing
could happened.
Of course you can have other opinion and to say : 'yes, very
probable Thermidava was built by Romans'.
But I cannot understand why to sustain such an improbable thing?
If Ptolemeus located Thermidava near Scodra and also if '-dava'
wasn't borrowed as a suffix in Latin, what arguments you can have
further?
Or you simple don't like to see Dacians in Illyria?
Only the Best,
Marius
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
wrote:
> At 8:54:19 AM on Thursday, December 2, 2004, tgpedersen
> wrote:
>
> >> This seems a logic argument : Romans kept the old
> >> toponimy (this is true) but to built a New city near
> >> Skodra naming it with '-dava' seems unprobable.
>
> > Counterexample: Juli-acum > Jülich from Julius and the
> > Celtic toponymic suffix -acum. So in this case the Romans
> > followed local custom in naming. And there are more
> > examples.
>
> I'd say rather that they borrowed a Gaulish suffix
> signifying 'belonging to' or the like, Latinized it as
> <-acum>, and used it rather extensively. Mind you, I don't
> see why Alexandru finds Roman use of <-dava> so improbable,
> but the cases aren't altogether parallel unless there was
> more general Roman use of <-dava>.
>
> Brian