>My best friend is hungarian and he confirmed me this.
He was right. But he should've added: da is one of the typical Hung.
place name suffixes (along with ad, -ád, -ed, -éd, -ód, -öd). Germans
called it Thorenburg (folk etymology: "Burg mit Toren").
>Turda is the first city attested on what is today Romania.
>This attestation is on 1075: where the city is attested as Turda
But then how about Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár/Bolgrad, i.e. Apulum, in
Roman times)? It was the capital of Transylvania for periods of time,
and in 955 it was called Civitas Alba of the Dux Gyula. How about the
earlier conquests in the West, Biharea => Nagyvárad a.k.a. Oradea,
Grosswardein (Latinized Waradinum) and Sathmar/Satu Mare?
>(with u as in Romanian and not with o as in Hungarian).
This doesn't have to signify much. In Hungarian, esp. in Transylv. Hung.,
the o <-> u and ö <-> ü oscillations have been very frequent.
(Methinks, that parallel cases are also abundant in Turkish, i.e.
Turkic languages, as well as in Iranian idioms.)
>Also this theory that 'might reflect some Turkic tribal community'
>is very vague to...
Vague, but 1000-1100 years ago, the entire area was dominated by
Turkic tribal groups, even by Khazars (presumably... dissenters who
moved farther to the West, coming from what's today Ukraine). Even
Gelou, the chief of the "Blaci/Blackis/Blazii" in Transylvania, is
assumed, incl. by Romanian historians, to have been a Turkic "duke"
too.
>In fact the real Dacian name was *Patarwitsa /patarwica/ (you can
I thought the Dacian name of that place was Dierna and that...
>Ptolemeus: Patruissa (wrong considered as a corrupted form because
>the rui was really there). Other attested forms Patauissa Potauissa
>Potaissa)
... this one in use when the town was a Roman settlement (be it a
Dacian place name itself or not).
>Roman transcription of Dacian sounds:
>1. Roman ss -> is the notation of Dacian ts /c/
>2. Roman ui /wi/ -> is for rui /rwi/ (see also the rui /rwi/ really
>attested at Ptolemeu: Patruissa at:
Then Patruvitza sounds quite Slavic, doesn't it! :=)
>So this word shows a complete Dacian evolution that indicates you
>that the Dacians remained there long after Roman retreat (271 AC)
A hypothesis. There is no corroboration whatsoever: neither a Dacian
or Thracian population between the 4th and the 10th centuries to be
able to carry on such a complicated derivation, nor a proto-Romanian
population.
Both populations of the 2nd millennium, Hungarians and Romanians have
Known of Torda and Turda, and nothing more. (Moreover, for long
periods of time, Romanians weren't even allowed to live within the
confines of such medieval "Burg"-like settlements. They were anyway
looked upon with suspicion, since they were "schismatici", i.e. of
Christian Orthodox faith, especially persecuted after the Naples
d'Anjou branch kings took over in Hungary around 1300.)
>Pa as in Patissus (in reality *Patitsja > [see tj>s in PAlb]
I am highly skeptical of these "PAlb" things. I don't think these
"egg-hen" aspects are as clear cut as they seem. After all, the
speakers of Albanian "emerged" even later than the proto-Romanians
who were called Vlachs by the surrounding nations (starting in the
Byzantine chronicles).
>*Tarwitsa > Turda is not so far, isn't it? so there is no need to
>add 'an unidentified Turkic tribe' here.
Well, yes :=), but if some sources tell us of some Torta clan settled
down there (I've gotten no specific & detailed information on that, so
I can't post anything), then hypothesis priorities look different. In
the aftermath of the Hungarian conquests and territorial and
administrative arrangements, the conquered areas in what's today
Hungary, Eastern Austria, Moravia, Slovakia, Croatia, Northern Serbia,
and Western Romania were also inhabited by various Turkic populations,
and even later on (according to Hung. chroniclers as well) further
Turkic, even Islamic, immigrants were allowed to settle down. The
Byzantine emperor Constantine VI chronicle called Hungary of the 10th
century "Turkey". It wouldn't take me by surprise if some expert
confirmed to us that the name of the duke Arpad's nephew, Tocsun (as
written in Latin), corresponds to the modern Turkish Tahsin. Tocsun
was a contemporary of emp. Constantine VI the Porphyrotenitus.
Within the Hung. "confederation", the Turkic tribes had the upper
hand, esp. those of Khazar extraction. The king's clan was thought and
praised as having been related to Attila the Hun, so that all conquests
were justified (in the early chronicles) as having occurred... de iure.
And most of those with "Altaic" way of life naturally lived especially
in the plains East of Pannonia (in the "puszta", i.e. steppe), on both
sides of the river of Tisa, and in western areas of what's today
Transylvania
(i.e., in the greater sense of the region name: also comprising
Partium/Crisana), and Banat, which lies in Romania and Serbia (namely
the province of Vojvodina). Ahtum/Ohtum, a ruler of the Banat area and
who was defeated by a relative of the Hung. King, must've been a Turkic
guy too, at least according to his name.
George