>1. Take a look ON ALL Finno-Ugric words for 'gold'
> 'arany' 'aranjos' => are not inherited Finno-Ugric Words
> So 'arany' is For sure a LOAN in Hungarian
You mean <ar> [Or].
>2 -any and -anjos are Hungarian suffixes.
That's right. With the slight correction: always -any
and -os. Whereas -anyos [always with the ypsilon, so
that after an [n] it shows that it must be pronounced
[ñ]) is [{-any} + (-os)]. The vowel [o] in -os depends
on the vowel [a] in -any. Otherwise, the second suffix
would be -es [æ$]
>These suffixes are present in Hungarian words arany
>& aranjos => where the obvious root is ar- here.
That's right.
>//-----------------------------------------------------------
>>But there seems to be a connection to the vast IE groups
>>of terms related to gold and copper a/es- and a/er-.
>
>'Vast' above seems for me an ideological pro-Hungarian thesis.
How can be something pertaining to Proto-Indoeuropean be
pro-Hungarian? And "ideologically" at that. (What on earth
are you talking about?)
>THAT 'VAST IE GROUPS' ARE NOT 'VAST' AT ALL: Latin aurum
Have a look at the group of words related to it, e.g. its
dialectal form ausum (< *aus); then copper: aes; silver:
argentum; compare them with Lat ensis, and with Sanskr.
asis. As well as with Germanic *isarn (> German i:sen
and i:sern > Eisen & eisern + ehern; and Engl. iron < isern)
Etcetera. Hungarian ezüst "silver" and arany "gold"
(i.e., ez- [æz] and ar- [Or]) seem indeed to be loans
from some PIE idiom even if one doesn't know the etymologies
proposed by professional linguists.
>Probably? the vocalism of arany is quite different that ezüSt
>etc...please try another etymology...:)
First of all, you ought to see the PIE relationship
in metallurgy vocabulary between these roots <vowel(s)>R
and <vowel(s)>S (whereby the vowels are usually [a], [e]
and a long [i] and the diphtong [ai]). The metal words
with both occurrences are extant in the vocabulary of
Latin and related dialects as well.
> Incorrect. Incorrect . Incorrect.
Romanian does not have any transformation
such as aur- > *ar. There is only > aur. And, on top of that,
the [au] is even emphasized by the fact that in Romanian [au]
has ceased to be a diphtong: these vowels have to be pronounced
in separate syllables. Thus, with the definite article, we
say aurul, ie, ['a-u-rul]. In other words, [u] not only did
not vanish, but the [au] in the inherited Latin word has been
emphasized in Romanian.
But this is an insurmountable hinderance for the Hungarian
language to take a Romanian word <aur> in order to transform
it in <ar-> plus suffixes. Since in Hungarian phonetics á
[a:] is the only [a] vowel. That what's written <a>, without
accent, is no [a] but some kind of "open" [o]. Such a loanword
from Romanian should've given at least something like *árany
['a:-rOñ].
>Note that the Hungarian have loaned & adapted to their suffixes
>a derived form (see arany) of aur and not the primary form auru
It is obvious you didn't understand. Again: look only at the
roots (ar- and ez -- pronounced in today's Hungarian [Or-]
and [æz-]; in the words arany and ezüst these roots are
always stressed, because the 1st syllable is stressed). The
suffixes -any, -üst, and -os (-es, if the vowel in the root
differs) do not matter; I mean the origin of these suffixes
is of much lesser importance for the creation of the words.
What matters is the roots, and these look very akin to various
kind of PIE roots for those metals (esp. for copper and iron).
>Note again next that ar- in Ar-any has its primary source
>from Latin.
*I* don't know if arany is a loanword from *Latin*. If it is,
then you'll surely be so kind as to show us the sources for
such a statement. I'd be curious to learn how Hungarians
got ar- [Or] out of Lat. aur- without an intermediate or-
[similar to French or], an intermediate that is unknown in
Romanian, since Romanian has preserved [au] in aur-, in
all reflexes.
So, if the Hung. language borrowed this word from another
idiom, the chances that this one was Romanian tend to nil.
>Next based on its vocalism the source can be ONLY:
>Either
> 1. directly the Balkan Latin
What kind of Balkan *Latin* can we talk about in a period
of time, say, between 896-1096? And the inheritor of the
Balkanic Latina Vulgata, called Romanian (or Vallachian),
unlike French and Italian, doesn't have [or] for its older,
that is Latin, counterpart [aur], but it has ['a-ur], then
what prompts us to believe there once existed a variant
[or] thousand years ago, or so, that Hungarians who came
from Ukraine were fond to select for their own vocabulary?
[According to the finds in archeology sites pertaining to
buried primeval Hungarians, ie, in the 9th-10th centuries,
they had pretty much knowledge of metals before encountering
people of South-East Europe. On top of that, the contemporary
Protoromanian population all over the area, 1000 years ago,
wasn't an epitome of technology in matters of metallurgy as
to be a first address for the newcomers in order to garner
know-how -- which means to receive pieces of new vocabulary.]
>so the Romanian
>See as a Similar au>a Reduction:
>"aurar, s.m. [...] pe care Puşcariu 171 şi DAR îl
>derivă direct din lat. aura:rius (atrăgînd atenţia
>apoi că rezultatul normal ar fi *arar, Puşcariu, Lr.,
>18, a admis o analogie cu aur"
Who is the author? Vinereanu?
>To translate for you:
Oh, thank you very much, I appreciate, very kind of you.
>THE NORMAL RESULT IN ROMANIAN OF THE LATIN AURA:RIUS
>SHOULD HAVE BEEN *ARAR, GEORGE, IAR AURAR E REFACUT ANALOGIC
>
>The HIATUS a-u is preserved, George, ONLY in accented syllables
We're talking about <aur> ['a-ur]. That's the word. <Aurar>
is a derivation aur + (-ar). Even if we don't know whether
there is or there isn't an aurarius in Latin. A derivation
from aurum by dropping the [u] and upkeeping the [a], i.e.,
not converting it to an [o], is nowhere in Romanian. If it
was one, say, 800-1200 years ago, where are the traces?
You'll say: "In arany". It doesn't suffice, I'd reply -- and,
on top of that, how come that such an hypothetic <ar> has
reconverted to <aur>? Whereas... argint has stayed ar- as it
is in standard Latin (argentum).
>Or 2. an Albanoid Population Semi-Romanized also ... I
repeat semi-Romanized also... because Hungarian ar- is finally
>sourced from Balkan Latin aur- and in today Albanian the word
>is (guess?) ar.
When Protohungarians devastated regions of the Balkanic
Peninsula, the Albanian people didn't *existed* in the sense
that they didn't emerge as a distinct populace registered
as such in Greek et al. documents. For what reason should
a quasi-anonymous population be of utmost importance to the
new conquerors, who attracted in the upper spheres of their
realm Germans, French, Italians, Bulgarians and of course
Greek people, whom they deemed as important as clergy, trades
people, warriors etc.?
The Protoromanian population had been "Romanized" for many
centuries: plenty of time in various regions in a vaster
area between the Adriatic and Egean seas + the Black Sea
to evolve as a Romance population between the 1st century
b. Chr. and the 10th century, when the Hungarian confederates,
led by Khazar Turks changed pastures, leaving Ukraine for
Pannonia (a.k.a. "pascua Romanorum"). That is, Romanians
thousand years ago spoke Romanian, and no "semi-Romanized"
kinda stuff. That can be plainly said, based on linguistics,
even if there is no 1000 years old written record in that
earlier phase of Romanian. Later phases of Romanian, Aromanian,
Meglenoromanian and Istria-Romanian suffice to draw this
conclusion.
>Knowing that the Romanian Substratum is an Albanoid one too
Yes. But there's way to go to demonstrate how on earth did
Hungarians get the notion gold expressed in an Indoeuropean
idiom by a "semi-Romanized" and "Albanoid" populace; as well
as to demonstrate how aurum got arany without the help of
standard Latin (which was soon the official language of the
Hungarian kingdom).
>only the Romanians could be the source of Hungarian adaptations
>because NO other European Population (Latin or not) posses the
>word for GOLD in this form
And this is your error, my fellow Oláh: in Romanian, we have
been as conservative as to have been able to conserve aurum
as aur (as well as aër: aer), unlike all them colleagues
within "ginta latina". This is a far too big hinderance,
linguistically speaking, so that the "Albanoid" assumptions
are of no help, and to no avail, I'm afraid.
>I have presented you already based on Puscariu that a Latin
>aura:rius should gave *arar in Romanian and that Romanian
>aurar was reshaped by analogy[,] George?
Okay, let's assume the "correct" word would've been *ar in
Romanian, not as it is aur. What's the next step for [ar]
to get Hung. [Or]? And why the attachment of suffix -any
to it? (BTW, this suffix, along with its "brother", -ény,
is in many cases interchangeable with the suffix -(e/i)an-
which is tyipical of various IE languages, among them Slavic
ones and Romanian, whereas in Romanian, especially in Romanian
which is specific for the populace that has lived for about
thousand years together with the Hungarians there ain't such
thing as *aurean. This *aurean might explain arany, but only
if there is a plausible explanation for au or a > o. That is,
for the Italian-French phenomenon aur- > or-, which laks in
Romanian. And, noteworthy that in *aurean, the stress must
fall on -ean, not on aur-; if it falls on aur followed by
-ean, then it isn't Romanian.)
>Are you 'somehow' Hungarian?
No. (I am Avramutz's one remote relative.)
>>And, finally, the Romanian rendering of that geographic
>>Aranyos ['O-rO-ñoS] is Arie$ [a-ri-'eS]. In Romanian, Arie$
>>has no meaning. Only -e$ has the aspect of a suffix to the
>>Romanian ear. And that's all.
>
>Ariesh is constructed IN THE SAME WAY as Crish Somesh
>Argesh Muresh Timish SO as any ANCIENT Dacian (>Romanian)
>river name
Yeah, but nobody on this Earth knows who is the initial
"owner" of these -e$, -i$ suffixes, that are so typical
of the languages of those people who were the overlords
of the area in so many centuries after Rome forever lost
its provinces in Dacia, Pannonia and Noricum.
From ancient writings of various kinds (including Ptolemaios's
Geography) we know of Crissia, Samus, Ordessos, Maris, Tibissis.
But from where do Romanians have these <vowel>$ suffixation?
Is it due to Romanian internal transformations? Or is it due
to Slavic, Turkic, Hungarian influences? Or is it due to
the "substrate"? If due to the "substrate", then what kind
of correspondences are there in remnants of the "substrate"
elsewhere?
And these are major rivers. Smaller ones had different
names in ancient times -- than those in Romanian. Arie$,
that we're talking about, is such a case, since the ancient
names of it, both Dacian and Latin, are completely different:
what has stayed unchanged is only the *meaning*, "golden".
>1. Ariesh < Dacian *Aur-esja (where aur- is from Latin)
>2. Crish < Dacian *Kri-sja < *kWrs-(e)syo
>3. Argesh < Dacian *Ardz-esja < *h2erg^-esyo
>4. Muresh < Dacian *Ma:r-esja < *meh2r-esyo
>5. Somesh < Dacian *Sa:m-esya < *seh2m-esyo
>6. Timish < Dacian *Tim-e/isja < *tim-esyo
Whose assumptions are these above?
>So Aranyos is 'a translation' of a Dacian > Romanian *Auresya
What Dacian? The Dacians had been extinct as a Dacian
language speaking group for 4-6 centuries when Hungarians
gradually subdued and colonized those regions that later
on were called Banate (along with the adjacent areas
of former Moësia Superior) and Transylvania.
Aranyos is a perfect translation of the Late Latin Aureatus.
I'd rather ask another question: on which sources did
the authors of the oldest mentionings in written base
themselves when they chose the Latin name?
I've already pointed out the discrepancy between the Romanian
name of the rivulet, Arie$, and this late Latin name, as well
as the discrepancy between this Arie$ name and the whole
family of the Romanian words, which are reflexes of the
Romanian word <aur> "gold". Nobody knows that Arie$ *also*
means "auriu; ca aurul". *Only in connection with its
Hungarian name, Aranyos, is there any phonetical link!*
If we fail to see these aspects, then the whole analysis is
to no avail.
>see its 1075 attestation <<King Geysa I of Hungary in 1075
>endowed the Benedictine cloister in Gran which he founded
>with the reference to "ultra silvam" the salina (salt mine)
>near Thorenburg
Turda (Torda).
>and with half of the royal income "in loco, qui dicitur
>hungarice Aranas, latine autem Aureus">>
So, we have the attestation that already in 1075 Hungarians
had a name for it in their own idiom. And having the same
form as today, over 900 years on; the rendering of the sound
[ñ] in Latin isn't possible, unless one admits the spelling
rule of Hungarian -ny- (similar to gn in French and Italian,
and ñ in Spanish and nh in Portuguese).
>Not true these are recent formations George
>
>I will repeat for you THE NORMAL RESULT IN ROMANIAN OF THE LATIN
>AURA:RIUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN *ARAR, GEORGE, 'IAR AURAR E REFACUT
>ANALOGIC' (see Puscariu)
This is an inferred hypothesis. But as long as there is
no hint that Romanian once indeed had such intermediary
forms, to be abandoned afterwards, no no-nonsense discourse
is allowed to postulate *ar and *arar. If the assumption
was warranted to be converted into a thesis, then the
great master of his discipline, Sextil Pu$cariu, whould
have told/written us that Arie$ is a direct derivation
of Aureatus or Aureus, as well as that Hungarian arany is
to be seen as a loanword from *Romanian*. But he was a
scientist (at that, he has so much knowledge as the academy
in Romanian, the whole kit and caboodle won't have in the
next hundred years, let alone those bunches of flibbertigibbets
and consummate oddballs dabbling in substrate problems they
don't dig). That's why he had the decency to shut the heck
up there where one has to keep mum.
> NO LINK: I showed you that ar- could be ONLY from Latin via an
>Albanoid Romanized population situated NORD OF DANUBE in Apuseni
>Mountains
This is your *personal* opinion, and you're entitled to
have your opinion.
> Not via Slavic (beacuse not such a word in Slavic) not from
>Germans (because not such a word in German) not to somebody else in
>Europe (because not such a vocalism or word to any other population
>here): all the other peoples have either different words for GOLD or
>in the other Latin Languages the vocalism is different.
Finnic-Ugric peoples lived for millennia in regions where
they had neighbours ancestors of the Baltic-language speaking
peoples, of Slavs, of Iranic languages speaking peoples (Scythians,
Alans etc.) and of Turkic peoples.
Hungarians, i.e. Magyars (since the language is Magyar, and
does not belong to the Altaic branch, unlike the lost idiom
spoken for awhile (about 1-2 centuries) by the Turk elements
within the primeval Hungarian population)), were moved from
their places in East Russia (today's Komi Republic) by "Altaic"
semi-nomads. By gradually moving, within the big frame of
migrations in the first millennium our era, they also moved
southwards and westwards. All the while, in the last 4-6 thousand
years plenty of time for picking up IndoEuropean vocabulary.
I won't dare postulate a priori borrowing from Slavs, Germans
and Romanians whenever we encounter words of PIE origin.
Moreover, the ruling strata of the primeval Hungarians
who re-settled in Pannonia and then in Transylvania,
Northern Serbia and Croatia had a strong "Scythian"
tradition (the duke's, later on king's, house as well
as the houses of several chieftains/princelings. And
this is plausible via the Turkic lines, i.e. that included
assimilated Scythian/Sarmatian/Roxonan/Alan elements.
After all, ancient, PIE-languages speaking peoples that
... taught the Prototurks their way of life, namely that
of "Altaic horsepeople".
Unfortunately, I don't have any Hungarian etymological
dictionary, so that I can only see here and there some
terms in the web, that are mentioned as stemming from
ancient, even prehistoric variants of PIE-words. I remember
for instance that it's been said the Hung. word <szekér>
['sæ-ke:r] "cart" is very similar to its equivalent in
Sanskrit.
And there are some pieces of vocabulary which indeed
stem from the Balkanic substrate, e.g. karácsony ['kO-
ra:-tSoñ] (here it seems that we encounter again the
ending -any, but slightly modified as -ony) "Christmas,"
and the family name Kopácsi (only in Romanian and Albanian
does it make sense; in Romanian, the older form was
copaciul, which for about 100 years now has been replaced
by a... hyper-correct form copacul, because common people
didn't like the word to have the same form as singular
and plural: un copaci, doi copaci). Let alone the word
<brenze> "cheese" which is used in Hungary, but virtually
unknown to the Hungarians neighboring Romanians (brânzã).
These are clear lexical situations regarding the Romanian
link. But in the case of Aranyos--Arie$ the hypothesis
"derivation from Latin via Romanian" leaves too much to
be desired.
>Correct: Ariesh is not a pure Latin transformation
>However you made a Bad deduction (again) above => *Auresya > Ariesh
>is an ANCIENT Dcaian formation
Who told you this? Vinereanu?
As for the [ye] diphtongation in Romanian: be cautious, since
exactly the linguistic area of the Arie$, i.e. of the greater
North-West area of Transylvania (I mean, Cri$ana and Maramure$
included) is the most important preserver of very old phonetic
habits in this respect. In that area, unlike in other Romanian
areas and unlike standard Romanian, there is no [ye]
diphtongation (which some linguists have assumed to have occurred
under Slavic influence, warranted or not, I dunno). So, in the
subdialects overthere, there's no fier, fierbere, but fer, and
ferbere. People overthere, who diphtongate do that only under
the influence from the standard Romanian taught in schools (that
has heavy characteristics of the Romanian subdialects spoken in
South-East Romania). So, the chances that there, in "Muntzii
Apuseni", one rendered, during the centuries, a hypothetic
[*Auresja] to > Arie$ is unlikely. Something such as *Arã$
would've been likelier. Note Mure$: nobody arrived at a variant
*Murie$; but the entire subdialectal area, including subdialects
beyound the Carpathian arch, always has said... Murã$. Mure$ is
rather the high-style, standard Romanian variant, but not that
of the Romanian native-speakers living in the areas where the
river flows until it passes the frontier with Hungary. What is
more: the province Maramure$ is called in the native subdialect
Maramurã$ [ma-ra-'mu-r&S], again without any diphtongation what-
sover. And, surprise-surprise, this kinda diphtongation is the
most popular in those South-Eastern counties of Romania that
have decisively influenced *standard* Romanian. In Transylvania
and Moldavia Romanian piept "chest" and pieptene/piaptan "comb"
are justified in their diphtongation only out of k^ept, k^aptãn,
with the palatal k (or t if you prefer), which is not extant
in standard Romanian, and therefore the Romanian writing does
not have any letter for it.
Hence, I'd be very cautious with your *Auresia > Arie$.
>(see its phonetic transformations and
>think to their related timeframes) dating directly from
>Dacian times because we have sy>sh and e>je INSIDE: tipical
>transformation for Proto-Albanians and for the Romanian
>Romanized Substratum
Romanian hardly follows these lines. (Even $arpe: in the
area of Arie$ and almost all North-Western counties of
Romania -- I should dare say even to a greater extend
beyond the Carpathian arch, the first place is occupied
by $erpe [pronunced either 'Ser-pe or 'Sær-pe]. $arpe is
the first choice only because of the artificial homogeni-
zation under the influence of the Muntenian subdialect.
And my "suspicion" is that $arpe couldn't have occurred
without the intermediate [$ær-pe], namely with that [æ]
that only exists, again, in the western regions, and is
unknown to the Southern subdialects.
>However a Romanized Albanoid population was and is still visible
>there (attested in Gesta Hungarorum) => and this populatio are today
>Romanians: the Hungarian word arany is the proof that we were there
>George when the Hungarian arrived in Ariesh Valley
Both false assumptions. First of all, we can't choose this
wording, "Romanized Albanoid population". Instead, Romanians
(and even Vlachs). The Romanian language has a bunch of
substrate vocabulary and other linguistic indiosyncrasies,
that are interpreted as relics of some unknown "Balkanic"
language. And many of these words have counterparts, some
very similar, others not so close, in the Albanian language,
a language probably continuing some Dacian idiom (and not
the Illyric language, as the Albanian mainstream think).
That's all.
>George The WORD aur>ar is NOT present as a LOAN in SLAVIC
>or in GERMAN or in any other languages that was/is in that
>region with the EXCEPTION of Romanians and Albanians that
>was one and the same people with some dialectic differences
>Before the Romanization of Pre-Romanian
Yes. But the Romanization of the Romanians and the freezing
of the Romanization in the case of Albanians did not take
place there, but they took place in other areas of "Romania",
namely in other Dacias and Moesias + Pannonia. That's a
tremendous problem. Romanians have almost no memory whatsoever
of toponymy, hydronymy and oronymy in the former Dacia Felix,
except the big rivers and some dubious toponyms along the
Danube. There, in the neighborhood of Arie$, there is only
Abrittum that has some strange resemblance with Romanian
Abrud. Moreover, various place and waternames in Romanian are
explainable with the help of the Hungarian variants of them.
On the other hand, what if some linguist here or somewhere
else give us some information (that I myself don't have) saying
"arany came into the Carpathian Basin coming from the Russian
steppe"? Let's leave aside the... Nostratic speculations :-),
but only think of the Iranic link (again: I don't know what
lexems could or couldn't play a role). Hungarians, prior to
their dislocation in the steppes North of Black Sea in order
to move westwards had had plenty of occasions to see gold,
as well as to see masterpieces out of goldsmith's hands:
all along, the "Scythian" world had some good traditions (not
everything was stolen from Persians and Greeks).
Finally, arany is the pan-Hungarian word for "gold". So,
Hungarians living in Austria and Croatia also say arany.
Namely, most of Hungarians whose ancestors have never had
anything to do with that almost anonymous rivulet in the
mountains. If they once decided to replace their now forgotten
word for "gold" with a loanword, then that the donor must
have had a very important position during that period of
time: which, unfortunately, was not the case for the
Romani -- unlike the case of the Turkic-Iranic ruling
class that took both primeval peoples, Megy and Er, from
their "Urheimat" in East Russia, and moved them to Volga,
in the so-called regions Magna Hungaria and Magna Bulgaria,
and later on into what's now Ukraine / and unlike Germans,
from whom Hungarians borrowed vocabulary in different pe-
riods of time / and unlike Slavs, from whom Hungarians
borrowed considerable basic vocabulary.
To me, the phonetic and semantic Hungarian dichotomy
arany (gold) -- ezüst (silver) is more tempting as a
hint. (A Hungarian word that belongs to the same "gold"
family in Slavic, Germanic, and probable Dacian languages,
means, in Hungarian something else: zöld "green". The
dissociation in Hungarian of the word and its "gold"
semantic must have occurred in ancient times; the proof
may be even the text you cited for 1075: "Aranas".)
>NOW if you really want to answer to the question: from where
>Hungarians took the 'ar-any' word?
>
>TODAY Albanians were already nearby the Greek border BEFORE the
>Romans arrival in Balkans
Prior to the 10th century, no Albanians whatsoever. They
aren't Illyrs (hopefully, our friend from Pri$tina won't
get angry :-)). So, we only *assume* that and that and
that -- and mostly based on what we find in the language.
So, we suppose their ancestors lived north of the lines
proposed by S^kok and Jir^ec^ek.
But, in order to get the word arany (supposing that up
to that moment they had no idea how to say "gold"; or
supposing they took a foreign word because it was so...
"hype"! :)), they must have had encountered that "Albanoid
population" somewhere. And all of a sudden, you have to
limit your assumption to the regions dwelled by Romanians.
But which Romanians? And how could the ruling overlords
learn such a word from such poor, barely known people who
knew the word, but didn't possess the metal (except for
rare occasions, via coins)? Just think of it: Hungarians
occupied and colonized regions such as Dalmatia, Croatia
and Serbia *earlier* than Transylvania -- so you wish to
say that they waited for periods of time until they got
the word from Romanians there? In Croatia and Serbia the
chances were greater for them to encounter both Albanians
and "Albanoid" Romanized people.
>So THE SINGLE SOURCE Of Hungarian 'arany' could be from
>an ALBANOID ROMANIZED POPULATION that still extracted the
>GOLD in Ariesh Valley when the HUNGARIANS arrived there...
This is a flawed conclusion. It implies that the conquerors,
who were in possession of all kinds of metals, incl. gold,
as they wished (being able to beat anyone in a frame of
1000-2000 km wide NS and EW), had had no words for those
metals (gold, silver, iron, steel, copper, lead). Quite
ludicrous.
>Marius
>
>P.S. I'm from that valley, George:
So what? Unless you don't find any stone with coherent
text attesting to those adventurous hypotheses, they are
adventurous hypotheses (and, on top of that, most of them
are concocted by diletantes and oddballs, whilst the true
Indoeuropean language scholars, which are in RO extremely
few are neglected, don't have funds and people engaged in
no-nonsense studies, incl. studies in Baltic languages,
Armenian, Sanskrit, Old Persian and... even Albanian.
>Ariesh (<*Auresya) river 'arrives finally' in Turda
>(< Turdha < *Turrdza <*Turr(i)tsa < >*Pa-Ta:rwitsa (attested
>Pa-t[a]ruissa/Pa-ta[r]wissa)
Yeah, sure.
>for the lost of initial Pa- see Tisa < Pa-Titsja attested
>Pa-tissus)
That's right.
>before to join the Muresh river (Muresh < *Ma:resya).
George