Re: [tied] Djilas (Re: /�vaeg/ > /u-'ya-g&/)

At 5:23:43 AM on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, alexandru_mg3
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 8:52:05 PM on Tuesday, April 22, 2008, alexandru_mg3
>> wrote:

>> [...]

>>> George, Gyula is obviously from Iuliu(s)

>> And yet the name regularly appears in medieval records as
>> <Gyula>, occasionally <Geula> or <Gula>, even in Latin
>> contexts: e.g., <Gyula filius Ladizlai>, <Tiburtius, Gyula,
>> Alexander et Helias comites vice regia discutientes>,
>> <magistri Gyule filii comitis Baldini iuvenis nostri ...
>> magister Gyula simul cum Stephano fratre suo>, <venerabilis
>> uir magister Nycholaus sancte Strigoniensis ecclesie electus
>> eiusdemque loci comes perpetuus aule nostre cancellarius et
>> magister Gyula filius Ladislay woyewode frater eiusdem>,
>> <Thomas ... pro se et pro duobus filys suis Gula et Paulo
>> vocatis>, <Fassio Comitis Mathie et Ratholdi filiorum condam
>> Rolandi Bani fratris Comitis Giula Judicis Curiae Regiae
>> super possessione Aravicah in Comitatu Posegensi pro matre
>> sua relicta ... condam Rolandi>, <Stephanus filius Gule de
>> Puruzlov>, etc. One also occasionally find <Jula> ~ <Iula>,
>> but not <Iulius> or the like, though <Julian> and <Julianus>
>> are found. (Citations from Fehértói Katalin, Árpád-kori
>> szemalynévtár (1000-1301).)

> Of course is not Iulius because yu > gj of Proto-Albanian
> is ended end-of-the-Roman Period

You missed the point completely. In a Latinizing context in
which other names are given Latin forms, this one isn't,
even though the <Julian(us)> is. I could say more, but
George has already said more than that.

Brian