From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 57936
Date: 2008-04-24
>two
> >No, it isn't. Learn something about medieval onomastics.
> >
> >Brian
>
> And especially given the fact that all documents pertaining to those
> people and events in that European region were written in Latin.
>
> Let alone the history facts that the region came under the rule of
> military and political powers that had: the title "gila" or "djila"ones,
> (perhaps number two in the hierarchy after the "duke"), and the
> second one (the Petcheneks/Betcheneks) had an important tribe
> called Gila orYula.
>
> In the second half of the 10th century and the first half of the
> next one, Petcheneks were the de facto political and military power
> in Transylvania, being able to snub the suzerain, the Hungarian king
> (whose court was in another "fehérvár"/"white citadel"/(Belgrade),
> namely in Székesfehérvár ("the white citadel where the see is"; szék
> in Hungarian means "chair; see").
>
> Even if one is ignorant of all other sources (esp. Persian-Arab
> as well as the Kievan Rus ones), one must have heard/red morcelsConstantinople,
> of info in Romania -- regarding Constantine the 7th called Porphyro-
> genitus's "De administrando imperii". In that work, he gave the most
> important account on the Hungarian and Petcheneg situation around
> the year 950. One Hungarian duke paid a visit to him in
> and so did one "Gyula" from Bälgrad (= Gyulafehérvár = Alba Iulia),received
> who showed his openness to christian faith (so that his realm
> a Greek bishop).one of
>
> The medieval onomastics custom in Latin texts corroborated with the
> historical facts ((a) "gyula" = a high nobility rank + (b) Yula =
> the most important Petchenek tribe) must have some impact on anyJulius;
> judgment concerning the name "rex Iulus" (this was the spelling in
> some chronicles or official papers of the time, and not Iulius or
> medieval Latin spellings, esp. of place names and names of peoplesEast:
> and people, were highly chaotic; by the way, most of <v>'s were
> systematically written <u>). Even if one happens not to be aware by
> a simple fact that quite a number of Christian names, although ac-
> cepted by the Christian Orthodox Church of Constantinople, were not
> and still are not popular within the Orthodox Christian community
> world-wide. And this is confirmed by the onomastics of the oldest
> Romanian (Walach) leaders ever mentioned in chronicles and other
> documents betw. the 9th and 13th centuries: they didn't have the
> custom of including Christian onomastics that was typical of the
> Romanic and Germanic Christian world.
>
> People who tend to neglect or ignore such details, also neglect or
> ignore one aspect of tremendous importance: as it happened in
> Western Europe, where the upper classes were chiefly of Germanic
> extraction (Vandals, Goths, Langobards and especially the Franks
> and Burgundians), who founded Germanic kingdoms and duchees
> on the ruins of the western half of the Roman Empire, so were the
> state-political-military configurations that came in waves in the
> chiefly of the Alanic-Turkic plus Slavic kind. Between the 6th andwhen
> the 12th/13th centuries, the remaining Romanized population of
> South-East Europe *decayed* to the worst social status, and was
> pushed to the worst and most marginal, chiefly mountainous,
> territories. This was a... catastrophe, and it is obvious as such
> one analyses the peculiarities of the Romance languages of thebesearica),
> region: the now dead vegliot language (or Dalmatian) and the four
> dialects of the Romanian language (those of us who are native-
> speakers on this list belong to the so-called "Daco-Romanian"
> dialect; it is called this way only as a convention, to show that
> the dialect is spoken only on the territory of the former greater
> Dacia, namely to the South only approx. to the isoglosses pro-
> posed by Skok and Jir^ec^ek. Beyond those lines, other Romanian
> dialects are spoken.). Because of the tremendous "shrinking"
> (trades and cultural diversity), a part of the Latin vocabulary was
> lost forever, and some innovations did not enter the neo-Romance
> language. One of the most striking example is the lack of the
> word ecclesia in Romanian. I mean as an inherited word, not as
> the recent (circa two centuries old) one. Ironically, Albanian does
> have it, but Romanian has only the... imperial Roman word for it:
> basilica that turn in Romanian as biserica (an older form
> containing a classic intervocalic rhotacization of the L. But thereAlbanian).
> is no *chiesa or *chie$ä whatsoever (unlike in Italian and
> The reason for that is obviously the fact that for centuries Proto-points
> Romanians's links to their... old/traditional capital (from all
> of view), Contantinople, were severed. (The other one was anywaythan
> too remote, and after the Odowakar event it shrinked during more
> half of a millennium to the dimensions of an almost obscure--------------------------------------------------------------------
> town. It would have been totally as such, hadn't the Papacy had
> its see there.)
>
> I mean sound change speculations in a space void of history, i.e.,
> cultural, customary features, often result in wrong conclusions and
> follies.
>
> George