>GEORGE your affirmation was that is a common noun
>"gyula" = a high nobility rank " attested in some turkic language
You have utmost serious comprehension problems. It is not me the one
who assert or maintain such things, it is the primeval (primordial)
SOURCES.
And I underlined the emperor Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus (Constan-
tin al Saptelea Porfirogenetul). This Greek monarch wrote one of the
stories around anno Domini 950 stating that one of the highest ranks
within the proto-Hungarian ruling class was called gyula (the genuine
Greek spelling of the word has to be looked up in "De administrando
imperii" or in any book that faithfully transcribes the spelling from
Greek into latin fonts).
Didn't I point this out in my latest posts? Of course I did. Do we know
from all sources that the Hungarian duke as well as all the ruling
class ("the upper-crust") was Turkic-speaking (namely Khazar and
Onogur)? We know. Then whadda heck do you want, man? Do you
want me to also paste quotations from Masudi, Gardezi, Rusta, Fadlan
and Rashid od-Din on my webpage? (Vrei sa-ti inmoi toti posmagii?
Daca ma platesti cu treij de euro pe ora, ti-o fac si p-asta.)
>I ask you to quote such a "nobility rank" attested in Alba Iulia
>because this was your assertion.
I know what I asserted, but you have some comprehension problems,
honestly. Do read those excerpts I copied out of those three scholar
books. And do contact one of the authors, professor Ioan-Aurel Pop
at the university Cluj-Napoca, and ask him if there's one course of
his in which he teaches the history of the 10th-11th century Transylvania
cum Gyula and Alba Iulia, for God's sake!
>THIS IS A TRICK.==> so you are not able to quote any
>ATTESTED 'nobility rank' named 'gyula'
>You use to make tricks ...
Watch your vocabulary. These lines contain three insults.
>I didn't say that Gyula was Romanian I said that the Name Gyula is
>originated from the Latin Iulius/Iulianus based on the Albanoid
>transformation yu > gy Is all I have said.
And this is wrong. The name of the Alba Iulia princelings had nothing
to do with the Latin name Iulius (that belonged to the clan of Julius
Caesar). Only in Latin texts did they "adapt" the name making it
look like the Latin and Christian name Julius. There is no doubt
about that, regardless to whom you'd direct your inquiries: be them
Hungarian scholars, or Turkic ones or Romanian or Slavic ones.
Other list members pointed that out to you as well.
And I re-repeat: Gyula is the modern Hungarian name, that is:
today's pronunciation. Nine centuries ago it was different -- a fact
illustrated by various spellings given by various Hungarian documents,
by Greek documents and by Arab and Iranian documents. (I am
not sure whether at least one old Armenian source as well.) So,
from various sources (look them up on your own!) you can read
that there was no real Julius there but in your own projections only.
>In place of this "you quote from a quote" (come at least with the
>original quote!)
That means that I'd have to copy and paste for you the entire
paragraphs which are written in Greek! I don't have them. But
I have 3-4 bibliographic data that I *could* pass on to you, so
that you can yourself read the text in Greek, written by Porphyro-
genitus. But I'll refrain from giving you the data concerning those
editions (some of them bilingual, Greek-English), coz you don't
deserve such a treat, if, after pasting those excerpts for your benefit
you have the audacity to post the above sentence!
>"Þara era împãrþitã în opt provincii: Irtim (Ertem), Tzur (Cior),
>Gylas (Yula), Kulpei, Haroboi (Karabay), Talmat (Tolmaci), Hopon
>(Kapan), Tapon (Cioban)."
>
>"Gyla de Jos (Habouxigyla)"
>
>How do you know the original ETYMOLOGIES of the names of these
>counties...
An entire community consisting of a collectivity of authors in several
generations, among them Turcologues, have decided what name
cited by emperor Constantine belonged to what Petcheneg sub-group
called tribe (or ulus). Look them up. Do not expect me to invest hours
or days in order to procure the information for you and present it on
a silver platter.
>The pecenegi are just arriving there...so for sure that they have
>adopted and adapted some OLDER toponims as the Romans did too in
>Dacia or elsewhere etc...
What a consummate bunkum and complete malarkey you're able to
put on display. This is incredible. Why the heck aren't you able to
understand that Petcheneks (as various other invaders) were a terrible
power, a "caste" of warriors, compared to which the subdued and
subjugated subjects were like petty slave suckaz! Take serious Romanian
atlases and toponymic and oronymic lists and scientific papers to see
for yourself how many place names and hydronyms Petcheneks and
Cumans left forever both in the intra-Carpathian arch and outside of
it.
>TO assume that these provinces names are pure Turkic names is like to
>say that all the toponims in England have an English Origin....:)
Oh my gosh, sancta simplicitas! This guy knows nothing, but nothing
and again nothing of the history of the places where he moves his loafers
to and fro! And he isn't even eager to get in touch with people who know
or with scholar texts that'll open a new world to his awareness... Well,
fellas, what can I say? There's a German saying: "Ich bin mit meinem
Latein am Ende".
>There was a local ruler in Transylvania named Gyula (Personal name)
>This is for sure true.
It is not: Gyula is a name in MODERN & CONTEMPORARY Hungarian. How
many times should I repeat this to you? The genuine name no one knows
how it was pronounced correctly -- Gila or Yula. And understand that
all chronicles that reported on the title and the name say Hungarians
had a high rank chieftain whos title was called something like "gyula"
(along with the titles kündü/kende and harka/karka/horka), and that at
the same time some local princelings had names that coincided with
this title.
These are not my inventions, this is general international knowledge I
myself had to get aware of -- by reading and understanding.
Maybe the Yugoslav politician and writer (author of "The New Class")
Milovan Djilas had the title name and personal name in his own second
name as a relic of those times around the 10th/11th centuries.
>Your name is George the name of George Bush is George too...
>Personal names not always indicate the ethnicity of that person.
Read the original friggin' sources, and make your judgment after that, not
prior to that. Be a sport!
> Now to suppose that 'a Personal Name' was taken from a 'nobility rank'
> this is a pure speculation (I would say a poor one) => is like to
> assume that a king, choose the Personal Name 'King' for him or for
> his child
There is nothing to *assume*, there is only to get to know, i.e. to learn,
something that has been passed on to you by a "team" of chroniclers
who were contemporaries of those Geulas/Gylas/Yulas. That's what you
have to do. And hundreds of scholars up to now have written scientific
books on that aspect giving explanations as to whether the reports by
the medieval chroniclers are to be believed or whether they are to be
deemed as fairy tales.
I for one do not give you any interpretation.
>In addition do you know that this Gyula was Orthodox?
I know nothing. I can only say Constantine and Zonaras and different
other sources maintain that the first Gyula welcome Orthodox christendom
in his realm, and I can only say that some chronicles (as you can see in
the texts I pasted for you in the web) reported that descendants of
Gyula I. rebelled against the king and against the *papist* clergy and
called the people to "return to the old faith and habits". I myself
have no
agenda whatsoever as to make of Gyula an Orthodox Christian or a
shamanic pagan or a Buddhist or a Jewish worshipper of Baruch Adonai
or a worshipper under the sign of the crescent. Got me?
>You come back and quote a book, where an X-author make some
>assumptions regarding the Etimology of some county names ...
Aren't you able to read in your own language, which is Romanian? You
have in those excerpts the quintessence of the main sources quoted
by the authors: it is the authors of the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th centuries
as well as the Hungarian chronicles in the 14th centuries (esp. Chronicon
pictum vindobonense) that report to us the "who's who" along with the
lineages and ethnicities. And those who dealt with the primary chronicles
and analysed them in the latest 200 hundred years were some of the
greatest historians in the world. (If I were you I'd refrain from writing
"X-author" which shows that you are, as far as this subject is of concern,
in a "terra incognita".)
>BUT YOU TOLD ME IN ADVANCE THAT "there was an attested common
>word 'gyula' meaning 'a nobility rank' atested in a Turkic Language
>in sec X in Alba Iulia "
>
>This for sure is a FALSE statement. Where is that quotation?
Omule: te pot trimite la zeci si zeci de autori -- intre secolele 10 si 21
care atesta asta. Iti pot face o lista tzais. Dar sa-ti pui pofta in cui,
deoarece esti impertinent si nu ai cei septe ani de acasa. A fi tufa
de Venetzia, a fi 100% pafarist nu e niciun pacat. Dar iese tare prost
cand nestiutorul e si impertinent.
>You can with the name of some counties and with a Personal Name Gyula?
Why counties and not place names? Have you ever munched Gyulai kolbász
sausages?
> As I told you regarding, Mara and Iza etymologies, the possible Pro-
> Hungarian Etymologies are:
>
> 1. Hungarian, if not possible,
> 2. also Hungarian , but 'from other tribes etc...'
> (like: 'but from the same Onogur upper-class' :))
> 3. Hunic (->they like Attila :)), if not possible ,
> 4. Turkic , (-> they like: 'Petchenek' :)), if not possible
> 5. Iranian , if not possible
> 6. Sumerian :), if not possible ,
> 7. Slavic, if not possible ,
> 8. Germanic, if not possible ,
> 9. Unknown...:)
What are you talking about? Mara and Iza hydronyms or Gyula? Why the
friggin' fugg do you attach the Smiley after "Onogur upper-class"? Do
you after all know what the heck was that Onogur upper-class? Why
the Smiley after Petchenek? Don't you, dweller of Transylvania, know
anything about the Petchenek past of Transylvania? (I agree only with
the Smiley after "Sumerian", although an indirect, remote, link between
Sumerian and Panturkic seems to be not as fairy tale as you might think.)
>(so never Albanian (not to be linked with Dacians, by some)
Hey, this is not a socialist office of redistributing wealth and money and
of compensating disadvantaged social groups for lack of funds. This
is not re-writing history. You can't make Dacians out of Turks or Slavs
or Alans. Besides, since you're so fond of Albanian and Romanian
languages comparisons, you should be aware by now of the fact that
all the assumptions regarding the Romanian substrate vocabulary
are only based on that part of it shared with the Albanians (as well
as on the phenomena called "the Balkan linguistic union"). Otherwise,
we Romanians haven't preserved from the Dacian language, culture,
customs, deities etc. virtually nothing. (Note that I inserted the word
"virtually" which implies that I accept the conclusion that the Romanian
colective memory hasn't been able to preserve almost nothing from
that part of our pedigree.)
George