>1. <gyula> is not an Inherited Hungarian >Word.
It is. The gyula was the second ruler of their
society in the 10th century. At least then
entered that word the Hungarian (better put:
Magyar) language. Outside chroniclers con-
firmed the title (Byzantine, Arab and Persian
ones). Inside chroniclers confirmed it later
on.
The title gyula has nothing to do with the
clan name of the Latin ruler Gaius Iulius
Caesar. Gyula was only "adapted" to Latin
after it became a person name (much the
same way as many other names were adapted,
e.g. Imre => Emmerich/Emmericus and even
=> Henricus, Bela => Adalbert(us), Jenö =>
Eugen(ius) etc.)
>If it would have been, it should have >cognates among the Hungarian sister languages
Gyula is no Magyar word, it is a Turkic
(Ogur Turkish) word (either gila or yula).
Perhaps its original phonetics was similar
to the name of one Petchenek tribe.
>2. Regarding its SUPPOSED Turkic origin:
>==> You need to quote a valid common noun
><gyula>
No, not gyula (this is the writing form for
the *modern* Magyar word; it has Magyar
phonetic peculiarities. Especially the
consonant that is written <gy>. There is
no such consonant in the Turkic languages,
as far as I know. For comparisons, we need
forms of the word which looks more closer
to possible or existent Turkic/Turkish
words with the same signification. Variants
of the old word, with approximate trans-
scriptions of it, were provided by the
relevant chroniclers (the primary sources).
I gave you bibliographic data - with authors
+ titles of their works dealing with these
things. In my latest posts I inserted an URL
of a page with the main linguistic works
titles and authors for the loanwords groups
from Turkic, Slavic, Iranic, which are
stated as references in the relevant pages
of the Wikipedia.
>as a Turkic word, you can choose
>yourself what Turkic language you like, but >of course not Toponims and not Personal >Names.
The most prominent name is that of the
Petcheneg population called Yula, that
occupied and controlled territories neigh-
borint Transylvania at the time when emperor
Constantin the 7th included in his De admi-
nistrando imperii the paragraphs describing
the lands etc. of "Patsinakia".
>Only than the Turkic origin of this word >became credible
There are way more than one primary sources
mentioning the Hungarian rulers' titles in
the 9th-10th centuries and an entire secon-
dary literature (among its authors being
such luminaries as Macartney, Toynbee, Sinor).
Etc. How could I ignore and despise this
whole, overwhelming, stuff? :-) Moreover,
all this stuff and many other additional
details has for a very long time prompted
the world to realize that the ruling strata
of the old Hungarian society was Turkic, and
so were its incipient institutions. Various
sources show us that at least in the 10th
century Hungarians spoke both a Turkish
dialect and the Ugrian idiom which was the
then phase of tha Magyar language.
So, where's the problem? (Your turn now to
be asked: "Where's the beef?")
>Till than everything you say will be pure >speculations
Ludicrous.
--
George
Psst! Geheimtipp: Online Games kostenlos spielen bei den GMX Free Games!
http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/free