Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 27

Theory and Empiricism

in Slavonic Diachronic
Linguistics
eory
and Empiricism
in Slavonic
Diachronic
Linguistics

Edited by
Ilona Janyšková
& Helena Karlíková

Nakladatelství
Lidové noviny
Praha 2012
The present volume was prepared with the support of a grant from
the Czech Science Foundation “Theory and Empiricism in Slavonic
Diachronic Linguistics” (Nr. P406/10/1346).

Studia etymologica Brunensia 15


Eds. Ilona Janyšková & Helena Karlíková

Reviewed by Radoslav Večerka and Stefan Michael Newerkla

© Ilona Janyšková, Helena Karlíková

ISBN 978-80-7422-185-9
Table of contents

Table of contents / 5
Introduction / 11

1 Etymology: eory and practice

Марта Бјелетић
Этимологизация „словообразовательных гапаксов“
(на примере с.-хорв. разговетан ‘внятный, ясный, понятный’) / 15

Todor At. Todorov


eorie und Praxis. Zur Etymologie der bulgarischen Wörter гъгрèц, гъгрùца,
джѝджи, кля̀кам (perf. клèкна), клек, клèка, цùнцарин, цùнцар, ц̀нцър u.a. / 27

Милада Гомолкова, Штепан Шимек


Реконструкция формального вида старочешских
слов как этимологическая проблема / 37

Сергей А. Мызников: Трансформационные изменения диалектного


слова в свете этимологических исследований / 51

Corinna Leschber
Die Etymologisierung von südslavischen Slangwörtern / 61

Jadwiga Waniakowa
e origin of Slavic dialectal plant names / 69

Metka Furlan
Proto-Slavic *laloka and *oskъrda in Slovenian dialect mill terminology:
Deviation of the phonemic composition of a lexeme / 79
Miloslava Vajdlová
Zu den gegenseitigen Beziehungen der Verben doutnati‚ tutlati‚ tutnati / 89

Жанна Ж. Варбот
О возможных дополнениях и коррективах к некоторым
праславянским реконструкциям и этимологиям на базе
русской диалектной лексики / 97

Aleksandar Loma, Jasna Vlajić-Popović


e Common Slavic *gotovъ reconsidered / 103

Marija Vučković
Etymology and pragmatics: Serbian šunela ‘quiet, silence’ / 113

Татьяна В. Шалаева
К этимологии и.-е. *l̆no- (праслав. *lьnъ ‘лен; Linum usitatissimum L.’) / 121

Maja Kalezić
S.-Cr. odoljen ‘Valeriana celtica’ (An etymological note) / 127

Pavla Valčáková
Czech slonbidlo / 143

Ilona Janyšková
К названиям хвоста в старославянском языке / 147

Alenka Šivic-Dular: Slavic denominations for ‘Vespertilio’ / 155

2 Lexicon and semantics: Reconstructions and developments

Мариола Якубович
Практика и идеи семантической реконструкции / 173

Любовь В. Куркина
Историко-этимологический анализ семантики древнерусских
слов с затемненной внутренней формой / 181

Jiří Rejzek
Lexical contamination – definition, typology, application / 191
Светлана М. Толстая
Этимология и семантическая типология: еще раз о любви / 199

Petr Nejedlý
e place and function of taboo appellations in Old Czech / 219

Martin Pukanec
Semantic shi@s in Slavonic moral words / 227

Stefan Stojanović
Further on the homeland of Slavs in the light of names
of some trees (elms, poplars and the aspen, and maples) / 235

Ulrich 7eißen
Kräuter des Zaubers, der Täuschung und des Vergessens.
Zur Kulturgeschichte und Etymologie slawischer Namen
für psychoaktive Pflanzen (Mohn, Bilsenkraut, Hanf) / 243

Kateřina Voleková
Zum alGschechischen Adjektiv des Typs -ují / 253

Vida Vukoja
Stems and concepts through language systems and time
(love, hatred, desire, will and abomination) / 263

Елена Л. Березович
«Соломенная вдова»: семантико-мотивационный
и лингвогенетический аспект / 277

Rainer Eckert
Verformungen von Komponenten phraseologischer
Wendungen als Ergebnis ihrer Idiomatisierung / 301

3 Language contact: Lexical and other

Христина Дейкова
Лингвистическая контактология и этимологическая практика
(дополнение к „Болгарскому этимологическому словарю“) / 309
Dessislava Borissova
Several Turkish loan-words in the Bulgarian and the Serbo-Croatian
languages – Bulg. xac¹, xac², xac³ / S.-C. has; Bulg. xacoл / S.-C. acaл / 321

Snežana Petrović
Scr. неимар ‘chief architect’ – a Turkish word in Slavic guise? / 327

Václav Blažek
e Slavic deity *Stribogъ in the perspective of Indo-Iranian etymology / 335

Sorin Paliga
e ‘trichotomical’ character of Proto-Slavic and the long-debated
issue of the oldest Slavic borrowings in Romanian / 347

Vít Boček
A note on prehistoric language contact or
What Slavic studies can learn from Uralic studies / 365

Bohumil Vykypěl
Slavonic articles in areal context: a contribution
to explicative contrastive linguistics / 377

Katja Brankačkec
Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt. Reaktionen des Sorbischen
auf Veränderungen in der deutschen verbalen Wortbildung / 385

4 Grammaticalization and grammar: Nova et vetera

Junichi Toyota
Etymology in relation to the conceptualisation
of time: -s for past and future tense / 401

Jasmina Grković-Major
On the development of the future tense
in Old Serbian: groundwork / 413

Gabriela Múcsková
e category of definiteness in relation to the lexical
and grammatical development of the Slovak language / 423
František Martínek
Die Grammatikalisierung des Ausdrucks buď
im AlGschechischen / 435

5 Phonology and graphemics: eory and practice

Juhani Nuorluoto
Towards sound change in Slavic: the rise and decline
of the correlation in timbre / 449

Siniša Habijanec
An example of the circulus vitiosus in diachronic linguistics:
Pauliny’s theory on the origin of the Rhythmic Law / 465

Виктор П. Шульгач
О фoнетичеcкoм пеpеxoде л’ > й и егo учете
в пpoцеccе этимoлoгизaции cлaвянcкoй лекcики / 473

Vladimír Šaur
Теория и эмпирия в объяснениях спорных
орфографических явлений / 483
sorin paliga: the ‘trichotomical’ character of
proto-slavic and the long-debated issue of the
oldest slavic borrowings in romanian

Abstract: On the occasion of the International Congress of Slavists in Ljubljana, Aleksandar


Loma, University of Belgrade, analysed Proto-Slavic as a dichotomical summum (or ‘blend-
ing’) of Balto-Slavic (Proto-Slavic A) and West Iranic (Proto-Slavic B). His study, combined
with recent data, as presented also in our book Linguistics and Archaeology of Early Slavs.
Another View from the Lower Danube (in Romanian, wriGen together with archaeologist Eugen
Silviu Teodor) lead to the conclusion that what is currently labelled ‘Proto-Slavic’ must have
had, in fact, three satem basic components: Balto-Slavic (stratum A, the most numerous),
West Iranic (stratum B) and North racian (or North Dacian, stratum C). Germanic, Ugro-
-Finnic and Romance influences may be also determined via forensic analysis (strata D, E and
F). One consequence, delicately avoided during the last years, refers to the issue of the oldest
Slavic borrowings in Romanian, traditionally dated as back as 6th or 7th centuries A.D. Al-
ready in 1971, Gh. Mihăilă, in a study now almost forgoGen, proved that oldest Slavic borrow-
ings in Romanian cannot be dated earlier than 12th century. is leads to many uncomfortable
aspects, as the difference of approximately 5 centuries is not exactly a minor detail, on the
contrary, it affects the very understanding of the historical and ethno-cultural events of the
second half of the first millennium. ere are also major implications in defining and un-
derstanding the substratum elements in Romanian. Keywords: Balto-Slavic, ethnogenesis,
gloGogenesis, Iranic, Romanian-Slavic relations, Sclaveni, Southeast Europe, substratum.

Introduction

e problem of the earliest Slavic borrowings in Romanian has long been a


constant preoccupation of many linguists and philologists, beginning with the
19th century through the beginning of the 3rd millennium. e problem seems
self-evident: there must be a (consistent) set of Slavic elements in Romanian,
and some of them must be ‘early borrowings’. e issue seems simple and logi-
cal. In reality, it has many caveats.
First of all, defining what is the meaning of ‘early Slavic borrowing’? Does
it really mean ‘5th–7th century C.E.¹’, as many linguists suggest? (e.g. RoseGi,
who was a particularly influential linguist of the post-war period; but not
only RoseGi). Curiously, this view was adopted by Duridanov (1991), other-
wise known mainly as a good thracologist, and an analyst of the substratum
elements in southeast Europe. e suggested list includes (very) debatable
examples, none etymologically clear and, for sure, none such an early bor-
rowing as suggested.

1 As usual in the English texts of the last years, I use C.E. for Common Era (instead of A.D.),
and B.C.E = Before Common Era, instead of B.C.
348 Secondly, defining ‘Slavic’ in the period 6th to 9th century C.E. is not so easy
Paliga as it may seem. I extensively developed on this topic in a recent book, wriGen
in partnership with an archaeologist (Paliga–Teodor 2009). It is now clear
that the post-classical term Sclavenus, pl. Sclaveni, Sklavenoi, some time later
colloquial Sclavus, Sclavi, which turned to be a particularly successful term in
many languages, and also in Arabic, cannot be entirely identified with Slavic
in the modern sense of the term, even if – we may be fairly certain – most of
the speakers defined as Sclaveni, Sklavenoi represented the precursors of the
group later known as Slavs, Slověne. But, at mid-6th century C.E., and some
time a@erwards, things were not so simple to explain. e peculiar meaning
of Sclavenus was remarkably analysed by Pauliny (1999) in the Arab docu-
ments. At that time, the meaning of Sclavenus, colloquial Sclavus in the Arab
world can be hardly accepted as an ethnic name, given its peculiar meaning
(see below).
irdly, but not at all unimportant, it is crucial to have a historical, social
and linguistic tableau of what happened in those historical times. It is no secret
that every historical age has its own vision of the past. We are still close to the
Romantic period, with its idealistic views of ‘heroic times’. Despite some dif-
ferent views, we still use that vision and that projection back in time.
I will try to substantiate the three points above. My aGempt will try to
sum up former results, and to add newer data, which should substantiate
the issue.

I. e list

ere are several variants of the list including ‘the oldest Slavic borrowings
in Romanian’, i.e. the alleged borrowings of the 6th–7th century C.E. It is quite
a short list, so it is worth writing it in full:
baltă ‘a pond; a lake’
daltă ‘chisel’ (with an obvious similar construction as the form above: baltă
~ daltă)
gard ‘a fence’. A Germanic element in Slavic or an archaic relationship. Ob-
viously related to Germanic *ʒarđaz, Gothic gards ‘house, family; court’, Old
English ʒeard ‘enclosure, yard’ > Eng. yard. e Slavic form is *gordъ > gradъ
‘fence; town’ (Orel 2003: 126). e Slavic origin in Romanian would have been
considered rather impossible. Otherwise, a Slavic-Germanic relationship is
not rare, see other discussions in Paliga–Teodor 2009, mainly Ch. 5, p. 185 sq.
e presence of the Albanian form gardh would not indicate a Germanic ori-
gin in Romanian or in a late phase of racian. Orel 1998: 110 assumes Rom.
form would indicate an Albanian origin. is is a repetitive and entirely wrong 349
cliché in Orel’s etymological dictionary of Albanian, probably a reminiscence Paliga
of the cliché that Romanian is of south-Danubian origin. e numerous simi-
larities between Romanian and Albanian should be explained exactly opposite
to what Orel (and others) believes (and believe, respectively): the racian,
probably Carpian, origin of the Albanians, beGer said the racian origin of
one component of Albanian. A good analysis of this form in the perspective of
satem ~ centum opposition is found in Wojtyła-Świerzowska 1995. A Germanic
origin in Romanian is analysed in Poruciuc 2009.
jupîn (jupân) ‘a local leader, a noble’; the old Romanian form is giupîn (pron.
ǧ upi̵ n), a detail o@en ignored; the evolution is, in fact, the same as in Lat. jo-
cum > Rom. gioc (ǧ ok), later joc. Obviously related, even if (strangely enough)
not noted, with stăpîn, stăpân, see below. It is indeed outstanding that very few
linguists analysed the two forms – jupîn, jupân and stăpîn, stăpân – as a related
group (as aGempted in Paliga 1987).
măgură ‘a narrow pass in the mountains’, with the tonic stress on the first
syllable, mắgură, just like the following form:
mătură (stressed mắtură) ‘a broom’, also with the stress on the first syllable.
smântână ‘milk cream’; note that Romanian has a specific, old–indigenous
and Latin–terms referring to this activity.
stăpân ‘a leader, a master’; see also jupân/jupîn above, the two forms being
obviously related. An obvious substratum element. See other discussions in
Paliga 1987 (in English), and again in Paliga 2006: 62 sq.²
stână ‘a sheep shelter’; a typical term of shepherd’s life and sheep breed-
ing.
sută ‘one hundred’. e hypothesis of a Slavic origin is an error, even if (still)
largely accepted as I tried to demonstrate many years ago. e case of sъto may
indeed be the decisive point of future research. I think time has brought forth
new and new arguments that indeed Slavic sъto is an early borrowing from
a north racian, probably Carpian, dialect as I analysed a long time ago (Paliga

2 During the proceedings of the Etymologické symposion 2011, the Bulgarian team presen-
ted the last volume of the etymological dictionary of Bulgarian, under the supervision
of Todor Todorov. Bulg. form stopanin is finally accepted as an indigenous, substratum
form, as presented in our paper in 1987. I think that, from now on, there begins to be
a consensus regarding this form too: a substratum, racian origin in both Romanian
and Bulgarian. ree weeks later, I discussed with Prof. Todorov the same issue on the
occasion of his participation in the Slavic symposium in Bucharest; he concluded that
indeed my old hypothesis may be now adopted as correctly presented: ban, jupîn (ju-
pân) / župan and stăpîn (stăpân) / stopan should be analysed together as an etymological
group.
350 1988 in Slavistična revija; the hypothesis is not yet accepted by the majority of
Paliga linguists, but we are confident that things will be gradually clarified).
To these, some authors add two other forms:
șchiau, pl. șchei, today obsolete in vocabulary and/or common speech,
‘a Slav’; still present in place-names, the best known being Șcheii Brașovului (lit.
‘the Slavs of Brașov’), but there are other place-names Șchei in other districts of
Romania. e form was, beyond any doubt, more spread in the past. Obviously,
the post-classical Latin form sclaveni, sklavenoi reflects a deformed adaptation
of the original Slavic form slověninъ, pl. slověne. e word is of course interest-
ing, but cannot be – in fact – included in the list.
cumătru (which is considered the basic form, thus in DEX), which is obvi-
ously the masculine form derived from the basic feminine form cumătră < coll.
Latin *comatra, *kumatra, classical commater. e term was early included in
the basic Christian vocabulary.

II. e historical and social background

A simple list of words may have its significance. Nevertheless we must never
forget that words are used in a certain social context. erefore a second step
would be an aGempt to reconstructing a plausible historical tableau. ings
are complicated and, o@en, delicate. Such a reconstruction o@en reflects the
clichés of the age when it was suggested. Romanticism is, I think, responsible
for first such aGempts, and we are the heirs of those views, when terms like
nation, people, ethnicity etc. began to be used.
In order to have a clearer image of the historical and social background,
I suggested a brief look at the following details, referring to (1) the meaning
of the crucial term slověninъ, pl. slověne; (2) the four hypotheses regarding the
so-called Albanian ethnogenesis, a very instructive brief tableau of how people
are moved on the map function of the views of the moment, not rarely with an
obvious political bias; (3) the basic aGempts of explaining Proto-Slavic; (4) the
crucial situation of numeral sъto, which may be indeed the key to the whole
problem: accepting that Proto-Slavic reflected the amalgamation (or blending)
of THREE satem groups: Balto-Slavic (satem group A), Iranic (satem group B)
and North-racian, presumably Carpian (satem group C).

i. e main derivatives from Slověninъ


e origin of the form Slověninъ is not directly connected to the topic discussed
but, in a larger context, it may prove essential in understanding the making of
European societies in the early Middle Ages.
Slavic: slovo ‘word’ > Slověninъ, pl. Slověne; modern Slavic forms: Slovene 351
slovenec, slovenski; Slovak Slovák, slovenský; Paliga
Byzantium: Sclaveni, Sclavini (oldest), then Σκλάβοι, Sklavoi, Sclavus⁽¹⁾;
Italian: ciao < *sciao < Med. Latin sclavus⁽²⁾;
Arabic: Ṣaqlab, Ṣiqlab, Ṣaqlāb, pl. Ṣaqāliba ‘blond slave’⁽³⁾;
East-Romance (Romanian): șchiau, pl. șchei (< sclavus, sclavi) ‘a Slav’, ob-
solete, now in place-names only: Șcheia, Șcheii Brașovului etc. Arom. șcľeáŭ
‘a servant’;
Albanian: Shqip(e) ‘Albanez’ (adj.), Shqiptar (*sklya-b-); Shqinikë < Sclavenica
(Dardania, i.e. regio sclavenica); Shqa, Shkla, Shkle ‘Bulgarian’⁽⁴⁾.
⁽¹⁾ Romanian and Italian forms show that Sclavus, Sclavi were colloquial
forms, even if they were somewhat later aGested in documents. Byzantine
terms Sclaveni, Sklavenoi begin to be used around mid-6th century C.E. re-
ferring to a new ethnic group or rather an ethnic mixture, in which the Bal-
to-Slavic component was predominant. e initial meaning had a social and
military meaning (‘enemy from the north’), rather than an ethnic meaning in
the sense we use it today. It may be surmised that the forms Sclaveni and Sclavi
emerged in East-Romance, being a deformation of the form in use of the new
group, with which the East Romance speakers began to have closer and closer
contacts.
⁽²⁾ e Italian form emerged, a@er WW 1 (therefore it is a new form) as a
vernacular (presumably with a pronunciation *sciao, i.e. ščiao), then largely
spread to the literary language as well. Later, it was adopted as a greeting form
in other languages too. It is the equivalent of the other greeting, servus, spread
mainly in Central-European languages (Austria, Hungary and among Tran-
sylvanian Romanians). e basic meaning of both forms is the same: ‘(your
humble) servant’.
⁽³⁾ Analysis in Pauliny 1999.
⁽⁴⁾ e Albanian forms clearly indicate that Sclavus, Sclavenus was a ge-
neric term, which hid several ethnic groups. e etymon is finally accepted
in Orel 1998: 434, but indeed in a very tortuous (and therefore unaccept-
able) way: as a calque a@er the derivation slovo > slověninъ. is is, in plain
English, impossible. e Albanian form reflects the indigenous evolution
of post-classical form sclavus, not a calque. Erat 2008: 100 quotes the older
explanation that the groups represented by shqipoj ‘to understand’ and the
forms derived from root shqip- ‘Albanian’ may reflect Latin excipio ‘to ask, to
hear (German vernehme, hören)’ (there are other meanings too), which are
highly improbable.
352 ii. e four hypotheses regarding the Albanian homeland
Paliga

I. Šafařík-Orel
hypothesis IV. I. I. Russuʼs
(Beskydy area) hypothesis:
Carpian
´´´ origin
´´´
´´´
´´´
´´´
´´´
´´´
´´´
´´→

´´´
Dunărea ´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´

´´´
´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´

´´´
Danube ´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´
´
´´´´→
´´´´´
´´→
´´´
´´´
III. racian
´´→
´´´´´ hypothesis

II. Illyrian
hypothesis racian non-Romanised groups
moved south, being in fact
a component of Sclaveni

e scheme loosely suggests the proposed geographical location of the ar-


chaic nucleus of the modern Albanians. Note that, disregarding the hypothesis
adopted, Albanian should be considered a multi-stratified language, in which
the Romanised indigenous Illyrian elements merged with other elements,
racian and also Proto-Romanian.
It should be added that the four hypotheses are practically irreconcilable,
with – perhaps – the exception of III and IV, for which a certain compromise
is possible.

iii. Various scenarios regarding the Slavic ethnogenesis


and its further development

a. e Slavs simply reflect a southern branch


of the Balto-Slavic Indo-European satem group
Despite its being largely accepted in many works, it lacks refinement. Slavic,
as we know it from historical sources, cannot be a pure branch of Balto-Slavic,
but a blending of 3 satem elements (see below).
353
Paliga

Indo-European
´´´´

Balto-Slavic

´´´´´´´´´´

´´´´
´´´´
´´→
´´´´´→

Baltic

Slavic
´´´´→

Modern Slavic Groups

b. Hypothesis of Aleksandar Loma, Congress of Slavists, Ljubljana 2003

Archaic Slavic emerges


at the crossroads of TWO
Balto-Slavic
satem groups, Balto-Slavic
(Proto-Slavic A)
Iranic (Proto-Slavic A) and Iranic
(Proto- (Proto-Slavic B).
´´´´´´´´´´´´→

-Slavic B)

Modern Slavic Groups

Aleksandar Loma’s hypothesis opens the gates to really understanding the


Slavic ethnogenesis as an amalgamation of at least two satem groups, Bal-
to-Slavic and Iranic. In fact, there were THREE satem groups, as shown in the
next sketch.
354 c. Our hypothesis
Paliga

´´´ Finno-Ugric influence


´´´
´´´
´´´
Balto-Slavic ´→
Satem Group A

Germanic
(centum) ´´´´´´´´´´→ Iranic
influence Satem Group B
North racian
´´→ (Carpian,
´´´´´ Satem Group C)
´´
´´´
´´´
Romance (Proto-
-Romanian)
influence Late north racian (Carpian or related)
´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´→
groups contributed to both Slavic ethno-
genesis and post-classical intrusion of
indigenous elements into Romanian.

In our view, the Slavic group emerges as a basic mixture (or ‘blending’) of
THREE satem groups, conventionally labelled A, B and C. is explains why
many substratum elements of Romanian interfere with the racian compo-
nent of Slavic (Slavic component C). Sometimes it is difficult to discriminate
each against other. In other instances, the dichotomy racian ~ Slavic and/or
racian ~ Baltic is clearer and easier to analyse.
A southern group of the Carpians remained separated from the main group
defined as Sclaveni and, in their move to south, presumably represent the es-
sential element of the Albanian ethnogenesis, in conventional or traditional
terms.
Note that there does not seem to be any Celtic influence upon archaic Balto-
-Slavic, despite the similarity of the Venedi in Tacitus (the supposed ancestors
of the Proto-Slavic groups) and the Venedi, Veneti, a Celtic group of Central
Europe. (Further discussions in Paliga–Teodor 2009). It is not yet the unique
case of repetitive ethnic groups, e.g. Welsh, Wales ~ Valach, Valah < via Germanic
*walχaz, reflecting the name of the Volcae, a Celtic group of Central Europe.
iv. e situation of Slavic sъto 355
Paliga
a. A first glance at the numerals ‘10’, ‘100’, ‘1000’
in the Indo-European languages

‘10’ ‘100’ ‘1000’


PIE *dȇṃ *(d)̑ṃ-t-óm, *(d)̑ṃ-t-ā –
OCS *desętь (*sętь)⁽¹⁾ replaced by *sъto⁽²⁾ *ty-sętь, *ty-sęta
Baltic: Lith. dešimt šimtas tūkstantis
Latv. desmit simts tūkstoš, tukstuōts
O. Ind. daśa śatám sa-hásram
Avestan dasa satəm ha-zaŋrəm
N. Pers. hazār
Arm. tasn harivr (< Preie.) hazar (< N. Pers.)
Germanic *tehun *hundan *thus-hundi
Gothic taihun hund þū-hundi
Celtic: O.I. deich cēt
Kimric deg cant
Cornic dek cans
Breton dek kant
Tokh. A/B A: śäk/B: śak A: känt/ B: känte
Lat. decem centum mīlle, mīlia
Greek δέκα ἑκατόν
Eolic χέλιοι
Ion.-AG. χ(ε)ίλιοι, χήλιοι

⁽¹⁾ is would have been the normal, expected form as revealed by the forms
‘100’ and ‘1000’. It is likely that this form did exist before it was replaced by the
‘intrusive’ form sъto (see below).
⁽²⁾ An ‘intrusive’ element, reflecting stratum C, racian.

b. A useful comparison: numerals ‘10’, ‘100’, ‘1000’


in some non-Indo-European languages

‘10’ ‘100’ ‘1000’


Georgian aṭi asi aṭasi ‘ten hundred’
Finnish kymmenen sata (< Iran.) tuhat, tuhannen (< Germanic)
Hungarian tíz ⁽¹⁾ száz (< Iran.) ezer (< Iran.)
356 ⁽¹⁾ e similarity with the IE forms for ‘10’ is obvious. At the same time, this
Paliga form is radically different from Finnish kymmenen. It may be noted that nu-
meral ‘100’ may be indeed borrowed, i.e. may be of other origin than the basic
stratum of a given language.

c. An aempt to reconstructing Indo-European sonants l̥ r̥ m̥ n̥

PIE racian Slavic Lithuanian Latin Greek


l̥ ur ir, ur ir or αρ, ρα
r̥ ul il, ul il ol, ul αλ, λα
m̥ um ę im em α
n̥ un ę in en α

d. Numerals ‘10’, ‘100’, ‘1000’ in the Slavic languages

‘10’ ‘100’ ‘1000’


Protosl. *desętь *sъto ⁽¹⁾ *ty-sętь, *ty-sęta; *ty-sǫta, *ty-sǫtь
OCS äåñ#òü ñúòî òrñ#ma, òrñ@ma⁽²⁾
B. deset sto (hiljada < n.gr.)
S.-Cr. dèsēt stô tisuća (also hiljada < n.gr.)
Slv. desét stó tísoč(a)
Cz. deset sto Old tisúc > Modern tisíc
Slk. desať, desiati sto tisíc
Pol. dziesięć sto tysiąc
R. désjat’ sto tysjača

⁽¹⁾ e comparative analysis of these forms confirms our assertion: the Slavic
numeral ‘100’ witnesses an uncommon phonetic evolution, against the normal
evolution of the numerals ‘10’ and ‘1000’. Furthermore, it behaves like a noun,
being assimilated to the category of neutral nouns like město. e conclusion is
inevitable: the numeral ‘100’ is intrusive and was borrowed from a neghbour-
ing satem language.
⁽²⁾ With unexplained epenthetic št (щ). is is not a crucial issue, as epenthe-
tism is not a rare situation in linguistics.

e. Distribution of numeral ‘100’ in the languages


neighbouring the Slavic homeland
357
Paliga
Fin. sata
Lith. šimtas
Celtic Breton Let. simts
kant, etc.

G *hundan Iranic sata

Sl. sъto

r. *sutә >


Rom. sută

We may note that Slavic sъto has one clear related form: Romanian sută. As noticed a long
time ago (Mihăilă 1971), it must reflect a substratum, a racian element in Romanian. e
hypothesis that it might reflect a Slavic borrowing is not sustainable given the phonetical
details.

III. Puing things together

Our reconstruction tries to put together words and archaeological-historical


data, therefore is an aGempt towards an interdisciplinary analysis. Some-
times we are compelled to choose from among several variants or hypotheses
as some are – as shown – irreconcilable and therefore incompatible with each
other. So said, let us try a possible reconstruction:
– 4th–6th centuries C.E. three satem groups, reflecting a part of what is
labelled by modern historians Barbaricum, located in what is now northern Ro-
mania and southern Ukraine, represented by a southern branch of Balto-Slavic
speakers (Proto-Slavic A in Loma’s hypothesis as presented at the congress in
Ljubljana in 2003), a west branch of Iranic speakers (Proto-Slavic B, accord-
ing to the same hypothesis) and, there is liGle doubt now, a northern branch
of the racian groups of the Carpi (Carpiani, Korpiloi, the Carpians – we may
label them Proto-Slavic C) gradually merged (or ‘blended’) into a new ethnic
group, to be later mentioned as Sclaveni, Sklavenoi in the Byzantine documents.
Germanic, Uralic (Finno-Ugrian mainly) and East Romance elements represent
other strata of this linguistic nucleus. Some relations with Germanic are seem-
ingly older than this process of amalgamation, and represent a topic of debates
358 whether they reflect borrowings from one sense to another or an initial com-
Paliga mon heritage, even if belonging to a centum v. satem group.
– e southern branch of the Carpian group preserved a certain independ-
ence, and did not merge with the more northern groups. ey should be, in
I. I. Russu’s view, the racian component of the Albanian gloGogenesis. ey
represent a sort of avant-garde of the Sclaveni in their move to south-east Eu-
rope, the modern Balkans.
– Before 650 C.E. e newly emerged group began to migrate, first towards
south along the Siret and Prut, reached the Danube, whence some went up-
stream, others passed the river. ey are the Sclaveni, Sklavenoi of the Byzan-
tines documents wriGen at mid-6th century C.E. Some time later, a colloquial
form Sclavus is aGested, even if logic says it must have been the first. Its use is
proved by its survival until contemporary times in Romanian, Albanian and
Italian (see the list above). It can be liGle doubt that this newly emerged group
could not be considered a ‘pure’ Slavic group (echtslavisch), if I were to use Ivan
Duridanov’s phrasing (he used the form ech¯hrakisch). e mixed character of
the Sclaveni was analysed by Ján Pauliny in his outstanding book on the Slavs
in the Arab documents (Pauliny 1999).
– 7th to 9th centuries. Consolidation of the Slavic ethnic groups, together
with a general ‘ethnic stabilisation’ in Europe. e seGlement of the Magyars
in Pannonia ends this long and complex ethnic and cultural change, which
roughly lasted from the 4th to the 10th centuries C.E.

IV. Borrowings and interferences

ere are sufficient examples which show that there was a clear interference
of the three satem groups, which ultimately resulted in what we label as Slavic.
e Balto-Slavic and Iranic components have been much analysed. Less has
been said about the 3rd, stratum C, component of Proto-Slavic. North racian
(Carpian) *suntә, denasalised sutә (> Rom. sută) > Slavic sъto is the most inter-
esting and relevant. Not less, somewhat unexpectedly, the Slavic god-name
Perun (detailed discussion in Paliga 2009).
Note that the 10 + 2 forms briefly presented in the first part of this paper
have different situations, even if the common label was ‘early Slavic borrow-
ings into (Proto-)Romanian’. We may surmise with fair certainty that NONE
is, in fact, an ‘old Slavic borrowing in Romanian’. Some have become common
in the lists of substratum elements of Romanian, others are awaiting a proper
reconsideration. In our hypothesis, ALL are indeed substratum elements in
Romanian and some, at least, reflect stratum C in Slavic, hence their pecu-
liar phonetic evolution, which does not comply with the rules determined for 359
the Slavic borrowings. Unlike the Iranic elements of Proto-Slavic, which have Paliga
been given more aGention and for which we may quote several studies (over
the last decades mainly due to Aleksandar Loma and Václav Blažek, some are
quoted in the references, e.g. Loma 2000, 2002 and Blažek 2012, also Villnow
Komárková – Blažek 2011), the racian component of Proto-Slavic requires
more aGention and deeper analysis. It is our firm conviction that future re-
search will reveal other interesting data.
ere are, of course, other details regarding Proto-Slavic, e.g. the relation
with the Germanic elements which were also integrated over a longer period
or reflect archaic models like the construction of the numeral ‘1,000’ based
in both Germanic and Slavic on the model *tu- + 100 (further discussions and
examples in our study dedicated to numeral 100: Paliga 1988). ere seem to be
archaic relations between Slavic and Uralic, e.g. slovo ~ Hung. szó, pl. szavak;
kniga ~ Hung. könyv). A ‘classical’ analysis of slovo interpreted in relation with
Gr. kʼléwos ‘fame’ in Loma 2008 (in Serbian, with an English abstract).
Other related forms like ban ~ ban, jupân, jupîn (< giupân, pron. ǧ unpәn) ~
županъ, and stăpân, stăpîn ~ stopanъ may reflect somewhat newer borrowings
into Slavic, as their distribution is mainly south Slavic, not Pan-Slavic. e
survival of Slovene župan ‘a mayor’ may not be the result of mere hazard, but
the proof that the term was specific to the Danubian racian groups. I wrote
extensively on these forms as early as 1987 (Paliga 1987); meanwhile, things
have become clearer and more coherent. We may surmise that these forms
were borrowed some time later, as they are specific mainly to the south Slavs.
As a basic rule, all Slavic elements of Romanian cannot be dated earlier
than the 2nd part of the 12th century C.E., if not indeed the first part of the 13th
century. Moving the period of the earliest Slavic borrowings in Romanian from
6th–7th century C.E. to the 2nd part of the 12th century, if not indeed beginning
of the 13th century, is not at all comfortable, as this radically changes many
chapters of the history of the Romanian language as well as many chapters of
the former studies dedicated to the Slavic influence in Romanian. Nevertheless
any analysis proves that the important Slavic influence in Romanian, consider-
able as it may be should be dated by approx. 5-6 centuries later.
is perspective also changes the situation of the Slavic place-names in
Romania. Unfortunately, we do not have a global analysis of these forms,
none in the perspective suggested in this paper. In change, we may identify
an important series of archaic, substratum place- and river-names, not ana-
lysed in their complex context. I may furtively note some relevant examples
only:
360 – Rom. river-names Strei, Stremț~ Bulg. Struma (ancient Strymon), against
Paliga river-names Siriu and Siret: one racian area in which the evolution IE *sr- +
vowel > *str- + vowel; and another area in which this change does not occur (pro-
vided, of course, that the etymological approach is correct, IE root *ser- ‘to flow’).
– Rom. Mureș ~ Bulg. Marica, both from a racian root *mār-, with the
evolution ā > ô/u in Romanian v. a in Bulgarian³.
– Rom. Deva (a locality in southwest Transylvania) ~ Bulg. Plovdiv, ancient
Pulpudeva, with a specific phonetic evolution analysed by Duridanov (1986,
1989 and 1995). e archaic, substratum character of the Romanian form was
denied on the unproved argument that invervocalic -b-/-v- should have been
lost in Romanian. is is NOT true in the case of the substratum elements, as
clearly proved by other parallels, e.g. a dibui ‘to tap’, dibaci ‘gi@ed (in handi-
cra@ etc.)’; nor does intervocalic -l- turn into r (rotacisation), e.g. bală, balaur
‘a mythological giant figure’.
Note that, on the other hand, there are similarities between the substratum
elements of Romanian and Lithuanian-Latvian, not shared by Slavic or which
are different enough not to postulate a close relationship or borrowing in the
same interval. Several examples may be relevant.
Rom. erete ‘a hen-hawk’ ~ Lith. erēlis ‘a vulture’, related with Slavic orьlъ.
e differences are sufficient to note that there must be an old, independent
evolution in the three area (racian from which transmiGed to Romanian,
Slavic and Baltic respectively).
Rom. șo, interjection, an incentive for a dog to aGack an intruder or an ani-
mal ~ Lith. šuõ (šuñs, šunų̄) ‘a dog’. e relationship is obvious, even if unnoticed
so far. e Romanian form is, beyond any doubt, a substratum form, ‘pushed’
to the periphery of vocabulary by its Latin form canis, Acc. canem > Rom. câine,
cîine (dial. câne, cîne). Similar cases in Romanian are also relevant: bâr, bîr, in-
terj., an apellative for sheep, cf. also Bîrsan, Bîrsana ~ related to the rich family
of archaic forms like Czech beran, presumably a Pre-IE form with the archaic
meaning ‘sheep’. Again, the relationship must be viewed as an independent
heritage, not a more recent borrowing from one language to another.

3 is is NOT an argument in favour of the hypothesis, advocated by Vl. Georgiev many
decades ago, and adopted by some Romanian linguists, that racian proper (ech¯hra-
kisch) is a completely different language from Daco-Moesian. As I repeatedly brought
forth arguments AGAINST this hypothesis, I shall not insist, but – given its recurrence
in some more recent studies – I am compelled to remind it once more. But the pros and
cons the relations between south and north racian may be a rich topic of debate. is is
a point where we do NOT share the views of our Bulgarian colleagues. For sure, racian
was divided into several dialects, but is entirely groundless to hypothesise that there
were two (or more?) radically different languages, dividing North v. South racian.
Conclusions 361
Paliga
e analysis of some archaic elements, as well as historical and archaeological
data, as scaGered and sometimes inconclusive as they may be, show that the re-
lations between the early Slavs and the other groups of the Barbaricum, mainly
the Iranic and some non-Romanised groups of the 4th to 6th century C.E., as the
Carpians and, perhaps, some other groups of racian origin, are more com-
plex than reconstructed and accepted until recently. e Slavic ethnogenesis
emerges now as a complex process of amalgamation (or ‘blending’) of 3 satem
groups, Balto-Slavic, Iranic and racian, and also Germanic (centum), Uralic
(non-Indo-European) and early Romance elements (for which see Paliga 2006
and, recently, with some enhanced material, Boček 2010).
We may surmise with fair certainty that there are no ‘early Slavic borrow-
ings’ in Romanian, the alleged 10 forms are, in fact, substratum elements or, in
any case, elements which cannot qualify for the label ‘early Slavic’. is con-
clusion is, beyond any doubt, uncomfortable as it opposes a very consolidated
and largely spread hypothesis that early Slavic was a pure linguistic stratum.
Fortunately for the author, more and more studies come to confirm this asser-
tion and may finally become a largely accepted view on early Slavs and early
Slavic: a complex, tortuous process, in permanent move for many centuries as
Godłowski showed with archaeological arguments (Godłowski 2000). ere are
new things added to our knowledge, and a lot to clarify in the future.

References

Blažek 2012: Blažek, V., e Slavic deity *Stribogъ in the perspective of Indo-Iranian ety-
mology. In: Janyšková, I. – Karlíková, H. (eds.): 7eory and Empiricism in Slavonic Diachronic
Linguistics, Praha, 335–345 [= this volume].
Boček 2010: Boček, V., Studie k nejstarším romanismům ve slovanských jazycích, Praha.
Bonfante 1966: Bonfante, G., Influences du protoroumain sur le protoslave? Acta Philologica 5,
53–69.
Bonfante 2001: Bonfante, G., Studii române, București.
Duridanov 1969: Duridanov, I., 7rakisch-dakische Studien. i. Die thrakisch und dakisch-baltischen
Sprachbeziehungen, Sofia.
Duridanov 1986: Duridanov, I., Pulpudeva, Plovdiv, Plovdin. Linguistique balkanique 29, 4, 25–34.
Duridanov 1989: Duridanov, I., Nochmals zum namen Plъpdivъ, Plovdiv. Linguistique balka-
nique 32, 1, 19–22.
Duridanov 1991: Duridanov, I., Die ältesten slawischen Entlehnungen im Rumänischen. Lin-
guistique balkanique 34, 1–2, 3–19.
Duridanov 1995: Duridanov, I., rak. deva, diva. In: Fol, A. – Bogdanov, B. – Dimitrov, P. –
Bojadžiev, D. (eds.): Studia in honorem Georgii Mihailov, Sofia.
Duridanov 1999–2000: Duridanov, I., Slaw. *Perun – balt. Perkūnas – heth. Peruna? Das Ende
eines Mythos. Linguistique balkanique 40, 2, 93–108.
362 Erat 2008: Erat, J., Etimološki slovar albanskega jezika. Electronic PDF version posted on the
Paliga web by author: www.siteupload.de/dl.php?fid=979478.⁴
Godłowski 2000: Godłowski, K., Pierwotne siedziby Słowian. Wybór pism pod redakciją Mi-
chała Parczewskiego, Kraków.
Loma 2000: Loma, A., Skythische Lehnwörter im Slavischen. Versuch einer Problemstellung.
In: Janyšková, I. – Karlíková, H. (eds.): Studia etymologica Brunensia 2, Praha, 333–350.
Loma 2002: Loma, A., Aus der skythisch-sakischen Lehnwortforschung. Studia etymologica
Cracoviensia 7, 53–65.
Loma 2003: Loma, A., Protoslavic A and Protoslavic B. Paper for the 13th International Congress
of Slavists, Ljubljana.
Loma 2008: Loma, A., *Rěčь, *slovo, *besěda – етимологија и семантичка праисторија.
Јужнословенски филолог 64, 199–216.
Mihăilă 1971: Mihăilă, G., Criteriile determinării împrumuturilor slave în limba română.
Studii și cercetări lingvistice 22, 351–366.
Orel 1998: Orel, V., Albanian Etymological Dictionary, Leiden – Boston – Köln.
Orel 2003: Orel, V., A Handbook of Germanic Etymology, Leiden – Boston.
Paliga 1987: Paliga, S., e social structure of the southeast European societies in the Middle
Ages. A linguistic view. Linguistica 27, 111–126.
Paliga 1988: Paliga, S., Slovansko *sъto – izzivalen problem? Slavistična revija 36, 349–358.
Paliga 2001: Paliga, S., Oris zgodovine Slovanov. Slavistična revija 49, 327–349.
Paliga 2006: Paliga, S., Influențe romane și preromane în limbile slave de sud. 2nd, revised edi-
tion, București.
Paliga 2009: Paliga, S., Perunъ ‘Ignis Invictus, Ignis Æternus’. Briefly on fire, ovens, cremation
and eternity. Linguistique balkanique 48, 119–128.
Paliga–Teodor 2009: Paliga, S. – Teodor, E. S., Lingvistica și arheologia slavilor timpurii. O altă
vedere de la Dunărea de Jos, Târgoviște.
Pauliny 1999: Pauliny, J., Arabské správy o Slovanoch, Bratislava.
Poruciuc 2009: Poruciuc, A., Linguistic-Historical Implications of an Old Germanic Loan –
Romanian gard ‘fence, enclosure, weir, garden’. 7e Mankind Quaterly, vol. l, nos. 1 & 2,
2009, 25–69.
RoseGi 1986: RoseGi, A., Istoria limbii române, Bucureşti.
Russu 1995: Russu, I. I., Obîrșia tracică a românilor și albanezilor. (Clarificări comparativ-istorice
și etnologice). Der thrakische Ursprung der Rumänen und Albanesen. (Komparativ-historische
und ethnologische Klärungen). Romanian-German bilingual edition; translated into Ger-
man by Konrad Gündisch, Cluj-Napoca.
Villnow Komárková – Blažek 2011: Villnow Komárková, J. – Blažek, V., Slovanské *širъ &
*širokъ. Linguistica Brunensia 59, 121–134.
Wojtyła-Świerzowska 1995: Wojtyła-Świerzowska, M., On some centum elements in Slavic:
Proto-Slavic *gordъ (: *zordъ). Linguistica Baltica 4, 239–245.

„Trichotomický“ charakter praslovanštiny a starý problém nejstarších slovanských


výpůjček v rumunštině. V literatuře věnované rumunsko-slovanským vztahům existuje
v mnoha pracích tzv. seznam „nejstarších slovanských výpůjček v rumunštině“, datovaných
(anebo snad lépe datovatelných) „velmi brzy“, t.j. v 6.–7. století. Seznam obsahuje 10 slov,
někteří autoři dodávají další dvě. Článek stručně analyzuje tyto formy a cituje další práce,
se závěrem, že ani jedno slovo nemůže být považováno za „starý slavismus“ v rumunštině.
Pět slov je již považováno za substrátové v mnoha pracích, ostatní jsou pravděpodobně také
slova substrátová anebo slova, jejichž původ není jasný. Formy Sclaveni a kъmotra neod-

4 Even if unfinished, the work may be useful for some instances where other authors failed
to offer an explanation.
povídají výše uvedené definici, že by byly „starými slovanskými výpůjčkami v rumunštině“, 363
neboť jejich původ lze datovat do postklasické latiny. Etymologická analýza ukazuje, že Paliga
praslovanština musí být považována spíše za „míchání“ (ang. „blending, amalgamation“)
tří satemových idiomů: A - balto-slovanského charakteru; B – íránského charakteru a C –
severo-tráckého (karpického) charakteru; autor rozvíjí a doplňuje hypotézu Aleksandra
Lomy, prezentovanou při sjezdu slavistů v Lublani r. 2003. Nejstarší slovanské výpůjčky
v rumunštině jsou datovatelné v 2. polovině 12. století a začátkem 13. století. Složitá je i situa-
ce slovanských místních jmen na území rumunského areálu; chybí zatím všeobecná a kom-
plexní analýza těchto forem ve srovnání se substrátovými pozůstatky a s hlavní latinskou
vrstvou. To bude úkolem budoucích studií.

Sorin Paliga • sorin.paliga@gmail.com


Universitatea din București, Facultatea de Limbi și Literaturi Străine
Str. Pitar Moș 7–13, 70151 București, România