Trakijskata chidronimija:
Тракийската хидронимия
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Bulgarian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Sofija
Akad. Izdat. "Prof. Marin Drinov"
2009
|
| Ausgabe: | 1. izd |
| Schriftenreihe: | Studia Thracica
12 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | PST: Thracian hydronymy. - In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Includes bibliographical references (p. 200-217) |
| Beschreibung: | 231 p. ill., maps 24 cm |
| ISBN: | 9789543223862 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV036801889 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20101202 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 101129s2009 ab|| |||| 00||| bul d | ||
| 020 | |a 9789543223862 |9 978-954-322-386-2 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)706013213 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV036801889 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a bul | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |6 880-01 |a Janakieva, Svetlana G. |e Verfasser |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |6 880-02 |a Trakijskata chidronimija |c Svetlana Janakieva |
| 250 | |a 1. izd | ||
| 264 | 1 | |6 880-03 |a Sofija |b Akad. Izdat. "Prof. Marin Drinov" |c 2009 | |
| 300 | |a 231 p. |b ill., maps |c 24 cm | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Studia Thracica |v 12 | |
| 500 | |a PST: Thracian hydronymy. - In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache | ||
| 500 | |a Includes bibliographical references (p. 200-217) | ||
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Thrakisch |0 (DE-588)4120358-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Etymologie |0 (DE-588)4015640-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Gewässername |0 (DE-588)4131350-1 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Balkanhalbinsel |0 (DE-588)4004334-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Balkanhalbinsel |0 (DE-588)4004334-4 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Gewässername |0 (DE-588)4131350-1 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Etymologie |0 (DE-588)4015640-0 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Thrakisch |0 (DE-588)4120358-6 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Studia Thracica |v 12 |w (DE-604)BV000904989 |9 12 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020718053&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020718053&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 880 | 1 | |6 100-01/(N |a Янакиева, Светлана |a ut | |
| 880 | 1 | 0 | |6 245-02/(N |a Тракийската хидронимия |c Светлана Яанакиева |
| 880 | 1 | |6 264-03/(N |a София |b Марин Дринов | |
| 940 | 1 | |f sla | |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020718053 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 307.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09015 |g 496 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 307.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09014 |g 496 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 907.2 |e 22/bsb |f 09015 |g 496 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 907.2 |e 22/bsb |f 09014 |g 496 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804143494191644672 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ
ВЪВЕДЕНИЕ
/ 7
ЧАСТ ПЪРВА. Анализ на ономастичния материал в лексикографски
ред/
13
ЧАСТ ВТОРА. Тракийският език през призмата на хидронимията
/ 143
Първа глава. Класификация на тракийските хидроними
/143
1.
Семантична класификация
/143
2.
Структурна класификация
/145
Втора глава. Езикови характеристики на тракийските хидроними
/149
1.
Фонетика/
150
1.1.
Вокализъм
/151
1.2.
Графични варианти, показателни за наличие
на полувокал [у] в
тракийски
/151
1.3.
Консонантизъм
/157
2.
Морфология
/165
2. 1.
Род, склонения и окончания
/165
2. 2.
Падежи/
165
2. 3.
Суфиксални разширения
/169
2. 4.
Двуосновни имена
/ 170
3.
Лексика/
171
Трета глава. Ономастични паралели на тракийските хидроними извън тракий¬
ското езиково пространство
/177
Четвърта глава. Тракийската хидронимия и проблемът за елинизацията и ро-
манизацията в Тракия
/185
ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ
/197
БИБЛИОГРАФИЯ
/ 200
РЕЗЮМЕ НА АНГЛИЙСКИ ЕЗИК
/ 220
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
/ 7
PART ONE. Analysis of the
Onomastic
Material in Lexicographic Order
/13
PART TWO. The Thracian Language through the Prism of Hydronymy
/ 143
Chapter One. Classification of the Thracian Hydronymy
/143
1.
Semantic classification/
143
2.
Structural classification
/ 145
Chapter Two. Linguistic Characteristics of the Thracian hydronyms
/149
1.
Phonetics
/150
Ll-Vocalism/m
1.2.
Graphic variants indicative of the existence of a semivowel [w] in the Thracian
language/
151
1.3.
Consonantism
/157
2.
Morphology
/165
2.1.
Gender, declinations and endings
/165
2.2.
Cases
/168
2.3.
Suffix elements
/ 169
2.4.
Hydronyms with two stems
/170
3.
Lexical material
/171
Chapter Three.
Onomastic
Parallels of the Thracian Hydromyms outside the Thra¬
cian Linguistic Space
/177
Chapter Four. Thracian Hydronymy and the Issue of Hellenisation and
Romanisation in Thrace
/ 185
CONCLUSION
/197
BIBLIOGRAPHY
/200
SUMMARY IN ENGLISH
/ 220
THRACIAN
HYDRONYMY
Svetlana
Yanakieva
Summary
Introduction
The role of proper names for studying the language situation in the Thracian linguistic
space is of prime importance, because
onomastic
data constitute the principal part of the
Thracian language relicts: there are several thousand proper names and only several dozen
glosses.
The names of rivers, and especially of the bigger ones, usually belong to the oldest
toponymie
layers of an area. Hence they are an important element in the study of the Thra¬
cian language and in seeking its place in the family of Indo-European languages. No special
research of hydronyms has been conducted so far, and it is precisely a comprehensive study
of Thracian hydronymy that can build a solid foundation to be used for solving various prob¬
lems of Thracian linguistics, both from a theoretical perspective and in concrete analyses.
The aim of the present work is, on the one hand, to study and present Thracian hy-
dronymy as fully as possible, and on the other
-
to use the hydronymy data to study various
problems of the Thracian language. The chronological scope is determined by the evidence
on Thracian hydronyms, which are contained in the literary sources from Homer onwards
until the end of Antiquity, as well as in some Byzantine authors, and even in epigraphic
monuments on very rare occasions.
The territorial scope of the monograph covers the Thracian linguistic area in the broad¬
est sense of the term: from the Carpathians to the Aegean and from the Black Sea to the
basins of the
Morava
and
Vardar
rivers. These boundaries are considered to be reliable for
the time from the second millennium
ВС
onward. Northwestern Asia Minor was added to
the European territory of the Thracian linguistic space owing to information in the ancient
authors about the migration of Thracian tribes from European Thrace into Asia Minor. Thra¬
cian linguistic relicts are found above all in Bithynia, as well as in Troad and
Mysia,
although
to a lesser degree.
The problem of the linguistic homogeneity is also examined theoretically in connection
with the territorial scope of the study. The opinions of researchers on this issue diverge: ac¬
cording to some, the Thracian language was homogeneous (with possible dialectal differenc¬
es) within the boundaries cited above, and according to others, two languages existed in that
space: Thracian proper and Dacian-Moesian. Arguments are adduced in the book in support
of the view that the geographic distribution of the settlement names with second component
-bria,
-para and
-dava
cannot be considered to be a convincing argument for the existence of
two languages for the following reasons: one principle in onomastics is that there does not al¬
ways exist a coincidence between
toponymie
and linguistic areas; other factors for the emer¬
gence of these areas
-
chronological, physical-geographic and political-geographic
-
also
need to be taken into account; the existence of names with second component
-dava in
the
so-called proper Thrace area (Pulpudeva and
Desudaba),
which cannot be easily explained
as artificially introduced. At the same time, the existence of considerable historical-phonetic
differences, above all the presence or absence of shifting of the voiced and voiceless plosive
220
consonants is rejected or at least doubted by a number of researchers, which requires a new,
detailed and unbiased research of the problem. Finally, one should not ignore the evidence in
the ancient authors, according to whom the Getae spoke the same language as the Thracians,
and the Dacians spoke the same language as the Getae.
Therefore, the study of Thracian hydronymy must include the entire
onomastic
material
from Thrace, Moesia and
Dacia,
as well as the names considered to be Thracian from North¬
western Asia Minor. The reason for adopting a broad territorial scope from the Carpathians to
the Aegean Sea is rooted in the conviction that after all these factors are examined, we shall
acquire a more realistic idea about the proof value of hydronymy in the reconstruction of the
phonetics and morphology of the Thracian language, as well as for resolving the issue of two
languages or two dialects of the same language.
Part One
Analysis of the
Onomastic
Material in Lexicographic Order
Part One contains and analyses all data on hydronyms and the state of existing research
on them, whereby the hydronyms are ordered alphabetically. The presentation of the data and
the interpretation of each name follow approximately the same model. The name is given,
followed by the localisation of the hydronym according to the ancient sources and the identi¬
fication with a contemporary name of river, lake or other water forms. Then follow the texts
related to the respective hydronym in the ancient authors (in rare cases in Byzantine sources
as well) and in other sources, if any. The information is extracted from renowned editions
with critical apparatus and comments. The data presented by the authors are analysed in
different aspects: time when the hydronym was attested, sources used, reliability, different
variants in the codices, etc.
The different variants of each name in their chronological sequence are identified. This
is an important element of the study, because incorrect variants have resulted in incorrect
etymologies in some studies, which in turn have generated a number of incorrect conclusions
about the Thracian language. The forms of some names considered to be disputable have been
confirmed on the basis of the studying of the texts, e.g., the river name
Όδρύσης,
qualified
by some researchers as uncertain, due to the existence of the variants
Ορύμος
and
ό Ρύμος.
The work proves that the hydronym occurs twice in Strabo s text. The variants
ό Ρύμος
and
Ορύμος
are noted only for the first place in codices from the 13th and 14th century, whereas
the best codices from the end of the 5th century contain the form
Οδρύσης.
All codices give
only the variants
Οδρύσης, Οδρύσσης
and
Οδρύσιος
for the second place that is missing
in D. Detschew. Thus it became clear that the variants
ό Ρύμος
and
Ορύμος
emerged later,
probably on account of lack of understanding on the part of the copyists, hence all doubts
on the existence of the river name
Οδρύσης
should be eliminated. In other cases views in
linguistic studies on the existence of variants have been rejected, e.g.,
Έβρος
did not have
a variant
Εύρος
before the Late Antiquity, when
<υ>
denoted graphically the spirantisation
of
β,
i.e., the transition [b]>[w]. Some suggestions for reading have also been rejected, e.g.,
Omdisza ad Bargum instead of ad Burgum as second evidence about the hydronym Bargus,
and on the reading of
ές τον Εβρον
instead of
ές τον Έρμον.
With respect to certain data it
has been found that they do not refer to Thracian hydronyms, e.g., instead of the reading Lis-
sus in Ovid, it is necessary to accept the variant Lixus, which refers to a river in Mauritania,
221
and the name
Noas
in Valerius Flaccus means a river in the Northern Black Sea region, and it
cannot be considered to be a second evidence about the Danube tributary
Νόης,
etc.
A second aspect of the study in this part is a historical-geographic research based on
the evidence in the ancient authors, on the one hand, and on the other
-
on views expressed
in the specialised literature until this moment. It is an invariable part of the
onomastic
study
and is particularly important for names with uncertain identification, because the data are
controversial and insufficient. Arguments are adduced in support of certain identifications
that have been disputed on account of incorrect interpretation of the data by some contem¬
porary researchers
(Άρπησσός, Άρτησκός, Λύγινος, Τέαρος, Αξιος
in Scythia Minor,
Ίέρασος, Πρασιάς,
etc.). The opinion expressed about the name
Άρζος
is that two rivers
bore it.
The third direction of the study is the linguistic one. Its aim is to study the reliability
of the etymologies and of the linguistic data confirming or not confirming the belonging of
each name to the Thracian language. The view supported in the monograph is that the ety-
mologisation of proper names, in the absence of knowledge on the appellative lexical mate¬
rial of a language, as is the case with Thracian, is a risky undertaking that leads to uncertain
results because one of the two fundamental pillars of etymology
-
semantics
-
is missing.
The unreliability of this method is also clearly seen by the fact of the existence in a number
of cases of radically different etymologies for the same name, and sometimes one author has
changed two or three times his/her opinion. On the other hand, a number of linguists have
expressed doubts about the reliability of the etymologies in the Thracian language, as well
as of other proper names in the so-called relict languages. The conclusion is that a small part
of the etymologies are probable and can be used as a basis for studying the characteristics
of the Thracian language. As regards the language attribution of the names, about a dozen
names need to be excluded from the list of Thracian hydronyms: Anamus (actually settle¬
ment name),
Γάλλος
(more probably
Galatian),
Gelbes
(unclear), Gilpil (more probably
Germanic),
Ζυγάκτης
(more probably Greek),
Κοάστα
(more probably from a language
of Asia Minor),
Λίβυσσος
(more probably from a language of Asia Minor),
Ολγανος
(un¬
clear),
Φύλλις
(more probably Greek),
Χάβρις
(more probably Greek).
The origin of other names is disputable, but as there are arguments in favour of the Thra¬
cian language, they cannot be ruled out:
Άξιάκης
(Thracian or Iranian),
Αυλινδηνος
(Thra¬
cian or Phrygian), Aulocrene (Thracian or Phrygian),
Βιλλαΐος
(Thracian or from a language
of Asia Minor), Gabranus (Thracian or Celtic),
Γρήνικος
(Thracian or from a language of
Asia Minor), Lilaeus (Thracian or from a language of Asia Minor),
Νάπαρις,
(Thracian or
Iranian) and
Φάρνουτις
(Thracian or Iranian). The identification of the language attribution
of a number of hydronyms from Bithynia presents particular difficulties, namely:
Αϊσηπος,
Aesius, Aesyros,
Κίερος, Κίος
and
Σολόεις.
As these are names that have a common root
for most Palaeobalkan languages, they can be both Thracian and from a language of Asia
Minor. A common root for most of the Palaeobalkan languages can also be assumed in the
river name and tribal name
Δάρδανος/Δαρδάνιοι
from Troad.
Part Two
The Thracian Language through the Prism of Hydronymy
Chapter One. Classification of the Thracian Hydronyms
The classification includes the two traditional principal parts: semantic and structural
222
classification. Due
to the fact that the appellative lexical material of the Thracian language
is not known and due to the insufficient certainty in the identification of the morphological
division of the names, the proposed classification does not comprise all Thracian hydronyms,
but only those whose etymology or morphological division can be assumed to be probable
or possible on the basis of the study conducted in Part One. Hence the schemes have been
reduced accordingly.
1.
The semantic classification divides the names into primary and secondary.
The primary hydronyms include:
-
Hydronyms formed from appellatives meaning water forms
-
from the roots of nouns
with meaning like water, river, brook, spring, pond, etc.
(Λύγινος, *Ναϊσσός, Νέστος,
Νόης, ΟΪσκος,
Panisos,
Πάνυσος, Πάναξ, Ρήσος,
Serinis,
Στρυμών);
-
Hydronyms meaning specificities of the water and of the stream in terms of quantity,
mobility, noise, temperature, colour, taste and impact
(Άθρυς, Άξιάκης, Άξιος, Αρζος,
*Σαλδοβυσσος,
Halmyris,
Σαλμυδησσός, Σολόεις,
Timachus);
-
Hydronyms meaning specificities of the river course (Asamus,
Βάρβυσσος);
-
Hydronyms formed from names of animals
(Άρπησσός, Εβρος, Ίέρασος);
-
Hydronyms formed from names of plants
( Αψινθος, Βόλβη, Πρασιάς).
The secondary hydronyms (derived from the names of settlements, mountains, per¬
sonal names, theonyms, etc.) in Thracian hydronymy are very rare, and moreover they reveal
Greek or Latin influence, or adaptation of the Thracian names to the ancient Greek or Latin
languages
(Αυλουκρηνη,
stagnum Bistonum,
Ολυνθιακός).
In the Thracian language
there is a widespread coincidence between the names of rivers and the names of settlements
located on the respective rivers: Almus, Iatrus,
Αρζος, *Νάισσος, Νόης,
Oescus,
Utus,
Timacus and
Τόνζος.
The hydronyms most probably came first and then the settlements took
the names of the rivers.
2.
Structural classification
Thracian hydronyms have one or two stems in their structure. In turn, the ones with one
stem can be simple or extended with a suffix.
The single-stem simple hydronyms comprise
Αθρυς, Αρζος, Αξιος,
Apos,
Ατλας,
Αύρας, Βάργος, Βιθύας, Γάγγας, Εβρος,
Zyras,
luras,
Λυδίας, Μάρις, Νόης,
Utus,
Ρήβας, Ρήσος, Ροδίος, Σκαιός
and
Τύρας.
The single-stem hydronyms extended with a suffix are subdivided into hydronyms
extended with suffixes or endings recognisable as Greek
(Άγγίτης, Αμμίτης, Γαγγίτης,
Κοσσινίτης,
Aesius,
Ναράκιον, Πασπίριος, Βιλλαϊος, Μουσαίος, Ολυνθιακός,
Πρασιάς, Βιστονίς, Ίσμαρίς,
Halmyris and
Σολόεις),
and hydronyms extended with
Thracian suffixes
(Άγριάνης, Έργΐνος, Αϊσηπος,
Aesyros, Almus,
Άλούτας, Άξιάκης,
Apilas,
Άραρος, Αρπησσός, Αρτάκης, Άρτάνης, Άρτησκός, Άρτ )νία, Αψινθος,
Βαθυνίας, Βαρβύσ(σ)ης, Βιστονίς, Βόλβη,
Gabranus, FpávtKoç,
Δάρδανος, Ίέρασος,
Κεβρήν, Κίερος, Κόμψαντος, Κούδετος, Κρίσος, Κύδαρος, Κωγαίονον, Λίσσος,
Λύγινος, *Νάισσος, Νάρακος, Νέστος, Όδρύσ(σ)ης, Ορδησσός,
Panisos,
Πάνυσσος,
Pathissus, Pidaras,
Πυρετός, Ρήσος, Ρύνδακος, Σαγγάριος,
Halmyris, Serinis,
Σέρμης,
Στρυμών, Τιάραντος, Τίβισις, Τιβίσκος
and Timachus).
Several names appear in both lists
—
of the Greek and of the Thracian suffixes, because
their roots are actually extended with two suffixes: once with a Thracian and then with a
Greek suffix, e.g.,
Βιστονίς
(root
Βιστ-
extended with suffix -n- and then stem
Βιστον-
ex¬
tended with suffix
-ιδ-).
223
The group of hydronyms with two roots includes:
Βαρβύσης,Βαρβύσσης,
Calabaeus,
Κοντάδεσδος, *Σαλδοβυσσος/*Σαλτοβυσσος, Σαλμυδησσός, Σάνδανος,
Sanpaeus
and
Τζιορίκελλος.
It becomes clear from the structural classification that the Thracian language is char¬
acterised by single-root simple hydronyms and single-root names extended with a suffix.
Names with two roots are few, they are used for smaller rivers, which suggests that the type
emerged later than the single-root names.
On the whole, Thracian hydronyms fully fit the classification schemes of the onomas-
tics of contemporary and ancient Indo-European languages both in their semantics and in
their structure.
Chapter Two. Linguistic Characteristics of the Thracian hydronyms
In connection with the view maintained in the monograph that the etymologisation of
proper names, in the absence of knowledge on the appellative lexical material of a language,
leads to uncertain results on account of the impossibility to determine the semantics of the
names, the method used here is not etymological, but the term characteristics is understood as
identifying characteristic specificities in the sphere of the phonetics, morphological structure
and lexical material that can be extracted from the attested forms of the Thracian hydronyms,
and their comparison with the forms of other Thracian proper names and glosses. In some
cases conclusions have also been made about some processes of historical phonetics.
Phonetics
In view of the fact that the Thracian language did not have a script of its own, the ren¬
dering of the Thracian names and glosses with the foreign ancient Greek and Latin alphabets
was probably approximate in many cases. It is possible that the Thracian language contained
phonemes that are absent in Greek, and vice versa: maybe it lacked certain phonemes typi¬
cal of the Greek language. The picture is further complicated by the internal evolution of the
Greek phoneme system (monophthongisation of diphthongs, itacism, equalising of lengths
and passing of voiceless aspirated sounds into affricates). For these reasons, the same name
appeared in the ancient authors and in the inscriptions in several variants. In this connec¬
tion, the method of comparing the graphic variants proved to be particularly productive, it
was usually used to study the ancient Greek phonetics and was recently used successfully
for identifying Thracian phonetic phenomena as well. Owing to that method, with a careful
analysis that necessarily includes chronological and geographic data on the variants, it would
be possible in many cases
-
although not always
-
to determine the actual sound value of
the phonemes recorded in different ways in the Thracian names, as well as their subsequent
evolution.
With the graphic rendering of hydronyms by the ancient Greek and Latin authors, to
whom we owe most of the evidence as a result of continuity and tradition, there are much
fewer variants than with personal names that come mainly from inscriptions. Nevertheless,
variants do exist and they are undoubtedly due to the fact that there were different sources
that tried to record the Thracian names using the means of the Greek and Latin alphabets. The
findings cannot embrace the entire Thracian phonetic system, only those phenomena about
which the attested hydronyms could provide material.
224
Vocalìsm
The graphic variants with <a> and
<ε>
in the rendering of the hydronyms
AypiavTic/ Epyivoc/Erginus,
Αθρυς/
latrus/ Ieteras
and
Κέβρος/ Κίαβρος
are examined
and a comparison is made with analogous variants in other Thracian names, drawing atten¬
tion to the chronology of the data and to the geographic propagation of the phenomenon. The
three examples above lack sufficient grounds to perceive linguistic or dialectal differences,
because the variants belong to the same name.
The vocalism of
Οδρύσης
is placed in connection with the variants of the name
of the inha-bitants
ΟΔΡΟΣΩΝ/ ΟΔΡΟΖΩΝ
in inscriptions on coins and the settlement
name
Όδρίοζο
from the same root. The most probable explanation for the rendering of
the Thracian
[ti]
also with [o] in the name of the inhabitants is its more open pronunciation.
Such a rendering occurs in other names as well, e.g., in the settlement name
Δουρόστορον/
Δορόστολον,
Dorostorum, in the personal names
Δισυρος/ Δισορας, Μουκας/ Μόκας,
etc. The graphic rendering of the late
Οδρίοζο
(6th century) most probably shows evolution
of the vowel to
[ö].
On the basis of the variants of the hydronym
Λυδίας/ Λοιδίας/ Λουδίας
it has been
found that the vowel of the root is [u]. The form
Λοιδίας,
accepted by the publishers of Ae-
schines, should also be corrected to
Λυδίας,
as it appears in the manuscripts, and not as it
was cited by Harpokration for reasons argumented in greater detail in Part One of the book.
Strabo s variant
Λουδίας
can apparently be traced back to a later source in which the vowel
is rendered with
-ου-
on account of the already changed pronunciation of
<υ>
into [ii] in the
ancient Greek language. This presupposes preservation until a later time of the sound value
[u] in Thracian compared to Greek. The same cause
-
the more open pronunciation of the
Thracian [u]
-
explains also the variants of the river name Tzurta/ Zurta/ Tzorta.
Graphic variants in the rendering of diphthongs have led to the identification of original
diphthongs occurring in attested forms of Thracian hydronyms:
[ai]
(Αΐσηπος,
Aesius, Aesy-
ros,
Βιλλαΐος
and
Σκαιός)
and [oi]
(Οισκος).
The variants
Βίλλεος, Βιλλαος
and Byleum
suggest the different stages of the monophthongisation of the diphthong.
The study of the vocal quantity has resulted in the identification of the following short
vowels attested in Thracian hydronyms:
[ě]
( Εβρος, Κεβρήν, Νέστος/ Νέσσος, Τέαρος);
[ο] (Βόλβη, Βρόγγος, Κόμψαντος, Νόης, Οδρύσης, Ροδίος).
The existence of long vowels is suggested by several Thracian hydronyms: the long
[ă]
in the accented syllable of the river name
Άγριάνης
confirmed by the circumflex accent of
the tribal name with the same root
Αγριάνες.
The long
[б],
written with
η
in early sources,
is found in
Γρήνικος, Ρήσος
and
Σαλμυδησσός, [ΐ]
-
in
Έργΐνος
and
Ιστρος,
and
[п]
-
in
Στρυμών.
Several graphic variants are indicative of the existence of a semivowel [w] in the Thra¬
cian language. Such is the river name
Σκαιός,
compared to the tribal name with the same
root
Σκαιοί/ Σκαιβόαι/ Συκαιβόαι, *Ναϊσσός/
Navissus
and
Νόης/ Νοοΰαι/
Novae.
There is a dual rendering in the Greek authors as a result of the disappearance of the semi¬
vowel in ancient Greek: in some cases it was omitted in Thracian names, whereas in others
attempts were made to render it with Greek graphic means. The rendering of [w] with
-β-,
as is the case with
Σκαιβόαι,
with
-ου-
as in
Νοοΰαι,
and with
-υ-
occurs in other names
as well:
Βαστο-κειλας, Ουαστο-βαλος, Βετεσπιος/ Ουτεσπιος,
the second component
225
-δαυα/ -δαβα
in numerous settlement names, etc. In the Latin transcription the sound is
legitimately rendered with [v]: Novae,
Navissus,
-dava.
Consonantism
In connection with the key issue in Thracian phonetics of the graphic variants with
alternation of voiceless and voiceless aspirated plosive consonant and variants with alterna¬
tion of voiced and voiceless consonant in Thracian names, we have examined in this work
the hydronyms
Αθρυς/
latrus/
Ieterus,
Άθύρας/
Atyras,
Θιαγόλα/
Tiagula, Pathissus/
Πάθισος/
Parthiscus/
Παρτίσκον, Τέαρος/
Teams/
Θέαιρος,
Utus/ Uthis, Timachus/
Timacum/
Τίμακον,
Scopius/
Σκόπας/
Scophias/ Scophius/ Scophyas,
*Σαλδοβυσσος/
*Σαλτοβυσσος,
Pingus/
Pinclis/
tribal name
Πιγκοί
and
Κρίσος/
Grisia,
(Gresia).
Such an alternation was a widespread phenomenon in Thracian onomastics, e.g., in per¬
sonal names like
Αμαδοκος/
Amadochus,
Επτησυχος/ Επτησυκος, Επτακενθος/
Efte-
centus, Zimarcus/
Ζνμαρχος, Σιτάλκης/
Sithalcus,
Σπάρτακος/
Sparticus/
Σπαρτυχος,
Μηκύβερνα/ Μηκύπερνα,
the tribal names
Κρηστώνες/ Γραστώνες
and
Βρύγες/
Βρύκες,
etc. The usual explanation of this phenomenon is that it was due to shifting of the
consonants in the Thracian language.
The following opinion is substantiated in the book:
The appearance of names with the variants aspirated/ non-aspirated consonants was
territorially spread from
Dacia,
Moesia and Scythia Minor (Pathissus,
Αθρυς,
Thomi, Ama¬
dochus) to the Propontis, the Aegean Sea and the islands
(Άθύρας, Άθρυΐλατος).
Conse¬
quently, this variation is not due to the different presence of the Indo-European consonant
in two different languages or dialects. One look at the variation of aspirated/ non-aspirated
consonant shows that the forms with aspirated consonants are earlier than those with non-
aspirated ones, as in
Αθρυς
and Timachus, whereas in others they are later (Amadochus,
Breierophara, Sithalcus,
Σπαρτυχος),
and in a third category it is not possible to determine a
chronological difference
(Επτησυχος, Ζιμαρχος).
Consequently, the phenomenon was not
due to any internal linguistic evolution either.
In the light of these facts, a more appropriate explanation of the cited graphic var¬
iants is the following: the voiceless plosive consonants in the Thracian language, due to
their different pronunciation compared to the Greek sounds (probably more tense), were
also rendered with Greek aspirated consonants, which was possible because such consonants
were absent in Thracian. As evidence of the lack of aspirated consonants in Thracian, it is
possible to add to the example cited by C. Brixhe and A. Panayotou with
Φιλιππόπολις/
Pulpudeva of substitution of aspirated with non-aspirated consonant, also
Έπίπιος
instead of
Εφίππιος, Αύλαρκηνός
instead of
Αύλαρχηνός,
and conversely
φαμιλιαριχόν
instead
of
φαμιλιαρικόν, άφωσικάκη
instead of
άπωσικάκη, παρείθω
instead of
παρείτο
in
Greek inscriptions from the Bulgarian lands.
There also exists the possibility of dual use of the Greek aspirated consonants: on the
one hand, for voiceless plosives, and on the other
-
for spirants. The rendering of a dental
spirant can possibly be assumed for some rare cases of
θ/ σ
alternation as in
Δενθελήται/
Denseletae,
Ζβελθουρδος/ Ζβελθιουρδος/ Ζβελσουρδος/
Zbeltiurdus/ Svelsurdus and
Σεύθας
with the variant of the genitive form
Σηυσα.
In variants of names rendered in some cases with a voiced and in other cases with a
voiceless consonant, the explanation can probably be sought again in the inaccurate corre¬
spondence between the Thracian and Greek or Latin voiced consonants, therefore voiceless
consonants were also used in some cases for the graphic rendering of the Thracian ones. In
226
certain
names it is necessary to take into account also the possibility of secondary voicing
of voiceless consonants, especially in proximity to [r], as was probably the case with the
variants of the river name
Κρίσος/
Grisia and of the tribal name
Κρηστώνες/ Γραστώνες.
However, this explanation is inapplicable in most of the cases. The examples of double writ¬
ing with voiced and voiceless consonant are much fewer than those of alternation of voice¬
less and voiceless aspirated, which can probably be assumed to be indirect confirmation of
the idea of the absence of aspirated voiceless consonants in Thracian. I believe that for this
reason the Greek aspirated consonants may have also been used to write simple voiceless
consonants, whereas the presence of voiceless consonants limited the double transcriptions
of the voiced consonants, in spite of their different (softer) pronunciation compared to the
respective Greek sounds.
On the whole, the rendering of the plosive consonants in hydronyms does not give ar¬
guments in support of dividing the linguistic space between the Carpathians and the Aegean
Sea into two separate idioms, because double variants appear equally both to the north and
to the south of the Haemus Mountain, defined as a possible border by the supporters
ofthat
hypothesis.
The examples of Thracian hydronyms with graphic variants
τζ/
tz/
z
(Tzurta/ Zurta/
Tzorta
βηαΤζιορίκελλος/
Zioncellus), as well as the comparable variation in other Thracian
settlement and personal names, suggest the presence of an affricate or affricates in the Thra¬
cian language. As all these names are from the Roman Age onward, that was most probably
a late development, but it is difficult to say whether it was under the influence of Latin, or
whether it was an internal linguistic development.
Graphic variants with alternation of [s] and fh] before a vowel occur in the hydronyms
Salmorude/ Halmyris and
Σαλμυδησσός/
Halmydesos. The two cases are analogous and
they testify to the existence of initial [s] in Thracian, and its disappearance in the variants
with [h] was due to Greek influence. As the etymology from Indo-European *sal- salty
is very probable, here it is possible to assume preservation of the Indo-European [s] in the
beginning of the word before a vowel in Thracian. Other hydronyms with initial [s] are
Serinis,
Σέρμης/
Syrmus, *Serus and Syrium. The suffix
-σ-Ασσ-
also occurs very frequent¬
ly in Thracian hydronymy:
Βαρβύσης/ Βαρυβύσσης, Ίέρασος/ Ίέρασσος, Κρίσος/
Grisia,
Λίσος/ Λίσσος, Μάρισος/
Marisia,
Νέσσος, Όδρύσης/ Οδρύσσης, Πάνυσος,
Σαλμυδησσός,
etc. This frequency confirms the generally accepted view that the spirant [s]
was preserved in all positions in Thracian.
Other graphic variants have also been examined.
Morphology
Although proper names are not a particularly suitable material from which significant
morphological characteristics can be derived, this section of the book examines data on the
gender, declinations and endings of the hydronyms, as well as on the suffix extensions with
which they have been formed. The following suffix elements have been identified in the
sphere of word formation in Thracian:
-κ-, -λ-, -μ-, -ν-, -π-, -ρ-, -σ-/ -σσ-, -τ-, -νθ-Αντ-,
-σκ-, -στ-, -β-.
All suffix elements considered to be characteristic of the so-called ancient
European hydronymy have been found in Thracian hydronyms.
Lexical material
From the analysis made in this part of the book it becomes clear that most Thracian
227
hydronyms had numerous lexical parallels in other names
-
of settlements, deities and tribes,
as well as personal names
-
within the Thracian linguistic territory. There were clearly forma¬
tions from one root with different suffixes or with and without suffix, which is confirmed by
the analogous word formation in other
onomastic
categories as well.
It is seen from the cited examples that there are no phonetic oppositions either in the
vocalism or in the consonantism between the lexical material of the areas defined by some
researchers as Daco-Moesian and the one from the areas defined as Thracian. The same find¬
ing on the absence of differences is valid of the Thracian names from Asia Minor as well. The
attempt of
С
Poghirc to support the theory of the two languages by examining precisely the
lexical material is inconsistent. His conclusion about the very low percentage of lexical coin¬
cidences between the two territories is due to erroneous premises. Thus, Poghirc s statistics
includes parallels only within the same
toponymie
subsystem. As a matter of fact, however,
the lexical material of a separate system cannot be isolated from the other subsystems. As
can be seen with such a formulation, the lexical parallels between the two geographic areas
were numerous.
Chapter Three.
Onomastic
Parallels of the Thracian Hydromyms outside the Thracian Linguistic
Space
From the
onomastic
parallels identified in this Chapter for about fifty Thracian hydro¬
nyms, the highest number of correspondences have been found between hydronyms from the
Balkans and Bithynia, on the one hand, and toponyms from Asia Minor
-
on the other. Many
of them are complete isoglosses (without counting gender or number differences), while oth¬
ers are formed with different suffixes.
J.
Tischler
considers some of the parallels from Asia Minor to be of Greek origin:
Αρπασος
=
Hesychius gloss
αρπασος
some bird of prey , whereby
-
according to him
-
the name is not connected with the Thracian one, and
Ίέραξ = ίέραξ
falcon, hawk. I
believe that the word formation of
Άρπησσός, Αρπασος,
and of
Ίέρασσος,
indisputably
indicates pre-Greek origin. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that the actual appellatives were
of pre-Greek origin, whereby in both the beginning was Graecisised (transition of
sigma
and
digamma
into the spirant [h]), and in the second one
(ίέραξ),
as well as in the river name
Ίέραξ
-
also the ending.
Next in numbers are the correspondences between Thracian hydronyms and names
from the western part of the Peninsula. It is interesting to note that in half of the parallels
there are hydronyms on both sides that can be assumed to have been very ancient and where
there are again complete isoglosses, e.g.,
Έβρος ~ Εβρος, Νέστος ~ Νέστος, Πάνυσος
~
Πανύασος.
Then follow the parallels with pre-Greek names from Greece, which are fewer than
those in the first two groups. This is logical because when there was a change in the popu¬
lation, most rivers and settlements there received Greek names, although a relatively large
number of pre-Greek names were also preserved. The highest number of parallels has been
registered from Northern and Central Greece: Thessaly, Boeotia and Phokis. The highest
number of pre-Greek river names in Greece with parallels in Thrace also comes from the
same areas. However, there are parallels with Peloponnesos and the islands as well.
Finally, there are several parallels with Baltic toponyms, but they are not so numerous,
228
as it seems from the works of I. Duridanov and
V. Toporov.
The dozens of parallels cited by
them are often based on unsubstantiated etymologies.
The number of identified
onomastic isoglosses
(from which a certain percentage of
accidental coincidences must be excluded) is such that it is not probable to think of direct
transfer of names during population migration from one region to another, all the more that
we are referring to hydronyms that were less likely to be transferred than settlement names,
as well as due to the presence of names formed from the same root with different suffix ele¬
ments. The parallel names lead to the conclusion that they were formed from appellative
lexical material that was common to the so-called relict languages of the Balkan Peninsula
and Asia Minor, and they suggest a rather high degree of common lexical material between
those languages.
The hypothesis of the so-called ancient European hydronymy is also related to the
ono¬
mastic
parallels. It becomes clear from the analysis that the criteria according to which these
names were identified as ancient European , i.e., as pre-Thracian, as well as the criteria
according to which the dividing line with Greece was drawn, are highly debatable. Most of
the hydronyms believed to have been ancient European have roots from which proper names
belonging to other categories had been formed, which are reliably identified as Thracian, e.g.,
Έβρος/ Εβρυζελμνς, Νέστος/ Νεστοπυρις,
etc. There is a sufficient number of parallels
between Thracian hydronyms and names from Greece as well. The search for parallels in the
hydronymy system only is not a convincing approach, because the lexical material of one
category is not isolated from the lexical material in other categories in any language. The
parallels between the Thracian river name
Αρισβος
and the settlement name
Αρίσβη
in
Boeotia and on the Island of Lesbos, between the Thracian hydronym
Ιστρος
and the set¬
tlement name
Ίστρος
on the Island of Crete are no less justified than the parallel between
the hydronyms
Νέστος
in Thrace and
Νέστος
in Illyria. In fact, the predominant part of the
Thracian hydronymy has lexical parallels in the onomastics of Western Asia Minor and in the
pre-Greek onomastics of Greece. The lexical study of Thracian hydronymy made here does
not confirm the hypothesis about the ancient European hydronymy in its part concerning the
Balkan Peninsula.
Chapter Four
Thracian Hydronymy and the Issue of Hellenisation and Romanisation in Thrace
The last chapter focuses attention on the hydronymy data, which can throw additional
light on the issue of the Hellenisation and Romanisation of the Thracian lands in its linguistic
aspect. These data have not been fully used so far.
From a linguistic point of view, it is possible to speak about Hellenisation and Romani¬
sation when the language of the indigenous population had been replaced by Greek or Latin.
Both theories exist for both issues
-
Hellenisation and Romanisation
-
namely:
(1)
Before
the end of Antiquity, the Thracians were Hellenised, and subsequently Romanised, i.e., they
abandoned their native language and adopted a Greek or Latin linguistic practice;
(2)
The
Thracian language was preserved until the end of Antiquity.
The analysis derives from the theoretical premise of the existence of three phases in
lhe
pro-cess leading to the disappearance of a language. The first phase is the period of the
settling of the new language on the territory of the old one and the start of their coexistence,
the second phase is a period of bilingualism and the third is gradual abandoning of the old
229
language by the carriers of one of the two languages and transition to the other one.
Due to lack of written monuments in Thracian language from the Hellenistic and Ro¬
man periods, we can rely only on indirect evidence and on
onomastic
data: personal, settle¬
ment and river names. The evidence from anthropomymy indicates that the number of Greek
and Latin personal names in the inscriptions from the Thracian lands increased gradually and
became a mass phenomenon already during the Roman Age, the Thracian names being used
parallel with them. However, the use of foreign personal names was to a large extent a matter
of fashion or preferences, and after the adoption of Christianity
-
of religious belonging as
well, hence they are not a reliable argument in support of the way in which a certain culture
or language was perceived. Toponymy is of greater value for determining the linguistic situa¬
tion. Settlement names are a more stable criterion than personal names, but it should be borne
in mind that their system also reflects phenomena that do not change the linguistic practice
of the population as the presence of foreigners in the country. For example, the Greek name
Philippopolis was not given to the city by the Thracians but by foreign conquerors. The same
reason is also valid of the presence of other Greek and Latin settlement names that had been
given by foreigners.
I believe that hydronymy can be considered to be the most reliable indicator of the
change in the language, because it cannot be associated at all with the impact of fashion, as
is the case with personal names, and it was rarely affected by short-lived processes that had
some impact on settlement names. It seems that the special position of hydronymy is due tc
the fact that it deals with names of natural sites. Naturally, the same is true of oronymy as
well, but the names of mountains are quite few. Mass penetration of hydronyms from a new
language into a certain territory would be reliable evidence either of mass settlement by bear¬
ers of the respective language, or of transition by the indigenous population to the new lan¬
guage (whose bearers may not even be too numerous) and abandoning of the old language.
Asia Minor is a typical example of advanced Hellenisation in a linguistic sense of the
term and this has been reflected fully legitimately in hydronymy, namely
200-210
out of
about
350
known hydronyms are Greek and about
140
are of non-Greek origin: from Asia
Minor, Thracian and a smaller number of Iranian,
Galatian,
Armenian and Semitic names.
In Asia Minor this high percentage was obviously the result precisely of the replacement of
the local languages by Greek, i.e., not only Greek settlers and their progeny were the bearers
of the ancient Greek language, but the indigenous population also started speaking Greek,
abandoning the old languages of Asia Minor. Nevertheless, there is evidence of the existence
of some of them during the Roman Age as well.
The situation in Thrace was radically different. About
150
hydronyms are known from
the Thracian lands, more than
140
of which are Thracian and only several are Greek and
Latin. The geographic location of Greek hydronyms is only close to the Greek colonies along
the Aegean and Black Sea coasts. There is no hydronym of Greek origin further inlands.
Similarly, there is evidence of only two Latin river names
-
on the territory of
Histria. Late
Anti-quity and early medieval authors mention not only Thracian river names, there are also
some names from
Dacia
and Scythia of Germanic and Hun origin, but no Latin names.
The extremely small number of Greek and Latin hydronyms in the Thracian lands,
whose geographic location obviously connects them with settlers in the Aegean and Black
Sea colonies, and their total absence further inlands, are a reliable indication that Greek and
Latin were not spoken on a mass scale by the Thracian population.
The issue of the Romanisation of the territory of the Thracian linguistic area appears
230
to be slightly different from the issue of Hellenisation due to the presence of a Romance lan¬
guage
-
inherited from Latin
-
on a part
ofthat
territory. The time and the place of the forma¬
tion of the so-called Proto-Romanian are among the most debatable issues in contemporary
Balkan linguistics. Both the data in the inscriptions and those about the settlement names
outline the
Dacia Ripensis
province as the most strongly Romanised area in the eastern part
of the Balkan Peninsula. The highest number of Latin and Latinised settlement names men¬
tioned in the
roman
itineraries and later in the lists of
castelli in
Procopius originated from
there and from the neighbouring northern parts of Dardania and
Dacia Mediterranea.
On the whole, it can be said that bilingualism was practised in Thrace by relatively
small and scattered groups, it did not spread over the rural population and never reached the
third stage, i.e., the Thracian language was never totally replaced by either Greek or Latin
until the end of the Antiquity. The penetration of the Greek language at different levels of
usage and communication can be qualified only as Greek linguistic influence. Evidence that
can be interpreted as data of lasting Romanisation, i.e., abandoning of the Thracian language
and transition to Latin speech practice, exists above all for the
Dacia
Ripensis province.
All evidence, especially from hydronymy, suggests that the Thracian language existed
until the end of Antiquity. It can be assumed that the Thracian linguistic area was already
fragmented in the last two centuries after the incursions of the barbarians, which created the
prerequisites for the extinction of the Thracian language and for the assimilation of the Thra-
cians when the Slavs settled in the Balkan Peninsula.
Conclusion
The results and the conclusions reached in this study on the Thracian hydronymy are
summarised along two main lines: general conclusions on the Thracian hydronyms and a
look at the Thracian language on the basis of the study of the hydronyms.
231
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Janakieva, Svetlana G. |
| author_facet | Janakieva, Svetlana G. |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Janakieva, Svetlana G. |
| author_variant | s g j sg sgj |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV036801889 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)706013213 (DE-599)BVBBV036801889 |
| edition | 1. izd |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02484nam a2200565 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV036801889</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20101202 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">101129s2009 ab|| |||| 00||| bul d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9789543223862</subfield><subfield code="9">978-954-322-386-2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)706013213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV036801889</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">bul</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="6">880-01</subfield><subfield code="a">Janakieva, Svetlana G.</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="6">880-02</subfield><subfield code="a">Trakijskata chidronimija</subfield><subfield code="c">Svetlana Janakieva</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="250" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1. izd</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="6">880-03</subfield><subfield code="a">Sofija</subfield><subfield code="b">Akad. Izdat. "Prof. Marin Drinov"</subfield><subfield code="c">2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">231 p.</subfield><subfield code="b">ill., maps</subfield><subfield code="c">24 cm</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Studia Thracica</subfield><subfield code="v">12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PST: Thracian hydronymy. - In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Includes bibliographical references (p. 200-217)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Thrakisch</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4120358-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Etymologie</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4015640-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Gewässername</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4131350-1</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Balkanhalbinsel</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4004334-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Balkanhalbinsel</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4004334-4</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Gewässername</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4131350-1</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Etymologie</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4015640-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Thrakisch</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4120358-6</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Studia Thracica</subfield><subfield code="v">12</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV000904989</subfield><subfield code="9">12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020718053&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020718053&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="880" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="6">100-01/(N</subfield><subfield code="a">Янакиева, Светлана</subfield><subfield code="a">ut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="880" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="6">245-02/(N</subfield><subfield code="a">Тракийската хидронимия</subfield><subfield code="c">Светлана Яанакиева</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="880" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="6">264-03/(N</subfield><subfield code="a">София</subfield><subfield code="b">Марин Дринов</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="f">sla</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020718053</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">307.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09015</subfield><subfield code="g">496</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">307.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09014</subfield><subfield code="g">496</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">907.2</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09015</subfield><subfield code="g">496</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">907.2</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09014</subfield><subfield code="g">496</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Balkanhalbinsel (DE-588)4004334-4 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Balkanhalbinsel |
| id | DE-604.BV036801889 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T22:48:33Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9789543223862 |
| language | Bulgarian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020718053 |
| oclc_num | 706013213 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 231 p. ill., maps 24 cm |
| publishDate | 2009 |
| publishDateSearch | 2009 |
| publishDateSort | 2009 |
| publisher | Akad. Izdat. "Prof. Marin Drinov" |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Studia Thracica |
| series2 | Studia Thracica |
| spelling | 880-01 Janakieva, Svetlana G. Verfasser aut 880-02 Trakijskata chidronimija Svetlana Janakieva 1. izd 880-03 Sofija Akad. Izdat. "Prof. Marin Drinov" 2009 231 p. ill., maps 24 cm txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Studia Thracica 12 PST: Thracian hydronymy. - In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Includes bibliographical references (p. 200-217) Thrakisch (DE-588)4120358-6 gnd rswk-swf Etymologie (DE-588)4015640-0 gnd rswk-swf Gewässername (DE-588)4131350-1 gnd rswk-swf Balkanhalbinsel (DE-588)4004334-4 gnd rswk-swf Balkanhalbinsel (DE-588)4004334-4 g Gewässername (DE-588)4131350-1 s Etymologie (DE-588)4015640-0 s Thrakisch (DE-588)4120358-6 s DE-604 Studia Thracica 12 (DE-604)BV000904989 12 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020718053&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020718053&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract 100-01/(N Янакиева, Светлана ut 245-02/(N Тракийската хидронимия Светлана Яанакиева 264-03/(N София Марин Дринов |
| spellingShingle | Janakieva, Svetlana G. Trakijskata chidronimija Studia Thracica Thrakisch (DE-588)4120358-6 gnd Etymologie (DE-588)4015640-0 gnd Gewässername (DE-588)4131350-1 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4120358-6 (DE-588)4015640-0 (DE-588)4131350-1 (DE-588)4004334-4 |
| title | Trakijskata chidronimija |
| title_auth | Trakijskata chidronimija |
| title_exact_search | Trakijskata chidronimija |
| title_full | Trakijskata chidronimija Svetlana Janakieva |
| title_fullStr | Trakijskata chidronimija Svetlana Janakieva |
| title_full_unstemmed | Trakijskata chidronimija Svetlana Janakieva |
| title_short | Trakijskata chidronimija |
| title_sort | trakijskata chidronimija |
| topic | Thrakisch (DE-588)4120358-6 gnd Etymologie (DE-588)4015640-0 gnd Gewässername (DE-588)4131350-1 gnd |
| topic_facet | Thrakisch Etymologie Gewässername Balkanhalbinsel |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020718053&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020718053&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV000904989 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT janakievasvetlanag trakijskatachidronimija |