Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Alans in Spain, Giomar, Gayomart

Expand Messages
  • Baira
    ... Yes, Alans were nomads speaking an eastern Iranian language of the same family of Persian. Their descendants are the Ossetes, living north of the Caucasus
    Message 1 of 37 , Jul 26, 2007
      --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, amicus@... wrote:
      > I have an offbeat question. I understand that the Alans were a Persian
      > people. I guess then they spoke some language related to Persian. The
      > Alans passed through Spain. Any evidence of their presence there now?

      Yes, Alans were nomads speaking an eastern Iranian language of the
      same family of Persian. Their descendants are the Ossetes, living
      north of the Caucasus and extensively studied for language, mythology
      and traditiond (see Dumezil's work).

      I do not know anything of their traces in Spain, but I always thought
      of the Mediaeval Spanish name Giomar, still used today. In the Persian
      pre-Islamic tradition Gayomart (in modern Persian Kiumars)is the first
      man, so I wonder if Giomar does not come from Gayomart in some way.
      True, I seem to remember that in Ossetic mythology the nome Gayomart
      does not appear, therefore this origin is not very likely, but I still

    • dciurchea
      May I point out the relation of qualat and greek galata (Galata in Constantinopole, Galtis on Alutha in Jordannes). ... tendency in Low Latin to avoid final
      Message 37 of 37 , Aug 18, 2007
        May I point out the relation of "qualat" and greek galata (Galata in
        Constantinopole, Galtis on Alutha in Jordannes).

        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, Rydwlf <mitsuhippon@...> wrote:
        > Dear all,
        > I'm glad that the information I posted was of your interest.
        > Heinrich Lausberg in his "Romance Linguistics" talks about the
        tendency in Low Latin to avoid final consonants. He says that this
        tendency consolidated more intensely in Italian, a little less in
        Spanish and Portuguese and even less in Rumanian, Provençal and
        > Coming to the final -s, Lausberg states that the Latin final -s
        remains in Sardinian and in the Western Romance languages (Romansh,
        French, Provençal, Catalan, Spanish and Portuguese) while in the
        Eastern Romance languages (Romanian, Center and South Italian) it
        became [i]. The noun example that Lausberg provides is
        Latin "feminas" (females, women) that becomes "hembras" in Spanish.
        Although "feminas" is an accusative plural, and not a nominative
        singular like in "burgus", should we conclude that it is more
        feasible that "burgus" evolved into Sp. "burgos"?
        > In the formation of Old Spanish from Low Latin, there was a
        preference to form the masculine plural from the Latin nom./acc.
        plural, using the particle -os (which shows some Celtic substrate
        biasing, and as opposed to p.e. Italian that preferred the nom.
        plural -i). In Modern Spanish the standard masculine plural mark is -
        > I don't know to which declination belongs "burgus". From the
        Nom. final -us, itcan only be 2nd (stem -o-) or 4th (stem -u-). The
        acc. pl. would be in that case "burgos" and "burgus", provided the
        name is masculine (if it is neuter, in both cases the Acc.pl. would
        be "burga"). I have read somewhere that masculine names both from
        the 2nd and 4th declination took the final -os anyway. I don't know
        in which stage did they, but even in the "Glosas Emilianenses"
        (late X century) we can find the text "enos sieculos delo sieculos",
        that is "in the centuries of the centuries", being Latin "saeculum"
        of the 2nd declination (but neuter), so the use of final -os seems
        old enough and consolidated in the first stages of the formation of
        the Spanish language. This can also be taken as a proof that all the
        names from the Latin 2nd declination took the -os plural mark in Old
        Spanish, be them masculine or neuter in Latin.
        > This explain the plural form of "burgos", but, what about the
        singular form, burgo/s?
        > According to Lausberg, although he focuses in final -s in
        plurals and verbs, the final -s should be preserved also in the
        singular Spanish names. But the general theory is that the
        masculine -us and neuter -um endings evolved to -o in Old Spanish.
        Even in the same Glosas Emilianenses we find "dueno" ("lord", from
        Latin 2nd dec. dominus), "Cristo" ("Christ", from 2nd dec
        Christus), "sancto" ("holy", adjective but from Latin masc.
        sanctus). To add some confussion, the Golsas include an adjective in
        nom.plural "gaudioso", (joyous) finishing in -o, not in -os.
        > In conclussion, it seems that it's highly probable that at an
        early stage of the language, the forms were "burgo" for the singular
        and "burgos" for the plural. I haven't been able to find any
        masculine name that preserve the final -s of the Latin nom. sg.
        > About the concentration of Spanish place names with the "burg"
        component in the North of Spain, I have the feeling that it is
        significant, but Ï have reached no conclussion. There is a
        distinctively high number of such places in A Coruña (17) and some
        presence also in the rest of the provinces of Galicia, which
        corresponds almost exactly to the limits of the Roman Province
        Gallaecia (in which the Suebian Kingdom was founded in 410), at
        least the part in modern Spain. It would be interesting studying the
        number of place names with "burg" in the Portuguese part of what
        Gallaecia was; I suppose it was also high. I think this relatively
        high number of "burg" place names in modern Galicia is related to
        the Suebian Kingdom. How exactly, though, I don't know. I'm also
        dubious about the origin of "burg" place names in other Northern
        areas, but it's interesting to note that Soria and Burgos (which sum
        up to 13 "burg" place names) are considered areas in which the
        > settlement was high and deep, if I remember well.
        > Was the initial mindset of the Germanic peoples in Iberia
        comparatively more focused in the military than in later imes? Could
        that explain the abundance of "burg" based place names in an old
        stage, coinciding with the military nature of their entrance in
        Iberia both of Suebi (although later recognized as foedi) and
        Visigoths (first as a countenance measure against Vandals and Alans,
        later against Suebi)? In that case, the "burg" based place names
        (excuse my adoption of the term) would be the result of this
        military campaigns and would be of very old origin. This is an
        hypothesis, but the Moorish sway in the South could be also a
        possible reason of the different name distribution. For example, the
        term "medina", Arab for "city", appears in 24 toponymes. Similar
        words for fortifications appearing in Spanish modern place names are
        > mahsan -> fortified place
        > rabita -> frontier military settlement
        > qalat -> castle
        > meriya -> watching tower.
        > There are toponymes with these roots all over Spain, but they
        are more frequent in the Half South, specially in modern Andalusia
        and Eastern regions.
        > Cheers,
        > Rydwlf.
        > llama_nom <600cell@...> wrote:
        > > There are currently two main theories about the origin of the
        > Burgos toponyme. Both of them, though, take the name "Burgos" as
        > coming from Germanic burgs through Latin.burgus. The first theory
        > "Burgos" as evolving directly from burgus (with the final -s). The
        > second theory assumes that the word descending from burgus was
        > not burgos. In that case, the name "Burgos" would be a plural and
        > would be a reference to an agglomeration of fortresses or castles.
        > Thanks Rydwlf! At first sight, the second of these theories seems
        > more logical, and maybe it's supported by those placenames where
        > article appears: los burgos, el burgo. At the very leastm that must
        > be how such names where interpreted in later times. But are there
        > other inherited words where Latin -s of the nominative singular is
        > preserved, and under what circumstances would that happen?
        > Do you think it's significant that the names are concentrated in
        > north? Could this imply that they were indeed originally connected
        > with the Gothic and/or Suebic settlement? Or are there other
        > which could account for that, e.g. Moorish sway in the south, later
        > Frankish influences elsewhere; or simply geographical factors? Are
        > there other words applied in placenames to the same sorts of
        > in the south?
        > LN
        > You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a
        blank email to .
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > Rydwlf
        > "It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as
        aliens. It is people like me who are isolated." - Grigori Perelman.
        > ---------------------------------
        > Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos
        new Car Finder tool.
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.