sign in sign up
<<
Home , Romanian language

Two Old Germanisms of East Romance (Romanian ateia ‘to dress up’ and brânduUå ‘crocus’) confirmed by West Romance

Adrian Poruciuc Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of IaUi

In a series of articles, published mainly during the last decade, this author has demonstrated that Romanian contains Old Germanic loans than previously believed (see Poruciuc 1999, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2009). The first part of the present deals with a regional Romanian term, ateia ‘to dress up’, whose Old Germanic origin was assumed by two forerunners, Diculescu and Gamillscheg. In the final part, another Romanian term, brânduUå ‘crocus’, is presented, for the first time, as based on an Old Germanic loan (brand ‘sword’). As indicated in the title above, a special focus of this article is on West Romance cognates that confirm the Old Germanic origin of the two Romanian terms discussed below.

The Romanian ateia in dictionary entries A dictionary of the – MDA, vol. I, 2001 – presents the regional Romanian verb ateia (pronounced /ateja/) as a term of unknown origin. The author of the only complete etymological dictionary of Romanian, Ciorånescu (2001), also considers ateia to be etymologically obscure. However, Ciorånescu mentions several etymologies proposed by various forerunners. A rather curious fact is that, in regard to Romanian (Rm.) ateia Ciorånescu takes into consideration opinions that are hardly tenable (such as the one formulated by Spitzer, who tentatively referred Rm. ateia to Rm. tei ‘lime-tree’), but he does not mention Gamillscheg (1935), who demonstrated that Rm. ateia represents a borrowing from Old Germanic.1

1Gamillscheg’ Germanica does appear in the reference list of Ciorånescu’s dictionary; nevertheless, Ciorånescu (in observing a certain

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 356 Adrian Poruciuc

Below I will resume Gamillscheg’s main arguments, with some additions of my own. But first I will present the semantic sphere of the Romanian term under discussion. The main meanings of Rm. ateia, as given in Ciorånescu’s dictionary, are ‘to dress up (for festive occasions), adorn, trim’.2 More semantic details are to be found in MDA, where the following meanings are given under ateia: ‘to change one’s clothes’, ‘to dress up (for a holiday)’, ‘to undress’ (only in the Romanian dialect of ). The same dictionary mentions the regional (Banatian) threatening formula Las-cå te ateiu eu pe tine, translatable as ‘I’ll fix you good’. MDA also gives, as separate entries, the derivatives ateiat¹ ‘changing of clothes, undressing’, ateiat² ‘festively dressed, undressed’, and ateieturi (pl.) ‘clean clothes, festive clothes’. Such derivatives are proof of the fact that, for all its dialectal status, ateia is not an isolated element, but a member of a Romanian lexical family.

Gamillscheg’s view – revised and expanded In his Romania Germanica (1935: 294) Gamillscheg presents Rm. ateia in a subchapter on “East Germanic loans in Romanian” (“Ostgermanische Lehnwörter im Rumänischen”). By furthering an assumption of Diculescu’s,3 Gamillscheg refers the Romanian term (given with the meaning of ‘sich festlich kleiden’) to the Gothic verb gatêwjan ‘to arrange’ (‘anordnen’), whose cognates are Go. taujan ‘to make, act, perform’ and Go. têwa ‘order’ line of the school of historical linguistics) rejected practically all propositions of Old Germanisms in Romanian. For instance, under bordei ‘hut’ (a Romanian term for which several important linguists propounded an Old Germanic origin), Ciorånescu simply invokes “the well-known absence of Old Germanic terms from Romanian.” 2All translations from other languages into English are my own. 3The Romanian historian Constantin Diculescu published the earliest amply documented study (in German) on the Gepids and on the important part they played in the making of the as a distinct Romance people (see Diculescu 1922 in the list of references). Although Diculescu was immediately criticized, mainly for the much too large amount of Romanian terms presented by him as Gepidic loans, a certain number of those terms can be accepted as elements of Old Germanic origin, as indicated in statements of outstanding linguists such as Gamillscheg and Giuglea (see below).

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 357

(all of which correspond etymologically to .Eng. tâwian ‘to process, prepare’). On the same page, Gamillscheg makes use of historical facts too, in observing that Rm. ateia was recorded only in Banat, “that is, in the most restricted Gepidic domain.”4 On the basis of such evidence, the same author assumed that a Gepidic term têwjan5 – more precisely a prefixed derivative of it, at-têwjan ‘to prepare’ (‘zurichten’) – could have been “Romanized as attewiare, from which the Romanian form subsequently derived.” Although Gamillscheg’s arguments in favor of a Gepidic origin for Rm. ateia are credible, I consider that some supplementary observations should be made at this point. First of all, I must observe that a root *taw-, with a variant *téw-, and with the meanings ‘to make, prepare, manufacture’, may be regarded as exclusively Germanic. Terms in which such a root is visible are to be found in practically all Germanic idioms,6 and those terms have no corresponding terms outside Germanic.7 In regard to attestation, I will mention that a form, tawidó

4The territory of today’s Banat – now divided between Romania and – is known to have once belonged to Gepidia, that is, to the kingdom of the Gepids, which was eventually destroyed by the Langobards (supported by the Avars) in AD 567. For a recent view on that dramatic turn, see Pohl 2008: 266-267. 5Although the Gepidic term was not attested as such, Gamillscheg (as in other such cases discussed in his Romania Germanica) did not mark it by an asterisk, probably since he considered it to be safely reconstructed on the basis of a sufficient number of cognates recorded in Old Germanic idioms. In the particular case under discussion, I suppose that Gamillscheg’s main reason for the reconstruction of a Gepidic variant *téw- was the need to justify the // of Rm. ateia. However, such an /e/ could actually reflect a perpetuation of an Old Germanic in Romance, such an assumption being supported by the existence of the same vowel in a Catalan correspondent, ateviat ‘ornamented’ (to which I will return below). 6For the lexical elements discussed here, see the material given under *taw- in the AHD Appendix. See also the series of Germanic terms (based on *taw-) given in de Vries’s dictionary of Old Norse, under tauiu (‘I prepare’), a series that includes the already mentioned Go. taujan, as well as O..Germ. zouwen ‘to prepare’ and Dutch touwen ‘to tan’. It is also under O.Norse tauiu where de Vries mentions a possible Indo-European base *deu- (as source of Germanic *taw-). 7Kluge 1989 presents Go. taujan as a Germanic term “ohne sichere auswärtige Beziehungen.”

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 358 Adrian Poruciuc

(which represents an Old Germanic verb that corresponds to Go. taujan and to O.Eng. tawian), stands for one of the earliest Germanic words recorded in writing: tawidó occurs in the runic inscription on the famous horn of Gallehus (Schleswig). The inscription, a typical example of Old Germanic alliterative text, was dated to the period around AD 400, and it can be transcribed8 as follows: ek HlewagastiR Holtijar horna tawidó – ‘I, Hlewagast, () of Holte, made this horn’. Another inscription of approximately the same period (on the wooden casket found in the bog of Garbølle, Seeland – presented in Düwel 1983: 17) contains a variant of the same Old Germanic preterite, with the prefix i- (< in-): hagiradaR itawide – ‘Hagirad made (the runes)’. Some English derivations from Proto-Germanic *taw- deserve special attention. The above-mentioned O.Eng. tawian ‘to process’ was inherited by today’s English as a technical term (with a restricted semantic field), namely to taw ‘to dress (skins and hides), curry’. A less visible relative of taw is the (now obsolete) heriot, a feudal juridical term that designates “a service rendered to a lord on the death of a tenant, consisting originally of the return of military equipment of which the tenant had had the usufruct” (AHD, s.. heriot). The contracted form of heriot no longer reveals its origin in the quite transparent Old English compound heregeatwa, made of here ‘army’ + geatwa (geatwe) ‘trappings’ (cf. Hoad 1993, s.v. heriot). The latter member of the compound under discussion reflects a Germanic derivative *gatawja- ‘gear, trappings’, which is made of the Germanic collective-associative prefix ga- (= German ge-) and the already presented Proto-Germanic root *taw-.9 Speaking of derivation, I must also mention that just as *taw- produced derivatives by ga- and by i()- (see above), it could certainly also produce derivatives by at- (a prefix based on the preposition at, to be found in Gothic,

8See Düwel 1983: 28. 9See the rich Old English lexical family visible in the following entries of Bosworth’s Old English dictionary (1983): geatolic ‘ready, prepared, equipped, stately’, geatwan to make ready, equip, adorn’, geatwe ‘arms, trappings, garments, ornaments’, getawa ‘instruments’ (also used in the combination mannes getawa ‘male genitals’), getawian ‘to prepare, reduce, bring to’.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 359

English and Scandinavian languages).10 Köbler’s Gothic dictionary (1989) contains no less than five pages of at- derivatives, mainly verbal ones, such as atbairan ‘to bring, offer, present to’ (< bairan ‘to bear’), atgaggan ‘to go to, proceed to, come up to’ (< gaggan ‘to go, come, walk’), atgiban ‘to give unto, give over to’ (< giban ‘to give’), etc. Köbler’s dictionary contains nothing like *attaujan or *attéwian, but we can assume that speakers of Gothic may have used such derivatives, even if the latter were not recorded in written documents. Also, a derivative like *attéwian could occur in Gepidic (as a of Gothic), and it most probably was such an Old Germanic derivative that was “Romanized”11 and subsequently grew into Romanian ateia, as Gamillscheg assumed (1935: 294).

West Romance cognates of Romanian ateia Very significant for this discussion are Gamillscheg’s references to obvious cognates of Rm. ateia among the Germanisms recorded in West . Such references are to be found in the first volume of Romania Germanica, mainly in the chapter “Gotische Lehnwörter im Iberoromanischen und Italischen.” It is in that chapter (1934: 393) where Gamillscheg first mentions Span. ataviar ‘to arrange, adorn’, as well as other West Romance words that can be referred to the Gothic verb taujan ‘to prepare’, or to the above-mentioned derivative *attaujan. What results from Gamillscheg’s presentation is that Ibero- Romance preserved only the prefixed variant, under the form of ataviar, whereas Italian dialects appear to have borrowed (from Ostrogothic, according to Gamillscheg) both simple and prefixed variants that all refer either to cooking or to eating with relish and/or greed. Such a semantic sphere is visible, for instance, in Sicilian taffiari ‘to eat with relish’, and in Sardinian attafiari ‘to gobble, wolf down’. The existence of such terms in West

10 Notable Indo-European correspondents of Germanic at are ad and Slavic ot (od). 11 I know of no term like *attaviare to have been recorded in Late Latin; therefore, I cannot assume that Span. ataviar and Rm. ateia belong to the stock of Old Germanisms that entered Late and subsequently became part of the Latin heritage of Romance.

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 360 Adrian Poruciuc

Romance12 enabled Gamillscheg to draw the conclusion that for the Romance cognates under discussion one should consider the possible existence of an original (Germanic) reference to cooking (‘das Mahl zurichten’).13 In regard to the Romanization of Old Germanic lexical elements, worth considering for this discussion are especially the Ibero-Romance Germanisms that correspond to Rm. ateia in both form and meaning. Here is the Spanish verb ataviar, given as an element of Gothic origin in Corominas’s etymological dictionary of Spanish:

ATAVIAR ‘to adorn or dress richly’, since 1300. From Go. taujan ‘to make, work’; probably […] from a Gothic derivative *attaujan ‘to prepare’, cf. Du. touwen […].

In his etymological dictionary of Catalan (1982-1991), the same author – signed as Coromines – included Cat. ataviar (‘to dress richly’ - ‘vestir ricament’), as a borrowing from Spanish. The ataviar entry of Coromines’s Catalan dictionary also presents a derivative, ataviadament, as well as the formula cavall ateviat, which translates the Latin formula equus phaleratus (‘a horse with richly ornamented harness’). Although Corominas (Coromines) includes Gamillscheg’s Romania Germanica in the reference lists of his two dictionaries, he does not mention that Romanian also has an Old that perfectly corresponds to Spanish/Catalan ataviar. It is quite obvious that by both its visible prefix at- and by what is left of the root *taw- (or *téw-), Rm. ateia shows – like its Spanish and Catalan cognates – its origin in an Old Germanic idiom, such as Gothic or Gepidic. In regard to the form of the Romanian

12 Certain terms included in more recent West Romance dictionaries also deserve attention: the Battisti/ Allessio dictionary (1950-1957) gives It. taffiare ‘mangiare lentamente, fare una scorpacciata’ (presented as a term that reflects an “expressive” base taf-); in its turn, the Pons/Genre dictionary (1997, s.v. tafiâ) gives a dialectal Provençal tafiâ ‘mangiare abondantemente’. 13 In a forthcoming article, I will discuss Go. gataujan (< ga- + taujan) as a main indicator of the probable Old Germanic origin of Rm. gata ‘ready’ and gåti ‘to prepare, cook’, as well as of Slavic gotov ‘ready, finished’.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 361 term, the fusion of the // in the prefix and the /t/ in the root is easy to explain, and so is the disappearance of the original // in Rm. ateia: for a , see (for the former aspect) Rm. atinge < Lat. attingere < ad- + tingere, and (for the latter aspect) the contracted form of Rm. påmânt ‘ground, earth’ < Lat. pauimentum.

A conclusion – in favor of the Diculescu-Gamillscheg etymology The arguments above indicate that Rm. ateia has an Old Germanic origin as clear as the one of its most obvious , the Ibero-Romance ataviar. As ultimate source of both words one can safely assume the existence of an Old Germanic derivative *attawian, which could be one of the Germanisms that entered Late Vulgar Latin, although (as far as I know) there is no attestation in that respect. Another possibility is the one of independent borrowings of the same Old Germanic term into the varieties of Proto- Romance that were still in contact with Old Germanic idioms during the passage from antiquity to the Middle Ages. In the specific case of Rm. ateia, whose usage is known to be confined to the of Banat (a territory that belonged to the Gepidia of the 5th-6th centuries), a Gepidic origin appears to be the most credible etymological solution. Romanian (and Romance) etymological dictionaries should at least mention the etymology proposed by Diculescu and confirmed by Gamillscheg with arguments that I consider to be quite acceptable.

The more complicated case of Romanian brânduUå The Romanian noun brânduUå ‘crocus’, whose Old Germanic origin I will demonstrate in the second (longer) part of this article, has an etymological position that is quite different from the one of Rm. ateia. The latter is still marked in most Romanian dictionaries as a word of unknown origin, although an Old Germanic origin was proposed for it long ago (see above). By contrast, for Rm. brânduUå several etymologies have been proposed, all rather weak (see below); none of those etymologies refers to Old Germanic as a possible source. The main points of

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 362 Adrian Poruciuc my demonstration, in the paragraphs to follow, are (a) that Rm. brânduUå is based on an Old Germanic loan, to which a suffix of substratal (“autochthonous”) origin was attached, and () that the plausibility of an Old Germanic origin for Rm. brânduUå is sustained, as in the case of ateia, by the existence of corresponding Germanisms in West Romance languages. The feminine noun brânduUå (with a masculine variant brânduU) is among the best-known names of plants in the . Also, brânduUå is among the earliest Romanian words recorded in a dictionary, in the 17th century.14 As regards Aromanian (Macedo-Romanian), the absence of a word like brânduUå in Papahagi’s dictionary (1974)15 may be misleading, since Russu (1981: 269) mentions a masculine Arom. brînduU (also as base of an Aromanian name, BrînduU), together with an Istro- Romanian variant, brînduUe. As indicated in the brînduUå/ brînduUe/ brânduUå16 entries of dictionaries such as Ciorånescu, DEX and MDA, the botanical term under discussion designates rather diverse plants, going from crocuses proper (that is, spring crocuses such as Crocus aureus, Crocus heuffelianus, Crocus variegatus, Crocus reticulatus and Crocus moesiacus) to the plant known in English as autumn crocus, meadow saffron, or naked lady (Colchicum autumnale). MDA marks Rm. brânduUå as a word of “unknown etymology,” whereas DEX only refers the same word to Bulg. brenduska and Serb.-Croat. brndusa. In his turn, Ciorånescu (2001, s.v. brînduUe) first gives “unknown etymology,” then he mentions a whole series of hardly

14 According to Chivu 2008: 23, brânduUå was first recorded in the Dictionarium valachico-latinum (now known as Anonymus Caransebesiensis), which was written around 1650. 15 In an etymological interpretation first published in 1944, Giuglea considers that brânduUå is “an autochthonous word that can be found only in Daco-Romanian” (see Giuglea 1988: 33). 16 For readers less familiar with written Romanian, I must mention that î and â represent (in two successive Modern Romanian orthographic systems) one and the same vowel, /Ï/. In the history of Romanian, the vowel now rendered by î and â obviously developed from an earlier /e/ (now written å), that is, from a “Balkan ” of a quality similar to the one rendered by ë in Albanian and by ∫ in Bulgarian.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 363 tenable etymological explanations, such as the ones proposed by Philippide, who reconstructed a Lat. *brundusia, and by Giuglea, who saw the origin of brânduUå in an autochthonous root *brend- ‘swelling’.17 In the same entry, Ciorånescu observes that Slavic terms commonly mentioned in connection with Rm. brânduUå – “Serb. brndusa, brenduska ‘saffron’, Dalm. brndjuska ‘saffron’, Ruthen. brenduska, brandjusi” – actually look alien in Slavic, where “they could be Romanian loans.”18 And, in fact, an authoritative etymological dictionary of Bulgarian, Georgiev et al. (1971), presents Bulg. (dial.) branduski, with a variant brenduski, as being “from Romanian brînduUå.”19 In my opinion, the a/e alternation shown by several of the above-mentioned Slavic variants indicates hesitations of Slavic speakers in rendering a Romanian vowel of the schwa type.

Substratal visions, reconstructed roots and metaphorical motivations That Rm. brânduUå should be considered as very old in Romanian is indicated not only by its early attestation and by its archaic shape, but also by the rich onomastic material based on it (see below). The word does not belong to the Latin heritage of Romanian, nor can it be presented as a loan from languages of historical neighbors of the Romanians. As for the opinions that have presented Rm. brânduUå as substratal, they deserve detailed discussion. I have already mentioned that Giuglea and PuUcariu thought the origin of Rm. brânduUå to be autochthonous (that is,

17 Giuglea appears to have been preoccupied with the origin of Rm. brânduUå throughout his career (see especially his article “BrînduUå,” first published in 1923, and finally included in the posthumous volume Giuglea 1983: 125-130). 18 In his history of Romanian, PuUcariu (1976: 168) states that “maybe” brânduUå is an autochthonous word. The same scholar (1976: 304) includes brânduUå among “the words of Romanian origin in the .” 19 Mihåescu (1993: 316) also considers that Rm. brânduUå must be included among the words that were borrowed into several . Along the same line, at the end of the brânduUå entry of his dictionary of Romanian (1990), Rohr mentions that Bulg. brenduska and “Serb.-Croat. brudusa” (most probably a misprint of brndusa) are loans from Romanian.

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 364 Adrian Poruciuc pre-Roman). Subsequently, Russu (1981: 270) considered that, of all the etymologies proposed for brânduUå, “only Giuglea’s approach appears to be justified, but without managing to discover […] the real source from which Romanian inherited the word.” Russu was not very precise about the “real source” either, as I will point out below. Whereas Giuglea, in his etymology of brânduUå, started from the “swelling” represented by the crocus bulb, Russu’s etymological approach focuses on the shape of crocus leaves. In Russu’s opinion, the PIE root that should be regarded as ultimate source for brânduUå is *bh(e)rend-, which is also the base of Lat. frons, frondis (from which Romanian has frunzå ‘leaf’). As I will demonstrate below, the very formation of the term brânduUå has quite much to do with the shape of crocus leaves; but that fact hardly guarantees that the Romanian term has its origin in an idiom of the the “Illyro-Thraco-Dacian” substratum, as Giuglea believed. In the first volume of his etymological dictionary of Romanian, Rohr (1999)20 gives an even earlier attestation (1495) for brânduUå, which is presented by him as the name of two plants (Colchicum autumnale and Crocus vernus). As for origin, Rohr’s view (very similar to Giuglea’s) is that Rm. brânduUå is based on a Dacian root *brand-, in its turn based on PIE *bhrendh- ‘to swell’. Such resort to a succession of reconstructions hardly looks like sailing on safe seas. Anyway, speaking of reconstructios, Rm. brânduUå can be more credibly referred (as I will point out below) not to the PIE root given as *bhrendh- ‘aufschwellen’ in Pokorny 1959, but rather to PIE *bhreu-² ‘to boil, bubble, effervesce, burn’, from which Proto- Germanic developed the specific extension *brenw- ‘to burn’ (to which I will return below). For a more “realistic” etymology of Rm. brânduUå one can resort not only to PIE and Proto-Germanic reconstructions, but also to well- attested Germanic terms, several of which were borrowed into early varieties of West Romance.

20 As a disciple of Günther Reichenkron, Rohr furthers the reconstructivist line of his master (who, among other things, aimed to reconstruct the Dacian language by starting from substratal elements of Romanian).

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 365

According to the visions of various predecessors, practically the only part of Rm. brânduUå that appears to be transparent enough is its suffix, whose function is known to be diminutive (or, rather, also diminutive). The origin of that suffix remains unclear though. Whereas Poghirc (1969: 363) includes -(u)U(å), with “a diminutive value,” among the Romanian suffixes of “autochthonous origin,”21 Russu (1981: 270, with direct reference to brânduUå) states that “-uUå is an Old Romanian suffix (of Slavic origin? – cf. cåpuUå, cåtuUå, måtuUå, pånuUå etc.).” However that may be, it is obvious that the suffix -uUå truly belongs to earliest Romanian, as results from the fact that it occurs in derivations from substratal terms, as well as from terms that belong to the Latin heritage of Romanian: see, for instance (in MDA), the name of the insect known in Romanian as cåpuUå ‘tick’, corresponding to Alb. këpushë ‘tick’ (of the family of Alb. kap ‘to catch, seize’), or see Rm. cåtuUå ‘little cat, handcuff’ and Rm. månuUå ‘glove’ (from Lat. catta ‘cat’ and manus ‘hand’, respectively). Also obvious is that -uUå (as a diminutive suffix) has a masculine counterpart, -uU, occurring in derivations such as arc ‘bow’ > arcuU ‘bow (for a string instrument)’, vierme ‘worm’ > viermuU ‘maggot’, which show word-formation patterns comparable to the ones visible in Alb. djall ‘devil’ > djallush ‘imp’, or lepur ‘rabbit’ > lepurush ‘young rabbit’.22 I will add that the gender alternation implied by the pair of variants brânduUå/ brânduU recalls an Old Germanic aspect, as I will show in more detail below. But first I will make some semantic observations (mainly along the lines of the Wörter-und-Sachen method). As I have suggested above, in the making of the original form of Rm. brânduUå the basic reference was not to the bulb, but to the leaves specific to all the plants designated by the Romanian term under discussion. More precisely, the type of leaves I refer to is the one presented by DEX (s.v. brânduUå) as “big and fairly long,” and by Russu (1981: 270) as “linear-lanceolate and pointed.” The neologistic botanical term “lanceolate” was created by reference to the shape of a spearhead (cf. Lat. lancea). For

21 See also Giuglea 1988: 41, on -uUå as a “Thraco-Illyrian” suffix. 22 See also Alb. arushë ‘female bear’, from ari ‘bear’.

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 366 Adrian Poruciuc a comparison, I will observe that, by a metaphorical interpretation of a similar shape, Romanian speakers created a plant-name such as sågeticå (literally, ‘little arrow’, since it derives from Rm. sågeatå, from Lat. sagitta ‘arrow’); the same plant is known in Romanian under the names of såbioarå and såbiutå, both of these being diminutive derivatives from Rm. sabie ‘sword’. The plant designated by the three vernacular terms (sågeticå, såbioarå, såbiutå) is known to botanists as Gladiolus imbricatus. DEX presents såbiutå as a “herbaceous plant with swordlike leaves.”23 It is actually the same plant as the one known to most Romanians under the neologistic name of gladiolå, from Germ. Gladiole (cf. MDA, s.v. gladiolå). In its turn, Germ. Gladiole (first recorded in the nineteenth century) was most probably inspired by the taxonomic term Gladiolus, which belonged to eighteenth-century “botanical Latin” (cf. Pfeifer 1993, s.v. Gladiole ‘Zierblume aus der Gattung der Schwertliliengewächse’). Nevertheless, the diminutive gladiolus ‘little sword’ (as derivative of gladius ‘sword’) is known to have been already in use as a plant-name in the Latin spoken by the Romans themselves (see Ernout/Meillet 1985, s.v. gladius).24 It was from such data that I started my investigation of the origin of Rm. brânduUå; and that investigation led me to the conclusion that the etymology of the Romanian term under discussion can be definitively clarified by reference to an Old Germanic term that meant ‘sword’.

Old Germanic and West Romance evidence Köbler’s dictionary of Gothic includes the following nouns (all masculine, but belonging to two different types of ), with meanings rendered by Köbler in German and English: branda ‘Brand, fire’; brands ‘Schwert, sword’; branps ‘Schwert, sword’, all referable to PIE *bhreu-

23 Since I happen to have two varieties of crocus in my garden, I can add that a leaf of such a plant strikingly resembles the blade of a typical Iron- Age double-edged sword. That aspect of the crocus leaf becomes even more prominent due to the lengthwise nervure of a whitish shade that contrasts with the shiny green around it. 24In Baumgartner/Ménard 1996 (s.v. glaïeul) , the French term glaïeul ‘gladiole’ is considered to be “from Lat. gladiolus ‘short sword’ as well as ‘gladiole’, due to the form of the leaves of this plant.”

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 367

‘to boil, bubble, effervesce, burn’.25 From that root, as I have already mentioned above, Proto-Germanic produced an extension (with a “nasal infix”), *brenw- ‘to burn’, which accounts for English burn and German brennen. The family of *brenw- also includes a Proto-Germanic derivative *brand(az) ‘a burning, or flaming torch, hence also a sword’ (cf. *bhreu-² in the AHD Appendix – my italics). Most etymologists have considered that, in the case under discussion, there occurred a semantic shift from ‘piece of burning wood’ to ‘sword’, by way of a metaphor motivated by the brilliance of sword blades (see the brand entry in Bosworth 1983). It appears that terms of the brand family, with both meanings, have not only survived in the , but they also entered Romance, as Old Germanic loans. In that respect, worth mentioning is the lexical material to be found in Meyer-Lübke’s pan- Romance dictionary (REW, 1935) under “1237. brand” (marked as a Germanism). As developments from that Old Germanic loan Meyer-Lübke mentions only West Romance terms, such as O.Fr. brandir ‘burn’ and O.Fr. brant ‘sword’, Piedmont. brandé ‘to boil’, Lombard. brandena ‘firedog’, It. brandire ‘to brandish’, etc.26 Among the Old Germanisms of earlier French included in the Baumgartner/ Ménard etymological dictionary (1996) there are: (1) brande, an earlier name (15th .) for the plant now generally known as bruyère;27 (2) an early derivative (12th c.), brandon ‘flaming bundle of straw’, from a Germanic loan of the brand type; (3) a verb brandir ‘to brandish a weapon’ (11th c.), presented as

25 See *bhreu-² in the AHD Appendix; see also O.Norse brandr (‘piece of burning wood, sword blade, sword’) in de Vries 1961, and O.Eng. brand (‘fire-brand, torch, burning, flame, sword’) in Bosworth 1983. 26 Besides the illustrative examples of REW (Meyer-Lübke 1935), other Old Germanisms of the brand family are to be found in dictionaries of various Romance languages and dialects. For instance Battisti and Alessio (1950) give Italian brandire ‘to brandish (a ‘brando’)’ and brando ‘sword’; Coromines (1983) gives Catalan brander ‘to brandish (a weapon)’, to which he refers abrandar ‘to set on fire’ and branda ‘flame’; Pons and Genre (1997) give dialectal Provençal brandâ ‘to burn up’. 27 In the entry under discussion, the origin of the plant name brande is explained as follows: “from the old verb brander ‘to burn’, from Germanic *brand ‘piece of burning wood’, by reason of the fact that the plants called bruyères would be burnt in clearings.”

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 368 Adrian Poruciuc derived from “*brand ‘piece of burning wood’, then ‘sword’, by reason of the brightness of metal.”28 The last example clearly recalls the existence of a double meaning, ‘piece of burning wood’ and ‘sword’, specific to Old Germanic words of the brand family (see Gothic terms above). Spanish has a verb blandir (with a shift of /br/ to /bl/) which can be explained as a borrowing of Fr. brandir, as indicated in Corominas 1967:

BLANDIR (14th c.) ‘to wave a weapon, or a similar thing, with a swinging motion’. […] From Fr. brandir […], from O.Fr. brant ‘sword, spearhead’, and the latter from Frank. *brand ‘blade of a sword’ (actually ‘piece of burning wood’, derived from *brennan ‘to burn’, by reason of the brightness of the blade).

So, Corominas regards Span. blandir as based on an early borrowing from mediaeval French, a language which, besides brandir, also contained the Frankish loan brant (‘sword, spearhead’). Germanisms of the brand family recorded in West Romance are also mentioned in Köbler’s dictionary of Gothic (1989), under brands²: Köbler gives O.Fr. brant, It. brando and Prov. bran, all with the meaning ‘sword’. In his turn, Tagliavini (1977: 235) mentions the Germanism brand ‘sword’ as a term recorded in several West Romance languages and dialects.

Phonologic and onomastic arguments A borrowing of the Germanism brand from any kind of West Romance into Romanian is out of the question. Three possibilities are worth considering: (a) although there is no attestation in that respect, an Old Germanic military term brand(a) could enter Late Vulgar Latin, due to the many Germanic mercenaries of imperial Rome; (b) the term under discussion could enter, independently,

28 A meaning such as ‘to flourish or wave a weapon menacingly’ represents the semantic load of both brandir and English brandish; note that the latter term does not belong to the genetic (Germanic) heritage of English, but it stands for a borrowing (into English) of a Germanism of Old French – see the brandish entry of Hoad 1993.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 369 from one or another Old Germanic idiom into one or another variety of Proto-Romance; (c) an Old Germanism of the same type may have been borrowed from early Germanic intruders (Bastarni, Peucini, Buri, etc.) into the autochthonous (pre-Roman) idioms that were to constitute the substratum of Romanian.29 All three possibilities would imply the presence of brand(a) in Romanian from its very beginnings as a distinct Romance language. The most solid proof of that fact is the very early Romanian shift of the Latin stressed sequence /an/ to /en/ (later to /n/).30 A number of Romanian names (see especially Brînd and Brînda below), as well as the existence of Rm. brânt ‘inflammation’ are proofs of the fact that the schwa of Rm. brånduUå (as forerunner of today’s brânduUå) reflects the early Romanian regular shift of a stressed /a/ to /e/ whenever followed by an “ungeminated”31 nasal, as in Lat. lana > Rm. lânå ‘wool’, or Lat. scandula > Rm. scândurå ‘board, plank’.32 I have already referred to the gender alternation

29 Most probably, that term was initially used with reference to a specific weapon of Germanic warriors. For a comparison, the name of a typically Turkish weapon, yatagan, came to enter, much later, not only Romanian (as iatagan), but also English (as yataghan). 30 In regard to a possible transfer from Old Germanic into Vulgar Latin, Rohr (2002, s.v. brandu) makes a rather singular attempt at explaining the Aromanian term brandu ‘trunk’ – a word considered to be of unknown origin in Papahagi’s dictionary (1974, s.v. brandu) – by a chain of reconstructions: a Germanic loan, *brand, with its initial meaning (‘Feuerbrand’), supposedly produced a Latin *brando, wherefrom Aromanian, indirectly, by way of Italian, got its brandu with the meaning of ‘Christmas log’ (‘Weihnachtsklotz’). Most probably, Rohr had to resort to the idea of Italian intermediation, since filiation proper (Latin > Aromanian) would normally have produced not brandu, but *bråndu in Aromanian. 31 The most obvious case of a stressed Lat. /a/ preserved as such in front of a “geminated” nasal is the one of Rm. an ‘year’ < Lat. annus. 32 I must add that the existence of monosyllabic brânt and Brînd (as reflexes of a very early simplex form) excludes, in the case of bråndúUå, the possibility of an early Romanian /e/ caused by a shift of stress to the suffix – for that possibility, see regular cases such as Rm. pánå ‘feather’ > pånúUå ‘corn husk’, or Rm. cáså ‘house’ > cåsútå ‘little house’. From the standpoint of diachronic , the schwa of Rm. brånduUå should be compared not to the one of Rm. pånuUå, but to the one of Rm. månuUå ‘glove’ (< Rm. mânå ‘hand’ < Lat. manus).

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 370 Adrian Poruciuc

(feminine/ masculine) shown by the two Romanian variants, brânduUå and brânduU, respectively. I do not consider it out of place to assume that the two Romanian variants may actually reflect the existence of a pair of Old Germanic cognates, such as the one represented by Go. branda and brands (both masculine).33 For speakers of Late Vulgar Latin (or of Proto-Romanian) a variant like branda must have been felt to be a feminine noun ending in -a (that noun being subsequently extended by the feminine suffix -uUå), whereas a form like brand(s) was felt to be a masculine noun (and it consequently got the suffix -uU). In the absence of helpful attestations, I can only hypothesize that Germanisms of a simplex type such as *bråndå and *brånd were in use in early Romanian, as suggested by the existence of Rm. brânt ‘inflammation’ and of several of the Romanian Brând- surnames given below. What I can safely assume is that early Romanians used diminutive derivatives such as brånduUå and brånduU, which still transparently meant ‘little sword’,34 and which the same Romanians metaphorically applied to certain plants with swordlike leaves, just as speakers of Latin had done with their diminutive gladiolus. I kept some onomastic material in store for the end of this article, since – in a seemingly paradoxical way – the Romanian names discussed below raise further questions about the status of Rm. brânduUå, but they also provide significant arguments in favor of the Old Germanic origin of that word. Romanian person-names that transparently derive from variants of the appellative brânduUå (see, for

33 The ending -a marked the nominative-singular foms of many “weak” masculine nouns (of the n-declension) in Old Germanic languages such as Gothic (baira ‘bear’, falka ‘falcon’) and Old English (hunta ‘hunter’, oxa ‘ox’). 34 Possibly, in the Carpathian-Danubian part of , such diminutive forms were created as derivatives from an Old Germanic term brand(a), which had been borrowed as a useful designation of the Celtic-Germanic type of straight long sword, as different from both the short gladius of the Romans and the curved sica of the . As for West Romance, a clue to the kind of weapon that was designated by an Old Germanism of the brand(a) type is to be found in the Catalan dictionary of Moran and Rabella (1999), in which Cat. bran is given as designation of a sword wielded with both hands (espasa que s’agafava amb les dues mans).

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 371 instance, BrånduU, BrånduUå, BrînduU, BrînduUå)35 were created on Romanian soil, therefore I will not dwell on them; for similar reasons, I will simply mention the existence of transparent derivatives from such names (BrînduUanu, BrînduUescu, BrînduUoni, BrânduUeriu) and of village-names such as BrânduUa (Dolj) and BrânduUari (Vâlcea). All these are quite numerous, and they may be taken into consideration in connection with the age and position on the appellative brânduUå in Romanian. However, what I must primarily focus on at this point is a category of Romanian surnames that appear to depend directly on the Brand family of Old Germanic surnames. Constantinescu’s onomastic dictionary (1963) includes the Romanian family names Branda, Brånda, Brînda, plus suffixed derivatives such as Bråndinå, Brîndar (in the Serbian Banat),36 BrîndaU, Brîndåu, Brîndinå (, 1493). To these, in his dictionary of 1983, Iordan adds Brandu – which he refers to “Bulg. Brando” – , as well as Brandea and Brîndeu, which he regards simply as careless transcriptions37 of names based on the appellative

35 I extracted the anthroponyms discussed in this article not only from the onomastic dictionaries Constantinescu 1963 and Iordan 1983, but also from the telephone directories of the main cities of Romania. 36 In regard to Romanian names of the Serbian Banat, I will mention that a student from Serbia, Dragana Brndusic (who participated in the 2007 summer courses of the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of IaUi), considered her family name to derive from the Romanian plant-name brânduUå. 37 It is true that Romanian names with spellings such as Brandus, Brandusa, or Branduse (all of which I extracted from the telephone directory of IaUi) may be suspected of being results of “negligence,” or even of intentional removal of diacritics. However, since there are rather many Romanian names that show the alternation Brand-/Brånd-/Brând-/Brînd- (which can all be referred to Old Germanic terms of the brand type), the problem deserves a separate discussion. Such a discussion should take into account not only Romanian brânduUå and the numerous Romanian names of the Brand- series, but also the Bulgarian name Brando (to which Iordan referred Rm. Brandu – see above), as well as the Aromanian appellative brandu ‘trunk’. The question is: could a stressed sequence /an/, well preserved in Romanian names like Branda and Brandu, indicate that such names were originally borne by members of lingering Old Germanic communities that became Romanized (or, rather, Romanianized?) at a time during which the regular early-Romanian change /an/ > /en/ was no longer active? (Such a period can be rightly called post-Slavic, since Romanian Slavisms such as hranå ‘food’ and ranå

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 372 Adrian Poruciuc brîn()zå ‘’.38 Personally, by resorting to telephone directories of Romanian cities, I could observe that TimiUoara (in the Romanian Banat) has the most abundant series of Brand- names: besides the ones of a simplex type, such as Branda, Brånda, Brânda, Brînda, there are derivatives, such as BrandaU, BrandeU, Bråndåu, BrândaU, BrîndaU, Brândea, Brândeu, Brîndeu, Brândev, Brîndescu, Brândici, Brîndici. In the directory of (a city in northwestern ), besides Branda, Brandas, BrînduU, etc. (see above), I found Brînd and Brînda, which form a doublet that strikingly recalls the one represented by the above-mentioned Old Germanic pair of appellatives, brand and branda. Speaking of appellative bases, I will observe that a like BrândaU can very well reflect an (unattested early Romanian) appellative *bråndaU (‘maker of swords’, or ‘sword wielder’?), which is typologically comparable to Rm. bårdaU ‘carpenter’, that is, ‘ax wielder’,39 the latter undoubtedly representing the appellative base of the Romanian family name BårdaU. A similar conclusion can be drawn in regard to the Romanian (Banatian) name Brîndar, which shows brand extended by

‘wound’ were not affected by the change under discussion.) The separate discussion I suggest at this point should also consider a Romanian name like Bândea, which shows a “shift from an to ân,” according to Gamillscheg, who referred Rm. Bândea to Germanic Bando, Bandi (1935: 246). Notable is that Romanian onomastic dictionaries and telephone directories include not only Bândea, Bânda and Båndilå, but also Bandu, Bande and Bandac. One conclusion could be that, just as hranå and ranå “became Romanian” later than brânduUå, names like Branda and Bandu began to be used in Romanian (as borne by Romanians) later than Brånda and Bândea. Such a conclusion should be sustained by ethnologic- demographic-historical arguments, wherever possible. 38 At the end of his brînduUe entry, Ciorånescu (2001) states: “There may be a connection between brînduUe and brînzå [‘cheese’]; but it is not easy to clarify in the present stage of research.” In an article to-be, I will demonstrate that Rm. brânduUå is etymologically related to Rm. brânzå, a possible starting point for the envisaged demonstration being the generally assumed connection of the Latin terms fervere and fermentum to the PIE root *bhreu- (‘to boil, bubble, effervesce, burn’), that is, to the root that also accounts for the Germanic terms of the *brenw- family discussed above. 39 For the Old Germanic origin of Rm. bardå ‘broad/hewing ax’, see first part of Poruciuc 2000.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 373 the Latin suffix -arius, as trade-name marker.40 It is quite difficult to decide which of the above- mentioned names presuppose a previously borrowed Germanic appellative brand(a) ‘sword’ (from which Romanian proper names could subsequently be derived), and which of them reflect direct onomastic transfer. In the latter case we should imagine situations of Romanized bearers of Old Germanic names of the Brand type.41 What we know for sure is that, on Germanic soil, appellatives of the brand(a) type did show enough capacity for onomastic transfer. For instance, the onomastic appendix of Köbler’s dictionary (1989) contains the Gothic person-names Brandariz, Brandila,42 Brandirigus (all based on Go. brands ‘sword’). In his dictionary of Old Norse (1961), under brandr ‘sword’, de Vries mentions the person-names Brandr, Brandálfr, Gudbrandr, Kolbrandr. Today’s stock of German anthroponyms includes both a simplex Brand (also known as family name of a former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of ) and double-member compounds, such as Adalbrand, Hildebrand, and Brandolf,43 in which one member is most probably based on the Proto- Germanic appellative *brandaz ‘sword’.44 Most remarkable are two “certainly Gothic” names that Gamillscheg (1935: 312) mentions as recorded in : the two onomastic compounds, Gôdbrands and Wîtbrands,

40 In an early stage of Romanian there must have been a competition between the suffixes -aU (as in bårdaU ‘carpenter’, cåsaU ‘house owner’, ostaU ‘soldier’) and -ar (as in fierar ‘blacksmith’, måcelar ‘butcher’, pådurar ‘forester’). In regard to the Romanian name BrândaU, as possible reflection of an unattested appellative that meant ‘sword wielder’, I take into consideration the existence of certain Romanian designations of (medieval) categories of soldiers such as arcaU (< arc ‘bow’) and sulitaU (< sulitå ‘spear’). 41 For a comparison, I will mention that among the Romanian family names included in Iordan 1983, at least three – namely Sabia, Sabie and Såbiescu – have Rm. sabie ‘sword’ as their appellative base. 42 The Gothic name Brandila is translatable as “Little Sword”, and it corresponds, etymologically and structurally, to Rm. BrånduUå (whose suffix-uUå has exactly the same diminutive function as the one of Old Germanic -ila). 43 All these are extracted from Mackensen 1990. 44 The reconstruction *brandaz ‘Brand, Schwert’ in given in Köbler’s Gothic dictionary under branda and brands, respectively.

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 374 Adrian Poruciuc doubtlessly contain Go. brands ‘sword’ as second member.45 We can suppose that such names were not used only by Gothic speakers proper, but that they continued to be used by assimilated (that is, Romanized) heirs of the Goths in France and/or . It is exactly the kind of direct onomastic transfer – by assimilation of bearers – that I presume in cases of Romanian surnames such as Branda, Brånda, Brânda, Brînd. The arguments presented above impose the idea that Rm. brânduUå is based on an Old Germanic term, namely brand (brands, branda) ‘sword’. Such a term might have represented “soldier’s jargon,” like several others terms that Gamillscheg regarded as lexical elements introduced by Germanic mercenaries into “the Vulgar Latin of the East” (1935: 256); but, I must repeat, there are no records that could attest to such a transfer of such an Old Germanic word into Late Vulgar Latin. There are, however, attestations that indicate the very early presence of the Old Germanic loan brand ‘sword’ in West Romance languages. Under such circumstances, one may consider the possibility of independent borrowing (of Old Germanic appellatives) and transfer (of Old Germanic names) into varieties of Romance, both East and West. As for the East, one should observe that borrowings/transfers could occur not only between Germanic “military peoples” (Goths, Gepids, Langobards) and Proto-Romance speakers of the 5th-6th centuries, but also between very early Germanic (pre-Gothic) intruders and pre-Roman natives of .

General conclusions For a first conclusive statement, I consider that the regional use of Rm. ateia, in Banat (that is, in a territory once controlled by the Gepids), indicates a most probable Gepidic origin for the Romanian word under discussion. Therefore I will sustain the solution proposed by Diculescu and subsequently reinforced by Gamillscheg. In contrast to ateia, the term brânduUå is a word of earlier attestation and of general Romanian use, as well as a word that represents

45 I consider the two names to be interpretable as “Good-Sword” and “Lawful-Sword”, respectively.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 375 the appellative base of quite a number of Romanian proper-names.46 There are many arguments (see above) in favor of a development of Rm. brânduUå from an Old Germanic loan, namely brand (or branda), which designated a certain type of sword. It would, however, be quite difficult for anyone to indicate precisely from which Old Germanic idiom and into which non-Germanic Central-Southeast European idiom that term was first borrowed. Taking into consideration (1) the archaic character of brand (word-and-thing) in Germanic, (2) the probably substratal origin of the Romanian suffix -uUå, and (3) the very early occurrence of the shift /an/ > /en/ in the history of Romanian, I will not exclude the possibility that Rm. brânduUå could represent a borrowing from Old Germanic into a pre-Roman substratal idiom from which Romanian inherited brânduUå as designation for plants with swordlike leaves.

References

AHD 1973 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, ed. W. Morris. New York: American Heritage.

Battisti, Carlo and Giovanni Alessio 1950-1957 Dizionario etimologico italiano. Firenze: Barbèra.

46 In regard to onomastic transfer, the position of brânduUå (which produced a multitude of both person-names and place-names) is quite different from the one of ateia. First of all, for the latter I have not been able to find any illustrative examples among recorded Romanian person- names. As for place-names, taking into consideration that Rm. frumos ‘beautiful’ (from Lat. formosus ‘well-shaped’) produced Romanian names of villages (see Frumosu, Frumoasa, FrumuUel, FrumuUica, included in Ghinea/Ghinea 2000), I could at least suggest that one or another of the following names of villages in Transylvania (see Suciu 1967) could derive from ateia: Atea (1314 – Acha, 1343 – Atya), AteaU (1283 – Athas, 1341 – Atya, 1851 – Atyás), Ateiu (1850 – Etej), Atia (1567 – Attija), AtiaU. However, since several recorded forms of those Transylvanian village names may imply either derivation from or folk-etymological conflation with the Hungarian lexical family of atya ‘parent, father’, I chose not to use those troponyms as arguments in my etymological interpretation of Rm. ateia.

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 376 Adrian Poruciuc

Baumgartner, Emmanuèle and Philippe Ménard 1996 Dictionnaire étymologique et historique de la langue française. Paris: Le Livre de Poche.

Bosworth, 1983 An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, ed. T. Northcote Toller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chivu, Gheorghe 2008 Anonymus Caransebesiensis – surså importantå pentru Dictionarul limbii române. In: Saramandu et al. 2008, 19-24.

Ciorånescu, Alexandru 2001 Dictionarul etimologic al limbii române, ed. T. andru Mehedinti and . Popescu Marin. BucureUti: Saeculum.

Cojocaru, Victor (ed.) 2005 Ethnic Contacts and Cultural Exchanges North and West of the Sea from the Greek Civilization to the Ottoman Conquest. Romanian Academy, Institute of Archaeology of IaUi. Trinitas Publishing House.

Constantinescu, N. A. 1963 Dictionar onomastic romînesc. BucureUti: Editura Academiei.

Corominas, Joan 1967 diccionario etimológico de la lengua castellana. Madrid: Gredos.

Coromines, Joan et al. 1982-1991 Diccionari etimologic i complementari de la llengua catalana (4.a edició). Curial Edicions Catalans SA.

DEX 1996 Dictionarul explicativ al limbii române, ed. I. Coteanu et al. (2nd ed). BucureUti: Univers Enciclopedic.

Diculescu, Constantin 1922 Die Gepiden - Forschung zur Geschichte Daziens im frühen Mittelalter und zur Vorgeschichte des rumänischen Volkes. Leipzig: Kabitsch.

Düwel, Klaus 1983 Runenkunde. Stuttgart: Metzler.

Ernout, Alfred and Antoine Meillet 1985 Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine (3rd ed.). Paris: Klincksieck.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 377

Gamillscheg, Ernst 1934-1935 Romania Germanica - Sprach- und Siedlungsgeschichte der Germanen auf dem Boden des alten Römerreiches, I-II. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Georgiev, Vladimir et al. 1971 Bålgarski etimologiçen reçnik (A-). Sofija: Akademija na Naukite.

Ghinea, Eliza and Dan Ghinea 2000 Localitåtile din România – Dictionar. BucureUti: Editura Enciclopedicå.

Giuglea, George 1983 Cuvinte româneUti Ui romanice, ed. Florenta Sådeanu. BucureUti: Editura tiintificå Ui Enciclopedicå. 1988 Fapte de limbå – Mårturii despre trecutul românesc, ed. Florenta Sådeanu. BucureUti: Editura tiintificå Ui Enciclopedicå.

Hoad, T. . (ed.) 1993 The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford/ New York: Oxford University Press.

Iordan, Iorgu 1983 Dictionar al numelor de familie româneUti. BucureUti: Editura tiintificå.

Kluge, Friedrich 1995 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, ed. E. Seebold. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Köbler, Gerhard 1989 Gotisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: Brill.

Mackensen, Lutz 1990 Das große Buch der Vornamen. Wiesbaden: VMA – Verlag.

MDA 2001-2002 Micul dictionar academic, I (A-C), II (D-H), eds. M. Sala et al. BucureUti: Editura Univers Enciclopedic.

Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm 1935 Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (REW, 3rd ed.). Heidelberg: Winter.

Mihåescu, Haralambie 1993 La romanité dans le Sud-Est de ’Europe. BucureUti: Editura Academiei.

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011 378 Adrian Poruciuc

Moran, Josep and Joan A. Rabella 1999 Diccionari etimologic manual. Barcelona: Edicions 62.

Papahagi, Tache 1974 Dictionarul dialectului aromân. BucureUti: Editura Academiei.

Pfeifer, Wolfgang et al. 1993 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Poghirc, Cicerone 1969 Influenta autohtonå. In: Istoria limbii române, II, 313- 365. BucureUti: Editura Academiei.

Pohl, Walter 2008 Eastern in the Early Middle Ages – Conflicts, Migrations and Ethnic Processes. BucureUti: Editura Academiei/ Bråila: Editura Istros.

Pokorny, Julius 1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke.

Pons, Teofilo . and Arturo Genre 1997 Dizionario del dialetto occitano della Val Germanasca. Torino: Edizioni dell’Orso.

Poruciuc, Adrian 1999 The significance of Old Germanic elements preserved in Romanian. In: Eurolinguistik – Ein Schritt in die Zukunft. Beiträge zum Symposion vom 24. bis 27. März 1997 im Jagdschloß Glienicke (bei Berlin) (175-189), ed. N. Reiter. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2000 Probleme ridicate de vechi germanisme påstrate în românå – cazurile bardå Ui budå. Studii Ui cercetåri lingvistice (SCL), LI, 2 (395-417) – Omagiu lui Gheorghe Mihåilå, la a 70-a aniversare. Editura Academiei Române. 2005 Lexical elements that reflect close contacts between Old Germanic and autochthonous populations in Southeast Europe. In: Cojocaru et al. 2005, 369-381. 2008 Two Romanian terms (tureci and cioareci) based on Old Germanic designations of leg-coverings. The Journal of Indo- European Studies 36, 163-184. 2009 Linguistic-historical implications of an Old Germanic loan – Romanian gard ‘fence, enclosure, weir, garden’. The Mankind Quarterly 50, 25-70.

PuUcariu, Sextil 1976 Limba românå, I – Privire generalå, ed. Ilie Dan. BucureUti: Minerva.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies Two Old Germanisms of East Romance 379

Rohr, Rupprecht 1999 Kleines Rumänisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (KlRuEW), I. Mannheimer Studien zur Linguistik, Mediävistik und Balkanologie, Band 13. Frankfurt am Main: Haag + Herchen. 2002 Aromunische Etymologische Wortstudien (AEW), I. Mannheimer Studien zur Linguistik Mediävistik und Balkanologie, Band 15. Frankfurt am Main: Haag + Herchen.

Russu, Ion Iosif 1981 Etnogeneza românilor – Fondul autohton traco-dac Ui componenta latino-romanicå. BucureUti: Editura tiintificå Ui Enciclopedicå.

Saramandu, Nicolae et al. (eds.) 2008 Lucrårile primului Simpozion International de Lingvisticå – BucureUti, 13/14 noiembrie, 2007. Academia Românå/ Editura Universitåtii din BucureUti.

Suciu, Coriolan 1967 Dictionar istoric al localitåtilor din Transilvania, I. BucureUti: Editura Academiei.

Tagliavini, Carlo 1977 Originile limbilor neolatine, ed. A. Niculescu. BucureUti: Editura Academiei.

Vries, Jan de 1961 Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: Brill.

Volume 39, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2011