Thracian Names Written Through Greek and Latin Letters: a Philological Approach Studying the phonology of the Greek

inscriptions in Bulgaria (Slavova 2004), I had the chance to become conscious of the diachronic changes of the pronunciation of the Greek phonemes from the sixth century B.C. to the fourth century A.D. It was established that the detected phonemic transformations in the inscriptions of our lands ensued from the common trends in the development of postclassical Greek. In the process of scrutinizing the linguistic material, I made an important restriction on the phonemic phenomena in question: Thracian and Latin anthroponomy as well as Latin loan words were not submitted to phonemic analysis. They would rather inform about the phonology of the language which offers loan-words and could be the subject of another study on the transcription and the transliteration of non-Greek words (Slavova 2004: 17). The way of writing a Thracian name through the closest corresponding letters of another alphabet (Greek or Latin) on stone or metal depends on two important factors. First, if the stonecutter engraves the Thracian name according to his own acoustic perception, i.e. the way he hears it from the client, or the way it has been written in the copy of the order. Second, if the stone-cutter can read the ordered text, whether he utters in engraving it, or only reads it in his mind. In the first case, a lot of pronunciation features could be rendered. In any case regardless of whether he hears, or sees the Thracian name previously written by another person- in both cases he or an other man has to adapt the foreign letters to the Thracian pronunciation, i.e. to transliterate the name. We have the same situation, when after having heard an Anglo-Saxon name, for instance, Willard, transliterate it as in Bulgarian but as in Modern Greek. On the basis of these two different transliterations, we can restore the true English pronunciation of the anthroponym. Is it possible to proceed the same way with the Thracian names? The answer is yes, especially in the cases of names evidenced in numerous different variants and/or in different languages. The point is whether we are aware of the true phonological value of the Greek or Latin graphemes used in the transliteration and to which period it dates back. Therefore, we are faced with the following difficulties in investigating the Greek and Latin transliteration of Thracian names: 1. The inexact or approximate rendering of the Thracian phonemes through Greek or Latin graphemes due to the lack of corresponding letters, or to the imprecise perception of the name by the Greek or Latin speakers. 2. The change of the phonemic value of the Greek and Latin graphemes themselves impacts the writing of the Thracian names. If we, however, are clear about it - and we do- , we could contribute to the restoration of the Thracian pronunciation. Which are the advantages of such an approach? The most important gain is the eliminating, in a great degree, of the voluntary and prejudiced etymological reading of the Thracian onomastic material (cf. Brixhe, Panayotou 1994).Without underestimating the implement of comparative-historical methodology in the Thracian linguistics, we have to relay on the etymology very cautiously in drawing conclusions about Thracian phonemics. I will quote here, by way of illustration, a typical case of Dechevs approach

applied in his Charakteristik der thrakischen Sprache ( 1952:28), and criticized by K. Vlahov ( 1976:32). From the famous Ezerovo ring-inscription, a lettering was extracted, reduced to *sk(cf.),and finally used as an argument for the change * > [] in Thracian, written through <H>. Subsequently, the concept of non-existence of a short [] vowel in Thracian was formulated on the basis of this speculation. An additional reason is the name and its <H> variation . Which are the faults of this modus operandi? 1. The decipherment and the etymology of the lettering in question are hypothetical and subjective. 2. The additional argument is unconvincing because of the double significance of <H>: it rendered both short and long [e] in the Roman Period. In this paper, in order to illustrate the problems of method without being lost in the immense Thracian linguistic area, I will restrict myself to the investigation of the digraph <EI> used in transliteration of Thracian names in Latin and Greek.

Thracian names rendered in Greek through the digraph <EI>

Which are the difficulties we encounter in restoration the true sound of a Thracian name written through Greek <EI>? As we know, the Greek <EI> was the original graphic sign to render the inherited Indo-European diphthong [ei] as, for instance, in , cf. got. steigan. In Athens, due to the monophthongisation of the diphthong [ei], <EI> also became the digraph of the long closed [`], the outcome from either a compensatory lengthening or a contraction, and was used instead of <E> after 403 B.C. as, for instance, in and . Furthermore as a result of the strong itacistic trend, as well as of the isochronism in the postclassical Greek this digraph was used in writing both the long and the short [i] since the pronunciation of the long [] had already been changed to [i] from the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. Occurrences such as instead of or instead of are not a rarity in the Greek inscriptions in Bulgaria (Slavova 2004:25, 46). To conclude in ancient Greek, at different stages of its development, the digraph <EI> rendered the diphthong [ei], the long closed [`], the long and short [i], and, in addition, it was the graphic means to represent the I-glide appearing in hiatus, cf. instead of (genitive singular of ). My aim is to answer the question as how this variety of phonemic values of <EI> impacted the writing of the foreign to the Greek ear Thracian names. As a consequence of its different phonemic characteristic, it is of no surprise that several types of <EI> usage are to be recognized in writing the Thracian names in Greek. It is most likely that <EI> was used to render the following Thracian phonemes: 1. The diphthong [ei], for instance, in the compound element -, which has never occurred written through <I> so far. Cf. in two inscriptions found near Marcianopolis (IGBulg 804,3 and 848, 1-2) or Apollos epithet in two inscriptions from the region of Mesambria (IGBulg 357 and 358). The dificult problems of Thracian <EI> diphthongs have been already treated by P. Dimitrov. He emphasizes the fact that no one attested Thracian name begins with

<I>, and postulates a genuine Thracian diphthong in this position (Dimitrov 2007). 2. The long closed [+],if such phoneme existed in Thracian. 3. The combination of [e] and the glide [j] as in instead of (genitive singular of ) in a dedication of Titus Flavius from the tribe of Quirina, son of Esbenis, and his wife, Claudia Montana, from the Nympheion in the village of Kasnakovo near Augusta Traiana (IGBulg 1714, 1-2). 4. The long [], for instance one of the most frequent Thracian names, , was written (the length of [i] is to be proved). 5. The short [] as in instead of (the shortness of [i] is to be proved). In short, five different Thracian phonemes could be hidden under the Greek digraph <EI>. To reveal the truth, we have to take account of the inscriptions date, the type of the text (in particular, its eventual metrical organization), the writing of other words in the inscription, the transliteration of the investigated Thracian names in other sources: epigraphic monuments, papyri, and literary texts (the latter considering the lectiones diversae, the metric, the specific of literary tradition, etc.). The answer of that unsophisticated question as which Thracian phonemes were rendered through the Greek digraph <EI> could throw light on two general issues in Thracian linguistics: if there were diphthongs in Thracian and if there were long and short vowels in Thracian. These two topics were usually discussed only on the basis of etymological speculations. Examples as how the philological approach to the Thracian names in Greek inscriptions in Bulgaria can bring about the lightening of the problems discussed above will be provided in the following pages. <EI> instead of <I> 1. The ethnonym is attested on a coin dating back to 500-480 B.C. It is written through <I>, which means both long [] and short [] in Greek. Dechev added about then other literary testimonies, where the name is also evidenced through <I> (Detschew 1957, s.v.). The only <EI>-form is Hercules epithet attested in a priests dedication from the territory of Pautalia (near the village of Rasnik), which dates back to the Roman Period. The inscription (IGBulg IV, 2121) reads as follows: . Having in mind that both the first non-literary testimony (that of the coins legend ) and the first literary one ( that of Herodotus) not only date back to the early 5th century B.C. but are also I-forms, we can decidedly conclude that the vowel of that Thracian names root was in fact [i], not [ei]. As for the instance of , it had the phonemic value of [bisaletenos], if not [bisalitinos] due to the itacistic pronouncing of <EI> in this late epoch. Since in the Roman Period to which the dedication dates back, <EI> could appear instead of both the short and the long [i], we have no enough evidence about the nature of the [i] vowel in question but are positive that it does not have any diphthong features. 3

<EI> instead of [] One of the most popular Thracian names / occurs both in <EI> and <I> variants. Here we have five inscriptions in which this name is attested in two ways. The analysis of writing of the other words on the stone could contribute to highlight the question about the length of [i]. 1. IGBulg I, 12, Tirizis (today Kaliakra), 16 B.C.-14 A.D.,(11 lines). 1 [] 2 [[] ... 2. IGBulg III, 1342, dedication from Burdapa (territory of Philippopolis). . 3. GBulg IV, 2322, sepulchral monument from Lechovo ( Valley of Middle Struma), 211 A.D. [] 5 . 4. IGBulg III, 1714, dedication from Kasnakovo (territory of Augusta Traiana). [] () () () [] . 5. IGBulg V, 5883, building inscription from Neine, 77 A.D. . vacat 5 , , , , 10 . In this file of , I put under N 1 its first dated attestation in our lands(16 B.C.-14 A.D.) in a fragmentary inscription in honour to the Thracian King Roemetalkes I set up by his strategos Pharsal, son of Bithys. The high social status of Pharsal who

could not be ignorant of how a phoneme [i] should be transliterated in Greek, as well as the preserved part of the inscription presumes a literate text. Therefore, on the basis of the social and cultural context of the inscription and despite its late date, this occurrence of could be indicative about the nature of its root vowel: it is [i]. The next two inscriptions, N2 and N3, contain two <I> forms of and two phonetic spellings (=) and (= ). The value of these phonetic spellings is very precious because they suppose that the text was written the way it was pronounced and not according to an orthographic standard based on the school or the tradition. This is one more prove of [i] pronunciation although deduced from a totally different context in comparison with N1. The anthroponym in question is evidenced in its <EI> variant in inscriptions N4 and N5: , , . The fact that all long [i] vowels here regardless of their Greek, Latin, or Egyptian origin - were written through <EI>, is an auspicious omen. The Greek theonym , the augment of , the Roman tribe as well as the name of Egyptian goddess Isis, in dative singular, all these words are attestations of writing of the long [i] through <EI>. As a matter of fact, the practice to write <EI> for [] was so widely spread in the postclassical Greek that often we could hardly establish the prevalence of any contemporary orthographic standard (Slavova 2004:46-52). Hence, on the basis of the indirect contextual proofs in these inscriptions, we can claim that the phoneme [i] in , , is also long: []. <EI> instead of [] 1. IGBulg II, 1359, a votive plate with dedication from Burdapa( territory of Philippopolis). Above the bas-relief: Below the bas-relief: . The digraph <EI> was used to render the second short [] element of the diphthong [ai] in the name . The compound - is attested in other Thracian anthroponyms such as - and - (Detschew 1957, s.v.). The same phenomenon can be discerned also in writing also the genuine Greek [i] diphthongs in Greek in Bulgarian inscriptions (Slavova 2004:67), for instance = . 2. IGBulg II, 730, honor inscription from Discoduraterae, 218-222 A.D. (Elagabal) or 222-235 (Severe Alexander). . [() ()--] --- 5 [][][], [][] , 5

10 () (). The author of this inscription - the stone-cutter and/or the man who ordered the inscription (in this case, the bule and the chancellery of Augusta Traiana on whose territory Discoduraterae were settled) also preferred to render the long [] vowel here through the digraph <EI>, cf. the emperors title in lines 5-6: [][]/[].In lines 10-11, however, the Thracian name of the first archon responsible of the erecting the monument, , was written only through <I>. This detail can be used as a proof of the shortness of the root vowel [] in . Can we found confirmation of this hypothesis in other Thracian testimonies? The anthroponym in question is a two-compound name . The first element ()-, which we are interested in, has always been written through <I> in Latin inscriptions no matter whether it is a simple, or a compound name: Dines, Dinis, Dinens, Dinas, Dinias Dinus, Dinentilla, Dias-dinus, Dini-bales, Dini-centus, Din-centus, Dini-nithus (vel Dinibithus), Dini-tralis, (Detschev 1957, s.v.). In the Greek inscriptions, there are the following <I> occurrences (Detschev 1957, s.v.): IGBulg 2121; IGBulg 1690, 843, 796, 2014, 1197, 1520, 1371, 1190, 1398, 965, 966, 1073; - IGBulg 1188; - IGBulg 1593; - IGBulg 5283; IGBulg 1291, 2214; IG 12, 3, 1302, 24 ( (accusative), Thera; IG 22,115 ( , 362 B.C.) ; IG 12, 8, 188 ( ), Samothrace. According to Detschev (Detschev 1957, ibidem), <>- writings of this name can be found in the following cases: IGBulg 1117, 521, 5186 (= 517), 1683; IG XII, 8, 277,46 ( (), Thasos; SB 1, 1084 and 4950, Egypt; Zen. 3, 59415 (273 B.C.), a papyrus from Egypt. K.Vlahov (Vlachov 1963:244-245) has already mentioned without having taken a position that both Bechtel and Mihailov consider some of these names to be Greek (Bechtel - , Mihailov - and ), while Mayer takes Dina and Dinus for Illyrian. Let the name of be our first instance. Without scrupulous analyzing of the four inscriptions, where the name is attested, yet it is obvious that their context is thoroughly Greek. IGBulg1683 is even a literate sepulchral epigram which Beshevliev considers to have been set up by a resident of Apollonia Pontica according to Mihailovs comment. We can declare with certainty that it refers here to the Greek name , a derivation from as, in fact, do the other <EI> names - (cf. Pape-Benseler, 1911, s.v.). They are typical of the Greek anthroponomical system and occur in the inscriptions in Greece itself as follows: 34 times in Pelopponesus and Western Greece (Fraser III A, s.v.), 17 times in Central Greece (Fraser III B, s.v.), 18 times in Aegean islands (Fraser I, s.v.) and 59 times in Attica (Fraser II, s.v.); 6

- 32 times in Pelopponesus and Western Greece (Fraser III A, s.v.), 19 times in Central Greece (Fraser III B, s.v.), 15 times in Aegean islands (Fraser I, s.v.) 10 times in Attica (Fraser II, s.v.); 3 times in Pelopponesus and Western Greece (Fraser III A, s.v.), 8 times in Aegean islands( Fraser I, s.v.) 1 time in Central Greece (Fraser III B, s.v., where the name is quoted as an oxytone ). The problem becomes more complicated because of the existence of Greek <I> names such as , , (Fraser III A, s.v.), (Fraser II, s.v.), ( Fraser I, s.v.), (Knossos, 223-222 B.C.), (Cs, 2nd-1st century B.C.), (Lesbos, 2nd century B.C.), (Lesbos, 7th-6th century B.C.). Some of these names could be related to the root of (< *--) - , , , , others could be thought as <I> variants of <EI> names: of , of , of (cf Pape-Benseler, 1911, s.v.). My deep conviction is that in inscriptions, where there is Thracian ethnic evidence, the <I> names should be referred to the Thracian anthroponomical systemcautiously and always on the basis of the whole text. This principle of attribution of anthroponyms to the Thracian language was obviously not observed in the newly edited corpus of the Greek inscriptions of Aegean Thrace found between Nestos and Hebros ( 2005). In this edition, many names such as (84,8), (84,4), (84,7) (85, 4) occurring in two honor inscriptions from 1st century A.D., where one can read other Thracian names, have Greek accents and are included in the index of both the Geek and the non-Greek names. If we look for similar names in Bulgarian inscriptions, we can find the name of in the Pizos inscription (IGBulg 1690b, 21) as a patronym of a certain ( ). The name is Thracian because there is a scarce possibility for a Greek father to give a Thracian nonprestigious name to his own son. What is more: the inscription in question contains only names of Thracian, who were settled in the emporion of Pizos. The same argumentation concerns the name of in two inscriptions in Bulgaria mentioned above - IGBulg 1291 () [ --] and IGBulg 2214: , though the editor had a different opinion and put them accents as if they were Greek. In the first case, we have a Thracian, who has received Roman citizenship in the times of Caracala and who sets up a votive plate to Asclepios in the shrine of Batkun. The second inscription is a dedication to the emperor and the Olympian gods set up by the priests of the emporion of Pautalia. Six from the all fourteen priests here have typical Thracian names, and the other eight are probably immigrants from Asia Minor with Roman citizenship. Therefore, rather has a Thracian father named . To conclude: since Thracian simple and compound names of the root ()/()- do not have <EI> occurrences, including the inscriptions, where the long [i] was written through <EI>, we can infer that the i-vowel of that Thracian root is short:[].

Thracian names rendered in Latin through <EI>

The contribution given by the Latin graphemic system to the solving of problems treated above consists in the more limited function of Latin <EI> in comparison with the Greek digraph. In the archaic and classical Latin, it renders the inherited Indo-European diphthong [ei], which changed to [] through an intermediate long closed [`] by the first century B.C. The illustration of the different stages of its phonemic value can be consulted in Sommer 1914, 62. It is worth noticing that <EI> keeps on sporadic appearing until the beginning of the Empire in the inscriptions from Rome but becomes usual only in writing the combinations [-eiu-], [-eia-], [-eio-] < [ejju-], [-ejja-], [-ejjo-], where [j] is a semiconsonant, i.e. a glide between the phoneme [e] and the consequent vowel. Indicative are such early writings as POMPEIIUS (CIL IX 3748) and the letterings <EIU>, <EIA>, <EIO> imposed yet in the republican times not only in Latin words but also in loan-names of Etruscan, Celtic, and Greek origin: female names such as Reiana (DEassau 8527, Rome, 1st century A.D.), Etruscan Nomina gentilicia as Ceionius (Minkova 2000 s.v), Celtic (?) names as Maceius from Lazhane near Svishtov (ILBulg 442, cf. Minkova 2000, s.v.) or Seius Dalmata from Split in Dalmacia (Dessau 8519), Greek names as Anteius, Anteia (CIL VI, 11839, Rome). It is very instructive how the Greek language renders this phonemic group: in order not to be uttered as a monophthong, the Latin <EI> in the name of Pompeius was written by the Greeks as <HI> with an acute accentuated H, i.e., regardless of the short e-vowel in Latin. Except of these cases, there is not any other position, where a diphthong [ei] could be heard in Latin, taking in consideration both the inherited and the innovative vowels. It is this main difference between the Greek and the Latin graphemic systems that can help us in restoration of the Thracian pronunciation, and namely: if a Thracian name written in Latin was rendered through <EI>, it means that this <EI> was uttered as [ei]. Since all postclassical Greek <EI> writings have a value of [i] with the exception of the [ei] resulting from the combination of [e] with a glide, the Greek <EI> was always rendered through the Latin <I> in the Roman Period. any examples in the Latin inscriptions in Bulgaria can prove the rule: irenarch (= ) a praefectus from Philippi in the 3rd century A.D. ( 1946: 80); bacchium (=) a mystery club from Butovo-Nedan, 227 A.D. ( 1946:80); Antiocia (= ) - Beevliev130; Eugenia(= )ILBulg366; Heraclides(=), 3rd century A.D. ( 1996:17-31); Heraclius (= ) Novae, 3rd century A.D. ( 1993, 1366); Stratoclia ( = ) Abritus ( Ivanov 1993:26-30). We can presume that this principle was observed in rendering the Thracian names, too. The first rule should be as follows: when there is a digraph <EI> in a Thracian name written in Greek but the same phoneme was rendered through <I> in its Latin version, that means an [i] pronunciation of the Thracian name despite its <EI> Greek lettering.Using this comparison, we are able to divide the diphthong from the monophthong pronunciation of <EI>. For instance, in difference from the Greek attestations, no one Latin testimony of or of other compound names containing - has any <EI> in our inscriptions: Bithus, Bitilla, Bitipel, Bitua, Bitus (Minkova

2000 s.v.). In the same way, no one Latin occurrence of the compound (or the suffix?) , which has its Greek - variants, can be found: Durazis (ILBulg 155), Mamutzis (Minkova 2000 s.v.). The list could be prolonged without detecting any deviation from the rule as I can state after the scrutinizing of Latin inscriptions and Detschews book. If we find, however, any Thracian names written through the digraph <EI> in both Greek and Latin, this could be a proof of its diphthong pronunciation. As a consequence, we are able to formulate a second rule: if a Thracian name was written through <EI> in both Latin and Greek, this means that a diphthong [ei] was pronounced. It is a little surprising that I identified but two similar instances. To make the situation worse, they are attested in fragmentary inscriptions whose understanding is not easy. The first instance 1. The Latin inscription: Kazarow 1026. A marble votive plate broken in six parts, from which the sixth is not available. Unknown origin, nowadays in the Archeological Museum of Sofia. There is a bas-relief of the Thracian horse on it. The right part of a carefully engraved inscription can be read below it: ------------------Seietovien[o-----------Ca]esius et T. Cae[sius f]ratres v(otum) l(ibenter) s(olverunt). 2. The Greek inscription: IGBulg 2174. The lower right angle of a votive plate with a bas-relief found in the shrine of Zeus and Hera in the vicinity of Kopilovci, the territory of Pautalia. Below the bas-relief, the right half of an inscription symmetrically laid out and beautifully engraved in reglage (the letters are bigger than the others): ------ v. [] . Both Kazarow and Gerov does not make any conjectures. In line 2, Detschew adds , which Mihailov accepts: /[] should be the patronyms genitive whereas the dedicants name is obviously in nominative in accordance with the ending in line 1. In the Latin inscription, it is embarrassing that Seietovienus (if Kazarovs addition is true) or Seietovienensis is rather an epithet of the Thracian rider corresponding to a Greek variant . On the contrary, in the Greek inscription we have to deal with a patronym , (if the supplement is true).he contradiction could be reconciled, if we accept either that the dedicants patronym and the riders epithet derive from one and the same toponym, for instance , or that the anthroponym originates in the theonym. I allow myself this speculation since the names sound too similar to be different. It is curious that the Latin votive plate with the bas-relief of the Thracian rider is of unknown origin, while fragments of similar votive plates of the Thracian rider were found in the shrine near Kopilovci. Four of them are without an inscription (Kazarow N 539-542), and only one has a dedication to Apollo (IGBulg 2172). This fact could trace an additional connection between the two inscriptions except the seductively similar sounding names.

The second instance 1. The Latin inscription: ILBulg 161, fragment of a grave monument: Dis Manibus ---et Zieisi coniu[gi-----] ---enis vix(it) a[nn(is)----] ---sibi et fil[io vel iae] titu(lum) ob me[mori-] am [posiut?]. 2. The Greek inscriptions: a) IGBulg 804, Reka Devnya (territory of Marcianopolis), the upper part of a limestone plate. [] vacat -------- [] b) IGBulg 848, Bozvelii (territory of Marcianopolis), marble votive plate with a bas-relief of the Thracian rider. The text above the relief reads as follows: . We have a Thracian compound attested in Greek as -/-, which has but one Latin variant Zi-: Zi-per, Zi-paibes, Zi-pyros, Zi-marcus, Zi-parus. Therefore, we are allowed to divide the name Zieisis into Zi- and eisis. The latter can be related to the first compound of -. Obviously, it is not a coincidence that this name is attested with the digraph <EI> in two Greek inscriptions whose awkward design and bad lettering presuppose clumsy work, pontaneous writing, and lack of redaction. Based on these observations, we can infer that the name of was engraved the way it was uttered, namely with a diphthong pronunciation [eisatralis]. That being the case, we can conclude that and were pronounced [zieisis] and [eisatralis]. Mirena Slavova Department of Classics St. Kliment Ohridski Sofia University e-mail:mireslav@yahoo.com

10

Bibliography
1976: .. . - . Studia Thracica 2. . 1976. 1946: - . . . .42. 1946, 3-88. 1952: .. . .1952. 1993: .. : , .3. 1993, 26-30. 1996: .. : . . 24, 17-31

Beevliev 1964: V. Beevliev.Sptgriechische und sptlateinische Inschriften aus Bulgarien. Berlin.1964. Brixhe, Panayotou 1994: Cl. Brixhe, A.Panayotoy. Le Thrace. In: Langues indoeuropennes, dit. par Fr. Bader. Paris. 1994, 179-203. Dessau: H. Dessau. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Detschew 1957: D. Detschew. Die thrakischen Sprachreste. Wien. 1957. Dimitrov 2007: P.Dimitrov, Difficults pigraphiques. Thracia XVI (forthcoming publication). 2005: ( ). . , . , .-. , . . . 2005. Fraser: A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Ed. P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews. Oxford. Vol. I, 1987: The Aegean Islandes, Cypres, Cyrenaica. Vol. II, 1994: Attica. Ed. M.J. Osborne and G. Byrne. Vol. III A, 1997: Peloponese. Western Greece, Sicily and Magna Graecia. Reprinted 2001. Ed. P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews. Vol. III B, 2000: Central Greece: from the Megaride to Thessaly. Ed. P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews. IGBulg: Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. Ed. G. MIhailov. Serdicae. vols. I- V (1972-1996). 11

ILBulg: Inscriptiones Latinae in Bulgaria repertae. Ed. Boris Gerov. Serdicae, MCMLXXXIX Kazarow 1938: G. Kazarow. Die Denkmler des thrakischen Reitersgottes in Bulgarien. Leipzig.1938. Minkova 2000: M.Minkova. The Personal Names of the Latin Inscriptions in Bulgaria. Frankfurt am Main.2000 (= Studien fr klassischen Philologie. Bd.118) Pape-Benseler 1911: Wrterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen.3.Auflage. Bearbeitet von G.E.Benseler. Braunschweig. 1911 Slavova 2004: Phonology of the Greek Inscriptions in Bulgaria. Stuttgart. 2004. Sommer 1914: Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. Eine Einfhrung in das sprachwissenschaftliche Studium des Lateins. 2. und 3. Auflage. Heidelberg. 1914 Vlachov 1963: K. Vlachov. Nachtrge und Berichtigungen zu den thrakischen Sprachresten und Rckwrtebuch. Sofia. 1963.

12