STUDIA CLASSICA SERDICENSIA V

MONUMENTS AND TEXTS

IN ANTIQUITY AND BEYOND

ESSAYS FOR THE CENTENARY OF

GEORGI MIHAILOV (1915–1991)
© 2016 Мирена Славова, Николай Шаранков, редакционна колегия
© 2016 Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“

ISBN 978-954-07-4103-1
STUDIA CLASSICA SERDICENSIA V

MONUMENTS AND TEXTS

IN ANTIQUITY AND BEYOND

ESSAYS FOR THE CENTENARY OF

GEORGI MIHAILOV (1915–1991)

ST. KLIMENT OHRIDSKI UNIVERSITY PRESS

SOFIA • 2016
 ARTIS EPIGRAPHICAE PRINCEPS,
LITTERIS GRAECIS DOCTISSIMUS

Georgius Mihailov, vir ingenio celeberrimus et studiis humanioribus

devotissimus, natus est Kalendis Novembribus (vel a. d. XIV Kal. Nov. stili veteris)
anno Domini MCMXV in oppido Sliven. Studuit Serdicae apud Al. Balabanov,
D. Detschew, G. Kazarow, V. Beševliev, Vl. Georgiev, Y. Todorov, B. Filov, Parisiis
apud H. Jeanmaire, J. Vendryes, P. Chantraine, F. Chapouthier, A. Mirambel et
L. Robert. Cathedrae philologiae classicae Universitatis Serdicensis octo per lustra
particeps fuit summosque honores obtinuit. Societati internationali epigraphiae
Graecae et Latinae, quam ipse creavit, praeses perpetuus fuit. Vitam obiit a. d. XI
Kalendas Decembres anno Domini MCMXCI.
Iam anno MCMXL magnam laudem adeptus est libri de lingua inscriptionum
Graecarum prima parte edita quem triennio post amplissime auctum et emendatum
Gallice publici iuris fecit. Eodem tempore epigrammata Graeca Bulgariae primum
in corpus collegit et edidit. Eo corpore confecto protinus ad opus suum maximum
perrexit et ita artis epigraphicae lumen a praeceptoribus suis acceptum multo
splendidiorem reddidit. Inscriptiones enim Graecas in Bulgaria repertas omnes
ubique dispersas in corpus absolutissimum non sine magno labore collegit, optime
explicavit commentariisque doctissime instruxit, et ita finitimas quoque nationes
ad inscriptionum suarum corpora edenda incitavit. Aequali industria litterarum
Graecarum studiis se tradidit et permulta de lingua, libris, religione, mythologia
rebusque gestis lucide ac profunde disseruit. Platonem Euripidem aliosque
scriptores Bulgarice vertit. Thracum historiam, ritus, nomina perscrutari solebat de
eisque opuscula plurima librumque eruditissimum pari cura ingenioque composuit.
Prorsus quidquid scripsit, studiosis semper proderit.
Discipulos multos docuit, quorum merita sibi quoque decori sunt.
Patriae nomini totum per orbem terrarum gloriam addidit.
Virtute, operibus, gestis aeternitati se commendavit.
 CONTENTS

Nicolay Sharankov
Artis epigraphicae princeps, litteris Graecis doctissimus ................................................... 5

Bibliography of Professor Georgi Mihailov ..................................................................... 15

Epigraphy, Archaeology, History

Alexandru Avram, Constantin Chera, Virgil Lungu

Deux inscriptions céramiques de Tomis ........................................................................... 27
Yann Le Bohec
Les limites de la renaissance dans l’empire romain de la fin du IVe siècle à la fin
du Ve siècle ....................................................................................................................... 33
Dilyana Boteva
Some Considerations on IGBulg III.1 947 ........................................................................ 44
Maria Letizia Caldelli
Ligorio e i falsi circenses .................................................................................................. 49
Мaria Čičikova
Deux statues-portraits en bronze de Novae (Mésie inférieure) ........................................ 73
Kevin Clinton, Nora Dimitrova
The Last Thracian Kings: New Evidence ......................................................................... 85
Dan Dana
Quatre épitaphes grecques inédites de la vallée du Moyen Strymon
(Macédoine orientale) ...................................................................................................... 101
Peter Delev
Cotys Son of Rhascuporis ................................................................................................ 119
Kamen D. Dimitrov
Imperial and High Officials Portraiture in Novae (Lower Moesia, Moesia II)
in Historical Context ........................................................................................................ 130
Ivan Karayotov
Le monnayage d’argent d’Apollonia Pontica aux Ve – IVe s. av. J.-C. ........................... 147
Pepa Loungarova
Bilingual Inscriptions from the Province of Lower Moesia ............................................ 162
Alexander Minchev
Fragment of a Roman Bronze Trumpet (cornu) from North Bulgaria............................. 173
Georgi Mitrev
Several Notes on the Epitaph of Brisoulas from Petra and Goazeira .............................. 183
Maria Gabriella G. Parissaki
Some Thoughts on Pautalia’s Religious Life: IGBulg IV 2072, 2192 and 2214
Revisited .......................................................................................................................... 189
Ваня Попова
Култът към Изида и Сарапис в римската пластика от България. Addendum ............ 208
Hristo Preshlenov
The Honor Acts in the Foreign Relations of the Southwestern Pontos Poleis:
a Synopsis of Data from IGBulg I2–V (3rd century BC – 3rd century AD) ...................... 251
Lyuba Radulova
La forma giuridica dei diplomi militari. Constitutiones principum e procedure ............. 264
Milena Raycheva
On Caracalla, Elephants and the Alexandreia Games in Philippopolis ........................... 276
Sergey Saprykin
Greek Sailors in the North-West Crimea ......................................................................... 290
Nicolay Sharankov
Notes on Greek Inscriptions from Bulgaria ..................................................................... 305
Totko Stoyanov
More on the Amphora Production in Early Hellenistic Mesambria Pontica ................... 362
Ovidiu Țentea, Florian Matei-Popescu
The cohors I milliaria Ituraeorum. New Approach to Its Deployment ........................... 371
Ivo Topalilov
Once Again on the Ulpian Cities in Roman Thrace ......................................................... 382
Tsvetan Vasilev
De vanitate vitae – An Epigram in Greek Language from Bachkovo Refectory ............ 394
Pavlina Vladkova
Nicopolis ad Istrum: The City of the Dead ...................................................................... 409
Ekkehard Weber
Pontifex Vestae................................................................................................................. 424

Linguistics

Nicholas Kazanas
Orpheus – An Ιndo-European Figure ............................................................................... 437
Nikolai N. Kazansky
The Sociolinguistic Situation in Bosporan Kingdom and Some Specific Features of
Linguistic Policy in Hellenistic States ............................................................................. 459
Anna Panayotou
L’onomastique dialectale en Chalcidique (VIIe s. – 348 av. J.-C.) .................................. 468

8 Contents
Georges-Jean Pinault
The Greek Hero: The Man with Strong Bones ................................................................ 478
Mirena Slavova
Ἅπαξ εἰρημένα and Other Lexical Rarities in the Greek Inscriptions on the Bulgarian
Coast of the Black Sea in Antiquity ................................................................................. 488
Svetlana Yanakieva
Thracian Plosive Consonants. II. The Glosses ................................................................ 512

Literature and Culture

Violeta Gerdjikova
Quintus Filius Tricked (Cicero Ad Atticum 13.42) .......................................................... 521
Tatyana Ilieva
Application of Statistical Methods in the Study of the History of Translation
(On the Material of the Book of St. Prophet Ezekiel with Theodoret of Cyrus’
Commentaries after a 14th-century Manuscript) ............................................................. 528
Michaela Jordanova
Healing and Sacred Medicine in Ancient Thrace ............................................................ 544
Tsvete Lazova
Professor Georgi Mihailov and His Altertumswissenschaft: Antiquity for the Bulgarian
Nation .............................................................................................................................. 553
Elia Marinova
Der Daumen des Giganten: die Kolossalfragmente der klassischen Antike und ihre
Nachwirkung ................................................................................................................... 564
Анна Б. Николова
Имаше една малка градина... ........................................................................................ 582
Nevena Panova
Georgi Mihailov and the Study of Greek Literature ........................................................ 586
Kostadin Rabadjiev
About the Nature of Greek Gods ..................................................................................... 599
Йоана Сиракова
Античността в теориите на превода: écriture vs. désécriture ...................................... 612
Драгомира Вълчева
За превода на един библейски пасаж в списание „Любословие“
на Константин Фотинов ............................................................................................... 624

Contents 9
 Svetlana Yanakieva

THRACIAN PLOSIVE CONSONANTS. II. THE GLOSSES

The study of plosive consonants is an extremely important part both of the

reconstruction of the phonetic system of the Thracian language and of tracing
the fate of Indo-European consonants in the Thracian language. Researchers are
divided into two principal groups on this extremely complex issue of Thracian
phonetics and phonology: one group accepts the theory proposed by S. Mladenov
(Младенов 1915) and developed in detail by D. Detschew (Дечев 1952; Detschew
1957; Detschew 1960) on the existence of consonant shifts (Lautverschiebung)
in Thracian (Георгиев 1977; Georgiev 1983; Duridanov 1969, Дуриданов 1976;
Vlahov 1966; Влахов 1976; Velkova 1986; Poghirc 1976; 1989), while others
reject it or express doubts about the evidence related to it (Pisani 1961: 250; Russu
1969; Бернштейн 1978; Гиндин 1981: 14; Rădulescu 1987; Brixhe, Panayotou
1994; Brixhe 2006; Janakieva 2007). The situation is also approximately the same
with V. Georgiev’s theory about the existence of two separate languages in the
area between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea – Thracian and Daco-Moesian
– because it depends to a large extent on the acceptance or rejection of the actual
shifting of the plosive consonants (with a shift in one language and without a shift
in the other).
Professor Georgi Mihailov was the only Bulgarian scholar from the generation
that worked in the middle and in the second half of the 20th century, who expressed
the view that there is only one common Thracian language, moreover (unlike D.
Detschew), without a shift of the consonants, i.e., with the characteristics of V.
Georgiev’s “Daco-Moesian”. He also believed that there are examples of names
from the territory of Thrace, which demonstrate such a shift, but that they ought
to be attributed to another language – “Pelasgian” or to an idiom from its group
(Mihailov 1986: 382–383 and 386). That opinion of his was among the main
incentives for me to start exploring this issue some ten years ago, insofar as the
opinion was based on isolated examples, and it was necessary to study the entire
available linguistic material.
The present paper was preceded by the fist part of my study on Thracian
plosives, which analysed the onomastic material, identified dozens of examples
of graphic variations in one name between voiceless aspirated and voiceless
unaspirated consonants (e.g., Ἄθρυς/Iatrus; Timachus/Timacum; Τόμοι/Thomi;
Zimarcus/Ζιμαρχος; Επτακενθος/Eftecentus and many others), as well as
(a smaller number of) variations between voiced and voiceless consonants
(Σαλδοβυσσηνος/Σαλτοβυσσηνος; Ἀμάδοκος/Αματοκος; Burdidizos/
Burtudizos; Μηκύβερνα/Μηκύπερνα etc.). The conclusion was that this
variation was not connected with any different rendering of Indo-European voiced
and voiceless plosive consonants in two different languages or dialects, because in
territorial terms names with both variants occur from the Carpathians to the Aegean
Sea, the Propontis and the islands, whereas if that involved two languages, the
expectations would be for the variants to be territorially separated. In all probability,
the variation was not due to a shift of the plosives in Thracian, but to attempts to
render with a foreign alphabet phonemes whose sound values did not correspond
completely to the sounds in Greek and Latin (Янакиева 2012).
The Thracian glosses, albeit not very numerous, are a valuable material for
studying the phonetics of the Thracian language and especially of the historical
phonetics, because their etymologies are quite reliable in most cases (unlike those
of proper names) owing to the fact that we know their meanings.
Examples in the studies illustrating the claim that the Indo-European voiceless
consonants were inherited as voiceless aspirated point to the glosses βόλινθος,
ζιβυθίδες, ῥομφαία and βρυνχός, and the voiced as voiceless – dinupula/
sinupyla and πιτύη, which ought to be examined.
The gloss ῥομφαία “spear, sword” is of particular interest, being derived from
IE *rump- “break, tear, injure” and indicated as a reliable example of the [p] > [ph]
transition1. The etymology is convincing, with parallels in IE languages. However,
that gloss also has a variant rumpia in Livius and Aulus Gellius (Detschew 1957:
403–404), i.e., the situation here is as with the dual graphic variants with and
without aspiration in the onomastic material.
The gloss βρυνχός “guitar, zither” is with a generally accepted and likewise
reliable etymology from IE *bhr kos “sonorous, ringing” and it is considered to
be an example of the rendering of IE [k] by [kh]. Greek φόρμιγξ “guitar” has the
same root, as well as numerous parallels in the Slavic languages. Hesychius is the
only source for the word; hence there are no other variants. However, it may be
assumed that βρυνχός is from the same root as the first component of the proper
names Βρινκαζερις, Βρινκαζεις and Brincasus (for which the Slavic proper
name Звонко and its derivatives with two elements would constitute a semantic
parallel). Here, too, one can probably find one of the variants of the doubling of an
aspirated / unaspirated consonant.
The gloss βόλινθος “wild bull” is derived from IE *bhn-ent- with a parallel
in the Germanic languages (Bulle) and it is considered as argument for the [t] >
[th] transition. Actually, this is a reference to the suffix *-nt-, which is a frequent
occurrence in Thracian onomastics with its two forms -νθ- and -ντ-: Ἄψινθος,
Βισάνθη, Ζήρινθος, Ὄλυνθος, Πέρινθος, double forms Κόμψαντος/
Κόψανθος, Επτακενθος/Επτακεντος, Μουκακενθος/Mucacentus, Κενθος/
Κεντις, as well as forms only with -ντ-: Βυζάντιον, Cosintos, Τιάραντος. There
1 All details connected with the etymologies of the examined glosses – who proposed,

accepted or rejected them, as well as the relevant bibliography – can be found in Velkova 1986:
39–101.

Thracian Plosive Consonants. II. The Glosses 513

is no attested form *βόλιντος, but such a form is possible and could be assumed
based on the variation of the same suffix in the river name and in the personal names.
As is well known, the different variants occur much more frequently in inscriptions
than in the ancient authors, who usually preserved the same traditional writing and
hence in the available Thracian linguistic material there are many double forms in
the personal names and few in the names of rivers, settlements and the glosses.
Ζιβυθίδες is another gloss perceived by the supporters of this theory as an
example of shift of consonants in Thracian. The etymology on account of which
the conclusion is reached about the transition [t] > [th] is from IE *g’heib- “shine”
(with parallels in the Baltic languages) and is based on the accepted meaning of the
gloss for “nobles” and the actual shift is sought in fact in the suffix -t-. However,
Hesychios’ translation γνήσιοι for the gloss ζιβυθίδες does not mean “noble” but
rather “real, local, autochthonous”, as D. Kotova found recently on the basis of a
review of all lexical units explained by the lexicographer with γνήσιος (Kotova
2006: 57). For this reason, this etymology cannot be accepted and the first thing that
needs to be reconsidered is the formation of the word. A large group of Thracian
personal names with two roots have Ζι-/Ζει- as their first component: Zimarcus,
Ζιπαιβης, Ζιπυρος, Ζειτραλις, etc., numbering more than 15 in total (Detschew
1957: 185). Hence it seems most probable that the noun had two roots and its
first component was ζι-. The second component coincides with the second part
of the personal name Διβυθος (Detschew 1957: 131). Identifying the gloss with
the Greek third declension with d-root suggests that the nominative singular was
probably ζιβυθίς. Later, due to the development of the Greek vocalism and the
existing possibility of interchangeability of ι, ει, υ, etc., it is possible to seek a link
of -βυθος/-βυθις with the second part of the personal name Διβειθυς and with
the single-root Βιθυς/Βειθυς. Writing with -θ- is rather stable, except in the rarely
occurring form of the personal name Bitus and in the name of the settlement Bytinis
on the Propontis coast near Perinthos, which is possibly connected with the same
root (Detschew 1957: 96), probably a variant of Bithynis. As it is not possible to
determine which of the variants of the vowel in the root -βυθ- was the original one
(ι, ει, υ), the etymologisation of the gloss is difficult. However, the cited lexical
links render improbable the assumption that -θ- is the suffix element, a reflection
of IE suffix -t-. It is much more probable for -θ- to be an element of the root -βυθ-/
βιθ-/βειθ-.
At the same time, there are several Thracian glosses that reflected with a much
higher degree of probability the IE suffix -t-, where it is preserved as a voiceless
unaspirated phoneme:
βρῦτον, βρῦτος “barley beer” <*bhru-to, < IE *bhreu-:*bhru- “boil, cook”
with numerous parallels in IE languages. The etymology is reliable.
γέντον “meat” <*gwhen-to- “cut, piece of meat” <*gwhen- “hit, cut” with
excellent parallels in IE languages. The etymology is reliable and generally
accepted.

514 Svetlana Yanakieva

 πόλτυς, πόλτυν “wooden fortress” <*pol-to- from IE *pel-: pol- or from IE
*pk- “knit, fence.” The etymology is highly probable.
There is preservation of IE [p] in the gloss σάρπος “wooden box, wooden
house”, if the etymology proposed by V. Georgiev from IE *tworpo- with parallel
in Gk. τάρπη “large knit basket” is accepted.
The theory about the shift of voiced plosive consonants into voiceless in
Thracian and their preservation in Dacian-Moesian is usually illustrated with the
two glosses dinupula/sinupyla and πιτύη. The name of the plant bryony dinupula/
sinupyla in Thracian is assumed to originate from IE *k'un-abola “dog apple”,
where [b] passes into [p], whereas it is preserved in the respective Dacian word
κινούβοιλα. However, another variant is also attested for “Dacian”: discopela in
Pseudo-Apuleius (Detschew 1957: 550). Its second element -pela is apparently the
same as in the Thracian dinupula/dinupyla/sinupyla, where [oi] in κινούβοιλα is
a transcription for [u/y], and [e] in discopela – for [oi > oe] – variants that are due
to the evolution in Greek vocalism (on which see Slavova 2004: 66; Славова 2007:
107–116). As regards the consonantism of interest to us, in -βοιλα/-pela there is
again evidence of two graphic variants: b/p.
The etymology of the gloss πιτύη “treasure” from IE *(e)pi-du(w)a, presumably
formed with the prefix epi- from a root meaning “sink” as in Greek δύω (Георгиев
1977: 17, 170), sounds very unconvincingly from a semantic viewpoint.
In other cases, the supporters of the Lautverschiebung theory reject the Thracian
belonging of some glosses only based on the lack of consonant shift in them:
Stephanus Byzantinus specifically defines ἄργιλος “mouse” as a Thracian
word: ὑπὸ Θρᾳκῶν ὁ μῦς ἄργιλος καλεῖται (St. B. s.v.). The etymology from IE
*arg’- “whitish, grey, white” with probable depalatalisation, with correspondences
in Greek ἀργός “white”, ἀργής “light, whitish”, is reliable. V. Georgiev rejects
the Thracian origin of the gloss only because IE [g] is preserved in it (Георгиев
1977: 11).
ζετραία “pot” is a Thracian word according to Pollux and Hesychios (Pollux
10. 95; Hesych. s.v.). The etymology proposed by W. Tomaschek from IE *g’heu-
“pour” is convincing. V. Georgiev accepts it, but believes the gloss to be not
Thracian, but Dacian-Moesian on account of the preserved suffix -tr- (Георгиев
1977: 15).
Other glosses could also be added, but their etymologies or their belonging to
the Thracian language are not sufficiently certain.
There are convincing examples in the Thracian glosses only with respect to the
deaspiration of the voiced aspirated consonants, notably: [bh] > [b] in βόλινθος,
βόνασος, βρυνχός, βρῦτον, [gwh] > [g] in γέντον, [dh] > [d] in midne and in
δέβα (accepting the highly probable correction Δ instead of Λ in Hesychios’ gloss
λέβα on account of the second component -δέβα that occurs repeatedly in Thracian
settlement names). Such a transition does not mean the existence of consonant
shift. The transition in question occurs in other Indo-European languages as well,

Thracian Plosive Consonants. II. The Glosses 515

in which there is no shift of consonants, whereas it is possible to refer to such a
phenomenon only when the three transitions are present.
The double forms (ῥομφαία/rumpia, -βοιλα/-pela, βρυνχός/Βρινκα-) give
grounds to assume that double graphic variants for the plosive consonants existed
most probably for the glosses as well, just as in the onomastic material. The small
number of such attested variants is due, on the one hand, to the small number of
glosses, compared to the large quantity of onomastic material, and on the other
hand – to the fact that they were transferred from one author to another, preserving
their spelling, and there were very rarely cases of a new transcript, as heard by the
bearers of the Thracian language, which was usually the reason for the emergence
of the variants.
The results of the study of IE plosive consonants in the glosses – preservation of
voiceless and voiced consonants (βρῦτον, γέντον, πόλτυς, σάρπος, ζετραία,
ἄργιλος), as well as the double graphic variants – are analogous to the results of the
study of the onomastic material, being at the same time mutually complementary.
Due to the higher reliability of the etymologies, the glosses give several reliable
facts of preservation of IE voiced and voiceless consonants. Proper names, due
to their high numbers, illustrate well the mass character of the appearance of
double graphic variants with a voiceless unaspirated and a voiceless aspirated
plosive consonant, and (to a lesser extent) variants with a voiced and voiceless
consonant, whereby these variants are never territorially divided. As was noted
in the first part of the study – devoted to onomastics – there seem to be grounds
for the assumption of C. Brixhe and A. Panayotou on the absence of aspirated
consonants in the Thracian language, which resulted in the possibility of double
rendering of the Thracian voiceless consonants: τ/θ, κ/χ, π/φ (Brixhe, Panayotou
1994: 199; Brixhe 2006: 129, 137). However, this is probably not the only reason,
because it cannot explain likewise the double graphic variants between voiced and
voiceless forms. The double forms in both cases presuppose a somewhat different
articulation both of the voiceless and of the voiced plosives, compared to ancient
Greek and Latin by means of whose alphabets these sounds have been rendered.
This explanation is more adequate with respect to the linguistic material
available to us, compared to the old theory of D. Detschew, V. Georgiev and their
followers on the shifting of voiced plosives into voiceless and of voiceless into
voiceless aspirated, and the rendering of the latter by unaspirated, due to their
weaker aspiration. At the same time, in spite of the absence of consonant shift in
the Thracian language, there is no longer a need to accept the names with aspirated
consonants as examples of a shift and to explain them as borrowings from another
language (Pelasgian), which is the second part of G. Mihailov’s theory. Such an
explanation is unacceptable due to the wide area of their dissemination reaching the
northern parts of the Thracian linguistic space, where it would not be convincing to
seek traces of bearers of the pre-Greek linguistic substrate.

516 Svetlana Yanakieva

 Bibliography

Brixhe 2006: Brixhe, Cl. Zôné et Samothrace: lueurs sur la langue thrace et nouveau chapitre de
la grammaire comparée? – Comptes rendus de l’Académie des incriptions et belles lettres
1, 2006, 121–146.
Brixhe, Panayotou 1994: Brixhe, Cl., A. Panayotou. Le thrace. – In: Langues indoeuropéennes.
Paris, 1994, 179–203.
Detschew 1957: Detschew, D. Die thrakischen Sprachreste. Wien, 1957 (2. Aufl. 1976).
Detschew 1960: Detschew, D. Charakteristik der thrakischen Sprache. – Linguistique
balkanique, 2, 1960, 146–213.
Duridanov 1969: Duridanov, I. Thrakisch-dakische Studien. 1. Teil. Die thrakisch- und dakisch-
baltischen Sprachbeziehungen. – Linguistique balkanique, 13, 2, 1969, 1–104.
Georgiev 1983: Georgiev, V. Thrakisch und Dakisch. – In: Aufstieg und Niedergang der
römischen Welt. II 29.2. Berlin – New York, 1983, 1148–1194.
Janakiewa 2007: Janakiewa, S. Die thrakische Hydronymie und einige Diskussionsprobleme
der thrakischen Sprache. – In: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology
(Komotini, Alexandrupolis, 18–23 October 2005). Athens, 2007, 238–244.
Kotova 2006: Kotova, D. Die thrakische Glosse Zibythides. – Orpheus, 16, 2006, 55–60.
Mihailov 1986: Mihailov, G. On the Character of the Thracian Language. Onomastic Problems.
– In: Fourth International Thracian Conference (Boston 7–10 June 1984). Milan. 1986,
379–388.
Pisani 1961: Pisani, V. Libri recenti sulla lingua dei traci. – Paideia, 16/4, 1961, 238–258.
Poghirc 1976: Poghirc, C. Thrace et daco-mésien: langues ou dialectes? – In: Thraco-Dacica.
Bucureşti, 1976, 335–347.
Poghirc 1989: Poghirc, C. Considérations chrono-géographiques sur l’oscillation a/o en thrace
et en daco-mésien. – In: Thracians and Mycenaeans. Proceedings of the Fourth International
Congress of Thracology. Leiden, Sofia, 1989, 296–306.
Rădulescu 1987: Rădulescu, M.-M. The Indo-European Position of Illyrian, Daco-Mysian and
Thracian: A Historico-methodological Approach. – Journal of Indo-European Studies,
15/3–4, 1987, 239–271.
Russu 1969: Russu, I. Die Sprache der Thrako-Daker. Bucureşti, 1969.
Slavova 2004: Slavova, M. Phonology of the Greek Inscriptions in Bulgaria (= Palingenesia
Band 83). Stuttgart, 2004.
Velkova 1986: Velkova, Ž. The Thracian Glosses. Contribution to the Study of the Thracian
Vocabulary. Amsterdam, 1986.
Vlahov 1966: Vlahov, K. Die Vertretung der indoeuropäischen A und E im Thrakischen. –
Годишник на Софийския университет, Факултет по западни филологии, 60, 1966,
43–134.

Бернштейн 1971: Бернштейн, С. Б. Палеобалканистический аспект карпато-балканской

проблематики. – В: Античная балканистика 3. Языковые данные и этнокультурный
контекст Средиземноморья. Москва, 1971, 4–6.
Влахов 1976: Влахов, К. Тракийски лични имена. Фонетико-морфологични проучвания
(Studia Thracica 2). София, 1976.
Георгиев 1977: Георгиев, В. Траките и техният език. София, 1977.
Гиндин 1981: Гиндин, Л. А. Древнейшая ономастика Восточных Балкан. София, 1981.
Дечев 1952: Дечев, Д. Характеристика на тракийския език. София, 1952.
Дуриданов 1976: Дуриданов, И. Езикът на траките. София 1976.
Младенов 1915: Младенов, С. Имената на десет български реки. – Списание на БАН, 10,
1915, 41–70.

Thracian Plosive Consonants. II. The Glosses 517

Славова 2007: Славова, М. <Ι> диграфите в тракийските имена. София, 2007.
Янакиева 2012: Янакиева, С. Тракийските експлозивни съгласни. 1. Ономастичният
материал. – В: Thracia 20, 2012, 331–349.

Тракийските експлозивни съгласни. ІІ. Глосите

Светлана Янакиева

Сатията представлява продължение на публикуваното през 2012 г. изследване

на тракийските експлозивни съгласни въз основа само на ономастичния материал.
Тракийските глоси, въпреки че не са много на брой, са ценен материал за изследва-
нето на фонетиката на тракийския език и особено на историческата фонетика, тъй
като техните етимологии в повечето случаи са доста надеждни (за разлика от тези на
собствените имена), поради това, че знаем значенията им.
Разгледани са глосите βόλινθος, ζιβυθίδες, ῥομφαία, βρυνχός, dinupula/
sinupyla и πιτύη, сочени като примери в тезата за наследяването на индоевропейските
беззвучни като беззвучни аспирирани и на звучните като беззвучни. Аргументирано
е становище против отхвърлянето на тракийската принадлежност на някои глоси
(ἄργιλος, ζετραία) само въз основа на твърдението, че при тях не се наблюдава
изместване на съгласните.
Резултатите от изследването при глосите – запазването на беззвучни и звучни
консонанти (βρῦτον, γέντον, πόλτυς, σάρπος, ζετραία, ἄργιλος), както и предпо-
лагаемите двойни графични варианти – са аналогични на резултатите от изследването
на ономастичния материал, като същевременно взаимно се допълват. Потвърждава
се поддържаната и от проф. Георги Михаилов теза за липсата на изместване на съ-
гласните в тракийски. Не се потвърждава втората част от тази теза – имената с аспи-
рирани съгласни от тракийското езиково пространство да се приемат за примери за
изместване и да се обясняват като заемки от друг език (пелазгийски).

 Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

s.yanakieva@mail.bg

518 Svetlana Yanakieva