# Etymology of Serb



## CyrusSH

Middle Persian _sarb_ means "cypress", of course it is not clear the word _Serb_ meant the same or not but a Serbo-Croatian coat of arms shows there could be a relation: Coat of arms of Vojvodina - Wikipedia



> The three white stripes on blue, representing the three rivers of Srem: Bosut, Sava and Danube. A deer rests close to a green poplar (topola) tree. The tree changed throughout history. In the original grant the tree was a *cypress* tree. The modern Croatian design preferred it to make it an oak tree, which is abundant in the region and is a kind of a national symbol. Similarly, the poplar is connected to Serbia (The royal family stems from a place named Topola).


----------



## Christo Tamarin

Eng. *slave *<= Slavonic *Slovēne*.

Lat. *servus *=> Slavonic *Srьbъ*.

Lat. *vulgaris *=> Slavonic *Blъgarinъ*.


----------



## origumi

Sources say that these slave/vulgar etymologies are uncertain or maybe a later adaptation.
For example "Bulgar" from River Volga or from Turkic, "Slovan" from Slavic "meaningful speech", "Serbia" from Iranian.


----------



## CyrusSH

We know about the three legendary brothers in different Indo-European cultures, such as Slavic: _Lech, Czech, and Rus_, Scythian: _Lipoxais, Arpoxais, and Colaxais_ , Iranian: _Iraj, Tur and Salm_, ...

An interesting thing about three Iranian brothers who founded Iranian, Turanian and Sarmatian nations, is that they were married to daughters of _Sarb/Sarv_. Of course in Shahnameh, _Sarv_ seems to be of Semitic race: سرو در شاهنامه - ویکی‌پدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد


----------



## Christo Tamarin

origumi said:


> Sources say that these slave/vulgar etymologies are uncertain or maybe a later adaptation.
> For example "Bulgar" from River Volga or from Turkic, "Slovan" from Slavic "meaningful speech", "Serbia" from Iranian.



Of course, Slavonic *Slovēne* has Slavonic ethymology, it means _people capable to speak_ and is in opposition to Slavonic *nēmьci* meaning _people uncapable to speak_ and used by Slavs to denote Germans. Please note the arrow in my text.


Christo Tamarin said:


> Eng. *slave *<= Slavonic *Slovēne*.



The etymologies I gave are actually of highest probability.


----------



## CyrusSH

Christo Tamarin said:


> Of course, Slavonic *Slovēne* has Slavonic ethymology, it means _people capable to speak_ and is in opposition to Slavonic *nēmьci* meaning _people uncapable to speak_ and used by Slavs to denote Germans. Please note the arrow in my text.
> 
> 
> The etymologies I gave are actually of highest probability.



Slave/Slav are modern words, there was an important "k" sound in the original word, in Middle English it was _sclave_, in the Persian/Arabic/Turkic sources they were called *saklab*.


----------



## berndf

Christo Tamarin said:


> Of course, Slavonic *Slovēne* has Slavonic ethymology


Origumi did not doubt that. His comment was about the etymology of _Serb_.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Slave/Slav are modern words, there was an important "k" sound in the original word, in Middle English it was _sclave_, in the Persian/Arabic/Turkic sources they were called *saklab*.


The other way round. The "k" is a Greek invention (_σ*κ*λάβος_). This "k" was carried from there to Latin (_s*c*lavus_) and from there to French  (_es*c*lave_) and from there to English where the "k" was lost again in _slave_.


----------



## ahvalj

The early attestations of the name _Serb_ are considered in _Тохтасьев СР · 1998 · Древнейшие свидетельства славянского языка на Балканах:_ 43–44 (Тохтасьев СР · 1998 · Древнейшие свидетельства славянского языка на Балканах.pdf). Tokhtas'yev mentions that the Slavic forms seem to go back to the alternating _*Sirb-~*Surb-~_ (cp. their continuation in the English _Serbs~Sorbs_ employed to distinguish two separate Slavic nations with this name). In Slavic, this word may be cognate to the root with the meaning "to sup; to suck" (Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/srebʰ- - Wiktionary) or may represent an adaptation of a foreign tribal name (cp. Serboi - Wikipedia).

P. S. The derivation of _slověne_ from _slovo_ is traditional yet the main obstacle is that this suffix doesn't attach to abstract nouns: it seems that the opposition _slověne : němьci_ ("speaking people" : "mute people" > Slavs : Germanics) is secondary. The normal function of -_ěn-_ is to form names of people from toponyms and in this sense _slověne_ is identical (except the more archaic consonant declension) to the Lithuanian name _Šlavėnai_ (Šlavėnai – Vikipedija), a village situated on the river _Šlavė_ (Šlavė – Vikipedija). It is therefore not impossible that _*slau̯ēnes>slověne_ was originally a local tribal name that with time arose as the ethnic self-appellation, probably because it was reinterpreted as opposed to _*nēmikaı̯>němьci_.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> The other way round. The "k" is a Greek invention (_σ*κ*λάβος_). This "k" was carried from there to Latin (_s*c*lavus_) and from there to French  (_es*c*lave_) and from there to English where the "k" was lost again in _slave_.



Greeks were not the only people who talked about ancient Slavic people, in the Persian sources we also see *Saklab*, of course from about 10th century we see *Slawiya* as a Saklab tribe in some Persian sources too.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Greeks were not the only people who talked about ancient Slavic people, in the Persian sources we also see *Saklab*, of course from about 10th century we see *Slawiya* as a Saklab tribe in some Persian sources too.


And why shouldn't they? But Late Latin _sclavus_ and all its descendents is from Greek.


----------



## CyrusSH

There were other people with similar names in this region, like *Skalvians*: Skalvians - Wikipedia Etymology: skalwa "splinter (living split off)" or skalauti "between waters".


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> There were other people with similar names in this region, like *Skalvians*: Skalvians - Wikipedia Etymology: skalwa "splinter (living split off)" or skalauti "between waters".


There are many things in the world that are called many things and that are not relevant to this discussion.


----------



## ahvalj

Christo Tamarin said:


> Lat. *vulgaris *=> Slavonic *Blъgarinъ*.


The Latin derivation is indeed phonetically possible (before the development *_w>v_ Slavs substituted the foreign _v_ with their _b_), but it has factual problems: besides Balkanic Bulgaria, there existed Volga Bulgaria (Volga Bulgaria - Wikipedia), which moreover had the capital Bolghar (Bolghar - Wikipedia). Obviously, a Latin etymology of the name of a Turkic-speaking country and its capital a thousand kilometers away from the Roman Empire is not especially convincing.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

ahvalj said:


> The Latin derivation is indeed phonetically possible (before the development *_w>v_ Slavs substituted the foreign _v_ with their _b_), but it has factual problems: besides Balkanic Bulgaria, there existed Volga Bulgaria (Volga Bulgaria - Wikipedia), which moreover had the capital Bolghar (Bolghar - Wikipedia). Obviously, a Latin etymology of the name of a Turkic-speaking country and its capital a thousand kilometers away from the Roman Empire is not especially convincing.



Volga Bulgars were migrants from the South, from the Pontic area.
Bulgars, Bulgarians - this was just a word used as an ethnonym, nothing more. 

People usually does not need an ethnonym of their own. *Slovēne* is an exception. And, even that ethnonym *Slovēne* had never become a common ethnonym of their own for all the Slavophones. I.e., at any moment of time, many Slavophones did not know the ethnonym *Slovēne.*
The ethnonym *ΒΟΥΛΓΑΡΟΣ *was actually coined by Hellenophones on order to be used for people speaking Lingva *vulgaris*, Vulgar Latin. Thus, a new word appeared in the Greek language to be used as an ethnonym.
Hellenophones did not distinguish the languages spoken by various barbarians (barbarians: meaning non-Hellenophone). 

Hellenophones felt free to apply the new ethnonym to whom ever: Romanophones, Slavophones, Turcophones.
Some of those people called in that way recognized this word as their ethnonym.
So, some Slavophone could have perceived *Bulgarians *as their ethnonym and this could be traced to the modern Bulgarian people. The {v}=>{B} change can be easily explained as you {ahvalj} have noticed.
Next, some Turcophone could have perceived that ethnonym, too. Wherever, in the Avarian caganate or in the Pontic area, the Greek language mattered.
If in the Avarian caganate, the {v}=>{B} change has its explanation in Slavic.
If in the Pontic area, the {v}=>{B} change remains unexplained for the moment.
However, the Patriarch Nicephorus wrote something about the rebellion of Kubrat against the cagan of Avars. In the traditional history, that Kubrat is considered the common predecessor of both Danubian Bulgars and Volga Bulgars.
According to the Patriarch Nicephorus, Kubrat had ruled for a long time in piece with the Romans. There is enough time the ethnonym used by Greeks to be perceived by the people of Kubrat.
According to the Patriarch Nicephorus, the people of Kubrat were originally called Ounogoundours. Both descendent branches are called Bulgars, however.
The Avarian caganate was located in basin of the middle Danube, i.e. in the Carpathian basin, i.e. in the homeland of the Slavophonia.
If there was a rebellion of Kubrat against the cagan of Avars, so Kubrat and his people lived under the Avarian caganate before the rebellion.
In general, the Avarian caganate was a medieval state with Slavophone population and Turcophone elite. Anyway, the people of Kubrat could perceived the ethnonym Bulgars in its Slavonic form, so we could decline and postpone forever the explanation of the {v}=>{B} change in Turkic - out of my competence.
In conclusion, considering the Slavophonia, there were at least three ethnonyms which had the capacity to embrace all of the Slavophonia: *Slovēnes*,* Serbs*, and *Bulgarians*. Neither succeeded - any of these was adopted by some part of Slavophones only.


----------



## berndf

Can you remind us what any of this has to do with the etymology of _Serb_?


----------



## ahvalj

Apparently, the idea is that the Balkanic Slavic ethnonyms can be etymologized from Latin:



Christo Tamarin said:


> Lat. *servus *=> Slavonic *Srьbъ*.
> 
> Lat. *vulgaris *=> Slavonic *Blъgarinъ*.


----------



## berndf

Thanks.


----------



## ahvalj

I think in this context the name _Croat_ can be compared with the Spanish _jorobado_ "humpbacked": that would fit semantically.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

ahvalj said:


> berndf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you remind us what any of this has to do with the etymology of _Serb_?
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the idea is that the Balkanic Slavic ethnonyms can be etymologized from Latin:
Click to expand...

Yes, of course.

I have already explained the etymology of Bulgar/Bulgarian.

The etymology of the Serbian ethnonym is based on the known etymology of the international medieval word for slaves, Latin *servi*. Both words Slavs and Servi actually mixed their meanings.


----------



## berndf

Christo Tamarin said:


> I have already explained the etymology of Bulgar/Bulgarian


May I remind us all that the etymology of Bulgar or Slovene is not topic of this thread and discussing this here would only be acceptable if it had repercussions on the etymology of the ethonym Serb?


----------



## Christo Tamarin

berndf said:


> May I remind us all that this is not topic of this thread and discussing this here would only be acceptable if it had repercussions on the etymology of the ethonym Serb?


Explaining the etymology of the Bulgarian ethnonym, I had just to reply to a notice by ahvalj.

I have explained the etymology of the Serbian ethnonym, too.



Christo Tamarin said:


> The etymology of the Serbian ethnonym is based on the known etymology of the international medieval word for slaves, Latin *servi*. Both words Slavs and Servi actually mixed their meanings.



So, if the English word *slave *really has the etymology given here, then the Serbian ethnonym has the etymology given by me, most probably. However, if the English word *slave* has nothing in common with the Slovene ethnonym, then please forget about my etymology of the Serbian ethnonym.

By the way, it is not an etymology of mine. Ages ago, Constantine Porphyrogenitus has proposed it.

(quotes by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in Greek, explanations in Bulgarian)


----------



## berndf

The point you made earlier and quoted above there is clear and relevant and on topic and duly noted. But this discussion has since started to strole around being more concerned with other ethonyms and this was just a little nudge to all of us to stay a bit more focused.

Thank you.


----------



## apmoy70

The earlier attestations (6-7th c. CE) of the Slavic exonym in medieval-Greek literature, is either *«Σθλάβος» Sthlábos* or *«Στλάβος» Stlábos*, the exonyms *«Σκλάβος» Sklávos* & *«Σλάβος» Slávos* are by a few centuries, younger.
«Σθλάβος/Στλάβος» derives probably from the autonym of the specific ethnolinguistic group (what ever that name is), contaminated with the Greek adjective *«ἐσθλός»* = *ĕstʰlós* (Cl.Gr), *esthlós* (Byz. & MoGr) --> _good, brave, soldierly, warlike, stout, noble_


----------



## CyrusSH

Christo Tamarin said:


> Explaining the etymology of the Bulgarian ethnonym, I had just to reply to a notice by ahvalj.
> 
> I have explained the etymology of the Serbian ethnonym, too.
> 
> 
> 
> So, if the English word *slave *really has the etymology given here, then the Serbian ethnonym has the etymology given by me, most probably. However, if the English word *slave* has nothing in common with the Slovene ethnonym, then please forget about my etymology of the Serbian ethnonym.
> 
> By the way, it is not an etymology of mine. Ages ago, Constantine Porphyrogenitus has proposed it.
> 
> (quotes by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in Greek, explanations in Bulgarian)



As you read here, Latin _servus_ doesn't have a clear etymology, it is probably a loanword from Etruscan, so it can be similar to English _slave_.


----------



## CyrusSH

It is good to mention the word *servi* (slave) was used by Romans for the Limigantes, a Sarmatian people who lived in modern Vojvodina (look at my first post).


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> It is good to mention the word *servi* (slave) was used by Romans for the Limigantes, a Sarmatian people who lived in modern Vojvodina (look at my first post).


Actually _Sarmatae servi_  (=_Sarmatian serfs_). And why would that be relevant?


CyrusSH said:


> so it can be similar to English _slave_.


What does that mean? Yes, _slave_ has a very superficial similarity to _servus_. How does knowledge or non-knowledge of the etymology of _servus_ in Latin affect that and why would it be relevant?


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Actually _Sarmatae servi_  (=_Sarmatian serfs_). And why would that be relevant?
> 
> What does that mean? Yes, _slave_ has a very superficial similarity to _servus_. How does knowledge or non-knowledge of the etymology of _servus_ in Latin affect that and why would it be relevant?



As ahvalj mentioned, we know *Serboi* were an ancient Sarmatian people, it is possible that Romans called the same people as _servi_ and then this word meant "slave".


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> As ahvalj mentioned, we know *Serboi* were an ancient Sarmatian people, it is possible that Romans called the same people as _servi_ and then this word meant "slave".


_Servus_ means _slave_, we know that but we also know that servus und slave are not related. So, I am not quite sure what you are after.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> _Servus_ means _slave_, we know that but we also know that servus und slave are not related. So, I am not quite sure what you are after.



Of course servus and slave are not related, I just meant they had probably a similar semantic development. The first one from the name of a Sarmatian people and the second one from the name of a Slavic people.


----------



## berndf

Got it.


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> As ahvalj mentioned, we know *Serboi* were an ancient Sarmatian people, it is possible that Romans called the same people as servi and then this word meant "slave".


_Servi_ was an attribute ("slave") of a group of Sarmatians as opposed to their counterpart, the _Sarmatae_ _liberi _("free Sarmatians"). It was not their name_. _Unlike "slave" which appears later than the Slav's ethnonym, the Latin word _servus _predates all mentions of Serb-like ethnonyms by a considerable time margin. So, there is no similarity in the semantic developments of _slave_ and _servus_.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> _Servi_ was an attribute ("slave") of a group of Sarmatians as opposed to their counterpart, the _Sarmatae_ _liberi _("free Sarmatians"). It was not their name_. _Unlike "slave" which appears later than the Slav's ethnonym, the Latin word _servus _predates all mentions of Serb-like ethnonyms by a considerable time margin. So, there is no similarity in the semantic developments of _slave_ and _servus_.



How do you know a meaning of a word predates another one?

For example we read in Pliny the Elder's Natural History, one of the earliest works in classical Latin: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/p....179.xml?result=2&rskey=f68UBO&readMode=recto



> Ab eo in plenum quidem omnes Scytharum sunt gentes, variae tamen litori apposita tenuere, alias Getae, Daci Romanis dicti, alias Sarmatae, Graecis Sauromatae, eorumque Hamaxobii aut Aorsi, alias Scythae degeneres et a *servis* orti aut Trogodytae, mox Alani et Rhoxolani.



Translation:



> From this point all the races in general are Scythian, though various sections have occupied the lands adjacent to the coast, in one place the Getae, called by the Romans Dacians, at another the Sarmatae, called by the Greeks Sauromatae, and the section of them called Waggon-dwellers or Aorsi, at another the base-born Scythians, descended from *slaves*, or else the Cave-dwellers, and then the Alani and Rhoxolani.



Who were servis/slaves? It is clearly not an attribute but the name of a people.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> How do you know a meaning of a word predates another one?


1) The opposition _Sarmatae_ _liberi _vs._ Sarmatae servi_ makes no other interpretation possible: _Servi_ is an attribute of a subgroup of the _Sarmatae_ and not an original ethnonym.
2) Time:
2a) Pliny the elder is certainly not "one of the earliest works in classical Latin". He wrote in the second half of the 1st century. At that time the Roman empire had already a long history and _servus_ was long standing term. If you read in dictionaries that the etymology of _servus _is unclear they are talking about the early days of Rome, some 500 years earlier.
2b) The term _Sarmatae servi_ appeared centuries after Pliny.


CyrusSH said:


> Who were servis/slaves? It is clearly not an attribute but the name of a people.


The exact opposite: _Scythae degeneres et a servis orti = Scythians of low birth, decedents of slaves_ is quite clear.


----------



## CyrusSH

Pliny actually refers to the well-known term "Scythian Slave", hundreds years before him, Herodotus tells a long semi-legendary story about Scythian slaves, we know in the fifth and fourth centuries BC Scythian slaves served as a police force in Athens, Paul the Apostle in Colossians 3:11 says "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all and is in all." If _Serboi_ were the same Scythian slaves, it would be really very possible that Romans/Etruscans adopted this word for "slave".


----------



## desi4life

@CyrusSH I'm confused about your aim for this thread. Are you trying to prove that the word 'Serb' has a Persian/Iranian origin?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Pliny actually refers to the well-known term "Scythian Slave", hundreds years before him, Herodotus tells a long semi-legendary story about Scythian slaves, we know in the fifth and fourth centuries BC Scythian slaves served as a police force in Athens, Paul the Apostle in Colossians 3:11 says "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all and is in all." If _Serboi_ were the same Scythian slaves, it would be really very possible that Romans/Etruscans adopted this word for "slave".


Herodot did not speak Latin and he didn't use the word _servus_. Even if _Serboi_ is derived from _servus_, which I am not convinced of, it is from a completely different time in a completely different context.


----------



## CyrusSH

desi4life said:


> @CyrusSH I'm confused about your aim for this thread. Are you trying to prove that the word 'Serb' has a Persian/Iranian origin?



Iranian origin of the word "Serb" is actually the most accepted theory but there are other theories too, one of them is a Latin origin, we know a Sarmatian people who lived in the north of modern Serbia were called _servi_ (slave) by Romans but we also know that there was a Sarmatian tribe with the name of "Serboi" in the original land of Sarmatia, some other Sarmatian people who migrated to this region have preserved their original name, like Jasz people in modern Hungary: Jasz people - Wikipedia and Iasians in Romania: Iași - Wikipedia


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Iranian origin of the word "Serb" is actually the most accepted theory


It is one of many theories, not more not less.


----------



## ahvalj

I'd like to remind that the Slavic words come from _*sirb-~*surb- _(i. e. the root with the zero grade, regularly producing either _i_ or _u_ before a sonorant in Slavic) and can't be derived phonetically from _*serb-_ or _*serv-._ The Latin _servī_ would have produced the Serbo-Croatian _srevi_ (if borrowed before _u̯>v_) or _srebi_ (if borrowed from Late Latin or Early Romance). The form with the back vowel simply remains inexplicable from the Latin evidence. Likewise, in case of Iranic origin, the source must have been _*sr̥bāh _(_Σίρβοι_), with the zero grade. The variant with _e_ is attested (Old East Slavic _serebь_) but it is marginal.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> I'd like to remind that the Slavic words come from _*sirb-~*surb- _(i. e. the root with the zero grade, regularly producing either _i_ or _u_ before a sonorant in Slavic) and can't be derived phonetically from _*serb-_ or _*serv-._ The Latin _servī_ would have produced the Serbo-Croatian _srevi_ (if borrowed before _u̯>v_) or _srebi_ (if borrowed from Late Latin or Early Romance). The form with the back vowel simply remains inexplicable from the Latin evidence. Likewise, in case of Iranic origin, the source must have been _*sr̥bāh _(_Σίρβοι_), with the zero grade. The variant with _e_ is attested (Old East Slavic _serebь_) but it is marginal.



In this case _Serb_ could be an Iranian version of _Slav_, Middle Persian _serob_ also means "word, speech" from Old Iranian _sravah_.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> In this case _Serb_ could be an Iranian version of _Slav_, Middle Persian _serob_ also means "word, speech" from Old Iranian _sravah_.


He just explained why a word that entered Old Slavic as _Ser(V)b-_ could not have produced modern _Срб-_.


ahvalj said:


> I'd like to remind that the Slavic words come from _*sirb-~*surb- _(i. e. the root with the zero grade, regularly producing either _i_ or _u_ before a sonorant in Slavic) and can't be derived phonetically from _*serb-_ or _*serv-._ The Latin _servī_ would have produced the Serbo-Croatian _srevi_ (if borrowed before _u̯>v_) or _srebi_ (if borrowed from Late Latin or Early Romance). The form with the back vowel simply remains inexplicable from the Latin evidence. Likewise, in case of Iranic origin, the source must have been _*sr̥bāh _(_Σίρβοι_), with the zero grade. The variant with _e_ is attested (Old East Slavic _serebь_) but it is marginal.


Do you think the Serbian endonym _Срб- _and the Sorbian endonym _Serb-_ are cognate? If so, how are the different vowels (zero in Serbian and _e_ in Sorbian) be explained?


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> Do you think the Serbian endonym _Срб- _and the Sorbian endonym _Serb-_ are cognate? If so, how are the different vowels (zero in Serbian and _e_ in Sorbian) be explained?


The Late Common Slavic _*ir _produced the syllabic _*r̥ʲ_ outside East Slavic (which preserved the vowel) and subsequently some languages retained _r̥_ (like Serbo-Croatian) while others developed a vowel before (like Sorbian) or after this _r_, cp. the word _*sirdiķe_ "heart": Old East Slavic _sьrdьce, _Old Church Slavonic _srьdьce,_ Serbo-Croatian _srce,_ Lower Sorbian _serce_ (Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sьrdьce - Wiktionary).


----------



## Christo Tamarin

ahvalj said:


> I'd like to remind that the Slavic words come from _*sirb-~*surb- _(i. e. the root with the zero grade, regularly producing either _i_ or _u_ before a sonorant in Slavic) and can't be derived phonetically from _*serb-_ or _*serv-._ The Latin _servī_ would have produced the Serbo-Croatian _srevi_ (if borrowed before _u̯>v_) or _srebi_ (if borrowed from Late Latin or Early Romance). The form with the back vowel simply remains inexplicable from the Latin evidence. Likewise, in case of Iranic origin, the source must have been _*sr̥bāh _(_Σίρβοι_), with the zero grade. The variant with _e_ is attested (Old East Slavic _serebь_) but it is marginal.


Probably, the Romance word *servi* was borrowed at a later stage - Early Romance, at the time when Slavic had already got rid of open syllables. So, the change {serv-} => {srьb-} occurred at once, the original {serv-} could not and did not enter the Slavic language at all. Perhaps, the strong R sound of Romance (stronger than any Slavic R) had some importance as well to eliminate the {sreb-} option.

Please note that this was a loanword, not a word from proto-Slavic.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> The Late Common Slavic _*ir _produced the syllabic _*r̥ʲ_ outside East Slavic (which preserved the vowel) and subsequently some languages retained _r̥_ (like Serbo-Croatian) while others developed a vowel before (like Sorbian) or after this _r_, cp. the word _*sirdiķe_ "heart": Old East Slavic _sьrdьce, _Old Church Slavonic _srьdьce,_ Serbo-Croatian _srce,_ Lower Sorbian _serce_ (Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sьrdьce - Wiktionary).


So, the -_er-_ in the Sorbian endonym and the syllabic -_r-_ in Serbian endonym are completely regular and both would be derived from common Slavic _-it- _but not from original _-er-._


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> So, the -_er-_ in the Sorbian endonym and the syllabic -_r-_ in Serbian endonym are completely regular and both would be derived from common Slavic _-it- _but not from original _-er-._


Yes. Also, cp. the Thraco-Roman city of _Serdica_ > Old Church Slavonic _Срѣдьць/Srědьcь_ (History of Sofia - Wikipedia).



Christo Tamarin said:


> Probably, the Romance word *servi* was borrowed at a later stage - Early Romance, at the time when Slavic had already got rid of open syllables. So, the change {serv-} => {srьb-} occurred at once, the original {serv-} could not and did not enter the Slavic language at all. Perhaps, the strong R sound of Romance (stronger than any Slavic R) had some importance as well to eliminate the {sreb-} option.
> 
> Please note that this was a loanword, not a word from proto-Slavic.


Tokhtas'yev mentions the following foreign forms of this ethnonym applied to Slavs: _Σέρβλοι, Σέρβοι, Σέρβιοι, Serbi, Servia, Sorabi, Surbi,_ later also _Sirbia._ The Latin/Romance theory should account for all of them. Do we have any (other) instance of the Latin/Romance _erC_ > Slavic _ьrC _? (The Russian _серб_ excludes the variant _**srьb-_ as it would have produced _**среб,_ so the original vowel was before _r_).


----------



## CyrusSH

What about -ar-? I think the Serbian word for _karvansaray_ "caravanserai" is _каравансарај_.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I think the Serbian word for _karvansaray_ "caravanserai" is _каравансарај_.


Post-medieval loan, probably from Italian. Sound shift laws from Common Slavic to modern Serbo-Croatian don't apply.


----------



## thegreathoo

I think the most reasonable construction is _sur-boii. "Sur" _meaning at, near, over and Boii being the tribe.
This is phonetically consistent and consistent with times and the sources.
In addition, the construction SRB is unique in the language, it is not used, which means it is ancient to the point of being an exonym.


----------



## ahvalj

thegreathoo said:


> I think the most reasonable construction is _sur-boii. "Sur" _meaning at, near, over and Boii being the tribe.
> This is phonetically consistent and consistent with times and the sources.


In which language does _sur_ mean "at, near, over"?
_
Boii_ is _Βόιοι_ in Greek. The task is to explain _Σέρβοι/Serbī, _which is the oldest attested Greek/Latin form.


----------



## fdb

ahvalj said:


> In which language does _sur_ mean "at, near, over"?


He is probably thinking of French (<Latin super).


----------



## ahvalj

Yes, I politely didn't discuss this assumption ,-)


----------



## thegreathoo

ahvalj said:


> Yes, I politely didn't discuss this assumption ,-)



I don't see a problem.  I think it's consistent with the times.  We are dealing with gaelic/keltic europe.  (Even northern Italy was gaul, and today the langaguage is gaelic italian, and we have Boi there around the beginning of the milennium.)
Franks are making advance to the east around the fourth century.  That's when the name appears, and it appears together, geographically with the Boi tribe.
This is also consistent geographically with Dalimil's Chronicle, and DAI.

As far your comment about greek βοιοι.  The B to β in greek is well attested, greeks have problems with phonetics of B. 
And as far as the vowels, the south slav tendency to reduce vowels in speech is well known.  We use 5 vowels and are not very skilled with the inbetween vowels of the north.   We have have preference for fricatives, lips, teeth, tongue up front.

So phonetically, if we are dealing with originally _sour_, or seur, _suer_, slavs would simplify that.  In addition  O to L transition is also consistent in _Σέρβoιοι, Σέρβλοι,Σέρβοι, -> Serbli, Serbi. Srbi._
Finally, because of the uniqueness of morphology, it is likely that the original word was bisyllabic.

As I said, I think it is historically and phonetically most consistent, and I will leave it at that.


----------



## berndf

_Sur_ is French, not Frankish and not Celtic. This word never existed East of the Rhine river. Not in Northern Italy and not anywhere else in the Eastern parts of the Frankish Empire.


----------



## thegreathoo

Well, we have _srijeda, sreda _for wednesday, coming from "mid, middle, midst" day.  _Sredina, _middle, center, core, related to _sьrdьce srce, _heart.
If you google celtic tribes, tribes whose names start with _ser_ appear in Boi areas only as eastern Celts. (_ser retes, ser rapilli, serdi_.)
That is sufficiently consistent.

I'd like to remind that the english version _serb_ is monosyllabic and due to english phonology.  However, it does not exist in native language and that maybe a point of confusion.  The native langue has two natural form, _srbi_ for the people, bisyllabic _sr-bi_; and _Srbija_ for the country--consistent with old greek texts.  _Srb _exists as a name of town or a village but otherwise does not exists, or is not used--it is not natural in morphology or phonology.  The natural morphology is bisyllabic and that is also consistent with _ser boi._

I will leave the exact rules and derivation to someone more technical.  I am satisfied with the explanation because it is the most consistent etymology with sources and timelines and linguistics, and that is what we are after, the most likely explanation.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

berndf said:


> _Sur_ is French, not Frankish and not Celtic. This word never existed East of the Rhine river. Not in Northern Italy and not anywhere else in the Eastern parts of the Frankish Empire.



Sur actually does exist in Italian as an (outdated, obsolete or even archaic) allophone to su before vowels: e. g. sur una panchina.


----------



## rushalaim

CyrusSH said:


> Slave/Slav are modern words, there was an important "k" sound in the original word, in Middle English it was _sclave_, in the Persian/Arabic/Turkic sources they were called *saklab*.


school - Wiktionary
_"Serb"_ _r_-letter often interchanges with _l_-letter like _b_-letter interchanges with late _v_-sound. I think also, _k_-letter must be inside the word _"serb"_.
_"Se*r*b"_ may be *sk*l*ab or *sko*l*ote from English _"school"_ (_"crowd of people"_)

Scythes - Vikidia, l’encyclopédie des 8-13 ans
_"Les Scythes sont mentionnés par Hérodote, qui indique qu'ils se nommaient eux-mêmes « *Skolotes* ». Les Assyriens les appelaient Ashkuzai, alors qu'en Perse et en Inde, les sources mentionnent les Sakâ ou Çaka, c'est-à-dire les Saces."_


----------

