# языческий



## Duya

I stumbled at a historic book which quotes a 14th century Serbian monk referring to the Turkish Sultan as a "_car jezičeski_". The word wasn't clear to me (the modern Serbian adjective "_jezički_" means "language", "linguistic"). After some Google searching for "езыческий" I found only several Russian pages, where it become clear that it means "paganic" or "infidel".

Is the word still used in modern Russian? Does anyone know the etymology -- is it a common Church Slavonic heritage? How come that it's (apparently) a cognate to "язык"? Or is it?


----------



## Maroseika

Yes, this word is widespread in Russian: языческий.Etymologically it is a calque from Greek "ethnique", i.e. akin to the common people (non-christian, I guess).


----------



## Etcetera

A popular word in modern Russian.
Nowadays it means 'paganic', but back in Middle Ages it was used to denote all non-Christians, that's why the Serbian monk referred to the Sultan as 'paganic king'.


----------



## gold9999

For what it's worth, here is a possible source of the word язычник:

Из книги Аджи Мурада "Европа. Тюрки. Великая Степь":
"Слово "язычник" имеет явную древнетюркскую основу jaz- (грешить). Сочетание jaz- + аффикс -igci переводится как "грешник" (jaz- + -igci ~ языгчи ~ язычиг ~ язычник). 
Не исключен и другой вариант этимологии этого слова: тюркская основа jazinc (грех) + русский суффикс -ник (jazinc + -ник ~ язынчник ~ язычник). Однако это менее вероятно. 
Таким образом, можно полагать, что русское слово "язычник" есть заимствование тюркского слова "грешник"... "


----------



## scriptum

Duya said:


> How come that it's (apparently) a cognate to "язык"? Or is it?


Of course it is. "Язык" means not only "tongue", but also "nation" (cf. Pushkin's "и назовет меня всяк сущий в ней язык"); the logical tie between the two is self-evident.
In the Church Slavonic translation of the Bible "язык" corresponds to the Hebrew word "goy", which means "nation" when in singular and "pagan peoples" in plural (since in a biblical context all the peoples but one seem to be heathen by definition).


----------



## Maroseika

gold9999 said:


> For what it's worth, here is a possible source of the word язычник:
> 
> Из книги Аджи Мурада "Европа. Тюрки. Великая Степь":
> "Слово "язычник" имеет явную древнетюркскую основу jaz- (грешить). Сочетание jaz- + аффикс -igci переводится как "грешник" (jaz- + -igci ~ языгчи ~ язычиг ~ язычник).
> Не исключен и другой вариант этимологии этого слова: тюркская основа jazinc (грех) + русский суффикс -ник (jazinc + -ник ~ язынчник ~ язычник). Однако это менее вероятно.
> Таким образом, можно полагать, что русское слово "язычник" есть заимствование тюркского слова "грешник"... "


Извините, это полнейшая чушь.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> Извините, это полнейшая чушь.


Ничего неправдоподобного в этом нет. Мне кажется блестящей догадкой. Особенно, если вспомнить, что тюркские слова начали входит в русскую речь примерно с той же эпохи.


----------



## Maroseika

Kolan said:


> Ничего неправдоподобного в этом нет. Мне кажется блестящей догадкой. Особенно, если вспомнить, что тюркские слова начали входит в русскую речь примерно с той же эпохи.


Это можно назвать блестящей догадкой, если начинать с чистого листа, не учитывая никаких научных достижений современной этимологии, подобно тому, как "подушку" наивно производят от "ушка".
Между тем, имеется надёжно установленный источник слова "язычник" в древнерусском - церковнославянская калька из греческого, т.е. задолго до первых массовых контактов русских с тюрками (которые, к тому ж, и сами о ту пору были ещё язычниками).
Другая беда подобных блестящих догадок - полное игнорирование фонетических закономерностей языка, делающих невозможной столь малозначительную, на взгляд неспециалиста, замену одного звука другим.
Творения Фоменко и Вашкевича полны такими сокровищами.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> Это можно назвать блестящей догадкой, если начинать с чистого листа, не учитывая никаких научных достижений современной этимологии, подобно тому, как "подушку" наивно производят от "ушка"...
> Другая беда подобных блестящих догадок - полное игнорирование фонетических закономерностей языка, делающих невозможной столь малозначительную, на взгляд неспециалиста, замену одного звука другим.
> Творения Фоменко и Вашкевича полны такими сокровищами.


Хорошо, что вы отреагировали. Я хотел привлечь ваше внимание к сказанному. Слово "чушь" в русском языке - тоже заимствованное и, если и не бранное, то во всяком случае - неуважительное.


----------



## scriptum

Kolan said:


> Ничего неправдоподобного в этом нет. Мне кажется блестящей догадкой. Особенно, если вспомнить, что тюркские слова начали входит в русскую речь примерно с той же эпохи.


Excuse me, but what epoch are we talking about? In the old texts the heathens / heathen nations are referred to as языки or языци. Is there any reason to suppose that the word has foreign origins? "Языческий" seems to be relatively recent; what is the reason to suppose that it wasn't regularly derived from "язык"?
And by the way, does anybody know when did языческий and язычник make their first appearance?


----------



## Kolan

scriptum said:


> Excuse me, but what epoch are we talking about? In the old texts the heathens / heathen nations are referred to as языки or языци. Is there any reason to suppose that the word has foreign origins?


Well, the above does not contradict at all to the previous hypothesis. "Языки"/"языци" уже тогда могли быть тюркскими.


----------



## scriptum

Kolan said:


> Well, the above does not contradict at all to the previous hypothesis. "Языки"/"языци" уже тогда могли быть тюркскими.


I had no intention to contradict that hypothesis. I only asked, what is the reason for it.


----------



## Maroseika

Kolan said:


> Хорошо, что вы отреагировали. Я хотел привлечь ваше внимание к сказанному. Слово "чушь" в русском языке - тоже заимствованное и, если и не бранное, то во всяком случае - неуважительное.


Оно безусловно неуважительное, а потому - уместное, поскольку я не испытываю ни малейшего уважения к гипотезе, о которой поведал уважаемый gold9999.


----------



## Maroseika

scriptum said:


> Excuse me, but what epoch are we talking about? In the old texts the heathens / heathen nations are referred to as языки or языци. Is there any reason to suppose that the word has foreign origins? "Языческий" seems to be relatively recent; what is the reason to suppose that it wasn't regularly derived from "язык"?
> And by the way, does anybody know when did языческий and язычник make their first appearance?


According to Vasmer it has first appeared in this sense (pagan) in Church-Slavic being direct literary loan from the Greek "ethnos" or maybe Latin "lingua" - people (comp. French "Languedoc"), long before close contact between Russians and Turkis, and long before the latters became monotheistic.


----------



## Kriviq

The word *езически* originates from the Protobulgarian word-message *ЪЗъ Къ*, meaning *homeland* and *the people of Azi*. This is how old Bulgarians called themselves. My guess is that later on it became a synonim for their religious system, which was based on the moral independence of the unique individual(Аз), as opposed to monotheistic Christianity.


----------



## Maroseika

Kriviq said:


> The word *езически* originates from the Protobulgarian word-message *ЪЗъ Къ*, meaning *homeland* and *the people of Azi*. This is how old Bulgarians called themselves. My guess is that later on it became a synonim for their religious system, which was based on the moral independence of the unique individual(Аз), as opposed to monotheistic Christianity.


I'm not sure it to be fruitful searching such exotic explanation of the facts, already explained scientifically and consistently, with the numerous semantic parallels in other languages.


----------



## Kolan

Maroseika said:


> Оно безусловно неуважительное, а потому - уместное, поскольку я не испытываю ни малейшего уважения к гипотезе, о которой поведал уважаемый gold9999.


Это ужасно, что вы позволяете себе так выражаться на форуме.


----------



## Kriviq

Maroseika said:


> I'm not sure it to be fruitful searching such exotic explanation of the facts, already explained scientifically and consistently, with the numerous semantic parallels in other languages.



You think it`s  exotic?  You can no doubt recognize the word *язык* in *ЪЗъ Къ*, which had been put in writing centuries before any Slav nation was formed. What`s exotic here?


----------



## Maroseika

Kriviq said:


> You think it`s exotic? You can no doubt recognize the word *язык* in *ЪЗъ Къ*, which had been put in writing centuries before any Slav nation was formed. What`s exotic here?


It looks exotic because contradicts to the scientific etymology, such as (Vasmer): 
язык - укр. язи́к, блр. язы́к, др.-русск. йазыкъ, ст.-слав. йазыкъ (Остром., Клоц., Супр.), болг. ези́к, сербохорв. jѐзик, род. п. мн. jезика, диал. jа̀зик, словен. jézik, чеш., слвц. jazyk, польск. język, в.-луж. jazyk, н.-луж. jězyk, полаб. jǫzek. *Праслав. *językъ – расширение на -kо- типа kamykъ* : kamy от *języ-, которое родственно др.-прусск. insuwis "язык", лит. liežùvis (где l- от liẽžti "лизать"), др.-лат. dingua, лат. linguа (под влиянием lingō "лижу"),* гот. tuggô "язык*", д.-в.-н. zunga, тохар A kantu<*tanku, *и.-е. *dnghu-.*
Chernykh however assumes possibility of another version: язык < *jezikъ (common Slavic taste/speech organ or speech itself) < *vezati (to tie together) < *ez- (*jez- in the beginnning of the word) - ties (узы).
I.e. *ez- something that ties people together - speech or people itself.
As you can see, this word anyway has nothing to do nor with Bulgarian, nor with the Protobulgarian.
Hypothesis you have mentioned is based on the occasional coincidence of the 2 words, but this in itself cannot prove anything. 
Fot example, Persian bad = English bad. And so what?


----------



## Kriviq

Maroseika said:


> As you can see, this word anyway has nothing to do nor with Bulgarian, nor with the Protobulgarian.
> Hypothesis you have mentioned is based on the occasional coincidence of the 2 words, but this in itself cannot prove anything.



Now, you may choose to label as a mere coincidence the fact that the better part of the graphical symbols of the Cyrillic alphabet - the letters Б, Г, Ж, З, etc. - were present in the alphabet of the Protobulgarians as well; however, this is not the case.
As is not the case with* ЪЗъ Къ*. It was only natural that this substantial word entered the Old Bulgarian language since the language of the Protobulgarians was an integral part of it. The word had three meanings: 1. tongue(anat.); 2. language, speech; 3. people, tribe.
The third meaning has been lost but in 1816 Kiril Pejchinovic wrote an unpretentious book which, in his words, would be of use for "the most simple and poorly educated Bulgarian ЕЗИК(people)".
How was the word *езичник* associated with its contemporary meaning? It is believed that the first translators of the Bible failed to think of a proper way to translate the Greek word *ethnikos* and translated it as *езичник*. The relevant word was *поганин* and in later editions the substitution was made but the damage had already been done.


----------



## Maroseika

Kriviq said:


> Now, you may choose to label as a mere coincidence the fact that the better part of the graphical symbols of the Cyrillic alphabet - the letters Б, Г, Ж, З, etc. - were present in the alphabet of the Protobulgarians as well; however, this is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean talking about alphabet of Protobulgarians, which, as far as I know, were Turkis and, being nomadic people, have never had any own alphabet, - at least before the split in 2 parts after Cubrat in the end of the 7th cent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As is not the case with* ЪЗъ Къ*. It was only natural that this substantial word entered the Old Bulgarian language since the language of the Protobulgarians was an integral part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why then this word is common for all Slavs?
Click to expand...


----------



## beclija

To kriviq: No one denies that "jezik" once had a meaning of "tribe". What looks speculative is something different: Your claim that the word is derived from a Protobulgarian rather than a common Slavic source. If only you check Vasmer's etymology provided by Maroseika, you will see that cognates of the word are found in all Slavic languages all the way to Sorbian - not a typical distribution for a word of Protobulgarian origin, is it? Suggesting a Protobulgarian source does make sense in other cases - when a word is limited to Bulgarian and possibly one or two other languages with no related forms in the rest of the Slavic world.

This said, it is of course possible that the word is not directly derived from Proto-IE but represents an ancient loan from some third language dating back to Common Slavic. This seems quite plausible to me, as the reputed cognate in other IE sub-families look rather far fledged. This wouldn't make it Protobulgarian, though.

And keep out the writing system: The Cyrillic alphabet is to the best of our knowledge an adaptation to to Methodius' original Glagolitic one, partly to make it look more akin to other alphabets used in the region. If there was a Protobulgarian alphabet, and if the scribes knew of it, it might well have inspired them. What does this proove? Nothing, as far as I can see.


----------



## Kriviq

beclija said:


> To kriviq: No one denies that "jezik" once had a meaning of "tribe". What looks speculative is something different: Your claim that the word is derived from a Protobulgarian rather than a common Slavic source. If only you check Vasmer's etymology provided by Maroseika, you will see that cognates of the word are found in all Slavic languages all the way to Sorbian - not a typical distribution for a word of Protobulgarian origin, is it? Suggesting a Protobulgarian source does make sense in other cases - when a word is limited to Bulgarian and possibly one or two other languages with no related forms in the rest of the Slavic world.
> 
> This said, it is of course possible that the word is not directly derived from Proto-IE but represents an ancient loan from some third language dating back to Common Slavic. This seems quite plausible to me, as the reputed cognate in other IE sub-families look rather far fledged. This wouldn't make it Protobulgarian, though.
> 
> And keep out the writing system: The Cyrillic alphabet is to the best of our knowledge an adaptation to to Methodius' original Glagolitic one, partly to make it look more akin to other alphabets used in the region. If there was a Protobulgarian alphabet, and if the scribes knew of it, it might well have inspired them. What does this proove? Nothing, as far as I can see.



You can view the Protobulgarian alphabet here: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Please, note that some of the inscriptions are dated back to the 8th-9th c. BC.

What I claim is that the word existed in the Protobulgarian language and while it is hard to imagine how it might have entered it from a Slavic language, the opposite is comfortably explained. As for the distribution of the word, you can never rule out Church Slavonic.


----------



## beclija

Why would it be hard to explain how the word entered Protobulgarian? About which part of history are we talking anyway, before or after the Protobulgarians entered the Balkans? I find it quite imaginable either way. I think we don't know the exact extension of East Slavic settlement in the early middle ages, but we can't rule out that the Protobulgarians were neighbours to the ancestors of todays Russians. 

As for a lexical transfer in the opposite direction, I thought about dissemination through Church Slavonic as well, and would find it quite plausible if the word's distribution were limited to, say, South Slavic +Russian or at the best South and East Slavic + Slovak. But if Vasmer's list of cognates is correct, and I assume it is, it is also found in languages like Sorbian and the extinct Polabian language. Neither of these was, to the best of my knowledge, ever significantly influenced by Church Slavonic, as they were out of reach of Methodius' and his successors mission. Instead they were under strong influence from the Frankish empire and its successors, and christianization also proceeded from the West.


----------



## Blacklack

Maroseika said:


> According to Vasmer it has first appeared in this sense (pagan) in Church-Slavic being direct literary loan from the Greek "ethnos" or maybe Latin "lingua" - people (comp. French "Languedoc"), long before close contact between Russians and Turkis, and long before the latters became monotheistic.


Oh, excuse me, but first contacts (don't know, how close they were) between Eastern Slavs and Turks occured much earlier than Rus' conversion to Christianity even if we take the dubious first one in 860s.
First the Huns who in 375 defeated the Gothic state in present-day Ukraine (and that at least had strong ties with E. Slavs) were probably of Turkic origin.
Second the ancient Bulgars (part of which as you mentioned ended up at lower Danube region and another at middle Volga) for several centuries (roughly V-IX) lived close to Slavs and, being subjects of Khazar state, contacted with them not so seldom.
Of course the Volga Bulgars became Muslim only in X century and the Turkic origin of "язычники / языческий" seems totally unbelievable whereas Biblical explanation is quite obvious.


----------

