# Greek-derived toponyms



## hungryplanets00

Hello, 

I was recently reading a Wikipedia article about the previous names of Istanbul. I read that the word Istanbul comes from the Greek phrase "εις την Πόλιν". 

Do you know of any other toponyms (place names) that come from Greek and refer to places in Turkey/the Middle East/West Asia?


----------



## berndf

Well, we cannot produce a list of all place names in Turkey of Greek origin. Many (most?) Turkish names names of historical cities derive their modern names from their former Greek names: _Ephesos>Efes, Smyrna>İzmir, Attaleia>Antalya, Ancyra>Ankara, Antiochia>Antakia _and many, many more.


----------



## Maroseika

hungryplanets00 said:


> I was recently reading a Wikipedia article about the previous names of Istanbul. I read that the word Istanbul comes from the Greek phrase "εις την Πόλιν".



This is just a folk etymology. How is it possible to imagine such a way of naming the cities, especially so ancient and well-known? Such versions are always have a problem on which language spoke those who have broght this name in the alien language. If they spoke Greek, they would have known that this phrase means 'to the city' and is not the name. If they spoke Turkish, they would have never realized what is this phrase about. And it's clear that since Turks and Greeks neiboroughed for centuries, situation of such a misunderstanding is impossible.

Unfortunately, there is no precise etymology of this name, but maybe the most trstworty one is that Istanbul is a broken "Constantinopolis".
Another version, also of the folk etymology nature, is that Istanbul < Islambol (state of Muslims).


----------



## apmoy70

Maroseika said:


> This is just a folk etymology...


Not exactly...there are a couple of other cities named this way:
İznik-->Εἰς Νίκαιαν (Bithynian Nicæa)
İzmit-->Εἰς Μήδειαν (from Bithynian Νικομήδεια)

Something that is repeated in neither a coincidence nor random occasion


----------



## Maroseika

apmoy70 said:


> Not exactly...there are a couple of other cities named this way:
> İznik-->Εἰς Νίκαιαν (Bithynian Nicæa)
> İzmit-->Εἰς Μήδειαν (from Bithynian Νικομήδεια)
> 
> Something that is repeated in neither a coincidence nor random occasion



Even these etymologies are conjectural. And very important difference is that they include proper names of the cities. Look like they just wanted to provide a basis for Istanbul using the same scheme.
Are there any evidences that Greeks used to call Constantinople just "polis", so that anybody hearing "to polis" understood what exactly polis was meant?


----------



## apmoy70

Maroseika said:


> Even these etymologies are conjectural. And very important difference is that they include proper names of the cities. Look like they just wanted to provide a basis for Istanbul using the same scheme.
> Are there any evidences that Greeks used to call Constantinople just "polis", so that anybody hearing "to polis" understood what exactly polis was meant?


The most common name for Istanbul by their inhabitants was by far just «ἡ Πόλις» the City (and amongst the Greek Constantinopolitans now, this name prevails); even today they call themselves «Πολίτης/πολίτες» (sing./pl.) Citizen/Citizens



			
				hungryplanets00 said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> I was recently reading a Wikipedia article about the previous names of  Istanbul. I read that the word Istanbul comes from the Greek phrase "εις  την Πόλιν".
> 
> Do you know of any other toponyms (place names) that come from Greek and refer to places in Turkey/the Middle East/West Asia?


A few more:
«Ἀδραμύττιον» (Edremit)
«Πάνορμος» (Bandirma)
«Πέργαμον» (Bergama)
«Πηγαὶ» (Biga)
«Βηλόκωμα» (Bilecik)
«Δίδυμα» (Didim)
«Ἀδριανούπολις» (Edirne)
«Αἶνος» (Enoz)
«Φώκαια» (Foça)
«Καλλίπολις» (Gelibolu)
«Χαριούπολις» (Hayrabolu)
«Χάραξ» (Hereke)
«Κύψελα» (Ipsala)
«Σπάρτη» (Isparta)
«Σκάμανδρος» (Karamenderes)
«Καρσούς» (Kars)
«Κασταμονὴ» (Kastamonu)
«Καισάρεια» (Kayseri)
«Ἰκόνιον» (Konya)
«Λάμψακος» (Lapseki)
«Μελιττηνὴ» (Malatya)
«Μάλγαρα» (Melkara)
«Μαγνησία ἡ ἐπὶ Μαιάνδρῳ» (Manisa)
«Μαίανδρος» (Menderes)
«Μαρμαρίς» (Marmaris)
«Μαινεμένη» (Menemen)
«Μυρσίνη» (Mersin)
«Μύλασσα» (Milas)
«Μυριόφυτος» (Murefte)
«Μίλητος» (Milet)
«Μόβολλα» or «Μόγολα» (Muğla)
«Νυμφαῖον» (Nif)
«Νεοκαισάρεια» (Niksar)
«Νίγδη» (Nigde)
«Σαμψοῦς» (Samsun)
«Χηλὴ» (Şile)
«Σελεύκεια» (Silifke)
«Σινώπη» (Sinop)
«Σεβάστεια» (Sivas)
«Ταρσός» (Tarsus)
«Τραπεζοῦς» (Trabzon)
«Βρύουλα» (Urla)
«Κλαζομεναὶ» (Kilizman)
«Βιζύη» (Vize)
«Σίλας» (Zile)


----------



## Maroseika

apmoy70 said:


> The most common name for Istanbul by their inhabitants was by far just «ἡ Πόλις» the City (and amongst the Greek Constantinopolitans now, this name prevails); even today they call themselves «Πολίτης/πολίτες» (sing./pl.) Citizen/Citizens



And what does mean την?


----------



## apmoy70

«Τὴν» is the feminine definite article for nouns in the accustive. «Εἰς τὴν πόλιν» is translated into English as "to the city", with «την πόλιν» being in the accusative. The derivation of _Istanbul_ from _Εἰς τὴν πόλιν_, is plausible because in Greek the final -n of the definite article fuses with the initial π of the noun and creates a sound that to the ear of the non-Greek speaker sounds like -mb- (a phenomenon I think in linguistics called Sandhi). For the untrained ear, if the Greek speaker talks fast, the _Εἰς τὴν πόλιν_ sounds a lot like Εἰς τη*μ π*όλιν (Is tim bolin)


----------



## Maroseika

Thank you for explanation.
All these version still seem to me a bit far-fetched, though. The biggest problem I see here is a contradiction between Turks knowing Greek language enough to understand about what city Greeks are talking, but still not enough to understand that it is a combination of the preposition and city name or nickname. Plus this strange level of knowledge is encountered several times withdifferent cities.


----------



## ancalimon

There is another theory connecting Istanbul with "Astanabalık" which means "city hanged to heavens". Turks gave this title to cities in which someone holy to them lived and died. The only name that comes to my mind is Joshua if that is the case.. and also Hagia Sophia (not as a person of course, but maybe some connection to Heavens).. But I'm probably mistaken.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Maroseika said:


> Thank you for explanation.
> All these version still seem to me a bit far-fetched, though. The biggest problem I see here is a contradiction between Turks knowing Greek language enough to understand about what city Greeks are talking, but still not enough to understand that it is a combination of the preposition and city name or nickname. Plus this strange level of knowledge is encountered several times withdifferent cities.


When the Turks conquered Constantinople, they found it full of Greek-speakers, most of whom remained. It is very common for incomers, even conquerors, to adopt the existing name of a place.


----------



## artion

Maroseika said:


> Are there any evidences that Greeks used to call Constantinople just "polis", so that anybody hearing "to polis" understood what exactly polis was meant?


 
http://www.genealogy.com/genealogy/users/p/o/l/John-Polites/index.html

or ask the first Greek that you meet.


----------



## Abu Rashid

The most credible reports are that Istanbul is an Ataturkian attempt to "de-Islamise" the name Islambol, which was in use as an affectionate name for the city amongst the locals.

The simple fact is though, that right up until the very last days of the Ottoman Caliphate, the official name of the city remained Qustantaniyya (Arabicised form of Constantinople). I have Ottoman coins from the early 20th. century, and they all say "struck in Qustantaniyya".



			
				Maroseika said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, there is no precise etymology of this name, but maybe the  most trstworty one is that Istanbul is a broken "Constantinopolis".



This seems highly unlikely, given that the city was called by the Arabic version of Constantinople anyway. Also I don't think Turks would change p->b. in fact they couldn't even pronounce most Arabic words with b in them, and instead changed b->p.


----------



## DenisBiH

The name that appears in Bosnian folk-songs, tales etc. is _Stambol_. If the _Stanbul_ version reflects some older Greek/Turkish name, the i- then seems awfully parallel to other instances of prosthetic i- in Turkish. The derivation from Islambol sounds ridiculous.




> This seems highly unlikely, given that the city was called by the Arabic version of Constantinople anyway.


Called by whom? All we have so far is your mention of some coin from the 20th century bearing the name "Qustantaniyah" which may or may not have referred to Istanbul and may or may not reflect historical usage. Many things were happening in the Ottoman Empire starting with the 19th century in terms of modernization and approaching the West, that name could also have been some attempt at making the name sound more ancient or more European.



> Also I don't think Turks would change  p->b. in fact they couldn't even pronounce most Arabic words with b  in them, and instead changed b->p.


This happens only word-finally as far as I know.


----------



## Maroseika

Kevin Beach said:


> When the Turks conquered Constantinople, they found it full of Greek-speakers, most of whom remained. It is very common for incomers, even conquerors, to adopt the existing name of a place.


Sure, it is common. But this situation was a bit different from, say, conquistadors in America, where they encountered people speaking absolutely unknown languages and the cities which names were quite new for them.
Unlike this, Turks knew about Constantinople for centuries and they should have a name for it. 
To say nothing about Greeks calling this city "to the polis" while being in the polis.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> The most credible reports are that Istanbul is an Ataturkian attempt to "de-Islamise" the name Islambol, which was in use as an affectionate name for the city amongst the locals.
> 
> The simple fact is though, that right up until the very last days of the Ottoman Caliphate, the official name of the city remained Qustantaniyya (Arabicised form of Constantinople). I have Ottoman coins from the early 20th. century, and they all say "struck in Qustantaniyya".
> 
> 
> 
> This seems highly unlikely, given that the city was called by the Arabic version of Constantinople anyway. Also I don't think Turks would change p->b. in fact they couldn't even pronounce most Arabic words with b in them, and instead changed b->p.


The name _Istambul, __Istambul,_ _Stambul_ and other variants have been attested in Arabic and Armenian centuries before the Turkish conquest of Constantinople. That makes it impossible for _Istambul_ to be derived from _Islambol_. The latter is most likely a later folk-etymological re-interpretation of former.

It is correct that _Istanbul_ has never been the official name of the city before Atatürk.


----------



## berndf

Maroseika said:


> Unlike this, Turks knew about Constantinople for centuries and they should have a name for it.


The custom to call Constantinople colloquially simply "the City" existed long before the Turkish conquest.


Maroseika said:


> To say nothing about Greeks calling this city "to the polis" while being in the polis.


Not only while being in the city. It is not unusually for an area with a dominating metropolis to call it just "the city". If e.g. people in England hundreds of miles away from London talk about "the City" it is still totally unambiguous that they talk mean the _City of London_.


----------



## sound shift

berndf said:


> It is correct that _Istanbul_ has never been the official name of the city before Attatürk.


The correct spelling is Atatürk.


----------



## sound shift

"Latakia" (Syria's principal port) is said to derive from Greek "Laodicea". Other transliterations exist for both.


----------



## DenisBiH

berndf said:


> It is correct that _Istanbul_ has never been the official name of the city before Atatürk.



Not entirely true according to this:



> _İstanbul_ was the common name for the city in normal speech in  Turkish even before the conquest of 1453, but in official use by the  Ottoman authorities, other names such as _Kostantiniyye_ were preferred in certain contexts. Thus, _Kostantiniyye_ was used on coinage *up to the late 17th and then again in the 19th century.*


So there was a break in the 18th century, unfortunately they don't specify which name was used during this time prior to returning to Kostantiniyye in the 19th century. Moreover:




> At the same time, however, _İstanbul_ too was part of the official language, for instance in the titles of the highest Ottoman military commander _(İstanbul ağası)_ and the highest civil magistrate _(İstanbul efendisi)_ of the city.


----------



## berndf

DenisBiH said:


> Not entirely true according to this:


I see no contradiction. The Wiki article never claimed _Istanbul _to be the official name of the city in Ottoman times.


----------



## DenisBiH

berndf said:


> I see no contradiction. The Wiki article never claimed _Istanbul _to be the official name of the city in Ottoman times.




If it was used in official titles, in my book that makes it the official name in at least some contexts.



> At the same time, however, _İstanbul_ too was part of the official language, for instance in the titles of the highest Ottoman military commander _(İstanbul ağası)_ and the highest civil magistrate _(İstanbul efendisi)_ of the city.


----------



## Outsider

But in Ottoman times Turkish was still written with the Arabic alphabet, right? Can you tell an "o" from a "u" in the Arabic alphabet? Not from what I can see here...


----------



## berndf

DenisBiH said:


> If it was used in official titles, in my book  that makes it the official name in at least some contexts.



So you are saying, what changed in the 1920s/1930s was that _Istanbul_ is now the only official name of the city while it had several in Ottoman times. Fair enough.


----------



## DenisBiH

Outsider said:


> But in Ottoman times Turkish was still written with the Arabic alphabet, right? Can you tell an "o" from a "u" in the Arabic alphabet? Not from what I can see here...




In Bosnian arebica, there does seem to exist a difference, at least in later stages of arebica. What is the question related to? Stambul vs Stambol?


----------



## DenisBiH

berndf said:


> So you are saying, what changed in the 1920s/1930s was that _Istanbul_ is now the only official name of the city while it had several in Ottoman times. Fair enough.




If that Wikipedia article is correct, yes, that would be my opinion. However, the break in the 18th century coinage still intrigues me.


----------



## Outsider

DenisBiH said:


> In the Bosnian arebica, there does seem to exist a difference. What is the question related to? Stambul vs Stambol?


Yes, or Istanbol vs. Istanbul.

Arebica was used to write Bosnian, but apparently not Turkish.


----------



## berndf

These names were not only used in Languages written with Arabic letters. You find them in various Western languages and in Armenian.


----------



## DenisBiH

Outsider said:


> Yes, or Isanbol vs. Istanbul.
> 
> Arebica was used to write Bosnian, but apparently not Turkish.




Ok *1, I thought you were wondering about the Bosnian name _Stambol_ I mentioned. 

What exactly are you claiming (not rhetorical, it's still unclear to me  )?


*1 Though not necessarily true. For one there are bilingual Bosnian-Turkish works.


----------



## Outsider

Perhaps we can't be sure whether the Ottomans said "Istanbul" or "Istanbol", if all the records we have prior to the 20th century were either:


in the Arabic script, which does not distinguish between these vowels, or
in foreign languages that could have nativized the pronunciation of the word.
Having said this, if _all_ neighbouring languages used "o" instead of "u" in this word, then that is likely to be significant.


----------



## DenisBiH

Outsider said:


> Perhaps we can't be sure whether the Ottomans said "Istanbul" or "Istanbol", if all the records we have prior to the 20th century were either:
> 
> 
> in the Arabic script, which does not distinguish between these vowels, or
> in foreign languages that could have nativized the pronunciation of the word.



Ok, true. But what difference does that make actually?


----------



## Maroseika

berndf said:


> The custom to call Constantinople colloquially simply "the City" existed long before the Turkish conquest.
> Not only while being in the city. It is not unusually for an area with a dominating metropolis to call it just "the city". If e.g. people in England hundreds of miles away from London talk about "the City" it is still totally unambiguous that they talk mean the _City of London_.



All this is very clear. But - "*the city*", and not "*to the city*". Is there any explanation why Turks have used this indirect case with preposition for Stambul, Iznik and Ismit?


----------



## Abu Rashid

DenisBih said:


> Called by whom?



The entire Muslim world.



DenisBih said:


> All we have so far is your mention of some coin from the 20th century  bearing the name "Qustantaniyah" which may or may not have referred to  Istanbul



Are you for real? Do you think it instead refers to Timbuktu perhaps?



DenisBih said:


> and may or may not reflect historical usage.



Since the dawn of the Islamic period, until the 20th. century, this is the name attested in the Islamic world.



DenisBih said:


> Many things were happening in the Ottoman Empire starting with the 19th  century in terms of modernization and approaching the West, that name  could also have been some attempt at making the name sound more ancient  or more European.



How about we leave speculation and conjecture at the door and just deal with the facts?



DenisBih said:


> This happens only word-finally as far as I know.


Perhaps. The only examples I can think of are indeed word-final. Can you think of a case in which p->b?


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:
			
		

> The name _Istambul, __Istambul,_ _Stambul_ and other  variants have been attested in Arabic and Armenian centuries before the  Turkish conquest of Constantinople. That makes it impossible for _Istambul_ to be derived from _Islambol_.



Why does that make it impossible? Keep in mind the Islamic texts speak of the [future] Islamic conquest of the city.


----------



## berndf

Maroseika said:


> All this is very clear. But - "*the city*", and not "*to the city*". Is there any explanation why Turks have used this indirect case with preposition for Stambul, Iznik and Ismit?


I see what you mean. Maybe someone with better knowledge of Turkish phonology should verify this: I take it for granted, that these initial _i_-s have no etymological base but exist for purely phonological reason to avoid double consonant syllable onsets: Greek _*Sm*yr-na_ becoming Turkish _İ*z-m*ir_.

This would then be a similar development as in Vulgar Latin where _*sc*ri-be-re_ became _e*s-c*ri-be-re_ from which Spanish _escribir_ and French _écrire_ are derived.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Why does that make it impossible? Keep in mind the Islamic texts speak of the [future] Islamic conquest of the city.


Because _Islambul _is not attested before the 15th century but _(I)sta{m/n}bul_ half a millennium earlier and not only in Islamic sources but also in Armenian (if this is correct). Besides, how could Ataturk have "de-Islamized" the name in the 10th century.


----------



## ancalimon

Maroseika said:


> All this is very clear. But - "*the city*", and not "*to the city*". Is there any explanation why Turks have used this indirect case with preposition for Stambul, Iznik and Ismit?



I looked into this out of special interest and I found only two explanations.

1- The soldiers who captured "The Polis" weren't sure about which city they captured. As a result of they kept asking the Greeks who were going to the city where they were going and they kept answering "eist ten Polli". The Turks thought the name was "EistTanPoli" and they started calling it "Istanbul" over time.

2- Either foundation of Istanbul was connected somehow to Turks or someone extremely important and holy had a part in the foundation of this city. As a result, the city gained the title "Astana balık"

Astana: "hanged to Heavens", "the connection to Heavens"   Balık: city

Also "I think", in Persian "Asitane" is supposed the mean something close to "the threshold of Royalness"

Turkish EŞİK: threshold (the passage between two pillars)

These are the explanations I found. Both of them are weird and they don't make sense.


----------



## berndf

Another possibility we haven't explored so far: I have learned to pronounce _Constantinopolis_ with the stress syllable and pattern _Con-*stan*-ti-*no*-po-lis _(_-no-_ being the primary stress and _-stan-_ the secondary). If was correct in Byzantine Greek the Stanbul would be a plausible contraction of _Constantinopolis_ (contractions usually preserve stressed syllables). _Stambul_ would then be a phonetic variant (_-nb-_ > _-mb-_ is a plausible assimilation).Is this a possibility too or are there reasons to exclude this theory?


----------



## artion

berndf said:


> Stanbul would be a plausible contraction of _Constantinopolis_


More reasonable than "eis tin Poli". Even the Greeks are tired of pronouncing or writting  the full name of the city and use Poli. 
Contraction was not necessarily made by turkish-speakers because,
1) The city was multinational since the byzantine period .
2) The majority of the ottomans in the Middle Ages were bi- or even multi- linguals, as they were locals who adopted the Turkish language. This is supported by modern genetic studies.


----------



## Maroseika

berndf said:


> Another possibility we haven't explored so far: I have learned to pronounce _Constantinopolis_ with the stress syllable and pattern _Con-*stan*-ti-*no*-po-lis _(_-no-_ being the primary stress and _-stan-_ the secondary). If was correct in Byzantine Greek the Stanbul would be a plausible contraction of _Constantinopolis_ (contractions usually preserve stressed syllables). _Stambul_ would then be a phonetic variant (_-nb-_ > _-mb-_ is a plausible assimilation).Is this a possibility too or are there reasons to exclude this theory?



Well, at least this is what my toponymic dictionary considers as the most possible etymology. However it is outlined there that phonetic difference between two words it still too serious for the implicit admission of this version.

But what I can deduce from this discussion is that  Greek etymology of Izmik, Izmit and Istanbul is very unlikely from the point of view of common sense: nobody managed to explain why Turkish names of these cities are basing on their Greek names taken in the indirect case with preposition.


----------



## Abu Rashid

ancalimon said:
			
		

> 1- The soldiers who captured "The Polis" weren't sure about which city  they captured. As a result of they kept asking the Greeks who were going  to the city where they were going and they kept answering "eist ten  Polli". The Turks thought the name was "EistTanPoli" and they started  calling it "Istanbul" over time.



You've gotta be having a lend of us?

The Muslims had been trying for generation after generation to capture the city, to fulfill the prediction that the leader and the army who captured it for Islam would be the greatest. Sultan after Sultan of the Ottoman Sultanate had tried to capture it, using religiously based propaganda to incite their soldiers to sacrifice all to capture it, and the Ottomans had been living around all sides of the city for years, yet you insist they didn't even know which city they were capturing?

Please.


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> I looked into this out of special interest and I found only two explanations.
> 1- The soldiers who captured "The Polis" weren't sure about which city they captured. As a result of they kept asking the Greeks who were going to the city where they were going and they kept answering "eist ten Polli". The Turks thought the name was "EistTanPoli" and they started calling it "Istanbul" over time.


So, Constantinopel was conquered by a bunch of morons who lost their way, saw a city, wondered what its name was, but since they were slightly socially challenged, decided to capture that city first and then ask around for the name?
Do you have references for this? Do you have a title of book or article, the name of the author and of his mental pathology. You know, the usual stuff with which we normally back up claims in a debate here.

Frank


----------



## berndf

Maroseika said:


> nobody managed to explain why Turkish names of these cities are basing on their Greek names taken in the indirect case with preposition.


I am not sure what you mean by _indirect case_. I've never heard this term. The preposition "εις" governs the _accusative case;_ so I assume that's what you mean.

I still think, the _İ_ in _İzmir_ is nothing more than a modification to adapt the name to Turkish phonology (see #35 above). This Prothesis is apparently not uncommon in Turkish.

This obviously does not explain how _Nicomedia_ should have become _İzmit_.


----------



## ancalimon

Frank06 said:


> So, Constantinopel was conquered by a bunch of morons who lost their way, saw a city, wondered what its name was, but since they were slightly socially challenged, decided to capture that city first and then ask around for the name?
> Do you have references for this? Do you have a title of book or article, the name of the author and of his mental pathology. You know, the usual stuff with which we normally back up claims in a debate here.
> 
> Frank



If Turks changed the name of the city from Constantinopolis to "Eis tin Poli": "to the city", the only thing that comes to my mind is Turks asking the question "where are you going" and renaming the city to the answer they get. Turks wouldn't give a name like this to their cities; simply check out the map of Central Asia and the toponymy which was called Turkestan. And as you have clearly pointed out, the soldiers would have to be really morons to name their city that way.

This is the picture that forms in my mind and I think I don't need to read about it somewhere to reach this conclusion. (I actually read several articles about it after hearing the theory about "Istanbul" coming from "eis tin poli" and after this picture was formed in my mind. I find this theory a bit weird for many reasons.

I don't support this theory and I don't think the name İstanbul comes from the Greek "Constantinople" but from the "Pagan" barbarian Turkic tribes that migrated to West before the Muslim Turks" according to the information about "Astanabalık". Still it doesn't make sense because "I can't find" a migration of Turkic tribes in history books before they converted to Islam (only Bulgars and Kipchaks but they are not old enough). They all have different names and none of them are Turkic according to the books I checked (although many of them lived where Turks lived and if Turks didn't migrate to those lands in AD 1000s from an unknown place on Earth) . It looks like Turks started migrating "only after" they converted to Islam according to history books.

Also found the following information but I couldn't find that book. (probably because I don't know the correct spelling)

1 - el-Mesûdî wrote in his book “Efembih Vellişref” that the name of the city was "ASTAN-BULEN" during 10th century.

2- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanu
*Istanu* (*Ištanu*; from Hattic *Estan*, "Sun-god") was the Hittite and Hattic god of the sun. In Luwian he was known as _*Tiwaz*_ or _*Tijaz*_. He was a god of judgement, and was depicted bearing a winged sun on his crown or head-dress, and a crooked staff.

I wonder.. Is it possible to make a connection between Turkish "Isıtan: the one that warms, the one that heats" and Hattic "Estan"

ISI: heat, warmth    T: he does, she does, it does      AN: the one
IŞITAN: the one which illuminates, gives light


----------



## Maroseika

berndf said:


> I am not sure what you mean by _indirect case_. I've never heard this term. The preposition "εις" governs the _accusative case;_ so I assume that's what you mean.


Yes, this is exactly what I meant: Nominative is a direct case, others - indirect.



> I still think, the _İ_ in _İzmir_ is nothing more than a modification to adapt the name to Turkish phonology (see #35 above). This Prothesis is apparently not uncommon in Turkish.


I second this.



> This obviously does not explain how _Nicomedia_ should have become _İzmit_.


It would be possible if Greek used shortened for of Nikomedia - Media. Since Nικoμήδης apperently consists of two words (though I cannot udnerstand the second), it's quite natural to shorten it this way.


----------



## DenisBiH

@Abu Rashid



> The entire Muslim world.


The entire Muslim world is a bit larger than the Arabian desert. I can't know for sure but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find more than isolated examples of using Qustantiniyya for Istanbul in the European part of the Ottoman Empire. I heard it the first time yesterday.




> Are you for real? Do you think it instead refers to Timbuktu perhaps?


Qustantiniyya could have referred to any location with the name Constantine in it. There is a Qustantiniyya in Egypt as well. 




> Since the dawn of the Islamic period, until the 20th. century, this is the name attested in the Islamic world.


What was the prevailing name of that city in the Arabian desert is not exactly relevant to what was its prevailing name in the Ottoman Empire.




> How about we leave speculation and conjecture at the door and just deal with the facts?


Yes, I think you should do that. Anecdotal evidence about a coin you saw I classify under speculation and conjecture.



> Perhaps. The only examples I can think of are indeed word-final. Can you think of a case in which p->b?


Not p > b but rather np > nb. We could look for examples but voicing in that environment is rather natural.


----------



## berndf

Maroseika said:


> Yes, this is exactly what I meant: Nominative is a direct case, others - indirect.


I see. The term for this is _oblique case_. It is not unusual that inherited or loaned words in non-case-inflected languages are taken from oblique versions of the word in original case-inflected language. E.g. the vast majority of Latin nouns exist in modern European languages based on their accusative form, i.e. _limit_ < _limitem_, accusative of _limes_; or all the words ending in _-tion_ are from accusative _-tionem_, nominative is _-tio_; or the common -ending _-o_ for masculine nouns in Italian or Spanish is from -um, the common accusative ending of masculine and neuter nouns ending in _-us_ and _-um_ in nominative. Greek personal names are often imported into European languages in the vocative case, so we say e.g. _Aris*to*teles_ (Aristotle) and not _Aristo*te*les_ (Greek nominative form of the name).


----------



## Ben Jamin

artion said:


> 2) The majority of the ottomans in the Middle Ages were bi- or even multi- linguals, as they were locals who adopted the Turkish language. This is supported by modern genetic studies.


 
How can genetic studies say anything about people's langauge or multilinguality?


----------



## Maroseika

berndf said:


> I see. The term for this is _oblique case_.


Thanks.



> It is not unusual that inherited or loaned words in non-case-inflected languages are taken from oblique versions of the word in original case-inflected language.


Sure, it is not. But - with a prepostion?
Anyway, I second your approach.


----------



## DenisBiH

Ben Jamin said:


> How can genetic studies say anything about people's langauge or multilinguality?




In principle I agree with you, equating genetics and language/people is very dangerous indeed. However, if genetic studies show that a large number of modern Turks share genetic makeup with their non-Turkish speaking neighbors, and those haplogroups on the other hand do not appear or are very rare in their original homeland, it is quite a strong sign of linguistic assimilation. But I believe we could also find historical sources for this and not resort to genetics at all.


----------



## Abu Rashid

DenisBiH said:


> The entire Muslim world is a bit larger than the Arabian desert.



In Arabic (a language spoken from Spain to Uzbekistan to Madagascar in that time, for your information), Persian, Urdu & Ottoman Turkish it was Qustantaniyyah. Do you honestly believe the Arabic language and its influence was restricted to the Arabian desert?



DenisBiH said:


> Qustantiniyya could have referred to any location with the name Constantine in it. There is a Qustantiniyya in Egypt as well.



Sure if you'd like to provide some evidence any such mint ever existed. The only Ottoman mint I know of in Egypt was the Cairo mint.

Here is a list of all known Ottoman mints. The only Qustantaniyyah there was the capital of the Ottoman Caliphate, not in Egypt.



DenisBiH said:


> Yes, I think you should do that. Anecdotal evidence about a coin you saw I classify under speculation and conjecture.



Not a coin I saw, a coin I own, in fact I own several Ottoman coins that were struck in the capital of Ottoman Caliphate, not one of them mentions any place name other than Qustantaniyyah.

Interestingly the link above I gave lists 4 names for the Ottoman capital's mint at Darphane, not one of them is Istanbul. Islambol was used from 1115-1203, and a few other titles for brief periods, but the only other name mentioned is Qustantaniyyah.


----------



## DenisBiH

> In Arabic (a language spoken from Spain to Uzbekistan to Madagascar in that time, for your information), Persian, Urdu & Ottoman Turkish it was Qustantaniyyah. Do you honestly believe the Arabic language and its influence was restricted to the Arabian desert?


The article quoted earlier makes it quite clear that Istanbul was a widely used name by Ottomans during the Ottoman Empire, both colloquially and in certain official contexts. The fact that Qustantiniyya appears in other official contexts, including on coins, is interesting, but is nowhere near the same as claiming that it was the prevalent name for that city in the Ottoman Empire.

At the time of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, Arabic lands were mostly or entirely outside Ottoman control, not to mention the lands where Persian, Urdu or Swahili were spoken. Take a look at this map. I can see Anatolia, modern Greece, modern Bulgaria, modern Macedonia and a part of modern Serbia in it before Ottomans took Constantinople (though the actual Ottoman presence went farther to the west), but none of modern Arabic speaking lands. Also, it seems that Constantinople had been in Ottoman hands for more than half a century before any significant inclusion of Arabic-speaking lands into the Empire.

An Arabicized form of the name Constatinople was taken to be used on Ottoman coins or in other official contexts. That's fine, good for you, Arabic did have a certain high status back then. However, once the discussion begins about which name was most prevalent in the Empire itself and how and when Istanbul came to be adopted by the Ottomans, do sit back and relax because your particular notions about what makes sense and what doesn't in that abstract imagined "Islamic world" of yours are not particularly helpful.





> Sure if you'd like to provide some evidence any such mint ever existed. The only Ottoman mint I know of in Egypt was the Cairo mint.


No, I don't have to provide any evidence, you're the one who has to provide evidence for your claims, and you should have remembered that immediately.



> Here is a list of all known Ottoman mints. The only Qustantaniyyah there was the capital of the Ottoman Caliphate, not in Egypt.


This you should have remembered to provide immediately instead of basing your argument on personally owned coins from the 20th century. And here is why:



> Kosnataniye (Kostantina, Algeria) G,S,C


So there was another city with the name Constantine in it where Ottoman coins were minted. Anyway, fine, that is settled now, Qustantiniyya was indeed used on coins for Istanbul.





> Islambol was used from 1115-1203, and a few other titles for brief periods, but the only other name mentioned is Qustantaniyyah.


Yes, the 18th century was the century of blood, death, loss, plague, retreat, refugees, burned down cities, razed mosques, fighting, blood, more fighting, more loss and more blood for the Ottomans. A grisly century. No wonder someone in Istanbul decided to flee into overzealous religiousness and professions of piety by putting Islambol on the coins.


----------



## berndf

DenisBiH said:


> The entire Muslim world is a bit larger than the Arabian desert. I can't know for sure but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find more than isolated examples of using Qustantiniyya for Istanbul in the European part of the Ottoman Empire. I heard it the first time yesterday.
> ...
> Qustantiniyya could have referred to any location with the name Constantine in it. There is a Qustantiniyya in Egypt as well.
> ...
> Yes, I think you should do that. Anecdotal evidence about a coin you saw I classify under speculation and conjecture.


You are getting obsessed with something here. Of course قسطنطينية is Constantinople, there is not a shadow of a doubt, and you find it all numerous Ottoman coins like here. You search for "Ottoman coins" in Google images you will find many, many more example.


----------



## DenisBiH

berndf said:


> You are getting obsessed with something here. Of course قسطنطينية is Constantinople, there is not a shadow of a doubt, and you find it all numerous Ottoman coins like here. You search for "Ottoman coins" in Google images you will find many, many more example.




berndf, 

this is the post where that discussion started. No such link or quote was provided except a reference to 20th century coins personally owned. Furthermore, this was said:



> This seems highly unlikely, given that the city was called by the Arabic version of Constantinople anyway.


When I asked who used that name, the answer given was:



> The entire Muslim world.


His original statement about coinage may have been correct, his *methodology* of proving it was not. Neither were his subsequent statements/conclusions. You cannot take some coins from the 20th century you own and simply assume, without further verification, that:

a) Qustantiniyya indeed referred to Istanbul/Constantinople - which it turned out it did
b) That it was the official name used on coins ever since the Ottoman conquest without breaks in continuity - which it turned out it was *not*
c) That the fact it was used on coins also means it was the most prevalent name used by Ottomans

All three are more guesswork than science.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Denis,

I really think you're being a little emotional over all this, and I'm just going to remind you that this is a linguistics forum, no more, no less.



			
				DenisBih said:
			
		

> So there was another city  with the name Constantine in it where Ottoman coins were minted.  Anyway, fine, that is settled now, Qustantiniyya was indeed used on  coins for Istanbul.



It's spelled completely differently.

One is قسطنطنية the other is قسنطينة and I am surprised you'd suggest this is relevant.


----------



## berndf

*Moderator note: I think you have made your points, Denis and Abu Rashid. Since the argument about the subject matter has been settled, can we move on?
*


----------



## artion

Another toponym: Alexandretta - Iskenderum
and
Galatas - Galata (from gAla - milk)


----------



## berndf

artion said:


> Another toponym: Alexandretta - Iskenderum


This is a good example to show what this "Is" does not mean "in". "Iskender" is also the Turkish version of the personal name "Alexander".


----------



## Forero

I can't help but notice that the parts of _Constantinopoli_(_s_) that I have highlighted in blue would sound an awful lot like "Istanbul": 

_Co__*nstan*__tino__*pol*i__s_

My point is that there is no need to hypothesize "εις την" in "Istanbul".


----------



## berndf

Forero said:


> I can't help but notice that the parts of _Constantinopoli_(_s_) that I have highlighted in blue would sound an awful lot like "Istanbul":
> 
> _Co__*nstan*__tino__*pol*i__s_


Yes, this was my point in #38, above.


----------



## DenisBiH

berndf said:


> Yes, this was my point in #38, above.




Truth be told, I always assumed that Istanbul was derived from Constantinople before seeing that alternate derivation with εις την. However, the alternative does seem to make sense, given the example of Stimboli on Crete given in that article.


----------



## berndf

DenisBiH said:


> Truth be told, I always assumed that Istanbul was derived from Constantinople before seeing that alternate derivation with εις την. However, the alternative does seem to make sense, given the example of Stimboli on Crete given in that article.


Exactly the same with me.


----------



## apmoy70

Maroseika said:


> ....It would be possible if Greek used shortened for of Nikomedia - Media. Since Nικoμήδης apperently consists of two words (though I cannot udnerstand the second), it's quite natural to shorten it this way.


«Μήδη» (mḗdē _f._) or «μῆδος» (mḗdŏs _n._, the second one appears only in plural as «μήδεα» (mḗdĕă)-->_counsels, plans_, verb «μήδομαι» (mḗdŏmæ)-->_to contemplate, plan, prepare_ from PIE root *med-/mod- _to measure, consider_. «Νικομήδεια» is the victorious planning, the praparation that leads to victory. «Νικομήδης» is the victorious planner.


----------



## ancalimon

*Moderator note: Split from here.

*


sotos said:


> I see that there is a town in Middle East called _Kirbet Istabul_, identified with the ancient Greek town of Aristobulias.
> http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/aristobulias.html
> My first impression is that "Istabul" is probably a corruption of "Ar*istobul*ias", in a similar manner that Istanbul (Turkey) is a corrupted "Eis tin Poli" (to the City).
> Do you find this reasonable or Istabul has another origin?



I find it hard to believe that Ottomans named the city as Istanbul after asking a Greek that lived there what the name of that city they conquered was (but the Greek misunderstood the question as "where does this road lead to). I mean who would name a city as a result of a misunderstanding? (well Turks might do it but still...   )

Nevertheless, that sounds really funny


----------



## fdb

It does sound funny. I think it is more likely that İstanbul (stressed on the second syllable) comes from στην πόλι [stimbóli] in the modern Greek sense of “in the city”.


----------



## Wolverine9

I've also read that Istanbul might be a contraction of Constantinople.


----------



## Qureshpor

And I have read somewhere that it is a corruption of "Islambol", whatever Islambol means!


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> And I have read somewhere that it is a corruption of "Islambol", whatever Islambol means!



Islambol would mean "city of Islam", with -bol from the the Greek _polis _meaning "city".  This is a folk etymology that was popular during Ottoman rule.


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> Islambol would mean "city of Islam", with -bol from the the Greek _polis _meaning "city".  This is a folk etymology that was popular during Ottoman rule.


Thank you. Was there no "p" in Ottoman Turkish?


----------



## ancalimon

fdb said:


> It does sound funny. I think it is more likely that İstanbul (stressed on the second syllable) comes from στην πόλι [stimbóli] in the modern Greek sense of “in the city”.



So a Turk asked "where am I?" and the Greek answered "in the city" ? That's even funnier.



Wolverine9 said:


> Islambol would mean "city of Islam", with -bol from the the Greek _polis _meaning "city".  This is a folk etymology that was popular during Ottoman rule.



That's definitely folk etymology.

But the "bul" part might be related with Turkic "balıq", "bolıq" meaning "city".

Also, during the 10. century the city was called ASTAN-BULEN by its inhabitants according to Ebu el-Hasan Ali bin el-Hüseyn bin Ali el-Mesûdî

In my opinion, there is a connection between the Hittite skygod - sungod ISTANU and the name ISTANBUL and also the Turkic-Persian ASTAN - STAN that's used with names of countries, cities, geographies. (for example Yunanistan: Greece). Also Astana means city with a throne ~ capital city ~ a city in which a very holy person's grave exists in Turkic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanu
Also maybe Hattian _Istanu_ could be related with the Turkic word "Isıtan O" meaning "it is the thing that warms" (meaning sun)

I think the Turkic words ISI meaning "heat, warmness" and AS meaning "hang" are related and both have the meaning of "The Sun" or "heavens" or "the warmness hanged to heavens". So even if Istanbul is not a Turkic word, Turks might have related the word with "the city hanged to heavens" : "Astan Balıq".  This might be the reason why in some of the oldest maps, Turkestan is called Eden ~ Heaven.


----------



## Wolverine9

QURESHPOR said:


> Thank you. Was there no "p" in Ottoman Turkish?



There was; however, I think it was conflated with the Turkish _bol__, _which means "full" or "plenty".


----------



## Wolverine9

ancalimon said:


> So a Turk asked "where am I?" and the Greek answered "in the city" ? That's even funnier.
> 
> 
> 
> That's definitely folk etymology.
> 
> But the "bul" part might be related with Turkic "balıq", "bolıq" meaning "city".
> 
> Also, during the 10. century the city was called ASTAN-BULEN by its inhabitants according to Ebu el-Hasan Ali bin el-Hüseyn bin Ali el-Mesûdî
> 
> In my opinion, there is a connection between the Hittite skygod - sungod ISTANU and the name ISTANBUL and also the Turkic-Persian ASTAN - STAN that's used with names of countries, cities, geographies. (for example Yunanistan: Greece). Also Astana means city with a throne ~ capital city ~ a city in which a very holy person's grave exists in Turkic.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanu
> Also maybe Hattian _Istanu_ could be related with the Turkic word "Isıtan O" meaning "it is the thing that warms" (meaning sun)
> 
> I think the Turkic words ISI meaning "heat, warmness" and AS meaning "hang" are related and both have the meaning of "The Sun" or "heavens" or "the warmness hanged to heavens". So even if Istanbul is not a Turkic word, Turks might have related the word with "the city hanged to heavens" : "Astan Balıq".  This might be the reason why in some of the oldest maps, Turkestan is called Eden ~ Heaven.



A connection with a Hittite sky god is unlikely.  The Hittite religion and culture had been extinct for millennia before the first use of the name Istanbul.  The Persian _-staan_ is used as a suffix in compounds, not as a prefix.


----------



## ancalimon

Wolverine9 said:


> The Persian _-staan_ is used as a suffix in compounds, not as a prefix.



Apparently not in Turkic. I can even guess that the name of the continent Asia might be related with this "astan" word.


----------

