# Russian rulers: <Tsars>



## Serg.ich

Hello! I have a strange question  Why do you call all Russian rulers tsars? The last tsar of Russia is Peter the Great (1689-1725) and next sovereigns are all emperors. So why don’t you call them emperors instead of tsars? My French teacher told me that it is the way to underline that Russia has never been a true empire like Britain and France. Be honest please. No offense


----------



## natkretep

Tsar - Wikipedia tells us that it represents popular Russian use.


> [Despite the edict from Peter the Great about the change of title] The title tsar remained in common usage, and also officially as the designator of various titles signifying rule over various states absorbed by the Muscovite monarchy (such as the former Tatar khanates and the Georgian Orthodox kingdom)...
> 
> Since the word "tsar" remained the popular designation of the Russian ruler despite the official change of style, it is commonly used in foreign languages such as English.


----------



## Uncle Jack

"Tsar" means "emperor", so far as English is concerned (it derives from "Cæsar", of course). If later Russian rulers chose to use the title "Emperor" rather than "Tsar", then I suspect the continued use of "Tsar" by English speakers was due more to ignorance combined with the familiarity of the previous term rather than being any deliberate slight.

Aristocratic titles are very peculiar things. You are probably aware that, although Britain certainly had an empire, the ruler of this empire was very rarely called an emperor (or empress), preferring the title "king" or "queen". I might conjecture that this was because they had no wish to be associated in any way with Napoleon, the most famous "emperor" of modern times, but I have no evidence for this and it is only conjecture.


----------



## dojibear

They called themselves "Tsar", so why shouldn't we call them that? There are many names for rulers -- we don't translate all of them into English. 

Words have meanings. "King" is not "emperor". Titles like "Shah" and "Tsar" may not fit those meanings. Often we use the foreign term, rather than translating it into a similar English word (with a different meaning).


----------



## Andygc

It's simply that the English word for "ruler of Russia" was "tsar", and nobody in an English-speaking country gave a fig when Peter decided he wanted the Latin title "imperator".


----------



## Rover_KE

Serg.ich said:


> Why do you call all Russian rulers tsars?


We have no good reason to call them anything else.

(Note that your question above is just fine – and not 'strange' at all).


----------



## berndf

As far as German is concerned, _Imperator_ and _Caesar _(from which both, Russian _Tsar_ and German _Kaiser_ are derived) have always been used interchangeably The emperors of the HRE were titled _Imperator et Augustus_ in Latin and _Kaiser_ in German texts.


----------



## Perseas

Serg.ich said:


> Why do you call all Russian rulers tsars? The last tsar of Russia is Peter the Great (1689-1725) and next sovereigns are all emperors.


I didn't know that, thanks. In any case, Greek "tsáros" means the title of the Russian absolute monarch until 1917.

As I read in Wikipedia "Peter I the Great issued an edict that raised Russia to an empire and decreed that the Latin title _imperator_ should be used instead of tsar (1721)".


----------



## Frank78

Perseas said:


> I didn't know that, thanks. In any case, Greek "tsáros" means the title of the Russian absolute monarch until 1917.
> 
> As I read in Wikipedia "Peter I the Great issued an edict that raised Russia to an empire and decreed that the Latin title _imperator_ should be used instead of tsar (1721)".



That's strange because the title of an emperor could only have acquired by the pope until 1805. So no European monarch would have called the Russian leader "emperor", even if he chose that title.


----------



## Perseas

Frank78 said:


> That's strange because the title of an emperor could only have acquired by the pope until 1805. So no European monarch would have called the Russian leader "emperor", even if he chose that title.


I understand that. But the Russian Orthodox Church on their part did not depend on the Pope, so that procedure didn't concern Russia.


----------



## Frank78

Perseas said:


> The Russian Orthodox Church did not depend on the Pope, so that procedure didn't concern Russia.



Neither did Protestant Europe but there has never been a king who claimed to be an "emperor".


----------



## Perseas

Frank78 said:


> Neither did Protestant Europe but there has never been a king who claimed to be an "emperor".


As far as I know the emperors of the HRE were Catholics.

Also, Russia was one of the great powers and that justified somehow the title "emperor" for their rulers. The same did Napoleon as a ruler of another great power.


----------



## Frank78

Perseas said:


> As far as I know the emperors of the HRE were Catholics.



Yes of course but what I meant is that only with the dissolution of the HRE other nations "dared" to have an emperor/empress: France, England, Germany, Austria, Brazil.


----------



## Perseas

Frank78 said:


> Yes of course but what I meant is that only with the dissolution of the HRE other nations "dared" to have an emperor/empress: France, England, Germany, Austria, Brazil.


I understand, but Russia, as an Eastern European power, did not consider that they should abide by traditions and protocols that existed in Western Europe. (At least this is my understanding).

In Wikipedia I found an interesting statement to this discussion:
"In 1721, as part of his drive to both westernize the Russian Empire and assert the monarchy's claim that it was the successor to the Byzantine emperors, Peter the Great imported the Latin word directly into Russian and styled himself imperator (Императоръ)."


----------



## Awwal12

Frank78 said:


> That's strange because the title of an emperor could only have acquired by the pope until 1805. So no European monarch would have called the Russianleader "emperor", even if he chose that title.


How did they call Byzantine Emperors, I wonder (who had much more rights to bear that title than the Papal protégés)?..

As for the original question, /ʦarʲ/ was not only convenient and familiar, but also remained a part of the titulature anyway: "Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod; Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia..."


----------



## berndf

Frank78 said:


> That's strange because the title of an emperor could only have acquired by the pope until 1805. So no European monarch would have called the Russian leader "emperor", even if he chose that title.


In an orthodox country? I guess not.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Frank78 said:


> That's strange because the title of an emperor could only have acquired by the pope until 1805.


This is not true. The _tenno _of Japan, _negus negesti_ of Ethiopia, and _huang di_ of China were all called emperors in Europe in popular use. When the tsars of Russia visited foreign countries they were also addressed as emperors during the visit, but there was no law in European countries how to call foreign rulers in popular speech. People in those countries were not subject to such strict rules.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> This is not true. The _tenno _of Japan, _negus negesti_ of Ethiopia, and _huang di_ of China were all called emperors in Europe in popular use.


That is not it. Peter the Great assumed *officially* the title _imperator_ not *popularly*.


----------



## symposium

Well, in a way, I think that since "emperor" and "ceasar" (tsar) are technically homonyms it really doesn't make any difference to call an "emperor" one thing or the other. Apparently Peter the Great just wanted to be known with the more western-sounding, or "international" form of his title, but abroad people preferred to also call him with the title that was traditional and specific for him. Basically "zar" is short for "Russian emperor", just like "Kaiser" is short for "German emperor".


----------



## Serg.ich

Well, thank you very much dear friends! Every answer is important for me. I appreciate all your efforts to enlighten me


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> That is not it. Peter the Great assumed *officially* the title _imperator_ not *popularly*.


The ambassadors, court officials and fellow monarchs certainly addressed him "your imperial highness" both in writing and speech.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> The ambassadors, court officials and fellow monarchs certainly addressed him "your imperial highness" both in writing and speech.


That style is used for members of the closer imperial family, i.e. siblings or children of an emperor. The style for an emperor himself is _Your Imperial Majesty_.


----------



## ahvalj

In Russia herself, the emperors continued to be called tsars outside formal contexts, e. g. 1828:


> Нет, я не льстец, когда царю
> Хвалу свободную слагаю:
> Я смело чувства выражаю,
> Языком сердца говорю.



or 1907:


> Наш Царь — Мукден, наш Царь — Цусима,
> Наш Царь — кровавое пятно,
> Зловонье пороха и дыма,
> В котором разуму — темно.



As to the foreign and metaphorical use, I think one of the motivations is the existence of a particular and short term specific for a certain country. In modern media Erdoğan is constantly termed _sultan,_ Merkel is from times to times called _Frau Führerin_ in the Russian Internet, Poroshenko of Ukraine was often called _hetman._ I am sure if in Italy or Spain leaders of certain calibers emerge someday, people will recall the terms _duce_ and _caudillo_.

The foreign adaptation of the imperial title for Russian monarchs actually occurred twice. First, they proclaimed themselves tsars ("emperors") in 1547, since the first official bearer of this title, Ivan IV, was the grandson of the niece of the last Byzantine emperor. Wikipedia informs that this title was recognized in 1555 by England, in 1558 by patriarch of Constantinople, and soon after by Spain, Denmark, Florence and the Holy Roman Empire. Vatican and Poland had objections for a long time.

A similar story occurred with the adaptation of the Latin title in 1721. Again, Wikipedia writes that this was immediately recognized by Prussia and Holland, in 1723 by Sweden, in 1739 by Turkey, in 1742 by England and Austria, in 1745 by France, in 1759 by Spain, and in 1764 by Poland.

[Corrected a typo]


----------



## Awwal12

ahvalj said:


> Poroshenko of Ukraine was often called _hetman_


He likely wouldn't have, if it weren't for Hetman Petro *D*oroshenko (a pretty famous historical figure).


----------



## Perseas

ahvalj said:


> First, they proclaimed themselves tsars ("emperors") ...


When that happened, "tsar (царь)" was already a Russian word (from "cĭsarĭ"), as opposed to the Latin "imperator".



ahvalj said:


> As to the foreign and metaphorical use, I think one of the motivations is the existence of a particular and short term specific for a certain country.


At least in Greek, "tsáros" is used metaphorically to denote a politician with absolute power on a section, eg. the Greek minister of the economy is often called "tsar of the economy".


----------



## Olaszinhok

Even today,  Italian media sometimes refer to  Putin as _*lo zar *(the tsar)  _ the z is pronounced dz.
This may be off-topic but Putin is a Russian ruler after all.


----------



## Ben Jamin

One the examples of the official use of the title Tsar is the Russian royal anthem : _Боже, *Царя* храни! _As far as I know it was used until 1917, long time after the title change done by Peter I.


----------



## ahvalj

Ben Jamin said:


> One the examples of the official use of the title Tsar is the Russian royal anthem : _Боже, *Царя* храни! _As far as I know it was used until 1917, long time after the title change done by Peter I.


Interestingly, its text is rather Church Slavonic (or at least considerably archaized: vocatives, old ending in _земли,_ old present _отжени_), where there was no word _император_ ,)


----------



## OBrasilo

I think you're mixing up "God Save the Tsar" with the earlier "Prayer of the Russians" which begins with the same first line but is otherwise entirely different and used the melody of the British "God Save the King".


----------



## ahvalj

OBrasilo said:


> I think you're mixing up "God Save the Tsar" with the earlier "Prayer of the Russians" which begins with the same first line but is otherwise entirely different and used the melody of the British "God Save the King".


Then, what is the long verse in my above link?


----------



## OBrasilo

Yes, you linked to the correct thing but it doesn't appear to have the two words you mentioned (zemli and otzheni).

Edit: The article claims that both songs were part of one song, this makes no sense. I need to do more research on it, though to me it looks like an erroneous conflation of the two songs.

Edit #2: Ah, apparently one Russian poet combined the two songs into a large poem that he called "Prayer of the Russians", after the first of the two songs.


----------



## Ben Jamin

ahvalj said:


> Interestingly, its text is rather Church Slavonic (or at least considerably archaized: vocatives, old ending in _земли,_ old present _отжени_), where there was no word _император_ ,)


Well, you have drifted away from the topic. My point was to give an example of a formal use of tsar.


----------



## ahvalj

One more digression. A millennium ago, a Turkic word _каганъ/kaganъ_ was occasionally used for the grand prince. The Sermon on Law and Grace from the second quarter of the 11th century writes:


> похвала каганѹ нашемѹ Влодимерѹ
> великааго кагана нашеѧ земли Володимера
> каганъ нашь Влодимеръ
> паче же помолися о сынѣ твоемь, благовѣрнѣмь каганѣ нашемь Георгии
> владычествѹющу благовѣрьномѹ каганѹ Ꙗрославѹ, сынѹ Владимирю


Elsewhere this term is confined to the Khazar leaders, at least in the versions of the texts that have come to us:
Primary Chronicle


> козаре изыдоша противѹ съ кнѧземъ своим каганомъ


Life of Constantine


> егда хотꙗхѹ на обѣдѣ сѣсти ѹ кагана
> каганъ же чашю вземъ и рече
> отвѣща к немѹ каганъ
> философъ же показавъ перстомъ на кагана и на перваго совѣтника и рече
> ꙗко пьрвыи совѣтникъ не можеть чредити кагана
> послѣднии рабъ его сего можеть кагана ичредити и и чьсть емѹ створити
> сѣдъ же пакы философъ с каганомъ и рече
> си же всꙗ каганъ козарьскъ съ началными мѹжи добраꙗ и подобнаꙗ его слышавше словеса, ркоша к немѹ
> да сѹдить нас каганъ
> написа же къ цесарю книгы каганъ сиче
> проважаꙗ же философа, каганъ нача емѹ дары многы даꙗти


The only other instance I was able to find where it was used to a local prince is this cryptic phrase from The Tale of Igor's Campaign:


> Рекъ Боꙗнъ и Ходына Свѧтъславлꙗ, _пѣснотворца_ стараго времени Ꙗрославлꙗ: «Ольгова коганꙗ хоти! Тѧжко ти головы кромѣ плечю, зло и тѣлѹ кромѣ головы», — Рускои земли безъ Игоря!


A more detailed account on the use of this term can be found in Wikipedia.


----------



## WadiH

Can someone please explain how the pronunciation changed from 'kaiser' to 'tsar'?  The connection between 'kaiser' and 'czar' is clear enough, but the last step that ends with 'tsar' is not so clear.


----------



## berndf

<cz> and <ts> pretty much transcribe the same sound adapted to the target languages, namely a palatalized Greek Kappa, i.e. [c].


----------



## Awwal12

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Can someone please explain how the pronunciation changed from 'kaiser' to 'tsar'?  The connection between 'kaiser' and 'czar' is clear enough, but the last step that ends with 'tsar' is not so clear.


The initial chain of loans and developments is Classical Latin "Caesar" /kae̯sar/ > Proto-Germanic /*kɑi̯sɑrɑz/ > Gothic /kaisar/ > Early Proto-Slavic /*kaisarĭ/ > Late Proto-Slavic ~/*tsʲěsarĭ/ (after the monophtongization of diphthongs, which led to /ai/ > /ě/, and the second palatalization /kě/ > /tsʲě/).
The nature of /ě/ in late Proto-Slavic is normally reconstructed as a long narrow [e:] or as a long [æ:] depending on the dialect.
Then, as it often happens with titles, phonetic simplification followed (cf. Eng. king < O.E. cyning).
The first stage was shortening and reduction of /ě/ to /ĭ/ (цьсарь is attested in Old Church Slavonic). Then the first /ĭ/ got reduced to zero, automatically leading to /*tsʲarĭ/. The fall of the yers and the hardening of /*tsʲ/ in most Slavic idioms finally led to Modern Russian "царь" /tsarʲ/, Bulgarian "цар" /tsar/, Serbo-Croatian "цар" & "car" /tsar/ etc.


----------



## ahvalj

Awwal12 said:


> The first stage was shortening and reduction of /ě/ to /ĭ/ (цьсарь is attested in Old Church Slavonic).


That's a possible explanation, but since Slavic has several words with the foreign _ē_ reflected as _*i>ь_ (_graecus__>grьkъ, acētum>ocьtъ, meki>mьčь:_ compare _mač_), none of which were allegro-forms, a third-party mediation seems plausible: that of some language, where _ē_ became _i,_ lost its length and was subsequently borrowed into Slavic as a short _*i>ь._ Thus, we get _Caesar>kēsar>*kisar-_ in that language with the loan into Slavic as _*kisārjə>сьsaŗь_ (_cěsaŗь_ is most probably a Gothic loan and _ķesaŗь_ a Byzantine one).

P. S. In Lithuanian “Greek” is _graikas__,_ but the plant _Fagopyrum_ is _grikis ~ grikas,_ with the same reflex (loan?) as in Slavic (where is is called “Greek cereal”: _греча/grʲeča<*gričjā_ in Russian, literally “Greek one”).


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> _ķesaŗь_ a Byzantine one


But in Byzantine Greek the /k/ is palatalized to [c]. Why would it produce Slavic _ķ_? Or maybe I misunderstand your notation. What sound does this _ķ_ stand for?


----------



## ahvalj

That's the Cyrillic _к҄_ (_k_ with hook denoting palatalization): the scribes used it, sometimes quite consistently, in the loans:


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> That's the Cyrillic _к҄_ (_k_ with hook denoting palatalization): the scribes used it, sometimes quite consistently, in the loans:


Ah! I thought it stood for Cyrillic _Қ_. That's what confused me.


----------



## ahvalj

,) These are Latvian letters: _ķ, ģ, ļ, ņ, ŗ _— which denote the same palatal sounds that the Slavicist literature traditionally conveyed via digraphs (_lj, nj, rj,_ sometimes _kj, gj_), for the absence of these exotic glyphs in the typographies I think.


----------



## WadiH

Thank you all for these thorough explanations.


----------



## Zec

ahvalj said:


> That's a possible explanation, but since Slavic has several words with the foreign _ē_ reflected as _*i>ь_ (_graecus__>grьkъ, acētum>ocьtъ, meki>mьčь:_ compare _mač_), none of which were allegro-forms, a third-party mediation seems plausible: that of some language, where _ē_ became _i,_ lost its length and was subsequently borrowed into Slavic as a short _*i>ь._ Thus, we get _Caesar>kēsar>*kisar-_ in that language with the loan into Slavic as _*kisārjə>сьsaŗь_ (_cěsaŗь_ is most probably a Gothic loan and _ķesaŗь_ a Byzantine one).
> 
> P. S. In Lithuanian “Greek” is _graikas__,_ but the plant _Fagopyrum_ is _grikis ~ grikas,_ with the same reflex (loan?) as in Slavic (where is is called “Greek cereal”: _греча/grʲeča<*gričjā_ in Russian, literally “Greek one”).



Do you have any guess about which language that may be? I'm genuinely interested - most literature on the topic doesn't go into such detail or simply ignores the _ē_ > _ь_ change as an oddity.


----------



## ahvalj

Zec said:


> Do you have any guess about which language that may be? I'm genuinely interested - most literature on the topic doesn't go into such detail or simply ignores the _ē_ > _ь_ change as an oddity.


No, unfortunately, since all the numerous languages of the region went extinct (except Albanian). I have found one more possible example near you: _Nēdīnum_ (_Νήδινον_) is now _Nadin_, perhaps via _*Nьdinъ_. Are there other examples in the local toponymy? Within Slavic, we have a vacillation _*děļa_ ~ _*dьļa_, but it is unique and can be explained as a reduction of an unstressed long vowel in a preposition, as an example of ablaut (since the often suggested relationship with _*dělo_ is semantically not that evident and plus what part of the speech it could represent?), or indeed as influenced by _*dьliti_.

P. S. I've noticed that, if the case of _Nadin_ belongs here, it would imply that _ē_ is treated as _*i>*ь,_ whereas the development of _ī>i_ is regular — that is both outcomes didn't merge in that language, which could be expected in an unstressed position, like here, but not in _grьkъ, ocьtъ_ and _*mьčь,_ where the _*i_ must have been originally stressed. So, a problem… On the other hand, it may have been a substitution to the Slavic toponymic suffix _*-īnə_ (6th century) > _-inъ_ (as attested in the 10th century). On the third hand, Slavic also had a toponymic suffix_ *-inə>-ьnъ,_ which would fit well if that language lacked the vowel lengths.

P. P. S. _rman__ < *rъmanъ < rōmānum _? (But that could have been from Romance _*rumanu_).


----------



## Zec

Yes, _Nēdīnum_ > _Nadin_ is different because the _ē_ is unstressed in that word. It also behaves completely regularly when compared to other toponyms: their development is such that they must have been borrowed from a local variant of Vulgar Latin which had the Western Romance 7-vowel system and allophonic vowel length: long in open stressed syllables, short otherwise (c.f. Italian). So the development is rather_ Nēdīnum_ > [neˈdiːnu] > *Nidīnə > *Nьdinъ  > _Nadin_. The vowel substitutions are also completely regular: Romance close-mid [e] and [o] are regularly borrowed as *i > *ъ and *u > *ъ when short (and as *ī > *i and *ū > *y or *ō > *u when long), and unstressed _e_ and _o_ were probably close-mid.

So, technically, _acētum_ > _ocьtъ_ could be from a variety of Romance which didn't have the above-mentioned system of allophonic vowel length. I've actually seen Romanian suggested as the source of _ocьtъ_. The same could be true of _Graecus_ > _Grьkъ_ if Romanian _Grec_ is directly from *Grēcus and not a later latinism. Maybe something like that could even explain _сьsaŗь_: could it be an earlier loan from Byzantine Greek, and _ķesaŗь_ a later reborrowing (c.f. Germanic reborrowing _Rome_ a couple of times)?


----------



## ahvalj

We thus need a Romance variety with _ē _(both closed and open from _ae_)_ > i,_ like — surprise! — in Dalmatian (Istrian _i,_ Vegliot _ai~i_). I don't have a good source on the comparative phonetics of Dalmatian, but _caelum_ gave _cil ~ sil__,_ so _graecus_ could have given _*gric_. But this still doesn't explain the Slavic short vowel from the stressed long Romance one, compare the diphthongization _i>ai_ later in Dalmatian: acait.

_Caesar:_ since Dalmatian has both _ʧ_ and _s_ in _caelum > cil ~ sil__,_ and no palatalization in _acait__, _I don't understand what were the rules of palatalization in this language, but if _sil<*ʦilu,_ we get the prototype for the Slavic _c,_ so in principle _Caesar > _Dalmatian_ *kisari~*ʦisari _(stressed _a_ diphthongized in Dalmatian later)_ > _Slavic _cьsaŗь_ is OK.

A problem remains with the Gothic _meki _(accusative singular, with the unattested nominative _*mekeis_): it gives _mečь~*mьčь _(a _jo_-stem, hence substituted with _č,_ not *_k_>_c, _compare the modern _unlock_ > Russian _разлочить —_ even two millennia after the first palatalization the language still doesn't allow _k_ in such cases), with two attested variants, but both with short vowels, and in any case this word for “sword” is not attested in Romance.

Romanian _oțet_ is obviously reborrowed from Slavic due to _o_ and_ ƫ:_ a natural outcome of _acētum_ would have been _**acet_ with [ʧ].

To summarize, the Dalmatian (not more eastern, since Daco-Romance has _e_) mediation looks possible and promising, but the problem with the short stressed vowels remains. Perhaps the source was still Liburnian/Illyrian/…, not Romance?

P. S. Pannonian Romance might fit for geographic and historical reasons, but do we have any linguistic evidence? The East Slavic Primary Chronicle derives Slavs, in particular, from Noricum:


> От сихъ же 70 и двѹ ѩзыкѹ бысть ѩзыкъ словенескъ, от племени же Ꙗфетова, нарѣцаемѣи норци, иже сѹть словенѣ.
> По мнозѣхъ же временѣхъ сѣлѣ сѹть словени по Дѹнаеви, кде есть нынѣ Ѹгорьскаꙗ землꙗ и Болгарьскаꙗ. От тѣхъ словенъ разидошѧсѧ по земьли и прозвашѧсѧ имены своими, кде сѣдше на которомъ мѣстѣ.


[A horrible, horrible orthography distorted by generations of scribes and modern Internet posters ,(( I have replaced _у_ and _я,_ but nevertheless…]

That is (_Cross SH, Sherbowitz-Wetzor OP · 1930 · “The Russian Primary chronicle. Laurentian text”_ 52–53):


> Among these seventy-two nations, the Slavic race is derived from the line of Japheth, since they are the Noricians, who are identical with the Slavs.
> Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled.


[not: _scattered through the country_ — should be: _dispersed over the Earth_]


----------



## Awwal12

ahvalj said:


> P. S. Pannonian Romance might fit for geographic and historical reasons, but do we have any linguistic evidence? The East Slavic Primary Chronicle derives Slavs, in particular, from Noricum


Regarding the origins of Slavs, the Primary Chronicle is not merely legendary; in many cases it apparently represents available Greek sources interpreted by the chronicler according to his personal theories (which, obviously, were far from being scientific).


----------



## ahvalj

Yet for a language presumably widespread at the Roman boundary Common Slavic has very few Latin loanwords. I still find it more probable that it was separated from Rome by one or two intermediate languages.


----------



## Zec

ahvalj said:


> We thus need a Romance variety with _ē _(both closed and open from _ae_)_ > i,_ like — surprise! — in Dalmatian (Istrian _i,_ Vegliot _ai~i_). I don't have a good source on the comparative phonetics of Dalmatian, but _caelum_ gave _cil ~ sil__,_ so _graecus_ could have given _*gric_. But this still doesn't explain the Slavic short vowel from the stressed long Romance one, compare the diphthongization _i>ai_ later in Dalmatian: acait.
> 
> _Caesar:_ since Dalmatian has both _ʧ_ and _s_ in _caelum > cil ~ sil__,_ and no palatalization in _acait__, _I don't understand what were the rules of palatalization in this language, but if _sil<*ʦilu,_ we get the prototype for the Slavic _c,_ so in principle _Caesar > _Dalmatian_ *kisari~*ʦisari _(stressed _a_ diphthongized in Dalmatian later)_ > _Slavic _cьsaŗь_ is OK.
> 
> A problem remains with the Gothic _meki _(accusative singular, with the unattested nominative _*mekeis_): it gives _mečь~*mьčь _(a _jo_-stem, hence substituted with _č,_ not *_k_>_c, _compare the modern _unlock_ > Russian _разлочить —_ even two millennia after the first palatalization the language still doesn't allow _k_ in such cases), with two attested variants, but both with short vowels, and in any case this word for “sword” is not attested in Romance.
> 
> Romanian _oțet_ is obviously reborrowed from Slavic due to _o_ and_ ƫ:_ a natural outcome of _acētum_ would have been _**acet_ with [ʧ].
> 
> To summarize, the Dalmatian (not more eastern, since Daco-Romance has _e_) mediation looks possible and promising, but the problem with the short stressed vowels remains. Perhaps the source was still Liburnian/Illyrian/…, not Romance?
> 
> P. S. Pannonian Romance might fit for geographic and historical reasons, but do we have any linguistic evidence? The East Slavic Primary Chronicle derives Slavs, in particular, from Noricum:
> 
> [A horrible, horrible orthography distorted by generations of scribes and modern Internet posters ,(( I have replaced _у_ and _я,_ but nevertheless…]
> 
> That is (_Cross SH, Sherbowitz-Wetzor OP · 1930 · “The Russian Primary chronicle. Laurentian text”_ 52–53):
> 
> [not: _scattered through the country_ — should be: _dispersed over the Earth_]



Re. Dalmatian. The (in)famous vowel changes of Vegliot are probably too young for them to be reflected in loanwords into Common Slavic. None of them is shared by Ragusan, and what's more, none of them is attested in uncotroversial loanwords: there's plenty of Dalmatian loanwords into Slavic dialects of Dalmatia, and they all point to a rather more archaic vowel system, before all the extreme changes of Vegliot happened.

Also, in my last post, I wanted to stress that Romance [e] > Common Slavic *i > *ь can be explained as a substitution during borrowing, so that we don't actually need to look for a Romance language which had somehow gained an [ i] in the relevant words! I can remember only a handful examples without looking them up, but AFAIK there's enough to show that this is a regular substitution:  _Cissa_ > [ˈkessa] > *Cьsъ > *Cьsьska > _Caska_, *quarēsima > [kaˈreːzima] > *koriьzma > _korizma_ 'lent'. So we only need a language (be it a Romance variety or a different language, which mediated the loanword to Slavic) where there was no allophonic length in stressed open syllables, so that acētum > [aˈketu] with a short [e], in order to explain ocьtъ.


----------



## ahvalj

In the source I have checked the Dalmatian changes _ę>i_ and _ẹ>i_ are regarded as having occurred in the early Romance period, so that in the 6th century they were completed. Not the diphthongization of course. Do you think this rising of both stressed _e_'s in the open syllables postdated the Slavic invasion or Illyria?

Concerning the substitution you mention, it would be nice to have a list of occurrences. So far those figuring in this thread are the only ones I know: in the vast majority of cases Slavic has _*e>e, *ē>ě_ or _*ī>i,_ virtually never _*i>ь,_ which makes these words peculiar and unexplained.

Speaking of Romance source, it is important that the velar is _*k_ or _*ʦ,_ and it, _-s-_ and _-t-_ are not voiced (so that _križь<*kro:ʤe<crucem_ comes from another, Gallo-Italian source, as we discussed elsewhere). _E>i_ also seems to exclude Daco-Romance. So, we are confined to this gap between Venice and, say, Niš. Taking into account that the Romance speech was wiped out everywhere except coastal areas, and Slavs almost certainly acquired these words at the Danubian boundary (for them to penetrate to the common Slavic vocabulary), we will probably have no answer before Romance inscriptions of those inland areas are found, which may never happen.


----------



## Zec

I wish I had the books at home, alas, they're in Zagreb. The one where I picked these loanwords from I can pick up on my next visit, the one where I got my version of the history of Dalmatian from I can't: the library I borrowed it from is closed due to the damage from the earthquake.

The book on Dalmatian explained the change _ę>i_ this way: first, the usual change _ę > ie_ happened. Then, _ie_ > _i_ in open syllables and _ie_ > _ia_ in closed syllables. This is how it happened in Vegliot, we don't have enough Ragusan words to see whether it happened there as well. The change _ẹ>i_ (via _ei_?) on the other hand is Ragusan. In Vegliot, the development is rather complicated: in open syllables, _ẹ> ai_ (via _ei_?), in syllables closed by_ r_,_ ẹ> ia_ (via merger with _ę_?) In other closed syllables, _ẹ> a_ (via schwa?)_. _I can't be sure of the author's opinion, but my gut reaction is that in the 6th century the changes shouldn't have progressed further than _ ę > ie_, _ẹ_ > _ei_.

(A note on Vegliot palatalzation: the palatalization is late, apparently only happens before high vowels (e.g. _cēnāre_ > _kenur,_ _cimicem_ > _cinco_ this also explains _acētum_ > _acait_), and postdates the various vowel changes of Vegliot. Loanwords into Slavic either show no palatalizaition at all, or what certainly must be the second Slavic palatalization, likely depending on the time of the borrowing, e.g. _cicerem_ > _cacar_ but _cimicem > kimak_ (also shows unstressed _e_ > *ь > _a_!), it's logical that a word for a local vegetable would be borrowed earlier than the word for the bedbug. An interesting word is _cūlum_ > _čoil, _which seems to indicate this sequence of changes: _u_ > _y_ > _øy _> _oi_, palatalization likely happening during the stage _y_)


----------



## ahvalj

Just for synchronization, my source (a Russian book overviewing and contrasting changes from Latin to various Romance dialects across all the Latin-speaking area) suggests (with further references) the following for the open syllables:
Pre-Slavic stage (late Empire) — _u>ü, ẹ>i, ǫ>ọ_
Early Slavic period (5–6th centuries) — _i>ei, ü>öü, u>ou,_ their place occupied by _e>i_ and _o>u, a>o_
Venetian period (since the 9th century) —_ ei>ai, öü>oi, ou>au, o>u_
(it's unclear to me when _ae>ę_ became _i_ from those schemes).

Thus, diphthongization is regarded as postdating _ẹ>i_.

What about _ʦ_ vs. _ʧ:_ is it dialectally distributed? What's the origin of _sil_? Anyway, for Slavic the retained _k_ is OK of course.

P. S. Again, this all is coastal Dalmatian, which is only of reference interest in our case, as some indication of what happened with Latin at the Danube boundary.


----------



## Zec

Thank you for providing this information! Your book seems to be at adds with mine, and at a first glance mine seems more trustworthy (as an example, you book implies _ẹ >_ _i_ > _ei_ > _ai_, i.e. an early merger of _ẹ_ and _i_. But the difference between _acētum_ > _acait_, no palatalization and *cocīna > _cočaina_, palatalization, rather implies a late diphthongization of _i_ > _ei_ which merged with the already existing _ei_ < _ẹ_ from an earlier diphthongization, as it is clear palatalization happens before _i_ but not before _e_. Later _ei_ of either origin becomes _ai_) - but as I said I'm unable to read it atm.

Concerning _ʦ_ vs. _ʧ_, this certainly is due to interdialectal borrowing, maybe even from Venetian rather than another Dalmatian dialect. Vegliot was full of Venetian loanwords.


----------



## ahvalj

I have often encountered the statement that Dalmatian Latin palatalized _k_ before _i_ and not before _e,_ so this might explain _cočaina _vs. _acait: _the outcomes of _k_ would have been distinct since the early Roman times. Though I don't insist: I have never read anything serious about Dalmatian, so I can't evaluate this scenario.


----------



## Zec

ahvalj said:


> I have often encountered the statement that Dalmatian Latin palatalized _k_ before _i_ and not before _e,_ so this might explain _cočaina _vs. _acait: _the outcomes of _k_ would have been distinct since the early Roman times. Though I don't insist: I have never read anything serious about Dalmatian, so I can't evaluate this scenario.



Indeed, if Vegliot palatalization is related to the Common Romance palatalization, being a restricted version of the latter, then the scenario in which _ẹ >_ _i_ early, but later than the Common Romance palatalization, would explain _acait_ vs. _cočaina_. However, as this palatalization seems to have only happened in Vegliot (there may have been other dialects which also had this palatalization, but there were certainly dialects which didn't, as loanwords into Slavic indicate), it is not at all certain that it is related to the Common Romance palatalization, instead of being a later, separate development. Ideally we should examine how various toponyms were spelled in Medieval texts, as many of them are attested in their Dalmatian instead of or alongside their Slavic form.

Edit: I found some medieval toponyms. Constantine Porphyrogenitus generally distinguishes Romance _ọ_  <ο>/<ω> and _u_ <ου>, although he does have _Ὰλβούνου_ for Albona, today Labin. Very interesting is his writing of both Dalmatian and Slavic  version of the town Aenona, today Nin: _ἥ Νόνa_ and _ἥ Νίνa_. As for Latin documents, the above-mentioned Cissa, today Caska, appears in addition to its original Latin version _Cissa_ also as _Chissa_, _Kissa_, _Chessa_ and _Kessa_. Versions with _e_ may speak agains an early change _ẹ >_ _i_, unless the vaccilation _i_ ~ _e_ was supposed to represent schwa. Pag is rather close to Krk, but who knows how the local dialect of Dalmatian developed.


----------



## Awwal12

ahvalj said:


> _греча/grʲeča<*gričjā_ in Russian


A minor correction: "греча" is usually considered a St.Petersburg regionalism, otherwise it's normally "гречка" in Standard Russian, with the suffix.


----------



## Tizona

ahvalj said:


> As to the foreign and metaphorical use, I think one of the motivations is the existence of a particular and short term specific for a certain country.





Perseas said:


> At least in Greek, "tsáros" is used metaphorically to denote a politician with absolute power on a section, eg. the Greek minister of the economy is often called "tsar of the economy".



Not sure if this adds anything to the discussion but same thing in Spanish (el zar antidrogas / anticorrupción), English (drug czar) and Italian (lo zar antidroga / anticorruzione).


----------



## symposium

"Zar" is only employed by Italian media, apart from its proper use, to describe an eminent or very powerful Russian man: nowadays it's the common nickname of Vladimir Putin and of Russian-born Italian volleyball player Ivan Zaytsev.


----------

