# -ones in demonyms



## Villeggiatura

-ones (-ονες) is quite often seen in classical demonyms: Ambrones,  Macedones,  Paeones, Paphlagones,  Santones,  Saxones,  Vangiones...
An alternative form of _Gothi_ is _Gothones_, and an exonym for _Deutsch/Teutsch_ is _Teutones._
Why is -ones so widespread?


----------



## Nino83

The suffix -ones is not only used in demonyms, but it is a general suffix in Latin.
See, for example _pedone < pede(m) + onis_ (_pedestrian_ from _foot + onis_), _peón, peão, pion_ (in Spanish, Portuguese, French).


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> but it is a general suffix in Latin


_-o, -onis
-ones is _nominative and accusative plural.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> _-o, -onis
> -ones is _nominative and accusative plural.



_Pedone_ derives from Vulgar Latin _pedone_, i.e _ped(em) + one(m)_, _peones_ (accusative plural), it didn't exist in Classical Latin, where there was _pedes, peditis_.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> _Pedone_ ... it didn't exist in Classical Latin


Indeed not, but then _pedone _isn't the word the thread is about.


----------



## Nino83

True. Anyway the meaning of the suffix is more or less the same in Classical and post-Classical Latin, i.e to form nouns from verbs and from other nouns (some contemporary example: _piacere_, to like > _piacione_ > a person who tries to make himself liked/loved by other persons; _naso_, nose > _nasone_ > a person with a big nose).
As you can see, the meaning and the function (to form a noun agent from a verb and to form nickames from other nouns) are the same in Classical Latin and in Italian.

It seems to me that for demonyms it has a similar (the same) meaning, denoting some people.


----------



## ahvalj

«Этот cтих вполне приемлем и в русском языке» ©
_село — селяне_ (<*_selı̯ōnes_)
_поле — поляне_ (<*_polı̯ōnes_)

The suffix _en/on_ was widespread since PIE times for various nouns characterized by some action (*_pleu̯mōn_ "swimmer, floater">"lung": Sanskrit _klomā_, Greek _πλεύμων_, Latin _pulmō_) or character (Greek _πλατύς_ "broad" → _Πλάτων_ "Plato", Gothic _fisks_ "fish" → _fiskja_ "fisher"). The tribal names were most often coined after some characteristic feature or location (East Slavic: _бѹжане, велыняне, деревлꙗне, полочане, поморꙗне_), and the semantics of this _en/on_-type was ideal for that.

PIE knew several declension subtypes of the _en_-nouns, the most widespread was the one with the alternation of _en/on/n_, partly preserved e. g. in Gothic:
Nom. Sg. _guma_ "man, _homō_" < *_dʰgʲʰm̥ōn_
Gen. Sg. _gumins_ < *_dʰgʲʰm̥enos_
Dat. Sg. _gumin_ < *_dʰgʲʰm̥eneı̯_
Acc. Sg. _guman_ <*_dʰgʲʰm̥onm̥ _[for Nino83: yes, PIE was not Italian]

Nom. Pl. _gumans_ < *_dʰgʲʰm̥ones_
…​
What we find in tribal names is this Nom. Pl. -_ones_ (as e. g. in Greek) or sometimes -_ōnes_ with _ō_ generalized from Nom. Sg. (as e. g. in Latin and Slavic).


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> _село — селяне_ (<*_selı̯ōnes_)
> _поле — поляне_ (<*_polı̯ōnes_) ...


 Does this -_яне _really correspond etymologically to the Latin _-o_ (_-onis, -one, -onem ..._)?

At the first glance I'd suppose that -_*я*не_ is rather cognate of the Latin _-[a]nus _(as in _Romanus_). I understand that this -_яне _causes the palatalization of the previous consonant e.g. in case of _селяне (< село)_, so it  doesn't seem to be a "simple" _-*a*не. _However, this is not the case of _поляне_, where the _-л-_ in _пол*е* _is already palatal because of other reasons, not because of the "hidden" _*i*_ in -_яне (< *-ı̯ōnes)._

Only for illustration: if I had to create spontaneously the corresponding words in Slovak, I should invent *_po*ľ*ania_, but *_se*l*ania _(or perhaps even *_sed*l*ania, _in case the suffix _-lo_ in _selo _comes from a former -_dlo_).

(This is a question, not a contradiction to what you have written).


----------



## ahvalj

francisgranada said:


> Does this -_яне _really correspond etymologically to the Latin _-o_ (_-onis, -one, -onem ..._)?
> 
> At the first glance I'd suppose that -_*я*не_ is rather cognate of the Latin _-[a]nus _(as in _Romanus_). I understand that this -_яне _causes the palatalization of the previous consonant e.g. in case of _селяне (< село)_, so it  doesn't seem to be a "simple" _-*a*не. _However, this is not the case of _поляне_, where the _-л-_ in _пол*е* _is palatal because of other reasons. Only for illustration: if I had to create spontaneously the corresponding words in Slovak, I'd invent _po*ľ*ania_, but _se*l*ania_.
> 
> (This is a question, not a contradiction to what you have written).


Slavic has actually an alternation _ěn/ʲan_ (_slověne/slovʲane_), which can only be explained from _*-(ı̯)ēn-/-ı̯ōn-_ (the latter variant sometimes replacing the former, since _slovʲane _in East Slavic is phonetically impossible, must have been **_slovļane_, cp. _derevļane; _actually, East Slavic has both _slovʲane_ "Slavs" and _slověne _"Novgorod Slovenes"). The yotation before _-ʲan- _is mandatory in Old East Slavic:
_Мѣньскъ — мѣнꙗне/měnʲane
Пиньскъ — пинꙗне/pinʲane
Смольньскъ — смольнꙗне/smolьnʲane
Кѹрьскъ — кѹрꙗне/kurʲane
Полотьскъ — полочане/poloʨane
Витьбьскъ — витьблꙗне/vitьbļane
Римъ — римлꙗне/rimļane
Аѳины — аѳинꙗне/aθiņane
Иѥрѹсалимъ — иѥрѹсалимлꙗне/ijerusalimļane
Вавѵлонъ — вавѵлонꙗне/vavüloņane
анъглꙗне/anъgļane._

In modern Russian we also find:
_Волга — волжане
Вологда — вологжане
Прага — пражане
Рига — рижане.
_
*P. S.* There actually one more moment: -_ānus_ is a thematic stem, corresponding to the Slavic -_anъ_ (e. g. in _velikanъ_), and its counterparts in other IE languages are thematic as well, whereas _-ěne/-ʲane_ belong to athematic stems (Latin -_iōnēs_). There is even an archaic Old Czech Loc. Pl. _Dolas_ (from _Dolané,_ spelled _Dolaz_) and _Planas_ (from _Plaňané_) attested, one of the few traces of the PIE _-su _ending with its -_s_- preserved (Old East Slavic has athematic forms with the newer _x:_ _poļaxъ_).


----------



## ahvalj

An addition to the examples in the previous post: I've learned today that inhabitants of the city _Старая Русса/Staraya Russa _(which is about 1000 years old) are called _ру*ш*ане_ (with yotation).


----------



## sotos

-ones is the suffix in plural. The singular is -on (-ων) and comes as a suffix to people from a cauntry with the suffix -onia, or vice versa. -ων is a common suffix of greek participles, male singular (e.g. ομιλώ > ομιλών). It seems that it was sounding OK for demonyms, too. However, while the female of the participle is -ousa, the female of the demonym is usually -onis or -on.


----------



## ahvalj

sotos said:


> -ones is the suffix in plural. The singular is -on (-ων) and comes as a suffix to people from a cauntry with the suffix -onia, or vice versa. -ων is a common suffix of greek participles, male singular (e.g. ομιλώ > ομιλών). It seems that it was sounding OK for demonyms, too. However, while the female of the participle is -ousa, the female of the demonym is usually -onis or -on.


Do you think the tribal names_ Ambrones, Paeones, Paphlagones, Santones, Saxones, Vangiones, Gothones _and _Teutones _mentioned by the topic starter should be explained from the Greek sources?

*Update. *I understand that all of them are attested in classical sources, so their sounding was adjusted to those of Greek and Latin. But at least for the Germanic ones we have the actual _n_-declension nouns attested:
_Saxōnēs_ — Late Common Germanic *_saxsō_, Old High German_ sahso_, Old English _seaxa_ (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Saxon#Etymology)
_Gothōnēs_ — Late Common Germanic *_gutō_, Norse_ goti_, Old English _gota, goþa _(https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goth#Etymology)
_
Teutōnēs_ lacks an exact Germanic counterpart, but the word itself must not necessarily have been Germanic: if still Germanic, it was borrowed into Latin early, which is suggested by the preservation of both _t_ (later Germanic has *_þeu̯đ-, _cp. Gothic _þiudans_ "king", cp. also Lithuanian _tauta_ "people", Oscan _touto _"people", Illyrian _Teuta _[personal name], Gaulish _Teutomatus _[personal name]), but otherwise it may have been early Celtic (judging from the preservation of _eu̯_) or other western Indo-European.


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> ... There is even an archaic Old Czech Loc. Pl. _Dolas_ (from _Dolané,_ spelled _Dolaz_) and _Planas_ (from _Plaňané_) attested, one of the few traces of the PIE _-su _ending with its -_s_- preserved ...


This is interesting. The form _Dolas _appers also in the supposedly oldest (1201-1230) sentence documented in Czech language:
_
Pauel dal geſt ploſcoucih zemu. Wlah dal geſt *dolaſ *zemu bogu i ſuiatemu ſcepanu ſe duema duſnicoma bogucea a ſedlatu.
_
Translitterated_:

Pavel dal jest Ploskovicích zemju Vlach dal jest Dolás zemju bogu i svjatému Ščepánu se dvěma dušníkoma, Bogučeja a Sedlatu.
_
But I still don't understand something: if _dolás_ was a locative plural from _dolané, _then why _*-ás*_ and not  for example _*-ús*_? (see e.g. the actual _husa, houba, pavouk,_ etc ... after the denasalisation)
_
_


----------



## ahvalj

francisgranada said:


> This is interesting. The form _Dolas _appers also in the supposedly oldest (1201-1230) sentence documented in Czech language:
> _
> Pauel dal geſt ploſcoucih zemu. Wlah dal geſt *dolaſ *zemu bogu i ſuiatemu ſcepanu ſe duema duſnicoma bogucea a ſedlatu.
> _
> Translitterated_:
> 
> Pavel dal jest Ploskovicích zemju Vlach dal jest Dolás zemju bogu i svjatému Ščepánu se dvěma dušníkoma, Bogučeja a Sedlatu.
> _
> But I still don't understand something: if _dolás_ was a locative plural from _dolané, _then why _*-ás*_ and not  for example _*-ús*_? (see e.g. the actual _husa, houba, pavouk,_ etc ... after the denasalisation)


Meillet (_Мейе А · 2001 · Общеславянский язык:_ 339–340 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJTVpnVVZEVDVBcG8) compares the absence of -_n_- in the Plural -_m_-cases with the analogous situation in Gothic (_atta_ "father" — Nom. Pl. _attans_, Dat. Pl. _attam_ [I would also add the feminine declension: _qino_ "woman" — Nom. Pl. _qinons, _Dat. Pl. _qinom_]). For Slavic, Meillet cites: 
Dat. Pl., the Old Serbian _гоморѣмъ_ (vs. the Old Church Slavonic _гоморѣнемъ_),_ грађамь,_ Slovene _goričam,_ Old East Slavic _вавилонꙗмъ;_
Instr. Pl., the Old Serbian _дубровчами,_ medieval Chakavian _граѣми,_ Slovene _goričami, _Old East Slavic _полꙗми; _
Loc. Pl., Old Serbian _грађахь_, medieval Czech _grižah, _Slovene _goričah, _Old East Slavic _полꙗхъ, _Old Czech _doljas._​So, it appears that in the _*ōn_-stems this -_n_- disappeared before -_m-_ (assimilation?) and (analogously?) before *_-su, _and that may have been an old phenomenon since it occurs also in Germanic (in both _-en/on/n-_ and _-ōn-_ stems). Meillet also suggests that the Loc. Pl. -_a_- in Old East Slavic, Old Czech and Chakavian may have been phonetical (_*jans>*jęs>jas _[like in the soft _ā_-declension: Old Church Slavonic Acc. Pl. _zmьję, zemļę, dušę_]), while being analogous in Old Serbian and Slovene.


----------



## francisgranada

Thank you, Ahvalj.

If I understand correctly, _Dolas _in the sentence "_Wlah dal geſt dolaſ zemu bogu i  ſuiatemu ſcepanu ſe duema duſnicoma bogucea a ſedlatu"_ is a toponym in locative case, i.e. a demonym used to denote a settlement/geographic area (or something like this).

If so, then the modern Czech translation could be "_Vlach dal v *Dolanech *zemi bohu i svatému Štěpánu se dvěmi duchovními ...". _However, according to the source where I found this sentence (many years ago and I have no link) the translation is "_Vlach dal v *Dolási* zemi bohu i svatému Štěpánu se dvěmi duchovními ..." _(as if _Dolas _were an indeclinable toponym or as if there where a "typo" in this form).


----------



## ilocas2

francisgranada said:


> "_Vlach dal v *Dolanech *zemi bohu i svatému Štěpánu se dvěmi duchovními, Bogučeje a Sedlatu"_
> 
> "_Vlach dal v *Dolási* zemi bohu i svatému Štěpánu se dvěmi duchovními, Bogučeje a Sedlatu"_



These sentences are just grammatically wrong.


----------



## francisgranada

ilocas2 said:


> These sentences are just grammatically wrong.


 (I've eliminated the archaic forms _Bogučeje and Sedlatu _from  the translation in my previous post,  as they are not very clear to me and at the same time they are irrelevant from the point of view of the actual discussion. I've sent a private message to ilocas2.)


----------



## ahvalj

Concerning the loss of -_n_- in the _n_-stems, it is of course attested also in Lithuanian. Zinkevičius (_Zinkevičius Z · 1980 · Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. I: _245–246 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJX1p1SVJQMmRBcW8) mentions Old Lithuanian and dialectal Instr. Sg. _akm*em*i_ "with stone" (modern standard _akm*enim*i, _Old Church Slavonic _kam*enьm*ь_), _vand*em*i _"with water" (_vand*enim*i_), Instr. Pl. _akm*em*is_ (modern standard _akm*enim*is, _Old Church Slavonic _kam*enьm*i_), _vand*em*is_ (_vand*enim*is_). Since Old Lithuanian had also parallel forms of the Instr. Sg. _ses*erm*i_ "with sister" (modern standard _ses*erim*i_), Instr. Pl. _ses*ermi*s_ (_ses*erim*is_), it is clear that this _n_ had disappeared as the result of the assimilation _*nm>m_. In both Baltic and Slavic, the consonant declension was influenced by the _i_-type (partly because of the merger in the Acc. Sg. _*-in _< _-*im _& _*-m̥_ and Acc. Pl. *-_ins_ < _*-ins_ & _*-n̥s, _though in Latin the same influence [3rd declension] has a different source, since _-*m̥>-em_ didn't merge with -_im_), which explains the penetration of -_i_- and the residual character of _i_-less forms.

The Loc. Pl. -_ꙗхъ_ in Old East Slavic is attested e. g. in the following context:
_И по сихъ братьи держати почаша родъ ихъ княженье в пол*яхъ*, а в деревл*яхъ* свое, а дреговичи свое, а словѣни свое в Новѣгородѣ, а другое на Полотѣ, иже полочане._
(http://izbornyk.org.ua/pvllavr/pvllavr01.htm)
"And after these brothers, their kin began to rule in [=among] Polyanians, whereas in [=among] Derevlyanians there was their own rule, and Dregovichians had their own, and Slovenes had their own in Novgorod, and another one on Polota [river], those who are Polochanians".

The same excerpt also has one instance of the Instr. Pl. of the discussed type:
_А словеньскыи языкъ и рускыи одно есть, от варягь бо прозвашася русью, а первое бѣша словене; аще и поляне звахуся, но словеньскаꙗ рѣчь бѣ. Пол*ям*и же прозвани быши, зане в поли сѣдяху, а язык словенски един._
"And the Slavic language and the Russian one are the same, for they called themselves Rus after the Varangians, while originally they were Slavs; also they called themselves Polyanians, but their speech was Slavic. They were called Polyanians for they resided in the field, whereas [their] Slavic language is the same".


----------

