Argentine Netherlands

Were going to reply to one of the posts but a longer note is in order.  First, thanks for the note on “isep”.  Second, you are, of course, right.

Thus, for example: “que inter fluuium Viszla et dictam lacum nyeczecza cum insulis vulgariter yspy” (from March 16, 1468):

Note isep or ispa is still Slavic with a clear meaning (wysep, nasyp, etc) as in sypać, that is to “spill” or “pour” or “strew” pieces of a solid substance (like grains of sand).  Brückner derives all of these from suć (also noting Lithuanian/Old Prussian supis and Latin supare).

For that matter note the English “dissipate” (see you found that too) which the Online Etymology Dictionary pronounces as coming from Latin:

“early 15c., from Latin dissipatus, past participle of dissipare “to spread abroad, scatter, disperse; squander, disintegrate,” from dis- “apart” (see dis-) + supare “to throw, scatter,” from PIE *swep- “to throw, sling, cast” (source also of Lithuanian supu “to swing, rock,” Old Church Slavonic supo “to strew”). Related: Dissipateddissipatesdissipating.”

Note also the Latin variations suposuparesupavisupatus.  This is defined as “pour”, “strew”, “scatter”, “throw” as per the highly authoritative (:-)) Latin Dictionary which states its age as “unknown”.

As Boryś describes it, it is land “surrounded on ALL sides” by water.  So if one thinks “ostrow” (which, as noted, it does not) implies a river island he can look to the Slavic isep or ispa for any island.

So was Meillet not aware of this?

What Else Can One Do With This?

On this topic, check out “Słownik historyczno-geograficzny ziem polskich w średniowieczu” for a village (still there apparently) “Isep”.  Now that seems to have been first recorded as “yssep” in 1462 (?).

Meillet in that article could not place insula into any Indo-European bucket.  And yet, above we have a Slavic/Baltic etymology.

Does insula have anything to do with the above Slavic yssep?

Not clear but if you want to get closer…

In the Netherlands we have the river IJssel (a part of the Rhine).  In West Flemish this river is also spelled Yssel.  Now the name of this river may relate to the Proto IE root *eis- “to move quickly” as in the Polish jazda (“ride”).  Although, it may just mean the “flowing” or passage of water/time  (as in the word yesterday) or may relate to being in Indo-European (“is” “its” “jest“) or elsewhere 

But the Yssel was also spelled IslaIsala.  So maybe the river was named after its islands?

(But compare Ister, Saal, Solawa/Soława).  (For more on potential Slavic signs in the Netherlands see here and here).

For a real brain teaser, check out the “Arte, y vocabulario de la lengua Lule, y Tonocotè” by Antonio Machoni where we find the following definition (at least one of them) of the Spanish word isla in the Argentine Lule languageA to yesitip.

Now all that remains is to connect the Lule to the Sami Lule, then to the River Lule and onwards full circle to Lulajże, Jezuniu (since Jesus’ name, as well as its Hebrew variant Yehoshua, may well have Old European roots that take it back to the ancient Esus/Ister (a lord > don > (Slovene) donava (the Lord’s river? :-)).  Note too that Ister (“Illyrian”?) as well as the Old Greek version of Ister – Ístros – has the same etymology as “stream” or, for that matter ostrow).

And we have not even gotten to Ispania yet… All you have to recall is our discussion of the Pyrenee name.  For signs of Slavs in Spain see here.  Spain’s name is supposedly Phoenician.  But if there is a link between the Phoenicians and the Veneti, maybe the Veneti thought Spain to be an island  even though it turns out to be more of a peninsula?

And one other thing: although półwysep (peninsula) has been declared a creation from the German (Halbinsel), note that there seems little proof of that.  The problem with the German-Slavic comparisons (or for that matter Latin-German) is that the German literary language preceded Slavic and Latin preceded German.  Thus, the “earlier” attested word will inevitably appear in the earlier literary language.  That, however, can only be a proof of that earlier written appearance.  It is, of course, not proof that the later appearing word – even if constructed in the same fashion – is just a translation of the earlier appareling one.  One could just as easily claim the opposite (that Halbinsel is a translation of półwysep).  We don’t do that because the bias is to assume, given two similar constructs, that the German one is the earlier (same with Latin German going the other way).  In the end, absent direct evidence of a translation, all we can talk about is when some words appeared in some languages’ literary tradition.

A similar complaint may be raised about saying that some word is “only attested” since [12]th century.  This may, of course, be true but that should not be taken to mean that that word was not in existence prior to that time.  This is particularly true with Slavic languages where the literary tradition is not old but no one would claim that we know nothing of Slavic before the 9th/10th century when first Slavic written records appear.

Copyright ©2017 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

February 25, 2017

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *