** This thread discusses the Content article: Slav - Slave **

This is pure hypotesis probably started because the west connects the words SLAVES and SLAVS (English) or SCHIAVI and SLAVI (Italian) and so on. But if you look at the actual words for Slavs in Slavic languages you will see that it is Slovani (Slovenia), Sloveni (Serbia), Slovania (Slovakia), Słowianie (Poland), Slované (Chech) and only some languages has the word Slaveni (or similar) which may have a similar sound to the word Slaves.
You should also check about the history of settlements of Slavic people during the Greek and Roman era and you will see your statements are wrong. The Slavic people started to move west to the areas where we now live only after 550 AD. If you check for example the history of Slovenes you will see that we moved here only in 6th century and at the time we were still settlers who moved around a lot. In 7th century Slovenes founded it's first state Carantania in the area of today's Slovenia and today's Austria. Only later Slovenes came under the rule of Germanic people. In the west this part of history of this territory is very "cloudy", partly because Austrians object it. But they are wrong and they know it.
Also the connections you make between words in different Slavic languages (like OTROK) can not tell you a lot since there are so many same words in different Slavic languages that have completely different meanings. LETO = Slovenian "year", Serbian "summer" , VREME = Slovenian "weather" , Serbian "time" and so on and so on.
Therefore your statements can be just assumptions.

Marko,
agreed in some parts of your commentary. It is of course impossible to judge on only few words. Though to some extent you may have missed the point of the article.
Clearly there is a dispute to the Pripyatian origin of Sclavenes, so there is a starting disagreement between your and authors thinking I guess

But nevertheless thanks for you commentary. I appreciate peaceful debate ...

The paradigm of "Sixth Century A.D. Slavic Tribes' "explosion" from the very compact area of Pripyat River marshes (latter day Chernobyl Community) onto to the expansive territory of Western Eurasia represents a very flawed logic. It is not likely that the population density of Pripyat River marches in 500 A.D. could have approached that of contemporary Singapore. Any arguments based on this proposition are similarly defective. The "self-descriptive" term "Word-User" (Cz. SLOVane) and its many local variants "Slovani", "SloVeneti", "SloWendisch", "Uenetoi", Etc. testify to very ancient and very extensive autochthonous territory of the Slavic agrarian continuum. Historical references support the fact that Greek, Roman, Arabian Turko-Tatar and other peoples around the periphery of the Slavic territory regularly captured, purchased, traded, exported such Slav(e)s. In America during the years of slave trade an often used reference to a Black Slave was "Guinea" the embarkation point for the labor force in the colonies. Just as Guinea became the generic term for Blacks who may have come from the interior of Africa so, also, Slav is (evidently) the generic source of of ALL subsequently enslaved people regardless of their ethnicity.

These are all assumptions again. I don't have not even nearly enough knowledge about the subject to be able to go against your claims. So my point was just that analysing the connection between some words in different Slavic languages and comparing them to the western words for same doesn't prove much.
And Petr, you are comparing something that is worlds and centuries appart.
And finally, Slovene word for "SLAVE" is "SUŽENJ". Can you connect that one with "SLAVE" or "SKLAV" or "ROB" or "OTROK" or anything else?

Marko:


My opinion is that there is no need to look for the Slovenian version of this word, since it is has a perfect sense to look for exonyms as preserved in all neighbouring languages.

Interesting link: www.slideshare.net/mmitrovic2/defense-new-2-june

and: morenom.wordpress.com/linguistcs-the-com...we-of-language/hasc/

So you suggest to look only at the selected languages and selected words (or should I say potential exonyms) that can prove your theory and discard the others that can prove against it?
So assumptions again.

Souz`eni is the Czech word for misery, pathos, depression, suffering (usually chronic)

Marko lets first clear things up. There is no theory I of my own, there are only few research papers I wrote and there is this paper you commented, written by Mr. Jandáček, which is marked as popular scientific.
Editorial of Veneti.info is not responsible for every claim an author makes - it is up to him to defend his paper.
So that is why I only helped in this conversation with a proposal on better understanding of the situation.

I do not now any others proving exactly against what I wrote above. It is clear that Slavs were enslaved (let's for now take away the parameter of "in which period" this happened). And it is obvious were this Latin word came from - not from the Slavic one, but from their designation of these people. So it is irrelevant whether the word SUŽENJ has any connection to the Latin one.

My opinion I that theory is a product of “Berlin school” that has provided the basic ground for expansion to East. I would argue with following:

1. Is there any nation or group that during the history was not enslaved in great numbers? Check the Roman history!!!! After the conquest of Gallia how many killed and enslaved Celtic people Roman sources are counting? Then German tribes and different Roman generals!!! There was a massive business on Roman slave markets selling and buying them in great numbers. They were the major source of slaves in Roman time and this fact did not make their name. Middle East was the most organized environment and the enslaving was a practice after the conquest and after eventual rebellion was crushed. Therefore German and Celtic people were targeted for enslaving firstly because of logistic reasons. Slavs were a bit too far away and the crossing of German territories was not a good idea at all.
2. ROB, ROBOTA, OTROK are not euphemisms for slave as far as I can see. I am Montenegrin and I could quote some sentences that were used in old Montenegrin language that can put the theory under question. For example two friends meeting would ask: “Kako je tvoje robje? ”- meaning - how is your family. No one would call his family enslaved pople in Montenegro!!!!
Work was called RABOTA!!! This leads me to the conclusion that robje and rabota are workers and work (family worked together). Later ROB took the meaning of enslaved person when Slavs integrate in EU civilization. Before of that they did not knew the institution of slavery. The prisoner of war got his freedom immediately after the battle, or the ransom was asked for that person; or he had to work with the family because he killed the member of the family. Therefore there is the usage of different words that describe the POW as child or some kind of temporary member of the family.
3. It is quite silly to make theory that a nation would call themselves SERVUS or SERBS!!! This would be the only case in history!!! Srbija or Srbin can not be related to SERVUS or SERVIA – NO WAY. The only way is to accept that foreigners could not pronounce Slav words properly and they did tend to find the way to make the process easier.
I would rather concentrate to words SLOVO, SLAVA, SLOVITI……..

sergius napisal:
Is there any nation or group that during the history was not enslaved in great numbers? Check the Roman history!!!![/quote]

Do not forget that only Slavs have a name that reminds us on slavery. So is this a sign for their dominion in being subordinated?

I just read book Slovenci kdo smo? by Ivan Tomažič. He was quoting a book Blišč in beda slovenskega jezika. And he quoted that word sclave get a meaning of slave in 6th century. So there is possibility that word sclav (slave) is coming from word sloven and not contary. What is even more interesting is that word ciao (hello,..) is coming from word schiavo what means slav and slave as well. Well, what Italians are trying to tell with greeting ciao is "i am you slave" or "i am yours" what realy sound very politely. I respect your theory but contrey version is possible as well

One thing is for sure:
Schiavo (ščavo) = ciao
Schiavo = Slovan, Sloven

Everything else is a matter of interpretation.

I would say it is most probable, that the word Schiavo and Slav are just modern early Middleage constructs, derivated from a much older root *Slaven.

venet321 wrote:


I love this one . My surname is Schiavon and I can tell you this: I'm not your slave, I'M YOURS
CIAO

This worth translating in French -

Traduction de la citation ci-haut de venet321
"Je viens de lire le livre Slovenci kdo smo? by Ivan Tomažič. Il citait le livre Blišč in beda slovenskega jezika. Et il citait que le mot sclave signifiait slave au 6th siècle. Donc il y a une possibilité que le mot sclav (slave) wient d'un mot slovene et non le contraire. Ce qui est encore plus intéressant est que le mot ciao (Bonjour,..)vient du mot schiavo qui signifie slav et aussi slave . Donc, ce que les italiens essaient de dire en se saluant du mot ciao est "Je suis ton esclave" ou "je suis des vôtres" ce qui semble un peu plus correct."

J'adore ça. Mon nom de famille est Schiavon et je peux vous dire une chose je ne suis pas " votre esclave" je suis des vôtres.
Ciao

Marie,
thank you for joining.
Your website looks fine, I only have one remark:
You should be careful what the origin of the name Schiavone is concerned. The word originated in todays Italy and never Dalmatia or so (it is an exonym for sclavenic neighbours).
Also if you look at the origin of people with this name it would be right if you use that they were originaly Sclavenes, Slovenes etc. and not only Slavic or Slaven (those names are a construct of modern history).

You found as well their homeland in Slavonski brod in Croatia. Actually the whole part of Central Europe up to Slovakia used to be called in the same manner, so instead of seeking distant roots for origins of people with such surnames, I would rather seek them in their place before diaspora occured. If you look at toponyms like Valchiavenna (Chiavenna), Poschiavo, Schiavoniá, Schievenin, Schiavon, etc. you obviously see, that the name has deep roots in this territory. And yes, there were probably living some of the latest Sclavenes (Sloveni) to be assimilated. Probably it is them, from whom the Rhetoromansch and Ladin dialects remained as a memory of a melting process of their original language.

Theory or no theory - it does not matter. It is the only thing that makes sense so far.

Thank you for these precisions, I will keep that in mind and try not to mix the origin of the name and the ethnic roots, I sure do not want to start another world war , anyway it is interesting to explore all possibilities.

Hopefully I am helpful ...
As I stated above there is a connection between slavery, Sclaveni and the greeting ciao as you already seem to now. So keep up your research work.

Petr wrote:
I would like to complement Petr - you did not mention that "to serve" in Czech is "sloužiti", and the "servant" is "sluha" or "slouha" (older use).
It did not occur to me before that "služba" (service - usually one time feat or revolving assignment), sloužení (the act of serving) was related to "soužení" (worrying, anguish, distress, suffering).
Also, the closeness of these words even in other languages - EN trouble, FR travail, ES trabajo... and also to travel - as this is also connected to trouble and danger.

Urednik wrote:So Urednik clearly says that Latin word does not come from Slavic people, but from the word Romans used for "these people" - because at that time "those people" did not bear any name close to "Slavic" nor "Slovan".
Nevertheless Sergius wrote:I understand that Serbs called themselves Serbs (yet not Slavic) and from this the Romans called their "catch" "Servus". The word "sclavus" seems to appear for the first time (judging from what I read in many posts here and from what I vaguely know myself from other sources) in Latin, but might not be related to "servus" (nobody claims that).
Anyway, I would not wonder if it were Romans who indeed caused the shift of word Sclaveni from a particular (Slavic) tribe towards the meaning "slave", (the sources talk in this context about the Byzantine empire, which sprung from division of Rome empire).
We have a great analogy of Romans applying the name of a particular nation to their later status in Carthago: see the wikipaedia sources:What inspired me on this story was how (and this is all documented, so there is no reason for argument) Phoenic was changed in Latin to Punic (and perhaps also nowaday Tunis is just another form of this old name), and how the super-competitive Romans annihilated the town and enslaved its citizens in the most cruel and complete way possible (all buildings torn down and their fields filled with salt, making them unusable) - and ever since these dark times their nation's name still reverberates in language as distant as English, as its most common expression for PUNISHMENT. Romans PUNISHED the Puni! So, "Punic" equals "the punished one".
And seeing this word so far away from Carthago, becoming so universal - why could this not happen to "Sclavenes"?

What about Slovenian word "punt, puntar, puntati" (rebellion)?

I have no idea about that. I don't even know the real meaning of this Slovenian word. In Czech we have something similar, although I don't think it is in any vocabulary, the word is "spunktovat" and the meaning is actually closer to conspire, pack (like to make a pact with someone) or plot. I don't think actually. I believe it got to English because they were so readily borrowing from Latin.

" other languages - EN trouble, FR travail, ES trabajo... and " you dont remember our old word TRÁPENIE ?

Urednik, equivalent of Slovenian word "punt,puntati" in slovak language is very similar -BUNT, BUNTOVAŤ", but not very often use and slowly this word dead in our language.

Sergius wrote : " After the conquest of Gallia how many killed and enslaved Celtic people Roman sources are counting? Then German tribes and different Roman generals!!! "

Well, you maybe will be right , if we think that Germans, Celts Gals nad others races you mean, was ONLY Germans , Gals ...If you have - like we Slovac say- "peasant sense" (sedliacky rozum) you must see clearly visible fakt- no one from this profesional fighters tribes cant live vithout "his" Slaves, his peasents. I think that 70-80 % of european citizens this times was Slavs - more or less slaves of agresive Slav x German , Slav x Gall, mixtures and Caucasuu tribes descendets...
Exists Saxtons - vikings historical evidence (very similar historical true wrote evidence from old Greece) how many slaves must have one Vikings famili for good live vithot problems.This mathematic was again very similar Grecs experiences. Every Athenian "free" citizen in mathematic average haeve from 8 -10 slaves. Include children, and old people... Same in Vikings villages.

"slav - slave"

then is also "Hungary - hungry/hungrich "?

this is so called western "history"...based on speculations and delusions, also taken from occult Yahwistic Toraic Scalingers Jesuit cabinet from 17. and 18. century (where hisTORy was rewritten and perverted) , later adopted through pan-German, roman, greek and Hebrew "historians" ...- nationalistic political machine (over 20. century AD)
when you ask those "illuminated scholars" how is it possible that Slavs (also called Veneti, Venedi, (V)Anti, Sclaboni, Savi, Sabi, Suebi,...), and also Balts still speak above 40% of Sanskrit, (when Hindus use bellow 20%) they do not know... (there exists no "proto-Slavic language " which is older than 7 - 11. century AD for western academia)

so called "western history" is more or less a hoax. Some few Slovene Venetologists came to this conclusion over reading Venetic (those which were still not assimilated into "italic" languages) inscriptions...

When you will ask Italian Venetologists or German or Greek - to give you Neuro lingual container for Venetic deity "TRIMUZIADI"... they will not know.

venet321 napisal:


That's cute. Like the English would say "At your service!" .