I ran across Letters of state written by Mr. John Milton, to most of the sovereign princes and republicks of Europe, from the year 1649, till the year 1659 and of course was particularly interested in the one to the ruler of Russia (presumably Aleksei Mikhailovich, since it’s dated 1657), which starts off resplendently:
Oliver Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, &c. To the most Serene aud Potent Prince and Lord, Emperor and great Duke of all Russia, sole Lord of Volodomaria, Moscow and Novograge, King of Cazan, Astracan and Syberia, Lord of Vobscow, great Duke of Smolensko, Tuerscoy, and other Places. Lord and great Duke of Novogrod, and the Lower Provinces of Chernigoy, Rezansco and others. Lord of all the Northern Climes; also Lord of Eversco, Cartalinsca, and many other Places.
Most of it was easy to decipher (Volodomaria = Vladimir, Novograge = Novgorod, etc.), but what on earth was “Vobscow”? Comparison with a similar but modernized list of titles gave me the key: it’s Pskov, which used to be Pleskov (Плѣсковъ) and “was historically known in English as Plescow.” I have no idea how Plescow turned up as Vobscow (bad handwriting?), but googling [Vobscow Pskov] gets no hits, so I’m guessing this is not commonly known, and I thought I’d put it out there for those who might be interested.
By the conventional order of the titles in Russian and by the word Lord, it must be Pskov:
…Московский, Киевский, Владимирский, Новгородский, царь Казанский, царь Астраханский, царь Сибирский, Государь Псковский и Великий князь Тверской, Югорский, Пермский, Вятский, Болгарский, и иных,
Exactly.
Of course. I just wanted to see how it looked in the original language, and for this specific Czar.
The original publication (1682) of these assembled letters (here) spells it Vobsco. There is a short note on the name under Plesco on p. 235 here, Allan H. Gilbert (1919) A geographical dictionary of Milton, with the remark that Vobsko, Vobsco, shows up in other English works of the era. Gilbert offers no explanation of the form or antecedents of Vobsco.
ѣ read as b?
The Vobskovians would be a great vaguely-comic name for a villainous-if-fictitious Slavic people, a little more subtle that the Pottsylvanians of Rocky and Bullwinkle or the Vulgarians of Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang.
It’s not metathesis exactly, but could some random Russian or pseudo-Russian preposition or particle have gotten attached to the difficult-for-Anglophones-to-grapple-with Pskov (or Bskov, if you like), thus rendering it more congruent with normal English phonotactics?
Vobsko, Vobsco, shows up in other English works of the era. Gilbert offers no explanation of the form or antecedents of Vobsco.
Curiouser and curiouser!
It’s not metathesis exactly, but could some random Russian or pseudo-Russian preposition or particle have gotten attached to the difficult-for-Anglophones-to-grapple-with Pskov (or Bskov, if you like), thus rendering it more congruent with normal English phonotactics?
But there was no “Pskov” back then — that was a later Russian simplification.
Hey, Xerîb, since you’re here, do you have any thoughts on tabby/tapia/tabique?
a later Russian simplification
are you sure? Russian wikipedia on the Pskov theory mentions that the simplified name is already attested in the 1300s, and became the literary norm in the 1400s.
Oh! No, I was obviously misremembering; thanks for the correction.
I am tempted to say that the weird English form came from geographic attribution “Vo Pskove”, but it’s a slippery slope of folk etymology of course
do you have any thoughts on tabby/tapia/tabique?
I just answered this..Or rather, I just sent a bunch of links to some useful reference works. So it has fallen into moderation. I hope they prove interesting. Maybe more later.
I am tempted to say that the weird English form came from geographic attribution “Vo Pskove”, but it’s a slippery slope of folk etymology of course
I’ll bet you’re right!
“Vo Pskove”
I thought about this explanation too, but the investigation began to take me into philological realms where I am not sure of my footing.
I also wonder, where are the intermediate forms like a German *Wobsko, or similar forms in Swedish, and Dutch, or in texts in Latin?
I hope someone follows up on this question.
The traditional German form was Pleskau. This may have been different in the 17th century, though.
Google Books snippet for ISBN:9788386726998 p.176 agrees with “Vo Pskove” and a similar story for Vo Tveri
Reprint of Onoma v.15 (1969) p.45
Опсков
Not sure how much value this has. What genre of folk poetry? What date?
@mollymooly, I spent 10 minutes trying to convince Google to show me this ISBN or Onoma v 15 and gave up for today:(
@LG, I read it exaclty as DP did.
Re: ISBN, just put the number into your search string, it’ll figure out
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%9C9788386726998+%22+In+Horsey%27s+memoirs+%22&sca_esv=a88d17ea90427281&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ADLYWILOFudqbH5hzb0jFCYL9y0B5sOoTA%3A1727995652153&ei=BB__ZvWRCZbIkPIPm-O60QE&ved=0ahUKEwj1o5S4pfOIAxUWJEQIHZuxLhoQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%E2%80%9C9788386726998+%22+In+Horsey%27s+memoirs+%22&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIijigJw5Nzg4Mzg2NzI2OTk4ICIgSW4gSG9yc2V5J3MgbWVtb2lycyAiMgUQIRirAkjmGFC4FVi4FXABeACQAQCYAUWgAYgBqgEBMrgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAZgCAqACS5gDAIgGAZIHATKgB7UD&sclient=gws-wiz-books
Prokofiev reworked his soundtrack score for Eisenstein’s _Alexander Nevsky_ movie* as a standalone cantata suitable for concert-hall performance (Op. 78), and the cantata’s seven movements include one titled Крестоносцы во Пскове and another titled Въезд Александра во Псков. I assume without knowing that in Russian as in Latin there are certain prepositions that can take more than one case, with some shade of semantic difference depending on the case of the following noun?
*Presumably if St. Alexander Nevsky could be artistically portrayed as Stalin-compatible he could also be portrayed as Milton-compatible although perhaps not via the exact same approach.*
@DP, (and mollymooly) thanks!
My mistake then:(
I did exactly that but after some superficial examination of “Historical and comparative lexicology…” decided -mistakenly – that it is a wrong book:(
@JWB, yes, “in” and “on” take accusative or prepositional case (which I in this case call “locative”, I don’t like its usual name “prepositional”), “behind/beyond” accusative or instrumental (again in locative meaning).
ACC is derictional: to, into, onto – and with “behind” it refers to movement to some place beyond an obstacle.
po, “along, across” is anomalous, I recently wrote about that.
v “in” becomes vo sometimes.
Formerly it is въ, with a short vowel which, depending on context become weaker (and was dropped) or stronger (and turned into o).
So: ь in Пьсков fell out because the next syllable contains a normal vowel (/o/).
ъ in въ became /о/ because in the next syllable of the same phonological word a short vowel was dropped.
The “most serene and potent” phrasing seems to have been reasonably common in the 17th century and was used by the Restoration regime after the usurper regime Milton served fell from power, e.g. “Articles of alliance and commerce between the most serene and potent prince Charles II, by the grace of God king of Great Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the faith &c., and the most serene and potent prince Christian V, by the grace of God king of Denmark, Norway &c. / concluded at Copenhagen the 11th day of July, 1670.” It seems to become quite rare in new usage (as opposed to quotations or republications of old treaties etc.) after the decease of Good Queen Anne (on whose watch Peace of Utrecht was concluded, at least insofar as it related to the UK), although one can find a handful of uses in reference to George I. Interestingly enough, there’s a lack of symmetry in a 1718 Truce concluded between “the most serene and potent Prince George, King of Great Britain, &c. and the most powerful and noble Prince Muley Ismael, &c.,” the latter reference being to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Ibn_Sharif.
Do you mean to tell me that Queen Anne is dead? Great heavens!
“Despite 17 pregnancies, she died without surviving issue.”
She died trying.
You have to admit that a syllable onset of [psk] is quite a mouthful. The vo- eases that a bit; it was my first guess as well. Googling for во пскове reveals some confusion as to whether it’s в or во in this case.
Etymologically, it should be vo, as drasvi explained, but my impression is that in contemporary Russian, the forms with “o” (this variation also exists for other prepositions, e.g., s/so “from; with”) are on retreat and kept mostly in fixed environments, leading to the variation Lars describes.
Prokofiev reworked his soundtrack score for Eisenstein’s …
Hooray for the Hattery and hooray for the rabbit-holes it sends me down!
Great movie. Did get the Stalin Prize 1941.
The same Pavlenko who was involved in Mandelstam’s arrests (both in 1934 and 1938)?
King of the perennial holly-groves, the riven sandstone: overlord of the M5: architect of the historic rampart and ditch, the citadel at Tamworth, the summer hermitage in Holy Cross: guardian of the Welsh Bridge and the Iron Bridge: contractor to the desirable new estates: saltmaster: moneychanger: commissioner for oaths: martyrologist: the friend of Charlemagne.
‘I liked that,’ said Offa, ‘sing it again.’
(opening words of Mercian Hymns, by Geoffrey Hill)
@ulr: Yep, same dude. He was a nasty piece of work, smart but with an amoral total devotion to Stalinism.
“I am tempted to say that the weird English form came from geographic attribution “Vo Pskove””
Exactly my thoughts – a preposition prefixed to the name of the town.
ِConsider also this (from)
“Oh! No, I was obviously misremembering; thanks for the correction.”
From the same site.
The author is a guide (by profession) and historian (education), not a linguist. And he takes a side in the argument (is the name Finnish with inserted -l- after a labial (as in люблю) or Slavic?).
Nevertheless, it gives some idea of the argument, and there are scans of a couple of publications… both by historians, not linguists.
a preposition prefixed to the name of the town
Cf “Istanbul.”
Nevertheless, it gives some idea of the argument, and there are scans of a couple of publications… both by historians, not linguists.
Yes, very interesting, thanks.
Cf “Istanbul.”
Or Czech Cáchy from original “zu Aachen”.
@prase: Czech Cáchy from original “zu Aachen”
65 km jihozápadně od Kolína nad Rýnem says the WiPe, so it must be Aachen. But in what connection was a “c” prepended ? Running a section of the article through GT, I get this info about German “zu“:
#
The Czech name Aachen arose from the corruption of the combination “z Aachen”[3] or from the combination “ze âchen”, i.e. “at the water” or “at the springs”, where the older German preposition ze (today’s zu) was combined with the noun base .[4]
#
As to what “water” is doing in there, the German article on Aachen says to my TIL surprise:
#
Da Karl der Große seine Pfalz auf den Resten römischer Bäder gründete, darf das lateinische Wort aqua für „Wasser“ als Namensursprung angenommen werden. In lateinischen Texten des Mittelalters ist der Ort manchmal einfach als Aquae oder Aquis bezeichnet,[5] zunehmend aber als Aquisgrani. Daher wird vermutet, dass der antike Name *Aquae Granni lautete und der Ort nach einer dem keltischen Gott Grannus geweihten Quelle benannt ist.[6]
#
I guess article inclusion in borrowed names* is less unusual and interesting than preposition inclusion. But I like that anglicised Newry, Navan, include only the n of the Irish article An from An tIúr, An Uaimh.
*A character in Gaskell’s “North and South” speaks of visiting “Havre” rather than “Le Havre” (or “The Havre”).
Stu,
GT: (k, dnešní zu) > (today’s zu)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/k#Czech
https://cs.wiktionary.org/wiki/k
I also wonder, where are the intermediate forms like a German *Wobsko, or similar forms in Swedish, and Dutch, or in texts in Latin?
Wikipedia suggests current “Vopski liin (local Estonian)”
“Otfer” for Tver’ seems to have been used back in the day in English, German, and Italian.
Checking Wikipedia’s source for Pskov I find Opskova, Vopski liin, Vopski-linn, and Vopsku-linn, all from Estonia in the 1890s, so not all that current.
“What genre of folk poetry? What date?”
@Xerîb (when I forget to switch to English I type your name as Чук:ши. Long k: is kkool. Recembles Engish Chukchi (in Russian it’s the plural)
Just in case, Vasmer’s reference with a collection of other examples:
GB (with OCR), another site (better quality).
It is common for Russians to remember two versions of their nicknames, one when they forget to switch langauge:)
But I have no idea what is drasvi: my browser remembers it.
so….
вкфымш
Hm. Recembels Вуглускр (from “в углу скребёт мышь” – “вуглускребётмышь” – “Вуглускр ебёт мышь”.) Belongs to Okh Blya, I suppose)
Finnish and (normative) Estonian have forms with Pihk-, showing that the borrowing is of considerable age. An Estonian form with Vopsk- ought to be much more recent, maybe through Baltic German.
@Trond, the Finnic theory holds that the name of the river is primary and Finnic.
> As to what “water” is doing in there
Aix-la-Chapelle, Aix-les-Bains…
“the Finnic theory holds that the name of the river is primary and Finnic”
https://arheologi.livejournal.com/116288.html
https://arheologi-livejournal-com.translate.goog/116288.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en
If anyone is interested in the original Latin text of this letter, it’s here:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/LITTERAE_Pseudo_Senatus_Anglicani_CROMWE/h9Ud1N3_80oC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=imperatori&pg=PA163&printsec=frontcover
Thanks, it didn’t even occur to me to look for it!
@Mollymooly: I guess article inclusion in borrowed names* is less unusual and interesting than preposition inclusion.
The most interesting such example that comes to mind is the now old-fashioned Oporto, deriving from o Porto. Nowadays the Portuguese city is usually just called Porto without the article in most languages.
Also article deletion (as perhaps in (al-)Iskandar).
When the article is part of the name in the source language, one may argue that the inclusion of prepositions and articles are almost opposite phenomena. Preposition inclusion is due to a misanalysis of the form in the source language, article inclusion is due to correct extraction of the name from context. It’s the merger into a single-word name that’s a misanalysis. Whether or not the article should instead be translated is a question for the advanced class*.
This is of course difficult. The syntactic function of the definite article is different in e.g. Arabic, Greek, French, and English, and so is the perception of the article as an intrinsic part of a name. There’s a paradox here: The more obligatory the article is with topynyms (or names in general), the more it works as a syntactic particle independent of the name. When names requiring a definite article are rare, the instances are lexical, which is to say that the definite form is part of the name. The latter is the case with den Haag, le Havre, la Spezia, o Porto – and of course Scandinavian suffixed names like Skagen and Longyearbyen.
* And what about borrowing into languages without a definite article?
@drasvi: I understand that the river name may be Finnic (or Baltic, or even (Pre-)Germanic, but anyway older than the Slavic settlement). But even so, the town was probably named in Slavic, by Slavic speakers, and Estonian and Finnish forms with -h- do show the ancientness of the name in these languages.
“It’s the merger into a single-word name that’s a misanalysis. ”
Or not. You can’t make it work as an article in a language wihtout articles.
Generally of course everyone understands that al- in al-[….]i means something, many know it is an article (and many also understand what’s -i – it is not difficult and such suffixes are highly borrowable). But no one would understand anything if only one Arabic word or name with al- was known in Russia. Then spelling it together or not would be matter of taste. I take “Trond Engen” as a name and surname and use them as I use Russian names and surnames, if I did not know that, would it be anyhow wrong (other than “educated Europeans don’t do so” and also phonologically) if I learned it as Trondengen?
Back to artciles, in Arabic it is spelled together with the name, before vowels with a ligature لا
Is European spelling a misanalysis and are Alcoran, Alhambra MORE correct? (but then Arabs don’t capitalise them, and so many A-words don’t feel right… Why not alCoran? Or even al-Coran/al-Quraan? Well, all right, actually Eruoeans DO spell them together, just insert a hyphen)
“a part of the name”
As a speaker of a langauge without articles I have no idea to what extent the article is “a part of the name”. It is easier for me to speculate about -s in Lithuanian nominative.
The first google suggestion for الا is الاسطورة – the name of a TV series and also a streeming app “Ostora TV”. Fun enough to mention*. ʔusṭūra, “myth, fable, tale, legend, story especially full of embellishments”, “From phono-semantic matching of Ancient Greek ἱστορία (historía), with the native Arabic سَطَرَ (saṭara, “to write, to compose lines”).”
*Europeans are somehow more accustomed to European Orientalism, not to Serious things from Europe becoming unserious in the East.
“confusion”
@Lars Skovlund, I think it is a by-product of literacy.
Historically it is a part of same phonological word, it even can take stress. But the spelling convention is different, accordingly literate people think of it as a unit.
This is quite a coincidence but I just encountered “Vobsco” in this book: “Of the Russe Common Wealth, Or Maner of Governement by the Russe Emperor” on page 27 E3 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Of_the_Russe_Common_Wealth/XDs8AAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Of+russe+commonwealth&printsec=frontcover
Everything is connected!