103
Matej Šekli         UDK 811.163'373.21:811.13
University of Ljubljana*   DOI: 10.4312/linguistica.55.1.103-114
ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana
OLD ROMANCE PLACE NAMES IN EARLY SOUTH SLAVIC 
AND LATE PROTO-SLAVIC SOUND CHANGES1
1 INTRODUCTION
The article analyses Old Romance geographical names borrowed and integrated into 
early South Slavic. The late Proto-Slavic sound changes which were still operative 
during the first Romance-Slavic language contacts after the settling of the Slavs in the 
Balkan Peninsula, the Pannonian Basin and eastern Alps in the second half of the 6th 
century and the beginning of the 7th century will be categorized and chronologically 
ordered with the help of Romance-Slavic substitutional phonology.
1.1 Slavic migration to the Balkan Peninsula, the Pannonian Basin  
and the eastern Alps
The most likely answer to the Proto-Slavic homeland question seems to be the so-
called North-Carpathian theory, which argues rather convincingly that the home-
land of the Slavs should be placed to the North of the Carpathian Mountains, i.e. 
the North-Carpathian basin. The approximate borders of this language community 
would be the upper course of the Dniester and Vistula rivers in the West, the Pripyat 
river in the North, and the middle course of the Dnieper in the East (Gimbutas 1971: 
80; Udolph 1979: 619–623). It is generally believed that the Slavic migration to-
wards the North-East, North-West and South-West should be placed at around 500 
AD. This migration wave did not include a south-eastern movement, however. As 
can be predicted, the colonization of the new territory resulted in more or less direct 
contact with the different non-Slavic languages.
The Slavs began their south-western move towards the eastern Carpathians together 
with the Avars. They reached the Balkan Peninsula, the Pannonian Basin and the east-
ern Alps in the 6th century AD. In the southern part of the Balkans they first came 
into contact with Greek, while in the rest of the Balkans, the Pannonian plain and the 
eastern Alpine region they encountered the Old Romance stratum. As far as the eastern 
Alps are concerned, the 8th century was dominated by the equally extensive  interaction 
* Oddelek za slavistiko/Department of Slavic Languages, Filozofska fakulteta, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 
Ljubljana, Slovenia; matej.sekli@ff.uni-lj.si
1 A more comprehensive account of the Slavic language contact with the non-Slavic idioms is 
presented in Šekli 2014: 201–300. For the Slovene version of the article cf. Šekli 2015.
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   103 14.3.2016   8:39:33
104
with Old High German (Old Bavarian), while the Hungarian-Slavic contacts in the 
Pannonian Basin are not older than the 9th century AD.
The Slavs settled the newly conquered territories of South-Eastern Europe in the 
second half of the 6th century. At the start of the 7th century, during the rule of Gregory 
the First (590–604 AD), the colonization wave had already reached as far as the Adriatic 
coast (Kos 1955: 44–49). During the colonization of the Romance/Romanized territory 
several place names were borrowed into Slavic from the Romance speaking popula-
tion, primarily but not exclusively those of the near coastal area. These integrations 
usually involve the adoption of Romance names for the strategically more prominent 
geographical objects such as larger rivers and urban settlements.
1.2 Balkan Romance vs. Alpine Romance
At the time of the Slavic occupation of the south-eastern part of the Romance linguistic 
area the Slavs conquered the territory to the north of the Romance-Greek language bor-
der also known as the Jireček line. Note that Latin inscriptions of the Balkan provinces 
reach in the south the ancient towns of Ulpiana/Ulpianum (8 km to the south of present-
day Priština), Scupi (4 km to the north-east of present-day Skopje city centre), Naissus 
(present day Niš in Serbia) and Remesiana (present-day Bela Palanka in Serbia), in 
Thracia Superior, and a number of ancient settlements around the Danube delta in 
Thracia Inferior (Solta 1980: 64–65).
By the time of the earliest Slavic-Romance contacts (6th century AD) two clear-
ly distinguishable Old Romance geolects had already developed from Vulgar Latin, 
i.e. North-West Romance (the predecessor of Alpine, North-Italic or Gallo-Italic, 
Gallic and Iberian Romance) and South-East Romance (the direct ancestor of Balkan 
Romance and Central-South Italic Romance). The distinguishing isogloss dividing 
the two dialects runs vertically through the Apennine Mountains, following the so-
called La Spezia–Rimini line, and horizontally through present-day Koper/Capodistria, 
Solkan and Villach/Beljak.2
The defining characteristics of South-East Romance are the preservation of Latin 
voiceless stops in voiced environment (i.e. between vowels or between a vowel and a 
resonant) and the loss of final -s, while the diametrically opposed situation is true of 
North-West Romance: lenition (voicing → spirantization → loss) of Latin voiceless 
stops in voiced environments and the preservation of Latin final -s. Examples: Lat. Asg 
rota(m) ʻwheelʼ > Standard Italian ruota, Romanian roată vs. Friulian ruede, Venetian 
Italian roda, rioda, Sardinian roda, Catalan roda, Spanish rueda, Portuguese roda, 
Old French rode > French roue; Lat. 2sg pres. ind. cantās ʻyou singʼ > Friulian cjantis, 
Sardinian cantas, Catalan cantes, Spanish cantas, Portuguese cantas, Occitan cantas, 
French chantes vs. Standard Italian canti, Romanian cânţi; Lat. Apl rotās ‘wheels’ > 
Friulian ruedis, Sardinian rodas, Catalan rodes, Spanish ruedas, Portuguese rodas, 
2 However, Trieste/Trst and Gail/Zilja lie to the west of the Koper/Capodistria–Solkan–Villach/
Beljak isogloss but clearly display the phonetic characteristics typical of South-East Romance 
(Balk. Rom. *Tẹrgẹste → Sl. *Tьrʒьstъ; Balk. Rom. *Gīla → Sl. *Ʒiĺa).
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   104 14.3.2016   8:39:33
105
Occitan rodas, Old French rodes > French roues vs. Standard Italian ruote, Romanian 
roţi) (Wartburg 1950: 32; Skubic 1989: 97, 100).
On the other hand, the Koper/Capodistria–Solkan–Villach/Beljak isogloss sepa-
rates the two linguistic areas with a different set of reflexes for plain velars *k, *g be-
fore front vowels. Accordingly, Slavic substitutions *č, *ž normally occur to the west 
of this line (Lat. Asg cīvitāte(m) ‘town’ > Rom. *Kẹvẹtāte > Alp. Rom. *Čẹvẹdāde 
(> Friulian Cividât) → Sl. *Čьvьdadъ > dial. Sln. (Natisone/Nadiža) Čǝvdȁd ‘a city 
in Friuli; Standard Sln. Čedad, Friulian Cividât, Italian Cividale’; Lat. Asg silice(m) 
‘hard stone, rock, flint’ → Asg *silicētu(m) ‘where hard stone, rock, flint is’ > Rom. 
*Sẹlẹktu > Alp. Rom. *Sẹlẹgdu > *Sẹlẹǯdu → Sl. *Sьlьžidъ > dial. Sln. (Soča/
Isonzo) Sužȉd ‘a place in the Upper Soča Valley’). The reflexes *c, *ʒ, which are the 
outcomes of the second Slavic palatalization of velars (cf. 2.6), are only found to the 
east of the isogloss.3
In the south, Slavic came into direct contact with both Balkan Romance (Lat. acētum 
‘vinegar’ > Rom. *aktu > Balk. Rom. *aktu → PSl. *okьtъ > *ocьtъ ‘vinegar’) and 
Alpine Romance (Lat. Asg cruce(m) ‘cross’ > Rom. *krke > Alp. Rom. *krge > 
*krǯe → PSl. *križь ‘cross’). The borrowing of common and proper names therefore 
progresses from both sources. Note that if the Old Romance source has no voiceless 
stops occurring in a voiced environment and/or no *kE, *gE sequences (e.g. Lat. Apl 
Kalendās ‘first day of the month’ > Rom. *kalendās → PSl. *kolęda ‘New Year, cel-
ebration of the New Year’), the distinction between the two sources is not always easily 
disambiguated.
2 LATE PROTO-SLAVIC SOUND CHANGES
The following were late Proto-Slavic sound changes (listed in approximate chrono-
logical order): loss of final consonants, simplification of consonant clusters, develop-
ment of prothetic consonants, first regressive palatalization of velars, simplification 
of j-clusters, delabialization of rounded vowels (umlaut), monophthongization, second 
regressive palatalization of velars, the rise of nasal vowels (nasalization), progressive 
palatalization of velars, delabialization of *ū1 > *y, labialization of *a > *o, reduction 
of vowels (*i, *u > *ь, *ъ) (Shevelov 1964: 187–390; Šekli 2014: 201–300). The ma-
jority of these sound changes were still operative at the time of the earliest Romance-
Slavic language contacts, but some postdate the earliest phases of lexical and topo-
nymic borrowing.
2.1 Simplification of consonant clusters
The Old Romance consonant cluster *ps correspondes by South Slavic *s: Rom. *ps 
→ Sl. *s (Lat. Apsarum > Balk. Rom. *Apsaru → Sl. *Osorъ > Čak. Osȍr ‘a town on 
3 For a discussion of the phenomenon cf. Skok 1926: 386; Ramovš 1926/27: 154–155, 160–165; 
Šturm 1927: 45–47, 1928: 22–24; Grad 1958, 1969; Skubic 1989: 101; Furlan 2002: 32–33. See 
Repanšek 2014 for a recent reappraisal of the data.
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   105 14.3.2016   8:39:33
106
the island of Cres’; Lat. *Sampsichum > Balk. Rom. *Sampsiku → Sl. *Sǫsьkъ > Čak. 
Sȕsak ‘an island in the Gulf of Kvarner’). This seems to confirm the fact that the Proto-
Slavic simplification of consonant clusters was still an ongoing process at the time of 
the borrowing: PSl. *ps > *s.
2.2 Development of prothetic consonants
The integrated word-initial *ū- nearly always generates a prothetic consonant *v- in 
South Slavic: Rom. *ū- → Sl. *ū- > *vy- (Lat. Utinum > Alp. Rom. *Ūdẹnu (> Friulian 
Udin) → Sl. *(V)ydьnъ > Dial. Sln. Vídən ‘a city in Friuli; Standard Sln. Videm, Friulian 
Udin, Italian Udine’).4 This means that at the time of the borrowing the development of 
the Proto-Slavic prothetic *- in front of word-initial high back vowels *ū- and *u- was 
not yet completed: PSl. *ū-, *u- > *ū-, *u- > *vy-, *vъ-. 
2.3 Simplification of j-clusters
Proto-Slavic palatal consonants *Cʹ are systematically substituted for Old Romance 
consonant clusters *C: Rom. *C → Sl. *Cʹ (Lat. Durachium > Balk. Rom. *Dọrāku → 
Sl. *Dъračь > Štok. Drȃč ‘Durrës, a city at the Adriatic coast in Albania’; Lat. *Plagia 
(← Greek πλάγιος ‘oblique, inclined’) > Balk. Rom. *Plāga → Sl. *Plaža > Čak. Plȁža 
‘a town on the island of Hvar’; Lat. Arsia > Balk. Rom. *Arsa → Sl. *Orša > Čak. Rȁša 
‘a river in Istria’; Lat. Carnium > Balk. Rom. *Karnu → Sl. *Korńь > Sln. Kránj ‘a 
town in the Gorenjska/Upper Carniola region’; Rom. *Castelliōne(m) > Balk. Rom. Asg 
*Kastẹlne → Sl. *Kostьĺunъ > Čak. Košljȗn ‘a small island in the Punat Bay on the 
island of Krk’; Lat. Tragurium > Balk. Rom. *Tragūru → Sl. *Trogyŕь > Čak. Trogĩr 
‘a town in Southern Dalmatia’). The Proto-Slavic simplification of  j-clusters evidently 
took place after the borrowing of these place names into South Slavic.
2.4 Delabialization of rounded vowels (umlaut)
Slavic appears to have delabialized all rounded vowels of the u-type after palatal con-
sonants and r:5 Rom. *CʹO/*rO → Sl. *CʹE/*rE (Lat. Iūdaeus ‘Jude’ > Rom. *Ǯūdēus 
(?) → Sl. *Žydъ > *Židъ ‘Jude’ (> OCS Žid-inъ ‘Jude’); Lat. crux ‘cross’, Asg crucem 
> Rom. *krke > Alp. Rom. *krge > *krǯe → PSl. *kryžь > *križь ‘cross’ (> OCS 
križь ‘cross’). Among the place names which further attest to such a process there is, 
for instance, the exonym Sl. *Rimъ ‘Rome’ (Lat. Rōma > Rom. *Rma → Sl. *Rymъ 
> *Rimъ (> OCS Rimъ)).
4 From the lexical fond cf. Lat. hortus ‘garden’ > Balk. Rom. *ọrtu → Sl. *(v)ъrtъ ‘gar-
den’ (> OCS *vrъtъ, Sln. vrt).
5 It is less probable that the forms such as *križь and *Rimъ reflect early (7th–8th) South-Slavic 
phonology. Accordingly, the Proto-Slavic *y would have been decentralized rather early in the 
south (cf. Bezlaj 1995: 180). However, the phonetic distinction between *y and *i in South Slavic 
is still present in the second half of the 9th century by Old Church Slavic (863–885) and the sub-
sequent merger cannot in fact be earlier than the second half of the 10th century as evidenced by 
the Freising Monuments (972–1039 AD).
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   106 14.3.2016   8:39:34
107
2.5 Monophthongization
Proto-Slavic tautosyllabic sequences *oj, *ov are substituted for the corresponding Old 
Romance diphthongs *a, *a: Rom. *aC, *aC → Sl. *ojC, *ovC (Lat. *Laurentium 
> Balk. Rom. *Larentu > *Larenču → Sl. *Lovręčь > Čak. Lovrč ‘a town in Istria’; 
Lat. *Tauriana > Balk. Rom. *Tarāna → Sl. *Tovŕanъ > Štok. Tovrljan ‘a river in 
the vicinity of Niš’).6 This phenomenon attests to the likelihood of the integration of the 
place names largely postdating monophthongization.
2.6 Second regressive palatalization of velars
Notably, Old Romance velar stops *k, *g before front vowels were not integrated into 
South Slavic as *č, *ž, but as *c and *ʒ: Rom. *kE, *gE → Sl. *c, *ʒ (Lat. Celeia > 
Rom. *Kelēa > Balk. Rom. *Kela → Sl. *Celьje > Sln. Célje ‘a town in the south 
of the Štarjerska region’; Lat. Crexi (written as Greek Κρέψα) > Balk. Rom. *Kresu 
≥ *Kersu (after metathesis *re ≥ er) (> Dalmatian *Kerso → Italian Cherso) → Sl. 
*Cersъ > NW Čak. Crs ‘an island in the Gulf of Kvarner’; Lat. Centōna > Balk. 
Rom. *Kentna → Sl. *Cętyna > Štok. Cètina ‘a river in Southern Dalmatia’; Lat. 
Asg Cīvitāte(m) > Balk. Rom. *Kẹvẹtāte → Sl. *Cьbьtatъ > Štok. Càptat, Càvtat ‘a 
town in Southern Dalmatia’; Balk. Rom. *Gīla → Sl. *Ʒiĺa > Sln. Zílja ‘a river in the 
eastern Alps; Germ. Gail’; Lat. Genta > Balk. Rom. *Genta → Sl. *Ʒęta > Štok. Zeta 
‘a river in Montenegro’). These data indirectly provide important evidence in support 
of the hypothesis that by the time of extensive Romance-Slavic language contacts the 
first regressive palatalization of velars had already been concluded but that the second 
Slavic regressive palatalization of velars was still an ongoing change (evidently in front 
of all (new) front vowels).
2.7 Rise of nasal vowels
The South Slavic reflexes of the Old Romance sequences *ENC, *ONC systemati-
cally appear as *ęC, *ǫC: Rom. *ENC, *ONC → Sl. *ęC, *ǫC (Lat. Parentium > 
Balk. Rom. *Parentu > *Parenču → Sl. *Poręčь > Čak. Porč ‘a town in Istria’; Lat. 
Carantanum > Balk. Rom. *Karantānu → Sl. *Korǫtanъ > Sln. Korotȁn ‘Carinthia’). 
Note, however, that strictly speaking these equations only prove that during the inte-
gration of such sequences into South Slavic the latter must surely have had nasal ele-
ments, but it is not entirely clear whether these nasal elements should be interpreted 
as bi-phonemic sequences *ENC, *ONC or rather as already fully developed nasal 
vowels *ęC, *ǫC.
2.8 Progressive palatalization of velars
Old Romance *k, *g after front vowels were reflected in South Slavic as *c and *ʒ, 
respectively: Rom. *Ek, *Eg → Sl. *c, *ʒ (Lat. Longaticum > Balk. Rom. *Longātẹku 
6 One possible exception is Lat. Poetovio > Balk. Rom. *Pẹtou → Sl. *Pьtujь > Sln. Ptúj. It is 
probable that the Slavs encountered this place name earlier than the names of other settlements 
on the Adriatic coast and elsewhere in the Balkans.
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   107 14.3.2016   8:39:34
108
→ Sl. *Lǫgatьcь > Sln. Logatǝc; Lat. Serdica > Balk. Rom. *Serdẹka → Sl. *Serdьcь 
> CS Srědьcь (an old denomination of present-day Sofia)). It seems likely that these se-
quences were borrowed before the Slavic progressive palatalization of velars took place.
2.9 Delabialization of *ū1 > *y
Slavic *y is normally substitutued for Old Romance *ū: Rom. *ū/* → Sl. *y (Lat. 
*Alluvium > Balk. Rom. *Allūvu → Sl. *Olybъ > Čak. Olȉb ‘an island in the Zadar 
archipelago’; Lat. *Glemōna (ca. 610 in Glemona) > Alp. Rom. *Glẹmna (> Friulian 
Glemone) → Sl. *Glьmynъ > Dial. Sln. Gumín ‘a town in Friuli; Standard Sln. Gumin, 
Friulian Glemone, It. Gemona’; Lat. Salōna > Balk. Rom. *Salna → Sl. *Solynъ > 
Čak. Solĩn ‘a town in Southern Dalmatia’). This type of substitution clearly points to 
the fact that the Proto-Slavic process of delabialization of *ū1 towards *y postdates the 
earliest Romance-Slavic language contacts.
2.10 Labialization of *a > *o
Old Romance *a is matched by South Slavic *o: Rom. *a → Sl. *o (Lat. Aquilēia > 
Alp. Rom. *Agọlēa (> Friulian Aolèe > Olèe arch.) → Sl. *Ogъlějь > Sln. Oglj ‘a 
town in Friuli’; Lat. Capra > Balk. Rom. *Kapra → Sl. *Koprъ > Sln. Kpər ‘a town 
in Istria’; Lat. Cattarum > Balk. Rom. *Kattaru → Sl. *Kotorъ > Štok. Kòtor ‘a town 
in Montenegro’). The typically Slavic sound change *a > *o clearly reflects a later, 
Common Slavic process.
2.11 Vowel reduction of *i, *u > *ь, *ъ
Old Romance *ẹ, *ọ are reflected as Slavic *ь, *ъ: Lat. *i/*e, *u/*o > Rom. *ẹ, *ọ → 
Sl. *ь, *ъ (Lat. turris ‘tower’ → Balk. Rom. *Tọrre → Sl. *Tъrъ > Čak. Tȁr ‘a town in 
Istria’; Lat. Muccurum > Balk. Rom. *Mọkkọru → Sl. *Mъkъrъ > Čak. Makȁr ‘a town 
in Southern Dalmatia’; Lat. Asg Tergeste(m) > Balk. Rom. *Tẹrgẹste → Sl. *Tьrʒьstъ, 
Gsg *Tьrʒьsta > Sln. *Tǝrzǝst ≥ Tǝrst, Gsg *Tǝrzsta > Tərsta ‘a coastal town in Northern 
Istria; Italian Trieste’; Lat. Asg Pinguente(m) > Balk. Rom. *Pẹngente ≥ *Pẹlgente 
(with dissimilation *n–n ≥ l–n) → Sl. *Bьlʒętъ > Dial. Sln. (Istria) Buzet, Čak. Buzet 
‘a town in Istria’; Lat. Ad Portulam > Balk. Rom. *Adpọrtọla → Sl. *Opъrtъĺь > Čak. 
Oprtalj ‘a town in Istria’; Lat. *Curicum (← gr. Κούρικον) > Balk. Rom. *Kọrẹku → 
Sl. *Kъrьkъ > Čak. Kȑk ‘an island in the Gulf of Kvarner’). The Proto-Slavic vowel 
reduction of the type *i, *u > *ь, *ъ surely is a much later process.
2.12 Liquid metathesis
Old Romance sequences *CaRC, *CeRC (where *R = *r, *l) are reflected as Slavic 
/*CoRC, *CeRC/ [*CaRC, *CeRC]: Rom. *CaRC, *CeRC → Sl. /*CoRC, *CeRC/ 
[*CaRC, *CeRC] (Lat. Arba > Balk. Rom. *Arba → Sl. *Orbъ > Čak. Rȁb ‘an island 
in the Gulf of Kvarner’; Lat. *Albanta > Balk. Rom. *Albanta → Sl. *Olbǫtъ > Sln. 
Lábot (860 ad Labantam) ‘a town in the Jauntal/Podjuna Valley in Southern Carinthia/
Koroška, Germ. Lavamünd’; Lat. *Carsum > Balk. Rom. *Karsu → Sl. *Korsъ > Sln. 
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   108 14.3.2016   8:39:34
109
Krȁs ‘a region in the Slovene coastal area’; Lat. Scardōna > Balk. Rom. *Skardna 
→ Sl. *Skordynъ > Čak. Skradĩn ‘a town in Central Dalmatia’; Lat. Syrmium > Balk. 
Rom. *Sermium (?) → Sl. *Sermъ > Štok. Srijȇm, Srȇm ‘a region to the east of the 
Croation region of Slavonia’; Lat. Melita > Balk. Rom. *Melta → Sl. *Meltъ > Štok. 
Mljt ‘an island in Southern Dalmatia’). The analysed material unambiguously points 
to the fact that liquid metathesis followed in the wake of the first Slavic-Romance 
contacts.
3 CONCLUSION
The analysis of Old Romance place names integrated into early South Slavic shows that 
the majority of the late Proto-Slavic sound changes were still in progress at the time 
of the first Old Romance-Slavic language contacts. On the other hand, Slavic subtitu-
tions *c, *ʒ and *ovC for the Romance sequences *kE, *gE and *aC, respectively, 
point to the fact that two characteristic processes, i.e. the first regressive palatalization 
of velars and monophthongization, had already been completed. The progression of 
the remaining set of late Proto-Slavic (or better Common Slavic) sound changes was 
either contemporary with the oldest integrations or it may have postdated the earliest 
Romance-Slavic contacts altogether.
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   109 14.3.2016   8:39:34
110
(Balkan) Romance (Proto-)Slavic Examples
*ps → *s Rom. *Apsaru → Sl. *Osorъ
*ū → *vy Rom. *Ūdẹnu → Sl. *(V)ydьnъ
*k → *č Rom. *Dọrāku → Sl. *Dъračь
*g → *ž Rom. *Plāga → Sl. *Plaža
*s → *š Rom. *Arsa → Sl. *Orša
*n → *ń Rom. *Karnu → Sl. *Korńь
*l → *ĺ Rom. *Kastẹlne → Sl. *Kostьĺunъ
*r → *ŕ Rom. *Tragūru → Sl. *Trogyŕь
*Cʹū → *Cʹi Rom. *Ǯūdēus (?) → Sl. *Židъ
*r → *ri Rom. *Rma → Sl. *Rimъ
*aC → *ovC Rom. *Larentu → Sl. *Lovręčь
*kE → *cE Rom. *Kelẹa → Sl. *Celьje
*gE → *ʒE Rom. *Gīla → Sl. *Ʒiĺa
*ENC → *ęC Rom. *Parentu → Sl. *Poręčь
*ONC → *ǫC Rom. *Karantānu → Sl. *Korǫtanъ
*ikV → *ьcV Rom. *Longātiku → Sl. *Lǫgatьcь
*ū/* → *y Rom. *Allūvu → Sl. *Olybъ
*a → *o Rom. *Kapra → Sl. *Koprъ
i > *ẹ → *ь Rom. *Kọrẹku → Sl. *Kъrьkъ
u > *ọ → *ъ Rom. *Tọrre → Sl. *Tъrъ
*(C)aRC → *(C)oRC Rom. *Karsu → Sl. *Korsъ
*CeRC → *CeRC Rom. *Melta → Sl. *Meltъ
Table 1: Late Proto-Slavic sound changes through the prism of Old Romance place names bor-
rowed into early South Slavic.
Literatura
BEZLAJ, France (1976, 1982, 1995, 2005, 2007) Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika. 
I–V. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Inštitut za slovenski 
jezik ZRC SAZU.
BOČEK, Vít (2009) “Hláskové substituce v nejstarších romanismech ve slovanských 
jazycích.” Studia etymologica Brunensia 6. 59–65.
BOČEK, Vít (2010) Studie k nejstarším romanismům ve slovanských jazycích. Studia 
etymologica Brunensia 9. Praha: Lidové noviny.
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   110 14.3.2016   8:39:34
111
FURLAN, Metka (2002) “Predslovanska substratna imena v slovenščini.” Jezikoslovni 
zapiski 8/2, 29–35.
GIMBUTAS, Marija (1971) The Slavs. London: Thames and Hudson.
GREENBERG, Marc L. (2000) A Historical Phonology of the Slovene Language. 
Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
GRAD, Anton (1958) “Contribution au problème de la sonorisation des consonnes 
intervocaliques latines.” Linguistica 3/2, 33–40.
GRAD, Anton (1969) “Importance de quelques toponymes slovènes pour la géographie 
linguistiques romane.” Actes du Xe Congrès de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes 
(Strasbourg, 1962) III. Paris, 1176–1184.
HOLZER, Georg (1995) “Die Einheitlichkeit des Slavischen um 600 n. Chr. und ihr 
Zerfall.” Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 41, 55–89.
HOLZER, Georg (2007) Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen: Einleitung und 
Lautgeschichte der Standardsprache. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, 
New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang.
KOS, Milko (1955) Zgodovina Slovencev od naselitve do petnajstega stoletja. 
Ljubljana: Slovenska matica.
RAMOVŠ, Fran (1926/27) “O prvotnih južsl. substitucijah za balk.-lat. k, g pred e, i.” 
Južnoslovenski filolog VI, 153–165.
RAMOVŠ, Fran (1936) Kratka zgodovina slovenskega jezika I. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU.
REPANŠEK, Luka (2014) Keltski prežitki v slovenski toponimiji: Prispevek k me-
todologiji preučevanja. Doktorska disertacija. Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v 
Ljubljani. 280 pp.
SHEVELOV, George Y. (1964) A Prehistory of Slavic: The Historical Phonology of 
Common Slavic. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
SKOK, Petar (1926) “Zur Chronologie der Palatalisierung von c, g, qu, g vor e, i, y,  
im Balkanlatein.” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 46, 385–410.
SKUBIC, Mitja (2002, 11988) Romanski jeziki. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakultera 
Univerze v Ljubljani, Oddelek za romanske jezike in književnosti.
SKUBIC, Mitja (42007, 11989) Uvod v romansko jezikoslovje. Ljubljana: Filozofska 
fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, Oddelek za romanske jezike in književnosti.
SNOJ, Marko (22003, 11997) Slovenski etimološki slovar. Ljubljana: Modrijan.
SNOJ, Marko (2009) Etimološki slovar slovenskih zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana: 
Modrijan, Založba ZRC.
SNOJ, Marko, GREENBERG, Marc L. (2012): “O jeziku slovanskih prebivalcev med 
Donavo in Jadranom v srednjem veku (pogled jezikoslovcev).” Zgodovinski časopis 
66/3–4. 276–305.
SOLTA, Georg Renatus (1980) Einführung in die Balkanlinguistik mit beson-
derer Berücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinsichen. Darmstadt: 
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
ŠANJEK, Franjo (ed.) (2003) Povijest Hrvata. 1. Srednji vijek. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
ŠEGA, Agata (1998) “Contributo alla conoscienza dei latinismi e romanismi antichi in 
sloveno.” Linguistica 38/2, 63–85.
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   111 14.3.2016   8:39:34
112
ŠEGA, Agata (2007) “Nekaj ugotovitev o glasovnih značilnostih vulgarnolatinskih 
predlog za starejše latinizme in romanizme v slovenščini.” Jezikoslovni zapiski 
13/1–2, 397–408.
ŠEGA, Agata (2013) “Quelques pistes pour l’investigation des traces des premiers 
contacts linguistique slavo-romans dans la toponymie slovène.” Linguistica 53/1, 
17–29.
ŠEKLI, Matej (2009) “On Romance-Alpo-Slavic substitutional accentology: the case 
of the pre-Slavic masculine substrate place names in Slovene.” In: Th. Olander/J. 
H. Larsson (eds.), Stressing the past: papers on Baltic and Slavic accentology. 
Amsterda: Rodopi, 145–160. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics, 35.)
ŠEKLI, Matej (2012) “Notranja delitev neprevzetega in prevzetega besedja v 
praslovanščini.” In: P. Stankovska, M. Wtorkowska, J. Pallay (eds.), Individualna 
in kolektivna dvojezičnost. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, 
Oddelek za slavistiko. 369–381. (Slavica Slovenica, 1.)
ŠEKLI, Matej (2013) “Metodologija določanja plasti mlajših romanizmov v 
slovenščini.” Jezikoslovni zapiski 19/2, 291–315.
ŠEKLI, Matej (2014) Primerjalno glasoslovje slovanskih jezikov 1: Od 
praindoevropščine do praslovanščine. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske 
fakultete.
ŠEKLI, Matej (2015) “Staroromanska zemljepisna imena v južni slovanščini in pozno-
praslovanske glasovne spremembe.” Philological Studies 13/1. 333–343.
ŠIMUNOVIĆ, Petar (2005) Toponimija hrvatskoga jadranskog prostora. Zagreb: 
Golden marketing-Tehnička knjiga.
ŠTIH, Peter, SIMONITI, Vasko (2009) Na stičišču svetov: Slovenska zgodovina od 
prazgodovinsih kultur do konca 18. stoletja. Ljubljana: Modrijan.
ŠTURM, Fran (1927) “Refleksi romanskih palataliziranih konzonantov v slovenskih 
izposojenkah.” Časopis za slovenskih jezik, književnost in zgodovino 6, 45–85.
ŠTURM, Fran (1928) “Romanska lenizacija medvokaličnih konzonantov in njen 
pomen za presojo romanskega elementa v slovenščini.” Časopis za slovenski jezik, 
književnost in zgodovino 7, 21–46.
TEKAVČIĆ, Pavao (1970) Uvod u vulgarni latinitet. Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu.
UDOLPH, Jürgen (1979) Studien zu slavischen Gewässernamen und Gewässer-
bezeichnungen: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Urheimat der Slaven. Heidelberg: 
(ar) Winter Universitäts Verlag.
VON WARTBURG, Walther (1950) Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachräume. 
Bern: Francke.
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   112 14.3.2016   8:39:34
113
Summary
OLD ROMANCE PLACE NAMES IN EARLY SOUTH SLAVIC
AND LATE PROTO-SLAVIC SOUND CHANGES
The analysis of Old Romance geographical names in early South Slavic confirms that 
the majority of late Proto-Slavic sound changes were still operative in the period of 
the earliest Old Romance-Slavic language contacts in the Balkan Peninsula and east-
ern Alps from the second half of the 6th century and the beginning of the 7th century 
onwards. Phonetic substitutions of the type Rom. *kE, *gE → Sl. *c, *ʒ (Balk. Rom. 
*Kersu → Sl. *Cersъ, Balk. Rom. *Gīla → Sl. *Ʒiĺa) and Rom. *aC → Sl. *ovC 
(Balk. Rom. *Larentu > *Larenču → Sl. *Lovręčь) point to the fact that the first 
palatalization of velars as well as the monophthongization of the inherited diphthongs 
were no longer among the ongoing processes. All other late Proto-Slavic sound chang-
es were either still operative or only took place after the borrowing. This is confirmed 
by the relative chronology of the following set of Romance-Slavic correspondences: 
simplification of consonant clusters: Rom. *ps → Sl. *s (Balk. Rom. *Apsaru → Sl. 
*Osorъ), development of prothetic consonants: Rom. *ū- → Sl. *ū- > *vy- (Alp. Rom. 
*Ūdẹnu → Sl. *(V)ydьnъ), simplification of j-clusters: Rom. *C → Sl. *Cʹ (Balk. 
Rom. *Arsa → Sl. *Orša), delabialization of * after *r: Rom. *r → Sl. *ry > *ri 
(Rom. *Rma → Sl. *Rymъ > *Rimъ), second regressive palatalization of velars (see 
above Sl. *Cersъ, *Ʒiĺa), rise of nasal vowels: Rom. *ENC, *ONC → Sl. *ęC, *ǫC 
(Balk. Rom. *Parentu > *Parenču → Sl. *Poręčь, Balk. Rom. *Karantānu → Sl. 
*Korǫtanъ), progressive palatalization of velars: Rom. *Ek, *Eg → Sl. *c, *ʒ (Balk. 
Rom. *Longātẹku → Sl. *Lǫgatьcь), delabialization of *ū1 > *y: Rom. *ū/* → Sl. *y 
(Balk. Rom. *Allūvu → Sl. *Olybъ), labialization of *a > *o: Rom. *a → Sl. *o (Balk. 
Rom. *Kapra → Sl. *Koprъ), vowel reduction of *i, *u > *ь, *ъ: Rom. *ẹ, *ọ → Sl. *ь, 
*ъ (Balk. Rom. *Kọrẹku → Sl. *Kъrьkъ, Balk. Rom. *Tọrre → Sl. *Tъrъ).
Keywords: Old Romance geographical names, Old Romance, South Slavic, Proto-
Slavic, Proto-Slavic sound changes
Povzetek
STAROROMANSKA ZEMLJEPISNA IMENA V ZGODNJI JUŽNI 
SLOVANŠČINI IN POZNOPRASLOVANSKE GLASOVNE SPREMEMBE
Glasoslovna analiza staroromanskih zemljepisnih imen v zgodnji južni slovanščini po-
trjuje, da je bila večina poznopraslovanskih glasovnih sprememb v času najstarejših 
romansko-slovanskih jezikovnih stikov na Balkanskem polotoku in vzhodnih Alpah v 
drugi polovici 6. stoletja in v začetku 7. stoletja še vedno v teku. Glasovni substituciji 
tipa rom. *kE, *gE → sl. *c, *ʒ (balk. rom. *Kersu → sl. *Cersъ, balk. rom. *Gīla → sl. 
*Ʒiĺa) in rom. *aC → sl. *ovC (balk. rom. *Larentu > *Larenču → sl. *Lovręčь) 
potrjujeta, da starejša regresivna (prva) palatalizacija velarov in monoftongizacija dif-
tongov nista bili več v teku. Vse ostale poznopraslovanske glasovne spremembe pa so 
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   113 14.3.2016   8:39:34
114
ali bile v teku ali pa je do njih prihajajo po prevzemanju, kar potrjujejo naslednje ro-
mansko-slovanske glasovne substitucije, in sicer poenostavitev soglasniških sklopov: 
rom. *ps → sl. *s (balk. rom. *Apsaru → sl. *Osorъ), nastanek protetičnih drsnikov: 
rom. *ū- → sl. *ū- > *vy- (alp. rom. *Ūdẹnu → sl. *(V)ydьnъ), jotacija: rom. *C → 
sl. *Cʹ (balk. rom. *Arsa → sl. *Orša), preglas * v položaju z r: rom. *r → sl. *ry 
> *ri (rom. *Rma → sl. *Rymъ > *Rimъ), mlajša regresivna (druga) palatalizacija 
velarov (prim. zgoraj sl. *Cersъ, *Ʒiĺa), nazalizacija: rom. *ENC, *ONC → sl. *ęC, 
*ǫC (balk. rom. *Parentu > *Parenču → sl. *Poręčь, balk. rom. *Karantānu → sl. 
*Korǫtanъ), progresivna (tretja) palatalizacija velarov: rom. *Ek, *Eg → sl. *c, *ʒ (balk. 
rom. *Longātẹku → sl. *Lǫgatьcь), delabializacija of *ū1 > *y: rom. *ū/* → sl. *y 
(balk. rom. *Allūvu → sl. *Olybъ), labializacija *a > *o: rom. *a → sl. *o (balk. rom. 
*Kapra → sl. *Koprъ), redukcija *i, *u > *ь, *ъ: rom. *ẹ, *ọ → sl. *ь, *ъ (bak. rom. 
*Kọrẹku → sl. *Kъrьkъ, balk. rom. *Tọrre → sl. *Tъrъ).
Ključne besede: staroromanska zemljepisna imena, stara romanščina, južna slovanšči-
na, praslovanščina, praslovanske glasovne spremembe
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   114 14.3.2016   8:39:34