Talk:Ban (title)

message: If Croats had their bans before everyone else shouldn't we mark it as Croatian title? I mean it probably orgins from Croatia, even if it's borrowed word Croats used it FIRST!
Constantine Porphyrogenitus' book De Administrando Imperio as βο(ε)άνος, in a chapter dedicated to Croats and the organisation of their state, describing how their ban "has under his rule Krbava, Lika and Gacka"
As far as i know it's the only mention of that title and it strictly points to Croatia.
It's true that Bosnians used it as well but it's also the fact that they didn't use it before Croats.
I don't want to start some "Croatophobia" and greater Croatia ideology but there is a completely normal explanation why Bosnians were catholic and why they had Croatian names, under "Croatian names" i mean names that are present among Croats only.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.170.55 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find a reliable source for your statement, then add it. Phrases such as "As far as I know" are speculation. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian title

message: Hello folks, I need to ask you for a confirmation. In this romanian article from "Historia" http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/hidromelul-elixirul-tinere-ii regarding the mied/hidromel drink, the author presents a quoting from a text belonging to Priscus (aprox...410/420-470 AD) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscus regarding the presence of this drink in the "plain of Banat". 
This is the text in romanian language: "De acolo am cãlãtorit pe un drum neted, aşezat intr-o campie a Banatului şi am trecut peste mai multe râuri navigabile, dintre cele mai mari,dupa Istru,era aşa-numitul Drecon,apoi Tigas si Tifisas. Pe acestea le-am trecut in bãrcile de care se foloseau locuitorii de pe malurile râurilor ,iar pe celelalte le-am trecut pe plute, pe care barbarii le poarta in cãruțe, deoarece locurile sunt mlãştinoase.Prin sate ni se aducea de mâncare si anume in loc de grâu,mei,iar in loc de vin,mied dupa cum il numesc localnicii." 
It's easy to search for this text in other languages because is the one about the rivers Drecon, Tigas and Tifisas, the names "Banat" apparently appears right before these in the sentence. Bigshotnews 21:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with this article, again? If nothing, please move along, Wikipedia is not a forum. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting from the article: "Other derivations of the word are present in toponyms such as Banovina, Banat and Banija, and common Croatian surnames such as Ban, Banac, Banić, Banović etc." So "Banat" is a derivation of "Ban" and might be attested as the name of the region in question in the V-th century AD according to this possible source presented by me. How can you say it has nothing to do with the article since it's said here that "Ban" title is originated in VII-th century AD? I've asked only for a confirmation of this possible source, nothing more, I have no intention to be involved in patriotard balkanic rants, but seems to me that you do. I only hope no one will dare to erase this section Bigshotnews 21:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it is quite interesting and relevant to the article. However, we should check the original Greek or Latin text of Priscus to be sure that the word "Banat" is not simply a modern translation. Do we have access to the original script? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Priscus at the court of Attila"-Translation by J.B. Bury (Priscus, fr. 8 in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum) "We proceeded along a level road in a plain and met with navigable rivers--of which the greatest, next to the Danube, are the Drecon, Tigas, and Tiphesas--which we crossed in the Monoxyles, boats made of one piece, used by the dwellers on the banks: the smaller rivers we traversed on rafts which the barbarians carry about with them on carts, for the purpose of crossing morasses. In the villages we were supplied with food--millet instead of corn, and mead, as the natives call it, instead of wine." At least in this english translation that I've found at the english wikipage about Priscus presented by me at the beginning of this section, the name "Banat" does'n appear at all. Bigshotnews 19:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, it is likely that "Banat" only appeared in the text that you have originally found as a modern explanatory translation. Of course, in this case it does not prove that the word existed in the 5th century. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So far from all the texts discovered on the net, I've found only 2 versions of the romanian translations, one with the "Banat" name in it and one without but the rest of the text is identical. Apparently the source is a book: "Maria Teodorescu,Bauturi si preparate din miere,Editura Tehnica Bucuresti,1977", so if any romanians are seeing this, maybe someone can confirm this source.Bigshotnews 16:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banat region's name from first half of 5-th century AD? 

message: Is Polish "pan" related to this word? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, see Proto-Slavic borrowings#Slavic and Iranian for the etymology. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you thought about Pán (Lord, Master, Sir) in Poland and Ukraine, it could be, see An Etymological Dictionary of Persian, English and other Indo-European Languages Vol 2 (2013) on pg. 349 Persian "bán: a suffix meaning protector" derives from Avestan / Old Persian "paiti, patiy, pavana, pâna: master, protector", which derives from Avestan / Old Persian pa: to guard, which derives from Indo-European Pa. However, title Bán among medieval Croats is not yet solved, some derive from Turkic name Bayan, some from Iranian / Persian bán, while some propose Gothic (as Indo-European word root) and Illyrian origin.--Crovata (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Polish pan cannot be from Persian, because of Old Czech hpan. That "etymological dictionary" is total garbage, by the way; it even ignores the laryngeal theory completely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your view on Pán at pg. 257 note 64.3 in Old Church Slavonic Grammar (2001) by Horace Lunt?--Crovata (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's just a note can't you see. Lunt doesn't even try to investigate the exact origin, and he carefully hedges it with qualifiers such as perhaps. Etymological dictionaries that deal specifically with this word take precedence over such works with mention it with cursory remarks. Of course, since your whole intent is to push the retarded Iranian origin theory you're clutching at such straws attempting to present them as some grand evidence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I asked about Pán not Bán, and stop talking about your POV and be constructive to the discussion. At least he wrote that in 2001, has neutral point of view, and compared to Skok who in 1971 influenced by historians wrote about name bojan deriving from bajan, and Gluhak in 1993 who also wasn't immune to the tradition of the mainstream historiographical thesis.--Crovata (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your link highlights ban, Lunt is a male, and the book is from 1955 (2001 is a reprint). Again, this has nothing to do with historiography, so stop invoking that argument. Skok was a world-class etymologist, you can't really compare him to your sources. Gluhak is borderline notable and his dictionary is entirely compilation of other sources (with zero inline references). So Skok >> Lunt.  --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you stop connect this discussion with the discussion above, and that link was given as it is only because was copied from the discussion above (you don't know if the note about "ban" was mentioned in first edition from 1955), and as I said, that dictionary (1971) by Skok (died 1956) was not edited by him, it was post mortem released and just reflects mainstream historiographical hypothesis at the time (which fact you constantly ignore).  Could you say your view on my remark about Pán.--Crovata (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it doesn't reflect the "mainstream historiographical hypothesis". Skok was a world-class scholar, not like Šišić who is an obscure figure. You're simply to ignorant to even asses his work. FYI, word etymologies don't reflect historiographical hypothesis, it is usually the other way around - on the basis of established etymologies scholars fit historical theories, because word origins are order of magnitude more certain facts than garbage theories such as whether Croatians descended from a lost Iranian tribe. The reason why you believe that they do is because the nationalist mythology theories that you endorse do. The Avar theory of origin is even mentioned in the Croatian National Encyclopedia as well as Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik, both of which are recent publictions. Šišić's (a non-linguist) theory of Iranian theory is not mentioned in any recent work. As for the Lunt's grammar, as I said - it's a 1950s scholarship. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ferdo Šišić was the founding figure of the Croatian historiography of the 20th century. He made his most important contributions in the area of Croatian early Middle Ages, and was an authority in medieval field, as such his contribution highly influenced historians linguists. I do not support any theories, and if anything you can not separate your personal POV, while I just cite what scholars write (again you're accusing me and going off topic, is that how you work and discuss?).--Crovata (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure he was. And Archimedes and Euclid were the founders of math yet we don't care much today what they wrote. Historical linguists generally source their works, and Šišić is not one of them. We have half a dozen recent sources agreeing on Avar origin. All you have is some 19th century nonsense. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  20th and 21th academic scholars are 19th century nonsense? Just answer me what is this 19th century nonsense? (in discussion above as this is about Pan not Ban)--Crovata (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah they are in Indo-European linguistics. Everything written in the 19th and early 20th century is pretty much useless today, except for historical purposes (for studying how it used to be in old times). If you don't trust me ask others. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pan 

message: :  The title word ban was also derived from the name Bojan
@User:Crovata: Bojan and Bayan is the same Slavic word, in two different chronologies. Bayan is the etymological predecessor of Bojan. If you knew anything about historical sound changes of Slavic you've of course conflated them, and not present them as two different theories. The name Bojan that you linked is etymologically completely unrelated. Stop embarassing yourself and undo your changes. Of course, this is already explained in Skok: Sa slav. fonemom a: > o: bojan potvrdio ju je kod Hrvata car Konstantin, but I guess that reading with comprehension is a bit too much. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, why do you lie? There were separately considered personal names Bayan (Mongolian) and Bojan (Slavic). Many views by the title considered by Skok (1971) were not shared in the recent dictionary by Gluhak (1993).--Crovata (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mongolian word is a cognate of the Avar word (if not an outright borrowing if we discard Altaic) which is mentioned by Skok. The form /baja:n/ is explicitly mentioned by Skok as predecessor of the form /bojan/, which gave /ba:n/ after the contraction. The origin of the form  /baja:n/ is ultimately the same as that of the Turkic-Mongolian personal names.. Those are not two "different" theories - it's the same word. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, during the research history the personal names Bayan and Bojan were separately mentioned and considered, don't lie. The derivation of ban from bojan from bajan it's the Skok (or whatever scholar which edited his dictionary, as he died years before its release) personal derivation and totally another thing. It is strange that such a important derivation somehow was not mentioned in the recent dictionary by Gluhak (1993).--Crovata (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Think this was the problem about the issue, the Bojan had two harv, one of which the wrong harv with Skok dictionary where is not mentioned explicitly the name Bojan, yet his personal derivation cited above. However, as I. Štambuk constantly uses the term obsolete, then this derivation could be also considered obsolete as was first considered by Erich Berneker (1924), who being influental Slavist, was copied by Skok (or by those Yugoslavian scholars who edited the dictionary from 1971), but wasn't considered by modern Gluhak (1993).--Crovata (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bojan 

message: Of course it fucking hasn't, since the sound change bojan > ban only occurred in Slavic languages, as a well-known contraction -oja- > /a:/ (also found in e.g. pojas > /pa:s/ which is taught in elementary schools in Croatia). This epic blunder renders the entire source Živković 2012 suspect - of course we're dealing with a historian from Serbia. It's funny how User:Crovata doesn't ignore Serbian sources when they fit him. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibor Živković was a prominent academic historian who unfortunately recently died. In his work De conversione Croatorum et Serborum: a lost source (2012), about the De Administrando Imperio and reports on Croats and Serbs by Constantince VII, and where those "controveral" statements about Avars descendants in Croatian Kingdom, and the first mention of the title Ban among Croats occur, confirmed what many modern scholars already stated: the title ban among the Avars has never been attested to in the historical sources. Why such a important fact has to be removed? There have never been attested titles "Bayan" or "Boyan". And Štambuk, why again making every academic scholar whose against your personal belief has to be a suspect, suspicious and nationalistic, totally unreliable?--Crovata (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not an important fact, but a plainly wrong statement that is refuted directly in etymological dictionaries themselves. It couldn't have been attested in Avar-language sources since the related sound changes (contractions) only occurred in Slavic languages in the 10th/11th century. It's supposed to be an evidence in disfavor of Avar origin of the word, but Živković being a a historian, clueless on the history of Slavic languages, only digs himself further. Whether someone is a "prominent" in a gated academic communities of the Balkans that subsist on a regime's payroll (and really being dwarfs on a global scale) is irrelevant - any source can and should be challenged. The statement is simply misleading and stupid and should be removed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not a wrong statement or misleading, that's a fact, and the historians (who more researched the title origin) consideration is equally relevant as etymologists. That he was "clueless" or "it couldn't have been attested in Avar-language sources since the related sound changes..." is your personal POV and OR without any weight and use for Wikipedia. It's all with your intention to find every possible little hole with fault to remove sourced information. Your continuous disrespect of academic scholars is just disgusting. --Crovata (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

text:  Then according your statement "Whether someone is a "prominent" in a gated academic communities of the Balkans that subsist on a regime's payroll (and really being dwarfs on a global scale) is irrelevant", aren't both etymologists Petar Skok and Alemko Gluhak, and every academic scholar mentioned in the research history irrelevant?! They were all on the government ie. Academy payroll!--Crovata (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the title ban among the Avars has never been attested to in the historical sources"