Talk:Bač, Serbia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Disambiguation 2 Name 3 The Name 4 Important notice 5 Again 6 Linguistic study 7 Puppetry 8 Vid/Vitus 9 Romanians 10 Medieval name

[edit] Disambiguation

A disambiguation page should be created to avoid confusion with the article on Blood Alcohol Content (BAC)

[edit] Name

According to Hungarian sources the first mention was in 1111 as "Castrum Bache". Give any evidence that it was called Bač under Iustinianus - not a Roman castrum but THIS name in the 6th century. Zello 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no doubt that Hungarian sources claim that World was created in 1000 AD, but you should read this: http://www.bac.co.yu/english/Pocetna.htm Eh, I should read it too, because I read only Serbian version of the site, so I will expand article with new things written there. PANONIAN (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And also about your addition: "In the early Árpád era Bács was a common Hungarian personal name, derived from the Old Turkic baya dignity. Hungarian historians assume that the town was named after the first comes of county, Bács ispán". I do not object that Bács could be a name used by Hungarians in that time, but claim that it derived from word baya is ridiculous. It is linguistically impossible that letter "y" is changed into "cs" like that. The most logical explanation (provided by Milica Grković and she is a linguist) is that name "was spread into other languages by the Vlach shepherds". That explain how this name is found in both, Hungarian and Slavic. And I already told you that theory about Hungarian origin of the name is impossible because name is found in the areas where Hungarians never lived, while areas that you claimed to be "Hungarian linguistic territory" were in fact inhabited by Vlachs and Slavs before Hungarians came. Also, claim that "Hungarian historians assume that the town was named after the first comes of county, Bács ispán" is neither convincing neither proven. If somebody assume that Aliens from another planet came and gave name to the city, should we include it here? Besides this, my source say that name of the first prefect of the county was Vid, not Bács. So, only thing that is certain is that town is most likely named after person with name Bač/Bács but who was he, when exactly he lived and what was his ethnicity is disputed. PANONIAN (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And finally the validity of source that use name "Delvidek" is highly disputed too. PANONIAN (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And I forgot this: the places in Macedonia, Montenegro and Slovenia mentioned here have exactly same name - Bač. If we would mention all other places beginning with "Bač-" or "Bacs-", we would have a very long list. PANONIAN (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost every second Hungarian sources will use the name Délvidék because that is one of the accepted names of Vojvodina. I know that Serbs don't like it but the Hungarian language won't change from that. Also I'm not linguist but I accept what linguists said about the changes of sounds. I'm not able check them (similarly to the 99 % of people). The link you gave doesn't says anything about the name. Zello 21:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What we need is not that the region was populatid by Slavs in the 6th century (that's obviously true), but evidence about such early usage of the name, before the 11th century. Zello 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The link: http://www.bac.co.yu/english/Pocetna.htm Go there, and on the left you have link to history section where you have data when name was mentioned. Second thing, linguistically, the vowels in the names usually change, not consonants, no matter that "baya" and "Bač" "sound similar" to you. Finally removing the sentence that "name was recorded among Vlachs, Slavs and Hungarians" with that "was a common Hungarian personal name" is an outrage POV with the purpose of fact twisting. And now please tell me, if the name is of Hungarian origin, how it can be recorded in Montenegro and Macedonia? And Delvidek was never name for Vojvodina. It was name used to designate part of the KOH in the south from where you was in that time and have nothing to do with Vojvodina. Sites that use that word instead of Vajdasag are irredentist. Also, no matter if name was first used in the 6th or 11th century, the Hungarian origin is impossible because name is founded in the areas where Hungarians never lived. PANONIAN (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"The first reliable written document about Bac dates back to 1094. When Zagreb bishopric was founded ,the name of Archbishop of Bac,Fabian was also written down." - it is copied from you source. The other sentences are absolutely ambigous about the name, they speak about a town or castrum. Where is the name that Iustinian used in his letter? What form?

(I won't argue about Délvidék, it is used in Hungary until now and it will be used as a synomym for Vajdaság. There are travel guides, books etc, the language doesn't follow the changes of the borders)

What you really don't seem to understand that that nobody disputes that there is a Slavic word "bač". But these three sound in that same order can appear INDEPENDENTLY in other languages also, and in Hungarian it appeared as a personal name in the 11th century. Hungarian linguists claim that this wasn't borrowed from Slavic but Old Turkic. I don't think there is any nationalistic reason behind their claim as they don't deny the other hundreds of Slavic words that exist in Hungarian. Zello 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is something you cannot call revisionist propaganda, a simple guide about personal names and their origins for parents to chose in a Baby Magazin :)

http://www.babaszoba.hu/services/names?letter=B;nid=1-133

It says: "Bács - personal name of Hungarian-Turkic origin, originally a dignitary" It is living name even today although seldon used. Probably irredentist warriors occupied the editorial office of the Baby Magazin... Zello 22:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you first decide - is name of Hungarian or of Turkic origin? (it cannot be of both). Also, in the time when KOH was created in the 1000 AD, the majority of its population were Slavs, so if name existed there and among other Slavs as well, guess again did name emanated independently in two languages or not. The book written by Milica Grković is about names in medieval Serbia (and it mention name Bač), thus if name existed in that time in two neighbouring countries that were mainly inhabited by Slavs, the theory about "independent" origin do not seems likely at all. Besides, name "bač" means nothing in both, Hungarian and Turkic. Comparing it with similar names like "baya" will lead us nowhere because I could say then that name came from Serbian words "bara", "bačva", "buka", "buna", etc, etc... That is not linguistics, but pseudo-linguistics. Regarding this baby-name guide, it obviously took that claim from another source that is itself wrong. PANONIAN (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The source is the same I think, simply the Hungarian Etymological Dictionary. You can see that the Pallas Lexicon also writes the same. We can't decide about what group of linguists are right, because we are no linguists. There are complicated rules of sound changes etc. The Hungarian language borrowed a lot of words from Turkic in the 6-9th centuries and they changed radically, this is the reason because the word is called of Turkic-Hungarian origin. But NPOV doesn't mean we have to decice in this question, if there are reliable sources than the question is presented as disputed. There are two linguistic theories, that's all. Zello 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You first explain why you replaced sentence "the name was recorded among Vlachs, Slavs and Hungarians" with "Bács was a common Hungarian personal name" and then we will discuss other things. PANONIAN (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't replaced, it is there even now next to each other!

I found an example for a similarly "impossible" sound change, sayi (Turkic, means number) -> szám. y->m Zello 23:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you should know that I reported you for 3rr violation. Since I do not want to follow your steps I will remove entire name section after 24 hours. I would rather see entire section removed than to tolerate nationalistic propaganda. PANONIAN (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that it was 3RR because at last time an anonym user appeared from the nowhere with 0 edit and deleted the disputed section. I can assume only two things: 1, that's an unknown new vandal, 2, you are using sockpuppets to evade 3RR. I assumed good faith I decided that a vandal appeared (not communicating on the talk page of course). Also removing the whole section is absurd because both theories are well sourced. Zello 00:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's absurd - a compromise is not the same as deleting the disputes. Both theories are well sourced so there is no reason to delete them. By the way you really not able to bear the possibility that a name in Vojvodine CAN be of Hungarian origin? There dozens of Slavic place all over Hungary and nobody makes such show about them... Zello 00:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the anonymous user is my friend from irc chat (he edit Wikipedia from time to time), But the question is who is another one. Should we compare his IP adress with yours? :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You should :)) 195.56.12.45 00:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, why not. I don't have any socks. That anonymous friend is not Bonny by the way? Zello 00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well ask him, he read this page too, but anyway to answer last one: some other names in Vojvodina are of Hungarian origin, but not this one. The claim that "bač" came from "baya" is so ridiculous that it is same as we write that humans derived from the pigs. I proposed that we should remove section instead to write science fiction theories. PANONIAN (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WHY is ridiculous? Because the sound change seems impossible to you? That's not enough. The only evidence can be the Iustinianus letter. If he used the name in some Latinized (but recognisable) form then I would accept the certainty of Slavic origin. Until that there are only two linguistic theories. Zello 00:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we remove both, Slavic and Hungarian theories and left only Vlach (the name "bač" as such have meaning only in Romanian). And it is also not enough that you (or your source) claim that "bač" came from "baya". That also should be proved by some facts. PANONIAN (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not a game that if you are not able to win then delete your part and my part. Obviously the two theories are widely accepted among the linguists of the two countries. They disagree that's it. Take a look at the Origin of the Romanians article - do you think that the NPOV version would be to delete both theories??? Zello 00:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what you call a "theory" is a nationalistic propaganda developed by Hungarian irredentists who have goal to prove that everything in neighbouring countries was Hungarian. Therefor, they invent such ridiculous name theories. One single reson to remove it: it is not a "theory" but irredentist propaganda. PANONIAN (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC) etc. They obviously used

Another personal name guides strictly for commercial use not "propaganda": http://www.babaruhazat.hu/fiunevek.php, http://www.cardxpress.hu/nevnapferfi.htm, http://www.bebinfo.hu/cikkek.php?uid=340&cikkmegnez=1 etc. They obviously used the Hungarian Etymological Dictionary as source. That's the ONLY theory you will find about the name in Hungarian sources. Zello 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I offer compromise. We will achieve nothing with this, so I suggest that we make new article named Bach (name) (with English "ch" instead of Serbian "č" or Hungarian "cs") where even such ridiculous theories about origin from "baya" could be mentioned, while this article will mention only that name of the town came personal name and nothing more. As anybody can see, this is article about town, not about name, so there is no reason for destroying this article because of one separate subject. PANONIAN (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That English version never existed so it's absolutely misleading as an article title. The town gave its name to the county and indirectly to the whole Bačka region. The name theories should be placed in these three articles as relevant information. That section didn't "destroy" the article, it is an NPOV version because doesn't claim that one or another theory is true. Such disputes are only solved like this or doing more research. There is a clear way for this to you - look up the Iustinian letter in some publication and present the form he used. That will be important new info. Zello 01:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, IT IS NOT A NPOV version. It is an false theory THAT PRESENT two totally unrelated names "bač" and "baya" as related with propagandist and irredentist purpose. That is unacceptable for decent Wikipedia article. I proposed that you remove propagandist POV to new article simply to prevent that you further vandalize this one. PANONIAN (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You really don't seem to understand the core of NPOV - even those theories should have a place in articles that the another group of people don't like. Do you think that followers of Daco-Romanian theory accept the other theory as a real possibility? No, they call it Hungarian-inspirated propaganda. You can see that the Turkic theory is more than 100 year old and it is accepted by a lot of commercial websites who certainly not interested in Vojvodina at all. Zello 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only proposal I have: delete the half sentence that the name was derived from baya. I will create a normal article about Bács (name) where the Hungarian personal name will be presented together with this Turkic theory. Zello 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, now we going somewhere, but more things should be changed: if the Hungarian sources claim that name is of Turkic origin, then we should write that it is of Turkic origin, not of Hungarian, right? Second, the name was indeed used in several languages, so the sentence that "In the early Árpádic era (11-13th centuries) Bács was a common Hungarian personal name" is unacceptable because in that time it was also common Vlach and Slavic name, thus the NPOV and correct version of the sentence is that "name was recorded among Vlachs, Slavs and Hungarians" (With the previous sentence you certainly want to impose your POV that name was only Hungarian). And the words "Hungarian linguistic territory" are also unacceptable because Slavs and Vlavhs lived there as well, so you want again to imply that name was Hungarian instead Vlach or Slavic. PANONIAN (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you won't wipe out the other theory from the article. There should be two clearly distinct point-of-view next to each other. The name in that form was Hungarian, only derived from old Turkic, but wasn't Old Turkic in the 11th century. The two other sentence are two argument proving the possibility of the theory. There are absolutely similar arguments about the Slavic placenames in Yugoslavia and the Russian connection. Zello 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a way to clearly separate the two theories: "In the past, Bač was a personal name either of Slavic [1], Balkanic [2] or Hungarian origin. Serbian historians presume that the name of town is either Slavic or Vlach origin, as it was probably spread into other languages by the Vlach shepherds. In Southern Slavic linguistic territory places with the name Bač could be found in the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, and Slovenia. The similar name Bača was recorded among old Russians, which imply the possibility of Slavic origin. [5] On the other hand Hungarian historians presume that the name of the town is of Hungarian origin because Bács was a common Hungarian personal name in the early Árpádic era (11-13th centuries). There are also several place names with the word "bács" in the Hungarian linguistic territory. They think that the town was named after the first comes of county, Bács ispán [4]." Zello 02:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See this: both Vlachs and Slavs lived in what you claim to be "Hungarian linguistic territory", while Hungarians never lived in parts of Yugoslavia where this name existed. This is a clear example that "your" theory is wrong. So, why you insist on it? PANONIAN (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not my theory but the accepted Hungarian one. As I already said the words can be absolutely independent from each other. And there are a lot of other possibilites: probably Slavs also borrowed the name from Turkic peoples living in Balkan that time etc. That's not our task to resolve this dispute only to present the two point of view. You cannot write in such a way in wikipedia that only the Serbian theory exists. Zello 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your friend has dozens of names... Zello 02:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Name

I admit that I didn't bother to read the comments on the talk page, but it appears that there's a dispute over the origin of the Name. I don't think anyone here is going to convince one another of who is "right" here, the point is that if a theory can be supported by a verifiable source, then it deserves to be mentioned. The sources don't have to be neutral, as long as they're attributed properly (i.e. "according to Hungarian historians..."). There was a similar dispute at the Karbala article, and I hope that we can apply the same sort of method over here, and make it work. —Khoikhoi 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This certainly makes a candidate for WP:LAME. As Khoikhoi said, the solution is to include all theories as long as they can be cited and attributed.
As a suggestion, I'd prefer the section to be in Bačka article (as the region is far more important than the town, regardless of the fact that the town name is older than the region), with a cross-link from here to there. Duja 08:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The origin of the name of Bačka is clear: Bač + ka, meaning "the land of Bač", thus problem about origin of the name Bač itself belong here. PANONIAN (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important notice

Just to say that I accepted inclusion of such ridiculous theory that "bač" came from "baya" only to prevent that this article is further vandalized, but this theory is same if we include theory that "humans derived from pigs" into humans article. This "baya origin" theory exist only because of Greater Hungarian nationalism and nationalistic claims that everything in Central Europe is Hungarian. When Hungarians came to Central Europe, Slavs and Vlachs already lived here and most of the words that Hungarians borrowed from other languages are Slavic (mostly) or Vlach (almost all Hungarian words that designate life in civilized society are of Slavic origin, and that say all). Now, we have problem that Hungarian historians simply DO NOT LIKE the fact that these words and names are Slavic or Vlach, thus when they search for the origin of the name, they do not search with the purpose to find a true origin of the name, but with the purpose to "prove" that name was not Slavic or Vlach (this is because of Greater Hungarian aspirations towards territories inhabited by Slavs and Romanians). Even for such obvious Slavic names they search origin in Turkic or even Iranian languages. Here is very good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csob%C3%A1nka&diff=59286831&oldid=57871485 Such clean and clear Slavic name Csobánka (čobanka - female shepherd, while čoban is male shepherd in Slavic) was explained as derivate from Iranian word suban!!! (No matter of the existence of the Slavic word "čoban", and no matter that this village is still partially inhabited by Slavs). Of course, I do not accuse for that Wikipedia editor that added this, but I accuse the historian who wrote book where this Wikipedia editor found this data. Same thing is with name Bač. The Hungarian historians had a mission to prove that this name is Hungarian (this in fact had much larger geo-political implications than simply to describe origin of one small town, because such implications transfer from here to the entire Bačka region), thus in order to prove Hungarian origin of the name Bač, they searched for meaning of this name in Hungarian. When they saw that it means nothing in Hungarian, they searched in Turkic, and when they saw that it means nothing in Turkic too, they searched for any word in Turkic and Hungarian that have at least two (!) similar letters with word "bač" (I am sure that they were very happy when they found Turkic name "baya"). Interestingly, they never searched in Romanian (the only language in which this name have meaning), or in Slavic where you have a dozen of "similar" names ("similar" to "bač" like "baya" is), like bačva (very similar indeed), bara, baka, baba, bala, etc, etc. Of course, they simply DID NOT WANT to explain origin of name as Vlach or Slavic. And finally, I have nothing against Hungarian names. In fact, you can see my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telep&diff=55048218&oldid=55030008 I even explained original Hungarian version of this name there (because name is clearly Hungarian), but to claim that name "bač" is Hungarian or Turkic only because Hungarian historians think that it is "similar" to old Turkic word "baya" is completelly ridiculous and was invented with a geo-political purpose to prove "Hungarian historical right" for inclusion of Bačka into Greater Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The personal name Subanus was first mentioned in written sources in 1177... Today Serbs moved in Csobánka only in the 18th century. Zello 13:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again

Seems that Zello again demonstrates his nationalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba%C4%8D&diff=73215843&oldid=73210046 Your sentence "In the early Árpádic age (11- 13th centuries) Bács was a common Hungarian personal name" is ALREADY COVERED with the sentence that "its existence was recorded among Vlachs, Slavs and Hungarians in the Middle Ages". You AGAIN want to imply that name was USED ONLY AMONG HUNGARIANS, WHICH IS AN OUTRAGE LIE! Do you want to say that Árpádic age was not during the Middle Ages??? And also claiming that name is "scattered all over the former Kingdom of Hungary" instead that it is "scattered all over the Balkans and Central Europe – in the countries of former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Romania" is ANOTHER LIE because such places exist in the parts of former Yugoslavia that WERE NEVER PART OF THE KINGDOM OF HUNGARY. PANONIAN (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add that it also exists in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Russia etc. and the alleged "Hungarian" name is very probably a Slovak one (from Slovak counties). I am blocked, but I just would like to point this out. User:Juro

Well, this certainly put some light on it: http://fallingrain.com/world/a/B/a/269/ PANONIAN (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that article is about the Hungarian personal name which exists today. From the etymology section it is clear that the word was know among the Slavs and Vlachs also. As for the other sentence do you really not understand that this is the same as you wrote? AND THE BALKAN - this is the regions what were never part of the KoH. But I won't use the expression of Yugoslavia speaking about the Middle Ages. By the way I still didn't see any evidence that the word not only existed in Slavic and Vlach but was used as a personal name also. The Romanian sentence only says that it means shepherd - that's not a personal name. Is there anybody in Serbia and Romania who is called Bač now? Zello 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(Calling loudly somebody a liar in a content dispute is a personal attack) Zello 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What is problem with you? Do you understand that this what you doing is a POV PUSHING. Again: THERE IS NO SINGLE PROOF THAT NAME WAS ORIGINALY HUNGARIAN OR THAT PERSON AFTER WHOM THIS TOWN WAS NAMED WAS A HUNGARIAN. Either prove this, either stop your nationalistic edits. Second, the places are located in the territory of former Yugoslavia, but if you want, we can mention ALL countries of former Yugoslavia where these places exist instead. Regarding, the evidence that name existed as personal name among Serbs and Vlachs, the evidence are "dečanske hrisovulje", the medieval Serbian documents from the 14th century where this personal name is documented (The entire book of Milica Grković is about these documents). PANONIAN (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop labeling my edits propaganda, lie, vandalism, POV-pushing etc or I will report your behaviour to an admin. I lost my patience seeing you are not able to argue in a non-agressive way. If the name was used by Serbs in medieval times you can mention this fact in the name article. Balkan is a geographic entity - much better to use it speaking about the Middle Ages then present-day countries. The Kingdom of Hungary also not-anachronistic. Zello 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"If the name was used by Serbs in medieval times you can mention this fact in the name article." Yes, I mentioned that there, as well as you can mention Arpad in the name article as well. To analyse your edit here again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba%C4%8D&diff=73231658&oldid=73210046 The sentence "In the early Árpádic age (11- 13th centuries) Bács was a common Hungarian personal name" is 100% covered with sentence that "its existence was recorded among Vlachs, Slavs and Hungarians in the Middle Ages". Árpádic age was part of Middle ages, and name was not only Hungarian, so with this sentence you basically repeated part of the previous sentence and pulled it out of context. I can here elaborate much about mention of the name in Serbia in the 14th century too, but I have to remind you that this is article about town, not about names, thus name articles are proper place for such elaborations. Finally, the list of place names mention place names that exist TODAY (not those that existed in medieval times, because names are from Auto atlas that was printed in Zagreb in 1972), so the names of the present countries are only names that we can use here. PANONIAN (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1, We are speaking about the Middle Ages when these names were given, not the present. In this region where present-day countries are absolutely different than medival ones your usage is misleading. Speaking about the origin of a name it is irrelevant what present-day countries have the given villages now. 2, The name article is about the Hungarian name because that's the only one that exists today (since the Middle Ages). The sentence you disagree with is true and veryfiable. I won't delete any other true and veryfiable information about the same medieval Serbian name. Zello 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The "name" section have two paragraphs: one speak about origin of the name and the second one speak about other geographical locations that have same or similar names. Please explain why you deleted sentence about 3 same names. It is not same if name is similar or same. PANONIAN (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a more concise version and it consists every important info about locations. Zello 22:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic study

Here I found at last a good explanation about the difference of the two theories. There were two words with different origin in medieval Hung. language. 1, Bácsa later Bács personal name of Old Turkic origin. 2, bács - chief of the shepherds, borrowed from Slavic-Vlach languages. The same three sounds but not the same words, similarly than vár - "to wait" and vár - "fortress". So nobody tries to deny the existence of the Slavic word and names, place names derived from it. But Hungarian place names of early Árpádic origin were derived from the personal name. In the case of this given town NOBODY can decide what happened because both possibilities are realistic. The town and the county was re-established by the first Árpáds (Stephen or one of his followers) but there was a local Slavic population. Only the Iustinian letter can prove something. Zello 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, my historical atlas claim that town was called Bagasin in the 9th century. I hope this will not cause new revert war about origin of that name. :)))) PANONIAN (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Bagasin? It seems far enough from Bač, Bácsa or anything like that. Zello 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not mean that current name derived from it. It might be that name from Iustinian letter, however. PANONIAN (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems very probable. By the way my contribution wasn't nationalistic propaganda and you gave an example of NOT assuming good faith in the whole debate. Zello 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a bad day, what can I do? I currently have some personal problems in my life, and I need somewhere to empty all negative energy that I collect during a day. You should not take it personal. PANONIAN (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a crybaby it doesn't matter. Despite the many nice wiki-rules the whole thing is somewhat like a sport match but better to play fair. Zello 00:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puppetry

Regarding this revert - Some people around here seem to have started thinking that using sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is a good idea. It is not. As long as I have no strong clue as to who their master is, I'll use my 3 opportunities per day to revert such users' edits (even though I know 3RR is a restriction, not a privilege), and I'll also bring the matter to WP:AN/I as I feel appropriate. "You have been warned." KissL 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I already warned about these sockpuppets here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magyarization#Sockpuppetry And not to mention that certain users revert page 6-7 times per day using same nickname (such users even do not need sockpuppets to broke 3rr). Very sad indeed. PANONIAN (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vid/Vitus

Zello, as you found about name Bač/Bacs, name Vid/Vitus also have two origins. Sveti Vid (Saint Vid) was old Slavic god and Vid is a name of Slavic origin (meaning "the one who can see" or "the one who have knowledge"). Another name Vitus is of Latin origin ad two names are later often confound. My source claim that this prefect had name Vid. Do you have some other source that claim that name was originally written as Vitus? PANONIAN (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And regarding year when town was first mentioned under this name, this source claim that it was in 1094 when the name of Archbishop of Bač, Fabian was mentioned: http://www.bac.co.yu/english/Pocetna.htm PANONIAN (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bács-Bodrog#History "Bács county arose as one of the first comitatus of the Kingdom of Hungary, in the 11th century". If the county was first mentioned in the 11th century that is also evidence about existence of town under this name because county was named after town. PANONIAN (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I also found now the 1094 date as the first mention of the short-lived archbishopric that was amalgamated with the Archbishopric of Kalocsa in 1135. I haven't found that earliest name variant yet. Zello 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As for Vid I looked up hu-wiki where the article says that it is the South-Slavic variant of Guido and Guido is the Latinized variant of the German Wido. So the name is German-Latin-Slavic, and the original meaning was "woodman". The article mentions another theory: it was derived from the Latin Vitus. Then the original meaning is "ready, willing". On a Hungarian forum about names (certainly not a scientific source but generally quite good) - see http://forum.index.hu/Article/showArticle?t=9056730&la=53223724 - I found that Vid is a diminutive form of the Latin Vitus and as such it was probably evolved in the Slavic languages. The Hung. commercial sources - as Vid was also borrowed and still used as a Hungarian name - simply claim that it is of German-Latin-South Slavic origin. It seems quite complicated. Zello 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, man, as I said Vid was Slavic god. See article about him and all variants of his name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetovid "Sventevith, Svetovid, Suvid, Svantevit, Svantovit, Svantovít, Swantovít, Sventovit, Zvantevith, Świętowit, Sutvid, Vid". PANONIAN (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it is one possible theory but here we have at least to other theories also the one with Wido and the other with Vitus. They are also Slavic partially but not exclusively. Zello 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanians

Zello wrote: "I don't think it existed as a place name, Romanians never lived there in the past hundreds of years"

Well, check the demographics section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bač#Ethnic_groups_.282002_census.29 According to the 2002 census, Romanians are relatively large minority in the city and their language is official in Vojvodina, so why we should not include Romanian name? PANONIAN (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the town in my toponymical lexicon and I found only the South-Slavic, Hungarian and German names. It is possible that a Romanian name exists, bur are you sure? That's not the same that the word baci exists. Many times smaller minorities simply use the other common names. Zello 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, user Ronline explained that Romanian "ci" is same as Hungarian "cs" or Serbian "č", thus I believe that "Baci" is a correct version of the name of the town written in Romanian. Of course we can ask user Ronline to clarify this. The current presence of Romanian minority in the town is a good reason that we also include Romanian name (although we should see what is a correct version of the town name used by Romanians. I do not believe that they use name "Bač" because they do not have letter "č" in their language). PANONIAN (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Romanian version is. I will find out, however. "Baci" is read in Romanian exactly the same as "Bač", so it's sort of a Romanian phenotic rendition of the Serbian (in the same way that Niš would be written "Niş" or "Miloševič" would be written "Miloşevici". UPDATE: I have done a little bit more research and have found out that while Bečej is known as "Becei" in Romanian, Bač is known simply as "Bač". At least, it is used this way by the Government of Vojvodina, of which Romanian is an official language. See these official sources:[1], [2], [3]. Ronline ✉ 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a presumed name - the word with Romanian orthography. But we don't know whether it really existed as a place name. I don't think because the toponymical lexicon mentions all existing variants (of course mistakes are always possible). If there isn't an accepted Romanian version they certainly use the Bač version similarly that Hungarians call the town of Niš to Niš, not Nis, although we don't have š. Zello 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do quite opposite thing in Serbian with foreign names: New York is Njujork in Serbian, Paris is Pariz, etc. I do not know what Romanians do, however (But Serbian language have Serbian name for every city in the World) :) PANONIAN (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In Romanian, we generally tend to use native names for foreign places (just like in English). In the context of globalisation, this is becoming an increasing tendency in Romania. So, in Romanian, we would use "New York", "Paris", "Sydney", "Vancouver", etc. However, cities that have historically had Romanian populations, are of historical significance or that often have hard-to-pronounce names are given Romanian names - i.e. Budapesta, Belgrad, Varşovia (Warsaw), Debreţin, Seghedin, Giula, Vârşeţ. I don't think Bač may have had that historically-significant a Romanian population, and thus the Romanian name may other be identical to the Serbian name or, in the context of Vojvodinian language rights, simply a phonetic rendition: Bač. This is happening in Romania quite a lot as well, where, for example, the Romani language versions of Romanian toponyms are simply phonetic transcriptions: the city of Budeşti is known as "Budeshti" in Romani, and Iaşi is known as "Yashi". AFAIK, the Slavo-Baltic languages tend to "localise" or "naturalise" foreign names to a greater extent than the Romance or Germanic languages (Hungarian is probably in between). Ronline ✉ 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In Hungarian the situation is exactly the same as in Romanian. Zello 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I think that's quite unusual. Zello 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell me one thing: what is the most common name of Bač in Latin? PANONIAN (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but very probably Bacs because of the county name. Zello 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bacsensis County is a bit strange mix for me. Comitatus Bacsensis is an attributive form, translating into English the -ensis should be dropped. So Bacs County or Comitatus Bacsensis would be better.Zello 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about this: http://mars.elte.hu/varak/aacikkek/354vajdasag.htm Bács – Bač – (Castrum Bachiense). Is it Bachiense a Latin name for the town then? PANONIAN (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And this one is most interesting: http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geuqF_mftEsHkAceFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEwbTllOWlmBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMTMEc2VjA3NyBHZ0aWQD/SIG=12m1c3osc/EXP=1157425919/**http%3a//mnytud.arts.unideb.hu/nevarchivum/szotar/doc/07betuhmut.doc

• Bacchienses Bács
• Bach Bács
• Bách Bács
• Bacha Bágya, Bata
• Bachachiensis Bács
• Bachaciensi Bács
• Bachana Bakonya
• Bachasiensi Bács
• Bachatiensis Bács
• Bache Bács
• Bachfolua Bácsfalva
• Bachiense Bács
• Bachiensem Bács
• Bachienses Bács
• Bachiensi Bács
• Bachiensibus Bács
• Bachiensis Bács
• Bachini Bács
• Bachu Bács
• Bachy Bács
• Bachya Bágya
• Bachyenses Bács
• Bachyensi Bács
• Bachyensis Bács
• Baciense Bács
• Baciensi Bács
• Baciensibus Bács
• Baciensis Bács
• Baciensy Bács
• Bácsa Bácsa
• Bacsiensi Bács

I think we should just pick one. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

brrr - there are a lot of attributive forms among them. Castrum Bachiense means Castrum of Bács where the "of" is the same as the -iense ending. For example Colonia Ostiensis is the Colonia of Ostia. To get the real name you should drop the ending but I think every Latin priest tried to express somehow the same three sound he heard Bač/Bács. In Latin the cs/č sound doesn't exist so they had a huge problem and tried every possible version: Bach, Bacs, Baci, Bachi, Bachy, Bachi (and some more extreme forms). Zello 04:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But we still should pick only one of those names to use it in the article. If form Bach is the one from which other forms derived (town was first mentioned as Bache), then we should use Bach as a most common Latin name of the city. PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval name

Here is a list of name versions with dates:

Bács 1. ’település és vár Bács vm. Ny-i részén a Mosztonga mellett, a vm. központja’ +1158/[1220 k.]//403/PR.: in Baac˙, 1192/374/425: Baac, [1192]>394, [1230]/231, 1234/550 (VRH. 26: 20), 1333 (Sztáray 1: 79), 1341 (Kállay 1: 608): Baach, 1201: Bahc, 1212/231 (EO. 1: 43), 1226/550, 1250 (EO. 1: 214), 1274 (EO. 1: 334), 1325, 1333 (Z. 1: 417), 1346 (MiskOkl. 37–8): Bach, 1214/550: Bachu (Gy. 1: 210–2), 1234/550: Bách (VRH. 26: 20) | ~i 1337: Petrus de Bachy (A. 3: 347, Kállay 1: 514) | Lat. 1111 (DHA. 385), 1113 (DHA. 396): Bache, 1233/PR.: Bathie, 1316: Bachini ¦ 1124/666 (DHA. 416): Baacensis, 1134 (DHA. 261): Baaciensem ~ Baaciensi (Gy. 1: 210–2), 1134/227: Baatiensi (DHA. 261), +1135/[XIII.]: Bachasiensi, 1142/XVIII., 1192/374/425, 1229, 1233, 1234, 1237, [1241 u.], 1244, 1247, 1252, 1254, 1256, 1263, 1265/466/476, 1267, 1270, 1272, [1274 e.], 1275, 1279, 1280, +1282/346, 1289, 1297, 1297/332, 1299, 1301, 1328/335: Bachiensis, +1158/[1220 k.]//403/PR.: Bachyenses, 1163/XIV., 1181/288//XV., 1197/XVIII., 1198, 1198/226/PR., 1199/272, 1200/XIV., 1202, 1208, 1211, 1218 P./PR., 1222, 1229, 1234, 1234 P./PR., 1235 P./PR., 1237, 1238/377, 1240, [1244 e.], 1263, 1266 P./PR., 1270, [1274 e.], 1317 P./PR., 1323: Bachiensi, +1171/[XII–XIII.]: Baasiensis, [1177 k.], +1186/[1270 k.]: Baaciensis, 1179: Bahasnensis, 1181, 1199, 1199/227/PR., 1234: Baciensi, 1183/226/270, [1185]/XV., 1307 P./PR.: Bachiensem, 1192/374/425, 1192/XIII., 1237/279/385, 1263, 1270: Bachyensi, castr., [1192]>394, 1266/379, 1272, 1275, 1279, 1280, +1282/346, 1289, 1297, 1297/332, 1299, 1301, 1311/340, 1328, 1328/335: Bachyensis, 1193, 1199/315, [1230]/231, 1233: Baachiensi, 1197/XVIII.: Bacsiensi, 1198, 1332–7/PR., 1338–40/PR.: Baciense, 1206, 1234: Bááchiensi, 1211: Bahachiensibus, 1211, XIV./1071-re, XIV./1074-re: Bachiensibus, 1215>PR.: Baciensibus, 1217/227/PR.: Bachatiensis, 1217/272: Bachachiensis, 1223 P./PR.: Bachaciensi, 1227 P./PR.: Baatiensi, [1230]/231: Baachiensem, 1233, 1320 P./PR., 1332–7/PR., 1338–40/PR.: Baciensis, 1241 P./PR.: Baziensi, 1244, [1244 e.], 1247, 1252, 1254, 1255, 1263, 1263/466/476, 1270, [1274 e.]: Bachiense, castr., 1263: Bakachiensi, 1276/641: Batatinio [ƒ: Bacacinio], 1282 P./PR.: Batiensi, 1290: Bakachyni, 1309 P./PR.: Batiensis, 1332–7/PR.: Baciensy ~ Waciensis [ƒ: Baciensis], XIV./1074-re: Bacchienses ~ Bachienses ~ Wachienses [ƒ: Bachienses] | Arab [1154]: Bak(a)sŁn | Gör. [1180–83]/1164-re: Pag©tzion | Ol. 1309–11: Baccia (Gy. 1: 210–2).

That lexicon gives data only until 1350. Obviously the orthography of the name changed with times, in the 18th century the cs-version was used (see the county name). That's part of the bigger problem with place names of the KoH. There is a constant fight about this question but I think we are on the right way when looking up the versions used in written documents of the administration of the age. Basically we are searching for the HISTORICAL official name, not the present-day one or the modern Hung form. Latin is not a real solution because only a handful bigger towns had any real Latin names (like Cassovia). What makes things more complicated that there weren't one, clearly set name but a dozen more or less different version. We will be able to establish the most often used of them but I don't think we have to stick to the ever changing old orthography. Now the name itself is not a problem - obviously it was always Bač/Bács in every language. For the orthography I don't know the practical solution. Taken another village: nobody would write Abawyvar instead of Abaújvár. Without the ethnic dimension the old orthography itself is not a problem. French, German, Italian orthography changed a lot from the Middle Ages but nobody cares. This is not the same as using anachronisms like Istanbul for 13th century. Zello 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)