Etymology and Adaptation of Loanwords in Greek: μοῦτζος / μοῦτσος and μουζακίτζης [L. Diac. hist. V 91–92] — Span. mozo? Pers. موزک? Arm. մուճակ? Slav. ìѹæü?

Stefanchikov Igor' Vyacheslavovich PhD in Philology Education and Methodology Specialist, Department of Ibero-Roman Language Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie Gory str., 1, p. 51, room 1058 i.stf@ya.ru Davydov Tikhon ORCID: 0000-0002-3103-2844 Education and Methodology Specialist, Department of Classics, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie Gory str., 1, p. 51, room 1026 tychondavydov@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Gorshkov Andrey Ivanovich Lecturer, Academic Chair of Latin Language and Terminology, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University 117997, Russia, Moscow, Ostrovityanova str., 1, office 3105 a.i.gorshkov95@mail.ru Other publications by this author

IntroductionThere are quite a lot of words in any language of the world, the etymology of which is not completely clear.

There are different versions of their origin — especially in languages such as Greek, whose speakers actively interacted with different cultures in different historical epochs; Greek culture has always been at the intersection of cultural and civilizational influence and language contacts.

The number of tokens / and perfectly illustrates the problem, as in this case, etymological causes considerable difficulties. The problem of the origin and initial meaning of these lexemes was also dealt with by major researchers in the field of neo-Hellenistic studies, who put forward various versions of the origin of these words. These versions are consistently considered in this study.

Presumably, one of the first to touch on this issue was Adamantios Korai (also often called Adamantios/Adamandios Korais; we adhere to the lifetime version of the transfer of his surname), the creator of kafarevousa (a "purified" version of the Modern Greek language from barbarisms). Then the problem is considered by Evangelinus Apostolides Sophocles (Evangelinos Apostolides Sophocles/Sophocles; we use the variant "Sophocles", because this is an honorary nickname ^{[18, pp. 502-504]}), who is considered the father of Modern Greek philology (neo-Hellenistic). However, the question of the source language of the lexemes under consideration, to which this article is devoted, remains open.

It should be noted that at the moment there is no clear view on whether the tokens / and related, so that their etymology is further complicated. Despite the fact that it is not possible to unequivocally confirm the relationship of lexemes, they can be connected through semantic convergence, morphological decomposition and phonetic convergence of different etymons within the framework of folk etymology.

Let's briefly list the versions of the origin of the analyzed lexemes: Spanish, Persian (possibly through Armenian), Slavic. In addition, these versions should not be considered in isolation, since they do not necessarily contradict each other: some of them may form several parallel systems of mutual influence.

I.  / ? (mozzo ?) mozoThere is no doubt that and are diachronic variants of the same lexeme.

The spelling c -- in lexicography goes back to Korai and is an attempt to bring barbarism to a more traditional and typical form for the orthography of the late Antique and Byzantine periods (cf.: John Tzets — ). Indeed, such orthography is often characterized by the non-distinction of deaf and voiced affricates when reflecting borrowings, unlike the orthography of modern Modern Greek (after the abolition of kafarevousa in 1976), where the phonetic principle of writing is more consistently applied: /ts/ and /dz/ are always distinguished by letter combinations and ^{[39, p. 476]}. The variant reflects the post-reform orthography of the Modern Greek language, where all diacritics except akut are abolished. It is important to note that this token, there are many other irregular medieval variants of the adaptation period of the borrowing: µ, µ /?mutsjos/ and diminutive , µ, µ ^[19], etc. Some of these entrenched in the modern Greek language as names, so this analysis is also important for the study of modern Greek onomasticon.

            As already mentioned, the first thing available to us a scientific review token can be found in the multi-volume the lexicographical work of Adamantium Koray "" where it appears in the form of (V, 1835). Koray combines all the homophones in the same dictionary entry ^{[45, p. 225]}.

In the first paragraph of a dictionary entry is a variant, which is a distorted ? (in modern spelling — ), which means 'must', 'grape must' (mo?t — in "" meta-language lexicographical description is French). According to Cora, the name comes from the Italian spoken language ( ) and later transformed into a more "barbarities" ( []). This information can be found in the article about the word , which also means ‘must’ ^{[45, pp. 224-225]}. Obviously, from the point of view of modern ideas about Greek phonetics, this place can be interpreted as follows: ? , that is, /st/ shifted to /ts/, which could be recorded in the combination (see above). It is unlikely that in this meaning is pronounced as /?mudzos/.

In the second paragraph of a dictionary entry Koray provides some examples that represent homonyms to ‘musts’: (‘groom’, ‘breeder’), which is proposed to replace the ancient Greek (valet d'?curie, palefrenier). The following are synonyms for : valet (note that this word is Slavism) and muletier ‘mulovod'.

To the third paragraph of article assigned a value of 'Jung': " , (mousse), , . (. II, I, . 689)", which can be translated as: " — we now call a young man serving on ships (mousse), also v — the ancient Greek counterpart of Hippocrates [Hippocr. epid. II, I, 689]». From this and the previous passages it can be seen that in most cases Korai gives "purified", correct substitutions ( and v) to the barbarians established in the Modern Greek language — this is the main task of the work "".

In the last section of a dictionary entry is the etymology of the token : " ? , Mozo ? (jeune) , , , . (often (?), but witnessed Hesychia — approx. ed. article), ' ". Translation: "As ? , comes from the Spanish mozo , jeune ('young' — approx. ed. articles), which in turn, according to etymologists, comes from , which in Greek means not only a young bull, but in general everything young and fresh." Finally, the and are given in the general index of lexemes ^{[46, p. 83]}.

As already mentioned, in modern Modern Greek, the analyzed lexeme has the form , which is recorded in normative dictionaries.

The most detailed interpretation given in the dictionary Demetrius Dimitruk(OS)and: ", , , , , 15 ? " ^{[43, p. 4774]} ("young (), in a broader sense, the student sailor, novice, not used to sailing and the sea under the age of 15, serving in either a military or commercial ship for the purpose of training naval craft"). Dimitrak relates the word to demotica, and indicates diminutive neuter , citing its importance: " , , , " ("the boy is used as a cabin boy, little young sailor"). Both dictionary entries are provided with examples, including from folk (demotic) songs ^{[43, p. 4774]}. Also, the lexemes v, v, v are considered separately in the dictionary ^{[43, p. 4852]}.

            In the dictionary of Manolis Triantafyllidis token given the following interpretation: "that is natural " ("a boy or young man who serves as the vessel for the purpose of training naval craft") ^[50]. Ital is given as an etymon. mozzo, which is proposed to be compared with the Spanish mozo. The transition o ? u is explained by the influence of the labial /m/ or the closed pronunciation of /o/ in the southern dialects of the Italian language. As synonyms in the relevant entries are token and , and the first of them represents a further (compared to Kareem, which relies on Hippocrates) hyperarousal () from ^[50].

In the dictionary of George Babiniotis () explains how " , " ("learning a sailor without a specialty"). In the etymological section of the dictionary entry, only ital is given. mozzo, ascending, according to Babiniotis, to lat. musteus ‘’, ‘v’ (‘fresh’, ‘young') (from Lat. mustus with the same semantics) ^{[53, p. 1130]}. As a synonym of the given word Dating back to 1889, and ; unlike dictionary Triandafyllidis, is not a synonym , a diminutive form from (‘sailor’) ^{[53, p. 1167]}.

It is worth noting that Babiniotis in the "Etymological Dictionary of the Modern Greek language", published after , clarified the etymology by introducing the Spanish mozo: ? ital. mozzo ? use mozo ‘ — , (sic!)’ (‘young sailor — sailor, boy') ? lat. must(e)us. As a "solemn" or "official" ( — due to the abolition of kafarevousa, Greek lexicographers are forced to invent new terms describing words that have arisen in this version of the language), a synonym is proposed for v ^{[52, p. 881]}. The composites v and v were transferred from to the etymological dictionary, dating v — 1889; for v, only the litters of were added. — "learned", as well as information that this token is a translation of the French mousse ^{[52, pp. 911-912]}. Interestingly, indeed, in one of the early French-Modern Greek phrasebooks published in 1852, the nautical term le mousse ‘cabin boy’ is translated precisely as ? , o? ^{[25, p. 49]}.

The "Dictionary of Medieval Greek Folk Literature (1100-1669)" by Emmanuel Kriaras does not take into account ^[47] the lexemes / .

According to the statistical analysis of Sina Ahmadi, performed on the material of the "Dictionary of Foreign Words of the Modern Greek language" by Ilias Constantinou ^[48], ? 1.02% (41 lexemes) of the total fund of borrowings included in the dictionary, which is 4.037 units, goes back to the Spanish language ^[11].

For a deeper understanding of the possible ways of borrowing the Spanish lexeme mozo into the Greek language, it seems appropriate to consider the origin and trajectory of the semantic evolution of this word in the Spanish language.

The mozo token has a wide range of meanings. Thus, in the most authoritative academic explanatory dictionary of the Spanish language Diccionario de la lengua espa?ola (DLE, until 2014 — Diccionario de la Real Academia Espa?ola, DRAE), the word has 15 meanings, of which 13 remain relevant in the modern language.

As an adjective mozo, -a can mean: "young, due to age or preservation of characteristics characteristic of youth" (1. adj. Joven, por su poca edad o por las caracter?sticas de joven que conserva. Te veo muy moza. U. t. c. s. ^[32]); ‘single', ‘unmarried' (2. adj. Soltero, c?libe. U. T. C. S. ^[32]); obsolete. ‘libertine', ‘womanizer' (3. adj. desus. mocero. ^[32]).

As a common noun (mozo, -a), the lexeme may, in addition to the 1st and 2nd meanings mentioned above, have other meanings: "(about a person) staying in adolescence" (4. m. y f. Persona que est? en su mocedad. ^[32]); "a servant especially specializing in a particular type of work", e.g. a waiter (5. m. y f. Persona que sirve como criado, en especial la destinada a un menester determinado. Mozo de cuadra. Moza de mes?n. ^[32]); ‘low-skilled worker’ (6. m. y f. Empleado de categor?a inferior, que realiza servicios para los que no se precisa gran cualificaci?n. Mozo de estaci?n, de caf?. Moza de hotel. ^[32]). As a masculine noun, mozo can also denote, in addition to a number of household items and technical realities, a conscript (7. m. Individuo sometimes al servicio militar desde que era alistado hasta que ingresaba en la caja de reclutamiento. ^[32]). As a feminine noun, moza also has, in addition to a number of specialized, little-used nowadays meaning "a woman who maintains an illicit sexual or romantic relationship with someone" (15. f. p. us. Mujer que manten?a una relaci?n sexual o amorosa il?cita con alguien. ^[32]).

In addition, the dictionary entry mozo, za DLE contains a wide range of concretizing expressions used to designate a servant or employee (see values 5 and 6 above) engaged in a certain type of activity: mozo de caballos ‘groom’ (see above ‘groom'), mozo de cordel (de cuerda, de esquina) ‘porter‘, mozo de espuela (de mulas) ’drover‘, mozo de estoques ’servant-squire of the matador‘, moza de c?mara ’maid‘, moza de c?ntaro ’maid-water carrier‘, moza de fortuna (del partido, de vida) ’prostitute', etc.

The question of the origin of the word is quite developed in the Spanish etymological tradition, but there is virtually no consensus on this problem. The state of the issue is best summarized by etymologist Juan Corominas, author of the most authoritative etymological dictionary of the Spanish language Diccionario cr?tico etimol?gico castellano e hisp?nico (DCECH, 1980-1991), noting that since the beginning of the XIX century. in Spanish studies, "everyone considers it his duty to express his opinion" about the origin of a limited number of basic words for the language, including mozo, as a result of which the etymology of this and some other lexemes has been considered "ten, one hundred, two hundred times" ^{[16, p. 174]}.

The word mozo (mo?o /?motso/ in medieval spelling and pronunciation) from the point of view of origin is traditionally analyzed together with words of similar phonetic appearance and semantic content — mocho ‘dumb, not sharp’ (and other meanings) and muchacho ‘(about a person) young’, ‘boy, young man’, etc.

Already in early lexicographical works, these three words are considered as related. For example, Francisco de Rosal in his etymological dictionary (El Origen y etimolog?a de todos los vocablos originales de la lengua castellana, 1601) considers mochacho to be a diminutive form of mo?o: "Mochacho, es diminutivo de Mo?o, como Mo?acho" ^[33]. The same opinion is shared by Sebastian de Covarrubias (Tesoro de la lengua castellana, o espa?ola, 1611): "este vocablo tiene el mesmo origen que el passado (mo?o — author's note. articles); conuiene a saber, mocho, mutilus, porque no ha crecido todo lo q ha de crecer" ^[17]. Korominas in his DCECH also draws attention to the semantic similarity of the words mozo and muchacho ^{[16, pp. 172-175]}.

Before Corominas, it was customary to raise the word mozo (mo?o) to Lat. musteus ‘fresh’, ‘young' ^{[29, p. 427]}; ^{[21, p. 387]}, mocho — to lat. mutilus ‘crippled' ^{[21, p. 381]}. Corominas, however, points out contradictions in the generally accepted versions, noting that the final form of mozo from the point of view of the history of phonetic transformations is expected in Castile, but not in the dialects of Leon and Rioja or Galician-Portuguese sources, where it is fixed in an identical phonetic appearance from the earliest stages of the development of the language ^{[16, p. 172]}, and the original Latin mutilus, in accordance with the same phonetic laws, would have passed into not into mocho, but into *mojo — a form that does not exist in Spanish ^{[16, p. 96]}.

Instead, Corominas ranks both lexemes among a large circle of similar units in Romance languages that have similar semantics and phonetic structure, which Romanian researcher Simone Georgescu summarizes as follows: "a voiced bilabial consonant (nasal or explosive: /m/~/b/) + a rounded vowel /o/~/u/ + a deaf explosive (anterolingual or velar: /t/~/k/) or affricate /ts/~/[t?/)": {m/b} + {o/u} + {t/c/ts/t?}. Thus, a series of roots of the type -mot- / -bot-/ -moc- / -mut- / -but- / -mo?- / -mu?- / -mots-stands out, which covers the conceptually narrow lexico-semantic field "dumb —blunted — hornless" (and other derived meanings) which, at first glance, cannot be reduced to a single root [22, p. 191].

That is why Korominas proposes to abandon the practice of "phonetic acrobatics" and, after reviewing the various versions of the origin of the words mozo and mocho, leaves open the question of the etymology of the first ^{[16, p. 174]}, and regarding the second makes the only possible conclusion, in his opinion, that words like mocho do not have etymology, but are spontaneous and independent generation that arose in different Romance languages on the basis of a common expressive articulation type that conveys the idea of "roundness, flatness, dullness" ^{[16, pp. 95-96]}.

This conclusion, however, seems somewhat controversial. Starting from the previously identified group of roots demonstrating semantic similarity (both actually recorded and reconstructed by Wilhelm Meyer-Lubke — muticus, *mutidus, mutilus, *mutius, mutt-, motta (German), *bokya, bot, bot- and Walter von Wartburg — mutt, muttidus, *muttiu, *muts, *but (German), *butt- (German), *bottia, *buttia), Georgescu draws attention to the generality of the semantic component "child" for a number of their derivatives in various Romance idioms (here and further examples are given by Georgescu): ladinsk. mut, mutta, normand. moute, frankoprov. motet, aux. mousse ‘girl', bearn. moussou, cathal. mosso, arag. mo?o, leon. mot?n, astur. motan?n, old Spanish mo?o, and also, quite probably, units formed from the mocho lexeme — Spanish mochil, mochel?n, muchacho ^{[22, p. 194]}.

Further, Georgescu identifies possible trajectories of the path of reinterpretation of primary families or by their direct associative connection of the object with the child (‘log, log’ > ‘branch, stick’ > ‘child’; ‘hornless animal’ > ‘cub’ > ‘child'; ‘hairless, bald’ > ‘child'), or through similarity of characteristics (‘flat, small’ > ‘child’; ‘dumb, not sharp’ > ‘stupid’ > ‘child’), or through metaphorical transfer (‘log, log’ > ‘stupid’ > ‘child') ^{[22, pp. 194-195]}. Thus, it becomes possible to assume a semantic shift of the words mozo and mocho towards the general meaning of ‘child’ ^{[22, pp. 197-198]}. Georgescu also suggests two possible types of relations between the mozo and mocho lexemes — diatopic variants and expressive variants.

The first hypothesis is based on Guy de Poerk's interpretation of various ways of development of the deaf alveolar affricate /ts/, which in Castilian evolved to the deaf dental slit consonant /?/ (mozo), and in Mosarabian — to the deaf postalveolar affricate /t?/ (mocho) ^{[31, p. 89]}. The second hypothesis comes from the variability observed in the Spanish language in a number of lexemes with expressive potential. The affricate /t?/ in this respect is a more marked variant corresponding to the neutral /ts/, /s/ or /k/ — cf. nacho vm. naso ‘nose’, chichito vm. chiquito; Georgescu also cites as a possible example chico vm. *?ico ? *cico (? lat. ciccum) and allows similar expressive variability not only in modern Spanish, but also at the Proto-Roman stage: *mu(t)tius ? Spanish mozo, mu(t)ticus ? Spanish mocho, and also extending this hypothesis to the possible alternation *mut(t)- / *but(t)-, which could explain the existence of the words discussed above on b- with similar semantics. In any case, the lexeme muchacho is considered by etymologists as a derivative of either mo?o or mocho. ^{[22, pp. 199-200]}.

Further semantic evolution from the meaning of "child" is outlined by Korominas. In Old Spanish (e.g. Gonzalo de Berceo), the mo?o lexeme is used as a noun to refer to a child rather than a young man. Even in the Spanish-Latin dictionary of Antonio de Nebrija (Vocabulario espa?ol-latino, 1495) we see: "mo?o de edad peque?a: puer <...> mo?a peque?a de edad: puella" ^[30]. Already in the XIV century, however, the use of the lexemes mo?o, mo?a is recorded in relation to adolescents, and then to men and women who have not reached adulthood — see "The Book of Good Love" by Juan Ruiz (1330?), "Count Lucanor" by Juan Manuel (1331-1335). The development of the meaning of "servant, maid" Korominas also refers to the XIV century. ^{[16, p. 172]}. Subsequently, the lexeme continues to expand its semantics, acquiring a number of specialized meanings (for example, ‘jung’, ‘groom’, ‘porter’), and is so rooted in the meanings of ‘young’, ‘young man’ that the synonymous word joven even in the function of an adjective continues to be felt as cultism (scientific borrowing) for a long time ^{[16, p. 172]}.

From Spanish, as Corominas points out, the word has passed into other languages: cathal. mosso ‘servant’ and mossa ‘maid', ‘young girl'; French. mousse ‘cabin boy'; staroital. mozzo ‘the servant’ ? modern Italian. ‘jung' ^{[16, p. 173]}. The opinion about the borrowing of this word from Spanish by other Romance languages is shared by Catalan, French and Italian etymologists.

So, in the "Catalan-Valencian-Balearic Dictionary" by Anthony Maria Alcover and Francesca de Borchi Mola (El Diccionari catal?-valenci?-balear, 1963) as a source of catalas. mosso is given by caste. mozo: "Etim.: del cast. mozo" ^[12]. The compilers, relying on the work of Benedek Vidos on marinisms-Italianisms in the French language (Storia delle parole marinaresche italiane passate in francese, 1939), reject the possibility of the origin of cathals. mosso, French mousse and ital. mozzo directly from Latin ^[12].

In turn, the Tr?sor de la langue fran?aise, the most authoritative etymological dictionary of the French language, for the first time fixes the lexeme mousse (modern French. ‘cabin boy‘, ’journeyman builder') in 1515-1522 in the form of mosse, in 1547-1550. — in modern form ^[38]. The dictionary considers the French lexeme (as well as Ital. mozzo) by borrowing from Spanish — perhaps through Occitan or Catalan: "Empr., peut-?tre par l'interm?diaire de l'occitan, — soit ? l'esp. mozo <…>, — soit au cat. mosso <…>, lui-m?me empr. (de m?me que l’ital. mozzo « apprenti marin » depuis 1602 d’apr. DEI) ? l’esp. mozo» ^[38].

The Belgian researcher Sven Steffens cites the French mousse as an example of a lexeme that has passed from one professional sphere to another ^{[36, pp. 201-215]}. From the jargon of sailors (see the meaning of "cabin boy", common to various languages), who, being in an environment of constant language contacts, apparently played in this case, as in many others, the role of a "transmitter" of lexical units between languages, this word passed into the speech of representatives of other professions. Steffens registers the use of the mousse lexeme in the Breton language in the meanings of "shepherd boy" and "apprentice". Also, based on data from various regional dictionaries, the researcher notes that the mousse lexeme in the meaning of "apprentice" is fixed in the dialect of the Gom region in southern Belgium in the speech of quarrymen, in France — in the speech of builders, and in Flemish dialects (moes) — in the speech of carpenters and joiners ^{[36, pp. 201-215]}.

The Spanish etymology for the lexeme ital. mozzo ‘the groom' (see above the Spanish mozo de caballos and the Greek. ), ‘the cabin boy' (also obsolete. ‘(low-skilled) servant') also cites the etymological dictionary of the Italian language Vocabolario Treccani: m?zzo2 s. m. [dallo spagn. mozo, che e il lat. musteus, nel sign. di «fresco, giovanile»] ^[41]. Returning to the dictionary entry of Korominas, we note that the lexicographer implicitly indicates that ital. mozzo ‘junga', being itself an adaptation of the Spanish mozo, became the source for the Greek word considered here, referring to the work of Henry and Rene Kahane on Greek place names of Italian origin: «De ah? luego el gr. mod. ‘grumete’ (Kahane, Byz.-Neugriech. Jahrb?cher XV, 106)" ^{[16, p. 174]}.

As a curious observation, we cite the fact that the Spanish humanist Juan de Valdez in his "Dialogue on Language" (Dialogo de la lengua, 1535-1536) asserts exactly the opposite, mentioning mo?o among some other words of the Castilian language, which, in his (often erroneous) opinion, have a Greek etymology, without going into, however, in details ^{[16, p. 174]}.

II. 

In the V book of the "History" of Leo the Deacon, the word occurs as a hapax, about the origin of which there are various hypotheses, which obviously arise precisely from different interpretations of the source text: if the word were not a hapax, it would not have generated so many etymological debates.

We give relevant context (for the editio princeps Karl Benedict Gas 1828): " , , , ' ( · ), , " [L. Diac. hist. V 91–92].

Gaze's translation into Latin: "Tempus igitur iam mihi videtur, narratione de illo et actioninus illius coarctata, de rebus gestis Ioannis, cognomento qui Tzimisces perhibeatur (haec linguae Armeniae appellatio graece conversa muzacitzen valet: id autem, quia erat statura brevissimus, cognomen invenit) pro facultate dicere, ut res scitu utiles et memoria dignae oblivionis voraginibus ne summergantur" ^{[26, pp. 91-92]}.

Translated by M. M. Kopylenko into Russian: "So, it seems to me that it's time to stop the story about [Nikephoros] and his deeds and, if possible, write down the deeds of John, who was nicknamed Tzimisces (this Armenian word in Greek means "slipper"; this nickname was given to John because he was of small stature), — let not useful and memorable deeds disappear into the abyss of oblivion" ^{[5, p. 50]}.

Translation by D. P. Popov: "And so it is my duty to finish this description and, if possible, to count the name of Ioann Tzimiskia (this Armenian nickname, in Greek, means small: he received it because of the smallness of his height), so that useful and memorable events would not be hidden in the depths of oblivion" ^{[4, p. 57]}.

II.1. Persian version: ? m?zakJudging by the text of Leo the Deacon, the word (kleine Sandale ‘little sandal’ ^[37]) should be presented to a potential reader as either a native Greek or a well-adapted loan.

Of course, the former is unlikely (especially considering the Turkish origin of the suffix -), but in any case, the author clearly assumes that the word is exactly familiar to an ordinary native Greek speaker of his time. Indeed, it is not provided with any special comment, but in fact it is such. As Pavel Karolidis suggests, this word was perceived as "Greek" because of its active use, as a result of which Leo the Deacon "used it as Greek to interpret the equivalent Armenian word " ^{[6, p. 150]}.

R. M. Shukurov agrees with this point of view, whose article "Some Persian Borrowings in Middle Greek" is the most important study of the etymology of ^{[9, pp. 123-124]}. In this work, the author consistently defends the Persian origin of the Byzantine ‘boot’, from which the diminutive originates, and denies the Armenian mediation (about which see section II.2). Shukurov sees the reason for borrowing in the fact that "the Byzantines were especially fond of Oriental shoes and borrowed a number of relevant Persian words" ^{[9, p. 123]}. The correctness of this statement can be supported by the fact that already in antiquity we meet not only Iranian loanwords denoting shoes (so, presumably, the borrowing that ultimately goes back to the derivative of the proto-Iranian verb *(h)mau?- ^{[15, pp. 138-140]} is ‘women's shoes’ ^{[13, p. 208]}; ^{[34, pp. 60-62]}; Chantren and Frisk do not mention the Iranian version at all ^{[14, p. 171]}; ^{[20, p. 228]}), but also the substantive adjective , (letters. "Persian") ‘slippers’ ^[27].

It is characteristic that the Middle Persian dialect of m?zak (cf. standard {mwck’} m?zag ^{[28, p. 56]}, dating back to the Prairan. *mau?a-ka- ‘shoes' ^{[10, p. 292]}) and cf.-Persian. late m?zag ^{[10, p. 292]} extends to three sides of the world: in the north we have the Armenian mu?ak, in the south - the Arabic ma mawzaj, in the west - the Greek (standard adaptation of the designation of an inanimate object with the help of the suffix -i). Another interpretation of the Greek is also possible — as originating from the New Persian m?za, followed by a two-stage suffixation -- + -i ^{[9, pp. 123-124]}.

Most likely, the adaptation of the m?zak in Greek in the form of occurred not much earlier than the time of the historian's life and is associated with the military innovations of Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas, the predecessor of John I Tzimiskes: the fact is that the name is found in the Praecepta militaria of Nikephoros II Phokas, the "Tactics" of Nikephoros Uranus and Nikon Chernogorets, as well as "A treatise on the posts of"Pseudo-Codin ^[37], which allows us to date the borrowing to the first half of the X century. It can be seen that it can rather be attributed to the third of the categories of Persian lexical borrowings distinguished by Shukurov ^{[9, p. 119]} — "state terminology and war".

Like many other Iranisms, the word firmly entered the lexical fund of the Greek language, however, it remained in this form until the late Byzantine Empire (XV century). In financial notes dated 1324 ^{[9, p. 124]}, 1328 and 1443, respectively ^[37], the composites Besohlen (von Schuhen) ‘sole’ ^[37] (‘sole of boots’ ^{[9, p. 124]}) and Verk?ufer von Oberleder (f?r Schuhe) ‘leather seller' are found for shoes’. Shukurov is arguing with Peter Schreiner, the publisher of the book "Texts on the Financial and Economic History of Late Byzantium in Manuscripts from the Vatican Library" (Texte zur sp?tbyzantinischen Finanz- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte in Handschriften der Biblioteca Vaticana), in the text of which these composites are found. According to Shukurov, the interpretation of the Schreiner token is inaccurate; offers the interpretation of 'a Shoe salesman' ^{[9, p. 124]}, that is the value of the component is the original (for LBG) — Sandale 'sandal' and not secondary — Oberleder 'leather shoes', which occurs primarily from the treatise of Pseudo-Codina: " " ("over the skin of sandals") ^[37]. Apparently, the confusion in the interpretations (the subject of shoes / the material for the lining of shoes) is related to the peculiarities of the very type of shoes, which was called "": there is no doubt that it was a very light shoe (similar to sandals), which consisted of one sole (leather — according to the LBG version) and fasteners (cf. ). Thus, the appearance of the composites and show the subsequent transition second (for Shukurov) category — "trade terms", which is confirmed by the economic and financial context in which they occur.

In any case, the potential for expanding the range of meanings of the lexeme and other words of the same root is already visible. Karolidis in the article "On the meaning and etymology of the nickname "Tzimiskes"" (" ") writes that the meaning of "short shoes" has evolved into the concept of "short" in General, ^[44] citing as evidence the nickname "" (see below; in Leo the Deacon are talking about the low growth of the Emperor John I Tzimisces) ^{[6, p. 150]}.

The root - and its derivatives turned out to be productive for the formation of Greek nicknames, which later turned into surnames. Among these nicknames there are:

• diminutive: , popular with XI to XV century ^{[9, p. 124]}, and derived from him (?) (after loss -? - morphological and transition models in the I declension in connection with facilitiesin coincidence pronunciation ? and ? in /i/ — with (?), ); (?) (patronymic origin, with options , , ); (option );

• augmentative: (with variants , );

• educated with Formanta -: (with options , );

• educated with Formanta -: (with options , );

• formed with the help of the formant -a ? -a ? -a ? Lat. -arius: (with the variant ) ^[49].

Nicknames-surnames and are included in the "Prosopographical Dictionary of the Paleologian era" ("Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit") Erich Trapp ^[37].

The surname (?) stands out in this series, which is an unadapted nickname of foreign origin — probably through the medium of Turkish, which is indirectly confirmed by the presence of the surname ^[49]. It can be assumed that the stress unusual for surnames on - is explained by the fact that in fact it is a Turkish quasi-patronymic form * o (Mozak-o?lu), which, according to Karolidis' testimony, was popular in the 1920s in Asia Minor among the Turkish-speaking population ^{[6, pp. 150-151]}.

If we accept the Persian version, the word , meaning ‘shoe’, is an example of the origin of a nickname that can be compared with Lat. Caligula. At the same time, because of gameknot token it can be interpreted not as the generic diminutive from the name of Persian origin shoes (slipper), but as (with a capital letter, "Shoe" or "Bashmachkin"), i.e. the translation of the Armenian nicknames Greek counterpart, albeit Persian origin. Russian Russian translation of the nickname "Tzimisky" with a lowercase letter — — which does not seem quite successful, in this case can be compared with the choice of the common word "blacksmith", and not the Russian equivalent of "Kuznetsov" if it is necessary to translate the English surname Smith into Russian. In addition, - is a suffix used to form nomina agentis, and this word—formation model in the onomastic traditions of different peoples is extremely productive in the formation of nicknames (surnames).

Thus, it is proposed to raise the question of graphic conjuncture in the text of Leo the Deacon.

            Finally, the lexeme and its derivatives (including ) are a striking example, a sign of an era when Iranisms penetrated the Greek language directly, and not through Turkish or European languages, as, according to Vasily Megayannis, most often happened afterwards [Megayannis, pp. 16-17].

 II.2. Iranian-Armenian version: ? mu?ak ? mak  Despite this, some scientists still put forward hypotheses about the intermediary language: the Armenian version was already mentioned in the previous section of this article.

The Russian-speaking reader may be familiar with it from the commentary by M. Y. Syuzyumov and S. A. Ivanov to the already quoted fragment from the "History" of Lev the Deacon, as well as from the review by I. I. Sokolov in the "Byzantine Chronicle", which is a retelling of the above-mentioned article by Karolidis.

            Here is the text of the commentary in its entirety: " Armenian mu?k — from Persian am?ak, means "shoe". The word "" is not found anywhere else in Byzantine literature, interpreted in the dictionary of Sophocles (1900, 770) as "man". In reality, this is another Armenian word of Persian origin, also meaning a shoe — mu?ak (Acharian. 1977, 629–630). Many Armenians lived in Constantinople, and a number of Armenian words were well known to the Byzantines. There is, however, a hypothesis about the Georgian origin of Tzimiskhia (Quiet-Tsereteli. 1934)" ^{[5, pp. 193-194]}.

Indeed, in the scientific community there is no doubt about the Iranian origin of the lexeme mu?ak ‘little shoe’, ‘slipper’, 'women's shoes‘. Hrachia Acharyan's "Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Language" gives the arm as a reconstructed proto-form. * *moi?ak, which, like the existing form of mu?ak in the language, goes back to the Middle Iranian mak ^{[1, p. 357b]}; ^{[23, p. 196]}; ^{[42, p. 140]}.

            According to Karolidis, "the nickname (sic!) (from Armenian ) means "short shoes — ", and John was nicknamed "short" for his small stature. And the word , Armenian mudjag, also means short, small shoes" ^{[6, p. 150]}. Further, Karolidis cites the Greek transliteration of the New Persian variant — (), which means shoes in general, without a shade of diminution ^{[6, p. 150]}. Of course, the Iranian (in the narrow sense of the word) version of muze instead of the classical Persian muza is an anachronism, and this is not the only mistake that is present in the text of the article. So, the form "" is interpreted as diminutive, which, according to Karolidis, are both in Persian and Armenian; in fact, the form with the final -g / -k reflect earlier, as middle Persian, and -? - words and — part of a diminutive suffix of Greek origin.

In the book by Nikolai Panayotakis "Leo the Deacon. Biographical information. Manuscripts and publications" (" ? . . ") also put forward the hypothesis that is a Hellenization of arm. mu?ak. However, Shukurov correctly notes that the phonetic composition of the Persian etymon is closer to the Greek derivative ^{[9, p. 124]} due to the greater proximity of the Greek -?-/z/ to the Persian -?-/z/ than to the Armenian -?- /t?/, which still makes the version of borrowing through Armenian unlikely. language. Additionally, note that if Iranian-Armenian version was true, then we most likely would have in the Greek language form * or * — as already mentioned in section I, in the Byzantine period, could pass as a deaf /ts/ and voiced /dz/, including in the reflection of a foreign language /t?/. An illustration of this can be the Modern Greek spelling instead of the Byzantine ^{[39, p. 476]}. Panayotakis' book was also criticized by A. P. Kazhdan, recognizing, however, her contribution to the study of the legacy of Leo the Deacon ^{[24, pp. 201-202]}.

Shukurov rejects the Albanian version ^{[9, p. 124]}; the Georgian version ^[7] seems equally untenable and based on outdated (including Marristian) ideas about the mechanisms of phonetic changes. II.

3. Slavic version: ? MGI / MGI In the "Dictionary of the Greek language of the Roman and Byzantine periods (from 146 BC to 1100 ad)," Sophocles noun , ?, ? interpret ", , , mannikin" ('man').

Apparently, it's based on the alleged Sophocles etymology the lexeme — from "Russian zh man, " ^{[35, p. 770]}, which is understood as generating a double-deminutiva (double diminutive) ^{[35, p. 770]} (? ? ? *). In this case, as in one of the etymologizations given above (novopers. m?za + -- + -i), we have a two-stage suffixation -- + - (cf. Rus. muzh-ich-ok), and the suffixless , which Sophocles suggests comparing with the French mousse and Spanish mozo (New Greek cabin-boy, swabber ‘jung'), is understood as a Hellenized form from ^{[35, p. 770]}. Very few Slavonisms were included in Sophocles' dictionary (6), which may indicate both a rather thoughtful approach of the dictionary compiler to the etymologization of , and that the other variants of the origin of the lexeme seemed unlikely to him.

Argument against the Slavic version is the nature of the use of the lexeme in the text of Leo the Deacon: explicit and excessive barbarism would hardly be used as the word is generally understood, while in the case of the Iranian version of the origin of it's just a sign by the concrete realities of life. It is also worth considering that Slavic barbarism would rather be expected in a demotic text, while the work of Leo the Deacon as a whole is in line with the ancient tradition and imitation of classical models. M. Y. Syuzyumov and S. A. Ivanov also argue with the Slavic version, as mentioned above, in their commentary on Leo the Deacon.

In addition, it is necessary to take into account the context of the use of the token. Although Sophocles refers to the aforementioned place in Leo the Deacon ^{[35, p. 770]} he has not commented on the fact that used as a translation nicknames , which clearly cannot be comprehended as a "man" because etymologists agree that it comes from the arm. mu?k 'boot‘.

From the point of view of phonetics, the transfer of slav. -Zh /?/ Greek-? - does not cause problems: a large number of place names of Slavic origin, which witnessed the transition: *Lia ? , *Liza ? , *Gmina ? , *Jane ? , Julti ? , Jul ? , etc. ^{[40, p. 252]}. The Serbian researcher Yaksha Dinich also writes about this, using, however, the inaccurate formulation "grchko ? imalo je and the harmfulness of the Slovenian voice " ^{[3, p. 197]} ("the Greek ? corresponded to the Slavic sound "). It would be more correct to talk about the transfer of Slavic /?/ to Greek /z/ . In the same place, Dinich appeals to the outdated idea of the pronunciation of ? as /dz/ ^{[3, p. 197]}.

Finally, for the Slavic hypothesis, the question arises about the root vowel of the etymon. If at the time of borrowing have not yet occurred dentalization (*mil /?m/ ^{[8, p. 670]}), in this case, we would have had the form *?. At the same time, the question of the chronological framework of the loss of nasal vowels in Slavic languages remains open. It is known that the longest nasal sounds in the south of the distribution area of Slavic languages were preserved in Bulgarian ^{[2, pp. 245-246]}. According to some sources, "at the end of the IX — beginning of the X century. nasal vowels were still preserved, and by the middle of the X century. they have already been lost" ^{[2, p. 244]}. Thus, if we accept the Slavic version, the original word has already gone through the process of denazalization, and the loan from o? enters the Greek language relatively recently relative to the lifetime of Leo the Deacon (approx. 950-992). At the same time, by the name [L. Diac. hist. V 79], ^{[26, p. 79]} (cf. the names of the princes — Serbian Mutimir and Russian Svyatoslav respectively: Swetoslaw and ? MTimmy Constantine Porphyrogenitus, at the same time), we see that during the life of Leo the Deacon nasal vowels often remained in the transmission of the Greek language. Conclusion

In conclusion, we note once again that the problems of the etymology of the lexemes considered in the article began to be developed already from the moment of the beginning of an active theoretical and practical understanding of the modern Greek language itself in the works of the creator of kafarevusa Adamantius Korai and the development of a scientific approach in this area (the dictionary of Sophocles, "the first neo—Hellenist" - in the words of Dirk Hesseling).

In this survey, we analyzed the various versions of the etymology of tokens / and : Spanish, Persian, Iranian-Armenian and Slavic. The analysis showed the importance of the problem of adaptation of borrowings in the Greek language on the example of specific lexemes.

The Spanish version is quite reasonable, according to which the Modern Greek ‘junga’ comes from the Spanish mozo (‘young’, ‘young man’ and a number of other meanings), which in turn is traditionally ascribed to Lat. musteus in the meaning of ‘young', ‘fresh' (from mustus ‘must’, ‘young wine'). Such an opinion, however, is disputed by a number of etymologists. For example, Juan Corominas, refuting the etymology mentioned above, puts forward a version about the spontaneous generation of words like mozo and mocho in different Romance languages on the basis of a common expressive articulatory type that conveys the idea of "roundness, flatness, dullness". Simona Georgescu, in turn, arguing with Corominas, points out the similarity of semantics and phonetic appearance of a number of Romance roots -mot- / -bot- / -moc- / -mut- / -but- / -mo?- / -mu?- / -mots-, which developed a common component of the meaning of ‘child’. Despite the fact that the etymology of the Spanish lexeme remains unclear, the question of its establishment goes beyond the scope of this article, being, in fact, one of the "eternal" problems of Spanish studies.

In any case, the Spanish mozo, since at least the XIV century, expands its semantics and develops a number of meanings, including ‘servant’, as well as specialized derivatives from it: ‘groom’, ‘porter’, ‘waiter’, etc. Since that time, consonant lexemes in similar meanings have been registered in other Romance languages (Catal. mosso, French. mousse, ital. mozzo), and there is a certain consensus among etymologists that all these words go back to the Spanish etymon. Borrowing into Greek could occur both directly from Spanish and through other Romance languages (probably through one of the Italian dialects), and the presence of a common meaning for the French, Italian and Greek languages of ‘young’ may indicate that the spread of the word in the languages of Europe occurred through the speech of sailors.

As for the lexeme , which is a hapax in the text of Leo the Deacon, the Persian version of the origin, which seems to us the most likely, ultimately connects the lexeme with the word _v? m?zak, meaning shoes. In Leo the Deacon, is used to interpret the nickname of the Emperor John I Tzimisces. Most likely, the adaptation of the m?zak in Greek in the form of occurred not much earlier than the time of the historian's life and is associated with the military innovations of Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas, the predecessor of John I Tzimiskes: the fact is that the name is found in the Praecepta militaria of Nikephoros II Phokas, the "Tactics" of Nikephoros Uranus and Nikon Chernogorets and the "Treatise on the "Pseudo-Codin ^[37], which allows us to date the borrowing to the first half of the X century. It is evident that it is, rather, can be attributed to the third allocated by Sakuranym categories of Persian loan words "state terminology and war", but later moves into the second category — "trade terms", as evidenced by the composites and and financial-economic context in which they arise.

At the same time, there is also a version, called by us Iranian-Armenian, according to which gets into the Greek language not directly from Persian, but through the arm. mu?ak 'little shoe‘, 'slipper’. According to Pavel Karolidis, the meaning of ‘small shoes’ evolves into ‘small’, ‘undersized'. This version seems less plausible given the undoubtedly greater phonetic similarity of the Greek lexeme with the Persian original.

Finally, the Slavic version put forward in Sophocles' dictionary seems to be the least likely. Form ‘little man’, ‘man’ is associated with MII / Mogi and formed through compounding of the two suffixes- and , which are understood as diminutive. The weakness of this version is substantiated not only by the strangeness of explicit barbarism the text, written in line with ancient tradition, but the comparative analysis of the transmission of Greek borrowings root vowel of the alleged Slavic etymon (? / *? and (?) Swetoslaw).

Direct relationship with / not proven, but they can be related in meaning in the framework of folk etymology and semantic convergence, as it is not necessary to exclude the possible convergence of semantic kernels ‘young’ and ‘little shoes’ by highlighting the common semantic component ‘something small, unimportant.’ This can also be confirmed by the presence in the Greek onomasticon of a large number of surnames that arose from pejorative nicknames indicating the physical flaws of their bearers. The nickname given to the Emperor Tzimiskes, which Leo the Deacon translates with the word , also serves as an example of such an anthroponymic genesis.

Despite the fact that this lexeme is a hapax, researchers agree that the context of use implies its absolute comprehensibility to the potential reader of Leo the Deacon. The high degree of mastery of the lexeme is proved by the presence in the Greek language of this period of the word and the same root. At the same time, for the same reason — apexnet token — it can be interpreted not as the generic diminutive from the name of the Shoe is of Persian origin, but as , i.e. the translation of the Armenian nicknames Greek counterpart, though of Persian origin (thus, it offers a graphical conjecture in the text of Leo the Deacon). Within the framework of this concept, the Iranian-Armenian hypothesis loses its content even more, since it is illogical to interpret one incomprehensible Armenian nickname with another Armenian nickname.

The multilingual nature of the Byzantine society ensured the introduction of numerous lexical borrowings into the Greek language, which were interpreted and adapted by native speakers in different ways. Sometimes there were complex systems of semantic-phonetic convergence, which can be illustrated by the lexical units considered in the article.