|
Post by groet on Feb 24, 2012 13:34:29 GMT -5
oh yeah, i meant the original document that was translated from. The translation has a source. (S. Novakovic, Zakonski spomenicy, f. 190-191; ACTA ET DIPLOMATA II, 249. f. 57. Origjinali Sllavisht.) I wouldn't say that, nationalist propaganda came quite late. I doubt Barleti had any ulterior motives. First names were more commonly used so that it was easier to recognize the ruler, but that's just in the case of kings. For example, instead of King Plantagenet, you had King Henry II. They did not need surnames because they had titles which made them known. However, feudal lords were commonly addressed by their surnames as well, Karl Thopia, Gjin Bua Shpata etc. Anyways, there shouldn't be any suspicion. It's clear that the document speaks of two different persons.
|
|
|
Post by groet on Feb 24, 2012 13:39:12 GMT -5
lol well go on... entertain me. As I have already said, I don't intend to insult you. You have quite a lot of missspellings; often when you address someone, it seems like you misread their posts, such as in your previous post.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Feb 24, 2012 13:44:20 GMT -5
lol well go on... entertain me. As I have already said, I don't intend to insult you. You have quite a lot of mi ssspellings; often when you address someone, it seems like you misread their posts, such as in your previous post. Yes, some misspellings (that's 2 "S" not 3 btw). And which previous post have I misread, and while you're at it, whose re-incarnation are you ? ;D
|
|