in everyday movement vocabulary |
| *luludi* | flower | Borrowing in the natural world |
| *kokalo* | bone | Borrowing within body vocabulary |

A body word can be borrowed while a specialised term is inherited. Basic vocabulary offers useful comparisons and often persists; neither property makes it immune to replacement.

Manchester estimates about 700 Indo-Aryan roots and 200–250 other pre-European roots, mainly Iranian and Armenian, assembled from present-day dialects. This scales sections 3–7’s examples; it is not a surviving Early Romani inventory.

The [nominal account](https://www.kratylos.org/~raphael/romani/whatis/structure/nominals.html) explains how Greek inflections supplied classes for borrowed nouns, later used for loans from other languages. Influence thus outlasted direct contact. The Early Romani overview also attributes word-order and clause-pattern convergence to Greek, supporting sustained interaction within a Balkan contact area without erasing Indo-Aryan descent.

Early Romani is reconstructed, not preserved in a complete Byzantine manuscript. Shared forms support a historical phase whose details remain open to refinement and further dialect evidence.

## 9 Written records and the “Egyptian” origin

European descriptions record encounters, classifications and claims, not transparent origins. The Council of Europe’s [“Arrival in Europe” factsheet](https://rm.coe.int/arrival-in-europe-factsheets-on-romani-history/16808b1908) describes arrivals in central and western Europe in 1417–1421, often as pilgrims. An Egyptian attribution contributed to English “Gypsy”; protection letters helped negotiate jurisdictions, subject to individual authentication.

The factsheet places Roma in European Byzantium before the thirteenth century and considers northward movement likely from the mid-fourteenth. It treats “Gyppe” near Modon (Methoni) in the Peloponnese as the likely source of “Little Egypt”, confused with Egypt itself. Leaders including a “Duke André of Little Egypt” carried safe-conduct letters attributed to Emperor Sigismund. The records establish the label and claimed protection, not every letter’s authenticity.

A second exonym family—*Tsigan*, *Zigeuner*, *cigány*, *țigan*, *zingaro*, *çingene*—is traced to Byzantine *Atsinganoi*, a form of *Athinganoi*. The [Athinganoi overview](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athinganoi) describes a heretical Christian sect in Phrygia associated with avoiding physical contact. Its name’s transfer to Roma is uncertain. Ilse Rochow’s alternatives are shared reputations such as fortune-telling; confusion between similar-sounding names; or a general label for foreign itinerant groups later narrowed to Roma. Section 10’s 1385 *Atigani* record already shows the name family in use.

Both main exonym families record misattributions—to Egypt and to a Byzantine sect, with the second mechanism uncertain. Neither describes linguistic ancestry. This parallels the series’ origin narratives: an Egyptian claim establishes that the claim circulated, not descent from Egyptian or origin beside the Nile.

| Evidence | What it establishes | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| An Egyptian designation in a medieval account | The label was used in that encounter | Egyptian linguistic ancestry |
| A pilgrimage narrative | An explanation presented or recorded in a particular setting | The complete history of the travellers |
| A letter of protection | A relationship with an authority, if the document is authentic | A common origin for every group using a similar letter |
| Indo-Aryan vocabulary and grammar | A historical relationship within Indo-Aryan | The motives behind every medieval account |

Indo-Aryan vocabulary and grammar independently outweigh the Egyptian linguistic interpretation. They do not explain every use of “Egyptian”: geographical labels can change meaning or become useful in particular political and religious settings. Each account needs its documentary context.

Manchester’s [linguistic