Ukrainian-Lithuanian Linguo-Cultural Parallels and Differences in Ethnonymy and Related Lexical Units

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 2025, vol. 93, pp. 1–17 Contents link / Turinio nuoroda ISSN 2669-218X (online / elektroninis) Copyright © 2025 Volodymyr Ponomarenko. Published by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. // Išleido Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Šis straipsnis yra atviros prieigos, platinamas pagal „Creative Commons“ priskyrimo licencijos sąlygas, leidžiančias neribotai naudoti, platinti ir atkurti turinį bet kokioje laikmenoje, nurodant autorių ir šaltinį. Received: / Gauta: 2025-10-20. Accepted: / Priimta: 2025-11-07. 1 UKRAINIAN-LITHUANIAN LINGUO-CULTURAL PARALLELS AND DIFFERENCES IN ETHNONYMY AND RELATED LEXICAL UNITS Ukrainiečių ir lietuvių kalbų lingvokultūrinės paralelės ir skirtumai etnonimijoje bei su ja susijusios leksikos vienetuose VOLODYMYR PONOMARENKO O. O. Potebnia Institute of Linguistics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4106-5874 Fields of research: comparative Indo-European lexicology, language contact, ethnolinguistics. https://doi.org/10.35321/all93-07 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ABSTRACT The article offers a comparative linguo-cultural analysis of ethnonymic, and choronymic, lexicon, as well as word combinations containing related elements, in the Ukrainian and Lithuanian languages, along with facts from other, primarily neighbouring, languages of the European linguistic and cultural space. In particular, it deals with etymology, which testifies to both common Indo-European (first of all, Balto-Slavic) features and historical differences. The study also explores semantic changes, such as the transfer of meaning in ethnic names, new meanings of feminine word forms and diminutives, and other derivatives. The relevant topics include, from the semantic point of view, ethnicity, everyday life realia, nature, and more. Phrases and figurative expressions are presented, a significant part of which belong to interlanguage universals: different (also terminological) lexical units, covering such areas as science, medicine, sports, household equipment and utensils, tools and instruments, substances and materials, and food. Phraseologies with ethnonymic components are also examined. The study aims to demonstrate certain common features of Slavic, Baltic, and other genealogically related languages of the European linguistic and cultural area, as well as divergences arising from different language and cultural contacts. 2 KEYWORDS: ethnonyms, choronyms, Ukrainian language, Lithuanian language, etymology, language contacts, semantic change, phraseology. ANOTACIJA Straipsnyje pateikiama lyginamoji lingvokultūrinė ukrainiečių ir lietuvių kalbų etnoniminių, choroniminių leksikos vienetų ir žodžių junginių, turinčių susijusių elementų, analizė, taip pat ir faktai apie kitas, pirmiausia kaimynines, Europos kalbinės bei kultūrinės erdvės kalbas. Visų pirma nagrinėjama etimologija, liudijanti tiek bendrus indoeuropiečių (pirmiausia baltų-slavų) bruožus, tiek istorinius skirtumus. Tyrime nagrinėjami ir semantiniai pokyčiai, tokie kaip prasmės perkėlimas etnonimuose, naũjos moteriškos giminės žodžių formų ir deminutyvų bei kitų vedinių réikšmės. Aktualios temos semantiniu požiūriu apima etniškumą, kasdienio gyvenimo realijas, gamtą ir kita. Pateikiamos frazės ir perkeltinės reikšm s išraiškos, kurių nemaža dalis priklauso tarpkalbinėms universalijoms: skirtingiems leksikos vienetams (be minėtų ir terminologijos), apimantiems tokias sritis kaip mokslas, medicina, sportas, namų apyvokos ir kiti reikmenys, įrankiai ir instrumentai, substancijos ir medžiagos bei maistas. Taip pat nagrinėjami ir frazeologizmai su etnoniminiais komponentais. Tyrimo tikslas – parodyti tam tikrus bendrus slavų, baltų ir kitų genetiškai artimų Europos lingvokultūrinio regiono kalbų bruožus bei skirtumus, kylančius dėl skirtingų kalbinių ir kultūrinių kontaktų. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: etnonimai, choronimai, ukrainiečių kalba, lietuvių kalba, etimologija, kalbų kontaktai, semantinė kaita, frazeologija. 1. INTRODUCTION Ethnonymic and choronymic, lexicons make up distinct categories in the vocabulary of modern languages. It is an essential lexical layer, closely related to historical and sociocultural aspects of the existence of ethnic groups and areas, and to the people’s mentality. For example, studies on Slavic ethnonyms have allowed researchers to reach meaningful conclusions regarding the ethnolinguistic branching of Indo-European languages (Taranec 2013: 16). This has also prompted the need for a comparative study of ethnonymy, as well as choronymy. Comparing Baltic and Slavic language material holds special interest. In our opinion, it is appropriate to incorporate examples from other languages, primarily neighbouring ones, within the European linguistic and cultural area, in the analysis. We’ll focus on the names of European ethnic groups, ethnonymic derivatives, word combinations with ethnonymic and close in essence choronymic components, since (in a linguistic and cultural context) notional connection between ethnonyms and most choronyms seems to be obvious, and also phraseological units. Therefore, the objective of this research is to describe and compare from a cultural and historical ethnolinguistic perspective factual material of two languages that in the genealogical sense belong to different Indo-European groups, namely Baltic and Slavic, as an example of a particular (albeit ambiguous) “areal and typological similarity” (Nepokupnyj 1964: 162). In this context, the corresponding lexical units of the Ukrainian and Lithuanian languages appear to be indicative from a linguo-cultural point of view, reflecting certain features of ethnic mentality, as well as consequences of language contacts. The primary method used is comparative semasiological and, to some extent, ethnolinguistic analysis with a referential approach, taking into consideration the semantic and stylistic ambiguity of ethnonymic lexical units. 3 2. ETYMOLOGICAL REMARKS AND LEXICO-SEMANTIC ASPECTS 2.1. To initiate, weʼll go back to a well-known etymological classification of ethnonyms, which provides for their division into two main groups: words of ancient origin “with lost initial semantics”, and “with etymology that has been preserved or acquired secondarily” (Superanskaja 1978: 83). Therefore, according to this criterion, the Lithuanians’ self-name should be included in the first group (together with the names of Latvians, Belarusians, Czechs, Macedonians, Slovenians, Croats, Norwegians, Danes, English, Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, as well as Hungarians, Estonians, Finns), while the Ukrainians’ name enters the (smaller) second group (self-names of Poles, Bulgarians, Serbs, Montenegrins, Icelanders, Swedes, Germans, Romanians, French, Portuguese, Albanians, Welsh, Irish, Scots). It is worth noting that among the numerous etymological versions (known to us), concerning the origin of the name of Lithuania and, accordingly, Lithuanians (Ponomarenko 2023: 24‒26), in our opinion, the suggestion of Simas Karaliūnas (1995: 55, etc.), supported by modern researchers (cf. Dini, Subačius 2019: 104‒105), deserves special attention. Besides, the studies of Ukrainian linguists, first of all Anatolij Nepokupnyj (1994: 290; 1998: 88 etc.; cf. Skopnenko 2023: 32) testify in its favor. Ukr. українці (Lith. ukrainiẽčiai) and Lith. lietùviai (Ukr. литовці) are supposed to belong to typical endonyms representing most of the ethnic names, cf. Ukr. чехи, Lith. čèkai and Сz. Češi, Ukr. болгари, Lith. bulgãrai and Bulg. българи, etc. In the Lithuanian context, we should take note of the presence of the (closer to Ukrainian doublet) form ukra nai ‘Ukrainians’ and, accordingly, the adjective ukra niškas ‘Ukrainian’, in addition to the “standard”, i.e. ukrainiẽčiai and ukrainiẽtiškas (LKŽe). The peculiarly Lithuanian lénkai (Ukr. поляки, Pol. Polacy, Latv. poļi) is thought to come from an (Eastern) Slavic background (Fraenkel 1962: 356; Smoczyński 2016: 896), being connected etymologically with the Ukrainian historicism лях (ЕSUМ III 343–344), as well as with borrowed names of contact origin in some non-Indo-European languages, like Hun. lengyelek and Gag. Lählär, belonging to the same etymological nest. The table below is made on the basis of modern lexicographic sources, and the principle of ordering is mainly areal. Table. European peoples: ethnic names Ethnos Language Self name Ukrainian name Lithuanian name Ukrainians Ukrainian українці українці ukrainiečiai / ukrainai Belarusians Belarusian беларусы білоруси baltarusiai Russians Russian русские росіяни rusai Bulgarians Bulgarian българи болгари bulgarai Macedonians Macedonian Македонци македонці makedoniečiai Serbs Serbian Срби (Srbi) серби serbai 4 Montenegrins Montenegrin Црногорци чорногорці juodkalniečiai Bosniaks Bosnian Bošnjaci босняки / боснійці bosniai Croats Croatian Hrvati хорвати kroatai Slovenes Slovene Slovenci словенці slovėnai Czechs Czech Češi чехи čekai Slovaks Slovak Slováci словаки slovakai Poles Polish Polacy поляки lenkai Lithuanians Lithuanian lietuviai литовці lietuviai Latvians Latvian latvieši латиші / латвійці latviai Germans German Deutsche німці vokiečiai Dutch (people) Dutch Nederlanders нідерландці / голландці nyderlandiečiai / olandai Flemish (people) Dutch Vlamingen фламандці flamandai English (people) English English англійці anglai Icelanders Icelandic Íslendingar ісландці islandai Norwegians Norwegian nordmenn норвежці norvegai Danes Danish danskere данці / датчани danai Swedes Swedish svenskar шведи švedai Irish (people) Irish Éireannaigh ірландці airiai Scottish (people) / Scots Scottish Gaelic Albannaich шотландці škotai Welsh Welsh Cymry валлійці valai / velsiečiai Romanians Romanian români румуни rumunai Italians Italian italiani італійці italai French (people) French Français французи prancūzai Walloons French Wallons валлони valonai Catalans Catalan Catalans каталонці katalonai Spaniards Spanish españoles іспанці ispanai Portuguese (people) Portuguese Portugueses португальці portugalai Greeks / Hellenes Greek Έλληνες греки graikai Albanians Albanian shqiptar албанці аlbanai Hungarians / Magyars Hungarian magyarok мадяри (угорці) vengrai Estonians Estonian eestlased естонці estai Finns Finnish suomalaiset фіни suomiai 2.2. One should also point out the semantically peculiar Ukr. литвин, which has no equivalent in the Lithuanian lexicon (except for the surname Litvinas). It is known that this ethnic name is reflected in surnames like Ukr. Литвин, Литвиненко, Литвинчук, Bel. Літвінаў, etc. (Motora, Nepokupnyj 1989: 50–51; Laučiūtė 2004: 72–73), has been used historically not only for Lithuanians, but also for Belarusians and Ukrainians from the Polissia lands (SUM 499; SUM IV 494), and Rus. литвин could also refer to a Pole (Nepokupnyj 1994: 290). Other specific samples are borrowings from Yiddish, such as Ukr. литвак(и) and 5 Lith. l tvakai, cf. Eng. Litvaks (see Friedlander 1994: 243), historicisms referred to Ashkenazi Jews who lived in the Baltic region and neighbouring Slavic areas. In the past, collective names, such as Ukr. литва, were widely used applying to both Lithuanians and Belarusians (ESUM III 245; cf. Hrinčenko 1908: 363). In the last source, we also find the uniquely affectionate Ukr. Литвонька. Concerning Ukr. литва in historical terms, a well-known Ukrainian researcher of Balto-Slavic language relations recorded the specific meaning of “traveling circus people” (who came from the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), caused, in particular, by “ethnic inflation” of the onym Литва, which was extended to a part of Latvians, Poles, Belarusians and Ukrainians (Nepokupnyj 1994: 288–291). Another historical meaning of Ukr. литва (as well as Bel. літва and Pol. litwa) refers to the designation of the groom’s companions at the wedding, reflected in folk songs of the Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Poles (Nepokupnyj 1998: 88–104). The Eastern Slavic ethnonymic lexicon is characterised by the presence of several partial synonyms, such as Ukr. латиші ‘indigenous inhabitants of Latvia, the titular nationʼ and латвійці ‘citizens of Latviaʼ (Bel. латыши and латвийцы), cf. Lith. lãtviai and Latv. latvieši (at the same time, partly synonymous names in the singular coexist in Latvian: latvietis and, less frequently, latvis), as well as (on the one hand) Pol. Lotyši and (on the other hand) Bulg. латвийци, Bosn. Latvijci. The exonyms of European ethnic groups in the two compared languages generally match the registry, for example, Ukr. албанці and Lith. albãnai (probably of Caucasian origin, cf. Bel. албанцы, Pol. Albańczycy, Latv. albāņi, etc.). The differences can be seen in telling examples, such as Ukr. німці (Bel. немцы, Pol. Niemcy, etc.) and Lith. vókiečiai, along with Latv. vācieši, respectively, of Slavic (with some reservations) and, presumably, Germanic origin. However, it should be noted that there are alternative borrowed names, such as Lith. niẽmčius (Smoczyński 2016: 1119), pliùkas or germãnas (LKŽe). Ukr. угорці (of Turkic origin) and the borrowed self-name мадяри (Hun. magyarok) is another instance that can be noticed, cf. Latv. ungāri and (somewhat obsolete and colloquial) maģāri, Bel. венгры and мадзьяры, Pol. Węgrzy and Madziarzy/Madziarowie, while Lith. veñgrai is considered to be an ancient borrowing from Slavic languages (cf., e.g., LSorb. Hungory). Furthermore, Ukr. фіни (of Scandinavian origin, cf. Pol. Finowie, Ger. Finnen and other Slavic and Germanic names, as well as Hun. finnek) differs from Lith. súomiai (borrowed self-name; cf. Fin. suomalaiset, Latv. somi, Est. soomlased). Another case involves tracing of ethnonyms from other languages, in particular Slavic, in Baltic and other non-Slavic languages, cf. Ukr. білоруси (Bel. беларусы, Pol. Białorusini, etc.) and Lith. baltarùsiai, Latv. baltkrievi; one should also mention the historical ethnic name gùdai, supposedly of Germanic origin (Karaliūnas 2004: 146–150; cf. Roback 1944: 104, where Ger. Gudde/Guddas ‘Pole, Lithuanian or Russian’ is interpreted as “obviously, a nickname of an Eastern (northern) Slav”; cf. Lith. dial. báltgudis ‘Belarusian’), or Ukr. чорногорці (Serb. Црногорци, Bel. чарнагорцы, Pol. Czarnogórcy, etc.) and Lith. 6 juodkalniẽčiai (Latv. melnkalnieši, Rum. muntenegrenii, Gr. Μαυροβούνιοι or Tur. Karadağlılar). 3. SEMANTIC EXTENSION: COMPARATIVE PLAN Semantic transformations are a characteristic feature of ethnonyms due to connotations that go beyond the limits of the onomastic sphere. In this connection, we should mention the theory of Andrej A. Beleckij, reliable Ukrainian linguist (Beleckij 1972: 190–191), who added a function of individualisation to the concept of semantics of proper names, including ethnonyms. 3.1. Let us start with figurative meanings of ethnonyms. Under the conditions of comparable non-closely related languages, it is difficult to trace “paradigmatic” parallels (the only exception is for historicisms of international nature, such as Ukr. вандали or Lith. vandãlai), since semantic extension is influenced by extralinguistic factors and is also connected to the presence of ethnic stereotypes. Figurative meaning of certain ethnic names is rather characteristic of both (mainly colloquial) languages, e.g. Ukr. турок (‘Turkʼ) in the old regional meaning of “weedy person” or француз (‘Frenchʼ): in some regions, a euphemistic designation of a Jew, mostly humorous (from the author’s own observations in the 60s and 70s of the last century); cf. Lith. vókietis ‘protestantʼ, tu kas ‘non-Christianʼ, etc. (Butkus 1995: 223 etc.). 3.2. There are also similar examples somewhat different in character, like Ukr. (modern) німець “German-made motorcycle” or швед(ка) “Swedish-style wrench”, here we can state a kind of substantivation of word combinations with nationality adjectives. In some instances, the meaning can be terminological: cf. (borrowed from English) Ukr. фін (a kind of sports sailboat) and Lith. finn (opposed to the ethnonym súomių). 3.3. Specific semantic transformations frequently apply to feminine word forms of ethnic names; in this regard, typical examples are Ukr. литовка (˂ Литва) identifying a kind of scythe, “obviously, it refers to the name of the area from which the scythe with a long straight holder spread” (ЕSUМ III 248; Kregždys 2015: 150), as well as another item (with the same name, from Pol. litewka (SJP IV 172), incorporated into various European languages): name of a uniform (or jacket) worn during the First World War. Ukr. летовка, denoting a variety of potatoes (ESUM III 227), is presumably related to Lithuania. Another area is addressed in the case of Ukr. шведка (шведська піч, literally: “Swedish stove”) ‘brick stove for residential premises’, cf. Lith. švèdiška órkaitė. Such terms of a rather choronymic nature associated with economic activities usually indicate realia originating in specific areas, and their names reflect their geographical origins. For example, thanks to the Arabs, the Europeans got acquainted a long time ago with exotic buckwheat and its grains: cf. Fr. sarrasin, It. grano saraceno. However, some Slavic and Baltic names, in particular Ukr. гречка, Bel. грэчка, Pol. gryka (also litewka and tatarka, as well as Ukr. татарка, cf. the ethnic names like Ukr. грекиня | гречанка, Blr. грэчанка, Pol. Greczynka), Lith. (of Slavic origin) gr kis, gr kiai (Gritėnienė et 7 al. 2022: 121), Latv. griķi (cf. Lith. gra kė, Latv. grieķu) presumably (since the presence of the seme ‘Greekʼ is hypothetical) point to another way for the same culture to reach other territories (cf. also borrowed from Ukrainian Rum. hrișcă, cf. greakă, feminine ethnonym). The feminine gender of the word is explained in most cases by the original noun, which fell out of use due to elliptical shortening of a word combination, as in the case with Ukr. (colloquial) болгарка (popular name for a grinding machine, its initial samples arrived in the 60s from Bulgaria); cf. Az. bolqarka, Uzb. bolgarka, etc.). When it comes to Lith. bulgárkė (slang name, opposed to the feminine ethnonym bulgãrė), mentioned in electronic sources, it’s more about a semantic tracing. At the same time, realia like Ukr. угорка (plum variety) or фінка (‘Finnish knife’), in Lithuanian are called vengrinė slyva, suomiškas peilis (Ibid.: 513, 530). In the context of the given examples, we can observe certain “universalization” of noun phrases including choronymic adjectives. Other etymological issues are debated. Moving on to other thematic areas, it is worth mentioning, for example, a well-known dance genre: (Eng.) polka. According to some etymologists (Václav Machek, Max Vasmer, Pavel Chernych), it is of Czech origin and its name, used in multiple languages, is not associated with ethnonymy, thus Pol. polka is defined as “unclear” in a modern source (Bańkowski 2000: 688). The ethnonymic connection is stated in the Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language, according to which Ukr. полька (like some other Slavic names) “was borrowed, possibly via Polish mediation, from Czech; Cz. polka is the result of a semantic modification of the ethnonym polka, besides, it is a “symbol of solidarity with Poland, which fought against tsarist oppression” (ESUM IV 506). This is confirmed to a certain extent by the names traced in other languages, including Lith. pòlka (DLKŽ1 606). There is also a transparent case with the names of polonaise, a musical genre from Poland rooted in Polish folklore, in the 16th century, it became a court dance in France and other European countries; therefore, the original name was French, i.e. Fr. polonaise, borrowed in other (including Slavic) languages, and even Polish itself, cf. Ukr. полонез, Bel. паланэз, Pol. polonez, Lith. polonèzas. Another example of this type is Ukr. алеманда ‘French court dance derived from German roots dating back to the 16th century’ and Lith. alemándė as a sort of calque. The interest extends to composites with foreign choronyms, cf. Ukr. падеспань and Lith. padespãnas derived from Fr. pas d’Espagne, name of a ballroom dance incorporating Spanish elements that has been known since the beginning of the 19th century. At the same time, Ukr. іспанський крок (Fr. pas espagnol) is one of the basic elements of horse riding. 3.4. Diminutive forms represent a particular interest. We can classify them as morphologically and semantically equivalent Ukr. україночка and Lith. lietuváitė ‘Lithuanian girl’ (Lyberis 2005: 391), but significant semantic differences can be determined, however, by comparing, for instance, Ukr. німчик and Lith. vokietùkas, which are not only devoid of diminutive or affectionate meaning: the first word has a negative connotation (SUM V 425), while in the second case we can observe several figurative meanings, in particular ‘ancient dance’ and ‘mushroom Rozites caperata’, which also encompasses other “folk” names: gudùkas 8 or tu kas (LKŽe), cf. some names in other languages: Bel. турак, Serb. циганчић, Cr. сiganček or ciganin, Ger. Zigeuner. No less interesting is the folkloric use of Lith. vokietùkas / vokiečiùkas referring to a devil, cf. Pol. niemczyk (Roback 1944: 123). An example of pluralia tantum is the popular name of a plant: Ukr. литвинчики (Hrinčenko 1908: 363), or смілка литовська (Lat. Silene lithuanica), cf. Lith. lietùvinė nakt žiedė, Pol. lepnica litewska. Grammatical parallelism and semantic differences attest to the peculiarity of the historical evolution of morphosemantic means of different (although genetically related) languages. 3.5. Another part of relational lexemes consists of internationalisms with historical “experience” (borrowed for most languages, including Baltic and Slavic), retaining traces of choronyms. Let us recall, for instance, Ukr. indigo and Lith. ind gas (the etymology is Greek), or the names of turquoise based on the seme ‘Turkishʼ: cf. Ukr. (obsolete) туркус (Tymčenko 2003: 405), derived from Fr. turquoise (ESUM V 682), and Lith. tu kis. Among the names of clothes, we find, for example, Ukr. далматика and Lith. dalmãtika, cf. Fr. dalmatique (NPL 1970: 284) or It. dalmatica (Zingarelli 2005: 494), coming from Latin. According to a similar principle, artificial terminological names for several chemical elements have been formed on a choronymic basis, depending on the location of discovery: Ukr. полоній, германій, францій, галій, рутеній and Lith. polònis, germãnis, fráncis, gãlis, rutènis. It also seems expedient to mention botanical names with a historically conditioned geographic nature and that overlap with/come from some choronymic word combinations, such as Ukr. персик and Lith. pe sikas (this Chinese culture reached Europe via Persia), cf. Latv. persiks, Pol. piersik, etc. Zoonyms can be represented by names like Ukr. індик, with semantic equivalents or similarities in many European languages: it can be compared to Pol. indyk, Bel. індык, Fr. dinde (based on the name poule d’Inde), It. gallo d’India, Tur. hindi; cf. Lith. kalakùtas (Fraenkel 1962: 207). Most names of this type denote breeds of animals related to certain countries or historical regions: cf. Ukr. далматин and Lith. dalmat nas (Latv. dalmācietis; Pol. dalmatyńczyk, Cr. dalmatinac, Eng. Dalmatian, etc.). Sometimes a name related to another area of origin spreads, as in the case with Fr. spaniel ˂ OFr. espaignol (NPL 1970: 284), cf. Ukr. спанієль and Lith. spaniẽlis, as well as Pol., Eng. spaniel, Latv. spaniels, etc. 3.6. Word combinations and figurative expressions can also be identified as examples of metaphorical deonymization of choronymic idioms. Thematic sections cover various spheres of human activity. 3.6.1. A significant part of stable word combinations belongs to the category of (inter) language universals. Many of these phrases have a historical (in particular, biblical) origin. Nowadays they are used figuratively in many languages: cf. Ukr. єгипетська неволя, вавилонська вежа and Lith. Eg pto neláisvė, Bãbelio bókštas (Gritėnienė et al. 2022: 53). 3.6.2. It should be pointed out that there are also international terminological names with components of a specific (close to ethnonymic or choronymic) nature: Ukr. арабські числа and Lith. arãbiški ska tmenys; Ukr. турецьке сідло (anatomical term) and Lith. tu kiškas ba nas (in this case, the reason is just external similarity). 9 3.6.3. As it is known, an international system of Latin names has been introduced to systematise botanical names, and there are quite a lot of samples with choronymic components (with generalised meanings) among them that pertain to the plantʼs origin or ways of acquainting and assimilation of various cultures: cf. Ukr. пшениця польська (Lat. Triticum polonicum) and Lith. lénkinis kvietỹs, Ukr. китайський фінік and Lith. kniška datùlė (cf. Latv. Ķīnas datele, Eng. Chinese date), Ukr. коноплі індійські (Lat. Cannabis indica) and Lith. iñdinė kanãpė, etc. However, cross-language comparison can reveal different geographical references to the name of the same culture across languages, as well as demonstrate variability in terms within the same language: cf. Ukr. дуб австрійський (Lat. Quercus cerris) and Lith. tu kiškas žuolas, cf. Pol. dąb burgundzki, Latv. Austrijas ozols, Eng. Austrian / Turkish oak, Fr. Chêne lombard / de Bourgogne / de Turquie): this species is found in South-Western Europe and Asia Minor. One of the particularly revealing series is represented by names like Ukr. (variant) грецький горіх and Lith. gra kinis r ešutas (Gritėnienė et al. 2022: 117); similar names are used in Romanian and other languages, while, for example, in Irish the same nut is called “Gallic”, it can also be called “Germanic” (as in Finnish, indicating a further migration of an Asian culture towards the northern direction). The most used Ukrainian name for this nut is волоський, which comes from Ukr. волох ‘Romanian’, cf. Pol. orzech włoski, literally “Italian walnut”. So far, “national” semantic content in generic names of this kind may be blurred. The same refers to names-phrases with choronymic references used to identify animal breeds: cf. Ukr. перський кіт and Lith. pe sų kat , Latv. Persijas kaķis, Pol. kot perski, etc., Ukr. німецька вівчарка and Lith. vókiečių av ganis (cf. Bel. нямецкая аўчарка, Pol. owczarek niemiecki, Latv. vācu aitu suns, Eng. German shepherd) or Ukr. німецький дог and Lith. vókiečių dògas (cf. Ger. Deutsсhe Dogge, Bel. нямецкі дог, Pol. dog niemiecki, Latv. vācu dogs, etc.). 3.6.4. Natural phenomena are also reflected in some similar word combinations. Lith. iñdiška vãsara is the calque of Eng. Indian summer; there is no well-founded explanation for the “ethnic” origin of this name, borrowed or copied in other European languages (cf., e.g., Ger. Indian Summer or Slv. Indiansko poletje), perhaps it is an impression of the weather experienced by Europeans in Indian lands. Most Slavic languages (as well as the Baltic) have their own expressions, both with another ethnonymic component (cf. Bulg. циганско лято) and without it: cf. Ukr. бабине літо and Lith. bóbų vãsara (LKŽe). 3.6.5. Most of the international medical vocabulary with choronymic elements is comprised of disease names: cf. Ukr. мальтійська (гібралтарська) гарячка (brucellosis, of Mediterranean origin) and Lith. Máltos ka štligė or Ukr. іспанський грип and Lith. ispãniškasis gr pas, cf. Ukr. (colloquial) іспанка (SUM 408), etc. 3.6.6. Let us also explore the sports and recreation spheres. Set terminological expressions can sometimes replace traditional names in other languages. For example, in most of them, “Greco-Roman” is the term (rather ethnical) used to describe the classical style of sports wrestling: cf. Ukr. греко-римська боротьба (formerly класична боротьба and Lith. gra kų-rom nų imtỹnės, etc. The situation pertaining to such idioms as Ukr. летючий голландець and Lith. skrajójantis olándas is somewhat different, not only because they are 16 Lyberis Antanas 2005: Lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodynas / Литовско–русский словарь [Lithuanian– Russian Dictionary], spec. redaktorius V. Čekmonas, 4-oji laida, Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Motora Evhenija V., Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 1989: Mižetnični zviazky v ukrajinskij antroponimiji XVII st. [Cross-Ethnic Stars in the Ukrainian Anthroponymy of the 17th Century], Кyiv: Naukova dumka, 59–63. Nebesky Richard 2001: Lonely Planet Phrasebook Guides: Central Europe Phrasebook, 2nd ed., Melbourne: Lonely Planet Publications. Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 1964: Arealnye aspekty balto-slavianskich jazykovych otnošenij [Areal Aspects of Baltic-Slavic Linguistic Relations], Kiev: Naukova dumka. Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 1994: Apeliatyv lytva v “Enejidi” I. P. Kotliarevskoho ta joho kulturnoistoryčna parallel u “Nesamovytomu Rolandi” L. Ariosto [The Appellative Lithuania in I. P. Kotliarevskii’s “Aeneid” and Its Cultural and Historical Parallel in “The Untamed Roland” L. Ariosto], Kyjiv: Naukova dumka, 288‒293. Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 1998: Etnonim litva i nazvanie družiny ženicha v svadebnych pesniach Ukrainy, Belorusii i Polši [The Ethnonym Lithuania and the Name of the Groom’s Retinue in Wedding Songs of Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland]. ‒ Senosios raštijos ir tautosakos sąveika: kultūrinė Lietuvos Didžiosios kunigaikštystės patirtis, kn. 6, par. R. Repšienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 88–104. Nepokupnyj Anatolij, Taranenko Aušrelė 2004: Z Ukrajiny do Lytvy: ukrainsko–litovskij rozmovnik [From Ukraine to Lithuania: Ukrainian–Lithuanian Phrasebook], Luck: Volynska oblasna drukarnia. NPL 1970: Nouveau Petit Larousse, dir. É. Guillon et al., Playa: Pueblo y Educación ICL. Ponomarenko Volodymyr 2023: Doktor Nepokupnyj i joho Lytavija [Dr. Nepokupny and His Lithuania]. ‒ Balto-Slavo-Germanica: movni kontakty v synchronii i diachronii: zbirnyk tez dopovideji, Kyjiv: Vydavnyčyj dim Dmytra Buraho, 22‒27. Roback Aaron A. 1944: A Dictionary of International Slurs (Ethnophaulisms): With a Supplementary Essay on Aspects of Ethnic Prejudice, Cambridge, Mass.: Sci-Art Publishers. SJP IV: Słownik języka polskiego [Polish Dictionary] 4: L–Ni, red. naczelny W. Doroszewski, Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna, 1962. Skopnenko Oleksandr 2023: Litva, Letuva, litoucy, lietuvisy, lytvyny, licvyny v sučasnomu biloruskomu uzusi [Lithuania, Letuva, litovci, letuvysy, lytvyny, lytsvyny in Modern Belarusian Usage]. – Balto-Slavo-Germanica: movni kontakty v synchronii i diachronii: zbirnyk tez dopovidej, Kyjiv: Vydavnyčyj dim Dmytra Buraho, 28‒34. Smoczyński Wojciech 2016: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego [Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language], wyd. drugie, na prawach rękopisu. Sohlman Interpreter No 2: English, French, German, Russian, W. J. Adams, London: Edward Hack. 17 SUM: Slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy [Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language], vidp. red. V. V. Žajvoronok, Kyjiv: Prosvita, 2016. SUM IV: Slovnyk ukrainskoji movy [Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language] 4: І‒М, hol. redkol. I. K. Bilodid, Kyjiv: Naukova dumka, 1973. SUM V: Slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy [Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language] 5: Н‒О, hol. redkol. I. K. Bilodid, Kyjiv: Naukova dumka, 1974. Superanskaja Aleksandra V. 1978: Gruppovye oboznačenija liudej v leksičeskoj sisteme jazyka. Imia naricatelnoe i imia sobstvennoe [Group Designations of People in the Lexical System of Language], Мoskva: Nauka, 59–83. Taranec Valentyn H. 2013: Ukrajinci – etnos i mova [Ukrainians ‒ Ethnicity and Language], Odesa: ORIDU NADU. Teixeira da Silva Jaime A. 2025: Linguistic Wokeism: Revisionism of the Gypsy Moth and Asian Carp, and Fate of the Russian Salad. ‒ Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 92, [1‒8]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/all92-12. Tymčenko Evhen 2003: Materialy do slovnyka pysemnoji ta knyžnoji ukrajinskoji movy XV‒ XVIII st. [Materials for the Dictionary of the Written and Literary Ukrainian Language of the 15th‒18th Centuries], Kyjiv, New York: VPTs “Litopys”. Webster’s 1973: Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary: Based on Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Habana: Instituto Cubano del Libro. Zaikauskienė Dalia 2004: Nauji metai ‒ nauji lapai. Šiuolaikinės patarlių raidos tendencijos [“New Year, fresh leaves”: modern tendencies in the development of proverbs]. ‒ Tautosakos darbai 21(28), 127‒136. Zingarelli Nicola 2005: Vocabolario della lingua italiana, Bologna: Zanichelli editore.