Varia Onomastica: Sarmato-Alanica (Danapria, Bohus)

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 2025, vol. 92, pp. 1–28 Contents link / Turinio nuoroda ISSN 2669-218X (online / elektroninis) Copyright © 2025 Alexander I. Iliadi. 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: 2025-04-18. Accepted: / Priimta: 2025-05-28. 1 VARIA ONOMASTICA: SARMATO-ALANICA (DANAPRIA, BOHUS) Varia Onomastica: Sarmato-Alanica (Dniepras, Bugas) ALEXANDER I. ILIADI The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky” E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5078-8316 Fields of research: etymology, comparative-historical linguistics, general and typological linguistics. https://doi.org/10.35321/all92-05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ABSTRACT The research is aimed at singling out the Iranian language heritage in the toponymy of the Dnieper and the Bug regions. In particular, it dwells upon the reconstruction of the Sarmatian-Alanian lexical stratum, whose existence does not run counter to the data of the history and archaeology of the areas under investigation. The research has resulted in the reconstruction of 20 lexemes supposed to be affiliated with the vocabulary of Sarmatian and Alanian. Such a conclusion is substantiated by the etymology of the reviewed toponyms, explained due to the vocabulary of the Ossetian language. The latter, in its turn, being the only surviving descendant of the Alanian language, has inherited the typical features of the Sarmatian and Alanian dialects on one side, and the old Eastern Iranian dialects closely related to the dialects of the Alans and Sarmatians, on the other side. A strong argument in favour of the Sarmato-Alanian origin of the reconstructed lexical fund is grounded by a range of exclusive whole-lexical Alanian-Ossetian parallels. Lexical reconstruction is confirmed with certain phonetic and morphological peculiarities inherent only in the structure of the assumed Alanian prototypes and the words from the Ossetian language. The parallels in the reconstructed Sarmato-Alanian vocabulary and the vocabulary of the other Iranian languages are also described. KEYWORDS: etymology, the Sarmato-Alanian language relic, reconstruction, prototype, reflex, toponymic area. 2 ANOTACIJA Tyrimo tikslas – išskirti iranėnų kalbos paveldą Dniepro ir Bugo regionų toponimijoje. Ypač daug dėmesio skiriama sarmatų-alanų leksinio sluoksnio, kurio egzistavimas neprieštarauja tiriamų vietovių istorijos ir archeologijos duomenims, rekonstrukcijai. Tokią išvadą pagrindžia apžvelgtų toponimų etimologija, paaiškinta osetinų kalbos žodynu. Pastaroji, būdama vienintelė išlikusi alanų kalbos palikuonė, iš vienos pusės paveldėjo sarmatų ir alanų tarmėms būdingus bruožus, iš kitos pusės – senosioms rytų iranėnų tarmėms, glaudžiai susijusioms su alanų ir sarmatų tarmėmis. Svarų argumentą rekonstruoto leksikos fondo sarmatų-alanų kilmės naudai pagrindžia visa eilė išskirtinių alanų-osetinų leksikos paralelių. Leksinę rekonstrukciją patvirtina tam tikros fonetinės ir morfologinės ypatybės, būdingos tik spėjamų alaniškų prototipų ir žodžių iš osetinų kalbos struktūrai. Straipsnyje taip pat aprašomos rekonstruotos sarmatų-alanų žodyno ir kitų iranėnų kalbų leksikos paralelės. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: etimologija, Sarmatijos alanų kalbos reliktas, rekonstrukcija, prototipas, refleksas, toponiminis arealas. 1. INTRODUCTION: THE IRANIAN LANGUAGE RELICS IN THE TOPONYMY OF THE DNIEPER AND THE BUG REGIONS 1.1. The issue of language relics is commonly based upon the implication of the traces of the earlier existing peculiarities of the language under investigation, preserved in the toponymy. Due to various reasons, toponymy retains archaisms, while in the appellative lexicon, competition between the older and the more recent units the old vocabulary is often displaced. Therefore, toponymy preserves what was lost in the appellative vocabulary. The same peculiar lexical periphery retains the pieces of evidence of the former presence of speakers of the other languages (substrate, superstrate) in the areas of the modern languages. The scholars have recently traditionally referred the term language relic specifically to the onomastic substrate (works by academician Oleg N. Trubačev, as well as several publications by Vladimir E. Orel, Alexander K. Šapošnikov, Alexander V. Ivanenko). Contemporary comparative-historical Indo-European linguistics has data on the Slavonic language relics (Slavica, Sclavania) in the area of the Greek and German toponymy, Baltic relics (Baltica) in the hydronymy of the Dnieper River region, the Indo-Aryan language heritage in the Northern Black Sea region (Indoarica), Iranian (Scythica, Sarmato-Alanica, Alanica) component in the toponymy of Crimea, the Northern Black Sea region, the Don River region, the Volga River region, the Dnieper River region, the Bug River region, in the onomastics of Europe. 1.2. The markers of the last of the above-mentioned categories of language relics (Iranica) are discussed below. The focus of the study is the heritage of the Iranian dialects, which were once common on the territory along the course of the Dnieper and in the Ingul and Bug interfluve. The previous experience of description of the Iranian lexical antiquities in the Dnieper region enabled to partly delineate the boundaries of their area on the left bank of the Dnieper (Moszyński 1957; Toporov, Trubačev 1962: 222–228; Trubačev 1968: 276; Orel 1986: 111; Šapošnikov 2007: 291, 309; the review of etymologies see also in: Stryžak 1981: 31). The Iranian lexical units in the hydronymy of the right bank of the Dnieper are 3 less frequent (Orel 1986: 111). However, there have recently been added six relics to the list, three of which are attested in the Ros River basin (Iliadi 2021). Incidentally, the Iranian relics are absent per se in the special investigation by Irina M. Železniak on the hydronymy of the Middle Dnieper Left Bank, while the foreign names from the Turkic, Baltic, Illyrian, Celtic, and Thracian languages in the Ros basin are described in detail. This might be due to the focus on the conclusions, previously made by O. N. Trubačev, in particular his idea that the “south Iranisms are in the basins of the left bank Dnieper tributaries – the Sula, Psel, Samara and near them; only the Sura, Domotkan and Samotkan flow in the Dnieper on the right, close proximity to the mouth of the Samara river. However, otherwise the Right Bank Ukraine, in a broad sense, turns out to be free of the Iranian traces in hydronymy” (Trubačev 1968: 276). The search of the Iranian hydronymy in the Bug region has passed two conditional stages. The first one resulted in the assumption of the Iranian lexemes' omission (Trubačev 1968: 276), while further etymological research did not ground this hypothesis (Orel 1986: 112; Lučyk 1999: 9–10, 12–13). However, today the list of Iranian words in the hydronymy of the Bug region, as well as the corpus of the etymologies of the Iranian hydronyms in the Dnieper region, need to be substantially revised. Cf. known Iranian etymology of the name of the left tributary of the Sula River Артополот (Артаполотъ), to which the authors of the studies on the Dnieper hydronymy appellate uncritically: from *Артапород = Iranian *Arta-pord ~ Alanian αρδ ‘God’ and Ossetian ford ‘big river’ (Stryžak 1963: 83–84). We would suggest treating one as an element of the Baltic stratum in the local onomastics, i.e. as *arta-palta ‘close/nigh stream’ ~ Lithuanian artùs ‘close, nigh’, art ‘near, beside, next to’ and Latvian pa ts, palte ‘puddle’, ‘rain flow’. 2. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of the proposed study is to single out the Sarmato-Alanian lexical stratum as part of the Iranian language heritage in the toponymy of the Dnieper and Bug region. The stated purpose is achieved by solving several tasks: 1) The formulation of the phonetic, lexical and morphological criteria of the SarmatoAlanian/Alanian language affiliation of the reconstructed Iranian forms; 2) The etymological analysis of the lexical material selected for the research and the revision of the etymological versions previously introduced; 3) The reconstruction of a fragment of the vocabulary of Sarmato-Alanian/Alanian dialects of the Dnieper and Bug regions in its etymological connection with the Ossetian vocabulary; 4) The distinction of some isoglosses linking the Sarmato-Alanian vocabulary with the lexicon of the other Iranian languages. 3. MATERIAL AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1. The known corpus of Iranian lexemes in onomastics of the Dnieper and Bug regions today encompasses a few dozens of units; however, it cannot be regarded as final until 4 all available sources have not yet been involved. The introduction of new findings affects the initial outlook on the area and several Iranian lexemes. The research basis is formed by toponymes, presumably of Iranian origin, taken from historical documents (chronicles, maps, geographical descriptions), and the sources of the onomastic vocabulary of the Slavonic and Iranian languages. These geographical names in their phono-morphological characteristics are correlative not with the archaic Slavonic, Baltic or Turkic lexemes but with the structurally close or identical Iranian onomastic and appellative vocabulary. In other words, they are explained solely based on the Iranian language material, which is characterised by a certain form of roots and affixes. 3.2. In our view, further searches of the Iranian language antiquities in the onomastics of the Dnieper and Bug regions require adherence to the following three important conditions: 1) The analysis of the data from the above-mentioned areas should not be limited to hydronymy, i.e. the object of research should be units of all toponymic classes. This may significantly extend the range of opportunities for the researchers, because the names of areas, landforms (hills, mountains, rocks, mountain passes, river rapids, isles), etc., in some cases also save lexical substrate; 2) The Iranian vocabulary, reconstructed based on the Dnieper and Bug toponymy, should be viewed not from the perspectives of the Old Iranian language condition with some phonetic features of “Scythia or Ossetian type” but as the part of the vocabulary of the Sarmato-Alans/Alans, that settled on the mentioned territories much later. There is essential linguistic evidence, supported by the archaeological and historical findings (cf.: (a) the settlements of the Sarmatian epoch in the Low Dnieper region; Viazmitina 1962; (b) the Alans on the Dnieper; Kazanskij, Mastykova 1999: 119); 3) The prototypes should be restored in the form corresponding to the Middle Iranian language condition with the features peculiar to the Eastern Iranian dialects. The parsed lexemes are mostly Sarmato-Alanian innovations; therefore, the Old Iranian reconstruction, carried out in the previous studies, is not always appropriate. 3.3. The methods used in the proposed study are as follows: etymological and comparative-historical (in particular, the following techniques are relevant for: establishing the genetic identity of the compared forms, determining the relative chronology of language phenomena, reconstruction of prototypes). 3.4. The Iranian prototypes given below are reconstructed, etymologised and verified mainly by taking into account the vocabulary of the Ossetian language, i.e. the genetic successor of the languages of the Sarmato-Alans and Alans. On this basis, the restored Iranian forms are determined as Alanian or Sarmatian-Alanian. Thus, we have Alanian lexemes, preserved in the toponymy; these are the prototypes, i.e. forms, reflecting the old phonetic and morphological condition of Ossetian vocabulary. Linguistic constructions are matched with historical data. The name Alano-Sarmats was commonly employed by scholars to denote all the Iranian-speaking tribes of the steppe 5 and adjacent territories, descendants of the antique Sarmats and Alans. “At the Black Sea Coast by the beginning of the Great Migration period most of them were already known as the Alans” (Kazanskij, Mastykova 1999: 119). Criteria of the Sarmato-Alanian or Alanian affiliation of the reconstructed vocabulary Lexical: a) The restored Iranian form has the whole-lexical analog in the Ossetian vocabulary; b) The reconstructed composite does not have the whole-lexical etymological counterpart in the Ossetian vocabulary, however Ossetian analogs are found separately for each part of the composite; c) The whole-lexical etymological parallels are found in the Pamir languages, belonging to the Eastern Iranian group. In this case it is about the units of archaic vocabulary, common for the dialects of the Sarmato-Alans and ancestors of Pamiris; d) The Sarmato-Alanian prototype, reconstructed with reference to the complete correspondences in the Western Iranian vocabulary, reproduces the archaic parallel from the group of the separate Sarmato-Alano-Western Iranian isoglosses (preliminary conclusion). Phonetic (peculiar to the historical phonetics of the Alanian and Ossetian languages): a) Monophthongization of diphthongs *ai > i, *au > u before n; b) Syncope of short a, i; c) Changing *k > x under the influence of i in the next syllable; d) Changing *p > f before i; e) Changing *t > c before i; f) Sporadic dropping w in the inlaut after sonants and consonants before ā, a; g) Changing the phonetic group “t + i + č” into geminated whistling affricate (after syncope of i): tič > cic > cc (> Slavonic ц [ts]); Derivational and morphological: the presence of suffixes and suffixal complexes -ak-/ -āk-, -čī-, -al-/-el-, -ag-ān-, -i-či-ā, -ič-ain the reconstructed words. 4. SARMATO-ALANIAN LANGUAGE RELICS: ETYMOLOGY AND AREA 4.1. The area of the Dnieper region * f-sarak (< * pi šar-aka-) Авсорок, Овсорок – the left tr. of the Bolva River, the left tr. of the Desna River. V. N. Toporov and O. N. Trubačev recognise the Iranian character of this hydronym with reference to the Ossetian æfsūrǧ ‘filtrate of beer’ (literally – ‘red water’) (Toporov, Trubačev 1962: 222 (ævsurǧ): while not excluding the possibility of the local Slavonic formation either). While accepting this etymology, we nevertheless consider the opportunities of the treatment of the hydronym genesis not exhausted yet. For example, to the same extent, this noun may be treated as the Alanian word * f-sarak (< * f-šarak) ‘[river with] water rapids/rifts’, that 6 arose based on the collapsed phrase * pi šar-aka- = water, that flows/falls with the noise. In its composition, the reflex of * pias the female form of the Proto-Iranian *āp- ‘water’ (it is attested in the Ossetian appellative vocabulary (Abaev 1949: 153; 1958: 84) and hydronymy) is recognised. The second part is probably the suffixed (-ak-) Iranian onomatopoeic stem *šar- ‘the murmur of water’, cf. Wakhi šor-šor ‘the same’, šaršará ‘waterfall’, ‘river threshold’, Persian šārīdan ‘to flow with the noice’, Tajik šoridan ‘to flow’, ‘to flow like a river’ (Abaev 1958: 220; Stebline-Kamensky 1999: 328, 329). The probable Alanian prototype * f-sarak (> contemporary Авсорок) corresponds to the suffixless Persian ābšār ‘waterfall’ (Abaev 1958: 220) with *āpa-. *dūr-astur or *dūr-ustur Дирéхтур – the stone at the entrance to the Dnieper rapid Vovniga. In onomastic literature this name is treated due to folk etymology as a dialectal form for дирéктор, because, according to the stories, “an incident happened to one дирéхтур” near this stone (Čabanenko 2008: 42). We believe that modern form of the toponym is the result of rethinking nonSlavonic name in the local Slavonic speech. Presumably, it is Alanian *dūr-astur or *dūrustur ‘big stone’. Comp. Ossetian dūr, dor ‘stone’ and (æ)stur, (u)stur ‘big’ (Abaev 1958: 376; Abaev 1979: 158), toponyms with inversion of parts Stur-dor “Big Stone” (Abaev 1958: 376), Устур дори цор “Near the Big Stone” (Tsagaeva 1975: 363), i. e. with the same устур дор. The reconstruction of the variant prototypes is dictated by quite unclear quality of the prothesis (aor u-?) in Alanian adj. *stur; the antiquity of the forms with the vowel prothesis is indirectly confirmed by the etymology of the modern Днестр as Scythian *Dan-æst(u)r or *Dan-ust(u)r ~ Ossetian ustur-don ‘big river’ (Kambolov 2006: 114). The composite contains the name of stone, borrowed from the Caucasian languages, hence, it is logical to conclude the belonging *dūr-astur/*dūr-ustur to the vocabulary of the Alans, whose ancestors came from the Fore-Caucasus. The etymology in (Iliadi 2018) needs to be substantially revised. *lakand Lochany, 1594 – the name of the third rapid on the Dnieper (Lassota 1866: 209). Later forms are: Лоханнои, 1627: «А ниже Сурского 2 версты порог Лоханнои» (Kniga 1950: 111), Порогъ Лоханѣй, 1697 (Veličko 1855: 473), Luchan, 1736–1737 (PTT 1736–1737), Luchanskoy, 1769 (NAM 1769), Порогъ Лаханский, 1779, (on the map of the Low Dnieper by Ê. Arapov) Порогъ Лоханинъ, 1780 (DPND 1779–1780), now it is Лохáнський – a rapid on the Dnieper above the island Strelčatyi. The version of its origin in the literature on onomastics is as follows: the stem of this toponym is related to the Ukrainian dial. лóхнути ‘to hit desperately’, because water stream “was desperately crashing against the granite threshold in its path” (Čabanenko 2008: 95). However, the difference in the position of stress in the compared forms is not commented. 7 The variants of the toponym demonstrate labile root vocalism (о : у : а), the difference of the derivational structure and grammar properties, cf.: -ø || -ы (-y) || -н-ой || -ей or -ий (-ѣй) || -ский (-skey) || -ин. Such cases are common for deetymologized vocabulary: the obscurity of the inner form of the word leads to its convergence with phonetically similar heterogeneous words and then results in its morphological change. In the case of Лохань we have the result of folk etymological rethinking of the foreign toponym. There is a reason to believe that it comes from the Middle Iranian *lakand as a reflex of the Proto-Iranian part. act. *lakant-, cf. Yazghulami lakánd ‘overhanging rock’ ~ Proto-Iranian *1lak- < PIE *lek- ‘to bend, bow, flex’, ‘to dangle’, ‘to jump’, ‘to leap’ (Stebline-Kamensky 1999: 223; Edelman 2015: 57, 59, 60). It is about a visual image of the stones rising over the water, a steep gradient, causing an increase in water velocity or turbulence. The water “jumps” and this metaphor plausibly explains the usage of the Middle Iranian *lakand ‘rock, stone into the rapids’ as the name of the river threshold. For the structure and semantics of *lakantcf. part. *barź-antor *bź-ant- ‘towering, high’ (: Avestan bərəzant- ‘high’, Ossetian bærzond ‘high’) < *barź- ‘to rise’ (Abaev 1958: 254). The atypicality of the final -d (and generally outcome -nd) for the Slavonic toponymy contributed to the formal modification of this name in the Slavonic language: this sound was eliminated, and the clipped form *Лакан assimilated with the dial. лохáня, лохáнь ‘clay bowl’, ‘jug’, ‘bucket’, whence is the substitution of primordial *a > о (however, *a for a while was still retained, comp. above Порогъ Лаханский) and *k > х. The etymology in (Iliadi 2018) needs to be substantially revised. As regards PIE etymon see: (Pokorny 1959: 673; LIV 2001 [1998]: 411). According to Helmut Rix’s dictionary the root *lekis uncertain. However, this etymon is attested not only in the Baltic and Germanic languages (LIV 2001 [1998]: Ibid.), but also in Slavonic (ESSJ XIV 147–148: with the detailed parsing of the known versions) and Greek (Beekes 2010: 856: *lek- ‘jump’) primordial vocabulary. PIE *lekis recognised in the recent studies too, cf., for example, (Edelman 2015: 57–60: the vast Iranian etymological cluster with a broad semantic spectrum) and (Adams 2013: 613: lyak), where it is one of the possible sources of Tocharian words. *sāg-barz Сагбарса – the local name in the area of the village Zolotaja Balka in Novovorontsovskij district of Kherson region (the lower course of the Dnieper, the right bank) (recording of 1973; OA). Probably, it is the result of the evolution of the primordial *Сагбарз in the foreign environment. *Сагбарз reproduces the Alanian word *sāg-barz ‘deer hill’, cf. Ossetian Сагбарз = “Deer Hill” from саг ‘deer’ + барз ‘hill’, ‘bump’, ‘upland’ (Tsagaeva 1975: 429). *san-ford/*sān-ford Old Russian Снопородъ, 1169 («слышєвшє жє князи, ожє Половци побѣгли и оставившє кошѣ свои поидоша по них вборзѣ, оставившє у возъ своихъ Ярослава 8 Всеволодича. Пришєдшє жє взяша вєжи Половєцкы на Углѣ рѣцѣ, а другыє по Снопороду, а самѣхъ постигоша у Чєрного лѣса, и ту избиша…»; Moskovskij svod 1949: 77), Снєпородъ, 1187 («кнѧзи Роускиѣ поидоша по Днѣпроу <…> и доидоша до Снєпорода»; Ipatievskaja letopis 1962: 653), Снепородъ, 1552 (Литовская метрика: «Князь великій Литовъскій Гедиминъ, завоевавши надъ моремъ Кафу и весь Перекопъ и Черкасы Питигорское, и приведши Черкасовъ часть з княгинею ихъ, посадилъ ихъ на Снепородѣ а иншихъ на Днепре»), Слѣпородъ, 1887 (Lazarevskij 1887: 39), Sliporok, 1665, now it is Сліпорíд, -óду (the form with Сліпappears since the beginning of the 18th century) – river, the right tr. of the Sula, the left tr. of the Dnieper (SHU 1979: 510). The previously stated (see: Iliadi 2021: 504–505) review of the accepted etymology by O. N. Trubačev Снопород, Снепород as evolution of Middle Iranian *san-pord/*san-ford ‘confluence, confluent’ < *san-parata- (the composition of Aryan prefix *sanand *parata- ‘big river’) spares us the necessity to dwell upon the historic part of the issue. There should be noted only two important points: 1) Aryan prefix *sanalready in Proto-Iranian sounded like *han- (!), therefore we need to search another explanation for *san-; 2) Proto-Iranian prototype for Middle Iranian -pord/-ford, according to recent studies, is *paud-ra- ‘(big) river’ (← ‘something moving’), that is not related to *parata-, Scythian Πόρατα (see: Dzitstsoity 2021: 265). The new etymology of the hydronym as Middle Iranian *[a]sang-pord/*[a]sang-parat ‘stone river/water’ (Iliadi 2021: 504–505) needs to be clarified. In particular, Prof. Yury A. Dzitstsoity in the oral discussion (2021) pointed to the possibility of the genetic relation of the first part of the composite to Proto-Iranian *san- ‘to mount, ascend’, ‘to rise’ (in detail about this ethymon see: Bailey 1979: 419; Stebline-Kamensky 1999: 307; Cheung 2007: 330–332). Regarding this interpretation, the explanation of this hydronym as of Sarmato-Alanian origin does not seem contradictory *san-ford/*sān-ford, consisting of: 1) the reflex of ProtoIranian *san-a- (part. act.) or *sān- (caus.) ~ *san- ‘to mount, ascend’, ‘to rise’; 2) SarmatoAlanian *ford (: Ossetian ford ‘big river’). For a clearer understanding of the semantics of *san-/*sānit’s useful to pay attention to it cognates, cf. Avestan sanaka- ‘river mouth’ (or ‘place, where [coastline of river] rises’), Ossetian topographical term sæn *‘mountainside’ in Sæna (oronym) and Dorgin-sæn (Dzitstsoity 2018a: 100; 2020: 105–107). Perhaps *san-ford/*sān-ford was the descriptive designation of the river, where the water level rises because of natural obstacles, or just the river with cascades. The definition of the hydronym as a unit of the Sarmato-Alanian vocabulary is due not only to the data of the languages closely related to Sarmato-Alanian dialects. Inclusion of *san-ford/*sān-ford in the list of Sarmato-Alanian lexical relics is indirectly confirmed by its geography: the area of this name (the right bank of the Sula) coincides with the area of Sarmatian burials of I–II centuries AD (Prijmak 2022: 224: the map) and borders with the 9 area of the Alano-Sarmatian burials of III–IV centuries AD, a part of which is found in the Vorskla River basin (Kazanskij, Mastykova 1999: 119, 126). *wār-dax-āl or *wār-dax-el (< *wār-tax-āl/-el) Вордахель – the right tr. of the Molohva River, the right tr. of the Vehra, the right tr. of the Sozh. In a classic study by O. N. Trubačev and V. N. Toporov, this hydronym is given as a variant to Ведрихан. The latter is determined as unclear, but the conclusion is accompanied by the assumption about the similarity of the ending of the word to the river name Хан (basin of the Seim River) = Iranian χan- ‘well, source’ and lability of dr : rd (as in Ossetian), peculiar to certain dialects, although the absence of the other Iranian hydronyms in this area reduces the likelihood of Iranian etymology (Toporov, Trubačev 1962: 223). Вордахель and Ведрихан are the heterogeneous formations with the minimum phonetic similarity. We should leave aside Ведрихан before clarifying the details of its morphology and genetic relations and focus on Вордахель. The structural evolution in isolation from the native language environment has changed the form of the word, but there seem to be some traces of its etymological composition. We mean preservation of Sarmato-Alanian *wār-dax-āl < *wār-tax-āl ‘river with rapids’ in the hydronym. The composite consists of: *wār < Proto-Iranian * ar-/* ār- ‘rain’, ‘water’ (: Avestan vairi- ‘lake’, vār- ‘rain’; Bartholomae 1904: 1364, 1410; Var (differently – Danabri) – the river in Scythia (in Jordanes); Iordanes 2001: 166; Ossetian waryn, warun ‘it rains’; Abaev 1989: 52) and *tax- ‘rapids’, ‘rapid current’ (: Ossetian tæx ‘rapids in river’, ‘rapid, fast current’, ‘fast’, ‘rapid’, ‘stormy’ (< Proto-Iranian *taxa-); Abaev 1979: 284; тæх ‘stormy, strong, rapid current of river’, ‘rapids’; Takazov 2015: 528). Extension of the second part by -āl is the suffix, comp., for example, representation of unproductive -a-l and variant -e-lin Ossetian toponymy: Xiz-al-a, Met-el-a-skæ etc. (Dzitstsoity 2018a: 103; see also Gabaraev 1977: 59). Thus, it is permissible to reconstruct not only the form *wārdaxāl, but also variant *wārdaxel with taking into account Met-el-a-skæ and similar Ossetian examples. In principle, we deal with the lexeme, whose form *wardæxal (*уардæхал) or *wardæxel (*уардæхел) is quite typical for the Ossetian language. The typology of nomination is proved, cf. Ossetian (Digorian) tæx don ‘stormy river’ (Abaev 1979: 284), Тæхгæ дон “Flying Water” – the left tr. of the Zakadon River (Tsagaeva 1975: 16, 212). The uniqueness of this Iranian name in the area of the Slavonic hydronymy is explained by its transfer in the Sozh basin by Slavs, who came from the territory where Iranian names are attested. V. E. Orel sees a similar case in the secondary “replant” of Iranian hydronym Морожа in the basin of the Pripyat River from more southern areas (Orel 1986: 109– 110: does not deny and Baltic etymology). 16 *sarak or *sarāk Сорока – the river (village Kitajgorod in Alexandrovskij district of Kirovograd region) (Krivulčenko 2011: 176) & Сорока – the small river in hydrosystem of the Valuj River (basin of the Don) (Otin 2012: 263), Сорóка – name of the rivers: 1) the left tr. of the Southern Bug; 2) the right tr. of the Dnieper; 3) the left tr. of the Dniester; 4) the left-bank tr. of the Western Bug River; 5) the left-bank tr. of the Desna River (SHU 1979: 521). Hydronyms are hardly related to the name of the bird, otherwise, we would deal with the adjectives Сорочий, Сорочья, Сороча, and Сорочача. The stem Сорокalso can not be oriented on Turkic source like са:ры (< са:рығ) ‘yellow’, ‘white, light-coloured’ (full spectrum of its meanings see in: ESTJ VI 220–222), because in the Eastern Slavonic use this lexeme always preserves а in the root, cf., for example, in Russian Саратов ~ сары ‘yellow’ (see etymological literature). It appears to us a case of the phonetically, morphologically and semantically substantiated etymology Сорокas the Eastern Iranian lexeme (in its Middle Iranian form) *sarak or *sarāk (: Sogdian sry /sarē/, sr’k ‘head’, ‘main’, ‘first’ (Gharib 1995: 362) < *saraka-, Ossetian sæjrag ‘main’ < *sarāka-; Abaev 1979: 59–60) < *śara-ka-, *śar-ākafrom *śarah- ‘head’, represented in Ossetian and Sogdian (and not just) toponymy in the meaning ‘beginning’, ‘headwater’. Cf. Ossetian Донысæр (Донисар) = “Headwaters of the River” from доны – gen. sing. дон ‘water’ + сæр ‘headwater’, ‘head’, and also Доны сæр = “Above the River”, “Waterheads of the River” (Tsagaeva 1975: 184, 232, 337, 453, 518). Cf. also Persian, Tajik sar ‘head’, ‘beginning’ and ‘fount’ (Abaev 1979: 75). Flexion -а is the means of grammatical adaptation of Middle Iranian Eastern *sarak, *sarāk ‘the main tributary’, ‘headwater’ in Slavonic patterned on the nomenclatural terms *rěka, *voda. In the areal terms, the Iranian origin of the hydronym is substantiated by the localisation in the basins of the Southern Bug, Don and Dnieper of other names of Iranian origin. They are toponymic markers of the area of archaeological cultures that are linked to the Sarmats and Alans. *sarda-gan (< *sarda-kan) or *sard-ag-ān Сандаган, -а, 1988 – the name of the fount and dried flow (the right tr. of the Ingul in the area of village Kalinovka in Vitovskij district of Nikolaev region; Hromko 2017: 253). We suppose the evolution of the original *Сардаган on Slavonic grounds, where the hydronym was subject to regressive assimilation р – н > н – н, to be sporadically noted in the dialects. Hypothetically, this might be the case of the preservation of the Eastern Iranian compound *sarda-gan (from *sarda-kan) ‘summer fount’, ‘warm fount’, consisted of the reflexes of Proto-Iranian *śarda- ‘summer’ and *kana- ‘well, spring, fount’ (of the first stem see: Abaev 1979: 80; Bailey 1979: 421–422: sala). Voicing of *k- > gin the second part of the composites is an old innovation, peculiar also to the Alanian and Ossetian languages. Both components are frequently used in the Ossetian toponymy, cf. Сæрды дон “Summer Water”, Сæрды ком “Summer Gorge”, Сæрды фæндаг “Summer Road” with сæрды – gen. sing. сæрд 17 ‘summer’ and Æндæрхæн “Other Fount” with хæн ‘fount’ (Tsagaeva 1975: 62, 78, 211, 255). The latter circumstance impels us to belong *sarda-gan to the Alanian stratum in the local toponymy. Understanding the morphology of *Сардаган as the complex suffixal derivative leads to an alternative reconstruction of *sard-ag-ān with the counterpart in Ossetian Сæрдыгон дарæн (сæрд ‘summer’ + suff. -ыгон; Tsagaeva 1975: 39) = *sard-ug-ān? The toponyms with suffixal complex -ag-ān (< Old Iranian -ak-āna-) occur in the area of the Ossetian language, where this suffix naturally has developed in -æg-on (examples see: Dzitstsoity 2018a: 99). *un[i]-gul (< *un[i]-kul) Ингул – the river, the left tr. of the Southern Bug: «простуючи чрезъ Ингули до Очакова», 1673 (Veličko 1851: 341), «Пятій отпочивокъ на рѣчцѣ <…>, которая зъ правой руки припадаеть отъ Чорного лѣса, а котитъ въ Инкгулъ, на которой лози и терни есть и вода плесами, а ити по надъ нею не переходячи до Инкгула», «Шестій отпочивокъ на рѣчцѣ Инкгулѣ <…>, на которой два броди шляховіи <…>, а опрочъ тихъ бродовъ на иншихъ мѣстцахъ переправи робыти трудно для плесъ многихъ и крутихъ береговъ», 1697 (Veličko 1855: 484), Inguł, 1882 – the left tr. of the Bug liman (in Tatar Jeni-geł; SG III 291), Angul, Angulet Wielki, Ингулъ, now Інгýл, -у (SHU 1979: 222). The linguistic interpretation of this hydronym has its history. As far as it’s known, Мax Vasmer was the first to put forward the Turkic etymology: particularly, he linked Ингул with Turkish äŋgül ‘quiet, lazy’ or Turkish, Crimean Tatar, Kipchak, etc. in ‘cave, cavern’ or Turkish, Uighur än ‘broad’ with the second part Turkish göl ‘lake’ (Vasmer 1986 [1967]: 131). Later, O. N. Trubačev suggested his version of the Slavonic origin of this word, in which the scholar recognised Turkic phonetic adaptation of Old Russian Уголъ: «Turks of the southern Russian steppes in their turn, probably, borrowed and assimilated this Old Russian local name Уголъ or even its older form – *Ǫglъ, having converted it in the hydronym Ингул (variant is Angul)» (Trubačev 1968: 206). See also the development of the idea about the Slavonic origin of the hydronyms Ингул, Ингулец < *Ǫgъlъ with subsequent Turkic phonetic treatment in: (Lučyk 1996: 132–135). However, the notion “angle”/“corner” applies to the great rivers (for examle, in the place of their confluence with others water arteries), therefore the “angle/corner of the river” is hardly an attribute, distinguishing the river from other similar rivers, whose stream also forms “angle/corner” relative to the shoreline of the other water object. “Angle/corner” in geographical meaning is more related to the terrain, squeezed in between two confluent rivers or between the river floodplain and a mountain range. A possible example of the reflection of Slavonic *ǫgъlъ in old historical toponymy of Europe is the name of the territory along the estuary of the Danube River Ὄγγλος, Ὸγκλός, Onglos, mentioned by Patriarch Nicephorus. This area, occupied by Bulgars, is mentioned under 660 in relation to their retreat under the onslaught of the Khazars (SSS I 203), and in the scientific literature this name is usually referred to the language of the Asparuh Bulgarians and explained as “Ten Rivers (Lakes)”. It 18 is presumed that the toponym contains a Turkic numeral on (Georgiev 2002: 74) (apparently, the reflex of Turkic qo:l ‘river’, ‘valley’ or kö:l ‘lake’ is implied in the second part). However, located somewhere between the Carpathian slopes and the floodplain of the Danube Онгл by that time already had been settled by Slavs, with the leaders of which Asparuh came into contact (KIB 1987: 41), therefore this toponym is preferably explained as a Slavonic word, aided by its documented forms. In our opinion, the hydronym is the result of Turkic assimilation (phonetic and morphological) of the pre-Turkic name. It is about *un[i]-gul < *un[i]-kul, that reproduces a Middle Iranian compound word (the reflex of Proto-Iranian *auni-kula-?), consisting of: 1) *un-i- < Proto-Iranian *aun-i- (au > u before the nasal sonant), i.e. suffixed Iranian (Eastern) *au- : *u- : * a- ‘to flow’ (?). Cf. Khotan Saka vai ‘streams’ (< *u-anor with root diphtong *au-, where initial sound alater was lost, cf. Old Indian aváni- ‘stream’), vāma ‘sea, flood’ (Bailey 1979: 373, 383: to PIE *au- : *u- ‘be watery’) and Sogdian ”w’nh [āw n] ‘river’ (?), cf. ”w’n ”p (Sims-Williams 1983: 46; Rastorgueva, Edelman 2000: 256), which are variant to *un-iin characteristics of vocalism of the formant and root; 2) *kul (> *gul with voicing of k in the compound word) from *kula- ~ *kau-l- ‘deep’, ‘cavity, pit’, cf. Middle Persian kōl {kwl} ‘pit’, Kurdish (Kurmanji) k‘ōl ‘pit, cavity, moat’, k‘ūl ‘deep’, Lurish kol ‘hollow, cavity, pit’, Talysh хъl ‘maelstrom; deep place’ (Edelman 2011: 356, 357). The variant stem *čau-lis kept in Ossetian toponymy, cf. Cul-ægon (Dzitstsoity 2018a: 99, 109). The meanings of both components of the analysed hydronym make it possible to reconstruct general contours of the semantics of nomination as ‘stream from the pit or gully’ (then the name initially referred to the sources of the river, cf. Ossetian Донадаг “River Ravine”, “Ravine of the water” = дон ‘water’, ‘river’ + адаг ‘ravine’; Ададжы дон “River of the Ravine”; Tsagaeva 1971: 61, 131) or just ‘stream with maelstroms’. Semantically, such etymology looks more plausible than “Quiet/Lazy Lake” (there is no reason to state that the lexemes like Turkish äŋgül ‘quiet, lazy’ were used in toponymy) or “The Broad Lake”. Two factors contributed to Turkic reinterpretation of the Iranian hydronym as Jeni-geł: 1) the presence of relict suffix -iin *uni-gul (cf. above Khotan Saka vai ‘streams’, Old Indian aváni-); 2) the external sound similarity of postpositive *gul with Turkic göl. The variants Inguł, Angul result the attempts to interpret the structure of this name in relation to other Turkic vocabulary, see above M. Vasmer’s examples. Toponyms Χιγγυλοὺς, Χιγγιλοὺς, adduced by A. K. Šapošnikov, are of great interest. The scholar likens them to modern Жёлтые воды (source of the Small Ingul or the Ingulets) and explains them as the corruption of Sindo-Meotian *hingul- ~ Old Indian hiṅgula- ‘scarlet paint, dye’, choronym and hydronym Hiṅgulā (Šapošnikov 2015: 35: as Hiṇgulā). However, previously he referred Χιγγιλούς, Συγγούλ (the river in the country of Khazars and Hungarians, “probably, the Ingul or the Ingulets”) to the Sarmato-Turanian language relics and reconstructed for these toponyms the prototype *hingilu- ‘red’? (~ Old Indian hydronym Siṅgula-) (Šapošnikov 2007: 298: Singula-). But the lack of the other names with argued 19 “Sindo-Meotian” etymology in the toponymy of the Southern Bug causes doubts in the correctness of the explanation Χιγγυλοὺς, Χιγγιλοὺς as *hingul-, as well as Sarmato-Turanian *hingilu-. Accepting the historical identity of all the forms (with initial Χand without it) as fixations of a single Iranian *hingiluencounters objections of a formal nature. It can not be ruled out that the difference of anlaut Χι- : I-, Ain Χιγγυλοὺς, Χιγγιλοὺς VS Ингул, Ingul, Angul indicates the dialectal variants, which arose in Turkic speech: they phonetically correlated like Nogai, Tatar izan ‘arable land’, ‘border’ ~ Cuman hizan ‘border’ (Sevortian 1974: 647), Turkish yryldymaq ~ hyryldamaq ‘to grumble, roar’, Khalaj aγač ~ hagač ‘tree’ (Tenišev 1984: 396). If sound Xis a foreign-language phonetic “layering”, then we come to original *Ιγγυλοὺς, Ιγγιλοὺς. *waran, *wārān Ворóна, -и – the river (dried creek), the right tr. of the Sugokleja-Kamenovata, the right tr. of the Ingul, the left tr. of the Southern Bug (Krivulčenko 2011: 48) & Worona, 1736–1737 (PTT 1736–1737), Worona R., 1769 – the river, the right tr. of the Dnieper (the region of the rapids; NAM 1769; under 1779–1780 as речька Вороная; DPND 1779–1780), Вóрон, -а – the rivers in the basins of the Dnieper (Воронъ, 1898, Воринъ) and the Black Sea in the Crimea (Ворона) (SHU 1979: 121). The names are not related to the adj. воронóй as well as the ornithonym ворóна (otherwise it would be expected Воронья, Вороний or Вороняча, Воронячий). Rather, the modern form of the nomen is the result of adaptation of Sarmato-Alanian *waran, *wārān ‘rain, rain stream’ (cf. Pahlavi wārān ‘rain’, Kurdish waran ‘the same’; Abaev 1989: 52) in Slavonic speech, cf. eloquent Ossetian word combination waryny don ‘rainwater’ (applicably to drying up river) related to the hydronym in the Crimea (Šapošnikov 2007: 317). On the other hand, it is worth paying serious attention to ProtoIranian * aranaas a part of prefixal formation *apaarana- ~ * ar- ‘to water out’ (Rastorgueva, Edelman 2000: 314). Final -а is a Slavonic flexion, adapting this Iranian word to Slavonic grammar (may be, as a part of *Ворона река). *xūs-dān Хуздáн [Хуз|дан], 1988 – gully, the right tr. of the Ingul (Alexandrovskij district of Kirovograd region; Hromko 2017: 253). It is *xūs-dān, i.e. phonetically changed in Slavonic use (natural voicing of с > з before д), relic of the language of the Sarmato-Alanian population of this territory. The compound word was coined as the lexicalisation of the attributive word combination *xūs dān ‘drying up river’, ‘shallowed river’. This etymology is evidenced by the Ossetian Хусдон = “Drying up River” from хус(къ) ‘dry’ + дон ‘river’ (Tsagaeva 1975: 415). Due to the preservation of а, the word was borrowed by the Slavs (utilizing Turkic mediation?) before the change of Alanian ā > o before m, n, i.e. before the late in 14th century. 20 5. CONCLUSION 5.1. In our opinion, the etymologies described in this paper enable us to conclude the Iranian origin of several toponyms in certain areas of the Dnieper and the Bug regions. These etymologies are important as the linguistic evidence of the residence of the Iranian ethnoses there. The criteria formulated above of genetic affiliation of the distinguished iranisms allow to identify them as the elements of the Sarmato-Alanian vocabulary. Due to the absence of trustworthy Ossetian lexical parallels relevant for Alanian reconstruction, the suggested prototypes are defined as Sarmato-Alanian regarding the phonetic features peculiar to the Ossetian language. 5.2. The phonetic and derivational features of the attested iranisms, their structuraletymological analogues in the Iranian vocabulary, suffice to prove the Sarmato-Alanian language affiliation of 20 lexemes. These include the toponyms firstly introduced in the scientific use (*ars-warm[ā], *be-gan, *frās-sāyan or *fars-san, *mār-wārā or *mār-rār-, *xur-sin or *xur sin), names with previously assumed Turkic (Ингул = Sarm.-Alan. *un[i]-gul < PIran. *auni-kula-), Slavonic (Лахан-, Лохан- = Sarm.-Alan. *lakand) etymology or words with previously insufficiently reasoned Iranian etymology (Снопород = Alan. *san-ford/*sān-ford; Сандаган = Alan. *sard-ag-ān or *sarda-gan; Вордахель = Alan. *wār-dax-āl or *wār-dax-el). 5.3. The reconstruction of the part of the vocabulary of the relict Iranian language reveals the nature of the relationship of these words and the Ossetian vocabulary. Cf.: a) The whole-lexical Alano-Ossetian equivalents (Alano-Ossetica): Alan. *dūrastur or *dūr-ustur : Osset. (inverted) устур дор, Stur-dor; Alan. *sāg-barz : Osset. Сагбарз; Alan. *sard-ag-ān : Osset. Сæрдыгон (дарæн) or Alan. *sarda-gan : Osset. Сæрды дон; Alan. *xūs-dān : Osset. Хусдон; b) Alanian composite words without the whole-lexical etymological analogues in Ossetian, but explained due to Ossetian vocabulary: Alan. *ars-warm[ā] : Osset. ars & wærm(æ); Alan. *frās-sāyan (= *frān-sāyan) or *fars-san : Osset. *ron (in *Ron-vændag) & sajæn or fars & sæn, Sæna; Alan. *kard-āf : Osset. læk’ærdæ (< *fra-karda-); Alan. *mār-wārā or *mār-rār- : Osset. mar in *Raw-mar-don, don-mar-æn & Osset. waryn, warun (< *wār) or Раро; Alan. *san-ford/*sān-ford : Osset. sæn, Sæna & ford; Alan. *wār-dax-āl or *wār-dax-el : Osset. waryn, warun & tæx & suff. -āl or -el; Alan. *xur-sin or *xur sin : Osset. xuræ & Digor. sinæk, sinæg. 5.4. External relations of the vocabulary of Sarmato-Alanian dialects of the Dnieper and the Bug regions within the Iranian group are represented by the following isoglosses: a) Alanian-Eastern Iranian: (as for 1th part) Sarm.-Alan. *dāčī-kāϑ : Shug. wiδǟc; Sarm.-Alan. *lakand : Yazg. lakánd; Alan. *sarak or *sarāk : Osset. sæjrag, Sogd. sry /sarē/, sr’k; (as for 1th part) Alan. *un[i]-gul (< *un[i]-kul) : Khot. vai, Sogd. ”w’nh [āwn]; b) Alanian-Western Iranian: Alan. *f-sarak : Pers. ābšār; (as for 2th part) *un[i]- gul (< *un[i]-kul) : M. Pers. kōl {kwl}, Kurd. Kurm. k‘ōl, k‘ūl etc.; 21 c) With a broad geography of counterparts: Alan. *aspa-xāg (< *aspa-xāk) : Yagn. Aspi xok, Taj. Аспи хоки чашма [Aspi xoki čašma], Аспти хок [Aspti xok]; Alan. *waran, *wārān. It should be pointed out that the reconstructed lexemes with geographical meaning have counterparts not only in the appellative vocabulary of the other Iranian languages but also in their toponymy. REFERENCES Abaev Vasilij I. 1949: Osetinskij jazyk i folklor [Ossetian Language and Folklore] 1, Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Abaev Vasilij I. 1958: Istoriko-etimologičeskij slovar osetinskogo jazyka [Historical and Etymological Dictionary of Ossetian Language] 1: A–K, Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Abaev Vasilij I. 1973: Istoriko-etimologičeskij slovar osetinskogo jazyka [Historical and Etymological Dictionary of Ossetian Language] 2: L–R, Leningrad: Nauka. Abaev Vasilij I. 1979: Istoriko-etimologičeskij slovar osetinskogo jazyka [Historical and Etymological Dictionary of Ossetian Language] 3: S–T, Leningrad: Nauka. Abaev Vasilij I. 1989: Istoriko-etimologičeskij slovar osetinskogo jazyka [Historical and Etymological Dictionary of Ossetian Language] 4: U–Z, Leningrad: Nauka. Abaev Vasilij I. 1995: Istoriko-etimologičeskij slovar osetinskogo jazyka. Ukazatel [Historical and Etymological Dictionary of Ossetian Language. Index], Moskva: RAN. Adams Douglas Q. 2013: A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Revised and Greatly Enlarged 1–2, Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi. Ammianus Marcellinus 1874: Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt 1, recensuit notisque selectis instruxit V. Gardthausen, Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubneri. Bailey Harold W. 1957: Dvārā matīnām. – Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 20(1/3), 41–59. Bailey Harold W. 1960: Arya II. – Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 23(1), 13–39. Bailey Harold W. 1979: Dictionary of Khotan Saka, Cambridge, London, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Bartholomae Christian 1904: Altiranisches Wörterbuch [Old Iranian Dictionary], Lex 80, XXXII, Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Beekes Robert S. 2010: Etymological Dictionary of Greek 1, with the assist. of L. van Beek, Leiden, Boston: Brill. Bosworth Joseph, Toler Thomas N. 1921: An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary: Based on the Manuscript Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth. Supplement (Classic Reprint), Oxford: Clarendon Press. 22 Cheung Johnny 2007: Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb, ed. by A. Lubocky, Leiden, Boston: Brill. Cheung Johnny 2008: Očerki istoričeskogo razvitija osetinskogo vokalizma [Studies in the Historical Development of the Ossetic Vocalism], Vladikavkaz: Izdatelskopoligrafičeskoe predprijatie im. V. Gassieva. Cleasby Richard 1874: An Icelandic-English Dictionary, enlarged and completed by G. Vigfusson, M. A., Oxford: Clarendon Press. Čabanenko Viktor A. 2008: Porožystyj Dnipro. Istoryko-toponimičnyj slovnyk [Rapids Dnieper. Historical and Toponymic Dictionary], Zaporižžia: ZNU. Čerepanova Evgenija A. 1983: Geografičeskaja terminologija Černigovsko-Sumskogo Polesja (opyt semantičeskoj klassifikacii) [Geographical Terminology of Chernigov-Sumsky Poles’ja (Attempt at Semantic Classification)]. – Polesskij etnolingvističeskij sbornik: materialy i issledovanija, pod red. N. I. Tolstogo, Moskva: Nauka, 173–189. Černega Andrej T. 1981: Počvy bassejna reki Ingulets (dokladnaja zapiska i karta) [Soils of the Ingulets River Basin (Report and Map)], Kirovograd: [b. i.]. Dashti Naseer 2021: English-Balochi Dictionary (Engliś-Balóci Labzbalaɔ), Trafford: Trafford Pub. DPND 1779–1780: Dva plana nižnego Dnepra (konec XVIII v.) iz sobranija D. I. Javornickogo. 1779–1780 [Two Plans of the Lower Dnieper (Late 18th Century) from the Collection of D. I. Javornickij. 1779–1780], available online. Internet Access: https://papacoma.narod.ru/maps/dnepr_evarnickiy.htm. Dzitstsoity Yury A. 2017: Voprosy osetinskoj filologii [Questions of Ossetian Philology] 1, Cchinval: Respublika. Dzitstsoity Yury A. 2018a: Slovoobrazovatelnye tipy osetinskoj toponimii [Derivational Types of Ossetian Toponimy]. – Izvestija SOIGSI 27(66), 94–111. Dzitstsoity Yury A. 2018b: O nekotorych reliktach drevneiranskoj leksiki v toponimii Osetii [On Some Relics of Ancient Iranian Vocabulary in the Toponymy of Ossetia]. – Izvestija SOIGSI 29(68), 117–128. Dzitstsoity Yury A. 2020: Toponimija kak istočnik po etničeskoj istorii: osetinskoe Sæna / russkoe Сони [Toponymy as a Source of Ethnic History: Ossetian Sæna / Russian Sonya]. – Tomskij žurnal LING & ANTHRO 3(29), 102–114. Dzitstsoity Yury A. 2021: Etimologičeskij slovar iranskich jazykov [Etymological Dictionary of Iranian Languages 6. – Nartamongæ 16(1/2), 260–287. Dzitstsoity Yury A. 2023: K istorii labialnych fonem v osetinskom jazyke [On the History of Labial Phonemes in the Ossetian Language]. – Indoevropejskoe jazykoznanie i klassičeskaja filologija 27(1) (čtenija pamiati I. M. Tronskogo): materialy meždunarodnoj konferencii, prochodivšej 26–28 ijunia 2023 g., gl. red. N. N. Kazanskij, SanktPeterburg: ILI RAN, 354–367. 23 Edelman Džoj I. 1986: Sravnitelnaja grammatika vostočnoiranskich jazykov. Fonologija [Comparative Grammar of Eastern Iranian Languages. Phonology], Moskva: Nauka. Edelman Džoj I. 2011: Etimologičeskij slovar iranskich jazykov [Etymological Dictionary of Iranian Languages] 4, Moskva: Vostočnaja literatura. Edelman Džoj I. 2015: Etimologičeskij slovar iranskich jazykov [Etymological Dictionary of Iranian Languages] 5, Moskva: Vostočnaja literatura. ESSJ XIV: Etimologičeskij slovar slavianskich jazykov. Praslavianskij leksičeskij fond [Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages. Proto-Slavic Lexical Fund] 14: *labati – *lěteplъjь, pod red. O. N. Trubačiova, Moskva: Nauka, 1987. ESTJ VI: Etimologičeskij slovar tiurkskich jazykov. Obščetiurkskie i mežtiurkskie osnovy na bukvy “L”, “M”, “N”, “P”, “S” [Etymological Dictionary of Turkic Languages. Common Turkic and Inter-Turkic Stems with the Letters “L”, “M”, “N”, “P”, “S”] 6, E. V. Sevortian, Moskva: Nauka, 2003. Gabaraev Nikolaj J. 1977: Morfologičeskaja struktura slova i slovoobrazovanie v sovremennom osetinskom jazyke [Morphological Structure of the Word and Word Formation in the Modern Ossetian Language], Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Georgiev Pavel 2002: Imeto Karvuna i prabalgarite [The Name Karvuna and the ProtoBulgarians]. – Palaeobulgarica-Starobalgaristika 2(26), 70–82. Gharib Badr al-Zamān 1995: Sogdian Dictionary: Sogdian-Persian-English, Tehran: Farhangan Publications. Hromko Tetjana V. 2017: Materialy do slovnyka hovirok ukrajinskoji movy [Materials for the Dictionary of Idioms of the Ukrainian Language]. – Naukovi zapysky, vyp. 160, Kropyvnycky: RVV CDPU im. V. Vynnyčenka, 239–253. Iliadi Olexandr I. 2001: Etymologične gnizdo z korenem *veru praslovjanskij movi [Etymological Cluster with the Root *verin Proto-Slavonic], Kyjiv, Kirovograd: DLAU. Iliadi Alexander I. 2018: Areas of Iranian Lexical Relicts in Toponymics of the Dnieper and the Bug Basins. – Paradigm of Knowledge 1(27), 101–123. Iliadi Alexander I. 2020: Alanica v toponimii Dona [Alanica in the Don Toponymy]. – Acta Onomastica 61(1), 48–60. Iliadi Alexander I. 2021: Iranica v toponimii Podneprovja [“Iranica” in the Dnieper Region Toponymy]. – Indoevropejskoe jazykoznanie i klassičeskaja filologija 25(1) (čtenija pamiati I. M. Tronskogo): materialy meždunarodnoj konferencii, prochodivšej 21–23 ijunia 2021 g., gl. red. N. N. Kazanskij, Sankt-Peterburg: ILI RAN, 502–513. Iliadi Alexander I. 2022: Alanskie sledy v toponimii Posavija [Alanian Traces in the Sava Region Toponymy]. – Indoevropejskoe jazykoznanie i klassičeskaja filologija 26(1) (čtenija pamiati I. M. Tronskogo): materialy meždunarodnoj konferencii, prochodivšej 27– 29 ijunia 2022 g., gl. red. N. N. Kazanskij, Sankt-Peterburg: ILI RAN, 512–523. 24 Iordanes 2001: De origine actibusque Getarum, vstup. statja, per., komment. E. Č. Skržinskoj, Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteia. Ipatievskaja letopis 1962: Ipatievskaja letopis [Hypatian Codex]. – Polnoe sobranie russkich letopisej 2, Moskva: Izdatelstvo vostočnoj literatury. Kambolov Tamerlan T. 2006: Očerk istorii osetinskogo jazyka: učebnoe posobie dlia vuzov [Essay on the History of the Ossetian Language: A Textbook for Universities], Vladikavkaz: Ir. Kazanskij Michail M., Mastykova Anna V. 1999: Alany na Dnepre v epochu Velikogo pereselenija narodov: svidetelstvo Markiana i archeologičeskie dannye [Alans on the Dnieper During the Great Migration Period: Marcian’s Testimony and Archaeological Data]. – Rossijskaja archeologija 4, 119–130. Khomidov Dilmurod R. 2018: Lingvističeskoe issledovanie gidronimov regiona istoričeskogo proživanija tadžikov v Maverannachre: Avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie učenoj stepeni doktora filologičeskich nauk [Linguistic Study of the Hydrological Region of the Tajik Historical Research in Maverannachre: Author’s Abstract of a Dissertation for Obtaining a PhD in Philology], Dušanbe: TGPU im. S. Ajni. KIB 1987: Kratkaja istorija Bolgarii. S drevnejšich vremen do našich dnej [A Brief History of Bulgaria. From Ancient Times to the Present Day], otv. red. G. G. Litavrin, Moskva: Nauka. Kniga 1950: Kniga Bolšomu Čertežu [Book of the Big Drawing], podg. k pečati i red. K. N. Serbinoj, Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Krivulčenko Anatolij I. 2011: Vodni objekty Kirovogradskoji oblasti. Častyna I. Slovnyk vodnych objektiv. Častyna II. Atlas geografičnoji mereži. Klasyfikator vodotokiv. Vodoschovyšča [Water Bodies of the Kirovograd Region. Part I. Dictionary of Water Bodies. Part II. Atlas of the Geographical Network. Classifier of Watercourses], Kirovograd: Imeks. Lassota Erich 1866: Tagebuch des Erich Lassota von Steblau: Nach einer Handschrift der von Gersdorff-Weicha’schen Bibliothek zu Bautzen herausgegeben und mit Einleitung und Bemerkungen begleitet von Reinhold Schottin [Diary of Erich Lassota von Steblau: Edited from a Manuscript in the Gersdorff-Weicha Library in Bautzen and Accompanied by an Introduction and Remarks by Reinhold Schottin], Halle: Verlag von G. Emil Barthel. Lazarevskij Alexandr M. 1887: Archivnye otryvki dlia istorii Poltavskoj jeparchii [Archival Excerpts for the History of the Poltava Diocese] 1, Poltava: Tipografija N. Pigurenko. LIV 2001 [1998]: Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen [Lexicon of Indo-European Verbs: Roots and their Primary Stem Formations], unter Leitung von H. Rix, bearb. von M. Kümmel, T. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer, 2., verbesserte Aufl., Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Lučyk Vasyl V. 1996: Avtochtonni hidronimy Serednioho Dnipro-buzkoho mežyriččia [Autochthonous Hydronyms of the Middle Dnieper-Bug Interflufe], Kirovograd: Narodne slovo. 25 Lučyk Vasyl V. 1999: Inšomovni hidronimy Serednioho Dnipro-buzkoho mežyriččia [Foreign Language Hydronyms of the Middle Dnieper-Bug Interflufe], Kirovograd: RVG ITS KDPU im. V. Vynnyčenka. Mayrhofer Manfred 1992: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen [Etymological Dictionary of Old Indo-Aryan] 1, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Morgenstierne Georg 1974: Etymological Vocabulary of the Shughni Group 6, herausg. von G. Redard, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Moskovskij svod 1949: Moskovskij letopisnyj svod konca XV veka [Moscow Chronicle Collection of the Late 15th Century]. – Polnoe sobranie russkich letopisej 25, Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Moszyński Kazimierz 1957: Pierwotny zasiąg języka prasłowiańskiego [The Original Range of the Proto-Slavic Language], Wrocław: PAN. NAM 1769: A New & Accurate Map of the Krim Tartary, the Sea of Azof, and Parts of the Rivers Dneper, Bog and Kuban. Taken from Original Drawings & Memoirs, London, available online. Internet Access: https://www.swaen.com/listing/a-new-accuratemap-of-the-krim-tartary-the-sea-of-azof-and-parts-of-the-rivers-dneper-bog-andkuban/14232. OA: Onomastičeskij archiv Instituta ukrainskogo jazyka NAN Ukrainy [Onomastic archive of the Institute of Ukrainian Language of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine], Kyiv: Institute of the Ukrainian Language of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Orel Vladimir E. 1986: K voprosu o reliktach iranskoj gidronimii v bassejnach Dnepra, Dnestra i Južnogo Buga [On the Issue of Relics of Iranian Hydronymy in the Basins of the Dnieper, Dniester and Southern Bug]. – Voprosy jazykoznanija 5, 107–113. Otin Evgenij S. 2012: Gidronimija Dona 2: Nižnij Don [Hydronymy of the Don 2: The Lower Don], Doneck: Jugo-Vostok. Pokorny Julius 1959: Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [Indo-European Etymological Dictionary] 1, München, Bern: A. Francke AG Verlag. Prijmak Viktor V. 2022: Pogrebenija sarmatskogo vremeni bassejnov verchnej Suly i verchnego Psla (načalo I tys. n. e.) [The Burials of the Sarmatian Period in the Basins of Upper Sula and Upper Psla (The Beginning of the 1st Millennium AD)]. – Druzej medlitelnyj uchod… Pamiati Olega Šarova / The footsteps of my friends leaving... Ad memoriam Oleg Sharov, sost. i otv. red. M. M. Kazanski, A. V. Mastykova, Kišiniov: Stratum Plus, 221–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55086/SL23VAD649. PTT 1736–1737: Provinciarum Turcico tartaricarum inter Tanaim Borysthenem et Bogum sitarum quas duobus an[n]is viz. 1736. et 1737. Anna augustissima russorum autocratrix subegit ex prototypo petropolitano concin[n]ata accuratissima delineatio: in qua simul occupatio peninsulæ Crim[m] et Cuban nec non expugnatio Assow et Oczakow exhibentur