The Morphology of Lithuanian Toponyms – Differences and Parallels of Different Classes of Names

Straipsniai / Articles 117 HARALD BICHLMEIER Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg Fields of research: onomastics (toponymy), historical phonology of the Germanic languages, Indo-European linguistics, Aljamiado-texts. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/all82-06 THE MORPHOLOGY OF LITHUANIAN TOPONYMS – DIFFERENCES AND PARALLELS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES OF NAMES Lietuvių toponimijos morfologija – įvairių vardų grupių skirtumai ir paralelės ANNOTATION The participation in the project “Vakarinių pietų aukštaičių vietovardžių integravimas į Lietuvos vietovardžių geoinformacinę duomenų bazę ir jų kilmės bei motyvacijos tyrimai” [The integration of Western South Aukštaitian toponyms into the Lituanian geoinformational database and studies on their origin and motivation] led to two interesting results: 1) It seems necessary to refine (Lithuanian) terminology and 2) there can be found remarkable differences in the percentage of the morphological (and syntactical) structures used to build names for flowing bodies of water (potamonyms) and names for standing bodies of water (limnonyms). It turns out that in the researched area in limnonyms the percentage of derivational formations is significantly higher and that of compound names significantly lower than in potamonyms. More research needs to be done to find out, whether this is a characteristic of the researched area or a general tendency all over Lithuania. KEYWORDS: potamonyms/river-names, limnonyms/lake-names, morphology of onyms, syntactical structure of onyms, western south aukštaitian/dzukian toponomastics. HARALD BICHLMEIER 118 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII ANOTACIJA Parašyti šį straipsnį paskatinto projekte „Vakarinių pietų aukštaičių vietovardžių integravimas į Lietuvos vietovardžių geoinformacinę duomenų bazę ir jų kilmės bei motyvacijos tyrimai“, kuriame teko dalyvauti ir atlikti tyrimus, gautos įdomios išvados: 1) pasirodo, būtina peržiūrėti ir tikslinti lietuviškąją toponimų darybos terminiją; 2) susumavus rezultatus pastebėta didelių skirtumų morfologinėje (ir sintaksinėje) upėvardžių (potamonimų) ir ežerų vardų (limnonimų) daryboje. Tyrimas parodė, kad didžioji dalis ištirtų limnonimų yra vediniai, atvirkščiai negu potamonimai, pastarieji dažniausiai yra sudurtiniai dariniai. Reikalinga atlikti daugiau tyrimų, siekiant išsiaiškinti, ar tokia daryba būdinga tik ištirtam regionui, ar visai Lietuvos teritorijai. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: potamonimai / upėvardžiai, limnonimai / ežerų vardai, onimų morfologija, onimų sintaksinė struktūra, pietvakarių aukštaičių / dzūkų toponomastika. 1. INTRODUCTION1 This paper intends to give an insight into differences and parallels in different classes of names within Lithuanian toponyms. 1.1. Thus, at the beginning, we have to clarify, what exactly we are talking about, what we understand by toponyms etc. Toponyms shall be understood here in the widest sense of the word, that is as onyms/ names for all kinds of topoi, i.e. places – in German this would be Ortsnamen and Örtlichkeitsnamen combined. This is more or less the way in which Lithuanian toponimai tends to be understood. Thus, in principle, we are talking here about the whole array of names for places in the sense of geographical entities, that is names for inhabited places on the one hand, as there are towns, villages, farmsteads, houses etc., which are toponyms in the narrow sense of the word, in the way German Ortsname is often used, and names for not inhabited geographical units on the other hand, as there are - drymonyms (names of woods and forests), - oronyms (names of hills and mountains), 1 This paper is based on the talk with the same title presented in November 2019 at the „4-oji tarptautinė mokslinė Aleksandro Vanago konferencija: Tikriniai žodžiai erdvėje ir erdvė tikriniuose žodžiuose. Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius / The 4th International Scientific Aleksandras Vanagas Conference: Onyms in Space and Space in Onyms. The Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius“. – The structure, contents and character of the talk delivered at the conference was mostly retained in this printed version. Straipsniai / Articles 119 The Morphology of Lithuanian Toponyms – Differences and Parallels of Different Classes of Names - potamonyms (names of rivers, creeks etc.), - limnonyms (names of lakes), - helonyms (names of swamps), - agronyms (names of fields), - leimononyms (names of meadows). Of course there are also names for seas – thalassonyms – but they did not play a role in a project doing research in a landlocked area (more on that project further down). 1.2. For all these kinds of toponyms the Lithuanian language offers a multitude of possibilities, how to form them. The standard ways to build Lithuanian toponyms are: word formation, i.e. derivation and composition, on the one hand and the formation of syntagmatic groups on the other. In both types we do not find anything that is not also known from the appellatival lexicon of Lithuanian or from Lithuanian syntax. Both main types can be divided up into several subgroups, as will be shown in the next paragraphs. 1.3. The analysis of different types of toponyms shows that we find the same means of formation in all those different onymic classes, but we also find that the percentage of names covered by each of the types can differ significantly. 2. THE PROJECT AND ITS RESULTS In what follows I want to present mainly three things: - some of the results of a project from the years 2017 and 2018 at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, run by Grasilda Blažienė and Laimutis Bilkis, - some considerations about the traditional supgrouping of the morphological ways of name-formation and what they are called and finally, also a result from the just mentioned project, - some considerations about a well-known river-name and about a lake-name relatively well-known amongst researchers probing into the Old-European hydronymy – and its connection with a river-name in Lithuania and one in Southern Tyrolia. 2.1. The project alluded to, was roughly researching South-West Lithuanian place-names, microtoponyms and hydronyms in their European context (project title: “Vakarinių pietų aukštaičių vietovardžių integravimas į Lietuvos vietovardžių geoinformacinę duomenų bazę ir jų kilmės bei motyvacijos tyrimai” [The integration of Western South Aukštaitian toponyms into the Lituanian geoinformational database and studies on their origin and motivation]). Finally a book in German with the results from that project appeared in January 2020: HARALD BICHLMEIER 120 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Blažienė, Grasilda / Bilkis, Laimutis (eds.): Die Orts-, Flurund Gewässernamen Süddwestaukštaitiens. (Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft für baltische Studien 2), Hamburg: Baar 2019. In it there can be found – besides articles by the two already mentioned project leaders, Grasilda Blažienė (on settlement names, cf. Blažienė 2019) and Laimutis Bilkis (on helonyms, cf. Bilkis 2019) – papers by Veronika Adamonytė (on agronyms, cf. Adamonytė 2019), Dalia Kačinaitė-Vrubliauskienė (on oronyms, cf. Kačinaitė-Vrubliauskienė 2019), Ilona Mickienė (on drymonyms, cf. Mickienė 2019a, and on leimononyms, cf. Mickienė 2019b) and by the author of this article (Bichlmeier 2020a). 2.2. That project researched toponimai in the Lithuanian sense of the word in the Lithuanian region Dzūkija, which is the Western part of the Southern Aukštaitija region bordering on Poland and Belarus. In the center of interest were the Rayons of Alytus and Lazdijai, partially also Druskininkai, mainly areas west of the river Nemunas. Dialectally this is also the western south-aukštaitian region, Lith. vakarinių pietų aukštaičių, also called Western Dzūkian, Lith. vakarinių dzūkų. Interestingly, inspite of bordering on Slavic settled areas and inspite of the fact that also in the researched area there are quite a number of speakers of Slavic languages and numerous settlements with a mixed Slavic and Lithuanian population, the number of toponyms in the wider sense with a Slavonic etymology can be very low in certain types of names, for example in lakeand river-names it is about 2-3 %. In others, for example in meadow-names, it is – as one would expect it to be anyway – some five to ten times that number. On the other hand, of course, the research tool for the project, the Lithuanian geo-data-base of toponyms (Lietuvos vietovardžių geoinformacinė duomenų bazė; cf. http://lkiis.lki. lt/ lietuvosvietovardziugeoinformacine-duomenu-baze) might be somewhat lopsided at that point, as at least for the region researched in the project, the data had been collected mostly during some scientific explorations of the area in 1935-36, in which predominantly speakers of Lithuanian seem to have been asked more or less exclusively about Lithuanian forms of toponyms. Thus the corresponding toponyms for the same places, rivers, lakes etc. used by speakers of Polish and Belarusian have usually not been recorded. 2.3. But something else can be seen rather clearly, namely that we are in an area, where we can find remnants of a West-Baltic substrate, traditionally attributed to Yatvingian. Mainly it can be discerned from East-Baltic forms by the appearance of s, z at places, where š, ž might be expected. This can be exemplified on three examples taken from the corpus of river-names of the area: Straipsniai / Articles 121 The Morphology of Lithuanian Toponyms – Differences and Parallels of Different Classes of Names Sãknas m. (2) Ve (42868), Saknius m. (?) Ve (42868) vs. Lith. šaknìs f. ‚root‘;2 Azãgis m. (2) Lp (42933) cf. OPr. assegis (*azegīs), Lith. až(e)gs, ež(e)gs ‚Gymnocephalus cernua (a fish)‘;3 Zebriùs m. (4) Kr (126445) vs. Lith. žẽbras ‚dirty, unwashed‘.4 2.4. The author’s part in that project consisted of analyzing the 423 names of bodies of standing and flowing water, comprising 240 limnonyms and 183 potamonyms.5 And this will now take us back to morphology: 2.4.1. As mentioned already in the introduction, there are three main types of forming toponyms in Lithuanian – and usually we find these types also in actually all other Indo-European languages in Europe – although in different quantities, of course. These types are derived names, compound names and syntagmatic names. In all three types, we can differentiate between names made exclusively from appellatival material and names containing also onymic material. For derived names, e.g., the difference is between deappellatival derivatives and deonymic derivatives. But these theoretical differentiations come with some limitations and need to be explained in a more precise way. 2.4.2. Especially in need of such more precise explanations are the deonymic formations. They are rarely conversions or quasi-conversions (on conversions see below § 2.4.4.) without a suffix from other kinds of names. In the predominant number of cases they are formed by means of overt suffixation. The dependency on the base word, the derivational basis, is usually expressed by a possessive suffix or a diminutive suffix. So, for example, the name of a tributary to a river can be formed by deriving a diminutive form from the name of the main river (e.g. Savica as the name of a tributary of the Sava in Slovenia),6 or the name of a bay of a lake can be formed by deriving a form with a possessive suffix from the name of the actual lake. 2.4.3. Also deappellatival derived names can pose problems for analysis. In many cases we are not able to tell with confidence, whether the suffixation 2 Cf. LitEW 957; not registered in Vanagas 1970; cf. Vanagas 1981a: 287; Vanagas 1981b: 104, 135; ALEW 1003f. 3 Cf. LitEW 28, 118, 125; Savukynas 1960: 299; Savukynas 1966b: 169; Vanagas 1970: 11, 32, 65; Vanagas 1981a: 54; Vanagas 1981b: 77; PKEŽ 1: 104f.; PKEŽ² 49; ALEW 271f.; LVŽ 1: 249. 4 Cf. LitEW 1294; Vanagas 1970: 68, 69; Vanagas 1981a: 394; Vanagas 1981b: 135. 5 For the full corpus cf. Bichlmeier 2019a, 2019b. 6 Cf. Bezlaj 1956–1961: 2, 171–174; ESSZI 367f. HARALD BICHLMEIER 122 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII happened during the process of onymization – or already in the appellatival sphere: If the derivation happened already in the appellatival sphere, then of course the name came into being by the act of conversion with zero-suffixation from an appellative into an onym. As especially possessive and diminutive suffixes are very productive in Lithuanian, the fact that a certain formation is not booked in a dictionary does not mean much in that context. Anyway we may say that of course there are several suffixes in Lithuanian which turn up more often than others in the formation of names, but there does not seem to be a single suffix which can be called an onymic suffix in the sense that it is used exclusively to form names. The same is true, for example, also for Slavic family names (cf. Bichlmeier 2020) – and we may actually suppose that this is a universal feature at least of the Indo-European languages of Europe: There is no suffix exclusively forming names. But of course there are suffixes popping up in that sphere more often than others. 2.4.4. Before we proceed to some Lithuanian terminological specialties in name-formation, let’s have a look at what was just called ‘conversions’. I call ‘conversions’ derivational processes with zero-suffixation. This means a certain word turns into another word without a change of form. Here we find four subtypes: a) ‘simple’ conversions, in which an appellative (a noun) is converted into an onym, cp. e.g. Balañdis m. Ku (40169): < Lith. balañdis m. ‘dove’;7 b) ‘double’ conversions, in which besides the conversion of an appellative into an onym also takes place a conversion from an adjective into a noun, cp. e.g. Bedùgnis m. Ka (40254, 42932), Ku (40174) < Lith. bedùgnis ‘without ground or bottom’;8 c) ‘pseudoconversions’ are conversions looking like simple conversions, which are indeed backformations, however, cp. e.g. the lake-name Šauls m. (4) < *Šaũlio/-ių ẽžeras (not < šauls m. ‚hunter, shooter‘);9 7 Cf. LitEW 31; Savukynas 1961: 219; Savukynas/Vanagas/Vitkauskas/Vosylytė/Ermanytė 1963: 12; Vanagas 1970: 31; not registered in Vanagas 1981a; cf. Vanagas 1981b: 39, 77; ALEW 88; LVŽ 1: 322f. 8 Cf. LitEW 38, 108; Savukynas 1961: 221; Savukynas/Vanagas/Vitkauskas/Vosylytė/Ermanytė 1963: 16; Vanagas 1970: 44; Vanagas 1981a: 60f.; ALEW 101, 238; LVŽ 1: 414. – Cf. also the limnonym Bedùgnė f. (2) Al (42731) in Bichlmeier 2019a: § 2.2.1.1.1. 9 Cf. LitEW 125; not registered in Vanagas 1970; cf. Vanagas 1981a: 327; ALEW 271. Straipsniai / Articles 123 The Morphology of Lithuanian Toponyms – Differences and Parallels of Different Classes of Names d) ‘onymic conversions’, in which the transfer of an onym from one onymic class to another onymic class takes place, cp. e.g. the lake-name Gadeikà f. Šv (42799) < PN Gadéika.10 2.5. Let’s now have a look at two specialties of the Lithuanian terminology of word-formation and name-formation. The first one are the so-called ‘ending-derivatives’, Germ. Endungsableitungen, Lith. galūnių vediniai, the other ones are the so-called ‘prefix-derivatives’, Germ. Präfixableitungen, Lith. priešdėlių vediniai. 2.5.1. These ‘ending-derivatives’, Germ. Endungsableitungen, Lith. galūnių vediniai turn out to be a somewhat inhomogeneous group: 2.5.1.1. Among these formations count: - simple pluralizations of normal appellatives – so actually there is no derivation whatsoever – and - names which show a synchronic stem-vowel alteration between the name and the appellative. This is, however, merely a description of what we see, not an explanation. The explanation for these formations seems to be a bit different. They mostly or at least at their core seem to be derivatives with a suffix containing yod. Thus these formations are in the end actually derivatives of a rather archaic kind, as the suffix *-ioserved to build derivatives, mostly adjectives of pertinence, already in Proto-Indo-European. Thus, if there is an appellative or an onym XY and we add a suffix *-iowe get a word meaning ‘belonging or pertaining to XY’. Nice examples for that are Old Slavic/Old Russian place-names as, e.g., Jaroslav-lь ‘Yaroslav’s (city)’ < *Yaroslav-ia- ← ORuss. PN Yaroslavъ, a similar case is the place-name Pol. Przemyśl etc. In our corpus we find, e.g., Ángė f. (1) Si (42698) < *angi-iā- ← Lith. angì-s f. ‘snake’;11 Angs m. (4) Si (42698) < *angi-ia- ← Lith. angì-s f. ‘snake’;12 10 Cf. Savukynas/Vanagas/Vitkauskas/Vosylytė/Ermanytė 1963: 41; Savukynas 1966a: 185, 186; Vanagas 1970: 107, 108, 134; Vanagas 1981a: 102; Vanagas 1981b: 32; Zinkevičius 2008: 281; LVŽ 3: 7. 11 Cf. LitEW 10; not registered in Savukynas/ Vanagas/Vitkauskas/Vosylytė/Ermanytė 1963; not registered in Savukynas 1960; not registered in Vanagas 1970; cf. Vanagas 1981a: 42 (ngė according to Būga apud Vanagas s.v. Anginas); ALEW 40f.; LVŽ 1: 98f. 12 Cf. LitEW 10; Savukynas/ Vanagas/Vitkauskas/Vosylytė/Ermanytė 1963: 6; not registered in Savukynas 1960; not registered in Vanagas 1970; cf. Vanagas 1981a: 42; Vanagas 1981b: 77; ALEW 40f.; LVŽ 1: 98f. HARALD BICHLMEIER 124 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Dumblis m. (2) Ka (42940), Ka (42945), Lz (40151) < *dumbl-ia- ← Lith. dumblas m. ‘mud (on the ground of a lake)’;13 Samãnius m. (2) Ka (42923) < *saman-iu- ← Lith. sãmana, samanà f. ‘moss’;14 Nemajūnė f. Lz, Šv (37117) < *Nemaiūn-iiā- ← Lith. PlN Nemajūn-ai m. Pl.15 2.5.1.2. So we come to the conclusion, that this synchronic class is one which simply does not exist in the diachronic perspective. But as only the diachronic perspective offers an explanation – and explanations are what we are looking for – this class should better be discarded. All members of that class are either simple suffixal derivatives or plural-forms of the base-word (thus zero-derivatives [of plural-forms]). 2.5.2. Another problematic case – as far as terminology is concerned – are the so-called ‘prefix-derivatives’, Germ. Präfixableitungen, Lith. priešdėlių vediniai. In this case we also got to do with a piece of terminology, which seems unproblematic from a synchronic perspective, but should be discarded from a historic, that is explanatory perspective. Although some of these formations only show the addition of a prefix at the beginning of the basic word, the by far bigger number of formations show also a change of stem class at the end of the word. 2.5.2.1. In both cases we should be more precise: If only a prefix is added, this is formally not a process of derivation, but one of composition. But if additionally to the addition of a prefix also the stem-class is altered, we see here actually a process of circumfigation. The vast majority of those formations thus shows a derivational process well known from the Germanic languages – among which German itself – and from the Slavic languages: The core formations were collectives, but of course the semantics would widen with time, so it seems that in Lithuanian these derivative processes show a certain accumulation in several types of onyms. 2.5.2.2. Formations like the meadow-names and field-names Pa-lazdynė ← lith. lazdýnas, Pa-salaitys ← lith. salaitė (salà), Pa-sals ← lith. salà show in the end – on a Proto-Baltic or at least Proto-Lithuanian level – the same derivational structure as their Germanic and Slavic counterparts: PLith. *Pa-lazdīn-iiā ← PLith. *lazdīn-a- ‘hazel’, 13 Cf. LitEW 108; Savukynas 1962: 197; Savukynas/ Vanagas/Vitkauskas/Vosylytė/Ermanytė 1963: 35; Vanagas 1970: 11, 65, 148; Vanagas 1981a: 96; Vanagas 1981b: 65; ALEW 243; LVŽ 2: 386–388. 14 Cf. LitEW 761; Savukynas/ Vanagas/Vitkauskas/Vosylytė/Ermanytė 1963: 142; Vanagas 1970: 69, 220; Vanagas 1981a: 289; Vanagas 1981b: 93. 15 Cf. Savukynas/ Vanagas/Vitkauskas/Vosylytė/Ermanytė 1963: 108; not registered in Vanagas 1970; cf. Vanagas 1981a: 226. Straipsniai / Articles 125 The Morphology of Lithuanian Toponyms – Differences and Parallels of Different Classes of Names *Pa-sal-ia- ← PLith. *salā- ‘island, dry patch in a swamp’ are completely parallel to NHG Berg m. ‘mountain’ → Gebirge n. ‘the mountains, mountain-range’ (PGerm. *ƀerǥ-a- → *ǥa-ƀerǥ-ia) or to Serb.-Croat. Dȕnav m. ‘Danube’ → Pȍdunāvlje n. ‘area along the Danube’, Czech břeh m. ‘river-side, bank’ → po-břež-í n. ‘area along the river-side’, ná-břež-í n. ‘promenade along a river-bank’ (< CSlav. *bergъ : *po-/na-berg-ьje < PSlav. *berg-a- : *pa/nā-berg-ia-). 2.6. Let’s come to the compound names. They pose less problems and show structurally clear-cut subdivisions. The second compound member is (with few exceptions, where we find an adjective) a noun, mostly one designating a body of water like Lith. ẽžeras m. ‘lake’, dimin. ežerėlis m., prūdas m. ‘pond’, ùpė f. ‘river’ etc. The first compound member can either be an onym or an appellative; if it is an appellative, it can actually be a noun – which is the most frequent case – or an adjective or rarely even a verb(al root). Normally the second compound member shows a change of the stem-class respectively of the stem-vowel (which younger layers of compounds do not). And this synchronic change of the stem-class is usually brought about by a historic suffix change, usually by a suffix with yod – the same kind of yod described above in 2.5.1.1. Thus theoretically we find at least the following types: A) appellatival first compound member: Aa) noun + noun: Pelialapūkas16 m. (?) Ve (42896): Lith. pelė f. ‘mouse’ or Lith. pẽlūs m. Pl. ‘chaff’17 + Lith. lapūkas m. ‘coltsfoot (Tussilago), marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), water lily (Nymphaea alba), leave (of cabbage vel sim.)’.18 Ab) noun + noun + change of stem-class: Vilkežeris m. (1) Lp, Ve (42877): Lith. vilkas ‘wolf’ and ẽžeras ‘lake’.19 Ac) adjective + noun: Šventupė20 f. (?) Te (130781): Lith. švetas ‘holy’ and ùpė f. ‘river’.21 16 Name unaccented in the database. 17 Vgl. LitEW 565f.,568f.; ALEW 751f., 754f. 18 Not registered in Vanagas 1970; not registered in Vanagas 1981a. 19 Cf. LitEW 125, 1251f.; Vanagas 1970: 231; Vanagas 1981a: 384; Vanagas 1981b: 40, 42, 82; ALEW 271, 1243f. 20 Name unaccented in the database. 21 Cf. LitEW 1041f., 1169; Vanagas 1970: 247; Vanagas 1981a: 337f.; Vanagas 1981b: 111; ALEW 1060–1062, 1155f. HARALD BICHLMEIER 132 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII 3.2.1. The lake-name Lith. Atess (3b) can be traced back to a pre-form PBalt. *at-es-(i)ia-. According to general thinking the name is part of wider European contexts and is often compared to the name of the South Tyrolian river-name Etsch, which is attested in antiquity as At(h)esis. Whether At(h)esis goes back to *at-es-io-, which would correspond to the Lithuanian form, or *at-es-iwe cannot tell. The two names are generally said to derive from a root PIE *h2et(h2)- ‘go, wander’.38 We see here most probably a derivative from an s-stem PIE *h2et(h2)-es- ‘wandering, going’. But semantics remain a problem: Atess is a lake-name – and wandering around, i.e. moving ahead in one direction is not really, what lakes tend to do. Thus we come to the result, that maybe the equation Atess : At(h)esis/Etsch found in onomastic literature since Hans Krahe and Wolfgang P. Schmid might be not completely correct. Sometimes already W. P. Schmid mentions also Atesė besides Atesys as does Greule quoting Schmid (cf. DGNB 135), but they are subsumed under one heading as ‘Gewässernamen’ (hydronyms) and are not differentiated as a lake-name and a river-name. If we do not want to think that the Alpine and the Lithuanian names are independent, but parallel formations, we must look for a connection – but it is different from what has been assumed so far. A further connection is thought to exist with Thrac. (*)at(-u)-, supposedly meaning ‘stream, torrent’.39 But Thracian as a ‘Trümmersprache’, about which we do not know hardly anything, is a bad candidate to prove anything at all. Together with Lat. annus ‘year’ < PIE *h2et(h2)-no- (cf. EDLIL 43f.) and maybe Thracian *at(u)- the Lithuanian hydronym might point to a group of words showing suffixes from the so-called Caland-Wackernagel-suffix-system (on that cf. Bichlmeier 2014 with further literature). 3.2.2. If this etymology is correct, then from the view-point of semantics, it seems more probable that the lake-name Atess is a secondary derivative from the river-name Lith. Atesė < PBalt. *at-es-iiā-. That a river-name is based on a word meaning ‘wanderer’ or ‘wandering’ is a rather trivial affair, though we would still have to explain, how this ending-derivative really came into being, and why here the feminine form seems to be the primary one – as usually it is the other way around. 3.2.3. In Lithuania there are a few other hydronyms which have the same suffix-combination at the end – and do not have any connections with formations outside of Lithuania. There are for example Lith. Egless (Lith. ẽglė f. ‘fir’), 38 Cf. LIV² 273; IEW 69. 39 Cf. Duridanov 1969: 90. Straipsniai / Articles 133 The Morphology of Lithuanian Toponyms – Differences and Parallels of Different Classes of Names Žaless (Lith. žãlias ‘green’) etc.40 But we have the problem that there is no way to make up an inner-Lithuanian connection for the element at-. On the other hand, hydronyms with the suffixal element -esare mainly known from Eastern Lithuania.41 3.2.4. So in the end we have to say: The connection between Atess and Athesis ‘Etsch’ does exist most probably, but it is not a direct one, as Atess is a lake-name. The primary connection is with Lith. Atesė < PBalt. *at-es-iiāwhich might be an inner-Baltic restructuring of an older *at-es-i-, which might also be preserved in Athesis/Etsch. 4. CONCLUSIONS What can we learn from all that which has been presented here? Mainly three things: 1. The analysis and explanation of names is always a diachronic affair, synchronic linguistics hardly ever explains anything. 2. It is worth while to look closer at the semantics and structure of subgroups of names which have so far been often treated together: The comparative analysis of the two subgroups of hydronyms, the potamonyms and limnonyms of the Dzūkija-region showed significant differences in the percentage of the types of name-formation found. Further research concerning the rest of Lithuania is needed to find out, whether this is a normal feature all over Lithuania or something special. More research in that vein might be done: comparing amongst the microtoponyms the agronyms with the leimononyms might also bring nice results. 3. It is always worth the work and often even necessary to check, whether old etymologies are still valid. The older the etymologies are, the more so. ABBREVIATIONS Al – Alytaus seniūnija Croat. – Croatian CSlav. – Common Slavic dimin. – diminutive Germ. – German Ka – Kapčiamiestis (Rayon Lazdijai) 40 Cf. Vanagas 1970: 137f.; Vanagas 1981a: 99, 397; Vanagas 1981b: 91. 41 Cf. Skardžius 1943/1996: 311–313; Vanagas 1970: 136–138. HARALD BICHLMEIER 134 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII No – Noragelis (Rayon Lazdijai) Kr – Krokialaukis (Rayon Alytus) Ku – Kučiūnai (Rayon Lazdijai) Lith. – Lithuanian Lp – Leipalingis (Rayon Druskininkai) Lz – Lazdijai (Rayon Lazdijai) Mrs – Miroslavas (Rayon Alytus) NHG – New High German ORuss. – Old Russian PGerm. – Proto-Germanic PBalt. – Proto-Baltic PItal. – Proto-Italic PLith. – Proto-Lithuanian Pol. – Polish Pl. – Plural PlN – place-name PN – personal name PSlav. – Proto-Slavic Se – Seirijai (Rayon Lazdijai) Serb. – Serbian Sg. – Singular Si – Simnas (Rayon Alytus) Še – Šeštokai (Rayon Lazdijai) Šl – Šlavantai (Rayon Lazdijai) Šv – Šventežeris (Rayon Lazdijai) Te – Teizai (Rayon Lazdijai) Ve – Veisiejai (Rayon Lazdijai) BIBLIOGRAPHY Adamonytė Veronika 2019: Ursprung und Bildung der mit menschlicher wirtschaftlicher Tätigkeit verbundenen Agronyme der Gemeinden Kapčiamiestis und Veisiejai. – Grasilda Blažienė, Laimutis Bilkis (eds.): Litauische Orts-, Flurund Gewässernamen im europäischen Kontext. (Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft für baltische Studien 2). Hamburg: Baar 2019, 287–313. ALEW – Altlitauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vol. 1: A-M. Vol. 2: N-Ž. Unter der Leitung von Wolfgang Hock und der Mitarbeit von Elvira-Julia Bukevičiūtė und Christiane Schiller bearb. von Rainer Fecht, Anna Helene Feulner, Eugen Hill und Dagmar S. Wodtko. Bd. 3: Verzeichnisse und Indices. Unter der Leitung von Wolfgang Straipsniai / Articles 135 The Morphology of Lithuanian Toponyms – Differences and Parallels of Different Classes of Names Hock und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearb. von Rainer Fecht. (Studien zur historisch-vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft 7), Hamburg: Baar 2015. Bezlaj France 1956–1961: Slovenska vodna imena. I. del (A-L). II. del (M-Ž), Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti. Bichlmeier Harald 2014: Caland System and Greek. – Georgios Giannakis (ed.): Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics [EAGLL], Leiden, Boston: Brill, 256‒260. Bichlmeier Harald 2019a: Morphologische und semantische Analyse der Gewässernamen des westlichen Südaukštaiten (Teil 2). – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 80, 195–263. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.35321/all80-09 Bichlmeier Harald 2019b: Morphologische und semantische Analyse der Gewässernamen des westlichen Südwestaukštaiten. – Grasilda Blažienė, Laimutis Bilkis (eds.): Litauische Orts-, Flurund Gewässernamen im europäischen Kontext. (Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft für baltische Studien 2), Hamburg: Baar 2019, 13–83. Bichlmeier Harald 2020: Die häufigsten Suffixe in Familiennamen slawischer Herkunft: ein etymologischer Überblick. – Namenkundliche Informationen 111 (2019[2020]), 123–152. Bilkis Laimutis 2019: Ursprung und Motivation der Helonyme. – Grasilda Blažienė, Laimutis Bilkis (eds.): Litauische Orts-, Flurund Gewässernamen im europäischen Kontext. (Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft für baltische Studien 2), Hamburg: Baar 2019, 85–123. DGNB – Greule Albrecht 2014: Deutsches Gewässernamenbuch. Etymologie der Gewässernamen und der zugehörigen Gebiets-, Siedlungsund Flurnamen. Unter Mitarbeit von Sabine Hackl-Rößler, Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter. Duridanov Ivan 1969. Thrakisch-dakische Studien. Erster Teil: Die thrakischund dakisch-baltischen Sprachbeziehungen, Sofia: Verlag der Bulgarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. EDLIL – de Vaan Michiel 2008: Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 7), Leiden, Boston: Brill. ESSZI – Snoj Marko 2009: Etimološki slovar slovenskih zemljepisnih imen, Ljubljana: Modrijan / Založba ZRC. IEW – Pokorny Julius 1959: Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I, Band. München, Basel: Francke. Kačinaitė-Vrubliauskienė Dalia 2019: Ursprung und Motivation der südwestaukštaitischen Oronyme. – Grasilda Blažienė, Laimutis Bilkis (eds.): Litauische Orts-, HARALD BICHLMEIER 136 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII Flurund Gewässernamen im europäischen Kontext. (Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft für baltische Studien 2), Hamburg: Baar 2019, 185–220. Kühebacher Egon 1995: Die geschichtlich gewachsenen Namen der Täler, Flüsse, Bäche und Seen. (Die Ortsnamen Südtirols und ihre Geschichte 2), Bozen: Athesia. LitEW – Fraenkel Ernst 1962–1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. (Indogermanische Bibliothek: 2. Reihe Wörterbücher), Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. LIV² – Rix Helmut et al. 2001: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Zweite, verb. u. erw. Aufl, Wiesbaden: Reichert. LVŽ 1 – Bilkis Laimutis (ed.) 2008: Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas I, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. LVŽ 2 – Bilkis Laimutis (ed.) 2014: Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas II, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. LVŽ 3 – Bilkis Laimutis (ed.) 2018: Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas III, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Mickienė Ilona 2019a: Südwestauktštaitische Drymonyme. Entstehung und Bildung. – Grasilda Blažienė, Laimutis Bilkis (eds.): Litauische Orts-, Flurund Gewässernamen im europäischen Kontext. (Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft für baltische Studien 2), Hamburg: Baar 2019, 221–249. Mickienė Ilona 2019b: Die Onyme der Region Südwest-Aukštaitija: Überblick über Ursprung und Bildung der Wiesennamen. – Grasilda Blažienė, Laimutis Bilkis (eds.): Litauische Orts-, Flurund Gewässernamen im europäischen Kontext. (Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft für baltische Studien 2), Hamburg: Baar 2019, 251–286. PKEŽ – Mažiulis Vytautas 1988–1997: Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 4, Vilnius: Mokslas. PKEŽ² – Mažiulis Vytautas 2013: Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas. Antrasis pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. Available at: http:// www. prusistika.flf.vu.lt [without the pagination of the print version]. Pupkis Aldonas (ed.) 2002: Vietovardžių žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Savukynas Bronys 1960: Ežerų vardai [A]. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 3, 289–299. Savukynas Bronys 1961: Ežerų vardai [B]. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 4, 216–226. Straipsniai / Articles 137 The Morphology of Lithuanian Toponyms – Differences and Parallels of Different Classes of Names Savukynas Bronys 1962: Ežerų vardai [Č–D]. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 5, 191–198. Savukynas Bronys 1966a: Ežerų vardai [E–G]. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 8, 183–194. Savukynas Bronys 1966b: K probleme zapadnobaltijskogo substrata v jugozapadnoj Litve. – Baltistica 1/2, 165–176. Savukynas Bronys, Vanagas Aleksandras, Vitkauskas Vytautas, Vosylytė Klementina, Ermanytė Irena 1963: Lietuvos TSR upių ir ežerų vardynas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Schmid Wolfgang P. 1971: Zum litauischen Flussnamen Aitra. – Baltistica 7/1, 37–42. Schmid Wolfgang P. 1972: Baltische Gewässernamen und die Vorgeschichte Europas. – Indogermanische Forschungen 77/1, 1–18. Skardžius Pranas 1943/1996: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba / Die Wortbildung im Litauischen, Vilnius/ Wilna: Lietuvos mokslų akademija, Lietuvių kalbos institutas / Litauische Akdemie der Wissenschaften, Institut für litauische Sprachforschung 1943. [Reprint: Rosinas Albertas (ed.): Skardžius Pranas: Rinktiniai Raštai 1. Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1996.] Vanagas Aleksandras 1970: Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba, Vilnius: Mintis. Vanagas Aleksandras 1981a: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Vanagas Aleksandras 1981b: Lietuvių hidronimų semantika. – Lietuvių onomastikos tyrinėjimai = Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai XXI, 4–153. Zinkevičius Zigmas 2008: Lietuvių asmenvardžiai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Lietuvių toponimijos morfologija – įvairių vardų grupių skirtumai ir paralelės SANTRAUKA Straipsnio pradžioje kritiškai analizuojama ir tikslinama lietuviškų žodžių ir tikrinių vardų darybos terminija, pavyzdžiui, galūniniai vediniai ‘Endungsableitung’, priešdėliniai vediniai ‘Präfixableitung’ ir konversija ‘Konversion’. Antrojoje dalyje atliekama pietvakarių aukštaičių (dzūkų) upių ir ežerų vardų lyginamoji analizė, iš kurios aiškėja, kad abiejų HARALD BICHLMEIER 138 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII vandenvardžių grupių darybai būdingi tie patys darybos būdai, tik jų dažnumas kiekvienoje grupėje gana stipriai skiriasi. Stambiau klasifikuojant vedinius pastebima ta pati sintaksinių vedinių ir dūrinių hierarchija – ežerų vardų, kaip vedinių, žymiai daugiau, o dūrinių atvirkščiai – proporcingai mažiau negu upėvardžių. Mėginant detaliau klasifikuoti darybos principus, gaunami įvairesni rezultatai. Trečiojoje straipsnio dalyje pateikiamas upėvardžio Nẽmunas ir ežerų Atess bei Atesė patikslintas etimologinis aiškinimas ir susiję komentarai. Įteikta 2020 m. kovo 6 d. HARALD BICHLMEIER Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg Orientalisches Institut Seminar für Indogermanistik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Ludwig-Wucherer-Str. 2 D-06099 Halle (Saale) [email protected] Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig Arbeitsstelle Jena: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen Zwätzengasse 12a D-07743 Jena harald.bic[email protected]