HARALD BICHlMEIER

Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle

Saxon Academy of Sciences, Jena

Research fields: Indo-European linguistics, onomastics (hydronyms), etymology of the Germanic languages, syntax of Old Iranian.

SOME SELECTED PROBLEMS OF OLD EUROPEAN HYDRONYMY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MODERN INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUISTICS – A PLEA FOR A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THINGS¹

Some problems of Old European hydronymy viewed from the perspective of modern Indo-European linguistics: a plea for a new perspective on these matters

NOTE

Since its foundation by Hans Krahe in the 1940s and 1950s, the etymological study of the hydronyms classified as ‘Old European hydronymy’ has proceeded using an unchanged methodology. The form of historical-comparative linguistics, or Indo-European linguistics, used for etymologizing thus ultimately corresponds to the state,

¹ This contribution is a revised and expanded version of my lecture of the same title, which, through the mediation of Ms Grasilda Blažienė, I delivered at the invitation of Ms Daiva Deltuvienė at the conference “Regional Onomastics: What Do We Know from the Name Inventory? – Regional Onomastics: What do

K E Y W O R D S: Indo-European linguistics, onomastics, Old European hydronymy, hydronyms, laryngeal theory, Indo-European phonemic system, word-formation morphology, borrowing relationships.

K E Y W O R D S: Indo-European linguistics, onomastics, Old European hydronymy, hydronyms, laryngeal theory, Indo-European phonemic system, historical morphology, loanwords.

Straipsniai / Articles

11

HARALD BICHLMEIER

at which it had already stood before the Second World War. Recent findings in Indo-European studies over the last half-century in the fields of phonology and word-formation morphology have so far not been put to use in research on Old European hydronymy. Using the river names Save, Drau, Isar and related names as examples, this article aims, on the one hand, to show what insights have so far eluded researchers of ‘Old European hydronymy’ as a result, and, on the other, to make clear that investigations using the new methodology may naturally also call into question findings previously regarded as certain.

ANNOTATION

The etymological research in hydronyms pertaining to the so called ‘Old-European hydronymy’ has been done since its beginnings in the 1940ies and 1950ies by Hans Krahe in the same, methodologically unchanged way. The kind of historical-comparative or Indo-European linguistics applied in this research is actually the kind that was used already before World War II. The new methodological approaches, especially in phonology and morphology, which have been developped in Indo-European linguistics in the last half century or so and the changes in the way things are seen in these fields that came along with these new approaches have been largely ignored by the protagonists of Old-European hydronymy research. This article wants to show on the one hand on the examples of the hydronyms Save, Drau, Isar and related names how many more things can be said about these hydronyms, when modern Indo-European linguistics instead of pre-war linguistics is applied. And on the other hand it will show that modern methodology can also lead to a point, where old certainties have to be discarded.

1. INTRODUCTION

The names of most of Europe’s larger rivers and many of its smaller ones can rightly be regarded as the oldest (Indo-European) layer of names that can be identified in this region. This layer of names, known as ‘Old European hydronymy’, extends, as is well known, from the Atlantic to the Baltic and from southern Scandinavia

that we learn from the onomasticon”, Kaunas, 10–11 November 2011. I would like to take this opportunity to express once again my sincere thanks to the conference organizers for this opportunity. – The text of the lecture and the sequence of ideas have largely been retained; the examples presented in the handout there have been incorporated into the text and supplemented with the corresponding secondary-literature references. Section 2.2 on the Isar and its cognates has been substantially expanded in comparison with the lecture, which treated this problem only briefly, and follows Bichlmeier 2011c for the most part, but has been augmented with newly published literature and thus with etymological details. – Ultimately, the first part of this article also amounts to a kind of distillation of my works on Old European onomastics published to date (cf. the titles listed in the bibliography).

12

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

as far as the Balkans. The research that laid the foundations for its establishment was initiated and advanced from the 1940s onward, particularly by scholars such as Hans Krahe, Wolfgang P. Schmid, and Jürgen Udolph. The network² of river and other water-body names brought to light by this research, covering the parts of Europe just mentioned, may now be regarded as an established fact.

Like all major and valuable findings in the sciences—and especially in the humanities—this research also deserves to be subjected at regular intervals to critical examination, along with the methods used to produce it.

In this spirit, I am happy to continue following the appeal that Mr. Udolph has made several times to me personally and to Indo-Europeanists as a whole (for example, at the working conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, “The Expansion of Indo-European.

² The term ‘network’ is now used in the more recent works of Wolfgang P. Schmid and Jürgen Udolph whenever the system of Old European river names needs to be designated. They now reject speaking of ‘layers’. Ultimately, however, this terminology probably serves primarily to obscure the fact that, so far, it has not been possible (even for the authors mentioned above) to determine more precisely the language stage in which Old European hydronymy was formed, nor has its relationship to the attested individual languages that later became identifiable in the same territory been properly worked out. So far, only conjectures have been put forward (for example, that it ultimately still involved pre-individual-language Proto-Indo-European), leaving everything very vague. In response to my email inquiry of 3 November 2011 asking how he conceived of the relationship between the language(s) of Old European hydronymy and the later individual languages in the same area, Mr. Udolph unfortunately gave me only an evasive and therefore unusable answer. We may consequently assume that this matter is not entirely clear to him either, or that he too has no sound explanation for it. What is needed here above all is a rigorous linguistic analysis of the processes that took place, something Mr. Udolph probably cannot provide. Udolph 1997 may also be considered characteristic in this respect: at one point (p. 29) it speaks of “a continuous development from a pre-individual-language substrate.” [emphasis in the original], while elsewhere (p. 47) it describes a territory “in which Slavic developed out of an Indo-European basis.” This gives rise to certain contradictions: either we are dealing with a substrate, in which case the Slavic languages must be the superstrate and must have superimposed themselves on the substrate, or they developed from a pre-Slavic Indo-European dialect of Proto-Indo-European (or perhaps from Proto-Indo-European itself?—this too remains unclear). Both cannot be true at once. Perhaps, however, the term ‘substrate’ was simply used imprecisely here. In any case, if this is ultimately supposed to apply to all languages whose territories include part of the area of Old European hydronymy (at least Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic must then be assumed to do so), would one not have to conclude, first, that these four language families at least should also be traceable to an intermediate proto-language, such as ‘North Indo-European’ (which, in my opinion, is not possible), and, second, that all of central and large parts of western Eastern Europe have ‘always’—that is, since the last Ice Age—been inhabited by speakers of an Indo-European idiom? There is clearly still a need for discussion and research on a number of points.

Straipsniai / Articles

13

HARALD BICH LMEIER

the appeal made at the “Theses from Linguistics, Archaeology and Genetics” conference in Würzburg, September 24–26, 2009, to take up the study of Old European hydronymy from an Indo-Europeanist perspective once again.³ For within Indo-European studies itself, the tradition of Old European onomastics has largely died out. This is due to two factors:

First, the material in question is attested only very fragmentarily. Although its place of origin is clearly established—the majority of bodies of water, including rivers, are still located where they were 2,000, 3,000 or even 4,000 years ago—the actual age of this linguistic material remains ultimately a matter of speculation. In most cases, all one can say is that certain river names are pre-Germanic, pre-Celtic, pre-Baltic, and so on—nothing more. But in many cases and in many areas, because of the discrepancy between the research and naming methods of linguistics and archaeology, it is still not clear exactly when, for example, speakers of Celtic or Germanic arrived at a particular river. It therefore remains unclear when the pre-Germanic, pre-Celtic, etc. period actually ended—that is, at what point one may assume that a pre-Celtic, pre-Germanic name was integrated into Celtic, Germanic, and so forth. And let me say at the outset: I have no answer to this either, and I do not believe one will be found any time soon.

Most Indo-Europeanists therefore prefer to work with material from languages for which texts have also been handed down (currently, the Anatolian and Tocharian languages are particularly en vogue), whose speakers can be discussed and which can also be dated (more readily, or at all). Only such material makes it possible to conduct research into the historical development of a language and—something that currently plays an even greater role in Indo-European studies—its syntax.

And, to be honest, there is another problem: the linguistic material attested in Old European hydronymy often consists of very short words or names. Since all further linguistic material (especially inflected word forms) is lacking, one must ultimately admit—and

³ The criticism that the same author, in response to this appeal, inexplicably put forward in a rather polemical tone in an article in this journal, targeting some of my previous remarks (Udolph 2011), will be addressed elsewhere in extenso: the accusations he made there, and the generally low level of the author’s knowledge of historical linguistics that also became evident there—particularly with regard to the Indo-European research of the past half-century—call for a review of the matter and a detailed response.

14

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

—and I say this as a committed Indo-Europeanist—that, especially in the case of many simple river names such as Sala (> Saale), Sara (> Saar), Savus (→ Save), and so on, one cannot actually prove even strictu sensu that they are of Indo-European origin. Their structure is too simple. At the same time, however, these words have been regarded as Indo-European by most researchers since their study began, and Indo-European etymologies have accordingly been proposed for them. But if one assumes what one actually wants—or needs—to prove, one is engaging in a classic circular argument. One should proceed far more cautiously and thoroughly than has been the case in recent decades—and couch many of the claims made in the subjunctive.

The second reason for Indo-Europeanists’ waning interest in this material is that, in their “Old European” work, the researchers mentioned above practiced and continue to practice a kind of Indo-European studies that has been obsolete within Indo-European studies itself for several decades and must therefore be considered outdated from that perspective (I imagine that about 80–90% of Indo-Europeanists overall, and at least 99% of Indo-Europeanists under fifty, would share this view with me). This means, in turn, that the Old European material, presented in the same unchanged form it has had since Krahe’s time—that is, for more than five decades—is unlikely to hold any appeal for younger Indo-Europeanists in particular, who would be the most likely to bring new life to the subject, because of its dated character.

This does not, in the first instance, diminish the value of the research results achieved by the scholars mentioned and their colleagues working along similar lines. Considerable work was indeed accomplished here, but scholarship continues to develop—and this has been true of Indo-European studies in particular over recent decades. If Old European studies now wish to become interesting to Indo-European studies, or Indo-Europeanists, once again and to be taken seriously by them, they must try to meet the requirements that Indo-European studies today imposes on etymologies with regard to historical phonology and word formation. To put it bluntly: of course one can still heat homes with wood-burning stoves and light them with kerosene lamps—but is there any need (or an excessive inclination toward romanticism) to keep doing so now that central heating and light bulbs are available?

First, this need to catch up concerns the presentation of the reconstructed phonology of Proto-Indo-European. Particular attention should be drawn here to the neglect of the laryngeal phoneme class. These phonemes must have existed, and they must have been consonants: their former existence explains dozens of phenomena in various Indo-European languages as sound-law developments that cannot be explained plausibly without them, including, for example,

Strajpsniai / Articles

15

HARALD BICH LMEIER

the emergence of intonations in Baltic and Slavic, the origin of the phoneme /h/ in Hittite, some phenomena in the nasal-infixing verbs of Indo-Iranian, etc. In any case, such an explanation is better than explanations that have to resort to analogies instead of sound laws.⁴ And a model of thought that posits the Proto-Indo-European phoneme system without laryngeals must do so in any case. Since this is so, the analysis that posits a phoneme system with laryngeals is consequently more efficient and better. From the perspective of modern Indo-European linguistics, works that continue to follow the traditional approach, as was already customary before the Second World War, can nowadays scarcely be taken seriously with regard to their Indo-European linguistic-historical component.⁵

The phoneme system of Proto-Indo-European, as it is now accepted by the majority of Indo-Europeanists, had the following form:⁶

⁴ Compare in this regard the good dozen introductions to Indo-European linguistics, laryngeal theory, or various individual languages that have appeared over the past two decades: Clackson 2007, Fortson 2004, 2009, Kapović 2008, Lindeman 1997, LIV, LIV², Mallory/Adams 2006, Matasović 1992, 2010, Mayrhofer 2005, Meier-Brügger 2000, 2002, 2010, Meiser 1998, Müller 2007, NIL, Ringe 2005, Rix 1992 etc. pp. – Among the works published earlier, the most important include: Rix 1976, Collinge 1985, Mayrhofer 1981, 1986. – The last quasi-laryngeal-free introduction to Indo-European linguistics is Szemerényi 1990. In short: laryngeal-free Indo-European linguistics has been dead for 20 years now.

⁵ That this is not a phenomenon of only the very recent past is evident from the fact that researchers working with the outdated model, such as Udolph or his teachers Schmidt and Neu, whom he frequently cites, have left at most marginal traces within Indo-European linguistics over recent decades, and especially in its core area, namely the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European.

⁶ By contrast, the phoneme system reflected by Old European hydronymy probably looked more like this:

Voiceless stop (T) | voiced stop (D) | fricative | nasal (N) labial | p | b | | m dental | t | d | s [s, z] | n (palatal | ḱ | ǵ) velar | k | g labiovelar | kʷ | gʷ liquids (R) | r | l vowels (V) | i [i, i̯] | u [u, u̯] | e | ē | o | ō | a | ā

Compared with the original system, it exhibits clear simplifications. It seems to me that the palatal series had most likely already been lost, and the aspirates had probably disappeared as well. Likewise, depending on their position, the laryngeals had already been vocalized or assimilated to adjacent vowels, and had thus disappeared as a phoneme class. – Should this proposal be right-

16

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

Voiceless stop (T)

Voiced stop (D)

Voiced aspirated stop (D^h)

Fricative

Nasal (N)

Labial

p

b

b^h

–

m [m, m̥]

dental

t

d

d^h

s [s, z]

n [n, n̥]

palatal

ḱ

ǵ

ǵ^h

h₁ [ç, j]

–

tektal

velar

k

g

g^h

h₂ [χ, ɣ]

–

labiovelar

k^u

g^u

g^uh

h₃ [χʷ, ɣʷ]⁷

–

Liquids (R)

r [r, r̥]

l [l, l̥]

Vowels (V)

i [i, i̥]

u [u, u̥]

e

ē

o

ō

a

(ā)

tige meet (which, however, still requires numerous further investigations before the problem can be definitively clarified; so far, no one seems to have explicitly addressed the question of what the phoneme system of Old European hydronymy actually looked like), this would, however, mean that languages which require the phoneme class of laryngeals to have persisted into early insular times, such as Baltic and Slavic, where the presence or absence of laryngeals in a syllable led to differences in syllable intonation, cannot have developed directly from the linguistic stratum in which Old European hydronymy was formed. This naturally has corresponding consequences for the position of Baltic and Slavic within this hydronymy: the speakers of these languages must have overlaid the Old European hydronymic stratum, that is, migrated secondarily into areas of Old European hydronymy. – Furthermore, if the palatal series had indeed already disappeared, and the language(s) of Old European hydronymy had thus been (a) centum language(s), these might perhaps, as substrate language(s), be responsible for the centum elements in Baltic and Slavic. – Andersen 2009 also points in the same direction; ultimately, on the basis of an investigation of prosodic features of the Baltic and Slavic languages, he concludes that these languages were in contact in early times with another (probably) Indo-European language that had initial stress, which this presumably Indo-European language had itself in turn borrowed from a non-Indo-European one. This Indo-European contact language was the source of the centum elements in Baltic and Slavic.

⁷As an integral part of this phoneme system, the laryngeals, as their position in the table above also suggests, may have been the fricatives of the three velar series, just as /s/ was the fricative of the dental series. The phonetic identification of the phonemes *h₁, *h₂, *h₃ is naturally speculative (as, ultimately, the precise phonetic identification of every reconstructed phoneme must remain more or less speculative), although their classification as fricatives of the velar series has a certain degree of probability in its favor because of the coloring effect they exerted on adjacent *e (*h₁e > *ē, *h₂e > *a, *h₃e > *o or *eh₁ > *ē, *eh₂ > *ā, *eh₃ > *ō). Not least on the basis of typological considerations, Kummel (2007: 327–336) assumes that the phonemes called ‘laryngeals’ were most likely phonetically represented as [h, χ, ʁ], and proposes the simplified notation h₁ = h, h₂ = x, h₃ = γ.

Straipsniai / Articles

17

HARALD BICH LMEIER

As regards word-formation morphology, from today’s perspective it must be noted that certain standards of historical linguistics are likewise not observed here by Old European studies. ‘Classical Old European studies’ usually offer only a description of the morphology: such works regularly state that “an l-suffix is added to root X” or “an nt-suffix is added to root Y,” or something similar. They practically never say anything about what these suffixes mean, or what the whole word might or should actually have meant. But that is precisely what one wants to know, especially when—as at this conference—one asks: “What do the names mean?” This purely descriptive approach seriously neglects an insight already reached by Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), namely, that the linguistic sign has form andcontent. Both must be taken into account and explained in a thorough etymological analysis. Put differently: practically all the etymologies offered by representatives of ‘classical Old European studies’ are actually incomplete!

One can, of course, take the position that names mean nothing, but merely name things. But this misses the point: after all, one must assume that the stock of names found in Old European hydronymy also developed from the common-noun vocabulary. Everything we know from other ancient Indo-European languages makes it certain that, initially, there were no differences in word formation between common nouns and names. Consequently, these names must first be treated in the analysis like common nouns, and consequently one can also, of course, suggest a former meaning (at least tentatively). Furthermore, it follows that such names are not expected to display suffixes or suffix chains unknown from the common-noun vocabulary. Since nominal morphology has by now been very well reconstructed through comparison of the attested ancient Indo-European individual languages, the morphology of Old European hydronymy should also be explicable by these established means. It should also be borne in mind that not only do the respective morphemes carry meaning, and derivation does not always occur only through the addition of suffixes, but there are also derivational processes in which the vowel quantity or quality of a root or suffix changes, without any new suffix being added. In particular, with regard to derivational processes as a whole, both in Proto-Indo-European and in the individual languages, enormous advances and shifts have taken place in Indo-European studies over the last decades. So far, none of this has been made practically useful for the analysis of Old European hydronymy: in ‘Old European studies’ it is at most noted that ablaut is present, but one finds no information about what semantic changes may accompany it.

18

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

One point concerning the relevance of the lexical material of Old European hydronymy to Indo-European studies must be clearly established: only the use of words as common nouns allows any conclusions to be drawn about the meaning of word stems and roots. Only with this knowledge can one undertake the study of Old European hydronymy: from river names alone, practically nothing of value can be gained for Indo-European studies themselves or for their goal of reconstructing the Proto-Indo-European parent language. Imagine what one could say about Old European hydronymy if one did not have the ancient Indo-European individual languages: one might perhaps isolate roots and suffixes, but would have no indication of what they mean. One might perhaps observe that there is a phenomenon such as ablaut, that is, that roots or suffixes can have different vowels, but could say nothing meaningful about the different meanings that might accompany the different vowels. All this can be inferred only from the attested languages.

Consequently, with the knowledge Indo-European studies now possess—which has been gained through comparison of the attested (ancient) Indo-European individual languages—the Old European hydronyms must be re-examined, and efforts must be made to bring research up to the current state of the discipline. Research on Old European hydronymy is still conducted using the methods of Indo-European studies that Krahe also employed. Krahe has now been dead for almost 50 years and, in his own time, was already anything but progressive with regard to Indo-European studies. In other words, what we have here is pre-war Indo-European studies.

At the same time, it is clear that applying the methods and models of contemporary Indo-European studies will not only lead to a deeper understanding of the insights already gained, but may also cause some certainties to be lost.

This will now be illustrated briefly with examples. What matters here is not so much the definitive solution to the problems as, above all, showing which questions remain open. These are questions that classical research on Old European hydronymy has for the most part never asked, but that must be answered if the fundamental standards of historical-comparative linguistics are to be observed. They are all questions for which attempts to provide answers have already been made in individual cases. These answers are often inconclusive, for it repeatedly becomes clear that several solutions are possible. Definitive solutions, such as those often proposed by earlier researchers, seem in reality to be rather rare: instead, one suspects that this apparent definitiveness often rests only on

Straipsniai / Articles

19

HARALD BICH LMEIER

that those researchers either did not seek alternatives at all or, due to a lack of knowledge of the scientific methodology required, simply could not find them.

2. EXAMPLES

The following examples are intended to support the theses stated above.⁸

2.1. Save and Drau

The names of the Sava/Save and Drava/Drau belong to the standard repertoire of Old European hydronymy. The oldest attestations date back to antiquity and are Σάουος (Ptol. II 15,1.4), Σάος, acc. Σάον, acc. Σάβον, Σαῦος (Strab. 7,5,2 and elsewhere), Savus, Saus, acc. Saum, abl. Savo, Sabo

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

In light of this situation, several questions arise:

Question cluster 1: How does the above reconstruction still fit meaningfully with the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European roots that could underlie, in terms of structure and meaning, the river names cited here?

Can we really continue to assume that a river name was formed from a root to which we now assign the meaning ‘to squeeze out’?

Given the current state of Indo-European scholarship, it is of course highly questionable whether a reconstruction *s̑ou̯o- still meets the requirements. The root now posited as PIE *seu̯- ‘to squeeze out’ is semantically difficult to reconcile with a river name. A derivation from the PIE root mentioned above, *sh₂eu̯- ‘to pour, to rain’, would seem more plausible. Given the root’s shape, PIE *seu̯h₁- ‘to drive, to keep in motion’ would also be conceivable, though its basic meaning may make it somewhat less compatible with a river name; likewise PIE *seu̯h₃- ‘to be/become full’, which would probably be more suitable for a lake or perhaps a mountain river. Of these roots, *sh₂eu̯- ‘to pour, to rain’ seems to me the most likely. In general, however, here, as often elsewhere, one can rarely say that a particular root must definitively have been the basis: on sober consideration, the material of Old European hydronymy often simply does not support such claims.

Question cluster 2: Indo-European nouns always had an accent. This must therefore also be assumed for water names. Where did it fall, and what meaning was associated with each accent position?

Traditional etymologies generally say nothing about this. But it is certainly possible to make some statements on the matter:

If a thematic derivation at the e-grade is assumed, PIE *sh₂éu̯-o-, this already yields Late PIE *s(h)au̯-o-, requiring no further detours and leading directly to the forms attested in antiquity. Contrary to the traditional view, if one assumes an e-grade form, this word would most plausibly be classified as a nomen actionis, ‘the pouring, the raining’.

Alternatively, following the classical approach, one can also posit an o-grade root. As the clear evidence of Old Indian and Greek shows, two types must be reckoned with in o-grade nominal derivations formed solely by adding a thematic vowel: the root-accented tómos type, which has resultative meaning, and the suffix-accented tomós type, which has agentive meaning.⁽¹⁴⁾ If PIE *sh₂eu̯- ‘to pour, to rain’ is taken as the basis,

¹⁴ The types are named after Greek τόμος ‘log; piece, beam’ < *‘that which has been split off’ vs. τομός ‘sharp, cutting’ < *‘splitting; splitter’. See Fortson 2004: 116; Fortson 2009: 129f.; Risch 1974: 8–10; Müller 2007: 325.

Straipsniai / Articles

21

HARALD BICHLM EIER

Thus, with root-accented Proto-Indo-European *sh₂óu-o-, the meaning would be ‘what is poured, what has been rained down’ or similar; with suffix-accented, agentive Proto-Indo-European *sh₂ou-ó-, on the other hand, ‘pourer, rainer; pouring’. Since this is a river, perhaps the agentive meaning, which describes the river as a kind of ‘bringer of water’, is preferable. The resultative meaning would probably be more suitable for a standing body of water, although it is of course also conceivable for a river.

Question complex 3: How does the a-vocalism actually arise in the classical approach with an o-grade root?

The -a- in the root is certainly old. It is either inherited, or it is due to the sound change *o > *a, which is also attested in other languages in Europe, e.g. Baltic and Germanic. While a formation Proto-Indo-European *sh₂éu-o- > late Proto-Indo-European *s(h)a-o- now offers the simplest phonological path to the attested forms (both with respect to the root vowel and the accent) and may well be semantically viable, the aforementioned Proto-Indo-European *sh₂ou-ó-, in my opinion, offers the best solution in semantic terms. Both explanations are possible, but a clear decision is not yet possible.

Question complex 4: If the reconstruction had a short vowel,¹⁵ how did the Slavic long vowel arise?

There are two solutions to this: as early as the 1930s, it was proposed that there had been an intermediate Romance stage. A more recent theory, following Schmid and Udolph¹⁶, assumes that river names of this kind suddenly acquired a long vowel when they were adopted into Slavic. But could that really be the case?

When the names of the coastal cities and islands of the Adriatic were adopted from around 600 AD onward, Romance /ă/ was, as far as I can see, always rendered in Slavic as /o/ and not lengthened to /ā/; compare, for example, the place name Latin Parentium > Croatian Poreč, Chakavian Porěč¹⁷. Consequently, Schmid’s view, cited by Udolph (2007: 545), that such formations ‘were integrated into a type with lengthened grade and gender change already present in Slavic’, is certainly conceivable in principle—but it clearly contradicts the processes otherwise observed in the adoption of pre-Slavic lexical material into Proto-(West)South Slavic, perhaps in this case also into Pannonian Slavic, which was close to Alpine Slavic. It is also possible, however, since the date cannot be more precisely established, that

¹⁵ Nach Schramm (1981: 348) sei nach Ausweis eines Hexameterbelegs aus dem 4. Jh. mit Kürze des -a- im Lateinischen zu rechnen.

¹⁶ Cf. Udolph 2007: 545.

¹⁷ Vgl. Holzer 2007: 126; ERHSJ III 11.

22

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

one must reckon with a still largely undifferentiated Proto-Slavic.

Such lengthening is also nowhere attested, to my knowledge, in generally accepted (Proto-)Germanic loanwords in Slavic. And the postulate that word forms are treated differently because they belong to a particular semantic class—in this case, river names—in my opinion requires separate justification and, in this instance, preferably typological parallels as well. I am not aware of this being established as a secure scholarly finding for older language stages—especially since the Indo-European languages are not exactly ‘class languages’ in the typological sense. This is consequently a purely ad hoc explanation.

In my opinion, this inevitably leads to the following conclusion: a long vowel was more likely already present when the Slavs became acquainted with the word; it could most plausibly have arisen in the mouths of Romance speakers¹⁸. As demonstrated by the Romance place names that entered Croatian along the Adriatic coast and in its hinterland, as well as by other Romance loanwords, stressed short vowels in open penultimate syllables had been lengthened there in Early Romance, before the incom-

¹⁸ This solution, based on sound laws and proposed as early as 1937 by Kretschmer, posits a Romance intermediate stage that is in no way far-fetched; it was also taken up by Anton Mayer (1957: 297), though he does not rule out original /ā/ either. This regular Romance lengthening is not mentioned, however, by Franze Bezlaj (1961: 174), who describes the problem as ‘not yet tackled’. Udolph (2007: 541) also cites Kretschmer, but ultimately rejects his solution (2007: 542) in favor of Schmid’s (1979: 410f. = 1994: 259f.) idea, which in my opinion is entirely speculative, that lengthening somehow automatically accompanied the Slavicization of the respective areas. Given the processes mentioned above in the South Slavic area, the claim that Slavic -a- (nota bene: Proto-Slavic *ā/!) is precisely a ‘sign of early Slavicization’ (Udolph 1997: 41) is wholly untenable. Regarding this latter thesis, it should be noted that, as Schmid (loc. cit.) has also stated, the lengthened grade was a quite productive word-formation element at certain times (usually in forming adjectives expressing affiliation, which could of course then also be substantivized); the standard work on this, which had only just become available at the time, Darms 1978, had not yet been read by Schmid. Moreover, the question of lengthened grades formed internally within Slavic or inherited (in relation both to the words discussed here and to the lexemes cited by Schmid) cannot yet be considered entirely settled, despite Schmid 1986 (where, judging from the cited literature, he likewise had not yet read Darms 1978). On the question of the rejected operation or existence of Winter’s law, which may have secondarily produced such lengthened grades in Baltic and Slavic—that is, *VD > Balto-Slavic *VD (see also Collinge 1985: 225–227)—see, in addition to Schmid 1986 passim, Birnbaum 1999 against this sound law, but also the increasingly numerous examples supporting it in Dybo 2002 and Young 2008. In view of the works mentioned and some further literature cited in them, research now seems to be moving once again toward accepting Winter’s law, perhaps with certain restrictions concerning the phonetic environment (possibly operating only in closed syllables; cf. Matasović 1996, as adopted by de Lamberterie 2007: 16–22). For a balanced discussion of the problem, see also Petit 2010: 132ff.

Straipsniai / Articles

23

HARALD BICHlMEIER

... the Slavs adopted these words.¹⁹ In my opinion, there is nothing to prevent us from positing this early Romance sound change for Pannonia as well, which, as part of the Imperium Romanum, was exposed to Roman influence for centuries, and from assuming that the river name had been preserved in a (Early) Romance form *sāu̯ or *sāu̯o, or the like, until the arrival of the Slavs.²⁰

For there would still be considerable unease if a language that always and everywhere clearly distinguished long and short vowels (i.e. in this case at least until the so-called quantity collapse, around the 10th/11th century in East Slavic, Bulgarian, and Macedonian, and around the 15th century in Polish)²¹ and in part continues to do so to this day—namely (Proto-)Slavic—should suddenly have realized short vowels present in the donor language as long vowels. At most, one might consider that, since Late Common Slavic already knew only the opposition /o/:: /ā/, foreign /ă/ might have been integrated into Slavic as /ā/. Such cases of sound substitution certainly do occur in principle, but I know of none for Slavic. In our case, moreover, an insurmountable chronological problem would arise: a merger of Late Proto-Indo-European */a/ and */o/ (whatever their origin) in Balto-Slavic²² */a/ > Proto-Slavic */ă/, and of Late Proto-Indo-European */ā/ and */ō/ in Balto-Slavic */ā/ > Proto-Slavic */ǭ/, must be assumed. As Late Common Slavic developed, probably from the late 8th century onward, the short vowel closed to /o/ and became more rounded, while the long vowel /ā/ became unrounded.²³ If, then, one posits for the Save the aforementioned sound substitution proposed by Schmid and Udolph, that means that Slavic must already have reached its later state when the river name was adopted, i.e. when the Slavs reached the Save. On the other hand, the Slavic spoken by the Slavs who reached the Adriatic around AD 600 must still have exhibited the older state, since all...

¹⁹ Cf. Holzer 2006: 38; 2007: 37–39.

²⁰ This thesis is further supported, among other things, by the name of the Raab in Lower Austria (see Bichlmeier 2010d for a more detailed discussion). For this name, Wiesinger (1985: 332f.; substantively and textually virtually identical to Wiesinger (1990: 291–293), but in both instances without reference to Bezlaj (1961: 130f.), where much the same argument had already been made) already assumes precisely this Vulgar Latin–Early Romance lengthening of the root vowel in an open syllable, before its adoption into Slavic and Hungarian.

²¹ See any of the standard introductions to the historical phonology of the Slavic languages. As a specialized study, see Mate Kapović 2006.

²² I use the term ‘Balto-Slavic’ purely for convenience and deliberately to denote something intermediate between ‘Baltoslavic’ and ‘Baltic and Slavic’, since I have not yet reached a definitive understanding of how I should conceive of the prehistory of the Baltic and Slavic languages. After all, none of the models proposed so far can be described as free of contradictions. Readers may interpret this term according to their own preference; this does not affect the argument.

²³ See, for example, Lamprecht 1987: 32f., 70, 161f.

24

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

Romance */ă/ was adopted as */ǝ/ and further developed into /o/, but was never substituted by /ă/. If one assumes that the Slavs expanded from the Carpathian region, this would mean, however, that they either reached the Save considerably later (in this case, about two centuries later!) than the Adriatic coast—a scenario that is difficult to imagine—or that Proto-Slavic already exhibited very pronounced dialectal differences at a quite early date, though this is generally disputed. Moreover, Udolph’s map²⁴, which depicts the spread of Slavic hydronyms and thus, in a sense, of the Slavs themselves, clearly shows that the Save should have been reached earlier than the Adriatic.²⁵

What cannot, in any case, be explained by regular sound change is the transfer of this word, transmitted in a Romance phonological form, into the ā-stem inflection. Here we cannot, for now, go beyond conjecturing that such words belong to a particular semantic group (here, river names) and are therefore assigned to the inflectional pattern prevailing there (here, the ā-stems—perhaps also because the hyperonym OCS rěka < Common Slavic *rēkā < Proto-Slavic *rajkā- also belonged to this inflection)²⁶.²⁷ As for the subsequent phonological history of this word, the following probably happened: the stem-stressed Romance form was adopted into Slavic, with the long vowel receiving circumflex intonation; at the same time, it was transferred into the ā-inflection, whose Proto-Slavic Nom.Sg. ending had acute intonation—

²⁴ Cf. Udolph 1979: 622.

²⁵ Whether the Slavs adopted the name of the Save directly from Romance speakers may be left open; perhaps a Germanic or Germanizing intermediary stage should also be taken into account, since Goths and Lombards were in the area for some time. The possibility of Germanic mediation or influence in the transmission of these names (Sáva, Dráva, etc.) had already been considered by Adolf Bach (1954: 25), who also attributed the feminine gender of these river names to this influence.

²⁶ Solches postulierte (in diesem Falle für Dráva) schon Mayer (1959: 42), der zudem die mündliche Mitteilung Ivšićs zitiert, dass Dráva, da es einem im Kroatischen seltenen Akzenttyp angehöre, letztlich als eine Abstraktion aus einem mask. Nom.Sg. *Drāv, Gen.Sg. *Dráva in Hinblick auf kroat. rijeka darstelle. Gleiches könnte dann ja wohl auch für Sáva angenommen werden, also eine zugrundeliegende maskuline Form Nom.Sg. *Sāv, Gen.Sg. *Sáva. Solches wurde aber von Mayer (1957; 1959) offenbar nicht erwogen. – Dagegen geht Matasović (2007: 113) nun wieder genau von einer solchen maskulinen Zwischenstufe und anschließender Angleichung an ursl. *rěka (in seiner Terminologie) aus und begründet dies ebenso wie der gerade genannte Ivšić bei Mayer (auf den er aber keinen Bezug nimmt) mit der Tatsache, dass die romanischen Lehnwörter Dráva und Sáva dem slawischen Akzentparadigma b zugeordnet wurden, in das sonst praktisch ausschließlich maskuline Lehnwörter aus dem Vulgärlateinischen/Frühromanischen eingereiht worden sind.

²⁷ The explanation in ERHSJ III, 208 may be regarded more as a contribution to the creation of myths: according to it, the feminine gender arose because the Latin (river) deity Savus (see the attestations in ACS II, 1390f.) had a pagan Slavic goddess as its counterpart.

Straipsniai / Articles

25

HARALD BICH LMEIER

indicated.²⁸ The fact that the root syllable had circumflex intonation triggered the operation of Dybo’s law, which states that syllables not bearing acute intonation yield the ictus to the following syllable.²⁹ Since this law was still operative in Common Slavic and can certainly also be demonstrated in early Romance loanwords in Croatian^{30, 31}, there is nothing to preclude this assumption for Pannonian Slavic as well. In this acuted, end-stressed form, the regular shortening of the acuted vowel takes place (Leskien’s law)³², and finally, through the Neštokavian retraction of the accent, in which the ictus was shifted one syllable toward the beginning of the word from all non-initial syllables,³³ thereby creating the previously absent rising intonations, the modern standard Croatian form Sáva emerged.

In brief, all this most plausibly points to the following development of the river name:

Proto-Indo-European *sh₂eu-o-/*sh₂ou-o- >³⁴ post-Proto-Indo-European *saųo-/*sąua- →³⁵ Latin Sāvus > Romance */'sāųu/ or */'sąųo/ → Pannonian Slavic */'sāųā/ > Common Slavic */'sǫųā/ or */sąųā/ > Proto-(West) South Slavic/Proto-Croatian */sāvā/ > Croatian Sáva^{. 36}

²⁸ Nach Holzer (2007: 45) gilt: „Lange betonte Silben in frühen romanischen Entlehnungen haben im Slawischen oft den Akut (´) bekommen und erscheinen dann folgerichtig im Kroatischen als Kürzen.“ (ähnlich schon Holzer 2006: 57–59). Weiter S. 46: „Dagegen haben in vielen anderen Entlehnungen lange betonte Silben keinen Akut bekommen, so dass sie lange Silben geblieben und, wenn die Entlehnung früh genug stattgefunden hat, von Dybos Gesetz (...) erfasst worden sind.“ In diesem Sinne auch schon Holzer 2006: 59f. – Mit anderen Worten: Bei der Übernahme von Fremdwörtern mit Langvokalen ist bislang keine Ratio erkennbar, mit welcher Intonation ein Langvokal in einem Lehnwort im Slawischen versehen wird.

²⁹ Zu Dybos Gesetz vgl. Collinge (1985: 31–33) sowie Kapović (2008a: 5f.) mit Verweis auf weitere Literatur, die wahrscheinlich macht, dass dieses Gesetz nicht notwendig die ganze Slavia einheitlich betroffen haben dürfte; mit Diskussion vgl. auch Olander 2009 passim.

³⁰ Cf. Holzer 2006: 44–46; 2007: 56f.

³¹ Man beachte dagegen nun aber Matasović (2007: 116f.), der alternativ vorschlägt, diese Entlehnungen könnten nach dem Wirken von Dybos Gesetz und der Retraktion des Akzents von wortauslautenden Jers stattgefunden haben und je nachdem, ob die romanische Betonung mit dem Neoakut oder dem alten Akut identifiziert wurde, eben dem slawischen Akzentparadigma b resp. a zugeordnet worden sein. Das heißt im Falle von kroat. Sáva, dass der lang-steigende Akzent nicht notwendig der neštokavischen Akzentrückziehung geschuldet sein muss, sondern auch Reflex des Neoakuts sein könnte. – Zur Verbreitung dieser Akzentretrak tion auch im angrenzenden Čakavischen und Kajkavischen vgl. Kapović 2008a: 28–31.

³² Vgl. dazu Collinge 1985: 114f.

³³ Probably in the 15th/16th century; cf. Holzer 2006: 65f.; 2007: 86f.

³⁴ “develops regularly into”.

³⁵ “is remodeled as”.

³⁶ As regards etymology, the same naturally applies to names of other rivers derived within Slavic from this river name, or from the same word, such as Savica (Bezlaj 1961: 172), Savin ja (Bezlaj 1961: 174–176), Savinka (Bezlaj 1961: 176), and the like.

26

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

Ultimately, therefore, an almost complete sound-law explanation can be given for this name. Only the shift into a new inflectional class upon its adoption into Slavic must still be regarded as not readily explicable using current models and findings.

An analogous scenario can be assumed for the name of the Drau:

Proto-Indo-European *drou-o- > Proto-Anatolian *drua- → Latin Drāvus³⁷ > Roman */ˈdrāu̯/ or */ˈdrāu̯o/³⁸ → Pan-Slavic */ˈdrūā/ > Common Slavic */dr̥̄u̯ā/ or */dr̥u̯ā/ > Proto-Western South Slavic/Proto-Croatian */drāvā/ > Croatian Dráva, Slovenian Dráva³⁹.

However, this raises a problem that needs to be pointed out: although a Romance intermediate stage can be assumed for the Drava/Drau, it is of course not possible to posit a comparable one for the Drawa/Drage or the Sawa in Poland⁴⁰, nor for the three small rivers in the upper Dnieper region named Sava (and other bodies of water in the Baltic region whose names begin with Sav-), as well as for a number of other Russian rivers whose names can be regarded as derivatives of a Slavic root Sav-,⁴¹ no comparable explanation is possible.⁴² For the Sawa, a derivation from a lengthened-grade root was postulated earlier for convenience, namely Proto-Indo-European (?) *sōu-ā-, without addressing at all the question of where the lengthened grade came from⁴³, whereas more recently the same process mentioned above has also been invoked to explain the sound change *o > *ā in this name: “that the name has passed through Slavic mouths”⁴⁴. For the

³⁷ This word form was adopted not only into Latin but evidently also into Celtic; after all, Ptolemy attests a tribe called Ἀμβίδρανοι (thus ACS I, 120) or Ἀμβιδρανοί (thus Pape 1911: 71), Latinized as Ambid्रabus, which must be Celtic in view of the form of its first element /ambi-/.

³⁸ ESSZI 124 takes a Vulgar Latin intermediate form *Drāvus entirely for granted. However, no more precise information on word formation is provided; only Polish Drawa is cited, along with the observation that both river names belong to Proto-Indo-European *dreǵ-.

³⁹ Mayer (1957: 128f.) rechnet hier wie bei der Sava/Save mit Genusangleichung an kroat. rijeka, verliert aber kein Wort über die hier natürlich ebenso wie dort erfolgte Dehnung des Wurzelvokals.

⁴⁰ Cf. Udolph 1990: 103–107.

⁴¹ Cf. WRG IV, 141ff.

⁴² In this connection, the status of four small rivers in Russia (in the Orel and Bryansk regions) that contain the element Drov- remains uncertain for now (cf. WRG I, 642): Drovenena, Drovka, Drovosečnaja, Drovjanskoe (hydronyms containing the element Drav- do not seem to occur in Russia). At least for the first of the four, a connection with Russian dé́revo ‘wood, tree’ or drová ‘firewood’ cannot be entirely ruled out, while for the third it is likely.

⁴³ Cf. SSS V 78. Ultimately, Udolph (1990: 274) likewise asks, in discussing another river name: “… perhaps a lengthened grade as in Drawa, Sawa, Drama, etc.?”

⁴⁴ Udolph 1979: 635.

Straipsniai / Articles

27

HARALD BICH LMEIER

Draua a lengthened grade in the root is apparently assumed in any case, but no explanation is given for it. ⁴⁵ If a lengthened-grade root is indeed to be posited for the Slavic forms, it should be noted that the Baltic forms of the watercourse names beginning with Sav^o must then be separated from those forms, since they display not the lengthened grade but the full grade. It is, however, hardly reasonable to doubt the ultimate etymological relationship between these two pairs of river names.

On the basis of what has been set out above, it seems to me most likely that the two river names, now West and South Slavic, were originally different. After all, the attestations for the Polish (and Russian) rivers are also a good millennium younger and need not necessarily go back to the same precursor forms as the South Slavic ones. This theory has apparently not yet been discussed explicitly. ⁴⁶ While the substrate forms *drou̯o-/*draua-, *sou̯o-/*sau̯a- existed in Pannonia (and the Baltic region), the Polish and Russian river names would already be based on lengthened-grade forms attributable to the substrate, *drōu̯o/ā-, *sōu̯o/ā-, which were adapted by the arriving Slavs into Proto-(West/East) Slavic *drāu̯ā-, *sāu̯a-.⁴⁷

The lengthened grade, which is a so-called vṛddhi formation, must first be motivated here: normally it gives rise to adjectives denoting affiliation with the base word; here, then, for *drōu̯o-, one would assume a meaning such as ‘belonging to the course/flow’ or the like. If the feminine is old, an original collective may be present here.⁴⁸ The meaning would then be something like ‘the totality of what belongs to the (river) course’. Since this sounds more like a designation for the re-

⁴⁵ Udolph 1990: 107: „Wie im Fall der Drama fällt die Dehnstufe in der Wurzelsilbe auf.“

⁴⁶ Man vgl. aber die Bemerkung von Toporov–Trubačev 1962: 226 s. v. Sava: „riskovanno otoždestvlyat’ v etimologičeskom otnošenii s izvestnym dunajskim gidronimom Sava“, die durchaus in diese Richtung weist.

⁴⁷ Damit rechnet auch implizit Schmid (1998: 23), wenngleich die dort postulierte Ablautstufe (ob uridg. oder alteurop. wird nicht klar) –āu̯– aus indogermanistischer Sicht einen verfehlten Ansatz resp. ein bei dieser Wz. unmögliches Rekonstrukt darstellt. – Es mag sich dabei um einen Reflex der völlig überholten Annahme von Kranzmayer (1956: 20) mit Verweis auf (IEW 795) handeln, dem FlN läge „indogerm. *drāu-“ zugrunde. Als Variante bietet Kranzmayer 1997 [1960]: 374, 377 „altkelt. Drāvos ‚die Fließende’ für die Drau“ an. Immerhin kommt auch hier der Gedanke an eine Dehnstufe in der Wz. ins Spiel.

⁴⁸ One of the common theories concerning the origin of the feminine gender in Proto-Indo-European assumes that at least one, if not the, starting point in the development of this category lay in original collective formations. See, for example, the relevant sections in standard introductions to Indo-European linguistics. For new ideas on the course of its development and a discussion of earlier proposals, see Luraghi 2009.

28

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

gion along the river than for the river itself, one would also have to assume a transfer of the designation from the river region to the river itself. The same would then apply analogously to *sōu̯ā- (< Proto-Indo-European *sₕ₂ōu̯-ah₂-), ‘the totality of what belongs to the moist (region)’. A typological parallel is the use of Proto-Germanic *aǵʰiō- (< Proto-Indo-European *h₂ekᵘ-iāh₂-), ‘(the totality of) what belongs to water’, > Old High German ouwe > New High German Au, which occurs in German river names as a designation for the body of water itself.

All of this sounds rather complicated, but this is precisely the word-formation process and semantic development that must also be posited for many of the other lengthened-grade river names, to which, according to the theory of Schmid and Udolph outlined above, the pre-Slavic forms *sou̯o-/*sau̯a-, *drou̯o-/*drau̯a- and the like would then have been adapted! But if this process has to be motivated in any case, the question arises whether one could not simply apply it to the word that needs explaining itself—thereby avoiding the assumption of an additional analogical process, whose point of origin would in any case probably no longer be ascertainable.

In my opinion, too many possibilities for etymologization and too many questions of phonology and morphology remain open here for such unequivocal statements to continue to be made as has hitherto been customary. As the consideration above of various possibilities should have shown, new findings can sometimes also mean that what has hitherto been regarded as established must be called into question.

2.2. Isar and related names

Another river-name family presents a similar case. It includes, among others, the name of the Isar (with the medieval attestations Isara and Isura, already in antiquity Ἰσάρας (Strab. 4,6,9]), but also ὁ Ἰσάρας (Ptol. 3,49,6) and τοῦ Ἴσαρος or ὁ Ἴσαρο ποταμός (Strab. 4,1,11) for the Isère, as well as the old name of the Danube, Ἴστρος. Also belonging here is the name of the Eisack, Italian Isarco, in South Tyrol (Strabo IV 207: acc. Ἰσάραν, nom. *Ἰσάρας, Latin Isarcus with secondary *-k- probably from the name for the local inhabitants, Isarci; Isargus^49),50, which requires an initial long ī- because of the German Ei-. And one final river name to mention comes from southern Italy, Italian Esaro < Latin Aisarus, Greek Αἴσαρος.⁵¹

⁴⁹ See ACS II 75; Kühebacher 1995: 60.

⁵⁰ See also ACS II 72–75 for further attestations.

⁵¹ Zu weiteren Anschlüssen zu dieser Sippe vgl. auch Tovar 1977: 17, 35.

Straipsniai / Articles

29

HARALD BICHlMEIER

The name of the Isar has been linked since the beginning of research into the etymology of hydronyms with the root, recorded in obsolete notation as *eis-/*ojs-/*is-, ‘move violently, impetuously, quickly; drive’, and analyzed as derived from this root with an r-suffix or the suffix *-rā-.⁵² The older literature seems to offer no more precise information about the word formation, let alone the meaning of the word as a whole. But similar questions arise again, as before:

What suffixes are involved here, exactly?

What is their function?

How can the different ablaut forms in the root, which must be assumed, be explained?

Since nominal continuants of this root (with the exception of the ‘iron’ word; see below) do not otherwise exist in Germanic, it is probably rightly assumed to be a pre-Germanic name. What is never addressed in the etymological analyses, however, is the origin of the medial -a- in Isara or the medial -u- in Isura, which occur side by side in the 8th–10th centuries (see further below).

According to the view most widely accepted today, the root mentioned above is to be posited as Proto-Indo-European *_h₁eish₂- ‘strengthen, drive’⁵³. Alongside this, the view that it had instead the form Proto-Indo-European *_h₁eish₁-⁵⁴ also persists in some quarters. For simplicity, and because it is more likely, the majority view will be adopted below. This is also supported by the general rarity in Proto-Indo-European of roots beginning and ending with identical consonants; identical plosives in initial and final position, for instance, seem not to have existed at all. Such a restriction may not have applied to fricatives; compare, for example, Proto-Indo-European *ses- ‘sleep’⁵⁵.

A regularly formed ró-adjective from this root is to be reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European *_{h₁ish₂-ró-} ‘driven, swift’. It is continued directly in Sanskrit isirā-⁵⁶ ‘strong, active’⁵⁷ and Greek Attic ἱερός, Northwest Greek ιαρός, Ionic and poetic ἰρός, Aeolic ἶρος ‘holy’. The most frequent form in Greek is the one with ἱε-, which points to Proto-Indo-European *_{h₁ish₁-ró-} deu-

⁵² For example, Krahe 1953: 121; 1954: 207f., 215; 1963: 293 [9], 299f. [15f.], 327 [43f.]; 1964: 55f., 71, 104, 163; Snyder 1964: 42f.; Snyder 1965: 184; Snyder 1966: 63; Snyder 1967: 163; ANB 561f.; LbO² 195; LbO³ 125 etc.

⁵³ Cf. LIV² 234.

⁵⁴ So etwa Anreiter 2005: 45; EDG 580f.

⁵⁵ Cf. LIV² 536f.

⁵⁶ Cf. EWAia I 199.

⁵⁷ See also Lipp II 410f. with note 125.

30

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

could have been. However, this form in particular may have been generated by the fairly numerous class of adjectives in -ερος, so that the type with ια- consequently represents the archaism and thus the form actually to be expected. However, this replacement of the suffix must then have occurred very early, since the already Mycenaean derivatives of this root consistently show -e-: i-je-ro /hiiero-/ ‘holy’, i-je-re-u /hiiereus/ ‘priest’, i-je-re-ja /hiierejā/ ‘priestess’, etc.

The one name of the Isar, Isara, could now readily represent a feminine corresponding to the aforementioned ró-adjective, that is, Proto-Indo-European *h₁ish₂-réh₂-, provided only that we assume that, as happens in certain positions in Latin (certainly in the first syllable in any case), the intervocalic laryngeal was vocalized to -a-⁵⁸ (parallel to vocalization to -i- in Old Indic, cf. the Old Indic isirā- cited above, or to vocalization in Greek, where the triad of laryngeals is reflected in their reflexes ε, α, ο). This yields a pre-Germanic (Old European?) *isarā- f., which eventually passed into Celtic as *isarā- f. and from there into West Germanic (possibly via Latin-Romance mediation). The existence of the adjective in Celtic is also demonstrated independently of any river names, since the Old Irish word for ‘squirrel’, íaru, is to be explained as a derivative of this form with the individuating on-suffix and traced back to Proto-Old Irish *isaron- ‘the nimble one’, and thence to the Proto-Old Irish adjective *isaro- ‘nimble’.⁵⁹ The borrowing into West Germanic must have taken place relatively late: although the accent was certainly fixed on the first syllable—which explains the absence of rhotacism (the tendency toward this may already have been present in Continental Celtic)—the lowering of -i- before the -a- of the following syllable did not (or no longer) occur.

The same course of development is to be assumed for the name of the Isère in France, except that there it underwent the regular development in French, starting from Latin Isara (Liv. 21,31,3), etc. > Vulgar Latin/Early Romance *isára > *isára. In this connection, the ancient forms of the name of the Isère mentioned above, τοῦ Ἴσαρος and ὁ Ἴσαρ ποταμός (Strab. 4,1,11), present a certain problem. They give the impression that this is an old masculine consonant stem. Since, however, from an Indo-Europeanist perspective there is no convincing word-formation pattern for a consonant stem (an r-stem), two possibilities remain: either this is a pre-Indo-European river name, which was then adapted to an existing word when integrated into Celtic, or it is a relatively late dialectal form that had already undergone apocope of the final vowel of *isar-ā

⁵⁸ Cf. Schrijver 1991 passim, esp. 86–115; Meiser 1998: 107f.

⁵⁹ Cf. Ziegler 2001.

Straipsniai / Articles

31

HARALD BICH LMEIER

or syncope of the thematic vowel of a masculine form that existed alongside the feminine form, followed by assimilation of the nominative singular ending: *isar-os > *isars > *isar(r). The gender may either go back to the Celtic word or be due to the Greek hyperonym ὁ ποταμός.

In principle, however, it cannot be ruled out that the medial -a- owes its origin to a suffix *-ro- added secondarily, which may have been attached to a thematic stem *h₁ish₂-é/ó- already in existence. The -a- may have arisen regularly from *-h₂-e- in late Proto-Indo-European, or it may also have arisen later through the shift that may have characterized ‘Old European’ or parts of it in any case (Proto-Indo-European *-h₂-o- > *o > *a). No decision is possible here.

The same ultimately applies to the Eisack in South Tyrol (acc. ’Ισάραν, nom. *’Ισάρας, Latin Isarcus with secondary *-k-)⁶⁰; here, however, there is the additional problem that the German name of the river shows diphthongization in its initial syllable, which presupposes an existing *īsa(r)k-° at the time of borrowing from Romance into Old High German. Whether this long vowel is really old and compels us to assume a full-grade Proto-Indo-European *h₁eish₂-reh₂- (alongside the regular *h₁ish₂-ró- cited above, with a zero-grade root), as Krahe 1953: 121 argues, is questionable: first, one would have to assume that Strabo (ca. 63 BC–AD 23) borrowed an already monophthongized Latin⁶¹ form *īsara⁶² (which is entirely conceivable; this monophthongization had in any case been completed in Latin by the middle of the 2nd century BC)⁶³; and second, that alongside the morphologically expected and indeed attested zero-grade formation there was also a full-grade formation. This would most plausibly be interpreted as a vṛddhi formation, Proto-Indo-European *h₁eish₂-ré/ó-, from the adjective *h₁ish₂-ró-, yielding a noun through contrastive accent, *h₁ísh₂-re/o- ‘strengthening, swiftness—

⁶⁰ ANB 311 gives only the root etymology in its old spelling and notes that a long vowel must have been present, but provides no information about its origin: “ancient Isāras (later Īsarcus) < *Īsaros (...), from Indo-European *eis- ‘move violently’ (IEW 300f.).” – Kühlebacher 1995: 59–61.

⁶¹ Since northern Italy had been settled by Celts by the 4th century BC at the latest, a Celtic intermediate stage is the most plausible hypothesis: in Celtic, Proto-Indo-European *e̯i > *ē monophthongized; consequently, a Celtic form *ēsara may have been borrowed into Latin as *ēsara in the 3rd century BC, where this *ē was then further narrowed to ī in the 2nd century BC (as was *ē itself, which had developed from Proto-Indo-European *e̯i in Latin).

⁶² Eine der Zeit der Entstehung entsprechende Lösung bietet Julius Pokorny (1914: 293), der das Wort für illyrisch hält, eine Vollstufe der Wurzel („*eisa-“) und implizit eine -ko-Ableitung von einem vollstufigen Adjektiv (?) *eisaro- o.ä. anzunehmen scheint. Die bayerische Isar gilt ihm als Fluss mit keltischem Namen.

⁶³ Cf. Meiser 1998: 58.

32

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

…ness, drive’ to be classified. It would have had to mean something like ‘characterized by swiftness’ or the like, and would thus have been practically synonymous with the original swift adjective. The derivation is viable with respect to word formation, semantics, and sound development alike. But the question remains whether it might be preferable to assume lengthening in the stressed syllable in Vulgar Latin/Early Romance, which would have lengthened *ísara to *ī́sara; this would then have been adopted into Old High German and diphthongized after the 11th century. A problem with this, however, is the different position of the stress in the Vulgar Latin/Early Romance form, compared with the development cited above for the hydronym French Isère (< *isára). It is possible that the Eisack also had a variant form with an ending that had already undergone syncope, whereby the first syllable would at the same time have been the penultimate syllable, making the shift of stress to it just as regular as the subsequent lengthening of the initial *i- in an open syllable.

Another possibility to consider is whether, soon after its adoption, a folk-etymological reinterpretation of Old High German îs ‘ice’ (or an association with a possibly once-existing designation Old High German *îsaha ‘ice river’) may have taken place;⁶⁴ since the Eisack rises at the Brenner at an altitude of 1,990 m, is cold throughout the year and frozen over in places during winter, this is by no means an unreasonable idea.

A river name in southern Italy, Italian Esaro < Latin Aisarus, Greek Αἴσαρος < Proto-Indo-European *h₁oish₂-(e)ro⁶⁵, which is etymologically related, certainly attests a full-grade root form, most likely in the o-grade; it too is likely to derive from a pre-Italic language layer that had the shift *o > a.

It is also generally assumed that the Danube’s ancient name, ⁶⁶ Ἴστρος,⁶⁷ belongs to the same river-name family and is likewise to be reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European *h₁ish₂-ró- > ‘Old European’(?) *is-ro- > Istros. If this is correct, then, assuming that the Danube name belongs to the same language layer, it is either morphologically unrelated in origin to the name of the Isar (since Isara, Isura contains an additional medial vowel that was originally present), or, if it is cognate—meaning that the etymologies are indeed identical—it does not belong to the same language as the Isar name, owing to the clearly different sound development of an intervocalic laryngeal: The possibly attested vocalization of an intervocalic laryngeal among the language-

⁶⁴ Vgl. dazu auch Kühebacher 1995: 60.

⁶⁵ Cf. Krahe 1953: 120.

⁶⁶ Cf. the attestations in ANB 257–265; Anreiter 2001: 229–237; LbO² 105f.; LbO³ 59f.; Borchers 2006: 11–19. – Everything necessary has been said about the etymology of the name in Anreiter 2001: 237f. – Similar views had already been expressed by Krahe 1953: 103, albeit in notation now considered obsolete.

⁶⁷ Vgl. die Belege bei Borchers 2006: 28–33.

Straipsniai / Articles

33

HARALD BICH LMEIER

bearers in the upper reaches of the Danube is countered by the loss of the laryngeal and the subsequent emergence of an epenthetic -t- in the cluster *-sr- in the surely indigenous designation of the Danube in its lower reaches.

If, however, following Peters⁶⁸ and Mayrhofer⁶⁹, one assumes that a loss of the laryngeal between s and r had already taken place in Common Indo-European (schematically, in a somewhat broader formulation: H > Ø/s__K), for which there are good examples,⁷⁰ then Greek Ionic, poetic ἰρός, Aeolic ἰρος ‘sacred’ < Proto-Greek *isro- < Proto-Indo-European *h₁ish₂-ró- and Ἴστρος would be regular sound-law outcomes, whereas Greek Attic ἱερός, Northwest Greek ιαρός, as well as Sanskrit iṣirá- and ultimately Isara would have to be analogically remodeled on the frequent types in Greek -αρος, -ερος and Sanskrit -ira-, which would be expected after consonants other than -s-.

The arguments put forward by Hardarsson 2011 and 2011a now point in a similar direction. In his studies of the Celtic and Germanic words for ‘iron’, he convincingly explains them as formations that arose independently in each language, rather than as mutually borrowed forms, as was generally assumed before. On the one hand, a Proto-Indo-European adjective *h₁ish₂-er-nó- regularly develops into Proto-Celtic *isarno- ‘strong, powerful’, whose neuter form was substantivized as ‘the strong thing’: Proto-Celtic *isarnon > Proto-Irish *isarnan > *iharnan > *eharna > *earna > Old Irish iarn ‘iron’ (initially disyllabic, later monosyllabic). By contrast, Early Proto-Germanic *eisar­na- > Proto-Germanic *īsarna- continues a substantival vr̥ddhi derivative Proto-Indo-European/pre-Proto-Germanic *(h₁)éis(h₂)-er-no- ‘that which is distinguished by strength, endowed with strength’ or the like, formed from the Proto-Indo-European adjective *h₁ish₂-er-nó- cited above. The difference between the Celtic and Germanic forms therefore lies in the fact that the Celtic form is based on an adjective, while the Germanic form is based on a noun.

The starting point for both derivatives is the Proto-Indo-European *h₁ish₂-ró- ‘strong, swift, etc.’ cited above. An adjective Proto-Indo-European *h₁ish₂-eró- ‘same meaning’ was formed from it by vr̥ddhi of the suffix. The original meaning of formations with a vr̥ddhi suffix seems to have been a modification of the base word, as expressed, for example, by English derivatives in -ish (grey:: greyish) or New High German derivatives in -lich (blau:: bläulich); for this reason, this one-time contrast can scarcely be recovered anymore;⁷¹ cf. for example Proto-Indo-European *pik-ró- ‘pointed, sharp’ > Greek πικρός

⁶⁸ Cf. Peters 1980: 160f., 172, n. 124; 325.

⁶⁹ Cf. Mayrhofer1986: I/2 150.

⁷⁰ The loss is most clearly illustrated by the heteroclitic Proto-Indo-European nominative *h₁ésh₂-r̥, genitive *h₁es-nós ‘blood’ > Hittite eshar, esnas, whereas the Vedic counterpart already shows generalization of the form without a laryngeal; cf. Sanskrit áṣr̥-k, asnáś (cf. EDHIL 256–260; EWai 149 with earlier literature).

⁷¹ Thus Nussbaum 2009; cited after Hardarsson 2011, 2011a.

34

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

‘the same’ vs. Proto-Indo-European *piḱ-eró- > Tocharian A pśar ‘the same’: A further adjective, Proto-Indo-European *h₁ish₂-er-nó- ‘the same’, semantically scarcely distinguishable from such a secondary adjective, could then be derived; compare Proto-Indo-European *tig-ró- ‘pointed, sharp’ → *tig-eró- → *tig-er-nó- > Old Irish tigern ‘lord’ (< ‘the one who is at the top’), etc. If one follows Nussbaum’s explanation of the morphological processes and considers vr̥ddhi in the suffix possible, the different forms with and without a ‘connecting vowel’ are no longer a problem.

Auf eine weitere bei Hardarsson (2011: 109f.; 2011a: 4) gebotene Präzisierung älterer Erklärungen, wie sie oben dargeboten wurden, ist noch hinzuweisen: Nimmt man den de Saussureschen Laryngalschwund neben uridg. *o ernst, sollte in einem normalen thematischen Paradigma, in dem der Themavokal ablautet, also uridg. *h₁ish₂-ró-:: *h₁ish₂-ré-, bereits spätgrundsprachlich *h₁is-ró-:: *h₁ish₂-ré- entstanden sein, das je einzelsprachlich in die eine oder andere Richtung ausgeglichen worden sein konnte: Aus der erstgenannten Form wären gr. ion., poet. ἰρός, äol. ἶρος ebenso lautgesetzlich wie der nichtgr. Flussname Ἴστρος, während aus der zweiten Form NW-gr. ἰαρός und ai. iṣirá- lautgesetzlich entstanden sind.

Regarding Isara, the adjective Proto-Indo-European *h₁ish₂-eró-/-eráh₂- must be preferred as the antecedent form over Proto-Indo-European *h₁ish₂-ró-/-ráh₂- as long as no unequivocal cases can be found in which intervocalic laryngeals between consonants were vocalized (within the realm of Old European hydronymy).⁷²

A further problem is that, of the roughly two dozen attestations up to about 1000 CE, approximately two thirds have the form Isura, but only one third the form Isara. It is difficult to assume that so many cases involve scribal errors; Isura must therefore represent an actual linguistic form.⁷³ After 1000 CE, the form Isar(a) became fixed, alongside which attestations showing weakening of the unstressed syllable, Iser(a), are also found. The form Isura cannot simply be traced back to a securely established antecedent form: there is no Proto-Indo-European suffix *-uro- or the like. One possibility is that this is a further instance of the suffix alternation so common in Germanic: starting from cases in which, in ablaut

⁷² It remains to investigate specifically whether the river name Czech Jizera, German Iser (1297 Gizera; right tributary of the Elbe) could provide arguments for this: the Czech form requires a West Germanic source form */izerō-/ < Proto-Germanic *isa/erā- < Proto-Indo-European *h₁ish₂-(e)ró/éh₂-, which must have been borrowed into Proto-Czech in the sixth century, immediately after the Slavs’ migration into the Bohemian Basin, but before the Proto-Germanic change of *-z- > to -r- through rhotacism. If this etymology is correct, it would also provide a terminus post quem of 500 CE for this West Germanic sound development.

⁷³ Reitzenstein 2001/2002 already considers the name form Isura for antiquity, but gives no information about its etymology. – According to Krahe (1964: 55), an antecedent form *Isura must also be assumed for the Ure, a tributary of the Swale in Yorkshire; on this river, and named after it, a Roman fort called Ἰσούριον (Ptol. II 316) or Isurium (It. Ant. 465, 3) is attested.

Straipsniai / Articles

35

HARALD BICHlMEIER

alternating suffixes (Proto-Indo-European *enḱó- > Proto-Germanic *-inga-, Proto-Indo-European *-ṇḱó- > Proto-Germanic *-unga-, etc.) or inflectional forms (cf., for example, in n-stems: Proto-Indo-European *ṇ > Proto-Germanic *un, Proto-Indo-European *en > Proto-Germanic *in, Proto-Indo-European *on > Proto-Germanic *an) vowel alternations had arisen,⁷⁴ these could then also be transferred to other cases in which, etymologically, ablaut was not actually to be expected or could not occur at all. This may perhaps also explain the secondary formation of *Isarō alongside Proto-Germanic *Isurō. This, of course, cannot be proven. Another possibility might be to consider whether an old active perfect participle underlies this u-containing form. The feminine of this participle, formed from the root cited above, would be reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European nominative *h₁e-h₁ish₂-us-íh₂, genitive *h₁e-h₁ish₂-us-iéh₂-s, from which nominative *e.isusī, genitive *e.isusiās > nominative *eisusī, genitive *eisusiās would be expected. This form could then have been remodeled by analogy with the more common feminine forms with nominative *-ā, genitive *-ās into nominative *eisusā, genitive *eisusās. Such a Celtic (?) form, however, cannot directly yield the attested results upon its adoption into West Germanic. The monophthongization of the initial syllable to nominative *īsusā, genitive *īsusās can safely be assumed. Furthermore, an intermediate Latin-Romance stage in southern Bavaria should probably be assumed: at this stage the accent shifted to the penultimate syllable, causing the initial syllable to lose its length, and the post-tonic -s- was ultimately pronounced as [z]. The arriving Germanic peoples would thus most likely have heard the river name as [ˈisu(ː)za] and integrated it into their language as [ˈisu(ː)za], where [z] eventually underwent rhotacism, probably giving rise to the attested Isura.⁷⁵ It cannot be determined whether the two attested forms Isara and Isura are formations that differ diachronically and/or diatopically in some way, or whether they belong to the same language and period. The former is more likely, since it is certainly not often observed that members of a speech community name, or have named, one and the same river using different derivatives of a word root. Perhaps, in this case, one must indeed posit two different names for a river, derived from the same root (possibly coined at different times and/or originally designating different stretches of the river), which survived into the High Middle Ages, when one of them, namely Isara, prevailed.

⁷⁴ Vgl. dazu auch mit weiteren Beispielen Schaffner 1999: 187f. mit Anm. 205; Casaretto 2000: 218.

⁷⁵ If this scenario is correct, then the possibility, presented by Wolf-Armin Reitzenstein in 2001/2002, that the hydronym Isura existed already in antiquity cannot be correct. Under the scenario outlined above, one would still expect *Isusa. If the form Isura did in fact already have this pronunciation in antiquity, however, its morphological structure could only be explained by analogy. – At most, one might still consider a secondary adjectival (Continental Celtic?) ro/ā-derivative from an ablauting u-stem *h₁ēish₂-u-, *h₁ish₂-éu-, most likely inflected proterodynamically.

36

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

The investigation presented here into the etymological origin of the name Isar and hence of related river names should also have shown that it is indeed still possible to refine the precise derivation of names belonging to the oldest layer of river names accessible to us—while, at the same time, new problems that have hitherto been neglected or overlooked continue to arise.

3. CONCLUSION

As the preceding discussion should have clearly shown, with the help of the modern form of historical-comparative linguistics one can go well beyond the findings of ‘classical Alteuropäistik’.

The points set out above give rise to further questions and tasks for research:

Do all the names of Alteuropäische Hydronymie actually belong to the same language or linguistic stratum?

Do different names for one and the same river always belong to the same linguistic stratum as well?

If they do, one must often posit different earlier forms. Each of these different forms must be properly etymologized on its own, that is, fully explained with regard to word formation as well.

If such name variants/doublets demonstrably do not belong to the same linguistic stratum (although establishing this may be quite difficult in individual cases), one should consider to what extent it is really permissible to assume a unified language spoken by the bearers of Alteuropäische Hydronymie: Was ‘Old European’ dialectally differentiated? If so, how?

A few further questions concerning the river names mentioned and Alteuropäische Hydronymie as a whole may be added: Did the later languages in the area of Alteuropäische Hydronymie in fact develop out of that linguistic stratum? Can this even be proved?

For now, this should suffice as an overview and as a stimulus for further research.

To conclude this discussion, let us return once more to the beginning of the article: Onomastics concerned with Alteuropäische Hydronymie, and which takes seriously the question “What do the names mean?”, is no longer meaningfully possible today without the methods and models of modern Indo-European linguistics: it will simply yield no further relevant insights. Progress in this field can now be made only with the help of modern Indo-European linguistics. The pre-war Indo-European linguistics customary in ‘classical Alteuropäistik’ is obsolete in every respect and has

Straipsniai / Articles

37

HARALD BICHLM EIER

The last decades have brought little that has received general scholarly recognition. Moreover, the results have scarcely ever rested on even reasonably complete etymologies. It will therefore be difficult to avoid a reassessment of all the available material on Old European hydronymy. Only then will it be possible to make a final assessment of the value of the research conducted so far. For a fresh examination of the material will naturally also unsettle supposed certainties.

Over the last 50 years, Indo-European studies have advanced enormously in every field, whereas research on Old European hydronymy has remained methodologically at the level it had reached back then. It is time for this rewarding branch of onomastics to make up this ground in relation to historical-comparative linguistics and thus once again become a discipline whose findings Indo-Europeanists cannot ignore. This naturally requires the protagonists of ‘Old European studies’ in particular to be willing and able to acquire the methods and content of modern Indo-European studies. A discipline that does not constantly renew and develop itself is—sooner rather than later—doomed to irrelevance and/or extinction.

There is still a great deal to be done; hundreds of questions remain to be answered.

LITERATURVERZEICHNIS

ACS I–III – Holder Alfred: Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz 1–3. Leipzig: Teubner 1896–1907.

ANB – Altdeutsches Namenbuch. Die Überlieferung der Ortsnamen in Österreich und Südtirol von den Anfängen bis 1200, bearbeitet von Isolde Hausner, Elisabeth Schuster. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 1989ff.

Andersen Henning 2009: The Satem Languages of the Indo-European Northwest. First Contacts? – The Indo-European Language Family: Questions about its Status (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, No. 55), ed. by Angela Marcantonio. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man 2009, 2: 1–31.

Anreiter Peter 2001: Die vorrömischen Namen Pannoniens (Archaeolingua, Series minor 16). Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapítvány.

Anreiter Peter 2005: Die Schichtung der Tiroler Gewässernamen. – Gewässernamen in Bayern und Österreich. 3. Kolloquium des Arbeitskreises für bayerisch-österreichische Namenforschung. Regensburg, 27./28. Februar 2004 (Regensburger Studien zur Namenforschung 1), hrsg. von Albrecht Greule, Wolfgang Janka, Michael Prinz. Regensburg: Vulpes 2005, 35–49.

38

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

Bach Adolf 1954: Deutsche Namenkunde II. Die deutschen Ortsnamen 2. Heidelberg: Winter.

Bezlaj France 1956–1961: Slovenska vodna imena 1–2. Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti.

Bichlmeier Harald 2010a: Bairisch-österreichische Orts- und Gewässernamen aus indogermanistischer Sicht. – Blätter für oberdeutsche Namenforschung 46, 2009 [2010], 3–63.

Bichlmeier Harald 2010b: Rōma – Namenkundlich-sprachhistorische Anmerkungen zu einem allgemein bekannten Ortsnamen (Mit einem Exkurs zu Fragen der Chronologie von Lehnwortbeziehungen benachbarter Sprachen am Beispiel von nhd. Haus und seinen Vorformen). – Das Altertum 55, 175–202.

Bichlmeier Harald 2010c: Arelape, Tergolape, Interlaken – Ein Beitrag zur keltischen Fluss- und Ortsnamenschicht im Alpenraum. – Zeitschrift für Historische Sprachforschung 122, 2009 [2010], 254–267.

Bichlmeier Harald 2010d: Moderne Indogermanistik vs. traditionelle Namenkunde, Teil 3: Traun, Raab und Auders. – Österreichische Namenforschung 38, 104–113.

Bichlmeier Harald 2011a: Einige grundsätzliche Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Indogermanistik und voreinzelsprachlicher resp. alteuropäischer Namenkunde mit einigen Fallbeispielen (Moderne Indogermanistik vs. traditionelle Namenkunde, Teil 1). – Namenkundliche Informationen 95/96, 2009 [2011], 173–208.

Bichlmeier Harald 2011b: Rōma – hydronyme « paléoeuropéen » ou désignation d’une « terre agricole »? Tentative de mise au point et brèves considérations sur d’autres propositions étymologiques plus anciennes. – Nouvelle Revue d’Onomastique 51, 2009 [2011], 69–84.

Bichlmeier Harald 2011c: Bayerisch-österreichische Orts- und Gewässernamen aus indogermanistischer Sicht: Teil 2: Isar und etymologisch Verwandtes (sowie Addenda zu dem Beitrag in den BONF 46 (2009), 3–63). – Blätter für oberdeutsche Namenforschung 47, 2010 [2011], 21–31.

Bichlmeier Harald 2011d: Noch einmal zum Ortsnamen Magdeburg. – Namenkundliche Informationen 97, 2010 [2011], 109–132.

Bichlmeier Harald 2011e: Moderne Indogermanistik vs. traditionelle Namenkunde, Teil 2 – Save, Drau, Zöbern. – Methoden der Namenforschung. Methodologie, Methodik und Praxis (Akten der 6. Tagung des Arbeitskreises für bayerisch-österreichische Namenforschung (ABÖN), Graz, 12.–15.5.2010), hrsgg. von Arne Ziegler, Erika Windberger-Heidenkummer. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 63–87.

Birnbaum Henrik 1999: Noch einmal zur Dehnstufe im Baltischen und Slawischen und zum sogenannten Winterschen Gesetz. – Florilegium Linguisticum. Festschrift für Wolfgang P. Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag, hrsgg. von Eckhard Eggers, Joachim Becker, Jürgen

Straipsniai / Articles

39

HARALD BICHLMEIER

Udolph, Dieter Weber. Frankfurt a. M. – Berlin – Bern – Bruxelles – New York – Wien: Peter Lang, 25–33.

Blažek Václav 2010: Etymological analysis of toponyms from Ptolemy’s description of Central Europe. – Celts and Slavs in Central and Southeastern Europe. Studia Celto-Slavica III. Proceedings of the III^rd International Colloquium of the Societas Celto-Slavica, Dubrovnik, September 18–20, 2008 (Znanstveni zbornici 2), hrsg. von Brozović Rončević Dunja, Fomin Maxim, Matasović Ranko. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 2010, 21–45.

Borchers Ulf 2006: Große Flüsse auf dem Gebiet der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Supplementband zur Reihe Hydronymia Germaniae (Hydronymia Germaniae, Reihe A, Supplementband) Stuttgart: Steiner.

Casaretto Antje 2000: Korpussprachen und Produktivität: Einige Überlegungen zu den germanischen s-Stämmen. – Historische Sprachforschung 113, 210–238.

Clackson James 2007: Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Collinge Neville Edgar 1985: The Laws of Indo-European (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science, Serie IV, 35). Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Darms Georges 1978: Schwäher und Schwager, Hahn und Huhn. Die Vṛddhi-Ableitung im Germanischen. München: Kitzinger.

Dybo Vladimir 2002: Balto-Slavic Accentology and Winter’s Law. – Studia Linguarum 3, 295–515. Im Internet unter: http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/winter.pdf (1.6.2009).

EDG – Beekes Robert with the assistance of Lucien van Beek 2010: Etymological Dictionary of Greek (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10). Leiden – Boston: Brill.

EDHIL – Kloekhorst Alwin. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 5). Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2008.

EIEC – Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, ed. by James P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams. London – Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997.

ERHSJ I–III – Skok Petar. Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika 1–3. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, 1971–1973.

ESSZI – Snoj Marko. Etimološki slovar slovenskih zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2009.

EWAIa I–III – Mayrhofer Manfred. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen 1–3. Heidelberg: Winter, 1992–2001.

Fortson Benjamin W. IV 2004: Indo-European Language and Culture – an Introduction (Blackwell textbooks in linguistics 19). Malden – Oxford – Carlton: Blackwell.

40

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

Fortson Benjamin W. IV 2009: Indo-European Language and Culture – an Introduction. Second Edition (Blackwell textbooks in linguistics 19). Malden – Oxford – Carlton: Blackwell.

Harðarsson Jón Axel 2011: Um orðið járn í fornnorraenu og forsög þess. – Orð og tunga 13, 93–121.

Harðarsson Jón Axel 2011a: Das Wort für ‚Eisen‘ im Keltischen und Germanischen und die indogermanischen -erno-Bildungen. Handout zum Vortrag auf der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft „Das Nomen im Indogermanischen, Morphologie, Substantiv versus Adjektiv, Kollektivum“, Erlangen, 14.–16. September 2011. (10 S.).

Holzer Georg 2006: Zur relativen Datierung prosodischer Prozesse im Gemeinslawischen und frühen Kroatischen. – Wiener Slawistisches Jahrbuch 51, 2005 [2006], 31–71.

Holzer Georg 2007: Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen. Einleitung und Lautgeschichte der Standardsprache. Frankfurt a. M. – Bern etc.: Peter Lang.

IEW – Pokorny Julius. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1. München: Frankke, 1959.

Kapović Mate 2006: The Development of Proto-Slavic Quantity (from Proto-Slavic to Modern Slavic Languages. – Wiener Slawistisches Jahrbuch 51 (2005 [2006]), 73–111.

Kapović Mate 2008: Uvod u indoeuropsku lingvistiku. Pregled jezika i poredbeno fonologija. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

Kapović Mate 2008a: Razvoj hrvatske akcentuacije. – Filologija 51, 1–39. Auch im Internet unter: http://hrcak.srce.hr/

Krahe Hans 1950/51: Alteuropäische Flußnamen [Teil II]. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung 2, 113–131, 217–237.

Krahe Hans 1951/52: Alteuropäische Flußnamen [Teil III]. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung 3, 1–18, 153–170, 225–243.

Krahe Hans 1953: Alteuropäische Flußnamen [Teil IV]. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung 4, 37–53, 105–122, 234–243.

Krahe Hans 1954: Alteuropäische Flußnamen [Teil V]. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung 5, 97–114, 201–220.

Krahe Hans 1955: Alteuropäische Flußnamen [Teil VI]. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung 6, 1–13.

Krahe Hans 1963: Die Struktur der alteuropäischen Hydronymie (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, 1962, 5). Wiesbaden: Steiner (in Kommission).

Krahe Hans 1964: Unsere ältesten Flußnamen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Straipsniai / Articles

41

HARALD BICHLMElER

Kranzmayer Eberhard 1956–1958: Ortsnamenbuch von Kärnten 1–2. Klagenfurt: Habelt.

Kranzmayer Eberhard 1997 [1960]: Die Geschichte der Kärntner Sprachgrenze im Lichte der Namen. – Kleine namen kundliche Schriften (1929–1972) anläßlich seines 100. Geburtstages am 15. Mai 1997 gesammelt und herausgegeben von Maria Hornung. Mit einer Einleitung von Ernst Eichler. Wien: Edition Präsens, 1997, 372–382.

Kühebacher Egon 1995: Die Ortsnamen Südtirols und ihre Geschichte 2: Die geschichtlich gewachsenen Namen der Täler, Flüsse, Bäche und Seen (Veröffentlichungen des Landesarchivs 2) Bozen: Athesia.

Kümmel Martin Joachim 2007: Konsonantenwandel. Bausteine zu einer vergleichenden [sic] Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Lamberterie Charles de 2007: Comparison and Reconstruction. – Proceedings of the 18th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, November 3–4, 2006, ed. by Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Volpe A. Della, Miriam Robbins Dexter. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1–27.

Lamprecht Arnošt 1987: Praslovanština. Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně.

LbO² – Reitzenstein Wolf-Armin Frhr. von. Lexikon bayerischer Ortsnamen. Herkunft und Bedeutung. Zweite, verb. u. erw. Aufl. München: C. H. Beck, 1991.

LbO³ – Reitzenstein Wolf-Armin Frhr. von. Lexikon bayerischer Ortsnamen. Herkunft und Bedeutung. Oberbayern, Niederbayern, Oberpfalz. München: C. H. Beck, 2006.

Lindeman Fredrik Otto 1997: Introduction to the ‘Laryngeal Theory’ (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 91). Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

Lipp I–II – Lipp Reiner. Die indogermanischen einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen 1–2. Heidelberg: Winter, 2009.

LIV – Rix Helmut et al. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1998.

LIV² – Rix Helmut et al. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Zweite, verb. u. erw. Aufl., Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2001.

Luraghi Silvia 2009: The origin of the feminine gender in PIE. An old problem in a new perspective. – Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages. Papers presented at the Workshop on Indo-European Linguistics at the XVIIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal 2007, ed. by Vít Bubenik, John Hewson, Sarah Rose. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–13.

Mallory James P., Adams Douglas Q. 2006: The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

42

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

M a t a s o v i ć R a n k o 1992 [2010]: Kratka poredb enopovijesna gramatika latinskoga jezika. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

M a t a s o v i ć R a n k o 1996: A Reexamination of Winter’s Law in Baltic and Slavic. – Lingua Posnaniensis 37, 1995 [1996], 57–70.

M a t a s o v i ć R a n k o 2007: On the accentuation of the earliest Latin and Romance loanwords in Slavic. – Tones and Theories: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Balto-Slavic Accentology, Zagreb, 1–3 July 2005, ed. by Mate Kapović, Ranko Matasović. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 2007, 105–119.

M a t a s o v i ć R a n k o 2008: Poredb enopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

M a y e r A n t o n 1957–1959: Die Sprache der alten Illyrier 1–2. Wien: Rohrer in Kommission.

M a y r h o f e r M a n f r e d 1981: Nach hundert Jahren. Ferdinand de Saussures Frühwerk und seine Rezeption durch die heutige Indogermanistik. Mit einem Beitrag von Ronald Zwanziger (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 1981,8). Heidelberg: Winter.

M a y r h o f e r M a n f r e d 1986: Indogermanische Grammatik I/2 (Indogermanische Bibliothek: Reihe 1, Lehr- und Handbücher: Indogermanische Grammatik Bd. 1). Heidelberg: Winter.

M a y r h o f e r M a n f r e d 2005: Die Fortsetzung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Indo-Iranischen (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 730). Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

M e i e r - B r ü g g e r M i c h a e l 2000: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft 7., völlig neu bearb. Aufl. der früheren Darst. von Hans Krahe. Unter Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer (De-Gruyter-Studienbuch). Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

M e i e r - B r ü g g e r M i c h a e l 2002: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft 8., überarb. u. erg. Aufl. unter Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer (De-Gruyter-Studienbuch). Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

M e i e r - B r ü g g e r M i c h a e l 2010: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft 9., durchges. u. erg. Aufl. unter Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer (De-Gruyter-Studienbuch). Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

M e i s e r G e r h a r d 1998: Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Wiesbaden: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

M ü l l e r S t e f a n 2007: Zum Germanischen aus laryngaltheoretischer Sicht. Mit einer Einführung in die Grundlagen der Laryngaltheorie. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

NIL – Wodtko Dagmar S., Irslinger Britta, Schneider Carolin. Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter, 2008.

Straipsniai / Articles

43

HARALD BICHlMEIER

Nussbaum Alan R. 2009: Genitivia. Vortrag auf der 28th East Coast Indo-European Conference, University of Island, Reykjavík, 10.–14. Juni 2009.

Olander Thomas 2009: Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

Pape Wilhelm 1911: Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache 3, neu bearb. von Gustav Eduard Benseler. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1911.

Peters Martin 1980: Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, Bd. 377; Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Linguistik und Kommunikationsforschung, Heft 8). Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Petit Daniel 2010: Untersuchungen zu den baltischen Sprachen (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 4). Leiden – Boston: Brill.

Pokorny Julius 1914: Herkunft und Etymologie des Wortes Eisen. – Kuhns Zeitschrift 46, 292–294.

Reitzenstein Wolf-Armin Frhr. von 2001/2002: Iovisura. – Blätter für oberdeutsche Namenforschung 38–39, 43–46.

Ringe Don 2006: A Linguistic History of English 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Risch Ernst 1974: Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

Rix Helmut 1976: Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre. 2. korr. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Rix Helmut 1992: Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre. Wiesbaden: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Schaffner Stefan 1999: Die Götternamen des Zweiten Merseburger Zauberspruchs. – Die Sprache 41, 153–205.

Schmid Wolfgang P. 1979: Urheimat und Ausbreitung der Slawen. – Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 28, 405–415 [wieder abgedruckt in Schmid 1994: 254–264].

Schmid Wolfgang P. 1986: Zur Dehnstufe im Baltischen und Slawischen. – Festschrift für Herbert Bräuer zum 65. Geburtstag am 14. April 1986. hrsgg. von Reinhold Olesch, Hans Rothe. Köln etc.: Böhlau, 457–466 [wieder abgedruckt in Schmid 1994: 358–367].

Schmid Wolfgang P. 1994: Linguisticæ Scientiæ Collectanea. Ausgewählte Schriften von Wolfgang P. Schmid anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages herausgegeben von J. Becker, E. Eggers, J. Udolph und D. Weber. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

Schmid Wolfgang P. 1998: Methodische Bemerkungen zur Klassifikation: Alteuropäisch. – Onomastica Slavogermanica 23, 21–28.

Schramm Gottfried 1981: Eroberer und Eingesessene. Geographische Lehnnamen als Zeugen der Geschichte Südosteuropas im ersten Jahrtausend. Stuttgart: Hiersemann.

44

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

S c h r i j v e r P e t e r 1991: The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam/Atlanta GA: Rodopi.

S n y d e r W i l l i a m H. 1964: Die rechten Nebenflüsse der Donau von der Quelle bis zur Einmündung des Inn (Hydronymia Germaniae, Reihe A, Lieferung 3). Wiesbaden: Steiner.

S n y d e r W i l l i a m H. 1965: Zur ältesten Namenschicht der rechten Nebenflüsse der Donau (von der Quelle bis zur Einmündung des Inns). – Beiträge zur Namenforschung 16, 176–203.

S n y d e r W i l l i a m H. 1966: Zur ältesten Namenschicht der rechten Nebenflüsse der Donau: Die zusammengesetzten Namen. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung, Neue Folge 1, 43–66.

S n y d e r W i l l i a m H. 1967: Zum Zeugnis der Flußnamen für die Vor- und Frühgeschichte. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung, Neue Folge 2, 146–164.

SSS I–VIII – Słownik starożytności słowiańskich 1–8. Wrocław etc.: Ossolineum, 1961–1996.

S z e m e r é n y i O s w a l d 1990: Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

T o p o r o v V l a d i m i r N., T r u b a č e v O l e g N. 1962: Lingvističeskij analiz gidronimov Verchnego Podneprov’ja. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.

T o v a r A n t o n i o 1977: Krahes alteuropäische Hydronymie und die westindogermanischen Sprachen. – Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1977, 2. Heidelberg: Winter.

U d o l p h J ü r g e n 1979: Studien zu slavischen Gewässernamen und Gewässerbezeichnungen. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Urheimat der Slaven (Beiträge zur Namenforschung Beiheft 17). Heidelberg: Winter.

U d o l p h J ü r g e n 1990: Die Stellung der Gewässernamen Polens innerhalb der alteuropäischen Hydronymie (Beiträge zur Namenforschung Beiheft 31). Heidelberg: Winter.

U d o l p h J ü r g e n 1997: Alteuropäische Hydronymie und urslavische Gewässernamen. – Onomastica 42, 21–70.

U d o l p h J ü r g e n 2007: Alteuropa in Kroatien: Der Name der Sava/Save. – Folia Onomastica Croatica 12–13, 2003–2004 [2007], 523–548.

U d o l p h J ü r g e n 2011: Alteuropa, Iller, Alster, Elster und aléti. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 62–63, 161–176.

W a t k i n s C a l v e r t 2000: The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

W i e s i n g e r P e t e r 1985: Probleme der bairischen Frühzeit in Niederösterreich aus namenkundlicher Sicht. – Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn. Teil 1. Berichte des Symposions der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung 25. bis 28. Oktober 1982, Stift Zwettl, Niederösterreich

Straipsniai / Articles

45

HARALD BICH LMEIER

sterreich, hrsg. von Herwig Wolfram, Andreas Schwarcz. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 321–367 sowie 7 Karten unpaginiert im Anhang.

W i e s i n g e r P e t e r 1990: Antik-romanische Kontinuitäten im Donauraum von Ober- und Niederösterreich am Beispiel der Gewässer-, Berg- und Siedlungsnamen. – Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern. Teil 1. Berichte des Symposions der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung 27. bis 30. Oktober 1986, Stift Zwettl, Niederösterreich, hrsg. von Herwig Wolfram, Walther Pohl. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 261–326 sowie 2 Karten unpaginiert im Anhang.

WRG I–V: Wörterbuch der russischen Gewässernamen 1–5, zusammengestellt von A. Kernd’l, R. Richardt und W. Eisold unter Leitung von Max Vasmer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1961–1969.

Y o u n g S t e p h e n 2008: Winter’s law and etymologies, with special reference to Lithuanian. – Baltistica 43, 201–218.

Z i e g l e r S a b i n e 2001: Altirisch iáru, das „flinke“ Eichhörnchen. – Novalis Indogermanica. Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag, hrsg. von Matthias Fritz, Susanne Zeilfelder. Graz: Leykam, 587–590.

Kai kurios senosios Europos hidronimijos problemos šiuolaikinės indoeuropeistikos žvilgsniu: naujo požiūrio į šiuos dalykus ginamoji kalba

S A N T R A U K A

Vandenvardžių, priklausančių „senajai Europos hidronimijai“, etimologija nuo Hanso Krahe’s padėtų pagrindų tiriama remiantis vis ta pačia metodika. Etimologijai tirti naudojama istorinės-lyginamosios kalbotyros ar indoeuropeistikos forma atspindi padėtį, buvusią prieš Antrąjį pasaulinį karą.

Per pastaruosius 50 metų indoeuropeistikos mokslas visose sferose smarkiai pažengė į priekį, o senosios Europos hidronimijos tyrimo metodika liko tokia pati kaip anuomet. Atėjo laikas šiai perspektyviai onomastikos sričiai įveikti atsilikimą nuo istorinės-lyginamosios kalbotyros ir vėl tapti mokslu, kurio rezultatų neapeitų ir indoeuropeistai. Šitai, suprantama, iš ryškiausių „senosios europeistikos“ atstovų reikalauja pasirengimo ir sugebėjimų perimti šiuolaikinės indoeuropeistikos metodus bei turinį. Mokslas, kuris nuolatos neatsinaujina ir netobulėja, anksčiau ar vėliau bus pasmerktas tapti nereikšmingu ir mirti.

Šiame straipsnyje remiantis upių vardų Save, Drau bei Isar ir su jais susijusių vardų pavyzdžiu parodoma, kokios „senosios Europos hidronimijos“ tyrėjų mokslinės išvados dėl minėto atsilikimo tebėra nepastebėtos.

46

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVI

Einige ausgewählte Probleme der alteuropäischen Hydronymie aus Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik – Ein Plädoyer für eine neue Sicht auf die Dinge

Kažin ar nors kartą iki šiol „senosios europeistikos“ išvados rėmėsi ir kiek išsamesnėmis etimologijomis, kaip tai įprasta indoeuropeistikai, todėl vargu ar bus galima išvengti naujo visos turimos senosios Europos hidronimijos medžiagos tyrimo. Tik tuomet ligšiolinių tyrimų reikšmė galės būti galutinai įvertinta, nes remiantis nauju medžiagos traktavimu, žinoma, bus suabejota ir tariamomis tiesomis.

Įteikta 2011 m. gruodžio 19 d.

HARALD BICH LMEIER

Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

Orientalisches Institut

Seminar für Indogermanistik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft

Heinrich-und-Thomas-Mann-Str. 26, 06108 Halle (Saale)

[email protected]

Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften

Arbeitsstelle Jena

Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen

Zwätzengasse 12, 07743 Jena

[email protected]

Straipsniai / Articles

47