JÜRGEN UDOLPH

Name studies (hydronyms, place names, and family names), historical-comparative linguistics

ANCIENT EUROPE, ILLER, ALSTER, ELSTER AND ALĒTI

Hydronyms of Ancient Europe

Iller, Alster, Elster and Lithuanian verb aléti

Dedicated to the memory of my teacher Wolfgang P. Schmid (Göttingen), † 22.10.2010

N O T E

The theory of an Old European Indo-European hydronymic stratum in Europe (with an important center in the Baltic region), developed by Hans Krahe and modified by Wolfgang P. Schmid, has repeatedly been criticized, sometimes vehemently. More recently, it has also been addressed by Indo-European studies, with reconstructions of the basic forms of hydronyms being described as outdated, above all from the perspective of laryngeal theory. This article takes up and discusses this criticism.

A N N O T A T I O N

The theory of an Old European layer of hydronyms in Europe with a significant center in the Baltic countries was constructed by Hans Krahe and modified by Wolfgang P. Schmid. Time after time, it has been criticized, to some extent even intensely. Lately, it has also been approached by scholars from the Indo-European field. The reconstructions of hydronyms have been declared archaic, especially from the point of view of the laryngeal theory. This article takes up the criticism and discusses it.

K E Y W O R D S: hydronyms, Indo-European studies, laryngeal theory, Old European hydronymy.

KEYWORDS: river names, Indo-European studies, laryngeal theory, Old European hydronymy.

Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers

161

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 161

2011.06.17 08:24:11

JÜRGEN UDOLPH

FOREWORD

On January 20, 1970, Wolfgang P. Schmid, Professor of General and Comparative Linguistics at Göttingen, advised a student of Slavic and Finno-Ugric studies to work on Slavic hydronyms. It was the beginning of my engagement with the names of Europe; I therefore owe the recently deceased scholar a path that led from Slavic hydronyms through Germanic toponyms and hydronyms to the surnames of Central Europe (with unforeseen consequences, such as numerous radio and television broadcasts) and, finally, to an appointment as professor of onomastics in Leipzig. There, it became possible, through a strong presence in the media, to provide young onomasticians with work in the field of names. It all began with Schmid’s advice to turn to hydronyms.

OLD EUROPEAN HYDRONYMS

There is no question that the hydronyms in Europe are historically layered. Yet, surprisingly, this easily understood fact is by no means always taken into account in discussions of difficult hydronymy. Thus, in discussions of Old European hydronymy, which I will examine in greater detail shortly, one certainly gets the impression that scholars who are not closely involved with the subject tend to neglect the historical layering of hydronyms. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand why opinions claiming that Hans Krahe’s Old European hydronymy is not Indo-European but of Vasconic, Basque origin—and wholly and entirely so (Vennemann 2003)—are not immediately answered by pointing out that this would abolish Indo-European itself. For if there were no Old European—Indo-European hydronyms, then one could only reckon with individual-language (= Baltic, Slavic, Germanic... etc.) and Basque, that is, pre-Indo-European or non-Indo-European, relics. This is absurd, for the individual Indo-European languages first had to develop out of a pre-individual-language dialect area. And this process must also be reflected in the names.

Krahe’s theory is based on the insight that beneath the layer of European hydronyms that can be explained from an individual Indo-European language, there are older names that resist such an explanation. Whereas these relics were formerly called Celtic, Venetic, or—as Krahe himself did for many years—Illyrian, Krahe himself initiated the decisive turn, revised his Illyrian theory (Krahe 1964b), and henceforth maintained that beneath

162

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 162

2011.06.17 08:24:11

Alteuropa, Iller, Alster, Elster und alḗti

a layer of names is concealed among the numerous hydronyms that can be explained from the individual Indo-European languages; these resist explanation from any one European language and therefore require investigation from a broader perspective. According to Krahe, the hydronyms identified through this investigation constitute the layer of Old European hydronymy (most recently set out in Udolph 2010a).

Even before Krahe, researchers investigating the hydronyms of Europe had noticed (Ferguson 1862; Rozwadowski 1948) that there seem to be parallels in different regions of Europe, evidently of the same or a similar origin. Put simply, the question is: To what extent is Zala in Hungary connected with the Frankish or Thuringian Saale in Germany? Can the Nidda near Frankfurt/Main be distinguished from the Nida near Krakow? What do Drewenz in East Prussia and Durance in southern France have in common, and is there really no connection between river names in Poland such as Mienia, Minia and in Belarus (Minica, Minia [and Minsk]) and the Main (ancient Moenus), the Möhne (a tributary of the Ruhr), and also Maín/Mao-in in Ireland, Minho in Spain, and Mignano near Vicenza in Italy?

Krahe identified numerous similar cases and recognized that hydronyms are almost always based on so-called “water words,” that is, appellatives meaning ‘water, flow, stream, moist, river’ and the like. He devised a scheme intended to show, in a kind of matrix, the possible combinations and substitutions of suffixes. Here is the list for a family around Indo-European *el-/*ol-:

T A B L E 1. Morphology of Old European hydronyms: *el-/*ol- (after Krahe)

–a (–o–) | –ia (–io–) | –ua (–uo) | –ma– (–mo) | –na (–no) | –ra (–ro–) | –nt– | –s(i)a, –s(i)o | –sta (–sto)

Ala | Alia, Aleja | Alava | Alma, Almos | Alna, Olna, Alona | Alara, Elira | Alanta, Alantia, Alantas | Alsa, Alisa, Else | Alesta

Ava, Avos | Avia | | Auma | Avena/Avona | | Avanta, Avantia | Ausa, Aves |

Behind the reconstructed forms of the *el-/*ol- family lie (for details, see Krahe 1964a: 35–37) hydronyms such as Ahle, Ola – Alia (Latium) – Alow, Alove – Lom (< *Almos), Alm, Alme – Alle, Alna (East Prussia, with Allenburg/Olsztyn), Olna, Alona – Aller, Iller (< *Elira; I will discuss this in greater detail below) – Elz (< *Alantia), Alantas, Aland – Als, Alsa – Alst (near Münster).

Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers

163

JÜRGEN UDOLPH

Krahe suspected that the appellative base was to be found primarily in Baltic, as in Lithuanian aléti ‘to be flooded by water’, Latvian aluōts ‘spring’, alméti ‘to flow incessantly’, among others.

In this context, it is very important to note something that is not always given sufficient consideration in the discussion: these pre-individual-language hydronyms are not derived from a word, but from root-like elements. This method quite often makes it possible—and this is readily overlooked—to distinguish individual-language hydronyms (for example, of Germanic or Slavic origin) from pre-individual-language ones. The bases for derivation come from the Indo-European root inventory and are mostly designations referring to water: “In terms of semasiology and etymology, the primitive and undoubtedly oldest stratum of names proceeds from so-called ‘water words’, that is, designations for ‘(flowing) water’, ‘spring’, ‘brook’, ‘river’ (or ‘to flow’), ‘(water)course’ (or ‘to run’), and the like, with countless finer and finest nuances of meaning, which were available in abundance to early humans through their close observation of nature …” (Krahe 1964a: 34). Following Krahe, these appellative bases are called ‘water words’.

Die Ergebnisse seiner Forschungen fasste er in fünf Punkten zusammen (Krahe 1964a: 32–33), die ich hier noch einmal skizziere: Die Gewässernamen der ältesten Schicht in weiten Teilen Europas sind indogermanischer Herkunft; in Südfrankreich und in den Mittelmeerländern haben sie allerdings ältere, wohl vorindogermanische Strata überlagert; an ihr sind vor allem westindogermanische Sprachen mit Einschluss des Baltischen beteiligt (weniger das Slavische); diese Hydronymie ist wohl in der ersten Hälfte des zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausends entstanden.

Diese Grundsätze sind von Krahes Schüler Schmid (2004: 118–133) einer strengen Kritik unterzogen worden. Die wichtigsten Punkte darin sind:

1. Numerous European hydronyms can be etymologized only with the help of East Indo-European appellatives, which means that the hydronyms must derive from a Proto-Indo-European language;

2. The Baltic languages constitute a striking center of Alteuropa hydronymy;

3. Findings from hydronym research have implications for the early subdivision of the Indo-European languages.

Further research has shown that Slavic, too, belongs to the circle of “Alteuropa” languages (Udolph 1990, 1996, 1997). This also includes pre-Slavic remnants in the well-researched Slavic-German contact area between the Elbe and the Oder (Eichler 1981), especially in the studies of the

164

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

Alteuropa, Iller, Alster, Elster und aléti

Leipzig Working Group (German-Slavic Studies in Onomastics and Settlement History) and the Berlin onomasticians (Berlin Contributions to Onomastic Research; Brandenburg Place-Name Book).

The conception of “Alteuropa Hydronymy” has been criticized ever since it was developed. So far, this criticism has concerned, for example, the frequent occurrence of -a- instead of the expected -o- (“aquals a”); the question of whether this stratum of names contains only derivations or also compounds; the question of how to distinguish it from non-Indo-European or pre-Indo-European strata in the Mediterranean region; the question of center and periphery; and, finally, the accusation that it is not an Indo-European hydronymy. I have already addressed these points elsewhere (Udolph 2003, 2010); today I would like to focus on a new attack concerning the complexes “Indo-Europeanist approaches to hydronyms,” “laryngeal theory,” and “appellative material of the Indo-European languages from a modern perspective.” Specifically, this concerns Bichlmeier’s (2009) contribution.

THE “WATER ROOT” *el-/*ol- UNDER CRITICISM

Bichlmeier (2009) kritisiert den heutigen Stand der Konzeption der Alteuropäischen Hydronymie als veraltet. Im Wesentlichen stützt er diese Kritik auf moderne Auffassungen der Indogermanistik, in der sich in weiten Kreisen die Auffassung durchgesetzt hat, dass in Rekonstruktionen der Wort-, Wurzel- und morphologischen Ansätze der „Grundsprache“ oder des „Urindogermanischen“ mit „Laryngalen“, im Allgemeinen verstanden als Laute, die den Konsonanten zugezählt werden, zu rechnen sei. Natürlich ist und bleibt diese Annahme nur eine Theorie, das muss hier einfach schon mal gesagt werden. Die Behauptung von Bichlmeier (2009: 15), der Ansatz von Laryngalen „sei über das Stadium einer ‘Theorie’ schon seit Jahrzehnten hinaus“, ist aus zweierlei Gründen unberechtigt: zum einen wird es immer eine Theorie bleiben, wie jeder Ansatz einer nicht belegten „re“konstruierten Form (angeblich) indogermanischer Provenienz (das gilt auch für r sonans und ähnliche Fälle, auch wenn jeder damit arbeitet) und zum andern etwa stört sich kein Naturwissenschaftler daran, wenn von der Relativitätstheorie gesprochen wird. Die Gefahr ist allerdings – und das wird auch in dem Beitrag von Bichlmeier deutlich –, dass die (angeblichen) Rekonstruktionen als bare Münze und als sichere Basis für die Beurteilung z.B. auch von strittigen Fragen genommen werden. Genau um diesen Punkt geht es jetzt im Folgenden.

Since Krahe’s investigations, there has been broad agreement in many parts of Europe that an Indo-European root *el-/*ol-

Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers

165

JÜRGEN UDOLPH

‘to flow’ is to be assumed. This assumption was based, on the one hand, on the large number of hydronyms in many parts of Europe that appear to presuppose this root (I have already mentioned them above; here are a few more: Ola, Alia, Alle < Alna, Elz < *Alantia, Aland, Alsa, Ol´sa, among others), and, on the other, on the appellative basis, especially in Baltic water words such as aléti, etc. (also mentioned above).

Gegen diese Auffassung wird jetzt von Bichlmeier (2009: 16–17) entschieden vorgegangen. Auf der Grundlage einer von Emile Benveniste aufgestellten Hypothese – ich betone, dass dieses Wort bei Bichlmeier fällt, womit klar ist, dass auch in diesem Fall mit unsicheren Annahmen gerechnet wird –, die besagt, dass man für die urindogermanische Minimalstruktur der Wurzel einen Ansatz *KVK- (= Konsonant + Vokal + Konsonant) annehmen sollte, wird somit gefordert, dass sämtliche Wurzelansätze mit einem Konsonanten beginnen müssen: „Das heißt nichts anderes, als dass sämtliche Wurzelansätze Pokornys, die mit einem Vokal anlauten, als überholt gelten müssen und nunmehr korrekterweise mit anlautendem Laryngal anzusetzen sind“ (Bichlmeier 2009: 16). Daraus folgt für die bisher weithin anerkannte indogermanische „Wasserwurzel“ *el-/*ol-: „Die immer wieder für die Etymologisierung von Gewässernamen herangezogene Wurzel *el-/*ol- (Pokorny, IEW 306–307) ist nach dem gerade Gesagten... nun als *Hel-/*Hol- anzusetzen, genauer wohl noch als *h₁elh₂- ‘wohin treiben’ (immer vorausgesetzt, dass es sich nicht bisweilen doch um keltische Wörter bzw. Wortstämme handelt, was aufgrund des keltischen p-Schwunds im Anlaut auch die Rückführung auf idg. *pelh₂- ‘sich nähern’ denkbar macht)“.

Aber die Kritik geht noch weiter: in einer Anmerkung heißt es (Bichlmeier 2009: 17): „Es sei aber an dieser unscheinbaren Stelle noch deutlich darauf hingewiesen, dass nicht einmal Pokorny a.a.O. dieser Wurzel die oft zu lesende... Bedeutung ‘fließen, strömen’ zugesteht! Offensichtlich findet sich diese Bedeutung im appellativischen Wortschatz gar nicht und wurde der Wurzel wohl erst im Rahmen der Forschungen zur alteuropäischen Hydronymie beigelegt“.

These are charges that call for a response. I will try to provide one.

1. The reconstruction of an Indo-European root *h₁elh₂- is by no means certain. In the footnote, H. Bichlmeier conceals more convincing attempts: other scholars, for instance, start from *h₁el- ‘go’, or (Watkins) from *el₂-.

Moreover, a more convincing solution for hydronyms, with a reconstruction lacking an initial laryngeal, is preferable because it fits all European river names. Here one faces—and this recurs—the question of whether an Indo-European root should be reconstructed on the basis of dubious and poorly attested appellatives or instead on the basis of the two or three dozen European hydronyms.

One should not complicate something that can be dealt with more simply.

166

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

Alteuropa, Iller, Alster, Elster und aléti

2. The indications of a possible Celtic reconstruction with an original initial *p- can be disregarded for the great majority of the hydronyms mentioned above. Bichlmeier’s apparent aim is to reduce the abundance of the *el-/*ol-hydronyms under discussion—I will retain this formulation. The attempt is unsuitable because only a small proportion of the names in question lie in territory that was originally Celtic.

3. A root *h₁elh₂- ‘to drive where?’ may conceivably be expected in hydronyms; it is not the norm. Moreover, as Bichlmeier himself emphasizes, this Indo-European reconstruction is based exclusively on Greek material. There are indeed “water words” securely attested only in this language that nevertheless occur in Central European names, but another family, which has long been cited, is much closer; the point is:

4. Lithuanian aléti ‘to flow, to be flooded with water’, Latvian aluõts ‘spring’, apparently with an –m– extension in Lithuanian alméti ‘to flow continuously’, aļmės, eļmės ‘matter flowing out of the body, blood serum’, almaĩs ‘hurried, violent’, have been cited since the beginning of scholarly research on Baltic names. I mention only the names Kazimieras Būga, Jānis Endzelīns, Petras Jonikas (in: Beiträge zur Namenforschung 2, 1951: 14); Aleksandras Vanagas, Vilius Pėteraitis, Vytautas Mažiulis, Ivan Duridanov, and Pranas Skardžius, without citing the literature in detail, and conclude the list by pointing to more recent works by Maria Biolik and Grasilда Blažienė. The new work Lietuvos Vietovardžių Žodynas (2008: 62) offers a wealth of Lithuanian names that can be connected here; compare only Alỹs, Alantà, Ālantas, Alejà, Aluonà, Aluõtė, Al-upė. These Baltic names almost certainly belong with the Baltic appellatives cited above.

5. Faced with the question of whether, taking a somewhat broader view, one should connect, for example, the Aland, a tributary of the Elbe, with Baltic water words and the names found there, or instead with a hypothetically reconstructed Indo-European basis *h₁elh₂- ‘to drive where?’, one must clearly favor a connection with Baltic, also given the fact that Baltic and Germanic are closely related and that striking correspondences likewise exist between Baltic hydronyms and those on old Germanic territory.

6. Indo-European studies fail—as Bichlmeier’s contribution also demonstrates—to take into account the findings of hydronym research to date, the findings concerning early contacts and relationships, and the consequences that follow from these for the early branching of the Indo-European languages. Laryngeal reconstructions alone cannot make up for this. Moreover, it gives much food for thought when, in the work of an Indo-Europeanist who—natur-

Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers

167

JÜRGEN UDOLPH

… works “laryngeally,” says of the problematic interpretation of the Treveri tribal name: “In my opinion, the phonological problems can be avoided by positing a laryngeal-less variant *uer-, which may have been extracted from old compounds, in which laryngeal loss is frequent” (RGA 31: 174). One cannot escape the impression that laryngeals are introduced whenever convenient. The reason for this uncertainty is obvious: ultimately, the theory cannot be verified and entails considerable uncertainties.

THE NAME OF THE Iller

The name of the Iller has also previously been explained in connection with *el- / *ol-. In his explanation, Snyder (1965: 183) follows Krahe and starts from a basic form *Elira with a -ira- suffix. Bichlmeier’s criticism (2009: 26–28) takes this as its starting point: “Iller: many questions, few clear answers.” Here are the main points of his discussion:

– The word-initial H- that occasionally occurs in the attestations, e.g. 10th c. Hilara, Hyler, can be disregarded;

– A short -i- should be assumed initially;

– One must posit OHG /il(1)ara-/ or /il(1)era-/;

– Since word-initial i- would then have had to be lowered to e-, several considerations favor a pre-Germanic reconstruction *El-ir-a;

– According to Bichlmeier, this reconstruction presents two problems: a suffix -ira requires explanation, and starting from *El-ir-a “the geminate -ll- in the early attestations has no explanation”:

The latter two problems are discussed in greater detail; here is a passage on the suffix: “For if one goes through the known suffixes, they contain either an *-i- or an *-r-, but never both together: the *-i- most likely derives from the comparative formative, whereas before an r-containing suffix one would most likely still expect a former thematic vowel” (Bichlmeier 2009: 29).

The geminate is explained as follows: “In Germanic, a laryngeal following a resonant caused it to geminate (*VRHV > VRRV), at least when the preceding vowel bore the accent (i.e. *VRHV > VRRV).”

Since, therefore, the previous reconstruction is unconvincing, he proposes a new solution, a Germanic explanation: “From the root *h₁elh₂- ‘to drive toward’—continued in the verbal system of Indo-European only in Greek and Armenian (and possibly Celtic)—a comparative formed in typically Germanic fashion would yield the PIE form *h₁élh₂-ios-/h₁elh₂-is-, with the secondary feminine extension -ā- and generalized accent on the root (*h₁élh₂-is- + -ā-), that is, Germanic *ellizō- > OHG /illera/”

168

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

Alteuropa, Iller, Alster, Elster und aléti

Bichlmeier concedes that problems remain with these considerations as well; however, that is not meant to be the decisive point of my criticism of this proposal. It fails on several decisive grounds:

1. An allegedly early geminate -ll- is not present at all in the name Iller! The attestations of the hydronym and the place- or district name are given in Snyder (1965: 49–50); I present them chronologically: 769 in pago hilargouiae, 773 in pago Ilergoue, pago Hilergoue, 804 Hillergaugensem, 832 in pago hilargoue, 833 in pago hilirgaoe, 851 in pago qui dicitur Ilargouue, 853 in pago qui dicitur Ilargouue, 972 hilargouuensi, 983 in hilaram, 1049 Ilara, Ilaris, Hilara, and so on; the geminate appears tentatively from 1155 Hillara, but especially only after forms such as 1291 Ilr, Ilre, 1351 Ilr, becoming more frequent from 1390 Iller.

2. Careful attention to the historical record makes *Elira the most likely reconstruction of the basic form. Under the influence of -i- on the initial E-, this regularly gave rise to Middle High German *Ilere; weakening in an unstressed syllable then produced the attested forms Ilre, Ilr. Only afterwards did the geminate arise. Laryngeals played no role.

3. The suffix -ira, which Bichlmeier does not accept, is undoubtedly present in the names. Thus, already in Adolf Bach (1953: 189), in the discussion of -r-suffixes in names, we find the observation: “The suffix occurs in our place names especially in female river names and appears here in old times as –ra, -ara, -ura, -ira, -era”:

It is also found in the hydronyms Elber (Kocher region) < *Albira (Snyder 1965: 183), in the well-known Eger (most recently discussed in Pleintinger 2008: 34–36), in the Aire (Meuse department, France), 782 Agira, with tributary Agron, 785 Agira (Buchmüller – Haubrichs – Spang 1986/87: 77), and also—as a secondary suffix, perhaps even comparable to the Iller—in the hydronym Ager near Wels, formerly Agre, Agra (on this, Altdeutsches Namenbuch 19991: 12: “The absence of primary umlaut presupposes an original *Agria or *Agara (suffix weakened), Old High German/early Middle High German *Agira, which could still trigger secondary umlaut”).

A suffix -ira is therefore attested in European hydronyms. The problem Bichlmeier believes he has identified is that Europe’s Indo-European hydronyms do not always correspond to what Indo-Europeanists can derive from appellative material in the individual languages of eastern and southern Europe. This raises the question: why do the proposed forms of hydronyms not always agree with the (re)constructions? This is the decisive point that should be discussed in the future.

3. Another unacceptable aspect of Bichlmeier’s reasoning is his derivation of the conjectured basic form of the name *Iller from the Germanic reconstruction *ellizō-, with further development of *-z- > -r-. Such a development is possible only in the Proto-Germanic domain, that is, on Proto-Germanic settlement territory.

Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers

169

JÜRGEN UDOLPH

Whatever one’s position on the question of the earliest settlements of Germanic tribes (I have set out my views in detail elsewhere: Udolph 1994), the geographical area of the Iller certainly does not belong to them. The assumption that it could be a Germanic hydronym formation with the suffix -r- must also be rejected, given the distribution of this suffix (Udolph 1994: 162–199, especially 169–199), which extends hardly any farther south than the German Central Uplands (Udolph 1994: 191 – map 24).

In this connection, I have also pointed out the -r-suffix with variation in the prefix vowel in Germanic and pre-Germanic place names and hydronyms. I have also discussed the absence of a Germanic derivational basis for the place names Atter, Diever, Eimer, Emmer, Iber, Gummer, Inger, Kelbra and the like, Lamme, Levern, Limmer, Lüdern, Mahner, Münder, Nebra, Netra, Ölber, Ölper, Rüper, Salder, Sitter, Sö h re (Udolph 1994: 197), and noted that some of these names must undoubtedly contain a suffix *-ira.

To summarize regarding the hydronym Iller: the most likely starting point is *Elira, which contains a derivation from the root *el-/*ol- (the apparently attested change from *-o- > -a- belongs in the discussion of the so-called “aquatic a” of Old European hydronymy and will occupy me elsewhere); the suffix is to be identified as *-ira, which has secure parallels both in Europe’s pre-individual-language hydronymic landscape and in the area where Germanic gradually separated from an Indo-European dialect continuum.

Alster, Elster AND LATIN alō, -ere ‘NOURISH, BRING UP’

The “water root” *el-/*ol- and the hydronyms derived from it have also been criticized on other grounds for some time. At issue is a name family widespread in Germany, above all through the well-known rivers Alster near Hamburg and (Weiße, Schwarze) Elster in Saxony and Brandenburg.

While Krahe, his students, and other researchers argue that these names should be viewed as derivatives of the *el-/*ol-root under discussion here (compare Krahe (1959: 9–11); Laur (1981: 116) (correcting a view of his own – Wolfgang Laur (1960: 344)); Udolph (1989: 271–273); Udolph (1994: 221, 243–245); Walther (1971: 236)), Nordic researchers and other scholars (Andersson 1972: 36–38 et passim, list of attestations in Strandberg (1986: 40); Greule (2006: 474)) have proposed a different etymology, which comes close to an idea of Julius Pokorny (1959: 27). Pokorny had considered a connection between

170

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

Alteuropa, Iller, Alster, Elster und aléti

hydronyms such as Almos, Alme, Almo, among others, and Latin almus ‘nourishing, beneficent’.

In much the same way, Thorsten Andersson and others have sought to connect Alster, Elster, etc., with a root related to Latin alō, -ere ‘to nourish, bring up’. The relevant meaning is presumably not the general one, ‘nourish, feed, nurture; sustain, feed (suckle), fuel’, but rather a specifically attested nuance, ‘nourish, feed, cause to grow’, said of bodies of water, as in sentences such as monte decurrens velut amnis, imbres quem super notas aluere ripas (Horace) or Padus aliis amnibus adeo augescit atque alitur, ut... (Mela). Andersson states specifically (quoted after Strandberg 1986: 40): “Since the meaning ‘growing, swelling, overflowing’ is well-founded in fact for Nordic names such as Alma and Alster..., these names should be assigned to *al- (alan) ‘grow; cause to grow, nourish’.”

Mit meiner Meinung nach guten Gründen hatte sich schon Krahe (1953: 113, Anm. 11) gegen diese These ausgesprochen. Wie ich an anderer Stelle bemerkt habe (Udolph 1989: 272), gibt es eine überzeugende Ablehnung dieser Auffassung von Laur (1981: 116), noch deutlicher Laur (1985: 479): „Der See- und Flußname Alster wird auch hier wie sonst in der schwedischen Namenforschung in der Bedeutung von ‘der Anschwellende’ aufgefasst. Wir fragen aber, ob das Verb alan im Germanischen überhaupt die intransitive Bedeutung von ‘wachsen’ gehabt hat, wie in den Wörterbüchern oft angegeben wird. In allen überlieferten und gebräuchlichen Sprachformen erscheint es in der transitiven von ‘ernähren, aufziehen’... [Es] scheint mir auch im Gotischen alan eher die transitive Bedeutung zu haben. Unser Wort setzt die intransitive von ‘wachsen’ voraus, ebenso aber auch lat. altus ‘hoch’ beziehungsweise ‘tief’ und mir. alt ‘Höhe’. Man wird daher vermuten müssen, dass diese Bedeutung bereits voreinzelsprachlich ist. Sie geht also über den Rahmen des Germanischen hinaus... [Es] fragt es sich daher, ob in den Gewässernamen doch nicht mit Krahe und Schmid die Wurzel *el-/*ol- als Gewässerbenennung im Rahmen der alteuropäischen Hydronymie (man vergleiche lett. aluōts ‘Quelle’ aus *alantas) der anderen Deutung vorzuziehen ist, zumal sie eine weit größere Verbreitung hat“.

Laurs Vermutungen werden jetzt durch einen Eintrag im LIV (2001: 262) bestätigt. Dort finden sich unter dem Lemma *_h₂el^-1 ‘nähren, aufziehen’ die folgenden relativ sicheren einzelsprachlichen Entsprechungen: lat. alō, -ere ‘nähren, aufziehen’, altir. -ail ‘nährt, zieht auf’, got. (⁺) alands ‘aufwachsend’, anord. ala ‘aufziehen, gebären’, got. *aljan ‘mästen’. Auch beim besten Willen vermag ich nicht zu verstehen, wie daraus eine für Gewässernamen notwendige Bedeutungsnuance „anschwellen, überschwemmen“ entwickelt worden sein soll – und das schon sehr früh.

Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers

171

JÜRGEN UDOLPH

Allenfalls wird man dem Vorschlag von Peter Anreiter (1997: 105–106.; 2009: 23–24) folgen können, den Ortsnamen Laliders im Karwendelgebiet vor allem wegen altirisch altram ‘Nahrung’ zu der Sippe um lat. alere, etwa im Sinn von ‘fruchtbares, nahrungsreiches Gebiet’ zu stellen. Von hier zu einer Grundbedeutung für Gewässernamen ist es aber ein weiter, entschieden zu weiter Weg.

Another point, which has played no role either for Bichlmeier or for proponents of the “nourish” theory, but is of fundamental importance for assessing Alster and Elster, is the existence of the hydronym Ulster in the Rhön, a tributary of the Werra.

THE Ulster

It is remarkable that today the Ulster, almost 60 km long and the most important and central river in the interior of the Rhön, plays hardly any role in discussions of Alster and Elster. Yet Krahe (1959: 11) had already pointed out that the Ulster has the same structure as Alster and Elster.

Die älteren Belege stehen bei Sperber (1966: 108): 819 Ulstra, 836 in Ulstra(m), (vor 915) in Ulstram usw. Krahe (1959: 11) sieht in ihr – ohne es expressis verbis zu sagen – eine schwundstufige Bildung zu *Alestra/*Alistra ‘Alster, Elster’ mit regelmäßiger germanischer Weiterentwicklung eines ursprünglichen -l-sonans zu Ul-. Dem entspricht der Name der Fulda, gleichgültig, wie man diesen Gewässernamen auch sonst noch analysieren möchte. Die Auffassung als Schwundstufe zu idg. *el-/*ol-, unter Umständen auch zu *u̯el- ‘drehen, winden, wälzen’, haben Hans Walther (1971: 236) und Udolph (1994: 255) übernommen.

If Ulster belongs with Alster and Elster, this provides a further argument for positing an Indo-European base *el-/*ol-, supplemented by *l̥-, in the sense ‘flow, stream’ (based on the well-attested cognate family in the Baltic languages). It is not insignificant that a parallel formation, zero grade + -str-, may perhaps be found in the Unstrut, lying about 100 km away (discussed in detail in Udolph 2010b: 24–26).

This, in turn, gives rise to further serious objections to connecting Alster and Elster with Latin alere ‘nourish’ and with related appellatives.

LITERATURE

Altdeutsches Namenbuch 1999: Altdeutsches Namenbuch. Die Überlieferung der Ortsnamen in Österreich und Südtirol von den Anfängen bis 1200, Bd. 1. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

172

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

Alteuropa, Iller, Alster, Elster und alḗti

Andersson Thorsten 1972: Norden och det forna Europa. – Namn och Bygd 60, 5–52.

Anreiter Peter 1997: Breonen, Genauen und Fokunaten. Vorrömisches Namengut in den Tiroler Alpen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.

Anreiter Peter 2009: Gibt es onymische Hinweise auf vordeutschen Bergbau im Großraum von Schwaz? – Acta Onomastica 50, 7–47.

Bach Adolf 1953: Deutsche Namenkunde. Die deutschen Ortsnamen 2(1). Heidelberg: Winter-Verlag.

Bichlmeier Harald 2009: Bairisch-österreichische Orts- und Gewässernamen aus indogermanistischer Sicht. – Blätter für oberdeutsche Namenforschung, 3–63. http://wcms.uzi.uni-halle.de/download.php?down=15539&elem=2313616.

Buchmüller Monika, Haubrichs Wolfgang, Spang Rolf 1986/87: Name continuity in the early Middle Ages. The non-Germanic settlement and water names of the Saarland. – Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Saargegend 34/35, 24–163.

Eichler Ernst 1981: Zur ältesten (vorslawischen) Schicht der Gewässernamen im altsorbischen und altpolabischen Sprachgebiet. – Lĕtopis Instituta za serbski ludospyt, Rjad A 28, 122–137.

Ferguson Robert 1862: The River-Names of Europe. London: Williams & Norgate [usw.].

Greule Albrecht 2006: Rezension zu: Grosse Flüsse auf dem Gebiet der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Supplementband zur Reihe Hydronymia Germaniae. Mainz-Stuttgart: Steiner-Verlag. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung, Neue Folge 41, 471–475.

Krahe Hans 1953: Alteuropäische Flussnamen. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung 4, 104–122.

Krahe Hans 1959: Über einige Gewässernamen mit -st-Suffix. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung 10, 1–17.

Krahe Hans 1964a: Unsere ältesten Flussnamen. Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden.

Krahe Hans 1964b: Vom Illyrischen zum Alteuropäischen. – Indogermanische Forschungen 69, 201–212.

Laur Wolfgang 1960: Die Ortsnamen in Schleswig-Holstein mit Einschluß der nordelbischen Teile von Groß-Hamburg und der Vierlande. Schleswig: Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Landes- und Volkstumsforschung.

Laur Wolfgang 1981: Gewässernamen in Schleswig-Holstein: ein Überblick. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung, Neue Folge 16, 107–124.

Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers

173

ALL_62_63_maketas.indd 173

2011.06.17 08:24:12

JÜRGEN UDOLPH

Laur Wolfgang 1985: Rezension zu: Ortnamen i Värmlands län. Del I, Uppsala 1984. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung. Neue Folge 20, 478–480.

LIV 2001: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Bearb. von Helmut Rix [u.a.]. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Pleintinger Andre 2008: Die Gewässernamen im Bereich der oberen Eger. Eine onomastische Untersuchung. München: Martin Meidenbauer Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Pokorny Julius 1959: Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1. Bern–Frankfurt: Francke Verlag.

RGA – Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 1–36, 2nd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1968–2008.

Rozwadowski Jan 1948: Studia nad nazwami wód słowiańskich. Kraków: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności.

Schmid Wolfgang P. 2004: Linguisticae Scientiae Collectanea. Ausgewählte Schriften. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Snyder William H. 1965: Zur ältesten Namenschicht der rechten Nebenflüsse der Donau von der Quelle bis zur Einmündung des Inns. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung 16, 176–203.

Sperber Rüdiger 1966: Die Nebenflüsse von Werra und Fulda bis zum Zusammenfluss (Hydronymia Germaniae A 5). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Strandberg Svante 1960: Kontinentalgermanische Hydronymie aus nordischer Sicht. – Probleme der Namenbildung. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 17–57.

Udolph Jürgen 1989: Germanische Hydronymie aus kontinentaler Sicht. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung. Neue Folge 24, 269–291.

Udolph Jürgen 1990: Die Stellung der Gewässernamen Polens innerhalb der alteuropäischen Hydronymie. Heidelberg: Winter-Verlag.

Udolph Jürgen 1994: Namenkundliche Studien zum Germanenproblem. Berlin–New York: De Gruyter.

Udolph Jürgen 1996: Slavische Gewässernamengebung. – Namenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik, 2. Teilband. Berlin–New York, 1539–1547.

Udolph Jürgen 1997: Alteuropäische Hydronymie und urslavische Gewässernamen. – Onomastica 42, 21–70.

Udolph Jürgen 2003: Zur Kritik am Konzept der alteuropäischen Hydronymie. – Namenkundliche Informationen 83/84: 21–39.

174

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII

Alteuropa, Iller, Alster, Elster und aléti

Udolph Jürgen 2010a: Sprachen die Nutzer der Scheibe von Nebra keltisch? – Eurasisches Magazin (Internet-Zeitschrift). http://www.eurasischesmagazin.de/images/magazin/04-10/udolph_nebra.pdf

Udolph Jürgen 2010b: Euro-Onomastik: Die Alteuropäische Hydronymie. – Handbuch der Eurolinguistik. Wiesbaden, 843–861.

Vennemann Theo 2003: Europa Vasconica – Europa Semitica, Berlin-New York: Mouton–de Gruyter.

Walther Hans 1971: Namenkundliche Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte des Saale- und Mittelelbegebietes bis zum Ende des 9. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Hydronyms of Old Europe

Iller, Alster, Elster and Lith. verb. aléti

SUMMARY

The article is dedicated to the memory of the author’s teacher, Prof. Wolfgang P. Schmid. The first (theoretical) part briefly discusses the methodology for identifying and analyzing Old European hydronyms, based on the results of the fundamental research of Robert Ferguson, Jan Rozwadowski, Hans Krahe, and Schmid, and identifies the main problems and criticism of this branch of onomastics.

The second part of the article analyzes the root PIE *el–/*ol– ‘to flow (of water)’, which suggests a hydronymic semantic connotation, and its possible derivatives. Harald Bichlmeier’s study “Bairisch-österreichische Orts- und Gewässernamen aus indogermanistischer Sicht” (Blätter für oberdeutsche Namenforschung, pp. 3–63), published in 2009, is critically evaluated; it rejects the possibility that this root is of non-PIE origin, reconstructs a laryngeal proto-form, and offers entirely new etymological explanations for its derivatives.

On the basis of the casuistic nature of Bichlmeier’s arguments, the possibility of reconstructing PIE *Hel- / *Hol- or *h₁elh₂- ‘to drive (out), to move’ is rejected, and the traditional derivation of the hydronyms Ola, Alia, Alle, Elz, Aland, Alsa from PIE *el–/*ol– ‘to flow (of water)’, commonly associated with Lith. verb. aléti ‘to flow, to fill with water’, is endorsed.

In discussing the origin of the hydronym Iller, Bichlmeier’s claim that reconstructing the suffix *-ira- is unjustified because no such derivational formant exists is questioned, since several Germanic hydronyms reflect such a formant; moreover, the hydronym’s form with a geminate -ll- is attested to the 12th century, or else a proto-form *Elira is reconstructed (without the *-z- > -r- alternation posited by Bichlmeier, according to Verner’s law). It is conjectured that this hydronym may belong to the lexicon of Old Europe. The German hydronyms Alster, Elster, associated with Lat. verb. alō, -ere ‘to feed, to raise’, could also belong to this group of words.

The river name Ulster (and its variants) is likewise associated with PIE *el–/*ol– ‘ditto’.

Diskusinės publikacijos / Discussion papers

175

JŪRGEN UDOLPH

Based on the factual and linguistic analysis of the hydronyms, the following conclusions can be reached:

1) the reconstruction of the non-laryngeal Proto-Indo-European root *el-/*ol- ‘to flow (of water)’ is justified;

2) the hydronyms Iller, Alster, Elster are derived from Proto-Indo-European *el-/*ol- ‘to flow as well’;

3) the territory inhabited by the Balts is rich in Old European hydronyms; therefore, the analysis of its water names is of particular importance;

4) proponents of laryngeal theory should not ignore the possibility that an Old European lexical substrate exists;

5) Wolfgang P. Schmid’s studies of Baltic and other Indo-European hydronyms remain crucial for the analysis of Indo-European hydronyms.

Received on 12 December 2010.

JŪRGEN UDOLPH

Steinbreite 9

D-37124 Rosdorf

E. mail – [email protected]

176

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII