Sociolingvistinis žvilgsnis į XVI–XVII a. Rytų Lietuvos antroponimiją

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLV (2001), 39-61 Sociolinguistic view of the 16th-17th centuries. Anthroponymics of Eastern Lithuania LAIMA On the basis of an analysis of personal names recorded in the 1554 and 1636 court rolls of Linkmenys (East Lithuania) it is suggested that at least from the 16th century onward a mechanism of Ruthenianisation could have operated in the lands of present-day Lithuania, similar to the process of Polonisation that operated later. Ruthenian, the spoken variety of the language of the Ducal Chancery, could have spread among the gentry as a status symbol. This process could also have affected part of the peasantry. The fact that shortened forms of Christian names may appear both in a Lithuanian and in a Slavic shape shows that both must have been in use: it cannot be atributed to scribal habit. This means that in the 16th century there may have been foci of Lithuanian-- Ruthenian bilingualism far to the north of the Lithuanian-- Ruthenian language border. If so, then our view of the mechanism of introduction of (part of the) Slavicisms in the Eastern Lithuanian dialects must be revised: they could have been introduced along with new features of everyday life, under the influence of the written (especially Church Slavonic) tradition, or as a result of bilingualism spreading from the 16th century onward. 1. SOCIOLINGUISTICAL SITUATION When discussing the phonetic changes of the Lithuanian language or of its individual dialects, especially the eastern ones, over several centuries, it is generally accepted that “very close and long-standing contacts with the Eastern Slavs and all kinds of intermingling could not fail to influence the development of the Lithuanian language” (Zinkevičius 1987: 68). It is common to explain the emergence of a large part of the lexical Slavisms with the interaction of cultures, the development of civilization, i.e. as the designation of INNOVATIONS with borrowed or paraphrased words. In such cases it is not necessary to have very close and active contacts, borrowings can spread through intermediaries: “[...] Lithuanians before Mindaugas’s time were already somewhat acquainted with Christianity, apparently mainly through their neighbours, the Eastern Slavs: they knew and used Christian terms and names of Christian holidays received from the Eastern Slavs, and some Christian personal names were familiar to them. Lithuanians most likely received all this naturally through communication with their neighbouring Christians, trading with them and exchanging cultural values, because we do not have direct data on missionary activity in Lithuania at that time” (Zinkevičius 2000: 14). It is known that the borrowing of vocabulary through active relations is also characterized by the fact that foreign words already present in the own language are taken over or replaced with foreign ones, the word is given an additional meaning not present in the own language, borrowed from foreign ones, when there is another (own) word to describe this meaning, i.e., in addition to the simple, natural, there is also excess. 40 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ is borrowing. It is precisely such borrowings that were avoided when writing the Great Dictionary of Lithuanian Language. If we try to compile dictionaries of individual dialects or dialects from it and compare them with the few written ones already available, we would first of all miss borrowings of the type already discussed. However, the study of dialectal Slavisms and their chronology (for more on the literature on this issue and his own observations see Kardelis 1999) certainly does not deny the hypothesis that some lexical Slavisms may have entered into some of the present-day South and East Highlands (especially Vilnius and Utena) spoken long ago and not only as cultural borrowings, i.e. with new or newly meaningful realities. After all, there are some old Slavisms in the conversation, which simply displaced the undoubtedly used savs words (in the names systems and subsystems, both semantic and grammatical, there are a kind of “holes” that are filled by Slavisms). These are typical phenomena of bilingualism and active contact. Such Slavisms, which were used constantly and for a long time, were smoothed and changed, so it is not easy to trace the time of their emergence (see Urbutis 1992, 1993), but it can be assumed that some of them could have entered the 16th-17th centuries. There are no pure monuments of the spoken variant of the Eastern Lithuanian dialects of that time, and the writing of the so-called eastern variant of the scripted language, based on the forming Vilnius interdialects, reflects the higher level, i.e. the scripted language, which in turn experienced the influence of the Slavic (and not only) languages, also due to the interaction with the source languages, from which a large part of that writing was translated. A certain monument of language usage, albeit with considerable reservations, are various administrative and ecclesiastical lists of inhabitants and place names. It is clear that the relationship between Lithuanian and the Gudi languages is very old. Here we would like to discuss them based on the data of the sources of the mid-16th and early 17th centuries. A more recent idea is that the spoken language of the Gudi could have had a considerable influence on the dialects of present-day Eastern Lithuania, especially on the vocabulary, through direct contacts of the lowest social stratum of the population — the peasants — and in some places possible active bilingualism in the spoken language NOT ONLY IN THE EASTERN RIM OF ETHNIC LITHUANIA (Zinkevičius 1987: 112) (cf. Vidugiris 1983: 53), BUT IN A MUCH LARGER REGION TO THE WEST. A more moderate formulation of the assumption raised here is possible: if the facts confirm that in the territory of present-day Eastern Lithuania in the 16th-17th centuries (perhaps only in certain localities) there were active contacts and cases of bilingualism between Lithuanian and Gudi languages, then perhaps part of the Lithuanian-Gudi ethnic group could be considered as a separate ethnic group. 10. Currently, in Lithuanian linguistics, the Belarusian term is more common, but it is usually associated with the name of the present-day state of Belarus and its inhabitants, and here, when discussing the problems of the middle of the 16th — early 17th centuries, it is probably necessary to use the ethnonym gudai, which also has old traditions in Lithuanian, and to call the language of this ethnic group the Gudi language (cf. Gudavičius 1999: 436). The Lithuanians began to call the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who spoke Slavic languages and lived in part of the so-called Black, White and Red Russia, Gudai. The Russians of the Grand Duchy of Moscow called them simply Lithuanians, ru. Aumeunbi, they called themselves Russians, ru. pycckue (Cekmonas 1988: 42), and perceiving themselves as subjects of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania — simply Lithuanians. There is an unusual abbreviation in Lithuanian language history, gu. —in the Gujarati language. Incidentally, the 1554 source under consideration mentions Gudiškių manor (dworu jego Gudziszek IN, 121), which indicates that others were not Gudiškiai; There are personal names of ethnonymic origin: Szczepan Gudelis 1N,.., 84; Jezioru Taru miedzy polmi Mosia Nareykowicz, ktorę zowią Gudziskiego IN, 123; Janielis z Mosiem bratem Melancy, ludzi gudziskie IN,.., 122, although the latter two may indicate belonging to Gudiškių manor. There is another name of ethnonymic origin —Andrzey Tatarzyn IN,.., 86, 0 Lach IN, 104 robi The name can be associated both with the ethnonym and with the abbreviations of Alexey or Ilya, cf. B,, 24, 71. Remember the reasoning of J. Ochmanski (1996: 66-7) about the possible chronology and history of the emergence of such names. XVI-XVII a. EASTERN LITHUANIA ANTROPONIMIJA | 41 The appearance of Slavisms in dialects could be explained precisely by them, i.e. in individual cases to be postponed to earlier times? The search for such Slavisms is a completely different subject. It is important to clarify whether there is evidence that such circumstances could have arisen for bilingualism at that time. It is necessary to add that no one denies the interaction of Lithuanian and Gudian languages (see Zinkevičius 1987: 54-75), but usually we are talking either about active contacts of later periods, i.e. after the plague and wars that ravaged Lithuania in the early 18th century, when a larger number of Gudians moved to the empty eastern and southeastern outskirts of present-- day Lithuania, or about extremely ancient times. Here, based on anthroponymic data, we would like to try to prove that in some areas of present-- day Eastern Lithuania, active contacts with the Gudi could have occurred in the middle of the 16th and early 17th centuries. Zinkevičius (1977: 6-7) has written about the fact that a considerable number of Guds lived in Vilnius at the beginning of the 17th century, but he examined a document of the Catholic church, so the names of Orthodox people who simply could not enter the church were not examined (and at least some of the Guds, like Lithuanians, were probably Orthodox at that time, since there were 9 churches in Vilnius alone). And in general, many of the Gudes of that time, who, by the way, until quite recently (XIV-XV centuries) had become a nation with its own language, developed from the western Russian dialects, lived in Lithuania. In the Grand Duchy and made up a significant part of the population of the then Vilnius Voivodeship. Whether all of them had already accepted the baptism from Byzantium (Orthodoxism was introduced in 988) is not known: it is believed that at that time the dividing line of Orthodoxy in the west ran along the Polotsk, Minsk, Grodno line (Zinkevičius 2000: 13). Some of them, like the Orthodox Lithuanians, could later convert to Catholicism. Not much is known about the Orthodox who lived in remote areas at that time, but it is clear that, although in some places in small numbers, they lived throughout the territory of present-day Lithuania, especially among the nobility (Gudavičius 1999: 68, 96, 358, 436-439, 452 and others). And, of course, the sooner, the more. However, we would not like to put a sign of equality between the Gudes and the Orthodox: that this was not the case later, it is clear, as it is not now, but after all, the Catholic lands now border with the Orthodox about the same as the main ethnic areas inhabited by Lithuanians and Gudes. By the way, some of the inhabitants of this border, starting from the 14th century, have become Unitarians (Gudavičius 1999: 318-321). Suspicion of Orthodox influence is raised by the presence of canonical Orthodox names and their abbreviations and later derived surnames. According to Zinkevičius (1977: 89), “Since at that time the Catholic canonical forms of baptismal names (written in Latin or Polish) were quite strictly observed, the Eastern Slavic variants of them could enter the records only by chance and precisely those that were widely used by people (Catholics) at that time.” By the way, on the same page the author presents 57 abbreviations of Eastern Slavic baptismal names, which were preserved in patronymic names at the beginning of the 17th century, since the latter were not standardized. Maciejauskienė, discussing the names recorded in 16th century sources from almost all of the territory of present-day Lithuania, notes that not all of them were equally popular at the time, and refers, for example, to: : Acmacheii, Hpmona, Kanukemo, Kiumenms, Ilpoxons, Baaducaaes et al. (1979: 86), also notes that from about 10,000 recorded records from that time, 70 different baptismal names can be distinguished, with various abbreviations, and this type of names almost have no abbreviations. Some of these names are from the Orthodox nomenclature or Old Slavic. Whether they spread among the Catholics in the 16th century, without making a major distinction, is not entirely clear. 42 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ Maciejauskienė (1991: 230) also notes that “Rare 16th-century personal names of Slavic and Germanic origin most likely indicate the emergence of Lithuanian surnames through borrowing. In addition, some anthroponyms originating from Slavic languages can also be considered as the result of the glorification of Lithuanian personal names.” However, the concept of borrowing of surnames in the territory of present-day Eastern Lithuania would be complicated if it were assumed that both Lithuanians and Guds participated in the same process of formation of surnames, and that patronymic suffixes -evič, -ovič were simply attached to both, because this was the general provision of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, when its official language until 1696 was the Slavic chancery language (this provision was not abandoned later). Thus, the surnames of the Lithuanians who had been or are still inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania could have become difficult to distinguish and therefore can only be called a conditionally borrowed part of Lithuanian anthroponymics. The nomenclature of Christian names varies in different countries, ir although the core is largely common. In Lithuania, when from the end of the 16th century the names of saints were written in calendars on the day of their death, a nomenclature very similar to the Polish one gradually established itself (Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1994: 36-40). This would hardly suggest that stricter rules had not been observed up until then. Thus, the question remains open whether the considerably thicker layer of Slavic names and, accordingly, later surnames derived from Orthodox canonical or ancient Slavic names in the territory of present-day Eastern Lithuania in the middle of the 16th — early 17th centuries, compared to the whole of Lithuania (which is not denied by Zinkevičius’ (1977) study of the names of the inhabitants of Vilnius in the early 17th century), was due to the fact that more people related to Orthodoxy lived here (Guds or Lithuanians — so far unknown), or for other reasons. The article assumes that the people who used the characteristic Slavic abbreviations of names, especially those derived from the Old Slavic binomials and canonical Orthodox names, probably spoke non-Lithuanian or at least were bilingual. In general, the use of spoken languages at that time raises a number of questions. Zinkevičius (1987: 144-146), perhaps the most thoroughly describing the linguistic situation and the use of languages in the territory of present-day Lithuania in the middle of the 16th — beginning of the 17th centuries, provides facts that at that time the spoken Lithuanian language was used in public life not only by the people but also by the nobility, but next to Polish and Russian. Soon Lithuanian language remained only a common language. The Polish language, which came with Catholicism and the grand duke's estate, was spread through schools and scribes, and the further it went, the more prestigious and widespread it became. The Russian language, which until then had been used as the (old) Slavic official language, and in Orthodox affairs — as the old church Slavic language, from the beginning of the 16th century in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania began to mean nothing but the Gudi language (Gudavičius 1999: 436—439). From the Slavic clerical language used in official writing, which was also influenced by the old church Slavic language, and the mixture of western Russian dialects, which became the Gudi language, significantly influenced by the Lithuanian language, a fairly homogeneous variant of the interdialectal written language had already formed, which was also influenced by the language used in the clerical area of Polotsk-Smolensk and Volhynia-Kiev, from which it was already necessary to translate into the then Moscow language. This language was used in clerical writings, and religious, legal and secular literature was translated and written in it (remember the role of P. Skorina and his printing press established in Vilnius in 1525). Undoubtedly, such a language, which is also called the old Belarusian language (see Čekmonas 1988: 44-45), has already 16th-17th century EASTERN LITHUANIA ANTROPONIMY | 43 had not only a written but also a spoken variant, and it was spoken by the learned Lithuanian barons and nobles, as well as by officials and scribes. Some of them were monolingual, but some were certainly bilingual. It is commonly assumed that the Polish language spread through the estates and was influenced by them. However, in the 16th century (and earlier), it is possible that there was also an influence of the Gudi language through the courts — if it was the language of the lords, it must have had an influence on the subjects as well. This could partly explain the origin of the names of noble (or wealthy) people far to the west of Vilnius, whose basis became the Gudic abbreviations of Christian names, since not all of them had to be natives of the eastern Slavic lands of the country. Thus, it is prudent to try to formulate the idea, which has not been expressed more clearly so far in Lithuanian linguistics, that in the 16th century (perhaps even earlier) in the present-- day territory of Lithuania a mechanism of indoctrination (and indoctrination) similar to the later indoctrination (and indoctrination) could have taken place: how could a prestigious language spread through the estates (in the case of Polish — even through schools and the church) to the Gudian language, which, as a spoken variant of the Slavic clerical language, was used by the nobility?. Unfortunately, the data in this article are too poor to support such a hypothesis. The third variant of the Gudi language was dialectal, and the ordinary peasants who lived and spoke it in the Vilnius area, found themselves on the periphery, never realized their belonging to the general Gudi (or Belarusian) area, and therefore still call, without recognizing any other name, the term that corresponded to their situation in the 14th-16th centuries — POOR LANGUAGE, SIMPLELY SPEAKING (Gudi no-npocmy). In the Middle Ages, the term was used to refer to the native peoples of Europe. mymoiluo,, concepts presuppose comparison with another variant of that language, more prestigious, perhaps used by gentlemen. It is emphasized that this will have been a verbal form of language, because most of the peasants were certainly illiterate. The three-layered Gudi language also had a threefold influence on Lithuanian language. The Eastern Lithuanian dialects could have been influenced most by the Gudi dialects when their representatives communicated directly. Thus, the borrowed names at that time could be of a different nature, not only the names of new or renamed realities, especially those related to religion, which came in such abundance through the Eastern Slavs (which they themselves often borrowed from other languages; see Zinkevičius 1987: 68-75 for more details). Here is examined a part of the surviving copies of the inventory of the Vilnius Voivodeship of 1554, i.e. the description of villages and inhabitants, prepared and printed in 1934 by Konstantinas Jablonskis (the manuscript, unfortunately, disappeared at the beginning of the 20th century- *), dedicated to the Linkmenų Voivodeship (pages 83-131) and a part of the 43-page (86 pages) manuscript inventory of 1636 (IN,,,.), preserved in the Vilnius University Library. Čekmonas mentions the spoken variant of the office Slavic language, but does not elaborate on its use in the territory of ethnic Lithuania: “The old Belarusian language was first of all the main state language of the D. L. k. (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania — L. G.), in which most legal documents were written (also in the territory of ethnic Lithuania). Because of this function, the Old Belarusian is also called the D. L. k. office language (or language of business writing). However, it performed much more functions. Old Belarusian was spoken (except by me — L. G.) by many representatives of the feudal nobility — Orthodox and Catholics; It was used to write chronicles, theological treatises, and to translate fiction” (1988: 44, translated by L. G.). The author also mentions the Tatars who lived in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and their religious literature — kitabs — written in Gudish but in Arabic script from the beginning of the 17th century. This naturally raises the question — with whom did they communicate in a good manner, if not with their neighbors? (See also Kričinskis 1993: 196 et al.; Potašenko, ed., 2001: 78-79 et al.) 3 More detailed history of all reprints is presented in K. Jablonski’s book (IN,,,: 30-31). 44 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ is also dedicated to Linkmenų parish (pages 15-31v). Explaining the development of Lithuanian anthroponymy in Eastern Lithuania, data on the origin of names are presented primarily from the Lithuanian Names Dictionary (LPZ), because it is the result of a huge collective work, and only in those cases when the facts are to be supplemented or to justify a different opinion, other sources are used, usually the works of M. Biryla (B,, b,). In the middle of the 16th century, more precisely from 1543 onwards (Zinkevičius 1987: 137), administrative documents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania began to be written in Polish, while until then the Slavic office language had prevailed. It was one of the first inventories written in Polish, and is one of the first inventories written in the Polish language. It is true that the confusion of the alphabet has not been noticed, but it may have disappeared after the 20th century re-writing of the original or copies made in earlier centuries, since the original is almost completely lost. The Polish language of the writer is not flawless, uniform rules are not followed, hard? usage varies considerably, not always respecting the consistency of writing other diacritical marks, so here is simply presented as it is written in the original, more precisely —in the notes. Looking at the personal names recorded in Polish in the 1554 source, which at that time consisted of either only the first name, or the first name with the second person’s name, which was not yet quite often the real name, but simply the patronymic, i.e. the personal name with patronymic prefixes composed of the father of any (not necessarily the first) person’s name (some authors, e.g., Vanagas, Zinkevičius, use the term TĖVAVARDŽIO, but now it is more common PATRONIMO, see Maciejauskienė 1991: 16), or other personal names, apart from patronymic suffixes, as well as pronouns, it can be assumed that at that time the inhabitants spoke at least two languages — Lithuanian and Gudi. As one of the sources of evidence, documents with anthroponym data could be selected. This can be shown by Lithuanian and Slavic Christian names, as well as old Slavic names, especially their abbreviated or diminutive forms. The very fact that abbreviations and patronymic forms are used shows that there was both Lithuanian and Slavic usage, these are not just names imposed by the writers. The recorder could change something, e.g., not to write the ending*, provide a Polish transcription of the name, e.g., Szczepan IN, 84, Andrzey IN..., 123, translate, add the Slavic patronymic suffix -evič or -Ovič, etc., but he hardly changed the root of the abbreviation of the name, unless only to the long form of the name. Researchers note that the inventories of manors and other administrative and legal documents could reflect the usage more authentically than the church books (Zinkevičius 1977: 67), and not only Catholics were enrolled in them. In the title page of the Inventory it is written: „[...| niżey mianowanych przez mig, Jerzyka Zacharyaszewicza, dzierżawcę zoslienskiego [...]" IN,.., 31 (so from Žasliai, a non-local person). The same person in the Linkmen inventory on the same page is written twice: Petrelis Urbanowicz and Petrel Urbanowicz IN... 107. 5 In the process of writing names (the formation of Lithuanian surnames had begun earlier and was different) as well as Lithuanian-speaking people, i.e. already earlier began to emerge and at that time especially strengthening the tendency of "attachment" of Slavic patronymic suffixes -evič, -ovič in the registration of inhabitants, which was influenced by the use of the Slavic office language. The process itself differed slightly from the analogous process in the Grand Duchy of Moscow, because there only the nobles were allowed to add such suffixes, and the lower classes — shorter -ev, -ov (Zinkevičius 1987: 134). This article assumes that the abbreviations of Slavic names were brought in (or received without leaving) by people speaking only Gudish (or even Gudish) who lived in the spoken areas at that time, because some of these abbreviations could hardly be found in Lithuanian. Attention should be drawn to the remark of Zinkevičius (1977: 81; also cf. 82-88): “Relying on the surnames of the records, we can reconstruct a number of forms of baptismal names used by Lithuanians in the 16th-17th centuries, which were not originated by Slavic canonical names, but by their folk variants. Some of these forms may have been made by Lithuanians themselves from canonical names, especially those whose equivalents we do not find in neighbouring Slavic languages.” The fact that the inventory under consideration is a document of the reform of the vallas carried out in the lands of the Grand Duke of Lithuania in 1547-1566 should not be lost sight of. From this document of 1554 it becomes clear that the lands of Linkmenų valsčius, belonging to the Great Duke of Lithuania, had been demarcated a couple or three years ago, and the peasants from the former 2-4-dūmų villages were moved to larger ones, because the focus was primarily on the purposeful arrangement of the palivarko lands (for more on the course of the valakų reform see Ochmanskis 1996: 188 and others). The source does not mention the raising of the peasants any further, although there is a reference to le. nowik ‘newcomer’ to some personal names, of course, the name of the village Nowosady IN,.., 87 and indicates a certain alienation from the place. By the way, the names of the people with certificates nowik do not differ from others in any way. In Lithuanian historical anthroponymics it is not accepted to associate the degree of Lithuanianness or Slavicness (as well as Germanicness) of the records with the real use of the languages of the time, although the origin of the name or abbreviation is searched- ." This is understandable, because for many centuries the records were made in non-Lithuanian, usually by non-Lithuanian scribes or church servants, often with the intention of Slavification or Germanization. However, from a sociolinguistic point of view, it might be possible to ask, for example, from where in the mid-16th century in those areas of present-- day Eastern Lithuania, which were undoubtedly inhabited by Lithuanians, such abbreviations of Christian names used in colloquial language, which are not characteristic of Lithuanian origin, appeared. 8 The title page of the inventory in question states:, Rejestr dworow jego k. mosci ciwunstwa Wilenskiego [--+]’ IN; see 30 J. Dumčius (1957) has described the origin and chronology of the appearance of Christian names in Lithuania in the most detailed way, but he has not considered HOW these names spread. 1554 8 Some of the place names remain even after the change of the language of the inhabitants, but the fact that Lithuanians once lived in the mentioned places is indicated, for example, by the following place names: Siofo Meyranskie IN, 89, Siofo Minducze IN,.., 103,0d sianożęci Czuryszek y Kudrolanek IN, 96, Jeziora Strawinoicia IN,.., 132, za rzeką Wiryntą IN, 105, Jezioro Zusklinis IN, 130, W tey zimi Ligotowkach IN,.., 99, niwa, ktorą zowią Wierzmieli In, 123 and others. 46 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ It should be noted that some of the Slavic names or their abbreviations and personal names made from them with the Slavic patronymic suffixes -evič, -ovič (others were not found) from the inventory of Linkmenų valsčius in 1554, attested in the works of M. Biryla* (b,, 5,) in the writings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 16th-18th centuries, in other documents of the time from the territory of present-- day Belarus and/or in the usage of the inhabitants of present-- day Belarus, are old only Orthodox canonical (abbreviation st.) names or their abbreviations, e.g. : Dosis, Dosia (GEN.) Zonka IN, 116, 127: gu. Jac": st. acu B, 60; b,, 140 or st. @eodocuii b,, 124; Micewicz IN, 114: gu. Miyp: st. Jumumpui B. 169; Micowicz IN, 114: gu. Miy: st. Jumumpui B, 62; Procewicz IN.., 93: gu. /Ipoų: st. Ilpoxon, Ilpomac b, 243; Szerg-ut- -owicz'? IN,, 108: gu. Capeyas, Capeyns, Cepeyco: st. Cepeuū B, 115 with Lithuanian mazybin suffix -ut-, perhaps cautiously can be assumed also for Sopowicz sopa“ IN,.., 120:? plg. gu. Cagponusix, Caxonusik, Canonaubix: gu. Cagon, Caxon, Canon: St. Cogponus, Cochonuii b, 153; 5,, 209, 138 and others. The name Niestoya (NoMm.) IN.., 119 may be associated with St. Hecmop' B, 98. Of course, most of the Slavic canonical names have their counterparts in the nomenclatures of christening names of other countries, especially Polish, and in addition, they have changed over time in the Slavic usage or coincided with the Catholic ones, e.g., such as Felix, Martin, Matthew, Peter, Sylvester, Simon, etc., so that some of them can not be assigned exactly to one or another, usually this is done only according to phonetic correspondences, e.g.: fir t (st. Oeodop, @oma and le. Teodor, Tomasz), n and m (st. Hukoaau and le. Mikotaj), I and v (st. Jlaepenmuii and le. Wawrzyniec), v and b (st. Bacuauu and le. Bazyli) or others. Therefore, the abbreviation Chwiecko IN, 104 seems more likely to be derived from gu. 1580: John X, 1st Earl of Gloucester. Xeedop: St. Oeodop nei from le. Teodor 5,, 123; Josys IN, 87: XVI-XVIII a. gu. Ecun: St. Hocug nei from le. Jozef (all abbreviations with z) 5, 76; Matewicz IN,.., 108: gu. Mam: St. Mamgpeu nei from le. Maciej B, 118, as well as Matulewicz IN,.., 117; Mosis IN; ; 5, 110, Moysis IN,,,, 104, z Mosiem (INSTR.) IN,,,, 122, z Moyszem (INSTR.) IN,,,, 103, Mosiewicz IN,.., 110: XVI-XVIII a. gu. Moceii, Mouceu: St. Mouceii nei from le. But: le. Mateusz B, 85, LPZ, 172, unless a Masiem (INSTR.) IN _.. 89 case; Pieczulis 1554 The comparison with the Gudian anthroponymy was carefully chosen, because the task was to find connections with it, although corresponding words could be found in other Slavic languages as well. It is not forgotten that M. Biryla's lists, although very rich, are not exhaustive. It should be taken into account the fact that Orthodox names were spread from the East, and Catholic names through the Poles. The fact that a is written here instead of the Slavic o may also be an adaptation of the vowel 0 of the Eastern Slavic languages, in this case of the Gudi, to the Lithuanian vowel a (usually semi-long) (see Kardelis 1999: 39 et al.). It should also be noted that here the Gudish equivalents are usually presented only from two sources of M. Biryla, in which some name or abbreviation may not be recorded, then the most similar one with analogues of the work of that time is presented (if found in sources written in the territory of present-- day Belarus in the 16th-18th centuries, the age is indicated in Roman numerals, if without reference — this is an example from current usage). The transcription here and hereafter is given in the spelling as it appears in the source from which it is quoted. The present western Gudhi dialects are also characterized by the zigzag pronunciation of transitional sounds, especially soft ones, such as tussens and š, c and č, so Szčia may be a fixation of this pronunciation. See footnote 10. 14 This form is not recorded in M. Biryla’s works, but see his comment on the tendency to change or drop the ending of the name in the 16th-18th centuries, p. sl. ending in -ui, e.g. gu. Icaū: st. Hea(a)xui B, 158. Anyway, but with this name is formed and patronymics: Bolulis Niestajewicz IN,.., 112 z Stanistawem bratem; Piotr Niestajewicz IN, 112. 1554 XVI-XVII a. ANTROPONIMIJA EASTERN LITHUANIA | 47 IN, 97, Pieczul® IN,.., 108 (with Lithuanian minor suffix -ul-): gu. 137, B,, 101 nei aus le. Peter; because Poles don't have such an abbreviation. In Eastern Slavs, the personal name Michnowicz IN, 83 is an abbreviation of the common Slavic name st. Muxaus, le. Michat Bb, 232. The name of the village Siofo Miksztewiczow (GEN.) IN, 113 from the abbreviation Mikszta: st. Hukonai, XVI-XVIII a. gu. Mukoaai, le. Mikotay B, 129, b,, 88" nuorasSus (as it was originally, unknown) alternates with Niksztewiczow, in turn derived from the Eastern Slavic Huxonaii; In other cases there are forms with M-: z Mikszą (INSTR.) IN..., 101; z Mixą (INSTR.) IN, 116; Mixtowicz IN,,., 123. An example of the use of sounds (and letters) /ir v (le. # and w) typical of Eastern Slavs is only in the long form of the name (and corresponding patronymic) £awryn IN,.., 96; z Lawrynem (INSTR.) IN,,,, 87: XVI-XVIII a. gu. Jlaspun: St. Jlaepenmuū, but XVI-XVIII a. was also gu. Baepoin, related to le. Lawrence B, 82. The use of the fricative A instead of g is typical of the Guds, in the source beside the abbreviation Gryciem (INSTR.) IN,,,, 88; z Gryczem" (INSTR.) IN,,,, 117, 118 there is also Hryc IN, 86, 102 or Hrycz IN,,,, 84; z Hryczem (INSTR.) IN,,,, 98 (although also in Polish sources the form with Ah is mentioned, cf.: gu. /parów, le. Hryč: st. Ipuzopuū, le. Grzegorz b, 107; LPZ, 709). It is obvious that in this position A alternated with g, and the forms with g may also reflect Lithuanian pronunciation. The long form of the name Hryhora IN, 102 is also related to the fricative gudu #4, as is Bohdan IN, 84, its abbreviation Bohdiusz IN,.., 96 or Bohdziewicz IN,.., 97 in a personal name with the patronymic suffix -ewicz. A more reliable proof could be the presence of the fricative /, in the personal name Ihnatowicz IN,.., 118: st. Henamui, le. Ignacy B, 70. The Gudic usage is also shown by the consonant combination ltr in the personal name Battromiey IN,.., 119 (in the 16th-18th centuries used for can. baampomei: le. Bartlomiej b,, 132), but in the source under consideration Bartlomiey IN,.., 96, Barthotomiey IN.,, 129 are also used. In the abbreviations of this name BartkoTM IN..., 83, Bortko IN,.., 111 there is a preserved sequence of 71(/) consonants. Sometimes it is not possible to check whether a form came from the Gudhic or from the Polish according to phonetic equivalents, e.g. : Daniewicz IN,.., 115, z Daniulem IN,.., 110 sietini both with gu. 16th-18th centuries /lanuno, Žlanoro: st. danuuas, both with le. Daniel 5,, 57, 202; Macko IN, 83; Macieyko IN,.., 99; z Maciulem (INsTR.) IN, 97; z Maczulem" (INSTR.) IN _, 100: XVI-XVIII a. gu. May, Mamuyeu: st. Mame ir le. Maciej b,, 88; Mosis Mielewicz IN, 119: gu. Name: St. Emeavan and le. Quite: le. Emilian B,, 62. 1988. pp. 88–89. doi:10.1088/1088888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888990919293949596 Mucs: St. Muxaun coincides with le. Mis: le. Michat, because it has the common Old Slavic mazybing suffix -s B, 92, 235. Both the 16th and 18th-century Gudes and the Poles have the abbreviation gu. ffxwa: St. Hakos, le. Jaksha : no. Jacob Bb, 129. Linkmen- 's source contains three similar but not identical versions of this short1554 1554 1554 1554 1s Zr. 12i8nasa. '® There is a detailed overview of interpretations of the pronunciation of names beginning with Nir Min Slavic languages, not only in relation to Polish. 7 See note 12. '® M. Biryla gives examples only with 0 —Bortko (I, 37), so see again footnote 10. 19 See note 12. 54 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ The personal names in the inventory of 1636 differ significantly from the previous one (1554). First of all, they are more diverse, more derived from Lithuanian adjectives, more diverse elements of construction, because there are derivatives of Lithuanian patronymic suffixes. Since of all the personal names in the inventory of 1554 only the names with the first name prevailed there, the personal names of the village of Linkmenai in 1636 will also be compared from the same point of view. There are few new baptismal names from the point of view of origin, all the innovations are related to creation. Perhaps the old Slavic diphthong /ocyuucnae lies in the personal name Gasiewicz IN 16v, LPŽ, 628. There are Gudish abbreviations that may be derived from very ancient Orthodox names, but there is also a different interpretation of their origin, for example, maknien IN. 26v; makniunas IN... 26: gu., ukr. Maxno: st. Enumax B, 232, but may also be associated with le. Maciej LPZ 139, and with lie. maknys ‘one who mutters while speaking' (ibid.). Cautiously one could try to look for the abbreviation of St. Mamor and the personal name Mamenas IN, 27, pg. B, 151. Similarly, the origin of the personal name Palanis IN 25v may have been based on the corresponding gu of the baptismal names Anoaron, Hnnonum or Ilonuen. abbreviations //ananeų 5, 242, Ilona B, 76, Ilon B, 137 or similar, but another interpretation of the origin is possible. It is not exactly known which, but perhaps the abbreviation of the name is the basis of the personal name Jodka IN, 30v: perhaps from Fedoxum b, 64, perhaps from someone else. Allik IN. 19 may be derived from the canonical name O1ee B, 19, but may also be from le. Aleksander (ibid.), canonical Anecuii b, 24, Hava B, 71 or Opecm Bb, 37. "Trumpinys gu. Baca, which became the basis of wasowicz IN,,,, 16v, is from the Gudian form of the baptismal name Bacuanuii, not from the Polish equivalent Bazyli 5, 43. The same applies to the short gu. Havaw: Haus Bb 71, found in 1636 in the Linkmen inventory: /liasz IN,;, 26 is for Gudic use, because the Polish equivalent is Eliasz B, 71. Although both Poles and Gudes have equivalents of Leontius, Leon, the personal name fowczys IN 26v is derived from the Gudes abbreviation, cf. Jleyuanok, JTeyuvix b, 107, b 209. Also from the Gudic abbreviation [luavka: st. Oununn, le. Filip b, 103 descended from Pilkianis IN, 29, although it is not excluded that he is related to lie. gray. Quite dubious, but possible Wolan IN. 17 with the gu. Banen: Banenmun 5, 42, 168 or link to Base LPZ 1154. By the way, with the latter name one can try to associate wiralunas IN,,,, 29v (with Lithuanian minor and patronymic suffixes- ), because the Gudi had its contaminating abbreviation Bup B, 41. The equivalents of the same name in the Polish and Gudian languages are Gasper IN,,,, 19 and Kasper IN,,,, 18v (see B, 95). The same applies to the Bernardo variant Bernat IN, 16v, because le. Biernat, Barnat, us. Bepnam b, 34, as for Leonardo's dialectal form: le. Lenart, we. /Ilenapm b, 107, plg. Lenart IN 19. The personal name Damūszys IN, 28v is derived both from the Polish and from the Gudian abbreviation Damasz, Zlamau: Zlomenmuan, Įamuan B., 248, as well as gu. Panic, no. Genus from 1952, pp. 29. The name of the village is probably derived from the name of the villager. The same is true for the abbreviation le in the personal name mifoszunas IN, 27. Mephisto: Down. Emilian, we. Munow: st. Muanui Bb, 141, 248. In both languages, the name of the baptised person is le. Klemens, we. 1998. pp. 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112. Climate IN,,., 30v. 1636 1636 55 The long form of the name Krzysztoph IN,,,, 26v is the Polish writing of Kristop, although, by the way, the Gudzi have recorded Kepuwmoch B, 104. Blažis IN, 22 is also a Polish baptismal name (LPZ, 274). These are the new names or abbreviations mentioned in the inventory of 1636, which were not in the inventory of Linkmenų parish in 1554, except for the reference to Valentinas. Other names or their abbreviations have already been mentioned in the 1554 source, but the following are their unmentioned entries, abbreviations or Vedic from them. In the 1554 source there was only the Polish spelling of Andrei’s name Andrzey, whereas here there is Andrey IN,,,, 21, typical for Eastern Slavs, as well as its abbreviation with a Slavic suffix coinciding with the Lithuanian ending —Andrus IN, 27, B, 31. Another long form of the already mentioned name —Walety IN, 16v —is not only written slightly differently, i.e. instead of -en -ę-, but also its Lithuanian dialect pronunciation with -inis recorded: Walint IN,,,, 16v. The 17th-century source also contains abbreviations of this name: Slavic with minor suffix, coinciding with the Lithuanian ending —Walis IN... 19 —and Waluk IN, 18v —with the Lithuanian suffix -uk-. There are new abbreviations for the names already mentioned. A much larger number of them have more Polish-specific abbreviations, e.g. : Brazulis IN, 29: le. Brozik, Brožek: le. Ambroži LPŽ, 302; Czep IN,,,,25v; Czepolis IN, 28v: le. Czep: down. Szczepan LPŽ, 411; mitenas IN, 22, plg. le. Mita: Dymitr LPZ, 258, but compare with gu. Mimxo: Jlumumpuii B, 61; Piotrokal IN. 16v, but plg. le. Peter: No. Peter, we. ITemp B, 101; Šzym IN, 16v: le. Szym: le. Szymon LPŽ, 930; Tumas IN, 31, plg. le. Tomasz, st. @oma B, 121. Some abbreviations have equivalents in both Gudji and Polish, e.g. : Alexa IN. 29v: no. 1980. pp. 28. "A. J. A., 1980, 27th Anniversary". How: le. Jakub, gu. fk, Axyma: st. flkoe b 129, 241; Joszko IN, 16v, plg. le. Yeshua: No. Eat, we. Hwa: st. Hakoe LPZ, 820; Jurka IN,. 26v; Jurko IN 22v: no. Jurka, we. Mount: st. MOpuiū 1636 1636 1870, pp. 16. 1870, pp. 16. 1870, pp. 16. 1870, pp. 16. 1870, pp. 16. 1870, pp. 16. 1870, pp. 16. 1870, pp. 16. 1870, pp. 16. XVI a. Mapyun, le. Marcin B, 87; Stakun IN, 22v, plg. le. Stach: no. Stanistaw, gu. Cmax: Cmanucnae B, 110; wasowicz IN... 17, cf. with derivation from st. Hoar B, 83 (for other etymologies see. LPZ, (1139). Some of the abbreviations are more characteristic of the Guds, although it would not be possible to reject connections with the Poles, e.g. : Czasiuk Czasenas IN, 22 —gu. Yack: s. sl. Bauecnae b 51; maciuta IN 16v: gu. Mayrwoma: St. Mameeu, Maye; le. Mac: No. Macey B, 240; stepsalis IN, 28v base may be le. Stefan, St. Cmeghan abbreviation Steps with the old Slavic suffix -s, cf. B, 112, 235. In terms of work, the Christianpersonnages are quite varied. Several personal names without patronymic suffixes have both Lithuanian minor suffixes -el-, -ul-, and Lithuanian endings: Czepulis IN, 22 Szymkunas; Borkunas Janelis IN, 29 years old; Matulis IN,,„„22 niekiszkis; Mikialis IN, 20 masks; Stasulis niekiskis IN. 1636 “0. In the earlier (1554) source there were no cases where the abbreviations of the baptismal names were the second members of the person's name, 0 in the inventory of 1636 there are such cases. Some of the members of both denominations are surnames, e.g. : Jurgis Jakutis IN, 27v; Iliasz matulis IN, 26; Czepolis stepsalis IN, 28v, and some of the first may be of apellativnínés origin, e.g. : Duda woyciulis IN. 21; Kula matulis IN, 22 and others. It contains only mazybins suffixes, in addition to the mentioned also -uk-, -ut-(in the case of Petrokal maybe -€l-, but from the writing is not clear), but written without endings, there are a little more: Czasiuk 1636 1636 1636 56 | Laima Grumadiene IN. 22 Czasenas; Januk IN 1e3ę Ž2V maciutenas; Jasiuk IN, 1636 1636 Ž1v Alksnianis; Jasul IN 28 mikszan; Marcel Piotrokal IN. 16v; Matul IN,,., 22v Baltromieikis; Piatruc IN, 636 22v Gayzas; Stasiuk IN 20 Stymbirelis; Stasul IN, 29v Berziulenas; Waluk IN, 18v Lepeta. Two such forms are the second members of the personal nominative: Lawryn Staniul IN 16v; Marcel Piotrokal IN,,., 16v. Short names with Lithuanian endings, which sometimes became long forms of baptismal names, e.g. : Baltrus IN, „, 27 molerunas; Jurgis Bernat IN. 16v; Szjmas IN „„, 27 Zymonas, also has: BlaZis IN 18v Dwakinis; Czepas IN, 29v Czepulenas; Damūszys IN. 28v newbie; Jasus IN, 21 December; Air conditioning IN, 30v Baczenas; Thomas IN 44, 31 mile. Jurgis was once recorded as the second member of personal nominative —Woyciech Jurgis IN,,,, 26. The long form of the name became and Gryg IN,,,, 16v Krzywopust; Grig IN. 28v wizelis. Two abbreviations can be interpreted in two ways, because the Lithuanian endings coincide with the Slavic prefixes: Andrus IN, 27, b, 31 milinas; Walis IN, 19, B, 36 Allik. Contrary to the inventory of 1554, there are not many abbreviations without any Lithuanian elements: Alexa IN,,., 29v Kiautenas; Plug IN,,., 25v Palanis; Iliasz IN,„„„26 matulis; Jodka I1N,,,,,,30v Blazenas; Jurka IN,,,„26v Kimbar; Jurko IN, 22v Stakun; Lux IN, 16v Kulewicz; Szym Joszko IN, 16v; Tomasz IN. 27 Mitoshunas. One abbreviation became the long form in Polish: Jerze IN. 18v woofers; Jerseys IN. 22 cuts. It is written with personal names of krikStavardinés origin without a patronymic suffix, which became the second members of the person's name. There are some with similar (maybe due to spelling) to Lithuanian, rather than true Lithuanian endings, e.g. : Piotr Joczes IN „.. 19; Kowal towczys IN. 26; Mikotay: Woyciech maciuta IN, 16v; Rodzios IN,,„„21v, and without Lithuanian endings, e.g. : Walis Allik IN, 19; Szym Joszko IN, 16v; Jasiuk mikszan IN,,.. 28; Kasper Tomasz IN 18v. Many long forms of names. Three of them are non-Polish, although they have equivalents: Andrey IN,44, 21 Lawnik; Baltromiei IN. 18v Niemoniun; Eawryn IN,,., 16v Staniul. Phonetically changed form of one name —Czapan IN, 30v Jušenas (instead of the probable Polish Szcz-). One —Lenart IN,,,, 19 laszkenas —is a dialectal variant of Leonardo, used by both the Gudes and the Poles (see b, 107, LPZ, 55). One Catholic name is written with Lithuanian ending: Karolis IN,,., 29v Bezdenas; Karulis IN, 21v Karpis, and the other has the Lithuanian minor suffix —steponalis IN,,., 28v. The remaining are common Polish, some of which are also used by the Guds, baptismal names: Adam IN,,., 21v Balinski; Ambrozey IN 26v in the mood; Blazey IN, 22 years old; Gasper IN, 19 Jakubowicz; Jakub IN,,.„19 Ambrozieiewicz; Jan IN,,., 16v Gasiewicz; Kasper IN, 18v Tomasz; Krzysztoph IN 26v Plenius; Marcin IN, 26 Podwoyski; Mikotay IN. 21v Rodzios; Pawel IN, 22 Zesin; Peter IN. 17v Gauzutys; Stanistaw IN 16v woyskun; Stephan IN,„.„16v loueeuy; Szyman IN, 16v lach; Urban IN, 19v mileykis; Jacks IN, 16v blacksmith; Walint IN. 16v kulewicz; Woyciech IN, 16v solid; Wolan IN. 17 Kulewicz. The long forms can also become second members of the personal noun both with Lithuanian ending, e.g. : Aszkinis Ambrasas IN, 22; Rukas Czapanas IN, 31, Jasus Grygalus IN, 21, both without limbs —Jurgis Bernat IN 22; Jerze woyciech IN,,., 16v. Women's names are usually not mentioned, only whose widow she is, e.g. : Widow Stasiowa IN 16v. There are two entries with female names that are clearly Slavic: Aksdnia Baft1636 1636 1636 1636 1636 16v; Swidren Krysztof IN, 1636 636 16th-17th century anthroponyms of eastern Lithuania | 57 romieiowa IN. 22, Milowa Uliana IN, 29. The latter form of the name (without J-) later spread in eastern and southeastern Lithuania (Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1994: 213). Most of these are second-person nominative members with patronymic suffixes. The difference is that in the 1636 source there are derivatives of the names with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes -ėn-, -ūn and one derivative with -yn-. There is a punch from the abbreviation with the Lithuanian minor suffix -okir of the noun žentas: Grig mikszakzentis IN. 29. personal names with several Lithuanian suffixes (mazybine and patronime) are not very many, These personal names still have Lithuanian endings: Poszenas Andrulenas IN 29; Czepas Czepulenas IN,,., 29v; Jasul maciulenas IN. 22v; Adam Peciulenas IN „.. 29v, is such a personal name and without ending —£awryn Staniulin- ®’ IN, 17. Two personal names with Lithuanian mazybing and Slavic patroniming suffixes were found (in 1554 there were more such names in Saltin): Szym Czepulewicz IN. 19; Januk manulewicz IN, 22. Instead, there is a fairly large group of personal names, the basis of which have become krikStavardiniai abbreviations without Lithuanian minor suffixes, but with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes (here -aitalso contributes), for example, written with endings: Andrey Blaženas IN, 25; Borkunas IN. 29v Janelis; Czasiuk Czasenas IN. 22; Szym Domaszunas IN, 30v (Lat 100); Szyman Gryciunas IN. 21v; Jurgis Jakaytis IN. 27; Jan Jaczunas IN “„„ 26; Lenart Jaszkenas IN... 19; Jan Jociunas IN, 21; Czapan Jušenas IN. 30v; Krzysztoph maknienas IN. 26v; marcin makniunas IN. 26v; Szyman marczenas IN 1636 295 Walulis masenas IN., 26v; Tomasz mitoszunas IN. 27; Blažis mitenas IN. 22; Jan Szymkienas IN. 21; Czepulis Szymkunas IN, 22, and the two members of a person's nominative have the patronymic suffix —Poczenas IN,,., 29 Andrulenas. Such verbs asmenvardziy are also without Lithuanian endings: Bogdžun nowik IN,,,, 22; Marcin Domaszun IN „„ 19v; Jan Jaciun IN, 26v; Woyciech maničiun IN, 18v; Jurko Stakun IN, 22v; Adam Stasun IN, 22v. One of the abbreviated personal names with the suffix -in is non-patronymous — Stanisław Szymkinis IN. 21; perhaps it is possible to suspect that another personal name with nepatronimine® suffix -iskroot is also of krikStavardinés origin —Ambrozey miliszkis IN, 28v. Contrary to the inventory of 1554, there are a few personal names from abbreviations without Lithuanian elements, but with Slavic patronymic suffixes, they are written without endings: Jan Gasiewicz IN, 16v; Stephan Ioueeuu IN. 16v; Marcin tukaszewicz IN,,., 18v; Gryg wasowicz IN, 16v; GrYg wąsowicz IN, 17; Jan wojtkiewicz IN “„. 24v. There are only two names with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes made from long forms of names —Krzysztoph Karalunas IN, 24v; 29v, another suffix unpatronymous —Matul Baltromieikis IN. 22v. There are very few remaining names with Slavic patronymic suffixes, they have no endings: Jan Alekseiewicz IN, 21v; Jakub Ambrozieiewicz IN. 19; Gasper Jakubowicz IN. 19; Stanistaw Jozephowicz IN 19. 36 1636 636 1636 24v; Krzysztop marcinowicz IN 1636 1636 The same person as Lawryn Staniul IN. 16v. Maciejauskiené (1991: 227-228) states that the suffix -i has a patronimic meaning, especially when personal names were made from baptismal names. 28 58 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ In general, the personal names in the inventory of 1636 are not much more Lithuanian than in 1554, which is also shown by the abundance of personal names with Lithuanian appellations. As in the inventory review of 1554, they are not the subject of the study, but it is possible to mention some of them, for example, without Lithuanian patronymic suffixes: Urban Aukszla IN, 24; Jan Dewelis IN, 19; Piatruc Gayzas IN, 22v; Karulis Karpis IN,,., 21v; Waluk Lepeta IN, 18v; Jan Pilwialis IN. 29v; Piotr ragialis IN, 19; Stasiuk Stymbirelis IN, 20; Jan Szakalis IN, 534 24v; Mikolay witkas IN, 434 27; Grig wizelis IN. 28v; Pawel Zęsinas IN. 22; Gryg Zyburys IN, 20v and others. There are also other types, e.g. : Matulis Dzwiniakis IN,,,, 24v; Stasulis niekiskis IN, 22 and others. Some of the names have non-patronymic Lithuanian suffixes, e.g. : Blažis Dwakinis IN,,., 18v; Jan Gaužutenis IN,,,, 17v; 24; Jan kupietis IN,,,„„28; Matulis niekiszkis IN,,,„„22 and others. Whether these personal names have already lost their patronymic suffixes, or have not received them at all, is difficult to say: throughout Lithuania the abundance of such personal names is characteristic of the earlier, 16th century, sources (cf. Maciejauskienė 1991: 151 et al.; 225), but this cannot be said about the Linkmenų source of 1554. A large number of Lithuanian personal names of appellative origin with patronymic suffixes -ėn-, -on-, -ūnare written with endings, e.g. : Januk Alksnianis IN, 21v; Stasiul Berziulenas IN, 29 years old; 2012-09-29, 29v; Jurgis Bezdenas IN,,., 29v; Pawel Dikienas IN,,,, 28; Pawel 28, No. 2, pp. 28. 29v; Alexa Kiev IN, 29v; Piotr Kuprenas IN,. 26; Marcin Purienenas IN. 29; Jan Rukszenas IN, us 20v; Marcin Szykszniiinas IN, 29; grig wizatanis IN, 28v; Piotr Zytenas IN 25; Zjlenas marcin IN 25 et al. There are such personal names without endings, e.g. : Jan Szakutan IN, 24; Szym Stulgian IN.”. 28 et al. There are a number of smaller ones, e.g. : Marcin Gribewicz IN,,,, 16v; Jan Rugayszewicz IN, 16v; Jurgis stemborowicz IN,,., 19v and others. One other old white double-stemmed personal name, e.g. : Jurka Kimbar IN,,„„26v; Stanistaw mine IN 22v; Jan woysznaras IN, 22; Szymas Zymonas IN. 27 et seq. Thoughts about possible interchange of languages or bilingualism are also caused by the writing of pronouns and personal names made from them with Lithuanian patronymical suffixes, for example: next to Lawryn kalwis IN,,., 25 is Walety kowal IN. 16v; near Battromiey kotwenas IN. 21 is Kawaten IN, 24v, i. e. lie. blacksmith and Slavic kowal, but here could be adjusted and recorder. The fact that there are personnames with ethnonym gudas confirms the assumption of greater or lesser linguistic heterogeneity, e.g. : Gudas Sawicki IN,,,, 26, Jurgis Gudunas IN, 21v. Only in 1636 did personal names with the suffix -ski appear in the source, which is more characteristic of Polish than of the Gudi, e.g. : Adam Balinski IN,,,, 21v; during Dirwanski, tense Dyrwinski IN 24v; 2012-05-28 IN. 19v; Urban Lapaczinski IN IN,45,, 26; Adam Pokulewski IN. 26; Gudas Sawicki IN, 26; Woyciech Sopkowski IN, os 21v; Swiderski IN,,., 16v; Andrey zawacki IN, 21, and one inscription indicates a certain degree of adaptation, as it is with the ending: Ambrozey Kilbowskis IN. 28v. 1636 1636 1636 1636 1636 30v; Marcin Podwojyski » Dikienas and Dykunas are the same person, which would lead to the assumption that in the 17th-century area of Linkmenai the Lithuanian téovardinés suffixes -én and -ūngad be used for interjection. *0 Kiaulenas also lived in the same village, so apparently the basis of the surname is the word “pig”. 59 Summarizing the overview of the personal names in the krikStavardiniy inventory of Linkmenų parish in 1636, it should be noted: 1) although here, as in the inventory of 1554, the majority of personal names are of christened origin and only a small part of them are christened names or their abbreviations derived from Orthodox or Old Slavic names, most of the names are common to both Catholics and Christians. The 1663 source contains more personal names related to Lithuanian appellative vocabulary; 2) some of the abbreviations of christening names are characteristic of the Gudi language or they are common ancient Slavic abbreviations, common in the 17th century in both the Gudi and Polish (and other Slavic) languages, but many of them have Lithuanian elements of personal names; 3) names of first-name origin have two elements of Lithuanian construction: minor suffixes -el-, -uk-, -ul-, -u and not always written endings -is, -us. These suffixes are preserved in personal names with patronymic suffixes, there are a number of personal names with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes -én-, -ūn, etc., 0 Slavic suffixes -evič, -ovič, which were widely used in the 1554 source, become more rare. Names with the Polish patronymic suffix -ski appear; 4) no dependence has been established between members of the same persons of Lithuanian origin or having Lithuanian derivative elements of the articular (usually bilateral) designation with members of Slavic origin and/or derivative elements; the same applies to the designation of members of the same family; The names of individual villagers do not differ. 4. CONCLUSIONS The examined names of the 1554 and 1636 inventories of the Linkmenų parish are slightly different from other names of the time recorded in the territory of present-day Lithuania. This applies in particular to the 16th-century source: it is much more Slavic, has few national names characteristic of other sources of the time, the genders of Christian names are little adapted to Lithuanian pronunciation, there are no personal names with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes, mainly Slavic, especially Gudi, abbreviations of names are used, some of them are not from the Catholic nomenclature (cf. Maciejauskienė 1991: 33 et al.). The personal names in the inventory of 1636 are significantly more Lithuanian in terms of the form, not only Lithuanian minor suffixes are used extensively, but also a number of personal names with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes, so that personal names with Slavic patronymic suffixes are used less frequently. In terms of origin, the personal names in the 17th-century source are similar to those in the 16th-century source, but there are a little more genders of names, derived either only from Polish long forms of names, or common to Poles and Guds. It may be prudent to assume that the influence of the Gudi language, which had already decreased considerably in the 17th century, could have been present in the Linkmen region in the 16th century. Christian abbreviations for names in Gudiškis could also have come from direct contact with non-Lithuanian-speaking neighbors. 60 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ ABBREVIATIONS B,—M. V. BIRYLA, beaapyckas anmparanimia 1. Vaacnoma īnanoi, iMEHb-MAHYWKI, iMėkoi na Oaupky, npozeiu yor. MiHck: HaByka i TaxHika, 1966. 5,—M. V. BIRYLA, berapyckan anmpananimin 3. Cmpykmypa yaachbix Myyaeubinckix ivén. Minck: Hasyka i TOXHIKa, 1982. bulg. —bulgary GEN. —genitivus (genitive) gu.—gudy IN 5, JABLONSKIS, ed., History archive (XVI century), Kaunas, 1934, 30-131. IN, -Inventarz Wszyitkiego Ciwunstwa Wilenskiego y Miasteczek powierzonych Niemenczynskiey Lyngmianskiev y konczazyzna Woytowstwa Przezy Poddannych zich (...) by me Gerzeg Kazimierz Jawgiela Dworza (...) 1636. VUBRS, F 14. INSTR. —instrumental can. —canonical le.-Polish lie. —Lithuanian LPŽ, LPZ, —A. VANAGAS, red., Lithuanian Surname Dictionary (A-K), vol. 1; Lithuanian Surname Dictionary (L-Z), 1. 2, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985, 1989. lo.—latin NOM. —nominative PL. —plural s. l. —old slave st. —orthodox ukr. —ukrainy vo. — CEKMONAS, V. 1988: Beedenue 6 craeanckyio dunonozuio, Vilnius: Mokslas. Dumčius, J. 1957: Ancient names in Lithuanian folk language. Vilnius State V. Kapsuko University Faculty of History and Philology Research Papers 3, 178-183. Gupavičius, E. 1999: Lietuvos istorija 1. From the earliest times to 1569, Vilnius: Vydūno Foundation of the Academic Scout Movement in Chicago, Lithuanian Writers' Union publishing house. KARDELIS, V. 1999: Phonetic features of Slavisms and their development in Eastern Lithuanian dialects. PhD dissertation, Vilnius: Vilnius University. KRIČINSKIS, S. 1993: Lithuanian Tatars. A History of the History and Ethnography of the West Indies. Kuzavinis, K., SAVUKYNAS, B. 1994: Dictionary of the Origin of Lithuanian Names, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. MACIEJAUSKIENĖ, V. 1979: Lithuanian names in the 16th century. Language Culture 36, 84-89. MACIEJAUSKIENE, V. 1991: The formation of Lithuanian surnames, Vilnius: Mokslas. MACIEJAUSKIENE, V. 2001: On the evaluation of Lithuanian surnames from the point of view of writing. Acta linguistica Lithuana 44, 167-188. OCHMANSKIS, J. 1996: Ancient Lithuania, Vilnius: Mintis. POTASENKO, G., ed., 2001: Lithuanian National Minorities in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Cultural Heritage, Vilnius: Kronta. URBUTIS, V. 1992: Slavisms in the Old Lithuanian Language. Baltistica 27 (1), 4-14. URBUTIS, V. 1993: Variety of Origin of Old Slavisms. Baltistica 28 (1), 91-101. VANAGAS, A. 1974: Surnames of Hebrew Origin. Savukynas, B., ed., Words and People, Vilnius: Mintis, 87-152. VANAGAS, A. 1981: Dictionary of the Etymology of Lithuanian Hydronyms, Vilnius: Mokslas. VIDUGIRIS, A. 1983: On the contact of languages in south-eastern Lithuania. Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 23, 46-60. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1977: Lithuanian Anthroponyms. Vilnius Lithuanian personal names in the early 17th century, Vilnius: A thought. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1987: History of Lithuanian Language 2. From the beginning to the end: Essays in Philosophy. ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 2000: Lithuanian Poetry, Vilnius: Institute for Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias. Laima Grumadienė Received 12/12/2001 Lithuanian Language Institute Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania laigruma(@takas.t