Dėl lietuvių pavardžių vertinimo darybos požiūriu

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLIV (2001), 167-187 The article deals with Lithuanian surnames considered from the viewpoint of word formation. The authors of the article are: In anthroponymy and toponymy, the usual mechanisms of derivation (compounding, affixation etc.) are observed, but there is also a specific mechanism consisting in creating anthroponyms and toponyms without formal markers of derivation, yielding primary (non-derivative) personal names and place names, e.g., common noun —place name, personal name, nickname; proper noun —place name, personal name, nickname. Lithuanian surnames are a specific category in that they acquire no derivational markers in the process of derivation. A surname is an original patronymic, nickname etc., used as a surname. Therefore a derivational analysis of surnames as such is impossible, for they are all primary (non-derivative) units. Morphological segmentation of surnames is, of course, possible. 1. INTRODUCTION Surnames are part of the Lithuanian real words, or onimu, forming a subclass of the class of personal names. In addition to the latter, in the context of Lithuanian onomastics studies, subclasses of names and nicknames and a large class of place names are also mentioned. It consists of subclasses of place names naming various objects (e.g. water names, or hydronyms, names of inhabited places, or oikonyms, names of marshy places, or helonyms, names of mountains, or oronyms, etc.). The specifics of the evaluation of onomastics from the point of view of writing are discussed in detail in theoretical onomastics works. Here the differences between the concept of the formation of general and real words are highlighted and the peculiarities of the study of real words forming one or another class (subclass) of onims are described (see Nepokupnyj, ed. 1986: 162-173, 207-208). Without expanding and commenting in more detail on the statements related to these problems here (the purpose of this article does not require this), it is important to draw attention to the proposals to distinguish in the study of onyms the so-called living work, when the relationship of motivation of the work between the base word and the construct has been preserved or exists, and the historical work, which is associated with the morphemic breakdown of onyms' (the concept of analysis of the morphological structure is also mentioned) (Nepokupnyj, ed. 1986: 162-163). As can be seen, we are dealing with a constructive and structural analysis of actual words, with a clear distinction between these concepts. Which of the above-mentioned models —functional or structural analysis—is applicable to the study of onyms, among other things, should determine to which class (subclass) the latter belong. in For more information on morphological breakdown, see Urbutis (1978: 137–142). 168 | VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ It is very important to know as much as possible about the specifics of one or another class (subclass) of onims: how it arose, how the system of real words was formed, whether it is still being filled with new units or is closed and unchangeable, what linguistic and extralinguistic circumstances determined its character, etc. The answers to these questions would allow onims to be divided into two groups at least conditionally. One of them would consist of classes (subclasses) of onims, the actual words of which can and should be studied from the point of view of action by distinguishing types (types) of action, determining base words, forms of action, identifying derivatives, etc. The other group would be onyms, which should be studied using only a morphological analysis model. The aim of this article is to discuss how Lithuanian onomastics are or could be studied in this regard, and to try to find a place for Lithuanian surnames in this context. From what has been said, it should be clear that the article will be based on the experience of Lithuanian onomastics research and does not seek detailed theoretical generalizations. Therefore, the ideas and statements presented here should be considered as one of several possible opinions about the study of Lithuanian surnames from the point of view of the author. 2. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDIES ON PRONOMINATION 2.1. The most extensive study of Lithuanian water names has been conducted. A detailed monograph is dedicated to this (Vanagas 1970). The introduction of the thesis (Vanagas 1970: 6-27) discusses and evaluates all the studies on the formation of Lithuanian water names, drawing attention to the fact that some works “do not examine the formation of hydronyms, but their morphological structure- ”. Thus, the “operative principle” was not observed, the need to distinguish several operative (structural-grammatical) types of hydronyms was ignored, water names of different operative types were shuffled into one place. Before describing the specifics of hydronyms construction, an overview of opinions on the similarities and differences between common and proper words is presented and it is stated that the “task of hydronyms construction analysis is somewhat different than that of common words”. In the study of the latter, it is attempted to determine "how the language creates new words, how it supplements its word reserve". The hydronym system, meanwhile, is already formed and unchangeable, i.e. it is not subject to internal language laws. Therefore, when studying the creation of water names, "the researcher's gaze is always more directed to the past, to those times when the static system was still forming." The introduction discusses the very important problem of classification of hydronyms for the analysis of hydronym formation and reviews and evaluates the existing attempts to classify place names. The model of structural- -grammatical classification of Lithuanian hydronyms was chosen in the belief that it could be applied to other layers of the Lithuanian nomenclature. According to the chosen classification, all Lithuanian water names are divided into primary and secondary. The first are further divided into nouns (from general and actual words) and adjectives. The second—derived, enriched, and composite. It may be added that the study of derivatives seeks to establish the connections between common words and the principles of hydronym derivation and recognizes that the term derivative is most precisely used to designate those hydronyms whose “derivativity relationship with the corresponding common or proper words is still completely clear”. The formation of other hydronyms is unclear, but they can be divided into morphemes, i.e. considered to have an affix; in addition, are unclear FOR LIET. 169 verb nouns, the division of which into morphemes can only be guessed. In the latter cases, the term is used conditionally (Vanagas 1970: 54-57). As can be seen, in comparison with the formation of common words, due to the specificity of onims, a new method of formation is distinguished, the result of which are the primary water names. These are hydronyms that originated from common and actual words and during toponymic* processes, i.e., when they became water names, they did not acquire any formal adjective features (cf. Vanagas 1970: 28), e.g. : Adomaitis ež? < Adomaitis avd., Akivaras ež. < akivaras, Balandis ež. < balandis, Balta up. < balta, Globys up. < Globys avd., Gulbis ež. <gulbis, Janavas ez. < Janavas k., Kriaušiai up. < kriaušiai, Kūndrotas up. < Kūndrotas avd., Leimantas up. < Leimantas avd., Nėndrė up. < nėndrė, Piliakalnis ežeras. < piliakalnis, Sirvydis ežeras. < Sirvydis avd., Skersūtinis up. < skersūtinis, Smailiūtis up. < smailiūtis „smailas- “, Šermukšnynas ežeras. < šermukšnynas, Siupiéniai ežeras. < Siupiéniai k., Tėkančioji up. < tėkančioji, Trilypis ežeras. < trilypis, Vendrykštis up. < vendrykštis „vingiarykštė“, Žalioji up. < žaliėji. The primary water names are presented here in alphabetical order, because in terms of construction they are all equivalent — whether they are made up of common or real words, nouns or adjectives, personal names or other place names (see also Vanagas 1970: 29). 2.2.Using the same structural-grammatical classification for the analysis of the formation of hydronyms, the formation of some (about 4.6 thousand) Lithuanian mountain names, or oronyms, is also discussed (Vanagas 1973). First, they are divided into primary and secondary, and further, as in the case of the study of hydronym formation, the groups are divided in more detail. Primary mountain names are described as primary hydronyms: they are derived from adjectives, other place names or personal names and have no formal adjective features (Vanagas 1973: 209), e.g. : Apušotas < apusétas, Aujėda < Aujėda up., Aukštas < aukštas, Degimas < degimas, Didžiūlis < didžiūlis, Gūbrys < gūbrys, Kapėliai < kapėliai, Krištapas < Krištapas avd., Lydeka < lydeka, Obelėlė < obelėlė, Pašlaitė < pašlaitė, Prancūzai < prancūzai, Smailūsis < smailūsis, Šaltupys < Šaltupys up., Visginas < Visginas avd. 2.3. The formation of other Lithuanian place names classes (subclasses) has not been investigated in detail. Due to the abundance of marsh place names, or helonyms, only one type of their formation has received attention so far — the prepositional marsh place names (Bilkis 1998). In the context of the aforementioned classification of hydronyms, these placenames are to be classified first as secondary, then as vedic, and more specifically as adjective derivatives. In studying the helonyms of the adverbial form, we rely on the basics of the analysis of hydronyms by A. Vanagas, drawing attention to the long-standing theoretical basis of the concepts of adverbial analysis and morphological analysis. (morphemic breakdown) inidentity. Therefore, the names of marshy places are considered derivatives of suffixes, whose “suffix is not an element of morphological division or form formation, but a constructive affix, i.e. a means of forming new words” (Bilkis 1998: 32). These provisions are also observed when studying the names of places of residence or oikonimus (Razmukaitė 1998). There is no detailed analysis of their production (see Razmukaitė 1998: 1-4). Perhaps the concept of hydronymization would be more appropriate here, because there are also hydronyms formed from other place names, i.e. cases when a place name becomes a place name (place name — place name). * Ciair elsewhere abbreviations are the same as in this and other Lithuanian onomastics works. A separate list of abbreviations is not provided. 170 | VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ Attempts to describe possible classification groups in terms of the formation of names of places of residence are noted in P. Jonikas’ article,,Asmenvardziai ir vietovardžiai“ (Jonikas 1968). It includes prepositional, prepositional, compound and enriched names of places of residence (see A. Vanagas's classification of hydronyms). And the placenames, which, as the author states, “match with the singular gender of the personal name and surname (cf. Birštonas, Kaunas, Skuodas, Sudargas- )” (Jonikas 1968: 564), are undoubtedly to be qualified as the previously discussed primary names. Having briefly reviewed the researches on the formation of Lithuanian water names, mountain names, swamp names and names of inhabited places, it is important to state that these and other place names could undoubtedly be studied in another way, i.e. by applying the model of morphological analysis (morphological decomposition). The objectives, form and content of such studies would differ from the here discussed constructive analysis of place names. 3. PERSONAL NAME ACTIONS (STRUCTURES) There are no specific studies dedicated to the analysis of the other class of Lithuanian onims — personal nouns — so far. However, in some anthroponymic works, elements of the approach to the formation or structure of personal names can be found. 3.1. „Lietuvių vardų kilmės žodynas“ (Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1987), perhaps the most comprehensive collection of these names, presents names of different origin and age. According to the period of their existence in the Lithuanian name book, these names can be divided into three groups: old, Christian and new names. The analysis of the formation of names in each of these layers would probably have specific features, which would, among other things, be related to the sources of names, the circumstances of their emergence in the current nomenclature, etc. Old names are a part of Lithuanian personal names used during the pagan period, when the binomial system of Lithuanian names and surnames had not yet been formed. They were the only personal names that Lithuanians had at that time, but not names in the sense of the current concept of a name." So how do we describe the relationship between historical names and current names? There could be different opinions. Apparently, it is possible to simply identify current names and historical personal names, recognizing that the latter have come to our days unchanged and now function as names. Such an identification (formal and conditional, of course) would be partly justified by the fact that the most important function of historical personal names — to name a person by distinguishing him from others — in a certain sense presupposes the functions of both current names and current surnames (in this case, the most important thing is that it also presupposes the function of names)”. This conception of the relationship between historical personal names and current names called old names can justify what is said about the formation of these names (explaining their origin) in the aforementioned dictionary. Here we distinguish four types of old names: 1) double-stemmed puncture names, 2) abbreviations made from them, 3) adverbial derivatives of abbreviations, 4) appellative names — just general names4 For the use of this term in the study of historical anthroponymy see also. Maciejauskienė (1991: 14). 3 On the functions of names and surnames, see also Zr. Maciejauskiené (1991: 14, 19, 50-51). FOR LIET. 171 words that have become nouns (Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1987: 25). In comparison with the previously discussed classification of hydronyms, the first type of creation of old names can be identified with secondary enriched place names, the third with secondary derivatives of adverbs, and the fourth with primary place names (detailed discussion of similarities and differences has been omitted, as the purpose of the article does not require it). The third type of names — abbreviations of binomials (they are also called old mononomial names) are to be considered as the result of a certain way of forming names, rather than the type of onimic formation (in the usual linguistic meaning of this term)." The most common are the old two-stemmed names (so-called double-stemmed puns), e.g. : Al-minas, Al-mintas, Ei-bartas, Gėd-rimas, Gos-tautas, Kart-minas, Min-gaudas, Taiit- -gailas, Tol-mantas, Tvir-gedas, Vai-noras, Vais-mantas, Vil-mantas. The other group of current names that are called old, in terms of construction, consists of the suffix vedic, for example. : Algėnis, Bartėnis, Birėnis, Dargėnis, Daugėnis, Eidėnis, Eigėnis, Gaudėnis, Gedėnis, Gintėnis, Girdėnis, Girstėnis, Gytėnis, Kantėnis, Klausėnis, Tautėnis, Vaidėnis and others (adverbs -enis Vedic); Bylotas, Darotas, Daūgotas, Eidotas, Milotas, Minotas, Vaidotas, Valiotas, Viltotas (adverbs -otas Vedic); Barūtis, Birūtis, Darūtis, Eigūtis, Eimutis, Gailūtis, Gedūtis, Geistūtis, Girdūtis, Kestutis, Klausūtis, Ramutis (adverbs) -lice-derived); "Klausilas, Mantilas, Vaidilas (adverbs -ilas Vedic)". The authors of the dictionary of the origin of names believe that these Vedic base words are abbreviations of two-stemmed names. Only relatively rarely other old Lithuanian personal names (e.g. Augėnis, Baltėnis, Drąsūtis, Jaunūtis, Laimūtis, etc.) are mentioned as reference words." Among the present names called old, there were no such ones that could be considered as primary from the point of view of construction (the authors of the dictionary call them “appellative — just common words that have become names” — see Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1987: 25). However, he drew attention to the few derivatives of the endings (e.g.: Budrys, Būdrius from lit. budrūs, Drąsius from lit. drąsūs, Jaunys, Jaūnius from lit. jaunas), although this type of formation of old names is not mentioned. Having briefly discussed what is said in the “Dictionary of the Origin of Lithuanian Names” about the formation of current names called old, we should return to the previously formulated provision that such or similar evaluation of the formation of these names should be based on the identification of current names and analogous historical personal names (as already mentioned — very formal and conditional). Another case of evaluating the relationship between historical personal names and current names called old could be as follows: current names have emerged from historical personal names without acquiring any formal features of construction. In this case, all of the first-order names are considered to be first-order names. Thus, the mentioned current names Algminas, Almintas, Eibartas, Gėdrimas, etc. have arisen (formed) from analogous historical personal names, which in the context of the evaluation of the work should be qualified as secondary compounds. And the names Algėnis, Bartėnis, Dargėnis- ,... Bylotas, Darotas, Daūgotas,... Barūtis, Birūtis, Darūtis,... Maciejauskienė (1997: 113–124). It should be noted that when indicating the four types of action of old names, only the “prepositional derivatives of abbreviations” are named —Kuzavinis, Savukynas (1987: 25). Furthermore, it could be discussed whether the reference words of all these names — derivatives of adjectives — are personal nouns, but this is not relevant to the purposes of this article. 172 | VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ las and others, previously called derivatives of prepositions, would again have only arisen from historical personal names, in terms of construction — prepositional derivatives. It is also known as the old name of the current town. Such an approach would be acceptable, among other things, because of the very difficult to define functions of historical personal names when comparing them with the purpose of current names, and because of the connections with the peculiarities of the evaluation of the formation of current Lithuanian surnames, which will be discussed later. Assuming that all the current names called old are original from the point of view of construction, it would be promising and interesting to study them by applying the model of morphological analysis (morphological decomposition). The analysis of the construction of the other layer of the current nomenclature — Christian names — is the object of the study of the construction of non-Lithuanian words. All these names came from other languages (Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Germanic, Slavic, etc.) and brought their characteristic (structural) characteristics. Therefore, we can only talk about things related to the adaptation of Christian names in Lithuanian. One of these would be the ratio and use of long (canonical) Christian names and their abbreviations, another — the derivatives of deminutive suffixes of these names, which were common in the historical sources of the 16th-17th centuries and ceased to be used in the 18th-19th centuries, etc. (see Maciejauskienė 1979; 1991: 34, 38, 41; 1993: 102). It is true that various derivatives of deminutive suffixes of Christian names are common in the living language even now, but these are not the official genders of names written in personal documents. Therefore, it seems possible to avoid discussing them in more detail here. The new names, forming the third layer of the current namebook, are usually divided into names of Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian origin (Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1987: 41-46). The second, i.e. names of non-Lithuanian origin, came into the Lithuanian name book from other languages. Thus, the discussion of their construction, like that of Christian names, is not the object of the analysis of Lithuanian word construction. It is different with the new names of Lithuanian origin. When evaluating them from the point of view of composition, it is not difficult to distinguish several classification groups, which are also named in the grammatical-structural classification of place names discussed earlier. These are primary names that, without acquiring any formal adjective features, have arisen from generic or actual words, e.g. : Dawn: lit. dawn, Wave: lit. wave, Song: lit. song, Dobilas: lit. clover, Amber: lit. gintaras, Sea: lit. jūra, Lime: lit. liepa, Svaja: lit. svaja, Dream: lit. svajonė, Glow: lit. žara (from common words) or Agluona: Agluona up., Airė: Airė up., Alanta: Alanta up., Alantas: Alantas up., Gailintas: Gailintas ežeras., Milda: Milda (mythological goddess), Nemunas: Nemunas up., Nida: Nida mstl., Skinija: Skinija up., Svalia: Svalia up., Ūla: Ūla up., Upyna: Upyna up., Vilnius: Vilnius mst., Žeimena: Žeimena up., Žemyna: Žemyna (name of a mythological creature) and others (from real words — place names, moans, or names of mythological creatures, etc.). There are also other names for the outer rings, e.g. : Aidė: lit. great, great : lit. storm, Dawn: lit. dawn, Oak, Oak: lit. oak, Part: lit. part, Freshness : lit. fresh, Jautra, Jautrė: lit. sensitive, -i, Jūris, Jūrius: lit. sea, Miglė: lit. fog, Rytė, Rytis: lit. morning, Skaidrė, Skaidrė: lit. clear, clear “pleasant, cheerful- ”, Skaistys, Skaistis: lit. bright, bright “Bright; doras“, Taurys, Taūrius: lit. worthy „doras; "Fire". fire. Another group of new names of secondary origin are the derivatives of adjectives, e.g. : Audronė, Audronis, Audronius: lit. storm (adjectives -onė, -onis, -onius derived), Audriinas, Audrūnė: lit. storm (adjectives -ūnas, -ūnė derived), Ban- FOR LIET. | 173 guolis: lit. wave (adverb -uolis derivative), Laiminta, Laimintas: lit. laimé (adverb -inta, -intas derivatives), Laisvūnas: lit. freedom (adverb -ūnas derivative), Teisūtis: lit. righteous (adverb -utis derivative), Žydrūnas: lit. green, Žydrūnas: lit. green, Žydrūnas: lit. green, Žydrūnas: lit. green, Žydrūnas: lit. green, Žydrūnas: lit. green, Žydrūnas: lit. green, Žydrūnas: lit. green, Žydrūnas: lit. green. "Zdris "zelenost (sveta)"" (adverb -un derivative). Among the new names there are also those that are formed (mostly by linguists) according to the constructive and semantic models of the old names by alternating or combining known stems of binomial personal names, e.g. : Al-gin, Al-kant, Aūg-mantas, Bar-mantas, But-mintas, Eig-mantas, Eit-viltas, Gil-mintas, Graz-valdas, Yaū-vaidas, Kēs-bartas, Liaud-gintas, Min-vaidas, Rad-vydas, Skir-tautas. These names are artificial, and their use is not supported by historical anthroponymy. Therefore, unlike the old diphthong names, which were evaluated from the point of view of the construction by mentioning two possible possibilities — they are composed (diphthongs puncture) or primary — the new names of this type, apparently, could be called only composed. As can be seen, by studying the formation of new names of Lithuanian origin, it is possible to determine the ways in which new names are formed and the current vocabulary is enriched (see the analysis of the formation of common words, which aims to determine how the language forms new words, thus supplementing their stock). Thus, the system of Lithuanian names, as one of the subclasses of onims, is not yet fully formed, it is changing and open. This is the case for the study of the real numbers. 3.2. The other subclass of Lithuanian personal names, the pronouns, is open and variable. How are these personal names evaluated from the point of view of work? This question is not answered in the article “Lithuanian nicknames” by Ž. Urbanavičiūtė and V. Žičkutė. Here, these personal names are divided into five groups “according to structure and construction”: 1) non-derived words (Teta, Slyva, Žinai), 2) derivatives, which are further divided into endings (Racius, Jūodis, Plikis, Žiūra), suffixes (Rūgštėlė, Vištūkė, Skiltuvas), prepositions (Beranké, Pakluonis) and prepositions-additives (Pakapinis, Panaktinūkas), 3) compounds, which are again further divided into compounds (Penkplaūkis, Purtagalvis) and compounds (Guminis Jonas, Stiklo bobūtė), 4) derivatives-composites (Sugrūbnagis, Nulėpaūsis, Skersgalvinis) and 5) phrases (Tavė perkūnėlis, Gerai sūko) (Urbanavičiūtė, Žičkutė 1975: 60-61). The examples presented clearly show that such a division is not related to the naming of possible types of nicknames, but only describes the structure of these personal names. In the monograph “Lietuvių pravardės” (Lithuanian nicknames), these onims are defined as onomastically motivated unofficial personal names and it is believed that they have the meaning of a common word and the function of a proper word (Butkus 1995: 21, 26). The main focus of the thesis is focused on the study of the motives of nicknames, believing that the analysis of the formation of these personal names should be the object of another scientific work. However, some nicknames (relative, disputing, indicating the place of residence) are also discussed. This allows us to describe another provision related to the examination of nicknames in this respect. It is possible to divide nicknames into primary and derivative nicknames (Butkus 1995: 31, 33). The first, as it is stated, “is no different from the motivating word” (in the broader context of the evaluation of the onimic work already discussed, the latter word would be nothing more than a reference word). This provision would suggest that such nicknames as Needle, Elephant, Bread, Bicycle, Blacksmith, Sūrmai- 174 | VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ sis, Šlūbis, Valkata, etc., whose motivating words are adatėlė, ežys, duonelė, dviratis, kalvis, sūryšis, šlūbis, valkata, are to be considered primary. Before talking about the second group of nicknames — derivatives — it should first be noted that in this case it would be better to use the term secondary nicknames. For derivatives, or vedic, are words that “rely on a single base word and have a form of action” (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 225). Thus, behind the precise concept of this term remain the compound and composite nicknames® mentioned below by the author and attributed to derivatives. In asserting that the evaluation of the formation of nicknames should apply somewhat different criteria than when speaking about the formation of other onyms, for example, water names, the author adheres to the provision that “derivation can be spoken of when the relationship is between the members of the same, i.e. onomastic, group, that is, when the nickname is made from the actual word and structurally differs from it, e.g. : Agočiūkas (: Agota), Didžiūkazis (: didis, Kazys)“ (Butkus 1995: 33). According to this approach, secondary nicknames can only be those whose base word is an onomatopoeia (another personal noun), compound nicknames one of the sands (or more commonly both), and compound nicknames — usually both elements are also real words (usually personal nouns), e.g. : Agniėškinis: Agnieška v., Aleksandriokas: Aleksandras v., Baltramaitėlis: Baltramaitis pvd., Bambyziokas: Bambyzas prvd., Gabriokas: Gabrys avd., Kaziškis: Kazys v., Kočėlianka: Kočėlas prvd., Lesvinčiokas: Lesvinčius prvd., Martynūkas: Martynas v., prvd., Matakūtas: Matakas prvd., Niemčiūkas: Niėmčius prvd., Tamošynas, Tamošiokas, Tamošiūkas: Tamošius v. and others (derivatives of various prefixes from other personal names); or: Baltrajurgis: Baltrus, Jurgis v., Brūžentis: Bružas pvd., liet. žentas, Kaziopetris: Kazys, Petras v., Lapėnžentis: Lapėnas pvd., liet. žentas, Stasiakazis: Stasys, Kazys v., Šimkūžentis: Šimkus pvd., liet. žentas (composite nicknames) and Joni Antanas: Jonas, Antanas v., Kazio Vitas: Kazys, Vitas v., Simas Jonas: Simas, Jonas v., Simo Motiejus: Simas, Motiejus v., Stūskaus Arūnas: Staskus prvd., Arūnas v., Staskyno Stasys: Staskynas prvd., Stasys v., Viūciuvienės Jasionis: Vinciuvienė prvd., Jasionis pvd. (composite nicknames). The name is derived from the Greek word for stone, stena. Andrijaitis, Alksninis End: lit. alksninis, plg. alksnis, pvd. Beiga, Dūburo Bumbliaūskis: lit. duburas, Bumbliauskis pvd. and so on. the first elements are not onions, but general words. As can be seen, the concept of secondary (especially Vedic) nicknames has been considerably narrowed when evaluating the creation of nicknames. This approach is debatable. However, this is not relevant to the purposes of this Article. And in the work in question, the evaluation of nickname making was only one of the peripheral objectives of the study. Another work by the same author (Butkus 1999) is devoted to the analysis of the structure of pronouns. Here again the opinion is confirmed that “the derivation of nicknames can be discussed only when it occurs in the onomastic, not in the adjective, i.e., when the nickname is made from the actual word, e.g., Didžiapranis, Adomiėtis” (Butkus 1999: 91). It is precisely because of the aforementioned approach that the article avoids the creation of nicknames, because, in the author’s opinion, “the creation analysis of real names would greatly narrow the subject of the study ob2 More about the inaccuracies in the usage of the terms and concepts mentioned in this work, related to the evaluation of the creation of nicknames, see. Maciejauskienė (1999: 239–240). FOR LIET. 175 jektą: it would not include nicknames of appellative origin. Meanwhile, the structural analysis of nicknames allows us to look at the structures of the appellatives chosen to create nicknames” (Butkus 1999: 91-92). From what is quoted, it is clear that in this case, the morphological structure analysis model is applied to the study of nicknames. Whether it is acceptable to adopt such a concept of secondary nicknames (especially Vedic ones) from the point of view of their construction (after all, from the many examples presented even in the article it is clear that nicknames, even when understanding the most subtle nuances of their specificity, can be and are composed of generic words); whether, apart from the term nickname construction, the terms derivatives of endings and derivatives of adverbs are used as concepts specifically related to constructional analysis (see Butkus 1999: 93, 97), which indicate the type of construction, rather than the result of division into morphemes (or separation of formants- ); whether only nicknames derived from derivative adjectives should be structured, etc. Such and similar questions arise, among other things, because the study of the structure of (i)uir rock nicknames is not clearly and precisely separated from their formation from the usual linguistic point of view. See, for example, the statement in the first conclusion that „dominates the derivative of the ending -(i)us“ (Butkus 1999: 99), which should show that all nicknames qualified as such are the result of derivation, and the formant of the verb is the mentioned ending -(i)us, although among the so-called nicknames there are both derivatives of the mentioned ending and primary personal nouns from the point of view of the verb. So, shouldn’t we give up the misleading concept of derivatives of endings and, when studying the structure of nicknames, evaluate them differently —have one or another ending, are with an ending, etc.? The same applies to the concept of adjectives, as the so-called nicknames certainly have nothing to do with the vedas, but only have one or another form distinguished by the author. Leaving for the future a more detailed consideration of these and other problematic issues related to the evaluation of nicknames from the point of view of their composition, it can be said that the content and the most important provisions of A. Butkauskas’ works discussed here very briefly show that the study of the composition and structure (morphemic structure) of nicknames is not only possible, but has already been successfully started. From what has already been done, it is clear that the specificity of nicknames determines some characteristic features of construction and structure only for this class of onims. 3.3. Lithuanian surnames have not been studied in terms of construction. However, in the works dedicated to these subjects, among other things, their creation is also appreciated. The authors, choosing a method of discussing names that corresponds to their research objectives, sometimes even try to divide them into groups, which are named by the usual word formation terms. However, this does not allow for a general, at least somewhat more detailed classification of these personal names. It is not yet, and what could be, probably, the decisive attitude to the creation of these again very specific onims. P. Jonikas divides Lithuanian surnames into three groups in terms of construction (Jonikas 1968: 557). The first consists of "monocaudal, today unprefixed and unprefixed names, such as Ziikas, Baitis, Kedys, Ruga, Pėmpė, Norkus, Šernius". Another group, according to the author, consists of prepositional and prepositional surnames. Many examples of the former are given (Grūmadas, Dalinda, Tilindis, Aukštiejus, Toleikis, Bražiškis, Beržinis, Jurkynas, Keliuotis, Dargužas, etc.) and it is stated that the most commonly used suffixes are -ikas, -ukas, -iškis, -elis, -ėlis, -ėnas, -ynas, -onis, -ūnas, -aitis, etc. As for the latter, it is said that there are not many (Bepirštis, Nelaimiškis, Nuopénas, Pakalniškis, Uzupis). The third group consists of compound surnames, which the author as if separates into two subgroups: a. Aukštikalnis, 182 | VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ affixes, so it is proposed to call them conditionally “primary”, e.g. : Aukszle, Bar/5tys, Didkriftys, Ludkus, Negrajus, Rimkus, Smilgius, Ukbalis, Walantejus and so on. As it appears, in this case, the discussion of the formation of historical names is limited to the exclusion of some names with suffixes. They are not called Vedas. All other surnames, so-called "primary", are simply presented in alphabetical order, and their structure is not discussed in more detail. This could be viewed as a partial morphem analysis (or a partial application of the morphem decomposition model). In fact, only some, in the author’s view, important and necessary to discuss, morphemes, i.e., the mentioned suffixes of names, are distinguished. 4. FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL NAME ANALYSIS OPPORTUNITIES 4.1.Summing up what is said about the formation of names in the discussed anthroponymy works, it can be said that a comprehensive, consistent, based on strong arguments approach to the evaluation of the formation of these personal names is not yet available. Depending on the objectives of the authors of the works, sometimes only the most important features of the structure of Lithuanian surnames are distinguished (Jonikas 1968) or one or another suffix is searched in the surnames, and thus these personal names are included in the general context of historical word formation in Lithuanian language (Skardžius 1996). In explaining the origin of Lithuanian surnames, the name making is also mentioned again. However, this is done without distinguishing the forms of construction of general and actual words, and without delving into the peculiarities of the evaluation of the construction of surnames as specific personal names (LPZ). Two publications attempt to investigate the formation of names (Šukys 1986; Ramonienė 1987). Here the surnames are divided into groups. The latter are named by terms that are commonly used in the study of the formation of common words or onyms (see neisvestinés, or primary, surname, secondary surname, ending derivatives, prepositional, prepositional and compound surname or derivatives of suffixes, prepositions and puns, etc.). Both articles respect the provision that the base words of the names recognized as derivatives may be both adjectives and generic words. In the last of the mentioned works, the model of partial morphological breakdown is applied when discussing the formation of surnames. It is very important that some peculiarities of the formation of surnames are discussed here (Žemienė 1999). 4.2. So, how could Lithuanian surnames be assessed from the point of view of work? Trump should go back to what he said at the beginning of the article. As mentioned above, when studying the production of onims it is very important to take into account the specifics of one or another class (subclass) of onims, i.e. to determine how the onims system arose, was formed, whether it is still being filled with new units or is closed, etc. This is the basis for the study of real-world situations. No less important, apparently, is the origin of one or another class (subclass) of onions. By adding all this to the data from the current experience of Lithuanian name making research, it is possible to try to describe the specifics of the evaluation of name making. The results of the study of the formation of water names show that their formation can be illustrated as follows: common word — water name or actual word — water name. Tokyos FOR LIET. The 183 schemes are suitable for almost all types (modes) of action, and most importantly — for both primary and secondary hydronyms. The same applies to the names of mountains, or oronimes. Only one type of construction of residential and marshy place names (oikonimai and helonymai) has so far been thoroughly studied — secondary prepositional place names. The results of the study confirm the same patterns of onimu formation: common word — name of residential and marshy place or proper word — name of residential and marshy place. It is not difficult to see that the names of places of residence that are original in terms of construction can be formed according to the above-mentioned patterns. For example, the names of villages Būda, Giria, Kalnas, Piliakalnis, Sodyba, Trakas, whose basic words are the adjectives būda, giria, kalnas, piliakalnis, sodyba, trūkas. Or: Kaunas city < Kaunas avenue, Kavarskas village < Kavarskas avenue (Vanagas 1996: 90-94), Alvitas village < Alvitas lake, Šventežeris village < Sventezeris lake, Vištytis village < Vištytis lake (Balčikonis 1978: 339-340). In the latter cases, the base words of the names of places of residence are other onims (personal names and place names). The Lithuanian new names, which can be easily assessed from the point of view of composition, again show the same patterns of formation and filling of their system with new units: the common word —vardas or the proper word —vardas. The same applies to nicknames. Although the author of the discussed works recognises only one way of forming secondary nicknames — the real word — the vernacular, the primary personal nouns in terms of construction also support the second — the general word — the vernacular. From all the actual words mentioned here — pronouns and personal names — the surnames stand out. As detailed studies of the formation of the system of these personal names show (Maciejauskienė 1991: 50-116, 215-248), all surnames originated from personal names, therefore, according to the model, the actual word is surname. In asserting that the surnames were formed from historical personal names, it is necessary to add that in this case it is not possible to speak about several types of creation (in terms of manner) (see primary and secondary place names or names, and secondary — derived from prefixes, suffixes, endings, compounds, etc.). Historical personal names, which were written after a person’s name and replaced non-existent surnames, gradually acquired the characteristics of the latter personal names (they became hereditary, common to all persons of one family, etc.), i.e. they became surnames. As they were, as they were used at the time. Due to the specificity of the formation of the surnames, all of them can only be qualified as primary, originating from various historical personal names and not acquiring any formal constructive characteristics when the latter become surnames. In accordance with this provision, it is not possible to agree with what was said in the aforementioned articles about the formation of surnames, because these personal names cannot be formed from generic words, they cannot be divided into primary and secondary in terms of formation, and the latter in more detail into derivatives, compounds, etc. of prepositions, endings, etc. Only historical personal names, from which surnames were formed, can be classified and studied in terms of their formation (cf., for example, Zinkevičius 1977: 227-242). Thus, unlike all the other onyms discussed — pronouns and some personal names — in the study of surnames only the model of morphological breakdown (analysis of morphological structure) is possible. This method of analysis has been successfully applied to Latvian surnames (Staltmane 1981). Taking into account the peculiarities of the formation of these personal names system and acknowledging that, due to the specificity of the surnames, their formation cannot be studied in any other way, the researcher will be “taken” to the field of historical personal names formation, where it will be easy to distinguish primary and secondary anthroponyms, and among the latter to name the derivatives of the suffixes that have current surnames. In addition to the above mentioned, there are other types of phrases, such as the phrases of the first person singular, the phrases of the second person singular, and the phrases of the third person singular. What has been said here in passing about the suffixes of names applies, at least in part, to their other morphemes — prepositions, endings, etc. In conclusion, it should be said that whatever the objectives of the author who studies the structure of surnames, and whatever the morphemes he distinguishes, all of them can be identified with the real forms of historical personal names or adjectives. The latter, however, will not be name-making formants. Therefore, when speaking about the morphological breakdown of Lithuanian surnames, when searching for morphemes and naming them, it is obviously not necessary to use terms and concepts usual for word formation (e.g., base words, derivatives, prepositions, suffixes, ending derivatives, primary and secondary surnames, etc.) or to state that surnames are formed with a prefix, suffix, ending, etc. For reasons of scientific accuracy, the statements surname has suffix, prefix, ending, surname is with suffix, prefix, ending, it is possible to distinguish the surname suffix, prefix, ending or similar otherwise would be better suited. Because sometimes it is precisely the not quite accurate use of terms and concepts that creates the impression of different views. 44. The article has already referred to Lithuanian surnames, which in terms of their construction can be called derivatives of prepositions (see the 184 | VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ ma, thesis presents characteristics of the morphological structure of surnames. According to the author, when studying the structure of surnames, it is important to find out what means of forming common words are used and how often they are repeated in the surnames, whether the surname has anthroponymous forms that are characteristic only for it, etc. (Staltmane 1981: 31-32, 39). 43. The objectives of the morphological breakdown of names, i.e. the analysis of their structure, may be different. In addition to those already mentioned, which the author of the work on Latvian surnames considers important, there could be other ones as well. It is these that would determine which morphemes one or another author would look for in names. One of the more important objects of such research would undoubtedly be the suffixes of Lithuanian surnames, which should be assessed not only in terms of linguistic but also extralinguistic circumstances of the origin and final establishment of the surnames. For example, the fact that the surnames have Lithuanian patronymic suffixes -aitis, -onis, -ūnas, etc., shows that they originated from patronymic forms, the formants of which are the mentioned suffixes. The surname suffixes -avičius, -evičius may indicate that they originated from patronymics formed with the mentioned Slavic suffixes, were Slavified or borrowed from the names of other peoples." The so-called -sk type suffixes (-auskas, -skas, -skis, -eckas, -inskas, etc.) are a sign that such surnames have been glorified or are borrowed. discussion of the works of P. Skardžys and J. Šukis). These are the official Lithuanian surnames of women (married and unmarried) and girls, which with certain suffixes are made up of the husband's or father's surname. Unlike official male surnames, which are only to be called primary, these female and girl surnames are clearly to be qualified as secondary in terms of their formation. 1 For more details, see Maciejauskienė (1996: 60). FOR LIET. 185 The same applies to the informal forms of children- ’s and young people’s (male and female) surnames, which are common in the living language. There are various methods used to obtain them. However, these are unofficial personal names, so a detailed discussion of their making is not necessary here. 5. GENERAL REMARKS 5.1. In onomastics works, attention is paid to the peculiarities of evaluating the work of onomastics. It is believed that some real words can be studied from this point of view, while others can be studied using the model of morphological structure analysis. This is determined by the specificity of one or another onima and their entire class (subclass). It is very important to know how the system of onims was formed, whether it is closed, already formed and unchanged, or still being filled with new units, what linguistic and extralinguistic factors determined its appearance and nature, etc. In accordance with these provisions, the article describes how Lithuanian real words — pronouns and personal nouns — are (or can be) studied from the point of view of construction. In doing so, it was attempted to form and present an opinion about the peculiarities and possibilities of researching Lithuanian surnames from the point of view of work. 5.2. The most comprehensive analysis of Lithuanian water names has been carried out. According to the structural-grammatical classification, these place names are divided into primary and secondary, and the latter into derivative, compound and composite. They are divided into sub-groups, sub-groups and sub-groups. In comparison with the formation of common words, due to the specificity of water names as actual words, a new method of formation is distinguished, the result of which are the primary place names. They are derived from general and actual words that have not acquired any formal adjective characteristics when they have become nouns. The same classification model has been applied to the formation of some mountain names, or oronyms. The same rules were followed in the study of place names of one form — prepositional names of residential and marshy places (oikonimis and helonimis). The results of the study of the formation of pronouns confirm the following patterns of their formation: common word — pronoun and proper word — pronoun. They are suitable for both primary and secondary place names. All the placenames that have been discussed could be studied in another way, i.e. by applying the model of morphological breakdown (analysis of morphological structure). 5.3. There are no special works devoted to the analysis of the construction of another class of Lithuanian onims — personal nouns. However, some works of anthroponymics contain elements of evaluation of the work of these onims. It is easy to notice that the possible analyze of personal names belonging to different subclasses (first names, nicknames, surnames) is not considered differentiatedly. All of them are divided into primary and secondair ry, and the latter in more detail and so on. In terms of construction, names can be divided into primary and secondary, and among the latter there are names derived from suffixes, endings, compound names, etc. (see the new Lithuanian names). Similarly, the types of nicknames (types) could be similar. It is true that, due to the specificity of these onyms, it would not be possible to “fit” all of them, for example, into the structural-grammatical classification developed for the study of water names, and later adapted to other place names. 186 | VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ Both names and nicknames systems have the same patterns of formation and filling with new units as place names: common word — first name, nickname and proper word — first name, nickname. For both names and nicknames, in addition to the analysis of the verb, another method of research can be applied — morphemic decomposition (analysis of the morphological structure). By the way, the structure of nicknames has already been investigated. 5.4 Surnames differ from other personal names in that all of them are derived from historical personal names (patronyms, nicknames or nicknames, old binomials and mononyms, Christian names). Thus, the formation of these onyms can be illustrated by only one model: the actual word—surname. In addition, in this case, it is not possible to distinguish several types (modes) of action. In fact, the surnames derived from historical personal names did not acquire any functional characteristics when the latter became surnames. The status of the personal name has simply changed: it used to be a patronymic, a nickname, etc., and now it is a surname. Thus, all the surnames from the point of view of their construction can be qualified only as primary, and their further structural analysis simply has no basis. Thus, unlike other onyms — pronouns and some personal names — in the study of surnames only the method of morphological breakdown (analysis of morphological structure) should be applied. In doing so, we should obviously avoid using the usual terms and concepts for word formation. Instead of calling the surnames derivatives of prefixes, suffixes, endings, etc. for scientific precision reasons, it would be better to use statements the surname has a prefix, suffix, ending, the name is with a prefix, suffix, ending, it is possible to distinguish the surname prefix, suffix, ending, etc. The secondary — derivatives of adverbs — are the official surnames of Lithuanian women (married and unmarried) and girls, made up of the official surnames of the husband or father. LITERATURE BALČIKONIS, J. 1978: Names of inhabited places from the names of lakes and rivers. 1, Vilnius: Mokslas, 339-349. BiLKIS, L. 1998: Helonimai lietuviškoje prieveiksminiame veiksmažodyje, Vilnius (doctoral dissertation). BUTKUS, A. 1995: Lithuanian nicknames, Kaunas: Asti. BUTKUS, A. 1999: Structure of Lithuanian nicknames. The Journal of Economics 10 (19), 91-100. GAIVENIS, K., KEINYS, S. 1990: Dictionary of Language Terms, Kaunas: Šviesa. JONIKAS, P. 1968: Personal names and place names. 15, Boston: Lithuanian Encyclopedia Publishers, 555-571. Kuzavinis, K., SAVUKYNAS, B. 1987: Dictionary of the Origin of Lithuanian Names, Vilnius: Mokslas. 1-2, red. A. Vanagas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985-1989. MACIEJAUSKIENE, V. 1979: Lithuanian names in the 16th century. MACIEJAUSKIENE, V. 1991: The formation of Lithuanian surnames, Vilnius: Mokslas. MACIEJAUSKIENE, V. 1993: Lithuanians in the first half of the 19th century. MACIEJAUSKIENE, V. 1996: On the evaluation of Lithuanian surnames with suffixes -avicius, -evicius. Lithuanian Linguistics Questions 36, 60-70. 100-113. FOR LIET. ASSESSMENT OF SURNAMES FROM THE WORKING PERSPECTIVE | 187 MACIEJAUSKIENE, V. 1997: Single-family names of Lithuanian origin in the 16th century. MACIEJAUSKIENE, V. 1999: A significant work on Lithuanian anthroponymy. Nepokupnyj, A. P., ed. 1986: Teopus u 232-241. memooduxa onomacmuyeckux uccaedosaruit, Mocksa: Hayka. RAMONIENE, M. 1987: Late 18th-century creation of surnames and surnames of origin. The Journal of Linguistics, 26, 135-139. RAZMUKAITĖ, M. 1998: Lithuanian verb oikonimai, Vilnius (doctoral dissertation). SKARDŽIUS, P. 1996: Lithuanian word formation. 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1—768. STALTMANE, V. E. 1981: Jlambuuckas anmpononumus. Pamuauu, Mocxsa: Hayka. 1986: The Name of the Beast. Sign and Meaning, Vilnius: Mokslas, 81-105. URBANAVIČIŪTĖ, Z., ŽIČKUTĖ, V. 1975: Lithuanian nicknames. Linguistics 26 (1), 55-61. URBUTIS, V. 1978: Theory of word formation, Vilnius: Mokslas. VANAGAS, A. 1970: Hydronyms of the Lithuanian SSR, Vilnius: Mintis. VANAGAS, A. 1973: CTpyKTypHO—C10BOOOpa30BaTe/IbHBIN aHaJIM3 Ha3BaHHH rop JiurBbI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. To be. 3(44), 209-219. VANAGAS, A. 1996: Lithuanian town names, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. ZINKEVICIUS, Z. 1977: Lithuanian Anthroponyms. Vilnius Lithuanian personal names in the early 17th century, Vilnius: Science. ZEMIENE, A. 1999: The creation of male surnames in Ragainė district in the late 18th-early 19th centuries. Language Studies, 23, 221–231. Vitalija Maciejauskienė Received 12/12/2000 Institute of Lithuanian Language Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lithuania vitma(dktl.mii.lt