ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

XLIV (2001), 167–187

On Evaluating Lithuanian Surnames from the Perspective of Word Formation

VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ

Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius

The article deals with Lithuanian surnames considered from the viewpoint of word formation. 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. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Surnames are part of the proper words, or onyms, of the Lithuanian language, forming a subclass of the class of personal names. Besides this subclass, in the context of Lithuanian onomastic research, the subclasses of given names and nicknames and the vast class of place names should also be mentioned. The latter consists of subclasses of place names designating various objects (e.g., names of bodies of water, or hydronyms; names of inhabited places, or oikonyms; names of marshy places, or helonyms; names of mountains, or oronyms; and so on).

The specifics of evaluating onyms from the perspective of word formation have been discussed in detail in theoretical works on onomastics. These works highlight the differences between the concepts of word formation for common and proper words and describe the particularities of studying proper words that make up one or another class (subclass) of onyms (cf. Nepokupnyj, ed. 1986: 162–173, 207–208). Without expanding on or commenting further here on claims related to these problems (which is not required by the aim of this article), it is important to note proposals to distinguish, in the study of onyms, so-called living word formation, where relations of word-formation motivation between a base word and a derivative have persisted or exist, from historical word formation, which is associated with the morphemic segmentation of onyms¹ (the term analysis of morphological structure is also used) (Nepokupnyj, ed. 1986: 162–163). As can be seen, the discussion concerns the derivational and structural analysis of proper words, with these concepts clearly distinguished from one another.

Which of the aforementioned models—derivational or structural analysis—is applicable to the study of onyms should, among other things, also determine which class (subclass) they belong to.

¹ Dėl morfeminio skaidymo plačiau žr. Urbutis (1978: 137–142).

168 |

VITALIJA MACĖLAUSKIENĖ

It is very important to know as much as possible about the specific features of one or another class (subclass) of onyms: how the system of proper words originated and took shape, whether it is still being supplemented with new units or is closed and unchanging, what linguistic and extralinguistic circumstances determined its character, and so on. Answers to these questions would make it possible to divide onyms, at least provisionally, into two groups. One would comprise classes (subclasses) of onyms whose proper words can and should be studied from the perspective of word formation by identifying word-formation types (methods), determining base words and word-formation formatives, identifying derivatives, and so on. The other group would consist of onyms for which the model of morphemic segmentation (analysis of morphological structure) should be chosen.

The aim of this article is to discuss how Lithuanian onyms are or could be studied from this perspective and, in that context, to try to find a place for Lithuanian surnames. From what has been said, it should be clear that the article draws on the experience of research into Lithuanian onomastics and does not seek to offer comprehensive theoretical generalizations. The ideas and claims presented here should therefore be regarded as one of several possible opinions on the study of Lithuanian surnames from the perspective of word formation.

2. OVERVIEW OF TOPONYM-FORMATION STUDIES

2.1. The formation of Lithuanian hydronyms is currently the most thoroughly studied area. A comprehensive monograph is devoted to this subject (Vanagas 1970). The introduction to the work (Vanagas 1970: 6–27) discusses and evaluates all the studies of Lithuanian hydronym formation carried out to date, noting that some works “examine not the formation of hydronyms but their morphological structure.” In other words, the “derivational principle” was not followed: several derivational (structural-grammatical) types of hydronyms that should be distinguished were conflated, and hydronyms formed in different ways were lumped together. Before describing the specific features of hydronym formation, the author surveys opinions on the similarities and differences between common and proper words and observes that “the task of examining hydronym formation is somewhat different from that of common words.” In studying the formation of the latter, the aim is to establish “how language creates new words and how it replenishes its stock of words.” The hydronymic system, by contrast, has already taken shape and is unchanging, that is, it is not subject to internal linguistic laws. Therefore, in studying the formation of hydronyms, “the researcher’s gaze is always directed more toward the past, toward the period when the now static system was only just taking shape.” The introduction also discusses the highly important problem of classifying hydronyms for the analysis of their formation, and reviews and evaluates existing attempts to divide toponyms into classes. On this basis, a model of structural-grammatical classification for Lithuanian hydronyms is selected, on the assumption that it could also be applied to other layers of the Lithuanian onomasticon.

According to the chosen classification, all Lithuanian hydronyms are divided, from the perspective of word formation, into primary and secondary. The former are further divided into nominal (derived from common and proper words) and adjectival hydronyms. The latter are divided into derivatives, compounds, and multiword names. It may be added that the study of derivatives seeks to establish links between the derivational principles of common words and hydronyms, and recognizes that the term derivative is used most precisely for hydronyms whose “derivational relationship with the corresponding common or proper words is still entirely clear.” The formation of other hydronyms is unclear, but they can be segmented into morphemes, that is, regarded as having an affix; moreover, there are also hydronyms whose formation is unclear

DĖL LIET. PAVARDŽIŲ VERTINIMO DARYBOS POŽIŪRIU | 169

and whose segmentation into morphemes can only be conjectured. In the latter cases, the term mentioned above is used conditionally (Vanagas 1970: 54–57).

As can be seen, in comparison with the formation of common words, the specific nature of onym formation has led to the identification of a new word-formation method, whose result is primary hydronyms. These are hydronyms derived from common and proper words which, during toponymization²—that is, as they become hydronyms—acquire no formal derivational features (cf. Vanagas 1970: 28), e.g.: Adomaitis lake < Adomaitis surname, Akivaras lake < akivaras, Balandis lake < balandis, Baltà river < baltà, Globys river < Globys surname, Gulbis lake < gulbis, Janãvas lake < Janãvas village, Kriaušiùs river < kriaušiùs, Kūndrotas river < Kūndrotas surname, Leĩmantas river < Leĩmantas surname, Néndrė river < néndrė, Piliakalnis lake < piliakalnis, Sirvydis lake < Sirvydis surname, Skersūtinìs river < skersūtinis, Smailiùtis river < smailiùtis ‘pointed’, Šermukšnýnas lake < šermukšnynas, Šiupiẽniai lake < Šiupiẽniai village, Tėkančioji river < tėkančioji, Trilýpis lake < trilýpis, Vendrýkštis river < vendrýkštis ‘rainbow’, Žalióji river < žalióji. Primary hydronyms are presented here in alphabetical order because, from the perspective of word formation, they are all equivalent, whether formed from common or proper words, nouns or adjectives, personal names or other toponyms (cf. also Vanagas 1970: 29).

2.2. The structural-grammatical classification devised for the analysis of hydronym formation has also been applied to discuss the formation of a portion (about 4,600) of Lithuanian hill names, or oronyms (Vanagas 1973). First, they are divided into primary and secondary; then, as in the study of hydronym formation, these groups are further subdivided. Primary hill names are described in the same way as primary hydronyms: they derive from appellatives, other toponyms, or personal names and have no formal derivational features (Vanagas 1973: 209), e.g.: Apušotas < apušotas, Aujėda < Aujėda river, Aukštas < aukštas, Degimas < degimas, Didžiulis < didžiulis, Gūbrýs < gūbrýs, Kapėliai < kapėliai, Krìštapas < Krìštapas surname, Lydekà < lydekà, Obelėlė < obelėlė, Pašlaitė < pašlaitė. Prancūzai < prancūzai, Smailusis < smailusis, Šaltupýs < Šaltupýs river, Visginas < Visginas surname.

2.3. The formation of other classes (subclasses) of Lithuanian toponyms has not been studied comprehensively. Given the abundance of names for marshy places, or helonyms, so far attention has focused on only one type of their formation—suffixal names for marshy places (Bilkis 1998). In the context of the hydronym classification mentioned above, these toponyms are classified first as secondary, then as derivatives, and more specifically as suffixal derivatives. The study of suffixally formed helonyms draws on A. Vanagas’s foundations for the analysis of hydronym formation, while noting the long-established theoretical distinction between the concepts of derivational analysis and morphemic analysis (morphemic segmentation). Accordingly, names for marshy places are regarded as suffixal derivatives when their “suffix is not an element of morphemic segmentation or form formation, but a derivational affix, that is, a means of forming new words” (Bilkis 1998: 32).

The same principles are followed in studying settlement names formed with suffixes, or oikonyms (Razmukaitė 1998). A comprehensive analysis of their formation is not yet available (for an overview of the research, see Razmukaitė 1998: 1–4).

²Perhaps the term hydronymization would be more appropriate here, since there are also hydronyms formed from other toponyms—that is, cases in which one toponym becomes another (toponym → toponym).

³Here and elsewhere, the abbreviations are the same as those used in the work under discussion and in other works on Lithuanian onomastics. Since they are familiar, no separate list of abbreviations is provided.

170 |

VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ

Attempts to describe possible classification groups in the formation of settlement names can be observed in P. Jonikas’s article “Personal Names and Place Names” (Jonikas 1968). Here, suffixal, prefixal, compound, and compound-derived settlement names are mentioned (cf. A. Vanagas’s classification of hydronyms). Place names that, as the author states, “coincide with the singular form of a personal name and surname (cf. Biršto-nas, Kaunas, Skuodas, Sudárgas)” (Jonikas 1968: 564) are, without a doubt, classifiable as primary forms discussed earlier.

After briefly reviewing research on the formation of Lithuanian hydronyms, mountain names, names of marshy areas, and settlement names, it is also important to state that these and other place names could, undoubtedly, be studied in other ways as well, that is, by applying a model of morphemic analysis (morphemic segmentation). The aims, form, and content of such research would differ from the derivational analysis of place names discussed here.

3. OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENTS OF PERSONAL-NAME FORMATION (STRUCTURE)

To date, there have been no dedicated studies analyzing the formation of another class of Lithuanian onyms—personal names. However, elements of approaches to the formation or structure of personal names can be found in some works on anthroponymy.

3.1. In the “Dictionary of the Origins of Lithuanian Names” (Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1987), probably the most comprehensive collection of these onyms, names of diverse formation and origin, and of varying age, are presented. According to the period in which they have functioned in the Lithuanian name system, these personal names can be divided into three groups: old, Christian, and new names. The derivational analysis of the names in each of these strata would apparently have specific features, which, among other things, would also be related to the sources of the names, the circumstances of their emergence in the present-day name system, and so on.

Old names are a portion of the Lithuanian personal names that were in use during the pagan period, when the two-part Lithuanian system of naming a person by a given name and surname had not yet formed. Thus, they were the only personal names that Lithuanians had at that time, but they were not “names” in the current sense of the term vardas sampratą⁴. So how should the relationship between historical personal names and present-day given names be characterized? There could be various opinions.

Apparently, it is possible simply to identify present-day given names with historical personal names, recognizing that the latter have come down to us unchanged and now function as given names. Such an identification (clearly, a formal and conditional one) would be partly justified by the fact that the principal function of historical personal names—to identify an individual by distinguishing them from others—also, in a certain sense, presupposes the functions of both present-day given names and present-day surnames (in this case, what matters most is that it also presupposes the function of given names)⁵. This understanding of the relationship between historical personal names and present-day given names called old can substantiate what the aforementioned dictionary says about the formation of these names (in explaining their origin). It distinguishes four formation types of old names: 1) two-stem compounds, 2) shortenings formed from them, 3) suffixal derivatives of shortenings, 4) appellatives—simply common-

⁴ For the use of this term in the study of historical anthroponymy, see also Maciejauskienė (1991: 14).

⁵ Dėl vardų ir pavardžių funkcijų dar žr. Maciejauskienė (1991: 14, 19, 50–51).

DĖL LIET. PAVARDŽIŲ VERTINIMO DARYBOS POŽIŪRIU | 171

niai žodžiai, virtę vardais (Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1987: 25). Lyginant su anksčiau aptarta hidronimų klasifikacija pirmasis senųjų vardų darybos tipas tapatintinas su antriniais sudurtiniais vietovardžiais, trečiasis su antriniais – priesagų vediniais, o ketvirtasis – su pirminiais vietovardžiais (detalesnio bendrumų ir skirtumų aptarimo atsisakyta, nes to nereikalauja straipsnio tikslas). Trečiojo tipo vardai – dvikamienių trumpiniai (jie dar vadinami ir senaisiais vienkamieniais vardais) vertintini kaip tam tikro vardu susidarymo būdo, o ne onimų darybos tipo (iprasta lingvistine šios sąvokos reikšme) rezultatas⁶.

The most common are old two-stem names (so-called compounds with two stems), e.g.: Alg-minas, Al-mintas, Ei-bartas, Gėd-rimas, Gós-tautas, Kant-minas, Min-gaudas, Taūt-gailas, Tól-mantas, Tvir-gedas, Vai-noras, Vaiš-mantas, Vil-mantas. Another group of present-day names described in terms of word formation and referred to as old consists of suffix derivatives, e.g.: Algėnis, Bartėnis, Birėnis, Dargėnis, Daugėnis, Eidėnis, Eigėnis, Gaudėnis, Gedėnis, Gintėnis, Girdėnis, Girstėnis, Gytėnis, Kantėnis, Klausėnis, Tautėnis, Vaidėnis, etc. (derivatives with the suffix -enis); Bylotas, Darotas, Daugotas, Eidotas, Milotas, Minotas, Vaidotas, Valiotas, Viltotas (derivatives with the suffix -otas); Barūtis, Birūtis, Darūtis, Eigūtis, Eimūtis, Gailūtis, Gedūtis, Geistūtis, Girdūtis, Kęstūtis, Klausūtis, Ramūtis (derivatives with the suffix -utis); Klausilas, Marūtilas, Váidilas (derivatives with the suffix -ilas). In the view of the authors of the etymological dictionary of names, the base words of these derivatives are shortened forms of two-stem names. Only relatively rarely are other old Lithuanian personal names cited as base words (cf. Augėnis, Baltėnis, Drąsūtis, Jaunūtis, Laimūtis, etc.).⁷

Among present-day names referred to as old, there seem to have been none that could be classified, from the perspective of word formation, as primary (the dictionary’s authors call them “appellative—simply common words that have become names”—see Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1987: 25). However, the few formations with inflectional endings drew attention (e.g.: Budrys, Būdrius from Lithuanian budrūs, Drąsius from Lithuanian drąsūs, Jaunys, Jaunius from Lithuanian jaūnas), although this type of formation of old names is not mentioned.

Having briefly reviewed what the “Dictionary of the Origin of Lithuanian Names” says about the formation of present-day names referred to as old, we should return to the previously formulated position that such or similar assessments of the formation of these names should be based on identifying present-day names with analogous historical personal names (as already noted, in a very formal and conditional sense). Another possible way of assessing the relationship between historical personal names and present-day names referred to as old would be this: present-day names arose from historical personal names without retaining any formal word-formation features. Accordingly, from the perspective of word formation, all these names would be classified as primary. Thus, the above-mentioned present-day names Algminas, Alminas, Eibartas, Gėdrimas, etc. arose (were formed) from analogous historical personal names, which in the context of word-formation assessment should be classified as secondary compounds. The names Algėnis, Bartėnis, Dargėnis,... Bylotas, Darotas, Daugotas,... Barūtis, Birūtis, Darūtis,... Klausilas, Mańti-

⁶ Plačiau apie juos žr. Maciejauskienė (1997: 113–124).

⁷ It should be noted that, in specifying four types of formation for old names, only “suffix derivatives of shortened forms” are identified—Kuzavinis, Savukynas (1987: 25). Furthermore, one might consider whether the base words of all these names—suffix derivatives—are indeed personal names, but this is unrelated to the aims of this article.

172 |

VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ

las and others, previously called suffix derivatives, would once again simply have arisen from historical personal names that, from the perspective of word formation, are suffix derivatives. The formation of other present-day names referred to as old should be assessed in the same way. Such an approach would be acceptable, among other reasons, because the functions of historical personal names are very difficult to define in comparison with the purpose of present-day names, and because of its connection with the specific features of assessing the formation of present-day Lithuanian surnames, which will be discussed later. If all present-day names referred to as old are considered primary from the perspective of word formation, their study using the model of morphemic analysis (morphemic segmentation) would be promising and interesting.

The analysis of the formation of another layer of the present-day name stock—Christian names—is not an object of research into Lithuanian word formation. All these names came from other languages (Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Germanic, Slavic, etc.) and brought with them the word-formation (structural) features characteristic of those languages. Therefore, one can speak only of matters relating to the adaptation of Christian names in Lithuanian. One such matter is the relationship between and use of long (canonical) forms of Christian names and their shortened forms; another is the suffixal diminutive derivatives of these names, widespread in historical sources of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries but no longer used in sources of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and so on (see Maciejauskienė 1979; 1991: 34, 38, 41; 1993: 102). It is true that various suffixal diminutive derivatives of Christian names are still widespread in everyday speech, but these are not the official name forms entered in personal documents. Therefore, it seems possible to leave them out of a more detailed discussion here.

New names, which constitute the third layer of the present-day name stock, are generally divided by origin into names of Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian origin (Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1987: 41–46). The latter, that is, names of non-Lithuanian origin, entered the Lithuanian name stock from other languages. Thus, as with Christian names, discussion of their formation is not an object of analysis in Lithuanian word formation.

The situation is different with new names of Lithuanian origin. When assessing them from the perspective of word formation, it is easy to distinguish several classificatory groups, also identified in the previously discussed grammatical-structural classification of place names. These include primary names, which arose from common or proper nouns without acquiring any formal word-formation features, e.g.: Aušra: Lithuanian aušra, Bangà: Lithuanian bangà, Dainà: Lithuanian dainà, Dóbìlas: Lithuanian dóbìlas, Gìntaras: Lithuanian gìntaras, Jūra: Lithuanian jūra, Liépa: Lithuanian liépa, Svajà: Lithuanian svajà, Svajonė: Lithuanian svajonė, Žarà: Lithuanian žarà (from common nouns), or Agluona: Agluona River, Airė: Airė River, Alantà: Alantà River, Álantas: Álantas River, Gáilìntas: Gáilìntas Lake, Mìlda: Mìlda (name of a mythological goddess), Nėmunas: Nėmunas River, Nidà: Nidà Town, Skìnija: Skìnija River, Svalìa: Svalìa River, Ūla: Ūla River, Upýna: Upýna River, Vilnius: Vilnius City, Žeimenà: Žeimenà River, Žemýna: Žemýna (name of a mythological being), etc. (from proper nouns—place names, mythonyms, or names of mythological beings, and so on). Among secondary names, clear derivatives with inflectional endings are noteworthy, e.g.: Aidė: Lithuanian áidas, Aūdrė: Lithuanian áudra, Aūšrė: Lithuanian aušrà, Ąžuolė, Ąžuolis: Lithuanian ąžuolas, Dãlius: Lithuanian dalìà, Gáiva: Lithuanian gaivì, Jáutra, Jáutrė: Lithuanian jáutrus, -i, Jūris, Jūrius: Lithuanian jūra, Miglė: Lithuanian mìglà, Rytė, Rytis: Lithuanian rýtas, Skaidrė, Skáidrė: Lithuanian skaidrì, skáidrì “pleasant, cheerful,” Skaistýs, Skaistis: Lithuanian skaistùs, skaistùs “bright; upright,” Taurýs, Tãurius: Lithuanian taurùs “upright; noble,” Ūgnė: Lithuanian ugnìs. Another group of secondary new names in terms of word formation consists of suffix derivatives, e.g.: Audronė, Audrõnis, Audrõnius: Lithuanian áudra (derivatives with the suffixes -onė, -onis, -onius), Audrūnas, Audrūnė: Lithuanian áudra (derivatives with the suffixes -ūnas, -ūnė), Ban-

DĖL LIET. PAVARDŽIŲ VERTINIMO DARYBOS POŽIŪRIU | 173

guõlis: Lithuanian bangą (a derivative with the suffix -uolis), Laimintà, Laimìntas: Lithuanian laimė (derivatives with the suffixes -inta, -intas), Laisvūnas: Lithuanian laisvė (a derivative with the suffix -ūnas), Teisūtis: Lithuanian teisūs (a derivative with the suffix -utis), Žydrūnas: Lithuanian žydris “blueness (of the sky)” (a derivative with the suffix -ūnas).

Among the new names there are also some formed (usually by linguists) according to the productive and semantic models of old names, by alternating or combining the known stems of two-stem personal names, e.g.: Al-ginas, Al-kantas, Aug-mantas, Bar-mantas, Būt-mintas, Eig-mantas, Eit-viltas, Gil-mintas, Graž-valdas, Jau-vaidas, Kęs-bartas, Liaud-gintas, Min-vaidas, Rād-vydas, Skir-tautas. These names are artificial; their use is not attested in historical anthroponymy. Therefore, unlike old two-stem names, which, when assessed from the perspective of word formation, were said to allow two possibilities—they are compounds (two-stem compounds) or primary forms—the new names of this type could apparently be called only compounds.

As can be seen, studying the formation of new names of Lithuanian origin makes it possible to determine the ways in which new names are formed and the current stock of names enriched (cf. the analysis of common-word formation, which seeks to determine how a language creates new words, thereby supplementing its vocabulary). Thus, the system of Lithuanian names, as one of the subclasses of proper names, is not yet fully formed; it is changing and open. This determines the particular features of the study of the formation of these proper nouns.

3.2. The system of another subclass of Lithuanian personal names—nicknames—is likewise open and changing. How are these personal names assessed from the perspective of word formation?

This question is not answered in Ž. Urbanavičiūtė and V. Žickutė’s article “Lithuanian Nicknames.” There, these personal names are divided “according to structure and formation” into five groups: 1) underived words (Tetà, Slyvà, Žinai), 2) derivatives, further divided into suffixed forms (Rāčius, Juodis, Plikis, Žiūra), suffixal derivatives (Rūgštelė, Vištukė, Skiltuvas), prefixal derivatives (Berānikė, Pakluōnis), and prefix-suffix derivatives (Pakapinis, Panaktinūkas), 3) compounds, further divided into compound words (Penkplaukis, Puragalvis) and phrases (Guminis Jonas, Sitklo bobutė), 4) derivative-compounds (Sugrūbnagis, Nulepāusis, Skersgalvinis), and 5) phrases (Tavè perkūnėlis, Gerai šako) (Urbanavičiūtė, Žickutė 1975: 60–61). The examples given clearly show that this classification is not concerned with identifying possible word-formation types (processes) of nicknames, but only describes the structure of these personal names.

In the monograph “Lithuanian Nicknames,” these onymic forms are defined as unofficial personal names motivated onomastically, and are considered to have the meaning of a common noun and the function of a proper noun (Butkus 1995: 21, 26). The work focuses primarily on investigating the motives behind nicknames, on the assumption that an analysis of the formation of these personal names should be the subject of another scholarly study. However, the formation of some nicknames (kinship-based, saying-based, and those indicating place of residence) is also discussed. This makes it possible to describe one or another position relevant to the study of nicknames from this perspective.

It is acknowledged that, when studying nicknames from the perspective of word formation, they may be divided into primary forms and derivatives (Butkus 1995: 31, 33). The former, it is stated, “do not differ in any way from the motivating word” (in the broader context of assessing the formation of onyms already discussed, the latter term would simply mean the base word). This position would suggest that nicknames such as Adatėlė, Dramblys, Duonėlė, Dviratis, Kāvis, Sūmai-

174 |

VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ

šis, Šlubis, Válkata, and the like, whose motivating words are adatėlė, dramblys, duonelė, dviratis, kalvis, šurmaisis, šlubis, válkata, should be considered primary forms.

Before discussing the second group of nicknames—derivatives—it should first be noted that in this case it would be better to use the concept of secondary nicknames. Derivatives, or derived forms, are words that “are based on a single base word and have a word-formation formant” (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 225). Thus, the compound and phrase nicknames that the author mentions below and assigns to derivatives⁸ fall outside the precise meaning of this term. In claiming that somewhat different criteria apply to the assessment of nickname formation than to the formation of other onyms, for example hydronyms, the author maintains that “derivation can be spoken of when the relationship is between members of the same, i.e. onomastic, level; in other words, when a nickname is formed from a proper noun and differs from it structurally, e.g.: Agočiūkas (: Agota), Didžiakazis (: didis, Kazys)” (Butkus 1995: 33).

According to this view, only nicknames whose base word is an onym (another personal name) can be secondary nicknames; in compound nicknames, one of the constituents (or more often both), and in phrasal nicknames, usually both components, are also proper nouns (typically personal names), e.g.: Agnieškinis: Agnieška name, Aleksandriokas: Aleksandras name, Baltramai­tėlis: Baltramaitis surname, Bambyziokas: Bambyzas surname, Gabriokas: Gabrys personal name, Kaziškis: Kazys name, Kočelįanka: Kočelas surname, Lesvinčiokas: Lesvinčius surname, Martyniukas: Martynas name, surname, Matakūtas: Matakas surname, Niemčiukas: Niemčius surname, Tamošynas, Tamošiokas, Tamošiukas: Tamošius name, etc. (derivatives with various suffixes from other personal names); or: Baltrajurgis: Baltrus, Jurgis names, Bružentis: Bružas surname, Lithuanian žentas ‘son-in-law’, Kaziopetris: Kazys, Petras names, Lapėnžentis: Lapėnas surname, Lithuanian žentas ‘son-in-law’, Stasiakazis: Stasys, Kazys names, Šimkažentis: Šimkus surname, Lithuanian žentas ‘son-in-law’ (compound nicknames); and Jonų Antanas: Jonas, Antanas names, Kažio Vitas: Kazys, Vitas names, Šimas Jonas: Šimas, Jonas names, Šimo Motiejus: Šimas, Motiejus names, Staskaus Arūnas: Staskus surname, Arūnas name, Staskyno Stasys: Staskynas surname, Stasys name, Vinčiuvienės Jasionis: Vinčiuvienė surname, Jasionis surname (phrasal nicknames). In nicknames such as Akmenis Andrijaitis: Lithuanian akmuo ‘stone’, surname Andrijaitis, Alksninis Beiga: Lithuanian alksninis, cf. alksnis ‘alder’, surname Beiga, Dūburo Bumblauskis: Lithuanian duburas ‘hollow’, surname Bumblauskis, and the like, the first components are not onyms but common nouns.

As can be seen, the concept of secondary nicknames (especially derivatives) is considerably narrowed when assessing nickname formation. This view is open to debate. However, that is not relevant to the aims of this article. Moreover, in the work under discussion, assessing nickname formation was only one of the peripheral research aims.

Pravardžių struktūros analizei skirtas kitas to paties autoriaus darbas (Butkus 1999). Čia vėl patvirtinama nuomonė, kad „apie pravardžių derivaciją galima šnekėti tik tada, kai ji įvyksta onomastiniame, ne apeliatyviniame lygmenyje, t. y. kai pravardė padaroma iš tikrinio žodžio, pvz., Didžiapranis, Adomietis“ (Butkus 1999: 91).

It is precisely because of the aforementioned view that the article avoids the term nickname formation, since, in the author’s opinion, “a derivational analysis of nicknames would greatly narrow the object of study—”

⁸ For a more detailed discussion of inaccuracies in the use of terms and concepts mentioned in this work and related to the assessment of nickname formation, see Maciejauskienė (1999: 239–240).

DĖL LIET. PAVARDŽIŲ VERTINIMO DARYBOS POŽIŪRIU | 175

ject: appellative-derived nicknames would not be included. Meanwhile, structural analysis of nicknames makes it possible to examine what structures of appellatives are selected to create nicknames” (Butkus 1999: 91–92). From what has been quoted, it is clear that in this case an attempt is being made to apply a model of morphemic segmentation (analysis of morphological structure) to the study of nicknames. There is, once again, much in the study under discussion that can be debated: whether such a derivationally secondary conception of nicknames (especially derivatives) is acceptable (after all, the many examples presented even in the article show that nicknames can be, and are, formed from common words, even when the subtle nuances of their specific nature are taken into account); whether, having set aside the term nickname formation, concepts that are specifically associated with derivational analysis, namely suffixal derivatives and suffixed derivatives, should be used (see Butkus 1999: 93, 97), since these indicate the result of identifying a derivational type rather than segmenting into morphemes (or isolating formatives); whether only nicknames derived from derivative appellatives are to be segmented structurally, and so on. These and similar questions also arise because, in examining the structure of nicknames with (i)u- and u-stems, no clear and precise distinction has been made from their formation in the usual linguistic sense. Cf., for example, the statement in the first conclusion that “derivatives with the ending -(i)us predominate” (Butkus 1999: 99), which should indicate that all nicknames so classified are the result of derivation, with the aforementioned ending -(i)us as the derivational formant, although among the nicknames so designated there are both derivatives with the specified ending and anthroponyms that are primary from a derivational perspective. Thus, might it not be better to abandon the potentially misleading concept derivatives in -s (-ė) and, when examining the structure of nicknames, assess them differently—as having one ending or another, having an ending, or the like? The same applies to the use of the concept suffixed derivatives, since the nicknames so called have nothing to do with derivatives, but merely have one or another formative identified by the author.

Leaving a more detailed discussion of these and other problematic issues related to the derivational assessment of nicknames for the future, it can be said that the content and main tenets of A. Butkus’s works, briefly discussed here, show that research into the formation and structure (morphemic composition) of nicknames is not only possible but has already been successfully initiated. What has been accomplished so far shows that the specific nature of nicknames also determines certain features of formation and structure characteristic only of this class of onyms.

3.3. Lithuanian surnames have not been studied from the perspective of word formation. However, works devoted to these onyms also assess, among other things, their formation. In choosing an approach to discussing surnames that suits their research objectives, authors sometimes even attempt to divide them into groups named using conventional word-formation terms. But this does not permit us to speak of a general, at least somewhat comprehensive classification of these anthroponyms. No such classification exists so far, and what form it might take would presumably depend on the approach to the formation of these very specific onyms. P. Jonikas divides Lithuanian surnames into three groups from the perspective of word formation (Jonikas 1968: 557). The first consists of “one-stem names that today have neither suffixes nor prefixes, such as Žūkas, Baitis, Kedys, Rugà, Pėmpė, Nòrkus, Šėrnius.” In the author’s view, another group consists of suffixed and prefixed surnames. Many examples are given of the former (Grūmadas, Dalinda, Tilindis, Aukštiejus, Toleikis, Bražiškis, Beržinis, Jurkynas, Keliuotis, Dárgūzas, etc.), and it is stated that the most commonly used suffixes are -ikas, -ukas, -iškis, -ėlis, -ėlis, -ėnas, -ynas, -onis, -ūnas, -aitis, and others. As for the latter, it is said that there are not many (Bepirstis, Nelāimiškis, Nuopėnas, Pakalniškis, Užupis). The third group consists of compound surnames, which the author seems to distinguish in two subgroups: a. Aukštikalnis,

176

VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ

Didžbalis, Drūtjonas, Ketūrakis, Puškenalaitis, Šešnaukis, Vienažindys, Žiemitys; b. Būt-rimas, Min-daugas, San-gaila, Vis-girdas. It is then stated that the surnames in the second (b) subgroup are the oldest.

From what is presented, it is unclear what the author’s approach to surname formation is—that is, which of the models distinguished in the article, derivational analysis or morphemic segmentation, he considers appropriate for studying surnames. In the first case, the “one-stem names that today have neither suffixes nor prefixes” would be primary surnames from a derivational perspective, with possible secondary ones being suffixal derivatives. The surnames in the second group, called suffixed and prefixed, would be secondary—suffixal and prefixal derivatives—while those in the third group would be compound surnames, as they are indeed designated. The groups of surnames distinguished by P. Jonikas can be classified in this way by applying a classification developed for research into the formation of place names. However, it seems more convincing not to link the author’s grouping to an analysis of surname formation, but rather to assume that his aim was to mention the more important structural features of Lithuanian surnames. The term derivative is not used; instead, the examples simply show that an anthroponym has one suffix or another, has a prefix, is compound, and so on. Moreover, the author does not claim that the surnames in the groups mentioned are formed in one way or another, which could be interpreted as one of the indications that an analysis of the formation of these anthroponyms is being recognized.

What is presented in the work “Lithuanian Word Formation” (Skardžius 1996) also seems difficult to associate with an actual analysis of Lithuanian surname formation. In analyzing derivatives with one suffix or another, proper names—place names, surnames, and other anthroponyms—are mentioned alongside common words. In this way, the latter are brought into the broader context of research into the historical word formation of Lithuanian, and it is observed, for example, that surnames too have a formative—a suffix—that has been identified and discussed. This is related to the model of morphemic segmentation (at least partial segmentation), although the way the statements are phrased may also mislead a less knowledgeable reader. For instance, regarding the suffixes -ila-, -ila, -ilja-, -yla-, -yla, it is stated that “proper names are also sometimes formed with this suffix, e.g., the surnames Dovilas, Gintilas, Jōkilas, Jundilas, <...> Vaidilas...” (Skardžius 1996: 181). Or, writing that “we have proper names formed both with the suffix -yla- and with -yla,” the work then lists the surnames Aurylà, Braukylà, Kausylà, Kirkylà and others, which are called derivatives (Skardžius 1996: 183); regarding the suffixes -ušà, -ušà and -ušja-, it is observed that “these suffixes are more often used to form surnames,” and the surnames Bartūšas, Grābušas, Kibūšas, Bābuša, Baltrūšis, Baltūšis, Gailūšis, Gudūšis, Toliūšis, Tipušys are listed (Skardžius 1996: 318). Many statements of this or a similar kind, using the term derivative and saying that surnames are formed (or have been formed) with one suffix or another, could be cited. Other formulations could serve as a counterpoint: it is stated that “with -ota we seem to have only proper names,” and the surnames Aūšrota, Baniotà, Būlota, Kilotà are given (Skardžius 1996: 345); regarding the suffix -enja, it is said that “there are also proper names with this suffix,” and the surnames Audēnis, Augēnis, Barzdēnis (and Barzdenys), Girdēnis, Kalvēnis, Skurdēnis, Šakēnis, Tylēnis are listed (Skardžius 1996: 235); or: “We find the suffix -ega in words...,” followed by a list of common words and the surnames Apšėga, Ašmegà, Dabregà (Skardžius 1996: 103); “With the suffix -eika-, only a few proper names are known, e.g., Elseikas, Gedeikas, Kebeikas, Noreikas, Rupeikas (surnames)” (Skardžius 1996: 159); “The derivative suffix -eikja- has...,” followed by common wor-

DĖL LIET. PAVARDŽIŲ VERTINIMO DARBYBOS POŽIŪRIU | 177

…words and surnames Bareikis, Drąseikis, Drūteikis, Gudeikis, Jauneikis, Juodeikis, Kurpeikis, etc. (Skardžius 1996: 161). Many statements formulated in this or a similar way, which do not contain the term derivative and do not say that surnames are formed with one suffix or another (instead: there are proper names with a suffix, suffixes are found, has a suffix, and the like), could likewise be listed.

The differing formulations of the statements highlighted here might, in the context of the problems considered in this article, seem to represent two distinct approaches to assessing surname formation. However, this is not the case. As mentioned earlier, in many instances, failure to distinguish the levels of word formation for common and proper nouns apparently simply indicates that surnames, too, have one or another of the suffixes under discussion. The same applies to a considerable number of the place names mentioned (cf. the case where, in discussing the suffix -ūna-, surnames containing this suffix are cited—Augūnas, Baldūnas, Baltrūnas, Braždžiūnas, Girdžiūnas, Gailiūnas, etc.—alongside place names, mostly of surname origin, that contain this suffix: Baltrūnai, Berniūnai, Ilčiūnai (Skardžius 1996: 280); the latter, having originated from personal names containing the suffix -ūnas, could in no way be assessed as derivatives whose derivational affix is the suffix in question). Naturally, only unofficial personal names used in living speech—suffixal derivatives—should be assessed as derivatives. In discussing the suffix -aitija, for example, it is stated, among other things, that it is widely used in the Eastern Aukštaitian dialects to designate the surnames of unmarried girls, and personal names are provided: Jonuškaitė, Karaliūnaitė, Paiuodaitė, Puodžiūnaitė, Viksvaitė; the suffix -oka- may be used to form unofficial personal names for adolescents who have grown up but are not yet married, e.g.: Breivōkas, Karaliūniōkas, Raišeliōkas, Viksviókas, Žiauniōkas; women’s personal names Jonienė, Petrienė, Vaičiūnienė, Viksvienė, Šalčiuvienė and the like are to be regarded as derivatives formed with the suffixes -ienė and -uvienė (Skardžius 1996: 360, 133, 290). Such personal names—unofficial forms and women’s surnames—will also be discussed later.

Information on the assessment of Lithuanian surname formation is also provided in the *Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames*. In explaining the origins of these personal names, their formation is sometimes described as well. The introduction to the first volume already mentions surnames formed from Christian names with various suffixes; it states that their Lithuanian character is demonstrated by their having Lithuanian patronymic suffixes -aitis, -ėnas, -onis, -ūnas, and the surnames are called suffixal derivatives (LPŽ I 14, 28). The term suffixal derivative is probably the most frequently used term in the dictionary: Abazōnius—a derivative formed with the suffix -orius from abāzas; Albaitis—a derivative formed with the suffix -aitis from Albas; Aleksaitis—a derivative formed with the suffix -aitis from Aleksà; Aliūlis—a derivative formed with the suffix -ulis from Ālis; Ameliūnas—a derivative formed with the suffix -ūnas from a personal name associated with Polish Amelius; Mikūlis—a derivative formed with the suffix -ulis from Mikas; Mōrkvenas—a derivative formed with the suffix -ēnas from the u-stem surname Mōrkus; Ruginis—a derivative formed with the suffix -inis from Lithuanian rugys, rugiai; Rūtelionis—a derivative formed with the suffix -onis from *Rūtelis, or the like; Seliūkas—a derivative formed with the suffix -iukas (for sel-, see Seleckas). As can be seen, the base words of the suffixal derivatives presented here are both common and proper nouns. The term is used inconsistently in the dictionary; consequently, the formation of many surnames of analogous structure is not described. Instead, the reader is simply referred to another personal name of the same origin, one that has no patronymic or other suffix (cf. the entries for the surnames Aleksiūnas, Alijošaitis, Alitōnis, Andreikōnis, Popieraitis, Rūželė, Sirūnas, Sirūnaitis, etc.). This is entirely sufficient for explaining the origins of the surnames.

178 |

VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ

Labai retai vartojamas terminas galūnės vedinys: Diržys, Diržius – galbūt galūnių -ys, -ius vediniai iš liet. diržas; Duonis – galūnės vedinys iš liet. duona; Gaižys, Gaižius – galūnių -ys, -ius vediniai iš liet. gaižus ir pan. Dažniausiai tokiais atvejais etimologizuojamo asmenvardžio ir etimono ryšys nurodomas be pirmojo darybos vertinimo, pvz.: Balčius – iš liet. báltas; Nógnius – galbūt sietina su liet. nogniùs, nôgnas; Saldà, Saldỹs – sietina su liet. saldùs; Skruzdỹs – sietina su liet. skruzdė; Skubrys – iš liet. skubriùs; Vilnius – galbūt kildintina iš liet. vilna ir pan. Visiškai nevartojama sąvoka pirminės pavardės. Taip darybos požiūriu apibūdintos pavardės tiesiog siejamos su jų etimonu, kuris dažniausiai yra bendrinis žodis, pvz.: Abišala – iš liet. abišala; Abuója – iš liet. abuója; Béržas – iš liet. beržas; Dagilis – iš liet. dagilis; Geibà – iš liet. geibà; Kamštis – sietina su liet. kamštis; Kirmėlė – iš liet. kirmėlė; Paukštis – iš liet. paukštis; Tilvikas – iš liet. tilvikas ir pan. Tikriniai žodžiai kaip etimonai nurodomi labai retai, pvz.: Stasỹs, Stãsius – iš krikščioniško vardo Stanislovas trumpinių Stasỹs, Stãsius; Stanỹs – iš krikščioniško vardo Stanislovas trumpinio Stanỹs; Pranỹs – iš krikščioniško vardo Pranciškus trumpinio Pranỹs. Pastaraisiais atvejais būtų galima kalbėti apie pirminiais vadintinų asmenvardžių (pavardžių) atsiradimo iš kitų asmenvardžių (krikščioniškų vardų trumpinių) galimybę.

Surnames derived from old two-stem personal names are most often called compound (cf. Arminas, Būtrimas, Būtvydas, Būtvilà, Daugirdas, Gediminas, Gedrimas, Gintautas, Kantminas, Mažvilà, Nórmantas, Vilbutas), and less often two-stem (cf. Gėdbutas, Saūdravas, Skirgila, Skirvainis, Taūtvaišas). In explaining their origins, both components (stems) are identified and their etymologies given. Certain surnames such as Baltkójis are also called compounds—derived from báltas, -à and kója; Namgalys—cf. Lithuanian nãmas and gãlas; Šešplaukis—from Lithuanian šeši and pláukas. Sometimes the description compound surname is omitted, and the components of such a personal name are explained directly: Juodjurgis—from júodas, -à and the personal name Jùrgis; Júodkazis—from júodas, -à and the personal name Kazỹs; Juodpūsis—perhaps from júodas, -à and pùsė. Surnames associated with a compound etymon are never called compounds (cf. Júodgalvis—from Lithuanian júodgalvis; Juodsnùkis—from Lithuanian juodsnùkis, etc.). The dictionary also uses the term composite surname. This term denotes the surnames Talàt-Kelpšà, Talat-Kelpšas.

From this brief overview, it is clear that the *Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames* does not discuss the formation of these personal names in any systematic or consistent way. Fragmentary descriptions of surname formation show that the levels of word-formation research for common and proper nouns are not distinguished, and that the specific features of analyzing the formation of onymic names and assessing the formation of surnames as highly distinctive personal names are not examined. The dictionary’s authors simply had no need to do so (or perhaps the time had not yet come for a more detailed approach).

Another publication that attempts to discuss the formation of contemporary surnames is J. Šukys’s article “Miežiškėnų pavardės” (“Surnames of the People of Miežiškiai”). The author distinguishes the following groups: 1) non-derived, 2) ending derivatives, 3) suffixal, 4) prefixal, 5) compound (Šukys 1986: 86–89). Surnames in the first group, which in the context of the classification presented could also be called primary, are thought to be of two kinds: a) derived from nicknames whose “base is a common word” (e.g.: Kiaùšas, Vìlkas, Vã nagas, Švìlpa, Barzdà, Gaidỹs, Vėžỹs, Kapšỹs); b) Christian names or their variants that have become surnames (e.g.: Imbrãsas, Ūrbonas, Bagdónas, Ramónas, Grigãlius, Gabrỹs, Daškỹs, Ulỹs, Juškà,

DĖL LIET. PAVARDŽIŲ VERTINIMO DARYBOS POŽIŪRIU | 179

Jėčius). Three subgroups are mentioned among surnames called ending derivatives: a) from adjectives (e.g., Rudys, Žilys, Kairys, Šiaurys); b) from nouns (e.g., Kluonis, Pinigis, Smetonis); c) from verbs (e.g., Skrebė, Pliuškis, Tvaskà). Surnames of the third group—suffixal surnames—are described by stating that, in forming surnames, “the suffix is usually added to a Christian name, less often to a personal name derived from a common noun, whose root may also be non-Lithuanian.” Here is a small selection of surnames called suffixal: Tamošiūnas, Morkūnas, Šaučiūnas, Povilūnas, Karaliūnas, Sitkūnas (suffix -ūnas); Grigonis, Čėponis, Švilponis, Kupronis (suffix -onis); Jizikėnas, Gudėnas (suffix -ėnas); Čičėlis, Maselis (suffix -elis); Meilūtis, Tarutis (suffix -utis); Vareikà, Deveikis (suffixes -eika, -eikis); Lukoševičius, Balsevičius, Daraškevičius (suffix -evičius); Urbonavičius, Karpavičius, Sipavičius (suffix -avičius); Drebickas, Lipnickas (suffix -ickas), etc. Prefixal and compound surnames are not described in any way; it is merely noted that they are rare, and examples are given: Užusienis (prefixal), Vienażindis, Vidugiris (compounds).

The author also discusses separately the surnames of married women, boys and children, and girls and young women, focusing mainly on their formation (Šukys 1986: 94–98). Everything said about this relates both to the gender-based formation of official surnames, which is governed by the rules established in standard Lithuanian (the surnames of married women and some of the surnames of girls and young women), and to unofficial surname forms and their formation, widespread in spoken language (the surnames of boys and children and some of the surnames of girls and young women).

In the context of the problems under consideration, the author’s view of the formation of men’s official surnames is most important. Leaving aside doubts about the interpretation of the formation of certain surnames and their assignment to one of the five groups, attention should be drawn to the fact that, when assessed in the context of the toponym classification mentioned more than once, surnames are divided into primary (underived) and secondary (ending derivatives, suffixal, prefixal, and compound). It is true that the terms primary surnames and secondary surnames are not used in making this division. Nor is the term base word mentioned. Although the descriptions of the surname groups make it possible to understand what, in the author’s view, the base words of the personal names under discussion are: for underived (or primary) surnames—nicknames or Christian names; for ending derivatives—adjectives, nouns (the examples and the overall context show that only common nouns are meant), and verbs; for suffixal surnames—Christian names and personal names derived from common words. Prefixal and compound surnames are not discussed in detail from this point of view. Thus, the types (methods) of surname formation distinguished by J. Šukys, and their brief characterization, indicate that the author holds the view that contemporary Lithuanian surnames may be formed from common and proper words (more often from the latter).

So far, the discussion has concerned attempts to assess contemporary surnames from the perspective of word formation. Presumably, the same criteria apply to historical surnames as well. For it does not matter when surnames function or functioned—today or in the 18th–19th centuries. What matters most is that these personal names belong to the surname subclass, that is, they possess all the properties characteristic of these onymic names.

The formation of surnames from the late 18th century is discussed in M. Ramonienė’s article (Ramonienė 1987). One type of these historical personal names was selected—nick-

180 |

VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ

name-derived surnames. It is not entirely clear which surnames, in the author’s view, should be called nickname-derived surnames. For, while stating that a large proportion of men’s surnames are “formed from appellatives (names of domestic animals, wild animals, plants, various objects and phenomena, and words of abstract meaning), with various derivational formants or without them, or compounded from two words,” the author calls such surnames nickname-derived surnames, “which most often arose not directly from common words, but from nicknames” (Ramonienė 1987: 135). So what were the surnames of the type in question formed from—appellatives or proper words, that is, nicknames? An answer to this question should be found when assessing nickname-derived surnames from the perspective of word formation. From what is set out further in the article, it can be understood that the assumption is that the surnames under discussion were formed from appellatives. They are divided into two groups—primary and secondary—and the surnames in the first group are described as “appellatives that became surnames and acquired no formal markers of word formation during anthroponymization” (Ramonienė 1987: 136). Furthermore, attention is drawn to the fact that in cases where the presumed base word of a surname is a derivative, that is, has derivational formants, it is difficult to determine whether the surnames are primary or “formed according to the derivational model of appellatives.” Primary surnames are then divided into nominal and adjectival ones, and it is stated that the former are the most numerous (in presenting examples, as in the article, the original spelling of the historical source has been retained): Asytas, Balandis, Gaygatas, Szapalas, Wabatas, Wilkas, Zwirblis (from animal names); Alksnis, Apinis, Dagis, Kalendra, Szaławija, Zyłwitis (from plant names); Dragūnas, Girininkas, Melnikas, Seniūnas (from words denoting occupations, trades, and social status); Gudas, Korain, Latwis, Lenkas (from ethnic names), along with other semantic groups of nickname-derived surnames that are primary from a word-formation perspective, distinguished according to the meanings of the base words—the appellatives. Only a few adjectival surnames are given: Girtas, Kitras, Piktasis.

Secondary surnames are described as various derivatives (affixed derivatives and compounds). However, what follows seems to contradict this assumption. For example, it is stated that surnames originating from patronymics have the suffixes -aitis, -onis, -ūnas (cf. Bitinaytis, Kreywaytis, Kaukonis, Žydonis, Kaylunas, Tyłunas). If so, these surnames are not derivatives, since their base words—the patronymics—are formed with the indicated suffixes and are themselves derivatives formed with those suffixes. The surnames, meanwhile, merely have the Lithuanian patronymic suffixes -aitis, -onis, -ūnas. Surnames with the suffixes -ovič and -evič are mentioned next, e.g.: Auksutowicz, Barzdowicz, Baublewicz, Szerkszniewicz. Although they are assigned to the group of surnames that are secondary from a word-formation perspective, the terms derivative or suffixal derivative are likewise not used to describe them; it is merely stated that the surnames have the suffixes mentioned. In fact, these too are surnames originating from patronymics¹⁰, except that the personal names in question are formed not with Lithuanian, but with Slavic patronymic suffixes -ovič, -evič.

Surnames with suffixes of the -sk- type are likewise not called derivatives, e.g.: Bumbłowski, Burnecki, Gabalewski, Szerniewski, Wilkowski. In discussing surnames with the suffix -elis,

⁹ After the word phenomena, the word names should probably also appear; it was most likely accidentally omitted during writing, editing, or proofreading.

¹⁰ Dėl šių terminų sampratos žr. Maciejauskienė 1991: 16–17.

DĖL LIET. PAVARDŽIŲ VERTINIMO DARYBOS POŽIŪRIU | 181

-ėlis, e.g.: Auxelis, Dwarelis, Medelis, Pukelis, Szawksztelis, Wanagelis, among other things, it is stated that “it is almost impossible to determine which surnames with these suffixes are underived, having arisen from diminutive appellatives, and which are formed with these suffixes from underived personal names” (Ramonienė 1987: 137). Thus, it is acknowledged that at least some of these surnames are derivatives of personal names formed with the suffixes -elis, -ėlis. Surnames with the suffix -inis are regarded as derivatives from nouns, e.g.: Galinis, Grikinis, Meszkinis, Pilwinis, Ruginis; those with -iškis, e.g.: Dwaryszkis, Pakalniszkis, and others; derivatives from adjectives are surnames with the suffixes -eika, -eikis, e.g.: Jodeykis, Mazeyko, and the suffix -enis, e.g.: Szaltenis, Szymenis, and so on.

As for derivatives formed by means of endings, it is stated that these are surnames “whose derivational marker is the ending of the derivative,” and it is added that it is often difficult to determine which surnames are derivatives formed by means of endings and which are primary, having arisen from derived appellatives (Ramonienė 1987: 138). Surnames regarded as derivatives from nouns with the endings -is or -ys include Dob ilis, Gabalis, Morkis, Rutys, Szalnis and others; those with the ending -ius include Barzdzius, Bruknius, Szernius, Warnius; derivatives from adjectives with the endings -is or -ys include Baykszetis, Ploksz tis, Raudonis; those with the ending -ius include Baykszcius, Balczius, Budrius; derivatives from verbs with the ending -as include Augas, Skubas; those with the ending -ius include Bildzius, Ciauszkus, Skirius, Linkius, and so on.

“Formation with prefixes is not characteristic of the formation of Lithuanian surnames,” the article goes on to state, listing the following prefixed derivatives: Pabarzdis, Papievis, Padaubis (prefix pa-), Uzba lis, Uzpurvis, Uz wilkis (prefix už-). Compound surnames of nickname origin are then discussed, e.g.: Gudlenkis, Lauzkemys, Wayciurgis, Auksz takalnis, Battaragis, Kiaturakis, Žemgulis, and so on.

The article contains cases of debatable interpretations of surname formation, attributable, among other things, to the previously mentioned uncertainty surrounding the concept of nickname surnames. Setting this aside, it is important to note in summary that, when historical surnames of the selected type are assessed from the perspective of formation, underived, or primary, surnames are distinguished from secondary ones. The latter are prefixed, suffixed, and ending-based derivatives, as well as compounds, or compound surnames. The base words of primary surnames are thought to be appellatives only, whereas those of secondary surnames—that is, derivatives—may be both appellatives and proper names.

Historical surname formation is also discussed in another publication, the article “The Formation of Men’s Surnames in Ragnit County in the Late 18th and Early 19th Centuries” (Žemienė 1999). It attempts to discuss certain aspects of the assessment of surname formation. The author claims that surname formation “by its nature and character differs essentially from the formation of common vocabulary,” considers that surnames should not be called derivatives because they have all arisen from personal names, identifies genuine surname affixes (Lithuanian and Slavic patronymic, diminutive, and other suffixes), and so forth (Žemienė 1999: 225–226). No clearer classification is offered, but all surnames are divided into two large groups according to whether they have the aforementioned genuine surname affixes. The first group is said to most commonly include surnames formed with the Lithuanian patronymic suffix -aitis and its variants -ait, -ats, -at, e.g.: Balcjunatis, Plau[j]zinatis, Jokubat, Weleikat, Rumelait, Uzkurr ait, Milkeraitis, Sudergaitis. Also included are surnames with the suffixes -utis (-ut), -ik(a)s, -ulis, -elis, -uk(as), suffixes of the -sk- type, and the patronymic suffixes -on(i)s, -ūn(a)s, -ovič. According to the author, there are few such surnames. Surnames in the second group do not have the so-called genuine surname

182 |

VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ

affixes, so they are tentatively proposed to be called “primary,” e.g.: Auksle, Baržtys, Didkrižtys, Ludkus, Negrajus, Rimkus, Smilgius, Užbalis, Walantejus, and so on.

As can be seen, in this case the discussion of historical surname formation is limited to identifying surnames containing certain suffixes. They are not called derivatives. All other surnames, the so-called “primary” ones, are simply listed alphabetically, and their structure is not discussed in greater detail. This could be regarded as partial morphemic analysis (or partial application of a model of morphemic segmentation), since only certain morphemes—those considered important and necessary to discuss by the author, namely the aforementioned surname suffixes—are identified.

4. POSSIBILITIES FOR DERIVATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF SURNAMES

4.1. Summarizing what the works on anthroponymy discussed above say about surname formation, it can be argued that no comprehensive, consistent, and well-substantiated approach to assessing the formation of these personal names has yet been developed. Depending on the authors’ aims, studies sometimes identify only the more important features of Lithuanian surname structure (Jonikas 1968), or search for one suffix or another in surnames, thereby incorporating these personal names into the broader context of historical Lithuanian word formation (Skardžius 1996). The origins of Lithuanian surnames are also explained with occasional reference to their formation. However, this is done without distinguishing between the levels of word formation in common and proper nouns, and without examining the particularities of assessing the formation of surnames as a specific class of personal names (LPŽ).

Two publications attempt to investigate surname formation (Šukys 1986; Ramonienė 1987). In them, surnames are divided into groups. These groups are designated using terms customarily employed in the study of the formation of common nouns or onymic formations (cf. underived, or primary, surnames, secondary surnames, derivatives formed by means of endings, suffixed, prefixed, and compound surnames, or suffixal and prefixal derivatives and compounds, and so on). Both articles maintain that the base words of surnames recognized as formations may be appellatives as well as common nouns.

In the last of the works mentioned, a model of partial morphemic segmentation is applied in discussing surname formation. Of particular importance is the attempt made there to discuss certain features of surname formation (Žemienė 1999).

4.2. So how might Lithuanian surnames be assessed from the perspective of their formation?

We should briefly return to what was said at the beginning of the article. As noted, when studying the formation of onyms, it is very important to take into account the specific features of a particular onym class (subclass), that is, to determine how the onymic system originated and took shape, whether it is still being supplemented with new units or is closed, and so on. This determines the possibilities for studying the formation of proper nouns. Apparently, it is no less important to establish what the onyms of a particular class (subclass) were formed from or originated from. Supplementing all this with data from research into contemporary Lithuanian onym formation makes it possible to attempt to characterize the specific features of assessing surname formation as well.

Research findings on the formation of hydronyms show that their formation can be illustrated as follows: common noun → hydronym or proper noun → hydronym. Such

DĖL LIET. PAVARDŽIŲ VERTINIMO DARYBOS POŽIŪRIU | 183

The schemes are suitable for almost all derivational types (methods), and most importantly, for both primary and secondary hydronyms. The same applies to mountain names, or oronyms. Of names of inhabited and marshy places (oikonyms and helonyms), so far only one derivational type has been studied in detail—secondary prefixal place names. The results of the study confirm the same models for the formation of proper names: common noun → name of an inhabited or marshy place or proper noun → name of an inhabited or marshy place. It is easy to see that, from a derivational perspective, names of inhabited places considered primary can also be formed according to the models mentioned above. Cf., for example, the village names Būda, Giria, Kalnas, Piliakalnis, Sodyba, Trakas, whose base words are the appellatives būda, giria, kalnas, piliakalnis, sodyba, trakas. Or: Kaunas city < Kaunas personal name, Kavárskas city < Kavárskas personal name (Vanagas 1996: 90–94), Alvitas village < Alvitas lake, Šventėžeris small town < Šventėžeris lake, Vištytis small town < Vištytis lake (Balčikonis 1978: 339–340). In the latter cases, the base words of the names of inhabited places are other proper names (personal names and place names).

The Lithuanian names coined in recent times, which are readily assessed from a derivational perspective, again attest to the same models by which their system was formed and supplemented with new units: common noun → name or proper noun → name. The same applies to nicknames. Although the author of the studies discussed recognizes only one secondary way of forming nicknames—proper noun → nickname—personal names that are primary from a derivational perspective attest to a second as well: common noun → nickname.

Among all the proper nouns mentioned here—place names and personal names—surnames stand apart. As comprehensive studies of the formation of this personal-name system show (Maciejauskienė 1991: 50–116, 215–248), all surnames arose from personal names, and thus follow the model proper noun → surname. In stating that surnames arose from historical personal names, it must be added that in this case we cannot speak of several derivational types (methods) (cf. primary and secondary place names or given names, while secondary ones include prefixal, suffixal, and inflectional derivatives, compounds, and so on). For historical personal names, which were written after a person’s given name and took the place of surnames that did not yet exist, gradually acquired the characteristics typical of the latter (they became hereditary, common to all members of one family, etc.); that is, they became surnames. They remained as they were, as they were used at the time. Given this specific nature of surname formation, from a derivational perspective they can all be classified only as primary, having arisen from various historical personal names and acquired no formal derivational features as those names became surnames. On this understanding, one cannot agree with what was said earlier in the articles mentioned about surname derivation, since these personal names cannot have arisen from common nouns, cannot be divided from a derivational perspective into primary and secondary types, with the latter further subdivided into suffixal, inflectional, and other derivatives, compounds, and so on. Only historical personal names from which surnames arose can be classified and studied derivationally in this or a similar way (cf., for example, Zinkevičius 1977: 227–242).

Thus, unlike all the other proper names discussed—place names and some personal names—only a model of morphemic segmentation (analysis of morphological structure) is possible in the study of surnames. This type of analysis has been successfully applied to Latvian surnames (Staltmane 1981). Taking into account the features of the formation of this personal-name system and recognizing that, given the specific nature of surnames, their derivation cannot be studied in any other way

184

VITALIJA MACIĖJAUSKIENĖ

the work presents a characterization of the morphemic structure of surnames. As the author states, when studying surname structure, it is important to determine which means of common-noun derivation recur in surnames and how often, whether surnames have the anthroponymic formants characteristic of them, and so on (Staltmane 1981: 31–32, 39).

4.3. The aims of the morphemic segmentation of surnames, that is, the analysis of their structure, may vary. In addition to those already mentioned, which the author of the study on Latvian surnames considers important, there may be others. These, it seems, would determine which morphemes one author or another would seek in surnames. One of the more important objects of such a study would undoubtedly be the suffixes found in Lithuanian surnames; in assessing them, one should bear in mind not only linguistic but also extralinguistic circumstances surrounding the emergence of surnames and their eventual stabilization. For example, the fact that surnames have Lithuanian patronymic suffixes -aitis, -onis, -ūnas and others indicates that they arose from patronymics, whose derivational formants are precisely these suffixes. The surname suffixes -avičius, -evičius may indicate that they arose from patronymics formed with the aforementioned Slavic suffixes, were Slavicized, or were borrowed from the anthroponymic stock of other peoples¹¹. So-called -sk--type surname suffixes (-auskas, -skas, -skis, -eckas, -inskas and others) are a sign that such surnames were Slavicized or are borrowings.

The various other Lithuanian surname suffixes mentioned here will also “lead” the researcher to the derivational level of historical personal names, where it will be easy to distinguish primary and secondary anthroponyms and, among the latter, to identify derivatives with the suffixes found in present-day surnames. Surnames formed, for example, from historical personal names that are primary from a derivational perspective and whose base words are appellatives have suffixes identical to the derivational formants of common nouns (these are the so-called personal names of nickname origin, or nicknames). What has been said here in passing about surname suffixes applies, at least in part, to their other morphemes as well—prefixes, inflections, and so on.

In conclusion, it should also be said that whatever aims an author studying surname structure pursues and whatever morphemes they distinguish, all of them may be identified with the genuine derivational formants of historical personal names or appellatives. However, the latter are not derivational formants of surnames. Therefore, when discussing the morphemic segmentation of Lithuanian surnames, seeking and naming morphemes, it would seem advisable not to use the terms and concepts customary in word formation (cf. base words, derivatives, prefixal, suffixal, and inflectional derivatives, primary and secondary surnames, etc.) or to claim that surnames are formed with a prefix, suffix, or inflection, and so forth. For the sake of scientific precision, statements such as a surname has a suffix, prefix, or inflection; a surname is suffixed, prefixed, or inflected; a surname’s suffix, prefix, or inflection can be identified, or similar formulations, would be preferable. For sometimes it is precisely the not entirely accurate use of terms and concepts that creates the impression of differing viewpoints.

4.4. The article has already mentioned (cf. the discussion of the works of P. Skardžius and J. Šukys) Lithuanian surnames that, when assessed from a derivational perspective, may be called suffixal derivatives. These are the official surnames of Lithuanian women (married and unmarried) and girls, which are formed from a husband’s or father’s surname by means of certain suffixes. Unlike official men’s surnames, which can be called only primary, these surnames of women and girls are, clearly, classifiable as secondary from a derivational perspective.

¹¹ Plačiau žr. Maciejauskienė (1996: 60).

DĖL LIET. PAVARDŽIŲ VERTINIMO DARYBOS POŽIŪRIU | 185

The same applies to unofficial forms of the surnames of children and young people (male and female) that are widespread in spoken language. Various suffixes are used to form them. However, these are unofficial personal names, so a more detailed discussion of their derivation is not necessary here.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

5.1. Studies in onomastics draw attention to the particularities of assessing the derivation of proper names. It is considered that some proper names can be investigated from this perspective, while for others a model of morphemic segmentation (analysis of morphological structure) should be applied. This is determined by the specific nature of particular proper names and of their class (subclass) as a whole. It is very important how the system of proper names came into being, whether it is closed, already fully formed and unchanging, or still being supplemented with new units; what linguistic and extralinguistic factors determined its emergence and character, and so on. In keeping with these principles, the article surveyed how proper names in Lithuanian—place names and personal names—are (or can be) investigated from the perspective of derivation. In doing so, an attempt was made to formulate and present a view on the particularities and possibilities of studying Lithuanian surnames from the perspective of derivation.

5.2. The derivational analysis of Lithuanian hydronyms has been carried out most comprehensively. According to the structural-grammatical classification, these place names are divided into primary and secondary, the latter being further divided into derivatives, compounds, and composite names. Derivatives are classified as inflectional, suffixal, and prefixal derivatives. Compared with the derivation of common nouns, a new derivational method has been distinguished because of the specific nature of hydronyms as proper names; its result is primary place names. These derive from common and proper nouns that, in becoming hydronyms, have acquired no formal derivational features. The same classification model has also been applied to investigate the derivation of some mountain names, or oronyms. The same principles were followed in studying place names formed by a single derivational method—suffixal names of inhabited and marshy places (oikonyms and helonyms). The results of research into place-name derivation attest to the following models of their formation: common noun → place name and proper noun → place name. Place name applies to both primary and secondary place names from the perspective of derivation.

All the place names whose derivational analysis has been discussed could also be investigated in another way, that is, by applying a model of morphemic segmentation (analysis of morphological structure).

5.3. So far, there have been no dedicated studies analyzing the derivation of another class of Lithuanian proper names—personal names. However, some studies in anthroponymy include elements of an assessment of the derivation of these names. It is easy to see that no distinction is made in the derivational analysis of personal names belonging to different subclasses (given names, nicknames, surnames). They are all divided into primary and secondary, with the latter then further classified, and so on.

In investigating given names from the perspective of derivation, it is certainly possible to distinguish primary and secondary names; among the latter would be suffixal and inflectional derivatives, compound names, and so on (cf. modern Lithuanian given names). Nicknames could have similar derivational types (methods). It is true that, given the specific nature of these proper names, apparently not all of them could be “accommodated,” for example, within the structural-grammatical classification devised for the study of hydronyms and subsequently applied to other place names.

186 |

VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ

The models for the formation of systems of both given names and nicknames, and their expansion with new units, are the same as for place names: common noun → given name, nickname and proper noun → given name, nickname.

In addition to derivational analysis, another research method—morphemic segmentation (analysis of morphological structure)—can also be applied to both given names and nicknames. Incidentally, the structure of nicknames has already begun to be studied.

5.4. Surnames differ from other personal names in that all of them have originated from historical personal names (patronymics, those of nickname origin, or nicknames, old two-stem and one-stem names, and Christian names). Thus, the formation of these name systems can be illustrated by a single model only: proper noun → surname. Moreover, in this case it is not possible to distinguish several derivational types (methods). For when historical personal names became surnames, they acquired no derivational features. The status of the personal name simply changed: it had been a patronymic, a personal name of nickname origin, or the like, and is now a surname. Thus, from the perspective of derivation, all surnames can be classified only as primary, and any further derivational analysis of them has no basis. Consequently, unlike other proper names—place names and some personal names—only morphemic segmentation (analysis of morphological structure) should be used when studying surnames.

In doing so, it would seem advisable to avoid using terms and concepts customary in word formation. Instead of calling surnames prefixal, suffixal, or inflectional derivatives or the like, for the sake of scientific precision it would be better to use statements such as the surname has a prefix, suffix, or inflection, the surname contains a prefix, suffix, or inflection, a surname prefix, suffix, or inflection can be identified, and so on.

From the perspective of derivation, official Lithuanian surnames for women (married and unmarried) and girls, formed from the official surnames of their husbands or fathers, are secondary—suffixal derivatives.

LITERATŪRA

BALČIKONIS, J. 1978: Gyvenamų vietų pavadinimai iš ežerų ir upių vardų. Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Mokslas, 339–349.

BILKIS, L. 1998: Lietuvių priesaginės darybos helonimai, Vilnius (daktaro disertacija).

BUTKUS, A. 1995: Lietuvių pravardės, Kaunas: Æsti.

BUTKUS, A. 1999: Lietuvių pravardžių struktūra. Darbai ir Dienos 10 (19), 91–100.

GAIVENIS, K., KEINYS, S. 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa.

JONIKAS, P. 1968: Asmenvardžiai ir vietovardžiai. Lietuvių enciklopedija 15, Bostonas: Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla, 555–571.

KUZAVINIS, K., SAVUKYNAS, B. 1987: Lietuvių vardų kilmės žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

LPŽ – Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas 1–2, red. A. Vanagas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985–1989.

MACIEJAUSKIENĖ, V. 1979: Lietuvių vardai XVI a. Kalbos kultūra 36, 84–89.

MACIEJAUSKIENĖ, V. 1991: Lietuvių pavardžių susidarymas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

MACIEJAUSKIENĖ, V. 1993: Lietuvių įvardijimas XIX a. pirmojoje pusėje. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 32, 100–113.

MACIEJAUSKIENĖ, V. 1996: Dėl lietuvių pavardžių su priesagomis -avičius, -evičius vertinimo. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 36, 60–70.

DĖL LIET. PAVARDŽIŲ VERTINIMO DARBO POŽIŪRIU | 187

MACIEJAUSKIENĖ, V. 1997: Vienkamieniai lietuviškos kilmės vardai XVI a. Darbai ir Dienos 4(13), 111–133.

MACIEJAUSKIENĖ, V. 1999: Reikšmingas lietuvių antroponimikos darbas. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 41, 232–241.

NEPOKUPNYY, A. P., red. 1986: Теория и методика ономастических исследований, Москва: Наука.

RAMONIENĖ, M. 1987: XVIII a. pabaigos pravardinės kilmės pavardžių daryba. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 26, 135–139.

RAZMUKAITĖ, M. 1998: Lietuvos priesaginiai oikonimai, Vilnius (daktaro disertacija).

SKARDŽIUS, P. 1996: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. Rinktiniai raštai 1, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1–768.

STALTMANE, V. E. 1981: Латышская антропонимия. Фамилии, Москва: Наука.

ŠUKYS, J. 1986: Miežiškėnų pavardės. Ženklas ir prasmė, Vilnius: Mokslas, 81–105.

URBANAVIČIŪTĖ, Ž., ŽIČKUTĖ, V. 1975: Lietuvių pravardės. Kalbotyra 26 (1), 55–61.

URBUTIS, V. 1978: Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslas.

VANAGAS, A. 1970: Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba, Vilnius: Mintis.

VANAGAS, A. 1973: Структурно–словообразовательный анализ названий гор Литвы. Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademijos darbai. A ser. 3(44), 209–219.

VANAGAS, A. 1996: Lietuvos miestų vardai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

ZINKEVIČIUS, Z. 1977: Lietuvių antroponimika. Vilniaus lietuvių asmenvardžiai XVII a. pradžioje, Vilnius: Mokslas.

ŽEMIENĖ, A. 1999: Ragainės apskrities XVIII a. pab.–XIX a. pr. vyrų pavardžių daryba. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 41, 223–231.

Vitalija Maciejauskienė

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

Gauta 2000 12 12