Э. М. Мурзаев. „Словарь народных географических терминов“

O. Bush reviews Estonian academic P. The Book of Arista “Language contacts. Eesti keele kontaktid teiste keeltega (Eesti language contacts with other languages) (Tallinn, 1981). Dz. Barbara provides a bibliography of works published in 1945—1984 for Latvian language contacts. A. Sabaliauskas Myp3aes B. M. CioBape mapojiuusix reorpaduyueckux Tepmunos. M.: Mic, 1984. 654 c. It is the first large-scale dictionary of folk geographical terms of this kind published in our country. Its author is a well-known geographer, interested in place names and especially in geographical terminology — Doctor of Geography, Meritorious Scientific Person of the RSFSR Professor Eduard Makarovitch Murzayev. His scientific interests are mainly related to Asia — he has participated in expeditions to North and Central Asia, Mongolia, Vietnam. His interests have also included a number of geography, toponymy and geographical terminology problems of other countries. In 1959, the publishing house of geographical literature published E. and V. Murzayev's "Dictionary of local geographical terms" (CjioBapb MecCTHbIX TeOrpaĒdHuecKHx TepMuKOB)., In 1973, E. Murzayev's book "Popular toponymics" was published in Moscow, in 1974 - "Toponymic outline". The relatively small volume of the “Dictionary of Local Geography Terms” was very popular and favorably evaluated in the national and foreign press. It also contains some terms from the Baltic republics, but, as the author himself notes in the introduction of the reviewed dictionary, in comparison with other USSR republics, not many. Therefore, E. Murzayev continued to work for those two decades, collecting additional material, etc. The result of this work is truly impressive — a work of 654 pages (59 vols. 1.). It also contains geographical terms from Baltic languages (Lithuanian, Latvian). Further we will talk mainly only about them. From the introduction of the “People’s Geographical Terms Dictionary” it is clear that the author tried to present the terminology of all the USSR republics and regions as uniformly as possible. We do not have data on how he succeeded in doing so on a national scale, but the Baltic languages are reflected too little in the dictionary. — ir (approx. 60). In itself this figure could perhaps not be considered ir neither too low nor, of course, too high everything depends on the ratio of other — su In USSR language terms. However, from ir this point of view, it is still doubtful that Lithuanian and Latvian are represented ar proportionately ir here. That's one thing. Secondly, ir and most importantly, with such a small number of terms in Baltic languages, the question of selection criteria arises. — ką iš thousands necessary to pull the į dictionary? In our opinion, it will be difficult for the author vę to find clearer selection criteria, so only a few dozen Lithuanian-Latvian words often seem to be ir the most important, sometimes quite random or ne entirely doubtful. Choosing terms, especially for a iš foreigner, is not easy: in the absence of sufficient literature, one has to rely on iš intuition, which a foreigner usually lacks. Therefore, ji small can ką help to establish the hierarchy of terms ne only according to the importance of the objects they represent, ir but according to the prevalence of the ar terms themselves, popularity, etc. 212 The main source of Lithuanian and Latvian language terms for the author was almost exclusively L. Nevskaja- ’s book “Baltų geografinė terminija” (M., 1977). Other works, including dictionaries of special purpose geographical terms, although very few, judging from the list of literature, remained unused by the author. Taking into account the fact that in the aforementioned book of L. Nevskaja the terms are completely undifferentiated in the sense of their “value hierarchy”, it is possible to understand how difficult the task of selection of terms was for the author of the reviewed work. E. Murzayev included some of the more important terms in his dictionary. However, as has been said, very little. And such widely known and used words as akivaras, duburys, dumblas, gelmė, iškyšulys, kraiitas, kriaušis, lėnkė, lydimas, lieknas, lyguma, liūnas, Idbas, loma, mduras, ola, kristiūtė, plynė, praraja, raguva, raistas, skardis, tarpėklis, tyras, užūtekis, vifigis and so on are not in the dictionary. Conversely, some of the terms in the dictionary are less important: axmenac, ankena, 6pada, 2ayzapac, zupbA, 2ybypac, uxkaiwe, KAGHAC, MAKHa, muecmac, nuauc, emaaxa, etc. Their place could be taken by others, more popular. Another term is chosen unfortunately, for example, 6opac "cold". This is a clear Slavism, and it is not widespread; his place should be warm. The term xepyx2 is also given by mistake — in Lithuanian there is only nerija. The work also presents the term “etymology, if it exists” (p. 8), in the words of the author Zodziai, but it is very preliminary, limited mainly to “the highest level” (ibid.). This is entirely understandable, because to determine the detailed etymologies of all the terms included in the dictionary—not a single man’s power. What is more, even with such a permissive view, it would still be reasonable to expect somewhat more detailed explanations of the origin, even though for the words of the Baltic languages in this case this could be done relatively easily — even using only one source — E. "Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language- ". Unfortunately, as the etymological notes themselves indicate, and as can be seen from the list of literature (presented, incidentally, very scattered — without numbering, not even in alphabetical order, etc.), the author did not use this dictionary. The most important source of etymologies is the book of L. Nevsky, M. Fasmer's "Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language- ", one or another article of V. Dambas, I. Duridanov, E. Katonova, N. Tolstoy and others. Occasionally, the book of V. Toporov and O. Trubachev “Linguistic analysis of hydronyms of Upper Transnistria” is used. Apparently, this is the main reason why most of the terms in Belarusian geography have no etymology at all in the true sense of the word — most often only the meaning of the terms is given (also without rare exceptions according to the above-mentioned book of L. Nevskaja- ). A little more about the origin is said in those cases when a Baltic term has clear equivalents in the ru u language (e.g.: lietuvių viršūnė — rus. eepx, lietuvių lanka — rus. aykxa, lietuvių akis — rus. oxo, etc.). However, even this “highest”, in the words of the author ZodZii, etymology is sometimes too superficial, relying on another equivalent in other languages, and most often — just a reference to a related, often quite distant, Russian word (e.g.: Lithuanian dauba — Russian deGpu, Lithuanian giria — Russian 20pa, etc.). In the context of other Indo-European languages, terms from Baltic languages rarely come into play, and, with rare exceptions, only through Russian or Slavic languages in general. Thus, their “etymological motivation” to be included in this dictionary is minimal. When presenting terms of Baltic languages, spelling and proofreading errors occur. 213 In geographical terms, the term is often used to refer to a number of places. Sometimes they are in place, but there are also mistakes. Among the clearer ones we will mention, for example, Kaseapusa, indicated by the term hill (the local name Kalvarija, as is known to all, comes from the religious term calvarija (Polish kalwarja < Latin calvaria "station of the cross"). In conclusion, it is possible to add that there is no special reason to include terms from Baltic languages in this dictionary. And in general, the usefulness of a dictionary of this profile can be questioned: it represents too many languages, moreover, selected on a territorial (administrative) basis. Would it not be more sensible to prepare dictionaries of geographical terminology of several or many related languages? A. Vanagas