2-a recenzija

Xeno>3nar I. M., Kopenaunosa "A. II., Macenko JI. T., Henoxymundi A. II, Corpses O. C., ®pauko 3. T. Tinponine Yrpaina B ii Mix*MOBHHX i MixJIiajIEKTHHX 38’s3kax / Bian. pen. O. C. Crpmxax.— Kunis: HayxoBa gyMKa, 1981.-—264 c. The relationships between languages are very diverse. The be reviewed book distinguishes three most important groups of linguistic communities: genetic, areal (in the sense of contact) and typological. ir (p. 181). These relationships can manifest themselves in many ways and aspects. One of the most peculiar spheres of linguistic relations and contact expression are actual words, among which a special place is given to hydronyms, since they are often more archaic because of their more informative general lexicon, in addition, in a chronological sense. ir to už be ir This universally accepted ir thesis based on concrete research is once again very clearly and convincingly supported by the work in ir question. The publication of this work is a major event not only in Ukrainian, but ne also in Slavic and Indo-European ir linguistics in general. This is for various reasons. At the outset, we have to draw attention to the fact that one of į the most important iš aspects of the Indo-European aspect of the entire Slavic world is precisely the hydronymy of Ukraine, because Ukraine, especially the right bank, belongs to those territories where it is most justified to look for the Slavic homeland. Therefore, in Ukraine, more than in most other Slavic countries, the most archaic Slavic hydronyms are likely to be found. Therefore, perhaps mainly from the analysis of Ukrainian hydronyms can come new data, which help to answer the very important question of Indo-European linguistics (at the same time also to Slavistics and Baltistics), how archaic are Slavic water names and what is their relationship with the so-called old Indo-European hydronyms. Elsewhere, where the Slavs are aliens, and their hydronymy will be in some sense and to some extent newer, later (except, of course, substrate). Ukraine is special also in that since ancient times on its land have taken place the most diverse processes of contact, mixing, assimilation and various other processes of languages and ethnic groups. These processes could not leave no traces in hydronymy. Part of Ukraine has been linked to the ancient Indo-European world since ancient times — Illyrians, Dacians, Greeks, etc. Turks, Iranians (Scyths), Goths, Romans, perhaps even Celts, etc. left their traces here. * In ancient times, Ukraine bordered on the north, among others, with the Belarusians. Thus, the relationships of the Ukrainian language, toponymy and specifically hydronymy with many Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages and peoples are very old, extremely diverse and complex. Thus, the choice of the subject of the study — relations of Ukrainian hydronymy with water names of other nations — seems completely natural and understandable. It is true that investigating these connections is indeed difficult and complicated. This can only be done satisfactorily under certain conditions. First, it is necessary to have collected and linguistically processed hydronyms of contact languages. Secondly, the hydronymy of these languages and the onomastics in general must be studied accordingly, etc. These conditions, at least in part, are already being intensively implemented. Without discussing them further, we will remind you that one of — the most impressive works of recent Indo-European onomastics is prepared and published in Ukraine this "Dictionary of Ukrainian Hydronyms: CsoBHaux rigpomimis VYrpaian/ Peg". xone. A. II. Henok ynuuii, O. C. CTpauxak (3acr. rojoBu), K. K. IliJmykko (romosa). — Kunis: Haykosa įtyMka, 1979. — 780 c. The works of 204 Ukrainian onomastics specialists are widely known — they show that subjective prerequisites for the comprehensive study of the name book of this region have also been — created. The book deals with many important issues, which is į easy to see just by looking at the contents of the book. Three are examined Aspects of Ukrainian hydronymy su relations with hydronymy of other countries: lexical, ir constructive phonetic. The most widely analyzed lexical relationships are discussed in 9 large studies: 1) “Relations of the oldest onomastic fixations”; 2) Balkans-Ukraine connections and parallels; 3) “Baltic-Ukrainian connections and parallels”; 4) “Transnistria—Lechia connections and parallels”; 5) “The Danube—Eastern Ukraine and other connections and parallels”; 6) “Subcarpathians—East Ukraine connections and parallels”; 7) “Ukraine—Paoche connections and parallels”; 8) “Ukrainian—- other Eastern Slavic relations and parallels”; 9) “Turkish-Ukrainian Relations and Parallels”. The verb and phonetic relationships are reviewed in the remaining two studies. The book is divided into 11 several separate parts written by different authors. Only it is completely incomprehensible why the authors of the parts are not mentioned anywhere — this hurts not only the authors, but also the reader. On the circumferential roads I had to experience that parts I, IV —VII were written by A. Strižakas, II — I. Železniak, III, VIII — A. Nepokupnas, IX—T. Masenko, X —A. Korepanova, XI —Z. Franko. Thus, this book is a collective work, whose problems and themes perhaps somewhat depended (it is quite natural), among other things, on the interests and direction of the authors who wrote it. The book contains an enormous amount of new data and information. It is very difficult for the reader to comprehend it all. It goes without saying that most of the articles (except perhaps only A. Nepokupno) are written freely, we would say, in an essayist method, so the final systematization of the information provided even by individual studies often falls to the reader himself. This could almost have been avoided if the book had included at least an index of onims, lexicon and subjects. Unfortunately, the book’s auxiliary apparatus is minimal—- clearly inadequate for this kind of work. Many parts of the book are directly or indirectly related to Baltic issues. One section of the lexical part, as we have seen, is devoted to the relationship of Ukrainian hydronymy with the names of white waters. Some more frequent excursions into Baltic studies occur in the Zodziai production department. In the remaining studies, the facts of the Baltic languages are examined less frequently, and where the subject did not require it, they are completely untouched. The following briefly focuses on those things that are more closely related to Baltic studies. In this sense, the chapter “Baltic-Ukrainian relations and parallels” (written by A. Nepokupno) deserves the most attention. It primarily deals with the problem of Baltic hydronyms in Ukraine (mainly based on the works of V. Toporov and O. Trubachev and in principle respecting almost only their view of the essence of the problem of Baltisms in Slavic languages). The author of this chapter tends to believe that there are two possible interpretations of the term “Baltic element” (in Slavic languages) — narrower and broader. The “Baltic element” in the narrow sense is the Baltic relics of those territories where the ancestors of the present-day Balts lived in historical times, leaving not only linguistic but also archaeological and ethnographic traces. This is, for example, the case with the upper case. The "Baltic element" in the broad sense (or the "indirect Baltic element") is the one that can be most effectively explained by the material of the Baltic languages, since the archaic nature of the Baltic languages allows them to represent only the past of the Baltic languages themselves, but of the Slavic languages. 205 ne ir Tokie “Baltic” place names are usually not based on other Baltic ti data (material culture, etc.). ar Be there is no evidence that whites once lived in such areas. Middle Transnistria belonging to such territories (e.g. Rose pool) — p. 66. The “Baltic element” in the narrow sense of the author still divides the į du components old and new. — ir The boundary that separates the old relics of Baltic languages from the new ones Lietuvos Major The Princely Times. The old ones include, for example, jotvingiški Western Hydronyms of the Bug Basin (river I'ana, Lake ITynsmo), 0 to the new such — baltisms, which appeared in those times, when a certain The Ukrainian part entered į Composition of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (e.g. river names TexBuxnis Sp, JlroGapraxa, Jlutoska). The author notes that V. Toporovo ir O. The task of determining the southern limit of the distribution of Baltic placenames in Trubachev’s works In the case of Ukraine, practically could be accomplished only on the basis of late Baltics. Furthermore the author presents bene 17 Ukrainian hydronyms, most of which are definite Baltisms: 1) ExeBa, Ba: plg. lat. Blēve up., lit. blyvas, sober; 2) Banrynos < *Vang-ug-: plg. let. Vanga “soil, field”, lat. Vaiga "low wet meadow- ", pr. wangus „lydimas“ ir lit. Autumn, lat. river; 3) Bumblebee: plg. let. Ving-ul-upis, Ving-ul-upis, Ving-eel-upis (from the ir twist of the wind); 4) BoBuac < *Wool: plg. let. Wilkesa ir the wolf; 5) Tana < *What : plg. pr. ape ‘river’; 6) To6pa: plg. let. gūbra, gūbrys ir pan. ; 7) Topuabs: plg. pr. Mr. ir Goryn. ; 8) 2000: PLG. let. Horse-river, ir Horse-river horse (here it is no longer necessary to mention the name of the — river Žirginės it is secondary, iš taken over by the name of the meadow Žirginės; the name of the meadow Žirginės may have come not from horse, but from horsemanship "alder or birch seed doughnut"- ); 9) ŽKoBenkxa: plg. liet. Seafood, fish; 10) Xyxna: plg. liet. Žūkliai k., Žūkliai, fishing (in addition to these we could also mention, for example, Žūklija lanka Kapsuko raj. and others); 10) Koposemns: cf. lit. Karvél-upis, cow; 12) Kpyninus: cf. lit. kripé "toad"; 13) Cenpa: plg. The name is derived from Sidra, e.g. Sedranki etc. (both from former Baltic territories); 14) Cepres < *Sertėja: plg. lit. SeFt-upis, Saftė and so on. ; 15) Ckoponunka — probably from *Skar-ap-: plg. pr. Skara, lat. Skar-upe and so on. ; 16) Crepkosoe ež.: plg. liet. Starkė up. and stdrkas, lat. starks, pr. starkis "stark"; 17) Yna (from where the former Lithuanian fortress on the Dnieper is called Vrncx): plg. lit. ūpė. The interpretation of these baltisms, especially chronological, is not always equally clear. In some cases, these may indeed be late Baltisms, which appeared in the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the author includes *Vna: Ynck and Palesės Bymno < *Upelė and others). But some of them may be from a much older era. „This chapter deals with another group of toponyms—- composed place names with syncopated vowel x in the second syllable. The second word would be from -up-: lit. 1) Bepna < *Ver-up-: plg. lit. Ver-upé; 2) Wolfpys < *Val-up-: plg. liet. Val-upis; 3) Bocnuu < *Uos-up-in-: plg. lit. Uos-upis (A. Nepokupno article mentions, according to K. Būga, that the river name Vosupis is only a dialectal or somewhat distorted gender of Uosupis); 4) Capnumexoe < *Sar-up-in-: plg. pr. Sar-ape, lat. Sar-upji; 5) Ckepuka < *Skir-up-: plg. liet. Skir-upis. As you can see, the section contains many new facts about Baltic place names in Ukraine. Therefore, without any doubt, this study can be considered one of the most important recent works, helping to draw the southeastern boundary of the Baltic toponymy area. The Baltic subjects of other sections are no longer the direct object of research, but are used for comparison, illustration, argumentation of the origin of individual hydronyms, etc. Somewhat 206 more frequently parallels of Baltic, especially Lithuanian hydronyms are used in the section “Works” (written by A. Korepanova). Throughout the book, the facts of the Baltic languages are quoted or interpreted quite precisely. This applies above all to the chapter written by A. Nepokupno on the parallels of Baltic-Ukrainian hydronyms. Besides, inaccuracies, mistakes, errors still happen. Perhaps the most striking thing is that some Baltic words are presented with pronunciation, others — not, although in the cited source they are all pronounced. For example, Bilsinyčia is interspersed, and next to it is written the river name Mašnyčia, which has already been left without interspersing (p. 194). Such cases are quite numerous: blyvas, but blaivas (p. 69), gfiburas and gūbrys (p. 73), Žuvinė, but Plačioji (p. 74), rūpūžė, but krupis (p. 76), Saftupis, but SerCiupys (p. 78) and others. In some places the pronunciation is almost complete and fairly accurate (e.g., p. 76, 82), in others it is left without accents (e.g., p. 72, 74, 75, 79, 83, etc.). Common proofreading errors (p. 34, 74, 82, 83, 194 and others). There are inaccuracies in the interpretation of hydronyms or other local names. For example, the Lithuanian name of the river Mūkė (variant Milkė, seems to be secondary, later —with elongated accented vowel # < i in the dialect) is primarily related to Lithuanian mūkti “to stick, to crush” mukūs “clumpy- ”, Latin muka “clumpy swamp” and so on. The original meaning of this river name" would have been "a sticky, thick river" or something like that, so its association with Sanskrit. mūka, gr. pvxės, lat. mūtus "unseen" is hardly unnecessary and accurate (p. 34). Moreover, it is completely incomprehensible how the ending -a of the Slavic river name *Myxs of the present gender Muxa (Dnieper and Teterev basin) could have arisen from the analogy of the Indo-European hydronyms Nida, Vara Drava, Mara (p. 35). After all, these are the names of distant territories (Nida — Vistula int.; Vara —Marga int. in Liguria; Drava —Nece int. in Pomerania; Mara —Duča tributary, Kapčiamiestis) and, possibly, sometimes of different epochs! Apparently, other reasons must be sought to explain the limb change. The names of the former East Prussian rivers Skara (another name of Pričgliau) and Skarupė are derived from Lithuanian skérys. The appellative is considered to be a Samogitian word (following E. Frenkel) and the question is raised, will not only three Ukrainian river names be Crxoponunxa < *Skar-ap- -in very peculiar Samogitian — Prussian isogloss in Ukraine? There seems to be no clearer basis for this (for at least two reasons). One of them is that the adjective skérjs can hardly be considered only a Žemaitija word. It is true that in eastern Lithuania it is currently little known, but it still occurs about Subačiai, Kupiškis, and perhaps somewhere else. The fact that the word skėrys (or skerys) was really known in these places is shown by the surnames: the surname Skérjs or Skerjys from earlier times (that is, it is not migratory) is known, among other places, from Grinkiškis, Kupiškis, Krakiai, Krekenavos, Nemunėlis Radviliškis, Vabalninkas, i.e. also from where the surviving appellative skérys occurs. Place names only confirm this assumption — according to them the 207 range of the appellative skėrys, skerjs (or the names derived from it) outside western Lithuania seems even slightly larger: Grasshoppers k. Kaišiadorių, Pakruojo, Pasvalio raj., Skériškė k. Kelmės raj., Skerė (ar Skėrė) forest Dubingių aps., Skeriškės meadow "Obelių apyl., Skėriškės miškas prie Semeliškių". and so on. In addition, in Lithuania there are three rivers Skér-upis, two of which are ne iš Žemaičių (from Raudondvario ir (Taylor). The second is that the former. Names of East Prussian rivers Scarf, Skarupė and The name Skaryčia of a stream in the Varniai area is probably not derived from skérjs (phonetics skėr-: skardoes not support such a derivation, iš at least in ir part), — related to Russian o ckopktii su "fast", Dacian skaras "fast" —reconstructing the original meaning of speed or similar, What else, of course, the mentioned names of the three rivers Skér-upis —their first word probably originated from skérps. This fact, moreover, clearly shows that hydronyms derived from scabies retain the root scabir, do not change it to scaber and so on. In general, in Žemaitija, the root scabies scarf (Skaryčia from Varniai) cannot be changed by law. Thus, Cxoponuaxa, apparently, is simply a Ukrainian-- Baltic hydronymic parallel. There are other inaccuracies, controversial things. For example, the name of the river Netecza (Vistula Basin) is considered to be ir derived from the suffix -cza (-4a) (p. 196). It is a prefix that is derived from the Slavic prefix ukr. Gereu "standing water, bala", nerewa "river", Polish. nieciecz, nieciecza ‘stoning water’; small coastal lake, formed after the flood of the river” (from here in Lithuanian Netėčius ežeras Varena apylink.), Nieczecza, Nieciecze ež., Nieciecza ež., etc. And in general, in the section “Works”, it seems that the constructive (derivative) principle should have been followed more consistently. Despite this, the examination of the work loses its limits, turns into an overview of the morphological structure of the words or, worse, is completely misleading (even in the case of Netecza). This is often the case in the section “Works” — where it is necessary and appropriate to talk, for example, about derivation and suffixes, the author often turns to the analysis of word forms. Thus, next to the suffix -iž (Ukrainian -ix) derivative Jlrorix we find the hydronym Py6ix (p. 202—203) derived from the prepositional adjective, next to Cumtora — the adjective derivative Jlyra. It is also known as the Bemjuora river, which is considered to be of oikonymous origin. (p. 210) — iš It is in fact a hydronym, formed from the iš Germanic-origin Slavic appellative plg. — left. bienduga, binduga "shore of a (navigable) river where canoes are ir made", binduga "place paupy where trees suitable for canoes are loaded ir iš "Where the Wild Things < Are". vid. Jam. bindings. Iš this word is, say, polk. Binduga ež., Pod Bindugę ež. dalis,.liet Bindfigé up. (After the 1st.) ir Mr. Economy of Ukraine Bummiora, be doubt, is also similarly originated. In short, in the analysis of the work, it was necessary to strictly distinguish the derived hydronyms from other similar derivatives with a ar similar ending of rivers and į lakes of a completely different origin. Only then would the formation of hydronyms be distinguished from the formation of other onions, the features of hydronyms, onions in o ne general, even the formation ar of appellatives would be highlighted. 3 Some of the shortcomings mentioned here are quite natural in a work covering a huge number of languages, a wealth of material, the most complex issues. be Understandably, it is easier for the speaker of the individual languages to notice these inaccuracies. ir Aleksandras Vanagas