Methods of plant name formation used in the works by Jānis Ilsters

94 Linda Kurmiņa | Methodsofplantnameformation | usedintheworksbyJānisIlsters Methods of plant name formation used in the works by Jānis Ilsters LINDA KURMIņA LatvianLanguageInstituteofLU KEYWORDS: botany terminology, plant names, word formation, Jānis Ilsters The initial stages of botany terminology formation have been dealt with in numerous works (Vīksna 2002; Vimba 2001; Piete 2008) and its first achievements have most frequently been attributed to the botanist, teacher and poet Jānis Ilsters (1851–1889), who in 1883 published the first botany book in Latvian Botānikatautasskolāmunpašmācībai (Botanyforfolkschoolsandself-instruction) (Ilsters 1883). This work only contained rather few most widespread names of plants, accompanied by more detailed descriptions. As the main source for the present research of methods used in formation of plant names at the end of the 19th century the largest collections of botany terms by Jānis Ilsters Latviešubotāniskinosaukumi (Latvianbotany names; Ilsters I, 1884; Ilsters II, 1885) were used. These collections were published in 1884 and 1885 in journals of Rīgas Latviešu biedrības Zinību komisija (Riga Latvian Society Commission of Science). The present article discusses the formation methods of the names excerpted from Ilsters’ plant name lists, also comparing them with plant names documented in later term sources, including modern ones, mainly Botāniskāvārdnīca by Pauls Galenieks (Dictionaryofbotany; BV 1950) and the dictionary by Inese Ēdelmane and Ārija Ozola Latviešuvalodas augunosaukumi (LatvianLanguagePlantNames; LVAN 2003). The analysis of the plant names published at the end of the 19th century helps to reveal the most characteristic formation methods used during the initial stages of the Latvian botany terminology. Ilsters called for people’s active participation in collection of plant names. This is proven by his afterword to the first list of plant names Latviešu botāniskinosaukumi published in 1884: “Vēl ir pulks generu, kuriem gan viņu vispārīgas izplatīšanās dēļ latviski nosaukumi vienā vai otrā vidū 95Terminologija | 2012 | 19 atrasies. Tādēļ būtu derīgi, kad zinātāji uz priekšu tos ievērotu un varbūt Latviešu biedrības “Zinību Komisijai” piesūtītu priekš tāļākas izlietāšanas, kas botānikas sarakstītājiem līdzētu pie viņu darba”1 (Ilsters I, 1884: 81). His call was also answered – already in the second list of Latviešubotāniski nosaukumi (in 1885) the author publishes not only additions to his collection but also the collected material sent to him. This means that Ilsters has included in both of his plant name lists the names collected by himself (these can be found on both the first and the second list) and the ones sent to him by other collectors (mainly on the second list). This material mainly includes plant names from Vidzeme, less represented are Kurzeme and Zemgale. The author’s own collections are from Stukmaņi, Koknese, Vestiena and Dundaga. On the other hand the most of the names contributed by other collectors come from Vidzeme (Liezere, Valmiera, Cēsis, Trikāta, Sigulda), with lesser representation of Kurzeme (Aizpute, Kuldīga) and Zemgale (Dobele). None of the two plant name lists compiled by Ilsters features any name from Latgale. The material collected by Ilsters mainly comprises names of species, though there are some names of genera as well. In the preface to the first list (Ilsters 1884: 63–64) the author points out that many Latvian plant names have not yet been systematically arranged – quite often because of the similarities or differences of plants they may have been given inaccurate names. In some cases plants belonging to different genera have the same name and names of plants of the same genera are synonymous. Ilsters noted that specialists of botany would have to do something about these names in the future. Both lists are arranged alphabetically. The Latin names are presented first, then one or more of their Latvian equivalents are given. In many cases the compiler’s comments are added next to the headword or possible explanation of the origin is suggested. At the end the German equivalent is given. For instance: “HypericumL., asinszāles, raganukauli, krustenes, (strutenes); pēdējais nosaukums tādēļ tā, ka šī puķe apakš Kristus krusta stāvējusi un uz viņas Kristus asins pilējis. Johannisblut, Hartheu.”2. 1 Translation: “There are still many genera for which Latvian names can be found in one region or another due to their being so widespread. Therefore it would be useful that those who know them would in future note them, and maybe send them to the “Science Commission” of the Latvian Society for future use, which would help the recorders of botany in their work”. 2 Translation: „HypericumL., asinszāles, raganukauli, krustenes, (strutenes); the last plant has such name because it grew next to the cross of Christ and Christ’s blood was dripping on it. Johannisblut, Hartheu” 96 Linda Kurmiņa | Methodsofplantnameformation | usedintheworksbyJānisIlsters As Anna Vulāne writes, language is in continuous process of development, with especially active changes on the lexical level. With new objects and notions being created and introduced as the result of social economic development, also the need for giving those possibly more exact names arises. One of the options to meet this need is to create new words and names. Although the intensity of use of one or some other method or means, the productivity and activity of the derivative type changes over time and even new methods and means are introduced, the information included in the word is retained (Vulāne 2008: 88). The examples related to flora may be indicative of: 1) location of growth (purvene, zemenes); 2) resemblance in appearance (ķepaiņi,lācenes); 3) time of blossoming or ripening (jāņogas,mārtiņpuķes). While analysing the corresponding plant names it was concluded that different methods of word formation have been used in their creation: ° word derivation or affixation, for example kazenāji3 (Rubus caesius), naktenes(Solanum nigrum),rozītes(Bellis perennis); ° creation of compounds, for examplegaiļugriķes(Convolvulus); ° creation of word-group names, for example dzeltenāskumeles(Anthemis tinctoria),vecavīrabārzdiņa(Thymus serpyllum); ° creation of hyphenated names, for example buku-vītols(Salix viminalis),laumas-slota(Apasagus officinalis). Further in the article each individual method of the mentioned above will be discussed in more detail. 1. DERIVATION OR AFFIXATION In the material collected by Ilsters there are many such plant names that have been created as a result of word derivation or affixation, namely an affix – a prefix, suffix or derivative ending – being added to the word root or stem according to the word-formation models extant in the language. This is one of the most productive word formation methods in the Latvian language as such and also so in regard to plant name formation (VPSV 2007: 57; MLLVG I, 1959: 81; Kalme, Smiltniece 2001: 42). When deriving a new word usually a single affix is used, for example pār-cel-t→ne-pār-cel-t,pār-cel-šan-a,pār-cēl-āj-s. But there also are many words with two or more affixes, and the sequence of adding of these is difficult to establish, for example the adjective ie-zilg-an-s (‘bluish’) 3 Here and further the transcription of the examples follows the norms of the modern Latvian language. 97Terminologija | 2012 | 19 may have been derived either from the word ie-zilg-s using the suffix -an-or from the word zilg-an-s with the prefix ie-. Some words still are derived using two affixes simultaneously – with a prefix and a suffix, for example, pār-purv-o-t; with a prefix and derivative ending, for example aiz-skap-e; with two suffixes, for example ārst-niec-isk-s. This is attested by the fact that these words have no corresponding motivating word with a single affix (pārpurvs,purvot;aizskapis,skape, etc.) (Kalme, Smiltniece 2001: 42–43). The previously said may also be referred to the derivations of plant names, for example čūsk-en-āj-i (Orchis maculata), zirdz-en-āj-s (Rubus fruticosus). The basis for a derived plant name may be a noun (for example, blusenes (Polygonum persicaria), ziepene (Saponaria officinalis)), an adjective (for example, skābenes (Rumex), zilenes (Vaccinium uliginosum)) as well as a verb (for example noartnes (Pimpinella)). These plant names may be divided into several groups: ° plant names derived with a suffix – in the analysed material the following suffixes have been found as used for derivation of plant names: -āj-,-el-,-en-,-iņ-,-īt-; ° plant names derived using a derivative ending. Plant names derived using the suffix -ājMLLVG mentions that the suffix -āj- (respectively the ultima -ājs) is used to derive plant names from the noun stems, while it is rarely used today in formation of names (MLLVG I, 1959: 90). Judging by the plant names collected by Ilsters one can reach the conclusion that this suffix has been quite frequently used in formation of plant names. MLLVG mentions several meanings created forming plant names with the suffix -āj-: a) from the names of berries, using the suffix -āj-,words are formed that either denote a single plant or – more frequently – a group of such plants; b) from different names of plants words are derived that denote a larger or smaller group of these plants or a location where these plants can be found in abundance (MLLVG I, 1959: 92). The lists of Latviešubotāniskinosaukumi only include such names of plants that belong to the first group, namely those denoting either a single plant or a group of such, beyond that the author indicates that the ultimas -ājs, -āji are frequently used in formation of names for bushes (including those for lilac): avenāji (Rubus idaeus),bruklenājs (Vaccinium vitis idaea), 98 Linda Kurmiņa | Methodsofplantnameformation | usedintheworksbyJānisIlsters dundurnāji (Geum rivale), dzervenājs (Vaccinium oxycoccus), ērkšķogāji (Ribes grosularia),irbenājs (Viburnum opulus),kazenāji (Rubus caesius), spradzenājs (Fragaria collina), zemenājs (Fragaria vesca). Plant names derived using the suffix -elThe words formed using the suffix -el-may be ancient derivations, and today this suffix is only productive in forming the diminutives (MLLVG I, 1959: 93, 94). Also in the lists of plant names by Ilsters there are few words with this suffix, while the ones found rather do not have the diminutive meaning for example, spīdeles(Bellis perennis). Plant names derived using the suffix -enAs stated in MLLVG the suffix -en- (respectively the ultima -ene) has been used to form a large group of plant, berry and mushroom names, and this is quite a productive suffix (MLLVG I, 1959: 95). In the material collected by Ilsters the following examples can be found:cirvene (Alisma), elksnene (Agaricus subdulcis),kaulenes (Rubus saxatilis), lipene (Lychnis diurna), naktenes(Solanum nigrum), precenes (Aster salicifolius), rasenes (Drosera), trīsene (Briza media), vilnene (Agaricus subdulcis), vistenes (Empetrum nigrum),zīdenes(Centaurea). Plant names derived using the suffix -iņUsually the suffix -iņis used to derive diminutive forms, with the meaning of both some real diminutive and emotionally subjective evaluation, still the diminutive meaning is neutralised when nouns with the ultimas -iņš,-iņa reach term status (MLLVG I, 1959: 112–113, 117), as in the case of, for example the following plant names:auniņi (Erigeron acer), liniņi (Linaria vulgaris), plakstiņi (Alectrolophus), žagatiņa (Majanthemum bifolium). Plant names derived using the suffix -ītThe suffix -ītis a real diminutive suffix, however as in the case of the suffix -iņwords formed using this suffix, when they acquire the characteristics of a term, lose the meaning of both endearment and diminutive (MLLVG I, 1959: 130–131). In the material collected by Ilsters the suffix -īt-appears to be frequently used in plant name formation, for example, plural ancīši, dadzīši (Agrimonia eupatoria), bārenīte (Viola triclor),cepurītes (Campanula), kumelītes(Matricaria chamomilla),kurpītes (Aconitum lycoc- 99Terminologija | 2012 | 19 tonum), pulkstenītes(Campanula),rozītes(Bellis perennis), plural sunīši (Bidens), trepīte (Potentilla anserina). Plant names derived using a derivative ending A derivative ending is mostly used to form nouns, verbs and adverbs. In word formation the following derivative endings are used: -a,-e,-is, -s,-t,-ies,-i,-u (Vulāne 2008: 101). Two of those, namely-eun-is(plural -i) have been found used in formation of the excerpted plant names. The following examples can be listed from the plant name collection: ziemele (probably from ziemelis‘north’) (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) (cf. ME IV, 1929–1932: 742), vizbuļi (Anemone) (cf. Karulis II, 1992: 542). Plant names may be also derived by a prefix and a derivative ending, for example egl-e → pa-egl-is (Juniperus communis), or a compound name may be created to which the derivative ending is added, for example sausaserde ‘dry core’ → saus-+serd-is (Lonicera xylosteum), tūtas (veida)lapa ‘cornet (formed) leaf’ → tūt-+lap-e (Aquilegia vulgaris). 2. FORMATION OF COMPOUNDS In the material of plant names collected by Ilsters compound names are quite frequent. Compounds are names formed by uniting at least two independent words or their stems, and they function in the language as a single lexical unit. Uniting of words into compounds in the same way as word derivation) is one of the most productive methods of new word formation in the modern Latvian language (VPSV 2007: 338; MLLVG I, 1959: 84; Kalme, Smiltniece 2001: 47). As noted by Vilma Kalme, different parts of speech may become the first component of a compound: nouns, adjectives, numerals, pronouns, verbs, adverbs (Kalme, Smiltniece 2001: 47–48). In compound names of plants the first part in most cases is a noun, for example miroņupuķe‘corpse’s flower’ (Linaria vulgaris), mežarozīte ‘wood’s rose’ (Geranium), or an adjective, for example baltvēderiņi‘white bellies’ (Potentilla anserina), mazpurenīte ‘small marsh marigold’ (Ranunculus ficaria). These are the two most productive types of compound plant name formation. Though more rarely the lists of plant names compiled by Ilsters also feature compounds with a numeral as the first part, for example septiņstarīte ‘seven rays’ (Trientalis europaea), vienlapa ‘one leaf’ (Parnassia palustris). The names formed as compounds can be divided into two component and three component compound names. 100 Linda Kurmiņa | Methodsofplantnameformation | usedintheworksbyJānisIlsters The two component compounds can be further divided into two subgroups: ° compounds with their first part being a noun in genitive case without the ending, and most of the compound names in the material compiled by Ilsters belong to this type, for example dzelzzāle ‘iron grass’ (Echium vulgare), kaķaste ‘cat’s tail’ (Amarantus), lāčauzas ‘bear’s oats’ (Bromus secalinus), purveglīte ‘bog’s fir’ (Pedicularis), vārndeguns‘crow’s nose’ (Delphinium consolida), velnābols ‘devil’s apple’ (Datura stramonium); ° comparatively frequently the lists by Ilsters also contain compounds the first part of which are nouns in genitive case with the ending, for example ceļaāboliņš ‘road’s clover’ (Melilotus tournef), dziparukarkls ‘worsted sallow’ (Salise acutifolia), meduspuķe ‘honey flower’ (Galium verum), mežarozīte ‘wood’s rose’ (Geranium), miroņupuķe ‘corpse’s flower’ (Linaria vulgaris), varžukājas‘froglegs’,vārnukājas ‘crow legs’ (Comarum palustre). In comparison to modern sources of terms, specifically – Botāniskā vārdnīca by Galenieks and the dictionary by Ēdelmane and Ozola Latviešu valodasaugunosaukumi, it was observed that such compounds have either lost the ending of the first component or become word-group names: lat. Alchemillavulgaris – la. kroķulapas (Ilsters I, 1884: 65) → kroķulapas (LVAN 2003: 312) lat. Antennariadioica – la. kaķupēdiņas (Ilsters I, 1884: 66) → kaķpēdiņas (BV 1950: 29) lat. Berberisvulgaris – la. aluspuķe (Ilsters I, 1884: 67) → aluspuķe (LVAN 2003: 41) lat. Convallariamajalis – la. zīdalapas (Ilsters I, 1884: 67; Ilsters II, 70) → zīdlapas (LVAN 2003: 159) lat. Epilobium – la. kazurozes (Ilsters I, 1884: 70) → kazrozes (LVAN 2003: 148) lat. Menthacrispa – la. krūzumētra (Ilsters I, 1884: 74) → krūzmētra (LVAN 2003: 219) lat. Orchis – la. dzegužupuķes (Ilsters I, 1884: 74) → dzegužpuķes (BV 1950: 19) 101Terminologija | 2012 | 19 The three component compounds are rare; in the collection of plant names by Ilsters only two such plant names were found: ceļmallapas(Plantago) andcaurduruzāles(Datura stramonium). 3. FORMATION OF WORD-GROUP NAMES Another productive method of plant name formation is creation of word-groups. Most frequently such groups consist of two or three components. Also four component word groups exist. One such example is provided by Ēdelmane – dižābaltāūdenslēpe (‘grand white water spatterdock’) (Ēdelmane 1978: 101), but such examples are not numerous. On the lists of plant names compiled by Ilsters there are none. The word-group plant names documented in the lists of Latviešubotāniski nosaukumi may be divided into two-component and three-component names. According to Ēdelmane among plant names the most productive type of two component word-group names is the one containing a noun in the genitive case as the subordinate member (Ēdelmane 1978: 100). Also the material of plant names compiled by Ilsters features a significant number of such plant names. The following models of word-group names have been observed: ° a noun in singular / plural genitive case + independent component: dzeguzessietavas ‘cuckoo’s puttees’ (Pinguicula vulgaris), mīlestības krūms ‘love bush’ (Myrica gale), zaķuskābenes ‘hare’s sorrels’ (Osealis acetosella); ° an adjective with the definitive ending in singular / plural + independent component: dzeltenāskumeles ‘the yellow camomille’ (Anthemis tictoria), mīkstāsnātres ‘the soft nettles’ (Lamium), pelēkais zirnis ‘the grey pea’ (Pisum arvense); ° an adjective with the indefinite ending + independent component: skarainasauzas ‘panicled oats’ (Avena sativa); ° passive voice present tense declinable participle + independent component: gremojamazāle ‘ruminating grass’ (Menyanthes trifoliata), vemjamazāle ‘vomiting grass’(Morchella). Three component word-groups are rarer. The following models of three component word-group names were observed: ° an adjective with the definite ending in singular + noun in singular genitive case + independent component: baltāJāņazāle ‘the white 102 Linda Kurmiņa | Methodsofplantnameformation | usedintheworksbyJānisIlsters Jānis’ grass’ (Galium mollugo), dzeltenāJāņazāle ‘the yellow Jānis’ grass’ (Galium verum); ° two nouns in genitive case + independent component: Poļuķēniņa puķe ‘Polish king’s flower’ (Campanula glomerata); ° an adjective with the indefinite ending + a noun in singular genitive case + independent component: vecavīrabārzdiņa ‘old man’s beard’ (Thymus serpyllum); ° a numeral + a noun in plural genitive case + independent component: deviņuvīruspēks ‘strength of nine men’ (Verodscum thapsus), septiņuvīruspēks ‘strength of seven men’ (Phyteuma spicatum). 4. FORMATION OF HYPHENATED NAMES In comparatively numerous cases Ilsters uses in the lists of Latviešu botāniskinosaukumi names the components of which are united by a hyphen, namely – the so-called hyphenated names. Valentīna Skujiņa in her book Latviešuterminoloģijasizstrādesprincipi (TheprinciplesofLatvianterminologydevelopment) points out that “17.–19. gs. latviešu rakstu avotos defise, resp., savienojuma zīme (=), lietota, lai parādītu vārdu vai vārda daļu ciešo jēdzienisko saistījumu”4 (Skujiņa 2002: 115–116), for example, in G. Mancelius’ dictionary Lettus (Rīga, 1638) the following hyphenated plant names have been included: Bisscha=krehssliņi, ceļļa=lappa,Lahc=auzchi, all of which are nowadays replaced by the corresponding compounds, as well as Musschates=zeedi,Zirrdzenes=sacknis, which are now designated by a word-group. According to the conclusions reached by Skujiņa in her terminology research, hyphenated groups in the modern Latvian language terminology are little used in comparison to development of the Latvian terminology over previous centuries. In most cases of plant names listed by Ilsters in the form of hyphenated names, for example buku-vītols (Salix viminalis), laukanaglene(Dianthus arenarius),laumas-slota (Asparagus officinalis), slotiņuciesa (Calamagrostis epigeios), zaķa-staipekņi (Lycopodium annotinum) the modern sources avoids the use of the hyphen and either use compounds or word-groups. 4 Translation: “in document sources of the 17–19th century the hyphen, resp. the connection symbol (=) was used in order to show the tight notional relation of words or word parts”.