Ukrainian-Lithuanian Linguo-Cultural Parallels and Differences in Ethnonymy and Related Lexical Units

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 2025, vol. 93, pp. 1–17 Contents link / Turinio nuoroda ISSN 2669-218X (online / elektroninis) UKRAINIAN-LITHUANIAN LINGUO-CULTURAL PARALLELS AND DIFFERENCES IN ETHNONYMY AND RELATED LEXICAL UNITS Ukrainiečių ir lietuvių kalbų lingvokultūrinės paralelės ir skirtumai etnonimijoje bei su ja susijusios leksikos vienetuose VOLODYMYR PONOMARENKO O. O. Potebnia Institute of Linguistics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4106-5874 Fields of research: comparative Indo-European lexicology, language contact, ethnolinguistics. https://doi.org/10.35321/all93-07 ABSTRACT The article offers a comparative linguo-cultural analysis of ethnonymic, and choronymic, lexicon, as well as word combinations containing related elements, in the Ukrainian and Lithuanian languages, along with facts from other, primarily neighbouring, languages of the European linguistic and cultural space. In particular, it deals with etymology, which testifies to both common Indo-European (first of all, Balto-Slavic) features and historical differences. The study also explores semantic changes, such as the transfer of meaning in ethnic names, new meanings of feminine word forms and diminutives, and other derivatives. The relevant topics include, from the semantic point of view, ethnicity, everyday life realia, nature, and more. Phrases and figurative expressions are presented, a significant part of which belong to interlanguage universals: different (also terminological) lexical units, covering such areas as science, medicine, sports, household equipment and utensils, tools and instruments, substances and materials, and food. Phraseologies with ethnonymic components are also examined. The study aims to demonstrate certain common features of Slavic, Baltic, and other genealogically related languages of the European linguistic and cultural area, as well as divergences arising from different language and cultural contacts. Copyright © 2025 Volodymyr Ponomarenko. Published by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. // Išleido Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Šis straipsnis yra atviros prieigos, platinamas pagal „Creative Commons“ priskyrimo licencijos sąlygas, leidžiančias neribotai naudoti, platinti ir atkurti turinį bet kokioje laikmenoje, nurodant autorių ir šaltinį. Received: / Gauta: 2025-10-20. Accepted: / Priimta: 2025-11-07. 1 KEYWORDS: ethnonyms, choronyms, Ukrainian language, Lithuanian language, etymology, language contacts, semantic change, phraseology. ANOTACIJA Straipsnyje pateikiama lyginamoji lingvokultūrinė ukrainiečių ir lietuvių kalbų etnoniminių, choroniminių leksikos vienetų ir žodžių junginių, turinčių susijusių elementų, analizė, taip pat ir faktai apie kitas, pirmiausia kaimynines, Europos kalbinės bei kultūrinės erdvės kalbas. Visų pirma nagrinėjama etimologija, liudijanti tiek bendrus indoeuropiečių (pirmiausia baltų-slavų) bruožus, tiek istorinius skirtumus. Tyrime nagrinėjami ir semantiniai pokyčiai, tokie kaip prasmės perkėlimas etnonimuose, naujos moteriškos giminės žodžių formų ir deminutyvų bei kitų vedinių reikšmės. Aktualios temos semantiniu požiūriu apima etniškumą, kasdienio gyvenimo realijas, gamtą ir kita. Pateikiamos frazės ir perkeltinės reikšmės išraiškos, kurių nemaža dalis priklauso tarpkalbinėms universalijoms: skirtingiems leksikos vienetams (be minėtų ir terminologijos), apimantiems tokias sritis kaip mokslas, medicina, sportas, namų apyvokos ir kiti reikmenys, įrankiai ir instrumentai, substancijos ir medžiagos bei maistas. Taip pat nagrinėjami ir frazeologizmai su etnoniminiais komponentais. Tyrimo tikslas – parodyti tam tikrus bendrus slavų, baltų ir kitų genetiškai artimų Europos lingvokultūrinio regiono kalbų bruožus bei skirtumus, kylančius dėl skirtingų kalbinių ir kultūrinių kontaktų. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: etnonimai, choronimai, ukrainiečių kalba, lietuvių kalba, etimologija, kalbų kontaktai, semantinė kaita, frazeologija. 1. INTRODUCTION Ethnonymic and choronymic, lexicons make up distinct categories in the vocabulary of modern languages. It is an essential lexical layer, closely related to historical and socio-cultural aspects of the existence of ethnic groups and areas, and to the people’s mentality. For example, studies on Slavic ethnonyms have allowed researchers to reach meaningful conclusions regarding the ethnolinguistic branching of Indo-European languages (Taranec 2013: 16). This has also prompted the need for a comparative study of ethnonymy, as well as choronymy. Comparing Baltic and Slavic language material holds special interest. In our opinion, it is appropriate to incorporate examples from other languages, primarily neighbouring ones, within the European linguistic and cultural area, in the analysis. We’ll focus on the names of European ethnic groups, ethnonymic derivatives, word combinations with ethnonymic and close in essence choronymic components, since (in a linguistic and cultural context) notional connection between ethnonyms and most choronyms seems to be obvious, and also phraseological units. Therefore, the objective of this research is to describe and compare from a cultural and historical ethnolinguistic perspective factual material of two languages that in the genealogical sense belong to different Indo-European groups, namely Baltic and Slavic, as an example of a particular (albeit ambiguous) “areal and typological similarity” (Nepokupnyj 1964: 162). In this context, the corresponding lexical units of the Ukrainian and Lithuanian languages appear to be indicative from a linguo-cultural point of view, reflecting certain features of ethnic mentality, as well as consequences of language contacts. The primary method used is comparative semasiological and, to some extent, ethnolinguistic analysis with a referential approach, taking into consideration the semantic and stylistic ambiguity of ethnonymic lexical units. 2 2. ETYMOLOGICAL REMARKS AND LEXICO-SEMANTIC ASPECTS 2.1. To initiate, we’ll go back to a well-known etymological classification of ethnonyms, which provides for their division into two main groups: words of ancient origin “with lost initial semantics”, and “with etymology that has been preserved or acquired secondarily” (Superanskaja 1978: 83). Therefore, according to this criterion, the Lithuanians’ self-name should be included in the first group (together with the names of Latvians, Belarusians, Czechs, Macedonians, Slovenians, Croats, Norwegians, Danes, English, Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, as well as Hungarians, Estonians, Finns), while the Ukrainians’ name enters the (smaller) second group (self-names of Poles, Bulgarians, Serbs, Montenegrins, Icelanders, Swedes, Germans, Romanians, French, Portuguese, Albanians, Welsh, Irish, Scots). It is worth noting that among the numerous etymological versions (known to us), concerning the origin of the name of Lithuania and, accordingly, Lithuanians (Ponomarenko 2023: 24–26), in our opinion, the suggestion of Simas Karaliūnas (1995: 55, etc.), supported by modern researchers (cf. Dini, Subačius 2019: 104–105), deserves special attention. Besides, the studies of Ukrainian linguists, first of all Anatolij Nepokupnyj (1994: 290; 1998: 88 etc.; cf. Skopenko 2023: 32) testify in its favor. Ukr. українці (Lith. ukrainiečiai) and Lith. lietuviai (Ukr. литовці) are supposed to belong to typical endonyms representing most of the ethnic names, cf. Ukr. чехи, Lith. čekai and Cz. Češi, Ukr. болгари, Lith. bulgārai and Bulg. българи, etc. In the Lithuanian context, we should take note of the presence of the (closer to Ukrainian doublet) form ukrainai ‘Ukrainians’ and, accordingly, the adjective ukrainiškas ‘Ukrainian’, in addition to the “standard”, i.e. ukrainiečiai and ukrainietiškas (LKŽe). The peculiarly Lithuanian lénkai (Ukr. поляку, Pol. Polacy, Latv. poļi) is thought to come from an (Eastern) Slavic background (Fraenkel 1962: 356; Smoczyński 2016: 896), being connected etymologically with the Ukrainian historicism лях (ESUM III 343–344), as well as with borrowed names of contact origin in some non-Indo-European languages, like Hun. lengyelek and Gag. Läḧlär, belonging to the same etymological nest. The table below is made on the basis of modern lexicographic sources, and the principle of ordering is mainly areal. Table. European peoples: ethnic names Ethnos | Language | Self name | Ukrainian name | Lithuanian name Ukrainians | Ukrainian | українці | українці | ukrainiečiai / ukrainai Belarusians | Belarusian | беларусы | білоруси | baltarusіai Russians | Russian | русские | росіяни | rusai Bulgarians | Bulgarian | българи | болгари | bulgarai Macedonians | Macedonian | Македонци | македонці | makedoniečiai Serbs | Serbian | Срби (Srbi) | серби | serbai 3 Montenegrins | Montenegrin | Црногорци | чорногорці | juodkalniečiai Bosniaks | Bosnian | Bošnjaci | босняки / боснійці | bosniai Croats | Croatian | Hrvati | хорвати | kroatai Slovenes | Slovene | Slovenci | словенці | slovėnai Czechs | Czech | Češi | чехи | čekai Slovaks | Slovak | Slováci | словаки | slovakai Poles | Polish | Polacy | поляки | lenkai Lithuanians | Lithuanian | lietuviai | литовці | lietuviai Latvians | Latvian | latvieši | латыші / латвійці | latviai Germans | German | Deutsche | німці | vokiečiai Dutch (people) | Dutch | Nederlanders | нідерландці / голландці | nyderlandiečiai / olandai Flemish (people) | Dutch | Vlamingen | фламандці | flamandai English (people) | English | English | англійці | anglai Icelanders | Icelandic | Íslendingar | ісландці | islandai Norwegians | Norwegian | nordmenn | норвежці | norvegai Danes | Danish | danskere | данці / датчани | danai Swedes | Swedish | svenskar | шведи | švedai Irish (people) | Irish | Éireannaigh | ірландці | airiai Scottish (people) / Scots | Scottish Gaelic | Albannaich | шотландці | škotai Welsh | Welsh | Cymry | валлійці | valai / velsiečiai Romanians | Romanian | români | румуни | rumunai Italians | Italian | italiani | італійці | italai French (people) | French | Français | французи | prancūzai Walloons | French | Wallons | валлони | valonai Catalans | Catalan | Catalans | каталонці | katalonai Spaniards | Spanish | españoles | іспанці | ispanai Portuguese (people) | Portuguese | Portugueses | португальці | portugalai Greeks / Hellenes | Greek | Ἕλληνες | греки | graikai Albanians | Albanian | shqip­tar | албанці | albanai Hungarians / Magyars | Hungarian | magyarok | мадяри (угорці) | vengrai Estonians | Estonian | eestlased | естонці | estai Finns | Finnish | suomalaiset | фіни | suomiai 2.2. One should also point out the semantically peculiar Ukr. литвин, which has no equivalent in the Lithuanian lexicon (except for the surname Litvinas). It is known that this ethnic name is reflected in surnames like Ukr. Литвин, Литвиненко, Литвинчук, Bel. Літвінаў, etc. (Motora, Nepokupnyj 1989: 50–51; Laučiūtė 2004: 72–73), has been used historically not only for Lithuanians, but also for Belarusians and Ukrainians from the Polissia lands (SUM 499; SUM IV 494), and Rus. литвин could also refer to a Pole (Nepokupnyi 1994: 290). Other specific samples are borrowings from Yiddish, such as Ukr. литвак(у) and 4 Lith. литvakai, cf. Eng. Litvaks (see Friedlander 1994: 243), historicisms referred to Ashkenazi Jews who lived in the Baltic region and neighbouring Slavic areas. In the past, collective names, such as Ukr. литва, were widely used applying to both Lithuanians and Belarusians (ESUM III 245; cf. Hrinčenko 1908: 363). In the last source, we also find the uniquely affectionate Ukr. Литовонька. Concerning Ukr. литва in historical terms, a well-known Ukrainian researcher of Balto-Slavic language relations recorded the specific meaning of “traveling circus people” (who came from the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), caused, in particular, by “ethnic inflation” of the onym Литва, which was extended to a part of Latvians, Poles, Belarusians and Ukrainians (Nepokupnyj 1994: 288–291). Another historical meaning of Ukr. литва (as well as Bel. лiтва and Pol. litwa) refers to the designation of the groom’s companions at the wedding, reflected in folk songs of the Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Poles (Nepokupnyj 1998: 88–104). The Eastern Slavic ethnonymic lexicon is characterised by the presence of several partial synonyms, such as Ukr. латыши ‘indigenous inhabitants of Latvia, the titular nation’ and латвийцы ‘citizens of Latvia’ (Bel. латыши and латвийцы), cf. Lith. lātviai and Latv. latvieši (at the same time, partly synonymous names in the singular coexist in Latvian: latvietis and, less frequently, latvis), as well as (on the one hand) Pol. Lotyši and (on the other hand) Bulg. латвийцы, Bosn. Latvijci. The exonyms of European ethnic groups in the two compared languages generally match the registry, for example, Ukr. албанці and Lith. albāņai (probably of Caucasian origin, cf. Bel. албанцы, Pol. Albańczycy, Latv. albāņi, etc.). The differences can be seen in telling examples, such as Ukr. німці (Bel. немцы, Pol. Niemcy, etc.) and Lith. vókiečiai, along with Latv. vācieši, respectively, of Slavic (with some reservations) and, presumably, Germanic origin. However, it should be noted that there are alternative borrowed names, such as Lith. niẽmčius (Smoczyński 2016: 1119), pliūkas or germānas (LKŽe). Ukr. яроці (of Turkic origin) and the borrowed self-name мадяри (Hun. magyarok) is another instance that can be noticed, cf. Latv. ungāri and (somewhat obsolete and colloquial) māgāri, Bel. венгры and мадзьяры, Pol. Węgrzy and Madziary/Madziarowie, while Lith. veñgrai is considered to be an ancient borrowing from Slavic languages (cf., e.g., LSorb. Hungory). Furthermore, Ukr. фіни (of Scandinavian origin, cf. Pol. Finowie, Ger. Finnen and other Slavic and Germanic names, as well as Hun. finnek) differs from Lith. súomiai (borrowed self-name; cf. Fin. suomalaiset, Latv. somi, Est. soomlased). Another case involves tracing of ethnonyms from other languages, in particular Slavic, in Baltic and other non-Slavic languages, cf. Ukr. білоруси (Bel. беларусы, Pol. Białorusini, etc.) and Lith. baltarusiai, Latv. baltkrievi; one should also mention the historical ethnic name gūdai, supposedly of Germanic origin (Karaliūnas 2004: 146–150; cf. Roback 1944: 104, where Ger. Gudde/Guddas ‘Pole, Lithuanian or Russian’ is interpreted as “obviously, a nickname of an Eastern (northern) Slav”; cf. Lith. dial. báltgudis ‘Belarusian’, or Ukr. чорногорці (Serb. Црногорци, Bel. чарнагорцы, Pol. Czarnogórcy, etc.) and Lith. 5 juodkalniečiai (Latv. melnkalnieši, Rum. muntenegren̦i, Gr. Μαυροβούνιοι or Tur. Karadağlılar). 3. SEMANTIC EXTENSION: COMPARATIVE PLAN Semantic transformations are a characteristic feature of ethnonyms due to connotations that go beyond the limits of the onomastic sphere. In this connection, we should mention the theory of Andrej A. Beleckij, reliable Ukrainian linguist (Beleckij 1972: 190–191), who added a function of individualisation to the concept of semantics of proper names, including ethnonyms. 3.1. Let us start with figurative meanings of ethnonyms. Under the conditions of comparable non-closely related languages, it is difficult to trace “paradigmatic” parallels (the only exception is for historicisms of international nature, such as Ukr. вандали or Lith. vandālai), since semantic extension is influenced by extralinguistic factors and is also connected to the presence of ethnic stereotypes. Figurative meaning of certain ethnic names is rather characteristic of both (mainly colloquial) languages, e.g. Ukr. турок (‘Turk’) in the old regional meaning of “weedy person” or француз (‘French’): in some regions, a euphemistic designation of a Jew, mostly humorous (from the author’s own observations in the 60s and 70s of the last century); cf. Lith. vokietis ‘protestant’, turkas ‘non-Christian’, etc. (Butkus 1995: 223 etc.). 3.2. There are also similar examples somewhat different in character, like Ukr. (modern) німець “German-made motorcycle” or швед(ка) “Swedish-style wrench”, here we can state a kind of substantivation of word combinations with nationality adjectives. In some instances, the meaning can be terminological: cf. (borrowed from English) Ukr. фін (a kind of sports sailboat) and Lith. finn (opposed to the ethnonym súomių). 3.3. Specific semantic transformations frequently apply to feminine word forms of ethnic names; in this regard, typical examples are Ukr. литовка (< Литва) identifying a kind of scythe, “obviously, it refers to the name of the area from which the scythe with a long straight holder spread” (ESUM III 248; Kregždys 2015: 150), as well as another item (with the same name, from Pol. litewka (SJP IV 172), incorporated into various European languages): name of a uniform (or jacket) worn during the First World War. Ukr. летовка, denoting a variety of potatoes (ESUM III 227), is presumably related to Lithuania. Another area is addressed in the case of Ukr. шведка (шведська піч, literally: “Swedish stove”) ‘brick stove for residential premises’, cf. Lith. švediška órkaitė. Such terms of a rather choronymic nature associated with economic activities usually indicate realia originating in specific areas, and their names reflect their geographical origins. For example, thanks to the Arabs, the Europeans got acquainted a long time ago with exotic buckwheat and its grains: cf. Fr. sarrasin, It. grano saraceno. However, some Slavic and Baltic names, in particular Ukr. гречка, Bel. грэчка, Pol. gryka (also litewka and tatarka, as well as Ukr. татарка, cf. the ethnic names like Ukr. грекіня | гречанка, Blr. грэчанка, Pol. Greczynka), Lith. (of Slavic origin) grìkis, grìkiai (Griteniene et 6 al. 2022: 121), Latv. grikį (cf. Lith. graikė, Latv. grieķu) presumably (since the presence of the seme ‘Greek’ is hypothetical) point to another way for the same culture to reach other territories (cf. also borrowed from Ukrainian Rum. hriščă, cf. greacă, feminine ethnonym). The feminine gender of the word is explained in most cases by the original noun, which fell out of use due to elliptical shortening of a word combination, as in the case with Ukr. (colloquial) болгарка (popular name for a grinding machine, its initial samples arrived in the 60s from Bulgaria); cf. Az. bolqarka, Uzb. bolgarka, etc.). When it comes to Lith. bulgārkė (slang name, opposed to the feminine ethnonym bulgarė), mentioned in electronic sources, it’s more about a semantic tracing. At the same time, realia like Ukr. угорка (plum variety) or фінка (‘Finnish knife’), in Lithuanian are called vengrinė slyva, suomiškas peilis (Ibid.: 513, 530). In the context of the given examples, we can observe certain “universalization” of noun phrases including choronymic adjectives. Other etymological issues are debated. Moving on to other thematic areas, it is worth mentioning, for example, a well-known dance genre: (Eng.) polka. According to some etymologists (Václav Machek, Max Vasmer, Pavel Chernych), it is of Czech origin and its name, used in multiple languages, is not associated with ethnonymy, thus Pol. polka is defined as “unclear” in a modern source (Bańkowski 2000: 688). The ethnonymic connection is stated in the Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language, according to which Ukr. полька (like some other Slavic names) “was borrowed, possibly via Polish mediation, from Czech; Cz. polka is the result of a semantic modification of the ethnonym polka, besides, it is a “symbol of solidarity with Poland, which fought against tsarist oppression” (ESUM IV 506). This is confirmed to a certain extent by the names traced in other languages, including Lith. pȯlka (DLKŽ I 606). There is also a transparent case with the names of polonaise, a musical genre from Poland rooted in Polish folklore, in the 16th century, it became a court dance in France and other European countries; therefore, the original name was French, i.e. Fr. polonaise, borrowed in other (including Slavic) languages, and even Polish itself, cf. Ukr. полонез, Bel. паланэз, Pol. polonez, Lith. polonėžas. Another example of this type is Ukr. алеманда ‘French court dance derived from German roots dating back to the 16th century’ and Lith. alemāndė as a sort of calque. The interest extends to composites with foreign choronyms, cf. Ukr. падеспань and Lith. padespãnas derived from Fr. pas d’Espagne, name of a ballroom dance incorporating Spanish elements that has been known since the beginning of the 19th century. At the same time, Ukr. іспанський крок (Fr. pas espagnol) is one of the basic elements of horse riding. 3.4. Diminutive forms represent a particular interest. We can classify them as morphologically and semantically equivalent Ukr. україночка and Lith. lietuvaitė ‘Lithuanian girl’ (Lyberis 2005: 391), but significant semantic differences can be determined, however, by comparing, for instance, Ukr. німчук and Lith. vokietukas, which are not only devoid of diminutive or affectionate meaning: the first word has a negative connotation (SUM V 425), while in the second case we can observe several figurative meanings, in particular ‘ancient dance’ and ‘mushroom Rozites caperata’, which also encompasses other “folk” names: gudūkas 7 or tur̄kas (LKŽe), cf. some names in other languages: Bel. myраk, Serb. циганчит, Cr. ciganček or ciganin, Ger. Zigeuner. No less interesting is the folkloric use of Lith. vokietukas / vokiečiukas referring to a devil, cf. Pol. niemczyk (Roback 1944: 123). An example of pluralia tantum is the popular name of a plant: Ukr. литвинчики (Hrinčenko 1908: 363), or смілка литовська (Lat. Silene lithuanica), cf. Lith. lietūvinė naktžiedė, Pol. lepnica litewska. Grammatical parallelism and semantic differences attest to the peculiarity of the historical evolution of morphosemantic means of different (although genetically related) languages. 3.5. Another part of relational lexemes consists of internationalisms with historical “experience” (borrowed for most languages, including Baltic and Slavic), retaining traces of choronyms. Let us recall, for instance, Ukr. indigo and Lith. indigas (the etymology is Greek), or the names of turquoise based on the seme ‘Turkish’: cf. Ukr. (obsolete) туркус (Tymčenko 2003: 405), derived from Fr. turquoise (ESUM V 682), and Lith. tur̄kis. Among the names of clothes, we find, for example, Ukr. далматика and Lith. dalmātika, cf. Fr. dalmatique (NPL 1970: 284) or It. dalmatica (Zingarelli 2005: 494), coming from Latin. According to a similar principle, artificial terminological names for several chemical elements have been formed on a choronymic basis, depending on the location of discovery: Ukr. полоній, германій, францій, галій, рутеній and Lith. polōnis, germanis, frāncis, gālis, rutēnis. It also seems expedient to mention botanical names with a historically conditioned geographic nature and that overlap with/come from some choronymic word combinations, such as Ukr. персик and Lith. per̄sikas (this Chinese culture reached Europe via Persia), cf. Latv. persiks, Pol. piersik, etc. Zoonyms can be represented by names like Ukr. індюк, with semantic equivalents or similarities in many European languages: it can be compared to Pol. indyk, Bel. індык, Fr. dinde (based on the name poule d’Inde), It. gallo d’India, Tur. hindi; cf. Lith. kalakūtas (Fraenkel 1962: 207). Most names of this type denote breeds of animals related to certain countries or historical regions: cf. Ukr. далматин and Lith. dalmatīnas (Latv. dalmācietis; Pol. dalmatyńczyk, Cr. dalmatinac, Eng. Dalmatian, etc.). Sometimes a name related to another area of origin spreads, as in the case with Fr. spaniel < OFr. espaignol (NPL 1970: 284), cf. Ukr. спанієль and Lith. spanielis, as well as Pol., Eng. spaniel, Latv. spaniels, etc. 3.6. Word combinations and figurative expressions can also be identified as examples of metaphorical deonymization of choronymic idioms. Thematic sections cover various spheres of human activity. 3.6.1. A significant part of stable word combinations belongs to the category of (inter)language universals. Many of these phrases have a historical (in particular, biblical) origin. Nowadays they are used figuratively in many languages: cf. Ukr. єгипетська неволя, вавилонська вежа and Lith. Egipto nelaisvė, Bābelio bokštas (Gritėnienė et al. 2022: 53). 3.6.2. It should be pointed out that there are also international terminological names with components of a specific (close to ethnonymic or choronymic) nature: Ukr. арабські числа and Lith. arābiški skaitmenys; Ukr. турецьке сіло (anatomical term) and Lith. tur̄kiškas bal̄nas (in this case, the reason is just external similarity). 8 3.6.3. As it is known, an international system of Latin names has been introduced to systematise botanical names, and there are quite a lot of samples with choronymic components (with generalised meanings) among them that pertain to the plant’s origin or ways of acquainting and assimilation of various cultures: cf. Ukr. пшенця польська (Lat. Triticum polonicum) and Lith. lénkinis kvietys, Ukr. китайський фінік and Lith. kiniška datulė (cf. Latv. Ķīnas datele, Eng. Chinese date), Ukr. коноплі індійські (Lat. Cannabis indica) and Lith. ińdinė kanapė, etc. However, cross-language comparison can reveal different geographical references to the name of the same culture across languages, as well as demonstrate variability in terms within the same language: cf. Ukr. дуб австрійський (Lat. Quercus cerris) and Lith. turkiškas ąžuolas, cf. Pol. dąb burgundzki, Latv. Austrijas ozols, Eng. Austrian / Turkish oak, Fr. Chêne lombard / de Bourgogne / de Turquie): this species is found in South-Western Europe and Asia Minor. One of the particularly revealing series is represented by names like Ukr. (variant) грецький горіх and Lith. graikinis riešutas (Griteniene et al. 2022: 117); similar names are used in Romanian and other languages, while, for example, in Irish the same nut is called “Gallic”, it can also be called “Germanic” (as in Finnish, indicating a further migration of an Asian culture towards the northern direction). The most used Ukrainian name for this nut is волоський, which comes from Ukr. волох ‘Romanian’, cf. Pol. orzech włoski, literally “Italian walnut”. So far, “national” semantic content in generic names of this kind may be blurred. The same refers to names-phrases with choronymic references used to identify animal breeds: cf. Ukr. перський кіт and Lith. peršų katė, Latv. Persijas kakis, Pol. kot perski, etc., Ukr. німецька вівчарка and Lith. vokiečių aviganis (cf. Bel. нямецкая аўчарка, Pol. owczarek niemiecki, Latv. vācu aitu suns, Eng. German shepherd) or Ukr. німецький дог and Lith. vokiečių dogas (cf. Ger. Deutsche Dogge, Bel. нямецкі дог, Pol. dog niemiecki, Latv. vācu dogs, etc.). 3.6.4. Natural phenomena are also reflected in some similar word combinations. Lith. indiška vasara is the calque of Eng. Indian summer; there is no well-founded explanation for the “ethnic” origin of this name, borrowed or copied in other European languages (cf., e.g., Ger. Indian Summer or Slv. Indiansko poletje), perhaps it is an impression of the weather experienced by Europeans in Indian lands. Most Slavic languages (as well as the Baltic) have their own expressions, both with another ethnonymic component (cf. Bulg. циганско лято) and without it: cf. Ukr. бабине літо and Lith. b obų vasara (LKŽė). 3.6.5. Most of the international medical vocabulary with choronymic elements is comprised of disease names: cf. Ukr. мальтійська (гібралтарська) гарячка (brucellosis, of Mediterranean origin) and Lith. Máltos karštligė or Ukr. іспанський грип and Lith. ispāniškasis gripas, cf. Ukr. (colloquial) іспанка (SUM 408), etc. 3.6.6. Let us also explore the sports and recreation spheres. Set terminological expressions can sometimes replace traditional names in other languages. For example, in most of them, “Greco–Roman” is the term (rather ethnical) used to describe the classical style of sports wrestling: cf. Ukr. греко–римська боротьба (formerly класична боротьба and Lith. graikų–romėnų imtynės, etc. The situation pertaining to such idioms as Ukr. летючий голландець and Lith. skrajojantis ol ándas is somewhat different, not only because they are based on an ancient European legend, but also because the well-known expression is used in the sports field as the designation for a sailboat, which is a tracing of the English term. One can call paradoxical the case with the choronymic designations of roller coasters, known as Ukr. американські гірки and Lith. amerikietiški kalnėliai (LKŽė). In many languages, including English, the same thing is called “Russian mountains”, but the explanation is straightforward: the entertainment originated in America and was given the “exotic” name of the Russian mountains, but in other places it was named according to its place of origin. 3.6.7. A distinct thematic group includes names of household equipment and utensils, based on the same principle. An exemplary sample is Eng. Dutch oven, traced in other languages: cf. Ukr. голландська піч and Lith. olándų órkaitė. It’s worth noting that “national” names may lose their relevance or national belonging over time, as the realities they represent become common knowledge. To illustrate, this applies to Ukr. шведський стіл (Scandinavian way of serving food) and Lith. švèdiškas stālas (Gritenienė et al. 2022: 559). Tool and instrument names are generally international, but there are instances where the picture may be ambiguous. So, for example, what is Lith. švèdiškas rāk̨tas (literally “Swedish key”), in Ukrainian is called розвідний ключ (in professional jargon, шведський ключ or швед). 3.6.8. Let us concentrate on the thematic group with the greatest amount of actual material. It is about gastronomic and culinary vocabulary. International exchange in this important sphere of life is usually conducted rather quickly. But, unlike most of the names mentioned above, a large number of “gluttonyms” are not standardised, that is, there are not so many internationalisms, and a considerable number of corresponding “ethnic” or “national” designations exist mainly in one or several languages. For instance, these are popular names of certain flour products, including Ukr. литовський (чорний) хліб and Lith. lietuviška duona (Nepokupnyj, Taranenko 2004: 53), internationalisms like Ukr. французька булка and Lith. prancūziška duona (Latv. franču maize or Eng. French bread), cf. Ukr. французький батон and Lith. prancūziškas batònas (Gritenienė et al. 2022, 35). Ukr. швейцарський сир (as a specific name) and Lith. šveicariškas sūris (Ibid., 559) are also representative samples, cf. Pol. ser szwajcarski, Latv. Šveices siers, Eng. Swiss cheese, etc. In general, when it comes to hard cheese, the first association that arises is probably “Dutch”, in Ukraine it is still often referred to as голландський сир “by tradition”, while Lith. olandìškas sūris (Ibid., 115) is mainly associated with the Netherlands. The names of dishes (mainly of choronymic type) form a mobile lexical-semantic complex that includes interlingual isoglosses with similar forms and meanings, names that have not been acknowledged worldwide, as well as names that emerge spontaneously. At the same time, it’s worth noting that there are a number of mainly borrowed set names that are common in many European languages, The main cause is not language-related, but rather the spread and recognition of corresponding realities. Let us mention, for example, “Russian salad” (cf. Teixeira da Silva 2025: 1, 4), which is common in many languages; this dish is known in Ukraine under the French anthroponymic name олів’є, it has another name in Lithuanian: baltoji mišrainė, cf. Pol. (polska) sałata jarzynowa, Slv. francoska solata, Dan. 10 Italiensk salat, while Ger. Italienisches Salat is the historical name of vegetable macedoine (of French origin), cf. Rus. итальянский салат (Sohlman Interpreter No 2: 40) and Lith. itališkos salotos, but Ukr. італійський салат refers to various vegetable salads. Another case is that of the internationally renowned “Greek salad”, which in Greece is known as χωριάτικη σαλάτα (literally “village salad”), cf. Ukr. грецький салат and Lith. graikiškos salotos, Pol. sałatka grecka, Latv. grieķu salāti, Eng. Greek salad, etc. It’s important to mention the famous Ukrainian borscht: Ukr. український борщ and Lit. ukrainietiški barščiai (Gritėnienė et al. 2022: 45), which can be misinterpreted in certain external sources as (Eng.) Russian style beetroot and cabbage soup (Lexus 1999: 71); cf. Pol. barszcz ukraiński (Nebesky 2001: 244); however, in Poland this name is associated with the distinction of varieties; cf. also Pol. chłodnik litewski and Bel. літоўскі халаднік, Latv. lietuviēšu aukstā zupa, Eng. Lithuanian cold soup and Lith. lietuviški šaltibarščiai. Typical Lithuanian national dishes include Lith. silkė lietuviškai or lietuviškos salotos su kumpiu (Aras 2001: 245, 246). There are also many names for popular meat and fish dishes, but cases of tracing are rare. Uncertainty of a single source of origin (of realia, in this case, for sweets) is evidenced by interlingual equivalents, such as Lith. dāniškas pyrāgas, Fr. gateau danois or Eng. Danish coffee bread and Ger. Kopenhagener; in Denmark sweet products made of puff pastry are called wienerbrød, and the word даніш, which originates from Eng. Danish pastry (Webster’s 1973: 209), made its way into Ukrainian not too long ago. Although the product’s origin is known, the names in different languages can vary: cf. Lith. čigoniškas pyrāgas and Ukr. пляцок «Циганська дорога» (“Gypsy Road” cake). One of the most popular kinds of Oriental sweet stuff (Ukr. лукум, Lith. lukumas, cf. Tur. lokum) in many languages has descriptive names, cf. Lith. turkiškas malonūmas or Latv. Turku saldumi (found only in some electronic sources), Pol. Turecka rozkosz, Eng. Turkish delight and (less used) Ukr. турецька насолода; a similar case is exemplified by Ukr. каталонський крем and Lith. kataloniškas krēmas, cf. Pol. krem kataloński, Latv. kataloniešu krēms, Eng. Catalan cream, etc. The names traced to indicate geographical or national origin, like Tur. türk kahvesi, can become popular in different languages: cf. Ukr. кава по-турецькому and Lith. turkiška kavà; at the same time, in Greece, the same drink is also known as ελληνικός καφές. In some instances, these names are translated from an intermediate language (English), in which the ethnonymic/choronymic adjective became a generic noun: cf. Lith. airiška kavà and Ukr. кава по-ірландському (Lexus 1999: 511), or just copied, as in the case with It. Irish coffee (Zingarelli 2005: 950). In European countries, coffee that is light and contains a lot of water is referred to as “American”: cf. Lith. amerikietiška kavà, Fr. café américain, Sp. café americano, It. caffè americano; the spread of Italian coffee culture in Ukraine has led to the widespread use of the name (кава) американо. The given examples, due to their different linguistic characteristics, are of particular interest in country (regional) studies. 11 4. PHRASEOLOGICAL ASPECTS 4.1. Phrases and expressions of eponymic nature should be noted separately, e.g. Eng. American Dream, Ukr. американська мрія and Lith. amerikietiška svajonė (cf. Latv. amerikāņu sapnis). It should be emphasised that ethnonymic elements are not an exception when it comes to semantic change. The material demonstrates that this phenomenon has a long history and spans across the most diverse thematic groups. Considering phraseological word combinations with ethnonymic or choronymic components that have an overall figurative meaning seems to be the appropriate approach. The comments above focused primarily on noun phrases that denote realities (in the material sense of this word) or characteristics; their meaning is generally neutral. Moreover, there is a significant number of similar phrases that combine the named features with elements of imagery. Often the basis of a set phrase is a well-known literary work that contains “winged” words. Thus, for example, thanks to F. Cooper, the title of his novel “The Last of the Mohicans” gained a figurative sound in many languages (Koval, Koptilov 2011: 428), cf. Ukr. останній із могікан and Lith. paskutinis iš mohikanų (Latv. pēdējais no mohikāņiem). Expressions like Ukr. російська рулетка and Lith. rusiška ruletė or Latv. krievu rulete (“Russian roulette”) have another origin, like Ukr. іспанський сором and Lith. ispāņu gēda (“Spanish shame”). We mean not only and not so much the primary meaning of the respective name, which is already figurative, but also further, even more abstract, meanings. A modern illustration: the history of the “Polish plumber” as a symbolic designation of labour force coming from Eastern Europe, originated in 2004, when Fr. plombier polonais was featured in a satirical newspaper and spread a year later thanks to a French conservative politician (unlike another image he used: architecte estonien). Corresponding phrases in other European languages have acquired the same figurative meaning: cf. Pol. polski hidraulik (although there was a natural adverse reaction when such a symbol appeared), Cz. polský instalatér, Eng. Polish plumber, It. idraulico polacco, Sp. fontanero polaco, Port. encanador polaco, etc. It should be noted that in this case, there is a partial loss of choronymic semantics, which is accompanied by an expansion of the original meaning. However, Ukr. польський сантехнік, as well as Lith. lėnkų santechnikas or Latv. Poļu santehniķis, mentioned in some (mainly electronic) publications, do not have the status of phraseological units. 4.2. Let us examine set expressions with ethnonymic/choronymic elements and verbs as their basic components. In this field, similar thematic categories can be identified, many of which are extended versions of the samples mentioned above. Discussing pan-European phraseological isoglosses, we will start with a farewell, i.e., Ukr. піти по-англійському (translated into Lithuanian: palikti ángliškai), etc., coming obviously from Fr. filer (s’en aller) à l’anglaise, just one example of how the French can perceive ‘English behavior’, based on historical context. Lith. tai mãn kaĩp kìnių kalbà and Latv. tā man ir ķīniešu ābece can be compared to Gr. για μενα Κινέζικα, while the history behind Ukr. китайська грамота (“Chinese script”) is likely to be different. There are also figurative expressions with choronyms (or without them in some languages), such as Lith. statýti smėlio 12 pilis, equivalent of Fr. bâtir des châteaux en Espagne, cf. Ukr. будувати замки на піску, Eng. to build castles in the air/sky, etc. As for paremия, the negative significance of ethnonymic components that eventually appear in them is generally neutralised: Ukr. непроханий гість гірше татарина (“uninvited guest is worse than a Tatar”) can serve as a typical illustration, cf. Lith. (traced) nekviėstas svečias yra blogesnis už totorių, Pol. nieproszony gość gorszy od Tatarzyna, Latv. nelūgts viesis ir sliktāks par tatāru. It’s not a random fact that Lith. Neprašytas svečias blogesnis už Gagariną is among the occasional “anti-proverbs” recorded by a modern Lithuanian researcher (Zaikauskienė 2004: 133). 5. CONCLUSION Baltic and Slavic languages, in our case Lithuanian and Ukrainian, are example of specific genetic affinity, as evidenced, in particular, by ethnonymic and choronymic material. The noted differences concern primarily the linguistic and cultural plan and are largely due to historical circumstances. Mutually borrowed self-names, Ukr. українці and Lith. ukrainiečiai, Lith. lietuviai and Ukr. литовці, in the historical aspect, differ to some extent in semantic characteristics. Different origins refer to some other ethnic names, such as Ukr. поляки, німці and Lith. lėnkai, vokiečiai. An etymological comparison reveals both common Indo-European features and differences in the origins of certain names. Semasiological characteristics that have been historically determined relate to Ukr. литвини, which has no equivalent in the Lithuanian lexicon, and Lith. gudai, without an equivalent in Ukrainian, as well as collective names like Ukr. литва, which referred to both Lithuanians and Belarusians and was also distinguished by its “deethnonymised” meanings. The endonyms and exonyms of European ethnoses in the comparable languages generally coincide in nomenclature. Original figurative meanings of some different ethnic names are a common feature of both languages. A peculiarity of Ukrainian lies in the modified semantics of certain specific feminine designations formed on a choronymic basis (e.g., литовка, полька, іспанка). Thematic classes encompass various areas of human activity. The lexico-semantic differences relate, in particular, to the figuralization of diminutive names (like Ukr. німчук and Lith. vokietukas). Related word combinations and figurative expressions are examples of deonymization of ethnonymic/choronymic elements; they also cover various thematic categories. Interlanguage universals, particularly those of historical origin, make up a significant portion of them. Phraseological expressions with ethnonymic components hold a special place. They demonstrate the commonality or significant similarity of cultural and historical factors across the languages of the European (in particular, Balto-Slavic) language area, as well as most ethnic and national stereotypes. 13 The material reviewed above contains diverse information that is shared mainly with Ukrainian, Lithuanian, and other European ethnicities, their cultural, psychological and other features, adding illustrative elements to develop more detailed linguistic world images. The topic addressed calls for further studies and therefore offers prospects for future research in the fields of language contacts, ethnoand cognitive linguistics. ABBREVIATIONS Az. – Azerbaijani; Bel. – Belarusian; Bos. – Bosnian; Bulg. – Bulgarian; cf. – compare; Cr. – Croatian; Cz. – Czech; dial. – dialectal; e.g. – for example; Eng. – English; Est. – Estonian; et al. – and others; Fin. – Finnish; Fr. – French; Gag. – Gagauz; Ger. – German; Gr. – Greek; Hun. – Hungarian; Ibid. – in the same place; i.e. – that is; It. – Italian; Lat. – Latin; Latv. – Latvian; Lith. – Lithuanian; LSorb. – Lower Sorbian; OFr. – Old French; OUkr. – Old Ukrainian; Pol. – Polish; Port. – Portuguese; Rum. – Romanian; Rus. – Russian; Serb. – Serbian; Slv. – Slovenian; Sp. – Spanish; Sw. – Swedish; Tur. – Turkish; Ukr. – Ukrainian; Uzb. – Uzbek REFERENCES Aras Eva 2001: Baltic phrasebook, 2nd ed., Hawthorn, Victoria: Lonely Planet Publications, 185–278. Balode Laimute 2022: Names of three Baltic countries – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. – Studii şi cercetări de onomastică şi lexicologie (SCOL) 28(1–2), 25–35. Bańkowski Andrzej 2000: Etymologiczny słownik języka polskiego [Etymological Dictionary of the Polish Language], Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Beleckij Andrej A. 1972: Leksikologija i teorija jazyka (onomastika) [Lexicology and Theory of Language (Onomastics)], Kiev: Izdatelstvo Kievskogo universiteta. Butkus Alvydas 1998: The Lithuanian Nicknames of Ethnonymic Origin. – Indogermanische Forschungen 100, Strassburg: Walter de Gruyter, 223–233. Dini Pietro U., Subačius Giedrus 2019: Lituanie et Samogitie: sources, onomastique, étymologie. – Le nom des langues en Europe centrale, orientale et balkanique, ed. P. Sériot, Limoges: Lambert-Lucas, 97–115. DLKŽ: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas [Dictionary of the Modern Lithuanian Language], atsak. red. J. Kruopas, 1-asis leidimas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1954. Drotvinas Vincentas 2006: Iš etnonimų istorijos [From the History of Ethnonyms]. – Terminologija 13, 160–169. Ellingham 1999: Lexus European languages: The Rough Guide, Dictionary, Phrasebook, ed. M. Ellingham, London: Lexus Ltd. 14 ESUM III: Etymolohi čnyj slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy [Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language] 3, hol. red. O. S. Melnyčuk, Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1989. ESUM IV: Etymolohi čnyj slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy [Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language] 4, hol. red. O. S. Melnyčuk, Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 2003. ESUM V: Etymolohi čnyj slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy [Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language] 5, hol. red. O. S. Melnyčuk, Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 2006. Fraenkel Ernst 1962: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary] 1–2, Heidelberg, Göttingen: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Friedlander Judith 1994: Lithuanian Jews. – Encyclopedia of World Cultures 6: Russia and Eurasia – China, ed. D. Levinson, New York: G. K. Hall & Company, 243. Gritenienė Aurelija, Hrycenko Svitlana, Koroliovas Ihoris, Nika Oksana, Pacholok Zinaida 2022: Mažasis ukrainiečių–lietuvių kalbų žodynas / Malyj ukrainsko–litovśkyj slovnyk [Small Ukrainian–Lithuanian Dictionary], red. Z. Pacholok, A. Gritėnienė, Vilnius, Kyjivas, Luckas: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Kyjivo Taraso Ševčenkos nacionalinis universitetas, „Ukrainos“ universiteto Lucko visuomenės vystymosi institutas. Hrinčenko Borys D. 1908: Slovar ukrajinskoji movy [Dictionary of Ukrainian Language] 2, Kyjiv: Kievskaja Starina. Karaliūnas Simas 1995: Lietuvos vardo kilmė [The Origin of the Name “Lithuania”]. – Lietuvių kalbotyras klausimai 35, 55–91. Karaliūnas Simas 2004: Baltų praeitis istoriniuose šaltiniuose 1, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Karulis Konstantīns 1992. Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca [Dictionary of Latvian Etymology] 1–2, Rīga: Avots. Koval Alla, Koptilov Viktor 2011: Krylatі slova v ukrajinsʹkij movi [Catchphrases in the Ukrainian Language], Kyjiv: Jaroslaviv Val. Kregždys Rolandas 2015: S. Karaliūnas, Baltų etnonimai: monografija [recenzija] [S. Karaliūnas, Baltic Ethnonyms: Monograph [Review]]. – Baltu filoloģija 24(2), 143–170. Laučiūtė Jūratė 2004: Sledy baltijskich etnonimov v onomastike Slavii [Traces of Baltic Ethnonyms in the Onomastics of Slavia]. – Baltijskij filologičeskij kurjer 4, 70–74. LKŽe: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas [Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language] (1–20, 1941–2002), el. variantas, redaktorių kolegija: G. Naktinėnė (vyr. redaktorė), J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė; programuotojai: E. Ožeraitis, V. Zinkevičius, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, atnaujinta versija, 2018. Prieiga internete: http://www.lkz.lt. 15 Lyberis Antanas 2005: Lietuvių–rusų kalbų žodynas / Литовско–русский словарь [Lithuanian–Russian Dictionary], spec. redaktorius V. Čekmonas, 4-oji laida, Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Motora Evhenija V., Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 1989: Mižetnični zviazky v ukrajins’kij antroponimiji XVII st. [Cross–Ethnic Stars in the Ukrainian Anthroponymy of the 17th Century], Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 59–63. Nebesky Richard 2001: Lonely Planet Phrasebook Guides: Central Europe Phrasebook, 2nd ed., Melbourne: Lonely Planet Publications. Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 1964: Arealnye aspekty balto-slavi︠a︡nskich iazykowych otnoshenij [Areal Aspects of Baltic-Slavic Linguistic Relations], Kiev: Naukova dumka. Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 1994: Apeliatyvu lytуa v “Eneidi” I. P. Kotliarevskoho ta joho kulturno-istoryčna parallel u “Nesamovytomu Rolandi” L. Ariosto [The Appellative Lithuania in I. P. Kotliarevskii’s “Aeneid” and Its Cultural and Historical Parallel in “The Untamed Roland” L. Ariosto], Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 288–293. Nepokupnyj Anatolij P. 1998: Etnonim litva i nazvanie družiny ženicha v svadebnych pesniach Ukrainy, Belorussii i Polši [The Ethnonym Lithuania and the Name of the Groom’s Retinue in Wedding Songs of Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland]. – Senosios raštijos ir tautosakos sąveika: kultūrinė Lietuvos Didžiosios kunigaikštystės patirtis, kn. 6, par. R. Repšienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 88–104. Nepokupnyj Anatolij, Taranenko Aušrelė 2004: Z Ukrajiny do Lytvy: ukrainsko–lytovskij rozmovnyk [From Ukraine to Lithuania: Ukrainian–Lithuanian Phrasebook], Luck: Volynska oblastna drukarnia. NPL 1970: Nouveau Petit Larousse, dir. É. Guillon et al., Playa: Pueblo y Educación ICL. Ponomarenko Volodymyr 2023: Doktor Nepokupnyj i joho Lytvaija [Dr. Nepokupny and His Lithuania]. – Balto–Slavo–Germanica: movni kontakty v synchronii i diachronii: zbirnyk tez dopovidei, Kyiv: Vydavnyčyj dim Dmytra Buraho, 22–27. Roback Aaron A. 1944: A Dictionary of International Slurs (Ethnophaulisms): With a Supplementary Essay on Aspects of Ethnic Prejudice, Cambridge, Mass.: Sci-Art Publishers. SJP IV: Słownik języka polskiego [Polish Dictionary] 4: L–Ni, red. naczelny W. Doroszewski, Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna, 1962. Skopnenko Oleksandr 2023: Litva, Letuva, litovcy, lietuvіsy, lytyny, licvyny v sučasnomu bіloruskomu uzusi [Lithuania, Letuva, litovci, letuvysy, lytvyny, lytsvyny in Modern Belarusian Usage]. – Balto–Slavo–Germanica: movni kontakty v synchronii i diachronii: zbirnyk tez dopovidei, Kyiv: Vydavnyčyj dim Dmytra Buraho, 28–34. Smoczyński Wojciech 2016: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego [Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language], wyd. drugie, na prawach rękopisu. Sohlman Interpreter No 2: English, French, German, Russian, W. J. Adams, London: Edward Hack. 16 SUM: Slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy [Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language], vidp. red. V. V. Žajvoronok, Kyiv: Prosvita, 2016. SUM IV: Slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy [Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language] 4: I–M, hol. redkol. I. K. Bilodid, Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1973. SUM V: Slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy [Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language] 5: H–O, hol. redkol. I. K. Bilodid, Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1974. Superanskaja Aleksandra V. 1978: Gruppovye oboznachenija ljudej v leksičeskoj sisteme jazyka. Imia naricatelnoe i imia sobstvennoe [Group Designations of People in the Lexical System of Language], Moskva: Nauka, 59–83. Taranec Valentyn H. 2013: Ukraj in­ci – etnos i mova [Ukrainians – Ethnicity and Language], Odesa: ORIDU NADU. Teixeira da Silva Jaime A. 2025: Linguistic Wokeism: Revisionism of the Gypsy Moth and Asian Carp, and Fate of the Russian Salad. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 92, [1–8]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/all92-12. Tymčenko Evhen 2003: Materialy do slovnyka pysemnoji ta knyžnoji ukrajinskoji movy XV–XVIII st. [Materials for the Dictionary of the Written and Literary Ukrainian Language of the 15th–18th Centuries], Kyiv, New York: VPTs “Litopys”. Webster’s 1973: Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary: Based on Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Habana: Instituto Cubano del Libro. Zaikauskienė Dalia 2004: Nauji metai – nauji lapai. Šiuolaikinės patarlių raidos tendencijos [“New Year, fresh leaves”: modern tendencies in the development of proverbs]. – Tautosakos darbai 21(28), 127–136. Zingarelli Nicola 2005: Vocabolario della lingua italiana, Bologna: Zanichelli editore. 17