Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux- : Iran. *śrau ̯a-, *śrauša-, *śrū̆ta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

Alexander I. Iliadi

doi:10.35321/all89-03

Preparing document pages…

1 short passage of this localized version is shown in the original language because it could not be localized reliably.

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky” ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0001-5078-8316

Fields of research: etymology, comparative-historical linguistics, general and typological linguistics.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all89-03

SLAVO-IRANICA II: COMPOUND WORDS WITH SLAV. *SLAV-, *SLUX-: IRAN. *ŠRAUA-, *ŠRAUŠA-, *ŠRŪTA- (AGAINST BALTIC AND GERMANIC BACKGROUND)

Slavonic–Iranian language contacts II: compound words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *šrau̯a-, *šrauša-, *šrūta- (in the context of the Baltic and Germanic languages)

ANNOTATION

The investigation contains the results of a comparative-historical analysis of Iranian, Slavonic, Baltic and Germanic lexical and syntactic units with reflexes of Indo-European root *kleu- ‘hear’, ‘listen’. The formation of compound-words and (hypothetically) formulaic expressions (stable syntactic combinations, expressing ideological semantics) with the mentioned etymon shows structural-semantic parallelism in four linguistic cultures. This parallelism manifests itself in the complete (or partial) genetical identity of the etymological composition of the compared units and in the common organization standards of their cultural semantics, reflecting: 1) understanding of glory as the absolute value in the system of moral relations inside ancient societies (for Iranian, Slavonic and Germanic); 2) cases of specialization (in Slavonic and Iranian) of the original “acoustic” semantics in the direction of the meanings Verba Dicere (‘to glorify’) and their derivatives ‘glory’, ‘glorified’; this semantical shift was widely demanded in the system of anthroponymic motivations.

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

Conclusions as regards the causes of structural and etymological affinity or semantical and typological similarity of compared datas are made.

KEYWORDS: etymology, derivative, anthroponym, areal, semantics.

ANNOTATION

The article presents the results of a comparative-historical analysis of Iranian, Slavonic, Baltic and Germanic lexical and syntactic units with reflexes of the Indo-European root *ḱleu- ‘to hear’, ‘to listen’. The formation of compound words and (hypothetically) fixed expressions (stable syntactic combinations expressing ideological meaning) with the mentioned etymon reveals structural-semantic parallelism in four linguistic cultures. This parallelism is expressed in the complete (or partial) genetic identity of the etymological structure of the compared units and in common standards for organizing cultural semantics, reflecting: 1) the concept of glory as an absolute value in the system of moral relations of ancient societies (in Iranian, Slavonic and Germanic); 2) cases of specialization (in Slavonic and Iranian) of the original “acoustic” semantics toward the meanings Verba Dicere (‘to glorify’) and their derivatives ‘glory’, ‘glorified’; this semantic shift was widespread in the system of anthroponymic motivations. Conclusions are drawn concerning the causes of the structural and etymological affinity or the semantic and typological similarity of the compared data.

KEYWORDS: etymology, compound word, personal name, areal, semantics.

1. INTRODUCTION

The etymon *ḱleu-, *ḱlew-: *klu- (praes.), *ḱlū-: *ḱléu-s-, *klu-s- (desider.) ‘to hear, to listen’, ‘famous’, ‘glorified, renowned’, *ḱleu-os ‘glory’, ‘praise’, *ḱlu-to-s ‘famous’, ‘glorified’, *ḱleu-men- ‘hearing’ (Pokorny 1959: 605; Rix 2001: 334) belongs to the oldest layer of the system of components from which two-member anthroponyms were formed in the Indo-European languages of the past. The genetic family formed by it is not very rich semantically, but this circumstance is compensated for by the emergence in its paradigm of one of the oldest designations of glory and renown. A concept highly significant in ancient society, it contained an evaluation of someone from a clan or phratry and to some extent determined the attitude of others toward that person. Glory won in battle and acquired through deeds (not mere fame, but respect for its bearer, recognition of his actions and talent) sometimes preceded a person (Russian слава бежит впереди нас), accompanied him after death (Russian бессмертная (вечная) слава, Czech věčně slavný, Polish chwała nieśmiertelna), and passed to the descendants of the glorified ancestor (Serbian Дедослав, Братослав; Grković 1977: 46, 73,

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *śraua-, *śraušā-, *śrūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

76, Ancient Greek Πατρόкλειο and the like). Perhaps for an archaic society glory was an absolute value, an order of magnitude higher than material goods and even life itself, as demonstrated, first, by epic texts reflecting the customs of the “heroic age” in the history of Ancient Greece, the events of the period of the Old Russian bylinas and Scandinavian sagas, etc., and, second, by old anthroponymy with the component *ḱleu, embodying the “extract” of what was most significant that people knew about a person.

Thus, glory is the “informational double” of its bearer; consequently, the attitude toward it was equivalent to the attitude toward the person himself, as recorded in the semantics of idea-names with *ḱleu-, capable of combining with a broad range of stems. The high degree of semantic valency of the reflexes of *ḱleu indicates the numerous contexts of its use, the condensation of which in different languages produced compounds—lexical equivalents of “microtexts” (word combinations and phraseological expressions) containing the word glory. As autonomous semantic complexes bearing an idea or evaluation, “glorious” compounds record the “experience of being glorified” (or of dishonour), its perception, attributes, acquisition, loss, inheritance, attitude toward it, proportionality to the bearer’s qualities, and so forth.

Another group of cognate names must also be mentioned, with the trivial-for-this-etymological-family development of meaning toward ‘hearing’ and ‘obedience’. They cannot be excluded from consideration because it is necessary to obtain as complete a picture as possible of the lexical parallels with *ḱleu in different parts of the Indo-European area.

For comparative-historical research within the semantic field of *ḱleu compounds, it is important to establish which of its units are shared by the relict vocabulary of different languages (archaisms inherited from the proto-language and shared innovations of the ancient period), and which characterize their individual heritage or new formations.

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.1. In light of the foregoing, it seems highly promising to identify the category of composita with *ḱleu in languages historically connected by close contacts, which resulted in shared innovations in their lexicon and semantics. We are interested in the results of Slavonic–Iranian linguistic interaction, which, as the experience of classical comparative-historical studies shows, influenced the development of individual subsystems of the Slavonic poetic language, to which precisely two-member

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

personal names belong, with their inherent imagery and orientation toward solemn recitation. In content, at the level of the cultural meanings embedded in them, they fully meet the requirements of the vocabulary of a “high” language. The features of a lexical layer common to the ancient Iranians and Slavonians stand out vividly against the background of name formations with representatives of IE *kleu in other Indo-European languages. For comparison, data from old Baltic and Germanic onomastics are used here, whose creators came into contact with speakers of Iranian and Slavonic. The proportion of shared new formations and the ideological proximity of their semantics should reveal at least residual signs of cultural exchange, if it was at all substantial.

2.2. For the procedure of etymological and comparative-historical analysis, vocabulary continuing variants of a single Indo-European etymon at the etymological level of several languages was selected: Old Slavonic *slav- ‘glory’, ‘glorious’, *slux- ‘hearing’; Iranian *śrau- ‘to hear, to listen’ (secondary ‘to understand’, ‘to know’, ‘to sing’, ‘to praise’, ‘to glorify’, ‘to consecrate (with a mantra)’, ‘to show’, ‘to teach’, ‘to ring’, ‘to shout’; Cheung 2007: 356–357), *śrauca- ‘glory’, ‘glorification’ (in compounds it can also be understood in a sense functionally close to ‘glorious’), ‘word’ (> ‘teaching’), *śrauśa- ‘obedience’, part. (perfi. pass.) *śrūta- ‘known, glorified’: Lithuanian šlavė ‘honour’, ‘glory’, ‘good name’, Latvian slava, slave ‘hearing’, ‘rumour’ and ‘glory’, ‘praise’, ‘good opinion’ (Smoczyński 2019: 1787–1788), Lithuanian kláusti ‘to ask’, klausýti ‘to listen’, ‘to be obedient’, Latvian klausīt ‘the same’, Old Prussian klausiton ‘to hear’, Lithuanian klùsas ‘hard of hearing’, ‘hearing poorly’, Latvian kluss ‘quiet, silent’, ‘calm’ (Fraenkel 1962: 265–266; Smoczyński 2019: 733–734: see there also on the causes of the irregularity in the English gloss): Germanic *xlewarz ‘glory’, *xluðaz, *xlūðaz adj. (from part.) ‘known’ (Orel 2003: 176, 178), and others. Below, the relevant material from the languages indicated is used as necessary.

2.3. It is not entirely correct to equate Slav. *slavъ with Iranian *śrauah: the Slavonic word is derived from the present stem *slovǫ (inf. *sluti, *slyti) according to a regular morphonological model with lengthening of the root vowel, whereas the Iranian form preserves the Indo-European shortness of the vowel. But Slavonic anthroponymy has preserved traces of the adjectival suffixless form *slovъ, equivalent to the Iranian prototype (Old Slavonic o = Iranian a). Old Slavonic *-slovъ is known as part of nominal compounds, often conserving archaic elements of the vocabulary. The correlation of two-member names *X-slovъ: *X-slavъ is practically universal wherever it is attested and resembles the relation “archaism: innovation”, if only because variants with *-slovъ are clearly residual in character. Cf.:

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *śrau̯a-, *śraušā-, *śrūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

Old Croatian Berislov (Majkov 1857: 289: Берисловь) VS Macedonian Берислав (Stankovska 2000: 146);

Old Russian Вечесловь, 1560 (Archiv 1915: 437), Il’ja Ivanovič Вечеслов, 1608 (Vologda) (Vasil’ev 2012: 88) < *Вячеслов VS Вячеслав;

Croatian *Doroslov-ak (cf. derived surname Doroslovački; Leksik 1976: 137) VS Doroslav-ić;

Slav. *Miroslov, isolated in the stem of the oikonym Mirosloveni (Dicţionarul 1993: 99), Old Russian Мирослово—an oikonym (Kostroma Governorate; Vasil’ev 2012: 88: from *Мирославль, –а, –е) VS Miroslav;

Old Church Slavonic *Časlov—a name standing at the beginning of a word-formation chain at whose end is the toponym Časlovcu (Petrov 1924: 42) VS Old Czech Čáslav, XVI (Nováček 1894: 165). Also Old Russian *Чесловъ, cf. the iotated possessive derivative Чесловле, 1571—an oikonym in the Novgorod land VS Polish Czesław (Vasil’ev 2012: 87);

Old Russian *Расловъ, the derivational base for the oikonyms Расловль, 1539, Russian Расловичи, beginning of the twentieth century (Novgorod land), Ростовль (Рославль; Смоленская, Орловская губ.), Belarusian Рысловль (Gomel district) VS Раславъ (Vasil’ev 2012: 86: the name Раславъ is given as the derivational base);

Old Russian Твердисловъ Isidor, 1474 (Rostov) VS Old Russian Твердиславъ Mikhalkovich, 1206 (Novgorod; Tupikov 1903: 388);

Slav. *Seslovъ < *Vbseslovъ in the stem of the toponym Σέσλοβον (Macedonia, Chalkidiki district, Thessaloniki), i.e. *Seslovьjь = *Σέсловьjь (see Iliadi 2008: 103) VS *Vbseslavъ, cf. Bulgarian Всеслав (Ilčev 1969: 117).

In a number of cases, East Slavonic deanthroponymic toponyms with -слов are interpreted as the result of modifying the outcome -славль, -е (in iotated possessive forms) owing to the phonetic loss of l’, resegmentation, and leveling according to the productive possessive model in -ово/-ево (Vasil’ev 2012: 88 ff.). This is difficult to dispute, but it is also difficult to deny that some examples derive from personal names originally containing *-slovъ. The point is that -слов occurs not only in toponyms, where it could potentially result from restructuring the original -славль under the pressure of the word-formation type in -овъ, but also in geographical names in -словль (cf. Russian Рословль above, Belarusian Рысловль), -ēne (Mirosloveni), which were not influenced by words of this structure, and, most importantly, in old written suffixless anthroponyms with a broad geographical distribution.

The facts cited give grounds for assuming in some anthroponyms in *-slavъ: *slavo– a diachronic leveling of the old *slov– according to names with innovative vocalism. Accordingly, a close comparison of the Iranian and Slavonic reflexes is fully justified.

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

2.4. The historical unity of the origins of the onomastic tradition with IE *kleu– in Slavonic, Iranian, Baltic and Germanic does not guarantee the absence of serious divergences in its development in these languages. The divergences are dictated by the actualization of different aspects of the semantics of the Indo-European etymon in different spheres served by compounds with *kleu– and syntactic formulae corresponding to them. For example, among the Iranians and Slavonians, besides the sememes ‘glory’ and ‘to sing (= to glorify)’, it developed the special meanings ‘word’, ‘teaching’, (Iranian) ‘religious obedience’, ‘to teach’, as well as the mental meanings ‘to understand’, ‘to know’, whereas nothing similar exists among its Baltic and Germanic cognates, which must have had an echo in the act of naming.

The present work uses the same methodology that was tested in the preceding article of the series (see Iliadi 2022), which makes it unnecessary to dwell here in detail on the research techniques. We shall note only several details most important for the procedure.

1. Fully formed lexical compound lexemes with complete genetic identity of their components in Iranian and Slavonic, in the absence of analogous nominal compounds in other languages, constitute potential evidence of the joint development of the two aforementioned linguistic and cultural traditions.

2. Partial duplication of the composition of the units being compared (homogeneity of one of the components), together with the commonality of their semantic contour, potentially indicates the use of common standards for organizing cultural semantics. It was precisely through the compounding or condensation of formulaic expressions into compounds that common patterns developed in the process of linguistic interaction were employed. The absence of similar semantic schemes in other languages provides additional grounds for establishing Slavo-Iranica.

3. The environment in which the compounds formed was oral poetic text, arising at the intersection of two linguistic cultures with initially similar ideologemes and repertoires of linguistic means.

4. For the correctness of semasiological decisions, a purely technical understanding of compounds has been adopted in the work; their meanings are outlined with consideration of their possible syntactic correlates: добрая слава = Доброслава “Bearer of good glory”, Old High German Clod-bald “Glorious through courage” or “[Whose] courage is glorified”, and so forth. A more precise definition of the semantics is often impossible because of the unclear grammatical status of the first part.

5. The attainable depth of semantic reconstruction is severely limited by our fragmentary knowledge (even in the presence of an entire corpus of texts from various genres) of the spiritual culture of ancient peoples and their worldview. Therefore, in order not to resort to a straightforward

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *s̑raua-, *s̑rauša-, *s̑rūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

when modeling semantics retrospectively, we do not reconstruct meanings, but merely outline the general semantic contours of *k̑leu– names in order to understand: a) their place in the system of signs of the linguistic traditions indicated; b) their references to specific objects-values of their spiritual life.

3. ETYMOLOGICAL AND SEMANTIC IDENTITIES

3.1. Slavica & Iranica

Old Slavonic *Bogo-slavъ: Iranian *Baga-śrauah-

Old Slavonic *Bogoslavъ (: Bulgarian Богослав, Serbian, Croatian Bògoslav; ESSJ II 161; Slovenian Bogoslav (SSI), Old Polish Bogosław: Bogozlaus, 1168; SSNO I 191; Polish Bogosław; Słownik 2003: 802) has a completely logical etymological correspondence in Iranian *Baga-śrauah-, cf. Middle Iranian *Bagasrauah- (Aramaic Bgsrw) “God’s glory” or (according to Manfred Mayrhofer’s translation) “Having glory from God” (Hinz 1973: 162; 1975: 58–59; Tavernier 2007: 139), Old Persian *Baga-çavah- “With glory from the gods” (Schmitt 2011: 157: from Old Iranian *Baga-sravah-). See below the example with inversion *Slavo-bogъ.

Old Slavonic *Borni-slavъ: Iranian *Pāti-śrauah- (?)

Reflexes of the Slavonic prototype: Bulgarian Бранислав (Ilčev 1969: 87: ‘defender of glory’; Kovačev 1987: 56: ‘defend glory’), Serbian Бранислав (Maretić 1886: 114: ‘in pugna gloriam habens’ or ‘pugnae gloriam habens’; Grković 1977: 44; Mihajlović 2002: 31, 98), Old Slovenian Branislav: Branizla, 1291 (Kos 1886: 112), Old Czech Branislaus (Codex 1854: 54), Slovak Branislav (Ovsená 2014: 144), Old Polish Bronisław: Erga Bronislaum de Geligowo, 1402 (SSNO I 252). The first part is the imper. form of *borniti ‘to defend, to protect’ or the stem of its infinitive. See also ESSJ II 206 with a somewhat narrower list of reflexes. Nevertheless, one may depart here from traditional views on interpreting the inlaut i in compounds as a verbal marker, assuming in it a marker of an ī-stem. Thus, the first part may equal the stem of the locative case (unprepositional locative), and the semantics of the name can probably be reconstructed as “[In] battle (defense), glorious, glorified”. Cf. the syntactic analogue of the compound in Old Russian “Брань славна луче есть мира студна” (Sreznevskij 1912: 408).

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

In the archaic Iranian anthroponymicon, Slavonic *Borni-slavъ corresponds to Pahlavi Pātisrāu (Nyberg 1974: 45) ~ Iranian *pāti- ‘defender’ in *pāti-gauka-, *pāti-gāuya-, *pāti-māna and others (Hinz 1975: 186–187). Semantically, this nomen is essentially the same “Brani-slav”, “Boroni-slav” or “Defender glorious”.

Old Slavonic *Dal’e-slavъ: Iranian *Dūrai-śrauah-

Old Slav. Dalislav (Senkovskij 1859: 441) (West Slavonic?) from the older *Daleslav, as in the case of Old Czech Dalebor and Dalibor (see ESSJ V 185–186), hypocoristics Old Czech Daleša: Dalesse, Old Polish Dalesz: Dalesyus (Miklosich 1927: 54: dal-) *Dal’e-slavъ = “Far glorified”, “Widely known”. A formation of the old type with the comparative *dal’e- ‘farther, further’. Onomasiologically close to it is Old Iranian *Dūraiśrauah- ~ Old Indic Dūréśravas- (Mayrhofer 1979: 37: *Dūraisravah-), Pahlavi Dūr-āsrau [dwlʾslwbʾ] “Widely known”, Dūréśrav [dwlyslwbʾ] ~ Pahlavi dūr [dwl] ‘far, distant’, ‘far away’, ‘at a distance’. Also the name with variant morphology of the second part: Avestan Dūraē-śruta- = adj. dūraē-srūta- ‘widely known, ‘of whom they hear far and wide’ < Old Iranian *Dūraiśruta- ~ Indo-Aryan Dūré-śruta- (for Indo-Iranian *dūrai- ‘far, distant’, ‘afar’: Avestan dūraē-, Vedic dūre-; Mairhofer 1979: 37; Grantovskij 2007: 363; Schmitt 2009: 81–82: Dūréśi).

Old Slavonic *Dobro-slavъ: Iranian *u̯ahu-śrauah-, *u̯ahu-śrūta-

Cf. Bulgarian Dobroslav (Ilčev 1969: 176: ‘one who is renowned for good’, ‘having a good reputation’; Kovačev 1987: 83: ‘glorified by goodness’), Old Serbian Dobroslav, XI, Serbian Доброслав (Maretić 1886: 117: ‘bonam gloriam habens’; Mihajlović 2002: 176, 323, 328, 330), Slovenian Dobroslav (SSI), Old Czech Dobroslaus (Gebauer 1903: 273), Slovak Dobroslav (Ovsená 2014: 144), Old Polish Dobrosław: Dobrozlaus, 1228, Dobrosław, 1426 (SSNO I 490), Old Russian Доброславъ, 1234 (ESSJ V 43: with a narrower geographical distribution of the forms) ~ adj. *dobrъ.

Old Persian *Vau-śavah- ‘glorious through goodness’ (Elamite Ma-u-šu-ma) ~ Old Indic vásu-śravas- (Tavernier 2007: 342), as well as the morphologically variant form of the first part, Old Persian *Vau-śūta- ‘glorified through goodness’ (Elamite Ma-u-šu-da) ~ Old Indic Vā́su-śruta- (ibid.). Cf. at the level of fixed expressions Avestan “zazə bu̯ije vanhāuca miždə vanhāuca srauu̯ahi urnaēca darəu̯e hauuan̯he”—concerning worthy reward, good glory and long well-being for the soul (Skjærvø 2003: 193).

In Aryan, the compound is clear Indo-European heritage, given the attestation of an identical Illyrian Ves-cleves (Pokorny 1959: 606) at the other pole of the Indo-European linguistic world.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *śrau̯a-, *śraušā-, *śrūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

Old Slavonic *Dъlgo-slavъ: Iranian *Darga-śrauah-

Old Czech Dluhoslav (Gebauer 1903: 259: Dluhoslav). It is precisely the formation with the stem of Old Slavonic *dъlgъ ‘long’ in the first part; cf. also Old Czech Dluhowogius = Dlúhowoj (Gebauer 1903: 259). Slavonic “Dolgoslavny” has a whole-word etymological analogue in Iranian: Old Persian *Dargačau̯ā (Elamite Tarkašuma, tar–qa–šu–ma; Persepolis) = *darga-srava(h)- ‘long-glorious, widely known’ ~ Old Indic (Rigveda) dīrghā-śravas- ‘widely known’ (Gershevitch 1969: 236; Mayrhofer 1973: 238; Hinz 1975: 83; Tavernier 2007: 167).

Old Slavonic *Gati-slavъ: Avestan gā̆θā srāvayō

The Slavonic counterpart in this parallel may be identified on the basis of Slovak Gatislav (ОА). Initial Gat- may perhaps be related to *gatati, *gatiti (cf. Old Polish gatać ‘to speak, to converse’, Old Russian гатити ‘to add encouragement, to inspire (through conversation and reasoning)’, and others), cognate with Avestan gā̆θā- ‘religious hymn’ (ESSJ VI 105: *gatati; Rastorgueva, Èdel’man 2007: 271) = “[May] [your] glory be sung”? The Avestan term of religious culture genetically unites the Slavonic compound and the *gatiti slavъ condensed within it with the formula gā̆θā srāvayō in “gā̆θā srāvayō yašnəm yazəntəm paitistāiti”, “uštavaitəm gā̆θəm srāvayō uštatəm nimraomno” and other contexts (Bartholomae 1904: 519, 1641: srav-). Admittedly, the homogeneity of the components entering into *gatiti slavъ & gā̆θā srāvayō is not ensured by a common semantic basis of the two constructions, owing to the different grammatical and syntactic status of the components in question: in Iranian gā̆θā– it is not a predicate, as in Slavonic, but an object—the Gathas being recited. Yet the very fact that phrases were constructed from reflexes of common etymons in Iranian and Slavonic “high” speech is clearly not accidental.

For the initial g in the Slovak example, cf. Old Slavonic *gan’ati > Slovak gánať sa (ESSJ VI 100).

Old Slavonic *Krajь-slavъ: Avestan Daŋhu.srūta-

Slavonic names with the first member *krajь ‘edge, land’ (: Bulgarian Краислав, XV, XVI; Ilčev 1969: 275; Old Serbian Крајислав, 1386 (Šibenik), Serbian Крајислав; Mihajlović 2002: 592, 593: according to Jordan Zaimov, “He who will be renowned in his native region, his land”, “He who will bring glory to his region, country”; Maretić 1886: 121: “Having glory in his country”; Slovenian Krajislav; SSI) reproduce Old Slavonic *Krajь-slavъ as “Glorified in [his native] region”, “[He who will bring] glory to [his] region”, ideologically close to Avestan Daŋhu.srūta- “Glorified in the country” ~ daŋhu-, danhu- ‘region, country’, ‘land’ (Bartholomae 1904: 706).

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

Old Slavonic *Kъrto-slavъ: Iranian *Kṛta-śrāuah-

The first member of the pair cited is reconstructed on the basis of the obscure Croatian Kortoslav (ОА), in which Kort may be interpreted in two ways, leading to different conclusions concerning the compound as a whole. First, as the name of a Slavonic pagan god. Cf.:

1) Old Czech Kirt in the “Glosses of Wacerad”, where it is said “Mercurius – Radihost, wnuk Kirtow”. It is considered functionally close to Saturn (Karel Erben);

2) Slovenian dialectal, Croatian dialectal krt ‘fire’ and Krt—a god whose name was still preserved in phraseological expressions until the mid-nineteenth century, cf. “ne wsi gremo w K’rtowo, marsikteri w č’rtowo” = not all of us shall go to Kъrt, some to the devil, “wsi gremo w K’rtowo” = we shall all go to Kъrt’s kingdom (i.e. we shall all die), K’rtowa děžda = Kъrt’s domain, i.e. heaven or paradise (Izmail Ivanovič Sreznevskij; for more detail see Afanas’ev 1869: 760–761; on *kъrt see Kozlova 1997: 127).

Но внешняя непротиворечивость такой этимологии *Kъrto-slavъ «[Благодаря] Корту славный», «[Кортом прославленный» теряет свой вес ввиду отсутствия иных славянских антропонимов, содержащих имя конкретного божества. Впрочем, остаётся вероятным тождество псл. *Kъrtи слвн., хорв. krt ‘огонь’, подводящее к пониманию номена как «Огне-слав».

Second (and this is the view we follow), in *Kъrto-slavъ one may posit the result of “recoding” an Iranian model, such as Parthian krtsrw / Kerdsraw, Kirdsraw /, Middle Persian kɫtslwbу (Greek Κιρδίστω), as continuations of Iranian *Kṛta-śrāuah- “[Possessing] glory [thanks to his] deeds”, “[Glorified by accomplished deeds”, “[Glorious] thanks to [what he] created” ~ *kṛta- ‘deed’, ‘work’ (Schmitt 2016: 116: *Kṛta-srāuah-).

However, the Slavonic vocabulary has its own anthroponym for the role of “Glorious for deeds”, cf. *Dě(jb)-slavъ: Serbian Deslav (Kollár, Pačić 1828: 35), Old Slovenian *Děslavъ (Rymut 1993: 10), Old Polish Džiesław: Dzeslaus, 1389, na Dzeslawa, 1402 (SSNO I 559) ~ *dě(ja)ti ‘to do’, ‘to lay’, ‘to place’ (ESSI IV 229).

Old Slavonic *Miro-slovъ, *Miro-slavъ: Iranian *Miθra-śrāuah-

Slav. *Miroslov (see above), Bulgarian Мирослав (Ilčev 1969: 337: ‘glorified in the world’; Kovačev 1987: 133: ‘be glorious in the world; glorify the world’), Old Slovenian fem. Miroslava: Merisclafa (Kos 1886: 126), Slovak Miroslav (Ovsенá 2014: 144), and others (for more detail on the broad area of reflexes, well attested by monuments from different periods, see ESSI XIX 54–55; Toropov 2006: 47). The Iranian etymological counterpart of Slav. *Miro-slavъ is *Miθra-sravah-: this proto-form is reconstructed for Middle Iranian (in Aramaic transmission) mtrsrh = “Mithra’s glory” or “Glory (thanks to) Mithra” (Hinz 1975: 167). From the literature, cf. also Schmitt, Vittmann 2013: 66;

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *śraua-, *śraušā-, *śrūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

Èdelʹman 2015: 367. Walter Kornfeld’s doubts about this interpretation (Tavernier 2007: 251).

Old Slavonic *Něgo-slavъ or *Spasi-slavъ: Avestan Buǰa-srauuaḥ-

Slav. *Něgo-slavъ is attested in: Bulg. Негослав, XV, XVI (Ilčev 1969: 356: ‘cherishing glory’), Serb. Негослав, fem. Негослава (Grković 1977: 149, 285, 288), Slovene Negoslav (SSI), Old Polish Niegosław: Negosław, 1224 (SSNO IV 41), Old Ukrainian Нѣгославъ ~ *něga, *něgati, i.e. ‘cherishing glory’? (Rymut 1993: 13: *něga ‘enjoyment, bliss’; ESSJ XXV 97–98).

A probable equivalent of Slav. *Něgo-slavъ “Cherishing glory” or “Enjoying glory” is represented by Av. Buǰa-srauuaḥ- (the brother of Vištāspa) “Enjoying glory.” See this semantic interpretation of the Avestan name in Manfred Mayrhofer, who notes the difficulty of interpreting the meaning embedded in it owing to the polysemy of Iranian buǰ- ‘to release, free’, ‘to save’ and ‘to enjoy, taste’, while also proposing “second-order” interpretations such as “Having the glory of a benefactor” and “Having the glory of a protector” (Mayrhofer 1979: 33: with bibliography). Cf. also Middle Persian Būjisrawāh (Justi 1895: 71, 490: from Av. *būǰa, Old Persian buǰya ‘to free, save’).

However, the semantic resources of the Avestan verb baog-, praes. 3. vǰa- ‘to release, free’, ‘to save’, cognate with the first part of Buǰa-srauuaḥ-, indicate the possibility of understanding the nomen as “Save-Glory.” This is precisely how Av. personal name Būǰisravah- “[Having] the glory of a savior” ~ baog is explained in Christian Bartholomae’s “Old Iranian Dictionary” (Bartholomae 1904: 916–917, 968). With this meaning, the Iranian name finds an echo in the Slavic name inventory, cf. *Sъpasi-slavъ: Bulg. Спасислав (town of Berkovitsa), Slovene Spasislav (SSI). Cf. *Sъpasi-mirъ (Toporov 2006: 57).

PSl. *Oto-slavъ: Av. Srūtaṭ.fəδrī-

The Slavo-Iranian parallel is represented by: Serb. Otoslav (Kollár, Pačić 1828: 74), (derivative) Old Czech “Wotycho de Othaslawicz” (Codex 1854: 18, 19), Czech Otaslavice (Moravia) (Miklosich 1927: 50: om- ‘father’), Old Polish Otosławski: Otosławski, 1448 (SSNO IV 161) vs Av. Srūtaṭ.fəδrī- “Having a glorified father,” cf. Ancient Greek Kleopatra and Patrocleia with the same etymological composition (Mayrhofer 1979: 79; Tavernier 2007: 162: 4.2.461). Nevertheless, in view of the Ancient Greek names, there are no grounds for speaking of the exclusivity of the Slavo-Iranian pair, all the more so given the genetic identity of both parts in the Iranian and Greek nomina.

PSl. *Pravo-slavъ: Av. aṣəm.sravah-

Cf. Slovincian Pravoslav (Ovsená 2014: 129), Czech Pravoslav, 19th c. (Moroškin 1867: 155), where *prav carries the semantics of directness, truth, authenticity, and absoluteness of objective evaluation (cf. Rus. правое дело, Czech věc spravedlivá ‘a righteous deed’, Slovene prava cena ‘the real price’, etc.) =

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

“[Whose] piety is glorified” or “Glorious through justice.” At the level of appellatives, it corresponds, for example, to Old Rus. православие ‘piety’, cf. “Remembering your православію, may you come to your senses” (Sreznevskiј 1902: 1350). At the same time, neither in the anthroponyms nor in the common noun should one probably see a calque from Gr. ὀρθοδοξία, ὀρθόδοξος or their derivatives, since the stem *prav is also present in other compounds, where it occupies both positions: Old Czech Pravislav (Kollár, Pačić 1828: 79) as the stem of a verb, *Pravo-myslъ (Iliadi 2022: 39–40), Rus. Правосуд – a modern surname, Pol. Świepraw (Rymut 1993: 14). Moreover, old hypocoristics from two-member Slavic names with initial *Prav- are known, cf. Serb. Правоје, Pravec, Praveš, Pravona, Pravon, Pravota (Moroškin 1867: 155), Old Pol. Prawęc-in (Miklosich 1927: 167: prawъ) < *Prawęta and others.

An Iranian analogue is also recorded in texts of religious content, cf., in particular, the Young Avestan formula ašəm.sra wah in a prayer to the deity Aša (Aša), where the first component aša- is the personification of truth, justice, righteousness. In Zoroastrian ethics this word meant ‘sacred eternal law’, ‘divine order’, ‘justice’, ‘truth’, ‘righteousness’, ‘truth’, ‘faith’ (Bartholomae 1904: 229–238, 258). Both examples express the idea of glorifying truth, justice, law, or else the notion of renown (glory) achieved through deeds corresponding to notions of legality, correctness, and righteousness. Cf. the corresponding poetic formula in Av. “yahmi raiti vispəm maŋθrəm ašəm.srauuō vī.sruuīata” – “(Zarathustra...) in whom every poetic thought containing glory (word, praise) of Aša was uttered (was heard) everywhere” (Skjærvø 2003: 194).

PSl. *Prosi-slavъ: Av. Pati-Paršta-Sravah-

Cf. Slovene Prosislav (SSI) ~ PSl. *prositi (cf. *Prosi-mirъ; Toporov 2006: 52–53), alongside Av. Pati-Paršta-Sravah-, in which paršta corresponds to Praes. Inch. pərəsaiti ‘to ask’ and is ultimately genetically identical with PSl. *prositi (Sokolov 1964: 301, 317). Accordingly, *Prosi-slavъ and –Paršta-Sravah have a common etymological composition.

PSl. *Pro-slavъ: Iranian *Fra-srūtaḥ-

Old Serb. Proslav (Kollár, Pačić 1828: 82), Old Czech Proslav (Moroškin 1867: 159), and also Bulg. Прослав – a deanthroponymic oikonym (Plovdiv district). The Slavic names correspond to: Mid. *Fra-srūta- ‘glorified, glorious’ (in Babylonian transcription – Pa-ar-sa-ru-tú) ~ Av. frasrūta- (Tavernier 2007: 181, 553). Cf. at the level of prefixed verbs of “high” speech: PSl. caus. *pro-slaviti, *pro-slavljati: Av. fra.srāуаia- ‘to read aloud’, ‘to perform’ (Skjærvø 2003: 106).

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *šrau̯a-, *šraušā-, *šrūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

PSl. *Slavo-bogъ (?): Mid. Pers. S̄rav-Yazd

The Slavic form (if it is not a late restructuring of *Slavi-bogъ ~ *slavoi(ti) boga) is attested in Rus. Славобогъ, 1890 (Vedomost’ 1890: 564). It corresponds to Mid. Pers. Srav-Yazd: (srʷ)yzdʾn ~ Av. srauuah- ‘glory’, ‘renown’ & yazata- (Gignoux 1986: 159). The semantics of both names is “Glorious [before] god / the gods.”

PSl. *Slavo-borь, *Beri-slovъ, *Boro-slavь: Iranian *śrauah-bāra–

Slav. *Slavo-borь is reconstructed with regard to: Slovene Slavobor (SSI), Sorbian Slavobor (Rymut 1993: 8), Old Pol. Sławobor: Sławobor, 1417 (SSNO V 113). Cf. variants with inversion of the components: *Beri-slovъ (: Old Croatian Berislov; see above), *Boro-slavь: Serb. Борослав (Grković 1977: 43), Old Pol. Borosław (?): Boroslaus, pfarrer (von Slewicz), 1287 (SSNO I 220), Pol. (derivative) Borosławski (Słownik 2003: 881). We have already had occasion to discuss the use in Slavic compounds of the reflex of IE *bher in the archaic meaning ‘to carry’, alongside the nominal derivative *bhoro- ‘bearer’ (Iliadi 2022: 35). PSl. *Slavo-borь “Bearer of glory,” “Carrying glory” and *Boro-slavь “Bearer of glory” may likewise illustrate such cases.

The Iranian analogue is Pahl. sōbār [swʾl] ‘adviser’, ‘counselor’, ultimately going back to Old Pers. *çava(h)-bāra- < *sravah-bāra- ‘bearer of words, teachings, commandments’, Mid. Pers. srwbr ‘teacher’ (Nyberg 1974: 176–177).

PSl. *Slavo-danь, *Дань-slavь: Iranian *Śrauša-dāta–

Two rare and geographically restricted names with a derivative of *dati ‘to give’ in the pre- and postposition are represented in Slavic. The meaning of the second (Old Rus.) anthroponym is defined as “Glorious through tribute” (Vasil’ev 2012: 82) or, more precisely, “[Who is] renowned through tribute.” Cf.: *Danь-slavь, *Danь-slavь (: Old Rus. Ивашко Данcлав Рекопльт, 1393 (Red Ruthenia), Novgorodian Даньслав, 1118; Tupikov 1903: 125; (derivative) Даньславля – a street on the Sofia side in Novgorod, 1342, даньславцы – residents of the street, 1394; Vasil’ev 2012: 82; from PSl. *danь, *danъ; Rymut 1993: 10); *Slavo-danь (: Croatian Slavodan, (derivative) Pol. Sławdańska – a surname; OA).

An Iranian compound is known that is semantically distant from the Slavic one but at the same time identical to it in etymological composition, cf. Parth. srwšdt / Srošdat / from Old Iranian *Srauša-dāta- “Given by Sraoša (the god of obedience)” (Dʾjakonov, Livšic 1960: 24; Schmitt 2016: 195), where, besides the genetically identical Iranian *šrau̯-š-: PSl. *slušati, *sluxъ (~ IE *ḱleu-, *ḱlou̯-s-), there is also a common Iranian *dā-t-: PSl. *dā-n as derivatives of the same IE root. Particularly interesting is the correlation PSl. *Slavo-danь: Iranian *Śrauša-dāta-, which also attests the identical order of components in both names.

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

PSl. *Slavo-darbъ, *Daro-slavъ: Sogd. *Srava-yāna- (?)

Regarding the Slavic names with PSl. *darъ ‘gift’, ‘offering’, cf. Serb. (rare) Slavodar (Bosanski Petrovac, 1039: Vuković Slavodar) VS Serb. Дарослав, Croat Daroslav (Maretić 1886: 105: k dar; Grković 1977: 73), Slovene Daroslav (SSI), Pol. (obsolete) Daroslaw (Rymut 1993: 10), Ukr. Дарослав ~ Даромысл (Korduba 1938: 11). Their Iranian analogue is Sogd. sruw’y n < srawayana- (?) (Bogoljubov, Smirnova 1963: 99), ryw’y n /Rēwγān/ (Lurje 2010: 338–339). This may be *srava-yāna- – a formation belonging to the same series as Sogd. m’xy’n /Māxyān/ “gift (of) the Moon god,” sr’ws’rty’n /Srošart-yān/ “gift of righteous Sraoša,” and others, where y’n /yān/ ‘grace’, ‘favor’, ‘desire’ acquires the meaning ‘gift’ (Gharib 1995: 443; Lurje 2017: 124, 125). Then *Srava-yāna- “Gift of glory” or “[Whose] glory is a gift” almost completely duplicates Slav. *Slavo-darb.

PSl. *Slavo-těхъ: Iranian *Šraua-sāti-

Cf. continuation of the indicated archetypes in: Old Pol. Sław(o)ciech: Sżlautech, 1188 (SSNO V 113) “Comforted by glory” and Bactr. РОСАЛДО. If the latter name is read as РАСАЛДО, it probably represents a Bactrian development of Old Iranian *šraua-sāti- “Satisfied with glory, glorified” (Harmatta 1969: 101: *srava-sāti-).

PSl. *slux-menъ: Av. srao-man-

Rus. Kostroma dialect слухмéнье ‘listening’ ultimately goes back, if it is not a dialectal formation of the historical period, to PSl. *slux-menъ – a derivative of *slux- (for the word formation, cf. Rus. Nizhny Novgorod dialect глухмéнь ‘a deaf or hard-of-hearing person’; Slovar’ VI 214). A full-lexeme correspondence for this Slavic form is found in Iranian – Av. sraoma (srau-man-), sraoman- ‘hearing’ (quoted from: Bartholomae 1634: under srav- ‘to listen’; Sokolov 1964 317), demonstrating the identity of both the root morpheme (PSl. *slu-: Iranian *šrau-) and its derivational formation (PSl. suffix –men-: Iranian –man-). The only difference is the additional suffixal (-s- > -x-) extension of the Slavic reflex, absent in Iranian. It is permissible to speak of a diachronic “renewal” of the Slavic reflex *klou-men- ‘hearing’ through its leveling to the form of the homogeneous *sluxъ. In that case, the structure of the Iranian and Slavic words was historically identical.

PSl. *Sъ-slavъ: Iranian *Hu-šrauaһ-, *hu-šráuah-

An example of the nominal compounding of homogeneous PSl. *sъ-: Iranian *hu- ‘good’ with reflexes of the indicated etymon in Iranian and Slavic. Slav. *Съ-слава fem. “Good-glorious” is the name from which the oikonym Сосавино is derived (Volokolamsk district, Moscow region). The Iranian “pole” of comparison is a nomen well known in the languages of the ancient and Middle Iranian period

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *sraua-, *srausā-, *srūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

nomen, cf. Mid. *Hu-srаваh- ‘having good glory’, Old Pers. *U-çavah- (Schmitt 2009: 180; 2016: 112: Old Iranian *Hu-srauah-), Όσóγος (Hinz 1975: 127: *husrauah-), Av. Haosrauuah- (Mayrhofer 1979: 49–50; Schmitt 2009: 180, 181), Old Iranian Husrau in Syriac documents (Gignoux, Jullien Ch., Jullien F. 2009: 84 ff.), Bactr. χαοσσαο = Khwasrau, identified with Mid. Pers. ḥwslwb, which Philippe Gignoux reads as Husrau (Husraw), i.e. *hu-srawah- ‘good-glorious’. For more on the anlaut see Sims-Williams 2010: 150.

Appellative correlates: Av. hu-srаваh- ‘glorious, famous’, Pahl. hu-srav ‘honor’, ‘glory’, ‘glorious, glorified’ (Nyberg 1974: 103), husraw, xusraw ‘of good glory’ (Rastorgueva, Ėdel’man 2007: 417). See also Lurje 2010: 84 in the literature.

Cf. exact etymological analogues in Ved. Su-srāvas and Ancient Greek Εὐκλήης (Schmitt 2009: 180, 181).

PSl. *Vědo-slavъ; Av. Viði'sravah-

For Croatian Vjedoslav, Polish Wiadosław (OA), with the first part corresponding to the stem *vědati ‘to know, be aware’, an etymological doublet is found in Av. Vīði'sravah-, whose semantics Christian Bartholomae interpreted as ‘one who has the glory of the wise’, identifying in it the component *viði- ~ vaēd- ‘to learn’, ‘to know’, ‘to understand’ (Bartholomae, 1904: 1314, 1444).

For another interpretation of the Avestan anthroponym see Mayrhofer 1979: 94: from Old Indian śravó vivide ‘he won glory’; (Mayrhofer 1973: 206; and subsequently: Hinz 1975: 260; Tavernier 2007: 347): Old Persian *Vidiça-, *Vīdi-ç-a- (Elamite Mi-ti-šá) is considered a hypocoristic of a name equivalent to Av. Vīdi-sravah-, in turn oriented toward Iranian *vidiša- ‘generous, abundant’, Av. vīdiša- ‘generosity’. Cf. the typologically similar Ukrainian innovation Щедрослав(а) (Irkliėvs’kij 1968: 201).

PSl. *Voje-slavъ, *Vojь-slavъ: Av. Srūtō.spāda-, Old Pers. *Çuta-iauda-

Cf. Old Bulg. Воцслав – cousin of Oviatoslav, Bulg. Воцслав (Ilčev 1969: 115), Old Serb. Vojislav, Serb. Војислав (Maretić 1886: 132: ‘bellatores gloriamque habens’; Mihajlović 2002: 87, 159, 161), Slovene Vojeslav (SSI), Old Czech Woyzlaus (Codex 1854: 13, 70), Old Pol. Wojstaw, Wojistaw, Wоjesław: Voyslav, 1224, Wogizlaus; Woyeslaw, 1425 (SSNO VI 176, 177), Old Novgorodian Воеславъ, Воеславъ, Воиславъ (Zaliznjak 2004: 69, 203, 416, 417, 616, 720) and others ~ *vojь ‘war cry, warrior’. Literally: “[Whose] warriors are glorified,” “[Whose] army is glorious.”

Ideologically, the Slavic nomen can be associated with Av. Srutō.spāda- “One who has a glorious army” ~ Old Iranian *sruta- ‘glorified, glorious’, Av. srūta- = Ved. śrutá- (Mayrhofer 1979: 79: comparison with Ved. Śruta-sena-,

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

Old Engl. Hlob-here; Schmitt 2009: 136) and Old Pers. *Čutayauḍa (Šuddayauda “With glorified warriors” (Livšic 2010: 99).

PSl. *Vbse-slavь, *Vbse-slovъ: Av. vīspa sravā

Cf. Bulg. Всеслав (Ilčev 1969: 117: ‘all-glorious’), Old Slovene Vseslav, Sveslav: Zweizlaus, 1240 (Kos 1886: 138), Czech Všeslav (Kollár, Pačić 1828: 21), Old Rus. Всеслав – the name of the princes of Polotsk (1044) and Vitebsk (1175), Rus. deanthroponymic oikonyms with –j-: Novg. Всеславле, Kaluga Всеславль (Сеславль) (Vasil’ev 2012: 81) ~ Old Rus. adj. вьсеславьныи in “Възненавидѣхъ всеславьныихъ” (Sreznevskii 1893: 470). Cf. also variants with apheresis: Czech Seslav, Pol. Siesławice – a toponym (Miklosich 1927: 58), as well as Slav. *Seslovъ (< *Vbseslovъ; Greece; see above). Iranian parallel: Av. vīspa sravā zaraθuštri in the Yasna (57.4) (Bartholomae 1904: 1644), where sravah has the meaning ‘word, teaching’ (of Zarathustra), which does not exclude the possibility of its former cumulative use with vīspa & sravah in other contexts, where sravah means ‘glory’.

PSl. *Zblo-slavь: Iranian *duš-srauah-

Cf. Old Slovene fem. Zleslava: Zelišlaua, Zelesclaua (Kos 1886: 149), old Zloslav (Carinthia), Old Rus. злосьлавие ‘defamation’ (?) (on which see Iliadi 2022: 49) VS Av. adj. duš.sravah- ‘ill-glorious’, ‘one of bad repute’ ~ duš- ‘bad, evil’ (Bartholomae 1904: 752, 755), Pahl. dus-srav [dws lwb] ‘having bad repute’ < *duš-sravah- ‘the same’ (Nyberg 1974: 68). In Iranian this word is part of the Indo-European heritage, cf. the etymologically identical Ancient Greek δυσκλεής, down to the structural details (Bartholomae 1904: 755).

3.2. Slavica & Baltica

PSl. *Bol’e-slavь, *Mъnogo-slavь: Old Prussian Tule-claws

Cf. Old Czech Boleslav, Old Pol. Bolesław ~ adj. compar. *bol’e, *bol’bь ‘more’, ‘better’ (ESSJ II 186), Serb. Mnogoslav (Kollár, Pačić 1828: 65) alongside Old Prussian Tole-claus: Tollo-claus, Tule-claws ~ klausēiti ‘to hear, listen’, Prussian kluss ‘quiet, silent’, ‘calm, meek’ (Trautmann 1974: 142, 153) [= *‘obedient’] ~ tūlan ‘much’, adv. compar. tõuls ‘more’ (Mažiulis 1997: 203). Slav. “[With] greater, better glory” (or the wish “[May he be] more glorious”) and Balt. “[Having] better hearing.”

PSl. *Če-slavь (?): Lith. Kū-klausas

Slovene Česlav, Old Pol. Czesław: Czesław de Tarnowo 1393 (SSNI I 371) and the like are, with a high degree of probability, defined not only as a development of чьствславь, as proposed for Old Serb. Tę̨εύηλαβος = ‘honoris

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *śrau̯a-, *śraušā-, *śrūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

gloriam habens’ (Maretić 1886: 116: as Old Church Slavonic чьславь < чьстьславь), but also as a compound with the pronominal element *če, cf. a name with its variant *ko – *Ko-mt̄rъ (see Toporov 2006: 41). This rare type of anthroponymic compounding in Slavic nevertheless finds support in the Baltic name inventory, where Lith. Kӯ-klausas is recorded (cf. Kӯ-bartas, Kӯ-mantas, Kӯ-tautas, Kӯ-vainas; Vanagas, ed., 1985: 985: Kӯ- “unclear”) with kū-, etymologically identical to Old Prussian *ki- (in personal names, where it corresponds to Lith. Kӯ-), kai ‘what’, ‘so that’ and Slav. *ko, *če (Toporov 1980: 119–129, 359–360; 2006: 41).

PSl. *Dě(ib)-slavъ: Old Latvian Darbe-slave

Slav. *Dě(ib)-slavъ (see the reflexes above) VS Old Latvian Darbe-slave, 1291 = “Glorified [thanks to his] deeds” (Blese 1929: 19) ~ darba ‘work, labor’, ‘deed’.

PSl. *Dobro-slavъ, *Bolgo-slavъ: Latv. Lab-slavis

Slav. *Dobro-slavъ (see above) and *Bolgo-slavъ (: Bulg. Благослав; Il̄čev 1969: 77; Serb. Благослав; Kollár, Raićić 1828: 4, 5; Old Czech Blaizlaus; Gebauer 1903: 59: Blahoslav?; Pol. Błogosław-ski – a toponym; Słownik 2003: 748) can be compared with Latv. Labslavis (Šmits 1913: 123) ~ laba slava ‘good glory’ (Staltmane 1981: 4: footnote).

In view of the broad geographical distribution of the Slavic name, interpreting it as a translation of Lat. Benedictus (thus Il̄čev 1969: 77) appears unconvincing.

PSl. *Na-slavъ: Old Prussian Na-clusio

Cf. Pol. Nasław, Old Rus. Наславъ (Rymut 1993: 13) ~ Old Prussian Na-clusio with PSl. *na-: Old Prussian na- — preposition and prefix ‘on, onto’ (Mažiulis 1996: 162) as an element characterizing a special Slavic–Old Prussian affinity of form and semantics against the different East Baltic nuo < *nō (ESSJ XXI 186).

PSl. *Skъrbi-slavъ: Lith. Klaus-gėla

Cf. Old Pol. Skarbislaw (Rymut 1993: 15: *skъrbiti) ~ PSl. *skъrběti ‘to grieve’, *skъŕbiti ‘to sadden, distress’ alongside Lith. Klaus-gėla ~ gėlà ‘severe pain’, ‘sorrow’, gėlti ‘to hurt, ache, cause pain’ (Vanagas, ed., 1985: 648) = “[Bearing] a sorrowful hearing, message”?

PSl. *Slavo-vidъ: Lith. Klaũs-vydas

Slovene Slavovid VS Lith. Klaũs-vydas (Toporova 1996: 227–228: as ‘hearing-seeing’) ~ *vidь, *viděti: -vidas/-vydas, iš-výsti (iš-výdo) ‘to see, catch sight of, see’ (Vanagas, ed., 1989: 1204). The semantics of the name is apparently “Glorious in appearance (form)” (or “[Whose] appearance is glorious?”) for Slav. and “[With] a silent (obedient) appearance” (cf. Lith. klausà ‘hearing’, ‘obedience’ below) for Balt.

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

Cf. a variant with inversion of the components in Slavic *Vido-slavъ: Bulg. Видослав (Илчев 1969: 109), Old Serb. Vidoslav, 1455, Serb. Видослав (Miklosich 1927: 40: видѣ ‘appearance, external form’; Grković 1977: 53; Mihajlović 2002: 145, 146, 147), Slovene Vidoslav (SSI).

PSl. *Želo-slavъ: Lith. Klauš-gailas, Old Prussian Clawsi-gail

Old Serb. Zjeloslav (Зѣлослав) (Kollár, Pacić 1828: 109) alongside Lith. Klauš-gailas, Old Prussian Clawsi-gail ~ Lith. klaušyti ‘to listen attentively’, klaušà ‘hearing’, ‘obedience’ & gailùs ‘pitiful’, ‘lamentable’ ~ Old Church Slavonic зьлъ ‘quick’, Old High German geil ‘proud’, ‘bold’ (Fraenkel 1962: 265; Trautmann 1974: 142; Toropov 1979: 129–130; 1984: 48, 49–53). Regarding the semantics of *žėl-: gail cf. also Old Rus. зълъи, зълъ ‘strong’, Lith. gailùs ‘sharp’, ‘caustic’, ‘vindictive’, gailas ‘wild, fierce’ (Sreznevskij 1893: 1014; Vasmer 1986: 92), therefore it does not seem obligatory to define the meaning of the entire compound as ‘lamentable (because of) hearing’ (thus Torogova 1996: 227–228). An interpretation “Glorious through strength” or “Swift-glory” (for Slav.) and the wish “May you be famous (= may people hear of you) as fierce” (for Balt.) are equally possible.

3.3. Slavica & Germanica

PSl. *Bornі-slavъ: Old High German Flodo-ard

Slav. *Bornislavъ (see above) VS Old High German Flodoard (Förstemann 1856: 690–691, 698: Hlod- ~ hlu- ‘to hear’, in particular, related to hlūt ‘loud’ in a meaning identical to Greek κλυτός), if in the latter we posit the loss of intervocalic w (a frequent phenomenon in Old Germanic compounds). That is, *Flodoward < *Hlodo-ward “Glorified protector” ~ Old High German wart ‘watchman’, ‘guardian’, ‘protector’, as in the case of Liud-ward, Liut-ward, Liut-wart, Leudo-ard (Förstemann 1856: 874, 875, 1262).

PSl. *Вързо-slavъ: Proto-Germanic *Hluða-swenþaz

Old Czech “dceru Brzoflawowu” (Gebauer 1903: 111; Brzoslav), cf. Czech Brzimir, Brzivoj, Berzomil (Kollár, Pacić 1828: 3) ~ PSl. *bъrzъ(jь) ‘quick, lively’, ‘spry, zealous’, ‘brave’ (for the semantics of the reflexes see ESSJ III 137–138). Germanic parallels: Lombard fem. Chlodesinda, Old High German Clodosuinda ~ suind ‘cruel’, ‘harsh, unrestrained’ (Förstemann 1856: 694, 1135), Old English Hloþswith, Hlodsuinda (Searle 1897: 561).

PSl. *Xorbro-slavъ: Old High German Clod-bald

The Slavic nomen is reconstructed on the basis of Old Slovene Hrաբroslav (cf. the name of the 19th-century Slovene composer – Hrաբroslav Volarić) ~ *xorbrъ(jь) ‘brave, bold’. Its Germanic analogue is Old High German Clodbald ~ bald ‘daring, bold, brave, impudent’ (Förstemann 1856: 202, 692).

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *sraua-, *srausā-, *srūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

PSl. *Jako-slavъ: Old High German Chlode-rich

Cf. Serb., Croat. Jakoslav (Jakoslav Stanković – a Slovenian footballer) ~ *jakъ (Serb., Croat. jāk ‘strong, sturdy’; ESSJ VIII 171) VS Old High German Chloderich ~ richi ‘rich’, ‘strong, mighty’ (Förstemann 1856: 694, 1036), Old Germanic Hlodericus ~ Old Celtic Cloto-rix, Welsh Clotri (Schönfeld 1911: 140). That is, “Glorious through [his] strength,” “[Whose] strength is glorified.”

PSl. *L’uto-slavъ: Old High German Flot-grimmus

Serb. Љутослав, Czech. Litoslav (Kollár, Pačić 1828: 58), Old Polish. Lutosław: Luthoslaus, 1413 (SSNO III 301) ~ *l’utъ ‘fierce, savage’, ‘cruel’ alongside Old High German Flotgrimmus ~ grimm ‘savage, fierce’, ‘cruel’ (Förstemann 1856: 546, 697: comparison with Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon grima ‘mask’ is also admitted).

Common Slavic *Slavo-drugъ: Old High German Hlot-win, Hlud-win

Cf. Old Croatian Slavodrug (Kollár, Pačić 1828: 92) ~ *drugъ ‘friend’ and Old High German Hlotwin, Hludwin ~ Old High German wini, Gothic eiwa winjis ‘friend, companion’ (Förstemann 1856: 696, 1315).

Common Slavic *Slavo-gostь: Old Germanic Hlewa-gastiz

Cf. Old Serb. Славогость, prince of Bribir (Mihajlović 2002: 62), Serb. Славогост (Grković 1977: 180), Croat. Slavogost (Maretić 1886: 127: ‘gloriae hospes’?), Czech. Slavhost (Rymut 1993: 15), derived toponym Slavhostice (Miklosich 1927: 58), Russ. Славгуцуи, 19th c., Belar. Славогощу – oikonyms < Слав(о)гость (Vasil’ev 2012: 170). To Common Slavic *gostь. In Germanic we have runic Hlewa-gastiz – a compound of reflexes of Proto-Germanic *xlewaz ~ the Indo-European word for ‘glory’ (: Avestan sravah-, Sanskrit śrávas- ‘glory, praise’, Greek κλέος ‘glory’, etc.) and *gastiz (: Gothic gasts ‘stranger, foreigner’, ‘guest’) ~ Common Slavic *gostь ‘guest’ (Orel 2003: 127, 176).

Common Slavic *Slavo-mirъ: Old High German Lot-frid, Old English Hloth-frith

Cf. Bulg. Славомир (Ilčev 1969: 454), Serb. Славомир (Maretić 1886: 128: ‘in gloria pacem habens’; Mihajlović 2002: 130), Slovene. Slavomir (SSI), Slovak. Slavomír (Ovsená 2014: 144), Old Lusatian. Slavomir: Scalaomir, 819 – Abodritorum rex (Toporov 2006: 55–56), Old Polish. Sławomir: Zlauomir, 1155, Slauomir, 1224 (SSNO V 113). Germanic equivalents: Old High German Lotfrid ~ fridu ‘peace’ (Förstemann 1856: 421, 692: Hlod-), Old English Hlothfrith (Searle 1897: 299).

Common Slavic *Slavo-slavъ: Proto-Germanic *Hluða-mērijaz

Baltic. Славославов – a patronymic with the suffix –ов– (Ilčev 1969: 454), Serb. Славослав (Grković 1977: 180), Old Polish. Sławosław: Szlawoslaus, 1469, Slawoslaus, 1471 (SSNO V 114). Unlike the tautological Slavic name (slav + slav), the Germanic one is a compound of synonymous etymons *hluðaz ‘famous, heard of’ & *mērijaz ‘famous, renowned’:

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

Gothic Hluba-mērs, Frankish Chlodomeris, Chlothomerus (Schönfeld 1911: 140), Old Germanic Χλωθομήρος, Old High German Clodomer, Hlodmar (Förstemann 1856: 694, 907: to Old High German māri ‘clear, bright’ or mari ‘sea’). The component -marius in Old Germanic names is identified with Gothic *-mēreis (neutr. waila-mērei), Old Norse mær ‘famous, renowned’, Anglo-Saxon mære ‘great, famous’, Old High German mari ‘famous, renowned’ (Schönfeld 1911: 43).

Common Slavic *Tъvьrdo-slavъ: Frankish Hлud-hart, Old High German Hлud-hart

Old Slovene *Tъrьdoslavъ (the Alps; Rymut 1993: 17: *tъrьdъ(jь) ‘firm’), Old Slovene Trdoslav: Tridizlav, Tridozlav, Tordosclaue (Kos 1886: 135, 141), Czech. Tъrdoslav (Miklosich 1927: 64), Old Polish. Twardosław: Tuardoslaus, 1255 (SSNO V 493) alongside Frankish Hludhart (Franck 1909: 33, 139), Old High German Hludhart ~ hart ‘hard’, ‘firm’ (Förstemann 1856: 604, 692).

Common Slavic *Voje-slavъ, *Vojь-slavъ: Proto-Germanic *Hluða-wīgaz, *Hluðu-wīgaz

Cf. Slav. *Voje-slavъ, *Vojь-slavъ (see above) VS Frankish Chlodowech, Chlodovius – the name of a Frankish king (Wrede 1891: 109, 112), Hludovicus, Hlodovicus, Hlodēwig (Forssner 1916: 153: *hlūba-, *hlōba-), Hluduuig (Franck 1909: 113), Old English Hlotwig, Hlothewig (Searle 1897: 299), Old High German Hlud-wīg – a compound of reflexes of Proto-Germanic *xluðaz (from Indo-European *klutó- ‘famous, renowned’ ~ Avestan srūta- ‘heard’, Sanskrit śrutá- ‘the same; famous, renowned’, Greek κλυτός) and *wīgaz (: Burgundian *wigs ‘fighter’) (Orel 2003: 178, 465). Cf. also Scandinavian runic Hlauðu-wigaR, Old Icelandic Hǫð-wér (Toporova 1996: 53: *Hlauði-weigaz).

Common Slavic *Voldi-slavъ: Old High German Clodo-wald

Bulg. Владислав (Ilčев 1969: 113; Kovačev 1987: 66: ‘hold glory’), Old Croatian Vladislavus, 839, Serb. Владислав (Maretić 1886: 123: ‘dominandi gloriam habens’ or ‘dominationem gloriamque habens’; Mihajlović 2002: 154), Croat. Vladislavci – a toponym (Miklosich 1927: 22), Slovene. Vladislav (SSI), Czech. Vladislav (Miklosich 1927: 22), Slovak. Vladislav (Ovsená 2014: 144), Old Polish. Włodzisław: Włodzisław, 1437 (SSNO VI 143), Old Russian Володислав (Tupikov 1903: 92). To Common Slavic *volditi ‘to possess’, ‘to rule’. See also Rymut 1993: 18.

The inverted Old High German Clodowald ~ Gothic waldan ‘to rule, reign’ shows different grammatical relations between the components of the phrase from which the compound was formed. They dictate differences in the anthroponym’s semantics, understood as “[He whose] rule is renowned.”

Common Slavic *Vьlьko-slavъ: Old High German Chlod-ulf

Serb. Вукослав, Вучеслав (Mihajlović 2002: 41, 176), Вучислав (Grković 1977: 61), Czech. Vьkoslav (Kollár, Pačić 1828: 22) ~ *vьlkъ ‘wolf’ alongside Old High German Chlodulf ~ wolf ‘wolf’ (Förstemann 1856: 696, 1339) = “He who [has] the wolf’s glory” (Slav.) and “He who is renowned as a wolf” (Germanic).

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *sraua-, *srausā-, *srūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

3.4. Slavica & Iranica & Baltica

Common Slavic *Dobro-slavъ: Iranian *цaнi-s̄raуah-, *цaнu-s̄rūta-: Latvian Lab-slavis (see above for each of the compounds).

3.5. Slavica & Iranica & Germanica

Common Slavic *Borni-slavъ: Iranian *Pāti-s̄rauah- (?): Old High German Flodo-ard (see above for each of the compounds). Common Slavic *Slavo-mirъ: Iranian *Miθra-s̄rauah-: Old High German Lot-frid, Old English Hloth-frith (see above). Common Slavic *Voje-slavъ, *Vojь-slavъ: Avestan Srūto.spāda-, Old Persian *Çuta-iauda-: Proto-Germanic *Hludā-wīƷaz, *Hludū-wīƷaz (see above).

4. INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS. CONCLUSIONS

4.1. Surveying the Slavic-Iranian lexical correspondences against the background of the related Baltic and Germanic data, we inevitably arrive at conclusions based on comparison of several series of sufficiently old compounds and (very rarely) affixal names. The nature of the comparison of nominal compounds is dictated by the degree of etymological proximity of their composition in different languages. First come dithematic lexemes in which both parts are genetically common to the vocabularies of the Slavs, Iranians, Balts, and Germanic peoples. These are genuine comparative-historical parallels. Thus, the genetic identity of both components is represented in: Common Slavic *bogo-slavъ ~ Iranian *baga-s̄rauah-; Common Slavic *dьlgo-slavъ ~ Iranian *darga-s̄rauah-; Common Slavic *gati-slavъ ~ Avestan gāu̯ā srāvayō; Common Slavic *kьrto-slavъ ~ Iranian *kṛta-s̄rauah-; Common Slavic *miro-slovъ, *miro-slavъ ~ Iranian *miθra-s̄rauah-; Common Slavic *prosi-slavъ ~ Avestan (pati-)paršta-sravah-; Common Slavic *pro-slavъ ~ Iranian *fra-s̄rūtah-; Common Slavic *slavo-borъ, *beri-slovъ, *boro-slavъ ~ Iranian *s̄rauah-bāra-; Common Slavic *slavo-danъ, *danъ-slavъ ~ Iranian *s̄raušā-data-; Common Slavic *slux-menъ ~ Avestan srao-man-; Common Slavic *sъ-slavъ ~ Iranian *hu-s̄rauah-; Common Slavic *vědo-slavъ ~ Avestan u̯idi-srāuah-; Common Slavic *vьse-slavъ, *vьse-slovъ ~ Avestan u̯ispa sravā. In second place are interlingual correspondences with the homogeneity of only one member of the two (the reflex of Indo-European *kleu-), while the position of the other in the compared compounds is represented by bases differing for the languages indicated

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

linguistically but similar in meaning. The following examples testify to the typological similarity of compound-building patterns with a fairly similar semantic contour: Common Slavic *borni-slavъ ~ Iranian *pāti-śrauah– (?); Common Slavic *dal’e-slavъ ~ Iranian *dūrai-śrauah-, *dobro-slavъ ~ Iranian *uahu-śrauah-, *uahu-śrūta-; *krajь-slavъ ~ Avestan daǰhu.srūta-; Common Slavic *něgo-slavъ or *sъpasi-slavъ ~ Avestan buǰa-srau uah-; Common Slavic *oto-slavъ ~ Avestan srūtat.faðrī-; Common Slavic *pravo-slavъ ~ Avestan ašəm.sravah-; Common Slavic *slavo-bogь (?) ~ Middle Persian srav-yazd; Common Slavic *slavo-darь, *daro-slavъ ~ Sogdian *srava-yāna- (?); Common Slavic *slavo-těxь ~ Iranian *śraua-śāti-; Common Slavic *voje-slavъ, *vojьb-slavъ ~ Avestan srūtō.spāda-, Old Persian *çuta-iauda-; Common Slavic *zъlo-slavъ ~ Iranian *duš-śrauah-.

Regardless of the degree of etymological congruence of the composition of the nominal compounds considered, the reconstructable semantics marks their belonging to the vocabulary of poetic (“high”) language as the basis of ancient formulaic expressions of legal, moral-ethical content and texts with religious significance. Such names are highly revealing in terms of the ancient lack of differentiation of linguistic means (words and formulaic word combinations) into elements of “legal” and “religious-ethical” speech, for they are closely intertwined, embodying cultural meanings characteristic of the archaic complex “religion – morality – law,” cf.: (‘famous [before] the gods’ or [‘with] glory [from] the gods’) Common Slavic *bogo-slavъ ~ Iranian *baga-śrauah or Common Slavic *slavo-bogь (?) ~ Middle Persian srav-yazd; (‘[renowned in battle (defense]’, ‘famous defender’) Common Slavic *borni-slavъ ~ Iranian *pāti-śrauah- (?); (‘widely known’) Common Slavic *dъlgo-slavъ ~ Iranian *darga-śrauah or Common Slavic *dal’e-slavъ ~ Iranian *dūrai-śrauah-; (‘famous throughout the country, land’) Common Slavic *krajь-slavъ ~ Avestan daǰhu.srūta-; (‘famous [thanks to/in] peace’, ‘Mithra’s glory – the deity of the peace treaty or ‘glory [thanks to] Mithra’) Common Slavic *miro-slovъ, *miro-slavъ ~ Iranian *miθra-śrauah-; (‘[whose] father is famous’) Common Slavic *oto-slavъ ~ Avestan srūtat.faðrī-; (the idea of glorifying the right, law, or else of fame through righteous deeds) Common Slavic *pravo-slavъ ~ Avestan ašəm.sravah-; (‘bearer of glory’ VS ‘bearer of words (commandments)’) Common Slavic *slavo-borь, *beri-slovъ, *boro-slavъ ~ Iranian *śrauah-bāra-; (‘gift of glory’ or [‘whose] glory is a gift’) Common Slavic *slavo-darь, *daro-slavъ ~ Sogdian *srava-yāna- (?); (‘comforted by glory’) Common Slavic *slavo-těxь ~ Iranian *śraua-śāti-; (‘[who has won] good fame’, ‘good-famed’, ‘renowned through goodness’) Common Slavic *sъ-slavъ ~ Iranian *hu-śrauah or Common Slavic *dobro-slavъ ~ Iranian *uahu-śrauah-, *uahu-śrūta-; (‘renowned through wisdom (= knowledge, vision)’) Common Slavic *vědo-slavъ ~ Avestan vīdi-sravah-; (‘[whose] army is famous’) Common Slavic *voje-slavъ, *vojьb-slavъ ~ Avestan srūtō.spāda-, Old Persian *çuta-iauda-; (‘famous in all respects’ VS ‘all words (commandments)’)

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *śraua-, *śraušā-, *śrūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

Common Slavic *ъvъse-slavъ, *ъvъse-slovъ ~ Avestan uīspa sravā; (‘ill-famed’) Common Slavic *zъlo-slavъ ~ Iranian *duš-śrauh-.

The analysis of the legacy of Slavic-Iranian language contacts cannot pass over another potential illustration of the “Slavo-Iranica” phenomenon. It concerns the old Slavic name Jasoslav (Czech. Jasoslav, Slovene. Jasoslav, Polish. Jasosław): the superficial obviousness of its composition leaves no doubt about the name’s Slavic genesis. It is literally interpreted as “Bright in glory” (“Jasný v sláve”) or “Light celebrating” (“Light celebrating”) (Rodná 2011), implying a connection with Slovak. jas ‘radiance, brilliance’. However, a more attentive view of the first part and the overall semantics of the compound dictated by it substantially undermines the initial confidence in such a combination. This interpretation appears anachronistic, being a straightforward view by a bearer of modern name-giving culture of a semantic complex formed in an era of different ideas underlying names—the embodiments of already-lost mythopoetic formulas. Of course, the “inadequacy to the spiritual situation of the Proto-Slavic era” (Toporov 2006: 74) can, to some extent, also be ascribed to other interpretations of the meaning of anthroponymic compounds, and therefore orientation toward jas cannot be definitively rejected. However, there seems to be a more convincing etymology of the name as an Iranian Slavicism *Jazo-slavъ – a “‘recoded’” Iranian *iāza(ta)-śraucah with *iaz- ‘to worship, revere’, ‘to perform sacrifices’ (cf. Avestan adj. daēva-yaz- ‘worshipping the daēva’; Bartholomae 1904: 671), *iāzata- ‘deity’ in the first part. That is, “[famous] thanks to the deity.” Cf. above the compound with the mirror-image arrangement of its parts: Middle Persian Srav-Yazd: (sr’ w)yzd’n. A similar situation is shown by the etymology of the name *Jasomirъ among the ancient Alpine Slavs: in it they discern *yazamir, *yazomir as the result of an inversion (through *yaza(ta)miθra) of Iranian *miθrayaz-, corresponding to the Avestan formula yazmiθrəm ‘to sacrifice to Mithra, to worship Mithra’ (Oguibenine 1979: 433–437; Топоров 2006: 39).

Possible illustrations of the process by which the Slavs reinterpreted and remodeled Iranian names built from material genetically common with the Slavic root vocabulary outline a separate aspect of the Slavo-Iranica problem. Its development provides an understanding of the degree of interaction between the two linguistic and cultural traditions, in which the boundaries between one’s own and the foreign, as perceived by the Slavs, proved blurred, making free use and “re-cutting” of material from the Iranian onomasticon, conceived as Slavic, possible. This was facilitated both by the material (phonetic) similarity and semantic doublet relationship of elements in the two lexical systems, and by the sum of common semantic principles

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

of combining words, as well as formulaic expressions corresponding to them. Here it is appropriate to expand the series of examples considered above *Jazoslavъ < Iranian *jāza(ta)-śrauah- (~ *śraua-jāzata-), *Jasomirъ < Iranian *jāza(ta)-miϑra- (~ *miϑra-jāza-) and *Kъrtoslavъ < Iranian *kṛta-śrauahwith such further examples: Serb. Одриво̄г < Western Middle Iranian *ādar-bag (~ Middle Persian Bay-Ādur) (Iliadi 2018: 56–57), Bulg. Въртивог < *uarϑa-baga- (~ *baga-uarϑa-) (Iliadi 2017: 6), Old Polish. Kord(e)bog < Alanian *Kard[a]-bay < Iranian *kṛta-baga- (~ *baga-kṛta-) (Iliadi 2021: 76–81).

Here we must emphasize a critically important criterion for dating Slavo-Iranica with Indo-European *ḱleu-. It concerns the distinctiveness of Alanian, where no such names exist, and this indicates that the period when the common elements of the Slavic-Iranian vocabulary (specifically, the type of compositum with *slau-: *śrauça-) of the “high” language were formed may have been the period of Slavic-Scythian / Sarmatian contacts. In particular, we appeal to: 1) the absence, in the known corpus of Alanian and Ossetian onomastics, of anthroponyms with reflexes of *śraua- (although Ossetian appellative usage has sut | sum ‘sound’, ‘noise’ < *srauta from *sraw-; Abaev 1979: 197–198); 2) the functioning in the Ossetian language, which continues the traditions of Alanian speech, of another word for glory and related concepts – a reflex of Iranian *kāta- (Abaev 1958: 565).

4.2. Unlike the strongly pronounced religious-moral and even legal semantics conveyed by the Iranian-Slavic parallels, the Slavic-Baltic ones lack such a burden. Because of the polarization of the etymon’s meaning “to speak VS to heed” in Slavic (‘a word transmitted orally’, ‘a wish that becomes known to others’) and Baltic (‘hearing’, ‘obedience’, ‘to listen attentively’), a strict comparison of compounds in the two languages is problematic even for examples with homogeneity of both parts. Cf. Common Slavic *Čě-slavъ (?) “What [a] glory!” ~ Lithuanian Kū́-klausas “What [a] hearing!”; Common Slavic *Na-slavъ “Na & an orally transmitted word” ~ Old Prussian Na-clusio “Na & hearing”; Common Slavic *Slavo-vidъ “Famous in appearance (form)” ~ Lithuanian Klaũs-vydas “[With] a silent (obedient) appearance”; Common Slavic *Želo-slavъ “Silo-slav”, “Swift-slav” ~ Lithuanian Klaũs-gailas, Old Prussian Clawsi-gaill “Renowned as fierce”. The same applies to the example Common Slavic *Bol’e-slavъ, *Mьnogo-slavъ “[With] greater, better glory”, “[May he be] more famous” ~ Old Prussian Tule-claus “[Possessing] better hearing”.

A more or less homogeneous picture of the meaning can probably be reconstructed only for: Common Slavic *Skrъbi-slavъ ~ Lithuanian Klaus-gēla “[Bearing] sorrowful hearing” (?); Common Slavic *Dě(jьb)-slavъ ~ Old Lithuanian Darbe-slave “Famous for deeds” and Common Slavic *Dobro-slavъ, *Bolgo-slavъ ~ Latvian Lab-slavis “Good-glory.”

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *sraua-, *srauša-, *srūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

Contrary to expectations, the series of Balto-Slavic parallels among dithematic names with Indo-European *ḱleu is represented by a small number of examples, uninformative with regard to the common cultural realities associated with the notion of glorification and renown among the people. Apparently, Slavic-Baltic linguistic interaction did not affect the sphere of these social values. Moreover, taking the observations into account, one must speak of the rudimentary nature of Indo-European *ḱleu in the system of formative elements for Baltic two-member anthroponyms.

4.3. Slavic-Germanic convergences among two-stem personal names are more numerous and more informative. The cultural meanings underlying them are tied to the glorification of diverse martial qualities of the warrior, so valuable in a society living by war. The names in this category contain certain terms of social structure (friend, guest), legal terms (possession), and references to survivals of totemism (wolf) as a religious-social system. Cf. (‘[in] defense renowned’, ‘renowned defender’) Common Slavic *Borni-slavъ ~ Old High German Flodo-ard; (‘famous for sharpness, ardor’) Common Slavic *Bьrzo-slavъ ~ Proto-Germanic *Hludа-swęnaz; (‘brave-famed’, ‘bravely renowned’) Common Slavic *Xorьo-slavъ ~ Old High German Clod-bald; (‘famous for [his] strength’, ‘[whose] strength is renowned’) Common Slavic *Jako-slavъ ~ Old High German Clhode-rich; (‘renowned for ferocity’) Common Slavic *L’uto-slavъ ~ Old High German Flot-grimmus; (‘friend of glory’, ‘[whose] friend is famous’) Common Slavic *Slavo-drugъ ~ Old High German Hlot-win, Hluđ-win; (‘famous guest’) Common Slavic *Slavo-gostь ~ Old Germanic Hlewa-gastiz; (‘[whose] peace (treaty) is renowned’) Common Slavic *Slavo-mirь ~ Old High German Lot-frid, Old English Hloth-frith; (‘intensification of the feature “famous”’) Common Slavic *Slavo-slavъ ~ Proto-Germanic *Hludа-mērijaz; (‘renowned for firmness, steadfastness’) Common Slavic *Tьvьrdo-slavъ ~ Frankish Hlud-hart, Old High German H̄lud-hart; (‘[whose] warriors are renowned’) Common Slavic *Voje-slavъ, *Vojьb-slavъ ~ Proto-Germanic *Hludа-wīzaz, *Hluđu-wīzaz; (the idea of renowned rule) Common Slavic *Voldi-slavъ ~ Old High German Clodo-wald; (‘[who has received] glory [from] the wolf’, ‘[renowned] thanks to the wolf’) Common Slavic *Vьlko-slavъ ~ Old High German Chlod-ulf.

Thus, two-member formations with composition homogeneous in Germanic and Slavic (Common Slavic *Slavo-gostь ~ Old Germanic Hlewa-gastiz; Common Slavic *Voldi-slavъ ~ Old High German Clodo-wald; Common Slavic *Vьlko-slavъ ~ Old High German Chlod-ulf), along with the other compounds, show the broad range of valency of the Indo-European etymon in the common Slavic-Germanic vocabulary. It is realized in the totality of patterns for combining *ḱleu with other bases, and these patterns developed under conditions of Slavic-Germanic language contacts. The difference between this layer of Slavic onomastics and that represented by the Slavo-Iranica examples, as in the case of the Balto-Slavic parallels, lies in

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

the “profane” nature of its semantics, its detachment from the semantic field of “religion.” This is an important indicator of the type of linguistic interaction oriented toward the realities of military life and the elements of poetic language associated with them. On the other hand, the vector of the “general” semantic design of Germanic compounds within the idea of renown and glorification brings them (unlike the Baltic examples) closer to the Slavic data through the semantics of the Indo-European perfect passive participle in –t- *klutos ‘renowned’, ‘famous’ used in Germanic nomenclature.

The few anthroponymic correspondences encompassing material from three groups of languages largely appeal to the typological similarity of the borrowed units and therefore can hardly be taken into account when constructing the configuration of ancient areal isoglosses as markers of prehistoric contacts.

ЛИТЕРАТУРА

Abaev Vasiliĭ I. 1958: Абаев, Василий И. Istoriko-ètimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka [Istoriko-ètimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka] 1, Москва, Ленинград: Издательство АН СССР [Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR].

Abaev Vasiliĭ I. 1979: Абаев, Василий И. Istoriko-ètimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka [Istoriko-ètimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka] 3, Москва, Ленинград: Наука [Moskva, Leningrad: Nauka].

Afanas’ev Aleksandr N. 1869: Афанасьев, Александр Н. Поэтические воззрения славян на природу. Опыт сравнительного изучения славянских преданий и верований в связи с мифическими сказаниями других родственных народов [Poètičeskie vozzrenija slavjan na prirodu. Opyt sravnitel’nogo izučenija slavjanskih predanij i verovanij v svjazi s mifičeskimi skazanijami drugih rodstvennyh narodov], Москва: Изд. К. Солдатенкова [Moskva: Izd. K. Soldatenkova].

Archiv 1915: Архив П. М. Строева [Archiv P. M. Stroeva] 1, под ред. С. Ф. Платонова, М. Г. Курдюмова [pod red. S. F. Platonova, M. G. Kurdjumova], Петроград: [б. и.] [Petrograd: (b. i.)].

Bartholomae Christian 1904: Altiranisches Wörterbuch, Lex 8°. XXXII, Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.

B lese Ernest 1929: Latviešu personu vārdu un uzvārdu studijas 1: Vecākie personu vārdi un uzvārdi (XIII–XVI g. s.), Rīga: Generalkomisijā pie A. Gulbja.

Bogoljubov Michail N., Smirnova Ol’ga I. 1963: Боголюбов, Михаил Н., Смирнова, Ольга И. Согдийские документы с горы Муг. Чтение. Перевод.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *sraua-, *srauša-, *srūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

Комментарий [Sogdiiskie dokumenty s gory Mug. Čtenie. Perevod. Kommentarii]. Выпуск [Vypusk] 3: Хозяйственные документы [Chozjajstvennye dokumenty], Москва: Издательство восточной литературы [Moskva: Izdatel’stvo vostočnoj literatury].

Bosanski Petrovac – Žrtve Rata 1941–1945. Available at: https://dokumen.tips/documents/bosanski-petrovac-zrtve-rata-1941–1945.html?page=76.

Cheung Johny 2007: Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series, 2, ed. A. Lubotsky, Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Codex 1854: Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae, Bd. 6, herausg. von P. Ritter v. Chlumecky, Brünn: Commission bei Nitsch & Grosse.

Dicționarul 1993: Dicționarul toponimic al României, vol. 1 (A–B), sub red. G. Bolocan, Craiova: Editura Universitaria.

D’jakonov Igor’ M., Livšić Vladimir A. 1960: Дьяконов, Игорь М., Лившиц, Владимир А. Документы из Нисы I в. до н. э. Предварительные итоги работы [Dokumenty iz Nisy I v. do n. e. Predvaritel’nye itogi raboty], Москва: Издательство восточной литературы [Moskva: Izdatel’stvo vostočnoj literatury].

Èdel’man Džoj I. 2015: Эдельман, Джой И. Этимологический словарь иранских языков [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ iranskich jazykov] 5, Москва: Восточная литература [Moskva: Vostočnaja literatura].

ESSJ II – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праславянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 2 (*bezъ – *bratrъ), под ред. О. Н. Трубачёва [pod red. O. N. Trubačёva], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1975.

ESSJ III – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праславянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 3 (*bratrъсъ – *сьrky), под ред. О. Н. Трубачёва [pod red. O. N. Trubačёva], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1976.

ESSJ IV – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праславянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 4 (*čaběniti – *děl’a), под ред. О. Н. Трубачёва [pod red. O. N. Trubačёva], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1977.

ESSJ V – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праславянский лексический фонд [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 5 (*dělo – *dьržьbь), под ред. О. Н. Трубачёва [pod red. O. N. Trubačёva], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1978.

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

ESSJ VI – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праслaвянский лексический фонд [Ětimologičeskij] slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 6 (*e – *golъva), под ред. O. H. Трубачёва [pod red. O. N. Trubačëva], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1979.

ESSJ VIII – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праслaвянский лексический фонд [Ětimologičeskij] slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 8 (*xa – *jьvъlga), под ред. O. H. Трубачёва [pod red. O. N. Trubačëva], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1981.

ESSJ XIX – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праслaвянский лексический фонд [Ětimologičeskij] slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 19 (*męsъarb – *morzakъ), под ред. O. H. Трубачёва [pod red. O. N. Trubačëva], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1992.

ESSJ XXI – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праслaвянский лексический фонд [Ětimologičeskij] slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 21 (*mъrskovatь – *nadějnъ(jь)), под ред. O. H. Трубачёва [pod red. O. N. Trubačëva], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1994.

ESSJ XXV – Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праслaвянский лексический фонд [Ětimologičeskij] slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond] 25 (*neroditi – *novotьnъ(jь)), под ред. O. H. Трубачёва [pod red. O. N. Trubačëva], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 1999.

Forssner Thorvald 1916: Continental-Germanic personal names in England in Old and Middle English times, Uppsala: Appelbergs Boktryck.

Förstemann Ernst W. 1856: Altdeutsches Namenbuch, Bd. 1: Personennamen, Nordhausen: Verlag von F. Förstemann [etc.].

Fraenkel Ernst 1962: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 1, Heidelberg, Göttingen: Carl Winter and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Franck Johannes 1909: Altfränkische Grammatik: Lautund Flexionslehre, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Gebauer Jan 1903: Slovník staročeský 1, Praha: Unie.

Gershevitch Ilya 1969: Amber at Persepolis. – Studia classica et orientalia Antonio Pagliaro Oblata, Roma: Aziende Tipografiche Eredi Dott. G. Bardi, 167–251.

Gharib Badrozaman 1995: Sogdian Dictionary: Sogdian–Persian–English, Tehran: Farhangан Publications.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *sraua-, *srausā-, *srūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

Gignoux Philippe 1986: Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. 2: Mitteliranische Personennamen, F. 2: Noms propres Sassanides en moyen-perse épigraphique, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Gignoux Philippe, Jullien Christelle, Jullien Florence 2009: Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. 7: Iranische Namen in semitischen Nebenüberlieferungen, F. 5: Noms propres syriaques d’origine iranienne, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Grantovskij Èdvin A. 2007: Грантовский, Эдвин А. Ранняя история иранских племён Передней Азии [Rannjaja istorija iranskich plemën Perednej Azii], изд. второе [izd. vtoroe], испр. и доп. Москва: Восточная литература [Moskva: Vostočnaja literatura].

Grković Milica 1977: Грковић Милица. Речник личних имена код срба [Rečnik ličnih imena kod srba], Београд: Вук Караџић [Beograd: Vuk Karadžić].

Harmatta János 1969: The Bactrian Wall-Inscriptions from Kara Tepe. – Буддийские пещеры Кара-Тепе в Старом Термезе [Buddijskie peščery Kara-Tepe v Starom Termeze], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka], 82–125.

Hinz Walther 1973: Neue Wege im Altpersischen, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Hinz Walther 1975: Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Ilčev Stefan 1969: Илчев Стефан. Речник на личните и фамилни имена у българите [Rečnik na ličnite i familni imena u bŭlgarite], София: БАН [Sofija: BAN].

Iliadi Alexander I. 2008: Іладі, Олександр І. Слов’янські мовні релікти в топонімії Балкан [Slovjans’ki movni relikty v toponimiji Balkan], Київ, Кіровоград: КОД [Kyjiv, Kirovograd: KOD].

Iliadi Alexander I. 2017: Илиади, Александр И. Этимологические заметки по славянской лексике [Ėtimologičeskie zametki po slavjanskoj leksike] 65–77. – Studia semasiologica, Кировоград: РВВ ЦДПУ ім. В. Винниченка [Kirovograd: RVV CDPU im. V. Vinničенка], 3–25.

Iliadi Alexander I. 2018: Serb. Odribog and Croat. Odribožić: Deceptively Trivial Form. – Paradigm of Knowledge 4(30), 53–64.

Iliadi Alexander I. 2021: Goth. Kandak, Croat. Skorsur, Old Pol. Bagakarad, Old Russ. *Валаасть and Their Alanian Prototypes. – Innovative Solutions in Modern Science 3(47), 70–87.

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

Iliadi Alexander I. 2022: Иліади, Александр И. Slavo-Iranica: Compound Words with Slav. *mysl-: Iran. *mana-, *mazda- (against Baltic Background). – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 87, 30–63.

Irkliëvs’kij Vasil’ 1968: Ірклієвський Василь. Наші імення, їх походження та значення [Naši imen|nja, jich pochodženńja ta značennja], Мюнхен: Iskra [Mjunchen: Iskra].

Justi Ferdinand 1895: Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg: N. G. Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Kollár Jan, Pačić Jan 1828: Gmenoslow čili Slownik osobných Gmen rozličných kmenů a nářečí národu Slawenského, Budjn: Tiskem kr. všeučilište Pěštanského.

Korduba Miron 1938: Кордуба Мирон. Що нам кажуть назви осель? [Ščo nam kažuť nazvi osel’?, Львів: Наша Батьківщина [L’viv: Naša Bat’kivščina].

Kos Franc 1886: Ob osebnih imenih pri starih Slovencih. – Letopis matice slovenske, Ljubljana: Narodna tiskarna, 107–151.

Kovačev Nikolaj P. 1987: Ковачев, Николай П. Честотно-тълковен речник на личните имена у българите [Čestotno-tălkoven rečnik na ličnite imena u bălgarite], София: Д-р Петър Берон [Sofija: D-r Petăr Beron].

Kozlova Raisa M. 1997: Козлова, Раиса М. Структура праславянского слова (Праславянское слово в генетическом гнезде) [Struktura praslavjanskogo slova (Praslavjanskoe slovo v genetičeskom gnezde)], Гомель: ГГУ [Gomel’: GGU].

Leksik 1976: Leksik prezimena Socijalističke Republike Hrvatske, Zagreb: Institut za jezik.

Livšić Vladimir A. 2010: Лившиц, Владимир А. Парфянская ономастика [Parfjanskaja onomastika], Санкт-Петербург: Петерб. лингвист. общество [Sankt-Peterburg: Peterb. lingvist. obščestvo].

Lurje Pavel B. 2010: Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. 2: Mitteliranische Personennamen, F. 8: Personal Names in Sogdian Texts, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Lurje Pavel B. 2017: Лурье, Павел Б. Пантеон согдийцев по материалам имён собственных [Panteon sogdijcev po materialam imën sobstvennych]. – Проблемы археологии и истории Таджикистана [Problemy archeologii i istorii Tadžikistana], Душанбе: Дониш [Dušanbe: Doniš], 123–131.

Mayrhofer Manfred 1973: Onomastica Persepolitana. Das altiranische Namengut der Persepolis-Täfelchen, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *śrau̯a-, *śraušā-, *śrūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

Mayrhofer Manfred 1979: Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. 1: Die altiranischen Namen, F. 1: Die avestischen Namen, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Majkov Apollon A. 1857: Майков, Аполлон А. История сербского языка по памятникам, писанным кирилицею, в связи с историей народа [Istorija serbskoga jezika po pamjatnikam, pisannym kiriliceju, v svjazi s istorijei naroda], Москва: Университетская типография [Moskva: Universitetskaja tipografija].

Maretić Tomislav 1886: O narodnim imenima i prezimenima u Hrvata i Srba. – Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 14(81), 81–146.

Mažiulis Vytautas 1996: Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 3 (L–P), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Mažiulis Vytautas 1997: Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas 4 (R–Z), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Mihajlović Velimir 2002: Михајловић Велимир. Српски презименик [Srpski prezimenik], Нови Сад: Аурора [Novi Sad: Aurora].

Miklosich Franz 1927: Die Bildung der slavischen Personenund Ortsnamen, Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Moroškin Michail J. 1867: Морошкин, Михаил Я. Славянский именослов или собрание славянских личных имен в алфавитном порядке [Slavljanskij imenoslov ili sobranie slavjanskich ličnych imen v alfavitnom porjadke], Санкт-Петербург: Тип. 2-го отд-ния собственной е. и. в. канцелярии [Sankt-Peterburg: Tip. 2-go otd-nija sobstvennoj e. i. v. kanceljarij].

Nyberg Henrik S. 1974: A Manual of Pahlavi, Part 2: Ideograms, Glossary, Abbreviations, Index, Grammatical Survey, Corrigenda to Part 1, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Nováček Vojtěch J. 1894: Listář k dějinám Školství Kutnohorského (1520–1623). Historický archiv 5, Praha: ČASU.

OA – Ономастический архив Института украинского языка НАН Украины (= Ономастičeskij archiv Instituta ukrainskogo jazyka NAN Ukrainy).

Oguibenine Boris 1979: Le Dieu Jazomir. – Wiener slavistischer Almanach, Bd. 4, 433–438.

Orel Vladimir 2003: A Handbook of Germanic Etymology, Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Ovsená Blažena 2014: Pátranie po tajných slovenských dejinách a slovenskom duchu, Trnava: Eko-konzult.

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

Petrov Aleksej 1924: Národopisná mapa Uher podle úředního lexikonu osad z roku 1773, Praha: ČAVU.

Pokorny Julius 1959: Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Bd. 1, Bern, München: A. Francke AG Verlag.

Rastorgueva Vera S., Èdelʹman Džoj I. 2007: Расторгуева, Вера С., Эдельман, Джой И. Этимологический словарь иранских языков [Ėtimologičeskij slovarʹ iranskih jazykov] 3, Москва: Восточная литература [Moskva: Vostočnaja literatura].

Rymut Kazimierz 1993: Zasób leksemów w prasłowiańskich imionach złożonych. – Onomastica 38, 5–19.

Rix Helmut 2001: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Rodná Cesta 2011: Časopis na obrodu rodnej kultúry, prírodného života a duchovna. Available at: https://www.ved.sk/RC.htm.

Schmitt Rüdiger 2009: Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. 7: Iranische Namen in Semitischen Nebenüberlieferungen, F. 1A: Iranische Personennamen in der Neuassyrischen Nebenüberlieferung, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Schmitt Rüdiger 2011: Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. 5: Iranische Namen in Nebenüberlieferungen Indogermanischer Sprachen, F. 5A: Iranische Personennamen in der griechischen Literatur vor Alexander D. Gr., Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Schmitt Rüdiger 2016: Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. 2: Mitteliranische Namen, F. 5: Personennamen in parthischen epigraphischen Quellen, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Schmitt Rüdiger, Vittmann Günter 2013: Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. 8: Iranische Namen in ägyptischer Nebenüberlieferung, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Schönfeld Moritz 1911: Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personenund Völkernamen, Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Searle William G. 1897–1897: Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum: a List of Anglo-Saxon Proper Names from the Time of Beda to that of King John, Cambridge: University Press.

Senkovskij Osip I. 1859: Сенковский, Осип И. (Барон Брамбеус) [(Baron Brambeus)] Собрание сочинений [Sobranie sočinenij] 7, Санкт-Петербург: Тип. Импер. Академии наук [Sankt-Peterburg: Tip. Imper. Akademii nauk].

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *sraua-, *sra ušā-, *šrūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

S i m s–W i l l i a m s N i c h o l a s 2010: Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. 2: Mitteliranische Personennamen, F. 7: Bactrian Personal Names, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

S k j æ r v ø P r o d s O. 2003: An Introduction to Young Avestan, 4th revised version, unpublished, available online. Available at: https://d11.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/866051/mod_resource/content/1/avestancomplete.pdf.

Slovar’ VI – Словарь русских народных говоров [Slovar’ russkikh narodnykh govorov] 6 (Выросток–Гон) [(Vyrostok–Gon)], ред. Ф. П. Сороколетов, Ф. П. Филин [red. F. P. Sorokoletov, F. P. Filin], Ленинград: Наука [Leningrad: Nauka], 1970.

Slovar’ XXXVIII – Словарь русских народных говоров [Slovar’ russkikh narodnykh govorov] 38 (Скинать–Сметушка) [(Skinat’–Smetuška)], гл. ред. Ф. П. Сороколетов [gl. red. F. P. Sorokoletov], Санкт-Петербург: Наука [Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka], 2004.

S ł o w n i k 2003: Słownik nazwisk używanych w Polsce na początku XXI wieku, red. K. Rymut, Kraków: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN (CD).

S m o c z y ń s k i W o j c i e c h 2019: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego, współpraca redakcyjna M. Osłon, wydanie drugie, poprawione i znacznie rozszerzone, na prawach rękopisu. Available at: www.rromanes.org/pub/alii/Smoczyński W. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego.pdf.

S o k o l o v S e r g e i N. 1964: Соколов, Сергей Н. Язык Авесты [Jazyk Avesty], Ленинград: ЛГУ [Leningrad: LGU].

S r e z n e v s k i j I z m a i l I. 1893: Срезневский, Измаил И. Материалы для словаря древнерусского языка по письменным памятникам [Materialy dlja Slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka po pis’mennym pamjatnikam] 1 (А–К), Санкт-Петербург: Тип. Императорской акад. наук [Sankt-Peterburg: Tip. Imperatorskoj akad. nauk].

S r e z n e v s k i j I z m a i l I. 1902: Срезневский, Измаил И. Материалы для словаря древнерусского языка по письменным памятникам [Materialy dlja Slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka po pis’mennym pamjatnikam] 2 (Л–П), Санкт-Петербург: Тип. Императорской акад. наук [Sankt-Peterburg: Tip. Imperatorskoj akad. nauk].

S r e z n e v s k i j I z m a i l I. 1912: Срезневский, Измаил И. Материалы для словаря древнерусского языка по письменным памятникам [Materialy dlja Slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka po pis’mennym pamjatnikam] 3 (Р–Я), Санкт-Петербург: Тип. Императорской акад. наук [Sankt-Peterburg: Tip. Imperatorskoj akad. nauk].

SSI – Stara izvirna slovenska imena (= Old Original Slovenian Names). Available at: https://www.raptas.si/stara-izvirna-slovenska-imena/.

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

SSNO I – Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych 1 (A–D), red. W. Taszycki, Wrocław: PAN, 1965.

SSNO III – Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych 3 (Kł–M), red. W. Taszycki, Wrocław: PAN, 1971.

SSNO IV – Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych 4 (N–R), red. W. Taszycki, Wrocław: PAN, 1974–1976.

SSNO V – Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych 5 (S–Ś), red. W. Taszycki, Wrocław: PAN, 1977–1978.

SSNO VI – Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych 6 (V–Ž), red. W. Taszycki, Wrocław: PAN, 1981.

Staltmane Velta Ė. 1981: Сталтмане, Велта Э. Latvijas антропонимия. Фамилии [Latyšskaja antroponimija. Familii], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka].

Stankovska Ljubica 2000: Станковска Љубица. Топонимијата на селото Рамно [Toponimijata na seloto Ramno]. – Македонски јазик [Makedonski jazık] 48–50 (1997–1999), 143–196.

Šmits Pēteris 1913: Smidts Pēteris. Par mūsu senču vārdiem. – Druva: daiļrakstniecības, zinātnes un mākslas mēnešraksts, 2. gads, pirmais pusgads, Rīgas Latviešu biedrības derīgu grāmatu nodaļa, atbild. red. T. Zeiferts, Rīga: Latvija, 123–125.

Tavernier Jan 2007: Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (Ca. 550–330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts, Orientalia Lovanieniensia Analecta, 158, Leuven, Paris, Dudley, Ma: Peeters Publishers.

Toporov Vladimir N. 1979: Топоров, Владимир Н. Прусский язык. Словарь [Prusskij jazyk. Slovarʹ] 2, Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka].

Toporov Vladimir N. 1984: Топоров, Владимир Н. Прусский язык. Словарь [Prusskij jazyk. Slovarʹ] 4, Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka].

Toporov Vladimir N. 2006: Топоров, Владимир Н. Праcлавянская культура в зеркале собственных имён (элемент *mir-) [Praslavjanskaja kul’tura v zerkale sobstvennych imën (ėlement *mir-)]. – Исследования по этимологии и семантике [Issledovanija po ėtimologii i semantike] 2/2, Москва: Языки славянской культуры [Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury], 11–141.

Toporova Tat’jana V. 1996: Топорова, Татьяна В. Культура в зеркале языка: древнегерманские двучленные имена собственные [Kul’tura v zerkale jazyka: drevnegermanskie dvučlennye imena sobstvennye], Москва: Языки русской культуры [Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury].

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Slavo-Iranica II: Compound Words with Slav. *slav-, *slux-: Iran. *śrau̯a-, *śraušā-, *śrūta- (against Baltic and Germanic Background)

Trautmann Reinhold 1974: Die altpreußischen Personennamen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Tupikov Nikolaj M. 1903: Тупиков, Николай М. Словарь древнерусских личных собственных имён [Slovar’ drevnerusskich ličnych sobstvennych imën], Санкт-Петербург: Тип. И. Н. Скороходова [Sankt-Peterburg: Tip. I. N. Skorochodova].

Vanagas Aleksandras, ed., 1985: Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas 1 (A–K), aut. A. Vanagas, V. Maciejauskienė, M. Razmukaitė, ats. red. A. Vanagas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Vanagas Aleksandras, ed., 1989: Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas 2 (L–Ž), aut. A. Vanagas, V. Maciejauskienė, M. Razmukaitė, ats. red. A. Vanagas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Vasil’jev Valerij L. 2012: Васильев, Валерий Л. Славянские топонимические древности Новгородской земли [Slavjanskie toponimičeskie drevnosti Novgorodskoj zemli], Москва: Рукописные памятники Древней Руси [Moskva: Rukopisnye pamjatniki Drevnej Rusi].

Vasmer Max 1986: Фасмер, Макс. Этимологический словарь русского языка [Etimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka] 2, Москва: Прогресс [Moskva: Progress].

Vedomost’ 1890: Ведомость справок о судимости [Vedomost’ spravok o sudimosti], ч. 1 [č. 1], кн. 5 [kn. 5], Санкт-Петербург: Тип. правительств. сената [Sankt-Peterburg: Tip. pravitel’stv. senata].

Wrede Ferdinand 1891: Über die Sprache der Ostgoten in Italien, Strassburg: K. J. Trübner.

Zaliznjak Andrej A. 2004: Зализняк, Андрей А. Древненовгородский диалект [Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt], Москва: Языки славянской культуры [Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury].

Straipsniai / Articles

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

Slavų–iranėnų kalbų kontaktai II: sudurtiniai žodžiai su slav. *slav-, *slux-: iran. *śrau̯a-, *śrauša-, *śrūta- (baltų ir germanų kalbų kontekste)

SANTRAUKA

Leksinės paradigmos turinio lyginamoji-istorinė analizė su indoeuropiečių etimono *kleyrefleksais iranėnų ir slavų kalbų žodynuose leidžia autoriui išskirti nemažai abiems kalbinėms kultūroms bendrų dūrinių. Iš tokių sudurtinių žodžių ypač dėmesį patraukia leksemos, kurių sudėtis (dvi dalys) abiejose kalbose yra vienoda, plg: Proto-Slav. *bogo-slavъ ~ Iran. *baga-śrau̯ah-; Proto-Slav. *dl̥go-slavъ ~ Iran. *darga-śrau̯ah-; Proto-Slav. *gāti-slavъ ~ Avest. gāθā śrau̯ō; Proto-Slav. *prosi-slavъ ~ Avest. (pati-)paršta-sravāh-; Proto-Slav. *pro-slavъ ~ Iran. *fra-śrūtah-; Proto-Slav. *sъ-slavъ ~ Iran. *hu-śrau̯ah-; Proto-Slav. *čědo-slavъ ~ Avest. vīδī-stravāhir kt. Straipsnyje kalbama apie bendrų naujovių, atsiradusių indoeuropiečių arealo „miškų“ ir „stepių“ dalių gyventojų kalbose artimiausių kultūrinių kontaktų sąlygomis, pėdsakus. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad tokie dūriniai dažnai yra pastoviųjų junginių „suglaudinimo“ rezultatas, darytina prielaida, kad iranėnams ir slavams bendras poetinis (apeiginis, teisinis) tekstas (jo vienetai) buvo sudurtinių žodžių susidarymo aplinka. Šis tekstas formavosi artimų ideologemų ir bendrų gretiminių kalbinių priemonių rinkinių pagrindu.

Baltų ir vokiečių kalbos atskleidžia svarbų „šlovingų vardų“ paradigmos raidos skirtumą: tai pasireiškia siauresniu jų semantikos spektru, palyginus su slavų-iranėnų kalbomis, ir viso susidariusių dūrinių genetinio sutapimo kiekyjo nereikšmingumu. Visa tai, kas pasakyta, leidžia daryti išvadą, kad keturių kalbinių tradicijų atstovų bendravimas buvo skirtingo kultūrinio lygmens ir visų žodyno sluoksnių nepaveikė.

Įteikta 2023 m. lapkričio 1 d.

ALEXANDER I. ILIADI

The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky” 65020, Ukraine, Odessa 34, Staroporotofrankivska Str. [email protected]

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIX

Document details