IRINA MIKHAILOVNA GANZHINA

Department of the Russian Language Tver State University

ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-5081-9693

Fields of research: historical onomastics, anthroponymy.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all85-08

ON THE DERIVATIONAL POTENTIAL OF CHRISTIAN PERSONAL NAMES IN MEDIEVAL BUSINESS WRITING

On the Derivational Potential of Christian Personal Names in Medieval Business Writing

ANNOTATION

The article examines the derivation of the territorial system of forms of Christian personal names recorded in the 16th^th–17^th century Tver business documents. The author focuses on the word-formation mechanisms that contributed to the appearance of numerous everyday forms of names. It is these structural transformations, coupled with phonetic changes, that form a unique anthroponymic “pattern” in any specific territory.

KEYWORDS: historical regional anthroponymy, Christian personal name, full name form, qualitative, formant, nominal nest, affix, invariant.

ANNOTATION

The article examines the emergence of a territorial system of Christian personal-name forms recorded in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Tver business documents. The author focuses primarily on word-formation mechanisms that contributed to the emergence of numerous colloquial name forms. It is precisely these structural transformations, together with phonetic changes, that constitute the unique anthroponymic “model” of any particular territory.

KEYWORDS: historical regional anthroponymy, Christian personal name, full name form, qualitative, formant, name nest, affix, (in)variant.

160

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

On the Derivational Potential of Christian Personal Names in Medieval Business Writing

INTRODUCTION

The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were an important period in the history of the Russian anthroponymic system, when the norms of the Russian national language were taking shape, and with them the anthroponymic norms. The basis of the national language was “the colloquial speech of Muscovite Rus’ in all its complex diversity […]—more substantial and determining than the traditions of the Church Slavonic literary language.” (Ларин 1944: 17). At the same time, historians of language note that an important characteristic feature of the formation of a national language is the organic convergence of previously opposed and separate systems of written and spoken language, their contamination (Ларин 1961: 25). A similar process of interaction between literary traditions and the spoken language, with the latter predominating, can also be observed in the anthroponymic system of the period under study.

The object of this study is Christian personal names and the numerous forms of them that arose in colloquial speech and were used in the territory of the Tver lands during the pre-national period.

The aim of the study is to describe the derivational possibilities of foreign-language Christian personal names in the Tver territory during the period of formation of the Russian national language, and their morphological and word-formation restructuring, which occurred in popular speech in both full and qualitative forms.

The sources of the study are regional written monuments of the pre-national period, namely business texts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (АФЗХ, ДК, КБП, НВЖМ, НМБМ, ПК, ПСЭИ, ТА, ТД, ТДП, ТПК, ЦБИ), which recorded a large number of different variants and forms of Christian personal names and reflected the living colloquial speech of the time when the basic anthroponymic norms—both official and colloquial-domestic—were taking shape.

RESEARCH METHODS

In the course of the study, methods traditional for onomastic research were applied: the descriptive method (including the collection of material, the sequence of description, its systematization, and characterization), as well as techniques of the formant method (identifying the formant of an anthroponym and establishing an onomastic series based on the identity of formants in personal names). In the sphere of morphoderivation, the methodology

Straipsniai / Articles

161

IRINA MIKHAILOVNA GANZHINA

of morphemic and word-formation analysis, as well as word-formation nesting, was employed.

ON THE DERIVATIONAL POTENTIAL OF CHRISTIAN PERSONAL NAMES IN MEDIEVAL BUSINESS WRITING

During the period under study, non-Christian onyms were displaced to the periphery, while the significantly predominant Christian personal names (CPNs) had already become well adapted to the Russian language both phonetically and in terms of word formation, and even partially semantically.

The materials of Tver business writing from this period allow us to speak of the exceptional richness of the word-formation possibilities of CPNs, which constitute a well-established system comprising a large number of both qualitative and various colloquial forms of full names. Let us examine what accounts for this richness.

The sheer variety of affixes is striking (it should be noted that more than 90% of Christian name derivatives are formed by suffixation), and these include almost all consonant sounds. For example:

Максем-ов-ко < Максим,

Самь-сылГ-а < Самсон,

Гри-ГД-я < Григорий,

Пен-юЙ < Пентелей < Пантелеймон,

Петр-ок < Петр,

Юр-Л-о < Юрий,

Савость-М-а < Савостьян < Севастиан,

Вах-оН-я < Вахромей < Варфоломей,

Степ-ур-а < Степан,

Леван-иС < Леонид / Леонтий,

Ин-юТ-а < Иннокентий,

Март-юХ-а < Мартин / Мартьян < Мартиниан,

Мат-щЦ-а < Матвей,

Фед-Ч-а < Фёдор,

Ефи-Ш < Ефим < Евфимий,

Кузьм-иЩ-е < Кузьма < Kosma, etc.

162

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

On the Derivational Potential of Christian Personal Names in Medieval Business Writing

At the same time, for ease of pronunciation, distinctive interfixes often arose at the morphemic boundary; all vowel phonemes of the Russian language could function as such, and thus many suffixes functioned in their variants: -ай-/-ей-/-уй, -ак-/-ик-/-ок-/-ук-/-ык-; -ел-/-ил-/-ол-/-ул-/-ыл-; -ан-/-ин-/-он-/-ун-; -ит-/-ут-/-ят-; -ец-/-иц-; -ач-/-ич; -аш-/-ош-/-уш-/-ыши др. Ср.:

МосЯПа < Мосей < Моисей, СамсЫПа < Самсон, МартЮТа < Мартын; ФедЯИ < Федор, МалЕЙ < Малафей (Малах) < Малахия, ПенЮЙ < Пентелей < Пантелеймон;

АксАК < Аксен(тей) < Авксентий, КостОК < Костентин < Константин, МитЮК < Митрей < Димитрий) / Митрофан, etc.

However, our material shows that not all suffixes were equally common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Thus, the -Би -Psuffixes are not attested in the documents; the -В-, -Г-, -Д-, -М-, -Р-, -Csuffixes are rare, whereas the -Й-, -Х-, -Šsuffixes, with their invariants, are sufficiently frequent, and the К-suffixes are exceptionally frequent and universal in many respects. Their combinatorial possibilities directly depended on the degree of productivity of these morphemes: two, and sometimes three, suffixes could be combined in one qualitative form, forming a single complex formant. Compare the complex variants based on -Šsuffixes:

-Ш-К(а, -о) (Горашка < Горасим < Герасим; Ефишка, Ефишко, Офишко < Евфимий; Игнашка, Игнашко < Игнатий, Поташко < Потап < Потапий);

-АШ-К-/-ЯШ-К(а,-о) (Дмитрашка < Димитрий, Коняшко < Конон; Лукашка < Лука / Лукиан; Петрашка < Петр);

-УШ-К-/-ЮШ-К(а,-о) (Евтюшка < Евтихий, Калушка < Каллиник, Макушка < Максим / Макарий, Митюшка < Митрей < Димитрий);

-Ш-АК (Даниак < Даниил, Кошак < Конон / Константин / Кондратий / Корнилий, Маншак < Мануил, Мишак < Михаил / Митрей < Димитрий / Митрофан / Мина / Мирон / Михей, Першаак < Перфилей < Порфирий);

-Ш-ИК (Анжик – probably *Аншик: in the texts, alternation between voiceless and voiced is not uncommon < Андрей / Андроник / Антипа / Антоний);

-Ш-УК (Ишук / Ешук < Иван / Илия, Лашук < Лахтион < Галактион / Лавр / Лаврентий / Лазарь, Лешук < Леонид / Алексей < Алексий);

-Ш-УК(а) (Mashuka < Manuel / Maxim / Macarius / Matthew);

-Ш-АН(я) (Mashanya < Manuel / Maxim / Macarius / Matthew);

-Ш-ЕН(я) (Tesh enya < Tikhon);

-Ш-ЕН(ь) (Тишень < Тихон, Пашень < Павел / Пахомий / Потапий, Фешень < Федор, Мишень < Михаил / Митрей < Димитрий / Митрофан / Мина / Мирон / Михей, Юшень < Юрий);

-Ш-ИН(я) (Gashnya < Gabriel);

Straipsniai / Articles

163

IRINA MIKHAILOVNA GANZHINA

-Ш-УН(я) (Гошуня < Гавриил); -Ш-УЙ (Кашуй < Конон / Каллиник / Константин); -Ш-АЙ (Кашай < Конон / Каллиник / Константин); -Ш-АР(а) (Кишара < Кирилл / Киприан / Кит < Тит); -Ш-УР (Вошур < Вохрамей < Варфоломей / Василий / Варлаам); -Ш-ИЦ(а) (Лещица < Лексей < Алексий); -Ш-УТ(а) (Вашута < Вохрамей < Варфоломей / Василий / Варлаам, Гашута < Гавриил, Гришутa < Григорий, Мишюта < Иван / Илия, Паршюта < Парамoн / Порфирий); -Ш-УТ / ЮТ-К(а) (Машютка < Мануил / Максим / Макарий / Матвей, Мишутка < Михаил / Митрей < Дмитрий / Митрофан / Мина / Мирон / Михей); -Ш-ЕН-К(а) (Мишенька < Михаил / Митрей < Дмитрий / Митрофан / Мина / Мирон / Михей); -Ш-УР-К(а) (Вашурка < Варфоломей / Василий / Варлаам).

At the same time, analysis shows that the productivity of individual formants often increased when the most frequent suffix, -К-, was added to them, always closing off most combinations—cf. also:

-УН-К(а) (Карпунка, Петрунка); -ИС-К(о) (Иваниско); -УЙ-К(а) (Петрушка); -ОВ-К(о) (Максемовко), and others.

Apparently, over time some of these sequences acquired the ability to function as a single word-formational element; however, judging from the materials of Middle Russian business writing, this was a lengthy process complicated by resegmentation, the mutual penetration of contacting morphemes, the loss of intermediate links in the word-formation chain, analogies, and formal-associative relations, which often led to homonymy in the sphere of nominal form formation. In the documents examined, which were official in character, unlike the modern colloquial language, forms with complex formants were few in number compared with those with simple formants, since double, and especially triple, suffixation, according to researchers’ observations, “mainly reflects an increase in expressive coloring” (Сальмон 2002: 53).

Moreover, the form of one and the same name (both full and qualitative) could be marked by different endings:

Елифepий, Олфepий, Олфpeй (Алфpeй), Олфep < Елефepий; Захарья, Захарей, (Зoxapей), Захар < Захария; Игнатий, Игнатей, Игнат < Игнатий;

164

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

On the Derivational Potential of Christian Personal Names in Medieval Business Writing

Еремей, Ерема ≤ Иеремия; Ларя, Ларь ≤ Ларион; Акиш (Окиш), Акиша ≤ Иакинф; Иванок (Ванок), Иванко (Иванько), Иванка (Ванка) ≤ Иван; Июда (Юда), Июд ≤ Иуда; Калина, Коленик (Колянник) ≤ Калинник; Карп, Карпа ≤ Карп; Кирей, Кур (Чюр), Чюран, Чюрик, Чюрак, Чюрка ≤ Кир / Кириан / Кирилл; Кирилл (Кирилл), Кирила, Кирило (Чурило, Чюрило) и т. д.

Interestingly, when foreign personal names entered the onomastic system of the Russian language, their recurring final parts (−ий, −ей, −ан, −а, −им, −он, −ия, etc.) came to be perceived as distinctive affixes, as a result of which the full forms of Christian personal names were often restructured through truncation, augmentation, or replacement of endings (see Ганжина 2013, 2015 for details).

As is evident even from the preceding examples, the diversity of nominal forms was also determined by the fact that suffixes, in the full variety of their variants, could be attached to different phonetic variants of colloquial, popular, and dialectal forms of baptismal names—cf. the name families: Иоаким ≥ Аким, Оким, Еким, Яким, Акиш, Окиш, Акиша, Екимко, Якимец, Якимка, Якимко; Иосиф ≥ Иосиф, ОсИф, Осип, Есип, Осипка, Осипко, Оська, Оска, Есипко, Еська, Еска, Есюк; Емелиан ≥ Емельян, Омельян, Амельян, Мельян, Омельянко, Омельянка, Омелька, Омелка, Омеля, Оменя, Амелка, Мелюша; Евсевий ≥ Евсевей, Евсивей, Овсевей, Евсей, Овсей, Осей, Евсевейко, Евсейошка, Евсеик, Овсейко, Овсяник, etc.

The generating stems for qualitatives themselves could be either full or shortened to varying degrees, which further diversified the anthroponymic picture. For example: Иван ≥ ИВАН-ец, ИВАН-ок, ИВАН-ко, ИВАН-ка, ИВАНЬ-ко, ИВАН-ус, ИВАН-иско, ИВАН-ик, ЕВАН-ча, ЯН-ка – ИВА-ши, ИВА-шко, ИВА-шка – И-шутa – ВАН-ка, ВАН-ок – ВА-жно, ВА-хоня; Конон ≥ КОНОН-ка, КОНОН-ко, КОНАН-ец – КОН-эй, КОН-яшка, КОН-яшко, КОН-ашко, КОН-ша – КО-ка, КО-шко, КО-шутa, КА-шутa; Димитрий ≥ ДМИТР-ок-ъ – МИТР-ох-а – МИТ-к-а – МИ-н-я; Юрий ≥ ЮР-к-а – Ю-ш-к-а; Алексей ≥ ОЛЕ-х-ъ, ОЛЕ-ши-а – ОЛ-ух-ъ – ЛЕ-ши-к-а, ЛЕ-ши-щу-а, etc. Thus, the extraordinary variegation and diversity of Christian personal-name forms in Old Russian arose through a combination of factors and depended

Straipsniai / Articles

165

IRINA MIKHAILOVNA GANZHINA

on the method of forming onyms, with their inflectional variation; on whether a suffix was added to a full or truncated name; on the varying degree of truncation of the stem of the same derived name; on the softness or hardness of the same truncated part of a name (cf.: Васка – Васька, Сенька – Сенька, Митка – Митька, etc.); on which variant of the personal name underlay the derived form: one close to the ecclesiastical form or the popular form in its various phonetic modifications (Герасимка – Горасимко; Никитка – Микитка; Матфейец – Матвейко; Титко – Китай; Лутьянко – Лукьянко; Осипко – Еска, and others).

CONCLUSIONS

The material examined convincingly demonstrates that the palette of names used in the past was considerably more vivid, diverse, and rich than in modern Russian, and that Christian personal names possessed a broad range of variation, both in full and qualitative forms. Taken together, they form a wholly unique anthroponymic pattern, with their own locally restricted name families. Therefore, developing regional anthroponymic word formation (taking into account the local morphonological phenomena accompanying word-formation processes) will help move toward resolving many problems that remain unsolved, such as the geography of personal names and their forms; the question of their social differentiation; their local, regional phonetic and morphological coloring; local diachronic morphonological phenomena accompanying word-formation processes; the question of which form of a Christian name individual qualitatives were formed from; the reconstruction of the original name in the group of so-called associative names; and others. And, of course, when studying anthroponyms from a diachronic perspective, we may expect etymological mysteries to be solved, since variants and forms of names that have fallen out of use, as well as derivatives formed from them, are recorded in numerous modern Russian surnames and thousands of oikonyms.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

АФЗХ – Zimin Aleksandr A. 1956: Acts of Feudal Landownership and хозяйство 2, ed. L. V. Cherepnin, Moscow: Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

166

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

On the Derivational Potential of Christian Personal Names in Medieval Business Writing

Ganzhina Irina M. 2013: Restructuring of Christian Personal Names in the Pre-National Period: Names Ending in –а, –ия. – Problems of Onomastics 2(15), 128–136.

Ganzhina Irina M. 2015: Restructuring of Christian Personal Names in the Pre-National Period: Names Ending in *-ō (–ъ, –о). – Problems of Onomastics (Problems of Onomastics) 1(18), 165–174.

ДК – The Survey Book of the City of Tver of 1616, ed. V. N. Storozhev, Tver: Printing House of the Provincial Administration, 1890.

КБП – Novgorod Land-Survey Books Published by the Archaeographic Commission 6, edited by P. I. Savvaitov, Saint Petersburg: Bezobrazov Printing House, 1910.

Larin Boris A. 1944: The Colloquial Speech of the Muscovite State in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries in Foreigners’ Records: Conference-paper theses at the session dedicated to the 125th anniversary of Leningrad University. – Leningrad, 1944.

Larin Boris A. 1961: The Initial Stage in the Formation of the Russian National Language. – The Spoken Language of Muscovite Rus’, Leningrad: Leningrad University Press, 22–34.

НВЖМ – Archive of the Novotorzhsky Convent of the Resurrection, Staritsa: I. P. Krylov Printing House, 1910.

НМБМ – Charters of the Novotorzhsky Men’s Borisoglebsky Monastery, Tver: Tver Scientific Archival Commission, 1903.

ПК – Land-Survey Books of the Muscovite State of the Sixteenth Century 1, ed. N. V. Kalachev, Saint Petersburg: Publication of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society, 1877.

ПСЭИ – Monuments of the Socioeconomic History of the Muscovite State, Fourteenth–Seventeenth Centuries 1, ed. S. B. Veselovsky, A. I. Yakovlev, Moscow: Publishing House of the Central Archive of the RSFSR, 1929.

Salmon Laura 2002: The Personal Name in the Russian Language: Semiotics, Pragmatics of Translation, Moscow: Indrik.

ТА – Tver Acts Published by the Tver Scientific Archival Commission, issue 1: Acts of 1506–1647, ed. S. Shumakov, Tver: Printing House of the Provincial Administration, 1896–1897.

ТД – Storozhev Vasily N. 1893: The Tver Nobility of the Seventeenth Century, issue 2, Tver: Tver Scientific Archival Commission.

ТДП – Bondarchuk Natalya S., Kuznetsova Roza D. 1986: Tver Business Writing of the Seventeenth–Eighteenth Centuries, Kalinin: KSU.

Straipsniai / Articles

167

IRINA MIKHAILOVNA GANZHINA

ТПК – The Toropets Land-Survey Book of 1540. – Archaeographic Yearbook for 1963, Moscow, 1964.

ЦБИ – Materials for the Church and Everyday History of the Tver Region in the Fifteenth–Sixteenth Centuries 2, ed. M. Rubtsov, Staritsa: I. N. Krylov Printing House, 1905.

On the Derivational Potential of Christian Personal Names in Medieval Business Writing

SUMMARY

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the norms of the Russian national language, and simultaneously its anthroponymic norms, were actively formed on the basis of the spoken language. Until that time, foreign-language Christian personal names had been widely used; at the phonetic, word-formation, and even partly semantic levels, they were adapted to Russian. The business-writing material from Tver dating to this period testifies to the broadest derivational possibilities of Christian personal names in spoken language. The article analyzes the reasons that led to such an exceptional diversity of both full and qualitative name forms:

1) a great variety of suffixes, including almost all consonants of the Russian language; 2) the emergence in many formants of distinctive interfixes represented by various vowels—thus, most suffixes had their own variants; 3) the ability of suffixes to combine with one another and the formation of complex formants; 4) the possibility of adding suffixes to various popular phonetic variants—to both the full and shortened stem of the original name; 5) even the same name root (base) could have a different final part and accordingly belong to different paradigmatic classes.

The entire system of Christian personal names in the pre-national period was much more pronounced, diverse, and rich than in contemporary Russian. Research into regional anthroponymic derivation will bring us closer to solving many still-unresolved anthroponymic problems.

Received September 31, 2021.

IRINA MIKHAILOVNA GANZHINA

Department of the Russian Language Tver State University Tchaikovsky str. 70, Tver, 170002, Russia [email protected]

168

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV