HARALD BICHLMEIER Saxon Academy of Sciences in Leipzig Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg

Fields of research: onomastics (toponymy), historical phonology of the Germanic languages, Indo-European linguistics, Aljamiado-texts.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all84-09

NOTES ON SOME LITHUANIAN WATER NAMES BEGINNING WITH AN AND THEIR NON-BALTIC RELATIVES

Notes on several Lithuanian hydronyms beginning with An and their relatives of non-Baltic origin

ANNOTATION

The Lithuanian hydronyms of the type Anatà, Anykštė etc. are traditionally traced back to an Indo-European root “*en/*on” (in modern notation Proto-Indo-European *h₁en(H)-), to which the meaning ‘to flow, river’ is often attributed. This root is not even recorded in Pokorny’s Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (1959). Since then, too, it has not been possible to demonstrate this root beyond doubt in the appellative vocabulary of any Indo-European language. Moreover, there is so far no unambiguous evidence for continuants of this root in the onymic vocabulary: all the names cited as arguments can either, because they derive from Celtic languages, go back to a Proto-Indo-European root *pen-/*pon- ‘marsh, (standing) water’, or be explained on the basis of Proto-Indo-European *h₂en- ‘to draw (water)’. The methodological tool ‘Occam’s razor’ dictates that no more than these two roots be posited as long as there is no unambiguous appellative evidence for a Proto-Indo-European root *h₁en(H)-, which alone would make it possible to assign a meaning to the root.

190

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Notes on some Lithuanian hydronyms beginning with An and their non-Baltic relatives

KEYWORDS: Lithuanian hydronyms, Celtic hydronyms, Germanic hydronyms, Indo-European phonology, Indo-European methodology, Occam’s razor.

ANNOTATION

The Lithuanian hydronyms of the type Anatà, Anýkštė etc. have traditionally been explained on the basis of a root PIE “*en/*on” (in modern writing PIE *h₁en(H)-), which has standardly been given the meaning ‘flow, river’ vel sim. This root cannot even be found in Pokorny’s Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [Indo-European Etymological Dictionary] (1959). Not even since then have researchers succeeded in documenting that root in the appellative lexicon of any of the Indo-European languages without doubt. Moreover, there aren’t even any sure continuations of that root in the onymic lexicons of those languages. All names put forward as arguments can either be explained based on a root PIE *pen-/*pon- ‘swamp, (standing) water’ (because they are Celtic) or from a root PIE *h₂en- ‘haul (water)’. The application of the methodological means called ‘Occam’s razor’ leaves us no other possibility but to explain all regarding names from these two roots – as long as no proof of an appellative use of a root PIE *h₁en(H)- can be offered, which moreover might finally give us a hint, what that root might have meant.

KEYWORDS: Lithuanian hydronyms, Celtic hydronyms, Germanic hydronyms, Indo-European Phonology, methodology in Indo-European linguistics, Occam’s razor.

1. INTRODUCTION^¹

The subject of the following discussion is, on the one hand, the etymologies of several Lithuanian hydronyms such as Anatà, Anýkštė or the place name Anýkščiai, which can be traced back to a hydronym. On the other hand, fundamental considerations concerning historical-comparative linguistics and general scientific methodology (or methodics) will also be presented. The reason for this is the effects of applying or not applying both of these with regard to the etymologization of the hydronyms mentioned, as well as of the name of the river Inn (in Switzerland, Austria, and Germany).

^¹ I cordially thank the two anonymous reviewers of the contribution for various suggestions, including references to literature that I had previously overlooked.

Straipsniai / Articles

191

HARALD BICHLMEIER

It remains important always to have ‘Occam’s razor’^² at hand: if one forgets to pack it—and, when necessary, to use it as well—one will no longer be able to keep the (root-)overgrowth, and thus arbitrariness, under control.

2. HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP

Indo-European studies is a field of scholarship that has grown over a good 200 years. Within the field, a fairly broad consensus has emerged concerning what it is and how it works^³. This broad consensus concerns all areas of the proto-language to be reconstructed, which is usually called Proto-Indo-European. Discussion within Indo-European studies proceeds on the basis of what is regarded as established and generally recognized on the basis of this broad consensus. For specialists within the field, the partially non-consensual parts of the system may provide an incentive to make further progress here and find solutions to unresolved problems; for the majority of Indo-Europeanists, the goal is presumably to advance in their area of specialization on the basis of this broad consensus and to explain what remains unexplained.

This consensus concerning this explanatory model (for the most important points, see below) has emerged above all because this model is capable of explaining more things than the other models presented to date.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. In what follows, the argumentation will proceed from the following characteristics of Proto-Indo-European, which are broadly consensual within Indo-European studies and are also codified, for example, in the introductions mentioned above:

^² “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.” (Wilhelm von Ockham 1288–1347), approximately: “One should not assume more units/entities than are necessary.”

^³ This is evidenced by the introductions to the field that have appeared over the past good 25 years and that show virtually no differences in the central areas at issue here: Mayrhofer 1986 (newly edited in Lindner 2012), Lehmann 1993; Adrados, Bernabé, Mendoza 1995; 2010; Tichy 2001; Meier-Brügger 2002; 2003; 2010; Fortson 2004; 2009; Tichy 2006; 2009; Clackson 2007; Mallory, Adams 2006; Bičovský 2012; 2017; Fritz, Meier-Brügger 2020. The same applies to various introductions and similar works on individual languages; cf. Rix 1992; Weiss 2009; Smoczyński 2016; Weiss 2020 etc.

192

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Anmerkungen zu einigen mit Anbeginnenden litauischen Gewässernamen und ihren außerbaltischen Verwandten

There was a phoneme class of laryngeals, and in all likelihood it consisted of three elements.

There was no phoneme class of tenuis aspiratae; ultimately, these arose either as allophones of the tenues in the position after Proto-Indo-European *s or before *h^₂ (‘Laryngeal 2’), and probably occur at most (secondarily) in onomatopoeia and expressives.

There was no Proto-Indo-European *b ‘thorn’ as a phoneme; rather, this too is merely an allophone of *t. Etc. etc.^⁴.

The root is assumed to have the minimal structure KVK, at least for verbal roots (and nominal roots). This need not necessarily have applied to pronouns and particles, and some Indo-Europeanists also deny that these word classes possessed the minimal structure KVK (as, for example, implicitly throughout LIPP and explicitly in LIPP 1: 31, 236f.).

One consequence of the points mentioned above is, among other things, that roots which, for example, were posited as vowel-initial in Pokorny’s Indogermanischen etymologischen Wörterbuch of 1959 (compiled on the basis of the prewar state of Indo-European studies) are (or should be) posited with an initial laryngeal^⁵. Under certain circumstances, this has relevant consequences for the reconstruction of words (and thus also names) that must be taken into account—and it will affect precisely the names (name families) to be discussed below.

3.2. In the present context, this concerns the root (Proto-)Indo-European “*en/*on-”, repeatedly and readily posited in the context of onomastics, especially in studies of ‘Old European hydronymy’ and related fields, which is supposed to have meant ‘flow’ or something similar. On the basis of the explanations just given, in this form and in the context of modern Indo-European studies it is an ‘un-root’, that is, a root that can never have existed in this form at that linguistic stage.

Whether this is not simply a ‘phantom root’ overall, even when it is posited, as is customary in Indo-European studies today, as Proto-Indo-European *h_₁en(H)-, will be clarified below.

^⁴ Cf. fundamentally in this journal already Bichlmeier 2012.

^⁵ That this is not entirely implausible is shown—if not at the phonological, then at least at the phonetic level—by Modern High German. Here there are no genuinely vowel-initial words (or lexical morphemes): all words classified phonologically as vowel-initial in fact begin phonetically with the so-called ‘glottal stop’ [ʔ–]. That this is an important insight is shown by minimal pairs familiar from children’s jokes, such as Blumento-pferde as [bluːməntʰoˌpfeːɐ̯də] vs. Blumentopf-erde [ˈbluːməntʰɔpfˌʔeːɐ̯də].

Straipsniai / Articles

193

HARALD BICHLMEIER

In any event, it has so far not been possible to demonstrate this root in the appellative vocabulary without contradiction—a fact also indicated by the circumstance that such a root is not even entered in IEW, which outside the proper field of Indo-European studies is otherwise often cited as a reference source in onomastics (cf. IEW 311ff., 778).

3.3. Particularly in onomastic research on the oldest name layers in Europe, investigations conducted on the basis of outdated knowledge—that is, investigations that do not use the aforementioned consensual current explanatory model of Indo-European studies—are still widespread. One aim of the present work is also to scrutinize and question the results of such works using the means of the consensual explanatory model of modern Indo-European studies.

4. THE BALTIC NAMES AND THE PROBLEM

4.1. In this context, Baltic hydronyms beginning with Lith., Latv. An must first be considered, that is, names going back to Proto-Baltic *an- (< Late Proto-Indo-European *an-, *on-). The main candidates here are the names of flowing waters Anykštà f. Anykštė f., the lake name Anykštis m., further the meadow name Anatà f. (incorrectly classified as a hydronym by Udolph 2020: 350), and the dehydronymic place name Anykščiai (cf. LVŽ 1: 88f., 102, based on Vanagas 1970: 151f., 1981: 42).

If corresponding names beginning with Lith. On-, Latv. Ān existed, they would (provided they existed and were not derived from the personal name Lith. Onà ‘Anna’; cf. Vanagas 1981: 234) theoretically go back to Proto-Baltic *ān-, which could either be an inner-Baltic secondary lengthened grade of *an- or would have to go back to another PIE root, *h₁eh₂n-. A Late PIE lengthened grade *ōn-, on the other hand, would yield Latv. on- [uon-], Lith. uon- (which is not attested at all in hydronyms; cf. Vanagas 1981: 353). For Slavic, one must reckon with Late PIE *an-, *on- → Slavic On- (the Russian hydronym Onut, for example, is mentioned in this context) and Late PIE *ān, *ōn- → Slavic An-.

4.2. There is no connection whatsoever in the appellative vocabulary of those languages for either the aforementioned Baltic hydronyms or the Slavic hydronyms.

4.3. Since, moreover, it has so far not even been remotely possible to demonstrate the existence in the appellative vocabulary of a PIE root *h₁en(H)- (in the outdated notation simply “*en/*on”) (see §§ 4.5.5., 5.2., 5.3. below), it is also methodologically impermissible, if one wishes to work rigorously, to posit this root (in its

194

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Anmerkungen zu einigen mit Anbeginnenden litauischen Gewässernamen und ihren außerbaltischen Verwandten

o-grade form *h₁on[H-] for the Baltic and Slavic hydronyms.

4.4. For the Late PIE *an to be posited in the Baltic and Slavic hydronyms, a preform from the perspective of present-day Indo-European studies could in principle be a PIE preform *h₂en(H)- (possibly also *h₁/h₂/h₃an(H)-); for Late PIE *on there are several potential preforms: PIE *h₁/h₂/h₃on(H)- or *h₃en(H). Of all these potential preforms, only two are actually attested as verbal roots, namely PIE *h₂en- ‘scoop’ (LIV² 266) and PIE *h₂enH- ‘breathe’ (LIV² 266)—to which must be added the root PIE *h₂enH- ‘ancestor’, which, on semantic grounds in the present context, is excluded just as is PIE *h₂enH- ‘breathe’ (cf. Hitt. ḫanna- ‘grandmother’ and OHG ana f. ‘id.’ etc.).^⁶

4.5. Thus only PIE *h₂en- ‘scoop’ remains. If one does not wish to arbitrarily trace the forms with Proto-Baltic *an- (> Lith. An-, Latv. An-) and Proto-Slavic *an- (> Common Slavic *on- > Russ. On-) back to two roots—and thus ignore Ockham’s razor—PIE *h₂en- is the only securely attested appellative root that can be considered as the basis for the Baltic and Slavic hydronyms and must therefore be posited. For a PIE root *h₁en(H)-, there is again no evidence here in the Baltic and Slavic onymic domain: there are no hydronyms with Baltic/Slavic En- that would have to be traced back to it (cf. LVŽ 2: 484ff.^⁷); an appellative continuant is even less evident.

It is, of course, a fact that the PIE root *h₂en- ‘scoop’ is securely attested appellatively only in Anatolian, in the Hittite verb ḫān-i/ḫan- ‘scoop (water)’^⁸, to which the derivative DUGhaness̄ar c. ‘scooping vessel’ also belongs, and perhaps in Arm. hanem ‘take out/away, bring out, seize’^⁹ and perhaps also in the etymologically disputed Greek ἄντλος m. ‘bilge water, water in the keel’ (if < *h₂n̥-tlo- ‘what is scooped’?)^¹⁰.

4.6. In this context, the manner in which Udolph (2020: 360) quotes his teacher W. P. Schmid is noteworthy:

“W. P. Schmid discusses the Greek word in greater detail [what is meant is ἄντλος ‘bilge water’; H. B.]...and convincingly concludes that, first of all, it was a particular

⁶ Vgl. EWAhd 1: 215–217 (ana²); HEG 1: 147f.; EDHIL 285.

⁷ According to the imprint, Udolph was one of the reviewers of this volume.

⁸ Vgl. HEG 1: 144f., 148; EDHIL 281f.

⁹ Cf. ED AIL 389, 636f.; unless < PIE *senh₂-.

¹⁰ Cf. GEW 1: 114 (with an older etymology, generally rejected today, based on PIE *semh₂- ‘to draw water’; DÉLG 89, 1272 (additionally with an etymology from Gk. ἀν(α)- + PIE *telh₂- ‘to raise’; GED 1: 109 (connection with Hitt. ḫanu, citing Benveniste 1954: 39).

Straipsniai / Articles

195

HARALD BICHLMEIER

kind of water. He then proceeds to the hydronyms Inn, Ahne, Anner, Anykščiai and others already discussed by me in this contribution,... and concludes “that *en is indeed attested here alongside *pen-... Ultimately, one has either a root *₁en or a root *₂en with the meaning ‘to flow, river’, which may also be related to Hittite ḫan- ‘to draw water’.”

In the cited passage, however, Schmid’s text reads somewhat differently (Schmid 1988: 311 = 1994: 408), particularly the qualification made at the beginning of the original text is important and was greatly shortened and somewhat reworded by Udolph:

“Within an area for which Celtic naming must be assumed, it will not be possible to decide whether *en or *pen should be posited.... The ἄντλος can also be connected with this root *en-/*on-...” Without entering here into the laryngeal problems that might possibly lead to a separation of Celtic en- from other an- here, one obtains either a root *₁en or a root *₂en with the meaning ‘to flow, river’, which may also be close to Hittite ḫan-, ‘to draw water’, if one can bridge the difference in meaning by assuming a derivation with the aid of root ablaut...”

4.7. Here too it becomes clear that Schmid’s critical to rejecting attitude toward laryngeal theory blocked his path to a solution and led to ultimately incorrect proposals, although he could have indicated the actually correct path. As early as the time when Schmid’s article was written, it was generally recognized in Indo-European studies that Hitt. *ḫanni could never go back to “a root *₁en-,” but exclusively to “a root *₂en-,” that is, PIE *h₂en. It remains unclear, however, what Schmid meant by the final subordinate clause no longer quoted by Udolph: The meaning of a root does not change with the ablaut grade.

4.8. Udolph’s further comment on this is likewise revealing and shows his unfamiliarity with Indo-Europeanist literature: “The connection proposed by W. P. Schmid between Hitt. ḫan and Greek [supplied: ἄντλος] was also considered in LIV: 266 without knowledge of this contribution.” Knowledge of this contribution was simply irrelevant for LIV² in this context, since Schmid (1988), compared with the works by Benveniste from 1954 and HEG 1: 144f. (1977/1983) cited by him, added nothing new here, but merely abridged or continued these older works.

^¹¹ Which, in light of the above remarks, is simply false and, morphonologically, already in 1988 could at most have been justified through additional assumptions even on the outdated state of research at which Schmid worked.

^¹² This argumentatively important part of the sentence is absent from Udolph’s quotation.

196

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Anmerkungen zu einigen mit Anbeginnenden litauischen Gewässernamen und ihren außerbaltischen Verwandten

5. THE EXTRA-BALTIC MATERIAL

Most of the extra-Baltic material is presented in the latest publication on the name of the river Inn (Udolph 2020). Here – although the name of the Inn may possibly be even a pre-Celtic, that is, Old European/pre-individual-language Indo-European/(Proto-)Indo-European name – the rules of Indo-European linguistics cited above in § 3 are disregarded.

His aim is to stifle more recent insights into the etymology of that river name with a multitude of purported examples and pseudo-arguments, discussing the matter at a level long outdated in Indo-European linguistics.

In connection with the river name Inn, that contribution discusses, alongside the Baltic/Slavic hydronyms already examined above, the following etymological families/nests, which will subsequently be investigated in order to determine whether or not they belong together.

a) the name Inn itself, b) Middle Irish appellatives such as en ‘water’, enach ‘marsh’, enbrithe ‘broth’, and englas ‘watery milk’, c) the name of the Enns, mir. an ‘river’, etc. d) some German hydronyms. The individual points are as follows:

5.1. The name Inn itself

Wiesinger and Greule (2019: 104) provide the following ancient attestations: Aeni fluminis [Tacitus], τοῦ Αἴνου ποταμοῦ [Ptolemy], Ἔνος [Arrian]. These permit the reconstruction of a pre-Roman stem *Eno-. In the view of the overwhelming majority of researchers, this is either a Celtic name or a Celticized name.

In Wiesinger, Greule (2019: 122), Wiesinger explains (with regard to Innbach, “popularly die Inn”):

“The name of the Inn, like the name of the great Inn,..., goes back to the same Indo-European root *pen- ‘mud, marsh, water’ (see there). Here, however, Celtic formation with *enin Middle Irish en ‘water’, enach ‘marsh’, and englas ‘watery milk’ (IEW, p. 807) is plausible insofar as the derivative ona [sic], as *Enonā, is characteristic of Celtic.”

At the same time, in the same book by Wiesinger one reads (Wiesinger, Greule 2019: 47):

Straipsniai / Articles

197

HARALD BICHLMEIER

“Although there is Middle Irish en ‘water’, its origin is questionable, and it is more reasonable to assume an Indo-European protoform formation with Indo-European *pen- ‘mud, swamp, water’ and p-loss during Celticization.”

The explanation given by Greule in Wiesinger, Greule (2019: 104) appears rather far-fetched:

“The further etymology is unclear. Since Middle Irish en ‘water’ may have been transferred deonymically from the name of the Inn into Insular Celtic, this appellative (Middle Irish en) appears questionable as the etymon of the watercourse name, …”^¹³

This explanation is already found in DGNB 243: What would a medieval Irishman have known about the Inn, which at that time lay several weeks’ journey away? How could an appellative have arisen from the name of this river?

There also seems to have been a stem form *en-io: Greule (2015: 341), for example, writes “< Celtic *Enjos, Medieval Latin Enus”; something similar is also found in Anreiter, Chapman, Rampl (2009: 16): “*Enios, i.e. Celticized *Penios ← Indo-European *pen- ‘slowly flowing water’”.

In this connection, Greule (2010: 21) and DGNB 243 also mention the distinction, perhaps original and based on Pokorny’s works (1948–1949 and 1950/51), that the form “Enos originally referred to the lower course, *Enios to the upper course of the river (in the Alps), and *En-i is a Romance extension of the stem *Eno”.

The question of the actual stem form, or whether there were two forms existing side by side, cannot be resolved here^¹⁴.

In both cases, the underlying root may be either pre-Celtic *pen- < Proto-Indo-European *pen- ‘mud, swamp’, possibly also ‘slowly flowing water’^¹⁵.

¹³ Similar remarks concerning the deonymic origin of hydronyms can occasionally also be found in older literature with regard to the Elbe: This is at least a truly conspicuous and long river (the same would apply to the Rhine and the Danube), but even in these cases the author considers such claims unproven to date (see, on the Elbe and its etymology, for example, Bichlmeier 2012a; Bichlmeier, Blažek 2015; Scheungraber, Grünzweig 2014: 43–46, each with further literature).

¹⁴ For Inn, see also the following works: For evidence concerning the river name, see, for example, ANB 553–555 (Inn), 556f. (Inntal), Anreiter 1996: 62 and Borchers 2006: 26–28; on the history of the Inntal, Heitmeier 2005; further, on the etymology, Anreiter, Haslinger, Jenewein 1995: 23; Grzega 2001: 169; Anreiter 2005: 36f. (likewise already Anreiter 1996: 62–64); Anreiter 2008: 148; Delamarre 2012: 149; EDPC 127; DTNG 1: 328; explicitly on the methodology of determining the linguistic stage at which the name of the Inn was coined, and on the doubts warranted regarding the etymology, see Anreiter 1997: 18f., 127f. Thus, with reference to the “dubious Celtic character,” the name of the Inn is no longer treated at all in Anreiter 2016 (see Anreiter 2016: 7).

¹⁵ Thus, for example, Anreiter, Chapman, Rampl 2009: 16: “*Enios, i.e. Celticized *Penios ← Indo-European *pen- ‘slowly flowing water’.”

198

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Notes on some Lithuanian hydronyms beginning with An and their non-Baltic relatives

or ‘standing water’ is possible, since, as is well known, word-initial pre-vocalic Proto-Indo-European *p- (probably via *φ-) disappears in Celtic. This is one of the sound changes constitutive of Celtic as a separate Indo-European language family. It is hardly plausible that the root Proto-Indo-European *pen- ‘feed, nourish’ (otherwise continued unambiguously only in Lithuanian and Latin) could underlie this, or that it could even be cognate in origin with the one meaning ‘swamp, (standing) water’, etc.

Alternatively, one may assume that Celtic or Celticized *en-o continues Proto-Celtic/Pre-Celtic *en- < Proto-Indo-European *h₁en- (in principle, *h₁enH would also be conceivable). However, as already mentioned above, such a root is recorded neither in LIV² nor in IEW (311ff.).

5.2. Four Middle Irish appellatives: en ‘water’, enach ‘swamp’, enbruithe ‘broth’, and englas ‘watery milk’

While Middle Irish en ‘water’ is merely a gloss, the other three words also appear in texts^¹⁹.

Ultimately, for these four words, which are to be traced back to Proto-Celtic *(φ)en-o or *(φ)en-āko- (likewise EDPC 127, only there written *feno-, *fenāko-), the same possibilities arise as for reconstructing *(φ)en-o with regard to the name Inn: an attested and fitting Proto-Indo-European *pen- ‘mud, swamp, standing water’ (cf. Old High German fenni n., fennī f., Middle High German venne, Modern High German Fenn, etc.)^²⁰, an attested but unsuitable *pen- ‘nourish, feed’, or an otherwise unattested and thus fundamentally semantically indeterminable Proto-Indo-European *h₁en(H).

¹⁶ Cf. LatEW 2: 280–283; DÉLL 496; EDLIL 458f.; LitEW 1: 569; EDBIL 350f.; ALEW 2: 755f.; SEJL 449f.; LED 3: 941f.; SEJL² (2018–2020a) s.v. penéti.

¹⁷ Cf. LIV² 471; IEW 807.

¹⁸ Cf. DGNB 243; Bichlmeier 2018: 58: „The further considerations put forward by Greule (2014 [= DGNB; H. B.]: 243), such as that the appellative Middle Irish en ‘water’ arose from the river name Enos through deonymization, or that the root Proto-Indo-European *pen- ‘mud, swamp, (standing) water’ found here must ultimately be connected with, or is identical to, the root Proto-Indo-European *pen- ‘feed, nourish’ (otherwise continued unambiguously only in Lithuanian and Latin), must, however, be judged a matter of belief or purely speculative.“

¹⁹ Cf. eDIL s.vv. en¹, enach, enbruithe, englas.

²⁰ Cf. EWAhd 3: 152–154.

Straipsniai / Articles

199

HARALD BICHＬMEIER

If one now takes Occam’s razor in hand, this evidentiary situation means nothing other than that one should trace the name of the river Inn and the related words—unless new lexical material emerges that renders the considerations made above obsolete—to the root *pen- ‘marsh, mud, stagnant/slowly flowing water’, which is otherwise well attested in Indo-European. No further root is needed.

Since there are thus evidently no appellatives that unambiguously (and exclusively) require this root analysis, Proto-Indo-European *h₁en(H)-, even if this root should indeed have existed in purely onymic material, one could not assign any meaning to this root, since, as is well known, names do not mean anything but merely refer.

If, then, one believes that this (presumed) root can be identified in hydronyms, one would consequently have de facto free choice in assigning a meaning: Possible semantic domains from which roots ‘embedded’ in hydronyms of the oldest strata may derive include, for example, material, colour/appearance, and (measurable) properties (depth, speed, etc.). A potentially Proto-Indo-European root *h₁en(H)-, not attested in the appellative vocabulary to date but embedded in a hydronym, could consequently mean ‘water’, ‘run’, ‘flow’, ‘fast’, ‘green’, ‘blue’, ‘bright’, ‘shine’, ‘deep’, ‘shallow’, ‘cold’, ‘warm’, etc. Selecting one meaning among these possibilities is pure arbitrariness.

5.3. The Name of the River Enns

5.3.1. The name of the Austrian river Enns is traditionally traced back to pre-Roman *Anis-o/ā-; several Late Antique and (Early) Medieval attestations of the forms Anisus, Anesus, Anesa are found. The spelling with a geminate is a recent phenomenon. In the context of etymologising this hydronym, reference is often also made to Gaulish anam glossed as paludem, which comes from Endlicher’s glossary, transmitted in several manuscripts (the oldest dated to AD 796)²¹. The reliability of this glossary is assessed very differently because of numerous corrupt passages. It may not even be a real word, but rather a misinterpretation of a suffix –anum²². The same glossary contains

21 See Toorians 2008, with further literature, and Blom 2011, with further literature.

22 See DLG²/DLG³ 43f.; Toorians 2008: 173f.; Blom 2011: 161, 167, 174.

200

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Anmerkungen zu einigen mit Anbeginnenden litauischen Gewässernamen und ihren außerbaltischen Verwandten

also the entry onno glossed as flumen, for which it is likewise doubted that it is an actual word, and it has been considered that here, on the basis of a misinterpretation of Gaulish hydronyms, –onna was interpreted as the second member of a compound. If, however, this were a younger form of Gaulish unna ‘water’, this form would in any case have to be kept separate from Gaulish anam, Old Irish an, en, since it would then go back to a pre-Celtic preform. *ud-nāgoes back to^²³.

More rarely, the glossed word Old Irish an ‘water, urine’^²⁴ is also mentioned. And ultimately, according to the general view, the place name Anif (near Salzburg) belongs here as well; it is generally explained from Celtic/Gaulish *an-apā (cf. HELSON 1: 7f.)—although it remains quite questionable what *apā is or could be here: one would be reluctant to posit an “apa-name” so far to the south—and if it is one after all, it was probably adopted into Gaulish/Northern Alpine Celtic only very late, namely presumably only after Proto-Celtic *kʷ had already become Gaulish *p. Or one must assume a process also attested in Old Irish, namely that foreign *p, when no Celtic /p/ initially corresponds to it during the integration of the name, is substituted by /kʷ/ and then develops like native inherited *kʷ. There is agreement, in any case, that Celtic did not continue Proto-Indo-European *h₂eḱu̯- ‘(flowing) water’ (> Latin aqu-a, Proto-Germanic *axʷ-ō). Nor can Proto-Indo-European *h₂ep- (in the outdated notation “*ap-”) be present here, since in that case *-apa could not occur in Celtic. Udolph’s (2020: 349) conjecture is wholly implausible that in the name “beside Indo-European *ap- ‘water, river’, Celtic *anos ‘river’ is to be suspected, belonging to Indo-European *pen-/pon-/pṇ- ‘mud, swamp, water’.” Wiesinger’s explanation in Wiesinger, Greule (2019: 166) is practically identical to this. Is a Celtic–Indo-European mixed name therefore supposed to be involved? The explanation in HELSON (1: 8) is less unambiguous, where one reads: “Celtic *ánapa ‘swamp water’ (apa-name, composed of Continental Celtic *anos ‘river, swamp’ and *apa ‘water’)”, whereby Continental Celtic seems to have been assumed here as the linguistic stage for “*apa”—or else an imprecise formulation was chosen and the presentation is in fact identical to that of Udolph and Wiesinger, Greule.

5.3.2. Both (or all three) of the forms mentioned above (Old Irish an, Gaulish anam, Anisa, -us) go back to Proto-Celtic *(φ)an(-ā)-. An explanation from older *(φ)en-āand the operation of Joseph’s rule is ruled out (thus EDPC 127): For while

^²³ Cf. DLG²/DLG³ 48, 242, 324; Toorians 2008: 175f.; Blom 2011: 161, 167, 175.

^²⁴ Cf. eDIL s.v. an²; the lexeme may also occur as the first member of a compound in Old Irish onchú ‘otter’, literally ‘water-hound’, with the second member air. cú ‘dog’ (cf. eDIL s.v. onchú). – For the etymology cf. LEIA A-71f.

Straipsniai / Articles

201

HARALD BICHLMEIER

For Proto-Celtic, although one can certainly reckon with a development from early Proto-Celtic *KeRaC- > to Proto-Celtic/Common Celtic *KaRaK (Joseph 1982: passim, esp. 45, 55, EDPC 8), such assimilation did not in fact occur in the sequence Proto-Celtic *Kerā(K)# (Joseph 1982: 55), as Old Irish ben ‘woman’ < Proto-Celtic *benā < pre-Celtic *gᵘen-ā < Proto-Indo-European *gᵘen-eh₂ demonstrates.

5.3.3. Consequently, *an must be explained differently²⁵. Wiesinger (in Wiesinger, Greule 2019: 118f.) does not really make a decision here when, on p. 119 of the same work, without analyzing the complete form including the suffix, he writes: “It is of Celtic origin and is based on Gaulish anam ‘moor, swamp’ from Indo-European *pen-/pon-/pṇ- ‘moor, swamp, water’ (IEW, p. 807) with Celtic loss of p.”

5.3.3.1. It is clear that Proto-Indo-European *pṇ can yield Proto-Celtic *an—but actually only in the position before a laryngeal, since before a vowel the phonotactically regular reflex *pṇ-V would have to occur, meaning that Proto-Celtic *(φ)ṇV would be expected as the result. A sound explanation for this circumstance is still lacking; EDPC 127 considers a derivation from Proto-Indo-European *pṇ-Ho-, possibly *pṇ-h₃o- (compare Proto-Indo-European *h₂ep-h₃on- > Proto-Celtic *abon-; nominative pre-Celtic *abō(n) > Proto-Celtic *abū > Old Irish aub ‘river’), but itself calls this derivational possibility ad hoc. Of course, such a root shape can also arise analogically at any time, following cases in which derivatives of other roots ending in Proto-Indo-European *-n(H)- occur in corresponding word forms that require the zero grade.

5.3.3.2. Thus, even starting from a Proto-Indo-European root *h₁en(H)- in its zero-grade form *h₁n̥(H)-, one would arrive at Proto-Celtic *an- (cf. Proto-Indo-European *h₁n̥éh₃-me/on, *h₁n̥h₃-me/on- ‘name’ > Proto-Celtic *anman- [starting from the form *h₁n̥h₃-me/on-] > Old Irish ainm)²⁶. The stem formation would, however, remain problematic: Proto-Indo-European *h₁n̥(H)-o/eh₂- would have to be posited, an extremely unusual structure for which parallels in the hydronymy of the older language strata are so far lacking.

5.3.4. Regardless of the final explanation of Gaulish anam and Old Irish an, these forms, like Old Irish en, enach above, are not evidence for the existence of a root *h₁en(H)-, since the forms can also be explained as deriving from Proto-Indo-European *pen-.

It should be pointed out that, if one decides to regard the Proto-Indo-European root *h₂en- (in its full-grade form) also as the basis of Enns < Anisa,

²⁵ Villar (2000: 329–331) takes a completely different line of reasoning, ultimately attributing to the root *an-, which occurs primarily in hydronyms (among others in Spain), the meaning ‘river’ and positing a word of Mediterranean origin. Here too, no proof of the correctness or necessity of this semantic approach is provided by an unequivocal appellative attestation.

²⁶ Cf. EDPC 38 (with a different root analysis), LEIA A–36f.

202

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Anmerkungen zu einigen mit Anbeginnenden litauischen Gewässernamen und ihren außerbaltischen Verwandten

Anisus, it seems reasonable to assume that the problem associated with the zero-grade realization of the root *pen in the traditional derivation of these Celtic names and appellatives would likewise dissolve into nothing.

5.3.5. The Irish hydronyms “hOn^²⁷, Onach” additionally introduced into the discussion by Udolph (2020: 354) likewise do not independently support a root *h₁en(H)- at the o-grade, that is, *h₁on(H)-, but may equally continue *ponor also *h₂on (this root is discussed in greater detail below).

5.3.6. In addition, attention must be drawn to the problem of the suffix *-iso-, *-isā: this is ordinarily encountered in Germanic hydronyms, where theoretically it may either go back to a secondarily thematic comparative form with the zero-grade suffix PIE *-is, or to a secondarily thematic full-grade suffix of an s-stem, that is, PIE *-es-o/eh₂-. For a purely Celtic name, only the comparative solution would initially be possible—unless one assumes that a Celtic extended s-stem such as *an-es-ā simply became, either through regular sound change or analogical change, sooner or later Proto-Germanic/Pre-Germanic *an-is-ō upon or after its adoption into Germanic/Pre-Germanic—which is not improbable, but cannot be proven on the basis of the available material. Derivations with a Late PIE suffix *-so/āfrom an i-stem, that is, *-i-so/ā-., would theoretically be conceivable but still more difficult to substantiate.

5.3.7. Ultimately, the substance of the above discussion is already found—albeit much more briefly—in Bichlmeier (2012a: 376; this quotation will be revisited below in the summary), where it reads:

“But at this point it should once again be pointed out with complete clarity that the best-known of the phantom roots haunting onomastics is undoubtedly the root *en-/on-, which is supposed to mean ‘flow’. In my opinion, rightly, this is not

²⁷ This approach remains incomprehensible: the river can only be called On; the h appears only after the masculine article or (if necessary) after a preposition (friendly information from Stefan Zimmer). Moreover, this could in any case be a ghost name: in Hogan 1910 the name is not attested; there we find only Onach twice.”

²⁸ The preservation of this Proto-Germanic *-s remains conspicuous here and cannot yet be regarded as fully explained, since in Proto-Indo-European there were neither any types of s-stems nor comparatives in which the accent consistently fell on the suffix and thus before the *-s, so that it would have remained preserved even after Verner’s Law had operated (see, on s-stems, Stüber 2002 passim, esp. 19–30; Höfler 2012: 20–27, as well as Hartmann 2012 as a position opposing the communis opinio). By contrast, the ‘normal’ development is shown, for example, in the plural forms of old s-stems: Nom. Pl. PIE *-es-os > Proto-Germanic *-ez-az > West Germanic *-iz > Old High German -ir > Middle High German, Modern High German er. Thus, some kind of paradigmatic leveling must have operated.

Straipsniai / Articles

203

HARALD BICHLMEIER

It is not found even once in the IEW! All hydronyms or appellatives claimed for this root either originate in Celtic languages or are at least suspected of Celtic mediation, such as, for example, Mir. an ‘river’, Gaul. anam ‘paludem’, Inn,²⁹ so that initial *p must have been lost and, in all probability, all these attestations should instead be associated with the root *pen- ‘marsh’ or the like, which is also found appellatively in the landscape name Pannonia and, for example, in Germanic (cf. Old High German fenni n., fennî f., Middle High German venne, Modern High German Fenn, etc.).³⁰”

However, this passage has apparently not yet been (substantially) taken up by onomastics.

5.4. Some German hydronyms

In the discussion in Udolph 2020, several German hydronyms are also mentioned that, geographically speaking, may be partly of Celtic or Germanic origin and partly of solely Germanic origin.

5.4.1. These names need not be examined individually here. Most of them, such as Ahne, Ohne, Unna, etc., have earliest attestations with An-, Un-, partly with gemination, that is, Ann-, Unn-. All these names, which are probably of solely Germanic origin, can be traced back to a root form Proto-Germanic *an- or *un- (as Udolph himself writes several times), and can therefore also go back to Pre-Proto-Germanic *an- < PIE *h₂en(H)- or Proto-Germanic *un- < PIE *h₂n̥(H)- and have been further formed with corresponding suffixes. This applies, if one believes Udolph believes (this has neither been proven nor stated by him anywhere), that Unstrut is a name form *Unstr- remodeled after the field names with strut ‘brushwood’ (the literature he cites certainly says something else) both for this name and for the Baltic river name Inster (with In- < Old Baltic *ink- < Pre-Old Baltic *Hn̥(H)K-)—thus also Udolph (2020: 359f.) correctly with regard to the sound development.

Furthermore, some attestations of names of the type Ohne (likewise according to Udolph ibid.) point to an old long vowel in the attestations, which must either go back to Germanic *au, in which case such forms would have to be excluded from the discussion altogether, or to Proto-Germanic *ō, which would then point to Pre-Proto-Germanic *ā or *ō. Consequently, these forms too do not require positing PIE *h₁en(H)-. They may perhaps represent lengthened grades formed only within Germanic, or alternatively PIE *h₂ōn- may underlie them, although this of course

²⁹ Cf. Bichlmeier 2010: 32f. with further literature.

³⁰ Cf. EWAhd 3: 152–154.

204

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Anmerkungen zu einigen mit Anbeginnenden litauischen Gewässernamen und ihren außerbaltischen Verwandten

a root form that would first still need to be justified morphologically and that, overall, is not attested particularly frequently.

All this leads to the following conclusion: All the Germanic hydronyms cited above do not necessitate positing a root *h₁en(H)-, and thus prove nothing for Krahe’s or Udolph’s “*en-/*on-”.

5.4.2. The only potentially conclusive evidence would be provided by hydronyms demonstrably beginning with Proto-/West Germanic *enanlaufen. Udolph now also cites several hydronyms beginning with German Enor I(h)n. These will be discussed individually here:

5.4.2.1. Udolph (2020: 351f.) cites the following names here: First Ober-Ense, Unter-Ense, Nieder-Ense, Ensen, a place name Annezin (on the Pas-de-Calais). These are traced by Udolph himself and, where applicable, by DGNB to *Anisa/ō—so once again they prove nothing for Proto-Indo-European *h₁en(H)-, since there is no Germanic *en.

5.4.2.2. Ennest, Welschenennest, Enste are explicitly traced to an o-grade form, and the geminate is explained through West Germanic consonant gemination caused by *i̯. Thus, a Proto-Germanic preform *an-ia-sta or similar is implicitly assumed. The form therefore likewise does not provide Proto-Germanic *en- < *h₁en(H)-.

5.4.2.3. Ennepe (river name: 1235 Enrepe, 1325 Enepe; place name: 1285 de Enepene, 1398 Enepe) has not been securely clarified etymologically, since it is also uncertain whether the geminate is ancient. Udolph does not comment on this, but appears to assume an etymology *en-apa (without explicitly citing this form), whereas DGNB 128 initially cautiously considers a connection with Gaulish anam, but ultimately tends to derive it from *Anipa < *ania-apa rather than from an apa-name with “(m.) *ania- (collective ‘favorable location’?)”. Greule writes, in any case, that the geminate is not ancient, so that it cannot be assumed to derive from *enna- < *ania. The meaning of the implicit *en-apa would thus probably be ‘flowing river’, ‘flowing water’. The etymology appears anything but successful; nevertheless, this might perhaps constitute a first attestation of actual Germanic *en.

However, the river lies in the Germanic-Celtic transition zone (see map), so a Celtic etymology cannot be entirely ruled out. And if, following Udolph, who cites HELSON (1: 7f.), Anif (see above) is based on *An-apa, which is probably Celtic, this could ultimately also apply to En(n)epe < *En-apa (which Udolph also cites together), especially since Celtic also securely attests Proto-Celtic *(φ)en in Middle Irish en, enach, etc.

5.4.2.4. It turns out that, consequently, the desired unequivocality could not in fact be achieved.

Straipsniai / Articles

205

HARALD BICHLMEIER

Fig. 1, map from Schumacher (2007: 169)

5.4.3. Finally, a series of hydronyms or place names must be discussed that either likewise show German E(h)n or begin with Ihn or Ein and are cited by Udolph (2020: 352f.) as arguments.

5.4.3.1. For the place name Ehnen (Luxembourg), the place name Ihn (Saarland), together with the associated Ihner Bach, an explanation from Celtic *Eniō/ā- is traditionally assumed, and Udolph (2020: 352f.) likewise does not reject this possibility. Since a Celtic etymology parallel to that of the river name Inn thus appears to be present, these names are ruled out as evidence for positing a Proto-Indo-European root *h₁én(H)-

5.4.3.2. For the Westphalian place name Ihne, the detoponymic hydronym Ihne-Bach in Westphalia, and probably also the Eine (→ Wipper

206

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Notes on some Lithuanian hydronyms beginning with An and their non-Baltic relatives

→ Saale → Regnitz → Main), the oldest attestations show, in the former case, 1461 Eene, 16th c. Ehene, and in the latter, 1321 Ena, Ene (Udolph gives two different forms of the same attestation in two passages). Celtic origin can certainly be ruled out for the Westphalian name; for the Wipper tributary Eine it is unlikely, although according to the map cited above, this area would probably still lie at the extreme edge of the transition zone. The derivation rejected by Udolph, but in any case expressed only cautiously, in DGNB (117, 238) from Old High German *Aginaha > *Eina (Eine) > *Ēne (Eene, Ehene) > Ihne (Eine would thus have become fixed at an earlier stage of development than in the case of Ihne) would be phonetically impeccable, but the assumption of a personal name Old High German *Ago, Gen. *Agin in the first element remains problematic.

Udolph cites Schmidt (1970: 54) here as his authority, who, in an argument that from today’s perspective is already almost circular, writes according to Udolph:

“If one wishes to consider the hydronyms Inn < *Enios and Ihne, Eine < *Ena(na) as related, then, since Celtic name formation is excluded, the only remaining assumption is that of an Indo-European root *en- (*on-) with an unspecified (water-related) meaning, which is still appellatively attested in the Celtic common nouns.”

5.4.3.3. After the above, however, it is clear that this too is a mistaken assessment, since Celtic en, enach etc. are precisely not evidence for Proto-Indo-European *h₁en(H)-. And whether or not one combines different etyma has nothing to do with a researcher’s will (or belief), but with whether scientific standards permit it.

It would be important to mention here other cases with Germanic *e in the first open syllable, which would, for example, corroborate the sound development posited for the hydronyms mentioned above in the respective regions where the rivers are located.

5.4.3.4. In this context, attention should also be drawn to the names of two watercourses not mentioned by Udolph in his discussion:

a) Ehe (also Ehe­bach; → Aisch → Regnitz → Main), 1073 Eha, 1479, 1481 Ee (DGNB 114);

b) Ehn (in Alsace, → Ill → Rhine), 1284 enahe (for ehena?), 1374–1401 in the Ahen, place name Niederehnheim (11th c. Ahenheim, 1050 Ehenheim), Oberehnheim (788 in Ehin­haim) (DGNB 115).

For the former, a Proto-Germanic preform *axʷiō may be considered (DGNB: “Germanic *Ahwō f.”), while for the latter DGNB posits a “basic form (Old High German) *Ehina alongside *Ahana (?) < Germanic *Ahwinō f. alongside *Ahwanō, n-derivation from Germanic *ahwō ‘watercourse’.” And can one completely rule out that such an “(Old High German) *Ehina” underlies the aforementioned *Eina?

5.4.4. In this connection, Udolph’s comments (2020: 362) should briefly be addressed, namely that one must know the material if

Straipsniai / Articles

207

HARALD BICHLMEIER

If one wishes to make statements about the etymology of names: After the above discussion, it should have become clear that the situation is somewhat different: It is certainly good if one can present 100 pieces of evidence instead of 10, but if these pieces of evidence introduce no new elements into the discussion that could ultimately alter its outcome, the question arises: Why?

More important than citing 90 additional but superfluous pieces of evidence for the discussion is surely mastering the necessary methodology for analyzing the material.

Nor does it achieve anything to provide masses of quotations from literature that is now outdated (Krahe, W. P. Schmid, etc.) and that appear to support one’s own argument, if its contents and foundations have long since—partly for decades—become obsolete. This then has only historiographical value, but brings no progress to research.

5.5. Interim result

Overall, after reviewing the names put forward as evidence, one must conclude that the number of (in any case only reasonably) secure attestations for Germanic *en- < Proto-Indo-European “*en–/(*on–)” or *h_₁en(H)– appears to amount to at most two.

In view of this evidentiary situation, and even more because this Proto-Indo-European “*en–/*on–” or *h₁en(H)– is nowhere clearly attested in the appellative lexicon (as noted, not even Pokorny included it in his IEW), it simply seems inappropriate to continue working with such a root.

6. SUMMARY

6.1. One is faced with the problem that one must either explain the Baltic and Slavic hydronyms on the basis of a verbal root apparently otherwise unattested in Europe, which nevertheless has at least a semantic connection with water/liquid, or explain them on the basis of a root nowhere securely attested in the appellative lexicon and consequently incapable of being assigned even a meaning.

6.2. The use of Occam’s razor compels the following conclusion given the current state of the data:

208

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Anmerkungen zu einigen mit Anbeginnenden litauischen Gewässernamen und ihren außerbaltischen Verwandten

A root *pen- is securely attested as an appellative; likewise, a root *h₂en- is securely attested as an appellative—what is not securely attested as an appellative, however, is a root *h₁en(H).

6.3. This follows from the following points:

6.3.1. The name of the river Inn can be traced back to *pen, as can mir. en, enach etc.

6.3.2. The names of the rivers Enns and Ense < (*)Anisa, (*)Anisus can likewise be traced back to mir. an, Gaul. anam, to *pₙ or *h₂en.

6.3.3. The Baltic hydronyms beginning with An and the Slavic hydronyms beginning with On can all be explained from Proto-Baltic/Proto-Slavic *an- < Proto-Indo-European *h₂en.

6.3.4. Practically all the Germanic/German hydronyms discussed, with the (nota bene possible, unproven!) exception of two name etyma (one of the two could also be Celtic, while the other could have a different etymology from the one traditionally assumed), can be explained from Proto-Germanic *an- (< Proto-Indo-European *h₂en or *h₂on-), or Proto-Germanic *un- (< Proto-Indo-European *h₂n-), or Proto-Germanic *ōn- (< Proto-Indo-European *h₂ōn-), or derive from Proto-Germanic *aun and are in any case unrelated.

6.3.5. Consequently, there is no reason to posit any root *h₁en(H)- (in the obsolete notation: “*en-/*on-”): given the current state of knowledge and the currently known body of material, the probability that such a root exists is zero.

6.4. Consequently, one may continue to assert (indeed, must say) that—until fundamentally new material emerges proving the existence of a Proto-Indo-European root *h₁en(H)- with a semantics suitable also for the naming of flowing waters—Proto-Indo-European “*en-/*on-” is simply a phantom root.

With the exception of two not entirely unambiguously clarified cases among German hydronyms, all hydronyms cited by Udolph 2020 can be explained without contradiction on the basis of the roots *h₂en and *pen, which are otherwise also attested as appellatives:

Tertia radix non datur.

6.5. Here too, one might argue that linguistic material could still emerge requiring the positing of a root *h₁en(H)-. That is unlikely.

In conclusion, after all the points presented above, one may probably say that the quotation from Bichlmeier (2012a: 376) incriminated by Udolph (2020: 362) at the end of his contribution may still be regarded, indeed must be regarded, as correct in a slightly expanded form:

Straipsniai / Articles

209

HARALD BICHLMEIER

“All water names or appellatives claimed for this root [meaning Proto-Indo-European *h_₁en(H)-, obsolete “*en-/*on-”; H. B.] either derive from Celtic languages or are at least suspected of Celtic mediation”—or are to be attributed to a Proto-Indo-European root *h_₂en.”

At least in this respect, progress was made in the last decade.

7. OUTLOOK

The conclusion remains what had already been established in another context (Bichlmeier 2018a: 230), namely that “anyone who studies ‘Old European’ or generally archaic (Indo-)European hydronyms must be familiar with Indo-European studies. If such knowledge (in its current state) is lacking, no sound or even relevant result can emerge.”

REFERENCES

Ad r ados Francisco R., Bernabé Alberto, Mendoza Julia 1995: Manual of Indo-European Linguistics. I: Prologue. Introduction. Phonetics. (University manuals), Madrid: Ediciones clásicas.

Ad r ados Francisco R., Bernabé Alberto, Mendoza Julia 2010: Manual of Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. 1. (Orbis Supplementa 34), Leuven, Paris, Walpole, MA: Peeters.

ALEW – Old Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1: A–M; Vol. 2: N–Ž. Edited under the direction of W. Hock, with the collaboration of E. J. Bukevičiūtė and Ch. Schiller, by R. Fecht, A. H. Feulner, E. Hill, D. S. Wodtko. Vol. 3: Lists and Indices. Edited under the direction of W. Hock, with the collaboration of many others, by R. Fecht. (Studies in Historical-Comparative Linguistics 7/1–3), Hamburg: Baar 2015.

ANB – Old German Namebook. The attestation of place names in Austria and South Tyrol from their beginnings to 1200. Edited by I. Hausner and E. Schuster, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1989–2015.

Anreiter Peter 1996: Celtic Place Names in North Tyrol. (Innsbruck Contributions to Linguistics, Lectures and Shorter Writings 65), Innsbruck: Institute of Linguistics.

210

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Anmerkungen zu einigen mit Anbeginnenden litauischen Gewässernamen und ihren außerbaltischen Verwandten

Anreiter Peter 1997: On the methodology of interpreting names. With examples from the Tyrolean region. (Innsbruck Contributions to Cultural Studies, special issue), Innsbruck: Institute of Linguistics.

Anreiter Peter 2005: The stratification of Tyrolean hydronyms. – Greule Albrecht, Janka Wolfgang, Prinz Michael (eds.): Hydronyms in Bavaria and Austria. 3rd colloquium of the Working Group for Bavarian-Austrian Onomastic Research. Regensburg, 27/28 February 2004. (Regensburg Studies in Onomastic Research 1), Regensburg: Edition Vulpes, 35–49.

Anreiter Peter 2008: Wolf-Armin Frhr. von Reitzenstein, Dictionary of Bavarian Place Names. Origin and Meaning. Upper Bavaria, Lower Bavaria, Upper Palatinate, Munich: C. H. Beck 2006 [review of]. – Austrian Onomastic Research 36, 145–153.

Anreiter Peter 2016: Northern Tyrolean Names of Celtic Origin, Vienna: Praesens.

Anreiter Peter, Chapman Christian, Rampl Gerhard 2009: The Place Names of Tyrol: Origin and Meaning. (Publications of the Tyrolean State Archives 17), Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner.

Anreiter Peter, Haslinger Maria­luise, Jenewein Doris 1995: Celtic Name Material in North Tyrol. – Linguistics with a Human Face. Festschrift for Norman Denison on his 70th birthday. (Graz Linguistic Monographs 10), eds. K. Sornig, D. W. Halwachs, Ch. Penzinger, G. Ambrosch, Graz: Institute of Linguistics of the University, 15–29.

Benveniste Émile 1954: Hittite and Indo-European Studies. – Bulletin of the Linguistic Society 50, 29–43.

Bichlmeier Harald 2010: Bavarian-Austrian Place and Hydronyms from an Indo-Europeanist Perspective. – Blätter für oberdeutsche Namenforschung 46, 2009 [2010], 3–63.

Bichlmeier Harald 2012: Some Selected Problems of Old European Hydronymy from the Perspective of Modern Indo-European Studies – A Plea for a New View of Things. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 66, 11–47.

Bichlmeier Harald 2012a: Remarks on the Terminological Problem of ‘Old European Hydronymy’, Together with Indo-European Additions to the Name of the Elbe. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung, Neue Folge 47/4, 365–395.

Bichlmeier Harald 2018: On the Name of the Inn: Known and Forgotten. – Namenkundliche Informationen 109/110, 2017 [2018], 53–62.

Bichlmeier Harald 2018a: Joachim Andraschke, The Germanic and Early German Place Names of the Regnitz and Upper Main Region. From the Elbe Germanic Settlement to the Merovingian Period. (Series of the Historical Association of the Haßberge District 16;

Straipsniai / Articles

211

HARALD BICHLMEIER

Contributions to East Franconian culture and regional studies 4) Haßfurt: Historical Association of the Haßberge District e. V. 2016 [review of]. – Blätter für oberdeutsche Namenforschung 55, 223–232.

Bichlmeier Harald, Blažek Václav 2015: Elbe – zu den Quellen eines Hydronyms. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 71, 2014 [2015], 125–146.

Bičovský Jan 2012: Stručná mluvnice praindoevropštiny. (Práce Filozofické Fakulty Univerzity Karlovy, Varia 3), Praha: Filozofická Fakulta Univerzity Karlovy.

Bičovský Jan 2017: Praindoevropština. I: Mluvnice. II: Dodatky. (Práce Filozofické Fakulty Univerzity Karlovy, Varia 62, 63), Praha: Filozofická Fakulta Univerzity Karlovy.

Blom Alderik H. 2011: Endlicher’s glossary. – Études Celtiques 37, 159–181.

Clackson James 2007: Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Delamarre Xavier 2012: Noms de lieux celtiques de l’Europe ancienne. (− 500 / + 500). Dictionnaire. (Collection les Hesperides), Paris: Éditions Errance.

DÉLG – Chantraine Pierre 2009: Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Nouvelle édition, Paris: Klincksieck.

DÉLL – Ernout Alfred, Meillet Antoine 2001: Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots. Retirage de la 4. éd. augm. d’additions et de corr. par Jacques André, Paris: Klincksieck.

DGNB – Greule Albrecht 2014: Deutsches Gewässernamenbuch. Etymologie der Gewässernamen und der zugehörigen Gebiets-, Siedlungsund Flurnamen, with the collaboration of S. Hackl-Rößler, Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.

DLG^² – Delamarre Xavier 2003: Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise. Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental. Preface: Pierre-Yves Lambert, 2nd revised and greatly expanded edition, Paris: Éditions Errance.

DLG^³ – Delamarre Xavier 2018: Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise. Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental. Preface: Pierre-Yves Lambert, third edition, Paris: Éditions Errance.

DONB – Niemeyer Manfred (ed.) 2012: Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch, Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.

DTNG – Delamarre Xavier 2019–2021: Dictionnaire des thèmes nominaux du gaulois. / A Dictionary of Gaulish Nominal Stems. Vol. 1: Ab-/Ixs(o)-; Vol. 2: Lab-/Uxs-pero-. (Collection Linguistique 5, 6), Paris: Éditions Les Cent Chemins.

212

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Anmerkungen zu einigen mit Anbeginnenden litauischen Gewässernamen und ihren außerbaltischen Verwandten

EDAIL – Martirosyan Hrach K. 2010: Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 8), Leiden, Boston: Brill.

EDBIL – Derksen Rick 2014: Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 13), Leiden, Boston: Brill.

EDG – Beekes Robert with the assistance of Lucien van Beek 2010: Etymological Dictionary of Greek. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10), Leiden, Boston: Brill.

EDHIL – Kloekhorst Alwin 2008: Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 5), Leiden, Boston: Brill.

eDIL – Electronic Dictionary of the Irish Language. Zugang: http://www.dil.ie/ [abgerufen im Februar 2021].

EDLIL – de Vaan Michiel 2008: Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 7), Leiden, Boston: Brill.

EDPC – Matasović Ranko 2009: An Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 9), Leiden, Boston: Brill.

EDPG – Kroonen Guus 2013: Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 11), Leiden, Boston: Brill.

EWAhd – Etymological Dictionary of Old High German.

Volume I: –a – bezzisto, by A. L. Lloyd, O. Springer, Göttingen, Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988.

Volume II: bī – eǫzo, by A. L. Lloyd, R. Lühr, O. Springer † with the collaboration of K. R. Purdy, Göttingen, Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

Volume III: fadum – fūstslag, by A. L. Lloyd, R. Lühr with the collaboration of G. Kohlrusch, M. Kozianka, K. R. Purdy, R. Schuhmann, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.

Volume IV: gāba – hylare, by A. L. Lloyd, R. Lühr, with the collaboration of G. Schuhmann, M. Kozianka, K. R. Purdy, R. Schuhmann, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.

Volume V: iba – luzzilo, edited by R. Lühr, prepared by H. Bichlmeier, M. Kozianka, R. Schuhmann with contributions by A. L. Lloyd, with the collaboration of K. K. Purdy, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014.

Volume VI: mada – pūzza, edited by R. Lühr, prepared by H. Bichlmeier, M. Kozianka, R. Schuhmann, L. Sturm, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017.

Volume VII: quaderna – skazzōn, edited by R. Lühr, prepared by D. S. Wodtko (head of the working unit), H. Bichlmeier, M. Kozianka, R. Schuhmann, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021.

Straipsniai / Articles

213

HARALD BICHLMEIER

Fortson Benjamin W. IV. 2004: Indo-European Language and Culture – an Introduction. (Blackwell textbooks in linguistics 19), Malden, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell.

Fortson Benjamin W. IV. 2009: Indo-European Language and Culture – an Introduction. Second Edition. (Blackwell textbooks in linguistics 19), Malden, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell.

Fritz Matthias, Meier-Brügger Michael 2020: Indo-European Linguistics. 10th, completely revised ed. (De Gruyter Study Book), Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.

GEW – Frisk Hjalmar 1960–1972: Greek Etymological Dictionary. 3 vols. (Indo-European Library: Series 2, Dictionaries), Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Greule Albrecht 2015: The Romance Place Names in Bavaria. – Journal of Bavarian Regional History 78, 333–363.

Grzega Joachim 2001: Romania Gallica Cisalpina. Etymological-Geolinguistic Studies on the Celticisms of Upper Italian and Rhaeto-Romance. (Supplements to the Journal of Romance Philology 311), Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Hartmann Markus 2012: Zum Ablaut der neutralen s-Stämme des Indogermanischen. – International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 9, 51–85.

HEG – Tischler Johann 1977–2016: Hittite Etymological Glossary, with contributions by G. Neumann, E. Neu. (Innsbruck Contributions to Linguistics 20), Innsbruck: Institute of Linguistics of the University of Innsbruck.

Heitmeier Irmtraud 2005: The Inn Valley. Settlement and Spatial Development of an Alpine Valley at the Intersection of Political Interests from the Roman Occupation to the Time of Charlemagne. (Studies on the Early History of the Historical Tyrolean Region 1; Schlern Writings 324), Innsbruck: Wagner.

HELSON 1 – Lindner Thomas, Reiffenstein Ingo 2015: Historical-Etymological Lexicon of Salzburg Place Names. (HELSON) Vol. 1: City of Salzburg and Flachgau, Salzburg, Vienna: Edition Tandem.

Höfler Andreas 2012: Studies on the Ablaut of the Neuter s-Stems of Proto-Indo-European: Diploma thesis, Vienna: University.

Hogan Edmund 1910: Onomasticon goedelicum locorum et tribuum Hiberniae et Scotiae: an index, with identifications, to the Gaelic names of places and tribes, Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, & Co.

IEW – Pokorny Julius 1959: Indo-European Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 1, Munich, Bern: Francke.

214

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Anmerkungen zu einigen mit Anbeginnenden litauischen Gewässernamen und ihren außerbaltischen Verwandten

Joseph Brian 1982: The Treatment of *CR̥Hand the Origin of CaRa in Celtic. – Ériu 33, 31–57.

LatEW – Walde Alois, Hoffmann Johann Baptist 1930–1954: Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2 vols. (Indogermanische Bibliothek: Abteilung 1, Sammlung indogermanischer Lehrund Handbücher. Reihe 2, Wörterbücher), Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

LED – Smoczyński Wojciech 2018: Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1: A–G; Vol. 2: I–N; Vol. 3: O–S; Vol. 4: T–Z; Vol. 5: Index, ed. A. Holvoet, S. Young, assist. W. Browne, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien: Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften.

Lehmann Winfred P. 1993: Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics, London, New York: Routledge.

LEIA – Vendryes Joseph: Léxique étymologique d’Irlandais ancien. A: Dublin: School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Inst. for Advanced Studies, 1959 (Neudruck 1981). – B: Dublin: School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Inst. for Advanced Studies – Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1981. – C: Dublin: School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Inst. for Advanced Studies – Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1987. – D: Dublin: School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Inst. for Advanced Studies – Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1983. – R, S: Dublin: School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Inst. for Advanced Studies – Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1974. – T, U: Dublin: School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Inst. for Advanced Studies – Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1978.

Lindner Thomas (ed.) 2012: Indogermanische Grammatik. Vol. I. Part 1: Einleitung von W. Cowgill †. Translated into German and bibliographically edited by A. Bammesberger, M. Peters; Part 2: Lautlehre [Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen] by M. Mayrhofer. (Indogermanische Bibliothek: Reihe 1, Lehrund Handbücher: Indogermanische Grammatik Bd. 1), Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag [1986].

LIPP – Dunkel George E. 2014: Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Vol. 1: Einleitung, Terminologie, Lautgesetze, Adverbialendungen, Nominalsuffixe, Anhänge und Indices. Vol. 2: Lexicon. (Indogermanische Bibliothek: 2. Reihe Wörterbücher), Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

LitEW – Fraenkel Ernst 1962–1965: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. (Indogermanische Bibliothek: 2. Reihe Wörterbücher), Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

LIV^² – Lexicon of Indo-European Verbs, edited under the direction of H. Rix by M. Kümmel, T. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2001.

Straipsniai / Articles

215

HARALD BICHLMEIER

LVŽ 1 – Balode Laimutė et al. (eds.) 2008: Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas 1: A–B, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

LVŽ 2 – Bilkis Laimutis (ed.) 2014: Lietuvos vietovardžių žodynas 2: C–F, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Mallory James P., Adams Douglas Q. 2006: The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meier-Brügger Michael 2002: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft 8th, revised and supplemented ed., with the collaboration of M. Fritz, M. Mayrhofer. (De-Gruyter-Studienbuch), Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.

Meier-Brügger Michael 2003: Indo-European Linguistics, in cooperation with M. Fritz, M. Mayrhofer. (De Gruyter Textbook), Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.

Meier-Brügger Michael 2010: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft 9th, proofread and supplemented ed., with the collaboration of M. Fritz, M. Mayrhofer. (De-Gruyter-Studienbuch), Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.

NIL – Wodtko Dagmar S., Irsl inger Britta, Schneider Carolin 2008: Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Pokorny Julius 1948–1949: On Celtic onomastics and etymology. – Vox Romanica 10, 220–267.

Pokorny Julius 1950–1951: On Celtic names. – Beiträge zur Namenforschung 2, 33–39.

Rix Helmut 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Lautund Formenlehre 2nd, corrected ed. Wiesbaden: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Scheungraber Corinna, Grünzweig Friedrich E. 2014: Die altgermanischen Toponyme sowie ungermanische Toponyme Germaniens. Ein Handbuch zu ihrer Etymologie, published under the editorship of H. Reichert, using a bibliography by R. Nedoma. (Philologica Germanica 34), Wien: Fassbaender.

Schmid Wolfgang P. 1988: Hittite etyma relating to Old European hydronyms. – Neu Erich, Rüster Christel (eds.): Documentum Asiae Minoris Antiquae. Festschrift for Heinrich Otten on his 75th birthday, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 307–315 [reprinted in Schmid 1994: 404–412].

Schmid Wolfgang P. 1994: Linguisticae Scientiae Collectanea, selected writings by W. P. Schmid on the occasion of his 65th birthday, edited by J. Becker, E. Eggers, J. Udolph, D. Weber, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Schmidt Dagmar 1970: The right-bank tributaries between the Wupper and Lippe: doctoral dissertation, Göttingen.

216

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Notes on some Lithuanian hydronyms beginning with An and their non-Baltic cognates

Schumacher Stefan 2007: The Germans and the neighboring tribes: lexical and structural language-contact phenomena along the Celtic-Germanic transition zone. Johann Kaspar Zeuß in the cultural and linguistic-scientific context (19th to 21st century). Kronach 21.7–23.7.2006, edited by H. Hab­lit­zel, D. Stifter with editorial assistance from H. Tauber. (Celtic Studies 2), Vienna: Präsens, 167–207.

SEJL – Smoczyński Wojciech 2007: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego, Wilno: Uniwersytet Wileński.

SEJL^² 2018 – Smoczyński Wojciech 2018: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Second edition, revised and considerably expanded. n.p. Version of 20.1.2018. Access: www.rromanes.org/pub/alii/Smoczyński W. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego.pdf [accessed March 2018].

SEJL^² 2019 – Smoczyński Wojciech 2019: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Second edition, revised and considerably expanded. Editorial collaboration: M. Osłon. n.p. Version of 9.3.2019. Access: www.rromanes.org/pub/alii/Smoczyński W. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego.pdf [accessed March 2019].

SEJL^² 2019a – Smoczyński Wojciech 2019: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Second edition, revised and considerably expanded. Editorial collaboration: M. Osłon. n.p. Version of 24.9.2019. Access: www.rromanes.org/pub/alii/Smoczyński W. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego.pdf [accessed October 2019].

SEJL^² 2020 – Smoczyński Wojciech 2020: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Second edition, revised and considerably expanded. Editorial collaboration: M. Osłon. n.p. Version of 21.6.2020. Access: www.rromanes.org/pub/alii/Smoczyński W. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego.pdf [accessed 28.6.2020].

SEJL^² 2020a – Smoczyński Wojciech 2020: Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Second edition, revised and considerably expanded. Editorial collaboration: M. Osłon. n.p. Version of 13.11.2020. Access: www.rromanes.org/pub/alii/Smoczyński W. Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego.pdf [accessed 17.11.2020].

Smoczyński Wojciech 2016: Laryngeal theory and the Lithuanian language. (Bibliotheca Salensis 2), Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language.

Stüber Karin 2002: The primary s-stems of Indo-European, Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Tichy Eva 2001: Basic knowledge of Indo-European for students of linguistic disciplines, Bremen: Hempen.

Tichy Eva 2006: A Survey of Proto-Indo-European, Bremen: Hempen.

Tichy Eva 2009: Basic knowledge of Indo-European for students of linguistic disciplines 3rd, completely revised ed., Bremen: Hempen.

Straipsniai / Articles

217

HARALD BICHLMEIER

Toorians Lauran 2008: Endlicher’s Glossary, an attempt to write its history. – Celtic and other languages in Ancient Europe. (Acta Salamanticensia, Estudios filológicos 127), ed. J. L. García Alonso, Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 153–184.

Udolph Jürgen 2020: Inn < *Penios? – Blätter für oberdeutsche Namenforschung 57 (100 Jahre Verband für Ortsund Flurnamenforschung in Bayern e.V.; 80 Jahre Wolf-Armin Frhr. v. Reitzenstein: ein onomastisches Geburtstagsgebinde), 345–365.

Vanagas Aleksandras 1970: Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba, Vilnius: Mintis.

Vanagas Aleksandras 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Villar Francisco 2000: Indoeuropeos y no indoeuropeos en la Hispania prerromana. Las poblaciones y las lenguas prerromanas de Andalucía, Cataluña y Aragón según la información que nos proporciona la toponimia. (Acta Salamanticensia, Estudios filológicos 277), Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

Weiss Michael L. 2009: Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin, Ann Arbor, New York: Beech Stave Press.

Weiss Michael L. 2020: Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin, second ed., Ann Arbor, New York: Beech Stave Press.

Wiesinger Peter, Greule Albrecht 2019: Baiern und Romanen. Zum Verhältnis der frühmittelalterlichen Ethnien aus der Sicht der Sprachwissenschaft und Namenforschung, Tübingen: Narr, Francke, Attempto.

218

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Anmerkungen zu einigen mit Anbeginnenden litauischen Gewässernamen und ihren außerbaltischen Verwandten

Remarks on several Lithuanian hydronyms beginning with An and their non-Baltic cognates

A B S T R A C T

Anatà, Anykštė and other Lithuanian hydronyms of this type are generally associated with the Indo-European root “*en-/*on-” (in modern usage, Proto-Indo-European *h₁en(H)-), which would mean ‘to flow, flowing, river’. This root is absent from Julius Pokorny’s Indo-European Etymological Dictionary (Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1959), and to this day it has likewise not been reliably substantiated by appellatives in any Indo-European language. Moreover, there is also insufficient evidence of reliable traces of such a root in onymy: all names used as arguments to date derive from Celtic languages and are to be explained by a single root.

According to the methodology of ‘Occam’s razor’ (German ‘Ockhams Rasiermesser’), which urges researchers not to employ more entities than necessary, it becomes clear that, in the absence of reliable appellative attestations of the Proto-Indo-European root *h₁en(H)-, one should restrict oneself to Proto-Indo-European roots *pen-/*pon- ‘marsh, (standing) water’ and Proto-Indo-European *h₂en- ‘to scoop (water)’. As long as the aforementioned attestations are lacking, any assignment of a meaning to the root is merely a careless assumption. Anatà, Anykštė and other cases of Lithuanian hydronyms of this type would therefore mean that, on the basis of the knowledge available today, they should not be compared with the nonexistent Proto-Indo-European root *h₁en(H)-, but with Proto-Indo-European *h₂en- ‘to scoop (water)’.

Submitted on 4 January 2021.

H A R A L D B I C H L M E I E R

Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg Orientalisches Institut, Seminar für Indogermanistik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Ludwig-Wucherer-Str. 2 D–06099 Halle (Saale) [email protected]

Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig Arbeitsstelle Jena: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen Zwätzengasse 12a D–07743 Jena [email protected]

Straipsniai / Articles

219