Semantic Oppositions in Vilnius County Toponyms

PAVEL SKORUPA Lietuvių kalbos institutas Fields of research: Toponymy, Cognitive Onomastics, Cognitive Semantics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/all81-06 SEMANTIC OPPOSITIONS IN VILNIUS COUNTY TOPONYMS Vilniaus apskrities toponimų semantinės opozicijos ANNOTATION The current paper deals with (semantic) oppositions in the present-day Vilnius County toponyms (both settlement and non-settlement names). Although the traditional research into Lithuanian toponymy, esp. hydronymy, points out antonymic semantic relationships in certain place names based on distinctive elements of both composite and compound names, these elements do not receive due attention. 5103 toponyms (river, stream, pond and settlement names) that currently exist in the region were collected for the research and 400 toponyms in the classes of hydronyms and oikonyms that form 191 oppositions were identified. The oppositions are analyzed not only in terms of their antonymic semantic relationships, but also formally, i.e. the role of composite and compound names components is examined on the syntactic (word-formation) level. KEYWORDS: opposition, toponym, present-day Vilnius County, semantic relationships, antonymic relationships. ANOTACIJA Straipsnyje nagrinėjamos šių dienų Vilniaus apskrities toponimų (tiek gyvenviečių, tiek ne gyvenviečių vardų) (semantinės) opozicijos. Tradiciniuose lietuvių toponimijos tyrimuose, ypač hidronimijos, minimi paskiri antoniminiai vietovardžių pavyzdžiai, tačiau iki šiol sistemiškiau jie nebuvo tyrinėti. Tyrimui buvo surinkti 5103 dabartiniai toponimai (upių, upelių, tvenkinių ir gyvenviečių vardai) ir nustatyta, kad 400 toponimų (hidronimų ir oikonimų klasėse) sudaro 191 opoziciją. Opozicijos analizuojamos ne tik pagal jų antoniminius semantinius ryšius, bet ir formaliai, t. y. sudėtinių ir sudurtinių vardų komponentų vaidmuo tiriamas sintaksiniu (žodžių darybos) lygmeniu. Straipsniai / Articles 141 PAVEL SKORUPA ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: opozicija, toponimas, dabartinė Vilniaus apskritis, semantiniai ryšiai, antoniminiai ryšiai. INTRODUCTION The traditional research into Lithuanian toponymy resp. hydronymy (esp. Aleksandras Vanagas 1981a) points out antonymic relationships in certain water body names. Sometimes etymologists suggest that, for instance, qualifying adjectives of colour in toponyms are motivated by the colour, fertility or other physical characteristic of soil; the prevailing colour of buildings; the qualifying adjectives of size are motivated by the actual size of the named object, etc. However, normally these distinctive elements in toponyms do not receive due attention (Stachowski 2018). Antonymic relationship is often associated with the distinctive attributes of a composite name, usually qualifying adjectives of size, age, horizontal or vertical position in space, colour etc., which are used as preor post-modifiers to distinguish between two identical names. Traditionally antonyms are words with the opposite meaning, i.e. words in semantic opposition. According to John I. Saeed (2016: 63), contrary to ‘antonym’, the term ‘opposition’ is a broader general label that indicates the relationship between two entities that does not necessarily mean that one entity is the negative of the other. Thus, oppositions in the current research are viewed not only as an antonymic semantic relationship between the distinctive attributes of the name, but as any type of relationship between distinguishing constituent parts of names, including the elements of compound names that have a clearly distinct function. The research, however, does not include the analysis on the phonetic oppositions, i.e. the identical names that follow different stress patterns. Also, due to the scope of the paper and a big number of oppositions it is impossible to describe etymologies and motivation of each proper name, therefore, only some of them are described in terms of their etymology and motivation. The object of the current research is oppositions based on distinctive attributes of names in present-day Vilnius County toponymy (both settlement and non-settlement names). The aim of the present study is to examine typical oppositions among Vilnius County toponyms in terms of their syntactic features and semantics of distinctive attributes. The article is based on the analysis of oppositions in toponyms (river, lake, ponds, settlement names) that currently exist within the borders of the present-day Vilnius County, which covers a big part (about one third) of the interwar 142 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Semantic Oppositions in Vilnius County Toponyms Western Vilnius Region, which is now part of Lithuania. The choice to analyze toponymy of this area was determined by its long, turbulent and often sad history, which leads to the complexity of the current study, as place names of the region are affected by language interactions not only due to cultural periphery but also to long-term multilingualism of the population. Currently, Vilnius County consists of 6 district municipalities, 1 municipality and 1 city municipality: Elektrėnai Municipality, Šalčininkai District Municipality, Širvintos District Municipality, Švenčionys District Municipality, Trakai District Municipality, Ukmergė District Municipality, Vilnius City Municipality, and Vilnius District Municipality. The total of 400 (8%) place names that form 191 oppositions were identified in the corpus of 5103 toponyms, i.e. river (including streams), lake, pond and settlement (cities, towns, villages and steadings) names in the region: 25 out of 335 river names make 14 (7%) oppositions; 78 out of 714 lake names make 37 (20%) oppositions; 32 out of 146 pond names make 12 (6%) oppositions; 267 out of 3905 settlement names make 128 (67%) oppositions. In the number of cases, three or more place names in each category are in opposition. All the selected toponyms that exist in oppositions are within 0,1 to 20 km from each other. Toponyms (both settlement and non-settlement names) were collected from: Vilnius County district municipalities’ web sites; The Rivers, Lakes and Ponds Cadaster of the Republic of Lithuania (Lith. Lietuvos Respublikos upių, ežerų ir tvenkinių kadastras, UETK, https://uetk.am.lt); Vilnius County maps at https://www.geoportal.lt; The Catalogue of Lithuanian Place Names Written from the Living Language at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language Onomastics Department (Lith. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Vardyno skyriaus Lietuvių vietovardžių, užrašytų iš gyvosios kalbos, kartoteka); The Archive of Vilnius Region Land Names Questionnaires at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language Onomastics Department (Lith. Lietuvių kalbos instituto Vardyno skyriaus prieškarinės Vilniaus krašto žemės vardyno anketų archyvas); during the analysis, the variants of some name forms were checked in the Russian Empire Map of 1872 (hereinafter, REM 1872) (https://mapire.eu/en/map/russia-1872/). 1. SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF OPPOSITIONS IN TOPONYMY The present study is based not only on the examination of the typical antonymic semantic relationships among Vilnius County toponyms, but also includes their formal analysis, i.e. the role of (composite and compound) names Straipsniai / Articles 143 PAVEL SKORUPA components on the syntactic (word-formation) level. Thus, the first part of the paper analyzes the syntactic features of toponyms. 1.1. Preand post-modifiers It has been observed that the majority of oppositions in composite toponyms are formed by such elements as distinctive attributes that serve as preor post-modifiers of the place name, i.e. autonomous words (e.g., qualifying adjectives) are placed either before or after the modified name. 1.1.1. Autonomous words as preand post-modifiers Oppositions based on the antonymic relationships of the autonomous words either in preor post-position are made following these patterns: zero modifier + name x pre-modifier + name, pre-modifier + name x pre-modifier + name, name + zero modifier x name + post-modifier. From the perspective of word-formation toponymic oppositions with preand post-modifiers are classified as composite place names. The zero modifier + name x pre-modifier + name pattern can be observed in 28 oppositions: 2 river names oppositions – Upės x Mažoji Upės, Keṅa x Mažoji Keṅa; 2 lake names oppositions – Antavilio ežeras (lake) x Mažasis Antavilio ežeras, Gul̇binas x Mažasis Gul̇binas; 24 settlement names oppositions – Bezdonys (tn) x Bezdonys (v) x Aukštieji Bezdonys (v), Brastà x Naujoji Brastà, Būda x Senoji Būda x Naujoji Būda (El mun.), Būda x Senoji Būda (Trak. D. mun.), Būda x Semeliškių Būda (Aukštadvaris eldership), Gedūnai x Didieji Gedūnai, Jagėl̇onys x Kl̇oniniai Jagėl̇onys, Kál̇viai x Naujoji Kál̇viai, Karkl̇ėnai x Užupio Karkl̇ėnai x Didieji Karkl̇ėnai, Katutiškės x Mažosios Katutiškės, Kudżionys x Mažieji Kudżionys, Laibiškės x Didžiosios Laibiškės, Lentvaris (tn) x Lentvaris (v) x Naujȧsis Lentvaris (v), Liepónys x Mažieji Liepónys, Maceliai x Senieji Maceliai, Medininkai x Didieji Medininkai, Migučionys x Senieji Migučionys x Nau̇jieji Migučionys, Pamerkys x Aukštasis Pamerkys, Piktakonys x Nau̇jieji Piktakonys, Rėva x Naujoji Rėva, Riešė (stead.) x Riešė (v) x Mažoji Riešė x Didžioji Riešė, Tarti̇okas x Šalčininkėlių Tarti̇okas, Trakai (tn) x Senieji Trakai (v) (Trak. D. mun.), Zaduvarninkai x Nau̇jieji Zaduvarninkai. The pre-modifier + name x pre-modifier + name pattern can be observed in 25 cases: 1 river names opposition – Didysis Pìrčiupis x Mažàsis Pìrčiupis; 3 lake names oppositions – Didelis Macijonėlis x Mažàs Macijonėlis, Didysai Siaurys x Mažàsai Siaurys, Didieji Vageikai x Mažieji Vageikai; 21 settlement names oppositions – Didieji Baušiai x Mažieji Baušiai, Nau̇jas Jaṅavas x Šėnas 144 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Semantic Oppositions in Vilnius County Toponyms Janāvas, Māžosios Kabiškės x Didžiosios Kabiškės, Aukštieji Karklėnai x Žemieji Karklėnai, S enosios Kietaviškės x Naujosios Kietaviškės, Mažoji Kūosinė x Didžioji Kūosinė, Didieji Lygainiai x Mažieji Lygainiai, Senieji Miežionys x Naujieji Miežionys, Kalniniai Mijaugonys x Kloniniai Mijaugonys, Naują Pašaminė x Seną Pašaminė, Naujosios Rakliškės x Senosios Rakliškės, Aukštieji Rusokai x Žemieji Rusokai, Aukštieji Semeniukai x Žemieji Semeniukai, Mažosios Sėlos x Didžiosios Sėlos, Senas Strūnaitis x Naujas Strūnaitis, Aukštieji Suirnai x Žemieji Suirnai, Nauji Saminiai x Seni Saminiai, Naujasis Tarpu­pis x Senasis Tarpu­pis, Senosios Viešos x Aukštosios Viešos x Žemosios Viešos, Baltoji Vokė (tn) (Šlčn. D. mun.) x Juodoji Vokė (V C mun.) x Baltoji Vokė (V C mun.), Trakų Vokė (V C mun.) x Mūrinė Vokė (V C mun.). The name + post-modifier x name + post-modifier pattern can be observed in 3 oppositions: 1 river names opposition – Čudy­kas Didelis x Čudy­kas Mažas; 2 lake names oppositions – Īlma Didžioji x Īlma Mažoji, Nevardas Aukštas x Nevardas Žemas. As it can be seen in the above examples, the zero modifier x pre-modifier and pre-modifier x pre-modifier patterns are most productive in the class of settlement names oppositions, comprising 28 and 25 out of 191 oppositions respectively. 1.1.2. Numbers as post-modifiers In a great number of pond and settlement names (32 and 114 respectively) numbers are used to make distinction between two identical toponyms (in some cases, among three and more names). Such toponymic constructions do not form semantic oppositions and can be observed only in ponds and settlement names that most often follow the name + zero modifier x name + post modifier and name + post-modifier x name + post-modifier patterns, the latter being the most productive (the total of 51 cases). The pattern name + zero modifier x name + post modifier can be observed in: 1 pond names opposition – Bražuolės x Bražuolės I x Bražuolės II; 6 settlement names oppositions – Antakalnis x Antakalnis I x Antakalnis II x Antakalnis III, Būda (Trakai eldership) x Būda I x Būda III, Naujālaukis (Naujālaukis I) x Naujālaukis II (El D. mun.), Naujālaukis x Naujālaukis II (Trak. D. mun.), Nemenčinė x Nemenčinė II, Versekà x Versekà I x Versekà II. The pattern name + post-modifier x name + post-modifier can be observed in: 11 pond names oppositions – Buivy­diškių I x Buivy­diškių II x Buivy­diškių III x Buivy­diškių IV x Buivy­diškių V x Buivy­diškių VI, Juodės I x Juodės II x Juodės III x Juodės IV, Mostiškių I x Mostiškių II, Navakonių I x Navakonių II, Šalčininkų I x Šalčininkų II, Taujenų x Taujenų II, Tetėnų I x Tetėnų II, Tolkiškių I x Tolkiškių Straipsniai / Articles 145 PAVEL SKORUPA II, Turniškių I x Turniškių II, Viesų I x Viesų II x Viesų III, Virkščių I x Virkščių II; 44 settlement names oppositions – Alėšiškės I x Alėšiškės II, Aliōnys (Aliōnys I) x Aliōnys II, Antaliẽdė I x Antaliẽdė II, Arēnai I x Arēnai II, Ažumiškė I x Ažumiškė II, Bastūnai I x Bastūnai II, Buivydžiai I x Buivydžiai II, Būrblīškė I x Būrblīškė II, Dailydūkas I x Dailydūkas II, Gemeliškis I x Gemeliškis II, Gimžiai I x Gimžiai II, Jušìškis I x Jušìškis II, Kalnuõtė I x Kalnuõtė II x Kalnuõtė IV x Kalnuõtė V x Kalnuõtė VII, Kiaukliškis I x Kiaukliškis II, Kochanovōka I x Kochanovōka II x Kochanovōka III, Kryžiãuka I x Kryžiãuka II, Kunigiškiai I x Kunigiškiai II, Kūosinė I x Kūosinė II x Kūosinė III, Lapiškiai I x Lapiškiai II, Levãniškis I x Levãniškis II, Liūnai I x Liūnai II, Lygūmai I x Lygūmai II, Maigiai I x Maigiai II, Malinãuka I x Malinãuka II, Myliãi I x Myliãi II, Meriónys I x Meriónys II, Nacẽliškiai I x Nacẽliškiai II, Naujãsodis I x Naujãsodis II, Navasiõlkai I x Navasiõlkai II x Navasiõlkai III, Nenōrtai I x Nenōrtai II, Pãgaigalė I x Pãgaigalė II, Parijà I x Parijà II, Pašilė I x Pašilė II x Pašilė III, Piliakalnis I x Piliakalnis II, Poguliãnka I x Poguliãnka II, Ramõniškiai I x Ramõniškiai II, Raudõnė I x Raudõnė II, Sakališkė I x Sakališkė II, Saveikiškia I x Saveikiškia II, Šẽškuškė I x Šẽškuškė II, Šẽšuolėliai I x Šẽšuolėliai II, Ūosininkai I x Ūosininkai II x Ūosininkai III, Urnėžiai I x Urnėžiai II, Vaičiukiškė I x Vaičiukiškė II, Varnikėliai I x Varnikėliai II. The use of numbers in place names is characteristic of the quite recent nomination patterns, esp. since the beginning of the 20th century (Štěpán 2009: 915). It is important to notice that numbers are used only in the official sources (municipalities websites, documents and maps, etc.) to make distinction between the identical names, whereas the locals do not usually use numbers with these names. Thus, for instance, Buivỹdžiai I and Buivỹdžiai II are both referred to as Buivỹdžiai; or Ūosininkai I, Ūosininkai II and Ūosininkai III are known as Ūosininkai in the living language. The same usage applies to pond names. All pond names, esp. those modified by numbers are artificial toponymic objects, which were named after the places they are located in, and their names are the result of transonymization. Thus, they are of no interest and are not further analyzed. 1.2. Affixes In a number of cases the place name opposition can be formed by affixes, i.e. prefixes or suffixes, esp. diminutive suffixes as opposed to names without any modifying elements (names with zero modifiers). 146 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Semantic Oppositions in Vilnius County Toponyms 1.2.1. Suffixes The group of oppositions based on diminutive suffixes is the biggest and includes the following 69 cases: 9 river names oppositions – Lãtvė x Latvėlė, Luknà x Luknelė (Baltėlė), Kenà x Kenėlė (Kinėlė), Mūšià x Mušėlė, Nėrupis x Nerupėlìs (also, see 1.3.), Strūnà x Strūnėlė, Šalčià x Šalčýkščia, Zizdrà x Zizdrėlė, Žeimenà x Žeimenėlė; 30 lake names oppositions – Akìs x Akėlė (as well as two more lakes Akìs in the same eldership that make an opposition with Akėlė), Bakà x Bakūtis, Báltas x Baltėlis x Baltėlis, Bėlỹs x Bėlaitis, Beržuõlis x Beržuoliùkas, Briaũnis x Briauniùkas, Bedùgnis x Bedugniùkas, Drabùžis x Drabužáitis, Gėjus x Gėjùkas, Gėlà x Gėlaitis, Gruõžys x Gruožáitis, Gaigãlis x Gaigalùkas, Gėlvis x Gelvaitis, Jagùdis x Jaguðėlìs, Juodýnas x Juodynėlis, Kãris x Karaìtis, Krãkinis x Krakinùkas, Kretū́onas x Kretuõnūkštis, Liėdis x Liedáitis, Mónis x Monáitis, Pažemỹs x Pažemėlis, Skritis x Skričiùkas, Spindžius x Spindžiùkas, Sudotà x Sudotėlis, Šẽrnis x Šermùkas, Šamìnis x Šaminėlis, Šiemetis x Šiemetùkas, Švenčiùs x Švenčiùkas, Ungurỹs x Unguráitis, Varnãkis x Varnakėlis; 30 settlement names oppositions – Akmenà (v) x Akmenà (v) x Akmenėlė (v), Barbiškis x Barbiškėlis, Bardìškiai x Bardiškėliai, Bugėnai x Bugenėliai, Dainavà x Dainavėlė, Deltuvà (tn) x Deltuvėlė (v), Dùsmenys x Dusmenėliai, Gruõžninkai x Gruožninkėliai, Grūžos x Gruželės, Juodýnas x Juodynėlis, Júodiškis x Juodiškėlis, Laukėnai x Laukenėliai, Lazdýnai x Lazdinėliai, Makučiai x Makučiukai, Miškiniai x Miškinėliai, Mūsningai x Musninkėliai, Naidài x Naidėliai, Nemenčìnė x Nemenčinėlė, Prūdiškė x Prūdiškėlė, Purnùškės x Purnuškėliai, Raguva x Raguvelė, Sámninkai x Samninkėliai, Slabadà x Slabadkà, Šalčininkai (v) x Šalčininkai (tn) x Šalčininkėliai (v), Šiukštiškiai x Šiukštiškėliai, Švenčionys x Švenčionėliai, Taujėnai (tn) x Taujėnai (v) x Taujėnėliai (v), Trãkai (v) x Trãkai (stead.) x Trakėliai (v) (Švnč. D. mun.), Versekà x Versekėlė, Vytinė x Vytinėlė. The most productive suffixes are -el- (–is, -ė, -iai) and -el- (–is, -ė, -ės, –iai) (30 and 13 cases respectively) in both settlement and non-settlement names. All diminutive toponyms are suffix-derivatives from the toponyms they are in opposition with and are formed under the influence of a toponymic context. According to Vanagas (1970: 75), such toponyms can be considered the continuation (“continuum”) of the primary place names. Their relation to the toponymic context is indicated by the common root, whereas the suffix indicates the relationships of belonging (possessivity) and origin. These relationships reflect the belonging (or quantitative) subordination and are determined by the relationship of the toponymic objects themselves and provide certain information (belonging–origin relationship). Diminutive toponyms listed in this section name objects that are characterized by their size and are smaller than the objects from the names of which their diminutive names were derived. In all the above cases, the topo-object are located in a very close proximity to each other. Straipsniai / Articles 147 PAVEL SKORUPA 1.2.2. Prefixes There are only two oppositions based on prefix derivatives that can be found among settlement names: Ūdrõnys x Paūdronys, Voverė x Pavoverė. The prefix pa-derivatives in the Lithuanian language denote a place below or near something. Ūdrõnys and Paūdronys are two villages in the vicinity of the village Tãbariškės in Turgeliai eldership, Šlčn. D. mun. Both villages are in close proximity and are located on the opposite sides of the road to Turgėliai. According to Marija Razmukaitė (2009: 34), oikonyms with the suffix -onys (-oniai) are pluralia tantum derivatives from personal names with patronymic suffixes -aitis, -ėnas, -onis, -ūnas. Thus, it may be claimed that the settlement name Ūdrõnys is a derivative from the anthroponym Ūdrỹs. The prefix pain the opposition Ūdrõnys and Paūdronys indicates the relationships of belonging (possessivity) and origin. The second opposition in this category is made by two villages Voverė and Pavoverė that are 4 km away from one another on the right bank of the Voveraitė² (the right tributary of the Žeimena) in Pabradės eldership, Švč. D. mun. Pavoverė is located close (0,3 km) to the confluence of the Voveraitė and the Žeimena, whereas Voverė is located 4 km away from Pavoverė, upstream the Voveraitė. Both Voverė and Pavoverė are surrounded by forests (Katelniškės, Kulniškės, Pavoverės, Voverės). These settlement names were motivated by the potamonym they are located next to, whereas the prefix pain the name Pavoverė not only indicates the relationship of this settlement with the stream and Voverė village, Pavoverės and Voverės forests it is located in close proximity to. The prefix paalso serves a distinctive element between two settlement names and indicates the relationships of possessivity and origins. 1.3. Compound place names Only two compound name oppositions with no autonomous words used as preor post-modifiers were identified among the analyzed region’s toponyms, i.e. one compound settlement name opposition Senãduaris x Naujãdvaris and one compound river name opposition the Nėrupis x the Nerupėlis. Each of the two oppositions present different compound names formation models: Adjective ¹ A Lithuanian male name, which could be derived and motivated by the qualities ascribable to ũdra (otter) ‘predatory aquatic fur animal (Lutra lutra)’. ² The river Voveraitė may be derived from the diminutive form of the zoonym voverė (squirrel) ‘small, long tailed rodent (Sciurus)’ (LKŽe) and could be motivated by the place where there were / are many animals of this species. 148 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Semantic Oppositions in Vilnius County Toponyms + common Noun (Senādvaris → senas ‘old’ + dvaras ‘estate, property’ as opposed to Naujadvaris → naujas ‘new’ + dvaras ‘estate, property’) and Verb + common Noun (the Nerūpis → nerti ‘to dive; to flow quickly’ + upis ‘river’ as opposed to the Nerupėlis → nerti ‘to dive; to flow quickly’ + upėlis ‘small river, stream’). In case of Senādvaris x Naujadvaris the opposition is formed by the first parts of these compound names ← senas ‘old’ and naujas ‘new’. The compound river name opposition is based on the diminutive suffix derivative (see 1.2.1. above). 2. SEMANTIC CATEGORIES OF OPPOSITIONS IN TOPONYMY As described above, distinctive elements of proper names create an opposition. Although antonymic relationships are typical in toponymy, not all of the cases create a semantic opposition, as the distinctive attributes of the opposition belong to different semantic categories, esp. when they are derived from other proper names (e.g., oikonyms, hydronyms, etc.). To illustrate, Tartōkas and Šalčininkėlių Tartōkas (Tartōkas ← Lith. tartokas ‘a lumbermill, sawmill’ ← Pol. tartak ‘a sawmill or lumber mill’, i.e. a facility where logs are cut into lumber) are two villages in Ščn. D. mun. 8,5 km from each other and definitely create an opposition. One of them has a zero attribute, or modifier, (Tartōkas), while the second member of the opposition is modified by the attribute derived from the proper name (oikonym) Šalčininkėliai. Another example of place names that form an opposition that are not based on the antonymic semantic relationship of their distinctive attributes are two villages that now make a part of Vilnius City – Trakų Vokė (← Trakų is the genitive case of the oikonym Trakai) and Mūrinė Vokė (Mūrinė ← Lith. mūrinis (-ė) ‘made of stones or bricks’). Both settlements are situated on the River Vokė³ in close proximity to one another (approx. 1 km). The name Vokė was 3 The motivation of the river name Vokė can be interpreted in several ways because of its complex semantics (words in different languages may have different associations). The Vokė (the left tributary of the Neris) is a stream flowing from Lake Pāpis. The name can be culturally motivated. In his book, Józef Krajewski (2013: 225) suggests that this name is derived from the Tatar voka ‘water’. However, this statement is highly questionable, as the first mention of the name Vokė in the historical documents was made at least a decade earlier than the fact about the first Tatars settlement in the vicinity. Thus, it is highly likely the name is derived from the Lithuanian verbs vōktis ‘to clear, vōkti ‘to harvest, to clear, to gather’ (LKŽe) by means of the suffix -ė, which is the derivational suffix for agent (doers of the action) (see Ambrazas 1993: 170 ff). The motivation of Vokė can be interpreted as follows: vōktis / vōkti → vokėjas ‘the one who harvests, cleans / cleanses’ → Vokė. Straipsniai / Articles 149 PAVEL SKORUPA first mentioned in 1375, when Prussian Marshal Godfrid von Linden († 25 July 1379) and his army looted the vicinity of Trākai for nine days. Then a big battle took place near the Vókė between the regiments of the Lithuanian dukes Kęstutis (c. 1300 – 15 August 1382) and Algirdas (11 February 1296 – 24 May 1377) and the Teutonic Order. In 1396–1397 the Grand Duke of Lithuania Vytautas (c. 1350 – 27 October 1430) settled the Tatar prisoners by the River Vókė. In 1415 the village of Vókė was written by Duke Vytautas to the Old Trakai Benedictine Monastery (VLE XXIV). The attribute Trākų in the composite name Trākų Vókė is motivated by the oikonym Trākai, as the settlement is situated near the road to Trākai. Thus, the name Trākų Vókė means no more or less than ‘the settlement (Vókė) on the road (in the direction to Trakai) near the Vókė river’. The distinctive attribute Mūrinė ‘made of stones or bricks’ (← Lith. mūras ‘a wall or enclosure made from mortar, stones or bricks’ or ← Lith. verb mūryti ‘to lay bricks; to build from stones or bricks’) was motivated by the type of buildings prevalent in the settlement. Both names (Trākų Vókė and Mūrinė Vókė) definitely create an opposition, but the opposition of these composite names is not based on antonymic semantic relationship of their distinctive attributes Trākų and Mūrinė. The majority of the analyzed toponymic oppositions are based on antonymic semantic relationships between the modifying words. The semantic analysis focuses on the toponymic opposition types in terms of size, position, age, and colour of the named object. 2.1. Size The semantic category based on antonymic relationships of qualifying adjectives of size (didelis ‘big’ × mažas ‘small’) is comprised of 24 toponymic oppositions, i.e. 11 hydronym (5 potamonym and 6 limnonym) and 13 oikonym oppositions. The analysis of the geo-data shows that almost all distinctive attributes that form oppositions literally refer to the size of the modified object and indicate the semantic antonymic relationship between the members of the opposition, e.g., the Kenà (23,9 km) is literally a longer river than the Mažōji Kenà (10,4 km) and the Kenėlė (8 km)⁴; the lake Didìeji Vági­ekai (0,047 km²) is twice bigger than ⁴ The River Kenà is a left tributary of the Vilnia. The river gave name to the village Kenà (Kinė) in Vilnius District municipality (approx. 1 km upstream the Kenà and its confluence with the Vilnia). The Kenėlė (Kinėlė) is a left tributary of the Kenà and is the diminutive suffix derivative. The sources of the Kenà and the Mažōji Kenà are 6,6 km away from one another and both rivers flow 150 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Semantic Options in Vilnius County Toponyms the lake Mažieji Vagiekai (0,023 km²)⁵; the village Didžiosios Kabiškės occupy much bigger area than the village Mažosios Kabiškės. The same can be told about oppositions based on the diminutive suffixes (see 1.2.1), e.g. the Mūšia (29 km) is almost four times longer than its tributary the Mūšelė (8 km); the lake Báltas⁶ (0,65 km²) is almost twice bigger than the lake Baltėlis (0,038 km²) and yet another lake Baltėlis (0,015 km²) in Švč. D. mun.; Šalčininkai town (2,98 km²) and the village of the same name Šalčininkai (1,5 km²) (in the vicinity of the town) are both bigger than the village Šalčinėliai (0,5 km²). However, there is one exception that stands out from the majority of semantic anonyme oppositions in this category – two rivers in the direct oppositions the Didysis Pirčiupis and the Mažasis Pirčiupis⁷. The distinguishing attributes (adjectives) in pre-position (Didysis ← didis (great, big) and Mažasis ← mažas (small)) were added to the river names Pirčiupis most probably in the second half of the 20ᵗʰ century (as a result of re-naming of the two rivers), as The map of Rusian Empire (REM 1872) features two river names Pirčiupis (Rus. Пирцюписъ) with the settlement name Pirčiupė (Rus. Пирцупе), now Pirčiupiai, in the opposite directions from one another. The Mažoji Kenà (a right tributary of the Merkys) is the name made by the principle of analogy from the Kenà, as the opposition of the form with qualification adjective mažas (–a) (small) ‘of small dimensions; spare, sparse; slight, weak; less important’ (LKŽe). Vanagas (1981: 156) claimed that the name Kenà is derived from Lith. kinė ‘a raised place in a meadow, bog, or in water’ or ‘roots of trees and shrubs on the river bank (in water)’ (LKŽe); also, from Lith. kinis ‘a crust on the water; slough, marsh’ or ‘a small island in a river or lake; the area of slough, marsh’ (LKŽe). Therefore, the motivation for the name is quite confusing and can be interpreted as a transposition of the concept: kinė → a place overgrown with trees and shrubs → the (Mažoji) Kenà (and the Kinėlė); or kinis → a crust on the water; slough, marsh → the (Mažoji) Kenà (and the Kinėlė). ⁵ In the Rusian Empire Map of 1872, the lake Didėji Vagiekai are recorded as (Rus.) оз.[еро] Важье, Mažieji Vagiekai – (Rus.) оз.[еро] Важенка (see REM 1872). An unnamed stream drains into the Lake Didėji Vagiekai. The southern part the lake is also a source of yet another unnamed stream, which joins Didėji Vagiekai with the lake Mažieji Vagiekai, which in its turn is a source of yet one more unnamed stream that joins it with the Lake Luknia. Both Didėji Vagiekai and Mažieji Vagiekai lie in the bed or watercourse of a nameless stream. Thus, the name Vagiekai may be derived by means of the suffix -iek- with pluralum tantum inflection -ai from the Lith. vagà (riverbed, channel) ‘the place where the river flows’ (LKŽe). The motivation of the name can be interpreted as a transposition of the concept: vagà → the one that lies in the riverbed / course → Didėji Vagiekai / Mažieji Vagiekai. ⁶ The Lake Báltas, as well as two lakes Baltėlis in its opposition, is motivated by colour báltas, –a (white). ⁷ Both the Didysis Pirčiupis and the Mažasis Pirčiupis are left tributaries of the Merkys (the confluence of the Mažasis Pirčiupis and the Merkys is 2 km further upstream from the place the Didysis Pirčiupis discharges its waters). Straipsniai / Articles 151 PAVEL SKORUPA on the river now known as the Didysis Pirčiupis. This can also be observed in the maps from the Soviet period. These two composite river names do not actually refer to the size of both rivers, as the Mažasis Pirčiupis is 1,8 km longer than the Didysis Pirčiupis, i.e. their length is 9,1 km and 7,3 km respectively. This geographical fact leads to at least several interpretations of the semantic motivation of both toponyms. First, the choice of qualifying adjectives cannot be explained by the real size of both rivers; it could be motivated by the intensity and volume of the flow – didysis, therefore, could mean ‘notable in volume, abundant; strong, violent, intense’ (LKŽe), whereas mažasis could mean ‘which is of small dimensions, weak’ (LKŽe), highlighting the most vivid characteristics of both rivers. However, such interpretations of the distinguishing attributes motivation, though possible, are arguable, as once intense and voluminous currents could have lost their volumes and vigour. Second, the attributes didysis and mažasis could respectively mean ‘important, significant’ and ‘insignificant, less important’. The Didysis Pirčiupis could be made more ‘important, significant’ than the Mažasis Pirčiupis because of the following reasons: a) the name Pirčiupiai8 was first mentioned as early as the 16ᵗʰ–17ᵗʰ centuries. The village was located on the road to Grodno. Dukes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania led to hunt in its vicinity. Here was the royal hunting lodge (see ML-I; Maculevičius, Baltrušienė 199: 92); there has been the village Pirčiupiai (Rus. Пупоне ← *Piciupe, *Piciupė ← Piciupė, Piciupis) on the banks of the Didysis Pirčiupis (see REM 1872; b) the village Pirčiupiai (and the river it is located next to) is known for the tragedy of June 1944, when after the Soviet partisans’9 attack on the Nazi battalion, the Schutzstaffel sent a punishment squad and burned alive almost all (119, including children under age of 16) inhabitants of Pirčiupiai (see Lipovec 2019). The tragedy of Pirčiupiai is covered in many books, articles, etc. Considering the above, the distinctive attributes didysis and mažasis could actually highlight the significance of one river over the other irrespective of their actual lengths. 8 The name of the village Pirčiupiai is motivated by the river name(s) in the vicinity of which it is situated. The river name is a compound, the first part of which is related by Vanagas (1981: 260) to the Lith. pirtis (bathhouse) a certain building or a place for bathing; the building or room where the flax is dried’ (LKŽe). Taking into consideration the historical facts that the vicinity was a favourite hunting place of the Grand Dukes of the GDL and there once has been a royal hunting estate, as well as the tragedy of 1944, the motivation of the qualitative adjective Didysis x Mažasis can be interpreted according to Stachowski’s (2018: 197–214) theory and it can be stated that the Didysis Pirčiupis is more important. Linguistic-cognitive motivation can be interpreted as a transfer of the concept: pirtis (bath) → bathing river / bathhouse → Pirčiupis. 9 Members of resistance movements that fought against the Axis forces in the Soviet Union. 152 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Semantic Optisons in Vilnius County Toponems 2.2. Position The semantic category based on the antonymic relationships of the distinctive attributes (adjectives) indicating the relative position of the toponim objects in space (in all cases – the vertical position aukštas ‘high’ x žemas ‘low’) consists of 10 toponim oppositions (1 limonym and 9 oikonym). In two cases (Jagelons x Klōniniai Jagelons and Kalniniai Midūgonys x Klōniniai Midūgonys) the identical place names are modified by the adjectives klōninis ‘of the valley’ (meaning ‘located / situated in the valley’) and kalninis ‘of the hill / mountain’ (meaning ‘located / situated on the hill / mountain’) and are derived from the Lithuanian nomenclature terms klōnis ‘valley, dip, lowland, ravine’ and kānas ‘high natural ground elevation; hill, mountain’. One of the most interest oppositions in this category is that of lakes Nevārdas Aukštas and Nevārdas Žemas – two limonyms in the analyzed region the option of which is based on the antonymic semantic relationship of the qualifying adjectives aukštas ‘high’ and žemas ‘low’. The lakes are in V D. mun., 10.5 km northeast of the village Paberžė. Nevārdas Aukštas is characterized by high, dry banks mostly covered with trees and meadows; Nevārdas Žemas is the larger lake 0,07 km to the south from Nevārdas Aukštas. In comparison with Nevārdas Aukštas the shores of Nevārdas Žemas are low and swampy (the lake is surrounded by Vilkiškių Swamp). The name Nevārdas is a negative prefix ne-derivative from the base vard-. According to Aleksandras Vanagas (1981: 362), all the hydronyms with the base vard- have to be related with the hydronyms with bases verd- and vird-. All of them comprise three variants of etymologically single root – vard-, verd- and vird-. Such hydronyms can be derived from Lith. verdė, verdìs ‘spring, source’ (LKŽe), virdùklis ‘spring, whirlpool’ (LKŽe) ← Lith. verb virti (verda, virė) or versti ‘to pop or bounce from dungeons (about source)’ (LKŽe). Thus, linguistic-cognitive motivation of the names Nevārdas Aukštas and Nevārdas Žemas can be interpreted as a transposition of the concept: ne + vardas (verdėnis, verdùklis) (not + spring, source → the body of water that is not a spring, source → Nevārdas (Aukštas / Žemas)). The distinctive attributes of both names indicate to their actual position in space, Nevārdas Aukštas being positioned somewhat higher in space (i.e. elevated, located on the hill) than its counterpart. 2.3. Age The biggest number of oppositions (19 cases) based on the antonymic relationships of the distinctive attributes (adjectives in the pre-position) with the Straipsniai / Articles 153 PAVEL SKORUPA semantic meaning of sēnas ‘old’ and naujas ‘new’ can only be found in the category of oikonyms, as in Sēnas Strūnaitis x Naujas Strūnaitis (two villages in Strūnaitis eldership, Švč. D. mun.) or Naujasis Tarupis x Senasis Tarupis (two villages in Senieji Trakai eldership, Trak. D. mun.). Sometimes the opposition old x new can be only inferred, as one of the members has no modifier: cf. Lentvaris (tn) x Lentvaris (v) x Naujasis Lentvaris (v), Trakai (C) (Trakai eldership, Trak. D. mun.) x Senieji Trakai (v) (Senieji Trakai eldership, Trak. D. mun.). The distinctive attributes sēnas ‘old’ and naujas ‘new’ of the oppositions in this category of semantic antonymic relationship point to the age difference between the members of the opposition, i.e. one member of the opposition is literally older than the other. Thus, for instance, the village Senieji Trakai is literally older than the historic city of Trakai, or both Lentvaris¹¹ town and Lentvaris village are older than the village Naujasis Lentvaris. 2.4. Colour Colour oppositions are suprisingly scarce in toponymy of the present-day Vilnius County. Only one case was identified in the class of oikonyms. Although, according to Saed (2016: 64) “the term antonymy is sometimes used to describe words which are at the same level in a taxonomy”, i.e. hierarchical classification system, one of which is the system of colour adjectives that being “sister-members of the same taxonomy and therefore incompatible with each other”, toponyms (river, lake, settlement names, including compound and 10 According to legends, Senieji Trakai was founded in 1316 by Grand Duke Gediminas, who transferred the capital of Lithuania from Kernavė to Senieji Trakai and erected the brick castle. Trakai and the Duchy of Trakai were first mentioned in 1337 in the Vygand Marburgian Chronicle. Historians associate this mention of Trakai with Senieji Trakai. When GD Gediminas settled in Vilnius, his son Kęstutis inherited the Duchy of Trakai and moved the town from Senieji Trakai to its current location, known as (Naujieji) Trakai. The castle of Senieji Trakai was destroyed by the Teutonic Order in 1391 (ML-I; Kerbelytė 1983; Vanagas 1996; Maculevičius, Baltrušienė 1999; Mišeikis 2001; Malinauskas, Kriaučiūnas 2005; Zinkevičius 2007; Lisauskas 2009; Veinckevičius 2010; VLE XXI). The name Trakai is derived from Lith. trākas (glade, clearing) ‘dry, grassy meadow overgrown with rare shrubs and trees in the forest’ or ‘cut or scorched forest, picking’ or ‘shrubs or trees growing under tree crowns, undergrowth’ (LKŽe). Thus, linguistic-cognitive motivation can be interpreted as a transfer of the concept: trākas (glade, clearing) → meadow in the forest, picking, undergrowth → Trakai. 11 Lentvaris is mentioned as early as in 1596 as Lentvario (Lentvariškių) dvaras (En. Lentvaris manor, estate), which started developing into a settlement in 1861–1862, when the railroad St. Petersburg–Warsaw was built (see Vanagas 1996: 135–137). 154 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Semantic Options in Vilnius County Toponyms composite names) of the same syntactic composition or form modified by any colour could potentially make an opposition. However, no such names were identified in the corpus of 5103 toponyms12. Colour components in toponyms, according to Stachowski (2018: 199–200) can be motivated by the following: 1) geographical factors, i.e. such names can be derived by means of analogy from other toponyms (esp. the hydronyms) the geographical object is in close proximity to; 2) geological factors, i.e. the colour of soil in the vicinity of the named object, and/or fertility of soil, which is closely related to its colour, i.e. the darker the colour of soil, the more fertile it is; 3) the colour of buildings; 4) symbolism, i.e. colours in toponyms may have a symbolic meaning, as in many cultures have symbolic meaning with reference to space, esp. point of the world: the North, South, East and West13; 5) colour oppositions may correspond to oppositions, such as old × new, upper × lower, big × small, e.g., colour white could mean big and, eventually, old, as opposed to black with the meaning small and, eventually, new; 6) as a distinguishing element between two identical names. The opposition under discussion, based on the antonymic relationship of the colours báltas (white) and júodas (black), is formed by two villages in V C mun. – Juodāji Vókė and Baltóji Vókė (for the meaning and motivation of the name Vókė, see section 2). Baltóji Vókė (v) is 8,8 km away from Juodāji Vókė (v), both are on the right bank of the Vókė. Juodāji Vókė can also be considered an opposition to the town Baltóji Vókė (Šlčn. D. mun.), which is 8,7 km away from Juodāji Vókė (v). It is very difficult to explain the motivation of colour adjectives in composite toponyms or colour component in compound place names, in this case – settlement names, for several reasons. Let us consider some possible factors that could motivate the names Juodāji Vókė and two Baltóji Vókė settlements based on the data from the Russian Empire 1872 Map, which features only Baltóji Vókė village (Rus. Белая Бака) out of three names. The colour attributes in these settlement names may be explained with reference of their age, where colour white could mean big and, eventually, 12 There are several toponyms, such as rivers the Báltupis (also known as the Cedronas or Kedronas), the Juodė, the Raudonėlė, the Rudaminà, the Rūdė, the Žalasė, lakes Juõdis, Báltis, which were obviously in one way or another motivated by colour adjectives báltas (white), júodas (black), raudónas (red), rùdas (brown, red), žalias (green), but they are at a too big distance from other colour-motivated toponymic objects to form oppositions. 13 This will not be considered in the current analysis, as the cases are too few to draw any plausible conclusions. The theory of colour oppositions based on ancient colour symbolism with reference to points of the compass were studied in Superanska (1970), Štepān (2009), Stachowski (2018) and others, however, no regularities were proved. Straipsniai / Articles 155 PAVEL SKORUPA old, as opposed to black with the meaning small and, eventually, new. The absence of the village Juodžiō Vókė and the town Baltōji Vókė in the 19th century map means that both the village and the town are relatively ‘young’ settlements. Thus, the reasoning ‘white is old and black is young’ could only be true for the opposition Baltōji Vókė (v, V C mun.) x Juodžiō Vókė (v), but not for the opposition Juodžiō Vókė (v) x Baltōji Vókė (tn, Ščn. D. mun.). The town Baltōji Vókė was initially founded as a settlement known as Naujoji Žagarinė and got its current name as well as the status of the town in 195814. Therefore, it may be concluded that the name Baltōji Vókė is made by analogy to Baltōji Vókė village (V C mun.). The statement that colour adjectives in names can be motivated by geographical and geological factors can partly be true in case of Juodžiō Vókė, which is situated in the middle of the Baltōji Vókė swamp, the biggest peatbog in Lithuania. It is highly likely that the colour adjective Juodžiō (black) in the name of this village could be motivated by the dark colour of soil (peat), taking into the consideration the village’s location. The presence of colour in all three settlement names could be motivated by the colour of buildings in each settlement. The absence of black colour in most settlement names (esp. villages) could be explained by dark or black colour of wooden buildings (Šėpān 2009: 917). Wood (a common building material) gets darker or black with age. The presence of wooden structures does not explain the colour adjective in the name Juodžiō Vókė, as toponyms are usually motivated by certain features exclusively characteristic of the named object, but not the common qualities, which means that if the black colour was or is typical in the time of name giving, i. e. the prevalent dark (black) colour of most wooden structures in the settlement could not be considered the unique quality (outstanding feature) of the oikonim, and, thus, could not motivate its name. However, the colour of buildings as the outstanding feature is a possible and highly likely motivational factor in case of Baltōji Vókė (v), which has been famous for its centuries old Baltōji Vókė Mansion (Lith. Baltōsios Vókės dvaras), included in the list of protected objects of the country’s Department of Cultural Heritage15. The mansion with its light (white) structures is the most prominent object in Baltōji Vókė village and, thus, may be considered the settlement’s exclusive, outstanding feature. The adjective báltas ‘white’ in settlement names is usually associated with white coating of masonry buildings. The motifs of renaming Naujoji Žagarinė into Baltōji Vókė (tn, Ščn. D. mun.) are not quite clear and the new (current) name of the town could only be deemed to be motivated 14 Baltōji Vókė eldership website at: https://www.baltojvke.lt/apie-seniunija/ 15 See Kultūros vertybių registras at: https://kvr.kpd.lt/#/ 156 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Semantic Options in Vilnius County Toponyms by Baltōji Vōkē (swamp) peatbog, as Naujōji Žagarinė was founded as a settlement for workers who have been digging peat for Vilnius heat plant. 3. CONCLUSIONS 1. 191 opostions were identified in the corpus of 5103 toponyms that currently exist in Vilnius County: river (including streams) names make 14 (7%) opostion; lake names make 37 (20%) opostion; pond names make 12 (6%), settlement names make 128 (67%) opostion. The opostions were selected with reference to the distance between the objects, i.e. the objects within 0,1 to 20 km from each other were considered to form an opostion. 2. The analysis of the syntactic features of toponyms shows that the majority of opostions in composite toponyms are formed by distinctive attributes (usually qualifying adjectives) that serve as pre- or post-modifiers of the place name and follow these word formation patterns: zero modifier + name x pre-modifier + name, pre-modifier + name x pre-modifier + name, name + zero modifier x name + post-modifier. From the perspective of word-formation these toponymic opostions are classified as composite place names. 3. The use of numbers in place names is characteristic of nomination patterns of the 20th century and can be observed in a great number of pond and settlement names numbers are used to make distinction between two identical toponyms (in some cases, among three and more objects). Such toponymic constructions can be observed only in pond and settlement names opostions that more often follow the name + zero modifier x name + post modifier and name + post-modifier x name + post-modifier patterns, the latter being the most productive (the total of 51 opostions). 4. Affixes (prefixes or diminutive suffixes) form opostions with the place names with zero modifiers. The group of opostions based on diminutive suffixes is the biggest (69 opostions). All diminutive toponyms are suffix-derivatives (suffixes -ėl- (-is, -ė, -iai) and -el- (-is, -ė, -ės, -ai) being the most productive) from the toponyms they are in opostion with, are characterized by their size and are smaller than the objects from the names of which they were derived. Opositions based on prefix pa- derivatives (with the meaning of a place below or near something) that can be found among settlement names (2 cases). 5. Only two compound name opostions without any autonomous words used as pre- or post-modifiers were identified among the analyzed region’s toponyms: one compound settlement name opostion and one compound river name opostion. The compound river name opostion is an opostion based on the diminutive suffix derivative. Straiņsai / Articles 157 PAVEL SKORUPA 6. Although antonymic relationships are typical in toponymy, not all of the cases create a semantic opposition, esp. when descriptive attributes are derived from other proper names or when descriptive attributes belong to different semantic categories. The majority of the analyzed toponymic oppositions are based on antonymic semantic relationships between the modifying words. The semantic analysis focuses on the toponymic opposition types in terms of size, position, age, and colour of the named object. The biggest number of oppositions (19 cases) based on the antonymic relationships of the distinctive attributes (adjectives in preposition) with the semantic meaning of senas ‘old’ and naujas ‘new’ can only be found only in the category of oikonims. Whereas colour options are surprisingly scarce in toponymy of the present-day Vilnius County with only one case identified in the class of oikonims based on the antonymic relations of the colours baltas (white) and juodas (black). ABBREVIATIONS C – city; D. – district; El – Elektrėnai; Lith. – Lithuanian; mun. – municipality; Pol. – Polish; Rus. – Russian; stead. – steading; Šlčn. – Šalčininkai; Švnč. – Švenčionys; tn – town; Trak. – Trakai; V – Vilnius; v – village. REFERENCES AND SOURCES Ambrazas Saulius 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Vilnius: Mokslo enciklopedijų leidykla. Baltoji Vokė eldership web site at: https://www.baltojivoke.lt/apie-seniunija/ Kerbelytė Bronislava 1983: Kai milžinai gyveno: Padavimai apie miestus, ežerus, kalnus, akmenis. Vilnius: Vaga. Krajewski Józef 2013: Wilno i okolice: przewodnik. Piastów: Oficyna Wydawnicza „Rewasz”. Kultūros vertybių registras web site at: https://kvr.kpd.lt/#/ Lipovec Aleksandr 2019: Birželio 3-ąją – nacių sunaikinto Lietuvos Pirčiupių kaimo ir nežudytų 119 gyventojų 1944 metais tragedijos minėjimo diena [interaktyvus]. Prieiga internete: https://sputniknews.lt/columns/20190604/921211/Pirciupiu-kaimo-tragedija-lietuvos-gyventojai-nese-geles-prie-Pirciupiu-Motinos-paminklo.html. Liauska Vytautas 2009: Trakai: praeities vaizdai. Vilnius: Darlis. 158 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Semantic Options in Vilnius County Toponyms LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20, 1941–2002, elektroninis variantas, redaktorių kolegija: Gertrūda Naktinienė (vyr. red.), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005 (atnaujinta versija, 2008) [interaktyvus]. Prieiga internete: http://www.lkz.lt/ Maculevičius Steponas, Baltrušienė Dolores, ed., 1999: Znajomość z Litwą. Księga tysiąclecia. Tom pierwszy. Państwo. Kaunas: Kraštotvarka. Malinukas Vidmantas, Kriaučiūnas Jonas 2005: Trakų krašto gamtos ir kultūros paveldas. Vilnius: Dailė. Mišeikis Jonas 2001: Senieji Trakai istorijos verpetuose. Trakai: Trakų sp. ML-I – Mūsų Lietuva, T. 1, 1964. Pičupis. Bostonas: Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla. Razukaitė Marija 2009: apie kai kuriuos Vakarų Lietuvos priesaginius oikonimus. – Kalbos kultūra 82, 34–40. REM 1872 – Russian Empire 1872 Map. MAPRE – Historical Maps Online [interactive]. Available at: https://mapre.eu/en/map/russia-1872/ River, Lakes and Ponds Cadastre of the Republic of Lithuania (Lith. Lietuvos Respublikos upių, ežerų ir tvenkinių kadastras) at https://uetk.am.lt. Saed John I. 2016: Semantics. Fourth edition. Chichester: WILEY Blackwell. Stachowski Kamil 2018. O opozycjach kolorystycznych w ojkonimii Polski. – Acta onomastica LIX, 197–214. Superanskaja Aleksandra 1970: Суперанская Александра. Терминологичны ли цветовые названия рек? – Местные географические термины. Москва: Мысль, 120–127. Štėpān Pavel 2009: Opositions in Toponym. – Names in Multi-Lingual, Multi-Cultural and Multi-Ethnic Contact. Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Onomastic Sciences. Aug 17–22, 2008, York University, Toronto, Canada, 915–920 [interactive]. Available at: https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/handle/10315/4034. Vanagas Aleksandras 1970: Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba. Vilnius: Mintis. Vanagas Aleksandras 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas. Vilnius: Mintis. Vanagas Aleksandras 1981a: Lietuvių hidronimų semantika. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 21, 4–153. Vanagas Aleksandras 1996: Lietuvos miestų vardai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Straipsniai / Articles 159 PAVEL SKORUPA Verinkevičius Juozas 2010: Kur dunko Trakų pilys: publicistika (apie Trakų praeitį ir dabartį). Trakai: Voruta. Vilnius County map [interactive]. Available at: https://www.geoportal.lt. VLE XXI – Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija, T. XXI, 2012. Senieji Trakai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas [interaktyvus]. Prieiga internete: https://www.vle.lt. VLE XIV – Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija, T. XIV, 2015. Trakų Vokė. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas [interaktyvus]. Prieiga internete: https://www.vle.lt. Zinkevičius Zigmas 2007: Senosios Lietuvos valstybės vardas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Vilniaus apskrities toponimų semantinės opozicijos SANTRAUKA Šio tyrimo objektas yra semantinės opozicijos Vilniaus apskrities toponimikoje. Tarp 5103 toponimų buvo nustatyta 191 opozicija: 14 (7 %) upių vardų opozicijų; 37 (20 %) ežerų vardų opozicijos; 12 (6 %) tvenkinių vardų opozicijų; 128 (67 %) gyvenviečių vardų opozicijos. Opozicijos atrinktos atsižvelgiant į atstumą tarp objektų, t. y. laikoma, kad objektai, esantys nuo 0,1 iki 20 km atstumu vienas nuo kito, sudaro opoziciją. Tradiciniai lietuvių toponimijos resp. hidronimijos tyrimai (ypač Vanagas 1981) nurodo antoniminius ryšius tam tikruose vandens telkinių varduose, ypač tuose, kurie yra modifikuoti kvalifikaciniais spalvos, dydžio ir pan. būdvardžiais. Kartais etimologai teigia, kad, pvz., spalvos kvalifikaciniai būdvardžiai toponimuose yra motyvuojami dirvožemio spalva, derlingumu ar kitomis dirvožemio fizinėmis savybėmis; vyraujančia patų spalva; dydžio būdvardžius motyvuoja tikrąjį įvardijamo objekto dydį ir pan. Tačiau paprastai šioms skiriamiesiems elementams toponimuose neskiriama reikiamo dėmesio (Stachowski 2018). Sąvoka opozicija yra platesnė nei antonimija ir nurodo bet kokį ryšį tarp elementų, kurie turi aiškią skiriamąją funkciją (Saed 2016: 63). Straipsnyje nagrinėjami ne tik tipiški antoniminiai semantiniai ryšiai tarp Vilniaus apskrities toponimų, bet taip pat atliekama jų formali analizė, t. y. nustatomas sudėtinių ir sudurtinių vardų komponentų vaidmuo sintaksiniame (žodžių darybos) lygmenyje. Sintaksinių charakteristikų analizė rodo, kad didžiąją dalį sudėtinių toponimų opozicijų sudaro kvalifikaciniai būdvardžiai, einantys prieš vietovės vardą arba po jo. Nustatyti tokie vardo darybos modeliai: vardas be pažymimojo žodžio 160 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXI Semantic Options in Vilnius County Toponyms x pažymimas žodis + vardas, pažymimas žodis + vardas, pažymimas žodis + vardas, vardas be pažymimo žodžio x vardas + pažymimas žodis (plg. Kenà x Mažoji Kenà, Mažosios Kabiškės x Didžiosios Kabiškės; Čùdikas Didelis x Čùdikas Mãžas; Ėlma Didžioji x Ėlma Mažoji ir t. t.). Žodžių darybos požiūriu šios opozicijos yra klasifikuojamos kaip sudėtiniai vietovardžiai. Kartais įonimuose naudojami skaitmenys, norint atskirti du identiškus vardus (kai kuriais atvejais tris ir daugiau vardus), pvz.: Antaliedė I x Antaliedė II, Jūdės I x Jūdės II x Jūdės III x Jūdės IV ir t. t., kas yra būdinga XX a. nominacijai. Tokie pavadinimai būdingi tvenkinių ir gyvenviečių vardams, sudarytiems pagal šiuos modelius: vardas be pažymimo žodžio x vardas + pažymimas žodis, vardas + pažymimas žodis x vardas + pažymimas žodis. Antrasis modelis yra produktyviausias – užfiksuotas 51 atvejis. Poziciją gali sudaryti afiksai, pvz., mažybinės priesagos (plg. Bedugnės x Bedugnė, Prūdiškė x Prūdiškėlė, Žeimenà x Žeimenėlė, t. t.) arba priešdėliai (Ūdronys x Paū̇dronys, Voverė x Pavoverė). Deminutyvinių opozicijų grupė yra didžiausia (69 atvejai). Visi deminutyviniai toponimai yra priesagų vediniai (priesagos -ėl- ir -el- yra produktyvios) iš toponimų, su kuriais jie sudaro opozicijas, ir yra mažesni už objektus, iš kurių yra kilę jų vardai. Priešdėlių vedinių opozicijas (su vietos reikšme) sudaro gyvenviečių vardai (2 atvejai). Tarp analizuojamos apskrities toponimų buvo aptiktos tik dvi sudurtinių vardų opozicijos: Senadvaris x Naujadvaris (opoziciją sudaro pirmieji sandai) ir Nėrupis x Nerupėlis (opoziciją sudaro mažybinė priesaga). Antoniminiai ryšiai yra būdingi toponimijai, tačiau ne visais atvejais sudurta semantinė opozicija, ypač kai pažymimieji žodžiai (dažniausiai kvalifikaciniai būdvardžiai) yra kitų vardų vediniai arba priklauso skirtingoms semantinėms kategorijoms (plg. Tartòkas x Šalčininkėlių Tartòkas, Trãkų Vókė x Mūrinė Vókė). Didžioji dalis analizuotų opozicijų yra grindžiamos pažymimųjų žodžių antoniminiais semantiniais ryšiais. Semantinėje analizėje daugiausia dėmesio skiriama toponiminių opozicijų tipams, atsižvelgiant į įvardijamojo objekto dydį, padėtį, amžių ir spalvą. Daugiausia opozicijų (19 atvejų), grindžiamų kokybinių būdvardžių senas ir naujas antoniminiais ryšiais, sudaro oikonimai (pvz.: Didieji Baušiai x Mažieji Baušiai, Naujas Janavas x Senas Janavas, Mažosios Kabiškės x Didžiosios Kabiškės, t. t.). Mažiausią semantinių opozicijų grupę sudaro spalvos opozicija (balta x juoda) oikonimų klasėje: Baltoji Vokė (k, V m. sav.) x Juodoji Vokė (k, V m. sav.) x Baltoji Vokė (m., Šln. r. sav.). Įteikta 2019 m. lapkričio 11 d. PAVEL SKORUPA Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 161