Das Nomem, das Allonom und die Nomematik. Zugleich Besprechung von Silvio Brendlers Buch „Nomematik“

283Įž algos insigh s by VoLke kohLheiM Bay eu h esea ch a eas: pe sonal name s udies, li e a y onomas ics, name heo y. he noMeM, he aLLonoM and he noMeMa ik. Examina ion o he body The book NOMEMATIK nomema, alonomas i nomema ika was w i en by Sil io B endle . Pas abos abou sil io b andle io book Nomadism I I he e is one hing ha has cha ac e ized mode n linguis ics since abou he beginning o he 20 h cen u y, i is he depa u e om a pu ely his o ical iew o language, as s ill de ended by He mann Paul. Along wi h his depa u e om he pu ely linguis ic-his o ical iew was he emphasis on synch onici y as a p e e ed objec o s udy in linguis ic s udies and hus a " educ ion in he numbe o elemen a y desc ip i e uni s", namely "especially h ough he es ablishmen o he phonemic concep in phonology [and] he mo phological concep in mo phology". ( hümmel 2005: 651) This is he i s ime I' e seen his. As a as cu en linguis ics may ha e mo ed away om classical s uc u alism in he mean ime, hese e ms, o which he lexeme can s ill be se aside, and he heo e ical assump ions associa ed wi h hem, e.g. om he dis inc i e ea u es, he opposi ions, as well as analy ical app oaches such as segmen a ion, ha e become an indispensable epe oi e o linguis ics. I is now clea ha onomas ics o his day la gely belie es ha i can a o d o do wi hou his e m ins umen a ium. This lack o me hodological backwa dness may be o less impo ance in he s ill la gely linguis ically-his o ical, e ymologically-o ien ed oponomas ics (c . bu kohlheim, hengs 2004), bu i is pa icula ly no iceable in an h oponomas ics. In pa icula , in in es iga ions which also in ol e s a is ical 284 ac a VoLke kohLheiM Linguis ica Li huanica LXIX ques ions, in which he ques ion always plays a ole, which noun o ms a e o be ega ded as ela ed, as "iden ical", he esul is he lack o a me hodologically consis en and a he le el o gene al linguis ics concep and me hod. Since 1977 he e has been a s uc u alis concep in en o y ha can help he e. Inspi ed by a sugges ion by Rudol F eudenbe g (F eudenbe g 1967: 68), Volke Kohlheim's wo k on he Regensbu g nicknames o he 13 h and 14 h cen u ies, he couple Phomem and denin en a s o genug in zumindes e minologische unkla hei , wenn nich soga in ang ei ba en esul a en. Allophon, se aside he onomas ic couple Nomem and Allonom (Kohlheim 1977: 71). A e minological gap has been illed by his. The meaning and pu pose o his e minological ein e p e a ion was i s o mas e he onymic a ie y o o ms ha a ose in he s udy o he la e medie al Regensbu g su names. I was necessa y o cla i y whe he documen ed o ms such as Gumbe us, Cumbe us, Gump ech , Gumpp ech , Gumplinus had o be aken as one o mo e names in he name s a is ical examina ion (kohlheim 1977: 36). In doing so, and his was he decisi e idea, should no be p oceeded acco ding o e ymological c i e ia ha o he speake s/w i e s o he 13 h-14 h cen u y. The name iden i ies should co espond o he awa eness o he name use s, should ep esen hei onymic compe ence. In p inciple, he e o e, he linguis ic analysis o he la e medie al name sys em o Regensbu g had o be done in he same way as he examina ion o he onymic sys em o an unknown language. The heo e ical amewo k o his "e hnological" app oach had al eady been p o ided by Kenne h Lee Pike. Acco ding o Pike (1967), we e e o an examina ion me hod ha ollows c i e ia ha ha e been b ough om ou side o he sys em o be examined as "e hical". Such a me hod has i s jus i ica ion as an en y, bu i can only be empo a y, because i does no necessa ily co espond o he ac ual ci cums ances. Two o ms o names, which we e e o as "iden ical" because o he same e ymological o igin, can be pe cei ed by he consciousness o he speake s o a pas o p esen epoch as wo sepa a e names. So i 's abou econs uc ing he onymic compe ence o he speake s o a pas pe iod. I hey succeed, we ge , in Pikes' pa lance, "emic" uni s. An example om he p esen : he names Adelhei , Aleida and 285 Įž algos insigh s Elke all go back o adal-hei , bu a e oday qui e pe cei ed as das nomem, das allonom und die nomema ik. Zugleich besp echung on sil io b endle s buch Nomema ik h ee di e en names. On he con a y, in medie al Regensbu g, he e ymologically de i ed o ms o Ma heus and Ma hyas we e ound o be in e changeable, such as he se ies o le e s he n Ma hyas dez Wakche s haus awe (a.1341), Ma heis de Wache (a.1342), Ma heus de Wache (a.1342), a Me lein he Woche (a.1345) We mus he e o e assume ha he e was a men al uni y o he Regensbu g speake s o ha ime, which allowed hem o ecognize he names gi en as iden ical. We call his abs ac men al uni he nomem, i s ealiza ions in spoken language o allonomic (kohlheim 1977: 511), denn es handel sich jeweils um ein und dieselbe Pe son. spelling (kohlheim 1977: 71). Wha is c ucial is ha he nomen mus be pe cei ed as an abs ac men al uni . I s no a ion is he e o e pu ely con en ional. This has no always been unde s ood in he la e li e a u e on he nomem. Thus in Kohlheim (1977) he nomeme was ende ed as an old-high Ge man e yma (also […]kuon- ā […] as a nomeme o he allonome Chun a , Kon ad, Chun z, Kunz e c.). In a la e essay, i was sugges ed ha , in analogy wi h he usual no a ion o phonemes, he nomem should be no ed be ween dashes. In he case o he abo e-men ioned allonomes Ma hyas, Ma heis, Ma heus and Me lein, he no a ion o all hese allonomes is he unde lying nomencla u e Ma his/ (kohlheim 2001: 148.) Howe e , e en wi h his no a ion, he e is a isk o conside ing Ma his/ as he "mos ele an " o m. As ea ly as 1966, Rudol F eudenbe g had p oposed o abandon he no a ion o phonemes on he " igge associa ions" o le e s e oking phone ic alues in a o o comple ely newly chosen symbols (F eudenbe g 1966: 9). So you could imagine, o he no a ion o he noun Ma his, simply he no a ion M o e en a To in oduce he numbe . When he e ms nomem and allonom we e i s de ined, beha io al me hods p e ailed in linguis ics. The analysis o he Regensbu g name ma e ial was he e o e ca ied ou acco ding o he me hods o Ame ican dis ibu ionalism, as de eloped by Zellig S. Ha is (Ha is 1969; c . Kohlheim 1977: 67 […] 80). "Men alis -psychological" iews we e conside ed ou da ed. On he o he hand, om oday's poin o iew, he in oduc ion o he e m nomem was, in a sense, an excep ion o cogni i e posi ions. I F eudenbe g o mula ed in 1966: "Phonemes a e concep s gained by hough syn hesis" (F eudenbe g 1966: 13), he same was ue o he sho ime la e de ined concep o he noun. F om oday's cogni i e poin o iew, nomemes co espond o he concep s ha exis in he b ain o speake s ega ding indi idual noun exp essions.1 I may be no iced ha in he abo e se ies o allonomic Gumbe us, Cumbe us, Gump ech , Gumpp ech and Gumplinus, wo di e en ypes a e ep esen ed, 286 ac a VoLke kohLheiM Linguis ica Li huanica LXIX which we adi ionally e e o as " ull o ms" and as s ill belonging o he i ual [i.e. he emic] le el, bu he choice o he sp eade ype is ca ied ou in he i s w i ing si ua ion. I is con ex -dependen and dependen on he in en ion o he speake o w i e as well as on he main enance o his communica ion pa ne adop ed by he speake o w i e (Kohlheim 1977: 79 .). So a speake o w i e who wan s o ealize he nomemMa ga e e mus be clea abou whe he he is doing his wi h he „ku z o men“ bezeichnen. schon in de a bei on 1977 ha e Volke kohlheim o geschlagen, hie on Realisie ungs ypen zu sp echen: „de ealisie ungs yp ge- allonom Ma ga e e, which belongs o a o mal communica ion le el (domain), o one o he allonomes G e e, G e chen, G e el, G e elchen used, which belong o an in o mal communica ion le el (domain) and belong linguis ically o he ealiza ion ype […]hypoko is ikon[…]. In his way, p agma ic linguis ic aspec s also come in o he p esen ed, p ima y sys em linguis ic model, bu i depends on he espec i e p agma ic si ua ion, which ype o ealiza ion he speake uses. The cen al heme o he e e ence in onomas ic heo y oday played a ole a mos indi ec ly in he wo k o 1977. I was o analyze he names om he co pus o he wo olumes o he Regensbu g documen book, which ch onologically da es back o 1378, and o p epa e hem o s a is ical in es iga ions o names. I 's pu ely co pus- ela ed, i 's sys em-in e nal. Two di e en name o ms we e he e o e conside ed o be "iden ical" i hey occu ed in he same "en i onmen ". he as majo i y o nicknames - and only hese we e men ioned - appea ed in a name syn agm, which no mally consis ed o h ee elemen s: nickname + ce ain a icle + nickname. In he case o women, he su ix -in was added o he su name. Now appea ed wo o ms o he name, o example S ep an and S ep el, in e changeable in connec ion wi h he nickname o Enichl, was he 1 C . o cogni i e wo d concep s ichness, Weiss, eikmeye (2010: 73[…]76). Howe e , only he la e e sion o he noma ic app oach, as p esen ed in Kohlheim, Hengs (2004), admi s a cogni i e app oach o he p oblem. Bu li e ally i was al eady said in he Kohlheim (1977: 71): he linguis ic uni y ha allows he compe en speake o a language communi y o ecognize di e en name o ms as iden ical, we call […]nomem[…] [...][…]. Bu " ecognize" is a cogni i e achie emen . 287 Įž algos insigh s demons a ed "iden i y", ha is, he wo ( ealized) allonome das nomem, das allonom und die nomema ik. Zugleich besp echung on sil io b endle s buch Nomema ik S ep an and S ep el belonged o a ( i ual) nomems ePhan. This me hod s ic ly ollowed he dis ibu ionalimus as o mula ed by Ha is (1969). The ac ha he o ms o names eco ded in he documen s o he documen book e e ed o (a ha ime) speci ic pe sons, i.e. had a e e ence unc ion, was assumed, bu played only an indi ec ole in he de e mina ion o he nomeme. Ano he consequence o his e y co pus- ela ed poin o iew was ha ano he poin o iew, which is in he o eg ound oday, did no play any ole a all: since i was he analysis o an in en o y o names, namely nicknames, he idea ha "a" name could only e e o one pe son could no a ise a all. In connec ion wi h he discussion, how h ee allonomes, which a e la gely he same in he o m a ea, bu in di e en "en i onmen ", i.e. in he namesyn agma oge he wi h di e en p ope names, can ne e heless be assigned o a nomem […] he de ails o he p ocedu e canno be discussed he e […] i was said: […]I we only wan ed o apply he c i e ion o discou se meaning [i.e. he ealiza ion o he en i onmen ], he h ee allonomes [Ruge de Pochne , Ruge de P unnho e , Ruge o de Chappel] would no be iden ical and consequen ly o be assigned. Howe e , his conclusion is absu d: i is well known ha each language communi y uses a ewe names han i names en i ies. I is no ha he p oblem o his s a emen was no ecognized a ha ime, bu i was weakened wi h e e ence o eugenio cose iu (1967: 268: […][...] los nomb es p opios pueden se mul í ocos, pe o son siemp e mono alen es[…]) and a hang Zabeeh (1968: 57: […]We may use, o example, [...] […]joan[…] o e e o many women[…]. Basically, his is he name- heo e ical and philosophical p oblem o he ension be ween onymic "mono alence" and class o ma ion, which is s ill i ulen oday (Windbe ge -heidenkumme 2011). We no longe speak so easily o "a name" oday. Today we ha e a mo e di e en ia ed e minology a ou disposal: o example, Willy Van Langendonck (2007) would no speak o a "name" in he case ci ed, bu o a "p op ie a y lemma", and Sil io B endle in he book o be p esen ed immedia ely would speak o an "a chinomem". O cou se, he nomencla u e o be e oded was also aken up a ha ime as a lemma o a his o ical in en o y o names. In an ex ended e sion o he heo y, he concep o he a chinome was in oduced (kohlheim 2001), which we will encoun e again in pa ii o his essay in a di e en sense han wi h kohlheim. Only b ie ly was he applica ion o su names e lec ed (kohlheim 2005), while he e ms nomem and allonom in he ield o oponomas ics by ka lheinz hings in connec ion wi h 288 ac a VoLke kohLheiM Linguis ica Li huanica LXIX I would like o ask he Commissione whe he he is awa e o he ac ha he Commission has no ye aken a decision on his ma e . he noma ic e minology has occasionally been used by o he au ho s, mos ecen ly by ena e siliņa-piņķe (2009), and was included in he handbook Die Pe sonennamen im Deu schen by Wil ied seibicke (2008:101). II In 2008, B endle published his book Nomema ics. Iden i y heo e ical ounda ions o name esea ch (especially name his o y, name lexicog aphy, name geog aphy, name s a is ics and name heo y) p esen s a ho oughly expanded and e ined heo y o he de e mina ion o onymic iden i ies. he ex ensi e wo k (448 pages, nume ous illus a ions, 6 maps) is well accessible by a name and a egis e (421[…]428; 429[…]448); A pa (321-391) e e ed o as "conc e ions" also documen s he names men ioned op ically. he ich li e a u e di ec o y (393-419) es i ies o he ho oughness o he au ho , who p obably ha dly missed a wo k belonging o he close and u he heme o he book. A he e y beginning o he in oduc ion (2552) i is s a ed: […] he e m […]name iden i y[…] e e s o he occu ence o he same name a di e en poin s in communica ion, i.e. in spoken language[…] (31). synonym o which he exp essions […]isonymia[…] o […]onymic iden i y[…] a e used. The p e equisi e o wo (o mo e) names o be iden ical, […]isonym[…], is hei same e ymological o igin and he ac ha hey name he same objec , i.e. ha hey a e […] e e ence-iden ical[…], co- e e en ial. This is he mos impo an di e ence om Kohlheim's wo ks, in which "iden i y" mean o mal iden i y. Usage iden i y, co- e e en iali y, was he e only he s a ing poin o he de ec ion o nomens, which, once es ablished, could hen qui e e e o se e al pe sons. Fo B andle , he e is no longe an onymic iden i y, bu me ely homonymy (33). B andle sha ply dis inguishes be ween onymic iden i y (isonymy) and name equali y and demons a es ha he e a e di e en ypes o onymic equa ions (in case o e ymological inequali y), e.g. he Ge man place names Koblenz < la . Con luen es and Koblenz < al so bisch *Kobyl[…]no/* Kobyl[…]na […] he se lemen whe e he e a e s allions[…], (3) seman ic name equali y, e.g. Ge man Schwa za, English Blackwa e , (4) e e ence-iden ical name equa ions, which in u n can be di e en ia ed in o hose wi h he same e ymology, e.g. Ge man chap e 1 o he book sche gleichhei gib (33–38): (1) e ymologische namengleichungen, (2) o ma- (53[…]80) con ains in a […]his o ical o e iew[…] a discussion wi h he au ho s who used he noma ic e minology be o e B andle . As al eady s a ed, Kohlheim's app oach o he o m o speech di e s om ha o B endel mainly in ha in Kohlheim a nomem can e e (in he ealiza ion) o an in ini e numbe o nouns. Fo B endle , his is a "homonymic noun" (63). s ill e e ing o Kohlheim (and Kohlheim, Hengs 2004) he 289 Įž algos insigh s Ge many, Danish Ge many, wi h he same seman ics, e.g. Ge man das nomem, das allonom und die nomema ik. Zugleich besp echung on sil io b endle s buch Nomema ik Schwa zwasse , Al so bisch *Čo nica and hose whe e only he objec is he same, e e ed o by o mal, e ymological and seman ically di e en names, e.g. Ge man Ge many, English Ge many, Finnish Saksa. Finally, he e a e s ill (5) "name-iden ical name equa ions" in which all he abo e pa ial equa ions apply a he same ime, as in he e idence om 15 h-cen u y Aus ia Be l Menha = Pa l Menha . Only he la e equa ions, acco ding o B endle , a e "name iden i y heo e ically ele an " (38). When conside ing onyms, B andle dis inguishes be ween he "pe cep ual le el" and h ee "cogni i e le els" (40 .): on he pe cep ual le el a e he (o al o w i en) conc e iza ions o he onyms (in Kohlheim hese we e he ealized allonomes). The le el o cogni ion is di ided in o he le el o ealiza ions, in which di e en name conc e iza ions a e ecognized as a ian s wi hin an onymic sys em, he sys ema iza ions, in which a sys em is o med in he b ain o he language pa icipan s, and he a chis ema iza ions, which occu in " hinking and exp essing" abou names. When we hea o ead a name, we i s iden i y he objec named wi h i as a pa icula , bu no mo e speci ic indi idual. Unlike his ac o 'iden i ica ion', 'iden i ica ion' occu s when he iden i y o an indi idual is es ablished by a name. In any case, B endle ejec s a "ca ie -independen conside a ion o he name" "because i does no do jus ice o he essence o he name" (50). p oposes a linguis ically mo e homogeneous e minology, apa om wo ks published since Kohlheim (1977), which use he noma ic e minology, and comes o he conclusion ha hey all do no ake in o accoun he c i e ion o unc ional iden i y ha is decisi e o him; […] appa en ly one simply con uses e ymological iden i y wi h name iden i y (holds isogeny o isonymy) […] (80). indem e „allonom“ au de ebene de konk e isie ung du ch „nom“ e se z und „ ealisie ungs yp“ du ch „allonom“ (64). e geh dann ein au die in dem Zei - 290 ac a VoLke kohLheiM Linguis ica Li huanica LXIX Chap e 2 (81 […] 170) bea s he heading […]nomema ics[…].2 decisi e o he nomema ical, i.e. an emic, way o looking a he names in he sys em, whe e he name sys em, simila o ha o Kohlheim (1998), is o be unde s ood as a subsys em o he lexical and his in u n o he linguis ic sys em (82). The "desc ip ion o he cons i u i e linguis ic p ope ies o names [...] as nomemes", i.e. he desc ip ion o hei phonema ic/g aphema ic o m, is e e ed o by B endle as "name g amma " (85). In he ollowing, he uni s nom, allonom and nomem a e ede ined: […]a nom is he conc e iza ion o a unc ionally and a he same ime g amma ically iden ical nomem, while an allonom p oduces he ealiza ion o a unc ionally and a he same ime g amma ically iden ical nomem[…] (89). Two di e ences om he Kohlheim model become e iden he e: whe eas in Kohlheim a nomem could e e o se e al name ca ie s a he implemen a ion le el as a me e o m uni , as a "p op ie a y lemma" in he sense o Van Langendonck (2007), his is no he case in he B endle model. Secondly, in he case o B endle , "names wi h di e en wo dings, which, howe e , name he same objec , ep esen [...] di e en nomemes and hus di e en names" (103). O cou se, his misses he in en ion o Kohlheim's app oach. The e i was p ecisely o summa ize he di e en a ian s belonging o a nomem, especially sho o ms and kose o ms o a ull o m, acco ding o he onymic compe ence o he la e medie al namesake s and bea e s, in o de o make hem s a is ically usable. B andle , on he o he hand, sees sho o ms and p onouns as "sel -con ained" names and he e o e speaks o "sho names and p onouns" (103). Howe e , i his is done and applied in p ac ice, i is no possible, o example, o examine he sp ead o sac ed names in he Middle Ages diach onically and dias a ically app op ia ely. I would hen always be he name (nomem) ha is s a is ically p e e ed, which has no o only a ew allo o ms. Since in he Middle Ages a nomema iza ion o allo o ms (unlike oday) was e y a e, he image would be ho oughly dis o ed by such a p ocedu e. In layman's e ms o in linguis ic e ms, when we hink abou he connec ions be ween names and o names, we go o memes when we hink o speak abou eal o e en seemingly connec ed names, be o e es ablishing any e e ence. The e o e, i is in he case o exp essions such as "I know wo people wi h 2" ha his e m was in oduced by B endle al eady in 2003 (81). die kogni i e ebene de „a chisys ema isie ungen“. so gelangen wi zu „a chino- 291 Įž algos insigh s o he name onny also no ye o ull names (116). a chinomemes may das nomem, das allonom und die nomema ik. Zugleich besp echung on sil io b endle s buch Nomema ik di e sligh ly in p onuncia ion o g aphics (B endle 's example is Ge i /Ge i , p. 116). I s a emen s abou he diach ony o noun o ms a e made, whe he hey a e linguis ically co ec o no , B endle speaks o "a chiallonomy" (118). The ollowing deals wi h he men al p ocesses ha occu in abs ac ion, i.e. he pa h om conc e iza ion o a chisys ema iza ion, and i s coun e pa , he speci ica ion o noma ic uni s (126 […] 128). he ela ionships be ween noma ic en i ies, in pa icula isonymy and anisonymy, a e also discussed (130[…]140). The ollowing pages should a ac a en ion, in which B endle p esen s his concep o "nomema ics as a dynamic conside a ion o language" (140 […] 144). He e he ies o o e come he allegedly en i ely "concen a ed on synch onici y" (140) app oach o Kohlheim by a "panch onic" app oach, bu does no ake in o accoun ha e en in Kohlheim (1977) diach onici y as a sequence o synch onous laye s played a decisi e ole. The "dynamics o noma ic sys emic conside a ion" a ises om he "main d i ing o ces o he loudspeake : conc e iza ion, ealiza ion and sys ema iza ion" (141). B endle does no elabo a e on how his, which is ini ially a synch onous classi ica ion o men al p ocesses, can be de i ed om diach onic change. He igh ly emphasizes he "p oblema ic na u e o he iden i ica ion o linguis ic uni s in diach ony" (142). This p oblem was also encoun e ed by Kohlheim (1977) and he had ied o sol e i o he empo al con inuum om 893 o 1378 by he sequence o synch onous laye s, whe e hen phenomena o onymic change such as he spli ing o a nomem in o wo di e en o con amina ion, he me ge o wo nomemes in o one, we e o be obse ed (Kohlheim 1977: 100 […] 106). And when B andle on page 144 wan s o g aphically ep esen he de elopmen o oday's place name "chemni z" om "kaMeniZ" (abou 1100) o e "keMeniZ" (abou 1200) o "keM(e)niZ" (abou 1300), he de ac o also ecu s o "synch onous laye s", as Kohlheim (1977) was o ced o do o he Regensbu g su names. In any case, his is no ye a "complex con inuum", as claimed on page 143. B endle igh ly w i es, he e o e, ha he has al eady de eloped a use ul ool o his ins umen a ium, bu he onymic change is ini ially in isola ed conc e isa ion. See Kohlheim (1977: 100 […] 106): […] Diach onic change o he name sys em […]. namen o schung geeigne e Me hoden ü die diach onische e o schung dynami- sche namensys eme [noch] wi d en wickeln müssen“ (143). Mi seinem beg i s-