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-