Laimutis Bilkis. „Lietuvių helonimų daryba. Priesaginiai ir priesagėtieji helonimai“

LAIMUTĖ BALODĖ University of Latvia Research interests: Baltic onomastics, Latvian hydronymy, Latvian anthroponymy, lexicology and lexicography. Laimutis Bilkis THE FORMATION OF LITHUANIAN HELONYMS. SUFFIXAL AND SUFFIXED HELONYMS Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008, 497 p. ISBN 978–609–411–018–4 Not every nation and not every language can pride itself on having thoroughly investigated all its place names, especially microtoponyms. The English are always keen to point out that they have a comprehensive dictionary of agronyms (field names) (English Field-names: A Dictionary. Editor John Field, Devon: David & Charles, 1972). Other countries (Scotland, Sweden) are also greatly interested in field names. Oronyms, or mountain names, are studied more extensively in various regions (including Lithuania—see Vanagas 1973, Kačinaitė 2008). However, no study has yet been published in world onomastics that thoroughly and comprehensively analyzes the names of wetlands across a large area, or helonyms. Incidentally, perhaps because the subject of research is relatively unpopular, even the term helonimai has not yet become widespread in theoretical onomastic literature. The researcher of Lithuanian names Laimutis Bilkis published his doctoral dissertation Lithuanian Suffixal Formation of Helonyms (defended in 1998) as a comprehensive monograph a couple of years ago: The Formation of Lithuanian Helonyms: Suffixal and Suffixed Helonyms. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2008, 500 pp. (about 200 pages of various indexes—also a necessary and highly valuable part of the monograph). The book is appealing not only for its impressive length but also for its tasteful, elegant cover design. The book, which consists of three chapters, provides the first detailed study in Lithuanian linguistics of Lithuanian helonyms, more precisely, the suffixation of marsh names. The introduction (pp. 9–30) first gives a very brief overview of the most important works in Lithuanian toponymy (only a page and a half is devoted to this). A casual reader might get the impression that little has been done in this field, although that is not the case (cf. the more extensive overview in the latest publication Dictionary of Lithuanian Place Names, vol. I, 2008: XXV–XXX). The introduction discusses helonym research around the world at somewhat greater length (articles on the relevant subject have appeared in Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Polish, Latvian, and German onomastics—the latter including one doctoral dissertation). 194 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII Laimutis Bilkis. Lietuvių helonimų daryba. Priesaginiai ir priesagėtieji helonimai The book provides an in-depth explanation of onomastic terminology, focusing primarily on the key term helonyms, that is, names of pools, bogs, and marshes; it also offers a well-argued account of the meaning of this term and its relationship to the broader term hydronyms. A helonym, an international term of Greek origin, was introduced on the model of Slavic onomastics. The situation is compared mainly with the terminological systems of Slavic onomastics—Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, and Macedonian. Incidentally, Latvian and Estonian onomasticians have also been using this term quite frequently in recent years. The monograph also introduces other useful new terms, for example, suffixal transonymization, anthropohelonyms. Problems in terminology are clearly demonstrated: the polysemy of physiographic terms and the membership of lexemes in several semantic fields. We know that the physiographic properties of marshy areas change: pools become meadows, fields, and so on. The relevant and debatable problem of defining a microtoponym is also discussed. The standardization of hydronyms is mentioned only very briefly. It is debatable whether names of ditches, springs, natural water sources, ponds, and the like should also be treated as subclasses within the supercategory of helonyms. The monograph does not describe the sources of the material analyzed: we encounter highly “variegated” toponymic material, collected both from spoken language and from written sources, but the quantity of this material is not specified. The object of study is broad, debatable, and problematic; for example, was a suffixal helonym formed from an appellative (especially a plant or animal name), or from a personal name with the corresponding stem (Grybinė < mushroom or Grybas, Kurmiškės < mole or Kurmis, Kurmys). The second part of the monograph analyzes suffixal helonyms. As is customary, the study of place names begins with word formation. The author follows Aleksandras Vanagas in distinguishing the concepts derivational analysis and morphemic analysis. Suffixal helonyms are defined as place names whose suffix is a derivational affix (p. 31). Yet difficulties arise here too, when it is hard or even impossible to distinguish a suffixal appellative from a suffixal toponym (especially in the case of diminutives). The author is justifiably inclined to treat such helonyms as products of suffixal derivation rather than as suffixed forms (a new term!). The monograph acknowledges that some helonyms can be analyzed in several ways; according to the author, there are few such cases, but specific examples of helonyms give reason to doubt this (see below). The final—third—chapter, the shortest and most problematic one, is devoted to suffixed helonyms. The author himself acknowledges that, unfortunately, distinguishing suffixal from suffixed helonyms inevitably involves relative and subjective judgments (p. 33). Numerous specific examples bear this out. The principle chosen for organizing the monograph is commendable: all the helonyms analyzed are classified according to the origin of their derivational affixes. This makes the analysis of helonyms systematic and allows their formation to be compared with the suffixation of common nouns, as well as specific suffixes to be identified. According to the clarity of their formation, helonyms are divided into three groups: those with clear formation (Group I), those with uncertain formation (Group II), and helonyms whose formation is unclear and problematic (Group III). This classification is highly conditional—as time goes by, once the underlying word has been identified, the subgroups and statistical charts based on them may change. Recenzijos / Reviews 195 LAIMUTĖ BALODĖ In addition, helonyms with highly uncertain formation are often analyzed even in the first group; for example, Kazlaypiškis: it is claimed to derive from the now unknown river name Kazlaupė or the like (p. 85). The discussion of the formation of helonyms with clear derivation is supplemented by semantic analysis. Plural helonyms with collective meaning are interesting: Oželiai, Beržukai. The author’s view that helonyms derived from adjectives express the semantics of possession of a characteristic is persuasive (Žalelis). Depending on the etymon, the monograph distinguishes two main groups of marsh names: derivatives from appellatives (suffixal onymization) and derivatives from onyms (suffixal transonymization). Some interpretations of helonyms are questionable. For example, the marsh name Balikė, listed among derivatives from other helonyms, is derived from the marsh name Bala (p. 44), but there is no comment on whether Bala is also recorded in the same district, or whether there are other grounds for rejecting an appellative (physiographic) origin. Additional references are often lacking, particularly when another place name is identified as the base word. In some cases, the analysis of individual helonyms would benefit from supplementation. For example, Baravykinukė is explained as a derivative of the river name Baravykinė (p. 45), but in Vanagas’s Etymological Dictionary of Lithuanian Hydronyms this river name is linked to the name of another bog, Baravykynas (Vanagas 1981: 58). Another example: Moliūgiškis in Ramygala is derived from the adjective moliugas, ‘grayish-brown, yellowish’, but the distribution area of this physiographic feature is not specified anywhere (p. 85). The monograph offers many valuable, innovative explanations of the origins of toponyms: until now, most helonyms had not been etymologized. However, serious doubts often arise concerning the origins of marsh names, especially within the group of deanthroponymic helonyms. Only in a few cases does a footnote indicate that an informant or contributor associates a helonym with a personal name—that is, that the marsh belonged to a particular person, or something similar. Nevertheless, the association with a personal name often seems highly hypothetical, especially when the personal name is reconstructed. For example, Vėpariškė is explained as deriving from the base word (a reconstructed personal name) *Vėparis, but it could just as well be linked to the appellative vėparis ‘fool, simpleton’ (p. 80); Skrambliškis is derived from the reconstructed personal name *Skramblys, although it could also be linked to the Lithuanian appellative skrāmbla ‘an old, emaciated animal or person’ (p. 71); Kadaikiškis, according to the author, most likely arose from the personal name *Kadeikis, cf. Kadys (p. 70); Kepiškis—from *Kepys (p. 70). In all these cases, however, the deanthroponymic origin of the helonym is merely conjectured. There are relatively many examples of marsh names based on unattested personal names (Tūtiškis, Žibritiškis, and many others). Strangest of all, these helonyms are assigned to the first group, that is, to place names of clear origin and formation. The explanations of the origins of some other helonyms are also questionable. For example, Kleboniškis is confidently derived from the personal name Klebonas, although it is entirely 196 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII ALL_62_63 maketas.indd 196 2011.06.17 08:24:14 Laimutis Bilkis. Lietuvių helonimų daryba. Priesaginiai ir priesagėtieji helonimai An association with the appellative klebonas ‘parish priest’ would also be plausible (p. 70); Dederviškiai, though treated with reservations (yet assigned to Group I!), is linked to the reconstructed personal name *Dedervys and compared with the appellative dedervys ‘a kind of non-contagious skin disease’ (p. 72), although the semantics of this lexeme do not suit the motivation of the marsh name; Kiur kliškė is hypothetically associated with the reconstructed personal name *Kiurklys (also analyzed in the first, i.e. transparent-formation, group), although comparison with the appellatives kiùrkė ‘a small, bent woman’ and kiurklys ‘a screamer, a roaring child’ (p. 76) seems much more convincing. It may be somewhat overbold to claim that so many of the analyzed marsh names were derived from reconstructed personal names; therefore, the author’s conclusion (p. 87) can be accepted only with reservations: “[…] 1519 marsh names with suffixes originating from *-isko- have been recorded. The base words of most of them are clear—no fewer than 98.5%.” There are particularly many grounds for doubt concerning Group III marsh names, for example: Barakas—it is very likely a toponym that is primary in terms of word formation, < barakas, rather than a suffixal formation, all the more so because this suffix is very rare in toponymy (p. 49). The derivation of the marsh name Beržučiukas (p. 42) from beržutis rather than beržas is also doubtful; it is probably formed with two suffixes. In many cases, one could identify derivatives with not just one but several suffixes: Guželiškis < gužas + -el- + iškis, likewise Akeliškis, Gudeliškis, Vilkeliškės, Žirgeliškis; Krekutiškis < krekė + -ut- + -iškis, likewise Meškutiškis (p. 62); Vaisteniškės (p. 87), and so on. Admittedly, this is a very difficult and rather complex question in toponymic derivation: no categorical claim can be made, but the analysis of the marsh-name data should mention both hypotheses. Metaphorical derivatives are treated separately (Geldelė, Bačkelė, Katilėlis, Torielkelė, Šaukštinis, Puodiniai), but perhaps an indirect comparison is also implicit in other marsh names, cf. Šulinėlis, Laukeliai. It is unclear on what principle the marsh name Jūralis is called a metaphorical formation (p. 99), while, for example, Ežerėlis is classified as a derivative from a physiographic term. It is difficult to explain the interpretation of the marsh name Klaipėdinės (p. 177) as a metaphorical derivative formed from the city name Klaipėda. It seems that no single criterion is applied when identifying metaphorical derivatives: any place name derived from an appellative with physiographic, floral, faunal, or other semantics can also be interpreted as a semantic derivative, that is, as one that could also be called a metaphor. It is regrettable that when the monograph points to a possible alternative explanation of a place name’s origin, it often does not specify it; for example, the marsh name Pritiškiai is said to be associated with the Polish personal name Pryt (p. 73), but the comparison of the marsh name with the Lithuanian limnonym Pritinas, mentioned by Vanagas, is not given (Vanagas 1981: 266). Sometimes parallel forms used for the same feature are placed in different groups within the monograph’s structure, for example: Lybiškis (p. 70) // Lybiškys (p. 85), with no relationship between them indicated. It would have been appropriate to include conclusions about the origins of the marsh names at the end of the book. The text contains numerous references linking them to Polish personal names—in many cases this is Recenzijos / Reviews 197 LAIMUTĖ BALODE justified, but the place name’s localization does not always support it. The general analysis also mentions possible Polonisms (Krioniškis, Pritiškiai), Belarusianisms (Abšarūtė, Amšarinė), and Latvianisms (Avotėlis, Lizertas), but these are not summarized anywhere. It would indeed be interesting to know how many marsh names of non-Lithuanian origin there are in Lithuania. Tables that are both illustrative and supplement the monograph’s text are also needed (they would be even more illustrative if accompanied by at least one concrete example). The book contains 33 maps showing the distribution of individual suffixes. Suffix distribution is discussed only where distinct, concentrated areas can be identified, but it would be very useful to map the rarer suffixes as well. Bilkis’s chosen approach to analyzing the formation of marsh names—classifying place names according to the origin of their suffixes and the derivational meaning of the derivatives (formations)—has proved successful. The material is highly valuable and can be compared with the derivational types of other place names, especially hydronyms. The analysis and statistical summaries of suffixal marsh names would benefit from further discussion. The collection, systematization, and analysis of Lithuanian marsh names has involved extensive and meticulous work, the examples of which are examined by both near and more distant neighbors. In the book’s preface, the author emphasizes that this work is only the beginning of the study of marsh names. We look forward to its continuation—to an analysis of all marsh names not only in terms of their formation, but also semantically and etymologically. LITERATŪRA B i l k i s L a i m u t i s 2008: Lietuvių helonimų daryba. Priesaginiai ir priesagėtieji helonimai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. K a č i n a i t ė D a l i a 2008: Lietuvių sudurtinių oronimų darybos bruožai. – Baltistica 43(2), 275–286. V a n a g a s A l e k s a n d r a s 1973: Структурно–словообразовательный анализ названий гор Литвы. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai A serija 3(44), 209–219. V a n a g a s A l e k s a n d r a s 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas. Įteikta 2011 m.... LAIMUTĖ BALODE Latvijos universitetas, Latvių kalbos institutas Akademijas laukumā 1, Rīga, LV 1050, Latvija Helsinkio universitetas, Humanitarinis fakultetas Dabartinių kalbų katedra E. paštas – [email protected] 198 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXII–LXIII