Pastabos dėl Marijampolės krašto vietovardžių tyrimų

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LVI (2007), 103 – 116 Remarks Remarks Remarks on research into the place names of the Marijampolė region 1. A new generation of young researchers is entering the challenging field of toponymy. This is gratifying to everyone with even a passing interest in this branch of vocabulary, which linguists have always held in high regard. Much is expected in particular from research into minor toponymy, which can bring entirely new linguistic facts to light. However, readers who fail to find a place name familiar to them among those discussed as names of this type of place may have various questions: what is considered a proper toponym, how are one kind of place name distinguished from other similar names, is the area under study sufficiently well defined, and can one tell where each of the toponyms presented is located? Similar questions began to occur to a certain Marijampolė resident after he took a closer look at two articles on the place names of this region. The first set out to discuss all the toponyms of Marijampolė District (Sviderskienė 2005), while the second examines only drimonyms (in Lithuanian, forest names), but this time from the entire Marijampolė County (Sviderskienė 2006). Both studies adopt the same approach to analyzing toponym formation: place names are grouped according to the types of words from which they derive and their methods of formation. Thus, they follow well-trodden paths, whose direction was clearly laid out in the works of Aleksandras Vanagas, who studied Lithuanian hydronyms (see Vanagas 1970; 1984). Dalia Sviderskienė also draws on statistical data; moreover, the second article attempts to compare the forest names of areas in Lithuania located far from one another (Sviderskienė 2006: 58–59). The author’s indications of the origins and derivational groups of specific place names raise almost no doubts. In this respect, it is worth presenting a different view on the interpretation of a fact here and there only after considering how toponyms are distinguished from common nouns and what shortcomings may be discerned in the current detailed classification of names by object (see 1.1). 1.1. On the concept of the toponym and the classification of toponyms In comprehensive descriptions and studies of toponyms, we most often seek an explanation of what is considered a toponym in practice. When we encounter names of minor features, from 103 Pastabos Indeed, it is not so easy to determine where a common noun—a generic (nomenclatural) designation of a place—ends and a proper noun, a clear toponym, begins. For example, how can one determine whether a hollow denotes an ordinary depression or a distinctive, particular place—Dūburis? When is there an alder grove, and when is it Alksnynas; when merely a lakeshore, and when the proper name Paežerė? I have seen dozens of peat pits, that is, water-filled holes from which peat is or was dug, peat, and more than one Dūrpinyčia—a distinctive, particular place where peat was once dug. We do not claim that such a proper name cannot exist. These matters are not discussed in the articles under consideration. The author relies blindly only on the Historical Index of Place Names held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (Sviderskienė 2005: 91–94; 2006: 52). That index is undoubtedly an invaluable asset of the nation and the state, but should it be regarded as some kind of icon, without considering that it may contain omissions, inaccuracies, or facts that are not entirely reliable? The index is based on questionnaires completed in the 1930s by teachers and foresters. In every case, those able to distinguish a place name from a common noun or record them accurately would have been teachers or foresters from the locality, or highly conscientious and meticulous workers in these professions who had repeatedly traversed the area from which the completed questionnaires were submitted. Surely not every forester could have known well the names of small woods located a dozen or so kilometres away within their forestry district, especially the names of their parts. Most place names in the index questionnaires are given without stress marks. This is a considerable shortcoming, which may raise doubts as to whether a toponym was always successfully distinguished from a common place name. The article’s author, who apparently had no opportunity to conduct field trips to the localities whose toponyms are being studied, ought to acknowledge this explicitly and even emphasize in the titles of her works that everything is examined solely on the basis of the data in the aforementioned Index. It is not entirely accurate to compare the results of a study of forest names in Marijampolė County based solely on Index data with Mickienė’s (Mickienė 2004) description of the same features in Telšiai District, because Mickienė spent four years conducting dedicated field trips in her district, during which more than half of all the place names under study were collected. 1.1.1. Certain grammatical and accentual features can help distinguish a proper name from a common noun (appellative). The article’s author also mentions that a considerable proportion of settlement names occur only in the plural (are pluralia tantum), cf. Amalviškiai, Prienai, Šakai. Less common are plural names of places other than settlements: Bebrusai Lake, L akajai Lake, Sausiej i meadow (near Daukšiai). A considerable proportion of proper toponyms may occur only in the singular (singularia tantum), cf. the settlements Liubavas, Padovinys, Sasnavà, Šilavótas …, and other place names: Jevónis 104 Pastabos river, Šlavantà river, Alksnynas forest, and so on. Thus Alksnynas forest and Beržynas forest, having become proper toponyms, occur only in the singular and thereby differ from alksnynas – alksnynai, beržynas – beržynai. However, only local people can clearly say when both number forms are used here and when only one. In more than one dialect, a proper name is distinguished from a common noun by the position of the stress or simply by its accent paradigm. In the Marijampolė dialect, common derivatives with the suffix -ýnas are stressed as in standard Lithuanian—on the first syllable, with fixed stress (accent paradigm 1). Toponyms, by contrast, are probably deliberately used with stress shifted elsewhere, or at least with a different accent paradigm; cf. kal̃nas, kalnynas, but Kal̃nymai village, Kal̃niškė forest, nendrynas – nendrynai, but Nendrynai meadow (3). The residential place names given by the author also exhibit a similar mobile stress: Paršeliai (: paršėlis), Pietariai (:pvd. Pietaris), Šeštokai (:pvd. Šeštokas) (Sviderskienė 2005: 100). A place name’s stress may even differ from the plural designation of families; cf. Kýbartas – Kýbartai (family name), but the locality is Kybártai. By giving most toponyms without stress marks, the author could not indicate the processes by which these toponyms formed either. However, many of these place names are marked for stress in the most recent dictionaries in this field (Razmukaitė, Vitkauskas (eds.) 1999; Pupkis et al. (eds.) 2002). 1.1.2. The semantic formation of toponyms should also be recognized—that is, their development metonymically (metaphorically) from common nouns or other proper names, e.g., Blusynė dry meadow, Kaktà slope, Kepūrė meadow, Senóvė dry meadow, meadow, and so on (Sviderskienė 2005: 103). Perhaps some derivatives or compounds such as Kakariekinė forest, Šilakojis mš, Žomčiakalnis mš, and the like, may also be associated with this kind of semantic formation (Sviderskienė 2006: 54). 2. Methods of Selecting and Presenting Toponyms The author of the articles under discussion has tried both principal methods of selecting and presenting place names: the areal method (Sviderskienė 2005) and the object-based method (i.e., grouping toponyms according to the objects they name) (Sviderskienė 2006). To tell the truth, both methods are combined in each of her studies. Methods of derivational and etymological analysis are also employed. What matters most is which method is given priority in each case. The first article might be called areal, since its toponyms are initially confined to Marijampolė County (Sviderskienė 2005: 91–118). But here, too, the place names are subsequently presented according to three principal types of named objects: 1) hydronyms, 2) settlement names, and 3) toponyms denoting land features. The latter are not subdivided into smaller classes of onomastic names. The second article is based primarily on object-type drymonyms (forest names), but these are taken only from a particular, albeit large, area (Marijampolė Coun- 105 Pastabos krities) (Sviderskienė 2006: 49-62). Toliau ir čia toponimai tiriami pagal darbą ir kilmę. The author does not explain why she shifted from an areal basis to an object-based one. Most likely, this approach was chosen not so much on the model of Aleksandras Vanagas’s extensive study of hydronyms (Vanagas 1970) as by following the example of her present-day colleagues: studies of the names of bogs and marshes (helonyms – Bilkis 1998), roads and paths (hodonyms – Mickienė 2002), forests (drymonyms – Mickienė 2004), fields and meadows (agronyms – Endzelytė 2004), and so on. It is useful to select toponyms both by area and by the types of objects named, and to combine the two methods as well. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages, or raises particular problems. Areal selection of place names brings out the distinctive features of toponym formation and origin characteristic of a particular region, which are usually determined by ethnic origins. However, it pushes aside features of toponyms that are characteristic of the processes by which names for types and kinds of objects are formed. These latter tendencies are revealed by the second type of place-name selection and presentation, but this leaves in the shadows what is characteristic of a particular region, an individual dialect, or even an entire dialect group, and, most importantly, the commonalities among different onomastic names and the dependence of one object’s name on another; cf. Āmavas lake, Amavė river, Amalviškiai village If place names are selected and presented by reference to minor features, the greatest risks arise for minor and very minor toponymy. What are these risks? A peat bog, a meadow, and pastures may all be called by the same name, and clumps of trees or shrubs may also grow within that area. To which onomastic category does it belong? The clearest example of such a place is the Žuvintas Palios (see 4.2). Land surveyors classify them as raised bogs and fens. Local people regard them as more like a kind of forest than any sort of bog (see 3.2). Within them there are also elevations and meadows, and clearings with birch or pine groves, which in turn have their own names. Will some researcher of particular onomastic categories collect and present all of them across Lithuania? If the same toponym appears in two or three descriptions, that is a minor problem. Linguistics suffers a clear loss when they become lost among several onomastic categories, interpreted differently by researchers, and remain in “no man’s land.” That this fear is not groundless is evident from the list of toponyms that slipped past the author, presented later (see “Appendix”). In our view, it is useful to discuss the names of settlements, bodies of water, and perhaps the largest forests, along with their derivational types, on the scale of all Lithuania or a large region, while smaller and very small toponyms are better presented by reference to limited areas—former counties, parishes, or elderships. However, areal selection of minor onomastic names 106 Pastabos without an additional space? Pastabos búožė as a derogatory term for a wealthy farmer appeared only during the Soviet era. The bog Búožinė means “a place where those plants—buožės—grow.” Among the compound hydronyms, the stream of that area and its tributaries are missing: Uósupelis (see Ilgūnas 1995). And the river name Šlavantà is presented as the only derivative with the suffix -anta, although that river flows into Lake Amalvas from the east, and the Marijampolė rural district never extended to this area. Unfortunately, some settlement names have also been omitted: names are missing for villages located right next to Marijampolė that later became part of the city: Degùčiai, Kvietiškis, Kumelionys, Liepynai, Mokolaĩ, Tarpučiai (although Tarpučių brasta is mentioned); farther from the city is Trakiškių village. Perhaps one or two other places were also left unmentioned. The localization of place names is handled worst of all. The locations of most bogs, ponds, meadows, fields, arable land, peat bogs, and other features are not indicated at all, for example: Degùmas bog, Šuniabalė bog, Alksna field, Bedruskė meadow, field, Dubiojì meadow, Gėraitė pasture, forest, Kūlios meadow, Šenkalis hill, Žárdis pasture, Žiógis meadow, and so on. They cannot be identified, nor can Naujos kapinės cemetery, Senos kapinaitės cemetery, or Kapinių upėlis, Sodo upėlis—the reader is again left wondering which cemetery and whose garden. The reference probably means the Marijampolė city cemetery and city garden, but this is not stated more precisely. Every church village or larger village had a cemetery, and there were many gardens even in Marijampolė itself. Įprasta nurodyti, į kur upė įteka (plg. Savukynas ir kt. 1963), tai taip pat padeda upėvardį lokalizuoti. Šiame darbe ir į tai nekreipiama dėmesio. References to settlements in the Marijampolė rural district in those days are sometimes incomprehensible or simply misleading; for example, Nàrtas village, LDVN—Liudvinavas rural district, which used to be a separate district. Babalìnė village and Výsniālaukis village are listed under PDVN—Padovinẏs, which also belonged to Liudvinavas rural district. It is hard to understand how the Šeštokai railway station from Krosna rural district ended up here, or Rūdiškės village from Šilavotas rural district. Among the abbreviations for location references we also find Gražiškiai, Rasiùs in Vilkaviškis County, and even Lazdijùs, Prėnus (ibid. 115), which are of no help for the Marijampolė rural district. There is also no shortage of settlement names without localization references. This may be unnecessary when the names of larger villages are given, but when lists of the toponyms under discussion include homesteads, single-farmsteads, parts of villages, and the like, readers will be unable to make sense of them without localization—for example, when encountering settlements such as Abromýne homestead, Birbynė homestead, Kailýnė single-farmstead, Kleinýnė single-farmstead, and Palaikýnė homestead, among others. 4.1. Territory and boundaries of Marijampolė County 4.1.1. At present, Marijampolė County is larger than it was in interwar Lithuania; it is particularly important to note that the territory of present-day Marijampolė County has shifted considerably 108 Pastabos To the west and north, it also encompasses the territories of the former Vilkaviškis and Šakiai counties. On the other hand, an area of the Prienai District territory that belonged to Marijampolė County at the time is now assigned to Kaunas County. Part of the southern territory of the former Marijampolė County has been transferred to Alytus County. The territories of the present-day Kalvarija and Kazlų Rūda municipalities belonged to Marijampolė County in interwar Lithuania. All of this also affects the determination of the territory from which drimonyms (forest names) were collected and the identification of the locations of individual forests. 4.1.2. Drimonyms (forest names) of Marijampolė County and their localization Research traditions concerning forest names (drimonyms, Lithuanian “forest names”) are rather limited. Recently, only one or two linguistic descriptions in this field have been published (Mickienė 2001, Mickienė 2004). Accordingly, in discussing the drimonyms of the former Marijampolė County, Sviderskienė also encountered considerable difficulties. Changes in the extent and boundaries of this area are not the most vexing issue, although disregarding them can considerably skew the selection, inventory, and localization of toponyms in one direction or another. More substantial problems, not considered at all in the paper, include how, in particular cases, to distinguish forest names from names of bogs, peatlands, pastures, and similar features; whether to include names of parts of forests and the names of meadows, “islets,” roads, paths, and hills found within them. How should all their locations be identified? When collecting names of such tiny places everywhere, it is hardly possible to rely even on the constantly updated and extensive Place-Names Index. What is most surprising is that the paper lists only three compound genitive forest names derived from other place names (Sviderskienė 2006: 55). Where have names of this structure for the largest forests or forest complexes in Marijampolė gone—Būktos miškas, Kazlų Rūdos miškai, Prienų šilas? They appear in all physiographic maps of Lithuania (see, e.g., Suvalkijos kraštas, 2003), encyclopedic works (Kviklys 1996), and elsewhere. The scope of these notes does not allow a fuller discussion of all the problems mentioned in connection with forest names. We take just one case, familiar to the author of these notes: Žuvinto palių, which may also bring to light other difficulties concerning forest names. Kad Marijampolės drimonimų apraše Žuvinto palios neminimos (žr. Sviderskienė 2006: 49–62), gali būti lėmusi viena iš dviejų priežasčių: (1) arealo teritorijos ir ribų suvokimas, (2) pažiūra, kad šis ir kiti palių vardai nesusiję su drimonimais, t. y. miškų vardais. 4.1.3. As already noted (see 3.1), the territory of interwar Lithuania’s Marijampolė County extended farther south in several places than it does today. The boundaries of this county with 109 Pastabos Alytus County ran through Lake Žuvintas—the northern and northwestern parts, as well as the eastern part of the lake, belonged to Marijampolė County. The palių surrounding Lake Žuvintas on those sides were likewise inseparable from it. Only a few decades ago, when the center of the Žuvintas Reserve was moved to the lake’s southern side, all of the Žuvintas palių and the meadows beside them were transferred to Alytus County. The county boundary has now been shifted close to Daukšiai, into lands inhabited and cultivated by the Kapsai since time immemorial. It is strange that dialects are entirely overlooked in the linguistic description of place names. 4.1.4. Most likely, Žuvinto pālių will not appear in Sviderskienė’s description because she accepts without any discussion the view that names of palių have nothing to do with drimonyms (forest names). But how, then, can one explain why the forest names Pālių Bālos (in the Bukta Forestry District of the Marijampolė District and Forestry Enterprise) and Pālių mišk. (in the N. Ūta Forestry District of the Prienai District and Forestry Enterprise) are included in Lietuvos miškų vardyne, compiled and published by foresters themselves (Brukas et al. 1994: 163)? Both place names cited by these foresters belonged to Marijampolė County in those years. Pālios mišk. is also listed in the aforementioned dictionary, in the Stalai Forestry District of the Veisiejai Forestry Enterprise, Lazdijai District (Ibid.). The author is not interested in any palių at all, nor does she consider whether bogs (pools?) bearing this word in their names might be closely connected with forests; apparently, she firmly subscribes to the very broad conception of a helonym (bog name) formulated by Laimutis Bilkis (see Bilkis 1997: 40–43). Two matters should be investigated: (1) why the name Žuvinto palios (rather than “bogs”) has found its way into numerous cartographic and encyclopedic publications and other works; (2) how and why local people so often use the name palių, having long distinguished it from bogs and, still more, from pools. 4.1.5. The name Žuvinto pālių appears on many maps of interwar Lithuania and is usually highlighted in the same color as forests. We also find this name in lists of place names appended by Antanas Salys, a specialist in proper names, to maps published in the West (Salys 1983: 266, 569). The name Žuvinto pālių has also survived in place-name dictionaries published by Lithuanian linguists today (see Razmukaitė, Vitkauskas 1994: 220; Pupkis et al. (eds., comp.) 2002: 447); however, the gloss “bog” or “bog and peatland” is added here. Žuvinto palias (with the note that local people simply call them Pālios) are described in the Lietuvių enciklopedija, published in Boston (1966: vol. 35, 434), and in other encyclopedic works, including one with several additional names for parts of the palių (1960: vol. 21, 420). B. Kviklys discusses the palių at particular length (Kviklys 1996: 193–200). In his vivid and exceptionally detailed discussion of all the palių together with Lake Žuvintas, T. Zubavičius (1978) also provides numerous place names from this region. 110 Pastabos Indeed, newer encyclopedic publications also classify all palios as wetlands. In a curious way, the names of the palios are scattered and identified on the fairly detailed tourist map Suvalkijos kraštas (many other minor forest names are indicated there as well). Within the reserve area of Žuvintas Nature Reserve, we find Buktos pelkę; to its west, Buktos mišką; farther south, toward Lake Žaltytis, Palių Balų mišką; and on the right bank of the Dovinė River, Žuvinto pelkę. Another dozen or so kilometers east of Igliauka lies Palių durpynas, whose northern side, by the Šlavanta River, is Palių miškas. What a variety of names! Palios becomes a separate component of a compound term, and is readily replaced by the components of other names pelkės, balos. 4.1.6. The people of the Daukšiai area, who for years picked berries and mushrooms and hunted in the Žuvintas palios, and fought the occupiers in partisan ranks in 1944–50, know the names of several of these palios and their parts. The Žuvintas palios were called by this name, as well as Didžiosios palios and simply Palios. Their inner parts had several separate names—Lygės, Dėgsnės, Beržukai, Pušelės—and their outskirts had Raistas, Skabytų salaitė, Pušynas (Pušynė), Išdagas, Salos… Should the parts of the palios whose names refer to trees be considered ordinary wetlands? On the right bank of the Dovinė, the continuation of the same Žuvintas palios, named after the villages beside which they lie, comprised Daukšių palios su Raistu ir su Burbulių salaite; farther southeast, Vidgirėlių (Daukšių) giria ar palios; and farther south still, Miknonių palios, Riečių palios. The villages of Liūliškis, Plyniai, and, in part, Daukšiai separated the Žuvintas palios from the Amalvo pālių, which extended several kilometers to the north; their southern edge was also called Plynių palaitėmis. Sometimes all the Amalvas palios, distinguished from the Great (Žuvintas) palios, were called Palaitėmis. Palių and palaičių were also contrasted by Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas (see LKŽIX 265), since his mother came from Amalviškiai. At the northern edge of the Pyniai palaitės were Kavaliaiško šilelis ir Kirtiklio šilelis (see Brizgys 1993: 14; Labutis 2002: 173). For local people, the name palios was familiar—perhaps initially as the proper name of the Žuvintas palios—Palios¹ (pluralia tantum). The word pelkės seems to be new here, introduced by specialists in limnology or other fields. And to call the palios, or wetlands in general, balomis is possible only by disregarding entirely the speech of people who speak the Daukšiai dialect: they do not confuse palios (or wetlands) with the main meaning of the word balà – bãlos—“a waterlogged place, a puddle, a small open body of water with water visible on the surface.” Incidentally, dictionaries do not give the plural form of 1 Palios is apparently an old name of the Sudovians and Yotvingians, mentioned also in one account of a route used by the Teutonic Knights—so it is inexcusable to relegate it to the sidelines and replace it with the more general word pelkė, or, worse still, balos. The word palios is used only in the plural; it is neither pėlkė – pėlkės nor balà – bãlos. 111 Pastabos of the noun bãlos. All the Žuvinto balos, Buktos balos, Palių balų miškas were apparently taken from Russian maps, because Russian has no distinct specific word for wetlands, and uses болото. According to local understanding and usage traditions, palios are more like swampy woodland than actual wetlands. They are a distinctive place, which may include extensive areas of trees; one could say they are half forest, half wetland. Local people distinguish the Great (Žuvintas) palios from Buktos Forest. 4.2. Specialists should be left to decide how the so-called objects themselves are to be classified. In general, detailed grouping of minor toponyms by object forces linguistic facts into the pigeonhole established by specialists. Thus, we believe that palios are closer to forests than to ponds, pools, actual puddles, and wetlands, on whose surface water lies. From the perspective of someone who is not a natural-science specialist, the names of palios should not be overlooked in the study of forest names. 4.3. The survey of the Žuvintas and Amalvas palios and those nearby shows how difficult it is to distinguish drimonims (forest names) from other place names. Yet this can considerably alter the entire account of the origins and formation of forest names, as well as the proportions of the different types of place names. Most regrettably, even setting aside the relationship between palios and drimonims, we miss a sizeable group of toponyms of this kind in the article (Sviderskienė 2006: 49–62), having made only a cursory survey of Lietuvos miškų vardyną and maps (see the Appendix, which also includes the names of palios and their parts). 4.4. The localization of forest names in Marijampolė County is also unsatisfactory. Foresters identify forests by forestry districts and forest-ranger districts. Naturally, it is more customary to locate them by the nearest settlement. However, large forests (Kazlų Rūda, Buktos, and the like) cover considerable areas and may therefore be known by several names. The author uses the name of one settlement, but according to the dabartinį administrative division, e.g., Ašminta (Prienai District), Gudeli ai (Marijampolės sav. t.). The list of abbreviations also contains entirely odd references: Liubāvas (Kalvarijos sav. t.), while Kalvarija – Marijampolės sav. t. itself. The place name Kazlų Rūda may refer both to the town of that name and to Kazlų Rūda Municipality. The author of these remarks knows of Beržynas (if this is the same small forest), which was in Igliškėliai rural district (now Igliauka eldership), whereas Gudeliai, whose abbreviation is used here, is considerably farther away. 4.5. The value of the works under discussion lies in analyzing the toponyms under study by root-word group and by formation. It is commendable that the author makes no claim to more stringent generalizations (Sviderskienė 2005: 59). Weaknesses of the work: (1) it does not explain how to distinguish a toponym from a common noun 112 Pastabos of the place name; (2) the ranges and boundaries of the toponyms under study are unclear; (3) too little attention is paid to locating the places; (4) quite a number of place names within the ranges selected for study remain unanalyzed and are not even mentioned, because the author has made insufficient use of printed sources. It would have been useful to provide a list of all the toponyms examined in the work. It is to be hoped that these critical remarks will not discourage the author from undertaking the much-needed work on toponyms that have not yet been studied, but will instead encourage her to value linguistic facts more and not shy away from theoretical discussion. Appendix: omitted Marijampolė County names of wet meadows Agūrkiškės wet meadow – KzR Alksnynė wet meadow – Ldv Āmalvo (Pãnausupio, Plýnių) wet meadows (Igliškėliai, Gudeliai, Liudvinavas district2). Ąžuolų Būdos wet meadow KzR Balbieriškio wet meadow Blb Barsukynės wet meadow KzR Beržūkai (Žuvintas wet-meadow district) Ldv Beržiniškės wet meadow KzR Brėdžkampio wet meadow KzR Bubnabalė wet meadow Ldv Bužgirė wet meadow KzR Būktos wet meadow Ldv Burbulių salaitė (Daukšiai wet-meadow district) Gdl Dalgine forest Daukšiai marshes Gdl Dėgsnės (southern part of Žuvintas marsh) Ldv Dėgsnės forest Prn Great Marshes (Žuvintas marsh) Ldv Ėgležeris forest Prn Gojėlis forest Krsn Gorija forest KzR Griešiai forest KzR Grigaičiai forest KzR 2Approximately localized according to the administrative divisions of Lithuania during the interwar period. 113 Pastabos Gudelių forest KzR Ivóniškio forest GDL Kazlų Rūdos forest KzR Kavaliaùško Grove Ldv Kirtiklio Grove Ldv Klebiškio forest Prn Kliñiškių forest KzR Kupstinė forest KzR Lýgės (eastern part of Žuvintas bog) Ldv Meškãpievių forest Prn Mikalãvo forest KzR Miknonių marshes (eastern part of Žuvintas bog) Gdl Pãgraičio forest Šil Pãlių marshes (see Žuvintas marshes) Ldv Pãlių forest Prn Plýnių small marshes (eastern part of Amalvas bog) Ldv Prienai Forest Prn Pine Grove (Žuvintas marsh, southern part) Ldv Rūdupis forest Prn Rudžiai forest Šns Runkiai forest KzR Sasnavà forest Ssn Skabytai Islet Ldv Skriaudžiai forest Ssn Skeršabalis forest Prn Šunskai forest (Šunskagirė) Šns Ùosiabalė forest Ldv Ùtos Grove Prn Valavičiai forest Šns Varnabūdė forest Ssn Žalióji (Buktos Forest) Žiegždžiai forest Prn Žuvintas (Great) marshes Ldv, Gdl 114 Pastabos SOURCES (BIBLIOGRAPHY) ATSŽ = Directory of the Administrative-Territorial Division of the Lithuanian SSR I, ed. by Z. Noreika, V. Stavinskas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1976. Bilkis, L. 1997: Lietuvių helonimai: termino teikimas, sąvoka, vieta toponiminėje sistemoje. Lituanistica 1 (29), 35–37. Bilkis, L. 1998: Lietuvių prisaginės darybos helonimai. Daktaro disertacijos santrauka. Vilnius. Brizgys, V. 1993: Gyvenimo keliai. Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjunga. Brukas, A. ir kt., sud., 1994: Lietuvos miškų vardynas I. Kaunas: Lietuvos miškininkų sąjunga. Endzelytė, R. 2004: Šiaurės vidurio Lietuvos vandenvardžių daryba. Lituanica 2000, 4 (60), 63–77. 4DLKŽ = Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian 4th ed. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2005. Ilgūnas, G. 1995: Prie Sasnos ir Šešupės. Surgūčių, Sasnavos ir Kantališkių kaimų istorijos ir etnografijos bruožai. Vilnius: Lietuvos archyvų departamentas. Kviklys, B. 1996: Mūsų Lietuva. 3 t. Bostonas: Lietuvių enciklopedija. Labutis, V. 1997: Žuvinto ir jo apylinkių vietų vardai. Kalbos kultūra, 18 sąs.: 56–69. Labutis, V. 2002: Daukšių krašto žodynas. Vilnius: Alma Litera Lithuanian Encyclopedia vol. 21, 1960. Boston: Lithuanian Encyclopedia Publishing House, 1960; vol. 35, 1966. Mickienė, I. 2004: Telšių rajono toponimų daryba. Daktaro disertacijos santrauka. Kaunas. Pupkis, A. ir kt., red., sud. 2002: Vietovardžių žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Razmukaitė, M., Vitkauskas, V., sud., 1994: Vietovardžių kirčiavimo žodynas. Vilnius: Kultūra. Salys, A. 1983: Raštai. T. 3. Roma: Lietuvos Katalikų Mokslo Akademija. 115 Pastabos Savukynas, B. ir kt., sud., 1963: Lietuvos TSR upių ir ežerų vardynas Vilnius. Valstybine politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1963. Subačius, K. 2006: Sūduvos kraštas nuo priešistorinių laikų iki XX a. III dešimtmečio. Marijampolė. TeleSATpressa. Map of the Suvalkija region. Vilnius: Briedis, 2003 Sviderskienė, D. 2005: Marijampolės apskrities Marijampolės valsčiaus vietovardžių darb os ir kilmės polinkiai, Acta Lituanica Lithuanica 52, 91–118. Sviderskienė, D. 2006: Marijampolės apskrities dr imonimų darb os ir kilmės polinkiai. Acta Lituanica Lithuanica 54, 49–62. Vanagas, A. 1970: Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba. Vilnius: Mokslas. Vanagas, A. 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zubavičius, T. 1978: Žuvintas ir jo gyventojai. Vilnius: Mokslas. Vitas Labutis Vilnius University Department of Lithuanian Language Universiteto g. 5, LT-01122 Vilnius, Lietuva 116