ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XLI (1999)

Reviews. Book Reviews. Notes. Opinions. Reviews. Observations. Overviews. Reviews. Notes

A SIGNIFICANT WORK IN LITHUANIAN ANTHROPONYMICS

Alvydas Butkus. Lietuvių pravardės, Kaunas, 1995: Aesti, 464 P.

New works in Lithuanian anthroponymics are certainly not a frequent occurrence. They therefore deserve to be discussed and evaluated in considerable detail. Yet this did not happen with A. Butkus’s work on nicknames. Apart from D. Sviderskienė’s annotation¹ and J. Liutkutė’s review², apparently little has been said about this significant study.

While reading “Lithuanian Nicknames” and drawing on this study relatively often in various works on Lithuanian anthroponymy and toponymy, the author of these lines had some thoughts that she wishes to present in this review³.

A. Butkus’s book is an entirely new contribution to our anthroponymics, primarily because of its chosen subject—Lithuanian nicknames. Certainly, nothing so comprehensive had been written about them before: there is a substantial scholarly article by Ž. Urbanavičiūtė and V. Žičkutė⁴, as well as a few popular articles devoted to nicknames. It is true that nicknames, or personal names derived from nicknames, are mentioned in some works on historical anthroponymy⁵, but this is, of course, unrelated to a comprehensive assessment or study of contemporary nicknames.

The work consists of two parts. In the first, the author presents an analysis of Lithuanian nicknames (pp. 19–134), while the second is a large dictionary of all the nicknames collected, documenting about 22,500 anthroponyms (pp. 135–462). This structure is an undeniable strength of the book, since scholarly research on nicknames and its conclusions are in fact inseparable from the complete corpus of personal names studied, which is provided alongside them. Moreover, this arrangement enabled the author to avoid overloading the fir-

¹ Baltistica 31(1), 1996, 128–129.

² Liutkutė J. New on the Old. – Darbai ir dienos 2(11), 1996, 246–248.

³ One of the book’s title pages states that V. Macijauskienė is one of the reviewers of the work. What was said before “Lithuanian Nicknames” was published is a concise recommendation of modest length to publish the work. A more detailed evaluation of the book is presented here.

⁴ Urbanavičiūtė Ž., Žičkutė V. Lithuanian Nicknames. – Kalbotyra 26(1), 1974, 55–61.

⁵ Cf. Zinkevičius Z. Lithuanian Anthroponymy, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977; Maciejauskienė V. The Formation of Lithuanian Surnames, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991, and others.

232

…of the research and work sections, illustrating their claims with data, with all nicknames presented in a dictionary⁶.

The first part of the work, called a monograph in the preface (p. 7), consists of an “Introduction,” 12 chapters, and a section of “Concluding Remarks.” The aims of the work determined this structure.

Nicknames, like other proper nouns, can be examined from various perspectives. The author of the work under review focused primarily on studying the motivations behind Lithuanian nicknames, while also touching briefly on the formation of certain types of nicknames (hereditary, habitual, and those referring to a place of residence). Classifying the motivations yielded eleven groups, each discussed in one of the work’s eleven chapters (including the section on “Unmotivated Nicknames”); the twelfth presents a portrait of the Lithuanian based on the most characteristic and common nickname motivations.

Given that this work is the first comprehensive study of Lithuanian nicknames, the author had much to say, so to speak, for the first time. Thus, the “Introduction” discusses the concept of a nickname, debates it with linguists from other countries whose works express a different view on the subject, and finally offers the following definition of a nickname: “a nickname is an unofficial personal name that conveys some characteristic of the person nicknamed” (p. 21). This understanding of the nickname is adhered to consistently throughout the work. Without fundamentally rejecting the definition given, one might consider whether it would be better to use the person’s characteristic instead of the characteristic of the individual⁷.

The “Introduction” then explains the emergence of nicknames and the reasons for their use, distinguishing onomastic (objective) and psychological (subjective) causes. It might also be added that in many cases the two are inextricably linked and complement one another: the onomastic cause creates the need for a nickname to arise, while the psychological cause of nickname use helps realize it.

In the same place, in a section entitled “Motivations for Nicknames,” the complex problem of nickname motivation is mentioned. The author maintains that nicknames, unlike other names, “have authentic onomastic motivation” (p. 26). It is further stated that nicknames are “a bridge from the common lexicon to onomastics” and that they “undoubtedly also have a concept” (ibid.). From what has been said, it is clear,

⁶Admittedly, when reading the first part of the book, more examples would sometimes be useful (especially when the author’s claims and arguments raise doubts or could be interpreted differently). This wish is also prompted, among other things, by the current state of Lithuanian anthroponymy, which shows that often the material itself—that is, the collected and presented data—is the sole argument confirming the claims of a study.

⁷Cf. definitions of the term nickname given in other works on anthroponymy and in dictionaries of terminology. See Gaivenis K., Keinys S. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa, 1990, 154; Maciejauskienė V. Lietuvių pavardžių susidarymas, 17–18.

233

what position the work adopts when assessing nicknames as proper nouns. However, bearing in mind that the book classifies and examines nicknames precisely according to the motives behind their emergence, one might also wish for a broader discussion and commentary on the complex problem of nickname motivation.

A nickname’s motive is the description of some distinctive personal characteristic, thereby individualizing the person. Such characteristics are numerous and varied, and in the work they are divided into ten groups: physical characteristics, kinship, activity, content of speech, character, associations, place of residence, wealth, origin and nationality, other motives (pp. 26–27). This is the book author’s view (another researcher might perhaps offer a different classification), and it is one that can be endorsed. The only point that might raise doubts is the designation of the sixth group—associations—which stands apart from the others through excessive abstraction. This is all the more so because what is meant are only “associations prompted by the phonetics, and less often the semantics, of a person’s first or last name” (p. 27), while p. 25 states that associations are a certain precondition for “a common noun to become a name.” Thus, it seems, in most cases the emergence of nicknames cannot do without associations.

One of the book author’s aims was to bring out the distinctive geographical features of Lithuanian nickname motives. To this end, combining linguistic, ethnographic, folkloric, and historical criteria, the following Lithuanian ethnographic regions are distinguished: Užnemunė, Dzūkija, Aukštaitija, Central Lithuania, and Žemaitija; their boundaries are defined in great detail (pp. 29–30). Having done so, the author presents the main differences in nickname motives and their use in various parts of Lithuania (pp. 30–31). It turns out that in Dzūkija and Aukštaitija the most common nickname motive is kinship, whereas in Žemaitija, Užnemunė, and Central Lithuania it is physical characteristics. In addition, people from Užnemunė and Lithuanians from Central Lithuania have more nicknames motivated by a person’s activity, while the Dzūkai have far fewer. In Žemaitija and Central Lithuania, nicknames prompted by the content of a person’s speech are more common than elsewhere, and so on. The author provides a statistical picture (with percentages calculated) of the frequency of nickname motives in various parts of Lithuania. This is very interesting data.

The “Introduction” also considers the problem of nickname formation and its relationship to motivation (pp. 31–34), and concludes with an overview of nickname research (which would have been better placed at the beginning of the “Introduction,” for example, after or before the discussion of the concept of a nickname).

In the book, nicknames classified according to their motives are examined in order of the hierarchy of those motives. Thus, the first chapter discusses nicknames whose motive of origin is the most common: various physical characteristics of the person being named (the chapter is titled “Nicknames Based on Physical Characteristics”). All the nicknames presented here are classified in great detail and with precision: 1. Appearance (further subdivided into characteristics of the head and face, height, build, arms and legs, clothing, posture, and other aspects of appearance). 2. Speech (pronunciation, voice quality, non-speech sounds produced by the speech organs). 3. Motor skills (subdivided into gait and other movements). 4. Ability (agility, slowness, strength, weak-

234

ness, deafness and muteness, poor eyesight, other characteristics). 5. Physiology.

These are the framework categories for the classification of nicknames in this chapter. The nicknames in each subsection are further divided into finer groups; for example, pronunciation is subdivided into lisping, rapid speech, unclear speech, stuttering, whispering, and other kinds of pronunciation (pp. 51–52); characteristics of the head and face into hair, beard and moustache, face, facial features, head, and neck (facial features, for example, are further divided into nose, eyes, teeth, mouth, lips, ears, and chin), and so on.

Nicknames are classified just as extensively and with the same precision not only in the first chapter but in the others as well. For instance, the third chapter discusses nicknames motivated by the activity of the person being named (the chapter is titled “Nicknames Based on Activity”). First, they are grouped according to five motives (trade and service, hobby, business, situation, presence), with nicknames arising from other motives related to a person’s activity combined into a sixth group. The first group of motives (trade and service) is then subdivided into: a) trade, profession (p. 68), b) service, position (p. 72), and subsection a) is further detailed—blacksmiths, tailors, shoemakers, wheelwrights, cart-makers, carpenters, coopers, and so on (about twenty more trade and profession names!) (pp. 68–72).

In every chapter, the frequency of nicknames arising from particular motives is indicated, and statistical data are provided.

The author’s meticulousness and ingenuity are impressive; such a detailed classification of nicknames and statistical processing of the data presented in the book undoubtedly demanded both. He deserves many words of praise for this, expressing our approval of what has been accomplished.

Had another researcher classified nicknames according to the motives behind their emergence, we might perhaps now have a somewhat different version of their categorization. For when presenting such a detailed classification, broken down to the smallest particulars, it is very difficult to avoid assessing one nickname or another in an excessively subjective way. For instance, on p. 36 the author rejects the view that nicknames motivated by stealing should be classified among nicknames describing character traits or dispositions. In the book, nicknames of this type appear in the third chapter, which discusses motives describing activity that led to the emergence of such nicknames. The third subsection of motives, entitled business, is divided into trading, stealing, hunting, fishing, gathering, and other types of business; under the motive of stealing are listed the nicknames Avininkas, Vištinis, Šūrvagis, Vištavagis (based on the names of the objects stolen), Lāpė, Vānagas (nicknames for people who steal chickens), and so on. Would it not be more appropriate to call such nicknames situational, as they are discussed in the next subsection, entitled “Situation”? Given that the book examines only nicknames of rural people, one might speculate that a person took something belonging to someone else just once, and that a nickname connected with this event then “stuck” to them for the rest of their life.

235

More such doubts could be raised, but they in no way negate the author’s position; rather, they are simply another instance of a subjective assessment of one nickname or another, an expression of a different opinion.

The second part of the book “Lithuanian Nicknames” is the “Dictionary of Nicknames” (pp. 135–462). The personal names listed there (about 22,500) are truly an immense treasure of Lithuanian anthroponymy, testifying to how much has been accomplished in the systematic and methodical collection of our nicknames. All the more so since recording them is indeed no easy task (it is difficult to discover the true motives behind the emergence of nicknames, and one must help the informant overcome a certain psychological barrier, etc.).

The nicknames in the dictionary are presented in alphabetical order, with their motivations, localities (to the level of local districts), and other data indicated. As stated in the section “Structure of the Dictionary,” “... the nicknames have been transposed into the standard language” (p. 137). This refers to the standardization of nicknames, with a very brief indication of how this was done: morphological dialect forms have been respected, while of the phonetic dialect forms those that motivate the nickname have been retained (e.g., Alyvos Vumždis, Kuoti-nas); the stress of nicknames has been standardized (exceptions were made only for nicknames derived from an unlexicalized filler, e.g., Supranti Ūfa, and for those with suffixes stressed according to dialect usage, e.g., among Kaunas speakers -aitė, -ybė, etc.) (p. 138).

Nicknames are proper words. Alongside our place names, first names, and surnames, they are an integral part of the Lithuanian name stock. As is well known, place names are standardized in accordance with a particular tradition established by Lithuanian linguists before the war, whose principal tenets were enshrined in more than one postwar work on language standardization. For official use in the standard language, the standard-language pronunciation of place names, not the dialectal pronunciation, is recommended, that is, considered normative. Only regular phonetic features of dialects are transposed into the standard language. Everything else—irregular phonetic changes, matters of word formation, and so on—is preserved in place names⁸.

Lithuanian first names are standardized and recommended for official use in the standard language according to the same principles.

The situation is different with our surnames. They are not standardized, owing to the fact that our surnames are not merely a linguistic matter but also a kind of legal fact. Thus, Lithuanian surname forms that are correct from the standpoint of standard-language usage, as well as dialectal forms and forms variously distorted, Slavicized, and so forth, all function officially⁹.

So far, it seems, the standardization of nicknames has not been discussed at any length anywhere (Lithuanian nicknames alone are meant here). From what the author has said,

⁸ For more on the principles of standardizing place names, see Vanagas A. Principles of Place-Name Standardization. – Gimtoji kalba 4, 1991, 11–14.

⁹ For more, see: Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames 1, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985, 16–18; Maciejauskienė V. Usage of Lithuanian Surnames. – Gimtoji kalba 7, 1994, 1–3.

236

it can be understood that an attempt was made to adhere to already established principles for standardizing place names. Admittedly, an exception is made for those phonetic dialectal features which, it is claimed, “motivate a nickname” (p. 138). Apparently, this approach is taken with both regular and irregular features of dialect phonetics (the two examples provided here do not make this clear). In this way, it seems to be acknowledged that nicknames, as highly specific words (personal names), may be standardized somewhat differently from, for example, Lithuanian place names.

Nicknames are unofficial personal names that function in a very limited setting, usually within the territory of the village where the person nicknamed lives. Their forms, having arisen in the area of one dialect or another, undoubtedly reflect all the features and distinctive characteristics of that particular dialect. What is gained by standardizing nicknames? Especially since they (whether individually or as a whole) will certainly never be presented for official use in the standard language. Had the dictionary provided authentic, dialectal forms of nicknames, it would have become an invaluable source of data on the Lithuanian dialects that are disappearing. The localization data given for nicknames would, when needed, have facilitated the transcription of personal names into the standard language, and in many cases this would not have been difficult for specialists. Another way of presenting nicknames in a dictionary is also worth mentioning: dialectal forms could have been listed after the standardized personal names. In this way, while also recording much-needed dialectological data, the work would have gained greater scholarly value; moreover, it would have been readily usable by all readers interested in Lithuanian nicknames.

The thoughts expressed here about standardizing nicknames were in no way intended to reject the author’s chosen position or stance (that is the researcher’s prerogative). The sole aim was to draw attention to the fact that certain matters concerning the standardization of nicknames are certainly worth more detailed discussion—discussion that is lacking in the section “Structure of the Dictionary.”

The stress patterns of these proper names are also connected with the standardization of nicknames (as with place names).

In the standard language, our place names are stressed as they are by the people in the places where each place name originated and is used. Thus, authentic place-name stress is respected, and it is considered normal for a place name of the same formation and origin, used in different parts of Lithuania, to be pronounced differently (e.g., Jõnalaukis village, Jonava district, and Jonãlaukis village, Ignalina district; Lengvėniškės village, Prienai district, and Lengveniškės village, Zarasai district). Only cases of place-name stress associated with regular stress retraction are standardized¹⁰.

The very common variants in the stress of the same surname in Lithuania are likewise treated as valid (e.g., Bálnanosis, Balñanosis, Balnanõsis; Dargūžis and Dargužis). They

¹⁰ See also Vanagas A. Principles for Standardizing Place Names (2). – Gimtoji kalba 5, 1991, 4–7.

237

are regarded as equivalent and correct, and all are recommended for use in the standard language¹¹.

Apparently, the same principles of stress should also be applied to nicknames. Thus, in the standard language these personal names should be stressed as they are by the people in the places where the nickname originated and is used. It is therefore not entirely clear what the author of the book means when claiming that the stress of the nicknames included in the dictionary has been standardized, and when listing the exceptions already mentioned (p. 138). This ambiguity would not arise if the researcher had discussed in greater detail his view of the particular features of nickname stress and its standardization (or lack thereof).

Recognizing the topicality, necessity, and value of “Lithuanian Nicknames,” one can say that the book truly deserves much praise. On the other hand, the appearance of a new work in onomastics offers an opportunity to discuss some questions related to research in this field. Therefore, in addition to what has already been said in this review, I would like to draw attention to one or two further points.

Lithuanian onomastics is a relatively young branch of our linguistics, and authors of works on this subject therefore often encounter problems concerning the use of terminology.

The object of onomastic research is proper words, or onyms. The term onimas, included and defined in a Russian dictionary of onomastic terms¹², is used in the works of scholars from various countries, including Lithuania. Thus, all proper words in the Lithuanian language (place names, personal names, etc.) should be called onyms. The set of proper words, or onyms, is designated by the term onymy¹³. Accordingly, there should be no doubt that nicknames are also onyms. It is therefore impossible to agree with the author of the book under review when he calls the words from which nicknames arose (or may be derived) onyms (p. 25). Moreover, the explanation for this use of the term onimas—that nicknames may derive from both common and proper words—is certainly unconvincing (see the footnote on p. 25). According to the author, onyms are not only proper words but also common words. Compare, for example, the statements: “The onyms here are animal names: Bebras, Lapė, Voverė...” (p. 37); “Names of hooked-billed birds are used as onyms (the most common nickname is Vānagas)...” (p. 41); “The onyms here are names of small animals: Cýrule, Puokis...” (p. 45); “More rarely, onyms are personal names and zoonyms (Rickus,... horse, rooster)” (p. 76), and so on. This is fundamentally at odds with the established understanding of the term onimas in onomastic terminology. Admittedly, words from which a nickname is derived are sometimes not called onyms but are described in some other way, for example, as motivating word (p. 31) or nickname appellatives (pp. 75, 96, 99), but most often the previously mentioned term onimas is used for this purpose.

¹¹ For more, see Maciejauskienė V. Use of Lithuanian Surnames, 5–6.

¹² Подольская Н. Словарь русской ономастической терминологии, Москва: Наука, 1978, 95.

¹³ Žr. Jakaitienė E. Lietuvių kalbos leksikologija, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1980, 86.

238

It is also worth noting here that when listing the roots of nicknames derived from various words, the roots are written with a capital letter in the book, e.g.: Balt-, Juod-, Rud-, Žil- (p. 37), Murz-, Žebr- (p. 39), Maž-, Trump- (p. 45), Klib-, Šlub-, etc. (p. 54), and so on. In our works on anthroponymy, in such cases the roots (stems) of personal names are customarily written with a lowercase letter¹⁴.

In discussing one type of family nickname, namely patronymic nicknames, the terms tėvavardis and patronimas are mentioned (pp. 21, 57, etc.). They are used synonymously, on the understanding that both denote the same concept—a personal name formed from the father’s given name, surname, nickname, or the like. This suggests that the book does not endorse distinguishing these terms by treating them as denoting concepts of different scope (patronimas is any derivative from any of the father’s personal names, i.e. given name, surname, nickname, pseudonym, whereas tėvavardis is a derivative formed from the father’s given name with a patronymic suffix)¹⁵.

Reading about patronymic nicknames, one may notice a few other debatable claims. For example, p. 21 states that “in Lithuanian, a tėvavardis is usually two words (e.g., Adomo sūnus) or a one-word genitive form (Adomo).” Given the definition of tėvavardis mentioned above (a personal name formed from the father’s given name with patronymic suffixes), speaking of a two-word tėvavardis (or a one-word genitive form) is inappropriate. What the author calls a tėvavardis here could instead be called a reference to the father’s given name, or something similar. Or take p. 60, where compound tėvavardžiai: Sūnelio Aldoną (the father’s nickname is Sūnelis), Žento Jūlius (the father’s nickname is Žentas) are mentioned. As can be seen, these are compound nicknames, one component of which refers to the father’s nickname.

It is also not entirely acceptable that the work on anthroponymy does not distinguish patronyms from matronyms (derivatives from the mother’s given name). According to the author, this is done “for the sake of simplicity” (footnote on p. 57). In fact, this approach is not followed consistently, and matronyms, or mother-name forms, are mentioned in some places (e.g., p. 59: metronimus, metroniminių priesagų; here met- instead of mat- is most likely a proofreading error).

One probably cannot endorse cases in which the author replaces the standard term patroniminė priesaga ‘patronymic suffix’ with the shorter patropriesaga (pp. 59, 64, etc.) (father suffix?) or uses the term patroformantas (p. 124), and writes parazitzodis instead of parazitinis žodis ‘parasitic word’ (pp. 84, 87), and so on.

As noted earlier, because of the chosen approach to studying nicknames, matters of their formation are not discussed at length in the work, although some chapters do address them. One such chapter is “Nickname Formation and Its Relation to Motivation” (p. 31).

¹⁴ Cf. Kuzavinis K., Savukynas B. Lietuvių vardų kilmės žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1987; Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas, Maciejauskienė V. Lietuvių pavardžių susidarymas, etc.

¹⁵ See Maciejauskienė V. Op. cit., 17.

239

It is stated here that, in terms of their formation, nicknames “can be divided into primary forms and derivatives (p. 31, 33, etc.). From the following discussion, one can understand that nicknames such as Baltakys, Išverstakis, Kreivažandis and the like are also assigned to the group of derivatives, although they are called two-stem nicknames, and sometimes compounds. Assuming that the nicknames mentioned arose from an existing or potential appellative, they could be classified as primary forms in terms of their formation. However, they certainly cannot be called derivatives (a derivative is a word that “is based on one base word and has a derivational formant”¹⁶). They are composites, or compound nicknames¹⁷. Thus, it would seem that derivation in this chapter of the book is understood as the set of word-formation methods. This understanding is repeated in the second chapter of the book (“Kinship Nicknames”): “The other half of the nicknames are derivatives, one third of them being compounds formed from the father-in-law’s personal name (usually a surname) and an appellative son-in-law...” (Bružentis, Lapėnžentis, Šimkažentis) (p. 65). However, it is not applied consistently.

Discussing the formation of nicknames in the seventh chapter of the book (“Nicknames Based on Place of Residence”), the author mentions composites alongside derivatives (pp. 111, 113). The former include compound (Kalno Juodėlis, Jonis Šilinis) and two-stem nicknames (Miškāpet ris, Plikbalis, Vienasėdis) (p. 113). Compound nicknames (Antano Pašily s, Sūnelio Aldonā) are also mentioned on p. 60; composites, compounds, and compound nicknames are referred to on pp. 116, 117, and elsewhere. Thus, one might perhaps find the treatment of nickname formation lacking in consistency.

Compound nicknames are called compounds (pp. 32, 38, 65, etc.) or two-stem nicknames (pp. 32, 38, 113, etc.). While one may agree with the use of the terms compound nickname and compound, the appropriateness of using two-stem nickname may be questioned. In Lithuanian anthroponymy, it is customary to call old Baltic personal names two-stem names (e.g., Algirdas, Mindaugas, Vytautas and the like).

A few other inaccuracies related to the discussion of nickname formation should also be mentioned. For instance, when discussing the formation of women’s nicknames, the suffix -ienė is noted (Kūgelienė, Žirafienė), and the common words sukčiuvienė, snaudžiuvienė are given for comparison (p. 67). But the latter have the suffix -(i)uvienė. It is not precise to classify the nickname Motė as a suffixless derivative of Motiejus.

In conclusion, one would like to raise the question of whether nicknames can be unmotivated (cf. the book’s eleventh chapter, “Unmotivated Nicknames”). In the subsection “Motives for Nicknames,” the author states: “...the view that a nickname cannot exist without a motive is too categorical, since there are nicknames whose motive has been forgotten” (p. 26). More important, it seems, is that a nickname cannot arise without a motive, although one that has already arisen can certainly continue to exist (even if its motive is unknown, forgotten, etc.). This

¹⁶ G a i v e n i s K., K e i n y s S. Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, 47, 225.

¹⁷ Plg. U r b u t i s V. Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1978, 283; V a n a g a s A. Lietuvos TSR hidronimų daryba, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970, 25.

240

or does the concept of unmotivated nicknames contradict the very notion of a nickname? After all, if the motives for choosing the personal names Bebras, Erkė, Kreidaklynis (p. 119) and others were not recorded, this does not show that they arose in any way other than all Lithuanian nicknames—that is, that they are unmotivated.

In reviewing “Lietuvių pravardės,” the primary aim was to draw readers’ attention to the merits of this new work on Lithuanian anthroponymy. The polemical remarks presented here, or views that differ from the author’s on certain issues, may perhaps prove useful for further research into this unique stratum of Lithuanian personal names.

Vitalija Maciejauskienė

Benita Laumane. Zeme, jūra, zveivietas. Zvejniecības leksika Latvijas piekrastē. Rīga, 1996: Zinātne, 397 lpp.: il., [8] lp. kr. il.

Over the past few years, a number of significant works on Baltic onomastics have appeared. Undoubtedly one of these is the book published in 1996 by Latvian linguist B. Laumane, devoted to a study of the fishing vocabulary of the Latvian territory around the Baltic Sea¹. This work summarizes and supplements the author’s earlier studies².

It should be said that this is the first work of its kind in Baltic onomastics (and linguistics in general): it examines, very comprehensively and in detail, the appellative and onymic vocabulary of a fairly specific area—the coast. To be sure, some writing has also been done on the place names of the Baltic coast in Lithuanian territory³, but this amounts more to an introduction to the toponymy than to an in-depth analysis.

B. Laumane’s book comprises a “Preface,” an “Introduction,” and three substantial chapters: “Names of Fishing Settlements and Landing Places” (“Zvejniekciemu un valgumu nosaukumi”), “Relief Names” (“Reljefa apzīmējumi”), and “Names of Fishing Grounds” (“Zvejvietu nosaukumi”). These chapters are divided into a number of more detailed subsections.

The introduction (pp. 5–16) offers a wide-ranging description of the Baltic Sea coastal region: it surveys the history of the establishment of fishing settlements, the development of the fishing industry, and the ethnic composition of the population and its changes. Data from historical sources—

¹ The book undoubtedly deserves a full review or a detailed discussion. For now, however, only a brief presentation is offered.

² Cf. Лаумане Б. Семантика и структура названий тоней побережья Латвийской ССР. – Baltu valodas senāk un tagad, Rīga: Zinātne, 1985, 115–127; Laumane B. Zvejvietu nosaukumi Latvijas PSR piekrastē, Rīga: Zinātne, 1987, and others.

³ See Гуделис В. Список географических названий залива Куршю марес и прилегающей к нему территории. – Куршю марес, Вильнюс, 1959, 541–546; Vanagas A. The Hydronyms of Our Coast. – Baltija, Vilnius: Mintis, 1984, 72–77; Razmukaitė M. Place Names of the Curonian Spit and Curonian Lagoon. – Language Culture 69, 1997, 74–81.

241