Lietuviškos oikonimų lytys nelietuviškuose XVI–XIX a. šaltiniuose

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XL (1998) Vidas GARLIAUSKAS Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Vilnius LITHUANIAN FORMS OF OIKONYMS IN NON-LITHUANIAN 16TH–19TH-CENTURY SOURCES Numerous Lithuanian oikonyms are recorded in non-Lithuanian historical sources. Lithuanian forms of some historical oikonyms were also recorded. A few of these have already been published in various works, but nowhere have they been discussed in greater detail. This article examines the Lithuanian forms of historical oikonyms: it defines them and surveys their emergence, distribution, use, and spelling. J. Spruogis was the first to draw attention to Lithuanian forms of other toponyms (not oikonyms), as early as 1888. In the introduction to the 16th-century dictionary of the old Samogitian land, explaining that the Samogitian and Lithuanian languages are the same, he gives several examples: Дубины («по русску, а по литовску—Ожолиосъ»)1 1595, two manors, Gaižuva, Vilkija district; Моцкося Седеймася («называема вроцщомъ по литовску») 1596, manor, Gaižuva, Vilkija district; Паклуне («называема по литовску») 1595, village, Romāiniai, Vilkija district, etc. (Spruogis 1888: VII–VIII). Historian K. Jablonskis had also mentioned Lithuanian forms of other toponyms before the Second World War. He provided several examples from the Samogitian court books: Лесы зарощонные... вроцщомъ называемые По Кендаля калну ир По Жырдос Калну Антнелке Вежетя Мишкай 1599 Pužai, Viduklė district; Нива По Тробомис 1601 Paštuva, Vilkija district; Кгрунт Анитас Паседис 1607 Ganýprova, Kražiai district. K. Jablonskis stated that “Very many such names have survived in Lithuanian records; only a small portion of them have been catalogued” (Jablonskis 1937: 142). Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in Lithuania Minor (the Klaipėda region), taken from old church registers, had been published by W. Fenzlau in a study devoted to Lithuanian and German forms of the Klaipėda region’s names (Fenzlau 1936). There he compared forms of some of the same oikonyms from the 17th–18th centuries with those from the 20th century. Before the Second World War, interest was also shown in the old church registers of Lithuania Major. The 1939 work plan of the Lithuanian Language Section of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies, considered by J. Balčikonis, M. Biržiška, A. Salys, and Pr. Skar- 1All material transcribed from historical sources (individual words, phrases, short texts) is presented in italics, with relevant examples underlined. 123 …džius, the minutes recorded: “To make efforts in the diocesan curias to obtain old church registers, which are particularly important for our onomasticon”2. Since these church record books remained unstudied for a long time because of the war and occupations, the Lithuanian forms of oikonyms found in them have remained unknown to this day. Classification of Lithuanian oikonym forms recorded in historical sources Lithuanian oikonyms are recorded very inconsistently in historical sources, so it is necessary to define clearly which recorded forms of Lithuanian oikonyms should be considered Lithuanian. The concepts used in the article also require discussion. The concept Lithuanian oikonyms refers to the set of oikonyms across the entire area of the Lithuanian language (past and present)3. These are the subject of this article, with the exception of Prussian oikonyms and a few Slavic ones. Historical documents record various forms of these oikonyms. An attempt is made to define what they are on the basis of how those forms are written. Precisely recorded forms of historical oikonyms that do not differ in any way from those used by Lithuanians are L i t h u a n i a n f o r m s, for example: Anmaūmpuc 1584 (Spruogis: 5) = *Antaitris Tverų vls.4; Antalametėlis 1744 (Lkm JĮ II: 6)5 = 2 Minutes book of the Lithuanian Language Section of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies. Minutes No. 1, March 18 and 21, 1939. The source is held in the Onomastics Section of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. 3 Cf. the concept Lithuanian surnames, whose “content is the set of surnames of people of Lithuanian ethnicity” (Maciejauskienė 1997a: 101). 4 Oikonyms in historical sources are presented in the following order: the Lithuanian form of the oikonym is given in darker italics, followed by the year of its recording; in parentheses is the source (for abbreviations, see the list of abbreviations), the volume in Roman numerals, and, after a colon, the page. Outside the parentheses, after an equals sign, a reconstructed form or one taken from contemporary sources is given in italics; it corresponds to the historical-source form and is followed by the location according to the LATSŽ II classification, with the surrounding area, district, etc. written out in full and the municipality indicated by an abbreviation. The location cannot always be specified precisely, because the location given in historical sources often does not match the present-day one. In such cases, an effort has been made to indicate both locations, sometimes giving an approximate location; as a result, the article may contain some inconsistencies. For example, the locations of settlements listed in the 1854 directory of the Diocese of Telšiai and Samogitia are given to parish level, using the abbreviations in LKŽ. The locations of settlements on the 1807 map of New East Prussia (Užnemunė) are given by map grid square, using the most prominent place in each square: Darsūniškis, Ingavangis, Liepalotai, Meištai, Rokai, Šakiai, Ūdrija, Veiveriai, Zapyškis, etc. If a place shown on the map is also listed in LATSŽ II, its location there is also provided. Map pages are cited as indicated on the map itself (1, 2, 2a, etc.). Pages in some other manuscript sources (e.g., church books, some inventories, etc.) are indicated by a number and a letter (e.g., 6a, 6b); this means that only the leaves of these sources are numbered, and the letters indicate different sides of the same leaf. Locations of settlements in Lithuania Minor are also presented inconsistently. For W. Fenzlau’s study, the locations of settlements that have disappeared are given to the level of parishes in the Klaipėda region, while those that have survived to the present day are located according to LATSŽ II. The locations of settlements in Lithuania Minor that lie in present-day Kaliningrad Oblast are given unchanged, as presented in Peteračio’s study. Where a settlement cited in Peteračio’s study lies in present-day Lithuanian territory and has survived, its location is given according to LATSŽ II. 5 Attention should be drawn to the use of certain abbreviations in the article. KĮ means baptismal register, JĮ marriage register, and MĮ death register. The letter N before the abbreviations in question… 124 *Antalamestis, now Antālamēste Saldutiškis Ut; Zaščianek Antarasztas / Wieś Kiakszty / Włość Wydzka 1731 (Inw KŻ: 15) = *Antaraštas Vidžiai (now Belarus); de Avizieniu 1769 (Ut JĮ I: 50ᵃ) = *Avižieniu, Avižieniai Leliūnai Ut; Budupis 1539 (Pėteraitis: 89) = *Būd upis Stalupėnai, Katniava, Trakėnai; Dubinikas 1898 (Anonim: 42) = dialectal *Dub in ī kas, now Dubininkas Merkinė (now Marcinkónys Al); Dumczus / P. WILKOWISCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 107) = *Dumčus, now Dumčai Pilviškiai Vlkv; Eigietonis 1898 (Anonim: 38) = Eĭgelonys Butrimónys (now Pivašiūnai and Jurgeliónys Al); de Eyguliu 1686 (Mlt KĮ I: 14ᵇ) = *Eigulių Molėtai; Galinis / P. KUKUCISCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 83) = *Galinis, now Galiniškis Skudutiškis Mlt; de Ginuciey 1741 (Lkm KĮ II: 8ᵃ) = dialectal *Ginu.c’ai., Ginučiai Linkmenys Ign; Gumbronas / P. ANUSZYCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 87) = *Gumbronas Onuškis Vrn; de loco Jodapurwey 1753 (Blnk KĮ II: 9ᵃ) = *Juodapurviai Balniṅkai Mlt; Kekkerfūle 1670 (Fenzlau: 124) = *Kekersuose, Kekersai Katyčiai Sl; de Kiemieszis 1741 (Lkm JĮ II: 3ᵃ) = Kemešys Saldutiškis Ut; Woyta Zutaticia Š: Kiemsiu 1607 (Jnš KĮ: 95ᵃ) = *Kemsìų, Kemšiai Skaistgirys Jnš; Laubenskas 1807 (NO: 2a) Veiveriai; Zaščianek Łynkadaržys 1820 (WDW) = *Linkadaržis Lavōriškės Viln; de uilla Linkawa 1618 (Jnš KĮ: 218ᵇ) = *Linkava, now Linkuvà town Pkr; Miasto Merecz czyli Mierkine 1898 (Anonim: 42) = Merkinė Vrn; de Melkaliadzis 1617 (Mrk KĮ: 101ᵇ) = *M’eškas’edzis, now Meškasalis Ąlovė Al; Mežymas / P. SVINCIANENSIS 1744 (Syn: 81) = dialectal *M’e.š i.mas Švenčionys; Náragus / P. DUBINCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 48) = dialectal *Na.ragas Dubingiai Mlt; Pagi Petuodžiu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 14ᵇ) = *Peluodžių, Peluōdžiai Pašvitinys Pkr; de Villa Pietkunas 1668 (Rgv KĮ I: 3ᵃ) = *Petkūnas, now Petkūnai Juostininkai An; Plunge 1854 (ED: 9) Plùngė town; Sarya / P. DRUIENSIS 1744 (Syn: 84) = *Sarija, Drujā (Belarus); de Skaudale 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 66ᵃ) = dialectal *Skau-dal’e, Skaudāliai Imbarė Krtn; Sodenay 1584 (Pėteraitis: 363) = *Sodėnai Dárkiemis, Žabynai; Zascianek soda Ganikta / Siolo Twirbuty / Wojtostwo Zaniemenskie / Wotosc Wielonska 1615 (Inw VI: 24ᵇ) = *Sodo (dialectal *Soda) pasture Veliuona; de loco [žaltakieliszkięb 1757 (Blnk KĮ II: 30ᵇ) = *Šaltakeliškės, now Šaltakeliai Žėva Ukm; de Villa [žlapiosios Berzies 1711 (Dt KĮ: 146ᵃ) = *Šlapiosios beržės, now Šlapaberžė Dotnuvà Kdn; de Upeskumpas 1810 (Mlt KĮ X: 32ᵃ) = dialectal *U.p’e.s kumpas, standard *Upės kampas Molėtai; de Utena 1741 (Ut JĮ I: 16ᵇ) = Utenà town; de Wayto ulicies 1709 (Ant KĮ I: 104ᵃ) = *Vaito ulyčios (dialectal *u.li.č’a.s) Antalieptė Zr; Веліона 1584 (Spruogis: 39) = Veliuonà Jrb; Вильня 1575 (Spruogis: 54) = dialectal *Vilnia, now Vilnius town; The abbreviations indicate a copy of the relevant book. For example, the notation KĮ N indicates a copy of a baptismal register. At the very end of the eighteenth century, parish priests (rectors or vicars), at the initiative of the authorities of the Vilnius diocese, copied such register books from the originals. 125 Wingis / P. PODBRZEŽENSIS 1744 (Syn: 43) = *Vingis Pabėržė Viln; Žascianek Žagarait ys pusty / WŁOŚĆ MASIADZKA 1662 (ŽV Inv: 204) = *Žagaraitis Mósėdis Skd et al. These Lithuanian forms may be dialectal or non-dialectal. They may be recorded in various cases, and even be peculiarly linked with a foreign-language word group (text). However, the recording in a foreign-language historical source must make it clear that the oikonym form is indeed Lithuanian, native to the Lithuanian language system and foreign to the system of any other language. Such a Lithuanian form in a foreign-language text could be regarded as an unadapted borrowing (a Lithuanianism). Without any doubt, all Lithuanian oikonyms have (or have had) Lithuanian forms. Most of these Lithuanian forms are primary, since most oikonyms derive from other Lithuanian proper and common nouns and are (or were) used within the Lithuanian-speaking area. At the time they arose, only some oikonyms of non-Lithuanian origin may have had a primary non-Lithuanian form, if non-Lithuanians who had settled there gave a particular place a non-Lithuanian name and the Lithuanians living nearby soon adopted that name from them and adapted it according to the rules of Lithuanian. For example, the place where an inn stood was named de Kapanauza 1792 (Mlt KĮ VII: 109a), de Kafenhauz 1793 (Mlt KĮ VII: 114), de Kaffenauza 1796 (Mlt KĮ VII: 134a), now Kapanáuza Suginčiai Mlt; the oikonym Kafenhauz, derived from Polish kafenhaus ‘coffee house’, was adapted in Lithuanian and became Kapanáuza, so the latter Lithuanian form should be considered secondary. The same applies to Jūrbarkas, which arose from German Jurgenborg, itself from Georgenburg (Vanagas 1996: 83). In these and similar cases, one can speak of the Lithuanianization of oikonyms of foreign origin, which occurred when Lithuanians became acquainted with a particular oikonym and began using it themselves. Thus, all Lithuanian oikonyms of non-Lithuanian origin in the Lithuanian-speaking area also have Lithuanian forms, which may likewise be recorded in foreign-language historical sources. Lithuanian forms of oikonyms (and other onymic forms) are the most valuable and reliable part of the historical onomastic material. They are authentic facts of living language recorded in documents, reflecting well the speech of people in specific places in past centuries. These Lithuanian forms should be included in the etymologies of place names, although this has rarely been done to date6. They can be used as a basis for explaining various facts of language history and dialectology. Historical sources also contain Lithuanian oikonym forms recorded with obvious spelling errors. These are easy to correct, and the authentic form of the oikonym is easy to restore. If the error is clear (for example, if a letter has been omitted or letters transposed), such an oikonym form should be regarded as a Lithuanian form recorded incorrectly. Lithuanian oikonyms written with an obvious error should be treated as old 6 A few Lithuanian forms are presented in A. Vanagas’s explanations of the etymologies of town names (Vanagas 1996). 126 words incorrectly written in Lithuanian sources. For example, in the case de Antalie-tes 1694 (Dgl KĮ II: 79a), the form should be *Antalieptės, with the letter p omitted; in the case Š: Nor-ma-čių 1611 (Jnš KĮ: 133b), the form should be *Normančių, nominative *Normančiai, with the letter n omitted. In the case de Normon-l-ė 1636 (Slnt KĮ: 31a), = dialectal *Normon’tė; cf. *Normančiai, the letter t was written without a crossbar. In the case Š: Zui-n-liu 1611 (Jnš KĮ: 130b), the form should be *Žvilių, with an unnecessary n inserted. Sometimes letters are transposed in a recorded oikonym form, for example de villa Vntat-sk-nies 1739 (Lkm KĮ I: 105a) – probably an error for the dialectal form *Untalk’s’n’e.s.. In other cases, where letters have been transposed, metathesis may be involved, and the recorded forms should therefore be considered Lithuanian: de g-ri-butkiu ~1711 (Lnkv KĮ: 2a) = *Gribudkių, present-day Girbutkiai in Linkuva, Pkr; Š. St-ri-peikiu 1607 (Jnš KĮ: 93a) = *Stripeikių and Sioto St-ir-peikiu 1614 (Jnš KĮ: 162a) = *Stirpeikių, present-day Stripeikiai in Gataučiai, Jnš. Historical sources also contain forms in which some morphemes are retained as Lithuanian, while others are altered according to the rules of foreign languages, preventing the forms in question from being regarded as Lithuanian. These forms are partly Slavicized or Germanized, but retain Lithuanian endings that do not occur in other languages. Such forms are precisely what should be regarded as hybrid forms of Lithuanian oikonyms. They are intermediate forms, closer to Lithuanian forms in some respects (especially in retaining the Lithuanian ending), but closer in others (through altered or non-Lithuanian morphemes) to Slavicized or Germanized forms. The meaning of the concept hybrid form of a Lithuanian oikonym differs somewhat from that of the term hybrid—“a word containing morphemes of foreign origin” (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 78). A hybrid form of a Lithuanian oikonym is one in which at least one morpheme, sometimes two, sometimes all morphemes, e x c e p t t h e L i t h u a n i a n e n d i n g, are altered according to the rules of other languages or are non-Lithuanian. Another possible case is one in which all Lithuanian morphemes are retained in the hybrid form, but the phonetics are modified somewhat under the influence of foreign languages. Even in such cases, however, the Lithuanian ending of the form must remain unchanged. Cases in which, in hybrid oikonym forms, a Lithuanian morpheme is replaced by a non-Lithuanian one. In the case de Gryb-eniu7 1683 (Mlt KĮ: 3b), the root morpheme gryb- has been replaced by the non-Lithuanian gryb-, cf. Polish grzyb ‘mushroom’, Polish personal name Grzybowski; the other morphemes (suffix and ending), however, are Lithuanian—cf. the Lithuanian form de Grybeniu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 3b) = *Grybenių8. The Lithuanian prefix is replaced by a non-Lithuanian one in Pod-auksztoji 1901 (Volter: 176), Marijampolė—the Lithuanian form would be *Paaukštoji; from the single Pod-kierocio parap. Łabanoro 1907 (Int ZK: 44a)—the Lithu- 7 Analogous forms of common Lithuanian words are also found in Lithuanian monuments; cf. t-rz-ilfdiezm tis (three tens) (Universitas 1991). 8 Because of imperfect spelling, it is not always possible to reconstruct the exact form, especially if the oikonym has not survived to the present day. In this case, however, *Grybenių can still be reconstructed. 127 thuanian form would be *Pakeročio. The Lithuanian suffix is Slavicized in the case from the homestead Vaverany, parish of Gierw-iat-u 1906 (Int ZK: 42ᵇ), cf. Gervėčių, Gervėčiai (Belarus); a non-Lithuanian suffix is inserted in the case from Bebrušet-k-as, parish of Maletų 1905 (Int ZK: 41ᵃ). Cases of hybrid forms whose only Lithuanian morpheme is the ending: Pagi Kozak-u 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 19ᵃ), cf. Slavic personal name Kozak—the Lithuanian form Pagi Kazoku 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 12ᵃ) = *Kazokų, cf. Lithuanian personal name Kazõkas; from Marazówk-os 1903 (Int ZK: 36ᵃ); Nowodol-is 1901 (Volter: 216), Kybartai; from Nowosod-u 1910 (Int ZK: 49ᵇ); Podlubuwk-as 1901 (Volter: 128), Liubãvas; from the single-hamlet settlement Sos-nówk-os 1905 (Int ZK: 40ᵇ); Zasciank-as 1901 (Volter: 188), Fredà Kn. Cases in which the phonetics are modified somewhat in hybrid oikonym forms. In the case na Zascianku PA-c-iesartis nad Rzeką Cesarką / Wies Kaližė / Wlość Malatska 1731 (Inw KZ: 119), the phonetic influence of the Slavicized form Polish Cesarka (cf. Lithuanian Siesartis, river, Mlt and elsewhere, LUEŽ: 145) is evident. This phonetic change prevents the form in question from being regarded as Lithuanian. The Lithuanian form would be *Pasiesartis or *Pasiesartys. Similar forms are from O-rnionių 1903 (Int ZK: 37ᵃ), cf. Arniónys Mlt; from Kolokoss-u 1908 (Int ZK: 45ᵃ), from Kollokoss-u 1909 (Int ZK: 46ᵇ)—in this case, the phonetics are Slavicized, with geminates atypical of Lithuanian spelling; cf. Polish z wiosk. Kotokossy 1903 (Int ZK: 36ᵇ), present-day Kuolakãsiai in Inturkė, Mlt. In oikonyms in Prussian sources, voiced and voiceless consonants are confused. The voiceless consonant [t] is represented by the letters -dt- in Wan-dt-laukey 1584 (Pėteraitis: 432), cf. *Vantlaukiai, later Vantiškiai, a manor and village in Dárkiemis, Klišiai, Vykiškiai. This is therefore a case of Germanization. Similarly, the Lithuanian voiced [d] is represented by the letters -tt- (which constitutes Germanization) in Wi-tt-gerey 1583 (Pėteraitis: 444), cf. Vidgiriai || Lėgiai, Pilkalnis, Málviškiai⁹, Draugupėnai. There are cases in which the Lithuanian consonant [s] is represented by the letters sch, sz, which should be read as [š]: Antrau-sch-wey 1584 (Pėteraitis: 53), cf. Antrausviai, Stalupėnai; Krucki-sz 1584 (Pėteraitis: 201), to be reconstructed as *Krukis, *Krukys, later Krukiai, Dárkiemis, Klišiai; de Gatakiemi-fz 1743 (Lkm KĮ II: 13ᵇ), present-day Gãtakiemis, Saldūtiškis, Ut, and so on. Such representation of [š] should be regarded as Germanization (in Prussia) or Slavicization (in Lithuania). For the representation of word-final [s], see also pp. 192–193. Sometimes, at the beginning of a word before a vowel or diphthong, a consonant [h] atypical of Lithuanian is added: H-eygirey 1785 (Pėteraitis: 114), to be restored as Lithuanian *Eigiriai, Eigarai, Ragainė, Būdviečiai—the Lithuanian forms are Eyggarey 1625, Eygerey 1625 (Pėteraitis: 114); de H-ellu 1735 (Ut JĮ I: 9ᵃ)—the Lithuanian form is *Alių, Aliai, M外ckėnai, Ut. These too are hybrid forms of Lithuanian oikonyms. The addition of [h] at the beginning of a word in Prussian sources is Germanization, and in Lithuanian sources, Slavicization. ⁹ V. Pėteraitis duoda šio vv. lytį Malviškas. Bet žr. (Razmukaitė, Vitkauskas 1994: 106). 128 A certain degree of Germanization and Slavicization also occurs when a diphthong in some morpheme of an oikonym (root or suffix) is monophthongized, although it is usually not monophthongized in Lithuanian: Abst-e-nischkej 1540 (Péteraitis: 55); the Lithuanian form would be *Absteiniškiai, cf. the later Abstainiai Stalupėnai, Eitkūnai; Na Zascianku... Ant-e-siatynis / Wieś Paszeksczie Włość Malatska 1731 (Inw KZ: 127) — the Lithuanian form of the recorded oikonym would be *Ant(a)-ei-setinis (ant(a)- +Eisetas +-inis), cf. Aišetas Lake (LEUV: 2); siota Giedw-a-niu 1615 (Jnš KĮ: 165ᵇ), Pagi Giedw-i-niu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 5ᵃ), Pagi Gedw-i-niu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 5ᵃ), cf. present-day Gedvainiai Stupurai Jnš; de villa J-o-n-i-kaiciu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3ᵇ) — the Lithuanian form *Jauneikaičių, cf. present-day Jauneikiai Pociūnai Jnš; Villae Jurda-ciu Advocati Zutaičia 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 1ᵇ), cf. Aduo Zutaičia Pagi Jurday-ciu 1605 (Jnš KĮ: 62ᵃ) = *Jurdaičių, Jurdaičiai Buivydžiai Jnš; de Kird-y-key 1742 (Lkm KĮ II: 62ᵇ), cf. present-day Kirdeikiai Saldutiškis Ut; de T-e-guilu 1673 (Lnkv KĮ: 40ᵃ), de [t-e-guilu 1679 (Lnkv JĮ: 12ᵇ), cf. present-day Steigviliai Lauksodis Pkr; de [tryg-a-liszkis 1741 (Lkm KĮ II: 62ᵇ), cf. present-day Strigailiškis Palūšė Ign; de Jot-e-niu 1682 (Rgv JĮ I: 126ᵃ), would be dialectal *Jotʹeinʹú, standard *Jotainių, Jotáiniai Ramýgala Pn, etc. The underlined forms should be considered hybrid. Historical sources record forms that were never used in spoken language. These are artificial forms that arose through error or for other reasons, distorting the authentic ones: de Padwadu 1685 (Mlt KĮ I: 11ᵇ), de Pa-daaru 1691 (Mlt KĮ I: 41ᵃ), cf. Lithuanian forms de Padwaru 1682 (Mlt KĮ I: 1ᵃ), de Padwaru 1686 (Mlt KĮ I: 16ᵃ) = *Padvar(i)ų, present-day Padvariai, Gied-rai čiai or Padvarys, Žalvariai Mlt, and so on. Sometimes, when an oikonym form is distorted, it is impossible to determine the authentic form: de Brabradeļu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 5ᵇ); de mieluntu 1689 (Mlt KĮ I: 29ᵇ); de Kowasiszku 1689 (Mlt KĮ I: 29ᵇ); de Mugin-ciu 1689 (Mlt KĮ I: 29ᵇ), and so on. Thus, Lithuanian oikonym forms are considered only those that do not differ from the forms used by Lithuanians themselves or that contain an obvious error (they should be treated as misspelled words in old Lithuanian texts). Other oikonym forms, whether hybrid¹⁰ or inauthentic, should not be considered Lithuanian, even if they have a Lithuanian ending. 10 It should be remembered that some hybrid or even wholly non-Lithuanian oikonym forms are now officially established: Abruciovkà Šimónys Kp; Alekséjevka Lauksodis Pkr; Babiagūra Būda Prn; Budeviskas Jurgėžeriai Mrj; Chlopòvka Degučiai Zr; Čižovkà Noriūnai Kp; Dambráuka Igliáuka Mrj, etc.; Dlužniavà Petriškiai Pn; Dukuvkà Bukónys Jon; Granicà Žalvariai Mlt; Jasnogūrka Kuniōnys Kdn, etc.; Komisàrukvà Šimnas Al; Kalinuškà Kurkliai An; La-mantaúčižnà Gėlvonai Šr; Micháilovka Padubysys Šl; Novogrudkà Taruškos Pn; Petrovkà Daujėnai Ps; Podhaliampòlis Ubiškės Trak; Ramygolkà Truskavà Kdn; Ribičkis Čedasai Rk; Sla-budkà Baisógala Rd; Slučájus Kaniavà Vrn; Tomiluvkà Paąžuoliai Mlt; Veseluvkà Užusalial Jon, Giedraičiai Mlt; Vilénka Smálvos Zr; Vlōkiai Vandžiōgala Kn; Zaùlcai Semeliškės Trak, etc. 129 Most Lithuanian oikonym forms recorded in historical documents of Lithuania and Prussia written in other languages are Slavicized, Germanized, or Latinized. Slavicized forms: Sioto Czywilowo 1554 (LA: 102), cf. present-day Čivẏliai, Suginčiai Mlt; Sioto Koseykowiczy 1554 (LA: 101), в селе Кашейкахъ 1614 (OD IX: 130), cf. present-day Kašeikiai Suginčiai Mlt; de Mazėle 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 1ª), cf. present-day Mažėliai, Juodeikiai Jnš; de Pažkani 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 3ª), de Pažkancy 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 5ª), cf. present-day Paškonys, Luokesà Mlt; de Pokryža 1774 (Dgl KĮ III: 50ᵇ), de villa Potkrýže 1774 (Dgl KĮ III: 51ᵇ), cf. present-day Pakryžė, Daugailiai Ut; siota... Sakowiczow 1554 (LA: 101), cf. present-day Šakiai Skudutiškis Mlt, etc.; Latinized forms: de Jodališkis 1679 (Lnkv KĮ: 14ª), cf. present-day Sodėliškiai, Pašvitinys Pkr; de Degiaſis 1678 (Lnkv JĮ: 21ª), cf. present-day Degėsiai, Gūostagalis Pkr; de Girpetriſ 1702 (Jnšk KĮ: 32ª), cf. present-day Girpetriai, Pūšalotas Ps; de Kautakis 1690 (Mlt KĮ I: 37ᵇ), cf. present-day Kaulakiai, Luokesà Mlt; de Nebuvelir 1702 (Jnšk KĮ: 32ᵇ), Lithuanian would be *Nebuveliai; de Moletos 1689 (Mlt KĮ I: 29ᵇ), cf. present-day Molėtai, etc.; Germanized forms (in Lithuania Minor): Agminischken 1542, Agminiscken 1554 (Pėteraitis: 108), cf. Lithuanian Akmeniškiai Įsrutis; Dröwerincken 1554 (Pėteraitis: 108), cf. Lithuanian Dravininkai Stalupėnai, Katniava; Trussken, Drussken 1584 (Pėteraitis: 109), cf. Lithuanian Druskiai Stalupėnai; Lenkaitſchen 1785 (Pėteraitis: 223), cf. Lithuanian Lenkaičiai Įsrutis; Nemersdorff 1554, Nemerskiemen 1785 (Pėteraitis: 264), cf. Lithuanian Nėmerkiemis, old form Gumbinė; Skerstupōnen 1584 (Pėteraitis: 355), cf. Lithuanian Skersupėnai Stalupėnai; Thomaten (Pėteraitis: 108), cf. Lithuanian Tumaiciai village Pakalnė, Gàstos; Szurlig Michel (Pėteraitis: 108), cf. Lithuanian Žiurlikai, village Klaipėda, Kretingalė, Nėmirseta, etc. The degree of adaptation of Lithuanian oikonyms varies among sources: some forms are minimally adapted (only the word ending—the most vulnerable morpheme—has been changed), others more extensively, and still others are completely changed or reworked (morphologically and phonetically). The minimally adapted forms are the most important. When no other data are available, the non-Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in old documents are the only attestations of place names that have survived to the present day. Thus, in some cases these forms are important; in others, when they recur and provide no additional information, their value is rather limited. The emergence of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms: causes, place, time In the 13th–15th centuries, and perhaps even at the beginning of the 16th century, Lithuanian toponyms were usually recorded by non-Lithuanians, so almost all their forms were non-Lithuanian (Slavicized, (LATSŽ II). Such or similar oikonyms are entirely foreign to the Lithuanian name stock, since they did not originate on the basis of the Lithuanian language. 130 Germanized and so on), often distorted, although there are one or two exceptions11. However, in everyday speech Lithuanians undoubtedly used only the customary forms of their own toponyms and anthroponyms (cf. Maciejauskienė 1994: 27). The historical sources reviewed show that Lithuanian forms of toponyms (in the GDL and Prussia) began to be recorded more extensively in historical sources in the 16th century. Thus, the 16th century marks a certain watershed in the spelling of Lithuanian historical toponyms (especially oikonyms). The emergence and use of Lithuanian forms of toponyms in 16th-century historical sources chronologically coincides approximately with the more widespread use of Lithuanian forms of anthroponyms12 (cf. Maciejauskienė 1994: 26; 1997: 111–126). Therefore, when discussing the emergence of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms, one must also take into account the emergence of Lithuanian forms of anthroponyms in historical documents, since certain common spelling patterns are evident. The more extensive use of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in non-Lithuanian sources should be associated with the great changes in life in Lithuania and Prussia in the 16th century and with the more active involvement of Lithuanians themselves in the work of various state, scholarly, and ecclesiastical institutions, which required education, competence, and an understanding of Western European culture. Following the change in the political system, Lithuanian forms of oikonyms began to be recorded in Prussian documents from the first half of the 16th century, and the tradition of Germanizing Lithuanian place names, which had developed and become established during the Teutonic Order’s rule and had lasted for two and a half centuries, was partly abandoned. The Lithuanian forms of oikonyms that appeared in Prussian sources in the first half of the 16th century are the complete opposite of the Germanized and distorted forms of Lithuanian oikonyms found in Teutonic chronicles and other sources from the 13th to the beginning of the 15th century. According to the data currently available, more than one hundred distinct oikonyms whose Lithuanian forms were also recorded have been found in 16th-century Prussia (the territory of Lithuania Minor)13. These examples appear to come from administrative sources. Lithuanian forms of fifteen oikonyms from the areas around Įsrutis, Gumbinė, Pilkalnis, and Stalupėnai were recorded as early as 1539–1542, that is, before Prussia had been converted to— 11 Forms of toponyms that could be considered Lithuanian also occur in sources from that period; cf. the oikonyms: lappeberze 1371 (SRP II: 99) = *Šlapiaberžė, present-day Šlapabėržė in Dotnuva, Kdn; von Werszaka bis in des koniges hoff czu Cannewa 1384 (SRP II: 699), von Canewa 1384 (SRP II: 699) = present-day Kaniava, Kaniavà, Vrn; hydronym: eyn flies vnd heist Pellesa 1385 (SRP II: 703) = Pelesà, the Katrõs stream (present-day Belarus), die Katra 1371 (SRP II: 703) = Katrà, a tributary of the Nemunas or Ūla, die Wake 1371 (SRP II: 704), juxta aquam vulgariter Woke 1377 (SRP II: 589) = present-day Vókė, a tributary of the Neris; Mara 1462 (KD: 66), a river; Lebeda 1463–1467 (KD: 58), a tributary of the Nemunas; Dzisna 1498 (KD: 26) = dialectal dz'isna, Belarusian Dysna, a tributary of the Daugava; Dziwa 1463–1479 (KD: 26) = dialectal dz'itvà, Belarusian Ditvà, a tributary of the Nemunas, and so on. 12 Only sources from the GDL and Prussia that contain data from the Lithuanian-inhabited territory are meant here. 13 These data were collected from V. Peteraitis’s study. 131 were raised by the most important pioneers of Lithuanian writing, S. Rapolionis, J. Zablockis, A. Kulvietis, and M. Mažvydas—they came to Prussia in 1542–1546 (Biržiška 1990: 8, 24, 47, 79; Jovaišas 1996: 83). The Lithuanian forms of as many as nine oikonyms recorded in 1539 alone show that such forms may have occurred in earlier sources that have not survived. Unfortunately, the author of this article has no further information about the place-name stock of Lithuania Minor in the second half of the fifteenth–early sixteenth century. It should be assumed that in sixteenth-century Prussia some Lithuanian oikonyms (by no means all!) were recent and had not previously been recorded in documents; therefore, only their Lithuanian forms were used, since Germanized forms had apparently not yet emerged. The Lithuanian forms could have been recorded from local Lithuanian inhabitants by chancery officials and Germans in Lithuania Minor, quite a few of whom apparently knew Lithuanian in the sixteenth century. After the Order fell in Prussia, some scribes (officials and priests) apparently changed, and the traditions of the earlier scribes of the Order were thus partly interrupted. Furthermore, it may be assumed that after the Order fell, Lithuanian officials capable of recording Lithuanian forms of oikonyms also appeared in Prussia (as they did in Lithuania in the sixteenth century). It seems that some of them still did not know German in the sixteenth century (Zinkevičius 1988: 12). The Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in Prussian documents before the appearance of the first Lithuanian book are one argument that people who wrote in Lithuanian may already have been present here at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Later, in the mid-sixteenth century, after a large group of educated Lithuanian Protestants moved to Prussia and local Lithuanians began studying at educational institutions in Königsberg, Lithuanian forms became considerably more numerous in various Prussian sources. The recording of Lithuanian names in fifteenth-century sources of the GDL suggests that most of the scribes working in Lithuania at that time were non-Lithuanians. It is thought that many of them were “people whose native language was Ukrainian or Belarusian” (cf. Jablonskis 1979: 224). Fifteenth-century Lithuanian scribes (more of whom must have appeared toward the end of the century) apparently wrote in the Slavic chancery language, perhaps with one or two writing in Latin as well. It seems that almost all the “Latin” scribes of the fifteenth and first half of the sixteenth centuries, who worked in the magistrates of the larger Lithuanian cities (Vilnius and Kaunas) or at churches, were also non-Lithuanians: “Priests who arrived from Western Europe brought along their own Latin scribes, who were initially sufficient for the few needs of the churches” (Jablonskis 1979: 223). Thus, at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth century, there were still few Lithuanian scribes. They were apprentices, adopting the writing traditions of representatives of other cultures (Eastern Slavic and Western European) and adhering to them diligently. Consequently, non-Lithuanian forms of Lithuanian oikonyms and anthroponyms were written consistently in various fifteenth-century sources. For example, in the Lithuanian Metrica, most of whose acts were written in the Slavic chancery language14, Lithuanian toponyms and 14 This tradition dates back to the time of Vytautas: “Vytautas had scribes who wrote in Latin, Russian, two German languages—one used in Prussia, the other in Livonia—in Arabic, and probably in Czech. Thus, the scarcely organized chancery of the grand duke began writing in as many as six languages.”; “Lithuania... adopted... the act of Eastern culture—the Russian-language act.” (Jablonskis 1979: 221); 132 the forms of anthroponyms were heavily Slavicized. Clearly, as early as the fifteenth century, non-Lithuanian scribes from East Slavic lands established a firm and consistent tradition of writing Slavicized forms of Lithuanian toponyms and anthroponyms, following the East Slavic model. This tradition was observed quite firmly even at the beginning of the sixteenth century. However, from the first half of the sixteenth century onward, the situation changed fundamentally. In Lithuania (the GDL), the need for writing and scribes increased greatly in the first half of the sixteenth century. At that time, many Lithuanians, especially members of the upper estates, learned to write, and a considerable number of Lithuanian scribes appeared in Lithuanian chanceries, who “also changed the language of documents itself, incorporating many Lithuanian elements into it” (Jablonskis 1979: 224; cf. also Zinkevičius 1987: 122–123). It was precisely then, for various reasons, that inventories began to be compiled for smaller royal estates and, somewhat later, private estates, recording many new oikonyms and, especially, anthroponyms identifying common people (Maciejauskienė 1994: 31). A certain proportion of anthroponyms (especially the second elements of names, from which surnames later developed) in these documents were no longer written according to the Slavicizing conventions established in the fifteenth century.15 Thus, in the sixteenth century, there was no longer a uniform and consistent system for recording Lithuanian toponyms and anthroponyms of the kind that had developed in the fifteenth century on the East Slavic model. In certain cases, Lithuanian scribes began consciously or unconsciously to abandon the writing traditions of other languages, as they began to write Lithuanian anthroponyms in their own way and, somewhat later, toponyms as well, using Latin letters and Cyrillic to record the precise, that is, Lithuanian, forms of toponyms or anthroponyms. Such instances of recording should be regarded as some of the first attempts to create a Lithuanian writing tradition of their own, because precisely recorded forms of Lithuanian toponyms and anthroponyms are authentic facts of the Lithuanian language. And such forms existed both in Lithuania (the GDL) and in Prussia, as discussed earlier, even before the appearance of the first Lithuanian books. “Most of the grand duke’s chancery acts were written ‘in Russian,’ that is, in the Belarusian language” (LM 224/4: X). 15 Cf. examples of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century anthroponyms (second elements of names) (Maciejauskienė 1991: 53–68). In fifteenth-century sources written in the Slavic chancery language, patronymics were formed with Slavic suffixes -ovič, -evič (exceptions are very rare) (Maciejauskienė 1994: 26). Yet one or another Lithuanian patronymic with Lithuanian suffixes was also recorded in the fifteenth century; cf. the patronymics of some students from Lithuania in the matriculation registers of the University of Kraków: Joannes Woytonis plebanus de Butslaw 1421, Michael Jeczonis de Suderwi 1428, Alexius Girmontonis de Lyda 1445, Nicolaus Minczilonis de Augmonitski 1458, Albertus Mozeykonis de Gyedroythy 1460, Stanislaus Yvasconis de Eykysky 1484 (Biržiška 1987: 38–40). If we regard these forms as patronymic, it follows that in the fifteenth century some Lithuanian nobles still did not Slavicize their patronymics. On the other hand, it should be noted that these patronymics occur in a Latin text. It is therefore also possible that they are not patronymics but Latinized genitive singular forms of personal names with Latin -onis; cf. the corresponding Glaponis Mons ‘Glapo Hill’ (Glap-onis with Latin -onis) (Mažiulis 1988: 379). 133 Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in Lithuania have been found only in district and church books from the last quarter of the 16th century. Since no earlier sources of this kind have survived, one may surmise that they began to be written down in Lithuania somewhat earlier, perhaps even around the middle of the 16th century. Lithuanian forms of several dozen oikonyms were recorded in forty land-court books from Raseiniai (Spruogis 1888). Some books contain one or a few Lithuanian forms, while others contain none at all. In 1599, Lithuanian forms of about sixty oikonyms from an area within a radius of roughly 20 km around Joniškis were recorded in the Joniškis parish church records (1599–1621). Lithuanian forms of individual oikonyms also occur in other 16th-century sources: the Ukmergė castle court book (1597), the inventory of church estates in the Vilnius diocese (1595), and so on. Thus, on the basis of the data currently available, there would be about a hundred different oikonyms in Lithuania whose Lithuanian forms were recorded in non-Lithuanian 16th-century sources. With a few exceptions, all these oikonyms come from various places in the historic Samogitian land. It is possible that historical sources from other regions of Lithuania also contain more similar material, but they have so far been little studied. Lithuanian forms of toponyms and anthroponyms have been found in texts written in various languages: Slavonic chancery language (16th–17th centuries), Latin (16th–18th centuries), and Polish (17th–19th centuries). Various 16th-century documents contain not only many Lithuanian forms of toponyms and anthroponyms, but also some Lithuanian common nouns¹⁶ and even Lithuanian phrases¹⁷ (cf. Jablonskis 1941; Jablonskis 1979: 224–225; Zinkevičius 1987: 121–130; Zinkevičius 1988: 117–125, 146–151; for Lithuanian phrases in a Latin text, see p. 138). From the late 16th century, the creation of Lithuania’s own educational system had a certain influence on the use of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms and anthroponyms in Lithuanian documents. The educational institutions established at that time—the Vilnius Academy, seminaries, and colleges—taught in Latin. Consequently, by the late 16th century, the Slavonic chancery language had ceded a large part of its position in literature, journalism, and scholarship to Latin and, in part, Polish, although it still remained 16 Lithuanian common nouns began to appear in various sources around the second half of the 15th century (Jablonskis 1941). However, they should be treated as words of the Slavonic chancery language, borrowed Lithuanianisms, since they are written with non-Lithuanian endings. Such forms of these Lithuanian words correspond to the Slavicized forms of toponyms and anthroponyms in non-Lithuanian sources of the same period. 17 Some 16th-century toponyms written as several words may be regarded as Lithuanian phrases, for example: Кальниче кальнасъ Ершекетей late 16th century = *Kalnyčio kalnas Erškėčiai (dial. *Er's'k'et'ei) vs. Treigiai, Šiauduva rural district; Куляцъ дирва Анткану брастань 1599 = *Kūlijos dirva ant kapų brastos dr. Labardžiai, Káršuvas rural district; Навяжась кальнасъ Антпялю Батакя 1584 = *Naudžiaus kalnas ant pjaunių Batakio dr. Razgainiai, Viduklė rural district; Поагла Капуретая Скнинимаст 1595 = *Po egle (dial. *agla) kepurėtaja skynimas, Gaižuva village, Vilkija rural district (Spruogis 1888). 134 as the official language of administration (many documents were written in it from the late 16th to the first half of the 17th century). Around the second half of the 16th century18, another very large group of sources emerged within the Lithuanian chancery system: church register books. This was a new development in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. These books continuously recorded Lithuanian oikonyms and anthroponyms (they are perhaps the most comprehensive source for these onymic categories); they were written in Latin, and more rarely in Polish. Thus, the sphere of use of the Slavonic chancery language continued to contract. Each parish priest19 had to record almost the entire name inventory of his parish—oikonyms and anthroponyms—in the register books within a fairly short time. At first, the priests apparently had no experience writing Lithuanian oikonyms and anthroponyms in a non-Lithuanian text. Because of the nature of their work (constant interaction with Lithuanian-speaking people, the use of Latin in the entries, limited use of Polish in the provinces, and no need for Russian), priests very often entered in the books the forms of oikonyms and anthroponyms as spoken by local Lithuanian-speaking people. Thus, from the late 16th century onward, especially in the 17th–18th centuries, many Lithuanian forms of oikonyms and anthroponyms were recorded in church books. As a result, the name inventory in church books is considerably more Lithuanian than that in other written sources. This was apparently also influenced by the fact that priests recorded name data directly from speakers, whereas, for example, court and estate officials could obtain a substantial portion of their information through intermediaries, indirectly. The following examples illustrate some tendencies in the recording of Lithuanian oikonyms in various 16th–17th-century sources: Čivy̌liai (2) village, Suginčiai, Mlt – Sioto Czywilowo 1554 (IA: 102), Pisan w czjwilach 1609 (Ukm PTA 13 887: 9b), Sioto Czywile 1636 (Inw WC: 18b), de Ciuil 1657 (Aln JĮ: 2a), de Civile 1663 (Aln JĮ: 9a), de Czyuili 1683(Mlt KĮ I: 3a), de Czyuiliu 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 8b), de Cziuiliu 1685 (Mlt KĮ I: 13b), de Czywiliu 1688 (Mlt KĮ I: 25b), de [iuilu 1689 (Mlt KĮ I: 29b); 18 The article’s author was unable to find more precise information on when church register books began to be written in Lithuania. However, the 1579 visitation of the Samogitian diocese mentions that registers were kept in Vilkija, Veliuona, Butkiškė, Seredžius, Krakesė, Kražiai, and Varniai (Vizitacija: 15, 17, 41, 67, 71, 99, 107, 183, 261), and were not kept in Ariogala, Betygala, Viduklė, or Kaltanėnai (Vizitacija: 91, 117, 151, 215). Thus, in the second half of the 16th century, by no means all churches in Lithuania had register books. 19 In cities, for example Vilnius, church books were written not only by priests but also by sacristans (Zinkevičius 1977: 41–43). In the provinces, as indicated by scribes’ autobiographical notes entered in many 17th–18th-century church books, these books were written only by priests (parish priests or vicars); where a monastery was attached to a church, monks also wrote them. 135 Kašeikiai (2), village, Suginčiai Mlt – Sioto Koseykowiczy 1554 (IA: 101), ludzi Kożeykow 1554 (IA: 102), в селе Кашейкяхъ 1614 (OD IX: 130), Sioto koszėyki 1636 (Inw WC: 19ᵇ), Sioto Koszęyki 1681 (LI: 337), de Koſęyki 1690 (Mlt KĮ I: 36ᵃ), de Kaſęykiu 1691 (Mlt KĮ I: 39ᵇ); Šakiai (2), village, Skudučiškis Mlt – siota... Sakowiczow 1554 (IA: 101), de zukutancy 1658, (Aln JĮ: 3ᵇ), de ſzakiu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 2ᵃ). The forms Sioto Czywilowo²⁰ 1554 (IA: 102), now Čivẏliai, siota... Sakowiczow 1554 (IA: 101) = *Šakenai, now Šakiai; Sioto Koseykowiczy 1554 (IA: 101) = *Kašeikenai, now Kašeikiai, show how Lithuanian oikonyms were written (and heavily Slavicized) according to the East Slavic tradition in the mid-sixteenth century. It is not so easy to reconstruct their Lithuanian forms. Later, in the early seventeenth century, forms of these same oikonyms were already closer to Lithuanian: Pisan w cziwiliach 1609 (Ukm PTA 13887: 9ᵇ), Sioto Czywile 1636 (Inw WC: 18ᵇ), de Ciuil 1657 (Aln JĮ: 2ᵃ), de Civile 1663 (Aln JĮ: 9ᵃ), de Czyuili 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 3ᵃ), Sioto koszęyki 1636 (Inw WC: 19ᵇ), в селе Кашейкяхъ 1614 (OD IX: 130), Sioto Koszęyki 1681 (LI: 337), de Koſęyki 1690 (Mlt KĮ I: 36ᵃ) – cf. present-day Čivẏliai, Kašeikiai. The forms recorded at the end of the seventeenth century do not differ from those in use today, so they may be considered Lithuanian: de Czyuiliu 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 8ᵇ), de Cziu iliu 1685 (Mlt KĮ I: 13ᵇ), de Czywiliu 1688 (Mlt KĮ I: 25ᵇ) = *Čivylių (gen. pl.); 20 It should be noted that in the oldest sources, written in the Slavic chancery language, the Lithuanian suffixes -ait-, -ėn-, -ūn- and the like in suffixed oikonyms derived from anthroponyms were replaced by the Slavic suffixes -ovič-, -evič-. There is no doubt that in spoken language Lithuanians used only their own suffixes (on Lithuanian personal names with the Slavic patronymic suffixes -ovič-, -evič-, see Zinkevičius 1987: 134–135; Maciejauskienė 1994: 24–31). In Sioto Koseykowiczy 1554 (LA: 101), we have the Slavic suffix -ovič-. The Lithuanian form of this oikonym in the sixteenth century must have been *Kašeikenai; cf. the anthroponyms Symon Kayszikienas de uilla Łahu̇cie 1663 (Aln JĮ: 12ᵃ), Andreas kaſzykienas de Leluici 1686 (Mlt KĮ I: 18ᵇ) = *Kašeikėnas. The process of dropping patronymic suffixes, characteristic of Lithuanian surnames, is also related to changes in the forms of some suffixed oikonyms derived from anthroponyms: in later sources, forms of these oikonyms are recorded without suffixes: cf. Sioto Koseykowiczy 1554 (LA: 101), which would be Lithuanian *Kašeikenai – в селе Кашейкяхъ 1614 (OD IX: 130), Sioto koszęyki 1636 (JWC: 19ᵇ), which would be Lithuanian *Kašeikiai, de Kaſęykiu 1691 (Mlt KĮ I: 39ᵇ) = *Kašeikių, Kašeikiai Suginčiai Mlt; siota... Sakowiczow 1554 (LA: 101), which would be Lithuanian *Šakenai – de ſzakiu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 2ᵃ) = *Šakių, Šakiai Skudučiškis Mlt; de zukutancy 1658 (Aln JĮ: 3ᵇ), which would be Lithuanian *Šakalėnai – de ſzakale 1743 (Ktk KĮ I: 36ᵃ), which would be Lithuanian *Šakaliai, now Šakiai Skudučiškis Mlt; cf. also de Ginutany 1708 (Lkm KĮ I: 3ᵇ), which would be *Ginutėnai – Ginuciey 1741 (Lkm KĮ II: 8ᵃ) = now Ginučiai Linkmenys Ign; Pagi Jauneikayciu 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 20ᵇ) = *Jauneikaičių, gen. pl. *Jauneikaičiai – Siota jauneikiu 1613 (Jnš KĮ: 148ᵇ) = *Jauneikių, now Jauneikiai Pociūnai Jnš; de uillā Skaraičių 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 1ᵇ) = *Skaraičių, gen. pl. *Skaraičiai – now Skariai Kępaliai Jnš; Kadeūkame 1595 (Spruogis: 112) = dialectal *Žadėkaitė – now Žadėkiai Padėvytis Šil, etc. On the dropping of patronymic suffixes in surnames (Maciejauskienė 1994: 7), and on analogous suffixes in oikonyms (Vanagas 1996: 225–226). 136 de Kaſžeykiu 1691 (Mlt KĮ I: 39b) = *Kašeikių (gen. pl.); de ſžakiu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 2a) = *Šakių (gen. pl.). These examples are taken from the territory of the former Molėtai and Kuktiškės parishes (now Suginčiai parish). They show how, as the East Slavic tradition was abandoned and a newer Polish writing tradition took shape, the forms of oikonyms in non-Lithuanian historical documents gradually changed. In this case, Lithuanian forms were first recorded only at the end of the seventeenth century. The time when they were recorded varies across different parts of Lithuania (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries). If the Slavic chancery language had been replaced by Lithuanian in the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries, there is no doubt that by the seventeenth century historical documents would already have contained a largely authentic Lithuanian toponymic repertoire. Sources of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms There are many historical sources in which Lithuanian forms of oikonyms have been observed. Based on the material reviewed, three main criteria can be used to classify historical sources: 1) the nature of the source itself: church register books, district court books, estate documents (inventories would fall into this category), the Lithuanian Metrica, lists, maps and plans, various studies (philological, ethnographic), chancery documents (government decrees, oaths, acts), dictionaries and reference works, etc.; 2) manuscript or publication; 3) the language in which the source was written. This classification is based on the material reviewed by the article’s author. A somewhat different, more detailed classification could be provided after reviewing more sources. Here, non-Lithuanian sources are surveyed according to the first criterion. Lithuanian sources (sources containing oikonyms written in Lithuanian) are presented separately. Church books The old (16th–18th-century) church register books of Lithuania21 are valuable historical sources, since they contain perhaps the greatest number of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms. In some of these books—the Joniškis parish register (1599–1621), the Molėtai parish register and marriage register (1681–1692)—Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are used throughout. In the Plungė parish register and marriage register (1615–1660), too, about a hundred different oikonyms have been noted whose Lithuanian forms are recorded; in the books of other churches there are several dozen, a dozen or so, or just a few. In all, about 800 different oikonyms whose Lithuanian forms are also recorded have been found in some thirty church register books. The Lithuanian forms of some oikonyms are written in these books dozens of times, others a dozen or several times, and still others only once. Thus, it can be argued that at least some of the unreviewed church- 21This refers to that part of Lithuania which was included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 137 register books may also contain such Lithuanian forms. However, there are books in which not a single Lithuanian form has been observed, for example, the Alanta parish register and marriage register (1656–1665), the Dieveniškės registers (1696–1717), those of Paberžė in Vilnius district (only fragments of two parish registers survive, from 1610–1612 and 1709–1712), the Rokiškis parish register (1684–1706), the marriage register of Vilnius’s Bernardine Church (1688–1757), and others. The oikonyms (and anthroponyms) in the reviewed 17th–18th-century books of southern Lithuanian churches (Aukštadvaris, Dieveniškės, Merkinė, Seirijai) are more Slavicized than those in the books of churches north of the Neris and Nemunas. Nevertheless, Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are found, albeit sparsely, in the books of southern Lithuanian churches as well. In the church books of Daugailiai, Dotnuva, Linkmenys, Linkuva, Plungė, Salantai, Videniškiai, and other places, Lithuanian forms of oikonyms were written only on certain pages, following a sudden change of the scribe, whether priest or monk. In such cases, non-Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are used throughout the book, while one, several, or a dozen or so pages contain many Lithuanian forms of oikonyms. It has been observed that such cases occur somewhat more often around 1709, when the plague may have caused many of the scribes who wrote church books to be replaced. Apparently, this is how Lithuanian forms of oikonyms came to appear in the Dotnuva and Linkuva register books around 1710. In the church books of Antalieptė, Alanta, Inturkė, Klovainiai, Kupiškis, Utena, and, in part, Linkmenys, Plungė, and other places, individual Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are scattered throughout the book and are not so easy to notice. It should be noted that Lithuanian common nouns are recorded in the books of some churches: Baptisatus est Georgius Mathiæ Terebitda et Catharinæ de Tyteyki Patrini Petrus Plitnikonis de Nowosady et Elizabeth iszdutkera (=daughter) Jarostawa de Tyteyki 1674 (Rgv KĮ I: 35b); Augustus Berzdzias (=barren) Jatowy 1684 (Rgv KĮ I: 129a), i.e. an empty month, with not a single baptism recorded; Contraxit S. Matrimonium’ d. 9 Adamus Gilis de ſeyry cu’ Mariana Keriunkiewiu... de Agariny Præsente testes Thomasz Gilis de Teyzow et Adamus Darbielucis funus (=son) 1685 (Srj JĮ: 12a); nec non Gertrudis uel littuiszkai (=in Lithuanian) Gendruta Jokuba’s kuze uxor omnes de Janiszki 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 1a). A Lithuanianized form of a common noun (a loanword), *parapija ‘parish’, occurs in De Villa dicta Petnicies Paraphia Jzaukianensi 1670 (Krž KĮ: 200a). Several Lithuanian phrases have been noted in the Joniškis parish register (1599–1621), which is discussed separately below. At the beginning of the book, where Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are used throughout, the following phrases are recorded: Nuo senos Konarzewskienes 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3b) = *from old Konarževskienė; De Onuszaicziu iš walsčiaus upites 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3b) = *from Onušaičiai, from the Upytė district; Kuisaýciu Kuniga Kleboną 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 4a) = *the priest and parish priest of Kuisaíčiai (dial. *kun’iga k’lebona). A Lithuanian phrase occurs in cu’ Elisabeth Bieliczu isz Toukielu 1688 (Ant JĮ: 145b) = [with] *Bielyčia (dial. *B’ė.l’ič’ų) from Taukelių. 138 Also noteworthy is the personal name *Žemėpatuitis, which could be associated with the name of the Lithuanian deity Žemėpatis: Infans Magdalena Stanislai Žemepatuitis de Jucie S. Girdžjuny 1615 (Jnš KĮ: 173a). Remains of Lithuanian text were noticed on the inner margin of page 48a of Molėtai KĮ VII (1776–1797).22 Church registers (Joniškis KĮ, Molėtai KĮ I, JĮ II), which are particularly rich in Lithuanian forms of oikonyms, should be discussed separately, since they differ markedly from analogous sources. The oldest church register in Lithuania known to the author of this article is Joniškis KĮ (1599–1621). This source was written in Latin on folios 1–80 (1599–1606) and 195–222 (1617–1618), and in Polish on folios 80–195 and 222–271. Throughout the book, the names of years and months were written in Latin, as were the Latin entries on folios 236, 269, and 271 concerning people who had received communion and the sacrament of confirmation; on the second folio (1599) there is a Polish entry about a malformed newborn. The handwriting makes it clear that the book was written by four or five people. None of them recorded their surname anywhere. The baptismal entries themselves are very uneven, and their order of recording was changed more than once. Oikonyms are not recorded on a dozen or so pages of the book, and in some parts only the persons’ given names are recorded (the second elements of their names are omitted). About 200 different oikonyms have been identified in Joniškis KĮ (1599–1621), including recorded Lithuanian forms. Almost all these forms appear in the plural genitive case. At the beginning of the source, in 1599 (pages 1–6), there are 75 Lithuanian forms of oikonyms (70%) and 32 non-Lithuanian forms (30%), of which 27 are Slavicized and 5 Latinized. In 71 instances, the Lithuanian forms are written in the plural genitive case (Pagi Bujwidžiu, de Ville Norunu, etc.), in two instances in the singular nominative case De Skirkawa, de Norkawa, and in two instances in the singular genitive case (ville Jwoszkia, Witucia Mikucia Villce). Some oikonym forms are Slavicized: de Mažele, de avla Juskayci, Pagi Lepari, Pagi Ežeki, Pagi23 Apparently, to reinforce the book, a strip of blue paper 1 cm wide was pasted there, running from the top to the bottom of the page. When the book is turned sideways, the following words can be made out on the strip: yr darbus musu; myslis, zadzius. An identical blue strip was pasted onto page 49a. The strip contained text that, unfortunately, cannot be read with certainty, but it may have been part of a Lithuanian text. Both strips were pasted into the book where the 1784 baptisms were recorded. Blue paper, similar to that used for strips, was used in church registers in Molėtai around 1790–1820. The text, scant fragments of which have survived in the source under discussion, may have originated then. It is possible that this Lithuanian text was written around the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century, probably in Molėtai itself. The dialectal form zadžius would indicate this. The surviving fragments could suggest that this was a sermon. In 1832–1833, while the church registers were being reorganized, the text in question was cut up, and its strips were pasted into the book to reinforce it, thereby surviving to the present day. 23 Including the same recurring oikonyms and their recurring forms. 24 See also other oikonyms from northern Lithuania: Keravà (2) village, Velžys Pn, de uilla Linkawa 1618 (Jnš KĮ: 218b), now Linkuvà (3b) town, Pkr. 139 Mateykow, Paga Trapaciow, Pagi Jauneikiow, Pagi Taukunow and others. The name of the town of Joniškis is written in a Slavicized form 12 times (de Janiszki, de Janiszkie, de oppido Janiszki and so on). In five cases, Joniškis is named in a Latinized adjectival form (omnes Janisc’eses25, de Janissce’el, pauperum Janiscensi, cuius Janisce’sis, ex opide Janiscensi). The source never records the Lithuanian form of Joniškis. If the Slavicized and Latinized forms of the name Joniškis are excluded, 75 Lithuanian (83.3%) and 15 Slavicized (16.7%) oikonym forms remain. It should also be borne in mind that in the same year, 1599, both Lithuanian and Slavicized forms of some oikonyms were used. Thus, it can be said that the 1599 Joniškis baptismal register uses Lithuanian forms throughout. In 1607, however (pages 88ᵃ–98ᵃ), the ratio of forms shifted against the Lithuanian ones: only 19 (12.75%) were found, compared with as many as 126 Slavicized forms (84.56%) and 4 (2.68%) that were not entirely clear (Šiota Jauneikia, Woyita Dwihuitcia Š Dwelucia, W. Balciuna Šiota Giminena, Woyta Kirny Šiota Narbuta). In the remaining 36 cases, no specific place of residence is given; instead, it is stated that the people came from the town (Z miasta), from the district (Župickiego Powiatu), that they were subjects of a particular lord (poddany X Biskupa, Poddany Pana Woiny, Poddany Pana Jaracz(k)iego and so on), that they were subject to a particular voyt (Woyta Kirnaicia, Woyta Balczuna and so on), or their estate affiliation is indicated (Boiarow, 3boiarow and so on). In 1612 (pages 135ᵃ–145ᵃ), Lithuanian forms of oikonyms again occur more frequently: there are as many as 78 (30.95%), alongside 92 Slavicized forms (36.50%) and 82 unclear forms ending in -ia, (-ia) (32.53%). In the remaining 42 cases, as discussed earlier, the place of residence is not indicated. Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are used more or less frequently in the register under discussion up to 1617 (folio 195). In 1617–1620 (folios 195–231), a few oikonyms still appear with a Lithuanian form. At the end of the book, in approximately the last thirty folios (1620–1621), not a single Lithuanian form is found—all oikonyms have by then been Slavicized. The Molėtai baptismal and marriage registers (1682–1692) were written by the parish priest of Molėtai, Jonas Kazimieras Bržeževskis, who frequently signed the source in question in Latin as Joannes Casimirus Brzezewski Parochus Malatensis. Some pages of the source contain entries made in another hand, but there are few of them. In this book, the order of entries is already clearly established; they are all written in Latin, uniformly, according to the respective formulas for baptism or marriage entries. In Molėtai baptismal register I and marriage register II (1682–1692), approximately 250 distinct oikonyms were observed, with Lithuanian forms recorded for about 150 oikonyms. As in the Joniškis baptismal register, almost all Lithuanian forms in this source are given in the genitive plural. Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are abundant in the entries for every year, although some fluctuations from year to year are unavoidable. In the 1683 baptismal 25That is, Janiscenses. 140 In the entries (pages 2ª–7ª), 117 Lithuanian forms of oikonyms were found26 (53.42%), and 98 Slavicized forms (44.75%); of these, the name Molėtai, written de Malaty, occurs 28 times (12.78%). There are two hybrid forms (0.91%); for these, see pp. 5–7, (de Sumuncių, de Mandunu), and two unclear forms (0.91%) (de Jodeni... the end of the word is torn off, de Brabradesių—an unclear authentic form). In six cases, no specific place of residence is indicated (de districtu Uilcomirienſi, de Palatinatu Vilnensi and so on). In the 1686 baptismal entries (pages 13ª–18ª), 50 Lithuanian forms of oikonyms were found (41.32%), and 70 Slavicized forms (57.85%); of these, the name Molėtai, written de Malaty, occurs 27 times (23.31% of all forms recorded that year). One case is unclear—a faded, illegible oikonym (0.86%); in three cases, the reference is not to a specific place of residence but to a district or voivodeship. In the 1689 baptismal entries (pages 28ᵇ–35ᵃ), 77 Lithuanian forms of oikonyms were found (38.8%), and 96 Slavicized forms (48.8%); of these, the name Molėtai, written de Malaty, occurs 27 times (13.6%). There are 3 Latinized forms (1.5%) (de Moletos), and 22 unclear forms (11.1%) (the edges of the pages have been gnawed by mice and some are decayed, making it impossible to read all the oikonyms; the authentic form cannot be determined in cases such as de mieluntu, de Kowasiszku, de Mugincu). In 14 cases, the reference is not to a specific place of residence but to a district or voivodeship. In the 1690 baptismal entries (pages 35ª–38ᵇ), 84 Lithuanian forms of oikonyms were found (51.85%), and 75 Slavicized forms (46.29%); of these, the name Molėtai, written de Malaty, occurs 30 times (18.51%). There is 1 Latinized form (0.61%) (de Kautakis), and 2 unclear forms (1.23%) (one oikonym is faded; the authentic form cannot be determined in the case of de Larzadyzszu). In two cases, the reference is not to a specific place of residence but to a district or voivodeship; once, a person is recorded as coming from Ruthenia (de Ruthenia). Slavicized forms of oikonyms have a slight majority in the entries for the four years: there are 329 (49.77%), compared with 328 Lithuanian forms (49.62%) and 4 Latinized forms (0.60%). If we exclude all instances of de Malaty, which total 102 (15.43%) over the years under consideration, the ratio of Lithuanian to non-Lithuanian forms changes considerably: 328 (59.09%) Lithuanian forms, 223 (40.18%) Slavicized forms, and 4 (0.72%) Latinized forms. As the Joniškis baptismal register and Molėtai baptismal register I show, there is a tendency to record non-Lithuanian forms of the names of parish centers. For example, in Molėtai baptismal register I and marriage register II (1682–1692), Slavic forms of the name Molėtai, de Malaty, are recorded approximately 250 times; the Latinized form de Moletos occurs three times, while the Lithuanian forms—de Malatu in 1691 (Mlt KĮ I: 39ᵇ), de Maletu in 1691 (Mlt KĮ I: 41ᵃ), and = tarm. *Ma.lėtu.—occur only twice. As already noted, the Joniškis baptismal register never records a Lithuanian form of the name Joniškis. It is clear that the parish center had a different status from other localities, and the traditions for using its name were different. Likewise, in Molėtai baptismal register I and marriage register II (and in other sources), there is a clear tendency to record only Slavicized forms (exceptions are very rare) for cities and towns, larger esta- 26Including the same repeated forms. 141 forms: de Vciany – Utenà, De Kurkli – Kurkliai village, de Jnkėtry – Inkėtriai village, de Łobonary – Labanóras village, de Antopunci – *Antāpunt- village, de Łowmiany – Lauménai village, de Lelijzki – Liliškiai village, de Vntanijzki – *Untanišk- settlement, de Quanty – present-day Alantà village, village and so on. Lithuanian forms are most often written for villages, especially those that are more remote, less well known, or newly established, and are located in neighboring parishes. The Joniškis parish register, Molėtai parish register I, and parish register II show that many Lithuanian forms of oikonyms were recorded in the church books of some provincial churches. It may be assumed that in the late 16th and early 17th centuries there were more record books written in this or a similar way. Unfortunately, many church registers from that period have not survived to the present day. M a n o r a n d e s t a t e i n v e n t o r i e s It should also be noted that some Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are found in documents from Lithuanian manors, most often in inventories. However, there are fewer of them there than in church registers. Manor documents are very numerous, but each individual document records only the names of places belonging to a particular manor. When discussing manor boundaries, the names of places belonging to neighboring manors are also recorded. It has been observed that the oikonyms in church registers and manor inventories from the same territory do not entirely coincide. The names of individual farmsteads whose Lithuanian forms are recorded in manor inventories often do not appear in church registers from the same period (for example, in the parishes of Molėtai, Kuktiškės, and others). Manor inventories from Lithuania were found that also stand out for the abundance of Lithuanian forms of recorded oikonyms. More than 100 Lithuanian forms were found in the inventory of the Vilnius Bishop’s Užneris manors (1731). All these oikonyms are names of individual farmsteads27. The village names in this source are Slavicized, including those whose Lithuanian forms were found in various church books in Aukštaitija. Oikonyms were written similarly in the inventory of the Samogitian Bishop’s manors (1662). It contains 25 oikonyms—names of individual farmsteads—for which Lithuanian forms are recorded. The village names in this source are Slavicized, although Lithuanian forms of the names of those same villages can be found in Samogitian church books. Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are also found in 17th-century royal manor inventories. As in inventories of ecclesiastical estates, all the oikonyms are names of individual farmsteads. Approximately 20 Lithuanian forms of farmstead names were found in the inventory of the Vilnius district (1636), which covers the estates of Linkmenys, Nemenčinė, and Švenčionys. About 10 Lithuanian forms of farmstead names were noted in the inventory of Veliuonà and Baisógala (1615). 27 This source contains many other Lithuanian forms of toponyms as well: hydronyms (especially lake names) and several dozen land names. 142 The inventory of Daugai district (1719) is notable for its Lithuanian forms of toponyms (possibly oikonyms), of which about 80 are recorded here. However, in only four cases is it explicitly stated next to the place name that it is an individual farmstead (Zafcianek); in other cases, empty plots are listed next to an individual village (Włoki Puste)28 in the forest (w puscie). Almost all the names of the empty plots are of anthroponymic origin. At least some of them may have been individual farmsteads whose inhabitants died out in 1709. These toponyms do not differ in any way from oikonyms in the same or other sources—that is, names of individual farmsteads. From the fact that only Lithuanian forms of some individual farmstead names are recorded in manor inventories, it can be concluded that these farmsteads are not as old as villages whose names are Slavicized. By the 17th century, old village names may already have had a non-Lithuanian usage tradition. District Court Books A great deal of onomastic material (and, of course, oikonyms) is found in district court books, which are very extensive and whose material has not been collected. The article provides examples from entries already discussed by Spruogis (Spruogis 1888) and Jablonskis (Jablonskis 1937), as well as from the only Ukmergė castle court book examined (1597). Several dozen Lithuanian forms of oikonyms were found in these sources. The Lithuanian Metrica The Lithuanian Metrica from the 15th–first half of the 16th century is distinguished by its highly Slavicized Lithuanian onomasticon. The books of this source consistently record Slavicized (Slavic) forms of Lithuanian oikonyms (and, in part, anthroponyms). From the 16th century onward, especially in the 17th– 28 Cf. Juszkaliszkį, Vrbanįzkį, Paczkali(sz)kis (19ᵇ, all Wies Arciuny); Arminiszkį, dziewonįzkį, Makaliszkį, Weyciuliszkį, Pikluszkį (23ᵃ, all Wies Konczany); Budryniszkis, Bafjuliszkį, Vrbaniszkį, Szabliszkis, Kowaliszkis, Karmeliszkį, Stelmaciszkis, Jekuniszkį, Szukieliszkis (24ᵃ, all Wies Zwirzdany); Za Marguliszkis, Ławyniszkį, Matuliszkį, Szarniszkis, Gnykiszkis, Staniszkį (26ᵃ, all Wies Woykontany); Jurgiszkį, Zemaytiszkį, Podziukiszkis, Czokiszkis, Marcinkiszkį, Juryszkis, Stęgiszkis, Rukiniszkis (27ᵃ, all Wies Skobeyki); Ławyniszkį, Weiciszkl, Matuliszkis, Mielunįkiey, Rymuliszkis, Vrbaniszkis, Pietryszkį (31ᵃ, all Wies Mieluny; several could not be read because the page had rotted); Balkiſzkis, Stulgiszkį, Tomackiszkį, Suniszkį, gudziszkis (32ᵇ, all Wies Cizuny); Rymikiszkis, Struciszkį, Poiaviszkis, Marciniszkis, Kierfzuliskis, Biebieliszkis, Marciuliszkis (35ᵃ, all Wies Podawgi); Trunkiszkis, Szyrwekszys, Dukiszkis, Czapukiszkis, Czafusyszkis (35ᵇ, all Wies Andrunee); Maszniszkį, Rawoniszkis, Gudziszkis, Petryszkį, Staniekszkis, Janiszkį, Grykiszkį, fiedoriszkis, Tuniszkis (36ᵇ, all Wies Wiecuny); Karniszkis, Kienuciszkis, Płatuszkis, Glin[?]iszkis (37ᵃ, all Wies Wieciuny); Playkiszis, Jurgaliszkis, Jakubiszkis (38ᵃ, all Wies Meszku-cie), Marciniszkis, Kreykiszkis, Bredziszkis, Czapizskį, Rumaciszkį, Ignaliszkį, Wilkiszkį, Szuciszkis, Miłiszkį, fwir[k]iszkį, Pakiszkis, Abramas[s]iszkį (38ᵇ, all Wies Meszkucie). Some plot names recur; the same object may be referred to. 143 In the 18th century, the way Lithuanian oikonyms and anthroponyms were recorded in the Lithuanian Metrica changed. This, however, is a matter that should be discussed separately. It is currently impossible to say whether the Lithuanian Metrica contains Lithuanian forms of oikonyms. The author of the article did not notice any such forms in some of the 15th–16th-century books of the Lithuanian Metrica that were examined. Lists Some Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are also found in various lists. From the 16th century onward, lists of oikonyms were compiled in Lithuania. The resolutions of the Synod of the Diocese of Vilnius (1744) include lists of settlements in many parishes of the Diocese of Vilnius. These lists are incomplete in the source under discussion, with some settlements omitted. For some parishes, only the boundaries are described, without listing the settlements, or only a few are listed. About 30 oikonyms with recorded Lithuanian forms were found in the source. A few are from eastern and southern Lithuania, and two are from the parish of Drūja (present-day Belarus). It appears that most of the oikonyms whose Lithuanian forms are attested in this source are names of farmsteads. Similar, somewhat more comprehensive, lists of settlements in the Diocese of Vilnius were later compiled at the initiative of Bishop I. Masalskis, but they were not published. Material from these lists was not collected for the article. From the early 19th century, lists of parish settlements recorded in parish visitation acts are very comprehensive. This is an important source for oikonyms, since many new settlements appeared in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and were already recorded in these lists. Lithuanian forms of the names of some small villages and farmsteads can also be found in sources from the early 19th century. One of the largest and most interesting lists from the mid-19th century is a manuscript list of place names in the Diocese of Telšiai and Samogitia (1854 and later). It is discussed among the Lithuanian sources; see pp. 146–147. Maps Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are also found on maps29. The German map of New East Prussia from 180730, which also covers the Lithuanian part of Užnemunė, contains hundreds of village and homestead names in Lithuanian forms. Until other sources of a similar kind are found, it can be said that this is the first map to publish so many Lithuanian forms of oikonyms. A few can also be found on Russian maps published during the tsarist period that cover the territory of Lithuania; however, the names in these latter sources have not yet been studied. 29 Išsamiai apie senuosius Lietuvos žemėlapius žr. Vaitiekūnas 1994: 32–42. 30 After the collapse of the Lithuanian-Polish state, Užnemunė belonged to Prussia for several decades (1795–1807). 144 Žinynai ir enciklopedijos Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are also presented in nineteenth-century Polish and Russian31 reference works. In the Polish encyclopedic reference work Słownik geograficzny32 (1880–1902), Lithuanian forms of oikonyms from various parts of Lithuania (Samogitia, Aukštaitija, Užnemunė, with the exception of Dzūkija) were noted. In various volumes of SG, the Lithuanian forms of the names of the more important Lithuanian towns and some townships are given alongside their Polish (Polonized) forms. However, names are presented in this way only for localities north of the Neris and Nemunas. Lithuanian forms are not given for the names of towns in southern Lithuania, even larger and more important ones, such as Alytus, Daugai, Trakai, and others. It is true that in various volumes of SG, especially the supplements, there are numerous cases in which only Lithuanian forms are given for homesteads or newly established estates. Moreover, the supplemental volumes contain a larger collection of oikonyms from some parts of Lithuania for which only Lithuanian forms are provided. The Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in SG should also be discussed in greater detail separately. Studies Lithuanian forms of Lithuanian oikonyms can also be found in some Polish historical and ethnographic studies.33 A publication of the Kraków Academy of Sciences, written by an anonymous author and published in 1898, presents Lithuanian forms of the oikonyms of the following administrative districts: Butrimonys, Daugėliškis, Dubingiai, Giedraičiai, Jie zno, Krūonis, Kuktiškės, Linkmenys, Mielagėnai, Merkinė, Švenčionys, Onuškis, Tverečius, Valkininkai, Varėna, and Žiežmariai. However, this source does not give Lithuanian forms for all oikonyms; in some places, Lithuanian and Polish forms are given side by side. For some Lithuanian-speaking districts (Molėtai, Vievis), only a few Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are provided. All the oikonyms of other Lithuanian-speaking districts (Adūtiškis, Aukštadvaris, Dieveniškės, Musninkai, Semeliškės, Širvintos) are Slavicized. Inaccurate, distorted forms are also given. The Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in Lithuania Minor for this article were selected from V. Peteraitis’s study “Mažosios Lietuvos ir Tvankstos vietovardžiai” (Vilnius, 1997). The material from non-Lithuanian sources presented there covers the region of Lithuania Minor and represents it fairly well. Many of V. Peteraitis’s examples come not from church registers, but from administrative and legal docu- 31 The article does not draw on material from Russian reference works published during the tsarist period. 32 Hereafter: SG. 33 Plg. Wilija po litewsku zowie się sama Neris (ztąd Po-neris, Ponary) (Wilno 1841: 339). 145 etc.34 It has been observed that the author simplifies the spelling of some historical place names. Therefore, some historical oikonyms of the Klaipėda region in this article are taken from W. Fenzlau’s study (Fenzlau 1936), where the material is recorded more reliably. W. Fenzlau provides oikonyms from the register books of the churches of Katyčiai, Klaipėda, and Vėrdainė, as well as a few cases from elsewhere. All groups of non-Lithuanian sources are valuable, and they may contain important Lithuanian onomastic data not found elsewhere. On the basis of the material examined, it appears that most of the Lithuanian onomastic material from the 15th–16th centuries is found in the Lithuanian Metrica, while that from the late 16th–18th centuries is found in church registers and district court books, and partly in estate documents35. The most reliable of all the sources are the church register books36, since the onomastic material they contain (oikonyms and anthroponyms—the second elements of names from which surnames developed) is recorded most accurately, at least within the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. There are considerably more non-Lithuanian sources in which Lithuanian forms of oikonyms can be found. It is impossible to cover them all. This overview, which is undoubtedly not exhaustive, seeks to show the groups of sources in which those Lithuanian forms may be sought. Lithuanian Sources for Oikonyms There are historical sources in which oikonyms are recorded in Lithuanian. This article focuses on Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in non-Lithuanian historical sources, but a few examples from Lithuanian sources are also provided, to enable comparison of forms in Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian sources. Since these Lithuanian sources are little known, it seems appropriate to introduce them in this article. Only Lithuanian historical sources dating from the 19th century to the early 20th century have been found in Lithuania. They can be called Lithuanian only in part, since not all the oikonyms in them are given in Lithuanian. One of the most important such sources is a manuscript list of the place names of the Diocese of Telšiai and Samogitia, compiled by I. Hołowiński in 1854 and supplemented later (at the end of the 19th century). In it, the oikonyms of some parishes are written in Lithuanian and those of others in Polish, so this source may be considered Lithuanian in part. In the list, Lithu- 34 V. Drotvinas has written about the sources for the onomasticon of Lithuania Minor, including those from which material found its way into V. Pėteraitis’s study (Drotvinas 1997: 81–87). 35 Many estate documents are also found in district court books, where these have survived. Thus, documents from individual estate archives found in district court books partly overlap. However, by no means all documents are found there, nor are documents from all estates—for example, documents from ecclesiastical estates are entirely absent. 36 What is meant here is the body of church books as a whole. In individual books, Lithuanian onomastic material (oikonyms and anthroponyms) may be recorded very poorly, much more poorly than, for example, in estate documents. 146 the Lithuanian forms of the names of settlements in these parishes: Arióg[a]los, Baisógalos, Biržai (the list was compiled after 1888), Čekiškė, Dotnuvà, Eržvilkas, Gaurė, Girkalnis, Grinkiškis, Gruzdžiai, Joniškėlis, Josvainiai, Jurbarkas, Kamajai, Kelmė, Krakės, Krekenavà, Krinčinas, Labūnava, Lyduvėnai, Lygumai, Linkuvà, Lioliai, Mósėdis, Pakruojis (the list was compiled after 1888), Pasvalys, Pašušvys, Pãvandenė, Radviliškis, Rozalimas (the list was compiled after 1888), Saločiai, Skirsnemunė, Skuodas, Smilgiai (near Panevėžys), Surviliškis, Svedasai, Šeduva, Šiaulėnai, Šiluva, Tauragė, Užpaliai, Vaškai, Viekšniai, Viešintos, Vilkija, and a few others. There are parishes whose oikonyms are given in two languages (Polish and Lithuanian) or have been revised from Polish into Lithuanian. These are the oikonyms of the parishes of Akmenė, Anykščiai, Betygala, Debeikiai, Joniškis, Kavarskas, Kupiškis, Kurkliai, Pūs alotas, Ragu vos, Subãčius, Traupis, and Troškūnai. In the Lithuanian-language lists for the parishes of Pabiržė and Raseiniai, not only are the oikonyms written in Lithuanian, but lists of 10–20 other toponyms are also included. In the Lithuanian lists, brief notes about the places, written in Lithuanian, are sometimes given alongside the settlement names. Although the lists for other parishes are written in non-Lithuanian, Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are also found there. Another similar source, one part of which is written in Polish and another in Lithuanian, is the draft marriage register of the Įnturkė church (Zapowiedna książka Inturskiego kościołu, 1891–1910 – ZK). One Lithuanian entry from 1895 was found in it; the Lithuanian-written part of the book covers 1900–1910. No Lithuanian forms of oikonyms were noted in the non-Lithuanian part of the book. The Lithuanian part also contains Polish entries. This part of the book extends beyond the nineteenth-century limit set in the article’s title, which is approximate.37 Nevertheless, this source is important because its Lithuanian part continues the spelling tradition of oikonyms and anthroponyms in the late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century books of the Molėtai church and the eighteenth- to early nineteenth-century books of the Įnturkė church. Lithuanian entries from the early twentieth century make it possible to explain more than one instance of oikonym spelling from earlier centuries. The Lithuanian-written part of the Įnturkė church book shows how the spelling gradually shifted from the tradition dating back to the seventeenth century, evident in the early twentieth-century records of Įnturkė oikonyms and anthroponyms, toward approximately the spelling used today. In addition, the Lithuanian forms of some oikonyms from the Vilnius region (Lavóriškės, Pabradė, Sužionys) recorded in this source in the early twentieth century are important. There should be more handwritten sources similar to the Įnturkė book. Another major source of Lithuanian oikonyms, which can partly be considered Lithuanian, is the list of settlements in Suwałki Governorate compiled by E. Volter, 37 The Įnturkė book in question shows that the transition to the spelling of “Varpas,” that is, to present-day spelling, took place around 1905, after the press ban was lifted. Until 1905, when there was no Lithuanian press in Lithuania, there was no uniform orthography. This is reflected in the recording of oikonyms as well (Volter 1901). 147 published in St. Petersburg in 1901. This list gives the official Russian forms of the oikonyms of the entire governorate, but also provides Lithuanian or Polish forms used by local residents alongside them. The oikonyms of many Lithuanian-speaking gminas in Suwałki Governorate are given in the nominative case. However, there are gminas (Kiduliai, Meteliai, Raudonė, Pilviškiai, Plokščiai, Tamošbudis (roughly around Liepalótai), Veiveriai, and Žalioji) in which some or at least several oikonyms written with a generic term are given in the genitive case. A considerable number of the Lithuanian forms in Paežeriai gmina were written in Cyrillic, although many of those forms were also repeated in Latin letters. All Lithuanian forms in Kaupiškiai gmina were written only in Cyrillic. For some gminas (Javaravas, Mockavà), only Polish (Polonized) forms are given; for other mixed-language gminas (Andžiejево, Bérznykas, Krasnápolis, Seivai), Lithuanian or Polish forms of oikonyms are given alongside the official Russian forms, according to the language used by the residents. Unreliable forms also occur throughout the list. There are quite a number of cases in which the Russian and Lithuanian names for the same settlement differ. Various discrepancies in this source arose because E. Volter was provided with lists of place names from Lithuanian-inhabited areas by various people, probably gmina officials. This apparently explains the considerable variation in the spelling of oikonyms from one gmina to another. The lists of settlements in Suwałki Governorate compiled by E. Volter are an interesting and valuable source of Lithuanian oikonyms. This is a comprehensive list of oikonyms from a single region, carefully prepared and therefore considered fairly reliable, despite some inaccurate forms. This source surpasses the lists of V. Kalvaitis and Vaižgantas, which were also published in the early twentieth century. Besides the Lithuanian sources from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries discussed here, there are quite a number of printed Lithuanian sources from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, whose toponymic material warrants separate discussion.38 Prussian Toponym Forms in Historical Sources Since V. Pėteraitis’s study notes one or another Prussian oikonym, attention should be drawn to the possibility that historical sources written by Order scribes may also contain Prussian forms of Prussian toponyms. Since Prussian writing 38 Oikonyms (and other toponyms) from early (16th–18th-century) printed Lithuanian sources have not been collected or discussed. From the 19th century onward, numerous printed Lithuanian sources appeared, containing many oikonyms from Lithuania Minor and Lithuania Major. These include newspapers (“Keleivis,” “Aušra,” “Varpas,” and others), L. Ivinskis’s calendars, calendars published in Lithuania Minor, and so forth. Material from these sources has likewise not been collected or discussed. At the beginning of the 20th century, the first substantial lists of oikonyms (also including other toponyms) in Lithuanian appeared: V a i s g a n t a s. Sanrazas geografiskuju Lietuvos vardu / Dirva – Žinynas, 1904, No. 10, 35–61, No. 11, 3–29; K a l w a i t i s W. Lietuwiszkų Wardų Kletelė, Tilsė, 1910. 148 written language arose almost 200 years earlier than Lithuanian, Prussian toponyms’ spoken forms in historical sources can be sought as early as the end of the 13th century. Prussian literary monuments—the Elbing Vocabulary (late 13th–early 14th century), the Basel text (mid-14th century), and the beginning of the “Our Father” prayer (early 15th century)—show that people who wrote in Prussian existed at that time. The need to use the Prussian language is mentioned more than once in 15th-century church documents (Mažiulis 1966: 22–23). The monk S. Grūnavas, author of the “Prussian Chronicle,” written in 1517–1526, also knew some Prussian (“ich kundt ein Wenig Preusch”) and included in it a 100-word German–Prussian glossary (Mažiulis 1966: 31). Finally, the use of Prussian is evidenced by three Prussian catechisms printed in the mid-16th century. It is possible that one or another educated Prussian nobleman, who knew his own language as well as German and Latin, may have worked in Order chancelleries and recorded a place name or two, especially from the late 13th to the 16th century, in the form in which the Prussians pronounced it. Since the names of Prussian settlements had been Germanized as early as the 13th century, it is unlikely that authentic forms of settlement names can be found, although there may be a few. Other toponyms—names of fields, lakes, forests, and so forth—may have been recorded somewhat more authentically.39 Thus, possible Prussian forms of Prussian toponyms should be investigated separately in the future. Lithuanian forms of Lithuanian toponyms could help clarify certain facts about the Prussian language, since there may be regularities in the spelling of shared toponym forms—both Lithuanian and Prussian. The Relationship between Lithuanian Forms of Oikonyms and Anthroponyms and Non-Lithuanian Text The Lithuanian forms of Lithuanian oikonyms in historical sources, together with other facts of the Lithuanian language (anthroponyms, common nouns, Lithuanian phrases), constitute a certain whole40. Within this context, Lithuanian forms (of toponyms and 39 J. Gerullis pateikta prūsiškų vietovardžių, užrašytų su galūnėmis (Gerullis 1922: 263–264). Tad galimos prūsiškos toponimų lytys būtų: Gildestabs = *Gildestab(i)s, Semba 1331; Auctowangos = *Auktavangās, Semba 1331; Laumygarbis = *Laumigarbis, Notanga 1339; Greywa = *Greivā, ež. Luko apylinkėse 1422; Prautey = *Praut'ei, k. Semba 1436 ir kt.; dar akreiptinas dėmesys į galimas autentiškas pr. vietovardžių lytis Awynemedien = *Avin'amed'an, Varmės paribyje 1326; Bitpelkis = *Bitpelkīs plk. 1331; Budewaio = *Bud'avajā pv. Sasna, Morungenas 1315; Delycke = *Delike ež. Sasna, Morungenas 1315; Gislingen = *Gisling'an ež. Ortelsburgas 1389; Grabisto = *Grabistā, Morainiai, Štumas 1294; Grindes, Grindos = *Grindēs, *Grindās k. Semba 1267; Waixedies = *Vaiksēdīs k. Semba 1305; Algasis = *Algazīs ms. Semba 1339; Dalgantis = *Dalgantīs pv. Semba 1352 ir kt. Dėl Sembos vietovardžių rekonstrukcijų žr. Blažienė 1993. Dar plg. naujai paskelbtus prūsų vietovardžius Malunapis = *Malīnapis, vėliau liet. Malūnupiai Dárkiemio par. 1558 (Pėteraitis: 238); Berwis = *Berwīs k. Allenšteinas 1592, dėl pastarojo (Pospiszylowa 1983: 250). Panašių pavyzdžių įvairiuose šaltiniuose esama daugiau. 40 J. Lebedys’s unfinished study attempts to encompass the various manifestations of Lithuanian-language use. The body of evidence is surveyed mainly from the perspective of cultural history, while linguistic analysis 149 anthroponyms) should be studied. Otherwise, certain regularities in spelling and usage may go unnoticed or remain unrecognized. As already mentioned, Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are especially often written in Latin texts. They are closely connected with the text, so to speak, since many are used in the plural (and some in the singular) genitive case. They would be used in the same way in Lithuanian texts. In the baptismal formula, after the child, the parents, and the godparents have been named, and in marriage records after the spouses and witnesses, the names of their places of residence are given immediately afterward. In a Latin sentence, the Latin preposition de “from, away from” is written before many settlement names. Latin de governs the ablative, a case of separation that partly corresponds to the Lithuanian instrumental. In Latin texts, however, the Lithuanian plural genitive form, and in rare cases the singular genitive form, is often written with Latin de: de Akmeniu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 7a) = *Akmenių, Akmėniai Čiulėnai Mlt; de auxtkatniu 1715 (Dt KĮ: 166a) = *Aukštkalnių Dotnuvà Kdn; de Eyuiciu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 3b) = *Eivilčių, now Avilčiai Alantà Mlt; de Awizieniu 1769 (Ut JĮ I: 50a) = *Avižienių, Avižieniai Taurãgnai Ut, and so forth. It is therefore clear that Lithuanian-speaking people often (though not always) pronounced settlement names in the genitive case, and that the scribes of church books (priests and monks) frequently recorded these names in the case in which they were pronounced, sometimes even with the Lithuanian preposition iš ‘from’, for example: iš Degesiu 1676 (Lnkv KĮ: 69a) = *iš Degesių, Degėsiai Gūostagalis Pkr, iš Welziu 1676 (Lnkv KĮ: 69b) = *iš Velžių; Velžiai Kiemėnai Ps, iš roponiu 1675 (Lnkv JĮ: 102a) = *iš Roponių. Sometimes Lithuanian iš is also written alongside Latin de: De Onuszayciu iš walsciaus vpites 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3b), i.e. *Onušaičių iš valsčiaus Upytės, Upytė Pn; de Isz Jodenu 1689 (Vdn KĮ III: 50a) = *iš Sodėnų, Sodėnai Luokesà Mlt; de Szkaczunu 1757 Ut JĮ I: 33a), i.e. de *(i)š kačiūnų, Kačiūnai Kūktiškės Ut, and so forth. Sometimes Latin de is replaced by Latin ex ‘from’, which is also used with the ablative in Latin. Lithuanian plural genitive forms are also written with Latin ex: ex Tolusioniu 1673 (Lnkv KĮ: 39b) = *Toliūšonių, and so on. The singular and plural genitive are also written with Latin de Villa, ex pago, ex uilla and so forth: ex uilla Puknionu ~1711 (Lnkv KĮ: 4b) = *Puknionių, now Puknioniai Pakruojis; ex pago skroble 1630 (Pln KĮ: 59a) = dialectal *Skrobl’e (singular genitive), standard *Skroblio, now Skrõblis Bubėnai Pln; de Villa fzlapiosios Berzies 1711 (Dt KĮ: 146a) = *Šlapiosios Beržės, now Šlapãberžė Dotnuvà Kdn, and so forth. nėra, apsiribojama minimaliomis pastabomis (Lebedys 1976). Naujausius duomenis kalbiniu aspektu aptaria Zinkevičius 1987: 121–131, 144–146; Zinkevičius 1988: 14–18, 107–108, 112–139, 143–156, 163–173; Zinkevičius 1990: 13–23; Jovaišas 1996: 13–31; Palionis 1995: 16–164 ir kt. 150 There are cases where the nominative is written with Lat. de: de Mełkafadžius 1617 (Mrk KĮ: 105ᵇ) = dialectal *Mėškašėdžius, present-day Mėškasalis Alovė Al; de Tumasodzius 1668 (Rgv KĮ I: 3ᵃ) = *Tumasodžius, present-day Tumagalys Miežiškiai Pn; de Utena 1760 (Ktk KĮ N: 48ᵃ) = Utenà Ut; de Wieteykiey 1689 (Ant KĮ I: 16ᵇ) = Veleikiai Antalieptė Zr; de Wijeykiey 1760 (Ut JĮ I: 36ᵇ) = Vijėikiai Mockėnai Ut; de Wyjkintay 1643 (Pln KĮ: 161ᵇ) = *Viskintai Plungė and elsewhere. Quite often, Lithuanian nominative singular and plural forms of oikonyms are also written with Lat. de villa, de pago, ex pago, in loco, and the like: de Pago Szyłasiodis 1633 (Pln KĮ: 84ᵃ) = *Šilasodis Plungė; de villa Wytkienay 1769 (Ut JĮ: 50ᵃ) = *Vitkėnai, cf. Vitkūnai Pakalniai Ut; de Vila Zwinienay 1691 (Vdn KĮ III: 50ᵇ) = Žvynėnai Žėlva Ukm; ex pago Žeymej dicto 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 60ᵇ) = Žeimiai Imbarė Krtn; In Loco Abugalijzkis 1784 (Ktk MĮ N: 183ᵇ) = *Abugališkis, present-day Būgališkis Suginčiai Mlt, etc. In Polish inventories, Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are listed after nomenclatural words written in Polish (sioto, zaścianek): fioto wikiežeri 1597 (Ukm PTA 13879: 228ᵇ) = *Vikežeris Dūsetos Zr; Sioto Armena / Lawnictwo Bakowc / Wotosc Wielonska 1615 (Inw V1: 15ᵇ) = *Armena Veliuona; zas cianek nazwany Kanczupis / Sioto Skjemie / Wojtostwo Zasieckie / Wolosc Boisa-golska 1615 (Inw V1: 38ᵃ) = *Kančiupis Skėmai Rd; na zascianku Pilimelis / Wies Pozusie Bojarowie / Włośń Szeszolska 1731 (Inw KZ: 152) = *Pylimėlis Šešuoliai Ukm; Zafcianek Traka Ławki / Wies Zwirdany / Włośń Dawgowska 1719 (Inw Dg: 23ᵇ) = *Trakalaukis Daùgai Al, etc. In inventories, lists, maps, studies, and reference works, oikonyms are given in the nominative case (exceptions are fairly rare): Ažubalis 1900 (SG XV/I: 56) = *Ažubalis vs. Tverėčius Ign; Meystey 1807 (NO: 2) = Meištai Meištai (present-day Būbleliai Šk); Mielkintey 1584 (Pėteraitis: 53, 250) = Mielkintai || Antrudupėnai Stalupėnai, Enčiūnai; Starkey 1807 (NO: 2) = Starkai Šakiai (present-day Sintautai Šk); Upis 1898 (Anonim: 62) = Ūpis Daugėliškis Ign; Užalksninis 1854 (ED: 36) = *Užalksninis Užventis; Užusamanis 1898 (Anonim: 65) = *Užusamanis Ceikiniai Ign; Waynotrakis 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Vairotrakis Rokai Kn; Witkampis 1540 (Pėteraitis: 444) = *Vidkampis or *Vitkampis, later Vidkampiai Stalupėnai, Katniava, Jenkutkampiai, Tučiai; Warnośzylis 1807 (NO: 2) = *Varnošilis Meištai (Būbleliai Šk); Widuszy lis 1807 (NO: 2) = Vidušilis Liepalotai (present-day Lukšiai Šk); Wingis / P. PODBRZEZENSIS 1744 (Syn: 43) = *Vingis Pabėržė Viln; Zascianek Żagaraitis pusty / WŁOSC MASIADŻKA 1662 (ŽV Inv: 204) = *Žagaraitis Mosedis Skd; Zeymelis 1807 (NO: 1) = *Žeimelis Veliuona and elsewhere. Lithuanian forms in oblique cases occur in non-Lithuanian printed sources (maps and reference works) only when compilers unfamiliar with Lithuanian give a form other than the nominative: Czerpoku 1807 (NO: 2) = *Čerpokų instead of *Czerpo- 151 kai Lukšiai Šk; Willuszu 1807 (NO: 2) = *Viliusių instead of *Wiluszey (present-day Viliūšiai Jankai Šk); Wilniuja 1893 (SG XIII: 492) = *Wilniuje instead of Wilnius, and so on. The overall context of the source (or sources) is very important for understanding the old Lithuanian forms of oikonyms. The context of old church registers is particularly important, since these books contain many Lithuanian forms not only of oikonyms but also of anthroponyms in more than one case. Therefore, some characteristic text examples—formulae from baptism and marriage entries, rich in Lithuanian forms—are presented below: Podziunų41 Aduocationis Paupera Laurentium filium Climas Padziuna et Elenos raised from the font. Bartłomieius Kraguitis from Janiszki, the village elder, Vrbons Szariuitis from the village of Wayniekiu together with Elula Jonela Padziula, wife of Jonedoycia from the same village, as godparents to the child. 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 2b). On the Thursday within the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 42 in the village Gimbuyciu, by the patronage of Zutaicia Bernarda, in Lithuanian, or Bernots Mothieiaus Zawariuicia, and Barbara, his son, was lifted from the font by the godparents Powitum Stanaitis from the village of Juszkayciu, by the patronage of Budraycia Motieium, also called Matulum, and likewise Jadwiga, wife of Stanisław Zaragauicia, both from the village of Łąkayciu. On the same day Trumpayciu village, by the patronage of Jonufzaycia PetraRagina, daughter of Jokuba et Gendrutos, was lifted from the font Stasius Walenciunauitis43 Petkunauitis 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3a) From Onuszayciu, from the estate of the village elder Bernard, son of Mikatoiaus and Elizabeth raised [him] from the font Jafius Stankuns Jonelis Mothieiums, as well as Barbara, wife of Rymkaus, both from the same village, as godparents to the child 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3b). Dominica XII post Pentec: quæ e’ 4 Aug: From Jena Konarzewskiene, Regina Vrbona Bernotaycia and Gendrutos, daughter, were lifted from the font by Jakobs Bernotaytis, Dorothea Ziaukiene, and Anna, the wife of Konarzewski, all from the same village, as godparents to the child 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3b). Eadem die villę Jwoszkia Aduocat: Stajlula Benuraicia Marta Gryciaus vzwalinaićia et Gendrute filia leuata est de fonte per Compatres Mikalaum 3b/4a Rym- In these examples, Lithuanian forms of ononyms and common Lithuanian words are highlighted in bold type.41 A list of Latin and Polish abbreviations is provided at the end of the article, after the list of Lithuanian abbreviations.42 A space has been left here for entering the name of the other godparent.43 152 kunum et Kaſziutam Mikatoiaus Jwoszkia filiam both of the same, as a boy. 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3b/4a) Kuisaÿciu Kuniga Kleboną was taken from the font by Bartolomeus Staniula Kuisaicia son, through godparents Gasparum Patraitis Paulum Tamoszaitis Barbara daughter Jonula Petroszaicia and also Zoputa daughter Jona Barthuszaycia all of the same, as a boy 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 4a) The same Wituicia Mikucia, village advocate: Dwityacia Jurgia took from the font Augustinum Jonela Bartoszayicia and Agnieskas son Grycus Buczkaitis Balcius Norwidaitis and also Zaputa daughter Jonela Ząfsajcia all of the same, as a boy. 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 4b). Aduo: Szetona. Son Valentinus. Of Laurentij fiutpileuitis, godfather Joannes Mikaita, with Barbara, Joannis’s. Village Wilginiu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 8b). Ad: Kalitoraus. Son Valentinus Matulis Jurgaitis. Godfather Mathæus Jukaitis with Gertrude Petraitis. Village Kipsčia. 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 8b). Adu. Stanislai Kotlarz’s daughter Gregorij Mikutaitis. Godfather. Jurgelis Janaitis with Anna Poweltaicia. Village. Kazoku. 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 12a). Godfather: Balciuna Son. Balcius Battuszkaitis Godfather: Matulis Wiluns with Eluta Bariuna Village Bariuna 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 13b). Aduo: Jurdas daughter Zophia, of Bartholomei Juodaitis. Godfather. Grigas Warpininks with Lucia Zygmontowa, townspeople of Janizki 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 18a). Aduo: Szapnag: Village Sztapakia, daughter. Jurgaičia Waytiek aus. Godfather: Staniulis, of Mathæus, with Agneſca Pazuycia. 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 24b). Aduo: Szalciaus Village Skribakią. Daughter of Joannis and Hedwigis. Godfather Beſztauitis, with Agneſca Jaroszki Daugwiliene. 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 24b). Maſzkouÿ son of Joannis Pirtininkuitis. Godfather Paul[us] Łatwis with Elizabeta Racſunow. Village Sargunu 1604 (Jnš KĮ: 49a). Village Zalensko Daughter: Anna Mathæi and Catharinae. Godfather: Czepas with Heduige and Vrsula 1604 (Jnš KĮ: 51a). 153 Also baptized: An[o]stofia, daughter of Złokiej and Agneta. The godfather was Christophorus Grobajtis from the village Klepsciu with Anna of Narwajże Walużajte 1635 (Pln KĮ: 102b) Also baptized: Susanna, daughter of Christophorus Dewutis and Giertruda, daughter of Stanislaus Wienekajtis from Sm[i]lgiey with Cristina Lajgie de Pamiedey 1635 (Pln KĮ: 102b) Also baptized: Christophorus, son of Stephanus Buciuſ de Seleniey and Anna, the legitimate wife of Zacharias, son of the village elder, from Leplawkalui with Dorothea Pietrikayte de Sieleniey 1635 (Pln KĮ: 103a) January 24 Baptized Caterina, daughter of Joannes Czaponaſijs, from Skroblu and his Polish wife, legitimate, Michael Szyłajtis from the village Sziłofodoj with Marina Montkayte from the village Sitosodoj 1636 (Pln KĮ: 103b) On the same day, Anastasia, daughter of Mathias Gienbutaytis de Gienbutej. Catharina ſierweteyti de Wytkaytey were legitimate witnesses. The godparents were Albert[us] Węctowaytis de Duowenej with Anna Gienbutajti de Gienbutej 1643 (Pln KĮ: 161b). On the 28th of this month44was baptized Georgius, son of StanislausŽebytaītisand of his wife Sophia, from the village Žeymiejso called. Witnesses: Vencelaus Žebyataitisand Barbara Zutaite 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 60b). Likewise45Anā, daughter of Gregory ead’ die B. est. Vrbonaytisand of his wife Eve, from the village Seleneycalled Leu: Stanislaus Balcius. and Catharina Lulajte 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 60b). On the 24th, Adamus Vmbrasonisof Limeykie, with Marina Kozakaycie from JackasodžiaWitnesses: Valentinus Puodžiunasof Limeykie and Martinus Kazokonis of Jackasodžia 1672 (Rgv JĮ I: 111b). On the same day46 Bapt[us]’ e’ Stanisla[us] Andreæ Krysztaponis and Eue ſieſietavyčia de Tu-masodžio Patr: Nicola[us] Rudžionis and Dorothea Rudyčia of the same village, both 1673 (Rgv KĮ I: 29b). 44That is, April. 45That is, the first day of May. 46That is, January 22. 154 4 Baptized is Joannes, son of Joseph Terbonas and Anna Martinayčia from Kuglasodżio; godfather Joannes Siaduykas from Nowosady and Hedwigis Szczesneliene from Kuglasodżio 1673 (Rgv KĮ I: 46b). Bapt. Dorothea Thomce Bakiuno et Catharinæ Wertakaycie LC. Patrini Georgius Philippaytis et Anna Deluna o’nes de Atlanta 1682 (Rgv KĮ I: 87a). On 3 January 1683, I, Joannes Casimirus Brzezewski, parish priest of Malacenia, baptized Christophorus, son of Geczelis from Gieciu; mother, Anna. Godparents: Petrus Geteżenas from Juginciu and Agneſ Junktadynie from Junktadu. 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 2a). On 21 March, I, the same priest, baptized Zophia, daughter of Georgius Puciata; mother, Zophia, from Eydeciu. Godparents: Christophor[us] Zetenas from Czuteṅiu and Catharina Arelenia from Geciu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 3b). On 24 July, I baptized Dauidem, son of Thomas Tumelis; mother, Agnetis, from Bebruſu. Godparents: ſtephanus Miſsunas from Vndreżunu and Catharina Douaciçie from Douiociu. 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 4b). On the same day I baptized Michaele, son of Casimirus ſzaykis; mother, Christine, from ſzayku. Godparent Kardyżus from ſzayku and Margarita Krysiwenia from Itmadu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 6a). On 5 October I baptized Andream, son of Thomas Juſzkielenas; mother, Margarita, from Łatuyciu. Godparents: Antonius Getezecis from Juginciu and Magdalena Kietewiſzenia from Łetuyciu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 7a). 2 I baptized Jozephu, son of Jacobi Kiemieykis; mother, Agnetis, from Kiewialu. Godparents: Michael ſiemieneuicz from Zamoku and Eua Puſzynienia from Puſynu 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 8b). On 19 August, I, the same priest, joined in marriage and blessed Georgium Medeykis from Gudelu with Anna ſzawkſzczelieciu from ſzawkſzczelu, in the presence of Cristophorus Kozak and others 1683 (Mlt JĮ I: 3a). On 21 November Georgius Strzelczunas from Dougale contracted matrimony with Elisabeth Bielicziu from Toukielu. Witnesses: Martinus Tabalkis from Dougale and Casimirus Gierwis from Tateykie 1688 (Ant JĮ I: 145a). 155 On the same day, the son Matheus was baptized, of father Joannes ſzykinowſkas and mother Eva Biguzaycia, godfather Jacobus Mazgialis of the village Bikunay with Anna Miegu[tiene?] of the village Bikunÿ, 1706 (Ant KĮ I: 170ᵃ). On the same day, a daughter named Lucia was baptized, of father Jacobus Junkitas of the village Totaykey, and mother Anna Junkiena, godfather Stanijlaus Zapszys of the village Tolaykiey with Anna Czeputeneycia; the other [godfather] Stephanus Szymanſki of Ofzmianefl, 1706 (Ant KĮ I: 171ᵃ). On the same day, a daughter named Sophia was baptized, of father Stephanus Grygalunas of the village Naruidzie, and mother Lucia[?]...kaycia of the village Plupay; godfather Stephanus Slepetys of the village Naruidzie. With Lucia Grygalucia of the village Plupay, 1707 (Ant KĮ I: 172ᵇ–173ᵃ). On the same day, a son named Casimirus was baptized, of father Jacobus Ramelis of the village Rukle, and mother Sophia Dapszycia of the village Zabicunay; godfather Andreas Jonuſzka of the village Rukle, with Maryanna Plekiowa of the village Nuodegule, 1707 (Ant KĮ I: 173ᵃ). On the same day47 Judith was baptized, daughter of father Joannes Bartkus, and mother Anna Dowmaytaycia; from the place Motienay. Godmother Elisabeth Rakauskienie from the place Motieny, with Joannes Matuzaytis from the place Dowmanty, 1709 (Dt KĮ: 141ᵇ). On the 22nd of the same month, Andreas was baptized, son of father Joannes Warpaius, and mother Zophia Macanawiczaitie; from the place Rominiey. Witness Ioannis Raſzczauskas with Eva Raczauicienie from the place Reminiey, 1709 (Dt KĮ: 141ᵇ). On the same day, the infant Mathias, [son] of Casimirus ſroba and mother Cristine, of legitimate parents; godparents Nicolaus Ziamaytaytytys with Elisabeth Balciunaycia, all from the village ſzlapiosios Berzies, 1711 (Dt KĮ: 146ᵃ). On the 11th of October I joined in marriage, after the three banns had been announced, Petrum Rukianas of Mackiany, with Anna Wilunicz(a) from Radziun(u). Witnesses Christophorus Rukianas of Mackiany, and two [others], Czapulis Daniujis from Radziun(u), 1702 (Dgl JĮ II: 88ᵃ)⁴⁸. 47 November. 48 In this source, baptismal entries are disorderly intermixed with marriage entries. 156 Copulaui Laurentiu’ Plekis iz fiaziniu cu’ Krzystyna Dawbarycia yz Wadeyniu Testes Casimirus fiaz in cu’ Chrystophoro Dawbaras de Jakszty 1703 (Dgl JĮ II: 88a) In the same year and month49, on the 8th, an infant named Andreas was baptized, son of Mathiae Kuzelis and Mariannae Łazinskicia of Rukszany. Godparents: Joannes Powkstie of łziskiniey, and Marianna Rukf̦icia of Rukszany, 1739 (Lkm KĮ I: 106a) In the same year and month, on the 21st, an infant named Cristina was baptized, daughter of Joannis Kiszkis and of her mother Magdalene Trasz kicia from the village Patiszey. Godparents: Christophorus Romanow-skas of Akriem iey, and Regina Bilinska from the village ftagulany, 1739 (Lkm KĮ I: 106b) In the same year and month50, on the 24th, an infant named Mathias was baptized, son of Andreae Balunas and of his mother Mariannae Naslicia of Weyśniuney. Godparents: Ladislaus Batawecki of Wituney, and Marianna Batawecka of Wituney, 1740 (Lkm KĮ I: 107a) In the same year and month51, on the 29th, an infant named Franciscus was baptized, son of Josephi Alekna and of his mother Catharinæ Pipiricia of Ripayciey. Godparents: Georgius Wasilewicz of Ripaiciey, and Catharina Powkstienie of Kirdeykiey, 1740 (Lkm KĮ I: 109b) In the same year and month, on the 30th, an infant named Magdalena was baptized, daughter of Andreae Jowniszkis and of her mother Magdalenc Obielicia of Patusziey. Godparents: Thomas Kardelis of Lyngmiany, and Catharina Kindurienie of Kinduriey, 1740 (Lkm KĮ I: 109b) On April 352 Baptized was an infant, namely Georgius, son of Alexandri Lechowicz, whose mother was Jophia Jakatowskicia from Lamiestagalis: LL. Georgius Danieykis from Płowciszkiey. and Marianna Janielicia from Kukutiśzkies. 1740 (Lkm KĮ I: 110a) On November 26, having completed the three banns, I solemnized the marriage between Georgium Kurpe of Garbunay and Anna Kinduricia of Gieytonijzkiesz. Witnesses: Mathias Waszkiels of Garbunay and Thomas Kinduris of Pabirziey, 1740 (Lkm JĮ II: 2a) Eodem d Benedixi matrimonium expletis trib bannis inter Georgium ſtaputenas de Kolw iey cum Anna Jociucia de Peteniey Testes Andreas ſzatna de Patuszie et Georgius Zitenas de Weyśniuney 1740 (Lkm JĮ II: 2a) T.y. MENSIS. Xber Annius 1739. T.y. MENSIS JANUARIUS ANNUS 1740. That is, THE MONTH OF MARCH. T.y. Mensis Aprilis Annus 1740. 157 on the 10th of the same month53 Baptized was the infant girl Christina, from Piedroniszkiey PP. Georgij Marufzka and Anna Jzukicia LL: fiman Cieykowszkas from Makszieniszki with Cristina Gotienie de feliszkiey 1741 (Lkm KĮ II: 4a) On the same day and month54 Baptized was the infant girl Marianna, from Apidwariszkiesz PP. Martini Rukas and Cristine Muknicia LL: Nicolaus Muknisz from Untotksznie and Sophia Kirkienie from Kirdeykiey (Lkm KĮ II: 5a) on the 24th55 Baptized was the infant girl Marta, from Ripayciey PP: Georgij Urbanas and Catharine Alaknicia LL. Jacobus Alekna and Cathrina Aleknienie from Ripayciey 1741 (Lkm KĮ II: 5a) on May 21. Baptized was the infant girl Regina, from Peleniey PP: Petri Petenis and Christinæ Walukicia LL: Cafimirus Mazieyka from Łowciszkiey and Anna Obelien ie from Kowaley 1741 (Lkm KĮ II: 7a) on the 22nd of the same month56 Baptized was the infant girl Marianna, from Łamiestagalis PP. Thomæ Winctawienas and Catharine Pawksticia LL: Michael Winclowas from Jzikuntifzkies and Catharina Umbrasienie de Gieniszkiey 1741 (Lkm KĮ II: 7a) These examples clearly show that where Lithuanian forms of settlement names are used, Lithuanian forms of the second members of personal designations are also very often written. In these cases, the oikonyms and anthroponyms are unadapted Lithuanian borrowings in a foreign text, into which they are woven solely according to the rules of the Lithuanian language. Comparing the Lithuanian texts in the (unofficial) register of marriages at the Inturkė church with those given earlier, that is, the Latin ones, a certain similarity in the spelling of oikonyms and anthroponyms is striking. Therefore, several examples of Lithuanian entries are presented below: The newborn Antanas Laukij from Simunčiai parish, Inturkė, was circumcised. With Parnas Antalas57 Imbrasicziu from Jodenu village, Malėta parish – 1895 (Int ZK: 18a). 53 That is, JANUARIUS 1741. 54 That is, the 5th of March. 55 APRILIS. 56 MAIUS. 57 The form is not entirely clear, but this is how it is written. 158 Bolesław Werikas, a bridegroom from the village of Miškiškiai, Malėta parish, with Marianna Noviniutė, a bride from Bambioniai parish, Jzitos. 1900 (Int ZK: 32a). Jona Sirewiczius, widower, of Dubinkai parish, from Meszkalidimio, with Agnieszku Łamanauckicze, a bride from the village of Sztawinagalo parish, szitos 1900 (Int ZK: 32a). Ignasius Sklaustis, widower from the village of Rutienai, with Razaliu Tumieniuuti, a girl from the village of Įtanuliszkio; both of szitos parish 1900 (Int ZK: 32b). Adolfas Kilczauskas, a bridegroom from Wilkorejsczio parish, Joniszki, with Mariannu Kierulicziu, a bride from Geiziunu, Geiziunu parish, szioj. 1900 (Int ZK: 32b). Antanas Szurwelis, widower from Szniurai, with Mariannu Gobieniu, a widow from Dudanosiai; both of this parish 1900 (Int ZK: 32b). Ignasius Zajęczkowskis, widower from Utos parish, szios, with Teofilu Budkiaviczicziu, a maiden from Szauksztialiszkias parish, Maletu. 1900 (Int ZK: 32b). The spelling principles for Lithuanian oikonyms and surnames in this early-20th-century source, it may be said, differ little from those in the corresponding 17th–18th-century sources. The spelling of the early 20th century is perhaps simply more standardized, with fewer varied characters. In the future, such Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian sources should be compared in detail; this would reveal a number of spelling patterns for 17th–18th-century place names and personal names, and make it possible to better understand certain pronunciation phenomena, as well as some cases of Slavicization. Case forms of Lithuanian oikonyms In the sources under discussion, Lithuanian oikonym forms are given in the singular nominative, genitive, and locative, and the plural nominative, genitive, and locative cases. Oikonym forms are presented according to the following formal criteria58: forms with various endings for each case are presented in a separate subsection; forms with the same ending written identically are presented in a separate paragraph; forms with different endings written identically are presented in separate paragraphs; forms with the same ending written in different ways are presented in separate paragraphs. 58 One of the most important criteria is how the Lithuanian ending is written. 159 V i e n a s k a i t o s v a r d i n i n k a s Singular nominative forms are frequently found in manor inventories and rather rarely in church books. Oikonyms written in this case are names of isolated farmsteads or small villages. When a new name arose with a singular form, it was often recorded accurately with a Lithuanian ending, even in the first half of the 19th century. Lithuanian forms recorded in the singular nominative have been noted in the inventories of the Veliuona and Baisógola manors (1615), the inventory of the Vilnius tijūnija (1636), the inventory of the Samogitian bishop’s table manors (1662), the inventory of the Vilnius bishop’s Užneris manors (1731), the resolutions of the synod of the Vilnius diocese (1744), and elsewhere. There are rather more of them in the church record books of Kuktiškės, Linkmenys and Raguva, and a few in those of Bál ninkai and Inturkė, among others. Singular nominative forms de Ablinga 1638 (Pln KĮ: 131b) = Ablingà Ántkoptis Klp; Ackmena 1576 (Pėteraitis: 47) = Akmenà; Ackmena 1900 (SG XV/I: 13) = *Ackmena dv. Kvetkai Brž; de Atlanta 1682 (Rgv KĮ I: 87a) = Alantà Velykiai Pn; Sioto Armena 1615 (Inw VI: 15b) Veliuona, Armena 1807 (NO: 1) = *Armena Serėdžius, cf. Armenà river Veliuona (LUEŽ: 8); Armia / P. DRUIJENSIS 1744 (Syn: 84) = *Armija Drujà (Belarus); Beisogala town 1854 (ED: 52), Beisogala 1880 (SG I: 125) = tarm. *B’eisogala, now Baisógala Rs; Berzija 1898 (Anonim: 60) = *Beržija Linkmenys Ign; Brazdygata 1900 (SG XV/I: 229) = Brazdigala Pūmpėnai (now Pasvalys Ps); ex Gondynga 1626 (Pln KĮ: 36a), de Gondinga 1631 (Slnt KĮ: 3a) = tarm. *Gon’d’inga, Gandingà Naūsodis Pln; Gietžingata / Wies Rymucie / Włość Malatska 1731 (Inw KZ: 120) = *Gelžingala Molėtai; Gubesa 1898 (Anonim: 22) = Gubesà Giedraičiai Mlt; de Izita 1687 (Ant KĮ I: 7b) = *Izita Antãlieptė Zr; Klajpeda 1900 (SG XV/II: 88) = Klaipėda town; Kupra 1900 (SG XV/II: 197) = *Kupra Skėmai Rd; de Kretinga 1633 (Pln KĮ: 86a) = Kretingà town; de Kunciagata 1675 (Rgv JĮ I: 40b) = *Kun’c’agala, now Kuciagalys Miežiškiai Pn; Melnicza czyli Zakowale 1898 (Anonim: 42) = *Melnyčia Merkinė Vrn; Luszna 1807 (NO: 2) = *Lūšna Meištai (now Būbleliai Šk); de Nendrya 1687 (Ant KĮ I: 9b) = *Nendrija Antãlieptė Zr; Pagi Norkawa 1606 (Jnš KĮ: 74b) = *Norkava Joniškis; Zascianek Pagrunda behind the manor’s pasture / Miasteczko Łyngmiany 1636 (Inw WC: 17b) = tarm. *Pagrunda, cf. Pagrandà village Saldūtiškis Ut; Punia 1595 (CB: 4a) = Punià Punià Al; Miasteczko Ratnicza 1898 (Anonim: 42) = Ràtnyčia Merkinė Vrn; de Rudesa 1779 (Int JĮ I: 15a) = Rudesà Inturkė Mlt; Sarya / P. DRUIJENSIS 1744 (Syn: 84) = *Sarija Drujà (Belarus); Szetekſzna / P. KOMAYSCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 79) = *Šetekšna, now Šėtekšnos Púožas Kp, 160 Šėteknos Panemunėlis Rk; Udrya 1807 (NO: 2a) = Ūdrjà Al; de loco Uta 1778 (Int JĮ I: 14b) = Ūta Joniškis Mlt; de Utena 1741 (Ut JĮ I: 16b), de Utena 1760 (Ktk KĮ N: 48a) = Utenà town; Waiguva 1854 (ED: 37) = Váiguva Klm; de Welona 1699 (Dt KĮ: 35b) = Veliuonà Jrb; Žabakšna 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Žlabakšna Darsūniškis and elsewhere. Untanawas i.e. Antonowo 1898 (Anonim: 60) = tarm. *Untanavas Kálta-nėnai Švnč; Zaścianek Antarasztas / Wieś Kiakszty / Włość Wydzka 1731 (Inw KZ: 15) = *Antaraštas Vidžiai (Belarus); na Zasc: Ante­siatas / Wieś Gada-kiemie / Woytowstwo Łabonarskie 1731 (Inw KZ: 103) = *Anteisiatas Labanòras Švnč; Apuszotas 1900 (SG XV/I: 46) = *Apušotas village Ramýgala Pn; Apuszrotas 1900 (SG XV/I: 46) = *Apūšrotas manor Krākės Kdn; Augustawas 1898 (Anonim: 69) = Augustāvas Švenčionėliai Švnč; Dragunas 1807 (NO: 1) = *Dragūnas Serėdžius; Dubinikas 1898 (Anonim: 42) = *Dubinykas, now Dubininkas Merkinė (now Marcinkónys Al); Endrikawas 1898 (Anonim: 62) = *Endrikavas Daugėliškis Ign; Erzwetas / Orweta59 / 1898 (Anonim: 68) = Ėržvetas Tverečius Ign; Geibonas 1898 (Anonim: 50) = *Geibonas Vievis, cf. Geibónys Ausiėniškės Trak; Gumbronas / P. ANUSZYS CENSIS 1744 (Syn: 87) = *Gumbronas, Ōnuškis Vrn; Gudas 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Gudas Veiveriai; Kalvinas 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Kalvinas Darsūniškis; Zascianek Kapurnenas on Lake Je-ziorem ottkszniem / Sioto Ofttuksznie (?) / Woytowstwo Łygmianskie 1636 (Inw WC: 26b) = *Kapurnenas Liñkmenys Ign; Kazimierawas 1898 (Anonim: 43) = Kazimierāvas Varėna (now Nedingė Vrn); de Kučkas 1681 (Rgv KĮ I: 77a) = *Kučkas, now Kučkai Raguva Pn; Zascianek Kulnikas... pokoniec rez nad je-ziorem Birzulią / Wieś KVIAKIE / WŁOSC WORNIEŃSKA 1662 (ŽV Inv: 120) = *Kulnikas Varniai Tl; Laubenskas 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Liaubenskas Veiveriai; Ledas 1902 (SG XV/II: 215) = *Ledas Jósvainiai Kdn; Lukas 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Lukas Veiveriai; Melekas 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Melekas Veiveriai; Mežymas / P. SVINCIANENSIS 1744 (Syn: 81) = tarm. *M’e.š.ī.mas Švenčionys; Nárāgas / P. DUBINCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 48) = tarm. *Na.ragas Dubingiai Mlt; de Villa Pietkunas 1668 (Rgv KĮ I: 3a) = *Petkūnas, now Petkūnai Juostininkai An; Polimas 1898 (Anonim: 60) = *Polimas Liñkmenys Ign; Rokas 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Rokas Veiveriai; Rugenas 1807 (NO: 2) = *Rugėnas Liepalótai (now Lukšiai Šk); Скроблинас 1597 (Spruogis: 293) = *Skrobylnas village Medingėnai Pln; Spirgas 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Spirgas Darsūniškis; de Pago Stalgas 1639 (Pln KĮ: 136a) = Stalgas Stalgėnai Pln; Szakimas 1898 (Anonim: 24) = Šakimas Dubingiai Mlt; Tartakas 1898 (Anonim: 71) = tarm. *Tartakas, now Tartòkas Sariai Švnč; Urbānas / P. SVINCIANENSIS 1744 (Syn: 81) = tarm. *Urbanas Švenčionys; Wilkas 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Vilkas Veiveriai and elsewhere. 59 Such a Slavicized form is given alongside the Lithuanian one. 161 de Antalepte 1687 (Ant Kǫ I: 9ᵇ) = Antālėpie Zr; de Untalamiestie 1742 (Lkm Jǫ II: 4ᵇ) = *Untalam ēst’ė., now Antālamėstė Saldūtiškis Ut; de Beržė 1693 (Dt Kǫ: 2ᵃ), de Beržė 1711 (Dt Kǫ: 147ᵇ) = *Beržė Dotnuvā Kdn; Miasto Merecz czyli Mierkine 1898 (Anonim: 42) = Merkinė Vrn; Pātūžė / P. ŁYNGMIANENSIS 1744 (Syn: 82) = Palūšė Ign; de Pokryžė 1770 (Dgl Kǫ III: 41ᵃ) = Pakryžė Daugailiai Ut; Plunge 1854 (ED: 9) = Plūngė town; Rauswė 1539 (Pėteraitis: 329) = Rausvė || Degėsiai Stālupėnai, Bildviečiai; de fatele 1741 (Ktk Jǫ I: 59ᵃ) = *Salėlė Kūk­tiškės Ut; de Sienowe 1682 (Vdn Kǫ III: 3ᵇ) = *Senovė Vidėniškiai Mlt; de loco fenobe 1760 (Blnk Kǫ II: 49ᵇ) = *Senobė Vidėniškiai Mlt; ex Szłapiaberžė 1715 (Dt Kǫ: 166ᵃ) = *Šłapiaberžė, de Sztapabierže 1740 (Dt Kǫ: 390ᵇ), de Sztapaberže 1761 (Dt Kǫ: 369ᵇ) = Šłapāberžė Dotnuvā Kdn; Schnuede 1564–1565 (Pėteraitis: 396) = Šunėdė || Šunidė, Dārkiemis, Balėtai, Lenkimai; Tarpupė 1542 (Pėteraitis: 401) = *Tarpupė, Tār­pupėnai, Įsrūtis, Kumečiai; de Villa Vliczete 1684 (Vdn Kǫ III: 10ᵃ), de Vliczete 1688 (Vdn Kǫ III: 35ᵃ) = Ūlyčėlė Žalvariai Mlt; Warrupe 1590 (Pėteraitis: 456) = *Varupė, later Vorupėnai Gumbinė, Nybudžiai, Springiai, etc. de Untalksnie 1740 (Lkm Kǫ I: 106ᵇ) = dialectal *Untalk’s’nė., Āntalksne Liṅkmenys Ut; Pakrižie 1898 (Anonim: 64) = dialectal *Pak r’ī.ž’ie., standard *Pakryžė Daugėliškis Ign; Papasžtie 1898 (Anonim: 67) = *Papaštė Kūk­tiškės (now Mindūnai Mlt); išz vien. Rudinie 1903 (Int ZK: 37ᵃ) = *Rūdvnė Įnturkė Mlt; de flapēberžie 1695 (Dt Kǫ: 12ᵃ), de flapieberžie 1695 (Dt Kǫ: 12ᵃ) = Šłapāberžė Dotnuvā Kdn; w Folwarku Wactawinie 1829 (Ktk Kǫ VIII: 32ᵃ), w Folwarkie Wactawinie 1827 (Ktk Kǫ VIII: 4ᵇ) = dialectal *Va.cla.v’īnė., standard *Vaclovynė Kūk­tiškės Ut; de Wanaginie 1780 (Aln Kǫ XVIII: 16ᵃ) = *Vanaginė or *Vana­gynė Alantā Mlt, Witkamergie, Witkmergie 1893 (SG XIII: 535) = *Vilkamerge, *Vilkmėrgė, now Ukmergė town, etc. Ažubala 1898 (Anonim: 60) = dialectal *Ažū.bala., Ažūbalė Kal­tanėnai Švnč; de Uliciela Par’ Malatensis 1788 (Int Jǫ I: 16ᵃ), de Uliczeta 1797 (Int Jǫ I: 39ᵃ) = dialectal *U.l’ī.č’ėla., Ūlyčėlė Žalvariai Mlt; Pogajgala 1898 (Anonim: 60) = dialectal *Pogajgala., Pāgaigalė Labanōras Švnč; Poszyta 1898 (Anonim: 22) = dialectal *Paš’īla., Pašilė Giedraičiai Mlt, etc. Alsodia 1898 (Anonim: 60) = dialectal *Alsod’ė., standard *Alsodė Kal­tanėnai Švnč; de Villa Untalamiestia 1745 (Lkm Kǫ II: 22ᵇ) = dialectal *Untalam ē.s’t’ė., now Antālamėstė Saldūtiškis Ut; Blusinia 1798 (Int Jǫ I: 29ᵇ) = dialectal *Blu.s’īnė., standard *Blusynė Įnturkė Mlt; Daubarizskia 1898 (Anonim: 62) = dialectal *Dau­bar’iš’k’ė., standard Daubariškė Daugėliškis Ign; Wasiuliskzia 1898 (Anonim: 60) = dialectal *Vas’ul’iš’k’ė., standard Vasiūliškė Liṅkmenys Ign; Pūšnia / P. GIEDROY­CENSIS 1744 (Syn: 48) = dialectal *Pu.s’n’ė., standard Pūšnė Giedraičiai Mlt; Warlinia 1791 (Int Jǫ I: 29ᵇ) = dialectal *Var’īnė., standard *Varlynė Įnturkė Mlt, etc. 162 In Loco Abugalįzkis 1784 (Ktk MĮ N: 183ᵇ) = *Abugališkis, now Būgališkis Suginčiai Mlt; Ahmaińpucб 1584 (Spruogis: 5) = *Antairis manor estate Tvėrai Pln; de Untotamiestis 1740 (Lkm KĮ II: 2ᵇ) = dialectal *Untolamės.t’is, de Villa Antatamiestis 1744 (Lkm KĮ II: 19ᵃ) = *Antalamestis, now Antalamestė Saldūtiškis Ut; Żascianek apidemis / Sioto Woŷszniuny / Wojtowſtwo Łyngmianskie 1636 (Inw WC: 25ᵃ) = *Apydėmis Palūšė Ign, cf. Apydėmis Saldūtiškis Ut; Aukštadwarys 1784 IVK = Aukštādvaris Avižieniai Viln; Auksztakalnis 1898 (Anonim: 54) = Aukštākalnis Valkininkai (now Jakėnai Vrn); Awilajtis 1900 (SG XV/I: 54) = *Avilaitis Antāžavė Zr; de loco Ažufienis 1754 (Blnk KĮ II: 14ᵃ), de loco Azusienį 1757 (Blnk KĮ II: 34ᵇ) = dialectal *Ažu.s’e.n’is Bālninkai Mlt; Ažubalis 1900 (SG XV/I: 56) = *Ažubalis village Tverėčius Ign; w zascianku Ažustrupis 1831 (Ktk KĮ VIII: 82ᵃ) = *Ažustrupis Kūktiškės Ut; w Zascianku Ažuwižyntis 1829 (Ktk KĮ VIII: 30ᵇ) = *Ažuvyžintis Kūktiškės Ut; Baltuwis 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Baltuvis Veiveriai; Balnupis 1900 (SG XV/I: 77) = *Balnupis manor estate Raseiniai; Beynažylis 1802 (Int KĮ: 16ᵇ) = Beināšilis Inturkė Mlt; Zascianek Blakiškis / Miasteczko Swiencianÿ 1636 (Inw WC: 34ᵃ) = *Blakiškis Švenčionys; Budwiety s 1880 (SG I: 442) = Būdvietis Zypliai (now Jankai Šk); Diczpalis 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Didžpalis Įngavangis Prn; Дубупис 1594 (Spruogis: 105) = *Dubupis stream Gintiliškė; Dydwalis / P. WILKOWISCENCIS 1744 (Syn: 107) = *Didvalis Vilkaviškis; Dumsis 1898 (Anonim: 47) = *Dumsis Žąsliai Kš; Gieguzynis 1898 (Anonim: 50) = Gegužinis Krūonis (now Vilūnai Kš); de Genakalnis 1760 (Lkm KĮ II: 73ᵃ) = Gėniakalnis Saldūtiškis Ut; Gerwis 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Gervis Rokai Kn; Zascianek Jurgiszkis / Sioto Girminie 1636 (Inw WC: 38ᵃ) = *Jurgiškis Vidiškės Ign; de Gudakiemis 1606 (Mrk KĮ: 13ᵇ) = Gūdakiemis Merkinė Vrn; Zaścianek... Gulbinis / Włość Wydzka 1731 (Inw KZ: 13) = *Gulbinis Vidžiai (Belarus); Jodupis lub Czarny Ruczaj 1898 (Anonim: 69) = *Juodupis Tverėčius Ign; išz wien. Jodapurwis Łabanoro parap. 1901 (Int ZK: 35ᵃ) = Jūodapurvis Labanóras Švnč; Jakubczonis 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Jakubčionis Darsūniškis; Kalnialis 1902 (SG XV/II: 44) = *Kalnelis manor estate Pumpėnai Ps; Katnelis 1902 (SG XV/II: 45) = *Kalnelis manor estate Ak nystà (Latvia); Kentrakalnis 1854 (ED: 5) = Kentrākalnis Tvėrai (now Medingėnai Pln); Kieturkalnis 1902 (SG XV/II: 75) = *Keturkalnis Skaudvilė Trg; Zascianek Kimienianiszkis / Sioto możyźny / Wojtowſtwo Ozwińskie 1636 (Inw WC: 27ᵇ) = *Kimėneniškis Kazitiškis Ign; de Kriwȧgalis 1743 (Lkm KĮ II: 14ᵇ) = Krivāsalis Linkmenys Ign; de Lamiestagalis 1760 (Lkm KĮ II: 75ᵃ) = *Lames-tgalis; de villa Lapiekalnis 1757 (Lkm KĮ II: 56ᵇ) = Lāpiakalnis Linkmenys Ign; Zascianek Laudupis / Sioto Skiemie / Woitostwo Zas’eckie / Wolosc Boisa-golska 1615 (Inv VI: 38ᵇ) = *Liaudupis Skėmai Rd; Zaścianek Łynkadarżys 1820 (WDW: 82ᵇ) = *Linkadaržis Lavoriškės Viln; Łukiszkis 1898 (Anonim: 49) = Lūkiškis Krūonis Kš; Maknialaukis 1898 (Anonim: 62) = *Maknialaukis 163 Daugeliškis Ign; Måldenis 1854 (ED: 34) = *Maldenis, now Maldėniai Tryškiai Tl; Malūnapis 1558 (Peteraitis: 238) = Prussian *Malūnapis, later Lithuanian Malūnupiai Dárkiemis; Zascianek maszniuniškis / Sioto koniuchy / Woÿtowstwo Ozwyńskie 1636 (Inw WC: 29ᵇ) = *Mašniūniškis Kazi­tiškis Ign; de Meſkafjadźis 1617 (Mrk KĮ: 101ᵇ) = dialectal *Mėšk’asėdźis, now Mėškasalis Alovė Al; Meſkinwietyes / P. SZESZOLENSIS 1744 (Syn: 45) = *Meškinvietis Šešuoliai Ukm; Микитлавкис 1584–1585 (?) (Spruogis: 187) = *Mikitlaukis manor estate Pajūris Šil; Village Nareyszabalis 1820 (WDW: 82ᵃ) = *Nareiš(i)abalis Lavoriškės Viln; Naujasodis 1902 (SG XVII: 372) = *Naujasodis village Ro-zalimas Pkr; Nausodis 1902 (SG XV/II: 372) = *Naušodis Naušodis Pln; Hanuszy(ski czyli Onuszki 1898 (Anonim: 39) = Õnuškis Õnuškis Trak; Potukalnis 1854 (ED: 2) = Pālukalnis Tvėrai Pln; Pomatdenis 1854 (ED: 34) = *Pa-maldenis Tryškiai; de Papūtakalnis 1760 (Lkm KĮ II: 70ᵃ) = Pāpilakalnis Taurāgnai Utn; Pirciupis 1898 (Anonim: 53) = dialectal *P’ir’č’up’is, standard *Pirčiupis, now Pirčiupiai Valkininkai Vrn; Raudanalaukis tub Czerwonopole 1898 (Anonim: 69) = dialectal *Raudanalaukis Švenčionys; de Raudanupis 1821 (Int JĮ I: 110ᵇ) = *Raudonupis Inturkė Mlt; In the hamlet Salawarti / Miasteczko Przetaie 1719 (Inw Dg: 41ᵃ) = *Salavartis Perloja Vrn; Simonaitis 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Simonaitis Rokai Kn; Smiltinis 1854 (ED: 2) = *Smiltinis Telšiai; Szilinis 1854 (ED: 2) = *Šilinis Telšiai; Szylwetis 1807 (NO: 2) = *Šilvietis Liepalótai, now Šilvietė Lukšiai Šk; Szytalis czyli Borek 1898 (Anonim: 45) = dialectal *Šilalis, standard *Šilelis Žiežmariai Kš; de Pago Szylasiodis 1633 (Pln KĮ: 84ᵃ) = *Šilasodis Plungė; Hamlet Traka Ławkij / Village Żwirzdany / Estate Dawgowska 1719 (Inw Dg: 23ᵇ) = *Trakalaukis Daugai Al; Upis 1898 (Anonim: 62) = Ūpis Daugeliškis Ign; Užalksni̇nis 1854 (ED: 36) = *Užalksni̇nis Užventis; Užusamanis 1898 (Anonim: 65) = *Užusamanis Ceikiniai Ign; Waynotrakis 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Vainotrakis Rokai Kn; Hamlet warnalizdis / Sioto Garbunÿ 1636 (Inw WC: 37ᵇ) = *Varnalizdis Zūikos Ign; Warnoszylis 1807 (NO: 2) = *Varnošilis Meištai (Būblėliai Šk); Witkampis 1540 (Peteraitis: 444) = *Vitkampis, later Vidkampiai Stālupėnai, Katniavà, Jenkutkampiai, Tučiai; Widuszylis 1807 (NO: 2) = Vidūšilis Liepalótai (Lukšiai Šk); Jioto wi-kiezerel 1597 (Ukm PTA 13879: 228ᵇ) = *Vikėžeris Dusetos Zr; Wilkupis 1807 (NO: 2) = Vilkupis Liepalótai (now Lukšiai Šk); Wingis / P. PODBRZEZENSIS 1744 (Syn: 43) = *Vingis Pabėržė Viln; Hamlet Żaga-raitays pusty / WŁOSC MASIADŹKA 1662 (ŽV Inv: 204) = *Žagaraitis Mósėdis Skd; Žeymelis 1807 (NO: 1) = *Žeimelis Veliuona, etc. When an oikonym in a non-Lithuanian historical document is recorded with the ending -is, the Lithuanian nominative singular ending -is of the first declension formally coincides with the Latin ablativus pluralis ending -is of the first and second declensions; cf. Latinized forms ending in -is (ablativus pluralis): de fodaliszkis 1679 (Lnkv KĮ: 14ᵃ), 164 cf. present-day Sodėliškiai; de Degėjus 1678 (Lnkv JĮ: 21ᵃ), cf. present-day Degėsiai; de Girpetrij 1702 (Jnšk KĮ: 32ᵃ), cf. present-day Girpetrai; de Kautakakis 1690 (Mlt KĮ I: 37ᵇ), cf. *Kaulakiai, present-day Kaūlakiai; de Nebuvėlj 1702 (Jnšk KĮ: 32ᵇ), in Lithuanian it would be *Nebuvėliai; de Rymucis 1691 (Mlt KĮ I: 39ᵃ), cf. present-day Rimūčiai; de Jabanj 1702 (Jnšk KĮ: 32ᵃ), cf. present-day Sabōniai; de Vliczelis 1689 (Mlt KĮ I: 34ᵇ), cf. present-day *ūlyčelės, present-day Ūlyčelė, and so on. It is likely that these oikonyms were (or may have been) plural at the time they were recorded. On the pages of the Joniškėlis and Linkuvà church registers from which the examples here are drawn, all (or nearly all) oikonym forms are Latinized by adding the ablative plural ending -is. Such Latinized forms are more frequent in the registers of Daugailiai, Dotnuvà, Vidēniškiai, and elsewhere. In some registers, for example the Molėtai church register (1682–1692), there are only one or two such cases. The form itself often makes it clear that this is a Latinized ablative plural. However, in the cases of de Janižkelij 1702 (Jnšk KĮ: 31ᵃ), cf. present-day Joniškėlis; Antkalnis 1706 (Dt KĮ: 99ᵇ), cf. present-day Ańt̄kalnis, it is not entirely clear whether the form is Lithuanian or Latinized. The spelling of other oikonym forms on the same source pages precludes interpreting these as Lithuanian forms: there, they are written only with the Latin ablative plural ending -is. On other pages, the oikonyms in question are written differently: Joniškėlis is written de Janižkiei 1701 (Jnšk KĮ: 27ᵇ), i.e. without an ending; Ańt̄kalnis has various forms: de Antkalnia ~1702 (Dt KĮ: 296ᵇ), De antkole 1728 (Dt KĮ: 110ᵃ), and so on. Data from other historical documents show that plural forms of these oikonyms were used in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries: de Janiskiey 1672 (Klov KĮ III: 60ᵇ), Janiszkelų arba Janiszkių porakvije. Poneveže pav.; Janiszkei⁶⁰ (Johaniszkiele); Joniszkelei božnicze mur[ine] mel[nyčia] vond[ens] Mōžupe 1854 (or later, second half of the nineteenth century) (ED: 105). Thus, -is (de Janižkelij) is recorded in the Latin ablative plural form. In the case of the form Antkalnis there is somewhat more uncertainty: it is unclear whether the singular form of this oikonym could be evidenced by the form de Antkalnia (dial. *Antkal’n’a gen. sg. “of Antkalnis”). This is because there are cases (though quite few) in which oikonyms are Slavicized in this way: de villa Narwidzia 1775 (Dgl KĮ III: 53ᵃ), cf. Narvydžiai, de Gornia 1771 (Dgl KĮ III: 43ᵃ), cf. Garniai, de Daržinia 1770 (Dgl KĮ III: 37ᵇ), cf. Daržiniai, and so on—in all these cases, the plural nominative ending -iai is Slavicized. It is difficult to determine whether the form de Antkalnia represents such a case of Slavicization or whether it is a genitive singular whose ending is written -ia; see also pp. 168–172. The form Antkalnei 1854 (ED: 95), *Antkalniai in Dotnuvà indicates that by the mid-nineteenth century this oikonym also had a plural form. 60 Corrected to Janiszkėliai. 165 Due to the lack of data, it is also impossible to reliably reconstruct the singular nominative ending in the following cases: W Zalčianku... dugnis / Miasteczko Przertaie 1719 (Inw Dg: 41a) = *Dugnis, *Dugnys (?) Perloja Vrn; Graužiupis 1898 (Anonim: 53) = *Graužiupis, *Graužiupys (?) Valkininkai Vrn; Kiaulupis / P. WILKOWISCENCIS 1744 (Syn: 107) = *Kiaulupis, *Kiaulupys (?) Vilkaviškis; Powyžis 1854 (ED: 36) = *Pavyžis, *Pavyžys (?) Užventis, and so on. Barčys / P. DUBINCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 48) = *Barčys Dubingiai Mlt; Digris 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Digr ys Veiveriai; a hamlet called Eglesys / MIASTECZKO POPIELANY 1662 (ŽV Inv: 232) = *Eglesys, present-day Eglesiai Papilė Akm; Gilis 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Gylys Rokai Kn; Jāckagālis / P. ROGOVIENSIS 1744 (Syn: 72) = Jackagalys Juostininkai An; de Kiemieszis 1741 (Lkm JĮ II: 3a) = Kemešys Saldūtiškis Ut; Koris 1807 (NO: 2) = *Korys Liepalotai (Lukšiai Šk); Łowis 1898 (Anonim: 43) = *Lovys Varėnā; Pamerkis 1898 (Anonim: 53) = *Pamerkys, present-day Pamerkiai Valkininkai Vrn; Paniewezis 1887 (SG VIII: 771) = Panevėžys town; in loco Pagilbis 1779 (Ktk MĮ N: 176b) = Pagilbýs Saldūtiškis Ut; Poderies 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Poderys Veiveriai; Tumágālis / P. ROGOVIENSIS 1744 (Syn: 72) = Tumagalys Miežiškiai Pn; Įz ieymatis 1741 (Lkm JĮ II: 3b) = Šeimatis Taurāgnai Ut. Dumčzus / P. WILKOWISCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 107) = *Dumčus, present-day Dumčai Pilviškiai VIkv; Gojus 1898 (Anonim: 44) = *Gojus Jieżnas Prn; Karalus 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Karalius Veiveriai; de Mełkafadzius 1617 (Mrk KĮ: 105b) = dial. *Mėškasėdžūs, present-day Meškasalis Alovė Al; Nabagus 1807 (NO: 2) = *Nabagius Liepalotai (Lukšiai Šk); Naudžus 1807 (NO: 2a) = dial. *Naudžūs Veiveriai; Szalszus 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Šalč(i)us Veiveriai; Szullus 1807 (NO: 2) = *Šulius Meištai (Būblėliai Šk); de Tumasodzius 1668 (Rgv KĮ: 3a) = *Tumasodžius, present-day Tumagalys Miežiškiai Pn; town of Twerecz, also known as Twereczius 1898 (Anonim: 68) = Tverėčius Tverėčius Ign, and so on. Singular genitive Few instances of the singular genitive have been noted. Some are not entirely clear because their endings coincide, since the oikonyms occur in a non-Lithuanian text. Singular genitive forms Pagi Mateykos 1604 (Jnš KĮ: 51a) = *Mateikos (sing. nom. *Mateika) Jōniškis; De Nowiosodos 1669 (Rgv JĮ I: 108a) = *Naujasodos, cf. present-day Naujasodė Ramygala Pn; isz ul. Palakiesos 1905 (Int ZK: 40a) = dialectal *Pala.k'esos, present-day Pāluokesa Luokesā Mlt; isz Wer denos 1722 (Fenzlau: 143) *from Verdenos, present-day Vėrdainė Jonaičiai Šlu, etc. 166 Pagi Mateykas 1604 (Jnš KĮ: 55ᵃ) = dialectal *Mat'eikas (sing. nom. *Mateika) Joniškis, etc. ex kuteno pago 1613 (Mrk KĮ: 79ᵃ) = *Kutėno (sing. nom. *Kutėnas), cf. present-day Kūtiškės Alovė Al; de Stalgo 1638 (Pln KĮ: 128ᵃ), de pago Stalgo 1639 (Pln KĮ: 134ᵃ) = *Stalgo, present-day Stalgas (sing. nom.) Stalgėnai Pln; de Sandworo 1638 (Pln KĮ: 127ᵇ) = dialectal *Sandworo, present-day Šendvaris Šendvaris Klp; Pagi Žalensko 1604 (Jnš KĮ: 51ᵃ) = dialectal *Žal'ensko, cf. *Žalinsko, (sing. nom. *Žalinskas) Joniškis, etc. parap. Labanora 1900 (Int ZK: 32ᵃ) = dialectal *Labanora, Labanóras Švnč; de Lamiesta 1747 (Lkm KĮ II: 26ᵃ) = dialectal *Lam'ėsta, Laméstas Saldutiškis Ut; ex Jtalga 1628 (Pln KĮ: 44ᵇ), ex Stalga 1639 (Pln KĮ: 136ᵇ) = dialectal *Stalga, Stalgas Stalgėnai Pln, etc. Miasteczko Pertojeś that is, Przetaie 1898 (Anonim: 43) = dialectal *Perlojas, cf. *Perlojos, Perloją Nedingė Vrn; De Villa dicta Petnićies Paraphia Iżaukianensi 1670 (Krž KĮ: 200ᵃ) = dialectal *P'ėt'n'įč'es, cf. *Pėtnyčios Šaukenai Klm, etc. isz Kertojos 1901 (Int ZK: 35ᵃ) = *Kertuojos, Kertuoją Įnturkė Mlt; de Wil- kosodos 1638 (Pln JĮ: 206ᵃ) = *Vilko sodos Plungė. de Villa Berzies 1711 (Dt KĮ: 145ᵇ) = *Beržės (sing. gen.), Dotnuvà Kdn; isz Jukniszkies 1901 (Int ZK: 34ᵃ) = *Jukniškės, present-day Jūčniškiai Joniškis Mlt; iš Mikolojiškies 1906 (Int ZK: 42ᵇ) = *Mikalojiškės, present-day Mikalojiškis Joniškis Mlt; iš Pabradies Korkazyskų parish 1908 (Int ZK: 46ᵇ) = *Pabradės, Pabradė Švnč; iš Rateliszkies 1901 (Int ZK: 34ᵃ) = *Rateliškės (sing. gen.), Inturkė Mlt; iš Rudinies wienasedzio 1901 (Int ZK: 35ᵃ) = *Rūdynės (sing. gen.), Inturkė Mlt; de Jenobies 1774 (Blnk KĮ II: 9ᵃ) = dialectal *S'enob'ė.s (sing. gen.), Bálninkai Mlt; iš Surguszkies 1901 (Int ZK: 34ᵃ) = *Surguškės, Surguškė Įnturkė Mlt; de Villa Iżlapiosios Berzies 1711 (Dt KĮ: 146ᵃ) = *Šlapiosios Beržės, present-day Šlapabėržė Kdn; lowczus Wilkamirgies 1675 (Jablonskis 1937: 148) = *Vilkamirgės or *Vilkamergės, present-day Ukmergė town, etc. de Antalietes 1694 (Dgl KĮ II: 79ᵃ) = *Antálieptės, Antá liepė Zr; išz Kirnejles maletu parapios 1902 (Int ZK: 35ᵇ) = *Kirneilės, Kirneilė Luokesà Mlt; iš Pagojeś 1905 (Int ZK: 41ᵇ) = *Pagojės, Pagojė Įnturkė Mlt. It is unclear what the Lithuanian form of the oikonym is in cases such as de ławciszkies 1742 (Lkm KĮ II: 10ᵃ) = *Laučiškės Liñkmenys Ign; de Iżikuntiszkies 1741 (Lkm KĮ II: 7ᵃ) = *Šikuntiškės Liñkmenys Ign; de Iżudiszies 1740 (Lkm KĮ II: 3ᵃ) = *Šūdiškės Liñkmenys Ign; de Weydiżkies 1741 (Lkm JĮ II: 3ᵇ) = *Veidiškės or *Vaidiškės Liñkmenys Ign, etc. Since there are many singular oikonyms in this region (-iškė). From the recording in Latin text, we may infer that these are singular genitives. However, the nominative plural occurs in the case of de Kukutiszkies 1740 (Lkm KĮ I: 110ᵃ) = dialectal *Kukutíšk'ė.s, present-day Kūktiškės Ut. This is also borne out by other spellings of this oikonym in historical documents. In cases when the oikony- 167 has not survived to the present day, and when there is no other evidence attesting to its authentic form, singular or plural, it is impossible to determine which form is recorded in the non-Lithuanian text: it may be either the singular genitive or the plural nominative—the forms of these cases coincide. Ant Escherelle61 1539 (Pėteraitis: 92) = dialect *Ant Ežerėlia, standard form *Ant Ežerėlio || Bumbulai Gumbinė, Nybudžiai; porakvije. Panevėže map, 1854 (or later, second half of the 19th c.) (ED: 105) = dialect *Pon'ev'ež'e, Panevėžys; ex pago skroble 1630 (Pln KĮ: 59a) = dialect *Skrob'l'e, Skróblis Bubėnai Pln; pronunciation wienasied. Sztawinagale 1901 (Int ZK: 35a) = dialect *Šlav'i.nagal'a. Arniōnys Mlt and elsewhere de Antepunčio 1682 (Mlt JĮ II: 1b) = *Antapunčio, present-day Antāpunte Luokesà Mlt; pronunciation Czistabario Dubingiu parapios 1901 (Int ZK: 35a) = *Čistabario, *Čistabaris Dubingiai Mlt; pronunciation Mesžkalidimio 1900 (Int ZK: 32a) = *Meškalydimio, Meškalydimis Joniškis Mlt; de Nounojodžio (Pln KĮ: 103b) = *Naujosodžio, present-day Nausodis Nausodis Pln; pronunciation Palakajo 1903 (Int ZK: 38a) = *Palakajo, Palakajys Labanóras Švnč; ex Pagilbiszko 1748 (Ktk MĮ N: 156b) = *Pagilbiškio, present-day Pagilbys Saldūtiškis Ut; pronunciation ul. Poundenio Joniskzio parap. 1906 (Int ZK: 42a) = dialect *Paun'd'en'o, present-day Pavāndėnė Arniōnys Mlt; pronunciation Sztawinagalo62 1900 (Int ZK: 33a), from Šlavinagalio 1907 (Int ZK: 44a) = *Šlavinagalio, present-day Šlavinà Arniōnys Mlt; de Tumasodžio 1673 (Rgv KĮ I: 29b) = *Tumasodžio, present-day Tumagalys Mėžiškiai Pn; pronunciation Wilkorejsczio 1900 (Int ZK: 32b) = *Vilkaraiščio Įntur-kė Mlt and elsewhere. de Genia kalnia 1751 (Lkm KĮ II: 38a) = *G'en'akal'n'a., Gėniakalnis Saldūtiškis Ut; de Jackasodžia 1672 (Rgv JĮ I: 111b) = dialect *Jackasodž'a, present-day Jackagalys Juostininkai An; de Miestela 1776 (Aln KĮ XVIII: 48a) = dialect *M'e.s't'el'a., Miestelis (part of the Alantōs settlement) Mlt; de Naujasodžia 1670 (Rgv KĮ I: 17b) = dialect *Naujasodž'a, cf. Naujasodė Ramýgala Pn; de Pagilbia 1748 (Ktk MĮ N: 155b) = dialect *Pag'il'b'a., present-day Pagilbys Saldūtiškis Ut; de Raudonupia and de Raudon upia 1799 (Int JĮ I: 48a) = dialect *Raudonup'a., de Villa Raudanupia 1827 (Int JĮ I: 131b) = dialect *Raudanup'a., *Raudonupis Įnturkė Mlt; de Tumasodžia 1673 (Rgv KĮ I: 31b) = *Tumasodž'a, present-day Tumagalys, Mėžiškiai Pn; de Wienasedžia 1787 (Ktk MĮ N: 187a) = *V'e.nas'ėdž'a., *Vienasėdis Kūktiškės Ut; de Werekalnia 1699 (Jnšk KĮ: 8a), de Wierakelnia 1701 (Jnšk KĮ: 21a) = dialect *V'er'ekal'n'a Joniškėlis Ps; pronunciation wienaledžio Zwir-bliszkia 1900 (Int ZK: 32a) = dialect *Ž'v'ir'b'l'is'k'a., present-day Žvirbliškės Įnturkė Mlt and elsewhere. There are quite a few cases in which oikonym forms in non-Lithuanian historical documents are written with the endings -(i)a, -(i)ą, -(i)ą. In such cases, it is not always possible to determine— 61 For this oikonym, see also p. 178. 62 Sztawinagalo should be read as *Šlavinagalio. This is because Polish spelling is followed here, and the letter l denotes a palatalized l’. 168 whether the oikonym form is Lithuanian, or is specifically the singular genitive. Especially many such cases have been noted in the Joniškis KĮ (1599–1621). It is not entirely clear how to interpret cases in which an oikonym appears with the ending under discussion alongside a nomenclature word identifying the object, which in Latin or Polish is written in the singular genitive. 63 63 Pagi Baltkaicia 1600 (Jňs KĮ: 11ᵇ); Woita Balciuna Š: Baruna 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 109ᵇ); Woÿta Jurgiela Š: Beinoraicią 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 120ᵇ); Woita Kotlarza Š: Beinora 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 128ᵇ); W: Biwoinia Š: Biwainią 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 114ᵃ); Woita Budraicia Š: Budraicią 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 110ᵃ); Woÿta Dwila Š: Buiwidzią 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 111ᵃ); Woÿta Kirni Š: Burniskią 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 113ᵇ); Woita Biwoinia S Butwilą 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 109ᵇ); Šiota Butwilą 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 118ᵃ); Woita Kirnÿ Š: Dargią 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 122ᵃ); W: Łukoszailia Š: Dargaicia 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 137ᵇ); Woita Kotlarza Š: Daukšiškia 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 130ᵃ); Woÿta Dwila Š: Draseikig 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 140ᵇ); Woÿta Dwila Š: Dranfeikia 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 134ᵃ); W: Dwila Š: Dran|feikia 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 143ᵃ); Pagi Dziugi 1601 (Jňs KĮ: 19ᵇ); Woita Jurgiela Š: Dziugią 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 120ᵃ); Aduo: Dwiluycia Pagi Dweta 1605 (Jňs KĮ: 71ᵃ); Woita Dwila Š: Dwelacią 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 130ᵇ); Woÿta Budraicia Š: Eleknaicia 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 141ᵃ); Woita kirni Š: Giedwiną 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 109ᵃ); Woÿta Baltzewicza... Š: Gi-mineną 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 131ᵃ); Woÿta Balciewicza Š: Girminia 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 132ᵃ); Aduocat Mantiurgaičia... Pagi Jatenią 1600 (Jňs KĮ: 11ᵃ); Pagi Jaunią 1600 (Jňs KĮ: 13ᵃ); Šiota Jauneikia 1607 (Jňs KĮ: 90ᵃ); villae Jwoszkia 1599 (Jňs KĮ: 3ᵇ); Woÿta Kirni Š: Jwoskią 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 112ᵃ); Pagi Juodžią 1601 (Jňs KĮ: 19ᵇ); Ad. Szapnagis... Pagi Kiepalą 1600 (Jňs KĮ: 9ᵇ); Pagi Kiepalą 1604 (Jňs KĮ: 49ᵇ); Pagi Kipią 1601 (Jňs KĮ: 18ᵇ); Pagi Krixtanavcia 1604 (Jňs KĮ: 50ᵇ); Pagi Kipscia 1604 (Jňs KĮ: 48ᵇ); Poddaničh X Plebana Š: kuisaicia 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 115ᵇ); Woÿta Lukobaicia Š: Łaumakią 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 139ᵇ); Woita Paupera Š: Lepsiuną 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 109ᵇ); Woÿta Jurgiela Š: Linkaiczią 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 109ᵃ); Woita Kirnÿ Š: Lidekią 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 116ᵇ); Woÿta Kyrnÿ Šiota Lydakią 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 140ᵇ); Woÿta Łukobaicza fioto Łukobaicia 1613 (Jňs KĮ: 153ᵇ); Woita Sebestiana Š: Mekią 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 122ᵃ); Woÿta Balciuna Š: Melnią 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 122ᵃ); Woita Biwoinia Š: Mielaičią 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 114ᵇ); Woita Augustina Š: Melwidzįą 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 125ᵇ); Woita Zutaitia Š: Normanczią 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 123ᵇ); Woita Jucia S: Normancia 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 139ᵃ); Woÿta Biwoinia Š: Noruną 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 112ᵃ); Woita Kirnÿ Š: Nuraicia 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 124ᵇ); Pagi Petodžia 1600 (Jňs KĮ: 11ᵇ); Woÿta Melwidsia Š: Pociuną 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 112ᵃ); Woita Balciuna Š: Poszupią 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 113ᵃ); Woita kirni Š: Puplasą 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 131ᵃ); Šiota Puraicia 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 121ᵇ); Woita Jurgiela Š: Rubesniką 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 121ᵇ); Woita Jurgiela Š: Rudiskią 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 113ᵇ); Woÿta Jurgiela Š: Rudiskią 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 108ᵇ); Aduoc: Szapnag. Pagi Rimdžių 1601 (Jňs KĮ: 20ᵃ); W. Kyrnÿ Š: Rimlaukią 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 138ᵇ); Woÿta Beinoraicia Š: Rimsią 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 127ᵇ); Woita Benoraicia S: Rubezią 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 109ᵇ); Pagi Sargą 1601 (Jňs KĮ: 21ᵇ); Pagi Selmekią 1600 (Jňs KĮ: 11ᵇ); Pag: Silmekią 1600 (Jňs KĮ: 15ᵃ); Pagi. Įkilwonią 1600 (Jňs KĮ: 17ᵃ); Pagi Skribakią 1601 (Jňs KĮ: 24ᵇ); Woÿta Balciuna Šiota skri-bakią 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 121ᵃ); Š: skirwainią 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 137ᵇ); woita Biwoinia Š: stapakią 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 134ᵃ); Š: sliekįą 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 132ᵇ); W: Biwoinia Š: smiligą 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 143ᵇ); Woita Dwila Š: spirakią 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 128ᵇ); Woita Jurgiela Š: Staniulą 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 125ᵇ); Woÿta Sebestiana Š: stirpeikią 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 141ᵇ); Pagi Sutkuną 1600 (Jňs KĮ: 7ᵃ); Woÿta Kotlarza Š: sut-kuną 1609 (Jňs KĮ: 110ᵃ); Woÿta Augustina Š: swirplig 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 123ᵇ); Woÿta Sebestiana Šiota Sžilmią 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 129ᵃ); Aduo: Szapnag. Pagi Sztapakią 1601 (Jňs KĮ: 24ᵇ); W: Bi-woinia Š: Stapakią 1611 (Jňs KĮ: 134ᵃ); Š: shuostikią 1612 (Jňs KĮ: 135ᵃ); Woita Dwila Š: sluofikią 1600 (Jňs KĮ: 143ᵃ); Woÿta Paupera Š: Taurakią 1610 (Jňs KĮ: 123ᵇ); Woÿta Melwidsia 169 Since the spelling of word endings varies, it is not entirely clear how the ending should be read in cases where the final letter is -ą or -ų. If these letters represent the Lithuanian dialectal [a(.)], then Lithuanian singular genitive forms are possible. In determining the Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in different cases, one must also take into account analogous Lithuanian forms of anthroponyms and their spelling in the same source. The Joniškis KĮ contains three unequivocally clear cases in which an oikonym form written with -a should be considered Lithuanian, since the singular genitive forms of the anthroponym and oikonym coincide in the same entry64: Aduocat: Balciuna Filius. Balcius Battuszkaitys Pat: Matulis Wiluns cum Eluta Bariuna Pagi bariuna 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 13b). On the same day, in the village Jwoszkia the advocate Stafula Benuraicia baptized Marta Gryciaus vzwalinaičia and Gendrutė, daughter of leuata, from the font; the godparents were Mikaloium 3b/4 Rymkunum and Kazziutam, daughter of Mikatoiaus Jwoszkia, both from the same [village], as [the] child. 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3b/4a). In these entries the forms of the oikonyms and anthroponyms are identical: cum Eluta Bariu- na Pagi bariuna – i.e., “with Eliulė Bariūnas (dial. *El'ula Bar'ūna) (from) the village of Bariūnas (dial. *Bar'ūna),” villæ Jwoszkia... Kazziutam Mikatoiaus Jwoszkia... – “i.e., of the village of Ivoškis (dial. *Ivoš'k'a)... Mikalojaus Ivoškis (dial. *Ivoš'k'a).” The following anthroponym forms show that this could be a Lithuanian singular genitive: Aduocat: Balciuna, Aduocat: Stafula Benuraicia, Marta Gryciaus vzwalinai- cia. In one further case, we likewise have an unequivocal singular genitive form: On the same day, in Wiluicia Mikucia village, the advocate Dwithycia Jurgia baptized Augustinum Jonela Bartoszaycia and Agnieszka, daughter of Grycus Buczkaytis Balcius Norwidaitis, as well as Zaputa, daughter of Jonela Zaf[s]ajcia; all were from the same [village], as [the] child. 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 4b). In the case of Wiluicia Mikucia villæ *Vilučio mikučio (dial. *V'iluič'a M'ikuč'a), this is the genitive of a personal name (a two-part designation). Here it is probably not a genuine oikonym, but a personal name that has not yet become an oikonym. This case illustrates the very beginning of naming (onymization). On the other hand, the village may have had a name (similar or otherwise), but in the entry it was designated by a personal name. Pagi bariuna, vil- Š: Titaičia 1609 (Jnš KĮ: 111b); Woyta Jurgiela Š: Trumpaicia 1609 (Jnš KĮ: 115a); Woita Biwoinia Š: Tubiuna 1609 (Jnš KĮ: 112b); Aduo. Balciuna... pagi uſtupia 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 14b); Aduo: Budrayc.... Pagi Waydminig 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 17a); Woÿta Dwila Š: Waidminia 1609 (Jnš KĮ: 111b); Pagi Vaguna 1604 (Jnš KĮ: 54b); Woÿta Balciuna S Waiſnora 1610 (Jnš KĮ: 121b); Woÿta Kimÿ Šiota Wanaga 1609 (Jnš KĮ: 113a); Ad Jurdas... Pagi Wiknora 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 8a); W: Benoraicia Š: Wetnora 1612 (Jnš KĮ: 140b); Woÿta Jurgiela Š werbuszaicia 1612 (Jnš KĮ: 143b); Woita Ambroſa Š: 3adwainia 1609 (Jnš KĮ: 111a); Woÿtata (klaida, turi būti Woÿta) Biwoinia Š: 3elcia 1611 (Jnš KĮ: 126a); Woÿta Šebestiana Š: 3mirkla 1609 (Jnš KĮ: 111b) and many others. 64 In the examples, Lithuanian singular genitive forms of anthroponyms are underlined. 170 la Jwoszkia, oikonyms of anthroponymic origin, also show that the names of these specific places are recent, since they are singular. But in these cases, a name recorded in the genitive form can already be regarded as a genuine oikonym; cf. more masculine singular oikonyms (see pp. 161, 163–164, 166). It seems that Lithuanian singular genitive forms of oikonyms are indeed possible in cases where the word order in the phrase containing the oikonym is changed to conform to Lithuanian (as in the case already discussed Wituicia Mikucia ville), for example: de Giteno Villa 1679 (Rgv KĮ I: 46b) = cf. dialect *Git'ėna (sing. gen.), cf. Gitėnai Miežiškiai, Pn; ex kuteno pago 1613 (Mrk KĮ: 79a) = *Kūteno (sing. gen.), present-day Kūtiškės Alovė Al, and so on. Such a Lithuanian singular genitive is possible because of Lithuanian word order. Also compare the case Walunu ville 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 4a) = *Valiūnų kaimo, Valiūnai Buivydžiai, Pociūnai Jnš. That a Lithuanian singular genitive of an oikonym is possible in some cases in the Joniškis KĮ is shown by analogous anthroponym forms recorded in this case. Thus, such oikonym forms as Pagi Kipsčią 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 8b), Pagi Sargą 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 21b), Pagi Sztapakią 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 24b), Pagi Skribakią 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 24b), and many others, especially those in Latin entries, might be considered Lithuanian, since their Lithuanian character seems to be supported by other data from the source in question. However, it should be noted that the endings of anthroponyms recorded in the singular genitive almost always (with rare exceptions) are written with the letter -a (Jurgaitia, Jwoszkia, Szetona, Staniula Kuisaicia, Jonula Petroszaicia, Jona Barthuszaycia, etc.), and only rarely with another letter (-ą, -ę, -ą). The author has not copied out all the anthroponyms from the Joniškis KĮ article, so it is difficult to say how many cases there are in all where -ą, ę, ą, or the like is written in singular genitive forms. In the instances observed, the forms are Gedžią, Matetę (= cf. dialect *G'edž'a, *Mat'el'a): Aduo: Staſjula Pagi Gaſciunu Fil. Anna Stephani Mixaytis Pat: Thomas Mikatoiūns cum Baniuta Gedžią 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 20b). Aduo: Beynoraitis, Pagi Eiktaycia. Fil: Magdalena Matetę Kuraitis Pat: Laurentius Stanaytis cum Jedwiga Jonufzaytis 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 20a). This shows that nasal letters and letters with a diacritic may have represented long vowels. However, in the singular genitive case anthroponyms are written almost always with the letter -a, whereas oikonyms whose case could be the same are most often written with -ą, much less frequently with -ą or -a (see the examples given in footnote 63). It is therefore not entirely clear whether one can assume that these differently written word-final letters represent the same sound (or sounds); cf. whether in the cases Pagi Kipsčią 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 8b), Pagi Sargą 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 21b), Pagi Sztapakią 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 24b) -ą, -ą should be read in the same way as -a in the cases Jurgaitia, Jwoszkia, Szetona, etc. It should be noted that in the Plungė KĮ, JĮ (1615–1660) there are also oikonyms written with the letter -ą, for example, ex Kapstatą 1628 (Pln KĮ: 51a), but it is not entirely clear— 171 how -ą should be interpreted. Some examples suggest that in similar cases the letters -ą, -ą may have represented Lithuanian [-a], for example, de Witkafodas 1639 (Pln KĮ: 135ᵇ) = cf. dialect *Vilka sodos. It seems that formally, both oikonyms and anthroponyms in the Joniškis KĮ written word-finally with -ą, -ę, -ą, ę could be in the singular genitive, but not in every instance. When similar forms are used with Polish nomenclatural terms, for example, with the word sioto, it is doubtful whether they can be considered Lithuanian: Š: Mietaicia 1609 (Jnš KĮ: 114ᵇ), Š: staniulą 1610 (Jnš KĮ: 115ᵃ), Šiota Jakiskiją 1612 (Jnš KĮ: 135ᵃ), etc. Thus, the oikonym forms in the Joniškis KĮ that are written word-finally with -ą, -ę, -ą, ę are not entirely clear and warrant further study. Many forms in church register books that are formally indistinguishable from forms such as Pagi Baltkaicia and end in -(i)a (except for the cases discussed in which Lithuanian word order occurs in a Latin phrase) cannot be considered Lithuanian, because the material in those sources does not support their Lithuanian character. In the cases de Katnaberza 1724 (Dt KĮ: 199ᵇ), de Maciana 1724 (Dt KĮ: 200ᵃ), de Daržinia 1770 (Dgl KĮ III: 37ᵇ), de Gornia 1771 (Dgl KĮ III: 43ᵃ), de villa Narwidzia 1775 (Dgl KĮ III: 53ᵃ), de villa Szyrwidzia 1775 (Dgl KĮ III: 54ᵇ), de Pumpucia 1770 (Vdn KĮ II: 16ᵃ), de Sauginia 1771 (Vdn KĮ II: 17ᵇ), de Villa Kaironia 1771 (Vdn KĮ II: 18ᵃ), Szlawanta 1807 (NO: 2a) Įngavangis, Obszruta 1807 (NO: 2a) Įngavangis, and others, various Lithuanian oikonym endings are Polonized. de Miliaus 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 9ᵃ) = *Miliaus, present-day Miliai Mindūnai Mlt. Singular Locative In non-Lithuanian sources concerning Lithuania, the singular locative has been observed only once: Wilniuja 1893 (SG XIII: 492) = *Vilniuje, Vilnius. As discussed above, this form arose because the non-Lithuanian editors of the publication did not know the nominative form of this oikonym. The church register of Katyčiai also contains oikonyms written in the singular locative. At the beginning of the 20th century, the oikonyms in question were plural. One may suppose that there was probably a dialectal plural nominative *Meišlauk'e “Meišlaukiai,” which a speaker of another dialect or a non-Lithuanian clerk (priest) may have understood as a feminine singular nominative *Meišlaukė. This may therefore have given rise to artificial forms such as *Meišlaukėje, *Uostiškėje, *Šilgalėje (singular locative): Meišzlaukė-je 1669 (Fenzlau: 122), cf. present-day Meišlaukiai, Usėnai Šlu, Ustjiskėje 1669 (Fenzlau: 122), cf. Uostiškiai, Katyčiai Šlu, Szilgalleje 1669 (Fenzlau: 122), cf. present-day Šilgalai, Pagėgiai, Rukai, Stoniškiai, etc. It is difficult to believe that these oikonyms were singular-only in the 17th century but plural-only by the 20th century. 172 Plural Nominative Plural nominative forms are numerous in Lithuania Minor (this is due to the nature of the sources—not church registers), as well as in maps, lists, and reference works; they are somewhat more abundant in the church registers of Bálninkai, Klóvainiai, Lińkmenys, Linkuvà, Salantai, Utenà, and Vidėniškiai. Plural Nominative Forms de Akriemiev 1739 (Lkm KĮ I: 10⁶ᵇ) = Akrìemiai Kazitiškis Ign; Alsintisžkey 1807 (NO: 1) = *Alsintiškiai Serėdžius; Andruschey 1590 (Pėteraitis: 51) = Andrušai || Endrušai Dárkiemis, Žabynai; de Antamakėy 1691 (Vdn KĮ III: 50ᵇ) = Antãmakiai Bálninkai Mlt; Asmucžey 1807 (NO: 2) = *Asmūčiai Šakiai; de loco Ažūfiley 1754 (Blnk KĮ II: 17ᵃ), de loco azuzyley 1754 (Blnk KĮ II: 15ᵃ) = Ažūšiliai Vidėniškiai Mlt; Azutrakiey 1743 (Lkm KĮ II: 14ᵇ) = *Ažūtrakiai Lińkmenys Ign; de Bernatjžkiey 1743 (Lkm KĮ II: 16ᵃ) = dialectal *B'er.na.t'iš'-k'ai, present-day Bernótiškis Tauragnai Ut; Bredzey 1807 (NO: 2) = Briedžiai Šakiai; Buley 1807 (NO: 2) = *Buliai Liepalótai (Lukšiai Šk); Buszkępeley 1807 (NO: 2) = *Buškelpeliai Šakiai; de Dayniey 1743 (Lkm KĮ II: 14ᵃ) = Dainiai Žuikos Ign; de Dienawagiey 1777 (Vdn KĮ II: 67ᵇ) = Dienavagiai Giedraičiai, Žalvariai Mlt; Daney 1807 (NO: 1) = *Daniai Serėdžius; Zulkiney 1584 (Pėteraitis: 95) = Čiūlkiniai Gumbinė, Nybudžiai, Gerviškėnai; de Vila Daubarjžkiey 1691 (Vdn KĮ III: 50ᵃ), de Vila Dawbarjžkiey 1691 (Vdn KĮ III: 50ᵃ) = *Daubariškiai Vidėniškiai Mlt; de Daugelisżkiey 1740 (Lkm JĮ II: 1ᵇ) = *Daugelìškiai, present-day Daugelìškis Ign; Degelgirey 1584 (Pėteraitis: 100) = *Degelgiriaì, later Deglagiriaì || Raubai Dárkiemis, Balėtai; Dirsey 1807 (NO: 2) = Dirsiai Liepalótai (present-day Lukšiai Šk); de Gayweniey 1742 (Lkm KĮ II: 12ᵃ) = Gaivėniai Saldūtiškis Ut; Graszɡirey 1584 (Pėteraitis: 142) = *Gražgiriai (?), later Grisgiriai Dárkiemis, Žabynai; de Vila Grodziey 1691 (Vdn KĮ III: 50ᵇ) = Grúodžiai Paąžuoliai Mlt; Kalwey 1807 (NO: 1) = Kálviai Veliuona Jrb; Kalwey 1807 (NO: 2a) = Kálviai Vėveriai (present-day Ašmintà Prn); Klewiney 1807 (NO: 2) = Kleviniai Liepalótai (present-day Lukšiai Šk); Kreiwey 1807 (NO: 1) = Kreiviai Liepalótai (present-day Kriūkai Šk); Kruckey 1584 (Pėteraitis: 201) = Krukai Dárkiemis, Klišiai; Kubiley 1584 (Pėteraitis: 201) = Kubìlėliai || Juodeliai Galdãpė; Kujey 1807 (NO: 2) = Kūjai Meistai (present-day Kazlų Rūdà Mrj); ex villa Kuley 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 60ᵃ), de kuley 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 64ᵃ) = Kuliaì Kuliai Pln; Kumpupey 1807 (NO: 2) = Kumpupiai Šakiai; Pagi Mickey 1597 (Pėteraitis: 246) = Mikiai || Mekai Stãlupėnai, Bildviečiai; de loco Miley 1733 (Aln KĮ IV: 1ᵃ) = Miliai Mindūnai Mlt; de Nameykszcey 1765 (Ut JĮ I: 44ᵃ) = *Nameikščiai, present-day Nemeikščiai Mockėnai Ut; de Naszteikiey 1784 (Dgl KĮ III: 86ᵃ) = dialectal *Našlaik'ai, present-day 173 Našloniškis Spitrėnai Ut; Ratkemey 1584 (Pėteraitis: 322) = *Radkiemiai, Ra-dokiemiai Dārkiemis, Žabynai, Balupenai; Ratadelej 1539 (Pėteraitis: 321) = *Ratadāliai Pilkalnis, Kusai; de Jeliskziey 1741 (Lkm KĮ II: 4a) = *Seliškiai, Seliškės Saldutiškis Ut; ex uilla Jeleney dicta 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 60b) = Selėniai Sateikiai Pln; ex friebalėy65 1643 (Pln KĮ: 161b) = *Šrėbaliai Plungė; Schepetzei 1584 (Pėteraitis: 384) = Šepečiai Išrutis, Didlaukiai, Žvirbliai; Szaulei second half of the 19th century (ED: 40) = Šiauliai town Šl; de villa Įzytaykey 1776 (Dgl KĮ III: 61b) = dialectal *Š'ilai'kai, present-day Šileikiškės Mągučiai Zr; Szylgaley 1807 (NO: 2) = Šilga-liai Šakiai; de villa Šiožiniew 1782 (Dgl KĮ III: 84b) = Šiožiniai Daūgailiai Ut; Schuppinej 1557, Schuppeney, year not specified, (Pėteraitis: 397) = Šupiniai || Šiupiniai Ragainė, Kraūpiškas, Girėnai; de Villa Tareyley 1737 (Aln KĮ IV: 11a) = Tarailiai Suginčiai Mlt; Teipeney 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Taipenai, *Teipenai (?) Ūdrija Al; Telszei 1854 (ED: 2) = Telšiai town Tl; de villa uziemiszkey 1741 (Dgl KĮ III: 88b), de villa Uziemizkey 1785 (Dgl KĮ III: 88b) = *užėmiškiai (?), present-day Užėniškės Baibiai Zr; Ussescherey 1590 (Pėteraitis: 423) = Užėžeriai Galdapė, Dūbininkai, Ežergaliai; de Warkaley 1689 (Vdn KĮ III: 39a) = *Varkaliai Vidėniškiai Mlt; Warneteckey 1591 (Pėteraitis: 218) = *Varnatekiai, later Laukiai || Vainotai Stalūpenai, Bildviečiai; de Wieteykiey 1689 (Ant KĮ: 16b) = Veleikiai Antālieptė Zr; de Wijeykiew 1760 (Ut JĮ I: 36b) = Vijeikiai Mockėnai Ut; de Wyjkintay 1643 (Pln KĮ: 161b) = *Viskintai Plungė et al. ex uilla Bajdotay 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 60b) = Baidotai Notėnai Skd; de Garbunay 1740 (Lkm JĮ II: 2a) = Garbūnai Žuikos Ign; Goczukay 1807 (NO: 2) = *Goči(u)kai Šakiai; Jessai 1590 (Pėteraitis: 154) = Jasai Išrutis; Krikschtenay 1577 (Pėteraitis: 199) = Krikštenai Dārkiemis, Žabynai; Kurszenai 1854 (ED: 32) = Kuršėnai town; de Mielnikay 1761 (Ktk KĮ N: 49a) = in local speech Mel-nikai, official form Melninkai Suginčiai Mlt; de villa... mamenay 1769 (Ut JĮ: 50a) = dialectal *Ma.m'enai, present-day Momėnai Kūk­tiškės Ut; de Loco Motenay 1709 (Dt KĮ: 141b) = *Motėnai Dotnuva Kdn; de Pikczunay 1691 (Vdn KĮ III: 50b) = Pik-čiūnai Vidėniškiai Mlt; de Pikcunay 1776 (Dgl KĮ III: 61b) = Pikčiūnai Daūgailiai Ut; de villa Radziunay 1782 (Dgl KĮ III: 84b) = Radžiūnai Spitrėnai Ut; Rokay 1807 (NO: 2a) = Rokai Kn; Sodenay 1584 (Pėteraitis: 363) = *Sodėnai, later Sōdarai Dārkiemis, Žabynai; de Villa Spitrenay 1707 (Dgl JĮ II: 216a) = Spitrėnai Spitrėnai Ut; Jtraupay 1642 (Pln JĮ: 222a) = *Straupai Plungė; Twerai porokvije 1854 (ED: 5) = Tvėrai Pln; de Wyjkintay 1638 (Pln KĮ: 161b) = *Viskintai Plungė; de villa Wytkienay 1769 (Ut JĮ: 50a) = *Vitkenai, cf. present-day Vitkūnai Pakalniai Ut; de Vila Zwinенay 1691 (Vdn KĮ III: 50b) = Žvynėnai Želva Ukm; de Zlybinay 1642 (Pln JĮ: 221b) = Žlibinai Žlibinai Pln, etc. 65 The dot over the letter ė may be an accidental ink blot. 174 Cases where the plural nominative ending [-ai] is represented by the letters -(i)ei: Ackmeninei 1564 (Peteraitis: 47) = Akmenynai ‖ Akmenyne Stālupeņai, Pilupeņai; Meystey 1807 (NO: 2) = Meištai Meištai (present-day Būblėliai Šk); Mielkintey 1584 (Peteraitis: 53, 250) = Mielkintai ‖ Antrudupėnai Stālupeņai, Enciūnai; Starkey 1807 (NO: 2) = Starkai Šakiai (present-day Sintautai Šk); de Villa Wanagiew 1734 (Aln KĮ IV: 3ᵃ) = *Vanagai Kurkliai An; Witkey 1584 (Peteraitis: 444) = *Vitkai (?), Vidkampiai Stālupeņai, Katniavà, Jenkutkampiai, Tučiai, etc. In Samogitian sources—church and county court books—there are quite a few instances of recorded Samogitian plural nominative forms: de Brukale 1658 (Krž KĮ: 28ᵃ) = dialectal form *Brukal'e, Brukaliai Krāžiai Klm; de Dylpłże 1616 (Pln KĮ: 2ᵃ), ex Dilpße 1629 (Pln KĮ: 56ᵇ) = dialectal form *D'il'p'š'e, Dilbšiai Paukštakiai Pln; de Giedminale 1671 (Krž KĮ: 214ᵃ) = dialectal form *G'ed'm'inal'e, present-day Gedminiai Krāžiai Klm; Kancyde 1585 (Spruogis: 127) = dialectal form *Kapsu'd'e, Kapsūdžiai Gandiṅgos vls. (present-day Žlibinai Pln); de Kaupale 1657 (Krž KĮ: 6ᵃ) = dialectal form *Kaupal'e, present-day Kaupai Krāžiai Klm; de Kumzayte 1636 (Pln KĮ: 104ᵃ), ex Komzaite 1629 (Pln KĮ: 56ᵇ) = dialectal form *Komžait'e, Kumžaičiai Kuliai Pln; de kule 1632 (Pln KĮ: 75ᵃ) = dialectal form *Kul'e, Kuliai Kuliai Pln; ex Lipgire 1629 (Pln KĮ: 55ᵃ) = dialectal form *L'įp'g'ir'e, de liepgiere 1633 (Pln KĮ: 87ᵃ) = dialectal form *L'en'g'er'e, Liep̆g iriai Šateikiai Pln; de liplaukale 1636 (Pln KĮ: 105ᵃ) = dialectal form *L'iplaukale, cf. *Lieplaukalai Plūngė; de moncže 1618 (Pln KĮ: 5ᵇ) = dialectal form *Monč'e, Mančiai Grūšlaukė Krtn; de Māzunale 1659 (Krž KĮ: 48ᵇ) = dialectal form *Mažunal'e, present-day Mažūnai Kelmė Klm; de Narwayße 1616 (Pln KĮ: 1ᵇ), ex Norwaiße 1628 (Pln KĮ: 44ᵇ), de Norwaysze 1636 (Pln KĮ: 104ᵇ) = dialectal forms *Narvaiš'e, *Norvaiš'e, Narvaišiai Šateikiai Pln; Пельдайме 1590 (Spruogis: 226) = dialectal form *P'eldait'e Gandiṅgos vls., cf. Peldžiai Kiaunoriai Klm; de Pago Rapsaite 1633 (Pln KĮ: 84ᵃ) = dialectal form *Rapšait'e, Rapšāičiai Stalgėnai Pln; de Rezgale 1658 (Krž KĮ: 23ᵇ) = dialectal form *R'iezgal'e, Rezgaliai Krāžiai Klm; Сипаӯме 1589 (Spruogis: 290) = dialectal form *S'irait'e, Sirāičiai Kiaunoriai Klm or Gadūnāvas Tl; de Jrebale 1616 (Pln KĮ: 2ᵇ), de pago Srebale 1632 (Pln KĮ: 78ᵇ) = dialectal form *S'r'iebal'e Plūngė; ex Stanele 1629 (Pln KĮ: 57ᵇ) = dialectal form *Stan'el'e, Stanėliai Pln; Стипбаӯме 1598 (Spruogis: 300) = dialectal form *s't'irbait'e, de Stirbate 1636 (Pln KĮ: 105ᵃ) = dialectal form *S't'irbat'e, Stirbāičiai Plāteliai Pln; de Tabale 1660 (Krž KĮ: 71ᵇ) = dialectal form *Tabal'e, Tabaliai Pākražantis Klm; Варнаӯме 1590 (Spruogis: 36) = dialectal form *Varnaīt'e, Varnāičiai Žarėnų vls. (present-day Mėdingenai Pln); Жадейкайме 1595 (Spruogis: 112) = dialectal form *Žad'eikait'e, present-day Žadeikiai Pādievytis Šll; de Žebre 1664 (Krž KĮ: 117ᵃ) = dialectal form *Ž'eb'r'e, Žėbriai Kelmė Klm, etc. de Kumzaycia 1636 (Pln KĮ: 104ᵇ) = dialectal form *Kumžaič'a, Kumžāičiai Kuliai Pln; de Rapszaycia 1636 (Pln KĮ: 105ᵃ) = dialectal form *Rapšaič'a, Rapšāičiai Stalgėnai Pln, etc. 175 Diedey 1584 (Pėteraitis: 99) = dialectal form *D'ed'ei, Dėdžiai, Galdāpė, Tolminkiemis; Kalniučė kalnas Erškėčėi late 16th c. (Spruogis: 126) = dialectal form *Kal'n'ič'ė kalnas Eršk'ėt'ei, cf. *Kalnyčio kalnas Erškėčiai in Treigiai village, Šiauduva district (present-day Laukuva Šil); de Kaczeytey 1638 (Pln KĮ: 161ᵇ) = dialectal form *Kač'ait'ei, Kačičiai Žalgiris Ktrn; de Kapsudey 1638 (Pln KĮ: 163ᵇ) = dialectal form *Kapsud'ei, Kapsudžiai Žlibinai Pln; de Klepsztey 1638 (Pln KĮ: 162ᵇ) = dialectal form *K'l'ep'š't'ei, Klipščiai Sendvaris Klp; de Moſtaytey 1638 (Pln KĮ: 162ᵇ) = dialectal form *Mostait'ei, Mostáičiai Lapiai Klp; de Pamiedey 1634 (Pln KĮ: 102ᵇ) = dialectal form *Pam'ed'ei, cf. *Pamedžiai Plungė, etc. Cases with the plural nominative ending -ys: Eigietonis 1898 (Anonim: 38) = Eigel onys Butrimónys (present-day Pivašiūnai and Jurgeliónys Al); Wiežonis 1898 (Anonim: 35) = Vėžionys Alovė (present-day Daugai Al), etc. Feminine plural nominative forms occur only sporadically in the sources: de Kukuliszkies 1740 (Lkm KĮ I: 110ᵃ) = dialectal form *Kukut'išk'e.s, Kukt iškės Ut; Užkarklinies 1854 (ED: 36) = *Užkarklynės Užventis Klm; de Wesalkiszkęb 1678 (Lnkv KĮ: 18ᵃ) = dialectal form *V'esal'k'išk'es, present-day Vesėlkiškiai Linkuvà Pkr, etc. Norgieliszkias 1898 (Anonim: 38) = Norgeliškės Butrimónys (present-day Punià Al); de Villa Vefelkiskas ~1711 (Lnkv KĮ: 4ᵇ) = dialectal form *V'esel'k'iškas, present-day Vesélkiškiai Linkuvà Pkr, etc. In Lithuanian historical sources, it is difficult to distinguish plural nominative forms from singular genitive forms; see pp. 167–168. Plural genitive forms Plural genitive forms are consistently written in the Joniškis and Molėtai registers (about 350 different oikonyms). They occur in the parish registers of Alantà, Daugailiai, Klovainiai, Linkmenys, Linkuvà, Raguva, Utena, Vidėniškiai, and other churches. A few such forms have also been found on the map of New East Prussia (1808). Plural genitive forms from Antapunciu 1692 (Mlt KĮ I: 45ᵃ) = *Antapūnčių Molėtai; from Eydeciu 1682 (Mlt KĮ I: 1ᵃ) = *Ediečių, now Aidiečiai Čiulėnai Mlt; from Eygiahu 1683 (Mlt JĮ II: 3ᵃ), from Eygietu 1687 (Mlt JĮ II: 7ᵃ) = *Eigėlių, now Aigelai Čiulėnai Mlt; from Eysietu 1689 (Mlt JĮ II: 5ᵇ) = *Eisetų Molėtai; from Akmeniu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 7ᵃ) = *Akmenių, Akmeniai Čiulėnai Mlt; from Vndrey kieniu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 5ᵇ) = dialectal *Undrėikėnų, Andreykieniu 1827 (Ktk KĮ VIII: 5ᵃ) = *Andreikėnų, Andreikėnai Kūktiškės Ut; from auxtkatniu 1715 (Dt KĮ: 166ᵃ) = *Aukštkalnių Dotnuvà Kdn; from Eyuiciu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 3ᵇ) = *Eivilčių, now Avilčiai Alantà Mlt; 176 from Awizieniu 1769 (Ut JĮ I: 50ᵃ) = *Avižienių, Avižėniai Taurāgnai Ut; from Aza-ru 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 4ᵃ) = dialectal *Ažaru, register *Ežeru, Ežerai Molėtai; from Azubelu 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 9ᵃ) = *Ažubalių, Ažūbaliai Molėtai; from Baliszku 1672 (Klov KĮ III: 61ᵇ) = *Bališkių, Bališkiai Rozalimas Pkr; from Bolszyszkiu 1672 (Klov KĮ III: 88ᵃ) = *Balsiškių, from Balgu 1677 (Lnkv JĮ: 21ᵃ) = *Balsių, now Balsiai Klovainiai Pkr; from Bernataiciu 1618 (Pln JĮ: 178ᵃ) = *Bernataičiu Plungė; Pagi Berženu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 10ᵃ), Pagi Berženiu 1604 (Jnš KĮ: 55ᵃ) = *Beržėnų, Bėržėnai Rūdiškiai Jnš; from Villa Beržensku 1711 (Dt KĮ: 145ᵃ) = *Beržinskų Dotnuvà Kdn; Czerpoku 1807 (NO: 2) = *Čerpokų Liepalōtai (now Lukšiai Šk); from Dauciunu 1685 (Mlt KĮ I: 13ᵇ), Dowciunu 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 7ᵇ), Dowczu-nu 1689 (Mlt JĮ II: 10ᵃ) = *Daučiūnų Molėtai; Pagi Daugataiciu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 16ᵃ) = *Daugalaicių, Daūgalaičiai Stupurai Jnš; Pagi Daugielu 1603 (Jnš KĮ: 45ᵇ), Š: Daugieliu 1610 (Jnš KĮ: 119ᵇ), Sioto Daugielu 1613 (Jnš KĮ: 155ᵃ) = *Daugelių, Daugėliai Kužiai Šl or Daugėlaičiai Meškuičiai Šl; from Degiesiu 1676 (Lnkv KĮ: 69ᵇ) = *Degėsių, Degėsiai Gūostagalis Pkr; Pagi Donilu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 14ᵇ), S. Donilu 1616 (Jnš KĮ: 192ᵃ) = *Donylių, Donýliai Skaistgirys Jnš; from uilla Dauidu ~1711 (Lnkv KĮ: 4ᵇ) = *Davydų, now Dovydai Gružiai Ps; Pagi Drabayciu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 17ᵇ) = *Drabaičių Joniškis; Pagi Drąsutaičiu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 12ᵃ), Siota Drasutaičiu 1613 (Jnš KĮ: 146ᵃ) = *Drąsutaičių, Drąsutāičiai Satkūnai Jnš; Š. Drasuciu 1615 (Jnš KĮ: 172ᵇ) = *Drasučių, compare Drąsučiai Kuršėnai Šl; Sioto Draseiku 1613 (Jnš KĮ: 153ᵇ) = *Drąseikių, Drąseikiai Buivydžiai Jnš; Pagi Gajciunu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 6ᵃ) = *Gasčiūnų, Gasčiūnai Stupurai Jnš; Gribu 1807 (NO: 1) = *Grybų Kaūnas; from grudziu 1683 (Vdn KĮ III: 5ᵇ), from Grodziu 1692 (Mlt KĮ I: 44ᵇ), from Grodziu 1777 (Vdn KĮ II: 69ᵇ) = *Gruodžių, Gruōdžiai Paažuōliai Mlt; Janiszkelių or Janiszkių porakvie 1854 (or later, second half of the 19th century) (ED: 105) = dialectal *Jan'išk'el'u, *Jan'išk'u, now Joniškėlis Ps; from villa Juszkayciu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3ᵃ) = *Juškaičių, Juškāičiai Juodeikiai Jnš; De komzayciu 1631 (Pln KĮ: 73ᵃ) = dialectal *Komžaič'u, Kumžāičiai Kuliai Pln; from kulu 1637 (Slnt KĮ: 40ᵃ) = *Kulių, Kuliai Kuliai Pln; from Leplaw-kalu 1635 (Pln KĮ: 103ᵃ) = *Lieplaukalių Plungė; from Lukosławkiu 1643 (Pln KĮ: 156ᵇ) = *Lukoslaukių Plungė; from... Mazielu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 1ᵃ) = *Maželių, Maželiai Juodeikiai Jnš; from Mazrimu 1636 (Pln KĮ: 105ᵃ) = *Mažrimų Plungė; Mitzkowietzu 1584 (Pėteraitis: 249) = *Mickoviečių, compare Mickavičiai ||Žaibai, Puodžiūnai; from neſukuciu 1643 (Pln KĮ: 159ᵃ) = dialectal *N'ešuk'č'u, Nešu-kuōčiai Paukštakiai Pln; De petrafayčiu 1631 (Pln KĮ: 73ᵃ) = *Petrašaičių Plungė; ex pago puskarayčiu 1631 (Pln KĮ: 73ᵃ) = *Puškaraičių Plungė; De pur-wayčiu 1631 (Pln KĮ: 74ᵃ) = *Purvaičių, Purvāičiai Žlibinai Pln; ex pago Rapšayciu 1631 (Pln KĮ: 68ᵃ) = *Rapšaičių, Rapšāičiai Stalgėnai Pln; de feray-ciu 1631 (Pln KĮ: 71ᵃ) = *Šeraičių Plungė; from Radziunu 1682 (Mlt JĮ II: 2ᵇ), ij Radziunu 1702 (Dgl JĮ II: 88ᵃ), iz Radziunu 1702 (Dgl JĮ II: 88ᵃ) = *Radžiūnų, 177 Radžiūnai Spitrėnai Ut; Siota Raibių 1614 (Jnš KĮ: 161a) = *Raibių Joniškis; from Rakieciu 1690 (Ant KĮ: 25b) = dialectal *Rak’eč’u. Antalieptė Zr; Pagi Ramoszkiu 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 22a) = *Ramoškių, Ramoškiai Skaistgirys Jnš; de pago Repjajciu 1633 (Pln KĮ: 83b), from repbayčių 1631 (Pln KĮ: 71a), from repbayčių 1631 (Pln KĮ: 72a) = *Repšaičių, now Rapšaičiai Stalgėnai Pln; from Rekietajciu 1640 (Slnt KĮ: 70b) = *Reketaičių, compare Rekėtė Imbarė Krtn; Sabaczschu 1540 (Pėteraitis: 341) = dialectal *Saba(i)čių, Sabaičiai Stalupėnai, Miëlkiemis; Šiota Salgeikiu 1609 (Jnš KĮ: 114a) = *Salgeikių Joniškis; from Jakotu 1675 (Lnkv JI: 100a) = *Sakalų, Sakalai Stačiūnai Pkr; from Jangawiļkiu 1679 (Lnkv JI: 12b) = *Sangaviškių Linkuvà Pkr; from ialenu 1711 (Dt KĮ: 297a) = *Šelėnių Dotnuvà Kdn; from Skroblu 1634 (Pln KĮ: 102b) = *Skroblių, now Skróblis Bubėnai Pln; from Skruzdiėnu 1638 (Pln KĮ: 128a) = *Skruzdenų Plungė; from fukþtybkiu 1619 (Pln JĮ: 179b) = *Šiukštiškių, from Sandwaro Szukxtixkiu 1619 (Pln JĮ: 179b) = *sendvario (dialectal *sandvaro) Šiukštiškių Plungė; from Wiezelu 1689 (Vdn KĮ III: 39b) = *Vėželių, Vėželiai Luokesa Mlt; from Pažkaniu 1682 (Mlt JĮ I: 1b) = dialectal *Paška.n’u., from Pažkoniu 1691 (Mlt KĮ I: 42b) = *Paškonių, Paškónys Luokesa Mlt; Telšių pa-rakvije 1854 (ED: 2) = *Telšių, Telšiai; from Vliczeliu 1689 (Mlt JĮ II: 10b), from Vlicieliu 1691 (Mlt KĮ I: 41a), from Vliczelu 1685 (Mlt KĮ I: 12a) = *Ūlyčėlių, Ūlyčėlė Žalvariai Mlt; Usu 1807 (NO: 2) = *Ūsų, Ūsai Šakiai (now Lukšiai Šk); from Vadoktu 1678 (Rgv KĮ I: 119a) = *Vadoklių, Vadókliai Vadókliai Pn; Villa Waydminiu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 4a), S: Waidminiu 1613 (Jnš KĮ: 148b) = *Vaidminių, Vaidminiai Skaistgirys Jnš; Willuszu 1807 (NO: 2) = *Viliušių Meištai (now Viliušiai Jankai Šk); Wirbaszu 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Virbaš(i)ų Kaunas etc. Locative plural In the church book of Katyčiai (formerly Klaipėda Region), oikonyms are recorded in the locative plural: Kubs Krauleidys... Krauleidžūfe 1670 (Fenzlau: 124) = *Krauleidžiuose, Krauleidžiai Katyčiai Šlu; Agutte Ullozaite... Ulložūse 1669 Fenzlau: 124) = *Ulozuose, Ulozai Katyčiai Šlu; Tumosas Waidžentaitis... Waidžėnčiųfe 1672 (Fenzlau: 124) = *Vaidžėnčiuose, now Vaižėnčiai Katyčiai Šlu, etc. In Lithuanian sources, the locative plural has been observed only once: de Rakieciosie 1694 (Ant KĮ: 41b) = dialect *Rak’eč’a(.)s’e Antalieptė Zr. Compound oikonyms Cases in which an oikonym is written as two words: Ant Escherelle 1539 (Pėteraitis: 92) = *Ant Ežerėlia, *Ant Ežerėlio ‖ Bumbulai, Gumbinė, Nybudžiai; Еймпачъ Вингисъ 1591 (Spruogis: 110) = *Eitros (dialect *Eitras) Vingis village. 178 near the Eitras River, Tverai district, Pln; Parph: Surwilijcensis de Villa Kalnu berze⁶⁶ 1713 (Dt KĮ: 156ᵃ) = *Kalnų Beržė, now Kalnaberžė; de Kula soda 1634 (Slnt KĮ: 13ᵃ), de Kule soda 1631 (Slnt KĮ: 5ᵇ), de Kule soda 1634 (Slnt KĮ: 15ᵇ) = *Kulio (dialect *Kul’e) soda, de Kulef soda 1640 (Slnt KĮ: 80ᵃ) = *Kulės (dialect *Kul’es) soda Salantai Krtn; Zascianek Soda Ganikta / Sioto Twirbuty / Woytostwo Zaniemenskie / Wotosc Wielonska 1615 (Inw VI: 24ᵇ) = *Sodo Ganykla Veliuona; de Stalga sodos 1638 (Pln KĮ: 128ᵃ) = *Stalgo (dialect *Stalga) sodos, now Stalgas Stalgėnai Pln; de Jito sodu⁶⁷ 1616 (Pln KĮ: 2ᵃ) = *Šilo sodų Plungė; ex sito fodos 1625 (Pln KĮ: 35ᵇ), ex syto sodos 1628 (Pln KĮ: 45ᵃ), ex jyto sodos 1628 (Pln KĮ: 45ᵃ), ex silo sodos 1628 (Pln KĮ: 47ᵇ) = *Šilo sodos Plungė; de Szilo Jodos 1639 (Pln KĮ: 135ᵃ), de Sztapia bierzie 1758 (Dt KĮ: 339ᵃ) = *Šlapia Beržė, de Villa fzlapiosos Berzies 1711 (Dt KĮ: 146ᵃ) = *Šlapiosios Beržės, now Šlapaberžė Dotnuvà Kdn; de Witkafodos 1639 (Pln KĮ: 135ᵇ) = *Vilko (dialect *Vilka) sodos Plungė; de Wayto vlicies 1709 (Ant KĮ II: 104ᵃ) = *Vaito ūlyčios (dialect *u.l’įč’a.s) Antalieptė Zr. The components of a compound oikonym are often written together: de Kulasoda 1631 (Slnt KĮ: 4ᵇ) = *Kulio (dialect *Kul’e) soda Salantai Krtn; Liepukalnas 1854 (ED: 3) = *Liepų Kalnas Telšiai; de Preyfafodof 1635 (Pln KĮ: 103ᵃ), de Prejfofodos 1635 (Pln KĮ: 103ᵃ) = *Preišo (dialect *P’r’eiša) sodos Plungė; Michael fzytatyš de Pago Sziłofodof 1636 (Pln KĮ: 103ᵇ), de Pago Sitosodos 1636 (Pln KĮ: 103ᵇ) = *Šilo sodos (gen. sg.) Plungė; De Upeskumpas 1810 (Mlt KĮ X: 32ᵃ) = dialect *U.p’e.s Kumpas, standard *Upės Kampas Molėtai, etc. It appears that in all cases the second component of the compound oikonym, soda, can be considered a nomenclature word; compare the variants: de Stalga sodos 1638 (Pln KĮ: 128ᵃ) = dialect *Stalga sodos, standard *Stalgo sodos and de Pago Stalgas 1639 (Pln KĮ: 136ᵃ) = Stalgas (nom. sg.) Pln; ex Stalga 1639 (Pln KĮ: 136ᵇ) = dialect *Stalga (gen. sg.), now Stalgas Stalgėnai Pln. In some cases, the nomenclature word denoting a dwelling place is written in Lithuanian (sodos), in others in Latin (Pago). There are further similar examples; compare de fukbtybkiu 1619 (Pln JĮ: 179ᵇ) = *Šiukštiškių and de Sandwaro Szukotxi̇ckiu 1619 (Pln JĮ: 179ᵇ) = *sendvario (dialect *sandvaro) Šiukštiškių in Plungė. A similar case is probably de Wayto vlicies 1709 (Ant KĮ II: 104ᵃ) = *Vaito ūlyčios (dialect *u.l’įč’a.s) Antalieptė Zr. Thus such compound place names would probably not be genuine. ⁶⁶ Cf. de katnaberze 1694 (Dt KĮ: 9ᵇ). ⁶⁷ It may also be soda. 179 Some spelling peculiarities of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms Discussing the spelling of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in non-Lithuanian historical documents is no easy matter, since they are recorded in texts in various languages (Latin, chancery Slavonic, Polish, and German). The spelling of oikonym forms depends on several factors, which we list in order of importance: a) the language of the text in which they are recorded; b) the dialect area in which they are recorded; c) whether they were written by a Lithuanian (or a person who knew Lithuanian); d) whether the scribe wrote in Lithuanian or not; and e) the kind of scriptorium in which the scribe worked (state, church, or private). This reveals many regularities that help explain numerous instances of the spelling of the forms under discussion. Perhaps the most important aspect to discuss regarding the spelling of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms is the spelling of vowels and diphthongs, which varies considerably and differs from present-day usage. In many cases, the vocalism at the end of a word is particularly problematic because, as has already been stated, the ending is the most vulnerable morpheme, and depending on how it is written, a particular oikonym form may or may not be considered Lithuanian. The spelling of vowels and diphthongs is also not easy to discuss because phenomena from various dialects, the written language, and foreign languages overlap, along with different spelling traditions. These elements cannot always be distinguished. By contrast, consonant spelling presents no major problems, since consonants are represented much as they are today, and only a few individual cases need discussion. An overview of vowel spelling The short vowel [a] is represented by the letter a: A-ckmen-a 1576 (Pėteraitis: 47) = Akmenà || Akminija Pakalnė; de A-poku 1706 (Ant KĮ II: 88ᵇ) = *Apuokų Antálieptė Zr; Na Žaščian’ A-pidemis / Miasteczko Łabonary / Woytowstwo Łabonarskie 1731 (Inw KZ: 101) = Apýdemis Saldūtiškis Ut; de A-tt-a-d-a-we-nav 1696 (Kp KĮ IX: 37ᵃ) = *Atadavėnai Kupiškis; de A-zub-a-liev 1743 (Lkm KĮ II: 14ᵇ) = *Ažubalial Linkmenys Ign; de B-a-jorale 1638 (Slnt KĮ: 45ᵃ) = Bajorāliai Imbarė Skd; de Br-a-fesiu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 5ᵇ) = *Bradesių Molėtai; Bud-a-wietis 1539 (Pėteraitis: 89) = *Būdawietis, later Būdsedžiai || Butsedžiai Gumbinė, Vałtarkiemis; Ville D-a-gailu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3ᵇ) = *Dagailių Joniškis; Daub-a-rrūle 1672 (Fenzlau: 124), cf. Daubarai Pagėgiai Šl; Dubi-nik-a-s 1898 (Anonim: 42) = dialectal *Dub in’ikas, present-day Dubininkas Merkinė (present-day Marcinkónys Al); Siota g-a-wenaiciu 1616 (Jnš KĮ: 194ᵃ), cf. Gavėnáičiai Meškuičiai Jnš; de Gud-a-kiemis 1606 (Mrk KĮ I: 14ᵃ) = Gùdakiemis Merkinė Vrn; ex uilla C-a-lauu ~1711–1712 (Lnkv KĮ: 7ᵃ), cf. Kalevai Pakruojis Pkr; de Kriwas-a-lis 1740 (Lkm KĮ I: 110ᵇ) = Krivášalis Linkmenys Ign; Zascianek Kul-nik-a-s... pokoniec rez nad jeziorem Birzulią / Wies KVIAKIE / WŁOSC 180 WORNIENSKA 1662 (ŽV Inv: 120) = *Kulnikas Varniai Tl; Laubensk-a-s 1807 (NO: 2a) = *Liaubenskas Veiveriai; na Zaścianku Lep-a-s-a-ta / Wieś Skietdy / WŁOSC SOŁOCKA 1731 (Inw KZ: 47) = dialectal *Liepasala, written *Liepasalė Šalakas Zr; Zaścianek Lynk-a-daržys 1820 (WDW: 82b) = *Linkadaržis Lavoriškės Viln; de villa Link-a-w-a 1618 (Jnš KĮ: 218b) = *Linkava, present-day Linkuvà Pkr; de m-a-ne yciu 1694 (1695?) (Dgl JĮ II: 63a), cf. Manei čiai Sudeikiai Ut; de M-a-teliu 1689 (Mlt KĮ I: 34b), cf. Matėliai Inturke Mlt; Mežym-a-s / P. SVINCIANENSIS 1744 (Syn: 81) = dialectal *M'e.š'i.mas Švenčionys; de N-a-praley 1696 (Ant KĮ I: 51b) = dialectal *Napral'ai, Naprėliai Žukliškės Zr; Nárág-a-s / P. DUBINCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 48) = dialectal *Na.ragas Dubingiai Mlt; de P-a-berze 1693 (Ant KĮ I: 37a) = Pabėržė Daugailiai Ut; Zaścianek P-a-giris / WIES SKIRPSCIE / WŁOSC OLSIADŽEKA 1662 (ŽV Inv: 119) = *Pagirys Alsėdžiai Pln; na zascianku Szczurys y P-a-kalnis / Wies Rubikaicie / Włość Szeszolska 1731 (Inw KZ: 154) = *Pakalnis Šešuoliai Ukm; Na Zascianku P-a-pirtis / Wieś Samawy / Włość Jeżioroska 1731 (Inw KZ: 50) = *Papirtys Degučiai Zr; P-a-pliney 1597 (Pėteraitis: 275) = Paplyniai || Pabaliai Stalūpenai; P-a-t-a-le 1828 (Ktk KĮ VIII: 13b) = Patalė Pakaniai Ut; de Pikt-a-g-a-liu 1670 (Rgv KĮ I: 14a) = *Piktagalių, cf. present-day Piktagalys Šeimyniškiai An; de villa R-a-dziunay 1782 (Dgl KĮ III: 84b) = Radžiūnai Spitrėnai Ut; de villa Sk-a-raičiū 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 1b) = *Skaraičių, present-day Skariai Kepėliai Jnš; S. Skrib-a-kiu 1613 (Jnš KĮ: 149b), cf. Skribakiai Bučiūnai Jnš; Скроблин-а-съ 1597 (Spruogis: 293) = *Skroablýnas k. Medingėnai Pln; Zaścianek soda G-a-nikl-a / Sioto Twirbuty / Wołostwo Zaniemienskie / Wołosc Wielonska 1615 (Inw VI: 24b) = *Sodo Ganykla Veliuona Jrb; Sw-a-rūje 1670 (Fenzlau: 124), cf. Svarai Katyčiai Šlu; Urbán-a-s / P. SVINCIANENSIS 1744 (Syn: 81) = dialectal *Urbanas Švenčionys; de V-a-doktu 1678 (Rgv JĮ I: 119a), cf. Vadókliai Pn; de Wien-a-sedziu 1777 (Vdn KĮ II: 69b), cf. *Vienasedžių Vidėniškiai Mlt; de Z-a-biczunu 1694 (Dgl JĮ II: 61b), cf. Zabičiūnai Antalieptė Zr; de z-a-d-a-wayniu 1707 (?) (Dgl KĮ II: 182b), cf. Žadavainiai Daugailiai Ut; Ž-a-deukaūme 1595 (Spruogis: 112) = dialectal *Žad'eikait'e, Ža-deikiai Pãdievytis Šll et al. The long, stressed vowel [a] is represented by the letter a: Unt-a-tamiestia 1745 (Lkm KĮ II: 22b) = dialectal *Untalam'e.s't'e., present-day Antãlamėstė Saldūtiškis Ut; de Ant-a-lepte 1687 (Ant KĮ I: 9b) = Antãlieptė Antãlieptė Zr; de Ant-a-makey 1691 (Vdn KĮ III: 50b) = dialectal Antãmakiai Balninkai Mlt; Zaścianek Ant-a-rasztas / Wieś Kiakszty / Włość Wydzka 1731 (Inw KZ: 15) = *Antaraštas Vidžiai (Belarus); de B-a-lizkiu 1672 (Klov KĮ III: 88a), cf. Bāliškiai Rozalimas; de Bey-n-a-[żi-liś 1802 (Int KĮ: 16b) = Beinãšilis Inturke Mlt; de Bruk-a-le 1658 (Krž KĮ: 28a) = dialectal *Brukal'e, Brukãliai Kražiai Klm; Na Zasciankach... D-a-ry-mas / Wies Eydėcie / Włość Malatska 1731 (Inw KZ: 125) = *Darymas Molėtai; 181 de kahn-a-berže 1694 (Dt KĮ: 9ᵇ) = Kalnāberžė Surviliškis Kdn; de G-a-takiemis 1740 (Lkm KĮ II: 1ᵇ) = Gātakiemis Saldūtiškis Ut; de Kriw-a-salis 1740 (Lkm KĮ I: 110ᵇ) = Krivāšalis Liñkmenys Ign; de Mažun-a-le 1659 (Krž KĮ: 48ᵇ) = dialectal *Mažunal’e, present-day Mažūnai Kelmė Klm; Nár-á-gas / P. DUBINCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 48) = dialectal *Na.ragas Dubingiai Mlt; ʃ-a-kiu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 2ᵃ), cf. Šakiai Skudūtiškis Mlt, etc. The Lithuanian short vowel [a] is in some cases represented by the letter o: 3ascianki Aukszciob-o-lis / Wieś Antabaty / Włość Tauroginska 1731 (Inw KZ: 67) = *Aukščiobalis Taurāgnai Ut; de B-o-reykiu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 4ᵇ) = *Bareikių, Bareikiai Molėtai Mlt, de k-o-pciunu 1677 (Lnkv KĮ: 88ᵇ) = *Kapčiūnų, Kapčiūnai Joniškėlis Ps; in the Zascianek P-o-grauzie 1829 (Ktk KĮ VIII: 37ᵃ) = Pagraužė Sugínčiai Mlt; de Pokolniu 1739 (Ut KĮ I: 15ᵃ), de P-o-kolniu 1740 (Ut KĮ I: 15ᵇ) = Pakalnių Pakalniai Ut; de P-o-kryže 1770 (Dgl KĮ III: 41ᵃ) = Pakryžė Daugailiai Ut, etc. For sounds represented by the letters -ą, -ą, see pp. 168–172. The long (stressed) vowel [o] is represented by the letter o: 3ascianki Aukszci-o-bolis / Wieś Antabaty / Włość Tauroginska 1731 (Inw KZ: 67) = *Aukščiobalis Taurāgnai Ut; de Get-o-galiu 1685 (Vdn KĮ III: 19ᵇ), cf. present-day Gėliōgaliai Bálninkai Mlt; Gumbr-o-nas / P. ANUSZYSCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 87) = *Gumbronas Onuškis Vrn; Zascianek Pang-o-laukis / WŁOŚĆ MASŁADŻKA 1662 (ŽV Inv: 204) = *Pangolaukis Móšėdis; Sioło R-o-czkiu 1613 (Jnš KĮ: 153ᵃ) = Rōčkiai Juodeikiai Jnš; Pagi R-o-piniku 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 7ᵃ), cf. Rōpininkai Kepāliai Jnš; de Sien-o-we 1682 (Vdn KĮ III: 3ᵇ) = *Senovė Bálninkai Mlt; Pagi Skilw-io-niu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 12ᵇ), cf. Skilvioniai Saugėlaukis Jnš; ʃtr-o-pale 1631 (Slnt KĮ: 3ᵇ) = dialectal *Stropale, Stropėliai Kūlupėnai Krtn; de Zam-o-ku 1683 (Mlt JĮ II: 2ᵇ), cf. Zamōkai Mindūnai Mlt; ex uilla Zid-o-niu ~1711–1712 (Lnkv KĮ: 3ᵇ), cf. Židōniai Joniškėlis Ps, etc. The long (unstressed) vowel [o] is represented by the letter o: de Villa Jack-o-s-o-dzius 1671 (Rgv KĮ I: 23ᵃ) = *Jackasodžius, de Jackas-o-džia 1672 (Rgv JĮ I: 111ᵇ) = dialectal *Jackasodž'a, written *Jackasodžio, Jackagalỹs Juostinininkai An; S-o-denay 1584 (Pēteraitis: 363) = *Sodēnai, later Sodarai Dārkiemis, Žabynai; de Isz ʃ-o-denu 1689 (Vdn KĮ III: 36ᵇ) = *Sodėnų, Sodėnai Luokesà Mlt; de Tumas-o-dzius 1668 (Rgv KĮ I: 3ᵃ) = *Tumasodžius, present-day Tumagalỹs Miežiškiai Pn; Ull-o-žūse 1669 (Fenzlau: 124), present-day Ulozai Katyčiai Šlu, etc. The long stressed vowel [o] is represented by the letter a: de Jan-a-niu 1672 (Klov KĮ III: 61ᵇ), cf. present-day Janōnys Lauksōdis Pkr; de J-a-niskiey 1672 (Klov KĮ III: 60ᵇ) = dialectal *Ja.n’iš’k’ai (?), present-day Joniškėlis townlet Ps; de Wili-a-cziu 1777 (Vdn KĮ II: 66ᵃ), cf. present-day Vilijōčiai Luokesà Mlt; de Zam-a-ku 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 1ᵇ), cf. present-day Zamōkai Mindūnai Mlt, etc. 182 The long stressed vowel [o] is represented by the letter (i)a also in the oikonyms of the area where [a], [ă] are now pronounced: Až-ia-nis 1898 (Anonim: 64) = dialectal *Až'an'i.s, Ožio- nys Naująsis Daugeliškis Ign; Beci-a-nis 1898 (Anonim: 64) = dialectal *B'ec'a- n'i.s Žuikos Ign; Jan-ia-nis 1898 (Anonim: 64) = dialectal *Jan'an'i.s, Janiōnys Naująsis Daugeliškis Ign, etc. The long unstressed vowel [o] is represented by the letter a: de Bern-a-tiszkiey 1743 (Lkm KĮ II: 16ᵃ) = dialectal *B'erna.t'is'k'ai, present-day Bernōtiškis Linkmenys Ign; de D-a-tnawa 1706 (Dt KĮ: 96ᵇ), cf. Dotnuva Kdn; at the Zascianek Kierm-a-fzelis / Wies Krewny / Włość Szeszolska 1731 (Inw KZ: 153) = dialectal *Kerma.s'el'is Šešuoliai Uk'm, etc. The spelling of the vowels [a] and [o] in Lithuanian historical oikonyms is rather confusing and complex. This is illustrated by the following examples: Eua D-a-niwenia de D-a-niu 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 8ᵃ) = *Danių, Eua D-o-nienia de D-o-niu 1690 (Mlt KĮ I: 39ᵇ) = *Donių, also cf. Andree D-a-nis de D-a-nie 1687 (Mlt KĮ I: 21ᵃ), in present-day speech only Dōniškiai VK—the root is attested by all Lithuanian sources of the 20th century, but officially Daniškiai (an incorrect form) Suginčiai Mlt; de L-e-luciu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 7ᵃ), de L-e-luciu 1686 (Mlt KĮ I: 18ᵃ) = *Lelučių or *Lėlučių—de L-e-luciu 1686 (Mlt KĮ I: 18ᵃ), de L-a-lyuciu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 7ᵃ) = dialectal (present-day) *La(.)lučiu, also cf. de L-ey-luciu 1688 (Mlt KĮ I: 25ᵇ), but the present official L-o-lūičiai (an incorrect form) Suginčiai Mlt. It is unclear why in the 17th century the letter o is used (a should occur in an unstressed position) in cases such as de m-o-kiliu 1682 (Mlt JĮ II: 1ᵃ), de M-o-kiliu 1690 (Mlt KĮ I: 35ᵇ)⁶⁸, which could indicate stress on the first syllable *Mōkylių (?)—present-day = dialectal ma.k'il'u, officially Mokyliai Suginčiai Mlt; de mik-a-tojuney 1781 (Dgl KĮ III: 83ᵇ), cf. present-day official Mik-o-lojūnai Daugailiai Ut; in the townlet Pusz-o-totia; at the market Pusz-o-totia 1653 Upytė land court (Jablonskis 1937: 147) = *Pušalote (singular locative) and cf. Pušalotas Ps, etc. The examples presented show that the people who recorded these oikonyms were not always able to distinguish and write accurately the Lithuanian vowels [ā] and [o], or Lithuanian [ă] and [o]. Due to imperfect (inconsistent) spelling, it is impossible to distinguish vowel [e] from [ė], or either of these from diphthong [ie]. The vowel [ė] is represented by the letters ie, where the letter i indicates palatalization, for example: de Villa Berz-ie-s 1711 (Dt KĮ: 145ᵇ) = *Beržės; de Villa [z]lapiosios Berz-ie-s 1711 (Dt KĮ: 146ᵃ) = *Šlapiosios Beržės, present-day Šlapaberžė Dt Kdn; de fenob-ie-s 1774 (Blnk KĮ II: 9ᵃ) = dialectal form *S'enob'e.s; de Untalksn-ie 1740 (Lkm KĮ I: 106ᵇ) = dialectal form *Untalk's'n'e, Añtalksnė, Linkmenys, Ign, etc. For the spelling of the vowel [ė] with the letters e, ia, ie, see also pp. 167–168. ⁶⁸ Cf. oikonyms whose long vowel [o] in an unstressed position in the area of the Utena dialect develops into [a]: de Maletu 1691 (Mlt KĮ I: 41ᵃ = dialectal Ma.l'etū, Molėtai townlet; mamenay 1769 (Ut JĮ I: 50ᵃ = dialectal Ma.m'enai, Moménai Kūtiškės Ut, etc. 183 Even if the digraph ie is written where the diphthong [ie] should occur, this does not mean that it is in fact present there; for example: de Azusieniu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 3ᵇ) = dialectal *Ažu.s'e.n'u. – the digraph ie represents = dialectal [e.]. Thus, certain phonetic features of the Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are, one might say, not represented in non-Lithuanian-written sources. The long Lithuanian vowels [ī] [ū] and the short Lithuanian vowels [ĭ], [ŭ] are not distinguished at all in the Lithuanian forms of oikonyms. The letters y and i are used interchangeably and in some cases represent [ī], in others [ĭ]. In the Plungė baptismal and death registers (1615–1660), the long (nasal) vowel [ū] in the genitive plural is sometimes represented by the letter u; in the Linkuva baptismal register (1670–1711) there is one instance in which the long (nasal) vowel [ū] in the case under discussion is represented by the letters on: de Vendzindz-ion ~1711 (Lnkv KĮ: 7ᵃ), cf. present-day Vienžindžiai Grūžiai Ps. Attention should be drawn to the fact that in the Joniškis baptismal register (1599–1621), the vowels [u], [ū] (in stressed position) alternate with the diphthong [ui] (in stressed position), either in the forms of the same oikonyms or in anthroponyms and oikonyms derived from them: Aduo: Zutayc Pagi Gimb-u-ciu... Pat: Augustinus Gimb-u-tis 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3ᵃ) – Villæ Gimb-uy-ciu Aduocationis Zutaycia 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3ᵃ), cf. present-day Gimbūčiai Skaistgirys Jnš; Pagi K-u-sayčiu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 7ᵃ) – K-ui-sayčiu Kuniga Kle bona levatus est de fonte Bartolomeus Staniula K-ui-saicia filius 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3ᵇ) = *Ku(i)saičių, present-day Kūisiai, Kuisėliai Satkūnai Jnš; de Lel-u-ciu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 7ᵃ), de Lel-u-ciu 1686 (Mlt KĮ I: 18ᵃ) = *Lelučių (*Lelūčių?), cf. also de Leyt-u-ciu 1688 (Mlt KĮ I: 25ᵇ) – de Lel-ui-ciu 1686 (Mlt KĮ I: 18ᵃ), de Lal-uy-ciu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 7ᵃ) = present-day dialectal *La(.)luič'u., cf. official Lolūčiai Suginčiai Mlt; Aduo: Beynorayč. Pagi Wayžg-u-ciu Fil: Anna Valentini Dudaytis Pat: Joannes Wayžg-ui-tis cum Gendre Vileyku ycia 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 20ᵇ), present-day Vaizgūčiai Gataučiai Jnš, etc. Diphthongs The diphthong [ai] is represented by the letters ai, aj, ay, and so on: de B-aj-dot-aj 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 60ᵇ) = Baidotai Notėnai Skd; de Bikun-ay 1706 (Dgl KĮ I: 170ᵃ) = Bikūnai Sudeikiai Ut; Villæ Dag-ai-lu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3ᵇ) = *Dagailių Joniškis; Pagi Daugat-ai-ciu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 16ᵃ) = *Daugailaičių, Daugalaičiai Meškuičiai Šl; Ś. Dow-ay-niu 1612 (Jnš KĮ: 144ᵃ) = *Dovainių Joniškis; Pagi Drąsut-ai-čiu 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 12ᵃ), Pagi Drąsut-aj-ciu 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 23ᵃ) = *Drąsutaičių, Drąsutaičiai Satkūnai Jnš; Pagi Dwit-ay-čiu 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 21ᵇ) = *Dvilaičių, present-day Dvelaičiai Skaistgirys Jnš; Endrik-ai-czūse 1669 (Fenzlau: 116) = dialectal *Endrikaičiuose, Endrikaičiai Pagėgiai Šlu; de G-ay-lužu 1690 (Mlt KĮ I: 37ᵃ) = *Gailiušių, Gailiūšiai Mindūnai Mlt; Na Zaściankach... Karwar-ay-stis / Wies Rymucie / Włość Malatska 1731 (Inw KZ: 120) = *Karvarais tis Molėtai, etc. 184 Attention should also be drawn to the fact that in the Joniškis baptismal register (1599–1621), the diphthong [ai] alternates with the diphthong [ui] in anthroponyms and oikonyms derived from them: Nicolaus Bauk-ui-tis... Pagi Batk-ay-cia 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 11ᵇ), cf. present-day Bálkaičiai Saugėlaukis Jnš; Aduo: Dwit-uy-č Pagi Dwit-ay-čiu 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 21ᵇ), cf. present-day Dveláičiai Skaistgirys Jnš; Patr.’ Joannes Drob-uy-tis... Pagi Drab-ay-ciu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 17ᵇ) = *Drabaičių, *Drobaičių (?) Joniškis; de uillâ Skar-ai-čiu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 1ᵇ) – cum Helena Skar-ui-čia Pagi Skarią 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 14ᵇ), cf. present-day Skariai Kepaliai Jnš, etc. The diphthong [ai] is also represented by the letters ei, ey, iey: Zascianek Azur-ey-stis / Wieś Łokaie / Włość Malatska 1731 (Inw KZ: 103) = *Ažuraistis Molėtai; de Bumbien-ey 1751 (Lkm JĮ II: 11ᵃ) = *Bumbėnai Liñkmenys Ign; de G-ey-dzie-kalnis 1786 (Skdt KĮ: 30ᵇ) = *Gaidžiakalnis Skudutiškis Mlt; de G-ey-dziu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 2ᵃ), de G-iey-dziu 1690 (Mlt KĮ I: 37ᵇ) = *Gaidžių, Gaidžiai Čiulėnai Mlt; de G-ey-gatu 1685 (Mlt KĮ I: 13ᵃ) = *Gaigalų, Gaigalai Alantā Mlt; de G-ey-luȥu 1682 (Mlt JĮ II: 1ᵃ), de G-iey-luȥu 1690 (Mlt KĮ I: 38ᵃ) = *Gailiušių, Gailiušiai Mindūnai Mlt; de G-ey-zuciu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 5ᵇ), de G-ey-ziuciu 1685 (Mlt KĮ I: 13ᵇ) = *Gaižučių, *Gaižučiai, present-day Padvarniai Alantā Mlt, etc. Such representation of the diphthong [ai] by the letters ei may reflect two things: a) Polonization, b) dialectal features (for example, [ai] may be pronounced [ei], and so on). It should be noted that in historical oikonyms and anthroponyms the diphthong [ai] is more often represented as ey in the church registers of Alantā, Antalieptė, Įnturkė, Kriaunos, Liñkmenys, and Molėtai. Diphthong [au] The diphthong [au] is represented by the letters (i)au: Au-kszkykéje 1669 (Fenzlau: 122), cf. present-day Auškýkiai Šlu; de au-xzta Duaris 1753 (Upn KĮ II: 8ᵇ) = *Aukštadvaris, cf. Aukštādvaris Kulvā Jon; Bried-au-ssay 1539, Bred-au-sej 1542 (Peteraitis: 84) = *Briedausiai, later Bredūnai Stalupėnai, Pilupėnai; de Vila D-au-barjzkiey 1691 (Vdn KĮ III: 50ᵃ) = *Daubariškiai Vidėniškiai Mlt; De Villa D-au-biey 1706 (Dgl KĮ I: 170ᵃ) = *Daubiai Daugailiai Ut; Pagi D-au-gataiciu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 16ᵃ) = Daugalačiai Meškuičiai ŠI; de D-au-gieliszkey 1740 (Lkm JĮ II: 1ᵇ), present-day Daugėliškis Ign; Pagi Gat-au-čiu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 16ᵃ) = *Gataučių, Gataučiai Gataučiai Jnš; de G-au-reliey 1740 (Lkm KĮ I: 107ᵃ) = Gaurėliai Žuikos Ign; Zascianek Iszt-au-żas / WIES NVGARE / WŁOSC GORDOWSKA 1662 (ŽV Inv: 150) = *Išlaužas Paukštakiai Pln; Pagi J-au-nei-kayciu 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 20ᵇ) = *Jauneikaičiai, Siota j-au-neiku 1613 (Jnš KĮ: 148ᵇ) = Jauneikiai Pociūnai Jnš; Zascianek J-au-rys / Wies Kiiele / Włość Malatska 1731 (Inw KZ: 122) = *Jaur- Molėtai; Na Zasciaňku K-iau-klinis / Wieś Szaduykie / Włość Tauroginska 1731 (Inw KZ: 76) = *Kiauklinis Taurāgnai Ut; K-iau-lupis / P. WILKOWISCENSIS 1744 (Syn: 107) = *Kiaulupis Vilkaviškis; Zascianek Ł-au-duṗis / Sioto Skiemie / Woitostwo Zasieckie / Wolosc Boisagols- 185 ka 1615 (Inw VI: 38ᵇ) = *L(i)audupis Skėmai Rd; de L-au-ksteniey 1742 (Lkm JĮ II: 4ᵇ) = Laukštėniai Kazitiškis Ign; Zaścianek Lepat-au-kis / Wieś Andrzeiu-ny / Włość Ježioroska 1731 (Inw KZ: 47) = *Liep alaukis Zarasai; de Mil-iau-s 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 9ᵃ) = *Miliaus (a single homestead), Mil iai Mindūnai Mlt; Greg orij Jkawdajitis... de Sk-au-dale... Catharina Jk-au-dayte 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 66ᵃ) = cf. *Skaudal'e, Skaudaliai Imbarė Krtn and elsewhere. The diphthong [au] is quite often represented by the letters (i)aw: de Antak-iaw-nia 1757 (Lkm JĮ II: 17ᵃ) = cf. *Antak'aun'a.. cf. Antakiaunis, compare Kiauneliškis Liūkmenys Ign; Liūkmenys Ign; de Villa D-aw-barįzkiey 1691 (Vdn KĮ III: 50ᵃ) = *Daubariškiai Vidėniškiai Mlt; D-aw-ksze 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 59ᵇ), de D-aw-ksze 1637 (Slnt KĮ: 35ᵇ), de D-aw-kįbe 1640 (Slnt KĮ: 79ᵇ) = cf. *Dauk'ś'e, Dau-ksčiai Skd; Zaścianek Jodat-aw-kis / Wieś Andrzeiun y / Włość Ježioroska 1731 (Inw KZ: 47) = *Juodalaukis, compare Juod alaukiai Kavoliškės Zr; de Jad-aw-glu 1696 (Ant KĮ I: 52ᵃ) = cf. *Ja(.)daug'l'ai, should be *Juodaugliai, now Jodaugiai Žūkliškės Zr; de Kr-aw-ieliu 1686 (Mlt KĮ I: 17ᵃ) = *Kraujelių, Kraujėliai Mindūnai Mlt; de Sk-aw-dale 1634 (Slnt KĮ: 14ᵇ), de sk-aw-dale 1637 (Slnt KĮ: 34ᵃ) = cf. *Skaudal'e, Skaudaliai Imbarė Krtn; de β-aw-kle 1636 (Slnt KĮ: 32ᵇ) = cf. *Šauk'l'e, Šaukliai Mósėdis Skd and elsewhere. The diphthong [au] after a palatalized consonant is sometimes (but not always) represented by eu, (i)ew, for example: de K-ew-ſzyniu 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 8ᵃ) = *K(i)aušinių, now Kaušiniai Inturkė Mlt; de Kr-eu-ielu 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 8ᵃ) = *Kraujelių, Kraujėliai Mindūnai Mlt; de Pak-iew-nis 1740 (Lkm KĮ II: 3ᵃ) = Pakiaunys Liūkmenys Ign and elsewhere. Such spelling of the Lithuanian diphthong [au] with the letters aw, ew and so on, if the Lithuanian morphemes of the oikonym form are retained, should be regarded as a matter of orthography and apparently should not, in most cases, be treated as Slavicization. The Lithuanian diphthong [au] is thus represented in more than one written and printed Lithuanian source from the 17th–19th centuries. In the oldest manuscript of Lithuanian text in the Seda dialect (1771), 69the diphthong [au] was consistently written with the letters aw, but in the printed version everywhere with the letters au: Kuniga Jona Domazewicz-iau-s, Pįżor-iau-s, JEZ-AU Chriſt-au Swenc-iau-įami Sakramenti, Tą Szwec-iau: Sakramenta, noredams T-au wisu ger-iau-s tarn-au-t and so on. It is therefore clear that writing the diphthong [au] with the letters aw or au here is simply a matter of orthographic tradition. And in some other manuscripts, for example, the oaths written in Lithuanian in the 17th century published by K. Jablonskis 69 Cf. Kuniga Jona Dômaszewić-iaw-s... Piszor-iaw-s, Jez-aw Christ-aw Swenciausiami Sakramenti, Tą Szwec-iaw-si Sakramenta, ku ger-iaw-sey T-aw stužity, Sp-iaw-dimus (spitting), Kunas Brang-iaw-sis, Jzganitoj-aw, par Swencz-iaw-si Kuna ir Kr-aw-ij, prasz-aw, o Jez-aw mil-aw-sis, ant To Attor-iaw-s Szwenć-iaw-siami Sakramenti, patr-aw-k sirdis musu, ing Karaliste Dang-aw-s (Subačius 1997). 186 In texts from the court books of the Ukmergė and Upytė districts, the diphthong [au] in Lithuanian words (common and proper nouns) is most often represented by the letters aw, sometimes by au: d-aw-g (a lot) 1624 Upytė land court; miestali Puszotota un turg-aw-s, prie s-aw wirwe suryst liepies, teyp d-au-gal 1653 Upytė land court; Asz Iozephas Kazt-aw-skas, ia milistas pana Kasak-aw-ska panas P-aw-sza, mana Tamasz-aw-s kumet 1669 Ukmergė kaptūra court; su didzia dr-aw-gia zmoniu, io milista ponas t-aw-czus 1675 Ukmergė kaptūra court (Jablonskis 1937: 146–148). In other printed Lithuanian sources—the anonymous Lithuanian grammar “Universitas Lingvarum Litvaniae” (1737), 70which reflects the dialects of central Lithuania; the oldest monument of the Samogitian dialect, “Ziwate” (1753), 71and A. Strazdas’s poetry booklet (1818), 72which represents the Kriaunos subdialect of Eastern Aukštaitian—the diphthong [au] is likewise written with the letters au and aw. The anonymous grammar “Universitas” had considerable influence in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Subačius 1998: 40) and may have contributed to establishing the tradition of writing the Lithuanian diphthong [au] with the letters aw, especially in the first half of the 18th–19th centuries. The diphthong [au] is also represented by the letters ow: de D-ow-ciunu 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 7b) = *Daučiūnai Molėtai; de D-ow-iociu 1689 (Mlt KĮ I: 10a) = *Daujočių, Daujočiai Giedraičiai Mlt; de Pt-ow-ciszkey 1740 (Lkm KĮ II: 2b) = *Plaučiškiai, now Plaučiškės Saldūtiškis Ut; išz T-ou-kielu 1688 (Ant I: 145b) = *from Taukelių, Taukėliai Daugailiai Ut and so on. 70 The letters (i)au occur in forms such as P-àu-kſztis, Križ-iau-s, Sk-àu-dus, didz-iau-fias, bràng-iàu-ſias, Au-kſzcz-iau-ſias, D-au-g, d-au-gumas, ſp-àu-dziu, kt-au-ſju, àu-ginu, kt-au-piu, r-au-ginu, t-au-žiu, pt-au-dziu, pt-àu-kiu, b-au-biu, d-au-žiu, àu-gi kial-au-daw, kial-au-k, kial-au-jas (travels), ſk-au-da, ſk-audejo and so on; the letters (i)aw occur in K-iaw-ſzinis, J-aw-tis, Kriz-iaw-ger-iaw-ſias, Kalba... brang-iaw-ſia, Sàldz-iaw-ſias, Taw, Saw, d-àw-gio, kt-aw-ſineju, Gir-iaw (I praised), Gir-daw-aw, dz-iaw-gios, t-aw-kiu, tr-aw-kiu, j-àw-cziu, ſn-aw-dziu, kt-aw-ſiu, Medziodaw-aw, Kial-iaw-ju, kialaudaw-aw, kel-aw-k, kel-aw-janti, r-aw-nu, dz-iaw-nu, mok-aw, mok-iaw, mokidaw-aw, regiej-aw-s and so on (Universitas 1991). 71 In “Ziwate,” Lithuanian [au] is consistently represented by the letters (i)aw: atfyg-aw-ty, Aw-kšč-iaw-ſis, b-iaw-ri-be, d-aw-g, d-aw-gibe, d-aw-gumas, g-aw-ty, g-aw-na, k-aw-las, k-aw-lelus, kt-aw-pies, kr-aw-jes, kr-aw-jes (sing. nom.), kr-aw-je (sing. gen.), kr-aw-jeys (pl. instr.), puyk-iaw-ſis, r-aw-donas, r-aw-doty, r-aw-doj-aw, f-aw-le, žyn-aw and so on (Girdienis, Girdienienė 1997). 72 The letters (i)au occur in forms such as pl-au-kitie (to swim), nieužj-au-czie (does not grow), Sz-au-ksiu, au-kszcz-iau-sis, Prigt-au-sk, nupi-au-tas, tab-iau, au-ksa (gold), au-kszcz-iau-sia, pranasz-au-iu, s-au-ſete, p-au-ksztielis, maž-iau-sia (of the smallest), Kl-au-sik dear Artai-au (listen, dear ploughman), Jez-au-s, Jez-au, cziszcz-iau-s, J-au-tielis, J-au-czias, Au-szra, b-au-bdamas; and so on; the letters aw occur in par Kunigą UNTANA DRAZD-AW-SKA, j-aw, g-aw-ni (you get), s-aw (for you), mat-aw (I see), t-aw (you), ugin-aw (I raise), brundin-aw (I brew), sirpin-aw (I reap), n-aw-iu (dialectal nauju, i.e. “new,” sing. acc.), Niekam szkadas nie dar-aw / Miszkan j-aw-cziu nie war-aw (I do no harm to anyone / I do not drive oxen into the forest), suktai-aw (I laid down), s-aw-ſeta, cud-aw-nam, Prasz-aw, t-aw-kan, i-aw (already). 187 Such Lithuanian spelling of [au] in oikonyms (and anthroponyms) can be explained not only by Slavicization. In these sources, Lithuanian [au] is represented by the letters (i)ou, ow: rather rarely in the second part of K. Sirvydas’s “Punktai sakymų” (1644)73, and quite often, though not in every instance, in M. Smolskis (Smalščis)’s “Uwogos” (1823)74. Instances of the diphthong [au] being represented by the letters (i)ou also occur in “Universite” (1737)75. Moreover, such instances are also found in some manuscript texts (Jablonskis 1937: 148, see below. Some authors writing in Aukštaitian dialects perceived the first component of the diphthong [au], when it bore circumflex stress in a stressed position, as [o], and wrote it with the letter o76. Neišpažn-ou (neišpažinau), nepadar-iou (nepadariau), buw-ou (buvau), tol-ou-s (toliau), med-ou-s (medaus) and so on (Širwids 1929); sak-ou (sakau), Dung-ou-s (dangaus), atskl-ou-pus (atsik l až upus), žmog-ou (žmogau), d-ou-gu-mas (daugumas), par s-iou-ru bromu (siaurą), o keyp s-iow-ras ir unksztus ir ke-las (siauras); atn-ou-jinou (atnaujinau) and so on (Uwogos 1823). Cf. de Pt-ow-ciszkiey 1740 (Lkm KĮ II: 2b) = *Plaučiškiai, now Plaučiškės Saldūtiškis Ut. Likewise, some authors writing in Aukštaitian dialects perceived the first component of the diphthong [au] in an unstressed position as [a], and therefore wrote it with the letter o, as though it had circumflex stress77: sweyks karal-ou, Izrael-ou-s, Jazaus Chryft-ou-s and so on (Širwids 1929); daw-iow kapu asztonaliku, mana Mikatoi-ow-s arkli, daw-iow kapu dvide-simt 1669 Ukmergė estate court and so on (Jablonskis 1937: 148); Viln-ou-s, atn oujin-ou and so on (Uwogos 1823). Cf. de D-ow-iociu 1689 (Mlt KĮ I: 10a) =*Daujočių, Daujočiai Giedraičiai Mlt. Thus, it is not appropriate to assume that these instances reflect Slavicization. Numerous examples show that in Lithuania, at least from the seventeenth to the early nineteenth century, the diphthong [au] was represented inconsistently in different Lithuanian sources. Vari- Neišpažn-ou, nepadar-iou, turei-ou, sweyks karal-ou, daug-iou-s, buw-ou, tol-ou-s, Izrael--ou-s, Jazaus Chryft-ou-s, ir kori med-ou-s and so on (Širwids 1929). Cf. Viln-ou-s, sak-ou, Dung-ou-s, atskl-ou-pus, žmog-ou, d-ou-gumas, par s-iou-ru bromu, o keyp s-iow-ras ir unksztus ir kelas, lab-iou-s, be skeycz-iou-s ira mana griekay, j-ou, diel Dung-ou-s kr-ou-ju sawa prateja, unt kriz-iou-s, bi-ou-ribes, greicz-iou-s, kas j-ou-czias unt grieku smertelnu, tunk-iou-s, Karal-ou-s, Nutrotij-ou wisa ir sau pati prapuldz-iou unt amžiu, rona j-ou-czias, dž-iou-gias, niesij-ou-cziu, teyp d-ou-gal, musz-iou, dar-iou, atn-ou-jin-ou, g-ou-tumem and so on. However, there are many instances in which [au] is written with the letters (i)au: r-au-da, apr-au-dot, Gier-iau-s, s-au, nesis-au-gam, sunk-iau-sioj, didž-iau-sias, d-au-gina, miel-au-sia, razumn-iau-sias, Ape Szwin cz-iau-siu Kamuniju, t-au-kia, ale tu nie j-au-czias ir nie arklis, s-aule, visu tawa kr-au-ju, maton-iau-sias and so on (Uwogos 1823). Plg. kėcz-iow (kenčiau), kėjdaw-ow (kęsdavau) (Universitas 1991). V. Mažiulis brought this to the article’s author’s attention. Cf. A. Laigonaitė’s statement “that unstressed long syllables in standard Lithuanian are pronounced essentially according to a single pattern. And although they are perceived as circumflex..., it would not be accurate to say that they bear an accent...” (Laigonaitė 1978: 17). 188 ation, it is represented in both toponyms and anthroponyms. If a historical source preserves the Lithuanian morphology of an oikonym, the representation of the diphthong [au] by the letters aw, ew, ou, ow and the like should apparently not be considered Slavicized. This is a particular orthographic tradition that arose under the influence of Slavic, especially Polish, spelling. It should also be noted that the spelling of Prussian [au] likewise varies in common words and toponyms. The diphthong in question is represented not only by the letters au, but also by ou, ew or the like: cr-au-yo E 160, kr-aw-ia III 73₁₄, kr-ew-ley II 13₁₈, kr-aw-ian III 75₁₁ (Mažiulis 1981: 281), D-au-ben 1346 and D-ou-ben 1340, D-aw-gayn 1405; Blendel-au-k 1423, Bolel-au-cs 1342, Gunel-au-ken 1331 and Bog el-aw-ken 1419, G-aw-sisl-aw-ks 1339, Gunl-aw-ke 1349; K-au-caliskis 1331 and K-aw-kowangen 1314; K-au-then 1404, K-iau-te and K-ew-te, K-eu-the, K-yaw-te 1258, Gertep-eaw-ne 1406; Cr-au-neynen 1426 and Cr-aw-neynen 1411/1419, Cr-aw-nen 1419 and the like (Gerullis 1922). The diphthong [ei] For diphthongs [ei] and [ai], see pp. 173–175. The diphthong [uo] The diphthong [uo] is represented by the letters uo in instances de Az-uo-zeru 1688 (Mlt KĮ I: 23ᵇ), cf. Ažuožerai Inturkė Mlt; Š. D-uo-bedziu 1612 (Jnš KĮ: 137ᵇ), cf. Duobėdžiai Saugėlaukis Jnš; Pagi J-uo-dziu 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 18ᵇ), cf. Juódžiai Gataučiai Jnš; de Villa Kr-uo-peley 1706 (Dgl KĮ II: 218ᵃ) = Kruopėliai Baibiai Žr; ex L-uo-ma 1673 (Rgv KĮ I: 29ᵇ) = *Luoma Raguvà; de Pabat-uo-sze 1757 (Lkm KĮ II: 57ᵇ) = *Pabaluošė Svnč; Pagi Pet-uo-dziu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 14ᵇ), Pagi Pet-uo-dziu 1605 (Jnš KĮ: 62ᵇ) = Peluodžiai Pašvitinys Pkr; Pagi Szt-uo-stikiu 1604 (Jnš KĮ: 52ᵃ), cf. Šluostikiai Buivydžiai Jnš, and so on. The Joniškis parish registers, Daugailiai parish registers, and JĮ contain numerous instances in which the diphthong [uo] is also represented in partly Slavicized forms of oikonyms: Pagi D-uo-bedziow 1606 (Jnš KĮ: 74ᵇ), Sioto D-uo-bedzie 1614 (Jnš KĮ: 162ᵃ), cf. Duobėdžiai Saugėlaukis Jnš; de D-uo-bie 1707 (Dgl KĮ II: 179ᵃ), cf. Duobiai Daugailiai Ut; Š. i-uo-deikiow 1615 (Jnš KĮ: 170ᵃ), cf. Juodeikiai Juodeikiai Jnš; Š. J-uo-dziu 1611 (Jnš KĮ: 130ᵃ), Š. i-uo-dziow 1616 (Jnš KĮ: 191ᵃ), cf. Juódžiai Gataučiai Jnš; de Kr-uo-pele 1712 (J) (Dgl KĮ II: 205ᵃ), cf. Kruopėliai Baibiai Žr; de N-uo-degule 1707 (Dgl KĮ II: 180ᵃ), cf. Nuodėguliai Sudeikiai Ut; Pagi P-uo-dziunow 1605 (Jnš KĮ: 73ᵇ); Š. P-uo-dzjuni 1615 (Jnš KĮ: 173ᵃ), cf. Puodžiūnai Bučiūnai Jnš; Š. sl-uo-stikia 1612 (Jnš KĮ: 144ᵃ), cf. Šluostikiai Buivydžiai Jnš, and so on. The same sources also contain many analogous examples of anthroponyms. The monophthongized diphthong [uo>a] (in an unstressed position) is represented by the letter a in sources from the Utena dialect area: de J-a-dawglu 1696 (Ant KĮ I: 52ᵃ) = dialect *Ja(.)daugl'u, standard form would be *Juodauglių, modern Jodaugiai Žukliškės Žr; de Villa J-a-delzkielu 1733 (Aln KĮ IV: 1ᵇ) = dialect *Ja(.)diš'k'e'l'u, standard form *Juodiškėlių, modern Juodiškiai Alanta Mlt. 189 Analogous anthroponymic cases: Nicolaus Gr-a-dis de Dusiaty 1704 (Ant JĮ I: 160a) = dialectal *Gra(.)d'is, standard Lithuanian *Gruodys; Micháel K-a-litis78... de Villa Pod-krzyze Parochie Dusiat. 1780 (Dgl KĮ III: 76b) = dialectal *Ka(.)l'it'is, standard Lithuanian *Kuoly-tis. The diphthong [uo], which is now monophthongized in unstressed position in the area of the Utena dialect, is most often represented by the letter o: iz D-o-biu 1702 (Dgl KĮ II: 57b) = dialectal *Dab'u, Duobiai Daugailiai Ut; de Grab-o-stu 1689 (Mlt KĮ I: 34b) = dialectal *Grabastu, cf. Gabuostas (2) lake (LUEŽ: 51); de J-o-ciu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 6a) = *Jač'u, Juočiai; de J-o-daku 1682 (Mlt JĮ II: 44b) = *Jadak'u, Juodakiai Žėlva Ukm; de J-o-daniu 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 3a) = dialectal *Ja(.)d'ėnu, Juodėnai Čiulėnai Mlt; Zascianek Vz-o-li-nis / Wieś Butkuny / WŁOSC SOŁOCKA 1731 (Inw KZ: 36) = dialectal *U.žal'ini.s Salakas Zr; de villa N-o-de-guley 1782 (Dgl KĮ III: 85a) = dialectal *Nad'ėgul'ai, Nuodėguliai Sudeikiai Ut; de Pagrab-o-sciu 1692 (Mlt KĮ I: 44b) = dialectal *Pagrabaś'č'u, Pāgrabuosčiai Vidėniškiai Mlt; de Pauai-o-nis 1743 (Ktk KĮ I: 37a) = dialectal *Pavajan'i.s, Pāvajuonis Suginčiai Mlt, etc.; in the area of the Širvintos dialect: Zascianek J-o-dela / Włość Szeszolska 1731 (Inw KZ: 156) = dialectal *Ja.d'ėla Šešuoliai Ukm; in the area of the Šiauliai dialect: P-o-dżianu Aduocationis Papera Laurentium filium Padziuna et Elenos 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 2b) = dialectal *Padž'unu, Puodžiūnai Bučiūnai Jnš; Pagi ḃt-o-fikiau 1603 (Jnš KĮ: 44a) — or by the letter e, i.e., [a] after hard [l]: villæ Szt-e-sty-kiu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 2b) = dialectal *Šlaś't'ik'u, now Šluostikai Buivydžiai Jnš. Also cf. in the area of the Kaunas dialect: de Wel-o-na 1699 (Dt KĮ: 35b) = Veliuona, Prabaszc̀iu Wel-o-nos 1823 (Nezabitauskis 1996: 54) = Veliuonos Jrb. The diphthong [uo], not monophthongized in a stressed position, is represented by the letter o in the area of the Utena dialect: de Az-o-zeru 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 7a) = Ažūžeriai Inturkė Mlt; de P-o-dziu 1769 (Ut JĮ I: 50a) = *Puodžiu, Puodžiai Mockėnai Ut; in the area of the Panevėžys dialect de K-o-lingu 1669 (Klov KĮ III: 41a) = *Kuolingų, Kuólingai Pušalotas Ps; in the area of the Šiauliai dialect: de Pakr-o-śte 1700 (Dt JĮ: 68a) = Pakruóste Survilškis Kdn, etc. In the area of the Samogitian dialect, the diphthong [uo], monophthongized to [u], is represented by the letter u: de neszuk-u-ciu 1643 (Pln KĮ: 159a) = dialectal *N'eśukuč'u, Nešukuočiai Paukštakiai Pln; Thus, the representation of the diphthong [uo] by the letter o can by no means always be regarded as merely a result of Slavic influence, especially where dialectal oikonym forms reflect a mo- 78The surname Kalytis is apparently associated with the surname of Slavic origin Kalità LPŽ I 879. However, the anthroponyms in question may be associated with kuol-, cf. Agata Kuolowa de Czyvki 1708 (?) (Dgl JĮ I: 202b), Stob odnik Jakub Kolunas... Zaścianek Biržuny / WŁOSC SOŁOCKA 1731 (Inw KZ: 43). The anthroponym Kalita is found in the inventory of the Drūkšiai estate: Stas Kalita, Krzystoph Kalita, Jan Kalita, Piotr Kalita — all from the village of Didzi kalitowie, 1682 (Inw KD: 45a). 190 nophthongized diphthong [uo]. In addition, there is more than one Lithuanian source in which the Lithuanian diphthong [uo] is represented by the letter o even in positions where [uo] is pronounced in the dialects. Cf. kuk-o-i (kukúoji),, d-o-du (dúodu), P-o-tam (púolam), etc. (Strazdas 1991); su sousu d-o-nu (dúona), uszp-o-ta (užpúola), n-o-g wisa nupteszia ir apn-o-gina (nuóg, apnúogina), Kam-o-jas (kamúojas), etc. (Uwogos 1823). Consonant spelling Affricates In the Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in Latin texts, the Lithuanian affricates [č], [dž] are often represented by the letters dӡ, c: Pagi Bujwi-dӡ-iu 1599 (Jñš KĮ: 5ᵃ) = *Bui vydžių, Buivydžiai Buivydžiai Jnš; Dow-c-iunu 1684 (Mlt KĮ I: 7ᵇ), de Dau-c-iunu 1685 (Mlt KĮ I: 13ᵇ) *Daučiūnų Molėtai; Pagi Dwitay-c-iu 1604 (Jnš KĮ: 53ᵇ) = *Dvilaičių, dab. Dveláičiai Skaistgirys Jnš; de Jokubay-c-iey 1705 (Dt KĮ: 94ᵃ) = *Jokūbaičių, Jokūbáičiai Gudžiūnai Kdn; de maney-c-iu 1694 (1695?) (Dgl JĮ II: 63ᵃ) = *Mane ičių, Maneičiai Sudeikiai Ut ir kt. However, there are numerous cases in which Lithuanian affricates [č], [dž] are represented by the letters dӡ, cӡ, cz, ć, and the like: Pagi Dwitay-ć-iu 1601 (Jnš KĮ: 21ᵇ); Woyta Dwibucia Š. Dwelai-cӡ-iu 1606 (Jnš KĮ: 87ᵇ), Woyta Dwilia... Sioto Dwetai-cӡ-iu 1613 (Jnš KĮ: 148ᵇ) = *Dvelaičių, present-day Dveláičiai, Skaistgirys Jnš; Dow-cz-unu 1689 (Mlt JĮ II: 10ᵃ) = *Daučiūnų, Molėtai; de Jackaso-dӡ-ia 1672 (Rgv JĮ I: 111ᵇ) = dialectal *Jackosadžʼa (gen. sg.), present-day Jackagalys, Juostininkai An; ӡascianek naӡwany Kan-cӡ-upis / Sioto Skiemie / Wojtostwo Zasiećkie / Wolosc Boisagolska 1615 (Inv VI: 38ᵃ) = *Kančiupis, Skėmai Rd; de Tumaso-dӡ-io 1673 (Rgv KĮ I: 29ᵇ) *Tumasodžio (gen. sg.), de Tumaso-dӡ-ia 1673 (Rgv KĮ I: 31ᵃ) = dialectal *Tumasodžʼa (gen. sg.), present-day Tumagalys, Miežiškiai Pn, etc. It is likely that affricates are not represented (or are represented inconsistently) in Latin texts because they are absent from Latin. In texts written in Polish, the affricate [č] is represented fairly consistently, whereas [dž] is represented inconsistently. The affricates [č], [dž] are used fairly consistently in the Raguvos KĮ (1668–1688). In Latin texts, Lithuanian sibilant consonants [š], [ž] are often represented by the letters f, s, z, ӡ, and so on: de Joway-s-u 1671 (Lnkv KĮ: 26ᵃ) = *Jovaiš(i)ų, Jovaišiai Lauksodis Pkr; S: s-tapiakiu 1607 (Jnš KĮ: 94ᵇ) = *Šlap(i)akių, now Šlapakiai Kėpaliai Jnš; de f-tapeberzie 1695 (Dt KĮ: 12ᵃ), de f-lapieberzie 1695 (Dt KĮ: 12ᵃ) = Šlapiaberžė Dotnuva Kdn; ij f-ia ziniu 1703 (Dgl JĮ II: 88ᵃ) = dialectal *Šʼaʼžʼinʼu., Šióžiniai Daugailiai Ut; sioto wikie-z-erij 1597 (Ukm PTA 13879: 228ᵇ) = *Vikežeris Dusėtos Zr; Siota 3-mirklu 1616 (Jnš KĮ: 193ᵇ) = *Žmirklių, Žmirkli ai Rudiškiai Jnš, de Z-uru 1683 (Mlt KĮ I: 3ᵇ) = *Žiūrų, Žiūrai Luokesà Mlt; de villa 3-iulu 1599 (Jnš KĮ: 3ᵃ), Woyta Balciuna Š: 3-ilu 1611 (Jnš KĮ: 130ᵇ) = *Žvilių Joniškis; de Vila Z-winenay 1691 (Vdn KĮ III: 50ᵇ) = Žvynėnai 191 Žélva Ukm and elsewhere. Such omission of diacritics when representing the Lithuanian sibilants [š], [ž], and the failure to write [š] as the digraph sz may have resulted from the influence of Latin orthography, since Latin has no sibilant consonants. Liet. žvarbieji priebalsiai [š], [ž] žymimi raidėmis β, sz, ž, z ir pan.: A-ž-ubalis 1900 (SG XV/I: 56) = *Ažubalis Tverečius Ign; Pagi β-tapakiu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 6ᵇ), Pagi Sz-tapakiu 1603 (Jnš KĮ: 45ᵃ) = *Šlapakių, Šlapakiai Kepāliai Jnš; ex fz-lapiaberze 1715 (Dt KĮ: 166ᵃ) = Šlapiaberžė Dotnuva Kdn; U-ž-alksnis 1854 (ED: 36) = *Užalksnis Užventis; U-ž-usamanis 1898 (Anonim: 65) = *Užusamanis Ceikiniai Ign; ex pago Ž-eymej dicto 1639 (Slnt KĮ: 60ᵇ) = Žeimiai Imbarė Krtn ir kt. It is likely that those forms of oikonyms in which affricates and sibilant consonants are not represented should be considered Lithuanian, since there are also Lithuanian texts in which they are likewise not represented; cf. patrawk s-irdis musu, S-wen-c-iausiam (Subačius 1997), and so on. Apparently, owing to the Latin orthographic tradition, the Lithuanian consonant [k] is sometimes represented by the letter c: ex uilla C-alauu ~1711–1712 (Lnkv KĮ: 7ᵃ) = *Kalevų, Kalevai Pakruojis Pkr; C-olauckis 1556 (Pėteraitis: 195) = *K(u)olaukis || Koliškiai Isrutis, Didlaukiai; de C-ubiliu 1679 (Rgv KĮ I: 63ᵃ) = *Kubilių Raguvà Pn; Šiota C-uta-ycziu 1606 (Jnš KĮ: 87ᵇ) = *Kutačių, Kutáčiai Stačiūnai Pkr; Taur-c-alnis 1539 (Pėteraitis: 403) = *Taurkalnis, later Taurkalniai Stalupėnai, Pilupėnai, Puodžiūnai. In sources of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, following Polish orthography, the Lithuanian consonant [l] is represented by the letter t, though not always, and [l'] by the letter l: Woyta Dwi-l-ia... Sioto Dwe-t-aicziu 1613 (Jnš KĮ: 148ᵇ) = *Dvelaičių, now Dveláčiai Skaistgirys Jnš; Pagi β-t-apakiu 1600 (Jnš KĮ: 6ᵇ) = *Šlapakių, Šlapakiai Kepāliai Jnš; ex uilla Ca-l-auu ~1711–1712 (Lnkv KĮ: 7ᵃ) = *Kalevų, Kalevai Pakruojis Pkr; de Cubi-l-iu 1679 (Rgv KĮ I: 63ᵃ) = *Kubilių Raguvà Pn; de Napra-l-ey 1696 (Ant KĮ I: 51ᵇ) = dialectal *Napral'ai, cf. Napreliai Žukliškės Zr and elsewhere. There are cases in which Lithuanian [s] at the end of a word is represented by the letters fz, sz, or similar: Antmeschkera-sz 1564 (Pėteraitis: 53) = *Antmeškeras, later Antmeškiai Darkiemis, Žābynai; de Apidwariszkie-sz 1741 (Lkm KĮ II: 5ᵃ) = *Apidvariškės (l) Linkmenys Ign; de Gieytoniszkię-sz 1740 (Lkm JĮ II: 2ᵃ) = *Geitoniškės Linkmenys Ign. There are many more personal names in which Lithuanian [s] is likewise represented at the end of a word. Similar cases can also be found in Lithuanian texts: Ganit karwies aszka-sz, kiawtes, ir pitkas awietes 1818 (Strazdas 1991); Ignasius Sklaustis naszli-sz ulicz. Rutienu 1900 (Int KZ: 32ᵇ). It is likely that in cases where [š] occurs in the word stem, the representation of Lithuanian [s] by the letters sz may have arisen through a certain type of distant assimilation and should therefore not be regarded as Slavicization. However, in cases such as Krucki-sz 1584 (Pėteraitis: 53) = *Krukis, *Krukys or later Krukiai Darkiemis, Klišiái; de Gatakie mi-fz 1743 (Lkm KĮ II: 13ᵇ) = Gātakiemis 192 Saldūtiškis Ut and so on: such notation of [s] should be regarded as Germanization (in Prussia) or Slavicization (in Lithuania); see p. 128. This fragmentary overview of oikonym spelling makes it clear that, when the spelling of Lithuanian forms of words in old Lithuanian writings is compared with that of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms, common patterns can be observed. These patterns suggest that, in more than a few cases, what was previously explained (or an attempt was made to explain) as Slavicization when discussing oikonyms and especially anthroponyms 79 can be treated as a certain orthographic tradition, dialectal features, or something else. It should be noted that historical oikonyms and anthroponyms recorded in non-Lithuanian sources cannot be traced from old Lithuanian written monuments. A comparison of the onomastic data in historical sources with data from old writings allows us to state that the onomastic facts recorded in historical sources form a certain part of our old linguistic monuments, sharing orthographic patterns characteristic of other old monuments of our written tradition, yet also distinguished by certain specific features. Lithuanian forms of historical oikonyms (as, indeed, also the numerous Lithuanian forms of anthroponyms) were most often recorded in historical documents intended solely for practical purposes. These documents were not intended for publication. This is one reason why the spelling of both oikonyms and anthroponyms varies so much. No one was concerned with recording onomastic facts accurately; in those days, this was not a matter of concern.80 Little attention was paid to recording the same facts consistently, since no clear, established criteria existed. If we compare the spelling of words in the few Lithuanian manuscripts of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the recording of oikonyms and anthroponyms in non-Lithuanian historical documents within the territory of the GDL, we see a broadly similar picture: spelling varies for the diphthongs [au] and [uo], the diphthong [ie] and the vowels [e], [ė], sometimes the vowels [a] and [o], and so on. When we have a handwritten Lithuanian text whose Lithuanian words are imperfectly recorded, we have no doubt that they are Lithuanian (not Slavicized), and we try to determine what the spelling is and what patterns govern it. We should view the varying, often imperfect, spelling of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms and anthroponyms in exactly the same way—not from the perspective of today, but with regard to the understanding of the time (that is, the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries). The scribes of that time—priests, monks, and even estate and court officials—probably recorded the Lithuanian forms of both oikonyms and anthroponyms very accurately in more than a few cases, but they did so on the basis of the orthographic tra- 79 Cf. Zinkevičius 1977: 98-101; Maciejauskienė 1991: 172-173, 178; Maciejauskienė 1993: 82; Maciejauskienė 1994: 18–22. 80 Cf.: “... the forms of personal names varied considerably, even when naming the same person” (Zinkevičius 1991: 19). 193 traditions, since most of them had apparently never written in Lithuanian. Moreover, the spelling of Lithuanian written monuments from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, and even the nineteenth century, is highly varied. Spelling is somewhat more uniform in old printed Lithuanian texts, where more pronounced efforts to regulate the written language can be observed. In manuscript sources, especially non-Lithuanian ones, which contain a great deal of onomastic material, it is difficult to discern any uniformity in the recording of Lithuanian oikonyms or anthroponyms. Many scribes who recorded Lithuanian forms of oikonyms and anthroponyms may be compared to elementary-school pupils who, having only just learned to write, make many mistakes and write the same words better on one occasion and worse on another. We can therefore speak of certain manifestations of agraphia—a lack of the ability to record particular facts of the Lithuanian language accurately and adequately. Conclusions This article addresses a topic that has not previously been examined: the Lithuanian forms of historical oikonyms. The topic is important in several respects: for the first time, the oldest recorded Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are presented and discussed, with the set of these records understood as a system; for the first time, an attempt is made to determine on the basis of their written forms which forms in non-Lithuanian historical sources should be considered Lithuanian, and the difficulties involved in establishing the Lithuanian character of some of them are demonstrated; certain parallels in the use and recording of oikonyms and anthroponyms are revealed; and, for the first time, parallels between the Lithuanian forms of oikonyms in historical documents and the spelling of old Lithuanian words are brought to light, and recurring patterns are discussed. Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are attested in historical sources from the sixteenth century: in Prussia (from 1539) and in Lithuania (in the last quarter of the sixteenth century), although it may be surmised that they began to be written down somewhat earlier. It should be noted that these forms appeared in historical sources from both Lithuania and Prussia before the publication of the first books. This supports the argument that Lithuanian writings existed in both Prussia and Lithuania even before the first Lithuanian books. Thus, the earliest records of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms and anthroponyms should be regarded as among the first attempts to create a written tradition of their own in Lithuanian. It should be noted that from the beginning of the sixteenth century, Lithuanian forms of anthroponyms also began to be recorded more abundantly in Lithuanian historical documents. They became particularly numerous in historical sources from the second half of the sixteenth century, when Lithuanian forms of oikonyms also began to be recorded. The spelling and use of Lithuanian forms of anthroponyms and oikonyms are inseparable for many reasons, particularly because a considerable number of oikonyms are of anthroponymic origin. The limited onomastic material available for Lithuania Minor makes it impossible to offer more detailed conclusions about the relationship between the use and spelling of oikonyms and anthroponyms in that region. 194 It may be argued that in the sixteenth century a genuine revolution took place in the recording of oikonym forms in historical documents from both Prussia and Lithuania: the long-established traditions of recording oikonyms, which had lasted for approximately two and a half centuries and were based on German (in Prussia) and East Slavic (in Lithuania), were partly interrupted, and Lithuanian forms of oikonyms and anthroponyms began to be recorded. One of the principal reasons for this change was the arrival of Lithuanian scribes in chancelleries in the sixteenth century. They gradually abandoned the traditions of spelling Lithuanian oikonyms and anthroponyms, established before the sixteenth century and essentially alien to the spirit of the Lithuanian language, which followed German (in Prussia) and East Slavic (in Lithuania) models. In Lithuania, the recording of Lithuanian forms of oikonyms was influenced by church register books, which began to be written in Latin in the second half of the sixteenth century. In many of these books (though by no means all), the East Slavic tradition was abandoned when recording Lithuanian oikonyms, while other traditions (based on Polish) were only beginning to take shape. The Lithuanian forms show that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the use of oikonyms in Polish and German had not yet become standardized in Greater and Lithuania Minor. The abundance of Lithuanian forms indicates that in certain cases scribes knew only the forms used by Lithuanians themselves. Thus, in the places where these forms were recorded, only Lithuanian was spoken. Lithuanian forms of two hundred different oikonyms were recorded in sixteenth-century sources alone. Approximately a thousand have been found in non-Lithuanian sources from Lithuania and Prussia dating to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The greatest number of Lithuanian forms of historical oikonyms has been found in sixteenth- to eighteenth-century registers of Lithuanian Catholic churches, where Lithuanian forms of many village names were recorded (about 800). They are especially abundant in the Joniškis church registers (1599–1621), the oldest surviving source of this kind in Lithuania, and in the Molėtai church registers and Joniškis church registers (1682–1692). Lithuanian forms of many hamlet names (about 180) were recorded in Lithuanian estate inventories. From the eighteenth century onward, Lithuanian forms of oikonyms also appear in lists, and from the nineteenth century onward, in other sources as well (maps, reference works, studies, etc.). The most distinctive and earliest map known to date containing numerous Lithuanian forms is the map of New East Prussia (Suvalkija) (1808). It may be assumed that hundreds of such forms remain to be found in unexamined non-Lithuanian sources from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. Lithuanian forms of oikonyms have been found in texts written in Latin, German, Polish, Russian, and Slavic chancery language. Each language’s texts followed different spelling traditions, and in many cases it was difficult to determine whether certain oikonym forms were Lithuanian. Criteria for distinguishing Lithuanian forms of oikonyms were developed on the basis of the observed patterns of recording. It may be assumed that Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are forms used by Lithuanians themselves, accurately recorded in historical sources without distortion of their morphology and with phonetics reflected sufficiently well. One criterion is not to regard as Slavicization, Germanization, and so forth, features that can be explained by spelling tradition or that can be ap- 195 also occur in the words of old Lithuanian writings. In many cases, the notation of the diphthong [au] by the letters (i)aw, (i)ow, ew, Cyrillic ав, of the diphthong [ai] by the letters ei, ey, of the diphthong [uo] by the letter o, and in certain cases of the consonant [s] by the letters -sz at the end of a word, etc., should not be considered Slavic. Forms of Lithuanian oikonyms have been recorded in historical sources from almost the entire territory of present-day Lithuania, from Lithuania Minor (now the Kaliningrad Region), and from some border districts of Latvia, Poland, and Belarus adjoining Lithuania. The article does not present all the material available, but only the most characteristic examples, around 300 oikonyms. It became clear that, in studying old oikonyms and their forms, especially Lithuanian ones, it is very important to take the linguistic and cultural context into account. The linguistic context includes all the other forms of oikonyms (Slavicized, Germanized, Latinized), all anthroponyms, all Lithuanian words that occur occasionally in non-Lithuanian sources, and, finally, old Lithuanian writings. It also includes the setting of each oikonym (phrase, sentence, text) and the language in which the document was written. An oikonym cannot be extracted from a non-Lithuanian text (phrase) if it is connected with that text, that is, if it is recorded in an oblique case. Nor can an oikonym with the same root be separated from an anthroponym if the latter is written next to it. The context under discussion also includes the body of historical sources as a whole, from which information about the development of a particular place name can be obtained. For example, if several different sources concerning the same place or neighboring places record the same fact, it should be considered reliable. Lithuanian forms are the most valuable, but by no means the largest, part of the oikonymic material. In the broader context, Lithuanian forms of oikonyms (and anthroponyms as well) are important for the history of the language and especially for historical dialectology, since the sources include material recorded in regions of Lithuania that lack early old written monuments. However, one should not forget that alongside the few Lithuanian oikonyms, Slavicized, Latinized (in the GDL), and Germanized (in Prussia) forms are used, without which research into names cannot be conducted either. Lithuanian forms of oikonyms and anthroponyms in historical sources, as well as Lithuanian words and phrases found there, add to the evidence concerning the use of the Lithuanian language in various parts of Lithuania. Received 1998 09 22 ABBREVIATIONS Lithuanian Inv – inventory JĮ – marriage register book KĮ – baptism register book 196 LNM – National Museum of Lithuania LN MMB – Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania LVIA – Lithuanian State Historical Archives MAB – Library of the Academy of Sciences N – transcript of register books (of baptisms, marriages, or deaths) RS – Manuscripts Department SA – old acts (LVIA shelf-mark abbreviation) cent. – century bk. – standard language dab. – now, current instr. pl. – plural instrumental gen. pl. – plural genitive dr. – field dš. – right (tributary) dv. – manor ež. – lake int. – tributary k. – village kr. – left (tributary) kt. – other, others liet. – Lithuanian, Lithuanian-language lot. – Latin, Latin-language m. – year mot. g. – feminine gender mst. – city mstl. – town naszl. – widower of. – official p. – page pan. – similarly parap., parf., pa’p. etc. – parishes plg. – compare plv. – manor farm pus. – on the side pv. – meadow tarm. – dialectal, dialect t.y. – that is ulicz. – street (= of a village) vien. – single-homestead vienasied. – single-settlement vls. – municipality vns. kilm. – singular genitive vns. vard. – singular nominative vns. viet. – singular locative žr. – see 197 Polish Inw. – (Inwentarz) inventory Ś., Ś, S – (Śiola) of the village W. – (Woyta, Woita) of the village head Latin Ad.; Adu., Aduo.; Aduocat: etc. – (Aduocati, Aduocatus, Aduocationis) of the village head, of the village headship An’o – (Anno) of the year atq’ – (atque) also B., Bap, Bapt.; Bapt’, Bapt(us)’ etc. – (Baptisavi, Baptisatus, Baptisata etc.) I baptized, baptized (masculine), baptized (feminine) B Virginis – (Beatae Virginis) of the Blessed Virgin Coniug etc. – (Legitimorum Coniugum) of legitimate spouses Cu’ – (cum) with d – (die) day 10bris – (Decembris) of December d 10’ – (die decima) on the tenth day de eade’ – (eadem) from the same place e’ – (est) is Eode’ ead’. – (eodem), (eadem) on the same (day) Fil: – (Filius, Filia) son, daughter gen. sg. – (genetivus singularis) – genitive singular Legitimoru’ – (legitimorum) legitimate Leg’, LC., Legit Legitimoru’ Parentu’ – (Legitimorum Parentum) of legitimate parents L. Th: – (Legitimi Thori) of legitimate marriage LL., LL:; Leua’, Leu’, Lau’, Lev: etc. – (Levantes) witnesses matrim’ – (matrimonium) marriage n’ne – (nomine) in the name of 9bris – (novembris) November P. – (Parochiae) parish Pag. – (Pagi) village Parent’, Parentu’ – (Parentum) of the parents Pat:; Patr:, Patr’, Prin, Post Pentec: – (post Pentecostem) after Pentecost p’rente – (presente, i.e. praesente) being present, attending Pr’ini, PP., PP: etc. – (Patrini) godparents 1ma – (prima) the first q – (qui) who q sup Bap – (qui super Baptisavi) whom I baptized earlier (before that) 5ta – (quinta) on the fifth (day) 2dus – (secundus) the second sup – (super) earlier 3tia – (tertia) the third, on the third 3bus, trib – (tribus) to three 198 v’o – (vero) indeed, yes vterq’ – (vterque) both one and the other SOURCES AND THEIR ABBREVIATIONS Church registers Aln KĮ IV – Alanta church baptism register book No. 4 (1733–1740), kept in the Alanta church archive. (Oikonyms for four years were transcribed—the relevant material was selected from them). Aln KĮ XVIII – Alanta church baptism register book No. 18 (circa 1760–1780; badly charred, with only the middle of the book surviving), kept in the Alanta church archive. Ant KĮ I, Ant JĮ I, Dgl KĮ I, Dgl JĮ I – several baptism and marriage register books of the Antalieptė and Daugailiai churches (both formerly filial churches of the Dusetos parish), bound together alternately in one volume (1686–1731), kept in the Daugailiai church archive. Blnk KĮ II, Dgl JĮ II – Balnininkai church baptism register book No. 2 (1752–1772), kept in the Balnininkai church archive. Blnk KĮ III – Balnininkai church baptism register book No. 3 (1772–1798), kept in the Balnininkai church archive. Dgl KĮ II, Dgl JĮ II – Daugailiai church baptism and marriage register book No. 2, bound in one volume (1693–1714), kept in the Daugailiai church archive. Dgl KĮ III – Daugailiai church baptism register book No. 3 (1760–1785), kept in the Daugailiai church archive. Dt KĮ – Dotnuva church baptism and marriage register book (1693–1764), kept in the Dotnuva church archive. Int JĮ I – Inturkė church marriage register book No. 1 (1771–1827), kept in the Inturkė church archive. Int KĮ I – Inturkė church baptism register book No. 1 (1794–1812), kept in the Inturkė church archive. Int ZK – Inturkė church draft register of newlyweds (1890–1910), kept in the Inturkė church archive. Jnš KĮ – Joniškis church baptism register book (1599–1621), LVIA F. 1196 Ap. 1 B. 76. Jnšk BKB – Register of baptisms of Joniškėlis Church (1699–1720), VUB RS F. 201–35. Klov BKB III – Register of baptisms and marriages of Klovainiai, No. 3 (1655–1675), LNM R–474. Kp BKB IX – Register of baptisms of Kupiškis, No. 9 (1690–1708), MAB RS F. 268–128. Krž BKB – Register of baptisms of Kražiai Church (1657–1672), LVIA F. 1521 Ap. 1 B. 4. Ktk BKB I, Ktk MR I – Register of baptisms and marriages of Kuktiškės Church, No. 1 (1739–1744), held in the archive of Kuktiškės Church. Ktk BKB VIII – Register of baptisms of Kuktiškės Church, No. 8 (1827–1832), held in the archive of Kuktiškės Church. Ktk BKB N, Ktk DR N – Register of baptisms and deaths of Kuktiškės Church (1699–1796) (copy), LVIA F. 604 Ap. 13 B. 36. 199 Lkm BKB I, Lkm MR I – Register of baptisms and marriages of Linkmenys Church, No. 1 (1708–1740), held in the archive of Linkmenys Church. Lkm BKB II, Lkm MR II – Register of baptisms and marriages of Linkmenys Church, No. 2 (1740–1760), held in the archive of Linkmenys Church. Lnkv BKB, Lnkv MR – Register of baptisms of Linkuva, register of marriages, bound in one volume (1671–1712), held at MAB RS F. 42–1. Mlt BKB I, Mlt MR II – Register of baptisms of Molėtai Church, No. 1 (1682–1692), register of marriages, volume No. 2, bound together in one volume, held in the archive of Molėtai Church. Mlt BKB VII – Register of baptisms of Molėtai Church, No. 7 (1776–1797), held in the archive of Molėtai Church. Mlt BKB X – Register of baptisms of Molėtai Church, No. 10 (1807–1814), held in the archive of Molėtai Church. Mrk BKB – Register of baptisms of Merkinė Church (1604–1618), LVIA F. 154 Ap. 1 B. 1. Pln BKB, Pln MR – Register of baptisms of Plungė Church (1615–1660), LVIA F. 154 Ap. 1 B. 1. Rgv BKB I, Rgv MR I – Register of baptisms and marriages of Raguva, No. 1 (1668–1688), LN MMB F. 125–15. Skdt KĮ – baptismal register of the Skudutiškis chapel (formerly Molėtai parish) (1756–1786), held in the archive of Kuktiškės Church. Slnt KĮ – baptismal register of Skilandžiai (Salantai) Church (1631–1640), LN MMB RS F. 100–407. Srj KĮ – baptismal register of Seirijai Church (1679–1724), MABRS F. 136–47. Upn KĮ II – baptism and marriage register No. 2 of Upninkai Church (1749–1774), LN MMB F. 130–2214. Ut JĮ – marriage register of Utena (1729–1776), held in the archive of Utena Church. Vdn KĮ II – baptismal register No. 2 of Videniškiai Church (1771–1781), held in the archive of Videniškiai Church. Vdn KĮ III – baptismal register No. 3 of Videniškiai Church (1682–1692), held in the archive of Videniškiai Church. OTHER MANUSCRIPT SOURCES CB – Cathalogus Beneficiorum totius Diæcesis Vilnen’ pro ut in antiquis regeſtris reperiuntur fideliter conſcriptus in Anno 1595. (1595 inventory of the church estates of the Diocese of Vilnius) MAB RS F. 43–472. ED – Executorium decretum de limitibus dio[cesiae] Telsensis seu Samogitiensis. Latum ab Jll[ust]rissimo et Reverendissimo Domino Metropolitano Ignatio Hołowiński. Vilnæ. 1854. in quarto 74.81 The source is held in the Onomastics Division of LKI. Inw Dg – Inventory of the estate of the Most Illustrious and Most Noble Lord, His Grace Konstantinas Brzostovskis, Castellan of Mstislavl, Starosta of Daw-na 81In other publications, this source is cited as follows: Hołowiński I. A manuscript list of place names of the Diocese of Telšiai and Samogitia, held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language (Vanagas 1996: 317). 200 gowskiego Orańskiego Przełayskiego82 Submitted to Mr. Jan Staniulewicz in the Year83 on the 3rd day of May. (Inventory of the Daugai eldership, 1719) LN MMB RS F. 130–1748. Inw KD – Inventory of the Dryświaty estate key belonging to the Economy of the Vilnius Grand Duchy, revised by me, Stephan Hryniewicz, in 1682. (Inventory of the Drūkšiai estate key, 1683) VUB RS F. 4–1789. Inw KZ – INVENTORIES of the Užneris estates belonging to the Diocese of Vilnius... 1731. (Inventory of the Užneris estates of the Diocese of Vilnius, 1731) VUB RS F. 57–B53, 103. The latter inventory was published in: Описание рукописнаго отделения Виленской Публичной Библиотеки. Выпускъ второй. Вильна, 1897, 65–152.84 Inw WC – Inventarz Ciwnustwa Wilenskiego... 1636. (Vilniaus tijūnystės 1636 m. inventorius) VUB RS F. – 1 F. – 14. Inw VI – Inwentarze Wielonskie, 1615. (Veliuonos ir Baisogalos karališkųjų dvarų inventoriai). VUB RS F. 4 – 36830 (A –3918). IVK – a card index of historical place names, held in the Onomastics Department of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Ukm PTA 13887 – Acts of the Ukmergė Castle Court, 1609. VUB RS F. 7 – 13887. Ukm PTA – Ukmergės pilies teismo aktai, 1597. VUB RS F. 7 – 2/13879. WDW – Visitation records for 1820–1828 of the Vilnius, Pabaiskas and Ashmyany deaneries. (Visitation acts of the Vilnius, Pabaiskas and Ashmyany deaneries, 1820–1828) LVIA F. 694 Ap. 1 B. 3670. VK – a card index of place names collected from spoken language, held in the Onomastics Department of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. ŽV Inv – Žemaičių vyskupo stalo valdų inventorius, 1662. LN MMB RS F. 93–2019. LITERATURE AND PUBLISHED SOURCES Anonim – Obszar języka litewskiego w. gub. Wileńskiej [skreśłł Anonim]. In Krakow, 1898. (Typescript) MAB RS F. 29–209. B i r ž i š k a V. 1987: Lietuvos studentai užsienio universitetuose XIV–XVIII amžiais, Chicago. B i r ž i š k a V. 1990: Aleksandrynas 1, Vilnius. B l a ž i e n ė G. 1993: Sembos prūsų vietovardžiai. Humanitarinių mokslų daktaro laipsnio disertacija, Vilnius (mašinraštis). D r o t v i n a s V. 1997: Mažosios Lietuvos vardyno šaltiniai. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 38, Vilnius, 81–87. F e n z l a u W. 1936: Die deutschen Formen der Litauischen Orts- und Personennamen des Memelgebiets, Halle/Salle. G a i v e n i s K., K e i n y s S. 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas. G e r u l l i s G. 1922: Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen, Berlin und Leipzig. G i r d e n i s A., G i r d e n i e n ė D. 1997: 1759 metų „Ziwato“ indeksas, Vilnius. 82 This is how it is written. It should be Prętayskiego. 83 The year is not entered in this place; a blank space has been left. 84 The publication does not consistently preserve the original spelling, and even some forms of oikonyms have been changed; therefore, the examples in the article are given from the manuscript. 201 IA – History Archive. Sixteenth-century Lithuanian inventories 1. Compiled by K. Jablonskis. Kaunas, 1934. J a b l o n s k i s K. 1937: Kelios XVII amžiaus lietuviškos priesaikos ir kitos lietuvių kalbos liekanos Didžiosios Lietuvos Kunigaikštystės aktuose. – Archivum Philologicum 6, Kaunas, 142–148. J a b l o n s k i s K. 1941: Lietuviški žodžiai senosios Lietuvos raštinių kalboje. Kaunas. J a b l o n s k i s K. 1979: History and Its Sources, Vilnius. J o v a i š a s A. 1996: Martynas Mažvydas, Kaunas. KD – Kodeks dyplomatyczny katedry y diecezii Wilenskiej (1387–1507). Indeksy, 1, Kraków, 1996. L a i g o n a i t ė A. 1978: Lithuanian Accentology, Vilnius. LATSŽ II – Directory of the Administrative-Territorial Division of the Lithuanian SSR 2, Vilnius, 1976. L e b e d y s J. 1976: Lietuvių kalba viešajame gyvenime XVII–XVIII a, Vilnius. LJ – Lietuvos inventoriai XVII a. Sudarė K. Jablonskis ir M. Jučas, Vilnius, 1962. LM 224/4 – Lithuanian Metrica (1522–1530) 224/4, Vilnius, 1997. LUEŽ – Gazetteer of Lithuanian River and Lake Names, Vilnius, 1963. M a c i e j a u s k i e n ė V. 1993: Personal names in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Kriaunos parish. – Questions of Lithuanian Linguistics 32, Vilnius, 34–99. M a c i e j a u s k i e n ė V. 1994: Lietuvių pavardės: kilmė ir raida. Habilitacinis darbas, pateiktas humanitarinių mokslų kalbos krypties habilituoto daktaro laipsniui gauti, Vilnius. M a c i e j a u s k i e n ė V. 1997: Vienkamieniai lietuviškos kilmės vardai XVI amžiuje. – Darbai ir dienos 4(13), Kaunas, 111–129. M a c i e j a u s k i e n ė V. 1997a: On the classification of Lithuanian surnames. – Baltistica 38(1), Vilnius, 101–109. M a ž i u l i s V. 1966: Prussian Language Monuments, Vilnius. M a ž i u l i s V. 1981: Prussian Language Monuments 2, Vilnius. M a ž i u l i s V. 1988: Prūsų kalbos etimologinis žodynas 1, Vilnius. N e z a b i t a u s k i s K. 1996: Naujas mokslas skaitymo dėl mažų vaikų Žemaičių ir Lietuvos, Vilnius. NO – Topografisch-Militärische-Karte vom vormaligen Neu Ost Preußen oder dem jetzigen Nördlichen Theil Herzogthums Warschau, nebst dem Russischen district... Berlin, Hrsg. vom D. F. Sotzman, 1807. MAB RS K–1203. OD – Inventory of documents of the Vilnius Central Archive of Ancient Record Books 9, Vilnius, 1912. P a l i o n i s J. 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija, Vilnius. P e t e r a i t i s V. 1997: Place Names of Lithuania Minor and Tvanksta, Vilnius. P o s p i s z y l o w a A. 1983: Prussian names on the map of the Olsztyn administrative district from the seventeenth century. – Acta Baltico-Slavica 15, Wrocław etc., 243–269. R a z m u k a i t ė M., V i t k a u s k a s V. 1994: A Dictionary of Place-Name Stress, Vilnius. SG – Geographical Dictionary of the Kingdom of Poland and Other Slavic Countries 1–15, Warsaw, 1880–1902. Syn – Synodus diocesana Vilnensis Ab Illustrissimo, Excellentissimo ac Reverendissimo Domino D. Michaele Joanne Zienkowicz Dei & Apostolicae Sedis Gratia Episcopo Vilnensi In Ecclesia Cathedrali Sua, Vilnae, 1744. SPR II: – Scriptores rerum Prussicarum 2, Leipzig, 1863. S p r u o g i s J. 1888: – Географический словарь древней Жомойтской земли XVI столѣтія, составленный по 40 актовымъ книгамъ Россіенскаго земскаго суда Архива-рикусуомъ Виленскаго Центральнаго Архива древнихъ актовыхъ книгъ губерній Виленской, Ковенской, Гродненской–и Минской Иваномъ Яковлевичемъ Спрогисомъ, Вильна. S t r a z d a s A. 1991: Giesmės sviétiškos ir šventos. Faksimilinis leidinys, Vilnius. 202 Subačius G. 1997: Sedos Švč. Sakramento brolijos XVIII a. lietuviškas Jono Domaševičiaus tekstas. – Seda. Žemaičių praeitis 5, Vilnius, 64–71. Subačius G. 1998: Žemaičių bendrinės kalbos idėjos Vilnius. Širvydas 1929: Širvydis. Punktay sakimu (Punktų kazan)... von Dr. Franz Specht, Göttingen. Universitas 1991: Universitas linguarum Litvaniae, Vilnius. Uwogos 1823: Uwogos ape iżganimu duszios katras unt garbes Pona Dieva ir pažitka dwasiška iżdawje Jo milsta85 Kunigas Mikota Smólski Kanounikas Wilnious, Dziekonas, Klebonas Swedasu, Vilnius. Vaitiekūnas S. 1994: Lietuviškos kartografijos istorijos bruožai. – Lietuvos mokslas 2/1(2), Vilnius, 32–42. Vanagas A. 1996: Lietuvos miestų vardai, Vilnius. Wilno 1841: – Wilno od początków jego do roku 1750 3, Przez J. I. Kraszewskiego, Wilno. Vizitacija 1998: – Žemaičių vyskupijos vizitacija (1579), Vilnius. Volter E. 1901: – Списки населенныхъ мѣстъ Сувалкской губернии какъ материалъ для историко-этнографической географии края, Санктпетербургъ, 1901. Zinkevičius Z. 1977: Lietuvių antroponimika, Vilnius. Zinkevičius Z. 1987: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 2, Vilnius. Zinkevičius Z. 1988: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 3, Vilnius. Zinkevičius Z. 1990: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 4, Vilnius. LITHUANIAN FORMS OF OIKONYMS IN NON-LITHUANIAN SOURCES OF THE 16TH–19TH CENTURIES Summary This article examines oikonyms in non-Lithuanian sources from the 16th–19th centuries: their emergence, spread, spelling, and use. In Prussia, such forms are attested as early as around 1540. In Lithuania, they occur in documents from the last quarter of the 16th century. Around 200 different Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are attested in 16th-century Prussian and Lithuanian sources, while nearly 1,000 are found in those of the 17th–18th centuries. The 19th century is even richer in attestations. Numerous Lithuanian forms are recorded in the register books of Catholic churches (around 800 different oikonyms). Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are recorded in all areas where the Lithuanian language was formerly in use. Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are closely connected with those of anthroponyms, which were already frequently recorded in the 16th century. It is assumed that the presence of Lithuanian forms in non-Lithuanian sources of the 16th century can be explained by the work of Lithuanian scribes in chancelleries. The 16th century marked a turning point in the spelling of oikonyms, since at that time the 250-year traditions of Germanizing (in Prussia) or Slavicizing (in Lithuania, following the East Slavic model) Lithuanian oikonyms were abandoned—at least in part—and the forms of oikonyms used by Lithuanians began to be recorded. The article establishes the criteria for Lithuanian oikonym forms: it is important that the morphology of the recorded form be retained, and that the recorded form contain no letter combinations that, from a phonetic point of view, are incompatible with the Lithuanian sound system and that indicate the Slavicization or Germanization of the recorded 85 Probably a typographical error. It should be milysta or milysta. 203 They reflect forms. Lithuanian forms of oikonyms occur in the following cases: Ahnaŭmpuco 1584 = *Antaitis; Zaščanek Antarašstas 1731 *Antaraštas; de Awizieniu 1769 = *Avižienių, Avižieniai; Budupis 1539 = *Būdupis; Dubinikas 1898 = *Dub'in'i'kas, Dubininkas; Dumczus 1744 = *Dumčus, Dumčai and others. Some phonetic features of Lithuanian are not reflected in Lithuanian forms of oikonyms because of imperfect spelling. The Lithuanian forms of oikonyms found in historical documents are compared with words in some Old Lithuanian writings, and shared spelling patterns are identified. On the basis of these patterns, certain spellings of oikonyms previously considered Slavicized are viewed from a different perspective. The Lithuanian forms of oikonyms are important for the history of the Lithuanian language and historical dialectology because they record dialectal features of Lithuanian areas that have no old written monuments. 204