Dėl hidronimų darybos nagrinėjimo

to find out what information place names can provide to the modern man about the past of nations, culture, nature, vegetation, customs, social relations, etc. Place names were not considered as a special phenomenon of language, which should be studied linguistically, but rather as “fossiles de la géographie humaine”, “Geschichstguelle”, “Siedlungsgeschichte” and so on. This, of course, does not mean that all previous classifications were meaningless and did not contribute to the development of toponymy. Being connected with the development of the entire linguistic science (and not only language) of their time, they helped to understand the most important features of the semantics and partial formation of place names, gave a lot of knowledge about the past of peoples, languages, nature, vegetation, etc., thus drawing the attention of many scholars to the nomenclature. As can be seen, for example, from S. Rospondo- ’s review of previous classifications, the improvement of classifications was associated with the intensification of the collection of place names, with the farming of toponomastics into a separate branch of linguistics. The semantic-- etymological classifications are now abandoned not only because they, lacking stricter linguistic principles, often confused different facts, made many mistakes in the interpretation of word formation, did not cover the whole variety of place names, but, apparently, also because they have already largely solved the task they set themselves. Further development of toponymics without previous classifications (for Slavs — F. Palacki, F. Miklošičius, T. Voicechovskis, F. Švarc, E. Muka, P. Skokas, K. Mošinskis, V. TaSicki, etc.) would be difficult to imagine. The problem of the new classification of place names is solved by two works published almost simultaneously in different countries. These are P. Lebelio® "Principles and methods of French hydronymy" and S. Rospondo® "Structural-grammatical classification of Slavic place names" '*. In the most important aspects, the ideas of these two famous toponymists coincide in many places!!. The works of P. Lebelis and S. Rospondo can be considered innovative because they looked at place names, at this specific part of the dictionary, not as seekers of historical information, but as linguists o of language į facts. Lebel divides all French hydronyms into three groups: 1) Appellative names (les noms appelatifs ou noms génériques); (2) qualifiers or descriptive expressions (les noms gqualificatifs ou expressions descriptives); 3) descriptive names, i.e. adjectives or phrases that determine the location of an object in space, time or lifetime (les noms déferminatifs). For example (respectively), Fontaine “spring”, la Fontaine —Bouillante, boiling spring, la Fontaine — Saint —Martin'2, Zr. 5 S. Ros pond, Classification.- .., p. 31. * S. Rospond, Classification..., p. 5—27. "Idem. * P. Lebel, Principles et and methods of French hydronymy, Paris, 1956. * S. Rospond, Classification of... '0 Review of both works Zr. B. Tonopos, K npobreme kaaccudukamin o B TOnOKHHMHH, «HcejrejjoBaHHa no cTpyKTYpHOR tunosormm», M., 1963, p. 226—231. "I Plg. Ibid. p. 231. '7 P. Lebel, Principes méthodes et d'hydronymie..., p. 9. 14. Morphological structure of ir Lithuanian language its development 209 d) Subsection — /Įuerancka buys, e) subsecti- — on ĮĮpanoscku ir gives etc. should form a separate group of composite watermarks, within which several subgroups can also be distinguished). Secondary hydronyms are not divided into derivatives of suffixes and prefixes, although such groups are very necessary to distinguish. ir There are more such inconsistencies. Therefore, although J. Zaimov’s classification was compiled long after the publication of P. Lebelis and S. Rospondo’s classifications, it cannot be considered a new step forward in toponymics. | In our opinion, the most acceptable of iš the existing classifications at present are P. Lebelium ir S. Rospondo, although her also ne be trikumy'. P. Lebel's classification is based on toponymic material that is very distant from the Lithuanian language, therefore it is more convenient to use S. Rospondo scheme, because Slavic toponymy is very similar to Lithuanian. Moreover, S. Rospondo’s scheme can be better realized in researches of such profile, whose starting point is the moriological structure of place names. With this in mind, there is a basis for applying the idea of structural-grammatical classification to Lithuanian hydronymy. ir The following short overview of the structure of Lithuanian river names shows that structural-grammatical classification of Lithuanian hydronyms ir is possible. | First of all, all Lithuanian river names are divided into two parts of unequal size į according to the structure: I. ir II. 1998-1999 few words river names. I. One-word river names. Ši The Lithuanian group of river names is the most numerous, several times larger už than the second. Į ją The incoming river names are also of different forms, so they can be classified accordingly: I. River names that have come from iš completely unchanged generic or actual words. S. Rosponde calls them primary. For example: a) iš Appellatives: Bala up., Intakas up., Ūpė up., Ežeras ež. ; b) iš real words; Kūdrotas up., Vaidotas up., Amérika up., Sibiras up. Names of rivers forming a separate group, derived iš from adjectives (substantiated unsubstantiatedir ), river names, t. y. made by substantivization of adjectives (Dargiėji, Juodėji, Sventdji, Sventėja, Saltėja, Juoda, Balta). 2. Derivatives, t. y. monosyllabic river names that have some form of adjective. Iš of all the river names they are the most abundant. According to the work can be divided into two large jų groups: A. Vedic (adverbs, endings, prepositi- — ons for more details see. p. 212). B. The rivers have enriched river names (Jūodupis, Kalnupis, Gėčintakis, Platvagė). Reduplicative river names ir belonging here (Silver, Silver). II. 1998-1999 Several words river names. Ši group is much smaller than the first one už so ir ne diverse. According to the work can be distinguished in it still ‘Zr. B. Tonopos, we're K going to knacendurannu..., p. 226—231. 14* 211 IEIUIULI | Nouns Adjectives Adverbs with -adAdverbs with -agAdverbs su -ainAdverbs su -itAdverbs su -oneAdverbs with -ekAdverbs with -enAdverbs su - ISuffixes with -yfAdverbs su -onAdverbs su -ukAdverbs su - Umtt. ir reiuipaa haesaug Ends -é Ends -ys Ends -(i)us etc. ir IR IUIPIA hiunjen Su prefix adverb Su prefix apprefix Su až(u) etc. BIUIPAA hippopotamus IBTUIPD A II spot —physiographic term II spot —non-physiographic term fuawiap jeded II JUB)SIDIS Point I — noun Element I — adjective I point —number, etc. {uawap | jeded juBysIS [e1uInpng 1eTulie( tepieA hidn jeizpozeuaip plese quunpmys hpaea hidn hianjayry Two-word river names Three-word river names reuny uuu ry Qualifying testsA hidn hizpoz hija) 213 rybicky no longer clear, or, in other words, they no longer have adjective meaning- ?2, A word can be considered derived from another only if: I) next to the derivative there is a word from which the derivative is kiles®, e.g. brūkūvimas „burkavimas“ iš to brew ‘burkuoti’; 2) between the base word and the Vedic? * there is a difference in meaning, because the content of each ką vector has at least a new%; 3) the difference in meaning is necessarily the result of a grammatical change?- ®. (Otherwise, we could consider all ambiguous words, such as nėrti "to dive into the water" and nérti "to knit", to be Vedic.) These basic principles of derivation of common words can be applied to water names. It is understood that the application is limited, only as far as the commonality of these two layers of the vocabulary allows. These commonalities are various, for example, identities in morphology, constructive morphemy, syntactic functions, etc. *" The most important thing for our purpose is that the derivative relationship of some hydronyms with the corresponding generic or proper words is still quite clear. Their functional meaning is also clear (e.g.: river Trumpė, lake Apskritys, river Barsukynas, river Juodėlė, lake Rin- „gys, etc.). For such hydronyms, the basic principles of derivation of common words can be applied without reservation. However, it can be said in advance that such cases are relatively few, because even hydronyms of clear etymology are not always possible to derive from the corresponding appellatives. For example, the name of the river Duobdité (Skaudvilė, Minsnoro int.) is quite boldly derived from the common word duobė, apparently, we do not have a foundation, because it can be derived from another place name, named *Duobė (for example, duobės, mežos, ba- ? ? For this concept, see V. Urbutis, The Formation of Compound Nouns in Contemporary Lithuanian, Vilnius, 1961, p. 67. BT. O. Bunokyp, 3aMerku no pycckomy c/10B006pa3oBannio, «H3Gpauuse paGoth mo pycckomy sswiky», M., 1959, p. 425. # For the separation of the base word from the Vedic plg. : “The root word can be distinguished from the derivative according to its place in the general system of word formation, specifically, according to the direction of word formation relations in the word formation nest, in the synonymic order of word formation, in a certain structural-semantic group of root and derivative roots” —B. H. 3 uHOB beB, IlpoGjiewa ¢oHeTHKO-MOPHOAOrHYECKOro CJIOBOOGpa30BAHHS B DpyCCKOM S3blKe, "Yuchubie s3anuckn TopbkoBcKoro roc. yKHBepcHTeTa: Ha. Mim. Ha. Ha. JloGauesckoro», Buin. 52, capus HCTOpHKO-OHJIOJIOTH4ecKas, Dopsraū, 1961, p. 343. * E.g.: “In order to speak of a derivative relationship, it is necessary that there is not only a phonetic but also a semantic relationship...” (H. Marchand, Esquisse d'une description des principaux alternances déritives dans le frangais d’aujourd’hui,,Studia linguistica®, V, 1951, Nr. 2, Lund, p. 95); “Two conditions are necessary for a word to be called an adverbial derivative. First, it must be possible to analyze it phonetically and semantically. This means that the derived words must be related to the base word in two ways: through the indicative indicative. . ir Secondly, this relationship must be a characteristic of the group." ir (H. Marchand, The Question of the Derivatives Relevancy and the Prefix sin Italian, ibid., VII, No. 1953, 2, p. 104.) * The latter principle is called the commutation principle and, following Ferdinandu de Sosiuru, formulated as follows: different expressions must correspond to different expressors and, vice versa, different expressors must correspond to different expressions (see section 4.4). C. K. Ilaymsan O cywmoctn crpykrypuoji amursucruxmu, BSI, 1956, Ne 5, p. 48). 7 Zr. B. H. Tonopos, min. sick, p. 3.