Aukštutinės Padneprės hidronimija ir baltų praeitis

establishment of direct contacts of Iranian languages. The authors move this boundary much further to the southeast than has been done so far, to the basin of the Seimas river, where they find about twenty names of Baltic rivers. It is worth noting that almost all of them are on the right bank of the Seimas. In turn, we would like to emphasize that the Baltic identity of the majority is unquestionable. jų Linguists, especially in recent times, have noted a number of lexical similarities ir between the Balto-Iranian languages. However, the interpretation of da these similarities has been difficult, since until now it has been unanimously held that there has been no direct contact between the Baltic and Iranian languages. Drawing the southeastern ethnic Baltic boundary to the Seimas basin, where there are almost undoubted Iranian traces, allows the authors to conclude that the Seimas was once a place of direct contact between Baltic and Iranian languages. In a completely new way, the book deals ir with the question of the future fate of the Balts, who left such prominent traces in the toponymy of Upper Transnistria. mo K. Buga claimed that the Balts, who once lived far south-eaį st of today’s Lithuanian territory, under Slavic pressure, retreated to the north-west already in ir the VI-VII m. e. In the 11th century they reached the present o areas, at the same time the Slavs came to Vilnius Zemiy'. In their book V. Toporov and O. Trubachev quite rightly suggest that there was no mass withdrawal of the Balts under Slavic pressure, the Slavs, gradually penetrating the areas inhabited by the Balts, assimilated the Balts on the spot. This is confirmed by some aspects of hydronym o formation, such as the order of suffixes, and į especially the fact that very small streams have Baltic names and a considerable number of names of inhabited places, which change relatively quickly. The assimilation of the Balts had to take place not at one time and not everywhere at once. The authors believe that in some Slavic-occupied Baltic areas the process of assimilation was long and complicated, probably accompanied by a period of bilingualism. The hypothesis of the bilingual period is based on the accuracy of phonetic- -morological substitution of Baltic place names with the endings -as, -us in Slavic languages. In our opinion, the hypothesis of bilingualism would be supported by some Semantics of hydronyms of the Dnieper Basin, accurate semantic values (kalkės), e.g. : Basosenxa (which the authors compare with lit. oak, lat. oak, pr. ansonis) * ir [ybposunka, Jlybposeixa; Jlucuuka| Ponwa (cf. Russian auca; Ponwa —from Iranian word, lapé“) and its tributary Jlonanka (cf. Lithuanian fox). Even when the Slavs penetrated far north, the territories occupied by them still contained white islands for a long time, which gradually disappeared during the bilingual period. V. Toporov and O. Trubachev believe that some of these islands survived for quite a long time, even until the beginning of the second millennium AD. By accepting this theory (and we have no grounds to doubt it so far), we would finally solve some other problems related to the past of the Balts. In particular, this concerns the question of the emergence of Lithuanian islands located to the east and south beyond the territory of the present-- day Lithuanian SSR. ! For this, see. K. Būga, Selected Writings, III, Vilnius, 1961, p. 740 and elsewhere. 223 to solve is already assigned a considerable number of studies of various profiles. However, the vast majority of these studies have concerned the relations between the Baltic Finns and the Baltic Finns, while the problem of linguistic contacts between the Baltic and Volga Finns has been much less studied. V. Toporov and O. Trubachev explain the linguistic relations of the Baltic and Volga Finns in their book somewhat more extensively. The conclusions of their studies once again confirm the existence of direct links between the Balto-Mardvan languages, as already stated by K. Buga, cf. the Mardvan word peel’, pejel’ “knife” borrowed from the Balts. Moreover, V. Toporov and O. Trubachev believe that the Balts have had quite intensive direct contacts not only with the Mordvians, but also with the Maris. (Ceremisais)® One of the main evidences of this statement would be the Lithuanian word lopšys, which the authors consider to be borrowed from the Mari lepš „lopšys; the cradle on which the cradle is hung'". For the consonant š (compare with the Mardvian lavš), lit. lopšys cannot be borrowed from mardviy. The authors’ assertion that the formant k of the imperative in Lithuanian (as in Russian, cf. udu-xa) is derived from the Finnish imperative, whose formant is also -ka (-k), also concerns the Baltic-Finnish linguistic relations. This is a completely new and very bold hypothesis. It will obviously require a separate, larger study to evaluate it. To conclude the more general remarks, we would like to emphasize that the toponyms, the analysis of which allowed the authors to draw so many new and important conclusions, are, in general, quite authentic and accurate. This is particularly true for the Baltic countries. We cannot say anything certain about the authenticity of the Slavic place names, because we could not verify the hydronyms presented in the monograph on the spot, of course, and the sources (printed and manuscript) from which the authors took them are not available to us (except for the collection of P. Maštakov). The lack of accurate records from local people is acknowledged by the authors. However, this major flaw is characteristic, in general, of all our toponymics. We only want to say that in the monograph there is too little operation with the names of lakes, which, admittedly, are not in P. Maštakov- ’s collection, but which, in our conviction, could have been collected from various other sources. The following are some of the inaccuracies in Lithuanian place names: Darupis up. —is Duorupis; Dūma up. —is Dūma and Dūma; Glevija up. —to be Glivija; The origin of this name is now unknown. It appears to have entered the linguistic literature from G. Gerulis’ Die altpreussischen Ortsnamen (Berlin and Leipzig, 1922), where G. Gerulis refers to K. Būga. Savo 5 Zr. K. Būga, Selected Writings, I, Vilnius, 1958, p. 417. * K. Būga (Rinktiniai raštai, III, Vilnius, 1961, p. 590) has already noted that the Balts have had direct contact with the Maris (Cheremis), but he did not consider these relations to have been intense. Later, K. Buga's idea was confirmed by B. Serebrenikov (B. A. CepeGpennnkKoBs, HEKOTOPHX cCJiejjax HCYESHYBLIErO HHAOEBpOnefiCKOTO O S35IKA B IEHTpe eBponelickofi act CCP, Gauskoro K Gaarmitckum s3bikaM, "Lithuanian TSR Works of the Academy of Sciences", series A, I, Vilnius, 1957, p. 69—71) ir in a sense, very hypothetically V. Nikonov (B. A. Hux o uo B, HensBecrHbhie sa3siku Iloouba, «Bonpocs s35iK03HAnus», 1960, Ne 2, p. 89—95). . 7 See also. O. H. TpyGaues, Tpn JinTOBCKHX sSTHMOJOTHH: |. kakfd, shioud, 2. cradle, "Lingua 3. Poznansiensis“, VIII, Poznan, Poland 1960, p. 236—242. 15. Morphological structure of ir Lithuanian language its development 995 100 mg/kg/day To this family, perhaps, belongs ir Kernauja up., Kernavė up., Lake Kefnavas, Lake Kernys So the name of the river There is no reason to doubt the Balticness of the tomb. Name of the river »Kopna due to the jo ambiguity of the author is recorded together su Kapna, but the į etymological dictionary of Baltic hydronyms is no longer included, although it has a good equivalent in the Lithuanian dictionary — Zarna up. | Be that, here fits ir 'Kapna (p. 109), )Kapenxa (p. 57). It is interesting that The Lithuanian town of Zarénai is near The Rivers of Zarne. But plg. Looked up. ir village on this river Žarėnai. 3emOnk, Jem6unxa (p. 188). Although the authors doubt the authenticity ir of the forms, it seems that there is no need to leave to comments šį only about the be nickname. The word may be derived from the Latin word for white, bicolor. z let. Zambas up. ; Xopraiika (p. 188). To be specified Kochubinsky, who connects su Ziovoju, -roti (?). The name of the river is derived from this. su Tease up. Jlabaposka (p. 192). The name of the river is derived from the common name of the river in the Baltic countries, which is su Ladoga. ir su "good", o another tributary of the same river Jo6pas, ĮĮo6panxa be is considered by reservations the Baltic name of lime. Of course, this approach is too generalizing. First of all, to associate all Baltic place names with su the root lab with the adjective su labas is too bold. If in microtoponymy, ir especially in the names of residential places, this semantics can be quite common, it is ir less typical for hydronyms. Lithuanian ji Labu up., Labaūkštas up., Labūžė up., Labūžis ežeras., Labė ež. ir kt in our opinion, would be more accurate to relate ne su labas ‘good’, o su I6bas "dauba, raguva, slėnys, duburys, tarpukalnė". For semantics, see plg. Loba up., Lobinis ež. Here, goodrelates to good as a su s(t)raving current. su If Dnieper Basin River Name Jo6pas, Hobpanka is iš indeed a Baltic name lime, it could have arisen from the folk etymology ji ir iš I6bas< *lip, because both words of these days are — hello ir I6bas — must have sounded similar at the time. On the other hand, the name of the river Zo6pas, Hobpauxa to consider the Baltic | name in lime, especially for the variant Įo6pamka, we should be very careful: plg. Hobpeixa, a variant of Jobpanka, which the authors, in our opinion, quite successfully associate with the Lithuanian su place-name root dubur- =duburys “dike, valley”. O yuk The two ir words have — very similar semantics and are almost synonymous. That the names of rivers in the same area may have the root lobdubr-, suggests ir ir The Dnieper Basin River Names Jla6uus<? *Lobikis ir lo6peuxa; Hdobpuw; Hobpuns. The latter should probably be married ne iš labas ‘good’, o iš anus- (double). Jloma (p. 194). K. The name iš of the nine rivers he knows Jowa tik Ašmenos tributary was considero ed Baltic, all others The geographicjų al location of the village is considered to be of ir Slavic origin. su fault "angry, unsuccessful- "®. Having before our eyes the reviewed work, which significantly expands the scope of Baltic hydronymy, one can fully agree with the authors that other su ir ® K. Bouga, Selected Writings, III, Vilnius, 1961, p. 530. 15* 227 XKepns (p. 188). It is considered a Baltic language with a question mark (see above). In the comments on hydronyms with the ending —5 (p. 126) river names Taro, Cmepre ir )Kepds belongs to a group of hydronyms which the authors consider to be commonly used pure adjectives: JKepde, pase, are, Cmepro, Cyxape, Ilponacro, Py6enxc, Konodeas, Hous, Cou, Korow, ir etc. It is not difficult to understand that these are Slavic appellatives (aepde ‘kartis’, 2pa36 ‘murvas’, ears "cork, pavement in a swamp, cone bed", cmeprs "'death', cyxaps 'dives', nponacrs 'abîme', pybex “siena, riba”, xoaodess well, two ‘duktė’, cet ‘apuokėlis’, kokow "an ancient headdress of a Russian woman?"). If in the dictionary of baltisms I'ars, Cmepro and)Kepde the Baltic are treated with caution, with a question mark, then from the comments the reader undoubtedly understands that these are Slavic place names. So which interpretation should we believe? ; For It is also believed that the word baltic į is derived from this word. be Comparisu son Lit. Smertupis does not help here, because the root smert in the Lithuanian language, o especially in the names of several small streams, is relatively recent, iš borrowed from the Slavic languages. In doing so, Baltic could be considered only ne Cmepro, but also, for example, Py6emwc (p. 125), which the author is given among other hydronymized adjectives together su Cmepro (p. 126). For pybexcplg. let. Rubėžius up., Rubėžupis up. In our opinion, hydronym Py6ex is not considered Baltic for any reason. A similar thing happened ir su In the name of the Seimas basin river )Kanunxa. Speaking about the existence of direct Belarusian-Iranian contacts (p. 231), nickname /Kadunka authors submitted It is included in the Baltic hydronyms list of the Seimas į basin, but not in the jo Baltic dictionary. Moreover, he somehow found himself in the dictionary of Slavic hydronyms, where he is iš considered to have originated sl. *Jad-. Name of the river Myrexep is in the ir etymologiir cal dictionary of Baltic, Slavic hydronyms, although in both cases it is based on K. "The origin of the name of the village: Slatina" (PDF). *Myru-wup. It seems to us that in this case K. The opinion of Boge is not ar unconditionally acceptable. Second component -exeplyginimas sl. su -«xup-, which K. It is only found in personal names, and its semantics is highly doubtful. Be of, quite ne clearly, as a Slavic name *Myruxcup in Slavic languages subject to change į Myrexcep. If the etymology of the word is considered, then the effect could be the opposite. Second component -exep connectisu on liet. the lake is quite obvious. The following Lithuanian river names show that river names can have the lexicon ežer-: Ežer-ēlė (two rivers), Lake (six rivers), Ežer-yščia, Ežer-ėtakis, EZer-uona, Ežėr-upis (five rivers), Ežer-ūpis. For myrplg. (?) - Get up. Šį tą we could reproach ir for the completeness of the baltism vocabulary. Sometimes it is quite clear what ne criteria the authors have used to include or exclude a hydronym from the dictionary. ar į Of course, we do not have in mind cases where tų the authors, limited by the lack of material for the work, deliberately ir avoided it. (Nemunas, Daugava, part of iš Western Bougo, Eyes, Upper Water names of the Volga Basin, clear appella229