MARIJA RAZMUKAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

ON THE FORMS OF CERTAIN PLACE NAMES THAT REQUIRE CLARIFICATION

It is generally assumed that place names used in official contexts¹ are relatively well standardized and normalized. However, when primary oikonyms whose derivational base is a hydronym are examined, forms that are not entirely uniform are also found. The most common cases are those in which the forms of an oikonym and a hydronym differ in stress, stress position, and, less often, in the quality of root vowels or grammatical form. Sometimes such discrepancies between the forms of the two place names may even raise doubts as to whether both place names—the oikonym and the hydronym—formed independently rather than being related names. Only localization data confirm the connection between the derivational base and the derivative.

So what are these discrepancies, and why did they arise? Could they simply be errors or other inconsistencies introduced when compiling inventories and lists of place names? Of course, they may also be due to non-linguistic causes. The aim of this article is to discuss such derivationally related place names whose forms are given differently in normative sources. The oikonyms in the Directory of the Administrative-Territorial Division of the Lithuanian SSR (ATSŽ) and the hydronyms in the Gazetteer of Rivers and Lakes of the Lithuanian SSR (LUEV) are examined.

It should be recalled that the data for the lists of settlement names in the ATSŽ were drawn mainly not from the collection of place names recorded from spoken language held by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language’s Department of Onomastics (VK), but from already prepared sources of settlement names edited and standardized by linguists—from place-name files (VB) compiled between the two world wars (ca. 1935–1940) by counties and rural districts. These files (seven in all) recorded the names of villages, church villages, single-farmsteads, manors, and estate farms. The files, apparently,

¹The official normative sources referred to here are: Directory of the Administrative-Territorial Division of the Lithuanian SSR, part 2, 1976 (hereafter ATSŽ); Gazetteer of Rivers and Lakes of the Lithuanian SSR, 1963 (hereafter LUEV); A. Vanagas. Etymological Dictionary of Lithuanian Hydronyms, 1981 (hereafter LHEŽ); and Dictionary of Place Names, 2002 (hereafter VŽ).

218

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

were compiled hastily, and many things were not rechecked in the localities. Thus the ATSŽ automatically adopted many items from the VB.

The LUEV was compiled later, when the VK was already available, and there was no such haste. Perhaps for that reason it contains few incorrect hydronym forms; some of them have already been corrected in Aleksandras Vanagas’s Etymological Dictionary of Lithuanian Hydronyms.

Since there are several dozen cases in which the forms of a place name serving as a base and its derivative do not formally match, and since these discrepancies may vary, such pairs of place names can be divided into several groups according to the nature of the differences.

1.

The stress, stress position, and paradigm of the oikonym, a derivative of a hydronym, differ from those of the base hydronym:

Beržė (2) vs. Rd: Beržė (4) river, Rd. The second stress paradigm of the single-farmstead name shows that the form Beržė is not a typographical error. One might think that both place names formed independently from Lithuanian béržas ‘birch’. However, the local affiliation of the names of both places—the oikonym and the hydronym—suggests that the single-farmstead name derives from the river name, which the ATSŽ retained with the dialect-specific retracted stress Beržė. The oikonym’s form should be corrected to Beržė.

Čisavà (4) village, Ss, Guob: Čisavà (3^b) river, Ss. The VK contains no data indicating other cases apart from the genitive (Čisavõs), so we have no choice but to consider the oikonym’s fourth stress paradigm correct, by analogy: in this region of Lithuania, place names with the suffix -ava tend to follow the fourth stress paradigm.

Gùžupis (1) village, Pšš: Gùžupỹs (3^b)² river, Pšš. The VK records two variant forms of this river name—Gùžupis (1) and Gùžupỹs (3^b). Both forms are correct, but the official hydronym sources—the LUEV and LHEŽ—have recognized only the form Gùžupỹs. It is reasonable to assume that the oikonym’s form should also be changed to Gùžupỹs.

Juõdlė (1) village, Šauk: Juõdlė (2) lake, Šauk. The stress of the lake name is indicated correctly, since the hydronym is most likely derived from Lithuanian juodlỹs (4), ‘a certain water beetle’,³ or from Lithuanian júodas, -à with root-vowel metatony. The form and paradigm of the oikonym should be corrected to Juõdlė village.

² This is one of those cases in which the position of the stress is also determined by the length of the vowel in the ending.

³For the common Lithuanian words discussed and their explanations, see Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20, 1956–2002.

M. RAZMUKAITĖ. Dėl kai kurių vietovardžių tikslintinų lyčių

219

Kalináuka (1) Mgč: Kalìnauka lake Smal. According to VK data, the lake’s name has a compound variant, Kalìnaukos ežeras, whose first component comes from the village name; therefore, the correct form of the oikonym should be stressed as Kalìnauka.

Kalnyčià (4) village Krž: Kalnyčià (2) river Krž. Cf. the place names Kalnyčiõs pélkė and Kalnyčios pélkė in Kelmė District (VK), which derive from the hydronyms Kalnyčià (4) and Kalnyčià (2). It should also be noted that hydronyms in the Samogitian area with the suffix -yčia belong to accent paradigm 4 (e.g., Voryčià (4) Šlu, Skaryčià (4) Varn, Skirvyčià (4) Rsn, Virvyčià (4) Trš). The oikonym is thought to derive from the accent-paradigm-4 variant of the hydronym Kalnyčià.

Mõrkiškė (1) village Pkrž: Mõrkiškė (1) river Krž. It is possible that these names are not related in origin but arose independently: the village name from the personal name Mõrkus⁴ (cf. other village names recorded in ATSŽ: Mõrkiškiai Nv; Mõrkiškis Žmt), and the hydronym from the personal name Mõrkus. Nevertheless, this is doubtful, since the place names are most likely merely standardized differently.

Puròniškis (1) village Sv: Puròniškis (1) river Šmn. The hydronym may be associated with Lithuanian purõnas ‘marsh marigold’ or with the personal name Purõnas, so the oikonym’s form should be corrected to Puròniškis.

Riñgė (2) village Tj: Riñgė (1) river Tj. The appellatives associated with these place names have three stress patterns in Lithuanian: riñgė, riñgė, ringė. In the Aukštaitian region, the form riñgė is widespread, and the hydronym is derived from it. The village name should match the hydronym’s form, so it should be corrected to Riñgė.

Ropienà (3) village Plk: Ropienà (4) river Kr. LHEŽ derives the hydronym from the meadow and field name Ropienà, which VK assigns to accent paradigm 3: Ropiéną, Ropienojè, and which also has the stress variant Ropiéną (1) (cf. the river Praviena, Rmš). The hydronym, too, is likely to belong to accent paradigm 3: Ropienà, Ropienõs, with Ropiéną, Ropiéną, Ropienojè.

Saltragỹs (3ᵃ) village Ilgž: Saltragỹs (3ᵇ) river Krk. VK data—the forms Sált(ragi and Saltragyjè—indicate accent paradigm 3ᵇ; in addition, the alternative hydronym form Saltragis is also given. No other stress variant has been recorded, so the stress pattern of the oikonym near Ilgž is most likely inauthentic.

Santakà (4) village Igl: Santakà (3ᵇ) river Ss. This is clearly a proofreader’s error in indicating the hydronym’s accent paradigm. The place names are associated with Lithuanian santakà (3ᵃ), an older stress variant listed in LKŽ, and therefore should follow accent paradigm 3ᵃ.

Šakarvà (3ᵇ) village Lkm: Šakarvà (3) river Lkm. Local people stress these place names in two ways—according to accent paradigms 3 and 3ᵇ—so it can be said that both names, the oikonym and the hydronym, are stressed correctly. It can-

⁴For personal names, see Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas 1–2, 1985, 1989.

220

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

It can only be conjectured that the place names of accent paradigm 3 are of an older paradigm, whereas 3^b arose by analogy; cf. the accentuation of the name of the lake located there, Šakarvai (3^b).

Týklė (1) village, Užv: Týklė (2), official Týklis (2) lake, Užv. The village name is undoubtedly derived from the unofficial form of the lake name, Týklė (2). The VK also contains records of this oikonym with circumflex accentuation; on this basis, the form of the oikonym should be corrected to Týklė (2).

Visinčia (2) village, Pab: Visinčia (4) river, Ščn. VK data show only the village and river names with accent paradigm 4: Visinčia, Visinčios, Visinčią; therefore, the accentuation of the village name should be corrected. In this part of southern Lithuania, names ending in -a tend to be declined according to accent paradigm 4 (cf. Gaują, Šalčią).

Valčiuva (1) village, Ss: Valčiuvà (3^b) river, Ss. All the older VK records show accent paradigm 3^b for the river name: Valčiuvà, Valčiuvõs, Valčiuvą. VK records only the genitive form of the oikonym, Valčiuvõs, whereas VB gives the form Valčiuva. It is therefore plausible that the form transferred from VB to the official lists was accented incorrectly, perhaps even by chance. Thus, the village name, too, should be accented according to paradigm 3^b.

Žãmbas (4) village, Krs: Žãmbas (2) river, Krs. Since only the plural nominative form of the place name in the Karsakiškis area, Žambai, is recorded in VK, it can be concluded that the hydronym, too, should belong to accent paradigm 4.

2.

The root-vowel quality differs between the oikonym and the hydronym:

Bìtvanas (1) vs. Vnd: Bý vanas (1) river, Vnd. LHEŽ questions the long root vowel in the place name and attempts to connect it with Lithuanian bitė. Although the etymology remains obscure, it may be supposed that the stressed root vowel in the river-name form Býtvanas is lengthened in the dialect because of the accent, while the hydronym form Bìtvanas may be authentic.

Drùlupis (1) village, Rm: Drūlupis river, Rm. LHEŽ connects the river name with the personal name Drùlià, Drulià. LPŽ also records the surnames Drulỹs, Drùlius. Thus, the river name is connected with the personal name Drùlià, while the village name was apparently left with a short u during standardization, on the assumption that stressed u is lengthened in the dialect. It is possible that u is lengthened in stressed position in the Eastern Aukštaitian dialect, since the surname Drùlià with a long vowel is recorded only in southern Lithuania. Therefore, the standard form of the river name should also be Drūlupis.

Duburáitis (1) village, Antz: Dūburáitis (1) lake, Antz. LHEŽ connects the lake name with Lithuanian duburỹs ‘hollow’. The oikonym form is given by connecting it with the common-

M. RAZMUKAITĖ. Dėl kai kurių vietovardžių tikslintinų lyčių

221

from the word of the native language duburỹs. It is doubtful whether the form with ū is authentic (cf. the forms recorded by Kazimieras Būga in the vicinity of Antazavė: Duburaitis, Duburỹs)⁵, since the word dūburỹs is recorded in the LKŽ only in southwestern Lithuania.

Dùkinė (1) village, Upt: Dūkinė river, Krkn. The LHEŽ derives the river name from Lithuanian dūkas ‘bittern’. The oikonym should be regarded not as having developed independently from the personal name Dùkas, but as deriving from the river name Dūkinė; therefore, its form too should have a long ū: Dūkinė.

The oikonym has a non-standardized form – Adincavà (2) village, Auk: Adinčiavà (2) river, Btr. These place names derive from the surname Adinčius, so the oikonym should not retain its dialectal form but should be standardized, like the hydronym: Adinčiavà.

The article reviews how and why some oikonyms regarded as primary formations from hydronyms formally differ in official sources from their base words—the hydronyms. The forms of some of them could be revised or corrected when lists or compilations are drawn up in the future.

ABBREVIATIONS IN LOCALITY REFERENCES

Ab – Abarauskaĩ (Lazdijai district) Rd – Radviliškis Akm – Akmẽnė Rm – Ramýgala (Panevėžys district) Antz – Antãzavė (Zarasai district) Rsn – Rùsnė (Šilutė district) Auk – Aukštãdvaris (Trakai district) Sld – Saldùtiškis (Utena district) Btr – Butrimónys (Alytus district) Smal – Smálvos (Zarasai district) Guob – Guobaĩ (Marijampolė district) Ss – Sasnavà (Marijampolė district) Igl – Igliáuka (Marijampolė district) Sv – Svėdasaĩ (Anykščiai district) Ilgž – Ilgižiaĩ (Raseiniai district) Šauk – Šáukenai (Kelmė district) Kr – Kriūkai (Šakiai district) Šlčn – Šálčininkai Krk – Krãkės (Kėdainiai district) Šmn – Šimónys (Kupiškis district) Krkn – Krekenavà (Panevėžys district) Tj – Taujė́nai (Ukmergė district) Krs – Kārsakiškis (Panevėžys district) Trš – Trýškiai (Telšiai district) Krž – Krãžiai (Kelmė district) Upt – Upýtė (Panevėžys district) Lkm – Liñkmenys (Ignalina district) Varn – Vārniai (Telšiai district) Mgč – Magùčiai (Zarasai district) Vg – Váiguva (Kelmė district) Mlt – Molétai Vs – Veisiejai (Lazdijai district) Nr – Nevarė́nai (Telšiai district) Zbš – Žūbiškės (Kaišiadorys district) Pab – Pabarė (Šalčininkai district) Žsl – Žasliai (Kaišiadorys district) Plk – Plókščiai (Šakiai district) Žmt – Žemaitkiemis (Ukmergė district) Pšš – Pašùšvys (Radviliškis district)

⁵ See Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai 3, 1961, 956.

222 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81

ŠALTINIAI

ATSŽ – Lietuvos TSR administracinio-teritorinio suskirstymo žinynas 2, Vilnius: Mintis, 1976.

LHEŽ – A. Vanagas. Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1981.

LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20, Vilnius, 1956–2002.

LPŽ – Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas 1: A–K, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985; 2: L–Ž, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1989.

LUEV – Lietuvos TSR upių ir ežerų vardynas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1963.

VB – Vietovardžių bylos, saugomos LKI Vardyno skyriaus fonduose (mašinraš čiai sudaryti 1935–1940 m.).

VK – LKI Vardyno skyriaus vietovardžių kartoteka iš gyvosios kalbos.

VŽ – Vietovardžių žodynas. Vyr. red. A. Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2002.

Gauta 2008 03 26

ON TOPONYMS: SOME FORMS SHOULD BE AMENDED

S u m m a r y

The paper discusses tens of primary oiconyms originating from hydronyms and differing from them in paradigm, the quality of the root vowel etc. On the basis of the data stored in the card index of the Department of Onomastics of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and word etymologies, an attempt is made to identify the authentic forms of the base and the derived toponym. To be able to compare them with the present-day forms, the data have been collected from the sources of standard language approved for official use: A Manual of Administrative-Territorial Division of the Lithuanian SSR (Lietuvos TSR administracinio-teritorinio suskirstymo žinynas, volume 2, 1976), A Manual of River and Lake Names of the Lithuanian SSR (Lietuvos TSR upių ir ežerų vardynas, 1963) and A. Vanagas’ Etymological Dictionary of Lithuanian Hydronyms (Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas, 1981).

MARIJA RAZMUKAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius

M. RAZMUKAITĖ. Dėl kai kurių vietovardžių tikslintinų lyčių

223