Author’s name:
Andrey N. Belyaev – Bashkir State Agrarian University, Ufa, Russia
Abstract:
The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the origin and history of medieval designations for Slavic settlements, localities, and tribal names within the territory of modern Saxony. There existed numerous variant spellings of tribal names, which were contingent upon the hearing, level of education, and nationality of the chroniclers. Designations for inhabitants are examined in close connection with territorial names, such as Colodici and Colditz, Nudzici and Neutzt. The author seeks to determine what these connections reflect from the perspective of settlement history in Saxony. Primary focus is placed on the mechanisms of borrowing Old Lusatian toponyms into the German language. Two principal types of Lusatian toponyms are identified and described: 1) toponyms derived from personal names, and 2) toponyms derived from common nouns (appellatives). Within each type, frequent word-formative models of toponyms are delineated. The author describes suffixal-derivational models, including those with -ici- (-ovici), -j, -ov, -in, -ina, -ьn, and -jnja. In medieval written records, attested name forms show how these Slavic suffixes were standardized in the German language into the endings -itz, -ow / -au, and [e]n. In many instances, it is difficult to ascertain the character of the proto-form of the Slavic toponym. The East Middle German adaptation of Slavic toponyms, in addition to following regular phonetic patterns, involved secondary convergence with phonetically similar lexemes and anthroponyms. This process could result in secondary semantic motivation, which constitutes a resegmentation and resemanticization of morphemes, thereby establishing new connections at the semantic level. This phenomenon is illustrated with examples such as Rusavin — Roß / wein, Vĕtrošiby — Wasser / suppe, and Zalĕšno — Saal / hausen. The author suggests that the modern form of Sorbian toponyms ending in -ow or -in does not reflect their original state but is rather explained by a later process of morphological leveling. Through the analysis of primary sources, the conclusion is drawn that Slavic toponyms with a bipartite personal name as their topostem emerged earlier than those with a short personal name. Within the structure of these bipartite names, frequent second components include -bor, -bud, -był, -chot, -čast, -drog, -duch, -gost, -mysł, -rad, -spyt, -treb, -vad, -van, and -vol, while common first components include Łub-, Mil-, and Mir-. Names with the second component -slav became productive by the beginning of the 10th century.
| Section | LANGUAGE AND CULTURE |
| DOI: | 10.47388/2072-3490/lunn2025-71-3-9-21 |
| Downloads | 356 |
| Key words | German language; Old Lusatian language, toponymy; toponymic type; hybrid name |