This article analyses non-calendar Karelian anthroponyms identified in archival documents from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries on the Zaonezhye Peninsula and testifying to the Karelian ...heritage of this marker for the culture of the Russian North. The analysis draws upon materials of written books, as well as sources of Zaonezhye Volost self-government, which rarely come to the attention of philologists. The sources were compiled on the site with the support of information from residents, consequently, in them, more often than in written books, there are names that used to be found in the national environment. Among them, there are so-called family patronymics and nicknames. At the same time, in accordance with the universal pattern characteristic of nicknames, they reflect the negative characteristics of a person, i.e. laziness, silliness, talkativeness, etc. Many new etymologies of Karelian non-calendar anthroponyms are proposed in the analysis. For etymology, the author extensively uses data of modern Karelian anthroponyms. The value of this anthroponymy is that it significantly expands the fragmentary knowledge of traditional Karelian nouns, especially existing outside Ladoga Karelia. Additionally, it contributes to the reconstruction of the Karelian page in the history of Zaonezhye, as it contains the names of the Karelians who lived there. For the history of the Karelian language, it is significant that in the situation of almost complete absence of Karelian writing dating back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this material contains some features of the language of that time, albeit blurred by Russian adaptation. Some structural markers for distinguishing Finnic anthroponyms by their roots are also proposed.
The article analyzes four toponymic stems with the meaning of ‘flood, overflow of water’ that have Balto-Fennic and — more broadly — Finno-Ugric origins and are attested in the toponymy of Karelia, ...as well as beyond its southeastern borders — in the Russian North. The materials were retrieved from of the Card index of toponyms of Karelia and adjacent regions, as well as the Toponymic card index of the Ural University (data related to Russian North). By virtue of semantics, the toponymic stems under consideration primarily occur in the names of water bodies, as well as flood lands. The analysis shows that all stems have verbal nature and thus are deverbal names. For two of them (Tulv- and Pais-/Paiž-) etymons (tulva, paise) are found in modern Balto-Fennic languages. For the third stem — Kost- (Kosht-, Kust-, Kusht-), which is traditionally associated with Balto-Fennic adjective kostea ‘wet,’ the author suggests the possibility of a ‘flood’-related interpretation. This proceeds, on the one hand, from the fact that the waterlogged places during the flood can be characterized as damp, wet, on the other hand, from the meaning of return movement inherent in the verbal stem kosta-. The latter reflects the characteristic movement of water back and forth. Finally, the fourth toponymic stem is based on the Saami linguistic data and their proto-linguistic reconstruction *pēnte- ‘overflow, rise (about the water level)’ which is presumably present in a number of place names. The analysis makes it possible to revise or at least offer new possibilities for the etymological interpretation of some landscape terms (e.g. pendus), as well as toponymic stems that are substratal for the Russian North and toponyms formed from them (Kushta, Pazha, Pindusha). It ultimately advances us in our search for the origins of the substrate toponymy of the Russian North.
This article proposes a reconstruction of a number of Vepsian and Ludic Karelian derivatives of lexemes, referring to the dialectal vocabulary of the Russian dialects of Obonezhye region. Having been ...lost from the aforementioned Finnic languages due to the Russification of the population living along the transit waterways used for the development of Obonezhye region since the time of Veliky Novgorod, they have survived as substratum or borrowed units in geographically adjacent Russian dialects. Vepsian and Karelian language data are traditionally used for the etymological interpretation of the Russian dialect lexicon. The reverse approach, i.e. the involvement of Russian dialects as a resource for Finnic etymological studies has not been widely used. When reconstructing, it is important to consider such parameters as the area of the Russian word, aiming at a well-defined Finnic language etymon; patterns of phonetic substitution and adaptation of specific Finnic sounds and sound combinations into Russian dialects; the existence of a word and its semantics in related languages. Additional opportunities are provided by the use of toponymic data due to the massive character and good preservation of toponyms. The article reconstructs several Vepsian and Ludic derived lexemes which have not been recorded in dictionaries or other sources. Among them, there are lexemes with suffixes -(e)k and -(e)h (*katek ‘thin ice’, *torek ‘noise, crackling, rumbling’, *čapek ‘overgrown undercut’, räbeh ‘damp low place in the forest’), Vepsian verbal name *kütm <* kütkim ‘leash for cattle’ with the -im suffix, Ludic term *hörpäk ‘stake with branches for drying hay’ with the suffix -äk and Vepsian landscape term *pugend ~ *pugond ‘swift with a narrow bed on the river’, in which the suffix -nd (< -nto) is embodied. The source of Russian dialectal data is the monumental publication Russian Dialect Etymological Dictionary. Vocabulary of Contact Regions (2019) prepared by S. А. Myznikov. A lot of work was done in it to find Finnic roots for Russian lexemes. The author of the dictionary had natural difficulties in attributing Russian dialect lexemes, for which their Vepsian or Karelian etymon did not survive. The interpretations presented in the article, along the way, clarify, supplement, and sometimes correct the etymology of the Russian Dialect Etymological Dictionary.
The article analyzes an extensive etymological word family with the top word gurij, functioning in Northern Russian dialects (mainly near the White Sea). The semantic structure of the word family is ...considered, in which two blocks of meanings are distinguished: 1) with the semantic center 'stone landmark' ('a sign in the form of a stone pyramid, indicating a camp and serving for other orientational purposes' → 'a pile of excrement', 'in divination - index signs from the sourdough', etc.); 2) with the semantic center 'fishing failure' (gúrej popal, gúr'je prinesti 'to return from hunting, fishing, etc. with nothing, empty-handed', gur'jë 'naked buttocks, which women show to men when they return from fishing or hunting an animal with empty hands', otgur'ját'sja 'complete fishing (hunting) effectively, with a (good) catch', etc.). The authors explain the relations between the meanings of the first and second block by the significance of the notion itself, which bears orientational, memorial, and ritual functions. Recognizing the existing etymologies of gurij unsatisfactory, the authors offer two new etymological versions: 1) Scandinavian (perhaps mediated by Saami), cf. Old Scandinavian hǫrgr 'pyramid of stones, sacrificial complex, stone altar'; 2) Finnic, cf. hurri (hurrikas, hurrikainen) 'sign tree (usually cut off in a special way in honor of the neophyte)'. Mutual attraction of heterogeneous words with their subsequent formal and semantic modification is possible. The authors show the typological significance of the considered word against the background of other sacred terms.
The paper is based on data provided by the Linguistic Atlas of the Veps Language, which is currently under preparation at the Institute of Linguistics, Literature and History of the Karelian Research ...Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences. It analyzes five linguistic maps representing the areas of some items of Veps topographical vocabulary which are etymologically closely related to the Finnic languages. Nowadays the vocabulary is rapidly disappearing due to the loss of the indigenous lifestyle and the mother tongue of the people. Therefore, our study includes not only proper lexical data, but also some place names as well as some items of the Veps lexical substrate observed in Russian dialects. This has helped us to more accurately define the historical areas of some Veps terms. Mapping has revealed many details of the lexemes areal distribution, obviously caused by different reasons from geographical to administrative and political ones. The study has established several etymological layers of words with topographic semantics. A few proper Veps terms (e.g. purde) are considered to be of special value as they show the lexical potential of the Veps language. Also, some lexemes of unclear etymology (uhring, poźe) were found, which might have existed in the pre-Veps substrate. The paper describes some possible ways to interpret their etymology.
The article analyzes the correlation between remotivation a toponym acquires in the course of its existence and its initial motivation, as well as the ways these processes reflect the ...ethnolinguistic, historical, and cultural contexts they were driven by. The lost original motivations have been restored for a number of toponymic stems, which rooted in the object’s inherent physical traits that mattered for the nominator. The process of place name rethinking by local people is most systemically manifested in toponymic legends. Thereby, the author distinguishes three cases illustrating the key interaction strategies for the linkages between the motivational meanings of place names and folklore pieces. The first one occurs in legends about primary inhabitants, which generally proceed from the same motifs that are engraved on in the primary place name, but capture the historical memory through the prism of mythological interpretation. The second one applies where the true sources of the name are undetectable, and a ready-made folklore motif is used to interpret the place name. This strategy is studied using the material of three Karelian toponymic stems with ‘female’-related meanings: Neičyt- / Neicyt- / Neitsyt- ‘maiden’s,’ Akka- : Akan- ‘mature woman’s,’ Nainen : Nais(en)- ‘woman’s, female,’ whose primary toponymic motivation is blurred. The third case is where motivation rethinking results in a replacement of the toponymic stem for a different one, which sounds similarly, but is driven by a folklore plot. As a result, the folklore text and the place name carry fundamentally different information. In Central Karelia, the islands traditionally used for drying fishing nets have turned into “treasure islands,” and the toponymic stem Uarto- : Uarro- ‘net drying stands’ acquired the form Uarreh- : Uartehe- ‘treasure, hoard,’ due to its folklore rethinking. The article shows that legend plots allude to the borderland position of Karelia, which refers to the area of Russian motifs or motifs associated with rethinking the events of Russian history on the one hand, so as it falls in the attraction zone of the mythological and historical texts that have arrived from the West, typically from Finland, on the other.
The paper explores modifications of the ancient proto-Finnic toponymic stem *Ylä- ‘top, upper,’ attested in the hydronymy of Karelia and adjacent regions. The analysis aims to reveal its phonetic ...variants and their sources. It is observed that in hydronyms the stem is used both independently and in conjunction with some formants. The latter, originating from derivational suffixes and grammatical markers, have a strong tradition of usage evidenced by a number of discovered toponyms with markers having specific protolanguage features. For instance, toponyms like Ilinž/järv (-nžV < Proto-Saami *-ńće), Ylini/järvi (Finnic -ini), Yliz/järvi (Finnic -ize) showcase different stages of the development of diminutive / attributive suffix. The so-called superlative suffix, derived from the protolanguage superlative marker *-maηće/*-mäηće, along with its Saami and Finnic modifications, is attested in lake names such as Il’mozero, Ilemenza, Il’maž, Il’meza, Elimozero, El’mus, Ylimäine, Ylimäis/järvi etc. on the territory of Karelia and adjacent areas. It is proposed that the same logic applies to the origins of the Novgorod placename Ilmen. To underpin the attempted “upper” toponymic stems reconstruction, the study brings them in line with other place names derived from the stems with spatial semantics, formed with similar formant-types (e.g. lake Pelonč, Pil’masozero, Kukimasozero, Tarazmane). A certain areal distribution of naming patterns, apparently marking different ethno-linguistic groups, is also identified. Specifically, the pattern El’muz ~ Elimys known in the Central Karelia and west adjacent areas of Eastern Finland reflects the Late Proto-Saami linguistic condition. The pattern Ileksa, given its tight range between the lakes Lachа, Vozhe, Beloye, and Onega, as well as its phonetic appearance, may be an ancestry of an earlier language condition, associated with the Late Kargopol archaeological culture. The said culture’s areal quite accurately repeats the outlines of the toponymic range of Ileksa and some other toponymic patterns having a common Finnic-Saami and, in some cases, ancient western Uralic sources.
The system of Karelian oikonyms of South Karelia is analyzed from the point of view of its development in time. For this, along with modern field materials, a wide range of historical sources ...(cadastres, census books of the 15-17th centuries, revision materials of the 18th-19th centuries, historical maps, as well as some other documents of past centuries) are involved. As a result of the study, two clear trends in the development of the oikonym system were traced: the birth of new oikonyms - the names of newly emerged settlements, and the change of former oikonyms to new ones. These processes proceeded in parallel and were provoked by the socio-economic development of the peasant community. It was revealed that certain models existed in a certain time period and, due to this, can serve as chronological markers for studying the formation of the settlement system. Such is the model of complex oikonyms with the main element -selgä / -selga , marking the settlements of the watershed type, which began to appear in southern Karelia at the turn of the 17-18th centuries during the internal migration of the population. It has been proved that the process of interaction between two levels of nomination: official (written) and unofficial (oral) is at the heart of the change of oikonym in traditional oikonymy. The first strove for stability, the second, on the contrary, was unstable, which led to a gap between them and the need from time to time to transfer unofficial names to the official level. A large-scale renaming that affected all of southern Karelia occurred, judging by statistical documents, in the middle of the 19th century. At the same time, field materials contain many informal variants of oikonyms that are not recorded in official sources. It is shown that the analysis of the dynamics in the development of the oikonymic system is promising for the reconstruction of ethno-linguistic and historical-cultural processes. It is proved that the appearance in the 17th century on the territory of the ancient Karelian administrative center Olonets of a whole layer of oikonyms with the formant - la (Karelian -l , - lu ) and their entry into the official level of existence was caused by the active migration of settlers from the Ladoga region. It played a decisive role in the formation of the Livvik dialect as part of the Karelian language.
The article tackles the problem that is topical for all areas of Russia with ethnic minority populations: how local toponyms are presented in the State Index of Place Names. SIPN was initiated by the ...Federal Service for State Registration, Cadaster, and Cartography (Rosreestr) to become a comprehensive registry of designations for topographic objects that must be used in all formal situations. For the territory of Karelia, SIPN includes over 16,000 placenames, nearly a half of which are ethnic Karelian names, the ones in use in the Karelian language milieu, in Karelian-speaking territories of the Republic. The paper gives an overview of the strategies used in the Index to adapt Karelian place names, the dominant being phonetic transcription. Analysis proves it to be highly inconsistent and contradictory due to the lack of an ad hoc manual on representation of Balto-Finnic place names of Karelia in Russian as well as their linguistically incorrect recording by cartographers and post-processing. The authors provide a classification of the main types of phonetic mistakes made in SIPN (inconsistent rendering of the sounds lacking direct equivalents in Russian — long vowels, diphthongs, umlauts, geminates), and highlight problems such as disregard of the complex structure characteristic of Balto-Finnic toponymy, linguistically arbitrary processing of names by collectors, trying to link the Karelian toponymic base to Russian word, as well as liberal treatment of the dialect map and unfortunate slips and typos. Almost a third (for some areas even a half) of Karelian placenames in SIPN are misspelled. The issue becomes more relevant in view of the recent renovation and ramification of the road network and advancement of tourism and other activities, which make the formalized toponymy ‘visible’. The authors provide recommendations for eliminating the inconsistencies and flaws in visual representation of place names and argue that Rosreestr must collaborate with researchers who have access to the fieldwork files of the Scientific Card Index of Place Names of Karelia and Adjacent Regions, which can bring the data in order.
PDF
