Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Barbara Bába

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 1. Functional-semantic distribution of the anterior component of two-part toponyms containing a geographic common name as posterior component SS eS Se ee | ee eS ee lee ee ee ees ee ee se lee lle When becoming part of a new name, toponyms in a denoting function refer to the same enoted entity as they did in their original toponymic meaning (Hoffmann 1993: 47, Toth 001: 134). From the point of view of their emergence, these toponyms are formed through 1e attachment of a secondary geographic common name to the already existing place name 0 the toponym Luka): that is how for instance the toponym Luka-hegy ‘mountain called uka’ was formed. Most of the names that can be listed here contain an anterior component f foreign origin, like for instance the Serbo-Croatian component Luka from the lexeme /uka 1eaning ‘woods’. Two factors may have motivated the emergence of this name type: on the ne hand, users of the name may not have perceived the adopted name informative enough, s it does not refer to the type of the denoted entity, because to the majority of the name sers’ community the structure of these names is not sufficiently transparent (Péczos 2010: 5). On the other hand, the attachment of a geographic common name must have been ifluenced by the toponymic system (as a framework of reference). Namely, the basic model ith a geographic common name as posterior component is the most widespread naming attern of the modern Hungarian name stock. Therefore we can talk about adaptation to the orms of the toponymic system of the receiving language also in this case (Hoffmann 1993: 6, Toth 1999: 435, Poczos 2010: 65). The number of anterior components with a denotative imction is rather low in the examined corpus, since—even together with the names whose sting to this category is somewhat questionable—their proportion remains below 4%. The ource of uncertainty can be traced back to the fact that among the analysed names several airs occur in which either member of the pair is a one-part, whereas the other is a two-part ame. In the lack of historic data, in the case of such pairs the direction of the change is fairly ifficult to determine. Nonetheless, names containing an anterior component of foreign origins an be clearly placed into the category of names formed with complementation, as the transfer just have occurred prior to the attachment to the geographic common name (Poéczos 2010: 39). With respect to other names, however, we often lack any kind of hint regarding which vember of the name pair emerged in a secondary process (for instance Meggyes ‘(area) overed with sour cherry trees’~ Meggyes-dild “borderland covered with sour cherry trees’. vas oy i | 1 1 rm 1 fr oy

Table 1 Functional-semantic distribution of the anterior component of two-part toponyms containing a geographic common name as posterior component SS eS Se ee | ee eS ee lee ee ee ees ee ee se lee lle When becoming part of a new name, toponyms in a denoting function refer to the same enoted entity as they did in their original toponymic meaning (Hoffmann 1993: 47, Toth 001: 134). From the point of view of their emergence, these toponyms are formed through 1e attachment of a secondary geographic common name to the already existing place name 0 the toponym Luka): that is how for instance the toponym Luka-hegy ‘mountain called uka’ was formed. Most of the names that can be listed here contain an anterior component f foreign origin, like for instance the Serbo-Croatian component Luka from the lexeme /uka 1eaning ‘woods’. Two factors may have motivated the emergence of this name type: on the ne hand, users of the name may not have perceived the adopted name informative enough, s it does not refer to the type of the denoted entity, because to the majority of the name sers’ community the structure of these names is not sufficiently transparent (Péczos 2010: 5). On the other hand, the attachment of a geographic common name must have been ifluenced by the toponymic system (as a framework of reference). Namely, the basic model ith a geographic common name as posterior component is the most widespread naming attern of the modern Hungarian name stock. Therefore we can talk about adaptation to the orms of the toponymic system of the receiving language also in this case (Hoffmann 1993: 6, Toth 1999: 435, Poczos 2010: 65). The number of anterior components with a denotative imction is rather low in the examined corpus, since—even together with the names whose sting to this category is somewhat questionable—their proportion remains below 4%. The ource of uncertainty can be traced back to the fact that among the analysed names several airs occur in which either member of the pair is a one-part, whereas the other is a two-part ame. In the lack of historic data, in the case of such pairs the direction of the change is fairly ifficult to determine. Nonetheless, names containing an anterior component of foreign origins an be clearly placed into the category of names formed with complementation, as the transfer just have occurred prior to the attachment to the geographic common name (Poéczos 2010: 39). With respect to other names, however, we often lack any kind of hint regarding which vember of the name pair emerged in a secondary process (for instance Meggyes ‘(area) overed with sour cherry trees’~ Meggyes-dild “borderland covered with sour cherry trees’. vas oy i | 1 1 rm 1 fr oy

Related Figures (4)

Table 2. Distribution of the distinguishing function in two-part names 3. Another similarly universal yet much more typical motivation for name giving is the marking of a distinguishing feature in place names: this mode of name giving is characteristic of 83% of the adjunctive part of two-part names. The reason for this lies in the function of the adjunctive part itself, whose most important role is distinction, the most obvious method for this being the expression of some specific feature of the place. The ypological system I apply breaks down the class of name-parts denoting distinguishing features into further subcategories: the name-part may designate a feature of the denoted entity itself (size, shape, material, etc.), the relation of a denoted and an external entity (e.g. flora, fauna, owner, building standing on the place, etc.) or any feature of the denoted entity related to its location. The productivity of the particular subcategories shows great variation. [he largest group (42%) of the examined two-part names contains names that relate the Jenoted entity to another place. Another highly frequent phenomenon (with a proportion of 26%) is constituted by names expressing the relationship of the denoted entity to some >xternal things. As opposed to this, reference to different features is expressed by as little as 15% of the names.
Table 2. Distribution of the distinguishing function in two-part names 3. Another similarly universal yet much more typical motivation for name giving is the marking of a distinguishing feature in place names: this mode of name giving is characteristic of 83% of the adjunctive part of two-part names. The reason for this lies in the function of the adjunctive part itself, whose most important role is distinction, the most obvious method for this being the expression of some specific feature of the place. The ypological system I apply breaks down the class of name-parts denoting distinguishing features into further subcategories: the name-part may designate a feature of the denoted entity itself (size, shape, material, etc.), the relation of a denoted and an external entity (e.g. flora, fauna, owner, building standing on the place, etc.) or any feature of the denoted entity related to its location. The productivity of the particular subcategories shows great variation. [he largest group (42%) of the examined two-part names contains names that relate the Jenoted entity to another place. Another highly frequent phenomenon (with a proportion of 26%) is constituted by names expressing the relationship of the denoted entity to some >xternal things. As opposed to this, reference to different features is expressed by as little as 15% of the names.
Table 3. Distribution of anterior components expressing features of the place 3.2. Among adjunctive parts referring to the denoted entity and an external factor, the proportion of names referring to an owner or user is the highest. The frequency of these names stands out even compared to all the other sub-types, as their 15% occurrence represents the second most frequent name type. Naturally, the dominant presence of names containing these types of anterior components is enhanced also by the fact that all anteriot components constituted by a person’s proper name (Schober/malom ‘mill of a person called Schober’), the name of an ethnic group (Horvat/hegy ‘Croatian mountain’), the name of a profession (Tanito/fold ‘land owned by the teacher’) or the name of a community (Evangélikus/templom ‘Evangelical church’) is listed in this category, unless users of the name are aware of a different motivation for the name giving (cf. Poczos 2010: 71, 74). Personal names annear fairly frequently also among anterior components denoting the
Table 3. Distribution of anterior components expressing features of the place 3.2. Among adjunctive parts referring to the denoted entity and an external factor, the proportion of names referring to an owner or user is the highest. The frequency of these names stands out even compared to all the other sub-types, as their 15% occurrence represents the second most frequent name type. Naturally, the dominant presence of names containing these types of anterior components is enhanced also by the fact that all anteriot components constituted by a person’s proper name (Schober/malom ‘mill of a person called Schober’), the name of an ethnic group (Horvat/hegy ‘Croatian mountain’), the name of a profession (Tanito/fold ‘land owned by the teacher’) or the name of a community (Evangélikus/templom ‘Evangelical church’) is listed in this category, unless users of the name are aware of a different motivation for the name giving (cf. Poczos 2010: 71, 74). Personal names annear fairly frequently also among anterior components denoting the
Table 4. Distribution of anterior components expressing the relation of the place to some external factor 3.3. A rather high proportion, namely 42% of anterior components connected to geographic common names expresses the relation of the place to another place. Also within this group, the most frequent name-forming method (28% of all two-part toponyms with a geographic common name as posterior component) is reference to the precise location of the place. The following micro-toponyms for example contain names of nearby settlements: Husztoti/volgy ‘valley in the settlement of Husztot’, Szakali/szolé ‘vineyard in the vicinity of the settlement of Mecsekszakal’. Information gained from the name users may help in the assessment of the semantic structure of certain toponyms: e.g. the brook called Kakukk/arok ‘cuckoo ditch’ springs in the area called Kakukk-volgy ‘cuckoo valley’. The denotation of direction, although much less frequent than the former type (merely 7%), is quite common in the anterior components of the examined names. Names belonging to this group are mostly street names, e.g. Gerényesi/ut ‘road leading to the settlement of Gerényes’, or the names of water streams, e.g. Sasdi/arok ‘water flowing towards the settlement of Sasd’. Among toponyms referring to the relative location of the denoted entity typical are the place names ERNE ans eee ma Te AUR eke, RANT a As we could see, anterior components expressing the relation of the place to some external entity or circumstance are present in greater proportion than components reflecting particular features of the place. Among these we can find names which express special features perceivable through visual stimulus, such as some nearby vegetation or the vicinity of a building, etc. Nevertheless, the names that make up the largest number within this category are not these ones, but the anterior components referring to owners or users of the place. These names can only be really informative to persons with true local knowledge, while their role played in orientation is even less significant than of those anterior components which signal the relation of the place to another place.
Table 4. Distribution of anterior components expressing the relation of the place to some external factor 3.3. A rather high proportion, namely 42% of anterior components connected to geographic common names expresses the relation of the place to another place. Also within this group, the most frequent name-forming method (28% of all two-part toponyms with a geographic common name as posterior component) is reference to the precise location of the place. The following micro-toponyms for example contain names of nearby settlements: Husztoti/volgy ‘valley in the settlement of Husztot’, Szakali/szolé ‘vineyard in the vicinity of the settlement of Mecsekszakal’. Information gained from the name users may help in the assessment of the semantic structure of certain toponyms: e.g. the brook called Kakukk/arok ‘cuckoo ditch’ springs in the area called Kakukk-volgy ‘cuckoo valley’. The denotation of direction, although much less frequent than the former type (merely 7%), is quite common in the anterior components of the examined names. Names belonging to this group are mostly street names, e.g. Gerényesi/ut ‘road leading to the settlement of Gerényes’, or the names of water streams, e.g. Sasdi/arok ‘water flowing towards the settlement of Sasd’. Among toponyms referring to the relative location of the denoted entity typical are the place names ERNE ans eee ma Te AUR eke, RANT a As we could see, anterior components expressing the relation of the place to some external entity or circumstance are present in greater proportion than components reflecting particular features of the place. Among these we can find names which express special features perceivable through visual stimulus, such as some nearby vegetation or the vicinity of a building, etc. Nevertheless, the names that make up the largest number within this category are not these ones, but the anterior components referring to owners or users of the place. These names can only be really informative to persons with true local knowledge, while their role played in orientation is even less significant than of those anterior components which signal the relation of the place to another place.
Table 5. Distribution of anterior components expressing the relation of the place to another place pas ee SS. He PN RT et os a pipes oat Sa SSS nn ae In toponyms the expression of the relation of | a given place to another place does in some sense play a role in spatial orientation. These types of names certainly are useful in orientation for those with some local knowledge. Their function, however, cannot be restricted to this single aspect, since facilitating communication related to the given place is obviously also a crucial motivating factor in the formation of these names. On the other hand, to people who are not familiar with the place these types of toponyms are not informative enough—in fact, their orientation can be facilitated much better through the use of geographic common names.
Table 5. Distribution of anterior components expressing the relation of the place to another place pas ee SS. He PN RT et os a pipes oat Sa SSS nn ae In toponyms the expression of the relation of | a given place to another place does in some sense play a role in spatial orientation. These types of names certainly are useful in orientation for those with some local knowledge. Their function, however, cannot be restricted to this single aspect, since facilitating communication related to the given place is obviously also a crucial motivating factor in the formation of these names. On the other hand, to people who are not familiar with the place these types of toponyms are not informative enough—in fact, their orientation can be facilitated much better through the use of geographic common names.
Related topics:
Cognitive Linguistics
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved