This study examines the claim that frequently occurs in scholarly works on onomastics: that the most resilient and permanent group of the toponym system is composed of hydronyms. The continuity of hydronyms can, of course, be examined
at the level of their elements but the typological restructuring within the entire system is also worth studying. Accordingly, this study does not present some kind of change typology of hydronyms, instead, it reviews the characteristic structural types of hydronyms through the comparison of two systems of hydronyms that are distant from each other in space and time. The study also presents the changes that occur in the two systems from a chronological and regional aspect.
Examinations reveal differences between the systems of hydronyms both regionally and chronologically. The most striking difference appears to be the fact that the difference in the proportions of one to twoconstituent names in the Old Hungarian period was much more significant in the two early Old Hungarian corpora than shown by the modern name corpus. The reason for this must be that the toponymic competence of people living in older periods did not go beyond their immediate narrow surrounding, whereas contemporary people know and use numerous other names as well. This, in turn, is likely to influence the unification of the toponymicon.
The distribution of structural types of names also reveals an important difference:
in fact, some kind homogenisation can be detected in this respect, too. Early hydronyms show a relatively diverse picture in this respect: among onecon
stituent names hydronyms become from loan names, settlement names, and derived hydronyms stand out by their shere proportion, whereas in the group of two-constituent names adjectival first components and hydrographic common words as second component are prominent. On the contrary, in the contemporary name corpus typical toponym structures are those having a first constituent ending in -i suffix and a hydrographic word as a second constituent. (Naturally, a shift of the semantic structural types can also be detected beyond the changes in these lexicalmorphological models.)
István Bátori
Onomatosystematical Analysis of Old Settlement Names in Transylvania
The present paper focuses on early settlement names in three Transylvanian counties, Kolozs, Doboka and Fehér. The analysis of settlement names in the early days of Transylvania is important partly because we do not have an abundance of written sources at our disposal about the history of the area in the 10–11th centuries, and therefore the value of the relatively frequent toponyms occurring here increases in resolving such historical issues as the settlement of Hungarian people in the area or the layering of different ethnicities.
In linguistic and historical research experts tend to rely on individual specific names and emphasize the role of name structures which are extraordinary,
somehow different from the average. In my paper I approach toponyms differently and examine what the most frequent types of names and really productive name structures tell us about the history of this area.
The most important result of the research is that between the two parts of Transylvania which are significantly divided along linguistic lines, the northern areas show a more archaic quality. This is supported by those names made up of two constituents in which the second part expresses the type of the place. In Kolozs and Doboka counties in the north we can frequently find toponyms which are considered older, containing the geographical common word -telke ‘cultivated land’: we can find this lexeme in three-quarters of all similar toponyms. In Fehér County in South Transylvania this type is less frequent, instead representatives of a more recent type (names with the second constituent falva ’village’) can be found in a greater proportion. This result is reproduced in names expressing possession: in the north, that is, in Kolozs and Doboka counties names formed from an anthroponym without a formant are more typical (and regarded older) than the more recent ones, twoconstituent structures containing an anthroponym.
These latter ones are more frequent in southern areas.
I think that similar examinations are important because most of our knowledge about Transylvania originates from the early 20th century, and as such, needs revision.
Figure 1. The Distribution of Geographical Common Words with TypeIndicating Function in the Toponym Corpus of Fehér County, Transylvania
-telek ~ -telke
-falu ~ falva -lak(a)
-vár
-egyház-akna-bánya -vására -szeg
Figure 2. The Distribution of Geographical Common Words TypeIndicating Function in the Toponym Corpus of Kolozs County
Figure 3. The Distribution of Geographical Common Words TypeIndicating Function in the Toponym Corpus of Doboka County
-telek ~ -telke -falu ~ falva
-ház(a) -lak(a)
-egyház-vár-akna -hely -fő -monostora
-telek ~ -telke -falu ~ falva
-ház(a)
-vár-akna -hely -fő
Béla Kocán
Onomatosystematical Connections among Toponyms of Ugocsa Comitat in Middle Hungarian Age
In my research I focused on the (1526–1772) the toponym stock of Ugocsa comitat in the Middle Hungarian Age and I examined to what extent newly formed toponyms rely on already existing ones. In my analysis I used a previous work of mine as basis for comparison, in which I analysed the Old Hungarian era (1210–1526) of the comitat from the same perspective.
I have illustrated the process in which a word family is formed on the extended family of the hydronym Kadarcs, introducing the term primary name (Kadarcs
‘hydronym’) and secondary name (Kadarcs ‘hydronym’ > Kadarcs ‘farm name’).
Starting from this name family, I also discuss the names I included in the analysis and I also mention the socalled deduced names, that is, when the primary name cannot be documented, but based on the structure and/or meaning of the secondary name, we can very likely account for a nondocumented primary name as well (e.g., *Ragozna ˂ Nagy-Ragozna).
Out of the 1331 denotates of the Middle Hungarian Age 279 (21%) are secondary names, the basis of which are comprised by 188 (14%) names. Primary and secondary names together make up somewhat more than a third of all names, which is an improvement compared to Old Hungarian. As a part of onomatosystematical analysis, I sorted primary names by toponym types and discussed which secondary names they contributed to. Hydronymic primary names present a slight decrease compared to Old Hungarian (from 45% to 34%), but they still contributed to almost half (41%) of Old Hungarian secondary names. We can observe that the formation of word families relies less and less on older macrotoponyms, instead, the ever growing stratum of microtoponyms has a more significant role. The toponym typological analysis of secondary names suggests that the majority of secondary names (89%) are microtoponyms, which is twice the amount of those in the Old Hungarian Age.
The chronological distribution of primary and secondary names also illustrates that using older toponyms to form new names was very typical in the Old and Middle Hungarian periods as well. We can see that primary names constitute a decreasing part of the name corpus, while the number of secondary names has been growing. In the structural analysis of primary and secondary names we can notice that primary names are typically comprised of one constituent, although there is a decline between Old and Middle Hungarian. Secondary names are typically formed of two constituents, and the most characteristic method for creating secondary names is syntagmatic editing (94%).
Magdolna Csomortáni