In the history of the Hungarian language we can find the following topoformants:
-s, -d, -gy, -i, -j, -n and -ó/-ő, -ka/-ke and -ság/-ség, and two formant groups: -sd and -nd. In the case of several of these formants literature mentions the problem of “allomorph or independent formant”. The criteria for deciding the alterations of formants are as follows: 1. shared origin, 2. same function, 3. similar phonetic behaviour, and 4. if there are relevant data, changes observed on the same root. (It is important to note that alternation does not only mean a uniformity of functions, because then it would overlap with synonymy.)
In the Hungarian language the possibility of alteration occurs most frequently with -d and -gy. Since in this case a shared origin cannot be proven, and the morphological behaviour of the two formants is different as well (-d often followed by a vowel, and while -gy joins the free root, -d can join the bound root on several occasions), they must be two individual formants independent of each other. The relation of -d and -t, however, differs from this: -t is merely the unvoiced counterpart of -d, and as such it is not an independent formant. They often change within one word form as well. If we accept the interpretation of -t and -d as allomorphs, then we can also interpret the relationship of -st and -sd among the formant groups (compound formants) in a similar manner.
The relationship of the formants -i and -j is rather complex: although looking at their origin (they both have the same origins as the possessive suffix) and functions we could rightly claim that they are allomorphs of each other, they differ in their morphological behaviour. Since the -j topoformant became independent, morphological changes can be observed in -j/-aj/-ej (and not in -i and -j).
The problem of “allomorph or independent formant” has emerged in the case of the formants -s and -cs as well: although a shared origin is very likely and in the early period the two formants could be regarded as dialectal versions of each other, later on they became independent with different functions. The formant -cs has gained a diminutive meaning, while -s has become the formant expressing abundance and a formant of collective nouns, and from this function it went on to become a topoformant.
Ágnes Bényei
Once More about the ‑d Topoformant
The formant -d is the most typical and most frequently used Hungarian topo
formant, it occurs not only in settlement names but in hydronyms, names of hills, and in other microtoponyms as well. The supposition that it is most likely the most typical topoformant is supported by the fact that this function has been recognized even in the earliest works, even though in the case of individual names different functions of the formant sometimes blend together, that is, they cannot be separated unambiguously (besides a topoformant, in Old Hungarian -d could have been an anthropoformant, a formant expressing abundance, and a diminutive formant as well).
There is relative consensus on the development of the function of the -d topoformant, which has been traced back to its frequent occurrence in anthroponyms. Anthroponyms are very often used to denominate places, since one of the most frequently observed motivations in naming places is the expression of possession, therefore—since in Old Hungarian -d was a typical ending for anthroponyms—this same formant may have turned into an ending for toponyms when anthroponyms turned into toponyms without formants. Its former productivity is indicated by the fact that it can be found as a formant of names of foreign origin (Kamond, Kulcsod, Polyánd, Vezend). Its productivity has been sustained even after the Early Old Hungarian period, when it was the most active, and later on it could be found as an additional complement to already existing toponyms as the sharp signifier of the toponym (Agár > Agárd, Endre > Endréd, Komló > Komlód), and in some cases as an ending to newly formed toponyms, even though in that period compound names represented the majority among new toponyms. The fact that it is still the signifier of the “toponym status” in linguistic consciousness shows that it can still be used in the forming of fictional toponyms (e.g., for places in literature). When joined with the formants -s and -n(y), it creates a typical formant group in toponyms: Füzesd, Kövesd, Ölyvend, Simánd.
The formant -d can change when used with other topoformants (Almád ~ Almás) and with second constituents such as -falva, -telke (e.g., Peterd ~ Péterfalva).
Valéria Tóth
On the Onomastic Role of the Possessive Suffix ‑é
In this paper, it is my intention to raise the possibility of an old namegiving method related to settlement names coming from personal names, which has not been discussed before in any sources of the relevant literature whatsoever.
Place names used to be coined out of personal names in old Hungarian in three distinct ways: without a formant (Pál, Péter), with the help of a derivational suffix (Pály-i, Peter-d), and by compounding, especially with a geographical common word as a second constituent meaning ‘settlement’ (Pál/háza, Péter/
laka). Among the examples for the first way, however, there are quite a few names whose original form cannot be proved to have existed with the help of our sources. Recognizing this problem, I have proposed that Bercse, Báré, Böhönye, Hetenye and others can be described to have the same morphological structure and, in their cases, a morpheme was added to the actually existing contemporary personal names of Hetény, Bercs, Bár, Bö höny as a name base, which a) is not functionally incongruous with namegiving, b) can be found analogies for on the basis of the latercontemporary system of names, and c) can be harmonized with the available data even from the aspect of historical phonology.
I have endeavored to show the toponym-constituent role of the possessive suffix -é in the early Old Hungarian Period with the help of concrete toponymic data and an argumentation of the theory of morphemes (in settlement names of the type Pál-é, Bár-é). For the argumentation, I have used the following points of view: a) this morpheme has existed from the beginning of the independent existence of the Hungarian language, i.e., from the Old Hungarian period, b) in place names, the function expressing possession is a typical feature, and c) there are place names with the possessive suffix -é even in the current system of toponyms.
I have also explained why these wordending -é morphemes got shortened in the majority of place names (Bercse, Hetenye), despite the fact that the -é possessive suffix continues to remain long to this day. This shortening has been facilitated by a double analogy in the toponymic system: a) the shortening of the -í suffix, which has a parallel development pattern and the same function as -é (which we can observe, for example, in place names of the kind Péter > Péteri, Pál > Páli);
b) in most of the communicational situations, place names are used with a locative suffix, so the form of a nominative Györké answering the question where? would be Györkén, just as in the case of any other place name of like phonotactical structure originally ending in -e: Szemere, but Szemerén. The analogy of the latter facilitated the conclusion of the toponym form type Györke with a short vowel. I have also discussed the issue of the separation of -i locative suffix and the -é possessive suffix from formal and functional aspects and its temporal and chronological features.
6. Personal Names and Place Names
Valéria Tóth