Place Names with Sankt in Bavaria and Baden-Wurttemberg
6. Structural issues
-RÁS MEZŐ’s work (2003) we know of 5900 settlements like this, i.e. at this time every 3rd–4th settlement probably had a church.
To complete the onomato-geographical picture let us turn to two observations pinned down as conclusions of the series of maps illustrating the chronological aspect.
1. The earliest data of patrociny settlement names were recorded in the south-west part of the Hungarian language territory, but a fairly early distribution was also indicated in certain Transylvanian areas. Certain settlement historical reasons may lie in the background of this (the resettlement of Szeklers from the west part of the country), but religious historical factors may have also influenced the appearance of this name type (i.e. the early organisation of Transylvanian bishoprics).
2. The name data multiplied from the beginning of the 14th century. This obvi-ously correlates with the problem of the survival of document sources and with the fact that the first country-wide settlement name census was conducted at this time. In this respect we may again presume a certain degree of interrela-tion with religious spatial organisainterrela-tion. Namely, the laying of the foundainterrela-tion for religious governance (i.e. the organisation of comitats and within them archdeaconries) was concluded by the 14th century, and this probably played an important role in patrociny settlement names gaining impetus.
blessed (= saint) lady’s village’, Szentpéter/földe ‘Saint Peter’s land’, Szent-mihály/laka ‘Saint Michael’s village’ name forms; examples for the latter are Boldogasszony/dörgicse ‘Dörgicse settlement with a church consecrated in honour of the blessed lady (Virgin Mary)’, Szentimre/sárosd ‘Sárosd settlement with a church consecrated in honour of the Saint Emeric’. 2.2. In the second type of compound toponym, the patrociny lexeme is a second constituent preceded by an adjectival first constituent: e.g. Felső/szentkirály ‘upper (=
more to the north) Szentkirály settlement’, Krassó/szentmiklós ‘Szentmiklós settlement located near Krassó river’, Baracska/szentgyörgy ‘Szentgyörgy settlement located near Baracska settlement’.
In a historical sense toponyms were formed in three ways: 1. change in meaning (here metonymy is the dominant name-formation method), 2. morph-ological editing (which in the medieval period almost exclusively referred to toponym-formation), 3. syntagmatic editing (from a possessive structure).
If we place these structural-etymological categories in a wider context, we see the following picture. After the settlement of Hungarians in the 9–10th cen-turies, different semantic and morphological settlement name types were formed in the early centuries in the Carpathian Basin. The most characteristic among these are the following.
formation semantic type
metonymy morphological editing
syntagmatic editing
anthroponym Péter, Pál Péter-i, Pál-d Péter/laka (lak ‘village’) Pál/háza (ház ‘village’) ethnonym Német ‘German’
Horvát ‘Croatian’
Német-i, Horvát-i Német/falu (falu ‘village’) Kraszna/horvát
profession name Ács ‘carpenter’
Kovács ‘smith’
Ács-i, Kovács-i Lovász/földe Kovács/falu tribe name Nyék, Megyer (Megyer-cs) Alsó/nyék
Káposztás/megyer patrociny Szentpéter
Mindszent
— Szentpéter/falva Szántó/szentpéter We can find the patrociny settlement names among the most characteristic semantic categories of Hungarian settlement name-giving. The functional-semantic content referring to the fact that there is a church in the settlement is usually denoted linguistically by a patrociny settlement name, either meton-ymically (without adding any formants to the saint name: Szentpéter, Mind-szent) or through syntagmatic editing (Szentpéter/falva, Szántó/szentpéter).
The name-giving process using derivational suffixes did not play a role with regard to this name-type; among 1390 patrociny settlement names there is only one such datum: Szentkirályd, which was formed from the title Szentkirály
‘saint king’ by adding a -d toponymic suffix. It is fairly obvious, however, that this form was not an existing name form, but rather an individual creation of the document’s scribe. With regard to patrociny settlement names, we have to consider the limited presence of toponym-creation methods’, since name-formation using topo-formants as a linguistic means is basically missing.
Among name-forming methods, the importance of metonymy is shown in that more than a half of all patrociny settlement names in the Carpathian Basin are found exclusively in this form. The Szentpéter, Mindszent type of name-forms created this way are mono-componential toponyms, which convey only one piece of information about the settlement: [a village] ‘located around a church named X (Szent Péter, Mindszent)’. Although syntagmatic editing was less represented in the case of primary settlement names, we can find a few patrociny settlement names showing the potential of this name-giving method.
Boldogasszony/falva, Szentmiklós/háza formed in this way can structurally be characterised as names in which a complement denoting a church is attached to the basic constituent denoting a settlement (e.g. village, residence, house, etc.), and all this in the majority of cases in an attributive possessive phrase.
Name-forms like this only rarely denote a real possessive relation and rather refer to the fact that the denotatum is a village, land, etc. located in the vicinity of a church named X (Boldogasszony, Szent Miklós, etc.).
Syntagmatic editing as a name-giving method played a vital role in the forma-tion of secondary name-forms (the Szántó/szentpéter type). In cases like this, an already existing patrociny settlement name received a secondary adjectival first component with the purpose of distinguishing it from other settlements with the same name: Szántó/szentpéter ‘the Szentpéter settlement located near Szántó settlement’, Kis/keresztúr ‘the smaller of the two Keresztúr settlements’, Sajó/szentpéter ‘the Szentpéter settlement located near the Sajó river’, etc.
Among secondary patrociny settlement names we can also find the type where an already existing settlement name (of different motivation) receives an ad-jective referring to a patrociny: Boldogasszony/hatvana, Szentpéter/dörgicse, Szentistván/baksa. The functional-semantic content of these names can be represented in this way: ‘that X (Hatvan, Dörgicse, Baksa) settlement, which has a Y (Boldogasszony, Szent Péter, Szent István) church’.
The table shown above represents the relationship between patrociny settlement names and other name types. Hungarian researchers usually relate this name type to the settlement names formed without a formant, and emphasise the semantic relationship especially to personal name giving (cf. e.g. KRISTÓ
1976: 48). The characteristic of the name type is that topoformants essentially do not play a role in forming patrociny settlement names, rather, its shows concordance with settlement names of tribe name origin, where we can find name giving with derivatinal suffix only sporadically and at most in secondarily
formed names. Furthermore, it is also characteristic of both name types that the compound, the syntagmatic editing is primarily present in the formation of secondary names; in primary names this name genesis method was rather less frequent than the other Hungarian settlement name types (e.g. toponyms of anthroponym, ethnonym, profession name origin).