Search

The article presents the current work of the Commission on Names of Localities and Physiographic Objects to put Poland’s official geographical names in order. It outlines the main trends resulting from the requests of local authorities: changes in the forms of names (phonetic, inflectional, and derivational), renominations aiming to eliminate the discord between the official and non-official toponymy, establishing names for newly created or nameless objects, changes in the type of locality, and the abolition of names. Particular attention was paid to the impact of the regulations of various central administrative authorities on naming, the principles of the codification of names were presented, the Commission’s actions to counteract the mass abolition of names of small objects, and conclusions drawn on the effects of its work between 2017–2022.

In my paper I would like to analyze two sections of space: natural and cultural landscape (in terms of historical geography) and their reflection in the toponymic landscape. The greater focus will be on those elements of the natural landscape (the shape of the surface, soil, flora, fauna) and cultural landscape (forms and types of settlements, defense system, administrative divisions and borders, economic organization and trade, ownership, communication and roads), which were most often recorded and most frequently used in Polish oikonymy over the centuries.

Deanthroponymic Potamonyms in the Vistula River Basin (Methodological Problems and Typology of Names) Water names, using the genetic-motivational criteria, can be divided into two superior groups: deappellative and deproprial hydronyms. Among the hydronyms derived from proper names, one can distinguish between the detoponymic and deanthroponymic. The names of flowing waters from anthroponyms are the subject of this article. Preliminary statistical data regarding deanthroponymic potamonyms in the Vistula river basin, their chronology, naming models, word formation bases and geographical distribution are presented. The results of the analysis show that the deanthroponymic potamonyms account for approximately 6.8% of the names of flowing waters of the Vistula river basin, estimated at more than 13,500. They appear sporadically in documents as early as in the 13th century, with only 12% visible until the 16th century, with most of them not being noticed until the 19th and 20th centuries. Such a statistical distribution is typical for the names of the flowing waters of that basin. Deanthroponymic names of rivers represent a variety of naming models, but most often appear as a part of compound names created with the suffix -ow, one-word formations with the same suffix and derivatives from the suf. -ka. They mainly identify objects located between the Sola River and the Dunajec River, especially in the Dunajec River basin, so in mountainous and submontainous areas, as K. Rymut claimed. The basis of such potamonyms are mainly personal names with different motivations, rarely being ethnonyms and first names.

Review: Todor Bojadžiev, Vladimir Žobov, Georgi Kolev, Maksim Mladenov, Darina Mladenova, Vasilka Radeva, Ideografski dialekten recnik na balgarskija ezik , Vol. 1: A–D, Sofija 2012, 1055 pp. The article is a review of the first volume of An ideographic dialectal dictionary of the Bulgarian language . One of the crucial distinguishing features of the dictionary are the entry words, which are lexemes of literary Bulgarian naming the particular concepts. The entries are listed alphabetically but in keeping with the conceptual, onomasiological order. The particular entries contain all the registered dialectal forms along with their phonetic and morphological variants and information on the variants’ geographical distribution. Such way of presentation is supposed to provide a full picture of the equivalents of the general-language lexeme (concept) and demonstrate the diversity, lexical richness and nominational capabilities of Bulgarian dialects, while the choice of particular motivational features in the formation of words is supposed to reflect the specifics of the language users’ culture. The dictionary also contains words with no equivalents in the general language, a fact that allows for establishing the thematic groups (or semantic circles) in which Bulgarian dialects developed lexis that is peculiar to them. Rec.: Todor Bojadžiev, Vladimir Žobov, Georgi Kolev, Maksim Mladenov, Darina Mladenova, Vasilka Radeva, Ideografski dialekten recnik na balgarskija ezik , T. 1: A–D, Sofija 2012, ss. 1055 Artykul stanowi recenzje pierwszego tomu Ideograficznego slownika dialektow jezyka bulgarskiego . Jednym z podstawowych wyroznikow omawianego slownika są wyrazy haslowe – leksemy jezyka literackiego, nazywające poszczegolne pojecia. Artykuly haslowe są uporządkowane alfabetycznie, ale z zachowaniem ukladu pojeciowego, onomazjologicznego. Poszczegolne hasla zawierają zarejestrowane formy gwarowe i ich warianty fonetyczne oraz morfologiczne z uwzglednieniem rozmieszczenia terytorialnego danych postaci. Taka prezentacja ma dawac pelny obraz ekwiwalentow gwarowych danego leksemu (pojecia) z jezyka ogolnego oraz pokazac roznorodnośc, leksykalne bogactwo i mozliwości nominacyjne gwar bulgarskich, a wybor określonych cech motywacyjnych w kreacji wyrazow ma oddawac specyfike kulturową uzytkownikow jezyka. W slowniku mozna tez odnaleźc szereg specyficznych wyrazow, ktore nie mają odpowiednikow w jezyku ogolnym, co pozwala ustalic, w jakich grupach tematycznych (czy tez kregach semantycznych) gwary wyksztalcily swoją wlasną leksyke.

Wine is a crucial part of the cultural history of the territory within the current borders of Bulgaria from the earliest times until now. It plays an important role in the life of Bulgarians and is a multiethnic heritage of this land. Bulgarian toponyms only archive a lexicon associated with wine in a small degree, with more toponyms found regarding vines and vineyards which were characteristic elements of the native landscape. The Bulgarian enonyms constitute a “multilingual patchwork”, where the locality (present, but not dominant) is mixed with globality. Locality is mainly reflected in the detoponymic and deanthroponymic names referring to the Bulgarian heritage and also the Thracian, Greek and Roman legacy of those lands. Globality is revealed in the linguistic “hybridity” manifested by the free use of foreign models, naming vocabulary and intertextuality appealing to a global experience. This part of Bulgarian enonymy derives mainly from the English and French language, as well as Spanish, Italian, Greek and Latin.