Eine Untersuchung ukrainischer Personennamen des XVII. Jahrhunderts: Kiever Regiment byRoland WeischedelReview by: H. LeemingThe Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Oct., 1976), pp. 594-596Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4207337 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 22:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:05:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

594 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

made by Mathiassen, presumably because he was using the German edition of Vasmer. The Russian editors include a reference to Menges's article, but describe his suggestion as 'superfluous' (iWliine), the stock reaction to an awkward question. Incidentally, although Mathiassen follows Vasmer in assuming currency of gaj in Old Russian, the evidence of Sreznevsky points rather to a fourteenth-century Old Ukrainian bor- rowing from Polish. Other words one suspects include kat, kavyka, motyka (the last two presented as possible examples of long vowel in a suffix). Since tatb does not appear in the index and I could not locate it in the text, I presume that the author rejected this candidate, although Vasmer proposes long-vowel cognates in Celtic and Greek. In this case the possi- bility of borrowing from an oriental source should be considered: Mahmud of Kashgar's dictionary of Old Turkic, compiled in I072-4, attests tat with two meanings, 'foreigner' and 'derisive nickname for non-Islamic Ujghurs' (Drevne-tjurkskij slovar', Leningrad, I969, p. 541). The quotation from a folk poem which accompanies and illustrates the latter usage reads: 'Like birds we attacked the Tats in Ujghuria, those thieves, those loath- some dogs'. Could not tatb be a Slavonic collective noun based on the Turkic ethnic name?

After reading Mathiassen's work one is grateful for the vigorous and stimulating discussion of a whole series of problems which still await solution. Particularly valuable is the distinction he insists on between an active and a passive Sprachbund; within the framework of the latter the individual members (in this case Baltic and Slavonic) could continue independently to apply and develop inherited principles of word-forma- tion. London H. LEEMING

Weischedel, Roland. Eine Untersuchung ukrainischer Personennamen des XVII. Jahrhunderts: Kiever Regiment. Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Munich, 1974. I90 pp. Bibliography. Notes. DM 28.

THIS is a contribution to the history of personal names in Ukrainian. Its subject matter is the muster-roll of the Kiev Regiment, which comprises one section of the register compiled in I 649-50 by Ivan Vyhovs'kyj, at the time clerk-general of the Zaporozhian forces and later Hetman of the Ukraine. Most of the 2,000 men are recorded with both baptismal and surnames; about 50 have only one name. There is therefore ample material for such a study.

After a short introduction which presents the historical background the author discusses baptismal names and surnames in two separate sections. The baptismal names are for the most part well-known and pose few problems of derivation. The author comments on their history in East Slavonic, on the formation of diminutives and certain orthographic peculiarities, presenting the material first according to relative frequency, starting with Ivan and derivatives, met 223 times, and ending with such singular examples as Sapon, Furs and Kalpar (which appears by some mis- chance as Kaspsr on pp. 86, 89 and I58). A second list presents the same

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:05:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 595

material in alphabetical order. One would like to know more about some of the less frequent names. Is Sila in fact a Christian name and not a nick- name? Is Jermolaj with its diminutive form Jermak a Christian name derived from Gk. 'Ep,uoAacosv? This is the etymology given by Vasmer, but recently N. A. Baskakov, the eminent Soviet turcologist, has proposed derivation from Turkic er 'man' + molla 'mullah' (see Tjurkizmy v vostoenoslavjanskich jazykach, Moscow, 1974, p. 276).

The surnames which are patronymic in origin are given in two lists, one in order of frequency, the other alphabetical. There follows the most interesting material, 480 surnames of various types, denoting trade, place of origin, personal characteristics, etc. Reading this multifarious roll-call one wonders what it would have been like to share a billet with some of those present. Aksametnyj, Bezzubko, Bezdivotko and Kapusta seem a docile enough crew; Bljablja, Bovtuska, Krikunec', Tovstyj, Fudament (sic!) and Chmel' would have made a Falstaffian band, if their names are any guide.

Weischedel classifies the names indicating place of origin in four groups: national (Madzar, Moskal', Turein); regional (Dolinenko, Poleluk); home- town (Bilocerkovec', Kolomyjec', Ljubec6anin, Pineuk); microtoponyms (Zaluzkij, Zarienyj, Zahornyj). Of particular interest is the next class, namely those referring to trade, or function in the Cossack forces. Thirty- two trades are represented, including brewer, barber, translator, black- smith, furrier, scribe, carter, priest, gunpowder-maker. Eleven names are given in a separate group as denoting rank or function, e.g. Ataman, Kozak, Puakar, Sotenko. Here we meet under the semantic headings forms which are strictly speaking patronymic, e.g. Tur6ynovi6, Turcynenko, Kovalenko, Konovalenko. Classification according to suffix is given in a separate section. The author admits in his preface that this is a synchronic study and expresses the hope that later diachronic studies will complete the picture. If Weischedel himself undertakes a fuller treatment he might perhaps consider whether it would not be better to have the linguistic comments brought together into the same chapter rather than split into separate sections on baptismal and surnames, a methodological error which can lead to needless repetition or fragmentation, as when the author comments on the foreign character of the phoneme f/f in Ukrainian at pp. 56, 58 and 14I.

Weischedel transcribes Ukrainian r as Latin h. While this is phonetically justified it can lead to a certain confusion: Khabriel' (cited from i6th- century archives of Zhitomir) stands for Kra6pie&, a Polonism marked by two consontantal features, namely initial plosive [g] and the Graeco-Latin [b]. Plosive [g] is represented by Cyrillic [r of the Byelorussian ortho- graphic tradition in one or two other examples: Khikha, Khonkhalo, Khontar, Khres'ko, Khrochovski. Since these would perhaps cause some doubt in the mind of Western readers accustomed to meeting kh as the repre- sentation of Cyrillic x, a note for their guidance would be advisable. On aesthetic grounds I myself would prefer a non-phonetic transliteration of r as g. If r is to be transcribed phonetically as h, why not apply the same principle and transcribe ir as g?

In general, philological aspects of the material tend to be neglected.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:05:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

596 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

There is no comment on the interesting form Celjurik (p. 33) which appears to be a distortion by metathesis of Cirulik 'barber' and should be included beside the latter in the list of trade-names (p. i i9). Two possible inter- pretations are offered for Dobys: this stands either for Dovbys (sic) 'drum- mer' or Dobyc (sic) 'robber' (!). Leaving aside the unfortunate misprints and the inaccurate definition of dobye 'booty', one regrets the absence of any etymological comment on the name. Is it borrowed direct from Hungarian or via Polish? Is the change of vowel in the second syllable of Hung. dobos, which remains in Pol. dobosz, a phonological development or by substitution of a Slavonic suffix -ys for Hung. -os? Such matters un- fortunately do not engage Weischedel's attention. The merit of his dis- sertation consists in the orderly presentation of a most interesting body of material, in its onomastic classification, in the statistical data and the comparison with other East Slavonic material. London H. LEEMING

Girke, W. and Jachnow, H. (eds.) Sprache und Gesellschaft in der Sowjetunion. 'Kritische Information' Series no. 23. Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Munich, I975. 38I pp. Notes. Indexes. DM 36.

THIS volume contains thirty-one papers which originally appeared in Russian in various learned journals and sborniki. In some cases the German translations represent slightly abridged versions of the original texts. In their critical introduction the editors state that they hope to make avail- able at long last to the Western sociolinguist ignorant of Russian a source of varied but representative information about Soviet sociolinguistics. To this end academic papers published as early as 1923 and as late as 197I find their place in this selection; three of Lenin's 'pronouncements' on language policy from the years I913-19 are also included. Thematically the papers are concerned with the following aspects of sociolinguistics: Marxism and Soviet linguistics, change in society and language, 'speech culture' and the standard language as a sociological problem, attitudes to Western sociolinguistics, language policy-making, sociologically condi- tioned language stratification and various empirical and statistical studies of language.

Under these comprehensive headings there is a wealth of interesting material for the sociolinguist who wishes to gain some insight into the methods used by Soviet scholars in this field. Western Russianists with a predilection for sociolinguistics will, of course, have read these papers in the original and their familiarity with Russian writings will have enabled them to sort out the chaff from the wheat. One of the merits of this collection of papers, as far as the sociolinguist not specializing in Russian is concerned, is that the editors have indeed chosen significant articles which do manage to communicate much of the underlying general context. The critical introduction is also very helpful in this respect by indicating a useful division into periods and by enumerating the chief topics dealt with by Soviet sociolinguists.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:05:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions