Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 2 results.

Zwischen Ortsnamenbildung und Relationsmarkierung Beitrag

Strukturelle Ambiguitäten, Grauzonen und Übergänge

Thomas Stolz, Nataliya Levkovych

Beiträge zur Namenforschung, Volume 55 (2020), Issue 1, Page 1 - 25

Zusammenfassung: Die Studie betrachtet anhand von Fallbeispielen aus verschiedenen Sprachen Europas, Amerikas, Austronesiens und Neuguineas strukturelle Gegebenheiten, die Potenzial für die Herausbildung von Ortsnamen-Markern aufweisen. Es wird gezeigt, dass Morpheme, die außerhalb des onymischen Kontexts zum Ausdruck grammatischer Kategorien des relationalen Typs dienen, in Ortsnamen-Konstruktionen feste Bestandteile darstellen, die nicht mehr den Regeln der externen Syntax gehorchen. In diesem Zusammenhang zeigt sich, dass besonders Exponenten räumlicher Relationen sowie genitivische Morpheme geeignet dafür sind, sich zu Ortsnamen-Markern zu entwickeln. Abstract: On the basis of case studies of several languages from Europe, the Americas, Austronesia, and New Guinea structural facts are scrutinized which are potential candidates for the emergence of place-name markers. It is shown that morphemes which outside the onymic domain serve the purpose of relational grammatical categories from part of placename constructions without obeying the external rules of syntax. In connection to these phenomena it comes to the fore that exponents of spatial relations and genitival morphemes are especially suited for developing into place-name markers.


Colonial Place Names in a Comparative Perspective Beitrag

Thomas Stolz, Ingo H. Warnke, Nataliya Levkovych

Beiträge zur Namenforschung, Volume 51 (2016), Issue 3-4, Page 279 - 355

The paper is meant to demonstrate that it is worthwhile studying European colonial toponymies in comparative perspective. Examples from fourteen cases of European colonizer nations which have had an impact on the maps of their overseas possessions are presented. They represent the prototypical exonymic construction which involves an anthroponymic constituent alongside a classifier element both of which are taken from the language( s) of the colonizers. It is shown that the employment of this construction type for the purpose of place-naming is common to all of the European colonizers across time and space. The question is raised why and how this commonality has come about. In contrast to this shared property, there is also dissimilarity in the sense that the possibility of using bare anthroponyms as place names is scarcely attested in the German colonial toponomasticon whereas it is a frequently applied strategy in the toponomasticons of other European colonizers. The co-existence of similarities which hold for all European colonizers and dissimilarities which are indicative of sub-divisions and individual behavior calls for further inquiries into the systematicity of European colonial toponymies.

  • «
  • 1
  • »

Current Issue