facebook
twitter
vk
instagram
linkedin
google+
tumblr
akademia
youtube
skype
mendeley
Global international scientific
analytical project
GISAP
GISAP logotip
Перевод страницы
 

HISTORICAL TOPONYMY OF WESTERN UKRAINE IN THE CORRESPONDENCE OF POLISH GOVERNMENTAL PAPERS

HISTORICAL TOPONYMY OF WESTERN UKRAINE IN THE CORRESPONDENCE OF POLISH GOVERNMENTAL PAPERSHISTORICAL TOPONYMY OF WESTERN UKRAINE IN THE CORRESPONDENCE OF POLISH GOVERNMENTAL PAPERS
Yaroslav Redkva, декан, кандидат филологических наук, ph.d. филологических наук, доцент

Черновицкий национальный университет им. Ю.Федьковича, Украина

Участник первенства: Национальное первенство по научной аналитике - "Украина";

Открытое Европейско-Азиатское первенство по научной аналитике;

The article presents the analysis of toponyms in two mediaeval documents written in Latin letters that is in fact a transliteration of Old Ukrainian text. The peculiarities of Old Ukrainian are preserved in place names, oronyms, hydronyms, and anthroponyms. The findings are that the toponyms are quite stable against foreign influence. The reasons why the different judicial documents are written in different languages (Latin, Polish, and Old Ukrainian) lie in the fact that at the beginning of the fourteenth century Western Ukrainian oikonymic system started to form.

Key words: governmental papers,historical oikonyms, microtoponyms, oikonymic system, toponym.

 

Historical oikonyms of Ukraine, and in particular its ancient territories – Red Ruthenia lands (Galych and Lviv lands as part of Rus province), – underwent formation under rather complex social-political and language-ethic conditions. [1] It is clear, that the becoming and formation of oikonymic system over this territory, its toponymic terrain has developed under a very strong mutual influence of Ukrainian and Polish social and economic systems due to Galych Rus’ annexation.Polish feudal leaders have introduced the German and Polish administrative-territorial law which became a substitute to the local (prince’s) one and has led to structural variation and variance inside a rather numerous class of toponyms. The latter were expressed by means of the names of localities (oikonyms) which was initiated by the new administrative-territorial regime. Those officers (usually a heterogeneous level chancellery workerslike scribes and secretarieshad hard time understanding local people’s language and the names of natural real things and other human created objects) made plenty of mistakes and alternations,hence introducing various onomastic elements (e.g. court notes, imaging, registers, etc.) to juridical-law acts of that time.

Oikonimy scholars find hard times analysing these documents and forming a source base of the names of localities and numerous microtoponyms, and correct onyms pronunciation. This issue is rather dangerous when it comes to further false etymologization not only for oikonyms but for antroponyms and micro-objects naming as well. The latter items are of particular interest due to their inherent great numbering for proper names investigation.

As a result, we have arrived at the governmental papers language dilemma that pertains to Lviv and Galych lands of Rus province investigation and its means of proper names rendering.

Chronology wise, we regard the lower (starting) edge of our investigation as year 1340 – the time, when Red Ruthenia was conquered by Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Establishment of governmental and administrative Polish supremacy also characterizes this period across these lands. The author has mentioned this fact in this paper before.

The aim of this paper is an attempt to find out what was the reason stipulating the language of governmental papers written either in Russian (ancient Ukrainian) or Latin (official language of all governmental papers) across above-said territories. The author used manuscript and printed material as the source base.

It is worth noting, that the above-mentioned topic has not been properly investigated in the Ukrainian linguistics, in particular – in onomastic. Nevertheless, this statement has nothing to do with the just released fundamental work by Oleg Kupchynskyy “Acts and papers of Galych-Volyn principality of XIIIcentury and the first half of XIV century. Research. Discourse.”(Lviv, 2004. – 1282 p.). This fundamental work has been published under the support of the Scientific society named after Shevchenko. As the author of this book states,  “The book encompasses the most complete acts and papers reference as of today; those documents were found in different archives and libraries of Ukraine, Poland, Russia, Vatican, Lithuania, and comprise the most complete primer of documentary sources of principality[Galych-Volyn– Y.R.] in the given [first half of XIII century – XIVcentury – Y.R.]period” [Kupch, Acts, p.1113]. In this laborious work, the linguist has provided valuable linguistic comments for papers’ discourse, has paid appropriate attention to the lack of unification when it comes to proper names writing.To our mind, of special importance for onomasts are rather hefty in size (146 pages in total) Nominative and Geographical indices.

Polish scholars (historians, historiographers, regional ethnographers, linguists) have been investigating these questions starting in XIX century. Partially this problem has been investigated by the priest Antoni Petrushevychin his paper “Słów kilka” napisanych w obronie ruskiej narodowości” (Lviv, 1848); by the unknown author in the magazine “Word” – “O ystoryczeskom  prawi jak sławiańskoho russkoho naroda, tak jeho russkoho jazyka etc.” (1862); by Yakiv Golovatskyy in his work “Pamiatnyki dyplomatyczeskoho y sudebnodiłowoho  jazyka russkoho w drewnem Hałycko-Wołodymirskom kniażestwi y w smeżnych russkych obłastiach swtorojpoł. XIVw.” (1865) [2]; by Zygmund Lisevych in his paper “Język urzędowy na Rusi Czerwonej między r. 1340-1506” [Lisiewicz]. The latter research is of particular interest taking into account a thorough calculation of correlation of papers written in Latin and Rus language (ancient Ukrainian). Among 2000 papers considered by the researcher, the bulk part of the research was dedicated to Latin, a whole dozen were dedicated to German and only47 acts were written in Rus language[Same source, 245-246]. When it comes to paper Akt grodzkich i ziemskichinvestigation, during the 1340-1506 period of time their total number comprised 1200 items, 19 papers were written in Rus language.Only 11 papers dwell upon our territory.

Without bias, it is reasonable to ask a question: what is the primary reason for such a small amount of papers written in the language of autokhtonnyy population? We regard the answer be hidden in the regulatory politics of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, hence, in 1433 in Edln there was a privilege issued which regulated and introduced the Polish right across all Red Ruthenia lands.In particular, the paper contains such abstract: “omnes terras nostras Regni nostri Poloniae, etiam Terrarum Russiae includendo, salvis tamen avenae contributionibus (de qiubus nobis ad tempora vitae nostrae sola Russia respondebit) ad unum ius et unam legem communem omnibus Terris reducemus – reducimusque, adunamus et unimus tenore praesentium mediante”[Vol. leg. I, s.40-42]. Since that time, all court acts (municipal, land) were written exclusively in Latin. Bymeansoflaw Rus language got out of the way but we need to make a clarification, – it got out of the documentary (written) usage way, due to oral investigation of court cases was conducted using the same Rus or Polish languages (depending upon what parties faced the court). Starting the second half of XV century we observe a situation when owners of Rus language papers that dealt with application or confirmation of property privileges, were asking for translation of such legal acts into Latin. Only observing such remarks as ex idiomathe, linguagio Ruthenicali it is possible to tell that the original document was written in Rus language[Lisiewicz, 249]. Theabove-mentioned factsallowustomakeanimportantconclusionregarding an almost complete absence of ancient Ukrainian language in papers and further extinction of Rus language source papers.

Hence, after being confirmed and translated in to Latin, a legal act of such kind lost any value for its owner and became useless. It is uncommon though, but there were a couple of acts that were originally written in Cyrillic (and, obviously, in Rus language) and was straightforwardly transliterated to Latin graphics retaining the original language.Below please find an example of such a transliteration:

Andrzej starosta Ruski poświadcza, ze, Dietko z Żubrzy sprsedał sianozęć Grzegorzowi Dawidowskiemu. We Lwowie1381 r.

Bożeiu miłostiu wieliebnoho kniazia Ruskoho Włodisława, se ia pan Andrias starosta Ruskoiey ziemli wyznawaiemi tho nassem listhom wsim dobrim, kto koli uzozdrith na thot list iły usłysit cztuczy ioho. Iże pryszed pereth nas pan Dietko iz Zubry i priatel ioho Alberth, nikim nie primusony, no swoim zdorowym żywothom i dobrym umysłom, woziemssy radu bratha swoioho pana Bruna i prodali Hrihorowi Dawidowskomu sienoziath dolinu noczpaty (sic) za sisnaycith seth hrossy. A tak podali pokowa sie trawa rodith i na niwi i na dubrowie, od duba po hłubokuiu dolinu niedosedssy Słowiowey mohiły, po dorohu sczo lude iesdiat w lies. A stała sie torho-wlia wo Lwowi.V Korotkoho Lenola w domu. A pry thom byli świethczy pan Michaiło Iwanowicz, pan Jasko Mazowsanin, pan Choiko Łoiowicz, pan Miczko Brunio, czny pan Gorgij Mossonczicz, Chotko Hrutkowicz, a ktomu było mnoho dobrych liudy. A pisanlist pod liethom rożestwa Bożoho1381.Apisał Bahran pisar Lwowski.

Originally the document was written on parchment in 1381 using Cyrillic and rewritten (transliterated) in Polish graphics in the end of XVI century(published in periodical magazine “Przegląd archeologiczny” with comments from А. Petrushevych [Petruszewicz, 72-73]). Due to the fact that the paper dwells upon the selling of hayfield from one owner to the other, it becomes clear of the reason of such  an act creation: apparently, some new land owner(in our case hayfield owner), having received the right for ownership had to have a paper from the previous owner – as an additional means of proving the right for property– or a certificate for property heritage.

We prove the reason of the question, why the document was already written not necessarily using Latin. This is due to the fact, as it was already mentioned, it was rewritten using Polish graphics in the end of XVI century, but Latin was legislative only until 1543– a time, when besides this language it was only legal to use Polish too: Ut autem citationes ita controversias, decreta et inscriptiones, liberum est inicuique Polonica lingua scribere, hoc tamen perpetuum [Vol. leg. I, s.582].

Such a proprietary text contamination (Ruslanguage–Polishgraphics) sign if iesonly the fact, that the calligrapher (Bagran) was autokhtonic (a Ukrainian): Latin and Polish were not familiar to that person and he was to use graphics only due to his official (clerk) duties. Although Rus language wasn’t legally certified as being an official language before 1543, neither after this time, but for theakt ruski przedłożony do wpisu wciągano w akta po rusku. Nadto w protokolach, w których strona podpisywałasię własnoręcznie, spotykamy podpisy ruskie, o ile strona była Rusinem…”[Sochaniewicz. Archiwum, 9].

From onomastic point of view we are interested in the availability of proper names: 1) anthroponyms: Włodisław, Andrias, Dietko, Alberth, Bruno, Hrihor Dawidowskij, Lenol Korotkij, Michaiło Iwanowicz, Jasko Mazowsanin, ChoikoŁoiowicz, Miczko Brunio, Gorgij Mossonczicz, Chotko Hrutkowicz, Bahran; 2) toponyms: а) oronyms: dolina Noczpaty, Słowiowa mohila, Hłuboka dolina, б) oikonyms: Zubra.

From the orthographic transmission and etymologization points of view we render the locality Zubra of Pustomytivskyy of Lviv region suburb as being interesting   for investigation [АТU, 183]. This locality is situated on Zubria river (left bank of Dniester river) [SGU, 218]. Had the document been written by a Polish calligrapher then (according to Polish calligraphy) this name would have had the form of Zubrza along with the conforming alternation of r//rz, which, for what it’s worth, is present in Polish sources(compare:Zubrza (pd.Lwów) 1407, 1408, 1417, 1436, 1444, 1445, 1456, 1466, 1485, 1493, 1499: [AGZ IV, 16, 20, 37, 59; V, 65, 113, XIV, 1380, 3579; XV, 2285, 3321; VII, 79, 80; IX, 130]; Zubrza, z.lw., pow.lw., 1606: SGL., t.361, s.1161-1162, 1274-1275; 1641: [SGL, t.392, s.819-822]; 1645: [SGBus., t.21, s.1187-1188]; Zubrza, z.lw. (Lwów), Atl.Jabł. m.2).  as it is seen from the initial written sources, the name of the locality traces back to the beginning of XV century, although river Zubria, which houses the above mentioned locality is mentioned in Ipatiivskyy chronicle in1213: “Мьстиславоу же сто"щоу на Зоубрьи (зоубръи)” (~ 1425 [CCRCII, 1962. Ipat. chron., 733]). Hence, the name of the locality should be rendered out of the hydronym and regard it as secondary. Motivation of the very name of the Zubriariver (ЗUбрь") back in the days was interpreted by I.Sreznevskyy as an adjective for -j(а)out of appellative зUбрь“зубр, urus” [SreznevskyyI, 998] (see also[EDCGNSR, 63]). A Polish linguist of the past century Eugene Kukharskyy(Eugenjusz Kucharski) enrolled such hydronyms as Bóbrka, Żubrza to toponymso typowych nazwach leśnych[Kucharski E., 12], and the already mentioned А.Petrusheych sign ifiesthissemnatics: wieś Zubrzajuż nazwą swoją poświadcza, że postała w kniejach, w których gościły niegdyś zubry…”[Petruszewicz, 73]. Regarding the initial meaning of the river name and secondary meaning of the locality name, we can observe palatal/depalatal changes in the sound composition [rj], which took place in oikonymy of Zubra and retained in hydronymy of Zubria. Here we deal with aphonetic phenomenon which is stipulated by the influence of the following sound [j] consonant [r] go palatalized, and progressive assimilation of sound [j] resulted in the creation of a soft long sound [r':], which has further lost its long nature: [rj] > [r'j] > [r':] > [r']. In the name of locality Zubra (regardless the change in common-Slavic background for sounds[rj] for [r']) a depalatalization for sound [r'] took place at a later stage, which didn’t take place with the hydronym and it signifies the archaic nature of the latter one. Consideration of such historical sound facts is rather important when translating ancient historical sources into contemporary literature language taking into account proper names. Hence, in“Ruschronicle”, translated by Leonid Makhnovtsev [Ruschronicle/ AccordingtoIpatskyy list translated by Leonid Makhnovets. – К.: Dnipro, 1989. – 591p.], we read: “Mstyslav stood on the [river] Зубр’ї [bold selection – Y.R.]” [Chronicle, p.375], and its remark contains– “nowadays– Зубря, Зубра” [samesource]; onP.552 Зубр’я is represented as a river and a left influx of Dniester [same source, p.552]. A river name seemsnot to have a separate pronunciation [р] when jointed with the next one [j],since the palatalization process has already occurred, and the very name record had to be represented as Зубря.

A similar character (Latin transliteration of ancient Ukrainian) has yet another document, whichisoverflowed with the presence of microtoponyms and several oikonyms. May of those lived until our days.The contents of the act deals with the confirmation fact made by Fedir Liubartovych regarding villages Tuzhyliv [АТR, 124]and Svarychiv [АТR, 127]separation. We provide some reference for an abstract:

Książę Fedor Olkirdowicz (Lubartowicz) poświadcza o rozgraniczeniu wsi Tużyłowa i Swaryczowa. W Żydaczewie 6 Sierpnia (na początku piętnastego stulecia).

W imia Otca y Syna y Ducha Swiatoho Amin. Ja kniaź Fedor Olkirdyiewicz korolow brat. Pryszły do mene Tużylowcy żałowały się na Iwana Swaryczowskoho, na Boczkowabrata Łohynowicza, iż derżał nam Manastyr Topulsko1)z Czarnym Lisom2), za rikoiu Łomnyceiu3) nazwanoiu y z Barłozyszczy4) bez prawa, a służyło nam ku Tużyłowu5): a Iwan Dołhy Łohynowycz odmowyw protywko im, iże dał mi Korol Swaryczow6) za wirnyi zasłuhy moi na wiky wicznyi, y Monastyr Topulsko z Czarnym Lisom y Berłożyszczamy po riczku Wyszniuwku 7), w tom toiuż riczkoiu po pod uroczysko Sołnoie 8), nedałeko seła Nowycy 9), czerez horu steżkoiu iduczy do riki Łukwycy 10), kotoraia idet lisom Czarnym po pod horu nazwanuiu Kosmacz 11), mymo uroczysko Jasin 12) mynowany, aż do Połonin, kotoryi sia nazywaiut Pitrost13)(sic), Jama 14), Mołoda 15), Parynki16) neda­łeko hranyć Uhorskich. Na doł powernuwszy rikoiu Łomnyciu, po pod seło Perehyńsk17), mymo uroczysko Solnoie18) Krasnoie Połę 19) nazwanoie, aż do Kamenystoho horba20) czerez Bur, lisom Rawnym21) czerez potok Rudawy22) popud seło Rożniatów23) do riki Duby24), do Horodyszcza25) do Perechresnoi dorohy, kotoraia idet do seły Dołyny26), czerez lis Osnyk 27), od Osnyka do Domankow 28)do Łełetowaho Duba29),hranycu Iwan Dołhy pokazał, kotory stał pra­wom, y my u neho wziałysmo wyszniuiu hrywny. A sudyw toy sud Fyłyst woiewoda Żydaczuwski, Pan Danyło Zaderewecki, Pan Waśko Stodnyk, Weremanysz Traktowycz, Iwan Sołowycz Korsak, Pan Wąśko Prokopowicz, Iwaśko Dyduszycki, a ktomu było dosyt dobrych ludiy, na szczo smo dały tot łyst na wicznuiu pamiat. Tot łyst pisany w Zydaczowi na Preobrażenye Misiacia Awhusta dnia szestoho. Rukoiu własnoiu. Post quarum Literarum pergamenarum idiomate Ruthenico exaratarum inductionem origilnale eidem offerenti, est restitutum, de quo restituto officium praesens quietatum est. Ex actis castren. Capit. Halicien. extraditum. Correxit Rodkiewicz m. p. L. S.

Paper’s heading, besides the date (day and month) hasn’t obvious indication of year published. Besides that, the copying personnel has made a mistake regarding the authors of this paper: theym is takenly utter the last name as Fedor Olkirdyiewicz instead of Fedor Lubartowicz due to irregular pronunciation from the Latin original paper. This very fact helped Antoniy Petrushevych to identify the exact date when that paper was copied, namely, this was the first 20-ies if the XV century (between 1400 and 1420). This is all due to the fact, that at that time Fedir Liubartovych (Fedor/TeodorLubartowicz) ruled in Zhydachiv [Petruszewicz, 78].   

From onomastic standpoint, the paper contains a considerable amount (due to its volume) of different toponyms: inparticular, oikonyms, urbanoyms, oronyms, hydronyms, which exist up till today and we were able to localize those. Below please find sample ones:

1) Monastyr Topulsko – nowadays it village Topilske, Rozhn suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 127]

2) Czorny Lis–aforest, thatissituatedbetweenlocality Topilske and Barlogy(see below)

3)Łomnycia – river Limnytsia(Dniestr) [HDU, 319]

4)Barłozyszczy–contemporary village Barlogy, Rozhn suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 127]; BarłujnaDniestrze(Berłahy) 1449, 1451, 1461, 1463, 1467: [AGZXII, 2299, 2473, 2985, 3073, 3326]; Berłohy: [Lustr. 1661-1665/III, 57]

5)Tużyłow– locality Tuzhyliv, Kl. suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 124]

6)Swaryczow– locality Svarychiv, Rozhn suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 127]; Swaryczów(pow. Dolina) 1387: [SGL, t. 470, s. 156-158]; Swaryczow, z.hal., pow. kołom., 1604: [SGHal., t.111, s.150]; Swaryczów, z. hal., 1651: Wieś Swaryczów[AGZI, 65]

7) Wyszniuwka– streamVyshnivka(p. Rukshynal. Limnytsir. Dniester; locality Pereginske and BarlogyRozhn suburb,I-Fregion) [HDU, 105]

8) Solnoie– a formation not far from locality Novytsia, Kl. suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 124] (see below)

9)Nowycia–  locality Novytsia, Kl. suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 124]; Nowica (źródło solne/fons salis) 1367: “Nowicza… predicta terra Russie” [KDMIII, 797 (s.202-203)]; Nowicza 1432-1476: [ML IV, B 9, f.142-144; B 8, f.132]; Nowica 1462, 1476, 1564, 1583, 1620, 1634, 1635: [Lustr. 1661-665/III, 77-83]; 1525, 1527, 1547, 1549, 1553, 1564, 1647, 1566, 1569, 1585, 1663: [MRPS IV, vol. 1, poz. 4657; vol. 2, poz. 15311; vol. 3, poz. 22845; vol. 3, poz. 21436; V, vol. 2, poz. 6249]; 1565, 1566, 1647: [Vol. leg. II, 682, 723; IV, 109]; Nowycza: 1485: “…et cum loco sartaginis in Nowycza” [AGZ XIX, 1025]; Nowica 1549: [MK, 76, f.318v-319v; 84, f.30-32], [ML IV, B 9, f.141-142, 146v-148];Nowica, z.hal. (Kałusz), Atl.Jabł. m.3

10)Łukwycia–  a river(p. Lukvyp. Dniestr) [HDU, 330]

11)Kosmacz– locality Kosmach, Bogor suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 122]

12) Jasin – locality Yasen, Rozhn suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 127]; Jasien alias Jasienow 1655: [Lustr. 1661-1665/III, 103-104]; Jasien: [Lustr. 1661-1665/III, 48-49]

13) Pitrost – nowadays is the name of the mountain and nearby territory Petros that belongs to the village Pereginske, Rozhn suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 127]

14)Jama – thename of the mountain and nearby territory where the influx of Bystra flows in(p. Limnytsip. Dniestr) [HDU, 48]

15)Mołoda – ariver(l. Limnytsip. Dniestr) [HDU, 372]

16)Parynki – thenameofthenearbyterritorywheretheinfluxPetros flows out(l. Limnytsi p. Dnister) [HDU, 420], not far from locality Pereginske (see below)

17)Perehyńsk– localityPereginske, Rozhnsuburb, I-Fregion[ATR, 127]; Perehińsko, z. hal. i z. lw., 1691, 1642: “villæ Perehynsko ecclesiæ HaliciensisKryłosiensis evincentium”, “villæ Perehynsko in palatinatu Rusiæ terraZydaczoviensi sitæ ad eandem ecclesiam metropolitanam Haliciensem”; 1649: “villæ Perehynsko”, 1564: “dicti Perehyńsko græcæ”, “villa etiam Perehyńsko”, “cumvilla Perehyńsko, 1548: “Hryćko Bałaban wziął list na Perehyńsko”,1649:“bonorum villæ Pereynsko”, “wieś Perehyńsko”, 1593: “villæPerehynsko”, ”wieś Perehyńsko”, “villam Perehyńsko”, “villæ sæpedictePerehynsko [AGZ I, 94-108]

18)Solnoie –a name of the small village Sloboda that belongs to locality Nebyliv, Rozhn suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 127]

19)Krasnoie Połę –today it’s locality Krasne, Rozhn suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 127]; Krasne 1627: [MK LXVIII, 73, s.347]; Krasne: [Lustr. 1661-1665/III, 53]; Krasne, z.hal. (Kałusz), Atl.Jabł. m.3

20)Kamenysty horb – todayit’slocalityKamin, Rozhnsuburb, I-Fregion[ATR, 127]; Kamień (Kamione) 1450, 1453, 1466, 1467, 1479: [AGZXII, 2351, 2559, 3319, 3334; XIX, 921]; Kamień 1628: [MKLXVIII, 73, s.347]; Kamień, z.hal., pow.hal., 1642: [SGHal., t.135, s.1282, 1681-1684]; Kamień: [Lustr. 1661-1665/III, 55]; Kamień, z.hal. (Kałusz), Atl.Jabł. m.3

21)Lis Rawny –  today it’s village Rivnia, Rozhn suburb,I-Fregion[ATR, 127]

22)Rudawy potok –a stream that flows out of a small village Rozhniativ, І-F. [ATR, 127] and locality Rivnia (see above) that flows in to the river Limnytsia

23)Rożniatów seło – a small village Rozhniativ, І-F. [ATR, 127]

24)Duba rika –  ariverDuba(p. Chechvyl. Limnytsip. Dniestr) [HDU, 184]

25)Horodyszcze –anameforthenearbyterritorythatindicatestheprobabilityof some ancient village existence

26)Dołyna seło – m. Dolyna, Dolynsk. suburb., І-F. [ATR, 123]; Dolina1443: [AGZXII, 1243]; 1497: [MRPSII, 761]; Dołyna, z.hal., 1521: ZygmuntIuwalniaodopłatymytaodsolibiałejRuskiej, sprowadzonejzKołomyi...[ALS, t.3, s.215]; 1527: “album ex… Dolyna” [ALS, t.3, s.311-312]; 1536: “Долины” [ALS, t.4, s.54-55]; Dolina: [Lustr. 1661-1665/III, 39-40]; Dolina, z.hal. (Tłumacz), Atl.Jabł. m.3

27)Osnyk lis; 28) Domankow i 29) Łełetowyidub – names of nearby territories which we have no records as of today.

As the analysis of proper names of two legal acts has proved, those acts were written using ancient Ukrainian with Latin transliteration, hencethe influence and pressure at the administrative or governmental factors of Polish governmentat the naming system of this part of Rus province was minimal: it retained its status and wasn’t assimilated with the foreign chancellery and wasn’t influenced by Polish onomastic system. Language traits of the presented toponyms verify their ancient origin and certify autokhtony of their Ukrainian population over these territories.

From a similar research standpoint, we can remark that the linguistic analysis of toponyms (oikonyms on the first place), used in all legal papers(which were written in its majority using Latin) across territories of Lviv and Galych of Rus province will help us trace down the inhabitation process of these lands and the influence of crossethnical Ukrainian-Polish language relations over the formation of oikonymic system of these territories.

 

Sources:

АТU– Administrative-territorialrules. UkrainianRSR(1987).– К.: Golovna redaktsijaURE, 1987.– 504p.

EDCGNSR– EtymologydictionaryofchroniclesandgeographicalnamesofSouthernRus/ І.М.Zhelezniak, А.P.Korepanova, L.Т.Masenko, О.S.Stryzhak.– К.:Naukovadumka, 1985.– 253p.

CCRC– CompletecollectionofRussianchronicles.– М.: Izd-vovost. lit., 1962.– Т.I: Ipatyevskayachronicle.– Т.PI: Lavrentievskayachronicle.

HDU– HydronymsdictionaryofUkraine. – К.: Naukova dumka, 1979. – 779 p.

AGZ – Akta grodzkie i ziemskie czasów Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z Archiwum tak zwanego Bernardyńskiego we Lwowie.– Lwów, 1868-1935.– T.1-25.

ALS– Archiwum  książąt Lubartowiczów Sanguszków w Sławucie. – We Lwowie, 1887-1890. – T. I-IV

Atl.Jabł. – Atlas historyczny Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Epoka przełomu z wieku XVI na XVII. Dział II: Ziemie Ruskie Rzeczypospolitej / Dział opracowany przez Aleksandra Jabłonowskiego.– Warszawa-Wiedeń, 1889-1904

KDM– PiekosińskiF. Kodeks dyplomatyczny Małopolski. – T. IV. – Kraków, 1905

Lustr. 1661-665/III – Lustracja województwa Ruskiego 1661-1665. Część III. Ziemia Halicka i Hełmska / Wydali Emilia i Kazimierz Arłamowscy i Wanda Kaput.– Wrocław etc., 1976.– 303s. + 2 mapy.

ML– Materiały archiwalne wyjęte głównie z Metryki Litewskiej od 1348 do 1607 r. / wyd. A.Prochaska.– Lwów, 1890

MRPS– Wierzbowski T. Matricularum Regni Poloniae summaria.– T. I-V.– Varsoviae, 1905-1961

MK– Metryka Koronna. Archiwum skarbu koronnego // Archiwum Główne akt dawnych w Warszawie.

SGBus – Sąd Grodzki Buski. Act books of Buzkyy grodskyy court of Rus province that is situated in the Central state historical archive of Ukraine in Lviv(CSHAL– fund№ 9). Numbersfollowingabbreviations identify the volume number and page number.

SGHal– SądGrodzkiHalicki. Act books of Buzkyy grodskyy court of Rus province that is situated in the Central state historical archive of Ukraine in Lviv(CSHAL– fund№ 5). Numbersfollowingabbreviations identify the volume number and page number.

SGL – SądGrodzkiLwowski. Act books of Buzkyy grodskyy court of Rus province that is situated in the Central state historical archive of Ukraine in Lviv(CSHAL– fund№ 9). Numbersfollowingabbreviations identify the volume number and page number.

Vol.leg. – Volumina legum. – Sankt-Petersburg, 1859. – Vol. I-IX

 

References:

1. Kupchynskyy О. Acts and papers of Galych-Volyn provinceduring the first half of XIIIand XIV centuries. Research. Discourse. – Lviv, 2004. – 1282 p.

2. RusChronicle/ ByIpatskyylisttranslatedbyLeonid Makhnovets. – К.: Dnipro, 1989. – 591p.

3. SreznevskyyI.I. ProceedingsforthedictionaryofancientRuslanguageofwrittensources.– SPb., 1893-1903. – V. I-III

4. Kucharski E. WczesnohistorycznenazwyromańskienawschodniempograniczuPolskiapołudniowemRusi// Sprawozdaniatowarzystwa  naukowegoweLwowie/ Pod. red. P.Dąbkowskiego. Rocznik XVI – 1936. – zeszyt 1.– Lwów, 1937.– S.11-16

5.LisiewiczZ. JęzykurzędowynaRusiCzerwonejmiędzyr.1340-1506 // Przewodniknaukowyiliteracki.– Rocznik XIV (1886r.).– Dodatek do “Gazety Lwowskiej”.– T.I.– Lwów, 1886.– S.245-256

6. Petruszewicz A. Materyały historyczne // Przegląd archeologiczny.– z. 1 (1882r.).– Lwów, 1882.– S.72-83

7.Sochaniewicz S. Archiwum krajowe aktów grodzkich i ziemskich we Lwowie.– Lwów, 1912.– 56 s.

 

[1] For more information regarding extra-language factors that influence the formation of oikonymic system of Lviv and Galych lands please see our previous papers: 1. Redkva Y.P. Formation of regional topo-(oikonymal) system from dischrony standpoint// Onomastics and etymology studies. 2004.– К., 2004.– P. 147-161; 2. Redkva Y.P. Chronologization and localization as a systematic phenomenon in regional oikonymy// Scientific papers TDPU.Issue: Linguistics. Onomastics.– P. 1(9)/2003.– P. 147-153.

[2] Детальнішу бібліографію див.: Lisiewicz Zygmunt. JęzykurzędowynaRusiCzerwonejmiędzyr. 1340-1506 // Przewodniknaukowyiliteracki. Rocznik XIV. – 1886. – Dodatek misięczny do “Gazety Lwowskiej”. – T. I. – Lwów, 1886. – S.245-256.  

0
Ваша оценка: Нет Средняя: 7.6 (10 голосов)
Комментарии: 6

Дзык Роман Анатольевич

Уважаемый Ярослав Петрович, позвольте выразить благодарность за столь интересную, тщательную и, главное, очень нужную работу. Удачи! Роман Дзык.

Хамзе Димитрина

Уважаемый Ярослав! Большое спасибо за информативный и аналитичный доклад, а также за убедительные результаты тщательного научного изыскания. С глубоким уважением и пожеланием новых плодотворных и перспективных результатов поиска! Димитрина

Мирзоева Лейла Юрьевна

Здравствуйте, уважаемый Ярослав Петрович! С огромным интересом прочитала Вашу работу; на мой взгляд, особого внимания заслуживает то, что Вы избрали в качестве материала польские источники. Думается, именно такой подход позволит рассматривать ойконимы как единицы, демонстрирующие тонкие и многоаспектные взаимосвязи между славянскими языками. С глубоким уважением, Лейла Мирзоева

Евгения Минку

Уважаемый Ярослав Петрович! Вами проделана большая кропотливая работа. Спасибо Вам за содержательный и интересный доклад.. Желаю успехов. С уважением, Евгения Минку

Суворова Татьяна Николаевна

Уважаемый Ярослав, Ваш доклад впечатляет своей содержательностью, аналитичностью и трудоемкостью. Вы задаете высокую планку молодым ученым. Удачи Вам. С уважением, Татьяна Суворова.

Залевская Александра Александровна

Уважаемый Ярослав Петрович! С большим интересом продолжаю знакомиться с очередным фрагментом Вашего объемного научного изыскания. Вызывает уважение кропотливый труд, результаты которого Вы приводите. Желаю Вам дальнейших достижений на этом поприще! Залевская Александра Александровна
Комментарии: 6

Дзык Роман Анатольевич

Уважаемый Ярослав Петрович, позвольте выразить благодарность за столь интересную, тщательную и, главное, очень нужную работу. Удачи! Роман Дзык.

Хамзе Димитрина

Уважаемый Ярослав! Большое спасибо за информативный и аналитичный доклад, а также за убедительные результаты тщательного научного изыскания. С глубоким уважением и пожеланием новых плодотворных и перспективных результатов поиска! Димитрина

Мирзоева Лейла Юрьевна

Здравствуйте, уважаемый Ярослав Петрович! С огромным интересом прочитала Вашу работу; на мой взгляд, особого внимания заслуживает то, что Вы избрали в качестве материала польские источники. Думается, именно такой подход позволит рассматривать ойконимы как единицы, демонстрирующие тонкие и многоаспектные взаимосвязи между славянскими языками. С глубоким уважением, Лейла Мирзоева

Евгения Минку

Уважаемый Ярослав Петрович! Вами проделана большая кропотливая работа. Спасибо Вам за содержательный и интересный доклад.. Желаю успехов. С уважением, Евгения Минку

Суворова Татьяна Николаевна

Уважаемый Ярослав, Ваш доклад впечатляет своей содержательностью, аналитичностью и трудоемкостью. Вы задаете высокую планку молодым ученым. Удачи Вам. С уважением, Татьяна Суворова.

Залевская Александра Александровна

Уважаемый Ярослав Петрович! С большим интересом продолжаю знакомиться с очередным фрагментом Вашего объемного научного изыскания. Вызывает уважение кропотливый труд, результаты которого Вы приводите. Желаю Вам дальнейших достижений на этом поприще! Залевская Александра Александровна
Партнеры
 
 
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
Would you like to know all the news about GISAP project and be up to date of all news from GISAP? Register for free news right now and you will be receiving them on your e-mail right away as soon as they are published on GISAP portal.