9
PREFACE
Twenty-four linguists from twelve countries responded to the invitation to take part 
in the special issue of Linguistica on Slavic/Non-Slavic Language Contact in the area 
of diachronic onomastics. In the end, nineteen contributions were received: five from 
Slovenia, three from Russia, two from the Ukraine and one from each of the follow-
ing countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Poland, 
Serbia and Slovakia.
The contributions deal with contacts between Slavic and non-Slavic languag-
es which can be studied from a historical perspective. They are divided into seven 
groups on the basis of the non-Slavic languages or language groups treated: Proto-
Indo-European, Romance, Germanic, Baltic, Finno-Ugric, Turkic. Two papers do not 
belong to any of these six groups: the first one, which is concerned with a variety of 
non-Slavic languages in contact with Slavic languages, and the last one, which is about 
the synchronic study of proper names.
The special issue opens with a contribution by Georg Holzer, who deals with the 
history of sounds and accents of twenty-four geographical names (ten of them Slovene), 
which have been loaned by Slavic from its substrates or neighbouring languages around 
the time of the Slavic expansion.
Zbigniew Babik proposes a reconstruction of the Late Common Slavic forms of 
fifteen substrate hydronyms from Northern Mazovia, which belong to unknown Indo-
European languages spoken on this territory in Late Antiquity. The paper offers a sup-
plement to the author’s treatment of the oldest/prehistoric layer of Polish toponymy 
presented in his 2001 book. Jaromir Krško's study is about the influence of pre-Slavic 
ethnic groups on the hydronyms of present-day Slovakia and gives a survey of the 
ways in which seven river names, probably of pre-Slavic origin, have been dealt with 
by other scholars. Luka Repanšek seeks to clarify the historical development of the 
Proto-Indo-European hydronym Soča, from its prehistoric source to its present-day 
forms, taking into account in particular all the substitutional changes which occurred as 
the hydronym passed through the various linguistic strata.
The paper by Metka Furlan studies the hydronym Dragonja and comes to the con-
clusion that the hypothesis put forward by Fran Ramovš, according to which the name 
Dragonja is of substratal origin and reflects the Slavic metathesis of liquids, is incor-
rect, since the river name in question is actually based on a recent Istro-Venetian ad-
strate form Dragogna. Maurizio Puntin, who in his historic anthroponymic research 
has made use of rich archival sources, suggests that, at least until the end of the 15th 
century, south-eastern Friuli was inhabited by a Slavic majority and a Friulian minor-
ity. He tries to prove that the place name Begliano can more easily be explained on 
the basis of Slavic than Romance material. His linguistic analysis also shows that the 
Slovene dialectal noun čupa, Friulian çòp/zòpul, derives from a pre-Latin Romance 
source. On the basis of Old Romance geographical names in early South Slavic, Matej 
Šekli confirms that the majority of late Proto-Slavic sound changes were still opera-
tive in the period of the earliest Old Romance-Slavic language contacts in the second 
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   9 14.3.2016   8:39:26
10
half of the 6th century and the beginning of the 7th century. The section on Slavic and 
Romance interactions closes with the paper by Svjatoslav O. Verbyč, who presents an 
etymological analysis of the hydronyms of the Dniester river basin which have Eastern 
Romance language elements in their structure. He arrives at the conclusion that the 
long-lasting Ukrainian-Moldavian and Ukrainian-Romanian contacts can be detected 
not only in Eastern Romance loan words that are part of Ukrainian common names, but 
also in Dniester basin toponyms. 
In her article on certain place names in the area between the rivers Saale and Elbe, 
which belonged to the Old Sorbian ethnolinguistic substrate, Inge Bily discusses 
German-Slavic language contact, recognizing nine features relevant for the study of the 
place names concerned. Czech-German language contacts in the area of anthroponymy 
are analyzed by Jana Pleskalová, who takes into account the specific ethnic, linguistic 
and cultural conditions in Central Europe.  German names were used more frequently 
by the Czech-speaking population only until the end of the 18th century. The practice of 
using two-element names, preferred by the German speaking inhabitants of the Czech 
lands, influenced the introduction of the two-name system in the Czech community. 
Finally, Silvo Torkar analyzes eight Slovene toponyms (or their German variants) and 
shows that through the German-Slovene phonemic substitution, morphological adapta-
tion and translation the place names sometimes underwent such changes that they could 
not be satisfactorily explained without historical documents.
Valerij L. Vasiljev deals with hydronyms of Baltic origin in Russia. He offers a 
critical survey of the history of research on the subject and tries to delimit with greater 
precision the borders of the original Baltic territory, optimizing the techniques related 
to searching and confirmation of Baltic hydronyms.
The paper by Elena L. Berezovič, Ana A. Makarova and Irma I. Mullonen puts 
forward a comparative analysis of toponyms related to the names for evil spirits in 
Russian and in Finno-Ugric languages of the Russian North and the Republic of Karelia 
with the roots čert- in hiisi-. They describe different types of geographical names and 
attempt to identify the factors which influence the kind of »demonological« names in 
question in different cultural and linguistic systems. Nadežda V. Kabinina presents 
the history of research on Finno-Ugric heritage in the place names of the Russian North 
(Arkhangelsk and Vologda regions) and pays special attention to methodological char-
acteristics of the research as practiced by the Ural toponymic school. The new method 
of semantic modelling and the method of toponymic microsystem relations’ analysis 
is also illustrated.
The paper by Anđela Frančić deals with the classification of Croatian surnames 
containing Hungarian elements. On the basis of linguistic analysis the author shows 
that some of these surnames were formed in Croatia, whereas others were introduced 
into the pool of Croatian surnames when their Hungarian bearers arrived in Croatia.
Aleksandar Loma's study concerns the place name Šepšin proposing a reconstruc-
tion in the form of *Semčijin on the basis of a historical record dating back to 1528. 
Ultimately, it appears to derive from the Old Serbian common noun sěmьčija assumed 
to be the same as Old Church Slavic samъčii ‘praefectus’ and is probably a loanword 
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   10 14.3.2016   8:39:26
11
from (Turkic) Proto Bulgarian. Vasyl V. Lučyk offers a systematic overview of the 
toponyms of Turkic origin in the Ukraine. The Turkisms found in Ukrainian place 
names are classified into three groups, according to the period when they entered the 
Ukrainian language: the Kievan Rus period (9th-13th century), the Old Ukrainian period 
(14th-18th century), and the New Ukrainian period (19th-21st century). On the basis of 
an etymologic analysis of the place names, the author also provides their semantic clas-
sification. The final paper in the section, by Ljudvig Selimski, suggests an alternative 
etymological analysis of five area and settlement names in Bulgaria, four of which are 
of Turkish or Arabic origin, whereas one derives from Romanian.
The special issue concludes with Eva Sicherl's contribution on the borrowing of 
personal names from the point of view of pragmatic borrowing and taking into account 
the traditional dichotomy between necessary loans on the one hand and luxury loans 
on the other hand.
Silvo Torkar
ZRC SAZU
Linguistica_2015_FINAL.indd   11 14.3.2016   8:39:26