ONOMÀSTICA 5 (2019): 137–156 | RECEPCIÓ 12.3.2019 | ACCEPTACIÓ 10.12.2019

Slovak hydronymy in the European context Juraj Hladký University of Trnava () [email protected]

Abstract: Historical Slavic is the sole basis for understanding the development of Slavic macrodialects and the formation of Slavic languages, including Slovak. In this respect, hydronymic lexis contributes significantly to views on developments in vocabulary. The oldest hydronyms in Slovakia are probably of pre-Slavic (Quadi, Celtic or Roman) origin (for example, the Hron, the Váh, the Nitra rivers and others). The older pre-Slavic-Slovak hydronymy provides evidence of the differentiation of dialects in the earlier periods (until the 10th–12th century). The younger Slovak hydronymic inventory is supplemented by Slovak-adapted foreign hydronyms (mainly of German and Hungarian origin). They reflect the degree of historical inter-lingual contacts in the regions of Slovakia and complete the diachronous-synchronous view of Slovak lexis. The study describes the tradition and outlines the results of hydronomastic studies in Slovakia and the relatively comprehensive characterization of Slovak hydronymy undertaken by the Hydronymia Slovaciae project. In line with the methodology employed by the Hydronymia Europaea project, all documented hydronyms have been systematically processed in individual river basins, from the oldest to the most recent. The analysis of the complex corpus of both existing and extinct hydronyms, in addition to its recognised linguistic (lexical-semantic, structural-typological characteristics, motivation) goals, has served in the reconstruction of the original non-linguistic side of the proper , their standardization and cartography, etc. Thanks to methodologically similar hydronomastic research in other Slavic countries, the results of the studies in Slovakia can be applied in a broader Slavic context. Key words: hydronym, Hydronymia Slovaciae, Hydronymia Europaea, Slovak, lexical- semantic and structural-typological characteristics, motivation, reconstruction

La hidronímia eslovaca en el context europeu Resum: La toponímia eslovaca històrica és l’única base per entendre el desenvolupament dels macrodialectes eslovacs i la formació de les llengües eslaves, incloent-hi Eslovàquia. En aquest sentit, el lèxic hidronímic contribueix significativament al coneixement sobre el desenvolupament del vocabulari. Els hidrònims més antics d’Eslovàquia són probablement d’origen preeslau (quades, cèltics o romans), com per exemple, els rius Hron, Váth i Nitra entre d’altres. La hidronímia eslovaca preeslava més antiga proveeix evidències de la diferenciació dels dialectes en períodes arcaics (fins als segles X–XII). L’inventari més antic d’hidronímia eslovaca es complementa amb hidrònims estrangers 137 Juraj Hladký

adaptats a l’eslovac (principalment d’origen alemany i hongarès). Reflecteixen el grau de contacte interlingüístic històric en les regions d’Eslovàquia i completen la visió diacrònica-sincrònica del lèxic eslovac. L’estudi descriu la tradició i remarca el resultat dels estudis hidronomàstics a Eslovàquia i la caracterització relativament completa de la hidronímia eslovaca portada a terme en el marc del projecte Hydronymia Slovaciae. D’acord amb la metodologia emprada en aquest projecte, tots els hidrònims que han estat processats corresponen sistemàticament a conques fluvials individuals, des del més antic al més recent. L’anàlisi del complex corpus d’hidrònims —existents i pretèrits—, a més dels objectius lingüístics reconeguts (característiques lexicosemàntiques, característiques tipològiques estructurals, motivació), ha servit per a la reconstrucció de la part no lingüística dels noms propis, la seva estandardització i inserció en cartografia, etc. Gràcies a la recerca hidronímica metodològicament similar desenvolupada a altres països, el resultat dels estudis a Eslovàquia es poden aplicar en un context eslau més ampli. Paraules clau: hidronímia, hidronímia eslovaca, hidronímia europea, Eslovàquia, característiques lexicosemàntiques, característiques tipològiques estructurals, motivació, reconstrucció

Introduction

Historical Slavic onymy creates a body of linguistic evidence about the development of the macrodialects of the pre-Slavic language and of the formation of individual Slavic languages. Research into proper names sheds light on the development of a specific language (especially its lexis and sound system), since acquiring different language materials from those times is no longer possible (Krajčovič 1980, 217; Majtán 1996, 29). Historically fixed and documented proper names are, at the same time, an indispensable condition for historical and comparative research into Slavic languages. The historical appellative and proprial lexis serves here as essential documentation material, since proper names originated from the appellatives that existed in the language in the period of the origin of the proper . Slovak onymy provides important evidence for research into the history of the , and, in a wider context, about the break up and differentiation of the proto-Slavic language. The same is true vice versa as well: Slavic studies, and historical- comparative research, in turn, provide information on the in the reconstruction of proper names. The paper will discuss two problem areas: 1. methodological starting points and the state of research into the Slovak hydronymy in a wider 138 Slovak Hydronymy in the European Context Slavic and European context, and 2. brief characteristics of the Slovak hydronymy.

Slovak hydronymy in a historical perspective

The effort to explain hydronyms and other toponyms can be seen already in the work of the Slovak baroque polymath Matej Bel [Matthias Bel] (1684–1749). In his description of individual Hungarian counties entitled Historicko-zemepisné vedomosti o súvekom Uhorsku [Historical- geographical knowledge on contemporaneous Hungary] (in lat. orig. Notitia Hungariae Novae Historico-geographica; 1735–1742), Bel provided popular explanations of some toponyms and expressed his critical opinion on many of them. For example, the hydronym Žitava (1075 Sitoua, Zythwa) was correctly derived from the appellative žito [wheat]. In his opinion, the motivation behind the name was the fact that it is a river which flows through a fertile field (Bel 1742, 162). Bel’s explanation is identical to the modern linguistic explanation as well. The hydronym belongs to a group of names with an ancient hydroformant -ava (< germ. *ahwa = water, river) which has also been preserved in Slovak hydronyms Orava, Rudava, Myjava, Ondava, and so on. It is derived from the pan- Slavic žito (= wheat in western but rye in eastern Slovakia). This is derived from the pan-Slavic verb *žíti [to live], and the name Žitava thus names a river flowing through wheat, corn, i.e. fertile land. Bel made several such explanations, many of which, naturally, would be rejected or significantly corrected by contemporary . The first scholarly work that predetermined the development of Slovak hydronomastics is a monograph by the Czech onomastics scholar Vladimír Šmilauer entitled Vodopis starého Slovenska (1932) [Hydrography of the Old Slovakia]. In it, he put together and reconstructed the oldest hydronymic lexis from individual river basins based on the evidence from medieval documents, skillfully showing the stratification of the then-known oldest hydronyms in the territory of Slovakia. Indeed, today’s more detailed archival and linguistic research can be considered a continuation of this work.

139 Juraj Hladký Later, original independent studies were undertaken providing explanations of hydronyms which are considered pre-Slavic (Váh, Hron) or unclear (Laborec, Latorica, Torysa, Dudváh, etc.). Likewise, works in Slavic studies discussing the hydronyms that can be included into the proto-Slavic hydronymic inventory (studies by R. Krajčovič, V. Uhlár, Š. Ondruš, and others) emerged. A list of works on Slovak hydronymy up to 2010 was introduced by J. Hladký and J. Krško in the Súpis prác o slovenskej hydronymii [Inventory of Works on Slovak Hydronymy] (In: Z hydronymie západného Slovenska, 2010) [From the Hydronymy of Western Slovakia]. As far as the Slavic countries are concerned, systematic research into hydronyms did not begin until the second half of the 20th century. The principles used by Polish onomastics scholars in their research of the hydronymy of the river basins of the Warta and San were applied by M. Majtán and K. Rymut in their work on the hydronymy of the Orava river basin (Hidronimia dorzecza Orawy, 1985). It was the first attempt at a systematic discussion of the hydronyms from one river basin. In relation to the heuristic research of Slovak hydronymy, Milan Majtán (1987, 14) has remarked: “A more detailed research, complemented by frequency data and dynamism of the development of the name, of the naming content and word formation models, as well as a detailed analysis of structural and word formation types of historical and contemporary Slovak hydronymy, remains yet to be done. A complex monograph on Slovak hydronymy will also be a starting point for comparative research in the western-Slavic as well as pan-Slavic context”. Around this time, there originated in a project aimed at providing a unified and complex study of the hydronymy of entitled Hydronymia Europaea. Drawing on the methodological principles of that project, systematic research into the historical and contemporary hydronymy of the territory of Slovakia, under the name of Hydronymia Slovaciae, was also undertaken. Its organisation and methodology were supervised by the presidency of the Slovak Onomastic Commission, represented in these tasks by the president, Milan Majtán. The aim was to collect historical as well as contemporary hydronyms from individual river basins and to analyse these names. The conditions of this diachronic research were ensured by the regular publication of collections of documents and 140 Slovak Hydronymy in the European Context historical cartographic works. Synchronous names were excerpted from the lists and from geographical and cartographic works, but they were also acquired by means of field research. Employing a unified methodology, the authors of the individual volumes of Hydronymia Slovaciae provided independent entries for every water object. Each entry comprises a contemporary standardised name, or a name suitable for standardisation. All extinct objects are marked by the sign †. If it was necessary to reconstruct the name linguistically, then it is introduced by the sign *. Each entry includes four sections: encyclopaedic information, evidence, explanation and bibliography. The encyclopaedic information comprises the geographical characteristics and location of the water object. If the object has had or has several names, they are provided as variants. Variants also include reconstructed (with the sign *) forms of the original German and Magyar names. If hydronyms are derived from the proper names from other onymic classes, then information on related terrain names (TN), settlement names (ON), personal names (OM) or etonyms (EN) follows. The chronological organisation of the evidence related to the hydronyms, as well as to the oikonyms and other proper names, allows the documentation of the differentiation and development of linguistic phenomena in individual periods in various territories (developmental and dialectological aspect). This approach allows the comparison of word formation models in Slovak hydronymy at the diachronous as well as synchronous levels within the broader Slavic context. The evidence presented is accompanied by the of the source from which it is derived. If the hydronym is motivationally associated with the name of another onymic class, the most important evidence about this name is provided as well (ON, TN, OM, etc.). The explanatory section is made up of lexical-semantic, structural- typological and motivational analyses of the name of the water object. In the case of reconstructed names, the explanation related to language changes is included as well or that of the process by which the original name was adapted into the language of another ethnic community (e.g. Slavic/Slovak name into Hungarian, into Slovak, etc.). This creates the conditions for broader comparative research.

141 Juraj Hladký Appellative and proprial foundations are also identified in the case of settlement, terrain and water names that are motivationally associated with the analysed hydronym. The bibliographical section of the entry contains a survey of the etymological literature directly associated with the analysed names. The following is an example of the composition of hydronyms in the project Hydronymia Europae or Hydronymia Slovaciae (Hladký, J. & Závodný, A., 2015. Hydronymia Žitného ostrova, p. 239):

† *Vidov jarok today unidentified water course (probably distributary of Čalovský Dudváh), later a pond between the villages Čalovec and Zlatná na Ostrove; TN. Vidov dom; OM. Vid. VMp. 50: [45-32]; Šmil. Nr. 177 VN.: 1268 piscina Vydere Šmil., Nr. 177 TN.: 1978 Vidháza VSO. III, 355 1991 Vidov dom (field) GNKo. ZnO. OM.: 1. 1218 Vid (jobation of the castle Komárno) CDSl. I, Nr. 231 2. 1247 Wyd, filiis Marcus de villa Vrs CDSl. II, Nr. 284 Etym.: Name reconstructed by V. Šmilauer (1932, 305) as *Vid-ere and derived from proper name Vid (slov. hypocoristic form of the name Vitus), Hungarian appellative ér (= ditch, river distributary). The name denotes a ditch or a distributary in a territory which belonged to Vid. The explanation objectivises the evidence about Vid, a jobagion of the Komárno Castle from 1218, or about Vid from Nová Stráž. It is not certain whether from the hydronym *Vidov jarok originated TN (originally name of the remote place) Vidov dom, or it was the other way around. Lit.: Šmilauer, 1932, 305.

In the Hydronymia Slovaciae edition, the hydronymy of the river basin from the following rivers was processed: the Slovak part of the Slaná (Ľ. Sičáková 1996), Dunajec and Poprad (K. Rymut & M. Majtán 1998), Ipeľ (M. Majtán & P. Žigo 1999), Turiec (J. Krško 2003), Nitra (J. Hladký 2004), Orava (M. Majtán & K. Rymut, arranged edition 2006), Hron (J. Krško 2008), Kysuca (J. Krško & D. Velička 2011), Dudváh (J. Hladký 2011), upper part of the Váh river basin (Krško 2011), Slovak part of 142 Slovak Hydronymy in the European Context the river basin (A. Závodný 2012), Hornád (A. Goótšová & A. Chomová & J. Krško 2014), upper part of the Malý Dunaj [Little ] river basin (M. Beláková 2014). The latest monograph to be published isHydronymia Žitného ostrova [Hydronymy of the Žitný Ostrov] (J. Hladký & A. Závodný 2015). This discusses hydronymic material related to the Danube’s largest and provides evidence of various ethnic influences on the formation of the historical hydronymy in this border Slovak-Austrian-Hungarian territory. In addition to this, in 2005, J. Krško’s work on the principles of processing Slovak hydronymy was published (Spracovanie hydronymie Slovenska (Metodické pokyny na spracúvanie projektov Hydronymie Slovaciae). Today, approx. 80% of the territory of Slovakia has been documented. The research continues with the analysis of hydronyms from the river basins of the Little Danube as well as those of the longest Slovak river, the Váh. Research into some smaller river basins in Eastern Slovakia is to be carried out under the aegis of the University of Trnava.

Brief characteristics of Slovak hydronymy

Up to the 10th century, the Slovak language was developing as one of the proto-Slavic dialects of the western-Slavic type, with the presence of southern-Slavic elements. The first mention of Slovak as an independent Slavic language dates to the 10th century (the first codification of the Slovak language was not carried out however until 1787). From the 11th century up to 1918, the territory of Slovakia belonged administratively to Hungary and later to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The records of Slovak proper names from that period are, thus, often “Hungarised,” or marked by graphical principles of the Hungarian or German languages. Hydronyms, especially the names of more important water objects, are among the oldest documented proper names. Water objects constitute natural obstacles in the terrain and are also natural borders. Their names were, therefore, stable and in the oldest periods they would often be taken over by a new population from the existing one — with whom they came into contact in the new territory.

143 Juraj Hladký The oldest hydronymy in the territory of Slovakia provides evidence of the inclusion of old proto-Slavic hydronyms within the Slavic toponymic system as well as Slavic/Slovak hydronyms within the old Hungarian toponymic system. As a result, we can observe both the substrate and adstrate phenomena in the Slovak language. After a complex historical- linguistic analysis, these names also provide information on the proto- Slavic genesis of the Slovak language and on its earlier contacts with other languages. Recently, the appellative foundations of the old Slavic hydronymy in Romanian hydronymy has been similarly discussed by O. Felecan (Bistra, Bistriţa < slov. bystrý [rapid], Cernavodă < slov. čierny, voda [black, water]; Crasna < slov. krásny [beautiful]; Topolog < slov. topoľ [poplar tree]; 2015, 260-261). In approx. the 5th century, when the Slavs entered the territory of present-day Slovakia, they adopted the (most often Germanic) names of the remaining German population. The oldest evidence of a hydronym from the Slovak territory is the pre-Slavic hydronym Hron, with records going back to the 2nd century (166-188 Granoua Šmilauer 1932, 348-350, 172; Granua Krško 2008, 78). It is one of the oldest, still pre-Slavic, hydronyms in the Slovak territory, though it has not as yet been reliably explained. It is assumed to be of Germanic origin and its original form was *Gran- ahwa (from the old upper German: gran – smrek [spruce] + ahwa – voda [water]), with the meaning of “spruce water”, i.e. “water flowing through coniferous stand” (Lutterer & Majtán & Šrámek 1982, 117; Krško 2008, 80). The early contact between Slavs and Germans in the territory of Slovakia can also be documented by the name of the longest Slovak river, the Váh (400 km). The oldest evidence dates back to the year 1075 and has a form of Wag. It is traditionally explained as consisting of the German base wāg – “stream of water, rippling water”. There are also efforts to explain it from the Slavic base *vag- with the meaning of “light river” or “river flowing to the south”, and so on (Lutterer & Majtán & Šrámek 1982, 320). The evidence for, and explanation of, another hydronym Dudváh testify rather to the German origin of the name Váh. The Dudváh is a less significant water course in western Slovakia flowing in parallel with the Váh. It was mentioned in the years 1208–1209 as aqua Dwdwag, fluvium Dwdwag. The name is evaluated as a composite and may be reliably derived from the reconstructed German word dauda, or tōd, dōd meaning 144 Slovak Hydronymy in the European Context “dead,” and the name of the river Váh. It may be interpreted as a German compound daud-wāg (germ. wāg – stream) – the dead Váh, or dead stream – “the slowly flowing or the flowing in low land and putrescent Váh”. Similarly, several historical inscriptions, such as Dud-Wag, Dud Wag, point out that it was strongly felt that the name originated as a composite, which is not typical for Slovak hydronymy (Hladký 2011, 50-52). The lexical foundations of the names of large rivers are, at first glance, indistinct and non-Slavic, but this might not have always been true. The names Orava, Rimava, Ondava, Poprad, Torysa, among others, were originally considered to have been adopted by the predecessors of the Slovaks (Slavs) from an older population. However, newer onomastic and etymological research clearly shows that they are of Slavic origin (Majtán, 1996, p. 147). In analyzing them, we need to take into consideration also the vicinity of semantically similar names and knowledge obtained from research conducted in archaeology, geography and other fields. They are important also for the process of verification of the old semantic side of their appellative basis (Blanár 1993, 76-84; Krajčovič 1990, 123- 125). Of extraordinary importance in this process is their onymic-lexical comparison: • internal – comparing onymic lexis with the lexis of the language whose means served for the creation of the hydronym, • external – identification of lexical parallels in the vocabulary of other Slavic languages.

The names of water objects from the Slovak territory occur more often only from the 11th century onwards, in association with the development of the administrative and legal practices of the Hungarian royal office. Recent research shows that in the oldest documented Slovak hydronymy, several layers of the old Slavic lexical inventory can be identified (examples are given from the Nitra river basin; Hladký 2004):

1. In Slovak hydronymy, the old lexis which most clearly preserves its proto-Slavic state is petrified. Hydronyms preserve the lexis that has undergone just a slight differentiation in its development in the Slavic or Slovak dialects. In the following examples the means of word formation are specifically singled out: 145 Juraj Hladký Topoľnica (1293 Topolniche fev, 1324 fluvius Thopolnica, 1347 fluvius Tapolnychaetc.: Topoľ-n-ica < pan-Slavic topolь; Králik 2015, 618); Bebrava (1296 fluvium Bebre, 1323 antiqua Bebre, fluvius Bebre, 1408 fluv. Bebrevetc.: Bebr-ava < proto-Slavic *bebrъ/*bobrъ; Králik 2015, 74); *Vlčec (1113 fluvius Vvlscit: *Vlč-ec < vlk < psl. *vьlkъ; Králik 2015, 664) and other examples. 2. Slovak hydronyms petrify the lexis which changed their original proto-Slavic semantic structure in the individual Slavic languages, for example: *Rohožnica (1295 rivulus Rohozniche: Rohož-n-ica < proto-Slavic *rogozъ > slov. rohož [a mat]. V. Machek (1971, 420) says that the founding word rohož/-a is derived by the suffixja - from the proto- Slavic word *rogozъ (mask.), or *rogoza (fem.), referring to ditch reed. Gradually the word rohož began to refer to the netting from the reed (a mat), as well as other similar water plants. In Slovak, from the word *rogozie developed the word rokosie, in Czech rákosí. The original form of the appellative is still preserved in the Czech oikonyms Rohozec, Rohozná, Rohoznice or in the Slovak oikonyms Rohožník, Rohozná. During the process of the development of the Slovak language, alongside the words rákos, rákosie, trstina, trsť [bulrush, cane, reed, rattan] narrowed its meaning and is used only in the meaning of “thick netting from the reed, bast, straw, etc.”; Dubnička (1232 rivus Dabra; reconstruction by V. Šmilauer 1932, 340: *Dúb-r-ava) – the name did not have to denote a small river flowing through an oak copse (dúbrava), but through any tree copse. In general, the proto-Slavic word *doNbrava (dúbrava) [oak wood] denoted the forest, but only later was its meaning narrowed to oak copse (Machek, 1971, p. 92); Mohelnica (nowadays Pažitský potok: 1329 Mohantcha, 1352 maioris rivuli Moholnica; Mohel-n-ica < mohyla [barrow] < proto- Slavic *mogyla). The founding proto-Slavic appellative mohyla gradually narrowed its meaning in Slovak from “an elevation in the terrain, hillock” to denote an earth work over the grave. 146 Slovak Hydronymy in the European Context 3. Slovak hydronyms petrify the lexis which, in the process of the development of the proto-Slavic language, gradually became peripheral vocabulary in individual Slavic languages, perished or changed their sound quality. In Slovak, these foundations can be identified, for example, in the following hydronyms: *Slopňa (1293 fons Zopna: *Slop-ň-a < apel. *slopńa from the base *slъp- with the meaning “to spring forth”; Šmilauer 1932, 457; in Slovak, the verb slopať – to guttle originated from this root as well); Hlomniansky potok (older Hlomná (dolina) [valley]; it is not certain whether the terrain name was motivated by the sound of wind or water: Hlom-ná < hlom-; proto-Slavic *glomotъ; *glomozъ/*glomozdъ/*glomoza – chatter, derived by the suffix-otъ from the base *hlom; c.f. Czech. hlomoz, Slov. lomoz – roar, din (ESSJa, 137-138); Gamota (1889 Gamota: Gam-ota), Ham, Hamský kanál [channel] (1889 Hami: Ham-i) – the name Gamota originated from the proto-Slavic appellative *gamъ with the meaning “rustle, cry”, cf. proto-Slavic verb *gaměti/*gamiti – rustling, crying (ESSJa, 98; “rustling water”). The name is evaluated as proto-Slavic documenting historical change of the proto-Slavic g > h in the 12th century and petrification of its proto-Slavic form in Hungarian.

As far as the structure of names is concerned, the older hydronymy is dominated by single names (Ondava, Drevenica, Bocegaj). These names most often denote more important water courses. Some of these single names originated by the univerbisation of an original two-part name (Cerová < Cerová voda [Cerová Water], Hraničný < Hraničný kanál [Border Channel]) from which the appellative naming the kind of water was left out (most often brook, water, ditch, channel). However, most Slovak hydronyms have a form of two-part names of the attributive type (Osikový potok [Aspen Brook], Studená voda [Cold Water]). Younger names of artificial channels originated through the coordination of oikonyms or toponyms (Hliník – Martovce). In the older Slovak hydronymy, several extralinguistic agents were applied as motivational factors (in the following names, the word- formation structure of hydronyms is again specifically singled out): 147 Juraj Hladký • occurrence of specific kinds of animals or plants in the vicinity of a water object (Rak-ov-ica < rak [crab], Bebr-ava < bobor [beaver], Vlč-ec < vlk [wolf], Trst-ená < trsť [reed], Oleš-n-ica < jelša [alder tree], in dialect olša), • nature of water – speed, temperature of water (Bystr-ica < bystrý [fast], Morot-va < mŕtvy [dead] (inset -o- is a result of the adaptation of the name in Hungarian), Mraz-n-ica < mrazný [freezing] < mráz [frost]), colouring of the bottom (Čierna voda < čierny, voda [black, water], Želez-n-ica < železný < železo [iron]– with the colour of iron, reddish, Rud-n-ík < rudný < ruda [ore]– metal of reddish colour), farm function (Mlyn-ica < mlyn [mill], Žliab-ok < žľab [trunking]), • dividing position (Mede-š < Hung. megye < Slov. boundary, Chotár- na voda < chotár [land area]) and other motivational factors.

A younger and dominant type motivating hydronyms is the location of the water object with respect to a settlement or a geographical site. A prominent number of hydronyms therefore originated by derivation from oikonyms or from the names of valleys, hills or fields, through or around which water objects flow or where they are located. The names of channels have an important standing among them. These are modern objects of amelioration built in great numbers in areas of the dense confluence of water bodies. Their names are most often motivated by the strict delimitation of the channel’s direction and they originated form the combination of two oikonyms or terrain names (Čalovo-Holiare, Medveďov-Vrbina). Occasionally older hydronyms were transonymised, giving rise to the names of settlements, as demonstrated by several records. For example, the original hydronym Trnava (1256 Tyrna < tŕň [barb]) was transonymised to oikonym Trnava, hydronym Krupina to oikonym Krupina, etc. As a result of unwanted homonymy, the original hydronyms were changed through the onymic polarisation (> Trnávka, Krupinica). Such names are not considered , as in the case of the names of rivers and their lesser tributaries (Nitra – Nitrica, Žitava – Žitavica). In the corpus of Slovak hydronyms, there is a relatively large number of hydronyms derived from anthroponyms. However, such naming does not necessarily mean that a water object belonged to the bearer of the 148 Slovak Hydronymy in the European Context anthroponym, rather it expresses the fact that a water object is situated in the territory belonging to the bearer of the anthroponym. Some of these names are ancient and they petrify (preserve) an old layer of Slavic, often pre-Christian proper names (Hodislav-y < Hodislav, Choč-a < Chotimír, Nestaš-ov potok < Nestaš, Drahožic-a < Drahožit). In general, there are enough examples for more than 40 motivational areas, as presented previously by V. Šmilauer (1932). A study of the genesis of Slovak hydronymy, as mediated by current research, allows us to speak of its Slavic origin and nature, despite the fact that: (a) larger water courses had their names as early as the pre-Slavic period; (b) from these pre-Slavic (Celtic, Quadi, Roman) names, old Slovaks could, after their arrival in the Carpathian area, take them over and adapt and adjust them to pre-Slavic vocabulary, and to further their use as ; (c) the predecessors of Slovaks continued to be in permanent contact with non-Slavic ethnic peoples in the territory of present-day Slovakia as well as in the early Middle Ages (Majtán 1996, 148).

A natural part of the historical hydronymy of the territory of southern Slovakia comprises Hungarian hydronyms. These names can be documented throughout the entire Middle Ages as well as in earlier periods. They denoted less significant water objects in the southern regions where Hungarian ethnic groups had a strong presence from as early as the 10th century. Their most frequent origin can be attributed to the proprialisation of the Hungarian hydronymic lexis which existed in that period. They were usually motivated by the form or another physical characteristic of the object, a copse in the vicinity or other qualities of the water object: † *Pramenný (1268 Yguz, *Ügyes < Hung. apel. ügy – prameň [spring]; † *Strmeň (1268 aqua Kengelfeu < Hung. kengyel = strmeň [strap], fő = upper part of water course), and so on. The names that corresponded to the structure of the Slovak language were quite readily included within the hydronymic system, or they were graphically, or based on sounds, adapted to the rules of the Slovak language (Chrenovka, older Tormáš: 1075 aqua Tarmas < Hung. tormás – of horseradish). 149 Juraj Hladký In some cases, the original Hungarian name was adapted by means of domestic word formation (Piritov: 1750 Piri tó – the two-part Hungarian name being adapted to the form of a single name through the simple translation of hung. suffix –ó, which in Slovak corresponds to the suffix -ov). In the process of the standardisation of Slovak toponymy, older were most often translated, as illustrated by the above example, Chrenovka – Tormá. Potentially, they were substituted by new names without any real relationship (1889 hung. Akalosi ér > 1979 slov. Meadow channel). Historical hydronymy provides evidence of the process operating in re- verse in southern Slovakia: Slavic/Slovak appellative or ready hydronyms were adopted by the ethnically Hungarian population occupying present- day Slovak territory in the 9th–10th centuries. Above all, their sounds were adapted into Hungarian. This was, potentially, the way of adopting only the appellatives that were onymised. There are various examples of that, including, *Blatá (1268 piscina Balata < blato [mud] (pl. blatá): < psl. *bol- to (Šmilauer 1932, 305, 469), *Tôňa (1226 Thana < appel. tôňa [shade] – “deep standing place on a water course”), *Chrasť (1252 stagnum Hraztou, thus hung. *Haraszt tó < slov. chrasť – thorny copse). A less numerous group is made up by younger German hydronyms. They are documented mostly from the 12th century in areas of German colonisation (the vicinity of , Prievidza and the mining towns in central Slovakia, territory of Žitný ostrov and the Spiš region). They were used to name less significant water courses with local meaning in villages with a German ethnic element. Their communication radius was therefore small (*Štôlňový potok: 1912 Stollen patak – germ. apel. r Stollen – štôlňa [tunnel], hung. apel. patak (slov. potok) had in its name the function of a geographical term; Hamský kanál: 1971 Hamweis < nem. apel. r Ham – drying bay, germ. adj. weis – white). In the process of standardisation, the names were adapted or substituted as in the case of the Hungarian hydronyms. The analysis of the historical and contemporary hydronymy of the territory of Slovakia significantly complements our understanding of the formation of Slavic hydronymy. From the perspective of Slavic hydronomastics, the monograph by J. Udolph, Studien zu slavischen Gewässernamen und Gewässerbezeichnungen (1979), represents a 150 Slovak Hydronymy in the European Context highly rigorous study. It deals both with a number of proto-Slavic appellatives that formed part of the process of onymisation and with their geographical distribution. The author documents entries in historical and contemporary records of the hydronymy of the individual Slavic languages. In separate chapters, the monograph reconstructs the vocabulary naming the different kinds of waters in the western, eastern and southern Slavic languages and it analyses the word-formation models of Slavic hydronymy. J. Udolph’s monograph was written at a time when research into national hydronymies in Poland, the Ukraine, Russia, and Belorussia was just beginning. The basic material research in hydronymy continues in the individual Slavic countries, conducted according to various methodological approaches that differ from one another only in their particulars. One important aspect, however, is common: namely, the creation of complex yet reliable foundations of comparable records of hydronyms that are applicable for research into the national languages. These records, moreover, are also applicable for use in comparative (especially Slavic) research. Thus, the conditions for general studies of Slavic hydronymy have gradually been created. They are encapsulated, for example, by the work of V. P. Šuľhač Praslovjanskij hidronimnyj fond: Frahment rekonstrukciji (1998). In this study he claimed that the “reconstruction of the ancient hydronymic record across the Slavic continuum, and, based on this, of the corpus of Slavic proto-hydronyms, is undeniably one of the real, most relevant tasks we face”. This goal is also documented in the section of his study dedicated to vocabulary in which he presents an example of the reconstruction of proto-Slavic hydronyms on the basis of the analysis of national Slavic hydronymies. The series of comparative studies is complemented by what is currently the five- volume monograph written by R. M. Kazlova, Belaruskaja i slavjanskaja hidranimija: Praslavjanski fond, or Slavjanskaja hidranimija (2000–2011). In Polish hydronomastics we find, for example, the book by Ewa Wolnicz- Pawłowska O nazwach wodnych w Polsce (2013), and so on. As discussed above, Slovak hydronomastics, with its complex research into historical and contemporary Slovak hydronymy, creates conditions for further similar comparative works, which will find their use in a wider, above all, Slavic linguistic context. 151 Juraj Hladký Conclusions

The oldest layer of Slovak hydronyms consists of the hydronyms of non- Slavic origin adopted by Slavs from the original (Germanic) population in approx. the 5th century. Most usually they constitute the names of the most significant water courses. Some of these hydronyms have been preserved up to the present day; others did not take root as the Slavic population gradually substituted them for new Slavic–Slovak names. From the 9th–10th century, they were also adopted by the Hungarian population, settling first in the Žitný ostrov and later in other southern regions of Slovakia. Slavic/Slovak names were usually adapted in accordance with the principles of the Hungarian language. In some regions of Slovakia it is, in turn, possible to identify traces of younger German hydronymy, associated with flows of colonisers from the Middle Ages as well as the modern period. In general, we may conclude that the hydronymy of the territory of Slovakia is of Slovak origin. Systematic research into Slovak hydronymy has been carried out in line with the methodological principles of the Hydronymia Europaea project and as part of the extensive Hydronymia Slovaciae project. At present, approx. 80% of the area of Slovakia has been processed in the form of monographs on the hydronymy of the country’s larger individual river basins. A complex corpus of both existing and extinct hydronyms from the territory of Slovakia, including the non-standardised (most often dialectical) names, allows, in addition to the linguistic aims specified (i.e. lexical-semantic, structural-typological characteristics of hydronyms, motivation), to use the knowledge gained in other areas as well. It has been applied, for example, in the standardisation of the proper names of rivers, brooks, lakes, etc., in their re-standardisation and, consequently, in cartography. In addition to this, they provide evidence for the development of ethnic microregions and regions. From them, hydrologists, geographers and biologists can learn about the features of a water object in the past (defunct water courses, the physical and other qualities of water courses, their nature, occurrence of animals and plants in the past, etc.), as well as about the characteristics of the vicinity of a water object and other associated circumstances.

152 Slovak Hydronymy in the European Context Dedication

The author dedicates this work to the memory of the pioneer of Slovak onomastics and hydronomastics, Dr. Milan Majtán, D. Sc. (1934–2018).

Abbreviations apel. – appellate, hung. – in Hungarian, germ. – in German, slov. – in Slovak

Literature (Owing to numerous publications in national languages, English translation of the is provided in brackets). Bel, M. 1742. Notitia Hungariae Novae Historico-Geographica 4, Comitatus Neogradiensis. Comitatus Barsiensis. Comitatus Nitriensis. Comitatus Hontensis. Presburg. (Knowledge of history and geography of new Hungary. Novohrad, Tekov, Nitra and Hont districts). Beláková, M. 2014. Hydronymia severnej časti povodia Malého Dunaja, Trnava: Pedagogická fakulta TU. (Hydronymy of the northern basin of little Dunaj). Blanár, V. 1993. Porovnávanie lexiky slovanských jazykov z diachrónneho hľadiska. Bratislava: Veda. (Comparative lexis of Slavic languages from diachronous point of view). ESSJa. – Etimologičeskij slovar slavjanskich jazykov, 6 (*E – *G *golva). Ed. O. N. Trubačev. Moskva: Nauka 1979. (Vocabulary of etymology of Slavic languages). Felecan, O. & Felecan, N. 2015. Straturi etimologice reflectate în hidronimia românească, Quaderns de Filologia: Estudis Lingüístics, XX: 251-269. https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/qfilologia/article/ view/7521/7092 (Etymology levels of Roman hydronymy). Goótšová, A. & Chomová, A. & Krško, J. 2014. Hydronymia slovenskej časti povodia Hornádu. Banská Bystrica: Univerzita Mateja Bela. (Hydronymy of the Slovak part of the river Hornád basin). Hladký, J. 2004. Hydronymia povodia Nitry. Trnava: Pedagogická fakulta TU. (Hydronymy of the river Nitra basin). 153 Juraj Hladký Hladký, J. 2011. Hydronymia povodia Dudváhu. Trnava: Typi Universitatis Tyrnaviensis. (Hydronymy of the river Dudváh basin). Hladký, J. & Krško, J. 2010. Súpis prác o slovenskej hydronymii. In Z hydronymie západného Slovenska, ed. J. Hladký, 138-149. Trnava: Pedagogická fakulta TU. (Checklist of the Slovak hydronymy, In Hydronymy of the western Slovakia). Hladký, J. & Závodný, A. 2015. Hydronymia Žitného ostrova. Trnava: Typi Universitatis Tyrnaviensis. (Hydronymy of the Žitný ostrov/Žitný island). Kazlova, R. M. Belaruskaja i slavjanskaja hidranimija: Praslavjanski fond – Slavjanskaja hidranimija zv. 1 – 5, Gomeľ 2000 – 2011. (Belarus and Slavic hydronymy: Pre-Slavic inventory – Slavic Hydronymy vol. 1–5). Králik, Ľ. 2015. Stručný etymologický slovník slovenčiny. Bratislava: Veda. (Basic vocabulary of Slovak etymology). Krajčovič, R. 1980. Z lexiky staršej slovenskej hydronymie v slovanskom kontexte. Slavica Slovaca 15, 3: 217-224. (Lexis of older Slovak hydronymy in the Slavic context). — . 1990. Miesto komparácie v rekonštrukcii starej onymickej lexiky. In Metódy výskumu a opisu lexiky slovanských jazykov, ed. J. Kačala, 123-130. Bratislava: Jazykovedný ústav Ľudovíta Štúra SAV. (Role of comparison in the reconstruction of old onomastic lexis, In Methods of the lexis of Slavic languages). Krško, J. 2003. Hydronymia povodia Turca. Banská Bystrica: Fakulta humanitných vied UMB. (Hydronymy of Turiec basin). — . 2005. Spracovanie hydronymie Slovenska: Metodické pokyny na spracúvanie projektov Hydronymia Slovaciae. Banská Bystrica: Univerzita Mateja Bela. (Processing of Slovak Hydronymy: Rules for projects of Hydronymia Slovaciae). — . 2008. Hydronymia povodia Hronu. Banská Bystrica: Univerzita Mateja Bela. (Hydronymy of the river Hron basin). — . 2011. Hydronymia horného povodia Váhu. Banská Bystrica: FHV UMB. (Hydronymy of the upper part of the river Váh basin). Krško, J. & Velička, D. 2011. Hydronymia povodia Kysuce. Banská Bystrica: Univerzita Mateja Bela. (Hydronymy of the river Kysuca basin). Majtán, M. 1987. Slovenská hydronymia v slovanskom kontexte, Zápisník slovenského jazykovedca 6, 1: 14-16. (Slovak Hydronymy in the Slavic context). 154 Slovak Hydronymy in the European Context Majtán, M. 1996. Z lexiky slovenskej toponymie. Bratislava: Veda. (Lexis of Slovak toponymy). Majtán, M. & Rymut, K. 1985. Hydronimia dorzecza Orawy. Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków – Łodź: Wydawnictvo PAN. (Hydronymy of the river Orawa basin). — . 2006. Hydronymia povodia Oravy. Bratislava: Veda. (Hydronymy of the river Orava basin). Majtán, M. & Žigo, P. 1999. Hydronymia povodia Ipľa. Bratislava: Jazykovedný ústav Ľ. Štúra SAV. (Hydronymy of the river Ipeľ basin). Lutterer, I. & Majtán, M. & Šrámek, R. 1982. Zeměpisná jména Československa. Slovník vybraných zeměpisných jmen s výkladem jejich původu a historického vývoje. Praha: Mladá fronta. (Geographical names of the Czechoslovakia. Vocabulary of selected geographical names and their origin and history). Sičáková, Ľ. 1996. Hydronymia slovenskej časti povodia Slanej. Prešov: Pedagogická fakulta UPJŠ. (Hydronymy of the Slovak part of the river Slaná basin). Slovenské rieky, http://www.reny.sk/img/slovensko/rieky/slovenske- rieky.jpg [04 V 2016] Šmilauer, V. 1932. Vodopis starého Slovenska. Praha – Bratislava: Nákladem učené společnosti Šafaříkovy. (Hydrography of the old Slovakia). Šuľhač, V. P. 1998. Praslovjanskij hidronimnyj fond. Frahment rekonstrukciji. Kyjiv: Nacionaľna akademija nauk Ukrajiny. (Pre-Slavic hydronymy inventory. Fragment of reconstruction). Udolph, J. 1979. Studien zu slavischen Gewässernamen und Gewässerbezeichnungen. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Urheimat der Slaven. Heidelberg: Carl Winter – Universitätsverlag. (Studies of Slavic water names and hydronymy). Wolnicz-Pawłowska, E. 2013. O nazwach vodnych w Polsce. Warszawa: Towarzystwo Miłośników Historii. (Hydronymy in Poland). Závodný, A. 2012. Hydronymia slovenskej časti povodia Moravy. Trnava: Typi Univeristatis Tyrnaviensis. (Hydronymy of the Slovak part of the river Morava basin).

155 Juraj Hladký ). http://www.reny.sk/img/slovensko/rieky/slovenske-rieky.jpg Map of the basins of the Slovak Republic: red lines indicate the rivers or their parts, in which hydronomastic no research has been undertaken to date ( Figure 1.

156