Analytical Tools for Toponymy: Their Application to Scottish Hydronymy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Analytical Tools for Toponymy: Their Application to Scottish Hydronymy Jacob King MSc. A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Edinburgh 2008 i I declare that this thesis is entirely my own work. Jacob King Abstract It has long been observed that there is a correlation between the physical qualities of a watercourse and the linguistic qualities of its name; for instance, of two river-names, one having the linguistic quality of river as its generic element, and one having burn, one would expect the river to be the longer of the two. Until now, a phenomenon such as this had never been formally quantified.The primary focus of this thesis is to create, within a Scottish context, a methodology for elucidating the relationship between various qualities of hydronyms and the qualities of the watercourses they represent. The area of study includes every catchment area which falls into the sea from the River Forth, round the east coast of Scotland, up to and including the Spey; also included is the east side of the River Leven / Loch Lomond catchment area.The linguistic strata investigated are: Early Celtic, P-Celtic, Gaelic and Scots. In the first half of the introduction scholarly approaches to toponymy are discussed, in a Scottish and hydronymic context, from the inception of toponymy as a discipline up to the present day; the capabilities and limitations of these approaches are taken into consideration.In the second half the approaches taken in this thesis are outlined.The second chapter explains and justifies in more detail the methodology and calculus used in this thesis.The subsequent chapters examine the following linguistic components of a hydronym: generic elements, linguistic strata, semantics and phonological overlay. In each of these chapters the methodology is harnessed as an analytical tool to generate new findings for hydronymic research.The conclusion consists of a summary of the findings and a review of the performance of the calculus. It emerges that these analytical tools are of use to the field of toponymy in two ways. Firstly, they formalise and challenge previously unquantified statements made in the field of toponymy. Secondly, they elucidate hitherto unnoticed phenomena. It is suggested that in the future this methodology be applied to other datasets (particularly hill-names) and to other regions in Scotland and the world at large. iii Contents Preamble xxi 0.1 List of Abbreviations . xxi 0.2 List of Terms . xxi 0.3 Style Sheet . xxii 0.4 Acknowledgments . xxii I Discussion 1 1 Introduction 3 1.1 A Brief History of Representational Approaches to British Toponymy . .3 1.2 Approaches of this Thesis . .9 1.2.1 Principles . .9 1.2.2 Practicalities . 10 1.2.2.1 Extent of the Database . 10 1.2.2.2 Structure of the Database . 12 1.2.3 Geographical Factors . 13 1.2.4 Linguistic Factors . 14 1.2.5 Strengths of this Approach . 15 1.2.6 Potential Drawbacks of this Approach . 16 1.3 Concluding Remarks . 16 2 Methodology 17 2.1 Introduction . 17 2.2 Geographical data . 19 2.2.1 Justification of Factors Used . 19 2.2.1.1 Km: Extent of the Watercourse . 19 2.2.1.2 Nont: Number of Named Tributaries . 19 2.2.1.3 Alt: Altitude . 21 2.2.1.4 Pos: Position . 22 2.2.1.5 Concluding Remarks . 22 v vi CONTENTS 2.2.2 Rendering of Factors . 23 2.2.2.1 Km .................................. 25 2.2.2.2 Nont ................................. 26 2.2.2.3 Pos .................................. 26 2.2.2.4 Alt .................................. 26 2.2.3 Composition of Geographical Factors into Scores . 27 2.3 Linguistic Data . 28 2.3.1 Justification of Factors Used . 28 2.3.1.1 Specelem: The Linguistic Stratum . 28 2.3.1.2 Genelem: The Generic Element . 28 2.3.1.3 Semtype: The Semantic Type . 29 2.3.2 Rendering of Factors . 29 2.3.2.1 Specelem ............................... 30 2.3.2.2 Genelem ............................... 30 2.3.2.3 Semtype ............................... 30 2.3.3 Composition of Linguistic Factors into Scores . 31 2.4 Factors Not Included . 31 2.5 Combination of Lingscore and Geogscore ....................... 32 2.6 Practical Applications . 33 2.6.1 Traditional Approach . 33 2.6.1.1 Frandy Burn . 34 2.6.2 Data Mining: The Non-Traditional Approach . 39 2.6.2.1 Case study: Abhainn Dubh vs River Forth . 40 2.6.2.2 Case study: Aqua de North . 43 2.6.2.3 Case study: River Spey . 45 2.6.2.4 Case study: Cart Burn . 45 2.6.2.5 Concluding Remarks on Case Studies . 46 2.7 The Hierarchical Network . 47 2.7.1 Other Applications . 48 2.8 Conclusion . 48 3 Generic Elements 49 3.1 Introduction . 49 3.2 Some Conceptual and Methodological Considerations . 50 3.3 P-Celtic Generic Elements . 53 3.3.1 P Esk ...................................... 53 3.3.2 P Dobhar .................................... 55 3.3.3 P Dobhar vs G Abhainn ............................ 57 3.3.4 P Glas ...................................... 58 CONTENTS vii 3.3.5 P Glas vs P Dobhar .............................. 58 3.3.6 P *Pol,G Poll, Sc Pool and Sc Pow ...................... 58 3.3.7 P Abon ..................................... 64 3.3.8 Preposed P-Celtic Generic Elements . 67 3.4 Gaelic Generic Elements . 67 3.4.1 G Allt ...................................... 68 3.4.1.1 G Allt vs Altitude . 69 3.4.1.2 G Allt vs G Abhainn ......................... 69 3.4.2 G Uisge ..................................... 70 3.4.3 G Abhainn ................................... 71 3.4.4 G Gleann and Sc Glen ............................. 73 3.4.5 G Feith` ..................................... 75 3.4.6 G Eas ...................................... 75 3.4.7 G Lag ...................................... 76 3.4.8 G Meur ..................................... 76 3.4.9 G Ailnig ..................................... 77 3.4.10 Diminutive Elements . 77 3.4.10.1 Loch vs Lochan ........................... 77 3.4.10.2 Allt vs Alltan ............................. 78 3.4.11 G Caochan ................................... 80 3.4.12 Concluding Remarks on Diminutive Generic Elements . 81 3.5 Genitival and Adjectival Constructions of Gaelic Generic Elements . 81 3.5.1 Location . 82 3.5.2 Geogscore ................................... 82 3.5.3 Semtype ..................................... 83 3.5.3.1 X Y: Preposed Adjective Constructions . 84 3.5.3.2 Y na X Compounds . 86 3.6 Interface between Gaelic and Scots Generics . 86 3.6.1 The Commonest Types of Alternation . 86 3.6.2 Lochs: Gaelic / Scots Generic Elements . 89 3.6.3 G Uisge vs Sc Water .............................. 89 3.6.4 G Abhainn vs Sc Water ............................. 90 3.6.5 G Meur and Sc Grain .............................. 92 3.7 Scots / SSE Generic Elements . 92 3.7.1 Sc Burn X.................................... 92 3.7.2 Sc Y of X Constructions . 96 3.7.2.1 Allt na X vs Burn of X....................... 100 3.7.2.2 X Burn vs Burn of X........................ 100 3.7.3 Sc Burn, Sc River and Sc Water ........................ 100 viii CONTENTS 3.7.3.1 Burn ................................. 100 3.7.3.2 Water ................................. 102 3.7.3.3 River ................................. 102 3.7.4 Sc Stank ..................................... 103 3.7.5 Sc Slack, Sc Den and Sc Stripe ......................... 104 3.7.5.1 Sc Slack ............................... 104 3.7.5.2 Sc Den ................................ 104 3.7.5.3 Sc Stripe ............................... 106 3.7.6 Sc Pond and Sc Lake .............................. 106 3.7.7 Sc Loch ..................................... 106 3.7.8 Sc Pow ..................................... 107 3.8 The Relationship between Generic Elements and Specific Elements . 107 3.8.1 Simplex Names with the Definite Article. 107 3.8.1.1 Scots Names: The X......................... 107 3.8.1.2 Gaelic Names: An X......................... 109 3.8.2 Generic Elements as Specific Elements . 109 3.9 Generic Elements and the Statistical Method . 111 3.9.1 Abercairny: A Case Study . 112 3.9.2 Next Section . 114 3.10 Generic Element Compared to Components of Geogscore ............... 114 3.10.1 Generic Element vs Altitude . 114 3.10.2 Generic Element vs Position . 115 3.10.3 Generic Element vs Length . 116 3.10.4 Generic Element vs Number of Named Tributaries . 116 3.11 Genelem and the Hierarchical Network . 117 3.12 Conclusion . 121 3.12.1 Various Generics with a Similar Distribution . 121 3.12.2 Some General Points . 122 3.12.3 Generic Element Hierarchy . 122 4 Semantics 125 4.1 Introduction . 125 4.2 Some Conceptual and Methodological Considerations . 125 4.2.1 The Taxonymic Approach . 125 4.2.1.1 Semantemes Used . 126 4.2.1.2 Relationship between Nicolaisen’s Table and the Table Used in this Thesis . 126 4.2.2 The Notion of Semantic Distance . 128 4.2.3 Semantic Defaults . 132 CONTENTS ix 4.3 Semantic Categories . 133 4.3.1 Colour . 133 4.3.2 Age . 136 4.3.3 Smell / Taste / Feel . 137 4.3.4 Manner . 138 4.3.5 Sound . ..