Lucrări Ştiinţifice – vol. 57 (1) 2014, seria Agronomie THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMANIAN COMMON NAMES GIVEN TO LOWER PLANTS Oana ZAMFIRESCU1 email: [email protected] Abstract This paper represents an investigation in a particular field of the Romanian popular botanical names, that of the vernacular names given to lower plants (algae, bryophytes -mosses and liverworts-, lichens and fungi). The aim is to explain and exemplify the main characteristics of this popular nomenclature: the empirical dimension (defined by the popular denominative patterns and by the empirical categorization of the natural world), the denominative variability (according to the region in which is being used, different names are used for the same lower plant), the denominative imprecision (meaning several common names for a particular plant and one name for several plants) and the cultural individuality (the common names reflect the cultural environment of the community that created them).This nomenclature, based on pre-scientific principles (mainly on observation), is the sign of a primitive science and constitutes an assembly of distinctions and classifications which are made in the natural world. Therefore, it is obvious that the common plant names of lower plants are a mark of the originality, creativity and particular culture of a linguistic community. Key words: folk plant names, nomenclature, lower plants matter. The Romanian folk names given to lower The methods used to write this paper were: plants (algae, bryophytes -mosses and liverworts-, the inductive method (used to gather and analyze lichens and fungi) represent a nomenclature, a list the folk plant names in order to discover the of names that are a part of a wider set of terms, all principles of organization of this particular nomenclature), the deductive method (because the related to plants. As in the case of every paper was written having as starting point other nomenclature or set of terms related to a specific researches made in the field of plant folk names field of knowledge, this nomenclature is defined by and reached conclusions specific to the Romanian a set of distinguishing characteristics. These common names for non-vascular plants) and the particular features are: the empirical dimension, onomasiological method (there were identified the the denominative variability, the denominative terms which came under the sense features „lower imprecision and the cultural individuality. The aim plant” and „common name”). of this paper is to explain and illustrate these features. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS MATERIAL AND METHOD The first characteristic of the Romanian folk nomenclature of lower plants, the empirical The resources used to write this paper are dimension, is based on the fact that the terms in divided in two categories. The first one includes the question represent a specialized type of knowledge resources which represent lists of Romanian in the field of popular botany, knowledge based on common names given to lower plants. They were pre-scientific principles, which makes distinctions used to gain a thorough knowledge of this and classifications in the natural world. nomenclature in order to understand its principles of organization and to extract the examples The entire folk nomenclature is the result of needed in this paper. From this point of view, the empirical evidence which reveals itself through most useful materials were the works of Panțu two elements: the comparison between the Z.C., Borza A. and Drăgulescu C.. Another common name, scientific name and reality and the important resource is Dicționarul limbii române, denominative pattern. The comparison made used in the matters regarding the etymology of between the common name, scientific name and some terms. The second category includes the reality reveals a faulty overlap of the three. theoretical papers which research the subject 1 Școala Doctorală de Studii Filologice, Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iași. 283 Universitatea de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Medicină Veterinară Iaşi The investigation of the natural world with ciupercă6 in Wallachia and burete7 in Moldavia. the help of modern equipment has led to the The second indicator of the existence of the finding of many plants, otherwise invisible to the empirical dimension within the Romanian folk naked eye. The scientists could classify these nomenclature of lower plants is represented by its plants and could give them a name according to the denominative pattern. By analyzing the names Linnaean rules. The creators of the folk plant belonging to this folk plant nomenclature, it is names could only name the plants or the effects of obvious that these names are, in their great the plants, especially the harmful ones, which they majority, original creations using two patterns: a could be able to see with the naked eye. For metaphorical pattern and a non-metaphorical example, the fungi called tăciune2 (Tilletia tritici), pattern. The two patterns have in common the fact rugină3 (Melampsora sp., Puccinia graminis, that they are descriptive (they focus on a feature Uromyces sp.), and făinare4 (Erisiphae graminis, considered –by the creator- as essential for that Microsphaera sp., Oidium sp. Podosphaera sp., specific plant). The difference lies in the way in Uncinula necator) are all micromycetes. Although which this description is made: directly, the feature the fungus itself cannot be seen with the naked eye, is being expressed using the denotative sense of it receives its name based on the effect it has on the one or more words, and indirectly, the feature is harmed plants: corn, wheat, the leaves of various being expressed using metaphors. Thus, in the case trees and shrubs, generally plants of great of the metaphorical pattern, we can identify two importance for the peasant household. Also, there types of metaphor: an inanimate thing for another are unicellular lower plants that only have a inanimate thing and an animate being for an scientific name, although they are endemic (for inanimate thing. In the category of inanimate thing example, Trichosporum heteromorphum, Torula for an inanimate thing metaphors, the following ligniperda, Poria xantha etc.). Since these plants examples can be given: aţa apei8 (Mnium are not visible to the naked eye, nor have they had undullatum, Philonotis fontana), ceşcuţa babei9 harmful effects on the economy of the peasant (Disciotis venosa), cuişoare10 (Marasmius household, they have not received vernacular oreades), ouă de copaci11 (Volvariella bombycina), names. Closely linked to this issue is the way in scafiţă12 (Crucibulum laeve, Cyathus striatus).The which the lower plants are divided into categories, animate being for an inanimate thing metaphor can according to their main characteristics. Thus, in the be devided according to the chosen animate. The folk nomenclature does not exist a generic name animate can be a domestic animal or parts of its for the plants that have been categorized as algae body (căpriţă13 - Lobaria pulmonaria, găinuşa by Botany because the elements of this group pădurii14 - Pleurotus ostreatus, limba boului15 - belonging to the natural world weren’t seen as a Fistulina hepatica, oiţă16 - Cantharellus cibarius, distinct type of plants. Therefore, they didn’t need Russula alutacea, Russula cyanoxantha, Russula a distinctive umbrella term. In the case of lepida, Russula vesca, Russula violacea, Russula bryophytes and lichens, in the folk nomenclature virescens) or the animate can be a body part of a these groups share the same generic name. Since 5 the term mușchi is used to name both plant 6 Approx. mushroom. groups, it is obvious that the ones who created this 7 Approx. mushroom. nomenclature did not make the difference between 8 Literally, water’s string. the two plant types and that they have seen them as 9 It is a name created by compounding, the first element individuals belonging to the same category. is a derivate of ceacă (cup) and the second is babă However, it should not be forgotten that, until the (old woman). The common name can be translated as thorough research of their structure, Botany too old woman’s little cup. regarded them as parts of the same plant group. 10 In Romanian, this name is a derivate of cui (nail). It can be translated as little nails. Moreover, the use of the generic term mușchi for 11 Literally, tree eggs. lichens is not surprising: the morphological 12 likeness of the two categories is obvious to In Romanian, this common name is a derivate form of scafă (approx. bowl). It can be translated as little bowl everyone. In the case of fungi, this category is (used to crush garlic). named, in the Romanian vernacular nomenclature, 13 In Romanin, this name is a derivate of capră (goat). It using two generic terms, depending on the region: can be translated as little goat. 14 In Romanian, this name is created by compounding, the first term is a derivate of găină (hen), and its determiner is pădure (forest). The common name can be 2 Approx. smut. translated as forest’s little hen. 3 Approx. rust. 15 Literally, ox’s tongue. 4 Approx. mildew. 16 The name is a derivate of oaie (sheep). It can be 5 Approx. moss. translated as little sheep. 284 Lucrări Ştiinţifice – vol. 57 (1) 2014, seria Agronomie wild animal (cap de şarpe17 - Coprinus comatus, Lactarius and Russula, zbârciogi31 – Gyromitra, laba ursului - Clavulina cristata var. coralloides, Helvella and Morchella. Hericium coralloides, Ramaria aurea, Ramaria The empirical dimension also reveals itself botryts, Ramaria condensata, Ramaria flava or by the fact that the folk names reflect observable limba ursului18 - Clavaria ligula). The non- plant features32. The names express features like: metaphorical pattern includes names created, from color (burete brunişor33 - Cantharellus lutescens, the lexical point of view, by compounding and ciupercă albă34 - Agaricus campester, Agaricus derivation. In the case of the names formed by silvicola, Amanita phalloides, Boletus edulis, compounding, the pattern generic Tricholoma gambosum, roşioare35 - Russula rubra, name+determiner is often used. This pattern can Russula vesca, albăstreală36 – Spirogyra sp.), be likened to the scientific one (Milică, I., 2010).