Semantic and Word-Formation Features of Horse Names in the History of the Russian Language (Based on the Inventory Books of Vologda Monasteries in the 16th — Early 18th Centuries)

• Main Author: Evgenia N. Varnikova
• Format: Article
• Language: Russian
• Published: Izdatelstvo Uralskogo Universiteta 2020-04-01
• Series: Voprosy Onomastiki
• Subjects: russian zoonymy; horse names; hipponymy; history of horse names; semantics; structural features of hipponyms; principles of word-formation in zoonymy
• Online Access: http://onomastics.ru/sites/default/files/doi/10.15826/vopr_onom.2020.17.1.003.pdf

The paper considers a historical aspect of zoonymic studies which has not been sufficiently developed. The history of Russian horse names (hipponyms) is explored using zoonymic data from the inventories of the Vologda monasteries in the 16th — early 18th centuries, the materials from Listings of horses (Moscow, 1665), and archival documents of the Soviet farms of Sevmaslotrest from 1930s. The author identifies the lexical structure of Early Modern Russian hipponymy, delves into the meaning of names and appellatives they derive from, analyses the structure of horses’ names, and describes the name formation techniques. The studied sources bring the picture of the general development of lexical patterns in the Russian hipponymy. As it turns out, the vocabulary of Early Modern Russian hyponymy is almost identical with the Old Russian anthroponomy, which attests to their genetic unity. At the same time, the use of Christian names is noted, with these becoming more popular in the given period. The article also deals with structural types of Early Modern Russian hipponyms: zoonyms having a substantive form (nicknames formed from onomastic, agential, zoological, and object nouns; zoonymic compounds; suffixal compounds); adjective-based zoonyms; mixed names. In monastic scripts of the 16th — early 18th centuries, the vast majority of units used as hipponyms are “prefabricated” traditional names, the cases of creating original animal names are rare. In the latter case, zoonyms are usually formed using suffixal patterns peculiar for agentive and anthroponomic vocabulary. The word-building patterns include the onymisation of appellatives (sometimes by metaphoric transfer), substantivisation (nominalization) of adjectives, transonymisation of personal and place names. Due to the semantic, structural, and word-formation proximities between Early Modern Russian zoonymy and Old Russian anthroponomy, zoonymic vocabulary of the 16th–18th centuries provides a reliable source on Old Russian onomasticon, as well as explains the “anthroponymic” nature of modern Russian zoonymy and the active use of personal names for animals at present. This practice turns out to have deep historical roots.