This paper is a response to an article in the journal Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 62–63 (2011), whose author argues partially quite unscientifically. This paper will show the deficiencies of knowledge the other article’s author betrays as far as historical-comparative linguistics in general and Indo-European linguistics especially are concerned. As a conclusion it must be stated that all the results the other author has achieved in the field of ‘Old European Hydronymy’ by using research methods outdated for decades will have to be reevaluated applying to them modern Indo-European linguistics. Only after this task will have been accomplished, one will be able to tell which of that author‘s works and results will be safe for further use.

A proper name is a vocabulary element of a particular language which also belongs to a respective onymic subsystem, thereby acquiring a binary character. Proper names are formed (as a secondary plan of a language) with the background of appellative vocabulary. However, in their formation and use in communication, not only are the rules of the appellative language code applied but also the rules specific to proper names. Two opposing but interrelated tendencies are typical of the position of proper names – a continuous interaction of proper names with other vocabulary and the whole language system and, simultaneously, a continuous polarisation of the category of proper names in relation to appellatives. The interaction of proper names with other vocabulary relates to the ongoing processes of onymisation (appellative % proprium) and apellativisation (proprium % appellative) with the openness of onymy (the social, historical, cultural as well as the political dimensions of proper names present a wide range of possibilities for, e. g. the adoption of exonyms) but, above all, it relates to the social needs of ordinary communication. The polarisation of proper names in relation to appellatives is, hence, conditioned by the special character of onymic nomination. From this binary interrelationship of proper names follows the binary status of the category nomen proprium, i. e. linguistic status and onomastic status. In the analysis of proper names and from the methodological standpoint in onomastics, I consider this to be fundamental. That is why, after the older characterisation of onomastics, I have extended the definition of the linguistic status of proper names as defined by Kuryłowicz (La position linguistique du nom propre, 1956) to linguistic and onomastic status (Blanár 1976, 1977 ). These terms will be discussed later.

In this article the author recommends a hierarchically structured data base, called MemoMaster, as a mighty tool to replace traditional card indexes in the preparatory stage of onomastic research. Referring to Karlheinz Hengst’s exemplary monograph on place names in the South-West of Saxony, he demonstrates how MemoMaster enables the scholar to store and structure information in folders, subfolders, and “memos“ to be utilized in a manuscript later on. His explanation is supported by two screenshots.

In 2009 the oldest documents concerning the place Greiz in Eastern Thuringia were published by a historian. This article now provides a linguistic approach to that publication and its interpretation of the mentioned area in Medieval times. The results may be considered as a contribution to a book of reference for place names of Eastern Thuringia. In this respect some questions have been asked, e. g. whether the region along the river Weiße Elster between the places Weida and Plauen had really been an unsettled area until the 12th century. There is hard evidence that the historian’s assumptions are wrong because of the obvious Slavonic names of settlements in this area dating from the 8th until the 10th centuries. Based on a document from 1209 – respectively its copy from 1510 – as well as on a document from 1225 several facts are discussed in detail with consequences for toponymy and history of settlement with the help of historical linguistics. Thus it becomes evident that it is necessary to exchange ideas and to communicate for representatives of history as well as linguistics. At the same time it is obvious that the publication of documents and their analysis by historians will always be very helpful for linguistic exploitation. As a result the prospective edition of a historical dictionary of place names in Thuringia or of Eastern Thuringia respectively has been asserted as dependent on the continuous co-operation between historians and linguists.

Die intensive Ortsnamenforschung der vergangenen 50 Jahre hat dazu geführt, dass auch der Name Leipzigs heute in einem etwas veränderten Licht gegenüber den Darlegungen in Band 8 der Schriftenreihe „Deutsch- Slawische Forschungen zur Namenkunde und Siedlungsgeschichte“ von 1960 erscheint. Insbesondere ergaben sich neue Aspekte durch die Sprachkontaktforschung / Kontaktonomastik seit den 1980er Jahren. So bleibt zwar die Deutung des Namens Leipzig – alt *Lipsk(o) – zu dem aso. Appellativ lipa ,Linde‘ unangefochten, doch handelt es sich bei den diesbezüglichen Namenbelegen offensichtlich um die hochmittelalterliche Umdeutung eines älteren Vorgängernamens mit einer anderen Grundlage. Die genauere Überprüfung der Gesamtüberlieferung führte dazu, die abweichenden Erstbelege bei Thietmar von Merseburg und den frühesten anderen Bezeugungen in Urkunden und Annalen kritischer zu bewerten.

In an extensive article the well-known philologist Heinz Schuster-Šewc presented his views concerning our “Book of Place Names in Oberlausitz” (Upper Lusatia). He attempted to refute a substantial number of place name meanings and suggested new explanations. In some instances his interpretations were preferable to earlier explanations; however, in far more cases his arguments were not conclusive, so that the current explanations can still be considered valid.

The paper deals with the German place name type of -leben and tries to give new insights to the discussion about these names using the method of typological analysis. With the classification of the personal names within the -leben names, a new typology will be designed and the subtype bipartide personal name plus primary word -leben will be represented. The analysis gives a survey of the contained root of the personal name and shows the preference and also the absence of specific name elements within the different distribution areas Unstrut- and Bodekreis. The presented analysis is completed and illustrated with a map.

With gaining the independence and the emergence of a new state the linguistic situation in Kazakhstan has been changed. The restoration and return of historical names, the fi xing of unifi ed rules of the transferring of Kazakh toponyms into other languages became the basis of national onomastic policy of independent Kazakhstan. After the law “On languages in the Republic of Kazakhstan” adopted in 1997 the activity on improvement of orthographic norms and formulation of new rules of transferring geographical names from Kazakh into Russian started. As a result of these acts many distorted names of inhabited localities and administrative-territorial units are gradually being put into an appropriate norm. Many of them are still to be corrected according to new “Law on Administrative - Territorial Structure of the Republic of Kazakhstan” (December 8, 1993.) and Presidential Decree (December 29, 1995.), Government Resolution (March 5, 1996.) where the rules on Russian transferring of Kazakh onyms were approved. Due to such activity to former capital of Kazakhstan Alma-Ata was returned its original name Almaty. Thus, in our article we decided to give our point of view on some issues relating to grammatical adaptation of toponym Almaty in Russian language.

Der Kurzbeitrag nimmt Bezug auf den eingangs zitierten Band. Die Verfasser haben in Anlehnung an die älteren Ortsnamenbücher der Kreise Leipzig sowie Borna und Geithain nicht nur eine Neuaufl age vorgelegt, sondern auf Grundlage neuester Erkenntnisse ein modernes Kompendium zur Namenforschung und Siedlungsgeschichte des Leipziger Landes geschaff en, ausgestatt et mit Beiträgen weiterer Autoren.1 Im Vorfeld der Drucklegung war die Autorin dieses Beitrages gebeten worden, die Liste der Herrensitze, vornehmlich für Nordwestsachsen beizusteuern (im Buch siehe S. 75 f.). Allerdings ist diese Aufl istung mit teils anderen Erwähnungen unter ihrem Namen abgedruckt worden. Daher erscheint im Folgenden eine veränderte Liste, die der Kategorie ‚Herrensitze‘ gerecht wird, mit anschließendem kurzen Kommentar. Dieser Kommentar schmälert in keiner Weise den hohen Gesamtwert des Bandes. – Eine umfassende Behandlung des Themas im Kontext der Namengebung des mitt elalterlichen Adels östlich der Saale erscheint in einem späteren Beitrag in dieser Zeitschrift.

Der Flussname Unstrut hat in den letzten Jahren mehrere Deutungen erfahren, die jedoch alle entweder morphologische oder semantische Ungereimtheiten enthielten: Es wurde einerseits von einer Struktur urgerm. *Un-str- (Udolph) oder aber *Unst-r- (Greule) ausgegangen, woraus jeweils nur mit unbelegbaren oder unmöglichen Zusatzannahmen die belegten Formen des Flussnamens gewonnen werden konnten. Auch die vor diesen beiden Vorschlägen übliche Erklärung aus urgerm. *un-strōđu- ‚sehr sumpfi ge Stelle‘ als Bezeichnung eines Flussabschnitts, der auf den ganzen Fluss übertragen worden sei, kann zwar im Prinzip morphologisch, nicht aber auf der semantischen Seite überzeugen, da in der Regel mit intensivierendem urgerm. *un- gerechnet wurde. Wir schlagen nun vor, in urgerm. *un- die schwundstufige Form zu uridg. *(h1)en ‚in‘ zu sehen und den Namen als ursprüngliches ἔνθεος-Kompositum ‚Sumpfgebiet / Gebüsch an sich habend‘, also ‚[der Fluss,] in/an dem [= an dessen Ufer] Sumpfgebiet / Gebüsch ist‘ zu deuten.