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that all the results the other author has achieved in the field of ‘Old European Hydronymy’ by using research methods outdated for decades will have to be reevaluated applying to them modern Indo-European linguistics.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.

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that all the results the other author has achieved in the field of ‘Old European Hydronymy’ by using research methods outdated for decades will have to be reevaluated applying to them modern Indo-European linguistics.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.

The article analyses three place names, which have been explained up to now in the following way: one of them was supposed to be of German, one of Old European and one of Slavic origin. As we show in our paper, all of them are Slavic names, two of them are hydronyms.

When analysing the etymological layers of Hungarian river names, it becomes soon clear that loan names make up a much larger group than in the group of settlement names, for instance. This fact can be due to the phenomenon that in the case of hydronyms, name-giving and name-usage is driven mainly by communicative needs, while other (e. g. socio-cultural or political) factors only rarely influence name-giving. In my paper, it was my aim to provide an etymological typology of Hungarian hydronyms from the Árpád-era (896 –1350). It seems to be justified to choose the Hungarian hydronyms of the Árpád-era as the corpus of my investigation, for the country was strongly multilingual and multiethnic in this period of time (Hungarian, Slavic, German, Turkish), which also has an effect on the system of water names. The survey of the linguistic layers of river names shows that largely the same semantic content appears in river names originating from different languages. The semantic types appearing in river names belong to the so-called panchronistic feature of the hydronym system, in other words, they show signs of universal human thinking.

The oldest forms of the place-name Leipzig, i.e. Libzi, Libiz vel sim., are now generally assumed to be Slavic, i.e. Old Sorabian derivatives of an older river-name, probably of Germanic origin. At the basis of this river-name is thought to be an enlarged root PIE *lei̯‑bh‑ ‘to flow, drip’. As the concept of root enlargement is somewhat problematic and should thus better be abandoned, it is claimed here – based on a recently published idea for the etymologization of the name of the river Elbe – that this assumed Germanic river-name is a derivative of an unenlarged root with the suffix PIE *‑bho‑. This suffix was used to form colour adjectives on the one hand and action nouns vel sim. on the other. Theoretical proto-forms of the river-name are PIE *h2lei̯H‑bho‑ or *h2liH‑bho‑ ‘making/being dirty/filthy’, PIE *lei̯H‑bho‑ or *liH‑bho‑ ‘nestling up against, winding itself’, PIE *lei̯H‑bho‑ or *liH‑bho‑ ‘pouring out’ (→ ‘flowing’?), PIE *lei̯h2‑bho‑ or *lih2‑bho‑ ‘dwindling, disappearing’, PIE *(s)lei̯H‑bho‑ or *(s)liH‑bho‑ ‘blue(ish)’, and PIE *(s)lei̯‑bho‑ ‘slippery, slimy’. A further theoretical possibility is the reconstruction as PIE *lei̯p-o‑ ‘sticky’ vel sim. (> ‘muddy’?). And finally, a reconstruction seems possible regarding the whole name not as a derivative, but as a compound with PIE *‑h2p-o‑ (the zero-grade of PIE *h2ep- ‘water’) as the second member. In this case, the same roots which form the bases of the derivatives are used as the first members of these compounds. All proposals show semantics acceptable for the formation of river-names. Thus no final decision between these proposals is possible.

In den Namenkundlichen Informationen 99/100 stellen Harald Bichlmeier und Andreas Opfermann – nach harscher Kritik an den Deutungen des Flussnamens Unstrut von Jürgen Udolph und Albrecht Greule – einen eigenen Vorschlag zur Etymologie des Namens vor. Sie greifen auf die traditionelle Segmentierung Un-strut zurück, fassen auch -strut im traditionellen Sinne auf (bieten allerdings auch zwei abweichende Erklärungsmöglichkeiten an). Der Unterschied zur klassischen Deutung des Flussnamens besteht vor allem in der Erklärung des Vorderglieds un-. Sie schlagen vor, un- als „das schwundstufige Allomorph von uridg. *(h1)en ‘in’“ aufzufassen. So bestehe „nun die Möglichkeit, urgerm. *un-strōdV- als sog. entheos-Kompositum zu interpretieren.“ Als die wahrscheinlichste Deutung für Unstrut schlagen sie vor: ‘Sumpfgebiet an sich habend’ bzw. ‘[der Fluss,] in/an dem [= an dessen Ufer] Sumpfgebiet/Gebüsch ist’ (Bichlmeier / Opfermann 2011: 179). Die von Bichlmeier / Opfermann angenommene Bildungsweise mag, vom Indogermanischen her gesehen, formal möglich sein. Ob allerdings das Germanische, dem sie den Flussnamen zuordnen, die Möglichkeit zur Bildung sogenannter entheos-Komposita überhaupt (noch) hatte, scheint doch sehr fraglich zu sein. Die Verfasser führen mit ae. umbor ‘Kind’ ein singuläres Beispiel an, um eine solche grammatische Erscheinung im Germanischen nachzuweisen. Eindeutig ist das Beispiel meines Erachtens keineswegs.

Dieser Artikel beschreibt einen neuen angewandten epistemologischen Aspekt der sogenannten Konvergenztheorie, die eine Homogenisierung der unterschiedlichen Ansätze auf dem Gebiet der indoeuropäischen Linguistik anstrebt. Es wird versucht, anhand von Ortsnamen in Verbindung mit der Wurzel *alb- und den semantischen Bedeutungsverschiebungen über Jahrhunderte ein europäisches und italienisches "Makro-Gebiet" (bzw. "Mikro- Gebiet") zu rekonstruieren. Es scheint, dass Paleo-Ligurische Ortsnamen wie Alba, alteuropäische Flussnamen wie Albis und ihre ablautenden Formen Olb- (> Orb- im Romanisch-Ligurischen) nicht direkt auf das Proto-Indoeuropäische Adjektiv *albho-, ‘weiß’ zurückgehen, sondern auf die weitere Prä-proto-Indoeuropäische Wurzel *Hal-bh-, ‘Wasser’, verwandt mit dem Sumerischen ḫalbia (> Akkadisch ḫalpium, ‘Quelle’, ‘Brunnen’, ‘Wassermassen’, ‘Wasserloch’). Eine weitere Analyse von *Hal-bh- führt zum Vergleich mit der Proto-Indoeuropäischen Wurzel *Hal-, ‘ernähren’. Das Proto-Indoeuropäische Suffix *HwaH-r-, ‘Wasser’, weist eine ähnliche Verbreitung auf.

During the last decades a big gap has opened between onomastics on the one side and Indo-European linguistics on the other, because the progresses made in Indo-European linguistics have not been integrated into the study of onomastics any longer in a sufficient way. The article tries to close this gap by giving an outline of some of the main features of modern Indo-European linguistics. Those features are then used to reexamine the etymologies of several presumably rather old river-names and of one of the Indo-European words for "water". This sometimes leads to a reevaluation of existing etymologies. The author hopes that this article might be seen as an incentive for researchers in onomastics to care more about the findings of Indo-European linguistics again.

The oldest forms of the place-name Leipzig, i.e. Libzi, Libiz vel sim., are now generally assumed to be Slavic, i.e. Old Sorabian derivatives of an older river-name, probably of Germanic origin. At the basis of this river-name is thought to be an enlarged root PIE *lei̯‑bh‑ ‘to flow, drip’. As the concept of root enlargement is somewhat problematic and should thus better be abandoned, it is claimed here – based on a recently published idea for the etymologization of the name of the river Elbe – that this assumed Germanic river-name is a derivative of an unenlarged root with the suffix PIE *‑bho‑. This suffix was used to form colour adjectives on the one hand and action nouns vel sim. on the other. Theoretical proto-forms of the river-name are PIE *h2lei̯H‑bho‑ or *h2liH‑bho‑ ‘making/being dirty/filthy’, PIE *lei̯H‑bho‑ or *liH‑bho‑ ‘nestling up against, winding itself’, PIE *lei̯H‑bho‑ or *liH‑bho‑ ‘pouring out’ (→ ‘flowing’?), PIE *lei̯h2‑bho‑ or *lih2‑bho‑ ‘dwindling, disappearing’, PIE *(s)lei̯H‑bho‑ or *(s)liH‑bho‑ ‘blue(ish)’, and PIE *(s)lei̯‑bho‑ ‘slippery, slimy’. A further theoretical possibility is the reconstruction as PIE *lei̯p-o‑ ‘sticky’ vel sim. (> ‘muddy’?). And finally, a reconstruction seems possible regarding the whole name not as a derivative, but as a compound with PIE *‑h2p-o‑ (the zero-grade of PIE *h2ep- ‘water’) as the second member. In this case, the same roots which form the bases of the derivatives are used as the first members of these compounds. All proposals show semantics acceptable for the formation of river-names. Thus no final decision between these proposals is possible.

In den Namenkundlichen Informationen 99/100 stellen Harald Bichlmeier und Andreas Opfermann – nach harscher Kritik an den Deutungen des Flussnamens Unstrut von Jürgen Udolph und Albrecht Greule – einen eigenen Vorschlag zur Etymologie des Namens vor. Sie greifen auf die traditionelle Segmentierung Un-strut zurück, fassen auch -strut im traditionellen Sinne auf (bieten allerdings auch zwei abweichende Erklärungsmöglichkeiten an). Der Unterschied zur klassischen Deutung des Flussnamens besteht vor allem in der Erklärung des Vorderglieds un-. Sie schlagen vor, un- als „das schwundstufige Allomorph von uridg. *(h1)en ‘in’“ aufzufassen. So bestehe „nun die Möglichkeit, urgerm. *un-strōdV- als sog. entheos-Kompositum zu interpretieren.“ Als die wahrscheinlichste Deutung für Unstrut schlagen sie vor: ‘Sumpfgebiet an sich habend’ bzw. ‘[der Fluss,] in/an dem [= an dessen Ufer] Sumpfgebiet/Gebüsch ist’ (Bichlmeier / Opfermann 2011: 179). Die von Bichlmeier / Opfermann angenommene Bildungsweise mag, vom Indogermanischen her gesehen, formal möglich sein. Ob allerdings das Germanische, dem sie den Flussnamen zuordnen, die Möglichkeit zur Bildung sogenannter entheos-Komposita überhaupt (noch) hatte, scheint doch sehr fraglich zu sein. Die Verfasser führen mit ae. umbor ‘Kind’ ein singuläres Beispiel an, um eine solche grammatische Erscheinung im Germanischen nachzuweisen. Eindeutig ist das Beispiel meines Erachtens keineswegs.