The Evolution of Etymons Denoting an Inhabited Place in Ukrainian and English Gyvenamąją vietą žyminčių etimonų raida ukrainiečių ir anglų kalbose

This article presents and discusses a study that focuses on appellatives that designate an inhabited place in Ukrainian and English. This research topic has not been in the limelight of contrastive linguistics so far. The study is based on the assumption that the notion of the inhabited place reflects the reality of the objective world associated with the residence of a group of people in a certain territory and is present in the semantic scheme and consciousness of a person. The article aims at identifying the basic semantic and structural changes in the vocabulary denoting an inhabited place in the Ukrainian and English languages emphasising the necessity to reveal regular semantic relations in modern languages using the data of language historical development. The corpus of the study is comprised of seven Ukrainian and four English etymons, which are divided into five groups in Ukrainian and four groups in English according to the peculiarities of their development in the languages under consideration. The material of the present research is comprised of dictionary entries associated with the etymons denoting an inhabited place in Ukrainian and English. The results of the study indicate that appellatives signifying an inhabited place in Ukrainian and English as distantly related languages show similar patterns of meaning and form development in diachrony, which is reflected in the dictionaries of Ukrainian and English and supported by the data from genetically related languages.


Introduction
Current studies in the field of contrastive semantics are aimed at resolving lexical and semantic issues (Koch, 2001), in particular singling out isomorphic and allomorphic features in the respective lexical systems of distantly related languages. The identification of common and ethno-specific features in the conceptualisation of the world by native speakers and exploration of how vocabulary reflects culturally specific information and accumulates knowledge about the life of a certain linguistic and cultural community are equally significant (Malkiel, 1993). The possibility of contrastive analysis of vocabulary is enabled by the presence of certain common features between a pair of languages, which is explained by socio-cultural contexts as well as by socio-cognitive variables. On the other hand, the historical development of a certain community contributes to the differences in its language and, arguably, its vocabulary. A contrastive semantic study of vocabulary takes into account the interlingual asymmetry that arises from comparing individual lexical units and their systematic groupings. The specificity of the nomination systems as well as different structures of denotation of functional and semantic equivalents explain the action of the principle of arbitrariness of the linguistic sign as a nominative unit (Vasilyeva, 1994).
Comparative linguistics pays special attention to lexical groups in diachrony (Antilla, 2000), since the semantic relations that exist in modern languages are consistent with the logic of historical development of the words. Moreover, models of semantic description contain mechanisms for analysing linguistic changes. The involvement of the parent language data, etymological and vocabulary evolution analyses demonstrate the appearance of new and disappearance of old semantic characteristics when the new meaning can be traced as the one that previously existed as a secondary meaning (Pizani, 1956). The study of the vocabulary evolutionary development in closely and distantly related languages reveals possible changes and transformations that occur in the internal form of the word and that are influenced by the socio-cultural and linguistic organisation of the ethnicities whose languages are analysed at different periods of their history (Antilla, 2000).
Traditionally, linguistic investigations of vocabulary items that designate an inhabited place are divided into two groups according to the opposition of proper and common names. The first group includes proper names, whereas the second one consists of appellatives, i.e., common nouns. Although there exists a well-established tradition of studying the former (Ekwall, 1960;Kupchynska, 2016;Watts, 2010), the latter has not been so far the subject of comparative linguistic investigation based on the material of Ukrainian and English. Whereas there have been successful attempts at researching the semantic properties and structure of the lexeme settlement in English (Kolisnychenko, 2017), the novelty of the present research lies in highlighting etymological and evolutional aspects of the vocabulary denoting an inhabited place in the Ukrainian and English languages. Arguably, the concept inhabited place is represented in the semantic scheme and consciousness of a person and reflects the reality of the objective world (Frumkina et.al., 1991) associated with the residence of a group of persons in a certain territory (CFOD, EOLD). The content of the concept is comprised of a set of features, properties of phenomena that are reflected in the concept itself. The scope of the concept is regarded as the plurality of objects (i.e., denotations) to which it relates.
The analysis of appellatives denoting an inhabited place focuses on the nouns that denote the fragment of reality inclusive of the semantic information communicated by these nouns, namely, places where people's permanent residence is organised (Kodubovska, 2018). The lexemes under investigation label and describe the objectively available fragment of reality and identify existing objects. Concurrently, we take into account the fact that there is no clear correspondence between real properties of objects and their reflection in the consciousness while identifying the distinguishing features of denotative classes, although linguists recognise that the distinguishing features of denotations can be directly reflected in the meanings of the constituent (Seliverstova, 2004). The purpose of the present investigation is to identify and characterise etymons denoting an inhabited place in Ukrainian and English and single out similarities and differences in the patterns of their meaning and form development in diachrony, taking into consideration the data from genetically related languages and parent languages.
It should be noted that diachronic developments of individual lexical units and their groupings (Dobrovolska, 2017) have been in the focus of historical linguistics (Nesset & Makarova, 2014), because they enable scholars to trace the history of an individual word, the evolution of its meaning, productive word-building models, specific features and types of structural and semantic changes (Tsaregorodtseva, 2009; Shatalova, 2011) and, on a broader scale, the patterns of vocabulary development. Etymology, which is exclusively diachronic (Dworkin, 2015), involves the study of the word origin (Malkiel, 1993;Toporov, 2004), their primary word-formation structure and elements of their ancient meaning that help to identify the specificity of the development of the language's lexical system in general and its individual groups (Dworkin, 2015). Such an approach leads to the existence of both true and hypothetical etymology that is scientifically grounded and substantiated. After all, no other linguistic discipline collects such complete information about a word as etymology (Trubachev, 1976). However, the etymologisation process is hampered by the action of de-etymologisation, which is connected with word-formation processes (Koch & Hercus, 2013) making the research of word origin and development difficult enough.
One of the theoretical approaches in Indo-European etymology aims at establishing phonetic correspondence and semantic connections between the words compared (Otkupshchikov, 2005). Other theoretical approaches are associated with word-formation and focus on the study of formal word changes in morphology and derivation (Koch & Hercus, 2013) taking into account the specificity of the words and the state of lexicology development in a particular language. On the whole, the etymological approach is thought to be associated with the phonological, derivational, lexical, semantic, morphological, and syntactic systems on the crossroads of which the word appears, and its main aim is to identify its further trajectory, which in many cases is uneven and unpredictable (Goossens, 2010).
Using the etymological approach in the study of vocabulary makes it possible to perceive its current state as a result of the constant semantic changes that occur in the language throughout its development, and understand the reasons for these changes and their impact on the modern meaning of the word (Umnyashkin, 2011). Studying the origin of words allows us to trace and determine the specificity of changes in the structure of meaning of both a single unit and the evolution of a particular lexical group as words with similar meanings are generally subjected to similar semantic changes (Otkupshchikov, 2001). It is argued that the etymological comparison of individual words and lexical groups in distantly related languages of the Germanic and Slavic groups leads to disclosing the features of the vocabulary development in the languages compared and partially solving the problem of Slavic and Germanic ontogenesis (Varbot, 2011). At the same time, etymological research becomes more complete due to semantic analysis, although linguists state that the procedure of establishing the relative chronological stages of a lexeme semantic development is quite complicated (Gold, 2009).

Theoretical Background
The Present Study and its Methodology 2015), but these are, unfortunately, not numerous and do not pertain to other types of lexical groups. Nevertheless, the diachronic study of changes in the form and meaning of word groups is of particular interest in understanding the historical processes occurring in the related languages. The evolutional aspect of the study of appellatives for the designation of an inhabited place is based on the fact that the compared languages belong to the Indo-European family and have common roots in parent Indo-European, from which Proto-Slavic and Proto-Germanic originate.
This study involves etymological analysis that is aimed at comparing the primary, historical structure of a word with its modern form and identifying historical changes in its form and meaning. The latter is used to clarify the specific features of the origin of the vocabulary for the designation of an inhabited place, to identify its genetic links with the parent language and other languages of the Indo-European family, and to etymologise the vocabulary group under investigation.
The dictionary entries in etymological, historical and explanatory dictionaries serve as the material of the present research. These dictionaries are used to classify etymons and evolutional changes in the structure of vocabulary designating an inhabited location. The methodology of the individual word history has been also incorporated in order to specify changes in the morphemic and semantic structure of words in the direction of narrowing or expanding the meaning, and record the periods of these changes. We bear in mind that a dictionary article codes not only the meaning of the word and the properties of its semantic structure, but reflects the features of its functioning as well. Thus, a dictionary definition may also contain information about the word transition from the active use to the passive one, its fading away from the language or joining a different layer of the vocabulary. Although the main aim of the research in question is to reveal basic semantic and structural changes in the vocabulary denoting an inhabited place, the information about the changes in the vocabulary layer the lexeme belongs to is quite significant in order to better understand its development.
The analysis begins with the determination of etymons and the processing of etymological data using the analysis of dictionary definitions to identify the components of the meaning of individual lexemes and to determine the proto-form, genetic relationships of the unit. In this work, we consider etymons as words in their original form and meaning, from which modern lexemes designating an inhabited place are derived in the languages analysed.
In the process of etymological analysis, we distinguish words belonging to the native vocabulary of the language, which are compared with words of the related languages and the history and meaning of which are traced back to the parent language. Since the analysis of the word-form is important in etymological research, the use of word-forming analysis aims at identifying the mechanism of creation of an individual word and its place in the word-forming subsystem of the language, which involves determining the relations of derivatives, word-forming formats, word-forming meaning, method of word-formation and word-forming type. It allows satisfying the requirement of a clear interpretation of a given word, detecting the word-forming activity of etymons, and defining word-forming formants.
We begin the semantic description by analysing the vocabulary definitions of the lexemes selected for the study. The latter includes the interpretation of a dictionary definition, an often underutilised resource (Silva et al., 2016), which is regarded as a common way of representing the meaning of a word (Geeraerts, 2003; Molina, 2008), namely interpretation as a traditional lexicographic description of lexemes in a natural language, which gives a correct picture of the meaning. On the other hand, the definitions of words in the monolingual dic-tionaries describe, first and foremost, the significative layer of their meaning, related not to reality, but to its reflection in the human mind, representing the totality of essential features of objects denoted by lexical units. The definition of a dictionary article is one of the ways of describing semantic structures and demonstrating that, ideally, the definition is based on the establishment of a generic class together with the listing of various components of meaning (Lyons, 1995). Accordingly, semes are defined on the basis of the dictionary definition by means of logical analysis (Seliverstova, 2004) in order to match each word with a specific set of semantic components.
The general scientific comparison technique is used in the work to compare data obtained from the analysed languages. The method of identifying isomorphic and allomorphic features is used to distinguish common and distinctive features in the development of lexemes denoting an inhabited place, their semantic and morphemic structure. Contrastive analysis techniques are aimed at identifying common and distinctive features in the qualitative composition of the vocabulary denoting an inhabited place.

The Changes of Etymons in Ukrainian
The results of the analysis of etymons denoting an inhabited place are presented in the data set that involves Proto-Slavic (PSlav), Old Slavic (OSlav), Old Russian (ORu), Old Ukrainian (OUkr), which is subdivided into Early Old Ukrainian (EOUkr) and Late Old Ukrainian (LOUkr), and Modern Ukrainian (MoUkr), point to several groups that are associated with the specific features of their development in diachrony.
Although the meaning 'settlement' is fixed in the ORu appellative мисто / мѣсто / мєсто, The fourth group is comprised of etymons which preserve the sememe 'inhabited place' yet become archaic in the course of their development. For example, ORu etymon городъ, which in its second meaning is defined as 'fortified settlement, fortress' (the meaning is fixed in the 10 th century already (SRYa, V. 4, 1977) and a borrowed lexeme from OSlav градъ 'fortified settlement, fortress', 'inhabited place, town', 'wall, town wall' 'garden' (SRYa, V. 4,1977) are marked by the dictionaries as such that existed in parallel in ORu. Etymological correspondences are present in the Eastern Slavic languages, MoUkr город (archaic), Ru город, and Bel горад. PSlav noun with root vocalism -о-*gordъ 'fenced place' is a common Slavic lexeme which is proved by the derivatives from the PSlav root in the Western (Cz hrad, Pol grod) and the Southern Slavic (Bulg градът, Serb, Cor град) languages. Besides, the word is related to Lith gardas 'fence' and Old Indian (OInd) grhas 'house'. It comes from Indo-European (IE) root *ghordho-. A hypothesis that lexeme городъ was borrowed from the Germanic languages, e.g., Gothic (Goth) gars, or from the group centum to the group satǝm, is considered to be false (ESUM, V. 1,1982). Semantic changes in ORu went the following direction: first 'wall, fence', then 'fenced place', later 'fortification, fortress, town', although the mean- The fifth group consists of words that become historicisms in the process of their evolution.
The etymon острогъ in the meaning of 'a town or village with a stake wall, fortified place, wall of stakes in the fortress' comes from OSlav острогъ which is a common Slavic lexeme with correspondences in MoUkrостріг 'fence with a roof', Cz ostroh 'fortification', Pol ostróg 'stakewall, palisade', Bulg 'pole' (ESUM, V. 4, 2003). It has the initial meaning of 'sharp' and is derived from OSlav остръ, from IE *ak-r-os (ibid.). Changes in the meaning proceed in the following way: 'sharp' > 'stake, palisade' > 'wall of the stakes in the fortress' > 'town or village with a wall of palisade, fortification, fortress' > 'fortified inhabited place'. In the dictionary of EOUkr, it is labeled as an oikonym naming a town in the Volyn Land Острогь In ORu, погостъ is a derivative of the verb погостити 'to come for a visit', which comes from the verb гостити 'to guest' and ORu noun гость 'guest' and relates to PSlav gostь that comes from IE *ghostis (ESUM, V. 1,1982). In Kyivan Rus, погостъ meant a place for trade and an administrative and territorial unit (ibid.). Evolution of the meaning is, arguably, as follows, e.g., 'inn where the prince and clergymen stayed' > 'residence of the prince and his retinue during the taxation', 'main settlement of the county' > 'settlement with a church > 'church in a settlement' > 'graveyard near the church' > 'graveyard ' (SRYa, V. 4, 1977). In Thus, Ukrainian etymons denoting an inhabited place change their form and meaning in the process of their development in the Ukrainian language which is fixed in etymological, historical and explanatory dictionaries. The analysis of the dictionaries entries enables us to single out five groups of lexemes according to the type of their development in diachrony: 1) lexical units that preserve the PSlav sememe 'inhabited place', but lose some semes; 2) appellatives that develop the sememe 'inhabited place' adding new semes to it after the protolanguage is divided into dialects; 3) lexemes which lose the sememe 'inhabited place' and are labelled as terms; 4) etymons which preserving the sememe 'inhabited place' become archaic; 5) words that become historicisms in the process of their development. The appellatives denoting an inhabited place show a tendency to join the group of oikonyms if they become terms or historicisms.

Development of Etymons in English
The first group of etymons involves those that have developed the meaning 'inhabited place' in Old English (OE) after Proto-Germanic (PGmc) split into dialects. For instance, etymon tûn in OE had a number of meanings: enclosure, garden, field, yard, farm, manor, home, house, mansion. Later the meanings group of houses, village, town (CASD, 1916) are added. The lexeme originates from PGmc *tuna -'fenced area'. Etymological correspondences in related languages are Old Norse (ON) tun 'enclosure, courtyard, homestead; home field; town' and Old Frisian (OFri) tūn 'fence, enclosure, yard' (DSIES, 1988). However, the Old High German (OHG) zūn 'fence, enclosure' does not acquire the meaning 'inhabited place', whereas MHG zūn, zoun are used in the meaning of 'fence'. Today German Zaun has the same meaning (EDPG, 2013) which proves that the sememe 'inhabited place' appeared after OE emerges. In English, the meaning undergoes the following changes, e.g., 'fenced area' > 'group of houses' > 'town, village'. In the middle of the 12 th century, after the Norman Conquest, the meaning 'compactly settled area larger than a village' appears under the influence of Old French (OFr) ville. In Middle English (ME), the changes in the form occur tûn > town when a vowel digraph shows the length of the sound. In Modern English (MoE), the word has developed a number of meanings. As a dialectal form it serves as a synonym to hamlet: a cluster or aggregation of houses recognized as a distinct place with a place-name (DMW) or village: an English village having a periodic fair or market (DMW); still locally for what is no more than a village (DSIES, 1988). The following definition emphasises the seme 'size' and designates an intermediate position of the notion of a town between two other notions village and city: a compactly settled area usually larger than a village but smaller than a city (DMW); such semes as 'presence of a name', 'presence of boundaries', 'presence of government': a built-up area with a name, defined boundaries, and local government, that is larger than a village and generally smaller than a city (EOLD) can also be added. Besides, the word-building formant -ton in the names of English towns reflects the time when the noun had the meaning 'estate' (Ayto, 2005), e.g., Adlington, Ashington.
The second group comprises English nouns denoting an inhabited place which belong to native Germanic vocabulary and become archaic or dialectal in the course of language evolution. For instance, borough from PGmc *burgs 'fortified place, town' is derived from the stem *burg-'to protect' (EDPG, 2013). The lexeme is akin to OFr burch 'castle; city', ON borg 'town, citadel, small hill', and Goth baurgs 'fortified place, town' (DSIES, 1988). It might be related to OE beorg 'hill' and OHG berg 'mountain' with a different vocalisation, from PGmc *bergа 'mountain' or OE beorgan 'to keep safe' from PGmc *bergan, and IE *bherg 'to bring, to carry' (EDPG, 2013). OE etymon burg / burh in the meaning of 'fortified town': any important dwelling within a walled enclosure, fort, castle (CASD, 1916) in ME has the form burgh, which is marked in contemporary dictionaries as archaic (CFOD) or dialectal Scots form of borough (EOLD). The progression of the meaning is 'fortress' > 'fortified town' > 'town' (Ayto, 2005). In MoE, borough is a medieval fortified group of houses forming a town with special duties and privileges (DMW), British historical a town sending representatives to Parliament (EOLD); a town, or a division of a large town (CFEDT), a town, or part of a large city, that is responsible for managing its own schools, hospitals, roads etc. (LDCE). As the dictionary definitions show, in ME, semes 'fortified character' and 'presence of privileges and duties' are present, whereas in MoE the first one is lost and the second is converted into 'self-management'. Besides, now the appellative borough demonstrates the development of the sememe 'administrative unit': a town or district which is an administrative unit (EOLD) or 'constituency': a town or urban constituency in Great Britain that sends a member to Parliament (DMW). The dictionaries of MoE provide the following meaning of the lexeme burg: 1) an ancient or medieval fortress or walled town; 2) North American informal a town or city (EOLD). The appellative is treated as the one which either comes from OE etymon burg (CFOD) or is considered to be a borrowing of the 18 th century from late Lat burgus 'castle, fort' (EOLD). There also exists an assumption that burg comes from burrow -a corporate town, that is not a city, but such as sends burgesses to the parliament; a place fenced or fortified (Johnson, 1785), which arises in ME in the Northern dialect as the form of the genitive borrows from borrow (borough) and from OE burh / burg (DMW). A colloquial form burg -(informal) a town or city (EOLD), which exists in American English since the mid-19 th century, is explained as the result of syncope in the toponyms where the formant -burg is present as the second element, for instance, Pittsburgh. The form brugh which means a town or borough is dialectal (CFOD). Thus, as a result of changes in the form in MoE, several variants of the word borough with the meaning of a 'town' exist. It is also preserved as a word-building formant in oikonyms: Kexbrough, Worsbrough.
The third group of etymons includes those ones that actualise the archseme 'inhabited place' in PGmc, lose it after the parent language splits into dialects and survive in MoE in a different meaning. For instance, PGmc *haima-has the meaning 'village, home' (EDPG, 2013). It comes from IE *koi-mo-, derived with the help of the suffix from IE root *kei 'to inhabit, to be at home, to lie' (EDPG, 2013). Cognates are present in the Germanic group, e.g., Goth haims 'village', ON heimr 'home' (DSIES, 1988), OFri hēm 'home', and Old Saxon (OS) hēm 'home'. In OE, the cognate hâm has a number of meanings, 'home, dwelling, house, manor, estate, hamlet' (CASD, 1916), 'inhabited place' included. The sememe 'inhabited place' disappears already in ME, whereas the OE lexeme hâm exists in MoE as home with the meaning of 'one's place of residence' (DMW). As a word-forming element, the variant ham is found in oikonyms: Nottingham, Altrincham.
The afore-mentioned English etymons could be divided into four groups according to the changes in the meaning and their development: 1) those that developed the meaning 'inhabited place' after Old English emerges; 2) the ones which already had the sememe 'inhabited place' in Proto Germanic and became outdated in the course of language development and belong today to archaisms or dialectisms; 3) lexemes that lose the sememe 'inhabited place', but develop in the English language with a different meaning; and 4) vocabulary items that were composed on the basis of inherited stems, but altogether disappeared from English during the ME period. A characteristic feature of the English etymons denoting an inhabited place that become archaic is their presence as word-forming elements in oikonyms.
The article presents a study that investigates the diachronic development of etymons denoting an inhabited place in two distantly related languages, i.e., Ukrainian and English that belong to different groups of the Indo-European family. The research is based on a contrastive analysis of two corresponding groups of vocabulary items which involve appellatives that denote an inhabited place. The concept 'inhabited place' is thought to involve an objectively existing fragment of reality that exists in the native speaker's consciousness. The investigation employs a diachronic etymological approach to data analysis. Specifically, the approach facilitated the identification of diachronic changes in form and meaning of the appellatives designating an inhabited place. The etymological approach enabled us to treat the present state of the lexemes in the Ukrainian and English languages as a result of their diachronic development.
As the study shows, both Ukrainian and English possess the following two groups of lexical units, the ones that preserve the meaning 'inhabited place' and those which acquire it after Proto-Slavic and Proto-Germanic split into dialects. The lexemes which are no longer in active use become archaic in these languages or turn to historicisms in Ukrainian and dialectisms in English.
Another isomorphic feature is connected with the presence of archaic lexemes in the group of oikonyms. In Ukrainian, archaisms move to the group of oikonyms and in English they become their word building formants. A common way of development is connected with the loss of the sememe 'inhabited place' when the lexemes are preserved in these languages in a different meaning. A unique feature of the English language is connected with the disappearance of inherited lexemes denoting an inhabited place in the Middle English period.
The results of the data analysis suggest that further linguistic insights into the question of diachronic change of form and meaning within vocabulary groupings are needed. Extending the analysis to the data from the Germanic (Dutch, German) and Eastern Slavic (Belarusian, Russian) languages will allow finding out if lexemes denoting an inhabited place have a similar history in all the languages of the groups mentioned above and whether the findings of the present research can be extrapolated to new linguistic material.