Personennamen, Ortsnamen und linguistische Theorie

Abstract

In the first part of this article definitions of the terms nomeme, allonome, and type of realization are given. Any analysis of a given set of proper names must part from spoken or written realizations, which, in analogy to the term allophone, shall be called allonomes. It is the analyst's task to find out which of these allonomes were or are functionally identical for the group of speakers in question. Thus Mathias and Matheus are two different names for the speakers of modern German, but were functionally identical for the inhabitants of medieval Regensburg. Therefore we may say, for them Mathias and Matheus were allonomes of a mental unit which we call the nomeme /MATHEIS/. However, as the realization of the different nomemes is not quite arbitrary, but works according to specific patterns or types, the existence of a third, intermediate level must be assumed, on which the speaker decides, which type he will apply in order to realize a certain nomeme. This level shall be called the level of the types of realization. - The second part of this article applies the nomematic point of view to toponymy. Also in toponymy the nomeme serves as a means to individualize and to identify a real object. As such the nomeme is stored up in the brain, awaiting to be realized either as phono-allonome in speech or as grapho-allonome in writing. Thus the nomeme /K/ refers to at least ten real objects, being realized in a limited number of grapho-allonomes and a considerably larger number of phono-allonomes, most of which are known to local speakers only. The nomematic point of view is especially useful in historical onomastics insofar as it gives a more precise insight into the processes underlying place name transfer in language contact areas and diachronic change in toponymy in general. Finally differences between the anthroponymic and the toponymic nomeme are pointed out.