О формацијама са суфиксом -ица и антропонимом у основи : дијалектолошки, ономастички, логичко-граматички и „феминистички“ аспект

Abstract

Истраживање показује да српски језик познаје два творбена модела формација са суфиксом -ица и антропонимом у основи: модел Рајковица (придевска основа изведена од антропонима + -ица) и модел Шћепаница (антропонимска основа + ица). У раду се трага за вредностима таквих изведеница у различитим сферама именовања (друштво, простор, грађевине, време, предмети), као и за дијалекатским разликама, правилностима у употреби једног или другог творбеног модела, разликама у статусу изведених јединица и сл. Пореде се односи мотивног имена и изведених формација и изводе закључци општијег типа.

In the Serbian language, two formation models are commonly at work in the formations using the suffix –ica and containing an athroponym in the base: the Lazarevica model (the adjective base derived from an anthroponym + -ica) and the Lazarica model (an anthroponym as the base + -ica). The first model has been (/was) associated with the following values: (a) ‘a wife, a spouse’ of the person whose name is contained in the base; (b) a ‘locality’, an area whose scope is defined by the cultivate or ownership (Rajkovica, Markovica, Draganovica); but also (c) a ‘church’ (Pantalijevica : Saint Panteleimon; Mitrovica : Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki). Nowadays, the value ‘the wife of the person A’ can rarely be found in Serbian vernacular dialects. The formations conforming to the second formation model have the following types of objects as referential subjects: (a) ‘a locality, land’ (Milušica, Đurašica, Tomašice); (b) ‘church’ (Lazarica : Prince Lazar, Šćepanica : Herzog Stjepan – founders, i.e. ktetors of churches); but also (c) ‘rite, feast’, ‘garment’ (lazarica / lazarice : Lazarus Saturday, Lazarus’ shroud; Đurđica (family feast – slava) : Saint George). It is due to the overall dialect profile that either the Lazarevica (regions where such formations are not associated with the value ‘a wife, a spouse’), or Lazarica model types prevail in the toponymy of particular regions. What all values of the analyzed formations have in common is that their base word implies the person A as a single (referentially and) semantically defined point, just like the suffix –ica suggests another referentially defined objectivity – an individual and singular in itself (a woman), or intelligibly delimited (by means of cultivate, walls, etc.) subject of denoting. In the conclusion, the findings that demonstrate the interdependence of onomastics, dialect grammar and lexis are highlighted. Attention is also drawn to the functional relationship between the value ‘the wife of person A’ and gender motion in the Serbian language, as well as to the prevailingly grammatical (and not lexical) status of the Lazarevica and profesorica formation types.