Deanthroponymic Names of Ural Minerals: Word-Formation Patterns

Abstract

The study investigates the nomenclature of Ural minerals derived from anthroponyms. The data was sourced from printed and electronic publications on geology and mineralogy. The aim of the research is to analyze the primary word-formation patterns evident in the lexemes of the compiled corpus, discern deviations from traditional word-formation patterns, and ascertain their underlying causes. The deanthroponymic model emerges as the predominant one for mineral nomenclature, constituting 38% of the total number of names analyzed. The second most prevalent model is based on toponyms (22%). Models wherein mineral names are derived from indications of their geochemical composition or properties exhibit significantly lower frequency compared to the two aforementioned models. The most prevalent method of forming deanthroponymic mineral names (mineralonyms) entails incorporating the surname of a notable figure associated with mineralogy, followed by the addition of the formant -it (less frequently, -lit) or -in. Departures from this model manifest in two ways. Firstly, atypical formants such as -an, -zit, -oit, and -anit are utilized, which may be categorized as phonetic-graphic variants or instances of contamination of productive formants. Secondly, deviations occur in the base of the mineralonym, whereby the generating unit is not solely the surname but rather its constituent parts (in cases where the surname is multi-component), as well as the inclusion of the first name, first name and surname, or the root part of the surname translated into Latin. It can be posited that in the use of formally atypical models and approaches to mineralonym creation, the subjective aesthetic considerations of the nominator play a pivotal role, driven by the desire to craft a harmonious and user-friendly term. Additionally, the evident intention is to mitigate homonymy and other instances of ambiguity that are incompatible with a coherent terminological system and hinder the unequivocal association of the name with the denoted object.

Keywords

• anthroponymy
• mining engineering
• mythonymy
• names of minerals (mineralonymy)
• naming
• naming models
• terminological system
• ural