The under—water toponymy of the kornate islands

Abstract

Using as example the under-water of the Kornate islands the author makes an attempt to explain certain specifics of naming undersea referants. At the start, he divides such toponyms into two large groups; the first group encompasses the fishing grounds where throughout history herrings have been caught with large nets, and the other all the remaining fishing grounds, practically the entire Kornate area, where from some time back benthic fish has been fished for with small fishing implements. The first assertion that derives from an analysis of these names is that trie form of the underwater toponyms is stable, that is to say there is no variant apellation which is usually characteristic for the above-water toponymic system of Kornate. Neither appearance, color, nor shape of the under-water referant influence motivation in the process of denominating under-water objects (this being the case on land), but rather its position as related to some visible) toponym on land which influences the linguistic structure of the name. Namely, the forms of underwater toponyms are mostly toponomastic syntagmas of a number of parts which eypress the positional or proprietorial qualities of the underwater object as it is related to some other visible object. The pattern for the positional quality is thus: preposition + the known toponym in the accusative case (Pod Lonću, Pod Studenjak, Izna Šila, etc.), where as for the proprietorial it is the following; the toponomastic noun + the preposition od (from) + the known toponym in the genitive case (Brak o Blitvice, Brak od Okjuča, Mela o Vesejuha. etc.). In conclusion, the author holds that, regardless of the peculiarities or the Kornate toponymy in general, the model of the underwater toponymy of the Kornate islands can also be found in other geographical complexes when they name referants that cannot be seen.