Історична, етимологічна та біогеографічна розвідки щодо українських назв ссавців роду Spermophilus (Mammalia)

Abstract

The paper presents the results of investigation of distribution of common names of mammals belonging to the genus Spermophilus in space and time, among which the name “ховрах” [khovrakh] is the sole name of the species in the current Ukrainian nomenclature. However, in fact, the name “сусел” [susel] and other derived variants with the root “sus-” are used in all adjacent Slavonic languages (Polish, Belarusian, Slovak, and Russian). The modern vernacular name of the genus Spermophilus — “ховрах” [khovrakh] — is etymologically different and unique compared to vernacular names of Spermophilus in other Slavonic languages. The ancient Ukrainian name of these animals used in chronicles was “сусол” [susol], and later “сусел” [susel] and “суслик” [suslik]. In the 19th century, names from the two designated by us etymological groups “суслик” [suslik] and “ховрах” [khovrakh] were used simultaneously (those from the latter group often without the first consonant “г” [h] or “х” [kh]). The use of names in the 19th century had a more or less clear geographic split: “ховрах” [khovrakh] in Left-Bank Ukraine and “суслик” [suslik] in Right-Bank Ukraine and the Crimea. Later, the animals almost disappeared in the west and the north of the country, so did the names of the etymological group “суслик” [suslik] along with several dozens of variants of the current name “ховрах” [khovrakh], including “оврашок” [ovrashok] and “ховрашок” [khovrashok], the latter being widely used in the early 20th century. A review of several hypotheses (including those proposed by the authors) regarding the origin of the names of the groups “суслик” [suslik] and “ховрах” [khovrakh] are given, among which we support the diminutive of the current name (i.e., “ховрашок” [khovrashok] and its variants) as primary. Cherkasy and Poltava regions should be considered the areas of formation of the animals’ name with the first consonant “г” [h] or “х” [kh]. The review of the history of formation and distribution of the vernacular names allows considering our hypothesis on the successive migration of both species and their names in the space valid (names naturally followed the species). It confirms the idea proposed by the authors earlier that each name had to be formed as locally spread and only subsequently be “amplified” on a wider range due to dispersal of either species or respective practice of naming.