Керт, Г. М. Применение компьютерных технологий в исследовании топонимии (прибалтийско-финская,русская) / Г.М. Керт ; Рос. акад. наук, Карел. науч. центр, Ин-т яз., лит. и истории. - Электрон. дан. (1 файл: 95 МБ). - Петрозаводск : Карел. науч. центр РАН, 2002.

132 material enables one to get data, needed for other regions, through the Internet. And this is in addition to the advantages of receiving all infor mation available concerning every place name and object, named by this place name. Toponymic material, however complicated its phonetic, morphologi cal and semantic structures are, can still be formalized. Every place name is a word (a simple word, a compound word, a suffix word) or a word combination which functions as a name for this or that geographi cal object. In this way, a place name has four main characteristics, which can be formalized: 1. Graphical, 2. Structural, 3. Semantic and 4. Geographical. Since the vocabulary to be involved in place names formation, can not be foreseen, it has become necessary to adopt the universal model, covering all conceptual thesauri of human mental activity. «Begriffssystem als Grundlage fur die Lexikographie» by Rudolph Hallig and Valter von Wartburg has become such a model (Hailing Rudolf und Valter von Wartburg. 1952). This system, by the way, was used in col lecting lexical material for the «Linguistic Atlas of Europe». In 1990 in the Institute of Language, Literature and History it actually became possible to use computers in toponymic research. The material for computerization was Sami toponymy, collected by a Finish researcher K. Nickul. The list, consisting of 1555 place names (without lexical vari ants — 1543) was published in the «Fennia» magazine in 1934. The structure of the database for formalization and subsequent entering into the computer of the toponymy, collected by K. Nickul, was formed in accordance with the understanding of the place name as a linguistic unit. The structure focused on the structural and seman tic peculiarities of the place name. The structure is presented as fol lows: 1. place name identificator (in alphabetical order), 2. place name, 3. the language of representation, 4. one-component place name, 5. number of components, 6. diminutive, 7. determinant, 8. ver bal construction, 9. adjectival construction, 10. analytical construction, 11. semantic formula, 12. data collection site (source). The list of place names, prepared by K. Nickul and consisting of 1555 units (depending on the number of components) is distributed in the following way: one-component place names — 48 (13,9%), two- component place names — 1103 (70,93%), three-component place names — 375 (24,12%), four-component — 27 (1,74%), five-compo nent — 2 (0,13%). The division of the place-names into components (etymologyzed and non-etymologyzed) enabled researchers to compile a dictionary of toponymic vocabulary. The computer has yielded all