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.

135 of the place name components. The signified (content) is indissolubly linked to the signifying (expression), though they are not identical. Secondly, in zones where languages of different systems and, conse quently, of different place name systems are in contact, new place name types appear in the process of adaptation. Without such interaction these types would not have appeared. Taking as an example the Russian toponymy (place names used in the Russian language to be exact) of Karelia we meet place name-hybrids, transliterated forms of place names of different systems, framed by the Russian grammar sys tem, as well as substrate and non-etymologyzed complexes. In some regions, in the Archangelsk oblast' and in the river Ob' basin for instance, a huge, but already considerably transformed and assimi lated substrate toponymy stratum has become the reality of the Russian language. The language, phonetically, morphologically, syntactically and lexically adapting substrate toponymy to its own structure, does not only assimilate the essential side of the language — its semantics (it is not always possible, though), it also tries to assimilate the semantics by means of false etymology and by other means (cf. Соломенное из co- ломя — салма). In folk toponymy we may observe an uncontrolled, even subcon scious striving to convert the unrecognizable into the recognizable, and making unknown words of substrate toponymy sound familiar. This stri ving is still more intensive if these words come from folklore and when they express the nations' desires and spiritual needs. The description structures, suggested for the Balto-Fennic and Russian languages enable researchers to define an overall number of place names of these languages according to the quadrangle, region and area. It is clear, that the amount of data will increase in the process of place name collection and will be involved in the processing proce dure. Since toponymy denotes the arrangement of object names in space it is extremely important to define specific features of the place name structure in every area. In determining semantics of place name components it is necessary to be consistent when we refer this or that component to a particular semantic class. This rule holds when a place name component has more than one meaning. The description structure enables us within a particular area to distinguish and arrange in alphabetical order the following place name components: 1) substrate (non-etymologyzed), 2) etymologyzed, foreign, 3) etymologyzed by the language of repre sentation. All etymologyzed components are distributed among semantic