# -iewicz



## ahvalj

Are there any studies concerning the etymology of surnames on -_iewicz_? This -_cz_ reveals their East Slavic (Ruthenian) origin, but which explanations have been suggested for the obviously secondary -_ie_-?

The only one I have ever met links it with the ancient north-western East Slavic (i. e. north Krivichian) ending -_e_ in the Nom. Sg. of the masculine _o_-declension, e. g. Old Novgorod _xlěbe, skote, pogoste, zamъke, kožuxe, igumene, brate, vъnuke, posadnike, Domaslave, Ivane, kěle, deševe, dъlъžьne, svobodьne, mьrьtve, lixe, novъgorodьske, pogublene, napisane, obrětene, vybite, vъdale, pustile, vъzäle, rekle, poběgle, keto, vьxe, same_ etc. (examples from _Зализняк АА · 2004 · Древненовгородский диалект:_ 99–100 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJUEhqQzJXT2p3ZUk&authuser=0). Since some personal names in Novgorod occasionally had the ending -_o_ in the Nom. Sg., e. g. _Ivanъko_, along with the standard _Ivanъke_, a pattern may have developed in some areas: _Ivanъko_ — _Ivanъkove_ vs. _Ivanъke_ — *_Ivanъkeve_. Much of modern-day Belarus was inhabited by western Krivichians, relatives of northern Krivichians in Novgorod and Pskov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krivichs), so these patterns in one or another form may have been actual for their speech as well, and the modern system _Ivanko_ — _Ivankevič_ (resp. _Iwanko — Iwankiewicz_) may thus be a contamination of two of the above.

Are there other explanations?


----------



## Thomas1

Initially the "-ew" suffix occurred only after a soft consonant, hence today we have two variants “-(i)ewicz” and “-owicz” (the original form of “-icz” was “-ic”). The’re two explanations given behind adding the suffix in question: (1) progressive palatalisation or (2) adding “-(i)ewicz” was simply in vogue. For more details, see this analysis in Polish _O nazwisku Mickiewicz, czyli o pochodzeniu naszego wieszcza po mieczu_ (a PDF file) by Władysław Makarski (especially page 3).


----------



## ahvalj

Thanks. Well, all these explanations may work in principle, but from a Slavic viewpoint I find forms like _Iwankiewicz_ very unusual. Yes, Polish knows _ke_>_kie _in the adjective declension or in the Instr. Sg. of _o-_nouns, but -_iewicz_ are widespread Belarusian forms, and Belarusian doesn't have this source of _k'_ or, overall, examples when _e_-variants appeared anew (from _ъ_ and _aje/uje_ like in Polish) or were generalized in the morphology or word-formation. One may argue that _Iwankiewicz_ is Polish-influenced, but actually both the form _Iwan_- and the _cz_ are East Slavic.


----------



## ahvalj

Interestingly, Bulgarian and Macedonian, which show an increased frequency of resp. _-ев/-ev_ and _-евски/-evski_ seem to avoid the _e_-variant after velars.


----------



## jasio

Thomas1 said:


> Initially the "-ew" suffix occurred only after a  soft consonant, hence today we have two variants “-(i)ewicz” and  “-owicz” (the original form of “-icz” was “-ic”).



Or rather: the native form in Polish was "-ic" (meaning: 'son of', although I also found explanation that it was diminuitive) which later evolved into "-icz" influenced by East Slavic languages. Like in "królewic" -> "królewicz" (son of a king), "panic" -> "panicz" (son of a lord), "księżyc" (son of a prince, nowadays: Moon), and so on. 



ahvalj said:


> Well, all these explanations may work in principle, but from a Slavic viewpoint I find forms like _Iwankiewicz_ very unusual. Yes, Polish knows _ke_>_kie _in the adjective declension or in the Instr. Sg. of _o-_nouns, but -_iewicz_ are widespread Belarusian forms, and Belarusian doesn't have this source of _k'_ or, overall, examples when _e_-variants appeared anew (from _ъ_ and _aje/uje_ like in Polish) or were generalized in the morphology or word-formation. One may argue that _Iwankiewicz_ is Polish-influenced, but actually both the form _Iwan_- and the _cz_ are East Slavic.



Intuitively, I would locate '-k-' more in the South, like in Ukrainian 'Iwanko'. However, although I can't validate the source, on the page http://www.stankiewicze.com/index.php?kat=44&sub=539 I've found: "*Forma Iwan we  wczesnym średniowieczu znana w całej Polsce, później na Kresach  Wschodnich. Postać Jan notowana od początku XIII wieku."* ('In early middle ages the form Iwan was known across all Poland, later (only) on Eastern Borderlands. The form Jan is attested since beginning of 13th century"). Leaving aside what the author had in mind as 'early middle ages' (considering that the period began in 5th century, while Christianity reached Poland in 9th-10th) this would clearly locate _Iwankiewicz_ in Poland.


----------



## ahvalj

Thus, summarizing, this scenario implies the following:
(1) the -_iewicz_-forms have developed in the Polish environment (with the East Slavic -_cz_ having replaced the original -_c_);
(2) their source were the soft stems, but since some point the _e_-forms tended to become generalized (also in -_iewski_);
(3) the forms with -_kie_-, prohibited in most other Slavic idioms, became possible due to the Polish _-kie/-kiego/-kiemu/-kiej_;
(4) the distribution of -_iewicz _in Belarus has been induced by the Polish stratum.

Obviously, this scenario moves the origin of -_iewicz_ to a later period than the one cited in my original post. I wonder if there are records of -_iewicz_ in the pre-Polish Ruthenian sources.

P.S. This suffix in Slavic is actually a merger of two original ones, preserved in Lithuanian: *-_ītı̯as_>-_ytis_ for the young beings (cp. _vilkytis_ vs. Serbo-Croatian _vučić_ "wolfling") and *-_eı̯tı̯as_>-_ietis_ for the inhabitants (cp. _maskvietis_ vs. Russian _москвич/moskvich_ "Muscovite"). There are some issues with the intonation (the Slavic suffix is non-acute like -_ietis_ and unlike -_ytis, _cp. the Russian end-stress impossible in the acute stems), but otherwise this comparison is unproblematic. For patronymics, Lithuanian has a special suffix -_aitis_ (cp. _Vilkaitis_) that has no Slavic counterparts.


----------



## Thomas1

This is what I meant too. Compare:
_Iwanow -- Iwanicz -- Iwanowicz -- Iwankiewicz
_


----------



## Ben Jamin

jasio said:


> Or rather: the native form in Polish was "-ic" (meaning: 'son of', although I also found explanation that it was diminuitive) which later evolved into "-icz" influenced by East Slavic languages. Like in "królewic" -> "królewicz" (son of a king), "panic" -> "panicz" (son of a lord), "księżyc" (son of a prince, nowadays: Moon), and so on.



The ending -ic did not mean "son of" originally. It was just a diminutive, for example. _ksiądz _- _książę _- _księżyc _(one may argue if "księżyc" is a second grade diminutive of _ksiądz _and first grade diminutive  of _książę , _or both _książę _and _księżyc  _are parallell  _first _grade diminutives of _ksiądz.
_The same pattern is seen  in bóg - bożyc, Jan - Janic or Janik. The form _Janowic _is more complicated, because here we cane see both the diminutive -ic and the possessive -ow. Combined together they formed an ending meaning clearly "son of", even tyhogh the diminutive endings -ic, ik, and -ak continued to function as patronymic endings and were ultimately converted int surnames.


----------

