# All Slavic languages: names of regions around cities



## Encolpius

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, it exists in Czech and I think in Slovak and Ukrainian as well. I think it is a typical Slavic phenomenon, I cannot remember other languages have a -suffix to call a region around cities. So does it exist in all Slavic languages and how do you form it, what suffix do you use? Here are specific examples so you understand it. 

*Czech*: town name + -sko

Brno (Czech town) - Brněnsko (the region around the town, historical, ethnological)
Ostrava - the region Ostravsko
Beroun (even a smaller town) - Berounsko
Uherské Hradiště - Uherskohradišťsko

*Slovak*: the same as in Czech - town name + -sko
Banská Bystrica - Banskobystricko 

I am very inteersted how you form names form compiund words like Banská Bystrica. 
Thanks a lot.


----------



## ahvalj

In Russia, the Ukrainian-type words in _-щина~-чина_ exist, but with regional flavor, they are not at all formed freely:
_Псков — Псковщина
Брянск — Брянщина
Архангельск — Архангельщина
Смоленск — Смоленщина
Рязань — Рязанщина
Ростов — Ростовщина
Саратов — Саратовщина
Ярославль — Ярославщина

Новгород — Новгородчина
Нижний Новгород — Нижегородчина _(from an old compound)
_Белгород — Белгородчина
Вологда — Вологодчина_

There is no _**Московщина_ (that's the derogatory Ukrainian equivalent of _Muscovy_, which is also an exonym).

P. S. A closer counterpart of the Czech and Slovak _-sko-_words are the expressions like _Новгородская земля, Псковская земля, Смоленская земля._ They are attested since the beginning of literacy a millennium ago, but since then have acquired a poetic flavor. The names in _-ина_ are not found in older chronicles.


----------



## Encolpius

ahvalj said:


> In Russia, the Ukrainian-type words in _-щина~-чина_ exist, but with regional flavor, t*hey are not at all formed freely:*



Interesting, I think all Czech town can have that form.


----------



## Panceltic

In Polish, the suffix -szczyzna has the same function, for example Wileńszczyzna around Wilno (Vilnius).

In Slovenian, -ščina refers to languages (slovenščina, angleščina) and is cognate to Czech "slovinština", Slovak "slovinčina" etc.

Interestingly, "polszczyzna" in Polish refers to the Polish language as well. I am not sure if these two suffixes are cognate.


----------



## ahvalj

Polish has extended _-izna_ over _-ina,_ compare also even _mężczyzna__._

P. S. And, by the way, the Wiktionary explanation is wrong: _mężczyzna _comes from *_mǫžьščina_ (parallel to _*ženьščina_), which are derivations of the exact same type as in the East Slavic examples above: _mǫžьskъ _“male” (adjective) → *_mǫžьščina _“the male” (noun), _ženьska _“female” (adjective) → _*ženьščina _“the female” (noun).


----------



## Encolpius

Since you did not mention any Slovenian example, it does not exist in Slovenian, right?


----------



## jasio

Panceltic said:


> In Polish, the suffix -szczyzna has the same function, for example Wileńszczyzna around Wilno (Vilnius).


Actually, it's more complex than that. 
On the one hand, indeed the suffix "-yzna/-izna" is used to name a region related to and surrounding a particular city, like Wileńszczyzna, Opolszczyzna, Białostoczczyzna, Żywiecczyzna etc. On the other hand though, it's not universal in this function and with most locations it would simply not work. Most universal would probably be "ziemia" ('land') or "region", like "ziemia opolska", "ziemia radomska", "ziemia rzeszowska", "region białostocki", "region wileński", "region lwowski".



Panceltic said:


> In Slovenian, -ščina refers to languages (slovenščina, angleščina) and is cognate to Czech "slovinština", Slovak "slovinčina" etc.
> 
> Interestingly, "polszczyzna" in Polish refers to the Polish language as well. I am not sure if these two suffixes are cognate.


In Polish the suffix is also very productive and typically refers to a generalisation of some sort, in diverse areas and with various specific meanings - whether related to a languague, culture, behaviour, ownership, etc. For example "drożyzna" (from "drogi", expensive) refers to a phenomenon of things being generally expensive (a result of inflation, crisis, or seasonal price growth), "włoszczyzna" (from "Włochy," Italy) - something related to Italy, like italian language, but most often it's a fixed set of vegetables used for cooking, "chińszczyzna" (from "Chiny", China) - something related to China, like Chinese food,  Chinese products (low price, low quality), or something incomprehensible (like in 'it's Greek to me' in English), "starszyzna" (from "stary", old) - a class or a group of elder people, who traditionally had had authority over a village or a tribe, "amatorszczyzna" (from "amator", amateur) - something done unprofesionally, without proper quality or without understanding the merit, "ojczyzna" (from "ojciec", father) - originally father's property, currently - a fatherland, etc.

So it seems to function in a similar way to Slovenian.



ahvalj said:


> Polish has extended _-izna_ over _-ina,_ compare also even _mężczyzna__._
> 
> P. S. And, by the way, the Wiktionary explanation is wrong: _mężczyzna _comes from *_mǫžьščina_ (parallel to _*ženьščina_), which are derivations of the exact same type as in the East Slavic examples above: _mǫžьskъ _“male” (adjective) → *_mǫžьščina _“the male” (noun), _ženьska _“female” (adjective) → _*ženьščina _“the female” (noun).


That's an interesting example, because historically the noun, which comes from "mąż" (then meaning 'a man') had a collective meaning of 'all men (in a particular society)'. Later however, the meaning of "mąż" was narrowed to 'a husband', and 'mężczyzna' received a modern meaning of "a man" (or 'a male human', to avoid ambiguity).


----------



## ahvalj

jasio said:


> That's an interesting example, because historically the noun, which comes from "mąż" (then meaning 'a man') had a collective meaning of 'all men (in a particular society)'. Later however, the meaning of "mąż" was narrowed to 'a husband', and 'mężczyzna' received a modern meaning of "a man" (or 'a male human', to avoid ambiguity).


I was based on the East Slavic evidence. Now I have checked the Slavic etymological dictionary (_“Этимологический словарь славянских языков… Выпуск 20 (morzatъjь – mъrsknǫti)” · ОН Трубачёв · 1994: _166), and it turns out Slavic has these words in three senses: with _-ina_ as an individualizing suffix (as in _dětina_), as a collective suffix (“men”) and as an abstract suffix (“manliness” etc.). I still can't imagine the shift from the second meaning to the former, so I guess at some point Polish had both (the meaning ”man“ is attested in Polish since the 16th century: SI. stpol. IV, 188; SI. polszcz. XVI w., XIII, 317–318). Etymologically, it is anyway _*mǫžьščina_.


----------



## jasio

ahvalj said:


> I still can't imagine the shift from the second meaning to the former, so I guess at some point Polish had both (the meaning ”man“ is attested in Polish since the 16th century: SI. stpol. IV, 188; SI. polszcz. XVI w., XIII, 317–318). Etymologically, it is anyway _*mǫžьščina_.


I can't tell, what was a specific pronunciation when the shift of the meaning was taking place, but a similar shift and narrowing of the meaning happened to "żona". As far, as I am aware, it's a cognate of "žena" in Czech and in other languages, and originally it meant simply 'a woman'. Nowadays it only means "a wife" (while a modern word for 'woman', "kobieta", is relatively new, it's origin is uncertain - albeit there are a few theories - and is unrelated to the topic).

But didn't a similar shift of the meaning happened also in Russian, for both sexes: жена -> женщина, муж -> мужчина? Perhaps they are related, considering a mutual, long-lasting mutual influence of Polish and Ruthenian languages.


----------



## ahvalj

I meant the shift from a collective “all men” (_państwo_) to “one single man” (_pan_): that would be strange.

Concerning _мужчина_ and _женщина,_ I even had a (short-lived) thread in the Etymological forum, since it is closely mirrored by the recent English shift of _male_ and _female,_ which from plain adjectives have come to mean “man” and “woman”.

In Lithuanian, the old word for “woman” now means “wife” (_žmona_), whereas the old word for “mother” now means “woman” (_moteris_). And _moteriškė_ is “woman” (from “female”), as in the case of _ženьska_ (Slovene _ženska, _Czech_ ženská, _Lower Sorbian _žeńska_) and the abovementioned _*ženьščina. _

The unextended _mǫžьskъjь_ “male” → “man” turns out to exist in Lower Sorbian (_muski_).


----------



## jasio

ahvalj said:


> I meant the shift from a collective “all men” (_państwo_) to “one single man” (_pan_): that would be strange.


I found some information here: http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files...y_i_analizy_jezykoznawcze-r2007-t1-s39-60.pdf, (Anna Kochman-Mikołajczyk, "Ewolucja wybranych nazw człowieka w języku polskim"), page 55.

Two theories are mentioned: a Russian influence (_мужчина_), and proliferating a medical or a legal term to the common language. Perhaps all of them mutually reinforcing.


----------



## ahvalj

The above etymological dictionary states that the meaning “man” is found dialectally in Serbo-Croatian, in Czech, Old Polish, Old Russian, Ukrainian, Old Belarusian (both _мужчина_ and _мужчизна_), thus it must be a variant Slavic development.


----------



## jasio

ahvalj said:


> The above etymological dictionary states that the meaning “man” is found dialectally in Serbo-Croatian, in Czech, Old Polish, Old Russian, Ukrainian, Old Belarusian (both _мужчина_ and _мужчизна_), thus it must be a variant Slavic development.


That's possible. According to Kochman-Mikołajczyk, and the sources she relies on, the shift was a gradual process in 15th-17th centuries. During at least part of that time the Czech language was quite popular among Polish nobility as a second language, Silesian region was not yet Germanized, so there existed a Czech-Silesian-Polish continuum, parts of modern Ukraine belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, and most of the rest + modern Belarus - belonged to Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which in turn was mostly Ruthenian in culture (rather than Lithuanian in the modern meaning of the term), and remained for centuries in the personal and then the real union with Poland, peasants escaping from harsh terms in Poland typically fled to Zaporozhe, some of the Ruthenian elites tended gradually assimilate the Polish culture, bilinguial areas were extensive, there were no mass-media dissipating the only correct versions of national languages - so the mutual contacts between the societies and the languages must have been common and the influences - quite immense. Not mentioning a mere fact that literary languages were only being coined. At least in Poland, where Latin served as an official language of the state, law, science and literature, and Polish dialects served only as a language of commoners.


----------



## Panceltic

ahvalj said:


> The unextended _mǫžьskъjь_ “male” → “man” turns out to exist in Lower Sorbian (_muski_).



We have it in Slovenian too: moški



Encolpius said:


> Since you did not mention any Slovenian example, it does not exist in Slovenian, right?



If you mean a suffix denoting a region around a city, then no, I don't think we have that.


----------



## ahvalj

And also _*manniskaz__ > Mensch, __människa_ in Germanic.

To complete the picture, there also is _*dětьsko_ “childish” → “child” in _dziecko__, __děcko_ and perhaps _dečko_ (why with _č_? from _*dětьščьko_?).


----------



## Panceltic

There is _dečko_, but it means boy, and is a variant of _deček_.


----------



## Encolpius

Panceltic said:


> If you mean a suffix denoting a region around a city, then no, I don't think we have that.



Yes, that's what I mean.  Then I think it is only in West Slavic languages. Let's wait.


----------



## nimak

Encolpius said:


> Good morning ladies and gentlemen, it exists in Czech and I think in Slovak and Ukrainian as well. I think it is a typical Slavic phenomenon, I cannot remember other languages have a -suffix to call a region around cities. So does it exist in all Slavic languages and how do you form it, what suffix do you use?



In *Macedonian* the suffix is *-ско* (-sko) or *-чко* (-čko), *-шко* (-ško), depending on the ending consonant.

Skópje -> Skópsko
Bítola -> Bítolsko
Tétovo -> Tétovsko
Gevgélija -> Gevgélisko
Кóčani -> Кóčansko
Résen -> Résensko

Strúmica -> Strúmičko
Kavádarci -> Kavadárečko

Véles -> Véleško
Strúga -> Strúško
Rádoviš -> Radóviško

Makédonski Bród -> Bródsko
Makédonska Kaménica -> Kaméničko

Kriva Pálanka -> Krivopalánečko, Palánečko
Demír Hisar -> Demirhísarsko
Sveti Níkole -> Svetiníkolsko

c /t͡s/, č /t͡ʃ/, š /ʃ/, j /j/


----------



## DarkChild

In Bulgarian we have an ending -щина that is a collective term for nouns, often used in a derogatory way
свиня/pig - свинщина/mess, dirt
простак/brute - простащина/vulgarity

It can't be used with any word.

As for geographic locations, it's similar to the post above.


----------

