Some excerptions of the Tauric Peninsula toponymy. Perekop – Armyansk

Abstract

The main aim of the proposal article is to put in order the data of two indissolubly tied towns – Perekop and Armyansk (both in Krasnoperekopsky district). those towns history is closely tied and reflecting in their names, needing renewed and detailed commentaries. Primarily, Perekop was known as the Tάφρος, Taphræ since the І b.c. and since XVIII A.D. ­ as Or, Or–Аgzy, Or–Каpі, Ferrah–Kerman. This fortress was the only one terrestrial way to the Crimea. But after the main part of Greek and Armenian people resettlement to the situated in five miles trade point in the thirties of the XVIII century, this point (Armyansk town nowadays) obtaines two new names ­ Yeni / Novy–Bazar and Armyansky Bazar (which repels both new townsfolk natonality and those main line of work). at the same time, much of these oiconyms (besides Ferrah–Kerman) demonstrates extreme semantic firmness: at various times and in different languages these ones has been the ‘ditch’ meaning saving: Gr. τάφρος, Lat. Fossa, Old-Ukr., Old-Russ. Перекопъ(ь), Pol. Przekop, Prsecop, Tat. Or / Ор (Or–Аgzy and Or–Каpі), Russ. Rov. There such semantic typology examples in the Crimean oiconymy (and in toponymy in general) are frequent and forming one of the main Tauric toponymy features, reflecting an active centuries-old lingual interaction process. There Armyansk, Yeni / Novy–Bazar and Armyansky Bazar oiconyms have not any features of the typological continuity and reflects the new settlement rising circumstances. Keywords: history, onomatology, oiconymy, semantic reconstruction, historical linguistics.