Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T23:16:00.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Taboos on Animal Names in Ukrainian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Roman Smal-Stocki*
Affiliation:
Marquette University

Extract

In Lg. 24.56-63 (1948), M. B. Emeneau re-examines the problem of taboos on animal names, with special reference to the IE names for the bear in Slavic. Collecting nearly the whole literature on the subject, he demonstrates that there is as yet no satisfactory explanation: why was the original IE name for the bear (represented by Lat. ursus, Gk. árktos, etc.) displaced in Slavic by a compound meaning ‘honey-eater’ (Russ. m'edv'éd'), in Baltic by a word meaning ‘one who licks’ (Lith. lokỹs), and in Germanic by a word meaning ‘brown’ (Eng. bear)?

Emeneau summarizes the two current theories. Frazer and Meillet believe in a ‘hunter’s taboo’: when the animal is hunted, the utterance of its name is forbidden because, understanding human speech, it would either escape or become dangerous to the hunter. (Emeneau rejects at once Meillet’s additional explanation, that the name is not used because the animal is ‘repugnant’.) Keller, Schrader, and Gray, on the other hand, believe in a ‘religious taboo’: for the primitive hunter, the bear was in some way part of the world of gods and demons; to name it gave the bear the power to harm the hunter. According to this view, the original name of the bear in the Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic languages had a ‘religio-demonic meaning’.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1950 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable