NORNA-RAPPORTER 88 Binamn. Uppkomst, bildning, terminologi ...

Coming to grips with the multifacetedness of bynames 43
in «The byname Agkirman goes back to MHG ackerman ‘farmer, husbandman’»,
Hellegrave in «What do we know about Cristoffel’s byname Hellegrave?»,
(2) use of bynames in spoken and written communication,
(3) use of bynames as dependent or independent units.
When bynames stand alone as subject or object, they are independent, e.g. Barbarossa
in 1543 «Somme thinkith that Barbarossa wil go to Alger» (SP, p.
537). When they occur in apposition to the main name, they are dependent, e.g.
Barbarossa in 1656 «a Religious Order, instituted about the year 1166 by certain
persons exiled by Fredericus Barbarossa» (Gloss., s.v. Humiliates).
Now about the grammar of bynames. Grammatical facets include the following
lexical structures (for this term, see Brendler 2006, p. 159) of bynames:
Firstly, phonology (= phonological structure).
Secondly, graphology (= graphological structure).
Thirdly, morphology (= morphological structure) which comprises
(1) inflexion (= inflexional structure),
(2) word-formation (= word-formational structure) including
(a) word-formation of byname formation,
(b) word-formation of byname use.
Fourthly, syntax (= syntactic structure).
Fifthly, textology (= textological structure).
Sixthly, semantics (= semantic structure). This is one of the most challenging
areas of research into byname grammar and one of great complexity.
So we can distinguish:
(1) semantics of byname formation, which includes
(a) word-formational denotation,
(b) descriptive connotations (the literal reading of bynames at/for the time
of their formation),
(c) motivational connotations,
(d) expressive connotations,
(2) lexical semantics of bynames, including
(a) denotation,
(b) word-formational connotations,
(c) personal connotations,
(3) semantics of byname use (= contextual semantics),
(4) development/dynamics of byname semantics,
(5) ambiguity of bynames, which is concerned with the problem of homonymy
versus polysemy, and
(6) concerns the question if there is synonymy and antonymy in bynames.
Needless to say, the autonomously presented structures are actually interdependently
autonomous. They are facets of the gem, that is, parts of the whole. It is,