The aim of the article is to comment on the difference between proper names and appelatives. The method consists in an analysis of the language data excerpted from French newspapaer Figaro. According to a widespread opinion, which arose in antiquity, the difference between a proper name and an appellative consists in the fact that the proper name refers to one object or one individual, whereas the common name refers to many objects or individuals. However, all first names, surnames and ethnonyms as well as some geographical names refer to many individuals or objects. The present writer claims that, in reality, the difference consists in the fact that, in about 96% of the cases, the proper name is not translated from one language into another, cf. Eng.'town' and Fr. 'ville', but Eng. 'Brussels' and Fr. 'Bruxelles'.
Contemporary onomastics made progress in interpretation of proper nouns, especially in conception of proper name that is viewed semiotically as a linguistic sign sui generis. Proper noun represents relevant onymic system. Study of onymic sign content enables more exact placing of ethnonyms (folk-names) and nouns denoting persons according to their place of abode into transitory area between common noun and proper noun (close to common noun). Stur's conception of proper noun as a separate thing of a certain class is significant for analysis of this lexical layer. In the contrary to antic tradition of the period, Benolak and Stur took into consideration also place of the folk-names and names denoting persons according to their place of abode. Conclusions of their considerations are not identical, but the fact, that both of them explained this question in relation particular - general (common noun), not particular - individual (proper noun), is motivating.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.