Līdzīgais un atšķirīgais G. F. Stendera (1789) un K. K. Ulmaņa (1872, 1880) vārdnīcu personvārdu sarakstos

Research on personal names from older times is complicated due to the lack of quality written sources in Latvian. Latvian personal names have usually been included in texts written in Latin, German, Polish, and other languages. They did not correspond to word forms used in Latvian; therefore, Latvian personal names have to be reconstructed. Researchers derive the forms mainly by connecting them to contemporary Latvian forenames, and also to data from dictionaries from previous periods. Nevertheless, data should be critically evaluated prior to their usage. The aim of the article is to evaluate personal names in Gotthard Friedrich Stender’s and Carl Christian Ulmann’s dictionaries by focusing, in particular, on the issues of original data in Ulmann’s dictionary. To reach the aim, all Latvian and German personal names were excerpted, all data of personal names in dictionaries were compared, differences were analysed, and novelties were established in Ulmann’s dictionary. Lists of personal names (Namenlexicon) in Stender’s and Ulmann’s dictionaries are identical in structure. It can be concluded that the idea on lists of personal names, and the methods devised for listing names were borrowed. Also a large number of identical German personal names in the dictionaries serves as an indirect proof. Irrespective of the fact, Ulmann’s dictionaries have many novelties, for example, 1) newly included German personal names; two-partite female names and their Latvian counterparts Andahrte, aplihʃe, Sàntrihne etc. reflected possible trends in the Latvian onomasticon of the 19th century; 2) there are twice as many Latvian personal names; 3) G. Brasche’s indication to differences between official names and quotidian usage (Vorbemerkung). Personal names that were not included in the dictionaries illustrate the authors’ seriousness in the work of listing personal names that could not been possibly established in real usage.