SLOVENIAN GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES Drago Kladnik, Matjaž Geršic, Drago Perko The name of the highest Slovenian mountain, Triglav, was first written in Slovenian as Terglou by Joannes Disma Floriantschitsch de Grienfeld (born 1691, died c. 1757) on the map Ducatus Carnioliae tabula chorographica (Chorographic Map of the Duchy of Carniola). His map was published in 1744 in Ljubljana. It measures 180 by 188cm, consists of twelve sheets, and uses a scale of approximately 1:100,000. Oronim najvišje slovenske gore Triglav je v slovenskem jeziku v obliki Terglou prvic zapisal Janez Dizma Florjancic pl. Grienfeld (1691–pred 1757) na zemljevidu Ducatus Carnioliae tabula chorographica (Horografski zemljevid Vojvodine Kranjske). Njegov zemljevid je izšel leta 1744 v Ljubljani. Meri 180 krat 188cm, sestavlja pa ga 12 listov v približnem merilu 1:100.000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.9394 UDC: 91:811.163.6’373.21 COBISS: 1.02 Drago Kladnik1, Matjaž Geršic1, Drago Perko1 Slovenian geographical names ABSTRACT:ThisworkdiscussesSloveniangeographicalnames:endonymsinSloveniaandinborderareas inhabited by Slovenians in neighboring countries, and Slovenian exonyms used in Slovenian to describe geographical features outside the Slovenian settlement area. First, it gives a historical overview of dealing with geographical names in Slovenia and especially emphasizes their scholarly and cartographic signifi­cance. Then it presents macrotoponyms and microtoponyms, especially geographical names in Slovenian normative guides, names of countries, and foreign exonyms for Slovenian endonyms. All of this is con­nected with the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) and the Slovenian GovernmentCommissionfortheStandardizationofGeographicalNames.Theformerbodyhandlesgeo-graphical names globally and the latter nationally. KEYWORDS:geographicalname,toponym,endonym,exonym,macrotoponym,microtoponym,Slovenia Slovenska zemljepisna imena POVZETEK: Obravnavamo slovenska zemljepisna imena: endonime v Republiki Sloveniji in s Slovenci poseljenem zamejstvu v sosednjih državah, ter slovenske eksonime, s katerimi v slovenšcini poimenuje-mo geografske pojave zunaj slovenskega poselitvenega obmocja. Najprej podajamo zgodovinski pregled ukvarjanja z zemljepisnimi imeni v slovenskem prostoru in posebej izpostavljamo njihovo znanstveno in kartografskovlogo.Natopredstavljamomakrotoponimeinmikrotoponime,šeposebejzemljepisnaimena vslovenskihpravopisih,imenadržavintujeeksonimezaslovenskeendonime.VsetopovezujemosSkupino izvedencev Združenih narodov za zemljepisna imena (UNGEGN) in Komisijo za standardizacijo zem­ljepisnih imen Vlade Republike Slovenije, ki na svetovni oziroma nacionalni ravni skrbita za zemljepisna imena. KLJUCNEBESEDE:zemljepisnoime,toponim,endonim,eksonim,makrotoponim,mikrotoponim,Slovenija The paper was submitted for publication on October 14th, 2020. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 14. oktobra 2020. 1 ZRC SAZU, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia drago.kladnik@zrc-sazu.si, matjaz.gersic@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1908-5759), drago.perko@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2568-9268) 1 Introduction TheAntonMelikGeographicalInstituteattheResearchCentreoftheSlovenianAcademyofSciencesand Arts(ZRCSAZUAntonMelikGeographicalInstitute)hasdealtwithgeographicalnamessinceitwasestab­lished in 1946, mostly as part of the Department of Regional Geography. This activity has been especially intensiveoverthelastthirtyyears;withtheindependenceofSloveniain1991,theinstitutestartedprepar­ing basic geographical volumes about Slovenia, and it adapted and translated several world atlases into Slovenian. In 1995, the Slovenian government authorized the instituteto make decisions onthestandard­ization of geographicalnamesin Slovenia and Slovenianexonyms abroad through itsCommissionfor the StandardizationofGeographicalNames,whichwasestablishedin1995andisbasedattheinstitute.Inaddi-tion,thegovernmentmandatedittorepresentSloveniaininternationalorganizationsandbodies,especially as part of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). Thispublicationthereforecoincideswiththeseventy-fifthanniversaryoftheinstitute’soperations,the thirtieth anniversary of Slovenian independence, the twenty-fifth year of the commission’s work, and the sixtieth volume of the institute’s journal, Acta geographica Slovenica. Theintroductorychaptersdescribethedevelopmentofdealingwithgeographicalnamesaswellasinter-nationalandSlovenianorganizationinthisarea.Thisisfollowedbyapresentationofthenormativeframeworks forgeographicalnamesinSlovenia.Thenexttwochaptersarededicatedtothetreatmentofmacrotoponyms andmicrotoponyms.ThelongestchaptercoversthenamesofcountriesandotherSlovenianexonyms,for­eignexonymsforSloveniangeographicalnames,andgazetteersandothercollectionsofgeographicalnames because such material has been dealt with most often at the institute. Certain older findings have been updated and improved, some material is published for thefirst time, andallofitiscontextualizedincurrentglobaltrendsandfindingsinvolvinggeographicalnames.Ofgreat importance is also the list of references at the end of the publication because these offer a perspective on moreorlesseverythingthathasbeenpublishedongeographicalnamesinSloveniaandalsothemostimpor­tant works at the global level. 1.1 Introductory thoughts TheacademymemberMarkoSnoj(2009)hadthefollowingtosayaboutnames:»Namesarewordsofaspe­cialkind.Theyarelikenobility,weevenwritethemwithacapitalletter,givingtheimpressionthatwevalue them more than ordinary words. In a formal sense they are nouns or noun phrases, but they differ from theirnon-namebrethrenprimarilyinthattheydonothaveacorrespondingcommonnounmeaning.Proper nouns areusedtoidentifysomethingirreproducible:geographical features,livingbeings,orthings.Some names are engendered by parent names, and they are therefore nobility from their very birth. Such, for example, is the toponym Radovljica from the personal name Rado, the hydronym Savica from Sava, or the oronym Šmarna gora ‘Mount Saint Mary’ from the saint’s name Mary. Others arise as ordinary words andbecomenamesunderfavorablecircumstances;forexample,thetoponymsSoteskaandSockafromthe commonnounsotéska‘gorge’oritsaccentualvariantsóteska.Inrarecases,italsohappensthatageographical namebecomesanordinaryword;forexample,kras‘karst’fromthechoronymKras‘KarstPlateau’,orvint-gar ‘canyon’ from the choronym (and originally house name) Vintgar.« Linguistsdividepropernounsintonamesofpersons,propernounsreferringtothings,andgeographical names (Gomboc 2009). Personal names, or anthroponyms, are proper nouns referring to people that dif­ferentiate or identify individuals. Proper names for things designate objects that are a product of humanactivity(Šekli2006).Geographicalnames,ortoponyms,arepropernounsthatbydefinitionareconnected with a precisely defined geographical feature that they identify and individualize. They arise at a partic­ular point on a time axis and in a particular linguistic environment (Šivic-Dular 1988). The branch of linguistics that studies the origin, formation, morphology, phonology, and distribution ofpropernounsiscalledonomastics(Jakopin1990).TheStandardSlovenianDictionary(Slovarslovenskega knjižnega jezika, SSKJ) defines the Slovenian word onomastika ‘onomastics’ as veda o (lastnih) imenih‘the studyofpropernouns’andoffersthesynonymimenoslovje,anditdefinesthewordtoponomastika‘toponymy’ asvedaotoponimih‘thestudyoftoponyms’.Onomasticsisarelativelyyoungdiscipline. Even though some researchershavedealtwithitsincethenineteenthcentury,itreallyonlycameintoitsownaftertheSecond World War (Cop 1990). The use of the Slovenian expression toponomastika raises problems because different sources define the object of its study differently. Some claim that it involves the study of all geographical names (Jakopin1990; Cop 1990; Šimunovic 2009), and others that it involves only place names (Tuma 1925; Radovan and Majdic 1995a). SSKJ defines the Slovenian word toponim ‘toponym’ as lastno ime kraja ali kakega druge­ga dela zemeljskega površja, zemljepisno ime ‘a proper noun for a place or some other part of the Earth’s surface,ageographicalname’.TheterminologydevelopedandusedbytheUNGEGNunderstandstheterm toponymasahypernymusedforanynameappliedtoafeatureonEarthortoponymappliedtoanextrater­restrialfeature.Inthisterminology,theexpressionplacenameisusedasasynonym for toponym,although some use place name as a hyponym referring to the name of a populated place (Kadmon 2000; 2002). In the toponymic terminology of the Slavic languages, the term oikonym (Slovenian: ojkonim) also became established as a synonym for place name and, because some Slovenian linguists use it (e.g., Šivic-Dular 2002), it is also used in this publication. Becauseofitssensitivity,theissueofgeographicalnameshasacquiredinternationalsignificance.Many expertshavetackleditthroughin-depthstudiesorientedtowardstandardization(Kadmon2000).Parallel to this, the role of international professional associations has strengthened, such as UNGEGN, which was establishedbytheUnitedNationsin1959andcoordinatesinternationalactivityinthetreatmentandstudy ofgeographicalnames.Tofacilitatecommunicationattheglobalandnationallevels,theexpertsatUNGEGN are striving to standardize geographical names across the entire Earth (Kladnik 2006; 2007c). Standardizationistheprocessofdefiningnames’officialandestablishedforms,whichisgenerallythe responsibility of national toponymic authorities. This means that, in the case of several variants of a name for a single feature or structure, a particular name is carefully designated as the official name, whereby an established spelling is defined for it. The final goal is to eliminate any ambiguity in the public use of a par- Figure 1: In Slovenian the use of capital letters in geographical names is rather complex, which is shown by direction signs only a few meters apart along the road from Stahovica to the Crnivec Pass. The sign for Sovinja Pec on the right is written correctly in line with the rules of the current norma­tive guide (Slovenski pravopis 2001), and on the left it is incorrect because all words must be capitalized in multiword names of settlements except for conjunctions, prepositions, and the common-noun components mesto ‘town’, vas ‘village’, selo ‘village’, trg ‘market’, and naselje ‘settlement’. ticular geographical name. Standardization is not intended only for administrative purposes, but also for uniform usage in cartography, science, education, and the media, and for any individual that needs such information (Kladnik 2007c). The main purpose of geographical names – that is, as aids in spatial orientation – in addition to their use in everyday life is also seen in their use in various publications, on maps, in atlases, in the use of dig­ital data in various geographic information systems, and of course on the World Wide Web. The nearly eightbillionpeopleonEarthuseapproximatelyonebilliongeographicalnames(Kadmon2000).InSlovenia thereareabout200,000geographicalnames(Pogorelcnik1999).Sloveniangeographicalnamesalsoinclude several thousand Slovenianized foreign geographical names. In Slovenian the basic division distinguishes between geographical names that are settlement names and those that are non-settlement names (Slovenski pravopis 2001). This division is important because ofvariousnormativerulesregardingtheuseofcapitallettersinmultiwordgeographicalnames(Figure 1). Settlement names include the names of settled places, hamlets, and parts of settlements, and non-settlementnames are allothers,whichcan be combinedintogroupssuch asnamesofcontinents, names of countries, names of regions (choronyms), names of bodies of water (hydronyms), names of moun-tainsorlandforms(oronyms),namesofnaturalstructuresandfeaturesbeyondtheEarth(extraterrestrial names orcosmonyms), names of traffic and communicationroutes (odonyms orhodonyms), andfield names andhousenames(microtoponyms)(Jakopin1990;RadovanandMajdic 1995a;Klinarand Geršic 2014). Geographical names for regions, bodies of water, landforms, parcels of land, administrative names, and place names from which names for their inhabitants arise are unique intangible, cultural, social, his­torical, and political indicators. From them it is possible to determine many characteristics of the natural, social, and economic past and/or the present of a particular settled or non-settled area on Earth. One of their essential characteristics is linguistic diversity, which is often not limited to various meanings, but is oftenwrittenindifferentscripts.Thosethatknowhowtoreadandunderstandthelanguageofgeographical namescangaindeeperinsightintoanoriginalname,wherebyasilentandapparentlymutelandscapereveals itself significantly more broadly in many aspects. The Russian scholar Nikolai Ivanovich Nadezhdin, who is considered that country’s first ethnogra­pher, wrote the following 180 years ago (Nadezhdin 1837): »The Earth is a book where human history is written down in geographical nomenclature.« Geographical names are like a mirror of nations and peo­ples,precious witnesses of historical events,conscientious preservers of linguistic archaism,and objective indicators of the reality of the landscape. Since time immemorial they have attracted the attention of not only intellectuals, but also everyone that cares about both local and global developments (Murzaev 1995). Theuseofgeographicalnamesalsoshowstheattitudeofaparticularnationtowardworldevents.The struggletoappropriateterritoryhasoftentakenplacethroughgeographicalnames,whetherthisinvolved acquiring it colonially or physically, or intangibly (Cohen and Kliot 1992; Myers 1996; Harley 2001). In places this struggle is still perceptible. Recently, however, one can observe an important development in place-name research in geography and anthropology, which represents a break with the past. The new approaches emphasize the contem­poraneityofplacenames(whilenotignoringtheirhistoricalroots)andstudytheminrelationtothepolitical situation and contestations of place, landscape, and identity (Perko, Jordan and Komac 2017). Initial propositions of these new perspectives on place names have been put forth by the geographer Yi-Fu Tuan(1974; 1977;1991) within geography, and the American cultural and linguistic anthropologist KeithHamiltonBasso (1988;1996) incultural anthropology. Both argue that namingisaveryfundamen­tal social and existential practice whereby people establish their relationship with the space they occupy and use. Tuan showed that human spatial perception is structured by language, and that place names play an important role in the perception and representation of the environment. Basso specified place nam­ing as a way of writing or making history and relating to the world at a very fundamental, existential level, with place names closely tied to identity. However, there is yet another dimension to place names: power. People are not, and never have been, in equal positions to name places, neither individually nor collectively. Place names may constitute cul­tural heritage and may be important for establishing and reproducing social identities, but they are also loadedwithemotions,alternativeinterpretations,andcontestedhistories–and,assuch,theyarenotpolit­icallyinnocent.AsTuan(1974;1977;1991)shows,theymustbeunderstoodinthecontextofcurrentpower relations,which(striveto)reproducethemselvesthroughvariousmaterialandnon-materialpractices,one ofthembeingplacenames.Itispreciselythisfocusonthepoliticsofplacenamingthat»criticaltoponymy« has developed (Rose-Redwood, Alderman and Azaryahu 2010). Critical toponymy is a lively current in contemporaryplace-nameresearchthatcriticallyexaminestherelationshipbetweentoponymyandpower. It analyzes the ways in which political regimes and movements use place names to claim territories, erase linguistic traces of original populations, gain political legitimacy, delegitimize other political forces, nat­uralize certain versions of history, and silence dissent. The use of geographical names can therefore also have an emphatic political connotation and is sen-sitive,andinextremecasesitcanleadtodisputesbetweencountries.Such,forexample,weretheunfortunate events connected with setting up road signs with bilingual place names in Austrian Carinthia in the last partofthetwentiethcentury.ThisisalsoseeninadisagreementregardingthearchipelagoeastofArgentina, whichtheBritishcalltheFalklandIslands,whereasArgentinawouldliketoseethenameMalvinasIslands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) established in international usage. Recently a true onomastic war has flamed up over the »right« or »proper« name for the sea between Japan and the Korean Peninsula, which has been divided into North and South Korea since 1948 (Figure 2). Most recently, under Japanese influence, most oftheworldhasrecognizedthenameSeaofJapan,buttheKoreansinsistthattheirname,EastSea,should also be used equally for it (Kladnik et al. 2013). Allthegeographicalnamesintheworldandinalllanguagesaredividedintoendonymsandexonyms (Kadmon 2007). An endonym is a geographical name identifying a topographic feature in one of the lan­guagesspokenintheterritorywherethatfeatureislocated,andanexonymisageographicalnameidentifying atopographic feature in a language that is not spoken in the territory where that feature is located if it dif­fersfromtheendonymforthatfeature.Simplyput,anendonymisanativenameforageographicalfeature, and an exonym is a foreign name for the same feature (Kladnik 2007c; Kladnik and Perko 2013c). The expressionexonymwasfirstusedinthe1950sbytheAustralian-BritishgeographerMarcelArousseau(1957). Slovenian endonyms are Slovenian geographical names inside Slovenian ethnic territory, and Slovenian Figure 2: After the Slovenian Government Commission for the Standardization of Geographical Names permitted the equal use of the alternative name Vzhodnomorje ‘EastSea’todesignatetheseabetweenKoreaandJapanalongsidethetraditionallyestablished Slovenianname,thisnamefirstappeared on a world map that the ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute prepared in 2005 for the Slovenian edition of the magazine National Geographic Junior (Kladnik and Perko 2005). exonymsareSloveniangeographicalnamesinallotherterritoriesiftheydifferfromtheendonymsinthem (Veliki atlas sveta 2005). Slovenian geographers generally advocate the predominant use of endonyms (Natek 2005; Kladnik et al. 2013), although international recommendations for writing geographical names often contradict lin­guisticpracticeand,whatiscompletelyunacceptable,theycontradictarichlinguistictraditionandlinguistic principles in the area of such usage (Dobrovoljc and Jakop 2012). It is also for this reason that the acade­my member Jože Toporišic (1982) felt justified in musing about the following: »Why would Slovenians give up one or another such name [i.e., exonym] for a place that testifies to our special relation toward it established at a certain time in our history? And, if our contacts with a place like this remain close later, why would we give up writing it in a Slovenian way in the future?« This publication comprehensively presents the involvement of the authors and their associates with Sloveniangeographicalnames,whichhasespeciallyintensifiedduringthelastdecadeandahalf.Although theemphasisisongeographicalaspectsandfindings,wealsowishtoshedlightonotherSloveniantoponymic effortsandachievements,inwhichlinguisticaspectsstandout.WeunderstandSloveniannamestoinclude bothSlovenianendonymsinSloveniaandinborderregionsofneighboringcountrieswheretherearenative populations of ethnic Slovenians as well as Slovenian names for various features and structures across the world,whichhavethestatus ofSlovenianexonyms. WealsobrieflypresenttheuseofSloveniannamesfor extraterrestrial features. Special attention is also directed to the treatment of bilingual names. For these, light is shed on aspects of bilingualism both in Slovenia and in areas settled by Slovenians in neighboring countries. 1.2. Types of geographical names Geographical names or toponyms (from Greek tópos ‘place’ and ónyma ‘name’) can largely be divided in five ways: in terms of location, scope, settlement, originality, and type. With regard to the location of a geographical feature, a distinction is made between terrestrial names or geonyms (from Greek ge˜ ‘earth, land, country, soil’), which designate geographical features on Earth, and extraterrestrial names or cosmonyms (from Greek kósmos ‘world, order, universe’), which designate all other features in outer space. With regard to the spatialscope ofa geographicalfeature designatedby ageographicalname,adis­tinction is made between macrotoponyms (from Greek makrós ‘big, long’) and microtoponyms (from Greek mikrós ‘small’). Macrotoponyms are all geographical names that are not microtoponyms, among which the most frequent are field names and house names, as well as geographical names for point fea­tures such as springs, watering holes, ponds, sloughs, meanders – in short, geographical features with thesmallestscope(moreissaidaboutmacrotoponymsinChapter5andaboutmicrotoponymsinChapter6). Theboundarybetweenmicrotoponymsandmacrotoponymsisnotclearlydefined. Macrotoponymsare generally known geographical names, and microtoponyms are used by only a limited number of peo­ple; for example, the residents of a small settlement or even only the residents of an individual farm. Typicalmicrotoponymsarethenamesoffarms andcultivated landinthecountryside, orbuildingsand parks in cities. With regard to the settlement of a geographical feature or the presence of man or society, one dis­tinguishesoikonymsoroykonyms(fromGreekoikéo‘inhabit,dwell’ fromoikos‘house,home’),whichrefer to settled geographical features, and anoikonyms or anoykonyms, which refer to unsettled geographical features. Oikonyms are divided into astionyms for the names of cities or towns and geographical features in towns, and comonyms for the names of villages and geographical features in the countryside. Withregardtothenativecharacterofnames,onedistinguishesbetweenendonyms(fromGreekéndon ‘inner; internal’) and exonyms (from Greek ékso ‘out, outside’). An endonym designates geographical fea­tures in one of the languages spoken in the territory of that feature, and an exonym designates the same geographical feature in one of the languages not spoken in the territory of that feature if it differs from the endonym for that feature (more is said about exonyms in Chapter 9). Withregardtothetypeofageographicalfeature,onecandistinguishvarious-onyms,suchasoronyms for the names of landforms, hydronyms for the names of waters, or choronyms for the names of spatial units (see Table 1). With regard to the location, type, and settlement of a geographical feature (Gundacker 2014; Backus Borshi 2015; Urazmetova and Shamsutdinova 2017; Bijak 2019), toponyms can be hierarchically catego­rized in the following manner: I cosmonyms II geonyms IIA anoikonyms • IIA1 oronyms • IIA2 hydronyms • IIA3 choronyms IIB oikonyms • IIB1 astionyms • IIB2 comonyms Most of these basic types of names also have subtypes(Table 1). Thus hydronyms, for example, are at least further divided into okeanonyms for the names of oceans, pelagonyms for the names of seas, lim­nonymsforthenamesoflakes,potamonymsforthenamesofrivers,rheithronymsforthenamesofstreams or creeks, and helonyms for the names of wetlands. 1.3 Slovenian geographical terms Manyyearsofdealingwith geographical names has graduallyresultedin amultilingual glossary of gener­ictermsinSloveniangeographicalnames(Kladnik2001a;Perko2001;Table2).Theglossarylistscommon terms in Slovenian alphabetical order that occur in Slovenian geographical names on maps, in gazetteers, and in various directories. The meanings of these Slovenian terms are glossed in four languages to assist foreign readers. 1.4 The origin of Slovenian geographical names The linguist France Bezlaj wrote the following (1967, cited in Šivic-Dular 2002, 21): »It has been proven that Slovenian proper nouns were also subject to historical development, and that the reconstruction of the initial [i.e., Proto-Slavic] name composition makes it possible to clearly determine the name structure and the connection of each proper noun to equivalents in the Slavic languages, and it also offers insight into the name layers of different origins, insight into the processes of the naming act and how these were conditionedbyeconomic,social,cultural,value,andotherfeatures,andtheconnectionbetweenindividual types of proper nouns (the formation of geographical names from, e.g., other geographical and personal names, etc., the formation of surnames from given names, toponyms, choronyms, etc.), insight into the arealcharacteristicsofthebasesfornamesandstructuraltypes,andinsightintocontactnamezones,and, through this, the settlement history of macro- and micro-areas.« Becauseofthecomplexityofthelinguisticandhistoricalcircumstances,Sloveniangeographicalnames areoftenintertwinedwithpre-Slovenian(Roman,Celtic,Illyrian,andevenpre–Indo-European)nounele­ments, and even more often with more recent influences of German, Friulian, Italian, Hungarian, and Serbo-Croatian (Jakopin 1990; Snoj 2002a). Slovenian territory has been inhabited since the Paleolithic. One can talk about a real cultural land­scape only at the end of the Bronze Age and during the Iron Age. Members of Celtic tribes, who were the first to leave a perceptiblelayer of names in this territory, settled in the southeastern Alps around 300 BC. After the Roman military campaigns in the last decades BC, the entire territory of what is now Slovenia wasincludedintheRomanEmpire.TheRomansintroducedamoredevelopedcivilizationandestablished thefirsttowns,whichbecamecentersofRomanization.Majorchangesinthesettlementcompositionwere caused by the migration of peoples. During this period, the indigenous population took refuge in remote mountainous areas, where they lived in fortified settlements (Ciglenecki et al. 1998). The Slavic ancestors of the Slovenians that settled in the Eastern Alps, the periphery of the Pannonian and Friulian plains, and the western part of the Dinaric Mountains between the second half of the sixth centuryandtheninthcenturyinhabitedamuchlargerterritoryinthepastthantoday.DuetoGermanmedieval colonizationandtheconsequentGermanization,and,aftertheinvasionoftheMagyars,byHungarianization, Table 1: Types of toponyms. English Description Etymology toponym geographical name t.p.. tópos ‘specific place’ ...µa ónoma/...µa ónyma ‘name’ microtoponym name of small geographical phenomenon µ..... mikrós ‘small’ macrotoponym name of large geographical phenomenon µa.... makrós ‘big, long’ endonym native geographical name ..d.. éndon ‘inner; internal’ exonym foreign geographical name ... ékso ‘out, outside’ cosmonym extraterrestrial name ..sµ.. kósmos ‘world, order, universe’ geonym terrestrial name .. ge˜ ‘earth, land, country, soil’ oronym landform name .... óros ‘mountain, hill’ speleonym name of cave, abyss, or shaft sp..a... spe.laion ‘cave’ (subterranean form) nesonym name of island ..s.. ne˜sos ‘island’ hydronym water name .d.. hýdor ‘water’ okeanonym name of ocean ..ea... okeanós ‘ocean’ pelagonym name of sea p..a... pélagos ‘sea’ limnonym name of lake ..µ.. límne ‘lake’ potamonym name of river p.taµ.. potamós ‘river, stream’ rheithronym name of stream or creek .e..... rheithron ‘stream, creek’ helonym name of wetland .... hélos ‘marsh-meadow, swamp, wetland’ choronym name of spatial unit or its part with known boundary ...a cho.ra ‘place, country land, field’, ..... cho.ros ‘region, location, spot, surroundings’ drymonym name of forest, shrubs, grove, bush, park d..µ.. dr.mós ‘forest, shrubs’ agronym name of agricultural land (field, meadow, a.... agrós ‘field, piece of agricultural land’ pasture, orchard, vineyard) phytalionym name of plantation (vineyard, orchard) f.ta..a phytalía ‘plantation’ ampelonym name of vineyard .µpe... ampelo.n ‘vineyard’ orchatonym name of orchard ...at.. órchatos ‘orchard’ leimononym name of pasture or meadow .e.µ.. leimo.n ‘meadow’ anoikonym, anoykonym, name of uninhabited area ..... oikéo ‘inhabit, dwell’, ..... oikos ‘house, aneconym, anoeconym home’ oikonym, oykonym, name of inhabited area ..... oikéo ‘inhabit, dwell’, from ..... oikos econym, oeconym ‘house, home’ astionym name of city or town .st. ásty ‘town, city’ comonym name of village ..µ. ko.me ‘village’ urbanonym name of part of settlement (district, urbs ‘city’ neighborhood, block, street, square, boulevard, alley, promenade, avenue, monument, theater, museum, cinema, cafe, hotel, shop, house, farm, or other small site within settlement) agoronym name of square ..... agorá ‘square’ dromonym name of street or road d..µ.. drómos ‘course, path, direction, road’ domonym name of building (house, castle, palace, d.µ.. dómos ‘house, dwelling, building, mansion, restaurant, office, factory, farm) mansion’ ekklesionym name of religious building: monastery, church .....s.a ekklesía ‘place of assembly, church’ nekronym name of churchyard, cemetery, graveyard .e.... nekrós ‘dead, corpse’ odonym, hodonym name of route, communication, connection, .d.. hodós ‘road, path’ trafficobject (e.g., motorway,pilgrimageroute, mountaintransversal, historic road, memorial route, air route, bridge, footbridge, path) Table 2: Some common terms in Slovenian geographical names in English, German, French, and Spanish. Slovenian English German French Spanish barje bog, marsh Sumpf marais pantano bel white weiß blanc blanco bistrica swift stream Gebirgsbach cours d’eau corriente de agua boršt forest Wald forêt selva brda hills Hügelland collines colinas brdo hill Hügel colline colina breg bank, slope Ufer, Hang rive, pente orilla, pendiente brod ford Furt gué vado cerkev church Kirche église iglesia cesta road Straße route calle cret wet meadow feuchte Wiese pré humide prado húmedo crn black schwarz noir negro dežela land Land terre tierra dobrava rolling lowland gewellte Ebene plaine vallonée llanura ondulada dol valley Tal vallée valle dolenji lower nieder, unter inférieur inferior dolg long lang long largo dolic small valley kleines Tal petit vallée vallejo dolina valley Tal vallée valle dolnji lower nieder, unter inférieur inferior domacija farm; home Bauernhof; Heim ferme; maison granja; casa draga small valley kleines Tal petit vallée vallejo dvor hall, court Palast, Hof palais, cour palacio, corte fara parish Pfarre paroisse parroquia fužina foundry Eisenwerk forge herrería gaj grove, horst Hain forêt bosque globok deep tief profond profundo gol treeless kahl dénudé pelado gora mountain, hill Berg, Hügel montagne, colline montaña, colina gorenji upper ober, hoch supérieur superior gorica hill Hügel colline colina gorice hills Hügelland collines colinas gornji upper ober, hoch supérieur superior gorovje mountain range Gebirge montagne montaña gozd forest Wald forêt bosque grad castle Burg, Schloss château castillo gradišce fortified settlement feste Siedlung unité d’habitat fortifié núcleo habitado fuerte gric hill Hügel colline colina gricevje hills Hügelland collines colinas grm bush Busch buisson arbusto hiša house Haus maison casa hom hill Hügel colline colina hosta forest Wald forêt bosque hrbet mountain range Gebirgskette chaîne de montagnes cordillera hrib hill, mountain Hügel, Berg colline, montagne colina, montaña hribovje hills, highlands Bergland montagne bas montaña baja hudournik flashy stream Wildbach torrent torrente izvir spring Quelle source fuente jama cave, grotto Höhle, Grotte caverne, grotte caverna, gruta jez dam Damm barrage presa jezero lake See lac lago jug south Süd sud sur južen southern südlich méridional meridional kal pond Teich étang estanque kamen stone Stein pierre piedra kanal canal Kanal canal canal klanec slope, incline Hang, Steigung pente, inclinaison ladera, pendiente korito riverbed Flussbett lit lecho kot closed valley geschlossenes Tal vallée fermée rincón kotlina basin Becken bassin cuenca kraj settlement Siedlung habitat colonia krajina land Land pays tierra, país kras karst area Karstlandschaft paysage karstique paisaje kárstico križ cross Kreuz croix cruz krnica cirque Kesseltal cirque valle cerrado laz clearing Gereut clarière clara, calvero ledenik glacier Gletscher glacier glaciar lep beautiful schön beau hermoso letališce airport Flughafen aéroport aeropuerto log swampy meadow Hain bocage prado floresta loka wet meadow Aue, feuchte Wiese pré humide prado húmedo lokev pond Teich étang estanque luka port Hafen port puerto mali, majhen little klein petit pequeño meja border Grenze frontière frontera mesto city, town Stadt ville ciudad mlaka pool, pond Pfütze flaque lodazal mlin mill Mühle moulin molino mocvirje swamp, marsh Sumpf marais pantano moder blue blau azur azul moker wet, moist feucht mouillé, humide húmedo morje sea Meer mer mar most bridge Brücke pont puente mrzel cold kalt froid frío na on an sur del nad on, over, above über, ober sur del nizek low nieder bas bajo nižina, nižavje lowland Niederung basse terre tierra baja njiva field Acker champ campo nov new neu nouveau nuevo ob at, along an, bei le long de, près cerca Slovenian English German French Spanish obala coast Küste côte costa obcina municipality Gemeinde commune municipio obrh karst spring Karstquelle source karstique fuente kárstico ocean ocean Ozean océan océano okraj district Bezirk district distrito otocje islands Inseln îles islas otok island Insel île isla park park Park parc parque pas zone Zone zone zona pec rock Fels roc roca planina mountain; mountain pasture Berg; Alm montagne; alpage montaña; pastos alpinos planota plateau Hochebene plateau meseta pod under, below unter, unterhalb dessous debajo pogorje mountains Gebirge montagnes montañas pojezerje lake area Seenplatte zone lacustre zona lacustre poljana clearing, field Feld champ campo polje field; karst field, polje; Feld; Karstbecken; Ebene champ; champ karstique; campo; campo kárstico; plain plaine llanura polotok peninsula Halbinsel péninsule península ponikva swallet; losing/influent Schluckloch; verlierender chantoire; rivière à perte pónor; perdida de agua stream Fluss subterránea potok stream Bach ruisseau arroyo prag rise Schwelle seuil umbral predor tunnel Tunnel tunnel túnel prekop canal Kanal canal canal prelaz pass Pass col puerto, paso preliv strait Meeresstraße détroit estrecho preval pass Pass col puerto, paso pri by bei près cerca de, a pristanišce port Hafen port puerto pristava estate farm Meierhof métairie alquería pušcava desert Wüste désert desierto ravan plain Ebene plaine llanura ravnica plain Ebene plaine llanura ravnik tableland Tafelland guyot bancal ravnina plain Ebene plaine llanura rdec red rot rouge rojo reka river Fluss fleuve río retje karst spring Karstquelle source karstique fuente kárstico ribnik pond Teich étang estanque rjav brown braun brun bruno rt cape Kap cap cabo rudnik mine Bergwerk mine mina rumen yellow gelb jaune amarillo samostan convent, monastery Kloster couvent, monastère convento, monasterio sedlo pass Sattel col paso selo village Dorf village pueblo, aldea sever north Nord nord norte severen northern nördlich septentrional septentrional skala rock Fels roc roca slap waterfall Wasserfall chute d’eau cascada slatina mineral water Mineralwasser eau minérale agua mineral snežnik snowcapped mountain schneebedeckter Berg mont enneigé pico nevado soteska gorge Schlucht gorge garganta spodnji lower nieder inférieur inferior spomenik memorial, monument Denkmal monument monumento srednji central, middle mittel central central star old alt vieux viejo stena wall Wand mur muro straža guard Wache garde guardia strm steep steil abrupt pendiente studenec spring Quelle source fuente suh dry trocken sec árido sveti saint, holy sankt, heilig saint san, santo špik peak Spitze pic pico tabor stronghold Feldlager camp bien fortifié campo fortificado topel warm warm chaud caliente toplice thermal springs, spa Thermalquelle, Thermalbad source thermale, thermes fuente termal, termas trata meadow Wiese pré prado travnik meadow Wiese pré prado trg market Markt marché mercado tunel tunnel Tunnel tunnel túnel ustje mouth Mündung embouchure desembocadura v in, at in dans, en en, de vas village Dorf village pueblo, aldea velik great, big groß grand gran, grande vir spring Quelle source fuente visok high hoch haut alto višavje uplands, highlands Hochland plateau meseta voda water Wasser eau agua vrata pass; strait Pass; Meeresstraße col; détroit paso; estrecho vrh peak Gipfel cime cima vrtaca sinkhole, doline Karstdoline doline dolina vzhod east Ost est este vzhoden eastern östlich oriental oriental zahod west West ouest oeste zahoden western westlich occidental occidental zajezitveno jezero reservoir Stausee réservoir embalse zelen green grün vert verde zgornji upper ober supérieur superior žaga sawmill Sägewerk scierie aserradero the greatest contraction in the territory inhabited by Slovenians was to the northwest, north, and north­east of today’s ethnic territory. In contrast, the border with Friuli and Italy in the west and southwest, and with the linguistically related Croats to the east, southeast, and south was significantly more stable (Vidic, Brenk and Ivanic 1999). TheSlovenianname-formationprocess,orthenamingoffeaturesinSlovenian-inhabitedterritory,was most intense from the seventh to the thirteenth centuries (Jakopin 1990); that is, from the first wave of colonization immediately after the settlement of the Slavs to internal colonization a few centuries later. At the end of this period, there were almost more settlements in Slovenian territory than in modern times, which is especially true for higher elevations (Mihelic 1998). In contrast to other Slavs, the Alpine Slavs started establishing permanent settlements relatively early because historical sources mention about thir­ty clearly Slavic place names attested before or at least during the arrival of the missionaries Cyril and Methodius in the second half of the ninth century (Bezlaj 1965). EvenafterSlaviccolonization,geographicalnamesinpresent-daySlovenianterritorywerenotimmune totheturbulenthistoricaldevelopments(Jakopin1990).DuringtheHighandLateMiddleAges,German­speakingserfsimmigratedtosomeareasofSloveniaaspartoftheplannedcolonizationofsparselypopulated areas at the initiative of feudal lords, especially from Carinthia and Tyrol(Mihelic 1998). They settled the Sora Plain(where they soon assimilated tothe Slovenian population), the Baca Valleyand the headwaters of the Selca Sora River in the southern part of the Julian Alps (where they persisted until the mid-nine­teenth century), and the Kocevje region, where they lived in a linguistic enclave until the Second World War,whentheyrelocatedtosouthernLowerStyria,whichwasthenpartofNaziGermany,underanagree­mentbetweenGermanyandItaly(FerencandŠumrada1991;Urbanc1998).asimilarfatebefelltheItalian populationoftheIstriancoastaltownsandtheadjacentcountrysideaftertheSecondWorldWar;themajor­ityemigratedtoItalyaftertheLondonMemorandumwasconcludedin1954.TracesofGermansettlement canstillbeidentifiedinmanygeographicalnames.ItaliannamesintheSlovenianpartofIstriaareexposed to Slovenianization, despite the official bilingualism there. FrancMiklošic(FranzMiklosich)wasthefirsttoexamineSloveniangeographicalnamesfromanety­mological point of view. Fran Ramovš – and to an even greater extent two researchers in the second half of the twentieth century, France Bezlaj and Dušan Cop – defended the stance that a prerequisite for suc­cessful etymological analysis is not only considering morphological characteristics and critical analysis ofmedievalrecords,butalsoanalysisofdialectforms.ThespellingsofnamesinSloveniawerealltoooften standardizedbylinguisticallyuneducatedcartographers,andsomanystandardorstandardizednameforms are distorted and therefore etymologically misleading (Snoj 2002a; Geršic 2016b). 2 The history of dealing with geographical names in Slovenia In nowdays territory of Slovenia, the study of geographical names was initially the domain of priests and polymaths.Thefieldthenbegantograduallyacquirearesearchandscholarlycharacter,withlinguistslead­ing the way. Slovenian research-based onomastics has long been closely connected with thedevelopment needs of geography, cartography, history, and some linguistic disciplines. Although the Etymological andOnomastic Section was established at the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in 1958 (Šivic-Dular 2002), such study did not come into its own for a long time. ThefirstcomprehensivehistoricaloverviewsofdealingwithSloveniangeographicalnamesweremade only a few decades ago by linguists (Novak 1987; Jakopin 1990; Šivic-Dular 1989c; 2002), and concise overviews of Slovenian geographers’ handling of geographical names are more recent. The most exten­sive overviews to date have been created as part of the only two Slovenian geographical dissertations on geographical names so far (Kladnik 2006; Geršic 2016b). Later, Kladnik produced even more material on this topic (Kladnik 2013; 2016; 2018; 2019a; 2019b; Kladnik and Perko 2017). ThefirstoverviewofmapsofSlovenia,itsregions,andtheimmediatesurroundingareawasproduced by Fran Orožen (1901) at beginning of the twentieth century, and later by the surveyors Branko Korošec (1978)andJernejFridl(1998),andgeographersValterBohinec(1969),BibijanaMihevc(1998),IgorLongyka (1999), and Darko Ogrin (2017). The geographer and historian Primož Gašperic received his doctorate in this field (Gašperic 2016) after having published a review paper on the topic (2007), and he coauthored apaperfortheseventiethanniversaryoftheGeographicalMuseuminLjubljana(ZornandGašperic2016). The lavishly illustrated volume Kartografski zakladi slovenskega ozemlja (Cartographic Treasures ofSlovenianTerritory;Gašperic,ŠolarandZorn2020)wasrecentlypublished,presentingthirty-sevenmaps of Slovenian territory issued between 1525 and 1921. 2.1 The pre-scholarly period TheinitialperiodofSlovenianlinguisticinvestigationwas,likeeverywhere,aperiodofprobing.Although nationalidentitywasnotyetemphaticallyarticulated,neithertheroleofSloveniansnortheSlovenianlan­guageshouldbeunderestimated.ThefirstthoughtsonSloveniannames,includinggeographicalones,and their non-scholarly treatment can be traced to Protestant writers such as Primož Trubar (Jakopin 1990), and the first etymological and word-formation explanations of non-biblical proper nouns can be found in the grammar Arcticae horulae succisivae (Spare Winter Hours) by Adam Bohoric (Šivic-Dular 2002). There are also individual toponyms in Trubar’s primers, such as ter.t ‘Trieste’ and lublana ‘Ljubljana’. Among the registers or indexes, the most extensive is the one to Dalmatian’s Bible from 1584, which con-tainsmostbiblicalnamesandplaces.EthnonymsandadjectivesevenappearinthetitlesofProtestantworks (e.g., Haruatou inu drugih Slouenzou ‘Croats and other Slovenians’, Krainske be..ede ‘Carniolan words’, Crajn.ki‘Carniolan’,Coro.hki‘Carinthian’,Slovén.kialiBesjázki‘SlovenianorKajkavian’,Hervázki‘Croatian’, Dalmatin.ki ‘Dalmatian’, I.trian.ki ‘Istrian’, Cra.hki ‘Karst’). As new ground was broken in toponymy, any in-depth work in ethnography or natural science was welcome.Inthesecondhalfoftheseventeenthcentury,thepolymathJohannWeikhardvonValvasorapplied his knowledge to the Slovenians; his many copperplate engravings, his local histories of Carniola and Carinthia, and especially his monumental Die Ehre deß Hertzogthums Crain (The Glory of the Duchy of Carniola) created a treasury of inestimable value (Valvasor 1689b; 1689c). His works are the first com­prehensive source of Slovenian geographical names (Kladnik 2006; 2019a). Die Ehre deß Hertzogthums CrainwasanimportantsourceforCarniolantoponymyuntilthemodernpublicationofhistoricalsources, although for some places for which only a Slovenian form was used centuries later only a German name ismentioned(e.g.,OblakerPalliz‘BloškaPolica’,Gimpeldorff‘Kompolje’,Blindendorff‘Slepšek’),andoften only a Slovenian name is provided (e.g., Podbresie ‘Podbrezje’, Kovor/Khovorie ‘Kovor’, Resderto ‘Razdrto’, Studenu ‘Studeno’; Šivic-Dular 2002). PropernounsarealsoincludedinolderSloveniandictionaries.Thus,around150(mostlyforeign)names are contained in the dictionary by Matija Kastelec and Gregor Vorenc, and these were published by Jože Stabej(1997)inaseparatealphabeticallist.Geographicalnamesappearinthedictionarymainlyinexplana­toryform(e.g.,Linz–méftuv’Estereihi,Austrÿ‘Linz:atowninAustria’,tukraile.tvuGranatv’.hpanskideseli ‘theKingdomofGranadainSpain’).Amongthepropernounsarevariousgeographicalnames,suchasthe namesofplaces,rivers,andcountries(e.g.,Natolia‘AsiaMinor’,v’Ligurÿ‘inLiguria’,navogarskim‘inHungary’, v’Lidÿ inu Macedonÿ ‘in Lydia and Macedonia’). InthemanuscriptdictionarybyHippolytusofNovoMesto(Slovenian:HipolitNovomeški,1711–1712), the names and descriptions of geographical objects are taken from the work Orbis pictus by John Amos Comenius, but the list is also supplemented with names that were in use for the territory of Slovenia (e.g., Aemona‘Emona’;Laybach,lublána‘Ljubljana’;Ungarn,VógarskualiVógarska.emya,Hungaria‘Hungary’; Radmansdorff, Rádovlize, Radmansdoffium ‘Radovljica’; Savus, die Sau, ein Flu., .áva, ena Voda ‘the Sava, a river’). Similarly, in the manuscript dictionary by Bernard of Maribor (Slovenian: Ivan Anton Apostel; Stabej1972),thenamesofcountriesarementionedinaspecialsection(e.g.,Niemskadeshela/semla‘Germany’, Vogerska deshela ‘Hungary’, hrovazska deshela ‘Croatia’, Lashka deshela ‘Italy’, dunava deshela ‘Austria’, Franska/Francoska de.ela ‘France’, Angelska deshella ‘England’). Over eighty geographical names (places, provinces, and demonyms) are also registered in Marko Pohlin’s dictionary (1781). The work also con-tainssomenamesfromSlovenianethnicterritory,towhichGermanandLatinequivalentshavebeenadded; forexample,Baróvle–Förlach–Forlacum‘Ferlach’;Celovz–StadtKlagenfurth–Clagenfurtum‘Klagenfurt’; Cêlu–StadtCily–Cileja‘Celje’;Limbarskagorra–DerLilienberg–Monsliliroum‘LimbarskaGora’(Figure3); Lôka – Stadt, Laag – Locopolis ‘Škofja Loka’; Lublâna – Stadt Laybach – Labacum ‘Ljubljana’; Lublanza – DieLaybach,Fluß–Labacus‘LjubljanicaRiver’;Ter.t–StadtTriest–Terge.tumurbs‘Trieste’;Vidm–Stadt Weiden – Utinum ‘Udine’; Ydrija – Stadt Hydria – Hydria ‘Idrija’ (Šivic-Dular 2002). This lexicographic tradition was also followed by Oswald Gutsmann (1798), who also provided more frequently used declensional or other desubstantival forms for proper nouns; for example, Villach – Bilak ‘Villach’, Klagenfurt – zelovez ‘Klagenfurt’; Frankreich – franzo.ka deshela ‘France’ (Šivic-Dular 2002). In the nineteenth century, supplementing and improving corpora of Slovenian geographical names becameapriority.BecauseGermannameswereconsideredofficialforSloveniansettlements(e.g.,Laibach ‘Ljubljana’, Ruprechtsdorf ‘Rupercvrh’) and because they could reflect various degrees of Germanization of Slovenian dialect names (e.g., Dolenwerd ‘Dolenje Brdo’, Dousku ‘Dolsko’, Babnagoritza ‘Babna Gorica’, Tuigerm ‘Tuji Grm’) or were partially or even completely calqued (e.g., Rothenkal instead of Rudezhi Kal ‘Rdeci Kal’, Seidendorf ‘Ždinja vas’), determining the Slovenian noun form was not easy because reliableinformation for them was required from field research (Šivic-Dular 2002). The first collection of toponyms for the province of Carniola is attributed to Franc Serafin Metelko. As an official translator, in 1822 he asked the provincial government in Ljubljana for an inventory of place names in Carniola and he also compiled linguistic instructions for writing the forms of names (he rec­ommended writing the nominative and genitive forms). He also compiled an alphabetical list of places from the collected material and used part of it in his grammar (Metelko 1825). Metelko handled proper nouns from antiquity and folk names separately, and he also addressed their morphology. In the word-formation part of his grammar, he lists suffixes for the formation of individual groupsofnames,suchasthesuffix-skofornamingprovincesandsomeotherareas;forexample,Krajnsko, Gorensko, Dolensko, Štajersko, Koroško, Slovensko, Nemško, Hrovaško ‘Carniola, Upper Carniola, Lower Carniola,Styria,Carinthia,Slovenia,Germany,Croatia’.Metelkoalsodiscussedtheetymologyofthename LjubljanaanddefendeditsSlavicorigin.Metelko’scollectionofnameswasusedbyHeinrichFreyer(1846) increatinghismapofCarniola(Special-KartedesHerzogthumsKrain‘DetailedMapoftheDuchyofCarniola’) Figure 3: The names in the dictionary by the grammarian Marko Pohlin include Limbarska gorra ‘Mount Limbar’, which is still an important pilgrim­age destination with Saint Valentine’s Church on its top. andespeciallyinhislistofnamesforthemapwithGermanequivalentsadded(AlphabetischesVerzeichniß allerOrtschafts-undSchlösser-NamendesHerzogthumsKrain‘AlphabeticalListofAllNamesofPlacesand CastlesintheDuchyofCarniola’).Freyerwasthefirsttostandardizethewritten,phonetic,andmorphemicforms of Carniolan toponyms (Šivic-Dular 1988; 1989b; 2002). During this period, Slovenians also received the first work in which geographical names are precise­ly categorized by the types of features they name (streams, mountains, mountain pastures, settlements, regions,andalsohousenames),andwithinthisevenmoredetaileddivisionsaremade(e.g.,namesofrivers, hot springs, flashy streams, forest streams, streams in ravines, old and new mill streams, border streams, andswampstreams).InthestudyAndeutungenüberKärntensGermanisierung(ReviewoftheGermanization ofCarinthia),UrbanJarnik(1826)onlydiscussedhisnativeprovinceanddeterminedthatmanylocalnames had undergone Germanization, and that their semantic motivation could be determined on the basis ofSlovenian common nouns. He also included geographical names in his dictionary (Jarnik 1832) (Šivic­Dular 2002; Geršic 2016b). QuiteafewSloveniansencounteredforeigngeographicalnamesinanauthenticenvironmentbecause they participated in discovering parts of the world previously unknown to Europeans. The first of these wastheVipavanativeSigismundvonHerberstein(1486–1566),whoexploredRussiainthesixteenthcen­tury, adding the first detailed maps of the European part of Russia, titled Moscovia, to his work Rerum Moscoviticarumcommentarii(NotesonMuscoviteAffairs)(Korošec1978;Longyka1999).InNorthAmerica, themissionaryFredericBaraga(1797–1868)workedintheGreatLakesregion,andhisyoungercolleague Ignatius Knoblecher (1819–1858) helped explore the upper Nile in Africa (Kladnik 2018). During the pre-March era (before 1848), Slovenian intellectuals also used mainly German. Dealing with names in Slovenian territory was not a nationally charged endeavor, neither Slovenian nor German. The overly limited situation in their homeland, where there was almost no need to apply their achieve-ments,ledSlovenianintellectualsmainlytoViennaandPrague,wheretheywereabletorealizetheirpotential and satisfy their creative unrest, mostly in the service of the wider homeland Austrian Empire. 2.2 Scholarly studies Thewatershedyearof1848awakenedandstrengthenedtheconsciousnessofEuropeanethnicgroups,includ­ing the Slovenians, and so they started to publish cartographic products and professional works that had beenunthinkableuntilthen.Societiesandprofessionalorganizationswerefounded,andtheytookanorga­nized approach to establishing the role ofindividual languages. The central role in Slovenia wasplayed by the Slovenian Society (Slovenska matica, initially Matica Slovenska). ImprovementofthebodyofSloveniantoponymswasstimulatedbyseveralevents,especiallythe1850 change in Austrian provincial legislation, which prescribed the parallel use of German and Slovenian toponyms in official and other documents, the introduction of education in Slovenian and the associatedincreasedpublicsensitivitytothewrittenword,aswellastheproductionofmapsinlargeprintruns(Šivic­Dular 2002). Within Indo-European linguistics and other disciplines, onomastics began to develop in a scholarly manner in the second half of the nineteenth century, in which Slavic and Slovenian onomastics was pri­marilystimulatedbyinfluentialonomasticworksbyFrancMiklošic(1860;1864;1872–1874).HiscomparativegrammarsareimportantforthestudyofSloveniancommonnounsandpropernouns(Jakopin1990;Šivic­Dular 2002). Duringthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,muchtoponymicmaterialwascollectedbynon-linguists, especially by the historians France Kos and Milko Kos (land terriers and historical topography) and Pavle Blaznik (historical topography). The Croatian etymologist Petar Skok left a very significant impression onSlovenianonomastics(Jakopin1990).Thereasonsforthegreaterinterestingeographicalnamesinthis period can mainly be found in Miklošic’s studies, as well as in the publication of the first Slovenian lists ofgeographicalnames(e.g.,Kosler’s1864Imenikmest,trgovinkrajev‘GazetteerofBoroughTowns,Market Towns,andPlaces’asasupplementtohisZemljovidSlovenskedeželeinpokrajin‘MapoftheSlovenianLand andProvinces’)andthepublicationofhistoricalsourceswithattestationsofmanynamesolderthanthoserecorded in Valvasor’s works (Šivic-Dular 2002). PeterKosler(a.k.a.Kozler),aGottscheeGerman,wasthefirsttosystematicallydealwithSloveniangeo­graphical names. a few years later, the Slovenians received Atlant ‘Atlas’, the first world atlas in Slovenian, in which the names were edited by the lawyer Matej Cigale, who systematically Slovenianized many for­eigngeographicalnames(Kladnik2005c;Kladniketal.2006;Urbancetal.2006;KladnikandGeršic2016), whichisoneofthereasonswhySlovenianhasstoodsidebysidewithotherwisewidelyestablishedEuropean languages (more on the history of Slovenianizing foreign geographical names is provided in Chapter 9 on Slovenian exonyms). LukaPintar(1910;1912–2015)discussedthenamesfoundinCarniola,Carinthia,Styria,andtheLittoralfrom various angles. Karel Štrekelj (1904; 1906) wrote a historical-etymological study of originally Slavic toponymyinGerman-andSlovenian-inhabitedStyria.MentionshouldalsobemadeofJohann(a.k.a.Janez)Scheinigg (1906), who dealt with Carinthian place names (Šivic-Dular 2002). ThesecondissueoftheveryfirstvolumeoftheseminalSlovenianjournalGeografskivestnik(Geographical Bulletin) included a paper on toponymy by Henrik Tuma (1925),who highlighted fieldwork,cooperation withlocalinformants,andinterdisciplinarycooperationasapreconditionforthecorrectspellinganduse of geographical names. His contribution to the geographical names in the Julian Alps (Tuma 1920; 1929) is invaluable (Figure 4). Soon afterward, a brief paper on the appropriate use of (foreign) geographical names was published by the most important Slovenian geographer, Anton Melik, who wrote the following in this connection (1928, 129): »there is considerable disorder in writing geographical names in Slovenia, and there is a clear need for uniform rules that can become the basis for practical use.« Betweenthetwoworldwars,theleadingSloveniantoponymistwasthelinguistFranRamovš,theauthor of seminal works on the history and dialectology of Slovenian (Ramovš 1920; 1931; 1936), who, based on his good knowledge of history and dialectology, created a firm foundation for etymological research on geographicalnames.Heauthoredtwenty-fouroutstandingetymologicalpapersandcriticalreviewsinono­mastics.TheetymologicalexplanationsofhundredsofSloveniantoponymsarealsoincludedinhispioneering works. His determination of the possibility of multiple transfer of toponyms from language to languageis very important for research on Slovenian geographical names (Šivic-Dular 2002). Figure 4: When Tuma’s paper on the geographical names in the Julian Alps was published, a photograph of the Triglav Glacier was taken, showing large cracks. The image by an unknown photographer is kept by the Slovenian Alpine Museum in Mojstrana. A contemporary of Ramovš was the amateur geographer Rudolf Badjura, who is considered a pioneer inthedevelopmentofhikingandmountaineeringtourism,andconsequentlyrecreationaltourisminSlovenia (Geršic et al. 2014). From the point of view of toponymy, his work on geographical terminology and ono-mastics is especially important. a seminal work in this area is his two-volume study Ljudska geografija – terensko izrazoslovje (Folk Geography: Field Terminology; Badjura 1953; 1957). In both parts, Slovenian professionalgeographicalterms,especiallyforlandforms,areskillfullyintertwinedwithgeographicalnames (Figure 5). He studied mountain passes and their names with special precision and enthusiasm (Badjura 1950; 1951). Josip Wester, who authored about eighty papers describing trails through the Slovenian uplands, canalso be credited with inventorying mountain names (Šivic-Dular 2002). Intheearlypostwarperiod,thestrongestimprintonSlovenianonomasticswasleftbythelinguistFrance Bezlaj, who wrote about many Slovenian geographical names within a comparative etymological context (Bezlaj 1969a; 1969b; 1969c; 1976; 1982; 1995), especially in the function of studying their Slavic origin andindirectlyalsoSlovenianethnogenesis.HiscontributiontostudyingSlovenianhydronymsisextreme­ly important (Bezlaj 1956; 1961) (Jakopin 1990; Šivic-Dular 2002). The historian Milko Kos studied the borrowing of ancient place names in Slovenian territory (Kos 1950) and place names with the suffix -ci (e.g., Beltinci, Juršinci) in northeastern Slovenia (Kos 1968). SoonafterthejournalGeografskiobzornik(GeographicHorizon)waslaunched,forseveralyearsitinclud­edthesectionZemljepisnoimenoslovjeinizrazje(GeographicalOnomasticsandTerminology),whichmainly carriedshorterpapersonterminologicalissuesandproblems,andsomealsodealtwithgeographicalnames (Kranjec 1956; Zgonik 1956; Planina 1957). TheroleofgeographerswasinscribedinhistoryforeverwiththepreparationofKrajevnileksikonSlovenije (Gazetteer of Slovenia), a work containing many place names and other geographical names, which was published in four volumes from 1968 to 1980 under the editorship of Roman Savnik (Krajevni leksikon Slovenije1968;1971;1976;1980).EvenbeforetheSecondWorldWar,in1937,thework’spredecessor,Krajevni Figure 5: The Kamnik Saddle or Jerman Gate. leksikonDravskebanovine(GazetteeroftheDravaProvince;Krajevni…1937),waspublishedwiththeimpor­tant contribution of geographers. All these books are an inexhaustible treasury of Slovenian geographical names,whichatthattimehadnotyetbeenvettedbylinguists.WhenthemanualSlovenskakrajevnaimena (Slovenian Place Names; Jakopin et al. 1985) was published in the 1980s, it was possible to eliminate this shortcoming in a much more modest successor to the four-volume work from the mid-1990s (Krajevni leksikon Slovenije 1995a). This modern version of the gazetteer was also published in an electronic ver-sion(KrajevnileksikonSlovenije1995b)asoneofthefirstgeographicalworksinthisnewformatglobally. Both volumes of Krajevni leksikon Slovencev v Italiji (Gazetteer of Slovenians in Italy; Krajevni leksikon Slovencev…1991; 1995) are also indispensable for Slovenian onomastics. In the first years after Slovenia’s independence, Anton Sore and Julij Titl were among the geographers mostdeeplyinvolvedwithgeographicalnamesattheregionallevel.Theydealtwithplacenames,fieldnames, andhydronymsalongtheSavinjaandSotlariversineasternSlovenia(Sore1993;1994)andinMediterranean Slovenia (Titl 1998; 2000; 2006; Figure 6). Along with Sore and Titl, occasional publications appeared in periodicals over the decades, address­ingthemodernorhistoricallyattestedmicrotoponymyofindividualareasinSlovenia–forexample,Upper Carniola(FranSaleškiFinžgar,IvanKogovšek),theLittoral(PavelVidau),theTolminarea(MilanMikuž), White Carniola (Ivan Simonic), Styria (Jože Koropec, Franc Mišic, Fran Vatovec, Jože Vršnik, Vladimir Bracic, Pavle Blaznik), Prekmurje (Ivan Zelko) – and in cross-border areas; for example, the province of TriesteandVenetianSlovenia(PavleMerkù,VladoKlemše),Resia(RobertoDapit),theCanaleValley(MatejŠekli)inItaly,AustrianCarinthia(AntonFeinig,BertrandKotnik),andtheRabáValleyinHungary(Marija Kozar-Mukic,MarijaBajzekLukac).Anextensivetoponymiccollection(forAustrianCarinthia,andespe­ciallyUpperCarniola)wascollectedinthefieldbyDušanCop(Šivic-Dular2002).Thissetincludesgeographical contributions on geographical names in the Julian Alps (Kunaver 1984; 1988; 1993) and Kamnik–Savinja Alps (Peršolja 1998). InterestinonomasticsgrewagainafterSlovenia’sindependencein1991.Etymologicalstudiesanddic­tionaries stand out among the works, and in the last decade there has been considerable research on geographicalnamesaspartofculturalheritage.Toalargeextent,thisinvolvesstudiesbyamateurresearchers Figure6:CoverofJulijTitl’sbookongeographicalnames inSlovenianIstria. thatdonothavetheappropriateeducationandavoidconsultationwithlinguists,andsoaccordingtosome (e.g., Cop 2002) they often do more harm than good. Etymologicalstudiesstillplayanimportantroleamonglinguists.Bezlaj’setymologicaldictionary(1976; 1982; 1995) was joined in 1997 by Slovenski etimološki slovar (Slovenian Etymological Dictionary; Snoj 1997), whose continuation Etimološki slovar slovenskih zemljepisnih imen (Etymological Dictionary of Slovenian Geographical Names; Snoj 2009) with more than four thousand entries is extremely important for the study of geographical names. In addition to Snoj (also Snoj 2010), important etymological workswere also contributed by Alenka Šivic-Dular (2012), Dušan Cop (1983; 1987; 2002), Metka Furlan (2013;2015),SilvoTorkar(2008;2010a;2010b;2012;2013;2015),MatejŠekli(2015),LukaRepanšek(2014),Janeta Celigoj (2012), and some others. The origin of Slovenian place names has been discussed in geographical periodicals by the linguist Viktor Majdic (1994). The range of other modern in-depth studies of geographical names in Slovenia extends from micro-toponyms to the names of countries and the most important dependent territories, withexonyms playing a special role. Microtoponyms usually include house names and field names, but, considering their small size, street names, names of karst caves (Figure 7), names of waterfalls, and the like could also be ranked among microtoponyms. Amodernmethodologyforstudyinghousenamesandfieldnameswasdevelopedaspartoftheinter­national project FLU-LED (Klinar et al. 2012). Quite a few papers have been published on both types ofmicrotoponyms(KlinarandGeršic2014;GeršicandKladnik2016a;Škofic2017).In2010,Slovenianhouse names and field names in Austrian Carinthia were included in the national UNESCO inventory of intan­gible heritage in Austria (Piko-Rustia 2012; 2017; 2018), which is invaluable from the point of view of the Slovenian minority there. a series ofbooklets on systematic research on house names in Upper Carniola have been published under the series title Kako se pri vas rece? (What Do You Call Your Home?) (Klinar 2013; Figure 8). a paper on housže names was also published in a Slovenian geographical journal (KlinarandGeršic2014),andseverallinguisticstudieshavealreadybeenconducted(e.g.,Škofic1998;2005;Zorko 2004;Bon2018).SuchstudieshavealsobeenconductedinValbruna(Slovenian:Ovcjavas,Friulian:Valbrune, German:Wolfsbach)inthequadrilingualCanaleValley(Italian:ValCanale,Friulian:ValCjanâl,Slovenian: Kanalska dolina, German: Kanaltal; Šekli 2005). Figure7:Microtoponymsalsoincludethenamesofkarstcaves,particularlypicturesqueamongwhichisCrossCave(Slovenian:Križnajama)inInnerCarniola. 27 Itisprimarilylinguists(e.g.,Šekli2006;2007)andlandscapearchitects(PenkoSeidl2008;2011;2015; Penko Seidl, Kastelec and Kucan 2015) that have dealt most with field names and their meaning in recent times. Among geographers, attention should be drawn to papers on field names on agricultural terraces (Geršic 2016a) and in the Western Karawanks and the western Kamnik–Savinja Alps (Geršic and Zorn 2016); the latter especially highlights the impact of natural disasters on the landscape. Inconnectionwithhousenamesandfieldnames,aswellaswithcertainplacenames,attentionshould be drawn to the relationship between dialect and standard linguistic forms, the suitability of public writ­ten dialect use of names, and the adaption of dialect name forms to the standard language (Šivic-Dular1989b; Majdic 1996; Orel 2009; Škofic 2009; Klinar et al. 2012; Horvat 2015). Systematicresearchonthenamesofregionsorchoronyms(Geršic2016b;2017;2020b)isalsoanimpor­tant new trend at the global level. (Figure 9), which has been built upon by examining the administrative and territorial divisions of the Catholic Church in Slovenia (Geršic and Kladnik 2017) and the connec­tion between Slovenia’s regional diversity and the variety of geographical names (Geršic, Ciglic and Perko 2018).ThepossibilityofusingSlovenianregionalnamesasbrandshasalsobeeninvestigated(Geršic,Kladnik and Vintar Mally 2019). We thus move to even larger territorial units, among which in Slovenia there is a relatively long tra­dition of studying the names of countries and the most important dependent territories, and about which the first paper was published in a Slovenian geographical journal in the 1980s (Lovrencak 1987). Perko (1996a; 1996b) examined the deviation between the Slovenian normative guide and standardized names of countries and dependent territories following the SIST ISO 3166 standard of 1996, and linguists have also drawn attention to the deviations between the names in the 2001 Slovenian normative guide and the list in SIST ISO 3166 (Furlan 2003). In 2004, the Subcommission for Country Names (Podkomisija za imena držav) was formed as part of theSlovenianGovernmentCommissionfortheStandardizationofGeographicalNames(Komisijazastan­dardizacijozemljepisnihimenVladeRepublikeSlovenije).Itiscomposedofgeographersandlinguists,who Figure 8: A meeting with informants during fieldwork while collecting house names and field names in the village of Leše below Mount Dobrca in Upper Carniola in February 2013. have prepared a new proposal for the names of countries for the Slovenian normative guide and the SIST ISO 3166 standard. The standardized names of countries and dependent territories were thus thorough-lyrevisedin2007(KladnikandPerko2007;2013c;2015a;2015b).Theapexofsucheffortswasthevolume Slovenskaimenadržav(SlovenianCountryNames;KladnikandPerko2013b),inwhich,amongotherthings, the standardized Slovenian short name, the Slovenian official short name, and the Slovenian official full name are provided for individual countries. One of the main roles of the commission for the Slovenian context, and UNGEGN for the global con­text, is therefore standardizing geographical names, allowing their uniform use at the national and global levels. In Slovenia, the first paper on these efforts was published in the journal Geodetski vestnik (Rotar 1991). An exhaustive expert report was prepared on this topic only a few years later (Orožen Adamic and Pogorelcnik 1998). InSlovenia,wefirstreviewedallthenamesofsettlementsasabasisfortheirstandardization,forwhich anextensivereportwascreated(GabrovecandPerko1996;1997).Later,allnamesinSloveniaona1:1,000,000 map were standardized (Perko 2001), and a few years after that also the names on the 1:250,000 national index map (just over four thousand names altogether), which was issued specifically for this purpose by the Slovenian Surveying and Mapping Authority (Furlan et al. 2008). Geographicalnamesareconstantlychangingduringtheirlifecycle(Peršolja2003;Kladnik2007b;Kladnik and Bole 2012). Many changes are politically motivated, and Slovenian geographers have also published somepapersaboutthis,bothregardingchangesinplacenames(UrbancandGabrovec2005)andchanges in street names (Geršic and Kladnik 2014). With this, we move to the domain of disputed geographical names,whichwehaveaddressedespeciallycarefullyandthoroughlybecauseoftherecentCroatianrenam­ingoftheBayofPiran(Slovenian:Piranskizaliv)toSavudrijskavalaorSavudrijskizaljev‘BayofSavudrija’, whichdoesnotconformtotherecommendationsoftheUNresolutionsonhandlinggeographicalnames. We produced several papers about this (Kladnik and Pipan 2008; 2009; 2011; Kladnik, Orožen Adamic and Pipan 2010; Orožen Adamic and Kladnik 2010) as well as an extensive and richly illustrated volume Figure9:Namesofregionsareoftennewlycreatedthroughvariousregionalizations.Thefigureshowsa»unique«regionalizationofSloveniawithunusu­al names as well as unusually demarcated regions as conceptualized by experts at the Dutch lead partner as part of an EU project (source: Brink van den 2014/2015). (Kladnik, Pipan and Gašperic 2014), in which the main onomastic disagreements at the global level are examined in detail, such as the disagreement between Japan and the two Koreas on the international use of the paired names Sea of Japan and East Sea (Orožen Adamic and Kladnik 2010). ThehistoryofdealingwithexonymsorSlovenianizedforeigngeographicalnamesiscoveredinChapter9 on exonyms. The semantic counterpart to the treatment of exonyms is the presentation of Slovenian geo­graphical names in foreign languages (Berk 2001; Geršic and Kladnik 2015; Zagórski, Geršic and Kladnik 2018). Becausetherearestillmanyissues,difficulties,unclearmatters,anderrorsinboththegeneralandexpert use of Slovenian and Slovenianized foreign geographical names, in recent years we have produced a num­ber of papers with advice for improving the situation (Kladnik and Perko 2017; 2018; 2019) (Figure 10). Among such efforts is also a paper on incorrectly written geographical names on roadside signs (Petek 2013; see Figure 1). In their efforts to assert their points of view on normative rules, Slovenian geographers have closed ranks and presented concrete proposals (Gams 1972; 1984b; 1984c) that initially were not approved by linguists, and therefore they were not observed in the current version of the normative guide from 2001. Becausemanyfactualerrors,inconsistencies,andshortcomingsoccurredinitspreparation(Lenarcic2002a; 2002b;2004;Kladnik2005a),whichisalsoaconsequenceofunfamiliaritywithgeographicalfactsinSlovenia andaroundtheworld,and,becausecooperationbetweengeographersandlinguistshasgraduallystrength­enedas partof theCommission forthe StandardizationofGeographical Names andtheir mutual trust has increased, geographers are now active in the Commission on Ortography (Pravopisna komisija) work in preparing a new Slovenian normative guide. Amongthecurrentlinguisticeffortsfornormativelycorrectspellingsofgeographicalnamesandmod-ernizingthenormativerules,thehistoryofnormativerulesforSlovenianisfirstworthhighlighting(Dobrovoljc2004). Basic principles have also been presented for writing Slovenian geographical names (Šivic-Dular 1989b). Later on, a manual was produced on the normative suitability of spelling proper noun material intheRegisterofGeographicalNames(Registerzemljepisnihimen,REZI)andtheRegisterofSpatialUnits (Register prostorskih enot) (Furlan, Gložancev and Šivic-Dular 2000). During preparations to update the current Slovenian normative guide (Slovenski pravopis 2001), four volumeshavealreadybeenpublished(DobrovoljcandJakop2011;2012;DobrovoljcandLengarVrhovnik 2015; Dobrovoljc, Cernivec and Geršic 2020). Most contributions were written by linguists (Bizjak 2012; Dobrovoljc 2012a; 2012b; Jakop 2012; Jemec Tomazin 2012; Horvat 2015; Torkar 2015), and some were also written by geographers (Kladnik and Perko 2015a; 2015b). Mention must also be made of material produced by the long-term editor Aleš Pogacnik (2012), who, already a decade before that, also published apaperonthephoneticSlovenianizationofpropernameswritteninnon-Romanscripts(Pogacnik2003), important for understanding the Slovenianization of foreign geographical names. ThepublicationŽivimvBukovemVrhupodBukovimvrhom:Ospremembipravopisnegapravilazapisan­je zemljepisnih imen (I Live in Bukov Vrh below Bukov vrh: a Change to the Normative Rule for Writing Geographical Names) (Dobrovoljc, Cernivec andGeršic 2020) (Figures 11 and 12), is dedicated to resolv­ing incessant issues regarding capitalization when writing multiword geographical names. The two introductorypapers(Dobrovoljc2020;Geršic2020a)arefollowedbyaconcisepresentationofthefivemain options and perspectives on them (Cernivec 2020). The breadth of perspectives is wide, from the consis­tent use of capitalization for every single word (e.g., Most Na Soci ‘Most na Soci’, Novo Mesto, Jadransko Morje ‘Adriatic Sea’; Snoj 2020) to capitalization of all words except conjunctions and prepositions (e.g., Most na Soci, Novo Mesto, Jadransko Morje; Furlan 2020; Geršic, Kladnik and Perko 2020; Weiss 2020) to theconsistent useof capitalization (except forconjunctions andprepositions) forall names of settlements (e.g., Most na Soci, Novo Mesto) but not for non-settlements, for which common-noun elements would not be capitalized (e.g., Jadransko morje; the use of different rules for names of settlements and non-set-tlementsmakesitpossibletodistinguishthem;Dobrovoljc2020;LengarVerovnik2020),tothesuggestion that, instead of dividing names into those referring to settlements and non-settlements, introduces a uni-formgroupofgeographicalnamesandwithinitadoublemannerofcapitalization(capitalizationofnon-initial Figure11:Front pageofthelatestpublicationon plannedchanges tothe normative rules for writing geographical names. technicalexpressionsforgeographicalfeaturesthathaveundergoneatransferofmeaningandpropernouns, and lower case for non-initial common nouns that are either technical or general expressions; e.g., Most naSoci,Novomesto,Jadranskomorje;KocjanBarle2020).Anotherpossibilityisfornochangestobeintro­ducedandtocontinueapplyingtheprinciplesfromthecurrentnormativeguide(Slovenskipravopis2001), which, like some of its predecessors, recognizes a division into names of settlements and non-settlements and the (rather complicated) rules connected with them regarding capitalization (Halozan 2020). To complete this overview of scholarly study, we present the results of an analysis of toponymic works in the Slovenian library information system COBISS (https://www.cobiss.si/en) by the semantic type of geographical names studied (Geršic 2016b) (Figure 13). The entire database, which we created by enter­ingsuitablekeywords(i.e.,‘geographicalname’,‘geographicalnames’,‘toponym’,‘toponyms’)encompasses 630booksandpapersonplacenamesandonlyfiveonthenamesofregionsandthreeonmountainnames. 2.3 Geographical names on maps and in atlases of Slovenian territory Mapsareeffectivegraphictoolsbecausetheyhavegreatcommunicativevalueandtheyhelpshapepeople’s attitudetowardtheworld,whileatthesametimerevealingtheperspectiveoftheircreators,publishers,and sometimes also that of a certain nation on the immediate or more distant vicinity – and in many cases alsoontheentireworld.Especiallyasatoolforpresentingthemostdiversefindingsandinformation,they have long been connected with geographical work. From this stems the traditional perspective on them as an abstraction of reality; namely, they express objective information about the environment we live in (Soini 2001). When maps themselves are an object of study, the technical and technological aspects of their pro­duction are at the forefront. More rarely they are understood as a »text« or as a socially produced form of knowledge. In such cases, they can be treated as the result of a degree of social and cultural development of a particular nation, and they reflect the perspective of their authors or producers on the world on the one hand, and the broader social reality on the other (Dorling and Fairbarn 1997). Namely, older maps reveal the political and cultural character of the periods that they were created in. Two maps of Carniola and its wider surroundings had already appeared by the late sixteenth centu­ry:a1573mapbyAbrahamOrteliusanda1589mapbyGerardusMercator(Longyka1999;Gašperic2007). LikeotherearlymapsofSlovenianterritory,theircartographicvalueisnotparticularlygood.Thisisespe­ciallythecaseforthegeographicalnamesonthem,whichinmostcasesarenon-Slovenianandimprecisely located,makingitdifficulttocomparethemwiththeiractuallocationstoday.Amongthemanytoponyms, many of them clearly reveal their Slovenian origins; for example, Rybnicz ‘Ribnica’, Gabrowicz ‘Gabrovica’, Dobrauloch ‘Dobravlje’, Gradina, Jama, and Krupa. The Johann Weikhard von Valvasor’s cartographic depiction of the Cerknica Lake area at a scale of approximately 1:25,000 (Figure 14), which is also a supplement to Book Four of The Glory of the Duchy of Carniola (Valvasor 1689c), is one of the first original cartographic works by an author from Slovenia. The majority of geographical names on it are in Slovenian (Kladnik 2018). He also planned to produce a large map of Carniola (Rojc 1990), but he was unable to achieve this before hisdeath. His estate includ­edamoremodest1:500,000illustrationofthemapCarniolia,Karstia,HistriaetWindorumMarchia(Carniola, the Karst, Istria, and the Windic March) (Valvasor 1689a; Longyka 1999). Even though the place names onitarewritteninGerman,manyofthemrevealtheirSlovenianorigin.Valvasor’sapproximately1:75,000 map of White Carniola titled Der Culpstram in Crain (The Kolpa River in Carniola), which appeared in Book Three of The Glory of the Duchy of Carniola, (Valvasor 1689c), is considerably richer in Slovenian geographicalnames(Longyka1999).AmongthenamesonitarethesettlementsofTributsch‘Tribuce’,Grible ‘Griblje’,andBoiainze‘Bojanci’,andtheforestVelkuBukuie‘BigBukovjeWoods’(Slovenian:VelikoBukovje). ThefirstdetailedmapcoveringallSlovenianterritorywitharatherlargenumberofgeographicalnames was Ducatus Carnioliae Tabula Chorographica (Chorographic Map of the Duchy of Carniola) at a scale of approximately 1:100,000 (Bohinec 1925; Reisp 1995; Gašperic 2016). It was published in the mid-eigh­teenthcenturyintwelvesheetsbythepriestJoannesDismaFloriantschitschdeGrienfeld(1744).Because the names on the margins of the individual sheets are written out in full, it is possible to bind it into an atlas.ThenamesarewrittenpartiallyintheBohoricalphabetandpartiallyinGermantranscriptions.Many of them are Slovenian, especially the names of smaller settlements, such as Jernejavas ‘Jerneja vas’ and Primostek, as well as the field names, such as Podzhernemgoisdo ‘Under the Black Forest’ (Slovenian: Pod Crnim Gozdom) in the Jezersko area and Jeleina draga (Slovenian: Jelenja draga) on the Snežnik Plateau. The names of mountains are also mostly in Slovenian, and among these is the first transcription of the name of Slovenia’s highest peak, Mount Triglav (as Terglou), and it is the only summit on the map also marked with an elevation (Longyka 1999; Figure 15). The French natural scientist, ethnologist, and surgeon Balthasar Hacquet (Kranjc 2006) included the approximately 1:360,000 map Krainska deschela (Carniola) in his four-volume work Oryctographia carniolica oder Physikalische Erdbeschreibung des Herzogthums Krain, Istrien, und zum Theil der benach­barten Länder (Carniolan Mineralogy or a Physical Earth Description of the Duchy of Carniola, Istria, and in Part the Neighboring Lands) (Hacquet and Baraga 1778; Bohinec 1925; Longyka 1999). This was thefirstthematicgeologicalmapofSlovenianterritory,anditcontainedalmostexclusivelySloveniangeo­graphical names; for example, Goreinsku ‘Upper Carniola’, Bleid ‘Bled’, Kroppa ‘Kropa’, Vishnagora ‘Višnja Gora’, and Po.toina ‘Postojna’. Only a few names are bilingual, such as Celautz oder Klagenfurt ‘Celovec or Klagenfurt’, or German, such as Marburg ‘Maribor’. When someone apparently objected to him about the Slovenian names after the publication of the first volume, Hacquet wrote the following in the introduc­tiontothesecondvolume(citedinLongyka1999,471):»WhywouldInotretainthelegitimateCarniolan [i.e., Slovenian] names of the places, instead of inserting garbled German names? After all, if someone described France in German, he would leave the maps in French.« Intheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,familiaritywiththeformandcharacteristicsofSlovenian territory was greatly improved thanks to the efforts of individuals motivated by love for their immediate homelandandaffiliationtotheprovincetheylivedin.Untilthemid-nineteenthcentury,thestudyofono-mastics had no ethnic connotations, neither Slovenian nor German. Toponymy was uncharted territory, and so every detailed contribution to local studies and natural science was welcome. Attheendofthisperiod,thestate(theHabsburgMonarchy)alsolaunchedtwomajorprojects:acadas­tral survey and a military survey of the entire state. Thus, toward the end of the eighteenth century and during the first decades of the nineteenth century, Slovenian ethnic territory was also covered by a pre­cisecadastralmapsatascaleof1:2,880anddetailedmilitarymapsatscalesof1:28,800and1:75,000(Longyka 1999). Both the cadastral survey and the military maps – the latter were restricted for a long time and fac­simileeditionsofthemwithaccompanyingtoponymicdescriptionsinsevenvolumeswereonlypublished attheendofthetwentiethcentury(Rajšp1995–2002)–areaninexhaustiblesourceforstudyinggeographical names. By order of Emperor Joseph II, they were labeled in the »language of the land« (Longyka 1999). Among the more important cartographic products of this era, also because of the latest researchon it (Gašperic2010)andamodernannotatedfacsimileedition(Gašperic,OroženAdamicandŠumrada2012), one cannot overlook the map of the Illyrian Provinces, a political entity under Napoleon Bonaparte with Ljubljanaasitscapital.Attheorderofthegovernor-generaloftheIllyrianProvinces,AugustedeMarmont, this map was produced in 1812, during the four-year French administration of Slovenian territory, by the military cartographer of Italian origin Gaetano di Palma. The Idrija native Heinrich Freyer, a versatile natural historian and also the curator of the Ljubljana ProvincialMuseum(Leban1954;Topole2020),publishedalarge1:113,500mapoftheDuchyofCarniola in sixteen sheets in 1846 (Bohinec 1925; Longyka 1999). The map is titled in German as Special-Karte des HerzogthumsKrain(DetailedMapoftheDuchyofCarniola),butthenamingofplacesismostlyinSlovenian, and German names are added only in parentheses; here and there, Slovenian doublets are also given in parentheses.ThemapalsohasabilinguallistofCarniolanplacesandcastles,comprising3,220alphabetically arranged names of settlements and hamlets (Freyer 1846). The greatest credit for spatially presenting ethnic Slovenian territory goes to the Gottschee German PeterKosler,whowaseducatedasalawyerbutwentontostudygeographyandcartographyinItaly(Bohinec 1925;Tiran 2016). He was a cofounder ofthe ViennaSlovenian Assembly (Slovenski zbor v Becu), asociety dedicated to the goal of uniting all areas where Slovenians lived into an administrative unit called United Slovenia(ZedinjenaSlovenija), whichalsocreatedaneedforthecartographicpresentationofthisterritory. Kosler had already collected Slovenian place names by 1848. Based on the anticipated scale of about 1:600,000, it was necessary to collect about five thousand names. Parts of the map were ready the same year; however, the completed map (Kozler 1853) was seized under a court order by Alexander von Bach’s interior ministrybecause (citing Bohinec 1925, 12) »it was greatly alarmed when it saw that the Slovenian nation was so numerous and widespread, and when it saw that Kosler had drawn the desired borders of a united Slovenia so deeply into Carinthia, Istria, and even Hungary.« Permission for a new edition of the mapwasgrantedonlyin1861.Kosler’sonlyaidwasFreyer’smap,whichhadcoveredonlyCarniola.Based oninformation from informants, Slovenian and Slovenianized names were also provided for many places beyond the Slovenian ethnic border, which was marked with a dotted line on the map (Longyka 1999). As a supplement to the map, Kosler wrote his Kratek slovenski zemljopis (Concise Slovenian Geography; Kozler 1854), to which he added a gazetteer of Slovenian and German names of settlements. Slovenian atlas literature has a tradition of nearly a century and a half, now that Matej Cigale’s Atlant (Atlas,1869–1877),whichhadbeenalmostcompletelyforgotten,hasbeen»reborn«infacsimile(Kladnik et al. 2006; Urbanc et al. 2006). This first Slovenian world atlas used many approaches that are in line with modern perspectives on exonymization. The atlas was issued in six fascicles of three sheets each, and so altogethereighteenmapswereprinted,presentingtheworldinitsentirety(Figure16)andindividualparts of it. The maps were never originally bound into a book, and so they were prone to being lost and they are relatively rare today. Even more rare is a set of all of the maps; only two complete editions are held by theNationalandUniversityLibraryinLjubljana.Intheboundversion,themapsareorderedthematically, from the perspective of Slovenia outward (Kladnik 2007e; 2009c), rather than chronologically or in the order that they were actually printed, as presented in the facsimile edition (Atlant 2005; Figure 17), for which an index was also produced for all of the geographical names on the maps (Kladnik 2005b). All the maps in Atlant contain 28,075 geographical names and individually labeled generic features, ofwhich5,907or21%areSlovenianized,andamongthese4,178aredifferent(Kladnik2005b;2005c).The difficultyoftheworkincompilingAtlantisevidencedbytherelativelylargenumberofinconsistentlabels for the same feature. This is to be ascribed to the intuitive approach to the work and the time-consuming lithographic printing process, which did notallow Cigale more consistent use of the names and oversight. Thus,forexample,Belgium’shillyArdennesislabeledArdeneGorovje,Ardenskegore‘ArdennesMountains’, andArdenskigozd‘ArdennesForest’;SriLankaislabeledCeilon(SelanaliSinhalaDiva)andCeylon;Tokyo is labeled Jeddo and Jedo ‘Edo’, and Moldavia is labeled Moldavija, Moldova (Multanija), and Moldavska. The name of the Caribbean island of Haiti appears three times in Atlant, different every time: Haiti, Hajti, and Hajty (Kladnik 2005c). Despite its exceptional importance for establishing Slovenian exonyms, later on Atlantdid not receive the response it deserved. Moreover, in an introductory paper on the development of Slovenian geography in the first issue of the journal Geografski vestnik, Valter Bohinec wrote that Cigale saw only philological issuesinit.Otherwise,inthegeographicalsense,»itdoesnotrepresentanyadvance;thegeophysicalaspect is completely neglected, and there is a lack of methodology. Among its eighteen sheets, four of them lack a scale, and the scales of the others differ so much that any kind of comparison is impossible« (Bohinec 1925, 13). Atlant was gradually overlooked and almost completely forgotten. QuitesometimepasseduntilthenextworldatlaswaspublishedinSlovenian,whichappearedin1902 andwasrevisedbythehistorianandgeographerFranOrožen(Zemljepisniatlaszasrednjein…1902;Kladnik 2007e). It contains 1,477 Slovenianized foreign geographical names, of which several dozen are allonyms. Withregardtothesemantictype,Slovenianizednamesofsettlementspredominate.BothCigaleandOrožen used the common noun dežela ‘land’, which was latter supplanted by zemlja as a term of Russian origin viaSerbian:Baffinovadežela‘BaffinIsland’,Ellesmeredežela‘EllesmereIsland’,andViktorijinadežela‘Victoria Island’intheCanadianArcticArchipelago;Enderbydežela‘EnderbyLand’andViktorijinadežela‘Victoria Land’ in Antarctica; and Franc Jožefova dežela ‘Franz Josef Land’ deep in the heart of the Arctic Ocean. However, for the Argentinian-Chilean island Tierra del Fuego off the southern coast of South America, the Slovenianized name Ognjena zemlja (Land of Fire) is found. In addition to the wall maps of the Earth’s hemispheres, Europe, Austria-Hungary, and Palestine, in 1910Oroženalsoadapteda1:130,000mapofCarniolaandtheLittoral.Healsocreatedthefirstglobewith Slovenian labels, with a scale of 1:50,000,000 (Bohinec 1925). Towardtheendofthenineteenthcentury,theSlovenianSocietywishedtosupplementthebookseries Slovenska zemlja (Slovenian Territory) with a large map of Slovenian ethnic territory, and so by 1876 it had started the organized collection of Slovenian place names, which continued for several decades. The linguistMaksPleteršnikplayedanoutstandingroleinstandardizingtheformsofnamesfollowingthehis­torical-etymological principle (Kranjec 1964; Šivic-Dular 1989a; 2003). Becauseofprofessionaldisagreements,technicalandfinancialproblems,theoutbreakoftheFirstWorldWar,theabolitionoftheSlovenianSociety,andotherfactors(Šivic-Dular2003),the1:200,000mapinfour sheets was not published until 1921 (Figure 18). a year later, Rikard Svetlic’s companion booklet Kazalo krajev na Zemljevidu slovenskega ozemlja (Index of Places on the Map of Slovenian Ethnic Territory) was also published (Šivic-Dular 1989a). Inthe1930s,theGeographicalSocietyintensivelyparticipatedincorrectingplacenamesonthetopo­graphic maps of the Military Geographical Institute in Belgrade (Kladnik 2018). After Cigale’s Atlant, it was not until 1972, when Veliki atlas sveta (Great World Atlas) was published by Mladinska Knjiga, that Slovenians had their own world atlas, aside from modest school atlases, which weremostlyproducedbyCroatianpressesbasedonOrožen’sschoolatlases,andduringtheSecondWorld Warthewell-knownItaliancartographicpublisherDeAgostinialsoaddeditscontribution.TheDeAgostini Figure 17:A facsimileofCigale’s Atlant waspublished ina luxuryedition in 2005. Figure18:Detailof Zemljevidslovenskegaozemlja (MapofSlovenianEthnicTerritory),whichwaspublishedin1921afternearlyhalfacenturyofefforts. p atlas (Zemljepisni…1941) offers a wealth of Slovenianized foreign geographical names, but what is strik­ing is the nearly consistent ban on the use of Slovenian names in Italian territory. Among cities, only two werepermittedtobeSlovenianized,writtenintheformofdoublets:Benetke-Venezia‘Venice’andRim-Roma ‘Rome’;inthesecondedition,thesetwoalsodisappeared.TherewasmoreSlovenianizationfornamesrefer­ringtoregionsandhillsormountains;forexample,Lombardskanižina‘LombardPlains’andToskansko-emilijski Apenin ‘Tuscan–Emilian Apennin’. Veliki atlas sveta(Great WorldAtlas),publishedin 1972,was editedby thegeographers JakobMedved and Borut Ingolic. They followed the resolutions of the United Nations conferences regarding reducing the number of exonyms. Strict adherence to this principle in the 1970s and 1980s spurred a disagreement between geographers and linguists, who advocated linguistic autonomy. Thefirsteditionofthebest-sellerAtlasSlovenije(AtlasofSlovenia)waspublishedin1985.Ithasauni­formmapscaleof1:50,000,itcoversallSlovenianethnicterritory,anditisalsoatreasuretroveofgeographical namesforsettlementsandnon-settlements,spelledbasedontheRegisterofGeographicalNames(Register zemljepisnih imen, REZI). The atlas was revised and reprinted a full ten times, and in 2012 it saw a fun­damental expansion of its content as Veliki atlas Slovenije ‘Great Atlas of Slovenia’, whereby it has started to acquire the character of a national atlas. Thefirst Slovenian national atlas was Geografski atlas Slovenije (Geographical Atlas of Slovenia; Fridl et al. 1998), published in 1998 (Kladnik 2019b). Moreextensivegeneralworldatlaseswerepublishedbyvariouspressesin1991(Atlassveta‘WorldAtlas’, CankarjevaZaložba),1992(Velikidružinskiatlassveta‘GreatFamilyWorldAtlas’,DZS),1997(Atlas2000, Mladinskaknjiga),2001(Družinskiatlassveta‘FamilyWorldAtlas’,SlovenskaKnjiga),2003(Prirocniatlas sveta ‘Reference World Atlas’, Mladinska Knjiga), 2004 (Veliki družinski atlas sveta ‘Great Family World Atlas’,Modita),2005(Velikiatlassveta‘GreatWorldAtlas’,DZS),and2007(Atlantika:Velikisatelitskiatlas sveta ‘Atlantica: Great Satellite World Atlas’, Mladinska Knjiga). Only the years of publication of the first editions are cited here; the majority of these have also been reprinted. They were also joined by school atlases because under the new market-oriented conditions every self-respecting publisher prided itself on producing its own school atlas (Geografski atlas za osnovno šolo ‘Geographical Atlas for Primary School’, DZS 1998, Geografski atlas sveta za šole ‘Geographical World Atlas for Schools’, Tehniška Založba 2002, Atlas sveta za osnovne in srednje šole ‘World Atlas for Primary and Secondary Schools’, Mladinska Knjiga 2002and2010,andVelikišolskiatlas‘GreatSchoolAtlas’,Ucila2003).ThegreatmajorityofSlovenianatlases rely on originals by major foreign publishers. DragoKladnikstudiedthenamesinthemajority(sixteen)oftheseatlasesindetailandpresentedthem inadissertation(Kladnik2006),researchpapers(Kladnik2007e,2009c),andaresearchvolume(Kladnik 2007b). They are also discussed here in the chapter on exonyms (Chapter 9). From the perspective of geographical names, wall maps and desk maps of Slovenia and Yugoslavia are also important, and especially larger-scale maps. The self-taught cartographer Ivan Selan was involved innearlyalloldermaps(Žerovnik2012).RegardingSelan’scartographiccharisma,thegeographerIgorLongyka wrotethat»Heistheonlyonewhosemapsareknownbythedraftsman’sname;allothercartographicprod­uctsareknownby thenamesofthosethatprovidedthecontent,notthosethatproducedthem« (Longyka 1999, 482). AftertheindependenceofSloveniain1991,theInstituteofSurveyingandPhotogrammetryattheFaculty of Architecture, Civil Engineering, and Surveying produced a desk map of Slovenia (Orožen Adamic and Kladnik1994).ItsspecialvaluelayinitsconsistentuseofofficiallybilingualnamesinSloveniaandincross­border areas separated by slashes, and unofficial bilingual names first in their endonym form and then in Slovenianized form in smaller letters. The last large cartographic project was the production of Državna topografska karta merila 1 : 25.000 (1:25,000NationalTopographicMap,DTK25).Thecreationofall198sheetscoveringtheterritoryofSlovenia was concluded in 1999. From 2000 to 2005, an additional fifty sheets were produced and published for Državnatopografskakartamerila1:50.000(1:50,000NationalTopographicMap,DTK50)(PortalProstor 2018). Associates of the ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute were involved in the overview of geographical names on all of these maps. In principle, the best atlas for users is one in which every name is written in its endonym form, with exonyms provided next to them. Due to limited space on printed maps, complicated linguistic rules, and the various traditions of individual nations, it is impossible to provide such forms in cartographic prac­tice,andsowritingnamesinatlasesisusuallyacompromisebetweentherecommendationsoftheUnited Nations, normative, cartographic, and geographical rules and principles, and the space available on maps (Kladnik2006).Becauseofchangingperspectivesandthesearchforoptimalapproaches,itisnotsurprising that the methods for writing geographical names on maps are constantly changing (Figure 19). In the overview of important Slovenian creators of atlases and maps, one cannot overlook Blasius Kozenn(Slovenian: BlažKocen),aleadingAustriancartographer. While hewasestablishinghimself,he was aided by the fact that German cartography had not taken any real interest in the Austrian Empire (Bratec Mrvar 2007; Kunaver2009; Bratec Mrvar et al. 2011). His schoolatlaswas reprintedafull forty-two times, but never in a Slovenian edition, although there were several Croatian ones (e.g., Kozennov geograficki atlas…1922). There are also no Slovenian editions among his other maps, but his map of theAlpsisimportantfrom theperspectiveof Sloveniantoponymy:the Slovenianethnic border is drawn on it, and in the lower right corner there is a table with German and Slovenian equivalents of eighty-four place names, which is unlike anything found on any other maps in his 1863 atlas (Bohinec 1925; Bratec Mrvar et al. 2011; Figure 20). Figure 20: Detail of Slovenian territory and its surroundings from Kozenn’s map of the Alpine countries. The linguistic border on it is marked in light blue. Part of the table with German and Slovenian names of settlements is visible in the lower right corner. p p. 42–43 3 International and national organization of work on geographical names Work on geographical names is organized at the global, linguistic-regional, and national levels. Due to its international importance and sensitivity, the umbrella organization is under the direct aegis of the United Nations, through which a wide network of toponymspecialists has been established. If needed, these spe­cialistsalsoforminterest-basedconnections.Attheregionallevel,toponymspecialistsarebroughttogether in linguistic/geographical divisions, where they coordinate national efforts and define potential needs for shared operations. The interests of individual countries in the international community are represented bynationaltoponymbodies,whicharealsoinchargeofstandardizinggeographicalnamesintheirnation­al territories. 3.1 The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names All these efforts are carefully monitored and directed by an expert association called the United Nations GroupofExpertsonGeographicalNames(Slovenian:SkupinaizvedencevZdruženihnarodovzazemljepisna imena, UNGEGN), whose several decades of operation have contributed greatly to the standardized use of geographical names across the globe (Internet 1). At the first International Geographical Congress,heldin Antwerp in 1871, it was already decided that all European countries that use the Roman alphabet should respect all the different written forms of geo­graphical names used in individual countries. In addition, placed at the forefront was the need for their standardization at the national level, which would form the basis for international use (Kadmon 2000). Toimprovetheeffectivenessofcommunication,theUNbegansystematicallysolvingtheseissuessoon after the Second World War. Initially, these efforts were organized under the United Nations Economic andSocialCouncil(ECOSOC).Thefirst-everUNdocumentongeographicalnameswastitledNomenclature of Geographical Areas for Statistical Purposes (1948). a year later, this topic was also discussed at a confer­ence on geographical nomenclature for the needs of international standardization held in Lake Success, New York (Kadmon 2000). The standardization of geographical names and transliteration methods were first discussed in 1955 at the First Regional Cartographic Conference for Asia and the Pacific, where an initiative was presented toestablishaworkingbodyundertheaegisoftheUNtoproduceauniversalphoneticalphabetandtranslit­eration method for all the world’s alphabets. InApril1959,theECOSOCadoptedResolution715A,requestingthattheUNsecretary-generalencour­agethosenationsthathavenonationalorganizationforthestandardizationofgeographicalnamestoestablish such a body, to produce and disseminate materials on geographical names, especially national gazetteers, to set up a small group of consultants to help with national standardizations, and to convene an interna­tional conference on geographical names. Thus, a group of six members was created, which met for the first time in June 1960 in New York under the chairmanship of the American geographer and cartogra­pher Meredith Burrill (Kadmon 2000). In August 1964, the ECOSOC convened the first Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, which was held in September 1967 at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva. It was attend­ed by 111 representatives and observers from fifty-four countries (Kadmon 2000). The most important resolution of this conference (i.e., Resolution no. I/4) recommended that the ECOSOC convert the ad-hocGroupofExpertsonGeographicalNamesintoapermanentbody.Theresolution’ssubtitles(i.e.,National Names Authorities, Collection of Geographical Names, Principles of Office Treatment of Geographical Names,MultilingualAreas,andNationalGazetteers)provideanideaofthefundamentalconceptualframe­works that were to ensure successful operation of the national commissions and their closer regional connectivity (Raper 1996; Kadmon 2000; Kladnik 2007b). Until 2019, the Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names were the highest level of international organization in dealing with geographical names.At the secondconference, heldin London in1972,Resolutionno.II/3wasadopted.Init,theofficialnameoftheUNGEGNwasproposed.Thename wasapprovedtwoyearslater.ThiswasfollowedbyconferencesinAthensin1977,Genevain1982,Montreal in 1987, New York in 1992 and 1998 (the latter was initially planned to take place in Tehran), Berlin in 2002, and New York in 2007, 2012, and 2017 (Kladnik 2007b). Theconferencesandtheirlowerorganizationalstructuresoperateaccordingtothefollowingprinciples (Hornanský 1992): • Agreements on non-procedural issues should be reached through consensus and not by vote; • Conferenceresolutionsanddecisionsadoptedbylowerorganizationalstructureshavethestatusoffirm recommendations; • Issues that would interfere with national sovereignty are not discussed; • The subjects of standardization must take into account the UN resolutions and the following premises: • Geographical names should be standardized based on research findings about linguistic principles and on available technical means for setting up toponym databases; • International standardization should use national standardizations as their basis. When Slovenia joined the UN in 1992, it agreed to respect all the resolutions on geographical names adopteduntilthen.Initially,approximatelythirtyresolutionswereadoptedperconferenceonaverage,but then their average number halved. So far, the eleven United Nations Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names have adopted 211 resolutions (Resolutions adopted…2018). TheUNconferencesprovidetheformalframeworkforstandardizinggeographicalnames,buttheactu­al work is performed by individual expert groups, which jointly comprise the UNGEGN as the second international organizational level. From 1960 to 2017, thirty Sessions of the UNGEGN were held: most of them at the UN headquarters in New York (Figure 21) and Geneva, two in Vienna, and individual ones in London, Athens, Montreal, Berlin, Nairobi, and Bangkok (Internet 1). The aim of standardization is to achieve maximum possible uniformity in the written form of every geographicalnameintheworldbymeansofnationalstandardizationand/orinternationalagreement,includ­ingtheachievementofequivalencesbetweendifferentwritingsystems.Inprinciple,usingtheRomanization system should be as simple and user friendly as possible – that is, the Romanized name forms should be as easy as possible to write, read, and memorize, as well as to store electronically. These efforts are based on two key principles: 1) a single Romanization system should be prepared for each non-Roman alpha­bet, and 2) every country has the right to develop and suggest the Romanization system that suits it best (alsoknownasthe»donorprinciple«;Kadmon2000).Sofar,attheproposaloftheUNGEGNWorkingGroup onRomanizationSystems,theUN conferenceshaveconfirmed thirty Romanization systems(Internet 4), but some of them are still not being applied. Every country is expected to compile a standardized list of geographical names written in the form to beusedininternationalcommunicationandotherscripts,andothercountriesareexpectedtoadoptthese namesinthis(original)formandonlymodifythemorthographically,withoutchangingthemviatranscription (»amethodofnamesconversionbetweendifferentlanguages,inwhichthephonologicalelements(i.e. the sounds)arerecordedintermsofaspecifictargetlanguageanditsparticularscript,normallywithoutrecourse toadditionaldiacritics«),transliteration(»amethodofnamesconversionbetweendifferentalphabeticand syllabic scripts, in which each character of the source script is represented in principle by one character or di- or trigraph, or diacritic, or a combination of these, in the target script«), or (semantic) translation (Kadmon 2000; Natek 2005; Kladnik 2007b). Also important is the standardization of geographical names beyond a single sovereignty (i.e., names of Antarctic, undersea, and extraterrestrial features). The2019sessioninNewYork(Figure22)heraldedthefirstsessionofthenewbodywiththeoldname Session of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, which brought together the tasks, work, and authority of the UN Conferences and UNGEGN Sessions under a single names authority. This means that the conferences previously scheduled every five years will no longer be held, and the newly established body is planned to meet every two years (Internet 3). UNGEGN’s most important tasks include the following (Hornanský 1992; Kadmon 2000): • Providing support for international cooperation in standardizing geographical names; • Coordinating international cooperation; • PerformingconcretetasksrelatedtotheUNConferencesontheStandardizationofGeographicalNames; • Ensuring continuous work between individual conferences; • Coordination with the United Nations; • Providing expert assistance in enforcing the resolutions adopted; • Establishing regional linguistic/geographical divisions, also in order to facilitate standardization efforts at the national level; • Coordinating the operations of regional linguistic/geographical divisions; • Promoting professional cooperation with other international organizations (also) specializing in geo­graphical names; • Collecting information on the standardization of geographical names; • Publishing, peer-reviewing, and collecting gazetteers and other publications on toponyms; • Providing advice to individual members; • Defining international standardization principles; • Providingscholarlyandtechnicalassistancetodevelopingcountriestoestablishnationalnamesauthorities; • Disseminating information, findings, and achievements in all media available. From the very start, one of UNGEGN’s priorities was to produce a uniform toponymic terminology to facilitate mutual communication. Due to insufficient uniformity of some definitions and accuracy of explanations,theabsenceofcertainterms,alackofconcreteexamples,andthefactthatthedefinitionswere completely adaptedto westernlanguages, a decision was madeat the SixthUnited Nations Conferenceon the Standardization of Geographical Names in 1992 to produce an improved multilingual Glossary of Toponymic Terminology, which the members of the working group on toponymic terminology were to update and review periodically. The last glossary, containing 375 terms ordered alphabetically in six lan­guages,waspublishedin2002(Kadmon2000;2002);itwaslaterreprintedinanadditionaltwentylanguages. Duetothemutuallyagreed-uponuniformityofterminology,theglossaryisagoodexampleofastandardized documentinandofitself.TheSlovenianversionoftheglossarywaspublishedinDecember1995(Radovan and Majdic 1995a). Resolution no. IV/4, adopted at the Fourth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names in Geneva in 1982, highlighted the need for an international exchange of informa­tion on the main facts and achievements of national standardizations. National names or standardization authorities were recommended »to publish and keep up-to-date toponymic guidelines for map and other editors that may enable cartographers of other countries to treat correctly all problems of cartographic toponymy of the countries that produced such guidelines.« With the 1991 establishment of the Working Group on Toponymic Terminology, it was left to the dis­cretion of the individual countries and their standardization authorities to define the detailed content of the guidelines in accordance with their specific needs on the one hand and the situation on the other. In principle, the toponymic guidelines should include the following information (Kadmon 2000): • Inmultilingualcountries–thelegalstatusofthedifferentlanguagesused(national,minority,orindige-nous languages); • Thelegalstatusoftoponyms,includingthepossiblehierarchyofofficial,standardized,nationalandminor­ity toponyms; • Alphabets–or,incountriesusingnon-phoneticwritingsystems,syllabariesandlogographiclexicons– employed with the languages in use in the country, including conversion tables or keys for translitera­tion from one language to the other or others; • Conversion tables or keys for the romanization of local script, if this is not the Roman alphabet; • Rules for the spelling of geographical names including the use of capitalization, abbreviation and the use of diacritics; • Rules for the hyphenation and alphabetization of geographical names; • Pronunciation guides which define the articulation of the various characters and diacritics used, thus facilitatingcorrect(or,atleast,approximate)utteranceofthenamesintheiroralform,especiallybyper-sons not conversant with the local language; • Relationships between languages and dialects and the peculiarities of the different dialects; • Areal distribution of the different languages and/or dialects; • Geographical names authorities (national and regional) and their legal status and jurisdiction; • Source material used in the standardization of geographical names, including information on the rela­tive reliability of different sources; • Glossaries of generic terms used in toponyms; • Lists of abbreviations used both in toponyms and in conjunction with them, i.e. with descriptive terms in maps; • Lists of exceptions from accepted rules; • Lists of exonyms recommended for application by other countries instead of, or in addition to, domes­tic names; • Particularsoftypefacesandfontstobeusedforparticulartypesoftoponymsinmapsofdifferentscales; • Directivesforthegeneralizationoftoponymsinmaps,e.g.byselectionaccordingtotypesofnamesand to decreasing map scale. Any other information of relevance, in particular items which result from specific local conditions, whether geographical or linguistic, should be incorporated in the guidelines. Many countries produced their toponymic guidelines very quickly. Some produced them as separate national publications, and others submitted them as material for the UN conferences. Among Slovenia’s neighboringcountries,Italypreparedaspecialpublication(TonioloandPampaloni1998)andAustriapro­ducedatypescript(Breuetal.1996).Bothalsopresentedthemainfeaturesofwritinggeographicalnames in Slovenian. SloveniaalreadypublishedaSlovenianandEnglishversionofitstoponymicguidelinesin1995(Radovan 1995; Radovan and Majdic 1995b). This publication is presented in greater detail in Section 4.3. In recent years, the online accessibility of information on the operations of the names authorities has improvedsignificantly.Inadditiontogeneralinformation,theofficialUNGEGNwebsite(Internet1)also providesdiverseinformationonworkinggroups,regionallinguistic/geographicaldivisions,nationalgeo-graphical names commissions,and links tovarious documents and other international organizations that alsodealwithgeographicalnames–forexample,theInternationalGeographicalUnion(IGU),International CartographicAssociation(ICA),InternationalCouncilofOnomasticSciences(ICOS),InternationalSociety of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS), International Federation of Surveyors (Fedération International de Géomètres, FIG), International Union for Surveys and Mapping (IUSM), International Organization for Standardization (IOS), International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), International CivilAviationOrganization(ICAO),InternationalAstronomicalUnion(IAU),UniversalPostalUnion(UPU), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and others, which either designate geographical names on theirownorusetheUNGEGNdatabases.SomeorganizationssendtheirobserverstotheUNConferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names and other UNGEGN sessions (Kadmon 2000). Thefirstthreeinternationalassociationsmentionedabovealsoholdtheirownregularconferenceson geographical names, which are also actively attended by Slovenian toponomy specialists (Figures 23 and 24).OneofthemanycommissionsoftheInternationalGeographicalUnionistheCommissiononToponymy, which is also the name of an International Cartographic Association commission. Their cooperation in recent years has resulted in a very active alliance called the Joint ICA/IGU Working Group/Commission on Toponymy. 3.2 Working groups Under the umbrella of UNGEGN, various working groups are established through resolutions adopted at aUnitedNationsConferenceontheStandardizationofGeographicalNamestoaddresstheneedsfordetailed examinationofspecificthematicareasofgeographicalnames(Internet4).Whenaspecificworkinggroup completes its work, it is disbanded, or it merges with another. However, when new aspects arise requir­ingdetailedexperttreatment,thegroupcanbereestablished.Thus,forinstance,amongthegroupsalready disbanded were the Working Group onMaritimeand Undersea Features (its activitiesweretransferredto theInternationalHydrographicOrganization)andtheWorkingGrouponExtraterrestrialTopographicNames. Newly created were the Working Group on Pronunciation, and the Working Group on the Promotion of IndigenousandMinorityGroupPlaceNames,whichlatermergedintotheWorkingGrouponGeographical Names as Cultural Heritage, and the Working Group on Exonyms. Nineworkinggroupsarecurrentlyactive(allthedescriptionsbelowaredescribedfollowingInternet4): TheWorking Group on Country Names was established in 1992, itprimarily engages in »monitoring changes in country names; monitoring modifications in romanization systems as they pertain to local official country names; continuing updating and completing local official forms; and comparing existing lists of country names to identify differences and, where possible, to eliminate them.« The Working Group on Toponymic Data Files and Gazetteers was established in its present form in 1998. Its main task is to »promote and provide consultancy and technical advice to national standardiza­tion programs…[and to toponymic training courses including] the development of multipurpose toponymic database solutions in the context of spatial data infrastructures; promote and support the geo­graphicalnamesdatabaseoftheUNGEGN;maintainliaisonwithinternationalstandardizationbodieslike the Unicode Consortium regarding digital text encoding in the context of geographical names, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) with reference to the development of exchange standards for toponymic information and to web (gazetteer) services for the provision of toponymic information through the Internet; provide consultancy and tech-nicaladvicetotheUN-GGIM[UnitedNationsInitiativeonGlobalGeospatialInformationManagement] activities related to the fundamental data theme ‘Geographical Names’ as well as to the support of geo­graphicalnamesdatatotheAgenda2030,theSustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDG)monitoring;…[and] promote, complement and support the ‘UNECA Africa GeoNyms database/gazetteer initiative’.« TheWorkingGrouponToponymicTerminologywasestablishedin1991,anditsmaintaskistoreview andupdatetheglossaryoftermsusedinstandardizationofgeographicalnames.arevisedglossaryoftoponymic terminology in six languages was published in 2002 and updates were approved in 2007. Since then, the focus of the working group has turned to the development of a terminology database. The Working Group on Publicity and Funding was set up in 1992, and its main tasks are to make the activities of UNGEGN more visible and secure additional funds to support the »publication and dissem­inationofmaterialrelevanttotheadvancementofgeographicalnamesstandardization;provisionoftraining forthedevelopmentandmanagementofgeographicalnamesadministration;establishmentofnamesauthor­ities;[and]participationofdelegatesfromtheThirdWorldinUNGEGNeventsandactivities.«Theworking groupalsoensuresthemaintenanceandfurtherdevelopmentoftheUNGEGNwebsiteandtheInformation Bulletin. TheWorking Group on Romanization Systemshas as its main task »to consider and reach agreement on a single romanization system for each non-Roman writing system; the systems are for application to geographicalnamesand should be proposed bya (donor) country. The process requires time for full con-sultationsontechnicalmattersbetweentheWorkingGroup,theproposersandpotentialusers.Romanization systemsshouldbebasedonsoundscientificprinciplesandbeimplementedbytheproposingcountry.New systems are referred to the UNGEGN for endorsement and are then passed to ECOSOC for resolution and vote before becoming a United Nations standard.« Romanization systems for forty-five non-Roman scripts(currentlythirtyapprovedandrecommendedbytheUN)canbedownloadedasapdffilefromthe group’s website (Internet 5). TheWorkingGrouponTrainingCoursesinToponymy»coordinatesinformationontoponymytrain­ing courses, and where required assists in the planning and delivery of international courses organized by a host country or UNGEGN Division.« TheWorkingGrouponEvaluationandImplementationwasestablishedin1987,thentemporarilydis­bandedin 1992, and reestablishedin2000 toallow forcontinuity. Its »work plan includesanevaluationof the functioning and efficacy of UNGEGN and the implementation of resolutions and recommendations; finding ways to involve Member States not currently participating in UNGEGN; looking at the needs of countriestoachievenationalstandardizationoftheirgeographicalnames;andproposingactionstoincrease the effectiveness of UNGEGN, its divisions and working groups. The Working Group maintains the data­baseofresolutionsadoptedattheformerUNConferencesontheStandardizationofGeographicalNames.« TheWorkingGrouponExonyms(Figure25)wasestablishedin2002(Internet4).»VariousUNGEGN resolutionsnowexistonthetreatment,useandreductionofexonymsinthecontextofgeographicalnames standardization and effective UN communication. The Working Group encourages progress in address-ingtheseUNGEGNresolutions.Ascurrentconcreteprojectsitaimstoelaborateapapernotingthecurrent trends in exonym use as well as an inventory of lists of exonyms.« The Working Group on Geographical Names as Cultural Heritage was established in 2012 as a suc­cessortotheWorkingGrouponthePromotionofIndigenousandMinorityGroupNames,andalsojoined by the Working Group on Pronunciation. Its tasks are »to set up focus groups in order to be able to allo­catetaskstothedifferentexpertswithintheWG;…topublishdocumentspreparedbytheworkinggroup, and to put forward examples of good naming practices;…[to] make guidelines available, e.g., regarding commemorative naming; to update the maps made during the initial years of the working group, as long as data are provided.…It would be important to get names used in endangered languages noted on the maps.« For example, recently the working group has done a great deal with regard to reaffirming indige­nous names in Australia. In addition, UNGEGN has a Task Team for Africa and coordinates the work of countries in develop­ing their Toponymic Guidelines for Map and Other Editors for International Use (Internet 9). WithSlovenia’sindependence,itsopportunitiesforactiveinternationalcooperationinthestandardiza­tionofgeographicalnamesimprovedsignificantly.Slovenianexpertsbeganindependentlyandenthusiastically participating in UNGEGN’s plenary sessions and its East Central and South-East Europe Division, and especiallyintheWorkingGrouponExonyms(Figure25).Thisgroup’sfirstconvenorwasourlatecolleague, geographer Milan Orožen Adamic, who also served as a mediator in resolving internationally problemat­icgeographicalnames(OroženAdamic2004).In2005,thefourthmeetingoftheWorkingGrouponExonyms washeldinLjubljana(Pipan2005),whereitstwenty-thirdmeetingwasalsoplannedtotakeplaceinMarch 2020. This was cancelled at the last minute due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. 3.3 Linguistic/geographical divisions At the First United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, held in Geneva in1967,arecommendationwasadoptedforthepermanentcommitteeongeographicalnamestoalsoinclude representatives of every linguistic/geographical division. Fourteen regional divisions were defined at that time, but later new ones were established, or changes were made to the composition of the existing ones. An important procedural principle developed along the way; namely, that at the division’s meetings and the UNGEGN plenarysessions every participant is regarded as a representative of an individual country ratherthananexpert.Thisledtotherulethatdecisionswithintheregionaldivisionsaretobemadeeither through consensus or a majority vote by the representatives of individual divisions rather than the majority of attending experts. Specifically, every member state can appoint one or several experts to attend the UNGEGN plenary sessions, but this body operates based on the affiliation with the linguistic/geograph­ical divisions, where each division has one vote (Kadmon 2000). In line with the UNGEGN statute and rules of procedure, every country can decide for itself which division it wishes to belong to; it can be a member of several divisions at the same time. Each division, if composed of more than one sovereign state, selects a chair (i.e., an expert) to represent the division. This chair promotes activities in the standardization of geographical names within the division by all appro­priate means envisaged by UNGEGN. To discuss technical and procedural matters, a division may hold regionalmeetings.achaircanbeinvitedtoattendmeetingsofotherdivisionsinthecapacityofanobserv­er or consultant. Only one division is composed of one sovereign state: China. Israel held the same status as the only representative of the East Mediterranean Division until 1998, when it was joined by Cyprus, and the Soviet Union also had such a status until its collapse in 1990. With the establishment of nine new regional linguistic/geographical divisions and the disbandment of the Soviet Union Division, from 1967 to 1998 their number increased to twenty-two. With later par­tialreorganizationsandtheestablishmentofthePacificSouth-WestDivisionandthePortuguese-Speaking Division, their number has grown to the current twenty-four. They are listed below together with their member states, following an established order. The year of establishment of their official names authori­ty is added to the names of some countries (Kadmon 2000; Kladnik 2007c; Internet 2): 1. Africa Central Division(Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (the), DemocraticRepublicoftheCongo(the),EquatorialGuinea,Gabon,Rwanda,andSaoTomeandPrincipe); 2. AfricaEastDivision(Botswana1967,Burundi,Djibouti,Eswatini,Ethiopia,Kenya,Lesotho,Madagascar 1973, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Sudan (the) 1996, Uganda 1995, United Republic of Tanzania (the), Zambia, and Zimbabwe); 3. AfricaSouthDivision(Botswana1967,Eswatini,Lesotho,Madagascar,Malawi,Mozambique,Namibia, South Africa 1998, Zambia, and Zimbabwe); 4. Africa West Division(Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia (the), Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger (the), Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo); 5. ArabicDivision(Algeria1998,Bahrain,Comoros,Djibouti,Egypt,Iraq,Jordan1984,Kuwait,Lebanon 1962, Libya 2000, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman 1983, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, State of Palestine, Sudan (the) 1996, Syrian Arab Republic (the) 1996, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates (the), and Yemen); 6. AsiaEastDivision(otherthanChina)(DemocraticPeople’sRepublicofKorea(the),Japan,andRepublic of Korea (the) 1958); 7. AsiaSouth-EastDivision(Bhutan,BruneiDarussalam1976,Cambodia,Indonesia2001,LaoPeople’s DemocraticRepublic(the),Malaysia2002,Myanmar,Philippines(the),Singapore,SriLanka,Thailand 1992, and Viet Nam 2002); 8. Asia South-West Division (other than Arabic) (Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cyprus 1977, Iran (Islamic Republic of) 2000, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan); 9. BalticDivision(Estonia1994,Latvia,Lithuania1990,Poland1934,andRussianFederation(the)1994); 10. Celtic Division (France and Ireland 1946); 11. China Division (China 1977); 12. Dutch- and German-Speaking Division (Austria 1968, Belgium, Germany 1959, Netherlands (the), South Africa 1998, Suriname, and Switzerland); 13. EastCentralandSouth-EastEuropeDivision(Albania,BosniaandHerzegovina,Bulgaria1951,Croatia 2020,Cyprus1977,Czechia2001,Georgia,Greece,Hungary1989,Montenegro,Poland1934,Romania, Serbia 2009, Slovakia 1971, Slovenia 1986, North Macedonia 1984, Turkey 2004, and Ukraine 1994); 14. EasternEurope,NorthernandCentralAsiaDivision(Armenia,Azerbaijan,Belarus,Bulgaria1951, Georgia,Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan,RussianFederation(the)1994,Tajikistan,Ukraine1994,andUzbekistan); 15. East Mediterranean Division (other than Arabic) (Cyprus 1977 and Israel 1951); 16. French-SpeakingDivision(Algeria,Belgium,Bulgaria,BurkinaFaso,Cameroon,Canada1897,Chad, Congo(the),Côted’Ivoire,DemocraticRepublicoftheCongo(the),Djibouti,France,Guinea,Lebanon 1962,Madagascar1973,Mali,Morocco,Niger(the),Romania,Senegal,Spain,Switzerland,Togo,and Tunisia); 17. India Division (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, and Pakistan); 18. LatinAmericaDivision(Argentina1983,Bolivia,Brazil,Chile,Colombia,CostaRica,Cuba,Dominican Republic(the),Ecuador,ElSalvador,Guatemala,Haiti,Honduras,Mexico,Nicaragua,Panama,Paraguay, Peru, Spain, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 1989); 19. NordenDivision(Denmark(includingGreenlandandFaroeIslands)1910,Finland1975,Iceland1935, Norway 1979, and Sweden 1974); 20. PacificSouth-WestDivision(Australia1985,Fiji,Nauru,NewZealand1946,PapuaNewGuinea,Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, and Vanuatu); 21. Portuguese-SpeakingDivision(Angola,Brazil,CaboVerde,Guinea-Bissau,Mozambique,Portugal, Sao Tome and Principe, and Timor-Leste); 22. Romano-HellenicDivision(Andorra,Belgium,Canada1897,Cyprus1977,France,Greece,HolySee (the),Italy,Luxembourg,Monaco,Portugal,RepublicofMoldova(the),Romania,Spain,Switzerland, and Turkey); 23. United Kingdom Division (Guyana, Jamaica, New Zealand 1946, South Africa 1998, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)); 24. USA/Canada Division (Canada 1897 and United States of America (the) 1890). ThefirstnationalgeographicalnamesauthoritywasestablishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericain1890, followedbytheCanadianPermanentCommitteeonGeographicalNamesin1897.InEurope,thefirstgeo­graphicalnamesauthoritywasestablishedbyDenmarkin1910(Kadmon2000).Fornow,manycountries still do not have their own names authorities. The legal status of national commissions varies greatly across the globe. Some countries have inde­pendenttoponymicauthoritiesestablishedespeciallyforthispurpose,andelsewheresuchtasksareperformed bysurveyingandcartographicinstitutions,geographicalinstitutes,or–likeinGreece,Italy,andtheUnited Arab Emirates – military geographical institutions. Even if a commission has an official status in a spe­cificcountry,thisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatgeographicalnamesholdalegalstatus,whichwouldresult in changing their status from standardized into official. An official status means that geographical names holding such status are protected by law and cannot be changed or interfered with in any other way with­out judicial approval. Slovenia belongs to the East Central and South-East Europe Division (ECSEED). More active mem­bersofthisdivisionalsoincludetheCzechia,Hungary,Greece,Poland,andSlovakia,whereasothers,such asBosniaandHerzegovina,donotevenhavetheirownnationalnamesauthoritiesyet(neighboringCroatia onlyobtainedonein2020).Insettinguptheircommissionsforthestandardizationofgeographicalnames, bothCroatiaandSerbiaconsultedtheSloveniancommission,inquiringaboutitsexperience.In1999,2001, and2015,theECSEEDsessionswereheldinLjubljana(Figure26),alsobecauseSloveniahasalreadychaired this division several times. 3.4 The Slovenian Government Commission for the Standardization of Geographical Names National standardization is the basic precondition for the international standardization of geographical names. To this end, every country should establish a names or standardization authority responsible for the professional treatment of geographical names. This authority must be authorized for standardization and prepare guidelines for its implementation. It should include experts in linguistics, geography, histo­ry, geodesy, cartography, and other disciplines, if needed. As part of Yugoslavia, Slovenia long remained without its own names authority. As a federation of six republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia) and two autonomous regions within the Republic of Serbia (Vojvodina and Kosovo), for a long time Yugoslavia wasamongthefewinfluentialcountriesintheworldthatdidnothavetheirowngeographicalnamescom­mission.However,itnonethelessattendedtheplenaryUnitedNationsConferencesontheStandardization ofGeographicalNames,andsoitsparticipantsoccasionallyinformedtheinterestedprofessionalcommunity aboutthemaintendenciesintheinternationalstandardizationofgeographicalnames(Peterca1984;Zašov 1984). The federal government only issued a decree establishing a (Yugoslav) commission for the stan­dardization of geographical names in 1986. However, this commission was never constituted and it never began operation. The content of this decree was problematic because it did not envisage that representa­tives of the names authorities from individual republics would also participate in the commission as full members (Rotar 1991). TheYugoslavRepublicofMacedoniawasthefirsttoestablishsuchanauthorityin1984.TheSlovenian commission was set up in November 1986. Its first chair was Peter Svetik. Thus, Yugoslavia did not have an official names authority, but two of its republics did; however, they could not directly participate in the internationalactivitiesforthestandardizationofgeographicalnamesbecausetheydidnothavetheautho­rization required for it (Kladnik 2007b). Thisresultedinaninterestingparadox,inwhichinternationalcommunicationongeographicalnames took place at the federal level, but the concrete treatment of geographical names was in the hands of the relevant institutions in individual republics (Gams 1984c). In principle, these institutions were also more interestedinUNGEGN’sachievements,buttheproblemwasthattheinformationtheyreceivedwassparse anddeficient.ThiswasreportedbyJakobMedved(1969,16):»Theintroductionofnewprinciplesinwrit­ingforeigngeographicalnamesinourcountry[Yugoslavia]hasonlyjustbegun,whereasmanyothercountries havealreadyfullyestablishedtheseprinciples.Thislaggingbehindtheinternationaldevelopmentprimarily results from the fact that our country is only formally cooperating with the UN international commission for geographical names; we were represented by Dr. [Vladimir] Velebit. As far as I know, our geographers are not involved in this commission and we do not receive any literature on individual countries’ gener­al decisions and views on writing their geographical names. Even though the [UN] commission has been active for nearly twodecades, its work is practically unknown in our country. We can only identify it from the results in modern geographical atlases published by various publishers in Western Europe and part­ly also Eastern Europe.« InSlovenia,thegreatesteffortsforstandardizinggeographicalnamesweremadebygeographers.Already in the early 1970s, a special commission for geographical names was set up as part of the Slovenian GeographicalSociety.In1984,theAssociationofSlovenianGeographicalSocietiesproposedtotheRepublic CommitteeforInternationalCooperationthatacommissionforthestandardizationofgeographicalnames should be established in Slovenia. a similar proposal was also submitted to the Republic Committee for Culture by the Republic Mapping and Surveying Authority a year later. There was no reply from either of the committees. It was only at the proposal of the Republic Mapping and Surveying Authority sent to the Executive Council of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia in June 1986 that the Commission for the Standardization of Geographical Names was established in November that same year (Rotar 1991). During its first term of office, in addition to dealing with procedural issues, the commission standardized the names of coun­tries and some dependent territories and produced recommendations on the proposed amendments to the names of settlements and streets. In 1990, the commission and its members were reappointed. After Slovenia’s transition from com-munism,thiswascommonpracticeforallcommissionsestablishedbythegovernment.Duetostaffchanges and the reorganization of bodies within the commission, it ceased to operate between 1992 and 1995 (Pogorelcnik 1999). Because Slovenia became independent and joined the United Nations in the meantime, the republic commission had to be converted into a national authority for the standardization of geographical names. Tothisend,agroupofexpertsproducedasuitableinitiativethatEmaPogorelcnikattheSlovenianSurveying andMappingAuthoritythenreworkedintoaproposal.Thisinitiatedtheprocedureforsettingupanation­al names commission (Perko 1995). On September 14th, 1995, the Slovenian government adopted the decision to establish the Slovenian Government Commission for the Standardization of Geographical Names (hereinafter: the commission) anditappointeditsmembers.Sincethen,thecommission’sheadquartershavebeenattheZRCSAZUAnton MelikGeographicalInstitute.AtitsfirstmeetingonSeptember26th,1995,MilanOroženAdamicwaselect-ed as chair. In addition to geographers and linguists, its members also included geodesists, cartographers, historians, statisticians, and lawyers. ItwasfirstconstitutedastheSlovenianGovernmentCommissionfortheStandardizationofGeographical NamesinFebruary2001.ItwasdefinedasapermanentworkingbodyoftheSloveniangovernment,which at that time comprised sixteen members from eight institutions. InMarch2005,theSloveniangovernmentadoptedadecisiontodisbandapproximatelyfortygovernment commissionstoincreaseefficiency,includingtheSlovenianGovernmentCommissionfortheStandardization of Geographical Names. However, because by that time the commission had already been firmly embed­ded in UNGEGN’s international structures and the organization of an already previously planned session of the Working Group on Exonyms in Ljubljana had already been well underway, its chair intervened with thegovernment,resultinginthegovernmentproposingthatthecommissionbereestablishedimmediately. All the institutions involved in the commission until then were called upon to each propose a repre­sentativeforthenewcommission.InadditiontotheZRCSAZUinstitutes,representativeswereproposed by the Surveying and Mapping Institute of Slovenia, theSlovenian Surveying and Mapping Authority, the Slovenian Institute for Standardization, the University of Ljubljana’s Faculty of Arts, and the Slovenian Statistical Office. The Office for the Organization and Development of Administration at the Ministry of the Interior and the Foreign Ministry did not send proposals. a representative of the Slovenian Language Division at the Ministry of Culture was newly invited to join the commission. The new commission was established in September 2005. Milan Orožen Adamic continued to serve as its chair. When he was appointed Slovenian ambassador in Zagreb in 2005, his position was temporarily filled by Drago Perko, who at that time headed the ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute. Milan Orožen Adamic continued to serve as its formal chair until December 2017, when he was replaced by Matjaž Geršic (Figure 27). To reexamine the names of countries and dependent territories systematically and in detail, in 2003 the commission set up a Sub-Commission for Country Names composed of (up to six) linguists and geo­graphers. Itsconvenor isDrago Perko. Aftertwo years of regular meetings, thesub-commissionproposed a list of Slovenian short, official short, and official full names of countries and those dependent territories that do not yet possess full political independence or sovereignty but remain politically outside the con­trolling’s state integral area. The commission has standardized these names, but, with the new Slovenian normativeguidebeingprepared,thereisaneedtoharmonizethemwiththenamesinthenormativeguide because quite a few differences have been established (Kladnik and Perko 2007; 2013c; 2015a). In June 2006, the commission adopted its revised rules of procedure, which, among other things, pro­vide the following: • The commission is a permanent body of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia in charge of stan­dardizing all geographical names in Slovenia and geographical names in Slovenian outside Slovenia; • Professional and operational tasks for the commission are performed by the ZRC SAZU Anton Melik GeographicalInstitute,whichmustprovideforsuitablestafftocarryouttheprofessionaltasksrequired; If needed, it can seek assistance from external experts; • The commission’s program of work is defined in the annual program that it submits to the Slovenian Surveying and Mapping Authority for its annual work program. The purpose of the commission is to establish order in the use of geographical names, to ensure that they are maintained and written correctly in terms of linguistics, etymology, history, and geography, to prevent the duplication of names, particularly settlement names, and to provide advice in creating street names. Other important tasks of the commission include finding solutions to current issues at the pro­posal of individual petitioners, monitoring developments in the standardization of geographical names, and actively cooperating in international geographical names bodies and associations. However,thecommission’sfundamentaltaskisthestandardizationofgeographicalnamesinSlovenia (endonyms) and Slovenianized foreign geographical names or exonyms. The purpose of standardization istodefinethewrittenformofgeographicalnamesandtoachieveuniformusageofendonymsandexonyms. In this regard, the commission: • Adopts expert standardization documents, thus guiding and coordinating the standardization of geo­graphical names in Slovenia; • Examines and proposes accurate written forms of geographical names in line with the standardization documents; • Informsthepublicofdevelopmentsinstandardizationandtheuseofstandardizedgeographicalnames; • Conveys data on standardized and other geographical names to the Slovenian Mapping and Surveying Authority, which keeps a database on geographical names with similar attributes (geographical name, location, semantic type, and so on); • Takes part in verifying the geographical names in the Register of Geographical Names (REZI); • Processes geographical names linguistically (providing a suitable written form, listing any allonyms); • Examines geographical names in Slovenia’s bilingual areas (Figure 28); • Operates in line with the resolutions (recommendations) adopted by the United Nations Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names; • Presents initiatives to the national standardization institute for producing and adopting a new nation­al standard on the appropriate use of geographical names; • ProducesannualreportsonitsworkandsubmitsthemtheSlovenianMappingandSurveyingAuthority at the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, which provides funding for its expert tasks, at the beginning of each year. With regard to the expert treatment of geographical names and their standardization, the commission: • Adopts the criteria for writing and using geographical names in Slovenian and minority languages in Slovenia; • AdoptsthecriteriaforwritingandusinggeographicalnamesinSlovenianinterritoriesoutsideSlovenia where members of the Slovenian minority live; • Adopts the criteria for writing and using foreign geographical names in Slovenian; • Cooperates with the national standardization institute and its technical committee responsible for the standardization of geographical names by presenting initiatives for adopting new standards; • Approves geographical names, which thereby acquire the status of standardized names; • Issues standardization documents on geographical names. With regard to scholarly treatment of geographical names, the commission: • Takesintoaccountandstimulatestechnologicalandmethodologicalinnovationsandresearchinitsfield; • Follows up on initiatives for writing geographical names correctly and proposes suitable solutions; • Keeps abreast of and takes into account specialized terminology and coordinates it with the toponymic recommendations, glossaries, and standards already adopted; • Produces expert opinions and reviews on geographical names for institutions in Slovenia and abroad; • Produces comprehensive lists of geographical names collected from a wide range of sources that form the basis for standardization (for individual types of names and for specific areas); • Cooperates with other disciplines, institutions, or individuals, applying both an interdisciplinary and 57 scholarly approach to resolving toponym-related challenges. Internationally, the commission: • Cooperateswithothercountriesinresolvingcommonissuesrelatedtogeographicalnames(Figure29); • TakesanactivepartinUNGEGN,itsworkinggroups,anditsEastCentralandSouth-EastEuropeDivision; • ProducesviewsongeographicalnamesonbehalfofSloveniaandconveysthemtosuitableinternational institutions; • ReportsonitsworkatUNGEGNmeetingsandthemeetingsoftheEastCentralandSouth-EastEurope Division. To promote the discipline, the commission: • Promotes the correct use of standardized and other geographical names on maps and in other docu­ments, as well as in all other situations in which such names appear; • Reports on its work and explains its importance in research and popular publications and the media. The Commission issues publications in printed and digital formats. The publications follow the rec­ommendationsfromtheresolutionsoftherelevantUNconferencesonpublishingmaterialsandthelatest findings of the UNGEGN working bodies, while informing the Slovenian and international professional communityofthemaindevelopmentsimportantforthecorrectuseofgeographicalnamesandtheirinter­national standardization. Soonafterthecommission’sre-establishmentin1995,thefollowingtwoworkswerepublished:Slovar toponimske terminologije (Dictionary of Toponymic Terminology; Radovan and Majdic 1995a) and ToponimskanavodilazaSlovenijo(ToponymicGuidelinesforSlovenia;Radovan1995).Thelatterwasalso published in English (Radovan and Majdic 1995b). One of the first successful projects after the commis­sion’s re-establishment was a new standardization of country names (Perko 1996b). Not long after, Imenik uradnih imen naselij v Sloveniji (Gazetteer of Official Settlement Names in Slovenia; Gabrovec and Perko 1997) was produced as part of standardizing the names of settlements.In 1997, efforts also began toward achieving uniform usage of Slovenian exonyms (Orožen Adamic 1998; Kladnik 1999a; 2001b). In 1998, the expert report Standardizacija zemljepisnih imen v Sloveniji (Standardization of Geographical Names in Slovenia; Orožen Adamic 1998) was published, followed by a Slovenian adaptation of the UN resolu­tions on geographical names in 1999 (Radovan and Orožen Adamic 1999). The publication Pravopisnoustrezen zapis zemljepisnih in stvarnih lastnih imen vregistru zemljepisnih imen in registru prostorskih enot (Orthographically Correct Representation of Proper Nouns in the Register of Geographical Names andtheRegisterofSpatialUnits;Furlan,GložancevandŠivic-Dular2000;2001)isespeciallyrelevantinterms of the standardization of Slovenian endonyms. The Slovenian–English Zgošceni imenik zemljepisnih imen Slovenije (Concise Gazetteer of Slovenia; Perko 2001), which contains a list of geographical names from the 1:1,000,000 map of Slovenia, is important in terms of the correct use of Slovenian geographical names abroad.In it,all geographical names in Slovenian territory have been standardized.The year 2008 saw the publication of the National General Map of the Republic of Slovenia at the Scale 1:250,000: StandardizedSlovene Geographical Names (Furlan et al. 2008), whose reverse side contains a list of all the names used on the map. All the 4,272 geographical names in Slovenian territory have been standardized, along with a few exonyms in Slovenia’s immediate vicinity. Thecommissionhasitsownwebsite(https://www.gov.si/zbirke/delovna-telesa/komisija-za-standardizacijo­zemljepisnih-imen), where various lists, toponymic guidelines, recommendations, and other documents that the commission has produced over the past thirty-five years are accessible in electronic form. 4 Treatment of Slovenian geographical names in normative works The first work in which geographical names are precisely broken down by the types of features they name waswrittenintheearlynineteenthcentury.Itisan1826studybyUrbanJarnik:AndeutungenüberKärntens Germanisierung (Notes on the Germanization of Carinthia). The author determines the Germanizationof many names in which the semantic motivation is Slovenian common nouns (Šivic-Dular 2002). WithinIndo-Europeanlinguisticsandotherdisciplines,scholarlydevelopmentofonomasticsbeganin thesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury.SlavicandSlovenianonomasticsdevelopedprimarilythroughstud­iesinthisfieldbyFranzMiklosich:DieBildungderslavischenPersonennamen(TheFormationofSlavicPersonal Names,1860),DieBildungderOrtsnamenausPersonennamenimSlavischen(FormationofPlaceNamesfrom PersonalNamesinSlavicLanguages,1864),andDieslavischenOrtsnamenausAppellativenI,II(SlavicPlaceNamesfromCommonNounsParts1and2,1872and1874,respectively).Hiscomparativegrammar(Jakopin1990; Šivic-Dular 2002)is also important for the study of Slovenian common andproper nouns. At the beginning of the twentieth century a significant amount of onomastic material was also col-lectedbynon-linguists,primarilythehistoriansFranceKos(rentrolls,historicaltopography),PavleBlasnik, and Ivan Zelk (historical topography); later in the century they were joined by Milko Kos. The Croatian etymologist Petar Skok (Jakopin 1990) was active at the same time, and he left a very important mark onSlovenianonomastics(Jakopin1990).Thereasonsfortheincreasedinterestinthesubjectatthetimeprob­ably lie mainly in Miklošic’s studies, but also in the publication of the first Slovenian gazetteers, such as Peter Kosler’s 1864 Imenik mest, trgov in krajev zapopadenih v zemljevidu slovenske dežele (Gazetteer ofTowns, Markets, and Places on the Map of Slovenian Territory), and the publication of historical sourceswithrecordsofnamesolderthanthoseinValvasor’sseventeenth-centuryworks(Šivic-Dular2002).Thus, Kosler is considered the first »geographer« to deal with Slovenian geographical names. a few years later saw the publication of Atlant, the world’s first atlas in Slovenian, which is important mainly in terms ofits treatment of exonyms, or Slovenianized foreign geographical names (Atlant 2005; Kladnik et al. 2006; Urbanc et al. 2006; Perko et al. 2013; Kladnik and Geršic 2016). 4.1 Slovenian normative guides Until Slovenian came into wider use, the rules for writing geographical names leaned heavily on German normative rules. There were not many geographical names in early texts, and names from the Bible pre­dominated.Geographicalnamesdoappear,however,inthefirstbooksprintedinSlovenian,suchasPrimož Trubar’s Catechismus of 1575. His recorded names can be used to determine some normative rules con-nectedwithgeographicalnames.Intwo-wordsettlementnames,forexample,Trubarcapitalizedbothelements (Weiss 2020). ThefirstSloveniannormativeguidewasproducedbyFranLevecin1899(Figure30).Itwaspublished inVienna,thecapitalofAustria-Hungary,towhichthemajorityofSlovenianterritory,aspartofCisleithania, belonged. Levec looked to the Croatian normative guide by Ivan Broz as a model, but he also took intoaccount Maks Pleteršnik’s Slovenian–German dictionary and some suggestions from Stanislav Škrabec (Dobrovoljc 2018a). In his work, Levec devoted significant attention to geographical names in various sections. He also gave them their own subsection in the part aboutdeclining proper nouns. Among other things, he noted that in addition to the written declension rules it was important to listen to local dialects because some­times the correct declension may differ from the established model. In the section on derivation, place names are mentioned under adjectives. In some, especially two-word names, adjectives are also reflected inplacenames.Inthesamesection,Levecalsodiscussestheborrowingofforeignnames.First,heexplains the general rules, the reasons for bringing foreign words into Slovenian, and the principles of how to spell them.Thereafter,hedealswithnamesfromindividuallanguagesseparately,distinguishingbetweenGreek, Latin, German, Hungarian, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, English, and Slavic names. In all groups of names, Levec gives rules for Slovenianizing them and also mentions many Slovenian exonyms, pointing out that only established exonyms are allowed. He believed that some Slovenianized forms should be allowed only in books intended for ordinary readers and that young people that do not know how to read foreign letters (Levec 1899). Levec’s normative guide mentions a few other interesting details regarding geographical names. He mentions that some people needlessly change geographical names; for example, using Štefanova vas (lit­erally ‘Štefan’s village’) instead of Štepanja vas (‘Štepan’s village’) or substituting the word sveti ‘saint’ for the word šent (also ‘saint’). He also touches upon the use of hyphens in multiword geographical names (Levec 1899). Anton Breznik’s normative guide came out in 1920. By this time, Slovenian had become more estab­lished,whichaffectedgenerallinguisticandculturalawareness.Breznik’sguideisrestrictedtothetreatment oforthographicrulesinthenarrowersense,butithasbeenveryinfluential.Someofitsprinciplesremained unchanged for more than forty years (Dobrovoljc 2018a; 2018b). GeographicalnamesarefoundalreadyinthefirstsectionofBreznik’snormativeguide,whichdescribes capitalizationrules.Inthegeneralguidelines,theauthorwritesthatpropernouns,amongwhichsomeexam­plesofgeographicalnamesaregiven,arecapitalized.Whengeographicalnamesarecomposedofanadjective andatypeofnounthatisalreadyapropernouninandofitself,bothwordsarecapitalized.Ifthegeographical nameiscomposedofanadjectiveandacommonnoun,thenounisnotcapitalized.Thisgroupalsoincludes namesofstreets,suburbs,lakes,plateaus,valleys,andafewotherfeatures.Breznikalsolookedtocommon usage for this differentiation between proper and common nouns. That is, if the locals also use the noun byitselfwithouttheadjective,itistreatedasapropernoun.Healsowarnsagainstwritingtwo-wordnames without aspace. However,if anameiscomposedof threeormorewords,thepropernounsare capitalized and the common nouns are not. Breznik also gave special consideration to foreign proper nouns, which were to be written in accor­dancewiththerulesintheirlanguages.Hepaidspecialattentiontogeographicalnameswiththeadjective šent or sveti ‘saint’. If the adjective šent has been completely joined to a proper noun, such that they cre­ate a single word, it can be written in two ways: an abbreviated version (e.g., Št. Vid, literally ‘Saint Vitus’), orinitstraditionalform(e.g.,Šentvid,notŠentVid).Theadjectivesveticanalsobewrittentwoways,either abbreviated(e.g.,Sv.Lovrenc,literally‘SaintLawrence’)ortheusualway(e.g.,SvetiLovrenc).Insomecases, the adjective šent has become an inseparable fused element of the name and it cannot be separated from the name (e.g., Števerjan, Šencur, referring to Saint Florian and Saint George, respectively). In deciding upon the usage of the adjectives sveti or šent, the local usage should be taken into account. Thenormativeguidethatappearedin1935,whichwasproducedbyAntonBreznikandFranRamovš, looked to its predecessor of fifteen years prior for guidelines. In it, the term krajevno ime ‘place name’ was finallyestablishedforwhatisnowthewell-establishedtermzemljepisnoime‘geographicalname’.Therevised 1937 edition eliminated some of the substantive inconsistencies that led to extensive criticism of the orig­inal version (Dobrovoljc 2015a). The first section on capitalization in the 1935 normative guide was largely a copy of its predecessor from 1920, including the same examples. In spelling and declining foreign proper nouns, Breznik and Ramovš’s guide looked to the 1899 normative guide, stating that foreign proper nouns could be written inSlovenianeitherintheirforeignorSlovenianizedforms.Itgoesontodiscussexonyms,statingthatSlavic names or forms should be used when they are available for foreign place names, but at the same time it advises against forced Slovenianization. Some Slovenian exonyms were recognized as archaic even then (e.g.,Inomost‘Innsbruck’,Frankobrod‘Frankfurt’).Thenitgivesrulesforspellingandexamplesfordeclin­ing Slavic proper nouns, and examples for classical Greek and Latin, and for other languages. In 1950 a new normative guide came out, which was a revised edition of the 1935 Breznik–Ramovš normative guide. Its new features are mainly related to the Yugoslav communist system after the Second World War (Dobrovoljc 2015b). This time, too, the discussion of geographical names takes place first in the section on capitalization, and thereafter a special section is devoted to them. The discussion of a few different types of place names is followed by the rules for spelling compound names, in which the guide distinguishesbetweennamescontainingamodifierandnamescontaininganadjective.Inthecaseofamod­ifier (e.g., Ljudska republika Slovenija ‘People’s Republic of Slovenia’), the first word is capitalized and the others are not, but only if they are not proper nouns in and of themselves. However, when a place name consists ofa definite adjective and a common-noun toponym, the adjective is capitalized and the noun is not (e.g., Kranjska gora, containing gora‘mountain’). This rule also applies to geographical names outside the borders of Slovenia when they are Slovenianized. Otherwise, the guide dictates that, as a rule, foreign geographicalnamesarenotSlovenianized,butwrittenintheirendonymic,foreignforms(e.g.,RioGrande and not Velika reka ‘Big River’). In the case of names consisting of three or more words, proper nouns are capitalized and common nouns are not. However, when a toponym consists of a definite adjective and a noun that either is or feels like a prop­er noun, both the adjective and the noun are capitalized (e.g., Tržiška Bistrica ‘Tržic Bistrica River’). The namesofforeignplacesthathaveSlovenianformsarealsowrittenthisway(e.g.,VisokeTatre‘HighTatras’). Inthis section, the normative guide also provides the rules for writing adjective forms derived from place names. These are not capitalized. The guide also devotes a special subsection to local proper nouns that do not have a standard form and follow the local dialect in pronunciation, spelling, and usage. The guide also notes that the spelling of manyplace names is not yet established and fixed, especially when it comes todeclension.Certaincircumstancesalsorequirespecialattentionfromtheuser,suchaswhetherthename is plural (e.g., Begunje) or singular (e.g., Zagorje). In the section on foreign proper nouns, the guide states that they can be written in two ways, in a for­eign or Slovenian form, but in all cases they should be inflected according to Slovenian rules. In texts for generaluse,namesareadaptedmoretoSlovenianspelling,whereasinmorescholarlytextsnamesarekept closer to their endonymic forms. Certainly, among geographical names, Slovenian forms are used for the names of countries and regions, some common nouns within proper nouns (e.g., morje ‘sea’, jezero ‘lake’, otok‘island’,prekop‘canal’,ožina‘strait’,etc.)andthusalsoadjectivesthatmakeupsuchnames(e.g.,Sredozemsko ‘Mediterranean’,Blatno‘mud’,Komsko‘Como’,etc.),andsomepropernounsforrivers,mountains,andplaces. The guide explicitly states that foreign names should not be forcefully Slovenianized in general use, citing a few examples such as Frankobrod for Frankfurt, whereby the use of the foreign form is more appropri­ate. This is followed by rules for proper nouns in individual language groups (Slavic, Classical, Romance, andGermanic),rulesfortransliterationfromCyrillic,andrulesfordeclensionandformationofadjectives. Separatesubsectionsarededicatedtocompositenames(whichareinflectedonlyintheirfinalcomponent parts), the names of rivers, and names from non-European languages that are not written in Latin script; the latter should be written by individual languages according to their own rules, which also applies to Slovenian. The normative guide of 1962 was created because the desired standard language and actual language use were becoming more and more distant from one another, and this guide was intended to bridge this discrepancy.Onceagain,geographicalnamesappearinthesectiononcapitalization.Theguidefirstexplains what all the geographical names denote, and then it focuses first on multi-word names. These are divid­edintonamescontainingacommonnounandnamescontainingapropernoun.Inthefirstcase,theadjective is capitalized and the noun usually is not. However, if a geographical name consists of a defining adjective and a noun that are not a common geographical name, both the adjective and noun are capitalized. If a geographical name consists of more than two words, proper nouns are capitalized and common nouns are not. When names beginning with a prepositional phrase are used in the nominative, the preposition is capitalized and the common noun is not. In the section on the use of geographical names, these are discussed separately, by type: the names of settlements, regions, mountains and mountain ranges, and bodies of water. Adjective derivatives are alsodiscussedseparately.Withregardtoforeignpropernouns,theguidestatesthattheendonymicorthog­raphyshouldbetakenintoaccountinscholarlytexts,andtransliterationshouldbeusedinthetranscription. Forpopularuse,transcriptionisallowed,butforeignspellingrulesmustbeobserved. Thentherearedetailed instructionsforindividualwritingsystemsandinflectionrules.NextisasubsectiononSlovenianizednames. The more the name is in general use, the more Slovenianized it should be, both in spelling and pronuncia­tion.Amonggeographicalnames,thenamesofcountries,regions,andislandsarewrittenintheSlovenianized forms,asaregenerictermsincompoundgeographicalnames(e.g.,morje‘sea’,pušcava‘desert’,ožina‘strait’). The names of major rivers, most mountains, and the names of some better-known places are handled in a similar way. The guide draws attention to the inappropriate forced Slovenianization of names for cer­tain places (e.g., Frankobrod for Frankfurt). The names of geographical features that are fully and almost alwaystranslated(e.g.,Tihiocean‘thePacificOcean’)andthenamesofstreetswhentranslated(e.g.,Tretja avenija ‘Third Avenue’) are written in Slovenianized forms. The first – and so far only – normative guide in independent Slovenia was published by ZRC SAZU in 2001. It was published on the basis of the Nacrt pravil za novi slovenski pravopis (Plan of Rules for the NewSlovenianNormativeGuide,1981),whichreceivednumerousconstructivecommentsfrommanylin­guistsandotherexperts.Oneofthechangesthatwastakenintoaccountinthefinalrevisionandthatdiffers from the rules proposed in 1981 is the capitalization of prepositional proper names. The guide consists of two parts, the first containing rules and the second a dictionary. Geographical names appear in both parts. Several sections in the first part contain geographical names. First, a special subsection is devoted to them in the section on capitalization. At this point, geographical names arefirst broken down in detail, andexamplesareaddedtoallgroupsofgeographicalnames.Furthermore,theguidedistinguishesbetween settlementandnon-settlementgeographicalnames.Thenamesofboroughtowns,villages,markettowns, and hamlets are included in the former category, and all other geographical names belong in the latter. The distinction between settlement and non-settlement names is important for proper capitalization. All components of settlement names are capitalized, except for prepositions and the nouns mesto ‘borough town’, trg ‘market town’, vas (vesca) ‘village’, selo (selce, sela) ‘village’, and naselje ‘settlement’, when they do notappearinfirstposition.Theguideaddsthat,duetotechnicallimitations,thenominativeformissome-times given in parentheses instead of the prepositionally inflected form, offering, for example Crni Vrh nad Idrijo (literally, ‘black peak above Idrija’) . Crni Vrh (Idrija). When a settlement name also incorpo­rates a non-settlement name, that part of the name retains its written form as a non-settlement. Ifforeigngeographicalnamescontaintheequivalentsof‘village’,‘boroughtown’,‘markettown’,or‘set­tlement’, they are Slovenianized or translated according to Slovenian normative rules; that is, not capitalized.However,iftheyarenotSlovenianized,theyretaintheforeignspellingconventions,evenwith respect to capitalization. Thefirstelementsofnon-settlementnamesarecapitalizedandtheremainingelementsarenot,unless they are proper nouns in and of themselves. The next set of rules on geographical names is in thesection on borrowed words and phrases. Single­wordgeographicalnamesfromLatinscriptsmostlyretaintheirendonymicforms.Thenamesofcountries, continents,oceans,mountains,andbetter-knownplacesandbuildingsarewritteninSlovenianizedforms. These names are joined by those that are pronounced as they are spelled in Slovenian. There are some Slovenian names that replace foreign ones; these are exonyms. The criteria for the use of endonyms and exonyms are precisely specified in the normative guide. In principle, foreign single-word names are not translated, with the exception of some types of com-pounds.Multi-wordnamesaremostlyfullytranslatediftheyconsistofcommonnouncomponents;otherwise only those parts that are common nouns are translated. Geographical names also appear in the section on declensions. Geographical names have a special role in the guide’s treatment of foreign writing systems and cases ofSlovenianization.Aboutfiftyscriptsarecollected.InthecaseofLatinscripts,typographicsubstitutions arepresentedfirst,followedbyphoneticandpotentialwrittenSlovenianization.Fornon-Latinscripts,translit­eration rules are first presented (Table 3). Geographicalnamesandrulesrelatedtotheirspellingandpronunciationarecontainedinallthenorma­tiveguidesdiscussed;thatis,fromthefirstSloveniannormativeguideof1899tocontemporarynormativeguides. Table 3: Scripts with transliteration rules in the 2001 normative guide. Main group Subgroup 1 Subgroup 2 Languages Latin Slavic Latin Non-Slavic European Latin – Albanian, Finno-Ugric Romance Serbian or Croatian, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Upper Sorbian, Lower Sorbian Albanian, Hungarian, Finnish Estonian Romanian, Italian, Friulian, French, Catalan, Spanish, American Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilian Portuguese Greek-Cyrillic Greek – Ancient Greek, Modern Greek Cyrillic – Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian Baltic – – Latvian, Lithuanian Asian, African,– – Turkish, Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Indonesian, Malaysian, Other Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Swahili, Hausa Table 4: Differences in normative rules regarding the capitalization of multi-word names. Category 1899 1920 1935 1950 1962 2001 Settlement Kranjska gora Kranjska gora Kranjska gora Kranjska gora Kranjska gora Kranjska Gora Settlement Novo mesto Novo mesto Novo mesto Novo mesto Novo mesto Novo mesto Hill Šmarna gora Šmarna gora Šmarna gora Šmarna gora Šmarna gora Šmarna gora Normative topics pertinent to geographical names mainly include the use of capitalization, declension, andthespellinganduseofforeigngeographicalnames.Therulesintheseareashavechangedslightlyover time. With regard to capitalization, Table 4 shows that the only change in multiword names in the entire period under consideration is the non-capitalization of the common noun component in the names of villages, settlements, market towns, and borough towns from 1990 onward; everything else remains the same.Therearealsosomechangesindeclensionandtherecommendeduseofforeigngeographicalnames, primarily caution regarding the use of exonyms, and above all the recommendation against creating new ones. The complexity of capitalization rules in the normative guides, especially the most recent one, caus­esconsiderabledifficultiesespeciallyforschoolchildrenbutalsoforadultusers.Linguistshavethusdecided to simplify the rules in this area. Simplifications are planned in the new normative guide, and a discus-siononcapitalizationruleswasheldinJune2019.Linguistsandgeographershavepreparedextensivematerial (Dobrovoljc, Crnivec and Geršic 2020), which will be the basis for public discussion, which will in turn inform the changes to these rules. 4.2 Etymological dictionaries »Due to the geographical location and history of Slovenian ethnic territory, one of the basic issues in the etymology of Slovenian names is the question of origin; that is, whether the name is of Slavic, Germanic, Romance,orHungarianorigin.Theanswertothisquestionissometimesapparentatfirstglance,butoften it is so obscure that only an etymological analysis is able to ultimately reveal it« (Snoj 2002a, 37). Franc Miklošic (1860; 1864) was the first to discuss the etymology of Slovenian geographical names systematically and with a scientifically based methodology. Twentieth-century researchers built uponthe work of their predecessors, developing methods and data (Snoj 2002a). Later, they supported the realiza­tionthatnotonlymorphologicalcharacteristicsandcriticalanalysisofmedievalrecords,butalsoanalysis of dialect forms were necessary to determine correct etymologies. In Slovenia, the standardization of names was all too often handled by linguistically uneducated car­tographers,andsoquiteafewstandardorstandardizednameformsaremisrepresented(Snoj2002a),although nineteenth-century principles for creating the standard language based on both history and etymologydownplayeddialectformsofnames,justlikethedialectformsofcommonnouns(Šivic-Dular2016).However, no theoretical approach was worked out for standardizing proper nouns, where a decisive identifying role is played precisely by the close link between regional dialect forms of geographical names and their stan­dardized forms, which continues to present challenges. From an etymological perspective, Slovenian geographical names can roughly be divided into those of Slovenian origin and those with foreign roots; the latter are further divided into adstrates, substrates, and superstrates (Snoj 2009; Figure 31). Due to the complexity of Slovenian history and language devel­opment, Slovenian onomastics often encounters name elements that predate Slavic ones (Illyrian, Celtic, Latin,andevenProto-Indo-European),butevenmoreoftenthemorerecentinfluencesofGerman,Friulian, Italian, Hungarian, and Serbo-Croatian (Jakopin 1990). TheSlovenianonomasticprocess,orthecreationofnamesforfeaturesinterritorysettledbySlovenians, was most intensive between the sixth and thirteenth centuries; that is, from the first wave of colonization immediately after Slavs moved into the territory up to the internal colonization several centuries later. At the end of this period there were almost more settlements than there are now, especially at higher eleva­tions. Only a few percent of Slovenian geographic names have pre-Slavic substrates; these were borrowed from the prior indigenous populations. These are mostly the names of large rivers and also some regions, places,andmountains.Insomesidevalleysevensmallcreeksandinsignificantplaceshavepre-Slavicnames. The number of such names increases from east to west, which says quite a bit about the most ancient rela­tions between Slavs and the indigenous peoples. Substrate names can be based on Romance (e.g., Cedad), Celtic(e.g.,Logatec),Venetic(e.g.,Trst),orevenolderpre-Romanceandpre-Celticnames,whichare,how­ever,alreadyIndo-European.Thesewereinconsistentlylabeledas»Illyrian«inthepast.Somerivernames are in this category (e.g., Sava, Furlan 2002; Snoj 2002b; 2009). MostSloveniangeographicalnameshaveresultedfromtheSlovenianonomasticprocess(Bezlaj1965). Suchnamesarecallednativeorindigenousnames.TheyareformedfromSlovenianorSlovenianizedroots withSlovenianword-formationandname-formationdevices;thatis,suffixes,prefixes,combinations,com­pounds, and others. An example of such a name is the place name Lipa, which originally denoted an area where linden trees grew, and later the settlement that arose at this location. The hydronym Lipnica, sur­name Lipnikar, and place name Lipnik (Snoj 2009) all originate from this root. Sloveniancontainssomewhatmoregeographicalnameswithadstratesthanthosewithsubstrates.The influenceofneighboringlanguagesonSlovenianfromearlyChristianization(fromtheninthcentury)onward accountsfortheseadstrates.TheseinfluencesaredividedintoRomance,Germanic,Hungarian,andSouth Slavic. Romance influences include names adopted into »Alpine Slavic,« which can be seen through some phonetic changes typical of Alpine Slavic on the one hand, whereas on the other hand certain linguistic signs indicate that some names were borrowed only some centuries after Slavs settled these areas. a char-acteristicexampleistheoronymMatajur.MorerecentadstrateinfluencesonwesternSlovenianareFriulian and Venetian, but Istrian Romance also had significant influence. The Bavarian adstrate is strongest in the north, primarily in Carinthia, Styria, and the northern part of Prekmurje. In addition, between the tenth and fifteenth centuries there were more than twenty large German enclaves in ethnic Slovenian ter­ritory;ofthese,onlyone(theGottscheeenclavearoundKocevje)survivedintothetwentiethcentury.The othersassimilatedintoSloveniansociety,buttheirdialectsleftdeeptracesintheappellativeandonomastic lexicon. At the turn of the tenth century, the Finno-Ugric Magyars, predecessors of today’s Hungarians, settled in the territory between what are now Slovenia and Slovakia. They left their adstrate mark on the northeasternpartofSlovenianterritory.ThesouthernpartofSlovenianterritoryexperiencedadstrateinflu­ences through Croatian and somewhat also Serbian, which was spoken by the Uskoks (Snoj 2002b; 2009). ThesuperstrateinfluencesincludethelanguagesofcoloniststhatsettledwithincontiguousSlovenian territory, or who developed settlements in the border areas of Slovenian territory, thus reducing it. There are very few Romance superstrate elements in Slovenian geographical names because the Romance pop­ulations, unlike the Germanic ones, hardly colonized Slovenian ethnic territory at all – and the Friulians, except for in the Canale Valley, not at all. One of the few cases of Italian colonization is the settlement of people from near Bergamo in Lombardy to Laško in Styria after 1544. The Ecclesiastical Latin superstrate appearsintoponymsderivedfromsaints’names(hagionyms).Theseshowfeaturestypicalof(Ecclesiastical) Latin,ortheylackmorerecentRomance,Germanic,orSlavicchanges.NameswithaTyroliansuperstrate include the toponyms Vinharje (Snoj 2002b) and Grant and Kacenpoh in the Baca Gorge. South Slavic influences can only be defined as a superstrate because there has never been a sharp lin­guisticdivisionbetweenSlovenianandCroatiandialects.ThissuperstratelargelyincludesUskokrefugees fromtheBalkans.ColonizationbyCroatiansettlerscanonlybeseeninafewtoponymsinSlovenianIstria, Lower Carniola, and Carinthia. Superstrate influences of western Slavs are traceable onlyin the surnames of people that moved to Slovenian territory when it was part of Austria-Hungary (Snoj 2002b). 4.3 Toponymic guidelines As a full member of the United Nations since May 22nd, 1992, Slovenia must respect this organization’s recommendationsaslaidoutinvariousresolutions.Someoftheseareconnectedwithgeographicalnames, including Resolution no. IV/4, which requires member states to draw up toponymic guidelines for both domestic and foreign editors of maps and related products whose content relates to geographical names. ThepublicationToponimskanavodilazaSlovenijo(ToponymicGuidelinesforSlovenia;Radovan1995) was published by the Slovenian Surveying and Mapping Authority at the end of 1995. It consists of ten sections. The first sections present the population of Slovenia, official languages, the alphabet, dialects of Slovenian,andnormativerulesforwritinggeographicalnames.Thisisfollowedbyashortsectiononnam­ingandstandardizationbodies,followedbysectionspresentingthemaintoponymicsources,adictionary of common nouns and descriptive labels on maps, abbreviations on maps in Slovenian and English, and the administrative division of Slovenia into municipalities. They also contain some of the main features of spelling Italian and Hungarian geographical names. Among Slovenian maps, basic topographic maps at the scales of 1:5,000 and 1:10,000 are mentioned first. a total of 2,530 sheets at a scale of 1:5,000 cover most of the country, and uninhabited areas are cov­eredby258sheetsatascaleof1:10,000.Thesebasictopographicmapscontainabout80%ofallgeographical names in Slovenia. This is followed by descriptions of the national topographic maps. The 1:25,000 national topograph­ic map consists of 201 sheets and is estimated to contain around sixty thousand geographical names. The nationaltopographicmapatascaleof1:50,000consistsofthirty-fivesheets.AtlasSlovenije(AtlasofSlovenia, 1992) is also based on this map, presenting Slovenia on 223 sheets in A4 format at the same scale. Next,indexmapsatthescalesof1:250,000,1:400,000,1:750,000,and1:1,000,000aregiven.Eachofthem is made on a single sheet. The geographical names on these maps have been expertly reviewed. The map atascaleof1:250,000containsaroundeightthousand,ofwhichmorethanhalfareintheterritoryofSlovenia; these were also fully standardized in 2008 (Furlan et al. 2008). Toponymic guidelines also mention land cadastral plans, which number about thirty thousand and cover the entire country at various scales. These are important mainly because they contain many geo­graphical names, but they are a less reliable source due to their age. There are several registers of geographical names in Slovenia, among which the digital Register of Geographical Names (Register zemljepisnih imen, REZI) and the Register of Spatial Units (Register pros-torskihenot)haveacentralplace.Amongpublishedsources,thetoponymicguidelinesalsomentionKrajevni leksikonSlovenije(GazetteerofSlovenia;1968;1971;1976;1980;OroženAdamic,PerkoandKladnik1995), thebookSlovenskakrajevnaimena(SlovenianPlaceNames;Jakopinetal.1985),AtlasSlovenije(AtlasofSlovenia, 1992)andOdzadnjislovarzemljepisnihimenpoAtlasuSlovenije(ReverseDictionaryofGeographicalNames from the Atlas of Slovenia, Furlan 1993). InparallelwiththeSlovenianversionofthetoponymicguidelines,theSurveyingandMappingAuthority issued an English version called Toponymic Guidelines for Slovenia (Radovan and Majdic 1995b). Inadditiontobothoftheseguides,Slovartoponimsketerminologije(DictionaryofToponymicTerminology, Radovan and Majdic 1995a) was published, which was produced in accordance with UN Resolution no. VI/11 andrefers to the English Glossary of Toponymic Terminology prepared by the UNGEGN Working Group on Toponymic Terminology (Kadmon 2000). It consists of five columns: the first column contains theserialnumber,thesecondtheSlovenianterm,thethirdpossiblesynonyms,andthefourthEnglishequiv­alents to the Slovenian terms. The fifth column contains Slovenian definitions of the 529 main terms. ThedictionaryandtoponymicguidelinesalsoformthebasisfortheworkoftheSlovenianCommission for the Standardization of Geographical Names, as well as for cartographers, surveyors, and geographers that encounter geographical names in their work. 5 Macrotoponyms Macrotoponyms are proper nouns referring to large-scale geographical features on Earth (geonyms) and beyond (cosmonyms). They generally include the names of oceans, seas, gulfs, lakes, rivers, glaciers, con­tinents,peninsulas,islands,mountains,regions,countries,administrativeunits,historicalregions,towns, and villages on Earth, and the names of extraterrestrial features, such as planets, stars, and galaxies. 5.1 Cosmonyms Geographicalnamesalsoincludethenamesofcelestialbodiesorastronomicalobjectsandfeaturesonthem. From the smallest to the largest bodies, these mainly include meteoroids, asteroids, comets, planets with their satellites or moons, stars, constellations, galaxies (e.g., the Milky Way), and nebulas. Some extraterrestrial names, such as the Sun and the Moon, have been known to humanity since time immemorial; with the rapid development of astronomy in the second half of the twentieth century, the numberofthesenameshasincreaseddramatically,andtheyhavethereforealsobeeninvestigatedingreater depth by experts. Asearlyas1971,UNGEGNestablishedtheWorkingGrouponExtraterrestrialFeatures,whichworked closely with the Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature of the International Astronomical Union. The working group was dissolved in 1982 after ten years of successful work (Kladnik et al. 2013). TheInternationalAstronomicalUnionhasstudiedextraterrestrialnamessinceitsfirstmeetingin1919 inBrussels.Initially,itwasmainlyinterestedinnamesontheMoon.Backin1932,itpublishedalistof672 namesonthenearsideoftheMoon,andin1967itestablishedtheWorkingGroupforLunarNomenclature, which published a list of names of as many as 513 craters on the far side of the Moon. In 1970, it set up the Working Group for Martian Nomenclature, and in 1973 it merged the working groups for names into the aforementioned Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature, with subgroups for the Moon, Mercury,Venus,Mars,andtheOuterSolarSystem,joinedin1984by asubgroupforasteroidsandcomets (Kladnik et al. 2013). CosmonymsareusuallySlovenianized;forexample,thegalaxyAndromeda,theconstellationKasiopeja ‘Cassiopeia’,thestarAlfaKentavri‘AlphaCentauri’,Jupiter’smoonEvropa‘Europa’,thedwarfplanetCerera ‘Ceres’,Halleyjevkomet‘Halley’sComet’,themountainOlimp‘OlympusMons’onMars,andthecraterVega on the moon (Kladnik 2007c). Slovenian geographers have dealt with cosmonyms most often when translating world atlases from foreign languages, mostly English, into Slovenian (Figures 32 and 33). Some of the best-known extraterrestrial names in English and Slovenian are shown in Table 5. Figure33:ThePillarsofCreation intheEagleNebulaaremadeupofgases and dust. Table 5: Brief overview of extraterrestrial features with examples of names in English and Slovenian. English term Slovenian term English example Slovenian example nebula meglica Eagle Nebula Orlova meglica galaxy galaksija Milky Way Rimska cesta/Mlecna cesta Large Magellanic Cloud Veliki Magellanov oblak Small Magellanic Cloud Mali Magellanov oblak Andromeda Galaxy Andromedina galaksija/Andromeda constellation ozvezdje Centaurus Kentaver zodiac constellation zodiakalno ozvezdje Aries, the Ram Oven Taurus, the Bull Bik Gemini, the Twins Dvojcka Cancer, the Crab Rak Leo, the Lion Lev Virgo, the Maiden Devica Libra. the Scales Tehtnica Scorpio, the Scorpion Škorpijon Sagittarius, the Archer, the Centaur Strelec Capricorn, the Goat Kozorog Aquarius, the Water-Bearer Vodnar Pisces, the Fish Ribi star zvezda Sun Sonce solar system soncni sistem Solar System Osoncje planet planet Mercury Merkur Venus Venera Earth Zemlja Mars Mars Jupiter Jupiter Saturn Saturn Uranus Uran Neptune Neptun dwarf planet pritlikavi planet Pluto Pluton Eris Erida Ceres Cerera Makemake Makemake Haumea Haumea 5.2 Geonyms There are a number of geographical and linguistic works in Slovenia on particular types of geonyms over a relatively small area; however, few systematically address particular types of geonyms in the country as a whole. OnesuchworkisthebookSlovenskavodnaimena(SlovenianHydronyms)bythelinguistFranceBezlaj (1910–1993),whichwaspublishedintwovolumestotaling729pages.Itlistsandexplainsseveralthousand hydronymsinSlovenianethnicterritoryinalphabeticalorder. BezlajfoundthatmostareofSlovenianori-gin,butthattheproportionofSloveniannamesdecreasesfromeasttowest. Sloveniannamesarefollowed bynamesoriginatingfromGermanandfromRomancelanguages,andthatquiteafewhydronymsinSlovenia were contributed by the Romans, Celts, and Illyrians (Bezlaj 1956; 1961). In 1985, the gazetteer Slovenska krajevna imena(Slovenian Toponyms) was published, containing the namesofaboutsixthousandSloveniansettlementsinalphabeticalorderon357pages.Eachnameisaccom­panied by the form in the genitive case, which in Slovenian answers the question Od kod? ‘From where?’ (e.g.,izLjubljane‘fromLjubljana’),andtheforminthelocativecase,whichanswersthequestionKje?‘Where?’, withthecorrespondingpreposition(e.g.,vLjubljani‘inLjubljana’).Thisisfollowedbytheadjectivalform and the masculine demonym (and sometimes also the feminine), and in some places other variants of the name. All forms are written with diacritics for accentuation, and in some places also with other pronun­ciation details given (Jakopin et al. 1985). More recent is the book Etimološki slovar slovenskih zemljepisnih imen (Etymological Dictionary of SlovenianGeographicalNames)publishedin2009,comprising603pagesandwrittenbythelinguistMarko Snoj. The more extensive first part, with 1,650 entries on 452 pages, provides etymological explanations for 4,021 Slovenian and 2,629 foreign geographical names in the territory inhabited by Slovenians, and the second part, comprising 208 entries, contains geographical names outside Slovenian ethnic territory, primarily the names of continents, oceans, European countries, and their capital cities (Snoj 2009). AlsoavailabletoSloveniansisalinguisticspaperwithacondensedsystematicpresentationofthedevel­opment of onomastics in Slovenia (Šivic-Dular 2002). ResearchersattheZRCSAZUAntonMelikGeographicalInstitutehaveprimarilydealtwithgeonyms in translating world atlases from foreign languages, as discussed in Chapter 9 on exonyms, in standard­izing Slovenian geographical names, as discussed in Chapters 7 and 8, and above all in producing basic geographical works on Slovenia after its independence and as part of some post-1991 national projects. Most of our work has involved oikonyms, primarily the names of settlements, and choronyms, primarily the names of countries (for more, see Chapter 7) as well as the names of regions at various levels. Slovenia also wanted to systematize the official names of settlements on its territory, and so in 1996 researchers checked the official names of the 5,972 settlements known at that time (as of September 1st, 2020, there were 6,035). We found 4,732 names to be unproblematic from a geographical and linguistic standpoint, whereas 1,240 were problematic due to three main reasons: abbreviations in the name (most­ly the abbreviated names of saints), the word del ‘part’ in the name (which occurred due to the division of a settlement located in two neighboring municipalities into two settlements), and the existence of sev­eralidenticalnamesreferringtodifferentsettlements(Gabrovec,OroženAdamicandPerko1996).arenaming proposal was prepared for all problematic names (Gabrovec and Perko 1996) and sent to the municipal­ities, which are responsible for naming settlements in Slovenia. Twenty-nine settlements contained an abbreviation in their name. The settlement of Sv. Anton (lit­erally, ‘St. Anthony’), for example, was proposed to be renamed Sveti Anton (i.e., ‘Saint Anthony’). There were two proposals for renaming Št. Jurij: either Sveti Jurij or Šentjurij, and for the settlement of Razbore (K.o.JežniVrh)(literally,‘RazboreinthecadastraldistrictofJežniVrh’)theproposalwasRazborepriJežnem Vrhu (i.e., ‘Razbore near Ježni Vrh’). The word del ‘part’ was used in the names of forty-nine settlements. For example, the settlement of Tolsti Vrh (del) (literally, ‘part of Tolsti Vrh’) in the Municipality of Ravne na Koroškem was proposed to be renamed Tolsti Vrh pri Ravnah (i.e., ‘Tolsti Vrh near Ravne’), and Tolsti Vrh (del) in the Municipality of Dravograd to be changed to Tolsti Vrh pri Dravogradu (i.e., ‘Tolsti Vrh near Dravograd’). As many as 1,162 settlements had the same name as at least one other settlement. Proposals for new namesforsuchsettlementsconsistedofthebasic,existingnameandanepithetthatmorepreciselydefines the location of the settlement in relation to a nearby larger settlement, river, hill, and the like. As many as sevensettlementshadthenamePristava.TheSloveniancommonnounpristava‘manorfarm’referstoahouse withoutbuildingsandland,usuallybelongingtoamanor.SuchplacesarescatteredacrossSlovenia.Proposals fornewnameswere:PristavanadBorovnico(i.e.,‘aboveBorovnica’),PristavapriLjutomeru(‘nearLjutomer’), Pristava pri Novi Gorici (‘near Nova Gorica’), Pristava pri Podgradu (‘near Podgrad’), Pristava pri Štjaku (‘near Štjak’), Pristava pri Vojniku (‘near Vojnik’), and Pristava v Halozah (‘in Haloze’); the first six epi­thets are the names of nearby settlements, and the last epithet is the name of a region. WealsodealtwiththenamesofsettlementsinpreparingagazetteerofSloveniansettlements.In1995, the638-pageeditionofKrajevnileksikonSlovenije(GazetteerofSlovenianToponyms)waspublishedwith numerousphotosandtables,followedbyanabridgededitionon376pages,PrirocnikrajevnileksikonSlovenije (PocketGazetteerofSlovenianToponyms),inwhichdiacriticswerealsoaddedtothenames(OroženAdamic, Perko and Kladnik 1995; 1997). Althoughregionnames,orchoronyms,canalreadybefoundontheoldestmapsofwhatisnowSlovenia, they are among the least researched types of geographical names, not only in Slovenia but also interna­tionally. AcomprehensiveanalysisofchoronymswasperformedbyGeršic(2016b;2020b).Hereviewedallavail­ablemapsshowingSlovenianterritory,fromwhichhecopiedallsuchnamesthathecameacross.Although Table 6: English and Slovenian names of macroregions and mesoregions in the physical geographical regionalization from 1996. English Slovenian Alps Alpe Western Karawanks Zahodne Karavanke Eastern Karawanks Vzhodne Karavanke Kamnik–Savinja Alps Kamniško-Savinjske Alpe Julian Alps Julijske Alpe Cerkno, Škofja Loka, Polhov Gradec, and Rovte Hills Cerkljansko, Škofjeloško, Polhograjsko in Rovtarsko hribovje Sava Hills Posavsko hribovje Velenje and Konjice Hills Velenjsko in Konjiško hribovje Pohorje, Strojna, and Kozjak Pohorje, Strojna in Kozjak Ložnica and Hudinja Hills Ložniško in Hudinjsko gricevje Sava Plain Savska ravan Savinja Plain Savinjska ravan Pannonian Basin Panonska kotlina Goricko Goricko Lendava Hills Lendavske gorice Slovenian Hills Slovenske gorice Dravinja Hills Dravinjske gorice Haloze Haloze Mount Boc and Mount Macelj Boc in Macelj Voglajna and Upper Sotla Hills Voglajnsko in Zgornjesotelsko gricevje Central Sotla Hills Srednjesotelsko gricevje Krško, Senovo, and Bizeljsko Hills Krško, Senovsko in Bizeljsko gricevje Mura Plain Murska ravan Drava Plain Dravska ravan Krka Plain Krška ravan Dinaric Alps Dinarsko gorovje Kambreško and Banjšice Plateaus Kambreško in Banjšice Trnovo Forest Plateau, Mount Nanos, and Hrušica Plateau Trnovski gozd, Nanos in Hrušica Idrija Hills Idrijsko hribovje Javornik Hills and Snežnik Plateau Javorniki in Snežnik Pivka Lowland and Mount Vremšcica Pivško podolje z Vremšcico Inner Carniola Lowland Notranjsko podolje Krim Hills and Menišija Plateau Krimsko hribovje in Menišija Bloke Plateau Bloke Big Mountain, Mount Stojna, and Mount Gotenica Velika gora, Stojna in Goteniška gora Ribnica–Kocevje Lowland Ribniško-Kocevsko podolje Little Mountain, Kocevje Rog Plateau, and Mount Poljane Mala gora, Kocevski rog in Poljanska gora Velike Lašce Velikolašcanska pokrajina Ljubljana Marsh Ljubljansko barje Novo Mesto Novomeška pokrajina Lower Carniola Lowland Dolenjsko podolje Radulja Hills Raduljsko hribovje Dry Carniola and Dobrepolje Suha krajina z Dobrepoljem White Carniola Bela krajina Gorjanci Hills Gorjanci Mediterranean Sredozemlje Gorica Hills Goriška brda Vipava Valley Vipavska dolina Karst Plateau Kras Brkini Hills and Reka Valley Brkini in dolina Reke Podgorje Karst Plateau, Cicarija Plateau, and Podgrad Lowland Podgorski kras, Cicarija in Podgrajsko podolje Koper Hills Koprska brda only a few sources were available for the ancient and medieval periods, for the modern period (from 1492 to 1900) he managed to review as many as sixty-five maps, and many more for the twentieth and twen-ty-first centuries, for which he found and analyzed as many as 750 different cartographic sources. He also included region names fromthe 1:5,000, 1:25,000, and 1:250,000 maps from the Register of Geographical Names (REZI), noting the considerable inaccuracies in the semantic classification of written geographi­cal names, so that many names are also unjustifiably identified as region names when in fact they are not. Heidentifiedmorethan130differentregionnamesinarchivalsources.Hewasabletoconnectmodernname equivalentswithmost,butsomeindividualcasesremainedunidentified(e.g.,GeysRucken,Quadrata, and Tevfls Garten, with the latter even having the Latin allonym Hortus Diaboli). Many region names are the result of the regional diversity and highly fragmented nature of Slovenian territory, which is one of the most diverse not only in Europe but also in the world (Kladnik, Perko and Urbanc 2009; Ciglic and Perko 2013; Perko and Ciglic 2015; Perko, Hrvatin and Ciglic 2017). Researchers at the institute have worked on the names of regions mainly in the context of studying thedevelopmentofregionalizationsinSloveniaandthepreparationofnewregionalizations,inthecourse of which many new names had to be artificially created. The 1996 natural geographical regionalization, whichdividesSloveniaintofourmacro-regionsandforty-eightmeso-regions,hasbecomethemostwide­ly used (Perko 1998; Perko and Ciglic 2020); it strives to follow established names as much as possible in namingregions(Table6,Figure34).Thisregionalizationwasfirstpublishedin1996inthejournalGeografski vestnik(Kladnik1996).IthasalsobeenpublishedinallmajorgeographicalworksonSloveniaissuedafter Slovenia’s independence: the eleventh volume of Enciklopedija Slovenije(Encyclopedia of Slovenia, 1997), Geografski atlas Slovenije (Geographical Atlas of Slovenia, 1998), the regional volume Slovenija: Pokrajine inljudje(Slovenia:RegionsandPeople,1998),NacionalniatlasSlovenije(NationalAtlasofSlovenia,2001), and the atlas Slovenia in Focus (Fridl et al. 2007). NaturalgeographicalregionscorrespondonlyinsomeplacestotheofficialterritorialdivisionofSlovenia, which is based on the classification of statistical territorial units or NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial UnitsforStatistics)intheEuropeanUnion.AttheNUTS1level,Sloveniaappearsasoneunit,attheNUTS2 levelitisdividedintotwocohesionregions,andattheNUTS3levelintotwelvestatisticalregions(Table7), which are further divided into 212 municipalities (Perko and Ciglic 2020). Table 7: English and Slovenian names of cohesion regions (NUTS2) and statistical regions (NUTS3). English Slovenian Eastern Slovenia Vzhodna Slovenija Mura Statistical Region Pomurska statisticna regija Drava Statistical Region Podravska statisticna regija Carinthia Statistical Region Koroška statisticna regija Savinja Statistical Region Savinjska statisticna regija Central Sava Statistical Region Zasavska statisticna regija Lower Sava Statistical Region Posavska statisticna regija Southeast Slovenia Statistical Region Jugovzhodna Slovenija statisticna regija Littoral–Inner Carniola Statistical Region Primorsko-notranjska statisticna regija Western Slovenia Zahodna Slovenija Central Slovenia Statistical Region Osrednjeslovenska statisticna regija Upper Carniola Statistical Region Gorenjska statisticna regija Gorica Statistical Region Goriška statisticna regija Coastal–Karst Statistical Region Obalno-kraška statisticna regija Figure 34: Physical geographical regionalization of Slovenia from 1996 (Perko and Ciglic 2020a; 2020b). p 5.3 Regional identities Two other studies are closely related to regions. Both are based on cognitive maps, which we sent along with a questionnaire to five thousand randomly selected respondents from across Slovenia age fifteen to seventy-five.ThesamplewaspreparedbytheSlovenianStatisticalOffice.Wereceived635completedsur­veys. Respondents received a map of Slovenia at a scale of 1:650,000 with the national border, the largest towns and rivers, and Mount Triglav as the highest mountain marked on it. Respondents were asked to enter the names of the Slovenian regions they are familiar with and draw their borders (Figure 35). The returnedmapsweredigitizedandprocessedusinggeographicinformationsystems.Respondentsdrewatotal of3,769regionsoncognitivemapsandlabeledthemwitheighty-fourdifferentnames(Geršic2016b;2020b). In the first study, we looked at how particular region names and their boundaries overlap. We deter­mined diversity in geographical names and identified diversity hotspots – that is, areas where the largest numbers of different geographical names occur. The lowest possible score would be 0 if no respondents named an area, and the highest would be 84 if an area was covered by all the eighty-four names that were entered by respondents. In fact, the lowest score was 6 and the highest 23 (Geršic, Ciglic and Perko 2018). BecauseSloveniaisoneofthemostregionallydiverseareasinEurope(CiglicandPerko2013),weana-lyzedthecorrelationbetweenregionaldiversity(Perko,HrvatinandCiglic2015;Perko,CiglicandHrvatin 2017) and geographical name diversity, and whether geographical name hotspots and coldspots coincid­ed spatially with regional hotspots and coldspots. The correlation is statistically significant, but not high (Geršic and Perko 2018). In the second study (Perko and Geršic 2019), we looked at the regional identity of the Slovenian pop-ulation,whichwasdeterminedwiththehelpoftheregionsdrawnonacognitivemapandaquestionnaire thatincludedthirteenquestions.Particularlyimportantwerethefiveresponses:1)thenameoftherespon-dent’sregion,2)namesoftherespondent’sneighboringregions,3)regionnamesbestknowntotherespondent, 4) region names the respondent considered no longer in use, and 5) region names the respondent consid­ered best known abroad. The main finding was that the majority of Slovenia’s residents do not identify with regions from any regionalizationoradministrativedivisionofSlovenia.Forthem,thedivisionsoftheformerAustria-Hungary from 1918 continue to be the most relevant and deeply ingrained, even though these are merely remnants oftheadministrativedivisionofastatethatceasedtoexistacenturyago(GabrovecandPerko1999).These aretheAustrianprovincesofStyria(Slovenian:Štajerska,German:Steiermark),Carinthia(Koroška,Kärnten), theLittoral (Primorska, Küstenland), and Carniola (Kranjska, Krain) with its three parts: Upper Carniola (Gorenjska,Oberkrain),InnerCarniola(Notranjska,Innerkrain),andLowerCarniola(Dolenjska,Unterkrain). Present-daySloveniancadastraldistrictsstillrunalmostentirelyalongthebordersoftheseformerprovinces. Most Slovenian citizens have three main identities: the highest is Slovenian identity (national identi­ty), then identity based on the former Austrian provinces (regional identity), and finally identity based ontheirplaceofresidence(localidentity).Forexample,aresidentofKranj,thefourth-largesttowninSlovenia, is first of all a Slovenec ‘Slovenian’, then a Gorenjec ‘Upper Carniolan’, and finally a Kranjcan ‘Kranj resi­dent’ (Geršic and Perko 2020; Perko and Ciglic 2020b; Perko, Ciglic and Zorn 2020). 6 Microtoponyms Microtoponymsaregeographicalnamesthatdenotesmalltopographicfeatures. TheSloveniannormative guide(Slovenskipravopis2001)listsledinskoime‘fieldname’asasynonymformikrotoponim‘microtoponym’, and the Standard Slovenian Dictionary (Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika) states that these include the namesoffields,meadows,andforests(Slovar.thenamesofpastures,valleys,gorges,canyons,karstcaves,paths and their parts, small watercourses, and independent structures and farms (Škofic 1998; Cop 2002; Kolnik 2008; Klinar et al. 2012). Others also include the names of streets among microtoponyms (Geršic and Kladnik 2016b). Figure 35: Two examples of completed cognitive maps: the respondent drew and named five regions on the first – Carinthia (Koroška), Styria (Štajer­ska), Upper Carniola (Gorenjska), Lower Carniola (Dolenjska), and Littoral Primorska) – and seven on the second: Carinthia (Koroška), Prekmurje, Styria (Štajerska), Upper Carniola (Gorenjska), Lower Carniola (Dolenjska), Inner Carniola (Notranjska), and Littoral (Primorska). p 6.1 Field names Whatwasinitiallyanaturallandscapewasgraduallytransformedintoaculturallandscapethroughhuman activity, with agriculture being the main transforming factor. Because of the land’s varying degree of suit-abilityforcultivation,throughfielddivisionvillagesweredividedintoseveralpartsreferredtowithproper nouns (Penko Seidl 2011). The most established Slovenian term for this is ledinsko ime ‘field name’, but thetermsterenskoime‘terrainname’(Cop2002)andzemljiškoime‘landname’(Unuk2004)arealsofound inliterature.TheSloveniantermledinainitiallyreferredtoaparceloflandwithuniformlanduse;forexam­ple, a meadow, pasture, field, or orchard (Jarc 2004). Such parcels were the result of changes to the tribal social system in the early stage of Slovenian ethnogenesis. After the abandonment of nomadic farming, and when hunting, fishing, and foraging could no longer supply enough food, people began raising her­bivoresandkeepingtheminenclosureswheretheygrazed.SuchanenclosurewascalledastaninSlovenian (Fabcic 2010). Anotherwayin which these parcelsof land were formedwasthrough the colonizationofuninhabited areas. The settlers cleared a part of land and divided it into smaller parcels (ledine). Changes in the culti­vationofarableland,especiallycroprotationandmanuring,ledtotheultimatedivisionoftheformercommon land. This process was first applied to tilled fields, then meadows, and finally forests. The only common landthatremainedwaspastures(Jarc2004). Larger parcels oflandwerealsosubdividedintosmallerones for various social reasons, such as inheritance, sale, and expropriation, whereby individual parts acquired new names. TheSlovenianwordledinaderivesfromtheIndo-Europeanroot*lendh-‘vacantoruncultivatedland’. Words derived from this root in other European languages can also denote a cleared area in a forest, stub­ble field, fallow land, steppe, territory, land, barren landscape, or valley (Snoj 1997). Field names are especially common in Europe’s West Germanic linguistic area (Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein,Switzerland,theNetherlands),Slavicarea(Russia,Ukraine,Belarus,Poland,theCzechRepublic, Slovakia, Croatia, and Slovenia), and Baltic area (Latvia and Lithuania), and they have been studied most systematicallyintheseplaces.Theyarereferredtowiththefollowingterms:FlurnameorRiednameinGerman, veldnaaminDutch,..o..../urocišceinRussian,uroczyskoinPolish,pomístníjménoinCzech,andapyrube in Lithuanian (Flurname 2015). These names – which, by definition, are names of smaller uninhabited places (Snoj 2009) – designate the basic features and characteristics of a parcel of village land (Kladnik 1999b). The division of the vil­lage area into these units originates from the permanent collective concepts of a natural division of space. The borders between individual units often run along natural divides, such as riverbeds, foothills, terrace risers,bendsinslopes,andridges.Hence,theirnamesexpressthebasiccharacteristicsofthenaturalenvi-ronmentandallhumanchangesmadetoimprovethesecharacteristics(Penko2013).Mostofthesenames were created by the locals, but some were also formed by the surveyors carrying out cadastral surveys (Ribnikar 1982). However, some names are simply general geographical terms adapted to a specific geo­graphical characteristic, whereby their written form indicates that they are proper nouns (Fabcic 2010). Duetomodernprocessesthatcausechangestothecountryside,theland-usecategorywithinanindividual parcel is no longer uniform. Thus, the parcel has lost its original function, but the locals still perceive it as a whole, even though diverse land use can now be observed there. Some field names no longer express the parcels’ original characteristics, but they have nonetheless remained unchanged (Penko 2013). These names were first systematically recorded on the Franciscan Cadastermaps(Kladnik1999b),whereasbeforethattheywereonlypreservedthroughoraltradition(Fabcic 2010). They are rarely listed in older written sources. An exception is Slavinski misal (the Slavina Missal), an illuminated medieval manuscript codex that contains several field names (Dragoceni srednjeveški rokopis…2019). Specific names can also be found in various rent-rolls. TheFrancisceanCadaster,inwhichfieldnamesaresystematicallycollected,comprisesmapsandpro­tocols. In addition to field names, the protocols also contain various descriptions and information on buildings, parcels, and so on (Ribnikar 1982). This cadaster was completed in 1828 and a revised version was produced in 1869, but it has not been preserved in full for all the former Habsburg hereditary lands (Ulice v mestni obcini Ljubljana 2014; Figure 36). The revised cadaster also contains field names, and so itisanimportanttoponymicsourcefortheareasforwhichithasbeenpreserved,basedonwhichchanges in the field names between both cadaster editions can be examined. The third historical source for study­ing field names is the documents of possession in individual cadastral districts produced at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. These documents are composed similar­ly to the Franciscan Cadaster, with names provided in Slovenian (Fabcic 2010). a modern source for these namesistheSlovenianRegisterofGeographicalNames(REZI)ata1:5,000scale.Thisisanofficialrecord of permanent names of features with a chronologically, historically, ethnologically, or socially established identity (Pogorelcnik 1999; Peršolja 2003). However, an irreplaceable source, especially for studying the current use of field names and their dialect versions, is the local informants. The best among them are older individuals familiar with both the local living environment and its lifestyle. Farmers, forestry work­ers, hunters, and fishermen are usually the best informants (Klinar et al. 2012). Aspecialchallengeincollectingfieldnamesistheirtranscription.TheFrancisceanCadasterusesGerman orItalian, and its revised edition uses Slovenian. REZI also uses Slovenian, but the problem arises in stan­dardizing the information obtained from informants that use these names in their local dialect. Thetranscriptionofthesenamesshouldbeadaptedtotheresearchpurpose;thesenamescanbetran-scribed in a manner suited for dialectology, in simplified dialect forms, or in standardized forms (Klinar et al. 2012). There are also several options for spatially delimiting the study area. Cadastral districts have proven to be the best level for comparing modern and historical sources. Since the time of the Franciscan Cadaster,theirbordershavemostlyremainedthesame.Othersuitableterritorialunitsincludesettlements, parishes, municipalities, and local communities, but their borders are usually more variable than those of cadastral districts. Field names are the result of development within a landscape and its language (Fabcic 2010). As phe­nomenaoflanguage,space,andhistory,theirstudyinSloveniaisattheintersectionofresearchbylinguists, geographers and landscape architects, and historians. In addition, they are also dealt with by ethnogra­phers and ethnologists. There are also many amateur collectors and researchers of these names, and some of their research is very good (e.g., Jarc 2004; Silic 2011). Inadditiontothespatialdistributionandcurrentuseofthesename,bothlinguistsandgeographersfocus on theirmotivation. Klinar et al. (2012) defined the following types of motivation for field names: the land (shape of terrain, soil composition and characteristics, land characteristics), bodies of water, climate char-acteristics,vegetation(presence,species),people(ownershipandlegalrelations,humanactivity,humancreations, communications, spiritual life, and history), and proper nouns (personal and geographical names). AdetailedstudyofthesenameswasconductedinthecadastraldistrictofLeše(KlinarandGeršic2013; 2014; Geršic and Kladnik 2016a), which can be illustrated as an example. The motivation for the devel­opment of field names in the cadastral district of Leše is considerably more difficult to determine, and so we have not grouped the field names into semantic categories, but we have corroborated them with some of the most interesting examples. The great majority of them derive from the geographical characteristics of the terrain where part of the named land is located. Thus, the general configuration of the terrain may already serve as a basis for creating a field name. This is seen, for example, in the field name Goríce ‘hills’ and B.rd ‘hill’. More often, afieldnamedesignatesasurfacecharacteristic;forexample,Kr.s‘karst’forstonyorrockyterrain;Mocív.nce (< mocilnik ‘spring’), Vúž.nca (< luža ‘puddle’), and Vóka (< loka ‘flood-meadow’) for wet and damp ter-rain;andRávnaníva‘levelfield’forflatterrain.Someexamplesalsoattesttothemicroclimaticcharacteristics ofparticularareas.Theseincludefieldnamesthatindicateinsolation(e.g.,OsóncaGoricizza,Jezernik>Iesernicco,Mocilo>Mazzilis, Topoljane>Topogliano),buttheiroriginalnamessurvivedlinguisticassimilation(Bufon2016;Figure86). SloveniansalsoquiteintensivelysettledtheareabetweenKarstplateauofDoberdòandtheIsonzoRiver. Inaddition,therewasaperiodofmoreorganizedrepopulation,supportedbytheRepublicofVenice,espe­cially afterthewars at thebeginningofboth thesixteenth andseventeenth centuries.Inthis period,a new variation of the Venetian dialect developed and toponyms changed considerably (e.g., Podrtija/Podercìa became modern Portanzìe). Puntin (2003) provides a tentative list of seventy-five toponyms of Slovenian origin in the present-day area of Monfalcone (e.g., Gumilizze, Presecha, and Starigrado). Today there is a population of Slovenian origin in fifty-six municipalities of the provinces of Udine (thirty-five),Gorizia(fifteen),andTrieste(six),butSloveniansareofficiallyrecognizedasanethnicgroup in only thirty-two communities (Bufon 2016). The Slovenian minority in the province of Trieste is pro­tected by the 1954 London Memorandum concerning the division of the former Free Territory of Trieste, which was included in the 1975 Treaty of Osimo. The Slovenian minority is also protected in the province ofGorizia,wheredefactoatleastsomeoftheprotectiveprovisionsfortheprovinceofTriestewereapplied. These provisions cover the ability to use the minority language in administrative matters and the intro-ductionofbilingualtoponymsinareaswithatleasta25%shareofSlovenians.Inpractice,officialandvisual bilingualism was, however, introduced only in those municipalities where, at the local level, Slovenians represented the majority of the population (three in the province of Gorizia and four in the province of Trieste (Bufon 1995; 2016; Figure 87). On the other hand, the position of the Slovenians in the province of Udine is very different. It clear­ly indicates, however, how the original language of the members of a given minority group may regress tothepointthatitisonlyconsideredalocaldialect.TheseSlovenianswereunabletotakepartintheSlovenian nationalmovementafterthepoliticalpartitionof1866separatedthemfromthecoreoftheSlovenianeth­nic community, and the local Slovenian population was never able to use its own language in public mat­ters or learn it at school. As a result, the use of the original minority language is becoming less frequent even within families, and Slovenian is thereby losing much of its value (Bufon 2003). Gradually, linguistic special features developed that deviated from the modern norms of standard Slovenian and are permissible in the Veneto dialect; for example, the use of the dialect forms bardo and varh instead of standard Slovenian brdo ‘hill’ and vrh ‘peak’. Slovenia has also adopted the etymological orphonologicalprinciplefortheVenetianSlovenia(Slovenian:BeneškaSlovenija)–itsallonymisVenetian region (Slovenian: Benecija) – and Resia (Slovenian: Rezija) because adapting the names in theseregions to the standard norm could result in such changes that the locals would no longer even recognize certain names (Kladnik 2006; 2009b). UntiltheendoftheFirstWorldWar,theCanaleValley(Slovenian:Kanalskadolina,German:Kanaltal, Friulian:ValCjanâl,Italian:ValCanale)intheextremenortheastoftheprovinceofUdinewaspartofAustrian CarinthiaandassuchinhabitedexclusivelybyethnicGermansandSlovenians(eachaccountingforapprox­imatelyhalfthepopulation).Afterits1919annexationtoItalyundertheTreatyofSaint-Germain-en-Laye, the immigrant Italians and Friulians gradually became its majority ethnic groups, whereas the shares of Germans and Slovenians decreased to approximately one-tenth each (Steinecke 2001). Only at the end of the twentieth century and during the first two decades of the new millennium did the attitudes of the Italian national and local regional governments toward all minority groups in Friuli VeneziaGiuliastarttochange.Asaresult,minoritytoponymsregainedtheirofficialstatusandvisualbilin­gualism became more common within municipalities and localities included in the officially recognized minority areas. Because there is partly overlapping of these areas, in some places three toponyms (along ItalianandSlovenianalsoFriulian;Figure88)or,inValCanale,evenfourtoponyms(e.g.,ItalianValbruna/ FriulianValbrune/SlovenianOvcjavas/GermanWolfsbach)canbefoundonthetownsigns,althoughItalian regulations do not permit the use of more than two languages on town signs (Bufon 2016). After2001,whentheItaliangovernmenteventuallyadoptedaspeciallawfortheSlovenianethnicminor­ity,severallocalgovernmentsintheVenetianSloveniaandResiaclaimedtheirinhabitantsspokeaspecial non-Slovenianlocallanguage(Vermeer1993),whichintheiropinionshouldberecognizedalongsidestan­dard Slovenian. This was strongly opposed by Slovenian linguists (e.g., Toporišic and Paternu 2008). The result was that in the province of Udine visual bilingualism became quite chaotic, and, rather than using standard Slovenian, it follows the local dialect forms of toponyms, written with non-Slovenian letters and also using special diacritics (Figure 89). The Slovenian professional community continues to lean toward writingthenamesusingSlovenianorthography,but,duetospecialfeaturesoftheResiandialect,itnonethe-less allows deviations from the modern norms of standard Slovenian (Kladnik 2009b). According to the results of a study conducted by the Slovenian Research Institute (SLORI) in Trieste (Mezgec 2015), only 15% of all signs and visual inscriptions in the Slovenian-inhabited areas in Italy are bilingual or multilingual, and only 9% include Slovenian. This is primarily the result of the fact that only Figure90:Italian–Slovenianbilingualsigns infrontofanintersectionnear Figure91:Abilingual(Italian–Slovenian) informationsignattheentrance Monfalcone (Slovenian: Tržic). totheMunicipalityofDuino–Aurisina(Slovenian: Devin-Nabrežina).The Slovenian text contains several grammatical errors. 2%ofsignsandvisualinscriptionsinthetownofTriesteand7%inthetownofGoriziaincludeSlovenian. The situation is similar in the Venetian Slovenia (only 5% of the signs include Slovenian) and Val Canale, where only 3% of signs and visual inscriptions include Slovenian, whereas 18% of all signs include other languages, mainly German and English. Visual bilingualism is greater only on the outskirts of Trieste and Gorizia (Figure 90), where about 23% of all signs and visual inscriptions include Slovenian. Slovenian is only more widely used on visual signs (both private and public) in the predominantly Slovenian munic­ipalities. For instance, in the municipalities of Doberdò (Slovenian: Doberdob) and Duino–Aurisina (Devin-Nabrežina) (Figure 91), they represent about 60% of all signs. In Resia and the Venetian Slovenia, local Slovenian variations prevail over standard Slovenian; both represent together about 30 to 40% of all signs and inscriptions in the area. 11.2.2 Austria TheSlovenianminorityinAustriaoccupiessome2,600km²ofsouthernCarinthiaandStyria,whereaccord­ing to official Austrian data (2001 census) there are some 12,500 Slovenians and, according to Slovenian estimates, between 45,000 and 50,000 (Zupancic 2001; Jordan 2016b). The names in this region were first systematically studied by the priest, writer, historian, ethnogra-pher,andlinguistUrbanJarnik(Grafenauer2013),whodiscussedthelocaltoponymsandexplainedtheir origin in the journal Carinthia(Jarnik 1813). Based on his etymological studies, he also published a paper on the Germanization of Carinthia (Jarnik 1826), which was quite provocative for that time and in which he demarcated the Slovenian–German linguistic border. The pioneer of modern onomastics, Eberhard Kranzmayer,producedanextensiveoverviewoftoponymsinAustrianCarinthiaintwovolumes(Kranzmayer 1956;1958).Soonafterthat,apaperonselectedsouthernCarinthiangeographicalnames(primarilychoronyms) waspublishedintheleadingSlovenianjournalGeografskivestnik(Šašel1960).Considerablygreateratten­tion was attracted by a map of Austrian Carinthia with a Slovenian and German gazetteer produced by the Slovenian geographer Vladimir Klemencic (1972). During the 1970s, the etymology of toponyms in Carinthia and East Tyrol was studied by the linguist Dušan Cop (1975). During the last decades of the twentiethcentury,toponymsinAustrianCarinthiawereexamined,largelyfromtheorthographicanddialec­tological perspective, by the linguist Pavel Zdovc (1973; 1979; 1982; 1983; 2010), to whom the main credit goesforthedefinitiveestablishmentofthemodernstandardSloveniannorminspellingtheSloveniangeo-graphicalnamesinCarinthia.ZdovcalsostudiedchoronymsinCarinthia(Zdovc1983).Sloveniantoponyms inCarinthiahavebeenstudiedindetailbythelinguistHeinz-DieterPohl,borninVienna,especiallyfrom the viewpoint of their historical contact with the German cultural environment (Pohl 2000; 2008; 2009a; 2009b;2010;2011b;2016).ThegeographerPeterJordan,borninHermagor(Slovenian:Šmohor),hasdealt extensively with bilingualism in Carinthia. He is of German ethnicity, like Pohl. In his works, he initially studied the possibilities of using bilingual names on official topographic maps (Jordan 1988; 1992; 2006), and recently he has also explored the use of bilingual names on Austrian military maps (Jordan 2018). He isespeciallyengagedinstudyingtheimportanceofbilingualgeographicalnamesforculturalidentity(Jordan 2004;2006;2012a;2012b;2014;2016a;2016b);withinthiscontext,healsopresentedtheuseofsuchnames ontownsigns(Jordan2009)andhighlightedthedimensionsoftheplace-nameconflictinCarinthia(Jordan 2017). The resolution of this conflict was also reported on by Pohl (2011a), and an extensive volume has beenpublishedonthisissue(HrenandPandel2012).abilingualgazetteerwaspublishedseveralyearsear­lier(Kattnig,KulnikandZerzer2005).TheetymologyofselectedSloveniangeographicalnamesinCarinthia wasalsodiscussedbySilvoTorkar(2010a).WorthyofmentionhereisalsoastudyofSlovenianandGerman oronyms in bilingual Carinthia (Grozdanic Dizdarevic 2018). The overview of research on geographical namesinAustrianbilingualareascanbeconcludedwiththewaggishpaperonbilingualtoponymsinthese areas by Boris Jaušovec (2011). The Alpine Slavs, the ancestors of the present-day Slovenians, settled the Eastern Alps together with theAvars,whomayhavespokenaTurkiclanguage,inthesixthandseventhcenturiesAD.Theyestablished their first state, the principality of Carantania, very early on in what is now Carinthia, but had to submit to Bavarian and Frankish overlordship as early as the eighth century. Later they were incorporated into theHabsburgMonarchyfornearlyamillennium,upuntilitsdissolutionin1918(Zupancic2001;Pohl2016). Throughoutthatperiod,withGermancolonizationandsocialstratification,theSlovenianpeoplewereexposed to strong Germanization. The Slovenian ethnic border gradually moved toward the southeast, finally set­tling north of the Drau (Slovenian: Drava) River in central and eastern Carinthia. However, in the middle of the nineteenth century, at least about 30% of Carinthian population spoke Slovenian (Pohl 2016). ThecurrentSlovenian–AustrianborderwasestablishedbytheOctober1920plebiscite(Zupancic2001). Afterthat,thenorthernpartofSlovenianethnicterritory(i.e.,inAustria)alsoremainedoutsideSlovenia. ThismainlycoversCarinthiaandasmallerportionofStyria,whereSloveniansareconcentratedinthemicrore­gion of the Radkersburg Corner (German: RadkersburgerWinkel, Slovenian: Radgonski kot), made up of several villages around Radkersburg (Slovenian: Radgona). After the 1920 Treaty of Trianon, Austria also gainedeightsettlementsintheRaab(Slovenian:Raba,Hungarian:Rába)ValleywithamajoritySlovenian population,whichbecamepartofBurgenland(MundaHirnök2020).TheterritoryinhabitedbytheSlovenian ethniccommunity,whichcontinuestoshrinkinnumbers,wassubjecttocontinuousstrongGermanization, resulting in a unique ethno-linguistic mix, also reflected in geographical names. AftertheSecondWorldWar,theAustrianStateTreaty,whichre-establishedAustriaasasovereigndemo­cratic state, was signed in 1955. Article 7 of this treaty details the obligations of the Austrian authorities regardingtherightsoftheSlovenianethniccommunityinAustria.EventhoughtheSlovenianethniccom­munity in Carinthia and Styria acquired special rights, they have not yet been fully implemented to date (Hren and Pandel 2012). The largest gap between the obligations defined in the treaty and their fulfillment can be seen in the unresolvedproblemofbilingualtownsignsinAustrianCarinthia.However,Article7doesnotcontainany specification about the percentage of the local Slovenian-speaking population needed for the implemen­tationofthisright.Originally,205placesandlocalitiesinthirty-sixmunicipalitiesweresupposedtoreceive bilingual town signs. After several, occasionally very dramatic and heavily politicized, attempts to put up bilingualsigns,theso-calledTownSignCompromise(German:Ortstafelkompromiss),wasreachedin2011, whichwasultimatelyacceptedbyallpartiesandessentiallycalmedwhatwasattimesahighlydelicatepolit­icalsituation.Thecompromiseruledthat164villagesandtownsintwenty-fourmunicipalitiesinthesouthern partsofCarinthiawereofficiallygivenbilingualnames(Figures92,93,and94)basedonashareofa17.5% Slovenian-speakingpopulationinasinglesettlementaccordingtothe2001populationcensus.Minordevi­ationsfromthisbenchmarkwerepossibleincaseswherethiswasacceptedlocally(Gully2011;Pohl2011a; Hren and Pandel 2012; Jordan 2016a; 2016b; 2017). Forhistoricalreasons,numerousgeographicalnamesofclearlySlovenianorigincanalsobefoundout­sidethecurrentethnicallymixedareainAustria(Cop1975;Bergmann2005;Pohl2009a;2011b).Slovenians stillperceive them as different from the German ones, even though they gradually spontaneously became part of the German linguistic environment. Typical examples can be found in southern Styria, northern andwesternCarinthia,andEastTyrol.IntheMöll(Slovenian:Bela)ValleysouthofAustria’shighestpeak, Grossglockner (Slovenian: Veliki Klek), and in the Lienz area in East Tyrol alone, one encounters the fol-lowingtoponymsofSlovenianorigin:Döllach(Slovenianform:Dole),Göriach(Gorje),Görtschach(Gorice), Lassach(Laze),Mörtschach(Merce),Prappernitze(Praprotnice),Rojach(Roje),Sagritz(Zagorica),Stranach (Strane), and Untersagritz (Spodnja Zagorica; Kladnik 2009b). Alongside names of Slovenian origin, which are larger in number, names of German origin can also be found in the bilingual area. This topic and the semantic relations between these names have been dis­cussed by Pohl (2016, 186–187): »…The first Carinthians, in the strict sense of the word, referred to the location of their home and settlement as (Slovenian) Gorje/(German) Göriach, that is, ‘on the mountain’ and Bistrica/Feistritz located ‘by the mountain stream’; these are names of Slovenian origin, but names 166 of German origin also exist: (German) Bleiburg/(Slovenian) Pliberk…or Finkenstein/Bekštanj (literally, ‘finch rock’), which have been taken over the Germans.…The names were passed orally from one lan­guage to another, but often localities were named differently, such as German Hart ‘forest’ and Slovenian Breg‘bank,slope’,or,quitesimply,theyweretranslated;forexample,GermanAichandSlovenianDob‘oak’.…« PohladdsthatmanynamesofSlovenianoriginareveryold.Forexample,thenamesOstrovicaintheform Astaruuiza(German: Hochosterwitz) and Trebinjein the form Trebina(German: Treffen) were mentioned as early as 860. Examples of Slovenian exonyms adjacent to the officially recognized ethnically mixed area in south­ern Austria include Stari Dvor (German: Althofen), Mostic (Brückl), Trg (Feldkirchen), Lipnica (Leibnitz), Milštat(Milstatt),ŠentvidobGlini(SanktVeitanderGlan),ŠpitalobDravi(SpittalanderDrau),andVolšperk (Wolfsberg; Kladnik 2009b). They are also shown on the State Index Map of Slovenia with a gazetteer on the back (Furlan et al. 2008). On it, Slovenian exonyms are provided in parentheses next to the German names, whereas Slovenian endonyms, as known in Slovenia and hence greater in number than those offi­cially recognized by Austria, are provided after the German names, from which they are separated with a slash. Intheethnicallymixedarea,specialattentionisdedicatedtostudyingmicrotoponyms,especiallyfield names and house names. Bertrand Kotnik was the first to deal with house names in detail. He published hisfindingsinasmanyasfifteenvolumes,eachfocusingonadifferentparishand/ormunicipality(Kotnik 1992–2011). Most recently, the focus in studying field names and house names has moved to cartographic repre­sentations. To make their collection uniform and their spelling grounded on scholarly findings,a detailed methodology was produced as part of the bilateral project FLU-LED (Klinar et al. 2012). As a result of these efforts, the Urban Jarnik Slovenian Ethnographic Institute in Klagenfurt publishes maps with field names and house names in southern Carinthia in cooperation with the local cultural societies and with assistancefromlinguistsandgeographersinSlovenia.Ninemapscoveringeightmunicipalitiesinthebilin­gualareainCarinthiahavebeenpublishedsince2008(e.g.,MarktgemeindeFinkenstein…2015),andmany more are being prepared. The first map featuring field names and house names in dialect form was published by the Gorjanci SlovenianCulturalSocietyfortheMunicipalityofKöttmannsdorf(Slovenian:Kotmaravas)(Kotmaravas… 2008). The society’s website (https://www.gorjanci.at) offers audio pronunciation for approximately eight hundred names written on this map. It is especially interesting that the map of the Municipality of Sankt Margareten im Rosental (Slovenian: Šmarjeta v Rožu) was first published with names provided in stan­dard Slovenian (St. Margareten…2011; Figure 95) and a few years later also in a phonetically simplified dialect form (St. Margareten…2015) (Figure 96). All the efforts to collect, record, and position the field names and house names in southern Carinthia wererewardedin2010bytheentryofthesenamesintoAustria’sUNESCONationalInventoryofIntangible Cultural Heritage (Piko-Rustia 2012; 2017; 2018). 11.2.3 Hungary The ethnic Slovenian bilingual area in the Rába Valley in Hungary’s extreme west comprises only seven villages (there used to be nine, but some of them were merged) with Hungarian, Slovenian, and, in some cases, even German names (Kozar Mukic 2002; Munda Hirnök 2020). The Slovenian minority is spread across little less than 100km² along the Rába River. Although Slovenian estimates placed the figure of Slovenians at up to 5,000, according to the official Hungarian census in 1990 only 2,252 Slovenians lived in this region (Zupancic 2001). According to the last Hungarian census, conducted in 2011, the number of Slovenians fell to 1,609, of whom 639 live in the nearby city of Szentgotthárd (Slovenian: Monošter). The share of Slovenians in the Rába Valley is 15.3%, of whom over 70% live in the villages of Felsoszölnök (Slovenian: Gornji Senik) and Kétvölgy (Slovenian: Verica-Ritkarovci; Munda Hirnök 2020). So far, the Slovenian geographical names in the Rába Valley have been relatively poorly studied, yet several interesting papers have been published on the subject. Initially, these were more general, like one about the history of names designating the Slovenians in the Rába Valley and the use of Slovenian there byMarijaKozar-Mukic(1997),andinthepasttwodecadestherehavealsobeensomefocusingexclusively on toponymy. The earliest among them was written by Kozar-Mukic (2002), who explored the etymolo­gy of selected Slovenian toponyms in the Rába Valley and also briefly presented the characteristics of the Slovenian field names and house names there. Several years before that, Slovenian house names in all the settlements in the Rába Valley were listed, albeit not using a uniform methodology, in a special volume publishedin1999(Kozar-Mukic1999).Theywerestudiedindetailinanotherpaper,which,however,only covers the settlements of Felsoszölnök and Apátistvánfalva (Slovenian: Števanovci) (Doncec Merkli andEmberšicŠkaper2013).ThelatestpaperongeographicalnamesalsofocusesonFelsoszölnök(BajzekLukac 2017),whilealsodealingrelatively thoroughly withtheetymology,psychological motivation,andseman-tics of geographical names in different languages (Slovenian, Hungarian, German, and Latin) across the entire ethnic Slovenian area in the Rába Valley. It is interesting that the author uses the ending -ce for the Slovenian forms of toponyms instead of the more common ending -ci; for example, Andovce instead of Andovci (Hungarian: Orfalu) and Sakalovce instead of Sakalovci (Hungarian: Szakonyfalu). Sloveniansalready settledtheregionbetweentheRába andMura riverstogetherwiththeAvarsinthe sixthcentury.TheareahasbeenunderHungarianrulesincetheeleventhcentury.The1920TreatyofTrianon establishedthecurrentborderbetweenSloveniaandHungary.Between1948and1990,Hungaryremained in the Soviet bloc and the Slovenian minority was cut off from Slovenians in Yugoslavia; with the border closed,thecontactsbetweenbothcommunitieswerepracticallynon-existent(Zupancic2001).TheSlovenian ethnic community in the Rába Valley was granted formal protection under the Hungarian constitution of1972,followedbytheNationalandEthnicMinorities’RightsActadoptedin1993(MundaHirnök1999). Because the Slovenians in the Rába Valley were politically separated from the Slovenians in Prekmurje, their dialect developed differently than the Prekmurje dialect on the Slovenian side of the border. With Slovenia’s independence in 1991, Slovenia’s and Hungary’s accession to the European Union in 2004, and the entry of both countries in the Schengen area in 2007, the situation of ethnic Slovenians in theRábaValleyhasimprovedineveryrespect.In1990,theAssociationofSloveniansinHungarywasestab­lishedinFelsoszölnök(Figure97).ThebilateralAgreementGrantingSpecialRightstotheSlovenianEthnic Minority in the Republic of Hungary and the Hungarian Ethnic Community in the Republic of Slovenia signedin1992provedtobeveryimportant.Nonetheless,theeverydayuseofSlovenianintheRábaValley isgreatlytruncatedbecause,untilrecently,therewasnoformallegalnorinstitutionalsupportforit.Slovenians are constantly exposed to assimilation with the majority Hungarian population. They do not know stan­dard Slovenian and only speak the Rába dialect of Slovenian (domanja rejc ‘the local language’), a variant of the Prekmurje dialect (Munda Hirnök 1999; 2000; 2020). The regional names Porabje ‘Rába Valley’ and Slovensko Porabje ‘Slovenian Rába Valley’ developed in Slovenia after the First or Second World Wars. The locals use the names Slovenska okroglina or Slovenska krajina ‘Slovenian area’ (Kozar-Mukic 1997). The field names in the Rába Valley are partly monolingual and partly bi- or even trilingual. Over half areexclusivelySlovenian,reflectinggeomorphologicalcharacteristics,location,andevenownership.From Szentgotthárd toward the Slovenian border, the share of Slovenian names of this type increases and the share of Hungarian names decreases (Kozar-Mukic 2002). The Rába Valley is also characterized by house names derived from the names and surnames of past residentsorformerownersandtheirsocialstatus,ethnicity,occupationandotheractivities,andnicknames,as well as the topographic features of the local area (Doncec Merkli and Emberšic Škaper 2013). House names are most often formed with the adjectival suffixes -ini, -ovi, and -ski(e.g., Cukini, Kolarini, Ivanovi, Ižakovi, Grofoski, and Tišlarski) (Kozar-Mukic 2002). They are still very much alive among the local res­idents, who use them in everyday communication and hence know them well; they also use them fororientationinthevillage(DoncecMerkliandEmberšicŠkaper2013).Interestingamongthemicrotoponyms (Figure98)arealsonamesreferringtoasmallerclusterofhouses(krošeu),which,however,haveonlybeen preservedin Felsoszölnök.Most clusters of houses arenamedafterthefirst ownerof theproperty (Kozar­Mukic 2002). The following quoted passage about microtoponyms in Felsoszölnök seems befitting to conclude the discussionongeographicalnamesinHungary’sRábaValleybecauseitrevealsthecomplexandcloselyinter­connected characteristics of names across the entire region (Bajzek Lukac 2017, 16–17): »In Felsoszölnök (GornjiSenik),theroutesconnectingindividualpartsorhamletsofthevillagewereonlydefined(named) a few years ago. The new Slovenian names actually have nothing in common with the old names of ham­lets, such as Bekavaraš, Sobota, Grebenšcek, Cemeštarin krošel, Götz major, Gubic, and Coutar, which very clearly indicate the motivation for naming a specific part of the village. »The Slovenian dialects do not use the nouns reka ‘river’ or jezero ‘lake’ and the same applies to Felsoszölnök,wherenoteventhetwocreekshaveaSlovenianname,butonlyaHungarianone(Törökpatak and Szölnök patak); however, ditches do have their own names, which are usually derived from the near-esthouse(housename),suchasKutindjarek,Krajcarendjarek,Dvöcidjarek,Šlosendjarek,whichIclassify under the names of water bodies (hydronyms). »The village lies in a large area with varied terrain, where every hill, elevation, and valley has its own name(oronyms);forexample,Vrajžidou,Miklindou,Divicindou,Dugaznouž,Cemešterenbreg,andMeleken vrej; the motivations for these names were most often the owners or residents of a specific area – that is, their house name. »Fields,pastures,meadows,andforestsalsohavetheirownnames,suchasDugenjive,Calnika,Celena, Celna,Raven,Vkamle,Bükonja,Gladeklec,Crnabükonja,Djouške,Evino,Poposko,Židosko,Djanke,Stardjaš, and Stari haj, referred to in expert literature as field names. These features were named after their owner, a land characteristic, typical vegetation, and so on.« 12 Conclusion Geographicalnames,ortoponyms,arepropernamesthatbydefinitionrefertoaspecificgeographicalfea­turethattheyidentifyandindividualize(Furlan,GložancevandŠivic-Dular2000).Theydevelopataspecificpoint in time in a specific linguistic area (Šivic-Dular 1988). At first glance, it may seem that geographical names are not a main topic of geographical research, especiallybecausegeographerssharethestudyofthematleastwithlinguists.Inreality,practicallyallgeo­graphicalresearchisconnectedwithgeographicalnamesinonewayoranotherbecauseliterallyeverything onEarthandintheuniversehasitsownname.Theglobalsignificanceofgeographicalnamesisconfirmed by the fact that they are dealt with by the United Nations, which even coordinates international work in this area via the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). In addition, geo­graphical names have national and local significance because they are part of the cultural heritage of any nation or of the residents of a specific region. Regional linguistic and geographical divisions represent the main level of international organization in this area. In line with the UNGEGN statute, every country can decide for itself which division it wish-estojoin.Itcanalsobeamemberofseveraldivisionsatthesametime.SloveniabelongstotheEastCentral andSouth-EastEuropeDivision(ECSEED)togetherwithAlbania,BosniaandHerzegovina,Bulgaria,Croatia, Cyprus,Czechia,Georgia,Greece,Hungary,Montenegro,NorthMacedonia,Poland,Romania,Serbia,Slovakia, Turkey, and Ukraine. TheSlovenianGovernmentCommissionfortheStandardizationofGeographicalNameshasbeenoper­ating in Slovenia (with interruptions) ever since 1986, with headquarters at the ZRC SAZU Anton Melik GeographicalInstitutesince1995.Itcomprisesexpertsingeography,linguistics,cartography,geodesy,sta­tistics, and history, as well as representatives of the relevant ministries. When Slovenia joined the UN in 1992, it also agreed to respect the resolutions on geographical names adopted before its independence. To this end, working material was prepared in which the toponymic resolutions and their content were also presented in detail in Slovenian (Radovan and Orožen Adamic 1999). The use of geographical names in Slovenia is defined by three types of normative works. The most importantarethenormativeguides,whichusuallyincludeseveralsectionsongeographicalnames.Todate, six normative guides have been published in Slovenian. In turn, the etymology of the names is provided in etymological dictionaries. Until now, these have not yet examined all geographical names, which can roughlybedividedintothoseofSlovenianoriginandthoseofnon-Slovenianorigin.Thethirdgroupcom-prises toponymic guidelines, which, alongside normative rules and certain general sections, also contain some distinctly technical guidelines intended primarily for cartographers. In terms of the size of the objects or features they denote, geographical names are divided into micro-toponyms and macrotoponyms. Microtoponyms include three main types of geographical names: house names, field names, and street names. House names are not included in any official register, but they are invaluable for the preservation of intangible cultural heritage, especially as indicators of specific features in local dialects. In modern times, efforts are being made to preserve them in various ways because their living use tends to be increasingly rarer due to modernization processes. In terms of their living use, field names are sharing the fate of house names. The only difference is that at least some of them are listed in theRegisterofGeographicalNamesmaintainedbytheSlovenianSurveyingandMappingAuthority.Street names are official, and all of them are included in the Register of Spatial Units. They have changed fre­quentlyinmodernhistory,sometimesalsoduetopoliticalmotives,throughwhichcertainpoliticalregimes enforced their power. Sloveniangeographershavedealtmostintensivelywithmacrotoponymswhiletranslatingworldatlases from languages other than Slovenian, standardizing Slovenian geographical names, and producing sem­inalgeographicalworksonSloveniaafteritsindependenceandaspartofsomepost-1991nationalprojects. In parallel with this, a multilingual glossary of common terms in Slovenian geographical names has been compiled (Table 2). The main focus has been on the names of settlements, regions, and countries. Inadditiontocountrynames,todatetheCommissionfortheStandardizationofGeographicalNames has also standardized Slovenian geographical names on the 1:1,000,000 map of Slovenia, which contains 843names,ofwhich464areinSlovenia,andonthe1:250,000mapofSloveniawith8,203names,ofwhich 4,273 are in Slovenia. TheRegisterofGeographicalNames(REZI)isthelargestcollectionofgeographicalnamesinSlovenia. ItismaintainedbytheSlovenianSurveyingandMappingAuthorityandcontainsover200,000namesfrom national maps at four different scales. A flagship discipline of Slovenian onomastics is the study of exonyms, or Slovenianized foreign geo­graphical names, which has been dealt with almost exclusively by geographers. According to the UN, the useofexonymsisasubstantialbarrierininternationalcommunication,andthereforeUNGEGNhascon­tinually sought to limit their use, especially due to their historical and political sensitivity. It has turned out that attempts to rapidly reduce the number of exonyms were overly optimistic because exonyms have alreadybecomeaninalienablepartofvocabularyinindividuallanguagesandthuspartofthelinguisticcul-turalheritageofindividualnations.ThisalsoappliestoSlovenian.Thus,forinstance,theuseofSlovenianized foreign geographical names in Slovenian atlases is based on a tradition going back at least a century and a half (Kladnik 2007e). The examination of thepractice of Slovenianizing foreign geographical names applied to date reveals certain typical stages. Initially, the Slovenianization tendencies had a pan-Slavic orientation because, as a rule, many geographical names in ethnically mixed European areas or in their vicinity as well as else­where were written in any Slavic language. Czech and Polish played an especially important role in this regard. Later, the influence of Germanization can be perceived and, after the First World War, the influ­enceofSerbianand,throughit,Russian.BeforeandduringtheSecondWorldWar,theinfluenceofItalian grew stronger, and during the globalized information age English is coming to the forefront. Afewyearsago,theZRCSAZUAntonMelikGeographicalInstituteproducedagazetteerofSlovenian exonyms,whichisaspreadsheetwithmorethanfivethousandofthemostfrequentlyusedexonyms,treat­edinthirty-fivedifferentcategories.Only256or5.1%ofSlovenianexonymsincludedinthatlisthavebeen standardized to date. a standardization procedure must be carried out for them to become standardized, wherebyadetailedinterdisciplinary(geographicandlinguistic)analysisshouldbeperformedontheexonyms included in the list. The use of 544 or 10.8% of exonyms was defined as necessary, and the use of a further 2,154 (42.7%) is highly recommended. The spreadsheet also includes some still well-known archaic exonyms with the purpose of preventing them from sinking into oblivion. Slovenia is a country in which minority issues are handled in an exemplary manner. This is especial­lytrueforthenativemoreorlesscontiguouslypopulatedareasoftheItalianandHungarianethnicminorities. Such an approach ensures that functional bilingualism is maintained, something that is also manifested externallythroughtheconsistentuseofbilingualnamesofsettlementsontownsignsalongthemainroads. Slovenian settlement names (but only up to the level of entire settlements, not individual hamlets) and other important geographical names have already been standardized, whereas the Italian and Hungarian names have not. In the past, the Slovenians inhabited a much larger territory than today, and due to historical reasons partof the Slovenian population has remained outside Slovenia. Slovenians thus also contiguously inhab-itethnicallymixedareasinneighboringItaly,Austria,andHungary.TheSlovenianethniccommunitythere, which in the past was exposed to assimilation more or less everywhere, enjoys various degrees of protec­tion. All of this is also reflected in the diverse destiny of Slovenian geographical names in these regions. In the Italian cross-border areas, Slovenian geographical names hold the status of official names only in the provinces of Trieste and Gorizia, but not also in both provincial capitals (i.e., Trieste and Gorizia). In addition, in the Venetian Slovenia and Resia (both in the province of Udine), dialect name forms can also be found that use non-Slovenian letters. In turn, in the bilingual area of the southern part of Austrian Carinthia,acompromisewasreachedafterseveraldecadesofconflict,accordingtowhich164villageswere officiallygivenbilingualnames. IntheethnicSlovenianRába ValleyinHungary,onlyafew settlements havebeenrecognizedashavingbilingualnames,andforthosealsopopulatedbyGermanstrilingualnames are in effect. Microtoponyms are a vital element of the cultural landscape across all ethnically Slovenian cross-borderregions.SlovenianfieldnameshavebeenespeciallythoroughlystudiedinsouthernAustrian Carinthia, where they have been recently listed in the national UNESCO inventory of intangible cultur­al heritage. Slovenian house names have also been well studied. They continue to be part of living usage inAustrianCarinthia,Hungary’sRábaValley,andItaly’sCanaleValleyintheextremenortheastoftheprovince of Udine. The ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute, which the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SAZU) established in 1946 specifically to study Slovenian natural and cultural heritage, has been dealing with geographical names ever since its inception, and especially intensively since Slovenia’sinde­pendence in 1991. Its efforts can roughly be divided into the following: • Standardizing geographical names in cooperation with the Slovenian Government Commission for the Standardization of Geographical Names; • Carryingoutresearchprojectsongeographicalnamesandresearchprojectsinvolvinggeographicalnames; • Producing seminal geographical works on Slovenia, of which geographical names form an inseparable part. All these areas will continue to be the institute’s main interest in the future. We hope that the professional community and the public also continue to be aware of the need for new findings on geographical names and their global and national importance. Along with suitable fund­ing, this will allow the much-needed interdisciplinary (and international) research that is vital forfurther standardization of Slovenian geographical names and thus their formal elevation to a higher level. Moreover,activitiesintheseareasareespeciallyimportantfromtheviewpointoffulfillingSlovenia’sinter-nationally adopted obligations. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:TheauthorsacknowledgefinancialsupportfromtheSlovenianResearchAgency program (P6-0101) Geography of Slovenia. 13 References Arousseau, M. 1957: The rendering of geographical names. London. Atlant 1869–1877: 18 maps. Matica slovenska. Ljubljana. Atlant 2005: Faksimile. Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana. Atlantika: Veliki satelitski atlas sveta 2007: Založba Mladinska knjiga. Ljubljana. Atlas Slovenije 1985: Založba Mladinska knjiga. Ljubljana. Atlas Slovenije 1992: Založba Mladinska knjiga. Ljubljana. Atlas sveta 1991: Cankarjeva založba. Ljubljana. Atlas sveta 2000 1997: Založba Mladinska knjiga. Ljubljana. Atlas sveta za osnovne in srednje šole, 1. natis 2002: Založba Mladinska knjiga. Ljubljana. Atlas sveta za osnovne in srednje šole, 2. natis 2010: Založba Mladinska knjiga. Ljubljana. Atlas sveta za osnovne in srednje šole, 3. natis 2005: Založba Mladinska knjiga. Ljubljana. Azaryahu, M.1992: The purge of Bismarck and Saladin: The renaming of streets in East Berlin and Haifa, a comparative study in culture-planning. Poetics Today 13-2. Azaryahu, M. 1996: The power of commemorative street names. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1996, 14-3. Azaryahu,M.1997:Germanreunificationandthepoliticsofstreetnames:thecaseofEastBerlin.Political Geography 16-6. Azaryahu, M., Golan, A. 2001: (Re)naming the landscape: The formation of the Hebrew map of Israel 1949–1960. Journal of Historical Geography 27-2. Backus Borshi, O. 2015: Formal expression of definiteness in Albanian. Ph.D thesis, Charles University. Prague. Badjura, R. 1950: Slovensko in nemško geografsko sedlo. Geografski vestnik 22. Badjura, R. 1951: Gorski prehodi v luci ljudske geografije. Ljubljana. Badjura, R. 1953: Ljudska geografija: terensko izrazoslovje. Ljubljana. Badjura,R.1957:Ljudskageografija:terenskoizrazoslovje.Del2,Rešetoumetnihinljudskihzemljepisnih izrazov. Ljubljana.Bajec,A.,Kolaric,R.,Legiša,L.,Moder,J.,Rupel,M.,Sovre,A.,Šmalc,M.,Šolar,J.,Tomšic,F.1962:Slovenski pravopis. Ljubljana. Bajt,D.1993:Ogledalodomainsveta:OatlasihzadnjihletnaSlovenskemzocmiamaterskegauporabnika. Vecer (3. 4.). Maribor. Bajzek Lukac, M. 2017: Slovenska zemljepisna lastna imena na Gornjem Seniku in v Porabju. Nexus Linguarum: Köszönto kötet a 80 éves Nyomárkay István akadémikus tiszteletére. Budapest. Basso, K. H. 1988: Speaking with names: language and landscape among the Western Apache. Cultural Anthropology 3-2. Basso,K.H.1996:Wisdomsitsinplaces.LandscapeandlanguageamongtheWesternApache.Albuquerque. Beránek,T.,Bohác,P.,Drápela,M.V.,Harvalík,M.,Lišcák,V.Šimunek,R.,Šrámek,R.2006:Indexceských exonym: Standardizované podoby, varianty. Praha. Bergmann,H.2005:SlawischesimNamengutderOsttirolerGemeindenAinetundSchlaiten:Anmerkungen zur Slavia submersa im vorderen Iseltal. Beihefte zur Österreichischen Namenforschung 5. Wien. Berk, S. 2001: O tujejezicnih ustreznicah za slovenska zemljepisna imena. Geografski vestnik 73-1. Bezlaj, F. 1956: Slovenska vodna imena 1: A-L. Dela Inštituta za slovenski jezik 6. Ljubljana.Bezlaj, F. 1961: Slovenska vodna imena 2: M-Ž. Dela Inštituta za slovenski jezik 6. Ljubljana. Bezlaj, F. 1965: Slovenski imenotvorni proces. Jezik in slovstvo 10, 4-5. Bezlaj, F. 1967: Eseji o slovenskem jeziku. Ljubljana. Bezlaj, F. 1969a: Das vorslawische Substrat im Slowenischen. Alpes Orientales 5. Bezlaj, F. 1969b: Novejša dognanja v slovenski toponomastiki. 5. Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana. Bezlaj, F. 1969c: Onomastika in leksikologija. Onomastica Jugoslavica 1. Bezlaj, F. 1976: Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika I. Ljubljana. Bezlaj, F. 1982: Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika II. Ljubljana. Bezlaj, F. 1995: Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika III. Ljubljana. Bijak,U.2019:ThedevelopmentofPolishtoponomasticterminology.AnnalesUniversitatisMariaeCurie­Sklodowska sectio FF, Philologiae 37-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17951/ff.2019.37.1.91-103 Bizjak,A.2012:Pisnopodomacevanjenovejšihprevzetihbesedvslovenšcini.Pravopisnastikanja:razprave o pravopisnih vprašanjih. Ljubljana. Bohác, P. 2007: On the disappearance of exonyms. Exonyms and the international standardisation of geo­graphical names:Approaches towards the resolution of an apparent contradiction.Wiener Osteuropa Studien 24. Wien. Bohinec, V. 1925: Razvoj geografije v Slovencih. Geografski vestnik 1-1. Bohinec, V. 1969: Slovenske dežele na zemljevidih od 16. do 18. stoletja. Ljubljana. Bon, M. 2018: Pomenska motivacija hišnih imen v Bovcu. Škrabcevi dnevi 10: zbornik prispevkov s sim-pozija 2017. Medmrežje: http://www.ung.si/media/storage/cms/attachments/2018/11/29/16/56/02/ Skrabcevi_dnevi_10_11k18.pdf (15. 6. 2020). Bratec Mrvar, R. 2007: Blaž Kocen: Življenje in delo. Šentjur. BratecMrvar,R.,Birsak,L.,Fridl,J.,Kladnik,D.,Kunaver,J.2011:Kocenovsrednješolskiatlaskotdidakticna prelomnica. Geografija Slovenije 22. Ljubljana. BratecMrvar,R.,Kladnik,D.2008:JanezJesenko–malcepozabljenivelikanslovenskegeografije.Geografski vestnik 80-1. Bratec Mrvar, R., Kladnik, D., Kunaver, J. Vidrih, R. 2008: Janez Jesenko – pomemben geograf in mislec druge polovice 19. stoletja. Glasnik Slovenske matice 32. Breu,J.,Back,O.,Desoye,H.,Hausner,I.1996:Toponymicguidelinesformapandothereditors–Austria. Breznik, A. 1920: Slovenski pravopis. Ljubljana. Breznik, A., Ramovš, F. 1935: Slovenski pravopis. Ljubljana. Brinar, J. 1928: Slovarcek zemljepisnih imen, njih izvor in pomen. Celje. Brinkvanden,T.2014/2015:RequestforparticipationforourprojectontheEuropeanLandscapeCharacter Assessment through the lens of unique toponyms. Electronic correspondence with Drago Kladnik. Bufon, M. 1995: Oris položaja avtohtonih etnicnih in narodnih manjšin v Italiji. Geografski vestnik 67. Bufon,M.2003:Minorities,regionaltransformationandintegrationinborderlands:acasestudy.Annales, Series historia et sociologia 13-1. Bufon, M. 2016: Minorities and minority toponyms in multicultural areas of the border region of Friuli Venezia Giulia in Italy. Onomàstica 2. Ciglenecki, S., Dular, J., Horvat, J., Pleterski, A., Turk, I. 1998: Poselitev v arheoloških dobah. Geografski atlas Slovenije. Ljubljana. Ciglic,R.,Perko,D.2013:Europe’slandscapehotspots.ActageographicaSlovenica53-1.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.3986/AGS53106 Cohen, B. S., Kliot, N. 1992: Place-names in Israel’s ideological struggle over the administered territories. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82. Crljenko, I. 2014: Representations of regional identity: A case study of the street names in two neighbor­ing Croatian regions. Onomàstica. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2436/15.8040.01.184 Celigoj,J.2012:Etimološkaanalizabesedekrasinzemljepisnihimen,izpeljanihizbesedekras.Diplomska naloga, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana.Cernivec, M. 2020: Pravopisna reforma in jezikovni uporabniki. Živim v Bukovem Vrhu pod Bukovim vrhom: O spremembi pravopisnega pravila za pisanje zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana. Cop, D. 1975: Slovenska krajevna imena in priimki na Koroškem in vzhodnem Tirolskem. Onomastica Jugoslavica 5. Ljubljana. Cop, D. 1983: Imenoslovje zgornjesavskih dolin. Ph.D. thesis, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Cop, D. 1987: Romansko-germanski lingvisticno-onomasticni vplivi na Zgornjem Gorenjskem. XXIII. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture, 6.–18. julij 1987: zbornik predavanj. Ljubljana. Cop, D. 1990: Imenoslovje in njegove zakonitosti. Skaleras 1. Cop, D. 2002: Gorska, terenska (ledinska) in vodna imena v Sloveniji. Jezikoslovni zapiski 8-2. Dapit, R. 1995: Aspetti di cultura resiana nei nomi di luogo: Area di Solbiza, Stolvizza e Korito, Coritis. Padova. Dapit,R.1998:Aspettidiculturaresiananeinomidiluogo:AreadiOsoanë,OseaccoeUcja,Uccea.Padova. Dapit,R.2008:Aspettidiculturaresiananeinomidiluogo:AreadiBila,SanGiorgio,Njïwa.GnivaeRavanca, Prato. Padova. Dobrovoljc, H. 2004: Pravopisje na Slovenskem. Lingua Slovenica. Ljubljana. Dobrovoljc,H. 2012a:Pisanjeimenizdelkovinznamk. Pravopisna stikanja:razpraveopravopisnih vpra­šanjih. Ljubljana. Dobrovoljc,H.2012b:Pisanjezacetnicevpredložnihlastnihimenih.Pravopisnastikanja:razpraveopravo­pisnih vprašanjih. Ljubljana. Dobrovoljc, H. 2015a: Anton Breznik, Fran Ramovš, Slovenski pravopis. Slovenske slovnice in pravopisi: spletišce slovenskih slovnic in pravopisov od 1584 do danes. Medmrežje: https://fran.si/slovnice-in­pravopisi/39/1935-breznik-ramovs (20. 5. 2020). Dobrovoljc, H. 2015b: Fran Ramovš, Oton Župancic, Anton Bajec, Rudolf Kolaric, Mirko Rupel, MatejŠmalc, Jakob Šolar, Slovenski pravopis. Slovenske slovnice in pravopisi: spletišce slovenskih slovnic in pravopisovod1584dodanes.Medmrežje:https://fran.si/slovnice-in-pravopisi/41/1950-skupinski-zupan­cicev (20. 5. 2020). Dobrovoljc, H. 2018a: Fran Levec, Slovenski pravopis. Slovenske slovnice in pravopisi: spletišce sloven-skih slovnic in pravopisov od 1584 do danes. Medmrežje: https://fran.si/slovnice-in-pravopisi/34/ 1899-levec (20. 5. 2020). Dobrovoljc,H.2018b:AntonBreznik,Slovenskipravopis.Slovenskeslovniceinpravopisi:spletišcesloven­skih slovnic in pravopisov od 1584 do danes. Medmrežje: https://fran.si/slovnice-in-pravopisi/36/ 1920-breznik (20. 5. 2020). Dobrovoljc, H. 2020: Težavnost pravopisnih reform v dobi jezikovne ustaljenosti. Živim v Bukovem Vrhu pod Bukovim vrhom: O spremembi pravopisnega pravila za pisanje zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana. Dobrovoljc,H.,Cernivec,M.,Geršic,M.(eds.)2020:ŽivimvBukovemVrhupodBukovimvrhom:Ospre­membi pravopisnega pravila za pisanje zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986 9789610504320 Dobrovoljc, H., Jakop, N. 2011: Sodobni pravopisni prirocnik med normo in predpisom. Ljubljana. Dobrovoljc,H.,Jakop,N.(eds.)2012:Viskanjusoglasja.Pravopisnastikanja:razpraveopravopisnihvpra­šanjih. Ljubljana. Dobrovoljc, H., Lengar Verovnik, T. (eds.) 2015: Pravopisna razpotja: razprave o pravopisnih vprašanjih. Ljubljana.Doncec Merkli, I., Emberšic Škaper, E. 2013: Slovenska hišna imena na GornjemSeniku invŠtevanovcih. Studia Slavica Savariensia 2-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17668/SSS.2013.1-2.174 Dorling, D., Fairbairn, D. 1997: Mapping: Ways of Representing the World. Harlow, London. Dragoceni srednjeveški rokopis, Slavinski misal, bo obiskal maticno župnijo 2019. Medmrežje: https://www.rtvslo.si/kultura/knjige/dragoceni-srednjeveski-rokopis-slavinski-misal-bo-obiskal-mat­icno-zupnijo/480843 (28. 5. 2020). Družinski atlas sveta 2001: Slovenska knjiga. Ljubljana. English House Names 2015. Internet: http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/ housenames.htm (16. 11. 2015). Fabcic, T. 2010: Pripovedno izrocilo talov. Lozice.Ferenc, T., Šumrada, J. 1991: Kocevarji. Enciklopedija Slovenije, 5. knjiga. Ljubljana. Floriantschitsch de Grienfeld, J. D. 1744: Ducatus Carnioliae Tabula Chorographica: Jussu, Sumptu’que Inclitorum Provinciae Statuum geometrice exhibita. Ljubljana. Flurname 2015. Internet: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flurname (28. 5. 2020). Freyer, H. 1843: Special-Karte des Herzogthums Krain. Wien. Freyer,H.1846:AlphabetischesVerzeichnißallerOrtschafts-undSchlösser-NamendesHerzogthumsKrain: indeutschundkrainischerSprache:alsCommentarzurSpecial-KartedesHerzogthumsKrain.Laibach. Fridl, J. 1998: Oris razvoja kartografije in geografije. Geografski atlas Slovenije. Ljubljana. Fridl,J.,Kladnik,D.,OroženAdamic,M.,Pavšek,M.,Perko,D.,Repolusk,P.,Urbanc,M.(eds)2007:Slovenia in Focus. Ljubljana. Fridl,J.,Kladnik,D.,OroženAdamic,M.,Perko,D.(eds.)1998:GeografskiatlasSlovenije.DZS.Ljubljana. Furlan, M. 1993: Odzadnji slovar zemljepisnih imen po Atlasu Slovenije. Ljubljana. Furlan, M. 2002: Predslovanska substratna imena v slovenšcini. Jezikoslovni zapiski 8-2. Furlan, M. 2003: Slovenska imena držav v Slovenskem pravopisu in standardizacija SIST ISO 3166: 1996 (razlike). Tipkopis. Ljubljana. Furlan, M. 2013: Novi etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika. Poskusni zvezek. Ljubljana. Furlan, M. 2015: Sull’idronimo Dragonja/Dragogna. Linguistica 55. Ljubljana. Furlan,M.2020:Zakajbibilosmiselnospremenitiveljavnopravopisnopraviloozapisovanjuneprvihsesta-vinslovenskegalastnoimenskegaimenja.ŽivimvBukovemVrhupodBukovimvrhom:Ospremembi pravopisnega pravila za pisanje zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana. Furlan, M., Gložancev, A., Kladnik, D., Perko, D., Šivic-Dular, A. 2008: Imenik zemljepisnih imen DržavnepreglednekarteRepublikeSlovenijevmerilu1:250.000.DržavnapreglednakartaRepublike Slovenije 1:250.000: standardizirana slovenska zemljepisna imena. Ljubljana. Furlan, M., Gložancev, A., Kladnik, D., Perko, D., Šivic-Dular, A. 2008: Gazetter of the National general map of the Republic of Slovenia at the scale 1:250,000. Ljubljana. Furlan, M., Gložancev, A., Šivic-Dular, A. 2000: Pravopisna ustreznost zapisa lastnoimenskega gradiva v registru zemljepisnih imen in registru prostorskih enot. Geografski vestnik 72-1. Furlan, M., Gložancev, A., Šivic-Dular, A. 2001: Pravopisno ustrezen zapis zemljepisnih in stvarnih last-nih imen v Registru zemljepisnih imen in Registru prostorskih enot. Ljubljana. Gabrovec,M.,OroženAdamic,M.,Perko,D.1996:GazetteerimennaselijvSloveniji.Elaborat,Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana. Gabrovec, M., Perko, D. 1996: Seznam predlogov novih uradnih imen za sporna uradna imena naselij v Sloveniji. Elaborat, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana. Gabrovec,M.,Perko,D.1997:ImenikuradnihimennaselijvSloveniji.Elaborat,GeografskiinštitutAntona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana. Gabrovec, M., Perko, D. 1998: Zgodovinske dežele Slovenije. Slovenija – pokrajine in ljudje. Ljubljana. Gabrovec, M.,Perko, D. 1999: Zgodovinske dežele na današnjem ozemlju Slovenije. Geografski obzornik 46-1. Gams, I. 1964: Krakov, Wroclav, Varšava. Naši razgledi 13-2. Gams, I. 1972: Za poenostavitev pravopisnih pravil: porocilo s posvetov o pisanju zemljepisnih imen (I. in II.). Naši razgledi (24. 11. in 8. 12.). Ljubljana. Gams, I. 1984a: Laibachi, Spalati, Marburgi…pocasi izginjajo. Delo, Sobotna priloga (17. 3.). Ljubljana. Gams,I.1984b:PosvetovprašanjihstandardizacijegeografskihimenvjezikihnarodovinnarodnostiSFRJ, 8.–9. marec 1984 v Sarajevu. Geografski vestnik 56. Gams,I.1984c:PrizadevanjeGeografskegadruštvaSlovenijezastandardizacijoslovenskihlastnihgeograf­skihimen.Zbornikradovasavjetovanjaopitanjimastandardizacijegeografskihnazivaujezicimanaroda i narodnosti SFRJ. Sarajevo. Gams, I. 1985: V Lozani (Lausanni) Lausannu? Delo, Sobotna priloga (18. 5.). Ljubljana. Gams, I. 1989: Imena držav. Delo, 21. 1. 1989. Ljubljana. Gašperic, P. 2007: Cartographic images of Slovenia through time. Acta geographica Slovenica 47-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS47205 Gašperic, P. 2010: The 1812 Map of the Illyrian Provinces by Gaetan Palma. Acta geographica Slovenica 50-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS50205 Gašperic,P.2016:Razvoj metodprikaza kartografskihelementovna starihzemljevidihozemlja Slovenije. Ph.D. thesis, Univerza na Primorskem. Koper. Gašperic, P., Orožen Adamic, M., Šumrada, J. 2012: Zemljevid Ilirskih provinc iz leta 1812. Ljubljana. Gašperic, P., Šolar, R., Zorn, M. 2020: Kartografski zakladi slovenskega ozemlja/Cartographic treasures of Slovenian territory. Ljubljana. Geografski atlas sveta za šole 2003: Tehniška založba Slovenije. Ljubljana. Geografski atlas za osnovno šolo 2008: DZS. Ljubljana. Geršic, M. 2016a: Ledinska imena na kulturnih terasah. Geografski vestnik 88-2. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.3986/GV88205 Geršic, M. 2016b: Slovenska pokrajinska imena kot dejavnik identitete. Ph.D. thesis, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Geršic,M. 2017:ChangingdenotationsofselectedSlovenianchoronyms. ActageographicaSlovenica57-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4600 Geršic,M.2020a:KomisijazastandardizacijozemljepisnihimenVladeRepublikeSlovenijeinnjenavloga pripravopisnireformi.ŽivimvBukovemVrhupodBukovimvrhom:Ospremembipravopisnegapravila za pisanje zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana. Geršic, M. 2020b: Pokrajinska imena kot dejavnik identitete. Geografija Slovenije 36. Ljubljana. Geršic,M. 2020c: Slovenski eksonimi skozi prizmo prvega slovenskega pravopisa. Geografskivestnik92-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV92107 Geršic, M., Batagelj, B., Bercic, H., Bokal, L., Gucek, A., Kavar, J., Kocutar, S., Komac, B., Markovic, Z., Mikša, P., Torkar, B. 2014: Rudolf Badjura – življenje in delo. Geografija Slovenije 29. Ljubljana. Geršic, M., Ciglic, R., Perko, D. 2018: Pokrajinska in zemljepisnoimenska raznolikost v Sloveniji. GIS v Sloveniji 14. Ljubljana. Geršic, M., Kladnik, D. 2014: Street-name changes in Ljubljana. Place-name changes: proceedings of the Symposion in Rome, 17-18 November 2014. Hamburg. Geršic, M., Kladnik, D. 2015: Slovenian geographical names as exonyms. Confirmation of the definitions: proceedings of the 16th UNGEGN Working Group on Exonyms Meeting. Hamburg. Geršic, M., Kladnik, D. 2016a: House names and field names as an important part of Slovenian cultural heritage: a case study of the Leše cadastral municipality, Upper Carniola, Slovenia. Nomina Africana: journal of the Names Society of Southern Africa 30-1. Geršic, M., Kladnik, D. 2016b: Street-name changes in Ljubljana. Place-name changes: proceedings of the Symposion in Rome, 17-18 November 2014. Hamburg. Geršic, M., Kladnik, D. 2017: Vrednotenje upravno-teritorialne razdelitve Katoliške cerkve v Sloveniji. Bogoslovni vestnik 77, 3-4. Geršic, M., Kladnik, D., Brnot, M. 2020: Standardization of geographical names in officially recognized bilingual areas of Slovenia. Onomàstica 6. Geršic,M.,Kladnik,D.,Perko,D.2020:Geografskipoglednapisanjevelikeinmalezacetniceprivecbesednihzemljepisnih imenih. Živim v Bukovem Vrhu pod Bukovim vrhom: O spremembi pravopisnega pra­vila za pisanje zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana. Geršic, M., Kladnik, D., Repolusk, P. 2017: Geographical names in the languages of official minorities in Slovenia. Onomàstica 3. Geršic,M.,Kladnik,D.,VintarMally,K.2019:ThechallengesofusingSlovenianchoronymsinbrandnames. Criticaltoponymy:placenamesinpolitical,historicalandcommerciallandscapes:proceedingsofthe 4th International Symposium on Place Names 2017, Windhoek, Namibia. Bloemfontein. Geršic, M., Perko, D. 2020: Pokrajinska identiteta v Sloveniji. Pokrajine v Sloveniji, Lex localis. Maribor. Geršic,M.,Perko,D.,Ciglic,R.2018:PokrajinskainzemljepisnoimenskaraznolikostvSloveniji.Pokrajina v visoki locljivosti, GIS v Sloveniji 14. Ljubljana. Geršic, M., Zorn, M. 2016: Odsev naravnih nesrec v zemljepisnih imenih – nekaj primerov iz Zahodnih Karavank in zahodnih Kamniško-Savinjskih Alp. Iz zgodovine Zgornje Gorenjske. Kronika 64-3. Gliha Komac, N. 1999: Drugi otroški etimološki raziskovalni tabor Stara hišna imena v Kanalski dolini:Žabnice. Hišna imena v Žabnicah–otroški raziskovalni tabor Kanalska dolina 1999. Ukve. Gomboc, M. 2009: Mala slovnica slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana. Grafenauer, I. 2013: Jarnik, Urban. Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana. Medmrežje: https://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi250663/ (14. 7. 2020). Grivec, B. 2010: Ledinska in hišna imena v izbranih naseljih obcine Ormož. Diplomsko delo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Mariboru. Maribor.Grošelj, R., Kenda-Jež, K., Klemše, V., Smole, V., Šekli, M. 2016: Lipalja vas in njena slovenska govorica. Linguistica & philologica 34. Ljubljana. Grozdanic Dizdarevic, J. 2018: Slowenische und deutsche Namen für Berge in zweisprachigen Kärnten/Slovenska in nemška imena za gore na dvojezicnem Koroškem. Magistrsko delo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Gully, J. M. 2011: Bilingual signs in Carinthia: International treaties, the Ortstafelstreit, and the spaces of German.Transit:aJournalofTravel,Migration,andMulticulturalismintheGerman-speakingWorld. Medmrežje: https://transit.berkeley.edu/2011/gully/ (16. 2. 2020). Gumilar, N. 2012: Ledinska in hišna imena v izbranih naseljih obcine Grad. Diplomsko delo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Mariboru. Maribor. Gundacker,R.2014:ThesignificanceofforeigntoponymsandethnonymsinOldKingdom.TheLateThird Millennium in the Ancient Near East. Oriental institute seminars 11. Chicago. Gutsmann,O.1789:Deutsch-WindischesWörterbuch:miteinerSammlungderverdeutschtenwindischen Stammwörter, und einiger vorzüglichern abstammenden Wörter. Klagenfurt. Hacquet, B., Baraga, F. K. 1778: Krainska deschela. Zemljevid v približnem merilu 1:260.000. Ljubljana. Hakulinen,K.,Paikkala,S.2012:PariisistaPapukaijannokkaan:Suomenkielisetulkomaidenpaikannimet ja niiden vieraskieliset vastineet. Helsinki. Halbwachs, M. 2001: Kolektivni spomin. Ljubljana. Halozan, P. 2020: Pot v pekel je tlakovana z dobrimi nameni: razmislek o spremembi pravil o zacetnicah pri zemljepisnih imenih. Živim v Bukovem Vrhu pod Bukovim vrhom: O spremembi pravopisnega pravila za pisanje zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana. Harley, J. 2001: The new nature of maps: Essays in the history of cartography. Baltimore. Hawlina, P. 2008: Hišna imena. Drevesa – bilten slovenskih rodoslovcev 15-2. Hipolit–Novomeški1711–1712:Dictionariumtrilingue.Rokopisnislovar,hranigaNarodnainUniverzitetna knjižnica v Ljubljani. Hornanský, I. 1992: Internacionalizacija standardizacije zemljepisnih imen. Geodetski vestnik 36-2. Horvat,M.2015:Rodilniškaoblikapanonskih,štajerskihinbelokranjskihkrajevnihimenna-ci,-ovci/evci, -inci (tip Beltinci – iz Beltinec/Beltincev). Pravopisna razpotja: razprave o pravopisnih vprašanjih. Ljubljana. Housname 2015. Internet: https://www.google.si/#q=hausname (7. 11. 2015). Hren,K.,Pandel,M.(eds.)2012:EinJahrdanach.DieOrtstafelregelung2011undwasdarauswurde/Leto kasneje:ureditevkrajevnihnapisov2011inkajjeizteganastalo.Klagenfurt/Celovec,Ljubljana/Laibach, Wien/Dunaj. Internet 1: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/ungegn/ (15. 5. 2020). Internet 2: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/ungegn/divisions (15. 5. 2020). Internet 3: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/ungegn/sessions (15. 5. 2020). Internet 4: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/ungegn/working_groups (15. 5. 2020). Internet 5: http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/ (15. 5. 2020). Internet 6: http://fluled.szi.at/ (10. 6. 2020). Internet 7: http:/www.termania.net (1. 3. 2020). Internet 8: http://www.geonames.org (15. 5. 2010). Internet 9: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318318167_Toponymic_Guidelines_For_Map_ And_Other_Editors_For_International_Use (15. 5. 2020). Jakop,N.2012:Pisanjepridevnikovna-ov,-ev,-inizlastnihimen.Pravopisnastikanja:razpraveopravopis­ nih vprašanjih. Ljubljana. Jakopin, F. 1990: Imenoslovje. Enciklopedija Slovenije, 4. zvezek. Ljubljana. Jakopin,F.,Korošec,T.,Logar,T.,Rigler,J.,Savnik,R.,Suhadolnik,S.1985:Slovenskakrajevnaimena.Ljubljana.Jarc, V. 2004: Ledinska imena pod Stolom, Begunjšcico in Dobrco. Žirovnica, Bled, Radovljica. Jarnik,U.1813:SlovenischeAlterthühmer(Aufgefundenineinigenaufunsnochreingekommenenslovenis­ chen Ortsbenennungen). Carinthia 44/45. Jarnik,U.1826:AndeutungüberKärntensGermanisierung(EinphilologischstatistischerVersuch).Carinthia 16/18/19/20/22/23/24/25/26. Jarnik, U. 1832: Versuch eines Etymologikons der Slowenischen Sprache. Klagenfurt. Jaušovec, B. 2011: Zajebantsko jezikovno popotovanje/Scherzhafte Sprachreise. Signal: das Magazin der Sloweninnen und Slowenen in der Steiermark. Graz. JemecTomazin,M.2012:Terminologijavslovenskempravopisu.Pravopisnastikanja:razpraveopravopis­ nih vprašanjih. Ljubljana. Jesenko, J. 1865: Zemljepisna zacetnica za gimnazije in realke. Gorica. Jesenšek,M.2003:PisavazemljepisnihimenvprvemprekmurskemcasopisuPrijatel.Besedoslovnelastnosti slovenskega jezika – Slovenska zemljepisna imena. Pišece. Jordan,P.1988:MöglichkeiteneinerstärkerenBerücksichtigungslowenischerOrtsnamenindenheutigenamtlicher topographischen Karten Österreich. Wien. Jordan,P.1992:SlowenischeOrtsnamenindenamtlichentopographischenKarten Österreichs:Heutigen ZustandundVorschlägezuseinerVerbesserung.Kärnten–DeutscheundslowenischeNamen.Klagenfurt. Jordan, P. 2004: Ortsnamen als Kulturgut – Die symbolische Wirkung von Ortsnamen auf Ortstafeln und in Kärnten. Ortstafelkonflikt in Kärnten– Krise oder Chance. Wien. Jordan, P. 2006: Zur amtlicher Verwenderung von Minderheitennamen: Ein Vergleich von Situationen in Mitteleuropa. Cartography as a Communication Meduim. Wien. Jordan, P. 2009: Use of place names on road signposts: Examples of practice in Central Europe. Names in multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic contact. Toronto. Jordan,P.2011:Is‘exonym’anappropriatetermfornamesoffeaturesbeyondanysovereignty?26th UNGEGN conference, document 65. Vienna. Jordan,P.2012a:GeographischeNamenalsAusdruckmenschlicherRaumbildung.MitteilungenderÖster­reichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 154. Jordan, P. 2012b: Zur Bedeutung zweisprachiger geographischer Namen für die kulturelle Identität. Ein Jahr danach. Klagenfurt/Celovec, Ljubljana/Laibach, Wien/Dunaj. Jordan,P.2014:Themeaningofbilingualnaminginpublicspacefortheculturalidentityoflinguisticminori­ties. Review of Historical Geography and Toponomastics 9/17-18. Jordan, P. 2016a: Carinthia – Burgenland: The different historical-cultural backgrounds of two minority situations and their impact on inter-ethnic relations and bilingual place naming. Onomàstica 2. Jordan, P. 2016b: The meaning of bi- or multilingual naming in public space fort he cultural identity of linguistic minorities. Nomina Africana 30-1. Jordan, P. 2017: The place-name conflict in Carinthia (Austria): Symbolic surface of historical burdens. The 23rd International Seminar on Sea Names. Seoul. Jordan, P. 2018: The use of minority place names on maps of the Third Austrian Military Survey – With a regional focus on Slovenian and Croatian lands. The Cartographic Journal 55-2. Kadmon, N. 2000: Toponymy: The lore, laws and language of geographical names. New York. Kadmon,N.2002:Glossaryoftermsforthestandardizationofgeographicalnames.UnitedNationsGroup of Experts on Geographical Names. New York. Kadmon, N. 2007: The exonym and endonym – Attempting to define the undefinable? Exonyms and the international Standardization of Geographical Names. Wiener Osteuropa Studien 24. Vienna. Kattnig, F., Kulnik, M., Zerzer, J. 2004/2005: Zweisprachiges Kärnten/Dvojezicna Koroška. Klagenfurt. Keber, J. 2002: Rojstna imena, hišna imena, vzdevki, psevdonimi v Sloveniji. Jezikoslovni zapiski 8-2.Kejžar, I. 2013: Atlas soriška ledinska imena. Škofja Loka. Kladnik,D.1995:ProblemistandardizacijetujihzemljepisnihimennaprimeruVelikegadružinskegaatlasa sveta. Geografija v šoli 4-1. Kladnik, D. 1996: Naravnogeografske clenitve Slovenije. Geografski vestnik 68. Kladnik,D.1999a:Imeniktujihzemljepisnihimenvslovenskemjeziku.Elaborat,GeografskiinštitutAntona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D. 1999b: Leksikon geografije podeželja. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D. 2001a: Geographical terms. National atlas of Slovenia. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D. 2001b: Seznam tujih zemljepisnih imen v slovenskem jeziku. Ljubljana. Medmrežje: http://www.gu.gov.si/fileadmin/gu.gov.si/pageuploads/publikacije/arhiv_publik/seznam_tujih_ zemljepisnih_imen.pdf (16. 10. 2016). Kladnik,D.2005a:GeografovpoglednatujazemljepisnaimenavSlovenskempravopisu2001.Geografski vestnik 77-2. Kladnik, D. 2005b: Imensko kazalo. Atlant, faksimilirana izdaja. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D. 2005c: Zemljepisna imena v Atlantu in njihov pomen za sodobno imenoslovje: gora Balkan se imenuje bolgarski Stara planina. Atlant, faksimilirana izdaja. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D. 2006: Tuja zemljepisna imena v slovenskem jeziku: razvojni vidiki in problematika njihove rabe. Ph.D. thesis, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Kladnik,D.2007a:CharacteristicsofexonymuseinselectedEuropeanlanguages.ActageographicaSlovenica 47-2. Ljubljana. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS47203 Kladnik, D. 2007b: Podomacena tuja zemljepisna imena v slovenskih atlasih sveta. Geografija Slovenije 14. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D. 2007c: Pogledi na podomacevanje tujih zemljepisnih imen. Georitem 2. Ljubljana. Kladnik,D.2007d:TypesofexonymsinSlovenelanguage.ExonymsandtheInternationalStandardisation of Geographical Names. Wien. Kladnik, D. 2007e: Zgodovinski vidiki podomacevanja tujih zemljepisnih imen. Zgodovinski casopis 61, 3-4. Kladnik, D. 2009a: Odprte dileme pomenske razmejitve izrazov endonim in eksonim. Geografski vestnik 81-1. Kladnik, D. 2009b: Semantic demarcation of the concepts of endonym and exonym. Acta geographica Slovenica 49-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS49206 Kladnik, D. 2009c: Znacilnosti podomacevanja tujih zemljepisnih imen v najstarejših slovenskih atlasih sveta. Blaž Kocen: 1821–1871: življenje in delo oceta Kocenovih atlasov. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D. 2016: Dealing with exonyms in Slovenia. United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) Information Bulletin 50. Kladnik,D. 2018:Razvojslovenskegeografije–predznanstvenoobdobjeterobdobjemedmarcnorevolu­cijo in koncem prve svetovne vojne. Retrospektive 1-1. Kladnik,D.2019a:Razvojslovenskegeografije–obdobjemedkoncemprvesvetovnevojneinosamosvojitvijo Slovenije. Retrospektive 2-1. Kladnik,D.2019b:Razvojslovenskegeografije–obdobjepoosamosvojitviSlovenije.Retrospektive2-2/3. Kladnik, D., Bole, D. 2012: The life of Slovenian exonyms and their familiarity in the professional com­munity. Acta geographica Slovenica 52-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS52204Kladnik, D., Bratec Mrvar, R., De Brea Šubic, S. 2008: Janez Jesenko – geografski domoljub iz Poljanske doline. Loški razgledi 55. Kladnik,D.,Ciglic,R.,Hrvatin,M.,Perko,D.,Repolusk,P.,Volk,M.2013:Slovenskieksonimi.Geografija Slovenije 24. Ljubljana. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612546021Kladnik, D., Crljenko, I., Cilaš Šimpraga, A., Geršic, M. 2017: A comparison of Croatian and Slovenian exonyms. Acta geographica Slovenica 57-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4653 Kladnik, D., Geršic, M. 2014: A Gazetteer of Slovenian Exonyms. The quest for definitions: proceedings of the 14th UNGEGN Working Group on Exonyms Meeting, Corfu. Hamburg. Kladnik,D.,Geršic,M.2016:Cigale’sWorldatlasanditsinfluenceonSlovenianexonyms.JointCommission Seminar on Historical Maps, Atlases and Toponymy. Leipzig. Kladnik,D.,Geršic,M.2018:ColoursexpressedinSlovenianexonyms.asurveyofexonymuse:proceedings of the 19th UNGEGN Working Group on Exonyms Meeting, Prague. Hamburg. Kladnik, D., Orožen Adamic, M., Pipan, P. 2010: a Mediterranean example of problematic treatment of geographicnames:Piranskizaliv(BayofPiran)orSavudrijskavala(BayofSavudrija)?The16th International Seminar on Sea Names. Seoul. Kladnik,D.,Perko,D.2005:Svet,zemljevidvmerilu1:60.000.000.NationalGeographicJuniorSlovenija. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D., Perko, D. 2007: Problematicna imena držav v slovenskem jeziku. Geografski vestnik 79-2. Kladnik,D.,Perko,D.2013a:ExplanatorynotesonthegazetteerofSlovenianexonyms.Ekspertiza,Geografski inštitutAntonaMelikaZRCSAZU.Ljubljana.Medmrežje:http://giam2.zrc-sazu.si/sites/default/files/ introductory_notes_0.pdf (20. 6. 2010). Kladnik,D.,Perko,D.2013b:Slovarslovenskiheksonimov.ZbirkaTermania.Medmrežje:http://www.ter­mania.net/ (18. 10. 2017). Kladnik, D., Perko, D. 2013c: Slovenska imena držav. Geografija Slovenije 25. Ljubljana. Kladnik,D.,Perko,D.2014:Pojasnilakzbirkislovenskiheksonimov.Medmrežje:http://giam2.zrc-sazu.si/ sites/default/files/pojasnila_k_preglednici_z_eksonimi_slo.pdf (16. 10. 2017). Kladnik, D., Perko, D. 2015a: Problematika poimenovanja držav in odvisnih ozemelj. Pravopisna razpotja: razprave o pravopisnih vprašanjih. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D., Perko, D. 2015b: Družbena obcutljivost standardizacije imen držav na primeru Južne Afrike in Moldavije. Pravopisna razpotja: razprave o pravopisnih vprašanjih. Ljubljana. Kladnik,D.,Perko,D.2017:Ustreznejšarabaslovenskihzemljepisnihimen.Geografskivestnik89-2.DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV89205 Kladnik,D.,Perko,D.2018:Velikainmalazacetnicaterdrugiproblemizapisovanjaslovenskihzemljepisnih imen. Geografski vestnik 90-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV90207Kladnik,D.,Perko,D.2019:Šenekajproblemovpisanjazemljepisnihimenvslovenskemjeziku.Geografski vestnik 91-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV91107 Kladnik,D.,Perko,D.,Urbanc,M.2009:CulturallandscapesinSloveniafromageographicalperspective. Ciltural landscape: across disciplines. Bydgoszcz, Kraków. Kladnik,D.,Pipan,P.2008:BayofPiranorBayofSavudrija?Anexampleofproblematictreatmentofgeo-graphical names. Acta Geographica Slovenica 48-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS48103 Kladnik, D., Pipan, P. 2009: The Bay of Piran (Piranski zaliv): an example of political controversy in geo­graphical names as an expression of cultural relations. Geographical names as a part of the cultural heritage. Wiener Schriften zur Geographie und Kartographie 18. Wien. Kladnik,D.,Pipan,P.2011:PoimenovanjePiranskegazalivaskozicasinnjegovesodobnemedijskerazsež-nosti.Slovensko-hrvaškososedstvo/Hrvatsko-slovenskosusjedstvo.KnjižnicaAnnalesMajora.Koper. Kladnik, D., Pipan, P. 2014: Familiarity with Slovenian exonyms in the professional community. Names indailylife:ProceedingsoftheXXIVICOSInternationalCongressofOnomasticSciences.Barcelona. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2436/15.8040.01.189 Kladnik,D.,Pipan,P.,Gašperic,P.2014:PoimenovanjaPiranskegazaliva.GeografijaSlovenije27.Ljubljana. Kladnik, D., Urbanc, M., Fridl, J., Orožen Adamic, M., Perko, D. 2006: Ein Kartenfund in Slowenien und seinFaksimilendruck:EinwichtigesEreignisfürSloweniensundÖsterreichshistorischeGeographie.Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 148. Klemencic,V.1972:Koroška:Kartainimenikslovenskihinnemškihkrajevnihimen/Kärnten:Landkarte und Ortschaftsverzeichnis mit slowenischen und deutschen Ortsnamen. Maribor. Klemše, V. 1986: Slovenska krajevna in ledinska imena v Furlaniji in Karniji. Trst. Klemše, V. 1988: Ledinska imena na Doberdobskem krasu. Doberdob vceraj in danes. Doberdob.Klemše, V. 1993: Krajevna, ledinska in vodna imena v Števerjanu. Gorica. Klemše, V. 2007: Vodna imena na Doberdobskem krasu. Merkujev zbornik. Ljubljana. Klemše, V. 2008: Krajevna imena na Doberdobskem krasu. Doberdob, Sovodnje. Klinar, K. 2011: Kako se pri vas rece? Hišna imena v naseljih Grabce, Krnica, Perniki, Radovna, Spodnje Laze in Zgornje Laze. Zgornje Gorje. Klinar, K. 2012: Zbiranja hišnih in ledinskih imen na Gorenjskem in njihov prispevek k jezikoslovju. 2. Slovenski dialektološki posvet. Ljubljana. Klinar, K. 2013: Projekti zbiranja hišnih in ledinskih imen na Gorenjskem. Dialektološki razgledi 19-2. Klinar,K.,Geršic,M.2013:HišnainledinskaimenanaprimerukatastrskihobcinLešeinBlejskaDobrava. Gorenjska v obdobju glokalizacije. Ljubljana. Klinar,K.,Geršic,M.2014:Traditionalhousenamesaspartofculturalheritage.ActageographicaSlovenica 54-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS54409Klinar, K., Škofic, J., Šekli, M., Piko-Rustia, M. 2012: Metode zbiranja hišnih in ledinskih imen: projekt FLU-LED v okviru Operativnega programa Slovenija-Avstrija 2007–2013. Jesenice. Klinar, S. 1994: Slovenska zemljepisna imena v angleških besedilih. Radovljica.KocjanBarle,M.2020:Predlogzareformozapisazemljepisnihimen.ŽivimvBukovemVrhupodBukovim vrhom: O spremembi pravopisnega pravila za pisanje zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana. Kolnik,M.2008:Oprekmurskihmikrotoponimih.Zbornikreferatovzaštirinajstimednarodnislavisticni kongres, Ohrid, 10.–17. september 2008. Ohrid. Komac, M. 2015: Poselitveni prostor avtohtonih narodnih manjšin. Razprave in gradivo 74. Koonz,C.1994:Betweenmemoryandoblivion:ConcentrationcampsinGermanmemory.Commemorations: The politics of national identity. Princeton. Korošec, B. 1978: Naš prostor v casu in projekciji: oris razvojazemljemerstva, kartografije in prostorskega planiranja na osrednjem Slovenskem. Ljubljana. Kos, M. 1950: O prevzemu anticnih krajevnih imen na slovenskem ozemlju. Ephemeridis Instituti arhaeo­ logici Bulgarici 16. Kos,M.1968:KolonizacijamedDravoinRabopakrajevnaimenana-ci.SvetmedMuroinDravo.Maribor. Kotmara vas – Horni Kompájn, Konják in Hudár: Slovenska ledinska, krajinska in hišna imena/ Köttmannsdorf–HorniKompájn,KonjákinHudár:SlowenischeFlur-,Gebiets-undHofnamen2008: Zemljevid v merilu 1 : 12.500. Cahorce/Tschachoritsch.Kotnik Šipec, M. 2004: Stara hišna imena na Polzeli. Polzela. Kotnik, B. 1992: Zgodovina hiš južne Koroške: Obcina Bilcovs. Celovec. Kotnik, B. 1992–2011: Zgodovina hiš južne Koroške 1–15. Celovec, Ljubljana, Dunaj. Kotnik, B. 2011: Zgodovina hiš južne Koroške. Celovec. Kozar-Mukic,M.1997:Kdosmo?(OidentitetiSlovencevmedMuroinRabo).Traditiones26.Medmrežje: http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-DEK1QNBM (12. 5. 2020). Kozar-Mukic, M. (ed.) 1999: Slovenska hišna imena/Szlovén háznevek. Etnologija Slovencev na Madžar­ skem 2/ a Magyarországi szlovének néprajza 2. Budapest. Kozar-Mukic, M. 2002: Slovensko imenoslovje v Porabju. Jezikoslovni zapiski 8-2. Kozennov geografickiatlas zasrednje škole 1922: Knjižara kraljevog sveucitilišta i Jugoslavenske akademije. Zagreb. Kozler, P. 1853: Zemljovid Slovenske dežele in pokrajin. Dunaj. Kozler,P.1854:Kratekslovenskizemljopisinpregledpoliticneinpravosodnerazdelitveilirskegakraljestva inštajerskegavojvodstvaspridanimslovenskiminnemškimimenikommest,tergov,krajevi.t.d.Dunaj. Krajevni leksikon Dravske banovine 1937: Uprava Krajevnega leksikona Dravske banovine v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Krajevni leksikon Slovencev v Italiji 1991: Knjiga 1: Tržaška pokrajina. Trst. Krajevni leksikon Slovencev v Italiji 1995: Knjiga 2: Goriška pokrajina. Trst. Krajevni leksikon Slovenije 1968: 1. knjiga: Zahodni del Slovenije. Ljubljana. Krajevni leksikon Slovenije 1971: 2. knjiga: Jedro osrednje Slovenije in njen jugovzhodni del. Ljubljana. Krajevni leksikon Slovenije 1976: 3. knjiga: Svet med Savinjskimi Alpami in Sotlo. Ljubljana. Krajevni leksikon Slovenije 1980: 4. knjiga: Podravje in Pomurje. Ljubljana. Krajevni leksikon Slovenije 1995a: Ljubljana. Krajevni leksikon Slovenije 1995b: Racunalniška zgošcenka. Ljubljana. Kranjc,A.2006:BaltazarHacquet(1739/40-1815),thepioneerofkarstgeomorphologists.Actacarsologica 35-2. Kranjec, S. 1956: Pisani svet: Poglavje iz geografskega imenoslovja. Geografski obzornik 3-2. Kranjec, S. 1964: Slovenska matica 1864–1964: Geografija. Ljubljana. Kranzmayer,E.1956:OrtsnamenbuchvonKärnten.I.Teil:DieSiedlungsgeschichteKärntensvonderUrzeit bis zur Gegenwart im Spiegel der Names. Klagenfurt. Kranzmayer,E.1958:OrtsnamenbuchvonKärnten.II.Teil:AlphabetischesKärntnerSiedlungsnamenbuch. Klagenfurt. Kunaver,J.1984:OnekaterihproblemihzbiranjainuporabezemljepisnihimenvslovenskihAlpah.Zbornik radovasavjetovanjaopitanjimastandardizacijegeografskihnazivaujezicimanarodainarodnostiSFRJ. Sarajevo. Kunaver, J. 1988: Zemljepisna imena v visokogorskem svetu in njihova uporaba na primeru Rombona in Goricice. Pokrajina in ljudje na Bovškem. Ljubljana. Kunaver, J. 1993: K problematiki zemljepisnih imen v dolinah Tolminke in Zadlašce. Tolmin. Kunaver, J. (ed.) 2009: Blaž Kocen: 1821–1871: življenje in delo oceta Kocenovih atlasov. Ljubljana. Leban, V. 1954: Henrik Karel Freyer in njegova karta Kranjske. Geografski vestnik 26. Lenarcic, S. 2002a: Ceri v slovenskem pravopisnem morju. Sodobnost 66-1. Lenarcic, S. 2002b: Ceri v slovenskem pravopisnem morju. Sodobnost 66-3. Lenarcic, S. 2004: Popravopis – Kaj je narobe in kaj manjka v novem slovenskem pravopisu. Ljubljana. LengarVerovnik,T.2020:Nekajmislioreformipisanjavecbesednihzemljepisnihimen.ŽivimvBukovem VrhupodBukovimvrhom:Ospremembipravopisnegapravilazapisanjezemljepisnihimen.Ljubljana. Levec, F. 1899: Slovenski pravopis. Dunaj. Light,D.2004:StreetnamesinBucharest,1990–1997:exploringthemodernhistoricalgeographiesofpost­ socialist change. Journal of Historical Geography 30-1. Longyka, I. 1999: Prikazi slovenskega ozemlja. Ilustrirana zgodovina Slovencev. Ljubljana. Lovrencak, F. 1987: Imena držav in nekaterih drugih upravnih enot. Geografski obzornik 34-1. Majdic, V. 1994: Pomenski izvor slovenskih krajevnih imen. Geografski vestnik 66. Majdic,V.1996:Razgledipokrajevnihimenih:Slovenskakrajevnaimenavlucislovnicneobravnave.Ljubljana. MarktgemeindeFinkensteinamFaakerSee:TourismuskartemitslowenischenFlur-undHausnamen/Trška obcinaBekštanjobBaškemjezeru:Turisticnizemljevidsslovenskimiledinskimiinhišnimiimeni2015: Zemljevid v merilu 1 : 18.300. Finkenstein/Bekštanj. Matthews,W. P.,McKee, L. R., McKeeD. 2009: Signedlanguages,linguistic rightsand thestandardization of geographical names. Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Onomastic Sciences. York. Medved, J. 1969: O nacelih za pisavo tujih geografskih imen. Geografski obzornik 16-2. Medved, J. 1974: Zemljevid z italijanskimi in slovenskimi krajevnimi imeni v Furlaniji, Beneciji in Julijski krajini/Carta dei nomi geografici con forma italiana e slovena nei Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Ljubljana. Melik, A. 1928: Pisava krajevnih imen. Geografski vestnik 4. Melik, A. 1959: Posavska Slovenija. Ljubljana. Mercator, K. G. 1589: Forum Iulium, Karstia, Carniola, Histria et Windorum Marchia. Merklas, W. 1846: Malý prírucní atlas wšwch cásti Zemé. Matica ceská. Prague. Merkù, P. 1970: Pisava in raba slovenskih krajevnih imen. Jezik in slovstvo 16-3. Merkù, P. 1987: Imena naših krajev. Trst. Merkù, P. 1991a: I nomi delle acque in Val Rosanda. Alpi Giulie 83-1. Merkù,P.1991b:InomiprimaridelmonteS.LeonardoedelmonteLanaro:LípnikeVólnik.AlpiGiulie85. Merkù, P. 1991c: Krajevno imenoslovje na Tržaškem. Zgodovinski casopis 45-4. Merkù, P. 1992: Prispevek k mikrotoponomastiki tržaške okolice. Slavisticna revija 40-1. Merkù, P. 1997: La toponomastica dell’ Alta val Torre. Lusevera. Merkù, P. 1999: Slovenska krajevna imena v Italiji. Trst. Merkù, P. 2002: Slovensko imenoslovje v Italiji. Jezikoslovni zapiski 8-2. Merkù, P., Furlan, M., Torkar, S. (eds.) 2006: Krajevno imenoslovje na slovenskem zahodu, Linguistica et philologica 15. Ljubljana. Metelko, F. S. 1825: Lehrgebäude der slowenischen Sprache im Königreiche Illyrien und in den benach­barten Provinzen. Laibach. Mezgec, M. 2015: Raziskava o jezikovni pokrajini na naselitvenem obmocju slovenske skupnosti v Italiji. SLORI. Trst. Mihelic, D. 1998: Kolonizacija. Geografski atlas Slovenije. Ljubljana. Mihevc, B. 1998: Slovenija na starejših zemljevidih. Geografski atlas Slovenije. Ljubljana. Miklošic, F. 1860: Die Bildung der slavishen Personennamen. Wien. Miklošic, F. 1864: Die Bildung der Ortsnamen aus Personennamen im Slavischen. Wien. Miklošic, F. 1872–1874: Die slavischen Ortsnamen aus Apellativen I and II. Wien. Moder, J. 1972: O pisavi in izreki zemljepisnih imen. Veliki atlas sveta. Ljubljana. Munda Hirnök, K. 1999: Slovenci na Madžarskem ob koncu 90-ih let. Razprave in gradivo 35. MundaHirnök,K.2000:PoložajSlovencevnaMadžarskempoletu1990:vizijeinmožnostinapragu3.tisocletja. Traditiones 29-1. Medmrežje: http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-2F4EHIMJ (12. 5. 2020). Munda Hirnök, K. 2020: Slovensko Porabje. Ekskurzije Ljubljanskega geografskega društva. Tipkopis. Murzaev, M. E. 1995: Toponimika i geografija. Moskva. Myers, A. G. 1996: Naming and placing the other: Power and the urban landscape in Zanzibar. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 87. NadezhdinN.I.1837:Opjitistoriceskojgeografiirusskogomira.Statijapervaja/Bibliotekadljactenija22, 2-3. Nared, J., Bole, D., Breg Valjavec, M., Ciglic, R., Goluža, M., Kozina, J., Razpotnik Viskovic, N., Repolusk, P. Rus, P., Tiran, J., Cernic Istenic, M. 2017: Central settlements in Slovenia in 2016. Acta geographica Slovenica 57-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4606Natek, K. 2005: Še o pisanju obcih in lastnih imen. Delo (9. 2.). Ljubljana. Nomenclature of geographical areas for statistical purposes 1948. Statistical Papers M/1, United Nations Statistical Office. New York. Novak,F.1987:Imenavstarejšihslovenskihslovarjih.Zbornikšestejugoslovenskeonomastickekonferencije. Beograd. OdlokodolocitviinspremembiimeninpotekovcestinulicnaobmocjuMestneobcineLjubljana.Uradni list Republike Slovenije 44/2009. Ljubljana. Odredba opisavi zemljepisnih imen v nacrtih in kartah na narodnostnomešanih obmocjih v SRSloveniji 1980. Uradni list SRS 11/80. Ljubljana. Ogrin, D. 2017: Geografija v antiki in prikazi slovenskega ozemlja iz tega casa. Dela 48. Orel, I. 2003: Zemljepisna imena v slovenskem casopisju do srede 19. stoletja. Besedoslovne lastnosti slo­ venskega jezika: slovenska zemljepisna imena. Ljubljana. Orel, I. 2009: Starejša besedila kot vir za preucevanje zemljepisnih jezikovnih razlickov. Slovenska narecja med sistemom in rabo. Ljubljana. Orožen Adamic, M. 1998: Standardizacija zemljepisnih imen v Sloveniji. Ekspertiza, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana. Orožen Adamic, M. 2000: Treatment of geographical names in multilingual areas and the use of foreign namesinSlovenia.SecondinternationalSymposiumonGeographicalNamesGeoNames2000.Mitteilungen des Bundesamtes für Kartographie und Geodäsie 19. Frankfurt am Main. OroženAdamic,M.2004:TheuseofexonymsinSlovenelanguagewithspecialattentionontheseanames. The Tenth International Seminar on the Naming of Seas: Special Emphasis Concerning International Standardization of the Sea Names. Paris. OroženAdamic,M.2007:Treatmentofgeographicalnamesinmultilingualareas.Exonymsandtheinter-national standardisation of geographical names. Wien. Orožen Adamic, M., Kladnik, D. 1994: Slovenija. Zemljevid v merilu 1 : 300.000. Ljubljana. Orožen Adamic, M., Kladnik, D. 2010: Place names dilemmas and international relations. The 16th International Seminar on Sea Names. Seoul. Orožen Adamic, M., Perko, D., Kladnik, D. (eds.) 1995: Krajevni leksikon Slovenije. Ljubljana. Orožen Adamic, M., Perko, D., Kladnik, D. (eds.) 1997: Prirocni krajevni leksikon Slovenije. Ljubljana. Orožen Adamic, M., Pogorelcnik, E. 1998: Standardizacija zemljepisnih imen v Sloveniji. Ekspertna naloga, Geografski inštitut Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti. Ljubljana. OroženAdamic, M., Urbanc,M. 2005:Odzivina Atlantin njegovomesto vslovenskigeografski literaturi. Atlant, faksimilirana izdaja. Ljubljana. Orožen, F. 1901: Nekoliko o zemljevidih slovenskih pokrajin v prejšnjem in sedanjem casu. Zbornik znanstvenih in poucnih spisov III. Ljubljana. Ortelius, A. 1573: Goritiae, Karstii, Chaczeolae, Carniolae, Histriae, et Windorum Marchae descriptio. OsnovnašolaPreserje2000.HišnaimenavkrajevniskupnostiPodpec-PreserjeinkrajevniskupnostiRakitna. Preserje. Penko Seidl, N. 2008: Significance of toponyms, with emphasis on field names, for studyng cultural land­scape. Acta geographica Slovenica 48-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS48102 Penko Seidl, N. 2011: Ledinska imena v prostoru in casu. Annales, Series historia et sociologia 21-2. PenkoSeidl,N.2015:Možnostiuporabepoimenovanjprostoravnacrtovanjuinupravljanjukrajine.Ph.D. Thesis, Biotehniška fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. PenkoSeidl,N.,Kastelec,D.,Kucan,A.2015:Betweenthephysicalandperceptual:toponymsinlandscape typology, management and planning. Annales, Series historia et sociologia 25-3. Penko, N. 2013: Kaj nam pove ledinsko ime. Park Snežnik, Bilten za prebivalce Regijskega parka Snežnik. Internet: http://www.ilbis.com/spark/st16cl6.htm (14. 2. 2013). Perko, D. 1995: Komisija za standardizacijo zemljepisnih imen. Geografski obzornik 42-3. Perko, D. 1996a: Sporna imena držav v slovenskem jeziku. Geografski obzornik 43-3. Perko, D. 1996b: Standardizirana imena držav v slovenskem jeziku. Geografski obzornik 43-4. Perko, D. 1998: The Regionalization of Slovenia. Geografski zbornik 38. Perko, D. 2001: Concise gazetteer of Slovenia. United Nations Series of National Gazetteers: Slovenia. Ljubljana. Perko, D. 2002: Sodobni problemi aplikacije geografije v tematski kartografiji. Dela 18. Perko, D. 2006: Koliko je oceanov? Geografski vestnik 78-2. Perko, D. 2007a: Landscapes. Slovenia in focus. Ljubljana. Perko, D. 2007b: Morfometrija površja Slovenije. Georitem 3. Ljubljana. Perko, D., Ciglic, R. 2015: Slovenia as a European hotspot. Acta Geobalcanica 1-2. DOI: http://doi.org/ 10.18509/AGB.2015.05 Perko, D., Ciglic, R. 2020a: Slovenia’s landscapes. The geography of Slovenia: Small But Diverse. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14066-3_14 Perko, D., Ciglic, R. 2020b: Slovenia’s regions. The geography of Slovenia: Small But Diverse. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14066-3_15 Perko, D., Ciglic, R., Hrvatin, M. 2017: Determination of landscape hotspots of Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 57-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4618 Perko, D., Ciglic, R., Zorn, M. 2020: Slovenia: A European landscape hotspot. The geography of Slovenia: Small But Diverse. Chamn. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14066-3_1 Perko, D.,Geršic, M. 2019:PrebivalciSlovenijeinnjihovaregionalnaidentiteta. Demografskespremembe in regionalni razvoj, Regionalni razvoj 7. Ljubljana. Perko, D., Hrvatin, M., Ciglic, R. 2015: a methodology for natural landscape typification of Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 55-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1938 Perko, D., Hrvatin, M., Ciglic, R. 2017:Determination oflandscape hotspotsin Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 57-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4618 Perko,D.,Jordan,P.,Komac,B.2017:Exonymsandothergeographicalnames.ActageographicaSlovenica 57-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4891 Perko,D.,Kladnik,D.2017:SlovenianexonymsinNorthAmerica.ActageographicaSlovenica57-1.DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4777 Perko, D., Kladnik, D. 2019: Slovenski eksonimi v sosedstvu Slovenije. Geografski vestnik 91-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV91208 Perko, D., Orožen Adamic, M., Šumrada, J., Urbanc, M., Fridl, J., Kladnik, D. 2013: Atlant. Ljubljana. Peršolja,B.1998:GeographicalproblemsofonomasticsintheselectedexampleoftheKamniško-Savinjske Alpe. Geografski zbornik 38. Peršolja, B. 2002: Zgošceni imenik zemljepisnih imen. Dela 18. Peršolja, B. 2003: Pot zemljepisnega imena od nastanka do uporabe. Geografski vestnik 75-2. Petek, T. 2013: Jezikovna (ne)pravilnost zapisov zemljepisnih lastnih imen na cestnih krajevnih tablah v Republiki Sloveniji s poudarkom na Slovenski Istri. Annales, Series historia et sociologia 23-2. Peterca, M. 1984: Standardizacija geografskih naziva na teritoriji Jugoslavije. Zbornik radova savjetovanja o pitanjima standardizacije geografskih naziva u jezicima naroda i narodnosti SFRJ. Sarajevo. Piko-Rustia, M. 2010: Slovenska ledinska in hišna imena sprejeta v Unescov seznam nesnovne dedišcine v Avstriji. Glasnik SED 50, 1-2. Piko-Rustia,M.2012:SlovenskaledinskainhišnaimenavUnescovemseznamunesnovnededišcinevAvstriji. Traditiones 21-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/Traditio2012410216 Piko-Rustia, M. 2017: Slovene field and house names in Carinthia [Kärnten]. Intangible cultural heritage of the Austrian Commission for UNESCO. Bangkok. Piko-Rustia, M. 2018: Vpis slovenskih ledinskih in hišnih imen v seznam nesnovne kulturne dedišcine Avstrije: primer dobre prakse varovanja dedišcine. Etnolog 28. Pintar, L. 1910: Crtice o krajnih imenih. Ljubljanski zvon. Ljubljana. Pintar, L. 1912–1915: O krajnih imenih. Ljubljanski zvon. Ljubljana. Pipan, P. 2005: 4. zasedanje Delovne skupine za eksonime pri Izvedenski skupini Organizacije združenih narodov za zemljepisna imena. Geografski vestnik 77-1. Piry, I., Orožen Adamic, M. 1998: Upravna razdelitev. Geografski atlas Slovenije. Ljubljana. Place de la Concorde 2020. Internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_de_la_Concorde (2. 6. 2020). Planina, F. 1959: O izvoru nekaterih pokrajinskih imen v Avstraliji. Geografski obzornik 4-1. Pogacnik, A. 2003: Prevzemanje besed v slovenšcini. Jezik in slovstvo 48-6. Pogacnik, A. 2012: Glasovno domacenje lastnih imen iz nelatinicnih pisav. Pravopisna stikanja: razprave o pravopisnih vprašanjih. Ljubljana. Pogorelcnik, E. 1999: Zemljepisna imena – od zajema do standardizacije. Geodetski vestnik 43-2. Pohl,H.-D.2000:Kärnten-deutscheundslowenischeNamen:Bemerkungenzueinemneuenzweisprachigen Ortsverzeichnis. Klagenfurt. Pohl, H.-D. 2008: Sekundäre Umformungen von (Kärnten) Ortsnamen im deutsch-slowenischenSprachkontaktgebiet. Namenarten in Österreich und Bayern. Wien. Pohl, H.-D. 2009a: Ortsnamen in einer historisch gewachsenen Kulturlandschaft unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Kärntens und Osttirols. Europäisches Journal für Minderheitenfragen 2-2. Pohl, H.-D. 2009b: Sprachkontakt in Kärnten. Deutsch und seine Nachbarn. Frankfurt am Main. Pohl,H.-D.2010:UnsereslowenischenOrtsnamen/Našaslovenskakrajevnaimena.Klagenfurt/Celovec. Pohl,H.-D.2011a:164KärntenOrschaften/164CarinthianVillages.NamenkundlicheInformationen99/100. Pohl,H.-D.2011b:Ortsnamenslawischerbzw.slowenischwerHerkunftinKärntenundOsttirol:Chronologische FragenundihrVerhältniszurSprachederFreisingerDenkmäler.NamenkundlicheInformationen99/100. Pohl, H.-D. 2016: Slovenian place names in Carinthia. Onomàstica 2. Pohlin, M. 1781: Tu malu besedishe treh je.ikov. Ljubljana. Popowitsch,J.S.1750:UntersuchungenvomMeere:dieaufVeranlassungeinerSchrift,DecolumnisHerculis, welche der hochberühmte Professor…Christ. Gottl. Schwarz, herausgegeben, nebst andern zu dersel­bengehörigenAnmerkungen,voneinemLiebhaberderNaturlehreundderPhilologie,vorgetragenwerden. Frankfurt, Leipzig. Portal Prostor,GeodetskaupravaRepublikeSlovenije2018.Medmrežje:http://www.e-prostor.gov.si/zbirke- prostorskih-podatkov/topografski-in-kartografski-podatki/topografski-podatki-in-karte/(20.3.2018). Preglednicaeksonimov2014:Medmrežje:http://giam.zrc-sazu.si/sl/zbirka/zemljepisna-imena#v(15.10.2017). Prirocni atlas sveta 2003: Založba Mladinska knjiga. Ljubljana. Puntin, M. 2003: Sclavoni nell’Oltreisonzo medievale. Slovenia, un vicino da scoprire. Udine. Radovan, D. 1995: Toponimska navodila za Slovenijo. Ljubljana. Radovan, D., Majdic, V. 1995a: Slovar toponimske terminologije. Ljubljana. Radovan, D., Majdic, V. 1995b: Toponymic guidelines for Slovenia. Ljubljana. Radovan,D.,OroženAdamic,M.1999:ResolucijeOZNozemljepisnihimenih.Delovnogradivo,Inštitut za geodezijo in fotogrametrijo FAGG, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana. Rajšp,V.(ed.)1995–2002:Slovenijanavojaškemzemljevidu1763–1787.Faksimiliranaizdaja,1.do7.del. Ljubljana. Ramovš, F. 1920: Historicna gramatika slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana. Ramovš, F. 1931: Dialektološka karta slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana. Ramovš, F. 1936: Kratka zgodovina slovenskega jezika I. Ljubljana.Ramovš, F., Župancic, O., Bajec, A., Kolaric, R., Rupel, M., Šmalc, M., Šolar, J. 1950: Slovenski pravopis. Ljubljana. Ramovš, M. 1999: Hišna imena v vaseh Ježica, Savlje, Klece, Mala vas in Stožice. Traditiones 28-1. Raper, E. P. 1996: United Nations Documents on Geographical Names. Pretoria. Reisp, B. 1995: Florijancicev veliki zemljevid Kranjske iz leta 1744/Floriantschitschs (Florijancics) grosse Karte von Krain aus dem Jahre 1744. Ljubljana. Repanšek, L. 2014: Keltski prežitki v slovenski toponimiji: prispevek k metodologiji preucevanja. Ph.D. thesis, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. ResolutionsadoptedattheeightUnitedNationsConferencesontheStandardizationofGeographicalNames 1967,1972,1977,1982,1987,1992,1998,2002,2007,2012,2017.NaturalResourcesCanada.Ottawa,2018. Ribnikar, P. 1982: Zemljiški kataster kot vir za zgodovino. Zgodovinski casopis 26-4. Robinson,G.M.,Engelstoft,S.,Pobric,A.2001:RemakingSarajevo:BosniannationalismaftertheDayton Accord. Political Geography 20-8. Rojc, B. 1990: Kartografsko delo Janeza Vajkarda Valvasorja. Valvasorjev zbornik. Ljubljana. Rose-Redwood,R.,Alderman,D.,Azaryahu,M.2010:Geographiesoftoponymicinscription:newdirections in critical place-name studies. Progress in Human Geography 34-4. Rotar, J. 1991: Standardizacija zemljepisnih imen. Geodetski vestnik 35-1. Rudnicki,W.,Markowski,A.,Zych,M.,Przyszewska,K.2010:Nazewnictwogeograficzneswiata.Varšava. Rutar,S.,Orožen,F.1899:Zemljepisniatlaszaljudskešolesslovenskimucnimjezikom.Ed.Hölzel.Dunaj. Scheinigg, J. 1906: Die Ortsnamen des Gerichtsbezirkes Ferlach. Ljubljanski zvon 26-9. Silic, V. 2011: Cez osamelce in ledine blejske kotline. Bled. Silic, V. 2014: Atlas ledinskih imen obcine Bled. Bled. Simonic, I. 1935: Kocevarji v luci krajevnih in ledinskih imen. Ljubljana. Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika 1995. Ljubljana. Slovenski pravopis 1 – pravila 1994. Ljubljana. Slovenski pravopis 2001. Ljubljana. Snoj, M. 1997: Slovenski etimološki slovar. Ljubljana. Snoj, M. 2002a: O etimologiji osebnih in zemljepisnih imen na Slovenskem. Jezikoslovni zapiski 8-2. Snoj, M. 2002b: Adstratni in superstratni vplivi na slovensko imensko leksiko. Jezikoslovni zapiski 8-2. Snoj, M. 2009: Etimološki slovar slovenskih zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana. Snoj, M. 2010: Slovenska zemljepisna imena v luci etimologije. Slovanstvo v slovenskem jeziku, literaturi in kulturi: zbornik predavanj. Ljubljana.Snoj,M.2020:Vsezvelikozacetnico.ŽivimvBukovemVrhupodBukovimvrhom:Ospremembipravopis­nega pravila za pisanje zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana. Soini, K. 2001: Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and map- making. Landscape and Urban Planning 57. Sore, A. 1993: Ledinska in krajevna imena v Savinjsko-Sotelski Sloveniji. Geografski vestnik 65. Sore, A. 1994: Vodna imena na obmocju Savinje, zgornje in srednje Sotle. Geografski vestnik 66.St. Margareten im Rosental/Šmarjeta v Rožu 2011: Zemljevid v merilu 1 : 15.000. Šmarjeta v Rožu. St. Margareten im Rosental: Landkarte mit slowenischen Flur- und Hausnamen/Šmarjeta v Rožu: zeml­ jevid s slovenskimi ledinskimi in hišnimi imeni 2015: Zemljevid v merilu 1:15.000. Šmarjeta v Rožu, Celovec. Stabej,J.1972:JanezAntonApostel–paterBernard:DictionariumGermanico-Slavonicum1760.Maribor. Stabej, J. 1997: Slovensko-latinski slovar. Po: Matija Kastelec – Gregor Vorenc, Dictionarium Latino- Carniolicum (1680–1710). Ljubljana.Stanonik, M. 2005: Hišna imena v Žireh. Maribor. Steinecke, E. 2001: The Valcanale – Etnogeographical problems of a quadrolingual border region. Changing role of border areas and regional policies. Lodz.Šabec,N.2003:Rabaangleškihzemljepisnihimenvslovenšcini.Besedoslovnelastnostislovenskegajezika– Slovenska zemljepisna imena. Pišece.Šašel, J. 1960: Nekatera koroška geografska imena. Geografski vestnik 32.Šekli,M.2005:HišnaimenavOvcjivasi.Ovcjavasinnjenaslovenskagovorica:raziskovalnitaborKanalska dolina 2003. Ukve, Ljubljana.Šekli, M. 2006: Ledinska imena v kraju Livek in njegovi okolici. Ph.D. thesis, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana.Šekli,M.2007:LjudskozemljepisnoizrazjevtopoleksemihledinskegaimenjanaLivškem.Razvojslovenskega strokovnega jezika. Ljubljana.Šekli, M. 2015: Old Romance place names in early South Slavic and late Proto-Slavic sound changes. Slavic/Non-Slavic language contact in the area of diachronic onomastics. Ljubljana.Šimunovic, P. 2009: Uvod u hrvatsko imenoslovje. Zagreb.Šivic-Dular, A. 1988: K normiranju slovenskih zemljepisnih imen. XXIV. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana.Šivic-Dular,A.1989a:Slovenskamaticainakcijazazbiranjezemljepisnihimen.XXV.seminarslovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana.Šivic-Dular, A. 1989b:Temeljna nacela pri pisanjuslovenskih zemljepisnih imen. Jezik in slovstvo34, 1-2.Šivic-Dular, A. 1989c: Zgodovina imenoslovja v Sloveniji do leta 1500: Srednji vek v slovenskem jeziku, književnosti in kulturi. Obdobja 10.Šivic-Dular, A. 2002: Zgodovina imenoslovja v Sloveniji. Jezikoslovni zapiski 8-2.Šivic-Dular, A. 2003: Pleteršnikova zbirka zemljepisnih imen pri Slovenski matici. Besedoslovne lastnosti slovenskega jezika – Slovenska zemljepisna imena. Pišece.Šivic-Dular, A. 2012: Teoreticni in metodološki vidiki etimoloških raziskav in praslovanska dialektizacija. Praslovanska dialektizacija v luci etimoloških raziskav. Ljubljana. Šivic-Dular, A. 2016: Ljubljana, Slovenija, osebni vir.Škofic, J. 1998: Mikrotoponimi v Kropi in bližnji okolici. Jezikoslovni zapiski 4.Škofic, J. 2001: Hišna imena v Kropi. Slovenska lastnoimenskost. Novo mesto.Škofic, J. 2005: Hišna imena kot gradivo za dialektološko raziskovanje. Rijec – casopis za filologiju 11-1.Škofic, J. 2009: Zemljepisna lastna imena med narecnim in knjižnim jezikom. Slovenska narecja med sistemom in rabo. Obdobja 26. Škofic,J. 2011:Zasnovaslovarjagorenjskihhišnihimen. Slovenskidialektiv stiku. Koper.Škofic,J.2012:Gorenjskonarecjekotkulturnadedišcina.Gorenjska:etnologijainpokrajinenaSlovenskem na primeru Gorenjske ali kaj lahko etnologi in kulturni antropologi doprinesemo h kulturni podobi in razumevanju pokrajin na Slovenskem. Ljubljana.Škofic,J.2017:MicrotoponymsasanimportantpartofSlovenianculturalheritage.ActageographicaSlovenica 57-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4670Šolski atlas 1959: 8. izdaja. Ucila. Zagreb Štrekelj, K. 1904: Prispevki k poznavanju slovenskih krajevnih imen po nemškem Štajerju I. Casopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 1. Štrekelj, K. 1906: Razlaga nekaterih krajevnih imen po slovenskem Štajerju I. Casopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 3.Štukl,F.1997:Prispevkikpoznavanjudomacihimenvzvezizupravnimifunkcijami.Drevesa–biltensloven­ skih rodoslovcev 4-1. Table of Exonyms 2014. Internet: https://giam.zrc-sazu.si/en/zbirka/geographical-names#v (15. 5. 2020). Tajnšek, R. 2007: Ledinska in hišna imena v okolici Gornjega Grada po urbarju iz leta 1426. Kronika – casopis za slovensko krajevno zgodovino 55-3. Tiran, J. 2016: Kozler, Peter. Prispevek za Novi Slovenski biografski leksikon. Ljubljana. Titl, J. 1998: Geografska imena v severozahodni Istri. Koper. Titl, J. 1999: Ledinska imena na Komenski planoti. Kras 35. Titl, J. 2000: Toponimi Koprskega primorja in njegovega zaledja. Koper. Titl, J. 2006: Kraški toponimi. Koper. Toniolo,S.,Pampaloni,M.1998:Nationalstandardization:Toponymicguidelinesformapeditorsandother editors – Italy. New York. Topole,M.2020:Freyer,Henrik.NoviSlovenskibiografskileksikon.Ljubljana.Medmrežje:https://www.slo­venska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi192894/ (12. 4. 2020). Toporišic,J.1982:Opravopisnidebati.SpoznanjainpripombejavnerazpraveonacrtupravilzanoviSlovenski pravopis. Ljubljana. Toporišic, J., Paternu, B. (eds.) 2008: Resiano: un dialetto sloveno. Ljubljana. Torkar, S. 2008: Slovenska zemljepisna imena, nastala iz slovanskih antroponimov. Slavisticna revija 56-2. Torkar, S. 2010a: Nekaj slovenskih zemljepisnih imen na Koroškem. Koroški koledar. Celovec. Torkar,S.2010b:Tvorbaslovenskihzemljepisnihimenizslovanskihantroponimov:identifikacija,rekon­ strukcija in standardizacija. Ph.D. thesis, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Torkar, S. 2012: Razpoznavanje slovenskih zemljepisnih imen. Slavisticna revija 60-4. Torkar,S.2013:Dvoclenskislovanskiantroponimivslovenskitoponimiji.Slovenskoinslovansko,Jeziko­ slovni zapiski 19-1. Torkar, S. 2015: Moc in nemoc knjižnojezikovnega izrocila pri tvorbi etnonimov: k vprašanju Gruzínci ali Grúzijci. Pravopisna razpotja: razprave o pravopisnih vprašanjih. Ljubljana. Tuan, Y.-F. 1974: Topophilia. a study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. New York. Tuan, Y.-F. 1977: Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis. Tuan,Y.-F.1991:Languageandthemakingofplace:anarrative-descriptiveapproach.AnnalsoftheAssociation of American Geographers 81.Tuma, H. 1920: Toponomasticni zemljevid skupine Triglav-Škrlatica. Ljubljana. Tuma, H. 1925: Toponomastika. Geografski vestnik 1-2. Tuma, H. 1929: Imenoslovje Julijskih Alp. Ljubljana. UlicevMestniobciniLjubljana2014.Internet:https://srv3dgis.ljubljana.si/LjubljanskeUlice/UliceZgodovina.htm (6. 11. 2014). UlicevMestniobciniLjubljana2015.Internet:https://srv3dgis.ljubljana.si/LjubljanskeUlice/(14.10.2015). Unuk, D. 2004: Zemljiška imena v Crešjovi grabi in Strmcu (Stoperce v Halozah). Besedotvorne lastnosti slovenskega jezika – slovenska zemljepisna imena. Maribor. Urazmetova, A. V., Shamsutdinova, J. H. 2017: Principles of place names classifications. XLinguae 10-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18355/XL.2017.10.04.03 Urbanc, M. 1998: Kocevarji. Slovenija – pokrajine in ljudje. Ljubljana. Urbanc, M. 2005: Matej Cigale (1819–1889). Atlant, faksimilirana izdaja. Ljubljana. Urbanc, M., Fridl, J., Kladnik, D., Perko, D. 2006: Atlant and Slovene national consciousness in the sec­ ondhalfofthe19th century.ActageographicaSlovenica46-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS46204 Urbanc,M.,Gabrovec,M. 2005:Krajevnaimena:poligonzadokazovanjemociinodrazlokalneidentitete. Geografski vestnik 77-2. Valencic, V. 1989: Zgodovina ljubljanskih ulicnih imen. Ljubljana. Valvasor, J. V. 1689a: Carniolia, Karstia, Histria et Windorum Marchia. A map. Valvasor, J. V. 1689b: Die Ehre des Hersogthums Crain: das ist, Wahre, gründliche, und recht eigendliche Belegen- und Beschaffenheit dieses…Römisch-Keyserlichen herrlichen Erblandes. Laybach. Valvasor, J. V. 1689c: Die Ehre des Hersogthums Crain. Ljubljana. Vatovec, F. 1929: Kolonizacija laškega okraja v luci krajevnih in ledinskih imen. Maribor. Veliki atlas Slovenije 2012: Založba Mladinska knjiga. Ljubljana. Veliki atlas sveta 1972: Založba Mladinska knjiga. Ljubljana. Veliki atlas sveta 2005: DZS. Ljubljana. Veliki družinski atlas sveta 1992: DZS. Ljubljana. Veliki družinski atlas sveta 2004: Modita. Kranj. Veliki splošni leksikon 1997–1998: DZS. Ljubljana. Veliki šolski atlas 2003: Ucila. Tržic. Vermeer, W. 1993: L’origine delle differenze locali nei sistemi localici del Resiano. Fondamenti per una gramatica pratica resiana. Padua. Vidic, M., Brenk, L., Ivanic, M. (eds.) 1999: Ilustrirana zgodovina Slovencev. Ljubljana. Weiss, P. 2020: Vecbesedna zemljepisna imena: z veliko zacetnico skoraj vse. Živim v Bukovem Vrhu pod Bukovim vrhom: O spremembi pravopisnega pravila za pisanje zemljepisnih imen. Ljubljana. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/9789610504320 Woodman, P. 2003: Exonyms: a structural classification and a fresh approach. Exonyms and the InternationalStandardisationofGeographicalNames:ApproachestowardstheResolutionofanApparent Contradiction. Wiener Osteuropa Studien 24. Wien. Yeoh,B.S.A.1996:Street-namingandnation-building:toponymicinscriptionsofnationhoodinSingapore. Area 28-3. Zagórski, B. R., Geršic, M., Kladnik, D. 2018: Challenges in the transformation of Slovene geographical names into Arabic. Geografski vestnik 90-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV90205 Zakon o dolocanju obmocij ter o imenovanju in oznacevanju naselij, ulic in stavb. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 25/2008. Ljubljana. Zašov,B.1984:MedjunarodniaspektistandardizacijegeografskihnazivauSFRJugoslaviji.Zbornikrado­va savjetovanja o pitanjima standardizacije geografskih naziva u jezicima naroda i narodnosti SFRJ. Sarajevo. Zdovc, P. 1973: Nekateri pogledi na vprašanja krajevnih imen na Koroškem. Mladje 14. Zdovc, P. 1979: »Tu ce« ali kako smo (bomo) pisali naša krajevna imena. Mladje 35. Zdovc, P. 1982: Prispevki h koroški toponimiji v sodobnem slovenskem knjižnem jeziku. Mladje 45. Zdovc, P. 1983: Ko Zila noj Drava nazaj potacè: nekaj o imenih naših pokrajin na Koroškem. Mladje 50. Zdovc,P.2010:SlovenskakrajevnaimenanaavstrijskemKoroškem:[slovarinjeziko(slo)vnikomentarji]/ DieslowenischenOrtsnameninKärnten:[NamenbuchundSprach(wissenschaft)licheKommentare]. Ljubljana. Zemljepisni atlas za ljudske šole s slovenskim ucnim jezikom 1902: Ed. Hölzel. Dunaj. Zemljepisni atlas za srednje in njim sorodne šole 1941: Istituto Geografico De Agostini. Novara. Zgonik, M. 1956: O toponomastiki Dravsko-Ptujskega polja. Geografski obzornik 3-2. Zorko, Z. 2004: Hišna imena na Koroškem: (ob Miklošicevem imenoslovju). Besedotvorje v delih Frana Miklošica. Maribor. Zorko,Z.2004:HišnaimenanaKoroškem.BesedoslovjevdelihFranaMiklošica.Slavisticnodruštvo.Maribor.Zorko, Z. 2005: Predgovor. Hišna imena v Žireh. Maribor. Zorn, M., Gašperic, P. 2016: Geografska dedišcina – sedem desetletij Zemljepisnega muzeja. Geografski vestnik 88-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV88106 Zuanella, N. 1986–1987: Slovenska krajevna imena v vzhodni Beneciji. Dom 21/22, 18/13. Zupancic, J. 2001: Slovenes abroad. National Atlas of Slovenia. Ljubljana. Žerovnik, M. 2012: Ivan Selan: od ponarejanja denarja do slavnega kartografa. Komenda.