Granice među antroponimijskim kategorijama

In the introduction, examples from the Croatian language are used to exemplify the anthroponymization of appellatives (e.g. appellative kovač → family name Kovač), appelativization of anthroponyms (e.g. family name Penkala → appellative penkala) and transonymization (e.g. hydronym Una → first name Una). All of the listed transitions represent evidence that there are no firm boundaries between the onymic and appellative lexicon, nor within the onymic lexicon. The central part of the study is dedicated to the so-called pure transanthroponymization of the type first name Vinko → family name Vinko. Pure transanthroponymization results in different combinations of homonymic pairs of anthroponyms in the anthroponymic formula / anthroponymic formulae (e.g. David David; David Vinko, Vinko David; David Novak — Josip David). Given that context does not contribute to the correct understanding of the message transmitted by the anthroponymic formula in the case of first name-family name homonymy, possible consequences of this homonymy for onomastic communication are emphasised. Also listed are examples of anthroponymic formulae of the Saša Pavlić type (it is impossible to distinguish whether the person is male or female from the first name) and Ivan Vinko Boris (it is impossible to distinguish whether the person has two first names or two family names from the anthroponymic formula) which also “stifle” the onomastic information. The author concludes that the boundaries between first names and family names are not fixed and cautions of the need to carefully select the first name of a child bearing a family name created by the pure transanthroponymization of a first name.