The text discusses words occurring in the Polish-East Slavic borderlands and prevalent in eastern Polish dialects. Differntiation between old references and loans in this area is not always easy. The material presented here is very diverse. In the case of certain words, identifying them as East Slavic loans with an indisputable source is possible, while in the case of others it is difficult to identify the direct source of the loan. Among the words recorded in the East Slavic borderlands we can find those whose range in Polish dialects seems to indicate the possibility of Ruthenian influence; however, their Polish phonetic form implies their native origin and one should speak about an old reference in this respect. We also encounter Pan-Slavic words, where a doubt arises as to whether they are loans or old references in Polish in the East Slavic area and Eastern Poland.

The article attempts to differentiate, on the basis of selected words recorded in the Polish-East Slavic borderland, whether we are dealing with language loans or old references. The analysis takes into account e.g. ethymological, morphological and geographical criteria. The study focuses on the following words: cot ‘an even number’, czapigi, czepigi ‘plough handle’, had ‘an abominable animal’ and hydzić się ‘loathe’, ‘abhor’, ‘denigrate’, kosiec ‘scyther’, liszka ‘an odd number’, liszny/liszni ‘superfluous’, ‘supernumerary’, przewiąsło ‘a straw belt to tie sheaths siewiec ‘sower’, śloza ‘tear’, żeniec ‘harvester’, żenich, żeniuch ‘bridegroom’, ‘fiancé’, żnieja ‘female harvester’. Recognition as borrowings may be based on those word forms where phonetic elements characteristic of other languages, unknown in Polish, occur. Analysis of certain words has revealed the occurrence of Proto-Slavic and all- -Slavic words, preserved in the Polish language as relics, in peripheral areas. In some cases, it is difficult to make clear-cut decisions, because, for example, the stem of the word is a continuation of the Proto-Slavic forms, to be found in the Polish language, while the derivatives are borrowings.

To study language contact in the Polish-East Slavic borderland, we employ extensive subdialect records from atlases, dictionaries, monographic studies, and various file collections. Significantly, however, all of the above lack historical information about the words they contain. Such data can be obtained by using local names and by taking into account all pan-Slavic references. Such comparisons justify the conclusion that historically many of the presented names extended far further westward than is indicated by typically used materials, mainly from the 20th century, though much less frequently from the second half of the 19th century. This sheds new light on the problem of whether the names in question are loan words, naturally older than had previously been thought, or rather relics of former regional convergence, covering the broad Polish-Russian language borderland, and constituting the Mazovian-Russian community.

Pavol Żigo’s work, which opens the development of morphological maps in the OLA team, is worthy of the highest praise. It offers an interpretation of selected maps concerning declination of nouns, accompanied by detailed theoretical considerations of the process of changes in the declination system in Slavic languages. Drawing on extensive dialectal records, the Atlas offers an excellent overview of the complex development of declination of nouns in Slavic languages. This publication may serve as a model for further studies in this field.

The text discusses the question of Polish and Eastern Slavic origin of the words: (h)uzer, uzior ‘lower part of a sheaf of corn’, huzica ‘bird's rump’, huzno ‘bird's rump’. The relic forms of words * gǫzyrь, * gǫzerь with a nasal vowel can be found in the dialects of Southern Borderlands and in Chełm region. In this area they were originally shared by Polish and Ruthenian languages. Forms containing u: * guzуrь, * guzerь appearing in the Polish language should be ascribed to the mutual impact of Ruthenian languages, even though they may have been originally Polish, too. The influence of the Ruthenian language is evident in the commonplace h‑ (< g) in word‑initial position, e.g. huzno, huzica, huzer, huzir, etc., as well as in infrequent shift towards u̯ and v, e.g. u̯uźor, u̯uźoro, vuźur. The occasional g in Eastern Slavic vernacular languages of the Białystok region – guzerye, due to the opaque formation, does not seem a manifestation of phonetic Polonization.

The article is a successive part of the considerations on language contacts in relation to lexis. Analysed are words characteristic of the Polish‑Eastern Slavic borderland, where it is difficult to unequivocally decide whether they are borrowings, references, or examples of the shared Slavic heritage. The following names were interpreted in this respect: binduga ‘a place by the river where wood is deposited for floating, rafts are made and launched’, chaszcze ‘thicket, bushes, scrub’, chudoba ‘livestock’, chusta ‘a sheet of linen or other clothing fabric’, chusty ‘linen (to be washed)’; chołosznie ‘trousers’, kołosza, chołosza ‘trouser leg’, łukno and ustaw ‘vessels for honey storage’ and at the same time ‘units of measurement of honey’, miękiny ‘chaff’, miękuszka ‘bread pupl’; nawleczka, nawłoka, nawłoczka ‘pillowcase, duvet cover’, ‘furniture cover’; niewiasta, niewiastka ‘daughter‑in‑law’, żmykać ‘hand‑wash’. A detailed tracing of the geography, development of individual forms, directions of the inflow of words discussed in the text shows the multiplicity of ways in which individual lexical items penetrate borderland dialect systems. The most interesting examples are those in which the same development outcome is triggered by completely different phonetic processes.