O používaní základných hydronomastických termínov a možnostiach ich zosúladenia

The development of onomastic theory in national and international contexts brings new impulses and pressures on the existing terminological system, including the unequal use of specific terms and the relationships between them. In Slavic hydronomastics, both established national and international terms are used, and others are continually emerging, with some in competition with existing ones. In order for the terminological system to fulfil its tasks, the long-term goal should be to harmonize it in both national and international contexts. In this paper, we discuss the development and status of hydronomastic terminology in the Slavic context. We propose and justify possibilities for the functional elimination of hierarchical and definitional disproportions of the terms of marine and oceanic toponymy, namely oceanonym, pelagonym, talasonym, bationym. In Slavic onomastics, the names of inland water objects are divided into potamonyms, limnonyms and helonyms (formerly also baltonyms). The creation and use of synonymous terms to existing established terms (*paludonym to helonym) may be considered inappropriate. Only time will reveal the usefulness of other emerging hydronomastic terms (*krenonym, *glacionym, etc.) and the functionality of their inclusion in the terminological system. The term microhydronym as a type of microtoponym in some national onomastics covers the names of smaller standing and flowing waters (in Ukrainian onomastics, the term only refers to smaller standing waters), and it is used especially in East Slavic and partly also in South Slavic onomastics. However, such an understanding does not conflict with the above classification of hydronyms according to object types. The question remains whether the principles of creating an onomastic terminological system are current and if there is also a desire to harmonize onomastic terminology in the international context.