Endonymy

We can also briefly note that both a sense description of the type given above and the use of meaning postulates can be compared to the notion of endonymy, which was introduced by Cruse (1986: 123 f). It is intended to describe the relation between two lexical items when the meaning of one of them would seem to be included in that of the other.

Evens et al. (1983) have a provenience relation (water/well), and Cruse (1986) has a proportional series relation made up of recurring endonymy (university/lecturer/student, prison/warden/convict, hospital/doctor/patient).

Strictly speaking, endonymy is such a general meaning relation that it would cover hyponymy and certain part–whole relationships, e.g. finger and hand, as well as the kind of examples just listed.

Eduardo Viveiros de Castro (Brazil/Paris) analysed the comparative relation between exonymy and endonymy in lowland South America.

As such, there arises a symbolic association between endonymy and the firstborn, and exonymy and the last-born, in keeping with the idea that the firstborn represents internal continuity and the last-born represents the transformation associated with exteriority. Indeed, in the practice of name-giving, the names of the firstborn come from the closest kin and from what is "inside", whereas the names of the last-born come from more distant kin and from what is increasingly "outside."

In contrast to Kroeger (1998: 154)'s suggestion that ethnonyms beginning with Uma'should be applied to Kayan whereas the ones with Lepo'to Kenyah, the facts about Borneo tradition of endonymy are far more complex.

First it will examine the etymologies of the various groups as products of Egyptian nomenclature (exonymy) or indigenous nomenclature (endonymy).