Abstract
The article considers Russian onomastic terms referring to various kinds of city place names. Streets and squares are identified as major objects within the urban realm due to their intrinsic addressing capacity and linearity. Thus, street and square names (hodonyms and agronyms) constitute the core of the ubranonymic terminology. The names of isolated buildings (oikodomonyms), temples, churches, monasteries and convents (ecclesionyms), gates (pylonyms), bridges (gephyronyms), public transport stops (poreiurbanonyms), as well as the names of city districts and quarters (urban choronyms), lacking the addressing function, constitute the terminological periphery. The paper discusses the practicabilty of introducing specific terms for rural place names, generally displaying the same onomasiological patterns as urban place names. The authors challenge the use of the term vikonym as applied to rural place names. Instead, the term rusticonym is suggested as more appropriate in both semantic and morphological aspects. The article emphasizes that urban place names are commonly used as parts of wider syntagmas (urbanonymic formulas) containing appellative terms. Such terms can be omitted in real communication, although this often causes communication failures. The authors conclude that urbanonymic terminology requires further theoretical comprehension and detailed lexicographic treatment.