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.

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.