The author has already drawn attention to the Russian-language works of the Russian and Czech linguist of the 19th century V. I. Šercl (1843-1906). Today he will look at some examples from Šercl's book, written in Czech: Z Oboru Jazykozpytu (From the Field of Linguistics) (Praha, 1883). The author of the article will be especially interested in the etymological side of the study and Latvian lexemes in comparison with Slavic material. The works of V. I. Šercl were published long before the appearance of the Dictionary of Selected Synonyms by the American Indo-Europeanist C. D. Buck (Buck 1949). Šercl, in fact, proposed an experiment in a dictionary of synonymy (though without proper systematization of the facts, but Šercl did not pursue such a goal). In the book Z Oboru Jazykozpytu Šercl presents a typology of different kinds of words (for example, onomatopoeic) in various thematic groups and numerous subgroups, presenting vocabulary material on more than 500 pages. Etymologizing, Šercl provides data from Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages. Latvian kuņa is associated with I.-E. designations of a dog (see Šercl 1883: 30, see also Georgiev 1958, 46- 47: “these names [dogs] go back to the onomatopoeic root *keu- 'shout, howl, bark'", Karulis I 391: connection with onomatopoeic Latvian kaukt, which on page 53 is considered by Šercl as onomatopoeic /however, erroneously directly from the Russian кукушка/). According to Šercl (p. 37), cūka ‘pig’ is related to Russian dial. чуха as an onomatopoeia (however, see Karulis I: 183, where the Latvian lexeme is associated with I.-E. *keu-: *kū- 'howl, scream', i.e. cūka in comparison with чуха can be considered a more ancient onomatopoeia, compare lit. čiùk! - čiūkà and Russian чух! - чуха). Latvian dzērve ‘crane’ is onomatopoeic (Šercl 1883: 50, Karulis I, 249: “Based on I-E. *ger- to denote a sharp bird cry”). Latvian šķaudīt ‘sneeze’ is onomatopoeic (Šercl 1883: 157, see also Fraenkel 74). Latvian raudāt ‘cry’ is onomatopoeic (Šercl 1883: 162, Karulis II 106: “Based on *reu- for onomatopoeia”). Latvian dial. ūpot ‘cry like an owl, an owl’ is onomatopoeic (Šercl 1883: 165, Karulis, II 455: “Based on onomatopoeia to the cry of a bird”). Latvian runāt ‘to speak’ is onomatopoeic (Šercl 1883: 204, Karulis II 137: “Based on I.-E. *reu-: *ru- for onomatopoeia ... with the suffix -nā-”). Latvian īgt ‘to be annoyed, to be angry’ is associated with onomatopoeic vocabulary conveying a groan, a sigh, a cry (Šercl 1883: 226, EDSL VI, 68: related to Proto-Slav. *ęga and lit. èngti ‘to choke, crush, crowd, torment’, LEW: 10). So, in the work of V. I. Šercl Z Oboru Jazykozpytu there are examples from the Latvian language, the etymologization of which coincides with the data of modern science and was undertaken long before the appearance of the Mühlenbach-Endzelīns dictionary.