The aim of the article is to set adaptation of replicated place names (loaned names in traditional terminology) in a larger perspective by exploring a number of ways of conceptualising and studying the phenomenon within contact onomastics and contact linguistics. Many of the inquiries into this topic are deeply-rooted in settlement history, but I would like to open up for an option of a primarily linguistic investigation of place name adaptation as a process that in many ways resembles that of so called toponymic analogy. I see place name replication and place name adaptation as two different although related processes, a theoretical stance explored and built on in my doctoral thesis (2016), which forms a frame work for the present study. According to my definition of place name adaptation the difference between .native. and replicated place names can be said to disappear once the replication process is completed, because all place names irrespective of their etymology follow the development of the target language. There is however always a possibility of semantically adapting replicated place names in the long run which comprises one of the factors working against complete equivalence of .native. and replicated names. In the article I present some research opportunities revealed once the difference between .native. and replicated place names no longer is the sole matter of investigation.