Balkan linguistic union
Balkan linguistic union or
Balkansprachbund is a name given to the similarities in grammar, syntax, vocabulary and phonology found in the languages of the
Balkans, which belong to various
Indo-European branches, such as
Albanian,
Greek,
Romance and
Slavic.
While the common vocabulary between each language is relatively small, the grammars of the languages have a high degree of similarity, among which the adoption of a standard case system and a movement toward analyzation.
The earliest scholar to notice the similarities between Balkan languages belonging to different families was the
Slovenian scholar
Jernej Kopitar in
1829 , but only in the
1920s and
1930s was the theory developed, with important contributions
Gustav Weigand and
Kristian Sandfeld-Jensen (
Linguistique balkanique, 1930).
The term "Balkan linguistic union" was coined by the
Romanian linguist
Alexandru Rosetti in
1958, when he claimed that the shared features conferred the Balkan languages them a special semblance.
Theodor Capidan went even further, claiming that the structure of the Balkan languages could be reduced to a standard language. Many of the earliest reports on this theory were in
German, hence the term "Balkansprachbund" is often used as well.
Opponents of the theory (such as
Alexandru Graur) claimed that the use of the term "Balkan linguistics" is inappropriate and that some of the properties could be explained by independent internal derivations in each language, while for others, it is a mere "lingustic reciprocity", which is not enough for claiming that there is a separate "Balkan linguistics", as there are "Romance linguistics", "Germanic linguistics", etc.
The languages that share these similarities belong to five distinct branches of the Indo-European languages:
*
Albanian*
Greek*
Indo-Aryan (
Arli Romany/Gypsy)
*
Romance languages (
Romanian,
Aromanian,
Megleno-Romanian and
Istro-Romanian)
*
Slavic languages (
Bulgarian,
Macedonian,
Serbo-Croatian — especially the
Torlakian dialect)
However, not all of these languages have the same number of features shared. That is why they are divided into three groups:
#
Albanian,
Romanian,
Macedonian and
Bulgarian have the most properties in common#
Serbian (especially Torlak dialect) and
Greek share with the others a lower number of properties#
Turkish - shares mainly vocabulary and replacement of infinitive with subjunctive.
The Finnish linguist
Jouko Lindstedt computed in 2000 a "Balkanization factor" which gives each Balkan language a score proportional with the number of features shared in the Balkan linguistic union. The results were:
| Language | Score | | Balkan Slavic | 11.5 |
| Albanian | 10.5 |
| Greek, Balkan Romance | 9.5 |
| Romani (Gypsy) | 7.5 |
Out of all the languages studied, the
Macedonian language got 12.0, the highest overall score.
Another language that may have been influenced by the Balkan Language Union is the
Judeo-Spanish variant that used to be spoken by
Sephardi Jews living in the Balkans. The grammatical features shared (especially regarding the tense system) were most likely borrowed from Greek.
The source of these features as well as the directions have long been debated, various theories being suggested.
Thracian, Dacian or Illyrian
Since most of these features cannot be found in languages related to those that belong to the linguistic union (such as other Slavic or Romance languages), the early researchers, including Kopitar, believed they had to be inherited from the ancient indigenous languages (
Thracian,
Dacian and
Illyrian) which formed the
substrate for the modern Balkan languages.
However, since there is very little information left about any of these languages, it cannot be determined whether the features were present.
Greek
Another theory, advanced by Kristian Sandfeld in 1930 was that they were an entirely Greek influence, the presumption being that since Greece "always had a superior civilization compared to its neighbours", Greek could not have borrowed its linguistic features from them. However, no ancient dialects of Greek bear these features and as such, the Balkanisms of Greek appear to be an innovation that occurred in Greek after the Classical and Byzantine period. Also, Greek appears to be only peripheral to the Balkan linguistic union, missing some important features, such as the postposed article.
Latin and Romance
The Roman Empire ruled all the Balkans and it would be possible that a
local variation of Latin left its mark on all the languages of the Balkans, which later were the substrate to the Slavic newcomers. The weak point of this theory of Georg Solta is that only few of the features can be found in other Romance languages and there is no proof that the Balkan Romans were isolated for enough time to develop them.
An argument for this would be the structural borrowings or "linguistic
calques" into Macedonian from Aromanian, which could be explained by Aromanian being a substrate of Macedonian, but this still does not explain what is the origin of these innovations in Aromanian.
Multiple sources
The most commonly accepted theory nowadays was advanced by the Polish scholar Zbigniew Gołąb and consists in the idea that not all the innovations are from the same source and that the influence between the languages was reciprocal: some of these can be traced from Latin, Slavic or Greek languages, while others, particularly the features that are shared only by Romanian, Albanian, Macedonian and Bulgarian, could be explained by the substratum kept after Romanization (in the case of Romanian) or Slavicization (in the case of Bulgarian). Albanian was influenced by both Latin and Slavic, but it kept many of its original characteristics.
One argument in favour of this "multiple sources" theory is that the turbulent
history of the Balkans lead many groups of people throughout its history to move toward another place, inhabited by people of another ethnicity. These small groups were usually assimilated quickly and sometimes they left marks in the new language they acquired. Another idea is that before the modern age, the use of more than one language was common in the Balkans and a
drift in one language would quickly spread to other languages.
An argument that supports this point is that the dialects that have the most "balkanisms" are those in regions where people had contacts with people of many other languages.
|
Most likely areas of language contact |
(under development)Most likely the earliest contact was between the Proto-Romanians and Proto-Albanians, (
1st century -
5th century AD) this theory being supported by the Albanian vocabulary borrowed from Balkan Latin, as well as the Romanian substrate, which has words cognate to Albanian words.
The exact area where the contact occurred is under debate, ranging from Northern
Albania to
Transylvania. For more, see
Origin of Romanians and
Origin of Albanians. All Romanian varieties (from the
Republic of Moldova to the
Vlachs of Serbia) are part of the sprachbund, which shows that the contact was before they diverged.
The invasion of the Slavs led to a period of migrations throughout the Balkans which created multi-ethnic communities and this lead to the sprachbund, which was initiated around the
8th century and most features were already present by the
12th century, although in some parts, it continued until the
17th century.
Serbian was perhaps the last language to join, as shown by the low number of features, most of which were only in the Torlak dialect, a dialect intermediary to Bulgarian which emerged rather late, after most features were settled in the sprachbund.
Grammatical features
Case system
The number of cases is reduced, several cases being replaced with prepositions, the only exception being Serbian.
A common case system of a Balkan language is:
* Nominative
* Accusative (using prepositions and the form in the nominative case)
* Dative / Genitive (merged)
* Vocative
=Syncretism of genitive and dative
=In the Balkan languages, the
genitive and
dative cases (or corresponding prepositional constructions) undergo
syncretism.
Example:| Language | Dative! Genitive | | English | I gave the book to Maria. | It is Maria's book. |
| Albanian | Ia dhashë librin Marisë. | Është libri i Marisë. |
| Bulgarian | "адох книгата на Мария(Dadoh knigata na Marija) | Книгата е на Мария;(Knigata e na Marija) |
| Romanian | I-am dat cartea Mariei. | Este cartea Mariei. |
| Macedonian | И ја дадов книгата на Марија.(I ja dadov knigata na Marija) | Книгата е на Марија.(Knigata e na Marija) |
| Greek | Έδωσα το βιβλίο στη Μαρία.(edhosa to vivlio sti Maria)
colloquially also:
Έδωσα το βιβλίο της Μαρίας.
(edhosa to vivlio tis Marias)
Της το έδωσα (tis to edhosa) - I gave it to her. | Είναι το βιβλίο της Μαρίας.
"(Ine to vivlio tis Marias)'' |
=Syncretism of locative and directional expressions
=
| language | "in Greece"! "into Greece" | | Bulgarian | в "ърция | в "ърция |
| Greek | στην Ελλάδα | στην Ελλάδα |
| Romanian | în Grecia | în Grecia |
Verb tenses
=Future tense formation
=The future tense is formed in an
analytic way using an auxiliary verb or particle with the meaning "will", similar to the way the future is formed in English.
| Language | Variant | Formation | Example: "I'll see" | | Albanian | "do" (invariant) + subjunctive | Do të shikoj |
| Aromanian | "va" (invariant) + subjunctive | Va s-ved |
| Bulgarian | "ще" (invariant) + present tense | Ще видя |
| Greek | "Θα" (invariant) + subjunctive | Θα δω |
| Macedonian | "ќе" (invariant) + present tense | Ќе видам |
| Serbian | (literary standard) | "hteti" (conjugated) + infinitive | Ја ћу видети (видећу) |
| (colloquial) | "hteti" (conjugated) + subjunctive | Ја ћу да видим |
| Romanian | (literary standard) | "a voi" (conjugated) + infinitive | Voi vedea |
| (colloquial) | "o" (invariant) + subjunctive | O să văd |
| (colloquial alternate) | "a avea" (conjugated) + subjunctive | Am să văd |
| (archaic) | "va" (invariant) + subjunctive | Va să văd |
| Romani | (Erli) | "ka" (invariant) + subjunctive | Ka dikhav |
=Analytic perfect tense formation
=The analytic perfect tense is formed in the Balkan languages with the verb "to have". The origin of this language feature could be Latin. However, this does not apply to Bulgarian and Serbian, where the analytic perfect is formed with the verb "to be" and the past active participle: обещал - "who has promised" (past active participle);
съм (Bul.);
сам (Ser.) - "I am";
обещал съм;
обећао сам (Ser.) - "I have promised" (lit. "I am one who has promised"), perfect tense. The verb constructions using the verb HAS are characteristic for the Macedonian language (Имам ветено./Imam veteno. = I have promised.).
=Avoidance of infinitive
=The use of the infinitive (common in other languages related to some of the Balkan languages, such as Romance and Slavic) is generally replaced with subjunctive constructions.
* in Macedonian, Greek and Tosk Albanian, the loss of the infinitive is complete
* in Aromanian, Bulgarian and Southern Serbian dialects, it is almost complete
* in Gheg Albanian and Megleno-Romanian, it is used only in a limited number of expressions
* in standard Romanian, Serbian and Croatian, the infinitive shares many of its functions with the subjunctive
* Turkish as spoken in Sliven and Šumen has also almost completely lost the infinitive. This Altaic language then clearly belongs to the Balkan Sprachbund.
For example, "I want to write" in several Balkan languages:
| Language | Example!Notes | | Albanian | "Dua të shkruaj" | |
| Macedonian | "Сакам да пишувам" | |
| Bulgarian | "Искам да пиша" | |
| Modern Greek | "Θέλω να γράψω" | |
| Romanian | "Vreau să scriu" | as opposed to "Vreau a scrie", which is also correct, but rarely used. |
| Serbian | "Želim da pišem" | as opposed to the form more common in Croatian: "Želim pisati", where pisati is the infinitive. |
| Bulgarian Turkish | "isterim yazayım" | In Standard Turkish in Turkey this is "yazmak istiyorum" where "yazmak" is the infinitive. |
Bare subjunctive constructions
Sentences which include only a subjunctive construction can be used to express a wish, a mild command, an intention or a suggestion.
This example translates in the Balkan languages the phrase "You should go!", using the subjunctive constructions.
| Language | Example!Notes | | Macedonian | "а одиш! |
| Bulgarian | "а отидеш! |
| Serbian (mainly Torlak) | Da ideš! |
| Albanian | Të shkosh! |
| Modern Greek | Να πας! |
| Romany (Gypsy) | Te dža! |
| Romanian | Să te duci! | in Romanian, the "a se duce" (to go) requires a reflexive construction |
| Megleno-Romanian | S-ti duţ! |
| Aromanian | S-ti duts! |
Morphology
=Postposed article
=With the exception of Greek and Romani, all languages in the union have their
definite article attached to the end of the noun, instead of before it. None of the related languages (like other Romance languages or Slavic languages) shares this feature and it is thought to be an innovation created and spread in the Balkans.
However, each language created its own internal articles, so the Romanian articles are related to the articles (and demonstrative pronouns) in Italian, French, etc., while the Bulgarian articles are related to demonstrative pronouns in other Slavic languages.
| Language | Feminine | Masculine | | withoutarticle | witharticle | withoutarticle | witharticle |
|---|
| Albanian | shtëpi | shtëpia | qiell | qielli |
| Bulgarian | жена | жената | мъж | мъжът |
| Macedonian | жена | жената | маж | мажот |
| Romanian| casă | casa | cer | cerul |
| Serbian Torlak | жена | жената | муж | мужот |
=Number formation
=The numbers between ten and twenty are composed in a manner similar to Slavic languages (like "one + on + ten" for eleven). Modern Greek does not follow this.
| Language | The word "Eleven"!compounds | | Albanian | "njëmbëdhjetë" | një + mbë + dhjetë |
| Bulgarian | "единадесет" | един + (н)а + десет |
| Macedonian | "единаесет" | еде(и)н + (н)а + (д)есет |
| Romanian | "unsprezece" | un + spre + zece < *unu + supre + dece |
| Serbian | "jedanaest" | jedan + (n)a + (d)es(e)t |
=Clitic pronouns
=Direct and indirect objects are
doubled by a
clitic (weak) pronoun. This can be found in Romanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian.
For example, "I see George" in Balkan languages:
| Language | Example | | Albanian | "E shikoj Gjergjin" |
| Bulgarian | "'иждам го "еорги." (colloquial form; see note) |
| Macedonian | ""o гледам Ѓор"и." |
| Greek | "Τον βλέπω τον "ιώργο" |
| Romanian | "Îl văd pe George." |
Note: The neutral case in normal (SVO) word order is without a clitic: "'иждам "еорги." However, the form with an additional clitic pronoun is also possible in colloquial speech: "'иждам го "еорги." And the clitic is obligatory in the case of a topicalized object (with OVS-word order), which serves also as the common colloquial equivalent of a passive construction. ""еорги го виждам."
=Suffixes
=Also, some common suffixes can be found in the linguistic area, such as the diminutive suffix of Slavic origin "-ica" that can be found in Albanian, Greek and Romanian.
Vocabulary
Loan words
Several hundreds of words are common to the Balkan union languages, the origin of most of them is either Greek or
Turkish, as the
Byzantine Empire and later the
Ottoman Empire had a strong influence on the culture and economics of this region.
Albanian, Romanian and Bulgarian also share a good deal of words of various origins:
| Source | Source word | meaning | Albanian | Bulgarian | Greek | Romanian | Macedonian | | Latin | mensa | table | - | маса (masa) | - | masă | маса |
| Thracian/Illyrian | *magar | donkey | magar | магаре (magare) | - | măgar | магаре |
| Greek (ancient) | λιβάδιον | meadow | livadhe | ливада (livada) | λειβάδι | livadă | ливада |
| Greek (ancient) | διδάσκαλος | teacher | dhaskal (mësues) | даскал (daskal) (colloquial) | δάσκαλος | dascăl | даскал |
| Greek (ancient) | κουτίον | box | kuti | кутия | κουτί | cutie | кутија |
Calques
Apart from the direct loans, there are also many
calques that were passed from one Balkan languages to another, most of them between Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek and Romanian.
For example, the word "ripen" (as in fruit) is constructed in Albanian, Greek and Romanian by a derivation from the word "to bake".
Another example is the wish "for many years":
| Language | Expression!Transliteration | | Greek | χρόνια πολλά | khronia polla |
| Latin | ad multos annos |
| Romanian | la mulţi ani |
| Albanian | për shumë mot |
| Bulgarian | за много години | za mnogo godini |
| Macedonian | за многу години | za mnogu godini |
Idiomatic expressions for "whether one
or not" are formed as "-not-". | Language | expression!meaning | | Bulgarian | ще - не ще | "whether one wants or not" |
| Greek | θέλει δε θέλει | "whether one wants or not" |
| Romanian | vrea nu vrea | "whether one wants or not" |
| Turkish | ister istemez | "whether one wants or not" |
| Serbian | хтео - не хтео | "whether one wants or not" |
Phonetics
A common feature of the "core" Balkan languages is the occurrence of the schwa phoneme. (ë in Albanian; ъ in Bulgarian; ă in Romanian;). In Romanian and Albanian, the schwa is obtained via a phonetic change from unstressed . Another phonetic change found in those two languages is turning unstressed into . The schwa phoneme occurs in most dialects of the Macedonian language, with the exception of the western-central dialects, on which the standard is based.
As an example, the Latin word for "shirt", ("camisia") underwent similar sound changes in Romanian and Albanian (Romanian "cămaşă" , Albanian "këmishë" ).* Paleo-Balkan languages
* Balkan languages
* Greek grammar
* Bulgarian grammar# Batzarov, Zdravko. "Balkan Linguistic Union" (at the Encyclopædia Orbis Latini)# Lindstedt, J. (2000) "Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement". Pp. 231"246 in D. G. Gilbers & al. (eds.), Languages in Contact. Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA, 2000: Rodopi. (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 28.) ISBN 9042013222# Du Nay, André. (1977) "The Origins of the Rumanians" : Balkan Linguistic Union# Grey Thomason, Sarah. (1999) "Linguistic areas and language history" (PDF)# Joseph, Brian D. (1999) "Romanian and the Balkans: Some Comparative Perspectives" (PDF)# Kopitar, Jernej K. (1829). "Albanische, walachische u. bulgarische Sprache". Jahrbücher der Literatur (Wien) 46, pp. 59-106.# Rosetti, Alexandru (1965-1969). "History of the Romanian language" (Istoria limbii române), 2 vols., Bucharest.# Russu, Ion (1967). "The Language of the Thraco-Dacians" (Limba Traco-Dacilor), Editura Ştiinţifică, Bucharest# Tomić, Olga Mišeska (2003). "The Balkan Sprachbund properties: An introduction to Topics in Balkan Syntax and Semantics" (PDF)# Winford, Donald (2003) An Introduction to Contact Linguistics; Blackwell Publishing ISBN 0631212515
