A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
 | This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (January 2018) |
| Balkan | |
|---|---|
| Geographic distribution | Balkans |
| Languages | |
The Balkan sprachbund or Balkan language area is an ensemble of areal features—similarities in grammar, syntax, vocabulary and phonology—among the languages of the Balkans. Several features are found across these languages though not all apply to every single language. The Balkan sprachbund is a prominent example of the sprachbund concept.
The languages of the Balkan sprachbund share their similarities despite belonging to various separate language family (genetic) branches. The Slavic, Hellenic, Romance, Albanian and Indo-Aryan branches all belong to the large Indo-European family, and the Turkish language is non-Indo-European.
Some of the languages use these features for their standard language (i.e. those whose homeland lies almost entirely within the region) whilst other populations to whom the land is not a cultural pivot (as they have wider communities outside of it) may still adopt the features for their local register.
While some of these languages may share little vocabulary, their grammars have very extensive similarities; for example:
- They have similar case systems, in those that have preserved grammatical case and verb conjugation systems.
- They have all become more analytic, although to differing degrees.
- Some of those languages mark evidentiality,[1] which is uncommon among Indo-European languages, and was likely inspired by contact with Turkish.[2][3]
The reason for these similarities is not a settled question among experts. Genetic commonalities, language contact, and the geopolitical history of the region all seem to be relevant factors, but many disagree over the specifics and degree of these factors.
History
The earliest scholar to notice the similarities between Balkan languages belonging to different families was the Slovenian scholar Jernej Kopitar in 1829.[4] August Schleicher (1850)[5] more explicitly developed the concept of areal relationships as opposed to genetic ones, and Franz Miklosich (1861)[6] studied the relationships of Balkan Slavic and Romance more extensively.
Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1923),[7] Kristian Sandfeld-Jensen (1926),[8] and Gustav Weigand (1925, 1928)[9] developed the theory in the 1920s and 1930s.
In the 1930s, the Romanian linguist Alexandru Graur criticized the notion of “Balkan linguistics,” saying that one can talk about “relationships of borrowings, of influences, but not about Balkan linguistics”.[10]
The term "Balkan language area" was coined by the Romanian linguist Alexandru Rosetti in 1958[citation needed], when he claimed that the shared features conferred the Balkan languages a special similarity. Theodor Capidan went further, claiming that the structure of 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.
Languages
The languages that share these similarities belong to five distinct branches of the Indo-European languages:
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 language area.[11] The results were:
| Language | Score |
|---|---|
| Balkan Slavic (Eastern South Slavic) | 11.5 |
| Albanian | 10.5 |
| Eastern Romance | 9.5 |
| Greek | 9.5 |
| Balkan Romani | 7.5 |
Another language that may have been influenced by the Balkan language union is the Judaeo-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.
Origins
The source of these features as well as the directions have long been debated, and various theories were suggested.
Paleo-Balkan
Early researchers, including Kopitar, believed they must have been inherited from the Paleo-Balkan languages (e.g. Illyrian, Thracian and Dacian) which formed the substrate for modern Balkan languages. But since very little is known about Paleo-Balkan languages, it cannot be determined whether the features were present. The strongest candidate for a shared Paleo-Balkan feature is the postposed article.
Greek
Another theory, advanced by Kristian Sandfeld in 1930, was that these features were an entirely Greek influence, under the presumption 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 possessed Balkanisms, so that the features shared with other regional languages appear to be post-classical innovations. Also, Greek appears to be only peripheral to the Balkan language area, lacking some important features, such as the postposed article. Nevertheless, several of the features that Greek does share with the other languages (loss of dative, replacement of infinitive by subjunctive constructions, object clitics, formation of future with auxiliary verb "to want") probably originated in Medieval Greek and spread to the other languages through Byzantine influence.[12]
Latin and Romance
The Roman Empire ruled all the Balkans, and local variation of Latin may have left its mark on all languages there, which were later the substrate to Slavic newcomers. This was proposed by Georg Solta. The weak point of this theory is that other Romance languages have few of the features, and there is no proof that the Eastern 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 the origin of these innovations in Aromanian. The analytic perfect with the auxiliary verb "to have" (which some Balkan languages share with Western European languages), is the only feature whose origin can fairly safely be traced to Latin.[citation needed]
Multiple sources
The most commonly accepted theory, advanced by Polish scholar Zbigniew Gołąb, is that the innovations came from different sources and the languages influenced each other: some features can be traced from Latin, Slavic, or Greek languages, whereas others, particularly 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.
Several arguments favour this theory. First, throughout the turbulent history of the Balkans, many groups of people moved to another place, inhabited by people of another ethnicity. These small groups were usually assimilated quickly and sometimes left marks in the new language they acquired. Second, the use of more than one language was common in the Balkans before the modern age, and a drift in one language would quickly spread to other languages. Third, the dialects that have the most "balkanisms" are those in regions where people had contact with people of many other languages.
Features
Grammatical features
Case system
The number of cases is reduced, several cases being replaced with prepositions, the only exception being Serbo-Croatian. In Bulgarian and Macedonian, on the other hand, this development has actually led to the loss of all cases except the vocative.
A common case system of a Balkan language is:
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 | Librin ia dhashë Marisë. | Libri është i Marisë. |
| Aromanian | Vivlia lju dedu ali Marii. | Vivlia easti ali Marii. |
| Bulgarian | Дадох книгата на Мария |
Книгата е на Мария |
| Romanian | I-am dat cartea Mariei. colloq. for fem. (oblig. for masc.): I-am dat cartea lui Marian. |
Cartea este a Mariei. (literally, "The book is Maria's.") or Este cartea Mariei. ("It is Maria's book.") colloq. for fem. (oblig. for masc.): Cartea este a lui Marian. |
| Macedonian | Ѝ ја дадов книгата на Марија. |
Книгата е на Марија. |
|
Greek |
Έδωσα το βιβλίο στην Μαρία. or Έδωσα της Μαρίας το βιβλίο. |
Είναι το βιβλίο της Μαρίας. |
| Της το έδωσα 'I gave it to her.' |
Είναι το βιβλίο της. 'It is her book.' |
Syncretism of locative and directional expressions
| language | "in Greece" | "into Greece" |
|---|---|---|
| Albanian | në Greqi | për/brenda në Greqi |
| Aromanian | tu Gãrtsii; tu Grecu | tu Gãrtsii; tu Grecu |
| Bulgarian | в Гърция (v Gărcija) | в Гърция (v Gărcija) |
| Greek | στην Ελλάδα (stin Elládha) | στην Ελλάδα (stin Elládha) |
| Macedonian | во Грција (vo Grcija) | во Грција (vo Grcija) |
| Romanian* | în Grecia | în Grecia |
Note: In Romanian this is an exception, and it only applies when referring to individual countries, e.g. în Germania, în Franța, etc. The rule is that into translates as ”la” when trying to express destination, e.g. la Atena, la Madrid, la vale, la mare, etc. but even in this case the same preposition is used to express direction and location.
Verb tenses
Future tense
The future tense is formed in an analytic way using an auxiliary verb or particle with the meaning "will, want", referred to as de-volitive, similar to the way the future is formed in English. This feature is present to varying degrees in each language. Decategorization is less advanced in fossilized literary Romanian voi and in Serbo-Croatian ću, ćeš, će, where the future marker is still an inflected auxiliary. In modern Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian, Aromanian, and spoken Romanian, decategorization and erosion have given rise to an uninflected tense form, where the frozen third-person singular of the verb has turned into an invariable particle followed by the main verb inflected for person (compare Rom 1.sg. voi, 2.sg. vei, 3.sg. va > invariable va > mod. o).[13] Certain Torlakian dialects also have an invariant future tense marker in the form of the proclitic third-person-singular present form of the verb 'to want': će vidim (ће видим) 'I will see', će vidiš (ће видиш) "you will see", će vidi (ће види) 'he/she/it will see'.
| Language | Variant | Formation | Example: "I'll see" |
|---|---|---|---|
| Albanian | Tosk | do (invariable) + subjunctive | Do të shoh |
| Gheg | kam (conjugated) + infinitive | Kam me pa | |
| Aromanian | va / u (inv.) + subjunctive | Va s'vedu / u s'vedu | |
| Greek | θα (inv.) + subjunctive | Θα δω / βλέπω (tha dho / vlépo); "I'll see / be seeing" | |
| Bulgarian | ще (inv.) + present tense | Ще видя (shte vidya) | |
| Macedonian | ќе (inv.) + present tense | Ќе видам (kje vidam) | |
| Serbian | (standard Serbian) | хтети / hteti (conjugated) + infinitive | Ја ћу видети (видећу) (ja ću videti videću) |
| (colloquial Serbian) | хтети / hteti (conjugated) + subjunctive | Ја ћу да видим (ja ću da vidim) | |
| Romanian | (literary, formal) | voi, vei, va, vom, veți, vor + infinitive | Voi vedea |
| (archaic) | va (inv.) + subjunctive | Va să văd | |
| (modern) | o (inv.) + subjunctive | O să văd | |
| (colloquial alternative) | a avea (conjugated) + subjunctive | Am să văd | |
| Balkan Romani | (Erli)[14] | ka (inv.) + subjunctive | Ka dikhav |
Analytic perfect tenseedit
The analytic perfect tense is formed in the Balkan languages with the verb "to have" and, usually, a past passive participle, similarly to the construction found in Germanic and other Romance languages: e.g. Romanian am promis "I have promised", Albanian kam premtuar "I have promised". A somewhat less typical case of this is Greek, where the verb "to have" is followed by the so-called απαρέμφατο ('invariant form', historically the aorist infinitive): έχω υποσχεθεί. However, a completely different construction is used in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian, which have inherited from Common Slavic an analytic perfect formed with the verb "to be" and the past active participle: обещал съм, obeštal sǎm (Bul.) / обећао сам, obećao sam (Ser.) - "I have promised" (lit. "I am having-promised"). On the other hand, Macedonian, the third Slavic language in the sprachbund, is like Romanian and Albanian in that it uses quite typical Balkan constructions consisting of the verb to have and a past passive participle (имам ветено, imam veteno = "I have promised"). Macedonian also has a perfect formed with the verb "to be", like Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian.
Renarrative moodedit
The so-called renarrative mood is another shared feature of the Balkan languages, including Turkish. It is used for statements that are not based on direct observation or common knowledge, but repeat what was reported by others. For example, Патот бил затворен in Macedonian means "The road was closed (or so I heard)". Speakers who use the indicative mood instead and state "Патот беше затворен" imply thereby that they personally witnessed the road's closure.
Avoidance or loss of infinitiveedit
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, following early Greek innovation.
- in Bulgarian, Macedonian and Tosk Albanian, the loss of the infinitive is complete
- in demotic (vernacular) Greek, the loss of the infinitive was complete, whereas in literary Greek (Katharevousa, abolished in 1976) it was not; the natural fusion of the vernacular with Katharevousa resulted in the creation of the contemporary common Greek (Modern Standard Greek), where the infinitive, when used, is principally used as noun (e.g. λέγειν "speaking, fluency, eloquence", γράφειν "writing", είναι "being", etc.) deriving directly from the ancient Greek infinitive formation. But its substitution by the subjunctive form when the infinitive would be used as a verb is complete. Most of the times, the subjunctive form substitutes the infinitive also in the cases when it would be used as a noun (e.g. το να πας / το να πάει κανείς "to go, the act of going", το να δεις / βλέπεις "to see/be seeing, the act of seeing" instead of the infinitive "βλέπειν", etc.)
- in Aromanian and Southern Serbo-Croatian dialects, it is almost complete
- in Gheg Albanian, the infinitive, constructed by the particle "me" plus the past participle, is in full use
- in standard Romanian (prepositional phrase: a + verb stem) and Serbo-Croatian, the infinitive shares many of its functions with the subjunctive. In these two languages, the infinitive will always be found in dictionaries and language textbooks. However, in Romanian, the inherited infinitive form (-are, -ere, and -ire) is now used only as a verbal noun.
- Turkish as spoken in Sliven and Šumen has also almost completely lost the infinitive, but not verbal nouns using the same grammatical form. This is clearly due to the influence of the Balkan sprachbund.
For example, "I want to write" in several Balkan languages:
| Language | Example | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Albanian | Dua të shkruaj | as opposed to Gheg me fjet "to sleep" or me hangër "to eat" |
| Aromanian | Vroi sã sciru / ãngrãpsescu | |
| Macedonian | Сакам да пишувам sakam da pišuvam | |
| Bulgarian | Искам да пиша iskam da piša | |
| Modern Greek | Θέλω να γράψω Thélo na grápso | as opposed to older Greek ἐθέλω γράψαι |
| Romanian | Vreau să scriu (with subjunctive)
|
The use of the infinitive is preferred in writing in some cases only. In speech it is more commonly used in the northern varieties (Transylvania, Banat, and Moldova) than in Southern varieties (Wallachia) of the language.[15] The most common form is still the form with subjunctive. |
| Serbo-Croatian | Želim da pišem / Желим да пишем | As opposed to the more literary form: Želim pisati / Желим пиcaти, where pisati / пиcaти is the infinitive. Both forms are grammatically correct in standard Serbian and do not create misunderstandings, although the colloquial one is more commonly used in daily conversation. |
| Bulgarian Turkish | isterim yazayım | In Standard Turkish in Turkey this is yazmak istiyorum where yazmak is the infinitive. |
| Balkan Romani | Mangav te pišinav | Many forms of Romani add the ending -a to express the indicative present, while reserving the short form for the subjunctive serving as an infinitive: for example mangava te pišinav. Some varieties outside the Balkans have been influenced by non-Balkan languages and have developed new infinitives by generalizing one of the finite forms (e.g. Slovak Romani varieties may express "I want to write" as kamav te irinel/pisinel — generalized third person singular — or kamav te irinen/pisinen — generalized third person plural). |
But here is an example of a relict form, preserved in Bulgarian: