Substrate in Romanian

Last updated
Roman Dacia and Moesia Inferior: according to one of the theories about the origin of the Romanians, the Romanians' ancestors included Roman provincials who preferred to remain in Dacia after the withdrawal of Roman troops and administration in the early 270s AD Roman province of Dacia (106 - 271 AD).svg
Roman Dacia and Moesia Inferior: according to one of the theories about the origin of the Romanians, the Romanians' ancestors included Roman provincials who preferred to remain in Dacia after the withdrawal of Roman troops and administration in the early 270s AD

The proposed substratal elements in Romanian are mostly lexical items. The process of determining if a word is from the substratum involves comparison to Latin, languages with which Romanian came into contact, or determining if it is an internal construct. If there are no matching results, a comparison to Albanian vocabulary, Thracian remnants or Proto-Indo-European reconstructed words is made. [1]

Contents

In addition to vocabulary, some other features of Eastern Romance, such as phonological features and elements of grammar (see Balkan sprachbund) may also be from Paleo-Balkan languages.

Romanian developed from the Common Romanian language, which in turn developed from Vulgar Latin. [2] According to a widely accepted theory, the territory where the language formed was a large one, consisting of both the north and the south of the Danube (encompassing the regions of Dacia, Moesia, and possibly Illyria), more precisely to the north of the Jireček Line. [3] Other scholars place the origin of the Romanian language in the Balkan Peninsula, strictly south of the Danube. [4] [5] [6] The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, published in 2013, came to the conclusion that the "historical, archaeological and linguistic data available do not seem adequate" to determine the territory where the development of the Romanian language began. [7]

Lexical items

The study of the substrate involves comparative methods applied to: [1]

  1. Albanian and its reconstructed ancient precursor – Proto-Albanian – an Indo-European language and the only surviving representative of the Albanoid branch, belonging to the Paleo-Balkan group of antiquity. [8] [9] Albanian varieties are today spoken by approximately 6 million people in the Balkans, primarily in Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece. [10] Albanian, especially the Tosk dialect, also represents one of the core languages of the Balkan Sprachbund. [11]
  2. Thraco-Dacian or Thracian, a language that although almost unattested has left traces in toponomy and inscriptions. [12]
  3. Proto-Indo-European, if none of the other languages yielded any results. [1]

Comparative methods applied to Albanian

In general, words assumed to belong to substratum can be placed into two categories: [13] [14]

those related to nature and natural world

and those used in pastoral life for:

Other words from substratum are: bucur(ie), ciupi, copil, cursă, fluier, droaie, gata, ghiuj, jumătate, mare (adj), moş, scăpăra.

Words possibly of substratum but not generally agreed among linguists are: arichiță, băiat, băl, brâncă, orbalţ, borţ, bulz, burduf, burtă, codru, Crăciun, creţ, cruţa, curma, daltă, dărâma, fluture, lai, mătură, mire, negură, păstaie, scorbură, spuză, stăpân, sterp, stână, traistă. [14]

Comparative methods applied to Thraco-Dacian and/or other Indo-European languages

The comparative method can be extended to other languages of the Indo-European family, including ones from which Romanian could not have borrowed directly or indirectly, in order to reconstruct Thraco-Dacian substratum words. This yields results with varying degrees of probability. Between 80 and 100 words belong to this category. [15] [16]

Substratum words like mal (1. shore, bank; 2. ravine, reg. a raised portion of land smaller than a hill and with abrupt sides) have almost identical correspondents in Albanian mal (mountain), but they can also be related to toponyms like Dacia Maluensis later renamed by Romans to Dacia Ripensis (rīpa - meaning bank, shore - has been inherited in Romanian as râpă - the abrupt side of a hill). [17]

All river names over 500 km and half of those between 200 and 500 km derive from pre-Latin substratum, according to linguist and philologist Oliviu Felecan. [18] Similarly, linguist Grigore Brâncuș states that almost the entire major hydronymy has been transmitted from Dacian to Romanian. [17] Other linguists have pointed out that the present Romanian forms of these hydronyms indicate that they were borrowed from Slavs or Hungarians. [19] [6] [20] [21] [22]

Major rivers of Romania. According to one theory, Romanian (a Romance language) has preserved the substrate form of their names instead of the Latin form. Other linguist say that the Romanian form of the names of these rivers indicate, that they are loanwords in Romanian mainly from Slavic and Hungarian. Rivers Romania.png
Major rivers of Romania. According to one theory, Romanian (a Romance language) has preserved the substrate form of their names instead of the Latin form. Other linguist say that the Romanian form of the names of these rivers indicate, that they are loanwords in Romanian mainly from Slavic and Hungarian.
Romanian river names with the etymons found in Indo-European languages as per Felecan&Felecan.
Name in RomanianProposed etymonLanguage of the etymon
Dunăre Donaris Thracian
Mureș morisjo Dacian
Olt *ol- Proto-Indo-European
Prut *pltus Proto-Indo-European
Siret *ser- Proto-Indo-European
Tisa Tibisio Dacian
Argeș *arg- Thracian
Buzău *bhuǧ- Thracian
Crișul kres- Thracian
Jiu Gilpil Dacian
Someș çam- Sanskrit
Timiș *ti- Proto-Indo-European
Ampoi Ampee Daco-moesian
Bârzava berzava Thracian
Gilort sil-arta Dacian
Ibru*eybhro Proto-Indo-European
Vedea *ued- Proto-Indo-European
Nera *ner- Proto-Indo-European
Năruia *ner- Dacian
Săsar *ser- Proto-Indo-European
Strei *s(e)reu Proto-Indo-European

Phonetic, morphological and syntactic features

A couple of phonetic changes have been agreed on as substratum influence: [23]

Several other have been attributed to the influence of substratum by some researchers, but there is no general consensus among scholars. For example, the development of "ă" vowel: linguists Al. Phillipide and Grigore Brâncuș consider the spontaneous evolution of unstressed "a" from words like Lat. camisia>Rom. cămașă, and stresses "a" before a /n/ or a consonant cluster beginning with /m/, a vowel found also in Bulgarian and Albanian, as the substratum influence in Romanian, [23] while linguist Marius Sala points this changes can also be seen as the tendency of the oral language to differentiate between forms of a paradigm, comparable to the development of similar central vowels in Portuguese or Neapolitan. [24]

Likewise, the morphological and syntactical features attributed to substratum, identified by comparison to Albanian and other languages of the Balkan sprachbund, are subject to scholarly debate since the grammatical structure of the ancient languages of the Balkans, except Greek, is unattested. [25]

A difficult research topic

Numerous language studies and research papers discuss the problems of the Substrate in Romanian, considered by some to be the most controversial and difficult part of Romanian language since its nature and development could explain the evolution of Latin to Romanian. [26]

Some linguists (including Sorin Olteanu, Sorin Paliga and Ivan Duridanov) propose that a number of words presented as borrowings from a Slavic language or from Hungarian in standard literature may have actually developed from reconstructed (not attested) words of local Indo-European languages and they were borrowed from Romanian by the neighboring languages. Though the substratum status of many Romanian words is not much disputed, their status as Dacian words is controversial, some more than others since there are no significant surviving written examples of the Dacian language. Many of the possible pre-Roman lexical items of Romanian have Albanian parallels, and if they are in fact substratum words cognates with the Albanian ones, and not loanwords from Albanian, it indicates that the substrate language of Romanian may have been on the same Indo-European branch as Albanian.

Other languages

The Bulgarian Thracologist Vladimir Georgiev developed the theory that the Romanian language has a "Daco-Moesian" language as its substrate, a hypothecised language that according to him had a number of features which distinguished it from the Thracian language spoken further south, across the Haemus range.

There are also some Romanian substratum words in languages other than Romanian, these examples having entered via Romanian dialects. For example, Bryndza is a type of cheese made in Eastern Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic (Moravian Wallachia), Slovakia and Ukraine, the name being derived from the Romanian word for cheese (brânză).

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Romanian language</span> Eastern Romance language

Romanian is the official and main language of Romania and Moldova. Romanian is part of the Eastern Romance sub-branch of Romance languages, a linguistic group that evolved from several dialects of Vulgar Latin which separated from the Western Romance languages in the course of the period from the 5th to the 8th centuries. To distinguish it within the Eastern Romance languages, in comparative linguistics it is called Daco-Romanian as opposed to its closest relatives, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian. It is also spoken as a minority language by stable communities in the countries surrounding Romania, and by the large Romanian diaspora. In total, it is spoken by 25 million people as a first language.

Several theories, in great extent mutually exclusive, address the issue of the origin of the Romanians. The Romanian language descends from the Vulgar Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces north of the "Jireček Line" in Late Antiquity. The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana north of the river Danube. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains. Other theories state that the Romanized local populations were present over a wide area on both sides of the Danube and the river itself did not constitute an obstacle to permanent exchanges in both directions; according to the "admigration" theory, migrations from the Balkan Peninsula to the lands north of the Danube contributed to the survival of the Romance-speaking population in these territories.

Dacian is an extinct language generally believed to be a member of the Indo-European language family that was spoken in the ancient region of Dacia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Balkan sprachbund</span> Shared linguistic features in southeastern Europe

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.

Common Romanian, also known as Ancient Romanian, or Proto-Romanian, is a comparatively reconstructed Romance language evolved from Vulgar Latin and spoken by the ancestors of today's Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, Istro-Romanians and related Balkan Latin peoples (Vlachs) between the 6th or 7th century AD and the 10th or 11th centuries AD. The evidence for this can be found in the fact that Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian share with each other their main language innovations comparative to Vulgar Latin on one hand, and distinctive from the other Romance languages on the other, according to Romanian linguist Marius Sala.

The lexis of the Romanian language, a Romance language, has changed over the centuries as the language evolved from Vulgar Latin, to Common Romanian, to medieval, modern and contemporary Romanian. A large proportion of present-day Romanian lexis is not inherited from Latin and in some semantic areas loanwords far outnumber inherited ones making Romanian an example of a language with a high degree of lexical permeability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iorgu Iordan</span> Romanian linguist, philologist, and diplomat

Iorgu Iordan was a Romanian linguist, philologist, diplomat, journalist, and left-wing agrarian, later communist, politician. The author of works on a large variety of topics, most of them dealing with issues of the Romanian language and Romance languages in general, he was elected a full member of the Romanian Academy in 1945. He was head of its Institute of Linguistics between 1949 and his retirement in 1962.

The Romanian dialects are the several regional varieties of the Romanian language (Daco-Romanian). The dialects are divided into two types, northern and southern, but further subdivisions are less clear, so the number of dialects varies between two and occasionally twenty. Most recent works seem to favor a number of three clear dialects, corresponding to the regions of Wallachia, Moldavia, and Banat, and an additional group of varieties covering the remainder of Transylvania, two of which are more clearly distinguished, in Crișana and Maramureș, that is, a total of five.

The history of the Romanian language started in Roman provinces north of the Jireček Line in Classical antiquity. There are three main hypotheses around its exact territory: the autochthony thesis, the discontinuation thesis, and the "as-well-as" thesis that supports the language development on both sides of the Danube. Between the 6th and 8th centuries AD, following the accumulated tendencies inherited from the vernacular Latin and, to a much smaller degree, the influences from an unidentified substratum, and in the context of a lessened power of the Roman central authority, the language evolved into Common Romanian. This proto-language then came into close contact with the Slavic languages and subsequently divided into Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, and Daco-Romanian. Because of limited attestations between the 6th and 16th centuries, entire stages from its history are reconstructed by researchers, often with proposed relative chronologies and loose limits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dumitru Berciu</span>

Dumitru Berciu was a Romanian historian and archaeologist, honorary member of the Romanian Academy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alexandru Philippide</span> Romanian linguist and philologist

Alexandru I. Philippide was a Romanian linguist and philologist. Educated in Iași and Halle, he taught high school for several years until 1893, when he secured a professorship at the University of Iași that he would hold until his death forty years later. He began publishing books on the Romanian language around the time he graduated from university, but it was not until he became a professor that he drew wider attention, thanks to a study of the language's history. Although not particularly ideological, he penned sharp, witty polemics directed at various intellectual figures, both at home and, in one noted case, in Germany.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ioan Alexandru Brătescu-Voinești</span> Romanian writer and politician

Ioan Alexandru Brătescu-Voinești was a Romanian short story writer and politician. The scion of a minor aristocratic family from Târgoviște, he studied law and, as a young man, drew close to the Junimea circle and its patron Titu Maiorescu. He began publishing fiction as an adolescent, and put out his first book of stories in 1903; his work centered on the fading provincial milieu dominated by old class structures. Meanwhile, after a break with Maiorescu, he drew toward Viața Românească and Garabet Ibrăileanu. In 1907, Brătescu-Voinești entered the Romanian parliament, where he would serve for over three decades while his written output declined. In his later years, he became an outspoken anti-Semite and fascist, a stance that, following his country's defeat in World War II, gave way to anti-communism near the end of his life.

The re-latinization of Romanian was the reinforcement of the Romance features of the Romanian language that happened in the 18th and 19th centuries. Romanian adopted a Latin-based alphabet to replace the Cyrillic script and borrowed many words from French as well as from Latin and Italian, in order to acquire the lexical tools necessary for modernization. This deliberate process coined words for recently introduced objects or concepts (neologisms), added Latinate synonyms for some Slavic and other loanwords, and strengthened some Romance syntactic features. Some linguistic researchers emphasize that the use of this term is inappropriate as it conflates the larger process of modernization of the language with the more extreme, and in the end unsuccessful, current of eliminating non-Latin influences, and, secondly, the term's lack of precision is susceptible to lead to confusion as the Latin character of the Romanian language had already been noticed since at least the 15th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Albanian–Eastern Romance linguistic parallels</span> Linguistic contact research

The Albanian–Eastern Romance linguistic parallels are subject of historical and contact linguistic research applied to the Albanian and Eastern Romance languages. It has also been studied to understand the history of Albanian and Eastern Romance speakers. The common phonological, morphological and syntactical features of the two language families have been studied for more than a century. Both are part of the Balkan sprachbund but there are certain elements shared only by Albanian and Eastern Romance languages that descended from Common Romanian. Aside from Latin, and from shared Greek, Slavic and Turkish elements, other characteristics and words are attributed to the Palaeo-Balkan linguistic base. Similarities between Eastern Romance and Albanian are not limited to their common Balkan features and the assumed common lexical items: the two language families share calques and proverbs, and display analogous phonetic changes, some of the latter especially shared between Tosk Albanian and Common Romanian.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Old Romanian</span> Historical stage of the Romanian language

Old Romanian is the period of Romanian language from the 16th century until 1780. It continues the intermediary stage when the dialect continuum known as ‘Daco-Romanian’ developed from Common Romanian, and Modern Romanian - the period of Romanian language set in post-Enlightenment times.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sorin Paliga</span> Romanian linguist and politician

Sorin Paliga is a Romanian linguist and politician. He is a university professor at the University of Bucharest. As a politician, he was the former mayor of Sector 3 of Bucharest from June 1996 to June 2000, and was affiliated with the National Liberal Party (PNL).

Grigore Brâncuș was a Romanian linguist and philologist, Albanologist, member of the Romanian Academy.

Although the direction of language contact between Romanian and Slavic languages is overwhelmingly towards Romanian as well as its other Eastern Romance sister languages, there is evidence of lesser influence in the opposite direction. Romanian and Eastern Romance influence on Slavic languages is generally limited to neighbouring languages, and of those to the South Slavic languages more than the northern counterparts.

Modern Romanian is the historical stage of the Romanian language starting from the end of the 18th century until today. In general, it is agreed that the modern era comprises three distinct periods: the premodern period starting from 1780 and lasting until 1830, the modern period from 1830 until 1880, and the contemporary period after 1881. Modern Romanian is characterized by the development of the Romanian alphabet, initial Latin and Italian lexical items entries, followed by the central role of French in the growth of the Romanian lexis, the development of literary styles, and the standardization of the language.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Brâncuș, Grigore (2005). Introducere în istoria limbii române][Introduction to the History of Romanian Language]. Editura Fundaţiei România de Mâine. p. 44. ISBN   973-725-219-5.
  2. ↑ Vrabie, Emil (2000). An English-Aromanian (Macedo-Romanian) Dictionary. Romance Monographs. p. 21. ISBN   1-889441-06-6.
  3. ↑ Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela, The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, ISBN 978-0-19-964492-6, page 2.
  4. ↑ Malcolm, Noel. Kosovo, a short history.
  5. ↑ Izzo, Herbert J. On the history of Romanian (Marino, Mary C.; Pérez, Luis A. ed.). Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.
  6. 1 2 Schramm, Gottfried. Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter [=A Dam Breaks: The Roman Danube frontier and the Invasions of the 5th-7th Centuries in the Light of Names and Words] (in German). R. Oldenbourg Verlag.
  7. ↑ Andreose, Alvise; Renzi, Lorenzo (2013). "Geography and distribution of the Romance languages in Europe". In Maiden, Martin; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge University Press. pp. 283–334 (287). ISBN   978-0-521-80073-0.
  8. ↑ Friedman, Victor A. (2023). "The importance of Aromanian for the study of Balkan language contact in the context of Balkan-Caucasian parallels". In Aminian Jazi, Ioana; Kahl, Thede (eds.). Ethno-Cultural Diversity in the Balkans and the Caucasus. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. pp. 345–360. doi:10.2307/jj.3508401.16. JSTOR   jj.3508401.16.
  9. ↑ Fine, JA. The Early medieval Balkans. University of Michigan Press, 1991. pp. 10–11. Google Books
  10. ↑ Rusakov, Alexander (2017). "Albanian". In Kapović, Mate; Giacalone Ramat, Anna; Ramat, Paolo (eds.). The Indo-European Languages. Routledge. ISBN   9781317391531.
  11. ↑ Schumacher, Stefan (2020). "The perfect system of Old Albanian (Geg variety)". In Robert Crellin; Thomas Jügel (eds.). Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Vol. 352. John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN   978-90-272-6090-1.
  12. ↑ Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela, The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, ISBN 978-0-19-964492-6
  13. ↑ Rosetti, Alexandru (1965). "La situation du romain parmi les langues balkaniques". Linguistica (in French). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 216-225 [222]. doi:10.1515/9783111349039-037.
  14. 1 2 Sala, Marius (2012). De la Latină la Română[From Latin to Romanian]. Editura Pro Universitaria. p. 84. ISBN   978-606-647-435-1.
  15. ↑ Sala, Marius (2012). De la Latină la Română[From Latin to Romanian]. Editura Pro Universitaria. p. 83. ISBN   978-606-647-435-1.
  16. ↑ Sala, Marius (2013). "Contact and Borrowing". In Martin Maiden; John Charles Smith; Adam Ledgeway (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 187–236 [201]. doi:10.1017/cho9781139019996.007.
  17. 1 2 Brâncuș, Grigore (2005). Introducere în istoria limbii române][Introduction to the History of Romanian Language]. Editura Fundaţiei România de Mâine. p. 45. ISBN   973-725-219-5.
  18. ↑ Felecan, Oliviu; Felecan, Nicolae (2015). "Etymological strata reflected in Romanian hydronymy". Quaderns de Filología. Estudis Lingüístics. 20 (Toponímia Románica): 251–269. doi: 10.7203/qfilologia.20.7521 . hdl: 10550/49693 . ISSN   1135-416X.
  19. ↑ Petrovici, Emil. Istoria și geografia României. There is not a single river name of Romanian origin, the old river names have been transmitted into Romanian through Slavic transmission.
  20. ↑ Nandris, Grigore (December 1951). "The Development and Structure of Rumanian". The Slavonic and East European Review. 30 (74): 7–39.
  21. ↑ Makkai, László (2001). "Toponymy and Chronology". History of Transylvania Volume I. From the Beginnings to 1606 - III. Transylvania in the Medieval Hungarian Kingdom (896–1526) - 1. Transylvania'a Indigenous Population at the Time of the Hungarian Conquest. New York: Columbia University Press, (The Hungarian original by Institute of History Of The Hungarian Academy of Sciences). ISBN   0-88033-479-7.
  22. ↑ Miskolczy, Ambrus (2018). "A román nép születése – avagy egy rejtély filológiája" (PDF). Aetas - Történettudományi Folyóirat (in Hungarian). 33 (4). Nemzeti Kulturális Alap, Szegedi Tudományegyetem Bölcsészettudományi Kara, Szegedért Alapítvány, Szeged Megyei Jogú Város Önkormányzata, Nemzeti Együttműködési Alap: 146.
  23. 1 2 Brâncuș, Grigore (2005). Introducere în istoria limbii române][Introduction to the History of Romanian Language]. Editura Fundaţiei România de Mâine. p. 46. ISBN   973-725-219-5.
  24. ↑ Sala, Marius (2012). De la Latină la Română][From Latin to Romanian]. Editura Pro Universitaria. p. 148. ISBN   978-606-647-435-1.
  25. ↑ Brâncuș, Grigore (2005). Introducere în istoria limbii române][Introduction to the History of Romanian Language]. Editura Fundaţiei România de Mâine. p. 47. ISBN   973-725-219-5.
  26. ↑ Brâncuș, Grigore (2005). Introducere în istoria limbii române][Introduction to the History of Romanian Language]. Editura Fundaţiei România de Mâine. p. 43. ISBN   973-725-219-5.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.