العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolBALKAN SPRACHBUND
The 'Balkan sprachbund' or 'linguistic area' is the ensemble of areal features—similarity in grammar, syntax, vocabulary and phonology—among languages of the Balkans, which belong to various branches of Indo-European, such as Albanian, Greek, Romance and Slavic. While they share little vocabulary, their grammars also have similarities; for example they have similar case systems and have all become more analytic ; although to differing degrees.
The earliest scholar to notice the similarities between Balkan languages belonging to different families was the Slovenian scholar Jernej Kopitar in 1829 [1]. August Schleicher (1850)[2] more explicitly developed the concept of areal relationships as opposed to genetic ones, and Franc Miklošič (1861)[3]studied the relationships of Balkan Slavic and Romance more extensively.
Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1923), Vavilonskaja bašnja i smešenie jazykov, , N.S., Trubetzkoj, Evrazijskij vremennik, Kristian Sandfeld-Jensen (1930),[4] and Gustav Weigand 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”.[5]
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 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.
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 which is transitional between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian)
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
# Serbo-Croatian (especially transitional 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. [6] The results were:
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, and various theories were suggested.
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), early researchers, including Kopitar, believed they must be inherited from the ancient indigenous languages (Thracian, Dacian and Illyrian) which formed the substrate for the modern Balkan languages. But since very little is known about any of these languages, it cannot be determined whether the features were present.
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 linguistic union, lacking some important features, such as the postposed article.
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 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 the origin of these innovations in Aromanian.
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, while 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.
''(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 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 happened before they diverged.
The invasion of the Slavs led to a period of migrations throughout the Balkans which created multi-ethnic communities and this led to the sprachbund beginning around the 8th century; most features were present by the 12th century, but 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.
The number of cases is reduced, several cases being replaced with prepositions, the only exception being Serbian. In Bulgarian, on the other hand, this development has actually lead to the loss of all cases except the vocative.
A common case system of a Balkan language is:
★ Nominative
★ Accusative
★ Dative / Genitive (merged)
★ Vocative
In the Balkan languages, the genitive and dative cases (or corresponding prepositional constructions) undergo syncretism.
''Example:''
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 and originating with Greek innovation around the 1st century AD. This feature is present to varying degrees in each language. Decategoralization is less advanced in Romanian ''voi'' and Serbo-Croatian ''ću, ćeš, će'', where the future marker is still an inflected auxiliary. In Modern Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian, decategoralization and erosion have given rise to an uninflected tense form, where the the frozen 3rd person singular of the verb has turned into an invariable particle followed by the main verb inflected for person ! Language
! Variant
! Formation
! Example: "I'll see"
|-
| rowspan=2 | Albanian
| Tosk
| "do" (invariant) + subjunctive
| Do të shikoj
|-
| Gheg
| "kam" (conjugated) + me + verbal noun
| Kam me shik
|-
| Aromanian
|
| "va" (invariant) + subjunctive
| Va s-ved
|-
| Greek
|
| "θα" (invariant) + subjunctive
| Θα δω (''tha do'')
|-
| Bulgarian
|
| "ще" (invariant) + present tense
| Ще видя (''shte vidya'')
|-
| Macedonian
|
|"ќе" (invariant) + present tense
|Ќе видам (će vidam)
|-
| rowspan=2 | Serbian
| (literary standard)
| "хтети" (conjugated) + infinitive
| Ја ћу видети (видећу) (''ja ću videti {videću}'')
|-
| (colloquial)
| "хтети" (conjugated) + subjunctive
| Ја ћу да видим (''ja ću da vidim'')
|-
| rowspan=4 | 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
|}
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. Constructions using the verb ''to have'' are characteristic of Macedonian language (Имам ветено./Imam veteno. = I have promised.).
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 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, clearly due to the influence of the Balkan Sprachbund.
For example, "I want to write" in several Balkan languages:
{| class="wikitable"
!Language
!Example
!Notes
|-
| Albanian
| "Dua 'të shkruaj'"
| as opposed to Gheg 'me fjet' "to sleep" or 'me hangr' "to eat"
|-
| Aromanian
| "Voi 'sã-ngrapsescu'"
|
|-
| Macedonian
| "Сакам 'да пишувам'"
|
|-
| Bulgarian
| "Искам 'да пиша"'
|
|-
| Modern Greek
| "Θέλω 'να γράψω'"
| as opposed to Ancient Greek "βούλομαι 'γράψαι'"
|-
| Romanian
| "Vreau 'să scriu'"
| as opposed to "Vreau 'a scrie'", which is also correct, but rarely used.
|-
| Serbian
| "Желим 'да пишем'"
| 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.
|}
But here is an example of a relict form, preserved in Bulgarian:
{| class="wikitable"
!Language
!Without infinitive
!With relict "infinitive"
!Translation
!Notes
|-
|rowspan="4"| Bulgarian
| "Недей 'да пишеш'."
| "Недей 'писа'."
| Don't write.
|rowspan="4"| The first part of the first three examples is the prohibitative element недей ("don't", composed of не, "not", and дей, "do" in the imperative). The second part of the examples, ''писа'', ''я'', ''зна'' and ''да'', are relicts of what used to be an infinitive form (''писати'', ''ести'', ''знати'' and ''дати'' respectively). This second syntactic construction is colloquial and more common in the eastern dialects. The forms usually coincide with the past aorist tense of the verb in the third person singular, as in the case of ''писа''; those that ''don't ''coincide (as in the last three examples) are highly unusual today, but do occur, above all in older literature.
|-
| "Недей 'да ядеш'."
| "Недей 'я'."
| Don't eat.
|-
| "Недей 'да знаеш'."
| "Недей 'зна'."
| Don't know.
|-
| "Можете ли 'да' ми 'дадете'?"
| "Можете ли ми 'да'?"
| Can you give me?
|}
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.
{| class="wikitable"
!Language
!Example
!Notes
|-
|Macedonian
|Да одиш!
|
|-
|Bulgarian
|Да отидеш!
|
|-
|Serbian (mainly Torlak)
|Да идеш!
|
|-
|Albanian
|Të shkosh!
|
|-
|Modern Greek
|Να πας!
|
|-
|Romany (Gypsy)
|Te dža!
|
|-
|Romanian
|Să te duci!
| rowspan=3 | in Romanian, the "a se duce" (to go) requires a reflexive construction
|-
|Megleno-Romanian
|S-ti duţ!
|-
|Aromanian
|S-ti duts!
|}
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 either an innovation or Albanian borrowing 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.
{| class="wikitable"
! rowspan=2 | Language
! colspan=2 | Feminine
! colspan=2 | Masculine
|-
! without
article
! with
article
! without
article
! with
article
|-
| Albanian
| shtëpi
| shtëpi'a'
| qiell
| qiell'i'
|-
| Aromanian
| muljare
| muljare'a'
| bãrbat
| bãrbat'lu'
|-
| Bulgarian
| жена
| жена'та'
| мъж
| мъж'ът'
|-
| Macedonian
| жена
| жена'та'
| маж
| маж'от'
|-
| Romanian
| muiere
| muiere'a'
| bărbat
| bărbat'ul'
|-
| Serbian Torlak
| жена
| жена'та'
| муж
| муж'от'
|}
The Slavic way of composing the numbers between 10 and 20, e.g. "one + on + ten" for eleven, called superessive, is widespread. Modern Greek does not follow this.
{| class="wikitable"
!Language
!The word "Eleven"
!compounds
|-
| Albanian
| "njëmbëdhjetë"
| një + mbë + dhjetë
|-
| Aromanian
| "unãsprã"
| unã + sprã
|-
| Bulgarian
| "единадесет"
| един + (н)а + десет
|-
| Macedonian
| "единаесет"
| еде(и)н + (н)а + (д)есет
|-
| Romanian
| "unsprezece"
| un + spre + zece <
★ unu + supre + dece
|-
| Serbian
| "једанаест"
| један + (н)а + (д)ес(е)т
|}
Direct and indirect objects are cross-referenced, or doubled, in the verb phrase by a clitic (weak) pronoun, agreeing with the object in gender, number, and case or case function. This can be found in Romanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In Albanian and Macedonian, this feature shows fully grammaticalized structures and is obligatory with indirect objects and to some extent with definite direct objects; in Bulgarian, however, it is optional and therefore based on discourse. In Greek, the construction contrasts with the clitic-less construction and marks the cross-referenced object as a topic. Southwest Macedonia appears to be the location of innovation.
For example, "I see George" in Balkan languages:
{| class="wikitable"
!Language
!Example
|-
|Albanian
|"'E' shikoj Gjergjin"
|-
|Aromanian
|"'U-' ved Yioryi"
|-
|Bulgarian
|"Виждам 'го' Георги." (colloquial form; see note)
|-
|Macedonian
|"'Гo' гледам Ѓорѓи."
|-
|Greek
|"'Τον' βλέπω τον Γιώργο"
|-
| Romanian
| "'Îl' văd pe George."
|}
Note: The neutral case in normal (SVO) word order is without a clitic: "Виждам Георги." However, the form with an additional clitic pronoun is also possible in colloquial speech: "Виждам го Георги." 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. "Георги го виждам."
The replacement of synthetic adjectival comparative forms with analytic ones by means of preposed markers is common. These markers are:
★ Bulgarian: ''по-''
★ Albanian: ''më''
★ Romanian: ''mai''
★ Modern Greek: ''pió''; though Greek has retained a few of the earlier synthetic forms.
★ Aromanian: ''(ca)ma''
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.
Several hundred 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 large number of words of various origins:
{| class="wikitable"
! Source
! Source word
! meaning
! Albanian
! Bulgarian
! Greek
! Romanian
! Macedonian
!Serbo-Croatian
|-
|Latin
|mensa
|table
|menca
|маса (''masa'')
| -
|masă
|маса
| -
|-
|Thracian
|rompea
|spear
|rrufë
|roféja
|ρομφαία (rhomphaía)
| -
|rufja
| -
|-
|Byzantine Greek
|λιβάδιον
|meadow
|livadhe
|ливада (''livada'')
|λιβάδι
|livadă
|ливада
|livada
ливада (''livada'')
|-
|Byzantine Greek
|διδάσκαλος
|teacher
|mësues/arsimtar
|даскал (''daskal'') (colloquial)
|δάσκαλος
|dascăl
|даскал (colloquial)
|-
|Byzantine Greek
|κουτίον
|box
|kuti
|кутия
|κουτί
|cutie
|кутија
|kutija
кутија (''kutija'')
|-
|Turkish
|boya
|paint, color
|bojë/ngjyr
|боя (''boya'')
|μπογιά (boyá)
|boia
|boja
|boja
боја (''boja'')
|}
Apart from the direct loans, there are also many calques that were passed from one Balkan languages to another, most of them between Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Greek and Romanian.
For example, the word "ripen" (as in fruit) is constructed in Albanian, Romanian and (rarely) in Greek (''piqem'', ''a (se) coace'', ψήνομαι) by a derivation from the word "to bake" (''pjek'', ''a coace'', ψήνω).[7]
Another example is the wish "(∅/to/for) many years":
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan=2|Language
!Expression
!Transliteration
|-
|rowspan=2|Greek
|(medieval)
|εις έτη πολλά
|eis etē polla
|-
|(modern)
|χρόνια πολλά
|khronia polla
|-
|colspan=2|Latin
|ad multos annos
|-
|colspan=2|Aromanian
|ti multsã-anj
|-
|colspan=2|Romanian
|la mulţi ani
|-
|colspan=2|Albanian
|për shumë vit
|-
|colspan=2|Bulgarian
|за много години
|za mnogo godini
|-
|colspan=2|Macedonian
|за многу години
|za mnogu godini
|}
Idiomatic expressions for "whether one or not" are formed as "-not-". [8]
{| class="wikitable"
!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"
|-
|Albanian
|''deshti - nuk deshti''
|"whether one wants or not"
|-
|Macedonian
|''сакал - не сакал''
|"whether one wants or not"
|-
|Aromanian
|''i vrei - i nu vrei''
|"whether one wants or not"
|}
The main phonological features consist of:
★ the presence of an unrounded central vowel, either a mid-central schwa or a high central vowel phoneme
★
★ ''ë'' in Albanian; ''ъ'' in Bulgarian; ''ă'' in Romanian
★
★ In Romanian and Albanian, the schwa is obtained via centralizing unstressed
★
★
★ Example: Latin ''camisia'' "shirt" > Romanian ''cămaşă'' , Albanian ''këmishë'' )
★
★ 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.
★ some kind of vowel harmony in stressed syllables with differing patterns depending on the language.
★
★ Romanian: a mid-back vowel ends in a low glide before a nonhigh vowel in the following syllable
★
★ Albanian and Bulgarian: back vowels are fronted before ''i'' in the following syllable.
This feature also occurs in Greek, but it is lacking in some of the other Balkan languages; the central vowel is found in Romanian, Bulgarian, some dialects of Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian, and Albanian, but not in Greek or Standard Macedonian.
Less widespread features are confined largely to either Romanian or Albanian, or both:
★ frequent loss of ''l'' before ''i'' in Albanian, Romanian, and some Romani dialects
★ the alternation between ''n'' and ''r'' in Albanian and Romanian
★ change from ''l'' to ''r'' in Romanian, Greek, Albanian, and very rarely in Bulgarian
★ the raising of ''o'' to ''u'' in unstressed syllables in Bulgarian, Romanian, Albanian and Northern Greek dialects.
★ change from ''ea'' to ''e'' before ''i'' in Bulgarian and Romanian.
Both the appearance of a schwa and the change of ''a'' to ''o'' are considered to originate in Albanian, where the sound changes are complete, widespread, and often constitute morphological markers. Indeed, the change of ''o'' to ''a'' in particular is considered characteristic of the northern branches of Indo-European, such as Germanic and Baltic, and occurs in Messapian, an ancient, extinct language thought to be related to Albanian, constituting an extremely early attestation of this phenomenon.
★ Paleo-Balkan languages
★ Balkan languages
★ Greek grammar
★ Bulgarian grammar
1. Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache, , Jernej K., Kopitar, Jahrbücher der Literatur (Wien),
2. Die Sprachen Europas, , August, Schleicher, , ,
3. Die slavischen Elemente im Rumunischen, , F., Miklosich, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse,
4. K. Sandfeld, ''Linguistique balkanique'', 1930 (first published in Danish in 1926),
5. Chase Faucheux, ''Language Classification and Manipulation in Romania and Moldova'', M.A. thesis, Louisiana State University, 2006 quoting André Du Nay, ''The Origins of the Rumanians: The Early History of the Rumanian Language'', 1996.
6. Languages in Contact, , J., Lindstedt, Rodopi, , ISBN 90-420-1322-2
7. In Greek, usually in the mediopassive voice, and applicable not only to fruits but other natural products: Babiniotis, Λεξικό της νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας (1998), gives the example "φέτος ψήθηκαν νωρίς τα καλαμπόκια".
8. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics, , Donald, Winford, Blackwell Publishing, , ISBN 0-631-21251-5
★ Balkan Linguistic Union Encyclopædia Orbis Latini
★ The Origins of the Rumanians: Balkan Linguistic Union
★ Victor A. Friedman, "After 170 years of Balkan Linguistics: Whither the Millennium?", ''Mediterranean Language Review'' '12':1-15, 2000.PDF -- an excellent survey article
★ Linguistic areas and language history
★ Romanian and the Balkans: Some Comparative Perspectives
★ History of the Romanian language (''Istoria limbii române''), , Alexandru, Rosetti, , ,
★ The Language of the Thraco-Dacians (''Limba Traco-Dacilor''), , Ion, Russu, Editura Ştiinţifică, ,
★ Thomason, Sarah G. ''Language Contact: An Introduction''. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2001, pp. 108-9.
★ The Balkan Sprachbund properties: An introduction to Topics in Balkan Syntax and Semantics
History
The earliest scholar to notice the similarities between Balkan languages belonging to different families was the Slovenian scholar Jernej Kopitar in 1829 [1]. August Schleicher (1850)[2] more explicitly developed the concept of areal relationships as opposed to genetic ones, and Franc Miklošič (1861)[3]studied the relationships of Balkan Slavic and Romance more extensively.
Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1923), Vavilonskaja bašnja i smešenie jazykov, , N.S., Trubetzkoj, Evrazijskij vremennik, Kristian Sandfeld-Jensen (1930),[4] and Gustav Weigand 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”.[5]
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 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:
★ 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 which is transitional between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian)
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
# Serbo-Croatian (especially transitional 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. [6] The results were:
| Language | Score |
|---|---|
| Macedonian | 12 |
| Balkan Slavic | 11.5 |
| Albanian | 10.5 |
| Greek, Balkan Romance | 9.5 |
| Romani (Gypsy) | 7.5 |
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.
Origins
The source of these features as well as the directions have long been debated, and various theories were 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), early researchers, including Kopitar, believed they must be inherited from the ancient indigenous languages (Thracian, Dacian and Illyrian) which formed the substrate for the modern Balkan languages. But since very little is known 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 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 linguistic union, lacking some important features, such as the postposed article.
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 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 the origin of these innovations in Aromanian.
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, while 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.
Most likely areas of language contact
Timeline of contacts
''(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 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 happened before they diverged.
The invasion of the Slavs led to a period of migrations throughout the Balkans which created multi-ethnic communities and this led to the sprachbund beginning around the 8th century; most features were present by the 12th century, but 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.
Features
Grammatical features
Case system
The number of cases is reduced, several cases being replaced with prepositions, the only exception being Serbian. In Bulgarian, on the other hand, this development has actually lead to the loss of all cases except the vocative.
A common case system of a Balkan language is:
★ Nominative
★ Accusative
★ 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'.'' |
| Aromanian | ''U-ded vivlia'pi Maria'. '' | ''Easte vivlia ali'Marie'.'' |
| Bulgarian | Дадох книгата 'на Мария' [dadoh knigata 'na marija'] | Книгата е 'на Мария' [knigata e 'na Marija'] |
| Romanian | ''I-am dat cartea 'Mariei'.'' colloq. for fem. (oblig. for masc.): ''I-am dat cartea 'lui Marian'.'' | ''Este cartea 'Mariei'.'' colloq. for fem. (oblig. for masc.): ''Este cartea 'lui Marian'.'' |
| Macedonian | и ја дадов книгата 'на Марија'. [ì ja dadov knigata 'na Marija'] | Книгата е 'на Марија'. [knigata e 'na Marija'] |
| Greek | Έδωσα το βιβλίο 'στη Μαρία'. [eδosa to vivlio sti maria] ''or'' Έδωσα το βιβλίο 'της Μαρίας'. [eδosa to vivlio tis marias] | Είναι το βιβλίο 'της Μαρίας'. [ine to vivlio tis marias] |
| 'Της' το έδωσα [tis to eδosa] 'I gave it to her.' | Είναι το βιβλίο 'της'. [ine to vivlio tis] 'It is her book.' |
Syncretism of locative and directional expressions
| language | "in Greece" | "into Greece" |
|---|---|---|
| Albanian | ''në Greqi'' | ''në Greqi'' |
| Aromania | ''tu Elladha'' | ''tu Elladha'' |
| Bulgarian | в Гърция (''V Gartsiya'') | в Гърция (''V Gartsiya'') |
| Greek | στην Ελλάδα (''stin Ellada'') | στην Ελλάδα (''stin Ellada'') |
| Macedonian | Во Грција (''vo Grcija'') | Во Грција (''vo Grcija'') |
| Romanian | ''în Grecia'' | ''în Grecia'' |
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 and originating with Greek innovation around the 1st century AD. This feature is present to varying degrees in each language. Decategoralization is less advanced in Romanian ''voi'' and Serbo-Croatian ''ću, ćeš, će'', where the future marker is still an inflected auxiliary. In Modern Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian, decategoralization and erosion have given rise to an uninflected tense form, where the the frozen 3rd person singular of the verb has turned into an invariable particle followed by the main verb inflected for person ! Language
! Variant
! Formation
! Example: "I'll see"
|-
| rowspan=2 | Albanian
| Tosk
| "do" (invariant) + subjunctive
| Do të shikoj
|-
| Gheg
| "kam" (conjugated) + me + verbal noun
| Kam me shik
|-
| Aromanian
|
| "va" (invariant) + subjunctive
| Va s-ved
|-
| Greek
|
| "θα" (invariant) + subjunctive
| Θα δω (''tha do'')
|-
| Bulgarian
|
| "ще" (invariant) + present tense
| Ще видя (''shte vidya'')
|-
| Macedonian
|
|"ќе" (invariant) + present tense
|Ќе видам (će vidam)
|-
| rowspan=2 | Serbian
| (literary standard)
| "хтети" (conjugated) + infinitive
| Ја ћу видети (видећу) (''ja ću videti {videću}'')
|-
| (colloquial)
| "хтети" (conjugated) + subjunctive
| Ја ћу да видим (''ja ću da vidim'')
|-
| rowspan=4 | 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
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. Constructions using the verb ''to have'' are characteristic of 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, following early Greek innovation.
★ 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, clearly due to the influence of the Balkan Sprachbund.
For example, "I want to write" in several Balkan languages:
{| class="wikitable"
!Language
!Example
!Notes
|-
| Albanian
| "Dua 'të shkruaj'"
| as opposed to Gheg 'me fjet' "to sleep" or 'me hangr' "to eat"
|-
| Aromanian
| "Voi 'sã-ngrapsescu'"
|
|-
| Macedonian
| "Сакам 'да пишувам'"
|
|-
| Bulgarian
| "Искам 'да пиша"'
|
|-
| Modern Greek
| "Θέλω 'να γράψω'"
| as opposed to Ancient Greek "βούλομαι 'γράψαι'"
|-
| Romanian
| "Vreau 'să scriu'"
| as opposed to "Vreau 'a scrie'", which is also correct, but rarely used.
|-
| Serbian
| "Желим 'да пишем'"
| 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.
|}
But here is an example of a relict form, preserved in Bulgarian:
{| class="wikitable"
!Language
!Without infinitive
!With relict "infinitive"
!Translation
!Notes
|-
|rowspan="4"| Bulgarian
| "Недей 'да пишеш'."
| "Недей 'писа'."
| Don't write.
|rowspan="4"| The first part of the first three examples is the prohibitative element недей ("don't", composed of не, "not", and дей, "do" in the imperative). The second part of the examples, ''писа'', ''я'', ''зна'' and ''да'', are relicts of what used to be an infinitive form (''писати'', ''ести'', ''знати'' and ''дати'' respectively). This second syntactic construction is colloquial and more common in the eastern dialects. The forms usually coincide with the past aorist tense of the verb in the third person singular, as in the case of ''писа''; those that ''don't ''coincide (as in the last three examples) are highly unusual today, but do occur, above all in older literature.
|-
| "Недей 'да ядеш'."
| "Недей 'я'."
| Don't eat.
|-
| "Недей 'да знаеш'."
| "Недей 'зна'."
| Don't know.
|-
| "Можете ли 'да' ми 'дадете'?"
| "Можете ли ми 'да'?"
| Can you give me?
|}
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.
{| class="wikitable"
!Language
!Example
!Notes
|-
|Macedonian
|Да одиш!
|
|-
|Bulgarian
|Да отидеш!
|
|-
|Serbian (mainly Torlak)
|Да идеш!
|
|-
|Albanian
|Të shkosh!
|
|-
|Modern Greek
|Να πας!
|
|-
|Romany (Gypsy)
|Te dža!
|
|-
|Romanian
|Să te duci!
| rowspan=3 | 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 either an innovation or Albanian borrowing 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.
{| class="wikitable"
! rowspan=2 | Language
! colspan=2 | Feminine
! colspan=2 | Masculine
|-
! without
article
! with
article
! without
article
! with
article
|-
| Albanian
| shtëpi
| shtëpi'a'
| qiell
| qiell'i'
|-
| Aromanian
| muljare
| muljare'a'
| bãrbat
| bãrbat'lu'
|-
| Bulgarian
| жена
| жена'та'
| мъж
| мъж'ът'
|-
| Macedonian
| жена
| жена'та'
| маж
| маж'от'
|-
| Romanian
| muiere
| muiere'a'
| bărbat
| bărbat'ul'
|-
| Serbian Torlak
| жена
| жена'та'
| муж
| муж'от'
|}
Number formation
The Slavic way of composing the numbers between 10 and 20, e.g. "one + on + ten" for eleven, called superessive, is widespread. Modern Greek does not follow this.
{| class="wikitable"
!Language
!The word "Eleven"
!compounds
|-
| Albanian
| "njëmbëdhjetë"
| një + mbë + dhjetë
|-
| Aromanian
| "unãsprã"
| unã + sprã
|-
| Bulgarian
| "единадесет"
| един + (н)а + десет
|-
| Macedonian
| "единаесет"
| еде(и)н + (н)а + (д)есет
|-
| Romanian
| "unsprezece"
| un + spre + zece <
★ unu + supre + dece
|-
| Serbian
| "једанаест"
| један + (н)а + (д)ес(е)т
|}
Clitic pronouns
Direct and indirect objects are cross-referenced, or doubled, in the verb phrase by a clitic (weak) pronoun, agreeing with the object in gender, number, and case or case function. This can be found in Romanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In Albanian and Macedonian, this feature shows fully grammaticalized structures and is obligatory with indirect objects and to some extent with definite direct objects; in Bulgarian, however, it is optional and therefore based on discourse. In Greek, the construction contrasts with the clitic-less construction and marks the cross-referenced object as a topic. Southwest Macedonia appears to be the location of innovation.
For example, "I see George" in Balkan languages:
{| class="wikitable"
!Language
!Example
|-
|Albanian
|"'E' shikoj Gjergjin"
|-
|Aromanian
|"'U-' ved Yioryi"
|-
|Bulgarian
|"Виждам 'го' Георги." (colloquial form; see note)
|-
|Macedonian
|"'Гo' гледам Ѓорѓи."
|-
|Greek
|"'Τον' βλέπω τον Γιώργο"
|-
| Romanian
| "'Îl' văd pe George."
|}
Note: The neutral case in normal (SVO) word order is without a clitic: "Виждам Георги." However, the form with an additional clitic pronoun is also possible in colloquial speech: "Виждам го Георги." 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. "Георги го виждам."
Adjectives
The replacement of synthetic adjectival comparative forms with analytic ones by means of preposed markers is common. These markers are:
★ Bulgarian: ''по-''
★ Albanian: ''më''
★ Romanian: ''mai''
★ Modern Greek: ''pió''; though Greek has retained a few of the earlier synthetic forms.
★ Aromanian: ''(ca)ma''
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 hundred 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 large number of words of various origins:
{| class="wikitable"
! Source
! Source word
! meaning
! Albanian
! Bulgarian
! Greek
! Romanian
! Macedonian
!Serbo-Croatian
|-
|Latin
|mensa
|table
|menca
|маса (''masa'')
| -
|masă
|маса
| -
|-
|Thracian
|rompea
|spear
|rrufë
|roféja
|ρομφαία (rhomphaía)
| -
|rufja
| -
|-
|Byzantine Greek
|λιβάδιον
|meadow
|livadhe
|ливада (''livada'')
|λιβάδι
|livadă
|ливада
|livada
ливада (''livada'')
|-
|Byzantine Greek
|διδάσκαλος
|teacher
|mësues/arsimtar
|даскал (''daskal'') (colloquial)
|δάσκαλος
|dascăl
|даскал (colloquial)
|-
|Byzantine Greek
|κουτίον
|box
|kuti
|кутия
|κουτί
|cutie
|кутија
|kutija
кутија (''kutija'')
|-
|Turkish
|boya
|paint, color
|bojë/ngjyr
|боя (''boya'')
|μπογιά (boyá)
|boia
|boja
|boja
боја (''boja'')
|}
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, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Greek and Romanian.
For example, the word "ripen" (as in fruit) is constructed in Albanian, Romanian and (rarely) in Greek (''piqem'', ''a (se) coace'', ψήνομαι) by a derivation from the word "to bake" (''pjek'', ''a coace'', ψήνω).[7]
Another example is the wish "(∅/to/for) many years":
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan=2|Language
!Expression
!Transliteration
|-
|rowspan=2|Greek
|(medieval)
|εις έτη πολλά
|eis etē polla
|-
|(modern)
|χρόνια πολλά
|khronia polla
|-
|colspan=2|Latin
|ad multos annos
|-
|colspan=2|Aromanian
|ti multsã-anj
|-
|colspan=2|Romanian
|la mulţi ani
|-
|colspan=2|Albanian
|për shumë vit
|-
|colspan=2|Bulgarian
|за много години
|za mnogo godini
|-
|colspan=2|Macedonian
|за многу години
|za mnogu godini
|}
Idiomatic expressions for "whether one
{| class="wikitable"
!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"
|-
|Albanian
|''deshti - nuk deshti''
|"whether one wants or not"
|-
|Macedonian
|''сакал - не сакал''
|"whether one wants or not"
|-
|Aromanian
|''i vrei - i nu vrei''
|"whether one wants or not"
|}
Phonetics
The main phonological features consist of:
★ the presence of an unrounded central vowel, either a mid-central schwa or a high central vowel phoneme
★
★ ''ë'' in Albanian; ''ъ'' in Bulgarian; ''ă'' in Romanian
★
★ In Romanian and Albanian, the schwa is obtained via centralizing unstressed
★
★
★ Example: Latin ''camisia'' "shirt" > Romanian ''cămaşă'' , Albanian ''këmishë'' )
★
★ 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.
★ some kind of vowel harmony in stressed syllables with differing patterns depending on the language.
★
★ Romanian: a mid-back vowel ends in a low glide before a nonhigh vowel in the following syllable
★
★ Albanian and Bulgarian: back vowels are fronted before ''i'' in the following syllable.
This feature also occurs in Greek, but it is lacking in some of the other Balkan languages; the central vowel is found in Romanian, Bulgarian, some dialects of Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian, and Albanian, but not in Greek or Standard Macedonian.
Less widespread features are confined largely to either Romanian or Albanian, or both:
★ frequent loss of ''l'' before ''i'' in Albanian, Romanian, and some Romani dialects
★ the alternation between ''n'' and ''r'' in Albanian and Romanian
★ change from ''l'' to ''r'' in Romanian, Greek, Albanian, and very rarely in Bulgarian
★ the raising of ''o'' to ''u'' in unstressed syllables in Bulgarian, Romanian, Albanian and Northern Greek dialects.
★ change from ''ea'' to ''e'' before ''i'' in Bulgarian and Romanian.
Both the appearance of a schwa and the change of ''a'' to ''o'' are considered to originate in Albanian, where the sound changes are complete, widespread, and often constitute morphological markers. Indeed, the change of ''o'' to ''a'' in particular is considered characteristic of the northern branches of Indo-European, such as Germanic and Baltic, and occurs in Messapian, an ancient, extinct language thought to be related to Albanian, constituting an extremely early attestation of this phenomenon.
See also
★ Paleo-Balkan languages
★ Balkan languages
★ Greek grammar
★ Bulgarian grammar
Notes
1. Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache, , Jernej K., Kopitar, Jahrbücher der Literatur (Wien),
2. Die Sprachen Europas, , August, Schleicher, , ,
3. Die slavischen Elemente im Rumunischen, , F., Miklosich, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse,
4. K. Sandfeld, ''Linguistique balkanique'', 1930 (first published in Danish in 1926),
5. Chase Faucheux, ''Language Classification and Manipulation in Romania and Moldova'', M.A. thesis, Louisiana State University, 2006 quoting André Du Nay, ''The Origins of the Rumanians: The Early History of the Rumanian Language'', 1996.
6. Languages in Contact, , J., Lindstedt, Rodopi, , ISBN 90-420-1322-2
7. In Greek, usually in the mediopassive voice, and applicable not only to fruits but other natural products: Babiniotis, Λεξικό της νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας (1998), gives the example "φέτος ψήθηκαν νωρίς τα καλαμπόκια".
8. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics, , Donald, Winford, Blackwell Publishing, , ISBN 0-631-21251-5
References
★ Balkan Linguistic Union Encyclopædia Orbis Latini
★ The Origins of the Rumanians: Balkan Linguistic Union
★ Victor A. Friedman, "After 170 years of Balkan Linguistics: Whither the Millennium?", ''Mediterranean Language Review'' '12':1-15, 2000.PDF -- an excellent survey article
★ Linguistic areas and language history
★ Romanian and the Balkans: Some Comparative Perspectives
★ History of the Romanian language (''Istoria limbii române''), , Alexandru, Rosetti, , ,
★ The Language of the Thraco-Dacians (''Limba Traco-Dacilor''), , Ion, Russu, Editura Ştiinţifică, ,
★ Thomason, Sarah G. ''Language Contact: An Introduction''. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2001, pp. 108-9.
★ The Balkan Sprachbund properties: An introduction to Topics in Balkan Syntax and Semantics
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
