 | This article includes a list ofgeneral references, butit lacks sufficient correspondinginline citations. Please help toimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(January 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Balkan | |
|---|---|
| Geographic distribution | Balkans |
| Languages | |
TheBalkan sprachbund orBalkan language area is anensemble ofareal features—similarities in grammar, syntax, vocabulary and phonology—among the languages of theBalkans. Several features are found across these languages though not all apply to every single language. The Balkan sprachbund is a prominent example of thesprachbund concept.
The languages of the Balkan sprachbund share their similarities despite belonging to various separatelanguage family (genetic) branches. TheSlavic,Hellenic,Romance andAlbanian branches all belong to the largeIndo-European family, and theTurkish language is non-Indo-European.
Some of the languages use these features for theirstandard 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:
Thereason for these similarities is not a settled question among experts. Genetic commonalities,language contact, and thegeopolitical history of the region all seem to be relevant factors, but many disagree over the specifics and degree of these factors.
The earliest scholar to notice the similarities between Balkan languages belonging to different families was theSlovenian scholarJernej Kopitar in 1829.[4]August Schleicher (1850)[5] more explicitly developed the concept ofareal relationships as opposed to genetic ones, andFranz Miklosich (1861)[6] studied the relationships ofBalkan Slavic and Romance more extensively.
Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1923),[7]Kristian Sandfeld-Jensen (1926),[8] andGustav Weigand (1925, 1928)[9] developed the theory in the 1920s and 1930s.
In the 1930s, the Romanian linguistAlexandru 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 theRomanian linguistAlexandru 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 inGerman, 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:
In 2000, the Finnish linguistJouko Lindstedt computed a Balkanization factor, which gives each Balkan language a score proportional to the number of features shared in the Balkan language area.[11] The results were:
| Language | Score |
|---|---|
| Macedonian | 12 |
| Bulgarian and Torlakian | 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 theJudaeo-Spanish variant that used to be spoken bySephardi 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.
Early researchers, including Kopitar, believed they must have been inherited from thePaleo-Balkan languages (e.g.Illyrian,Thracian andDacian) which formed thesubstrate 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.
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 inMedieval Greek and spread to the other languages through Byzantine influence.[12]
The Roman Empire ruled all the Balkans, andlocal variation of Latin may have left its mark on all languages there, which were later the substrate to Slavic newcomers. This was proposed byGeorg 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 "linguisticcalques" 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]
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 turbulenthistory 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 adrift 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.
The number of cases is reduced, several cases being replaced with prepositions, the only exception being Serbo-Croatian. InBulgarian andMacedonian, on the other hand, this development has actually led to the loss of all cases except thevocative.
A common case system of a Balkan language is:
In the Balkan languages, thegenitive anddative cases (or corresponding prepositional constructions) undergosyncretism.
Example:
| Language | Dative | Genitive |
|---|---|---|
| English | I gave the bookto Maria. | It isMaria's book. |
| Albanian | Librin ia dhashëMarisë. | Libri ështëi Marisë. |
| Aromanian | Vivlia lju dedu ali Marii. | Vivlia easti aliMarii. |
| Bulgarian | Дадох книгатана Мария [dadoh knigatana Marija] | Книгата ена Мария [knigata ena Marija] |
| Romanian | I-am dat carteaMariei. colloq. for fem. (oblig. for masc.): I-am dat cartealui Marian. | Cartea este aMariei. (literally, "The book is Maria's.") or Este carteaMariei. ("It is Maria's book.") colloq. for fem. (oblig. for masc.): Cartea este alui Marian. |
| Macedonian | Ѝ ја дадов книгатана Марија. [ì ja dadov knigatana Marija] | Книгата ена Марија. [knigata ena Marija] |
Greek | Έδωσα το βιβλίοστην Μαρία. [édhosa to vivlíostin María] or Έδωσατης Μαρίας το βιβλίο. [édhosatis Marías to vivlío] | Είναι το βιβλίοτης Μαρίας. [íne to vivlíotis Marías] |
| Της το έδωσα [tis to édhosa] 'I gave it to her.' | Είναι το βιβλίοτης. [íne to vivlíotis] 'It is her book.' |
| 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 thatinto 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.
The future tense is formed in ananalytic 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 Romanianvoi and in Serbo-Croatianću, 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 > invariableva > mod.o).[13] CertainTorlakian 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 |
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. Romanianam promis "I have promised", Albaniankam premtuar "I have promised". A somewhat less typical case of this is Greek, where the verb "to have" is followed by the so-calledαπαρέμφατο ('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 pastactive 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 verbto 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.
The so-calledrenarrative 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, Патотбил затворен in Macedonian means "The road was closed (or so I heard)". Speakers who use theindicative mood instead and state "Патотбеше затворен" imply thereby that they personally witnessed the road's closure.
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.
For example, "I want to write" in several Balkan languages:
| Language | Example | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Albanian | Duatë shkruaj | as opposed to Ghegme fjet "to sleep" orme hangër "to eat" |
| Aromanian | Vroisã sciru / ãngrãpsescu | |
| Macedonian | Сакамда пишувам [sakamda pišuvam] | |
| Bulgarian | Искамда пиша [iskamda piša] | |
| Modern Greek | Θέλωνα γράψω [Thélona grápso] | as opposed to older Greekἐθέλωγράψαι |
| Romanian | Vreausă scriu (with subjunctive) Vreaua scrie (with infinitive) | 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, andMoldova) than inSouthern varieties (Wallachia) of the language.[15] The most common form is still the form with subjunctive. |
| Serbo-Croatian | Želimda pišem /Желимда пишем | As opposed to the more literary form:Želimpisati /Желимпиcaти, wherepisati /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 | isterimyazayım | In Standard Turkish in Turkey this isyazmak istiyorum whereyazmak is the infinitive. |
| Balkan Romani | Mangavte 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 examplemangava 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" askamavte irinel/pisinel — generalized third person singular — orkamavte irinen/pisinen — generalized third person plural). |
But here is an example of a relict form, preserved in Bulgarian:
| Language | Without infinitive | With relict "infinitive" | Translation | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulgarian | Недейда пишеш. | Недейписа. | Don't write. | The first part of the first three examples is the prohibitative elementнедей ("don't", composed ofне, "not", andдей, "do" in theimperative). The second part of the examples,писа,я,зна andда, are relicts of what used to be an infinitive form (писати,ясти,знати andдати respectively). This second syntactic construction is colloquial and more common in the eastern dialects. The forms usually coincide with thepast aorist tense of the verb in the third person singular, as in the case ofписа; some thatdon't coincide (for exampleдоща instead ofще дойда "I will come") are highly unusual today, but do occur, above all in older literature. The last example is found only in some dialects. |
| Недейда ядеш. | Недейяде. | Don't eat. | ||
| Недейда знаеш. | Недейзна. | Don't contradict. | ||
| Можете лида мидадете? | Можете ли мида̀де? | Can you give me? | ||
| Недейдачетеш | Недейчете | Don't read |
Sentences that 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 | Да (си) одиш! | "Оди" [odi] in the imperative is more common, and has the identical meaning. |
| Bulgarian | Да си ходиш! | "Ходи си!" [ho'di si] is the more common imperative. |
| Torlakian | Да идеш! | "Иди!" in the imperative is grammatically correct, and has the identical meaning. |
| Albanian | Të shkosh! | "Shko!" in the imperative is grammatically correct. "Të shkosh" is used in sentence only followed by a modal verbs, ex. in these cases: Ti duhet të shkosh (You should go), Ti mund të shkosh (You can go) etc. |
| Modern Greek | Να πας! | |
| Romany | Te dža! | |
| Romanian | Să te duci! |
|
| Meglenian | S-ti duts! | |
| Aromanian | S-ti duts! |
With the exception of Greek, Serbo-Croatian, and Romani, all languages in the union have theirdefinite article attached to the end of the noun, instead of before it. None of the related languages (like other Romance languages or Slavic languages) share this feature, with the notable exception of thenorthern Russian dialects, and it is thought to be an innovation created and spread in the Balkans. It is possible that postposed article inBalkan Slavic is the result of influence fromEastern Romance languages (Romanian or Aromanian) during the Middle Ages.[16] However, each language created its own internal articles, so the Romanian articles are related to the articles (anddemonstrativepronouns) in Italian, French, etc., whereas the Bulgarian articles are related to demonstrative pronouns in other Slavic languages.
| Language | Feminine | Masculine | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| without article | with article | without article | with article | |
| English | woman | the woman | man | the man |
| Albanian | grua | gruaja | burrë | burri |
| Aromanian | muljari | muljarea | bãrbat | bãrbatlu |
| Bulgarian | жена | жената | мъж | мъжът |
| Greek | γυναίκα | η γυναίκα | άντρας | ο άντρας |
| Macedonian[17] | жена | жената | маж | мажот |
| Romanian | femeie muiere | femeia muierea | bărbat | bărbatul |
| Torlakian | жена | жената | муж | мужът |
The Slavic way of composing the numbers between 10 and 20, e.g. "one + on + ten" for eleven, called superessive, is widespread. Greek does not follow this.
| Language | The word "Eleven" | compounds |
|---|---|---|
| Albanian | "njëmbëdhjetë" | një + mbë + dhjetë |
| Aromanian | "unsprãdzatsi", commonly, "unsprã" | un + sprã + dzatsi |
| Bulgarian | "единадесет" (единайсет also allowed) | един + (н)а(д) + десет |
| Macedonian | "единаесет" | еде(и)н + (н)а(д) + (д)есет |
| Romanian | "unsprezece" or, more commonly, "unșpe" | un + spre + zece < *unu + supre + dece; unu + spre; the latter is more commonly used, even in formal speech. |
| Serbo-Croatian | "jedanaest/једанаест" | jedan+ (n)a+ (d)es(e)t/један + (н)а + (д)ес(е)т. This is not the case only with South Slavic languages (Slovene - "enajst"). This word is formed in the same way in all Slavic languages: Polish - "jedenaście", Czech - "jedenáct", Slovak - "jedenásť", Russian - "одиннадцать", Ukrainian - "одинадцять", Belarusian - "адзінаццаць", Lower Sorbian - "jadnasćo", Upper Sorbian - "jědnaće". |
Albanian has preserved thevigesimal system, which is considered to be an remnant from a Pre-Indo-European language. The number 20 is describednjëzet and 40 asdyzet. In some dialectstrezet '60' andkatërzet '80' still may be used. All other Balkan languages lack at this.[18]
Direct and indirect objects are cross-referenced, ordoubled, in the verb phrase by aclitic (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.[dubious –discuss]
For example, "I see George" in Balkan languages:
| Language | Example |
|---|---|
| Albanian | "E shoh Gjergjin" |
| Aromanian | "U- ved Yioryi" |
| Bulgarian | "Гледамго Георги." |
| Macedonian | "Гo гледам Ѓорѓи." |
| Greek | "Τον βλέπω τον Γιώργο" |
| Romanian | "Îl văd pe Gheorghe." |
Note: The neutral case in normal (SVO) word order is without a clitic: "Гледам Георги." However, the form with an additional clitic pronoun is also perfectly normal and can be used for emphasis: "Гледам 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 гледам."
The replacement of synthetic adjectival comparative forms with analytic ones by means of preposed markers is common. These markers are:
Macedonian and Modern Greek have retained some of the earlier synthetic forms. In Bulgarian and Macedonian these have become proper adjectives in their own right without the possibility of [further] comparison. This is more evident inMacedonian: виш = "higher, superior", ниж = "lower, inferior". Compare with similar structures inBulgarian:висш(-(ия(т))/а(та)/о(то)/и(те)) = "(the) higher, (the) superior" (по-висш(-(ия(т))/а(та)/о(то)/и(те)) = "(the) [more] higher, (the) [more] superior"; 'най-висш(-(ия(т))/о(то)/а(та)/и(те))' = "(the) ([most]) highest, supreme";нисш (also spelled asнизш sometimes) = "low, lower, inferior", it can also possess further comparative or superlative as with 'висш' above.
Another common trait of these languages is the lack of suppletive comparative degrees for the adjective "good" and "bad", unlike other Indo-European languages.
Also, some common suffixes can be found in the language area, such as the diminutive suffix of the Slavic languages (Srb. Bul. Mac.) "-ovo" "-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 eitherGreek,Bulgarian orTurkish, as theByzantine Empire, theFirst Bulgarian Empire, theSecond Bulgarian Empire and later theOttoman Empire directly controlled the territory throughout most of its history, strongly influencing its culture and economics.
Albanian, Aromanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Romanian, Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian also share a large number of words of various origins:
| Source | Source word | Meaning | Albanian | Aromanian | Bulgarian | Greek | Romanian | Macedonian | Serbian | Turkish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vulgar Latin | mēsa | table | mësallë ‘dinner table; tablecloth’ | measã | маса (masa) | — | masă | маса (masa) | — | masa |
| Thracian | romphea, rumpīa | polearm | colloq. rrufe ‘lightning bolt’ | rofélja | dial. руфия (rufiya) ‘thunderbolt’ | anc. ρομφαία (rhomphaía) | — | colloq. ровја (rovja) anddial. рофја (rofja) ‘thunder’ | — | — |
| Ancient Greek | κρόμμυον (krómmyon) | onion | — | — | dial. кромид лук (kromid luk) | κρεμμύδι (kremmýdhi) | — | кромид (kromid) | — | — |
| Byzantine Greek | λιβάδιον (livádion) | meadow | colloq. livadh | livadhi | ливада (livada) | λιβάδι (livádhi) | livadă | ливада (livada) | livada ливада (livada) | — |
| Byzantine Greek | διδάσκαλος (didáskalos) | teacher | obs. dhaskal/icë | dascal | colloq. даскал (daskal) | δάσκαλος (dháskalos) | rare dascăl | colloq. даскал (daskal) | colloq. даскал (daskal) | — |
| Byzantine Greek | κουτίον (koutíon) | box | kuti | cutii | кутия (kutiya) | κουτί (koutí) | cutie | кутија (kutija) | kutija кутија (kutija) | kutu |
| Slavic | *vydra | otter | vidër | vidrã | видра (vidra) | βίδρα (vídra) | vidră | видра (vidra) | видра (vidra) | — |
| Slavic | *kosa | scythe | kosë | coasã | коса (kosa) | κόσα (kósa) | coasă | коса (kosa) | коса (kosa) | — |
| Turkish | boya | paint, color | colloq. bojë | boi | боя (boya) | μπογιά (boyá) | boia | боја (boja) | boja боја (boja) | boya |
Apart from the direct loans, there are also manycalques that were passed from one Balkan language to another, most of them between Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Greek, Aromanian and Romanian.
For example, the word "ripen" (as in fruit) is constructed in Albanian, Romanian and (rarely) in Greek (piqem,a (se) coace, ψήνομαι), in Turkishpişmek by a derivation from the word "to bake" (pjek,a coace, ψήνω).[19]
Another example is the wish "(∅/to/for) many years":
| Language | Expression | Transliteration | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greek | (medieval) | εις έτη πολλά | is eti polla; (See the note below.) |
| (modern) | χρόνια πολλά | khronia polla | |
| Latin | ad multos annos | ||
| Aromanian | ti mullts anj | ||
| Romanian | la mulți ani | ||
| Albanian | për shumë vjet | ||
| Bulgarian | за много години | za mnogo godini | |
| Macedonian | за многу години | za mnogu godini | |
| Serbian | за много годинa | za mnogo godina | |
Note: InOld Church Slavonic[20] and archaicEastern South Slavic dialects, the term сполай(j) ти (spolaj ti) was commonly used in meaningthank you, derived from the Byzantine Greekεἰς πολλὰ ἔτη (is polla eti).[21][22]
Idiomatic expressions for "whether one <verb> or not" are formed as "<verb>-not-<verb>".[23] "Whether one wants or not":
| Language | expression | transliteration |
|---|---|---|
| Bulgarian | ще - не ще | shte - ne shte |
| Greek | θέλει δε θέλει | theli de theli |
| Romanian | vrea nu vrea | |
| Turkish | ister istemez | |
| Serbian | хтео - не хтео | hteo - ne hteo |
| Albanian | do - s'do | |
| Macedonian | сакал - не сакал / нејќел | sakal - ne sakal / nejkjel |
| Aromanian | vrea - nu vrea | |
This is also present in other Slavic languages, e.g. Polishchcąc nie chcąc.
The proposed phonological features consist of:
The first 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 Albanian, and Serbo-Croatian, but not in Greek or Standard Macedonian.
Less widespread features are confined largely to either Romanian or Albanian, or both:
Not all linguists agree there are any phonological features associated with Balkan sprachbund.[24]
{{cite journal}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)| International | |
|---|---|
| Other | |
