In Bulgarian common speech, the Torlakian dialects are traditionally referred to asУ-говори ("U-dialects"), referencing their reflex of old Slavic *ǫ being/u/ (compared to standard Bulgarian, where it is/ɤ/, or its nearby dialects, where it is/a/).
The Serbo-Croatian linguists maintain that Torlakian is a BalkanizedWestern South Slavic dialect together with the South Slavic varieties spoken in northern parts of North Macedonia and in Western Bulgaria (Vuković 2021). Other researchers tend to classify it asEastern South Slavic.[2]Motoki Nomachi maintains that the Torlakian dialects are foreign to standard Serbian in many cases.[3] According to the historianIvo Banac, during theMiddle Ages, Torlak and theEastern Herzegovinian dialect were part ofEastern South Slavic, but since the 12th century, especially the Shtokavian dialects, including Eastern Herzegovinian, began to diverge from the other neighboring South Slavic dialects.[4]
Some of the phenomena that distinguish western and eastern subgroups of the South Slavic languages can be explained by two separate migratory waves of different Slavic tribal groups of the futureSouth Slavs via two routes: the west and east of the Carpathian Mountains.[5]
The Torlakian dialects are intermediate between the Eastern and Western branches ofSouth Slavicdialect continuum,[7][8] and have been variously described, in whole or in parts, as belonging to either group. In the 19th century, they were often calledBulgarian, but their classification was contested between Serbian and Bulgarian writers.[9] Previously, the designation "Torlakian" was not applied to the dialects ofNiš and the neighbouring areas to the east and south.[10]
The Torlakian dialects, together withBulgarian andMacedonian, display many properties of theBalkan linguistic area, a set of structural convergence features shared also with other, non-Slavic, languages of the Balkans such asAlbanian,Romanian andAromanian. In terms of areal linguistics, they have therefore been described as part of a prototypical "Balkan Slavic" area, as opposed to other parts ofSerbo-Croatian, which are only peripherally involved in the convergence area.[9][11][12]
Pavle Ivić, in his textbook of Serbo-Croatian dialectology (1956), treated the "Prizren–Timok dialect zone" as part of the overall Shtokavian zone.[15]
Aleksandar Belić classified the Prizren–Timok dialect as "fundamentally Serbian", as well as claimed that the Western Bulgarian dialects were Serbian.[16]
Dejan Krstić in his scientific paper "Ideas of the Pirot region population that concern the term the Torlaks" has claimed that the term Torlaks was and is used to refer to the bilingual Vlachs in Pirot and Timok area.[17]
Bulgarian researchers such asBenyo Tsonev,Gavril Zanetov and the Macedono-Bulgarian researcherKrste Misirkov[19] classified Torlakian (Bulgarian:Торлашки,romanized: Torlashki) as dialect of the Bulgarian language. They noted the manner of the articles, the loss of most of the cases, etc. Today Bulgarian linguists (Stoyko Stoykov, Rangel Bozhkov) also classify Torlakian as a "Belogradchik-Tran" dialect of Bulgarian, and claim that it should be classified outside the Shtokavian area. Stoykov further argued that the Torlakian dialects have a grammar that is closer to Bulgarian and that this is indicative of them being originally Bulgarian.[20]
Basic Torlakian vocabulary shares most of its Slavic roots with Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbian but also over timeborrowed a number of words fromAromanian,Greek,Turkish, andAlbanian in theGora region of theŠar Mountains. It also preserved many words which in the "major" languages becamearchaisms or changed meaning. Like other features, vocabulary is inconsistent across subdialects, for example, aKrashovan does not necessarily understand aGoranac.
The varieties spoken in the Slavic countries have been heavily influenced by the standardized national languages, particularly when a new word or concept was introduced. The only exception is a form of Torlakian spoken inRomania, which escaped the influence of a standardized language which has existed in Serbia since a state was created after the withdrawal of theOttoman Empire. The Slavs indigenous to the region are calledKrashovani and are a mixture of original settler Slavs and later settlers from theTimok Valley in eastern Serbia.
Bulgarian and Macedonian are the only two modern Slavic languages that lost virtually the entire noun case system, with nearly all nouns now in the survivingnominative case. This is partly true of the Torlakian dialect. In the northwest, theinstrumental case merges with theaccusative case, and thelocative andgenitive cases merge with thenominative case. Further south, all inflections disappear and syntactic meaning is determined solely byprepositions.
Macedonian, Torlakian and a number of Serbian and Bulgarian dialects, unlike all other Slavic languages, technically lack the phonemes[x],[ɦ] or[h]. In other Slavic languages,[x] or[ɦ] (the latter from Proto-Slavic *g in "H-Slavic languages") is common.
The appearance of the letterh in the alphabet is reserved mostly forloanwords andtoponyms within the Republic of North Macedonia but outside of the standard language region. In Macedonian, this is the case with eastern towns such as Pehčevo. In fact, the Macedonian language is based inPrilep,Pelagonia and words such asthousand andurgent areiljada anditno in standard Macedonian buthiljada andhitno in Serbian (also, Macedonianoro,ubav vs. Bulgarianhoro,hubav (folk dance, beautiful)). This is actually a part of anisogloss, a dividing line separating Prilep fromPehčevo in the Republic of North Macedonia at the southern extreme, and reaching central Serbia (Šumadija) at a northern extreme. In Šumadija, local folk songs may still use the traditional form ofI want beingoću (оћу) compared withhoću (хоћу) as spoken in Standard Serbian.
Some versions of Torlakian have retained the syllabic/l/, which, like/r/, can serve the nucleus of a syllable. In most of the Shtokavian dialects, the syllabic/l/ eventually became/u/ or/o/. In standard Bulgarian, it is preceded by the vowel represented by ъ ([ɤ]) to separate consonant clusters. Naturally, the/l/ becomesvelarized in most such positions, giving[ɫ].[22]In some dialects, most notably the Leskovac dialect, the word-final -l has instead shifted into the vocal cluster -(i)ja; for example the word пекал became пекја (to bake). Word-medially however the syllabic /l/ remains unaltered.
Loss of mostgrammatical cases as in Bulgarian and Macedonian (Torlakian, however, retains the accusative case, while Bulgarian and Macedonian do not).
Loss ofinfinitive as in Bulgarian and Macedonian, present in Serbian.
Full retention of the aorist and the imperfect, as in Bulgarian.
Use of adefinite article as in Bulgarian and Macedonian, lacking in Serbian (Torlakian uses three definite articles like Macedonian, a feature lost in standard Bulgarian).
ə forOld Church Slavonicь andъ in all positions:sən,dən (Bulgariansən,den; Serbiansan,dan; Macedonianson,den), including in the place of OCS suffixes -ьць, -ьнъ (Bulgarian -ec, -en; Serbian -ac, -an; Macedonian -ec, -en).
Lack of phonetic pitch and length as in Bulgarian and Macedonian, present in Serbian.
Frequent stress on the final syllable in polysyllabic words, impossible in Serbian and Macedonian (Bulgarianže'na, Serbian and Macedonian'žena).
Preservation of finall, which in Serbian developed too (Bulgarian and Macedonianbil, Serbianbio).
Comparative degree of adjectives formed with the particlepo as in Eastern South Slavicubav, poubav, Serbianlep, lepši.
Lack of epentheticl, as in Eastern South Slaviczdravje/zdrave, Serbianzdravlje
Use ofšto pronoun meaning what, as in Eastern South Slavic rather thanšta as in standard Serbian (što also preserved in some Croatian dialects) and of the standard Bulgariankakvo (often shortened tokvo).
ǫ gave roundedu like in Shtokavian Serbian, unlike unroundedъ in literary Bulgarian anda in Macedonian
vь- gaveu in Western, v- in Eastern
*čr gave cr in Western, but was preserved in Eastern
Distinction between Proto-Slavic/ɲ/ and/n/ is lost in Eastern (S.-C.njega, Bulgariannego).
Voiced consonants in final position are not subject to devoicing (Serbiangrad (written and pronounced), Bulgarian/Macedonian pronounced/grat/
*vs stays preserved withoutmetathesis in Eastern (S.-C.sve, Bulgarianvse, simplified in Macedonian tose)
Accusativenjega as in Serbian, unlike old accusative on O in Eastern (nego)
Nominative plural of nomina on -a is on -e in Western, -i in Eastern
Ja 'I, ego' in Western,(j)as in Eastern
Mi 'we' in Western,nie in Eastern
First person singular of verbs is -m in Western, and the old reflex of *ǫ in Eastern
suffixes *-itjь (-ić) and *-atja (-ača) are common in Western, not known in Eastern
In some Torlakian dialects:
Distinction between the plural of masculine, feminine and neuter adjectives is preserved only in Western (S.C.beli,bele,bela), not in Eastern (beli for masc., fem. and neutr.), does not occur in Belogradchik area; in some eastern regions there is just a masculine and feminine form.
The proto-Slavic *tj, *dj which gave respectivelyć,đ in Serbo-Croatian,št,žd in Bulgarian andќ,ѓ in Macedonian, is represented by the Serbian form in the west and northwest and by the hybridč,dž in the east: Belogradchik and Tran, as well as Pirot, Gora, northern Macedonia. The Macedonian form occurs around Kumanovo.
Literature written in Torlakian is rather sparse as the dialect has never been an official state language. During theOttoman rule literacy in the region was limited toEastern Orthodox clergy, who chiefly usedOld Church Slavonic in writing. The first known literary document influenced by Torlakian[23] dialects is theManuscript from Temska Monastery from 1762, in which its author, the MonkKiril Zhivkovich fromPirot, considered his language "simple Bulgarian".[24]
According to one theory, the nameTorlak derived from theSouth Slavic wordtor ("sheepfold"), possibly referring to the fact thatTorlaks in the past were mainlyshepherds by occupation. Some Bulgarian scientists describe the Torlaks as a distinctethnographic group.[25] Another theory is that it is derived fromOttoman Turkishtorlak ("unbearded youth"), possibly referring to some portion of the youth among them not developing dense facial hair.[26] The Torlaks are also sometimes classified as part of theShopi population and vice versa. In the 19th century, there was no exact border between Torlak and Shopi settlements. According to some authors, during Ottoman rule, a majority of the Torlakian population did not have national consciousness in an ethnic sense.[27]
Therefore, both Serbs and Bulgarians considered local Slavs as part of their own people and the local population was also divided between sympathy for Bulgarians and Serbs.[28] Other authors take a different view and maintain that the inhabitants of the Torlakian area had begun to develop predominantlyBulgarian national consciousness.[29][30][31][32] With Ottoman influence ever weakening, the increase of nationalist sentiment in the Balkans in late 19th and early 20th century, and the redrawing of national boundaries after theTreaty of Berlin (1878), theBalkan wars andWorld War I, the borders in the Torlakian-speaking region changed several times between Serbia and Bulgaria, and later the Republic of North Macedonia.
^Balkan Syntax and Semantics, John Benjamins Publishing, 2004,ISBN1-58811-502-X, The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics, Victor Friedman,p. 123.
^The Serbian Language as Viewed by the East and the West: Synchroniy Diachrony, and Typology (Slavic Eurasian Studies, Vol 28), Slavic-Eurasian Research Center, Sapporo, 2015, p. 36.
^Ivo Banac, The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics, Cornell University Press, 1988,ISBN0-8014-9493-1, p. 47.
^The Slavic Languages, Roland Sussex, Paul Cubberley, Publisher Cambridge University Press, 2006,ISBN1-139-45728-4, p. 42.
^Friedman, Victor (1999).Linguistic emblems and emblematic languages: on language as flag in the Balkans. Kenneth E. Naylor memorial lecture series in South Slavic linguistics; vol. 1. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Dept. of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures. p. 8.OCLC46734277.
^Alexander, Ronelle (2000).In honor of diversity: the linguistic resources of the Balkans. Kenneth E. Naylor memorial lecture series in South Slavic linguistics; vol. 2. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Dept. of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures. p. 4.OCLC47186443.
^Henrik Birnbaum; Victor Terras (1978).International Congress of Slavists, 8. Slavica Publishers. p. 473.ISBN978-0-89357-046-0.Niš is located in a dialect area called prizrensko-južnomoravski; the name torlaški 'Torlak' is now applied to the dialect of the Niš area as well as to neighboring dialects to the east and south.
^Мисирков, Кръстьо (1898). Значението на моравското или ресавското наречие за съвременната и историческа етнография на Балканския полуостров. Български преглед, година V, книга І, стр. 121–127; Мисирков, Кръстьо (1910, 1911). Бележки по южно-славянска филология и история – Към въпроса за пограничната линия между българския и сръбско-хърватски езици и народи, Одеса, 30.XII.1909 г. Българска сбирка.
^Българскиият език през 20-ти век. Василка Радева, Издател Pensoft Publishers, 2001,ISBN954-642-113-8, стр. 280–281.
^Василев, В.П. Темският ръкопис – български езиков паметник от 1764 г, Paleobulgarica, IX (1986), кн. 1, с. 49–72
^Bŭlgarska etnografiia, Nikolaĭ Ivanov Kolev, Izdatelstvo Nauka i izkustvo, 1987, p. 69; Istoricheski pregled, Bŭlgarsko istorichesko druzhestvo, Institut za istoriia (Bŭlgarska akademia na naukite), 1984, p. 16.
^In "The Shaping of Bulgarian and Serbian National Identities, 1800s–1900s, February 2003, Katrin Bozeva, Department of History, McGill University, Montreal. Thesis to fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, claims: "The historical data examined demonstrate that before the establishment of their sovereign states ordinary Serbs and Bulgarians had only a vague idea, if any, of their national identity. The peasantry was accustomed to defining itself in terms of religion, locality and occupation, not in terms of nationality. Once the nation state was established peasants had to be indoctrinated in nationalism. The inculcation was executed through the schooling system, military conscription, the Christian Orthodox Church, and the press. It was through the channels of these state institutions that a national identity cameinto existence... A recent trend in national historiography presents many social rebellions in the Serbian and Bulgarian lands as early attempts to obtain independence from the Sublime Porte... Yet is as well to recall that, in their nascent phases, the uprisings of the 19th century tended to have social causes. Mass national movements were only to be developed when conditions permitted. There is no evidence that earlier conflicts between the Ottoman administration and local Bulgarian and Serbian populations were national in any sense at all."
^According to Nenad Stefanov, PhD in history at Humboldt University of Berlin, the rebellions between 1836 and 1840 in the area of Niš, Pirot and Belogradčik are object of contention between a nationally centered Serbian and Bulgarian historical narrative, both sides claiming they to be a manifestation of Bulgarian national consciousness or respectively loyalty of the rebels to Miloš Obrenović in a Serbian national historiography. He claims, by conceptualizing the relationship of Obrenović to the rebellion not as the protagonist of any national idea, but as one political actor, acting in this concrete context, is possible to avoid a strictly nationalist views. A lot of sources related to the activity of Prince Miloš, shows his interaction and cooperation with the Ottoman authorities, in order to restrain this revolt. For more see: Revolutions in the Balkans, Revolts and Uprisings in the Era of Nationalism (1804–1908), Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens, pp. 27–28. and Südosteuropäische Hefte, 3 (2014) 1, pp. 163–166.
^According to Engin Tanir from Ankara University in his thesis for the degree of master of arts in history, called "The mid-nineteenth century Ottoman Bulgaria from the viewpoints of the French travelers", p, 70:The district of Nish was at the western end of the Danubean Province. It was subdivided into six districts which were Nish, Pirot, Leskovac, Vranje, Prokuplje and Iznebol. According toAmi Boué, who traveled through the region in 1837, Nish was a Bulgarian district and both in the town and in the country Bulgarians formed the great part of the population. Nevertheless,Cyprien Robert claimed that Serbs formed half of the town population. In the Pirot and Leskovac districts, Bulgarians were the main ethnic group, especially in the villages disseminated on the valleys. In the district of Prekoplie, the main ethnic group was Muslim Albanians. According to Boué, Albanians were placed in the Nish sub-province by the Porte to counterbalance the Christian majority and to prevent periodic Bulgarian rebellions. In Vranje, Bulgarians and Muslim Albanians were equally distributed. Turks lived mainly in the chief towns and formed a small minority in the whole of this sub-province. Bulgarians, Serbs and Muslim Albanians were the main ethnic groups.
^According to Mark Pinson's, "Ottoman Bulgaria in the First Tanzimat Period — The Revolts in Nish (1841) and Vidin (1850)," published in peer reviewed journal Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 11, No 2 (May, 1975), pp. 103–146, in Ottoman usage during the period of the Tanzimat (1839–1876), the district of Nish was included in the area designated "Bulgaria" and describes all rebellions in the area at that time, as created by the Bulgarians.
^According to Kyril Drezov, lecturer at the Keele University and leading expert on Balkan politics at the turn of the 20th century, after had gained in 1878 the new territories (between Nis and Pirot), Serbia had successfully assimilated the localtransitional Bulgarians and turned its attention to Macedonia. He cites professor Henry Wilkinson's book "Maps and Politics a Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia", Liverpool University Press, 1951. Wilkinson summarized dozens of ethnographic maps which depicted the demographics of the southern Balkans. From them is apparent that up until the late 19th century the Slavs of today Eastern Serbia were displayed predominantly as Bulgarians. For more: J. Pettifer, The New Macedonian Question, St Antony's, Springer, 1999,ISBN0-230-53579-8, p. 53.
^The Serbian newspaper, Srbske Narodne Novine (Year IV, pp. 138 and 141-43, May 4 and 7, 1841), described the towns of Niš, Leskovac, Pirot, and Vranja as lying in Bulgaria, and styles their inhabitants Bulgarians. In a map made byDimitrije Davidović called "Territories inhabited by Serbians" from 1828 Macedonia, but also the towns Niš, Leskovac, Vranja, Pirot etc. were situated outside the boundaries of the Serbian race. The map of Constantine Desjardins (1853), French professor in Serbia represents the realm of the Serbian language. The map was based on Davidović's work confining Serbians into the limited area north of Šar Planina. For more: G. Demeter et al., "Ethnic Mapping on the Balkans (1840–1925): a Brief Comparative Summary of Concepts and Methods of Visualization" in (Re)Discovering the Sources of Bulgarian and Hungarian History. pp. 65–100.
