Romani | Language Roma Children Council Conseil of Europe De L´Europe in Europe Romani

Home , Bergitka Roma, Kale (Welsh Roma), Languages of Europe, Lovari, Romani language, Romani people

PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMANI | LANGUAGE ROMA CHILDREN COUNCIL CONSEIL OF EUROPE DE L´EUROPE IN EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE

Factsheets on Romani Language: General Introduction 0.0

Romani-Project Graz / Dieter W. Halwachs

The Roma, Sinti, Calè and many other European population groups who are collectively referred to by the mostly pejorative term “gypsies” refer to their language as Romani, Romanes or romani čhib. Linguistic-genetically it is a New Indo-Aryan language and as such belongs to the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages. As an Indo-Aryan diaspora language which occurs only outside the Indian subcontinent, Romani has been spoken in Europe since the Middle Ages and today forms an integral part of European linguistic diversity. The first factsheet addresses the genetic and historical aspects of Romani as indicated. Four further factsheets cover the individual linguistic structural levels: lexis, phonology, morphology and syntax. This is followed by a detailed discussion of dialectology and a final presentation of the socio-linguistic situation of Romani.

1_ ROMANI: AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE OF EUROPE deals with the genetic affiliation and with the history of science and linguistics of Romani andRomani linguistics.

2_ WORDS discusses the Romani lexicon which is divided into two layers: Recent loanwords from European languages are opposed by the so-called pre-European inherited lexicon. The latter allowed researchers to trace the migration route of the Roma from India to Europe.

3_ SOUNDS describes the phonology of Romani, which includes a discussion of typical Indo-Aryan sounds and of variety- specific European contact phenomena.

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS WORK ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHORS AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic (CD-Rom, Internet, etc.) or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior permission in writing from the Publishing Division, Directorate of Communication (F-67075, Strasbourg cedex or [email protected]) COUNCIL OF EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE

4_ FORMS is a description of the morphology according to its traditional division into nouns, verbs and particles and again deals with the dichotomy between European and pre-European elements.

5_ SENTENCES presents the syntax of Romani which is syntactic-typologically classified as an SVO language due to its subject-verb-object sequence in a neutral declarative sentence.

6_ DIALECTOLOGY deals with the plurality of Romani which manifests itself in a variety of dialects and varieties. The rather static representation of the dialect groups in Factsheet 6.0 is verified by a more dynamic view in Factsheet 6.1.

7_ SOCIOLINGUISTICS deals with the socio-political and socio-cultural situation of Romani and discusses both its position and its functionality in the collective linguistic repertoire of different groups of speakers.

The open form of factsheets was also selected for the description of Romani to allow extensions and additions both in the thematic areas and other areas, such as to provide detailed descriptions of individual varieties or dialects. As with the other topics covered, this constitutes an initial step and a basic first presentation and is by no means an exhaustive, final presentation of the subject area.

LITERATURE

In addition to Matras, Yaron. 2002. Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, the standard work on Romani and Romani linguistics which is also repeatedly cited and referenced in the individual factsheets, we would like to refer you to the websites of the two Romani projects involved in the preparation of the factsheets: http://romani.uni-graz.at/romani/ and http://romani.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are indebted to all the authors who contributed actively to the factsheets and the passive contributors who are cited as sources. We are grateful that we could rely on the expertise and support of Mozes F. Heinschink, who i.a. made the Romani Project at the University of Graz possible – and as a consequence also the factsheets – and who has been and still is of great help in all activities related to the topic.

THE LANGUAGE FACTSHEETS‘ TEAM editing: Romani Project Graz | translation: Ulla & Henry Briscoe | layout and design: Marcus Wiesner | coordination: Romani Project at the University of Graz in close cooperation with the Romani Project at the University of Manchester and the Council of Europe project Education of Roma Children in Europe

© Council of Europe. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be PROJECT EDUCATION OF translated, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE (CD-Rom, Internet, etc.) or mechanical, including photocopying, recording http://www.coe.int/education/roma or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior permis- COUNCIL CONSEIL sion in writing from the Publishing Division, Directorate of Communica- http://romani.uni-graz.at/romani OF EUROPE DE L´EUROPE tion (F-67075, Strasbourg cedex or [email protected]) http://www.coe.int http://romani.humanities.manchester.ac.uk PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMANI | LANGUAGE ROMA CHILDREN COUNCIL CONSEIL OF EUROPE DE L´EUROPE IN EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE

Factsheets on Romani Language: ROMANI – An Indo-Aryan Language of Europe 1.0

Romani-Project Graz / Dieter W. Halwachs

Romani and Romanes are the general names for the language of the Roma, Sinti, Kale and all other ethnic groups in Europe who speak or spoke an Indic, or respectively Indo-Aryan language. These population groups are collectively called “Gypsies”, a term mostly used in a derogative sense.

– Romanes is derived from an adverb: Džanes romanes? ‘Do you know/speak “Romani”?’ Romanes is used almost exclusively in German speaking areas.

– Romani is derived from an adjective: Romani čhib ‘Romani tongue, Romani language’. Romani – often spelled Romany in English texts– is used internationally. Moreover, most names in New-Indo-Aryan languages, to whom Romani is genetically affiliated, end in -i: Assami, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Maharathi, Panjabi, etc. The international name thus simultaneously implies its kinship to the language group.

– Roman is used by the Roma of Burgenland for their variety, while the Sinti refer to their varieties as Rómanes (with a stress on the o) or Sintitikes.

In the following we exclusively use the term Romani. Single Romani varieties are labelled as Burgenland Romani, Kalderaš Romani, Lovara Romani, Sepečides Romani, Sinti Romani, Ursari Romani etc.

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS WORK ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHORS AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE.

TRADITIONALLY ITINERANT POPULATIONS SPEAKING INDIC LANGUAGES OUTSIDE OF INDIA

ROM LOM The ROM of Europe EUROPE and adjacent areas in Asia The LOM of Armenia DUM speak Romani. and adjacent Anatolia · speak Lomavren. The ‰UM of Pakistan speak a central Indian ARMENIA diaspora language. ANATOLIA Hunza valley DOM SYRIA LEBANON The DOM of Syria, Lebanon, Israel ASIA and adjacent areas speak Domari. ISRAEL PAKISTAN INDIA

Ill. 1 ROMANI AS A MEMBER OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY OF LANGUAGES

Breton, Irish, Gaelic, Welsh Danish, Dutch, English, Frisian, German, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, etc.

INDO-EUROPEAN Celtic Romance Greek Germanic Albanian

French, Italian, Catalan, Portugese, Provencal, Romansh, Romanian, Spanish, etc. Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Slovenian, Slovak, etc. Ill. 2

of Romani in statements in English, Ger- respectively, by those who emigrated in 1 ROMA, SINTI, KALE, ETC. man, etc. the term has come to be gene- the 19th and 20th centuries from central rally understood and accepted and is and eastern Europe to western Europe The ethnonym Roma or Řoma – ř = /R/ thus to be interpreted as a neologism. and overseas. – is the plural of Rom / Řom ‘husband, Some groups have adopted other Other group-specific names were man’. Most groups use rom and romni labels as well: Romaničal, Kale, Manuš adopted from other languages. These are as kinship terms to mean ‘husband’ and and Sinti are some examples of self-ap- often based on traditional occupations, ‘wife’ respectively, but also as general pellations used by Romani-speaking such as in Kalderaš ‘tinners’ from Ro- designations for persons who are mem- populations. Sinti is used by those sub- manian căldărar, Čurari ‘sieve-makers’ bers of the group – rom ‘(Romani) man’, groups who entered the German spea- from Romanian ciurar, Ursari ‘bear-lea- romni ‘(Romani) woman’. As Sinte Ro- king area at a relatively early point in ders’ from Romanian ursar, Sepeči ‘bas- mani lacks the latter meanings Sinti do time. The Sinti of France refer to them- ket-weavers’ from Turkish sepetçi, not accept Roma as a name for the coll- selves as Manuš resp. Manouche. Roma- Bugurdži ‘drill-makers’ from Turkish ective, ‘the Romani people’. To counter- nichal is found primarily among British bugurcu, Arli or Erli ‘settled’ from Tur- act a widespread error it has to be noted groups. Some of them also claim Gypsi- kish yerli and Lovara ‘horse-dealers’ that rom does not mean ‘human being’. es as their self-designation. Kale ‘blacks’ from Hungarian ló ‘horse’. Instead the general use of the noun is used by the Calé who have been living Non-Roma are usually referred manuš has been observed in Romani. for a long time on the Iberian Peninsular to as gadže – gadžo ‘non-Romani man’, The designation Romas is also and by the Kaale of Scandinavia residing gadži ‘non-Romani woman’. This is an frequent. It is based on the wrong as- in Finland and Sweden. Roma is used as ancient designation for outsiders which sumption of Roma as a singular. As Ro- self-designation among all the groups is also found among the Middle Eastern mas is also used by competent speakers living in central and eastern Europe or, Dom as kaddža, among the Armenian

1 Parts of this chapter have been taken over from the Homepage of the Manchester Romani Project: Matras, Yaron. History of the Romani Language: Names. 4. Aug. 2008 .

2 COUNCIL OF EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE

EXAMPLES WHICH ILLUSTRATE TURNER’S ASSUMPTION OF AN EARLY MIGRATION OF THE ROMA WITHIN INDIA

Innovations shared by Romani with cen- Differences between Romani and central Parallels to innovations in northwest In- tral Indic languages such as Hindi: the- Indic languages: these are conservative dic languages such as Sindhi, which are se regular sound changes both suggest features of Romani as opposed to central not found in the languages of central In- a relation to Sanskrit and a longer resi- Indian innovations, which support the dia, suggest that over a longer period of dence of Romani speakers in the central assumption of an early emigration from time the speakers of Romani resided in Indian area: central India: the northwest of the Indian subcontinent:

‘tree’ ‘blood’ ‘grape’ ‘good’ ‘bent’ ‘tooth’ Sanskrit: þ kí a ra kt a Sanskrit: dr ākíā mi íÝ a Sanskrit: va &k uë da nt aë Romani: ru kh ra t Romani: dr akh mi št o Romani: ba ng o da nd wi &g u ôa nd u Hindi: rū kh rā t ā Hindi: d ākh mī th ā Sindhi: Hindi: bā˜ k a: dā˜ t

Ill. 3

Latvian, Lithuanian Balochi, Farsi/Persian, Kurdish, Luri, Ossetian, Pashto, Mazandarani, Tajik, etc.

Baltic Balto-Slavic Slavic † Anatolian Armenian Iranian Indo-Iranian Indo-Aryan † Tocharian

Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Slovenian, Slovak, etc. Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Maharati, Punjabi, Romani, Sindhi, Urdu, etc.

Lom as kača, and among the different in the Balkans, Muslims (including the same original Indic word for ‘slave’ groups of D. om in India as kājwā, kajjā, Turks and Albanians) are referred to – a designation inspired by the simila- or kājarō. In some regions, more spe- by the Roma as xoraxane or koraxane. rity between Greek sklavos ‘slave’ and cific names are found. For example, Slavs are referred to as das, based on slavos ‘Slav’.

riety of Armenian. The Dom of the Near to the D. om are made already by a numb- 2 ROM, LOM, DOM East, originally metalworkers and enter- er of medieval Indian writers such as tainers, speak Domari, one of the most Alberuni (~1020 CE), the grammarian Romani is the only Indo-Aryan langua- conservative modern Indo-Aryan langu- Hemachandra (~1120 CE), and the Brah- ge used exclusively in Europe since the ages. In the Hunza valley in the north of min historian of Kashmir, Kalhana Middle Ages. It is part of the phenome- Pakistan, the population called the D. um, (~1150 CE). They all describe the D. om non of the so called Indic diaspora lan- who are also metalworkers and musi- as a low-status caste whose typical trades guages spoken by travelling communi- cians, speak a central Indic (i.e. not a included sweeping, making music, jugg- ties of Indian origin outside of India. local) language. [Ill. 1] ling, metal work and basket weaving, in The name Rom or Řom has related co- Based on the systematicity of some areas also seasonal farm-work. Si- gnates in the names employed by other sound changes attested in these langu- milar occupations are still reported for travelling (peripatetic) communities that ages, we know with a fair degree of cer- the ‰om in modern India. The self-desi- speak Indic languages or use a special tainty that these names all derive from gnation d. om > řom thus appears to have vocabulary derived from Indic: the Lom the Indian term dom. . In various parts of originally been a caste-designation, used of the Caucasus and Anatolia insert In- India itself, groups known as D. om are in different regions by different popula- dic vocabulary into Lomavren, their va- castes of commercial nomads. References tions with similar types of trades.

2 This chapter has been taken over from the Homepage of the Manchester Romani Project: Matras, Yaron. History of the Romani Language: Origins. 4. Aug. 2008 .

3 COUNCIL OF EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE

he proves the relationship between Ro- milestone of Romani linguistics. In two ROMANI-LINGUISTICS mani and Indic languages. [Ill. 2] series of articles published between 1872 Critisizing prevailing discrimi- and 1881, Romani is i.a. classified into Up until the end of the 18th century, natory and romanticising prejudices, he different dialects. Miklosich organizes there was nothing but wildest specula- calls the miserable living conditions of the language into thirteen idioms based tions about the origin and the language the Roma on linguistic influences of the various of the Roma. In his 1697 paper titled host countries, differentiating between a political inconsistency, which to “De civitate Norimbergensis commen- Greek, Romanian, Hungarian and other tolerate our enlightened century tario”, Johann Christoph Wagenseil dialects. should be ashamed of. characteristically describes Romani as In 1926, Ralph L. Turner publis- a mixture of German, Jiddish, Hebrew, In 1783, one year after Rüdiger’s text, hes an article called “The Position of and phantasmagorical words, claiming Grellmann’s book titled “Die Zigeuner” Romani in Indo-Aryan”, in which he that: was published. It became the most wi- compares Romani, Sanskrit and various dely known and read work of its time New-Indo-Aryan languages, concluding The first Gypsies were German- and had a significant influence on pu- that there must have been an early rela- born Jews. blic opinion. Grellmann continues tionship of Romani to the central group Even in 1781, the weekly journal “Neu- Rüdiger’s studies on a broad basis; his of Indo-Aryan languages. Thus, the este Mannigfaltigkeiten” published in linguistic explanations are profound. ancestors of the Roma must have lived Temeşvar still reads: Other than Rüdiger, however, he uncri- in the central Indian area, from where tically adopts the stereotypical and dis- they migrated to the northwest of India. Out of the mixing of Ethiopians, criminatory prejudices of his time. There, they must have stayed for a longer Troglodites and Egyptians, there Sixty years later, Pott’s study period of time, as Romani also shares evolved an individual, migrating “Die Zigeuner in Europa und Asien” innovations with New-Indo-Aryan lan- folk, which has retained something marks another milestone in the lingui- guages of the northwest. of all three nations and whose stic discussion of Romani. Pott speci- During the second half of the descendents can be assumed to be fies its origin and thus the origin of the 20th century scientific interest in Roma- today’s Gypsies. Roma. Accordingly, Romani is to be ni intensifies, manifesting itself in both The development of comparative me- attributed to the northern Indic langu- quantity and quality of the publications. thods in linguistics helped to clarify the ages and With Yaron Matras’ comprehensive de- origin of the Roma. Serious discussion scription “Romani: a linguistic introduc- thus holds a blood relation of this topic started with Johann Chri- tion”, which was published in 2002, to the proud Sanskrit. stian Christoph Rüdiger, who in his Romani linguistics finally establishes study of 1782, titled “Von der Sprache It is worth mentioning the work of the itself as an integral part of modern lin- und Herkunft der Zigeuner aus Indien” Slavicist Franz Miklosich as another guistics.

LITERATURE

Two books available in English which offer an overview of Romani language are proposed for further reading: Peter Bakker et al. (2000) What is the Romani Language? Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, which is an easy to read introduction intended for all those who have an interest in the language; Yaron Matras (2002) Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, which is an scientific introduction dealing with all details of Romani in the best way possible.

editing: Romani-Projekt at theUniversity of Graz , coordinated by Dieter W. Halwachs, using materials of the Manchester Romani Project , coordinated by Yaron Matras. | translation: Ines Farcher | layout and graphics: Marcus Wiesner

© Council of Europe. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be PROJECT EDUCATION OF translated, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE (CD-Rom, Internet, etc.) or mechanical, including photocopying, recording http://www.coe.int/education/roma or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior permis- COUNCIL CONSEIL sion in writing from the Publishing Division, Directorate of Communica- OF EUROPE DE L´EUROPE http://romani.uni-graz.at/romani tion (F-67075, Strasbourg cedex or [email protected]) http://www.coe.int PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMANI | LANGUAGE ROMA CHILDREN COUNCIL CONSEIL OF EUROPE DE L´EUROPE IN EUROPE

Words / Lexicon 2.0

Romani-Project Graz / Dieter W. Halwachs

The lexicon of Romani summarises words of Indian origin and of all other languages Romani varieties had contact with. Basically these lexical layers are divided into a pre-European and a European vocabulary.

THE LEXICAL LAYERS OF ROMANI EUROPEAN

Ill. 1 Albanian: mik → miko ‘friend’ Bulgarian: охльов → oxluvo ‘snail’ English: freeze → frizasel ‘freeze’ Finnish: pöksyt → böksi ‘trousers’ böksi French: bave → bava ‘slobber’ German: Schwitz → švico ‘sweat’ punšo Greek: κούκλα → kukla ‘doll’ Hungarian: bika → bika ‘bull’ aviiza Italian: luna → luna ‘moon’ spanguli Latvian: avīze → aviiza ‘newspaper’ Lithuanian: spañguole → spanguli ‘cranberry’ frizasel pleno švico strax Polish: strach → strax ‘fear’ švedkos Romanian: lume → lumja ‘world’ Russian: Плен → pleno ‘captivity’ bava bika Serbian: pomoć → pomoć ‘help’ lumja pomoć Slovak: svedok → švedkos ‘witness’ oxluvo Swedish: punsch → punšo ‘punch’ luna miko xip mula fasuli Spanish: mula→ mula ‘mule’ drom kotor kukla Turkish: fasul → fasuli ‘bean’ oxto

ambrol PRE-EUROPEAN diz

rom Indic: dom(b)a-. → rom ‘husband’ kham Indic: gharma → kham ‘sun’ Persian: amrūd → ambrol ‘pear’ Persian: diz → diz ‘castle’ Armenian: xuph → xip ‘lid’ Armenian: kotor → kotor ‘piece’ Greek: δρόμος → drom ‘road’ Greek: οχτώ→ oxto ‘eight’ WORDS / LEXICON

This “designed” sentence of Lovara Romani demonstrates the Asiatic part of the migration as well as the following way on the Balkan peninsula into Walachian bondage: Ill. 2 source: Heinschink (1999: 178)

PRE-EUROPEAN EUROPEAN

Indic Persian Armenian Greek Slavic Romanian

But rakle avile xurde kočakenca taj krafinenca pe kirčima le podoski.

many boys came little with buttons and with nails into the pub (at) the bridge

‘Many boys came with little buttons and nails into the pub at the bridge.’ ]

‘man’ rom manuš murš ] gadžo

‘woman’ romni manušni džuvli gadži

‘boy’ čhavo [manušoro] [muršoro] raklo -ROMANI +ROMANI NEUTRAL [ [ ‘girl’ čhaj [manušori] [džuvlori] rakli Ill. 3

INTRODUCTION se about 700 roots from Indian, likely the last general layer of the Romani va- no more than 100 roots from Persian rieties spoken in Europe today. There- The lexicon of Romani consists of se- and other Iranian languages, at least fore, the notion of a common lexicon veral layers that can be sub-grouped 20 from Armenian and up to 250 from in Illustration 3 is valid up to praxo, into a pre-European and a Europe- Greek. This total of more than 1000 le- with all further lexemes being variety- an part. The so-called Indian “words xemes, however, does not exist in any specific: lumja, a loan from Romani- of origin” and the either “earlier” or variety in its full amount. “Recent” an, pertains to the lexical inventory of “later” loans from Persian, Armeni- loans adopted at a later point in time Kalderaš Romani; kolopa, stemming an, and Byzantine Greek make up the stem from a range of different Europe- from Hungarian, is used in Lovara Ro- pre-European lexicon. These “inheri- an languages of contact (Ill. 2). Among mani, and berga, which was adopted ted words” (Boretzky 1992) compri- these, loans from Southern Slavic form from German, is used in Sinti Romani.

of time or whether they were engaged in with numerals of Indian origin, only THE LEXICON AS ROAD MAP a slow process of transition. Since Ro- comprise Greek loans (Ill.5). mani does not dispose of any Arabic lo- The fact that there are no Turkish The pre-European loan strata of Romani ans at all, it can be assumed that Romani loans found among the Romani varieties have made possible a reconstruction of speakers must have left the Persian regi- of speakers who immigrated into Europe the migratory route followed by Romani on before its Arabisation, that is, before via the Balkans leads to the assumption speakers. After their emigration from the the hybridisation of the Iranian and Ara- that their emigration from Asia Minor northwest of the Indian subcontinent, bic cultures. Most likely, they moved on must have taken place before the region the first sustainable language contact via Armenia into the Byzantine Empire, was Turkisised, that is, before the hybri- took place in what was at the time Sas- where they stayed for a longer period of disation of the Arabic-Iranian-Islamic sanide Persia. As a consequence, there time. This assumption is supported by and Byzantine-Greek cultures under Os- are elements in the Romani lexicon that loans from Armenian on the one hand, manian political dominance. The Roma can be traced back to middle Persian and a strong influence of Byzantine living in Europe today did not take part Pahlevi. It is impossible to define the Greek that by far exceeds mere lexical in this process. The varieties spoken by duration of this contact. In fact, it is un- loans, on the other. This heavy influence the Roma that remained to dwell in the clear whether Romani speakers actually on Romani is also reflected in the cardi- Balkans and who were later influenced dwelled in the region for a longer period nal numbers listed below, which, along either directly or indirectly by Osmanic-

2 COUNCIL OF EUROPE PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE

THE LEXICAL STRATA OF ROMANI Ill.4

PRE-EUROPEAN EUROPEAN

Indic Persian Armenian Greek Slavic Romanian Hungarian German

kham veš khoni drom praxo lumja kolopa berga

‘sun’ ‘wood’ ‘suet’ ‘road’ ‘dust’ ‘world’ ‘hat’ ‘mountain’ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ inc. per. arm. grc. sla. ron. hun. ger. gharma veša khoni drómos prax lume kalap Berg

THE CARDINAL NUMBERS OF ROMANI Ill.5

jekh duj trin štar pandž šov efta oxto enja deš biš tr(ij)anda saranda šel

‘one’ ‘two’ ‘three’ ‘four’ ‘five’ ‘six’ ‘seven’ ‘eight’ ‘nine’ ‘ten’ ‘twenty’ ‘thirty’ ‘fourty’ ‘hundred’ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ inc. inc. inc. inc. inc. inc. grc. grc. grc. inc. inc. grc. grc. inc. . ekka- d(u)vā trīn .i catvāra pañca- śaś/śat éftá óxtó énnjá daśa- vimśati triánta saránta śata

Islamic culture, of course also dispose of case of the Romani variety spoken by Walachia and Moldavia shared by the- Osmanic-Turkish loans. However, these the Finnish Kaale, for instance, lexemes se groups. Consequently, the latter are loans are to be defined as pertaining to from German suggest an early contact summarized as Vlax-Roma; the Roma- the European part of the lexicon along with the German language and most ni varieties spoken by them are accor- with all other loans from Slavic on- likely also point to a period of time dingly labelled Vlax Romani. As to the wards, which in numbers dominate in all spent in the German speaking area. Ro- Kalderaš, elements from Russian that Romani varieties. manian elements in the lexicon of many are found in present Swedish, French, The European loan strata of Ro- present Romani varieties worldwide, North and South American Romani va- mani varieties provide clues as to the such as Kalderaš, Gurbet and Čurara rieties, point to the fact that the group further migratory route taken by indi- Romani, call to mind a common past must have crossed Russia in the course vidual Romani groups in Europe. In the characterized by bondage and slavery in of their migration.

at majority consists of words of Indian to ethnic criteria, marked in the ta- BASIC VOCABULARY origin, Romani can be characterised as a ble by the feature of [± romani]. For New Indo-Aryan language from a lexical ethnically neutral terms, the pair of The lexicon of individual Romani vari- perspective as well.1 murš / džuvli focuses gender difference, eties by a great majority consists of Eu- The basic vocabulary covers while manuš / manušni emphasize the ropean loans. Moreover, each word of existentially important basic domains; “human” aspect. The neutral terms the respective contact language is also a these are areas close to the human being for ‘boy’ / ‘girl’ given in parenthesis potential Romani lexeme that can be in- concerning life and the environment. Ac- are more or less common diminutive tegrated if necessary. However, as the cording Romani terms such as personal forms of the corresponding terms for so-called basic vocabulary – that is desi- designations, for instance, can be traced ‘man’ / ‘woman’. gnations expressing existentially impor- back to Indian (Ill 3). Designations for human beings, es- tant entities, states, and processes – of What is striking in this re- sentially of Indo-Aryan origin, also func- each individual Romani variety by a gre- spect, is the differentiation according tion as kinship terms. Accordingly, terms

1 A similar situation holds true for English. Even though only about one third of the English vocabulary is “Western Germanic” by origin, English is classified as a Western Germanic language, due to the fact that its basic vocabulary largely pertains to this third.

3 COUNCIL OF EUROPE PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE

GENERATION → +2 +1 Ø -1 -2 GRADE ↓

‘grandson’ čhavo phral dad papu(s) DIRECT ‘granddaughter’ čhaj phen daj mami

‘nephew’ ‘male cousin’ kak(o) INDIRECT ‘niece’ ‘female cousin’ bibi Ill. 6

ivend ← inc. hemanta ‘winter’ rat ← inc. rātrī ‘night’ kurko ← grc. kuriaké ‘week, sunday’

nilaj ← inc. nidāgha ‘summer’ berš ← inc. var sa. ‘year’ ciros ← grc. kairós ‘time’

dives ← inc. divasa ‘day’ masek ← inc. māsa ‘month’ Ill. 7

describing direct relatives of the same ge- terms are either variety-specific loans examples from the domain of time, a gre- neration – rom / romni ‘husband’ / ‘wife’, from European contact languages or pa- at majority of according items is com- and phral / phen, ‘brother’ / ‘sister’ – as raphrases. Illustration 6 summarizes the posed by lexemes of Indo-Aryan origin well as those designating relatives of the kinship system and the lexical layers of (Ill.7). following and directly previous genera- the according terms from an individual’s Similarly to almost all other ba- tions – čhavo / čhaj ‘son’/ ‘daughter’ and point of view (Ill.6). sic areas, this domain also contains some dad / daj ‘father’ / ‘mother’ – have Indi- The human body is another ba- pre-European loans along with terms of an origins. sic domain with a great majority of terms Indic origin. As these loans frequent- In contrast, terms for the grand- with Indic origin: these terms compri- ly originate from Byzantine Greek, Ro- parent generation are loans from Greek se the body parts, functions, movements, mani speakers can be assumed to have – papus / mami ‘grandfather’ / ‘grand- physical and mental states, etc. Numerals stayed in Asia Minor for a longer period mother’. Terms designating indirect (Ill.5), as well as terms describing nature of time characterized by intense langu- relatives of the first previous generation, – landscape, weather, plants, animals, etc. age contact. The resulting influence of that is the generation of parent siblings, – terms for shelter, tools and basic foods Greek on Romani goes far beyond the also belong to the early loans and most along with terms describing professions lexical domain and is thus further sub- likely stem from Persian – kak / bibi and social functions, also belong to the ject matter in the presentation of Ro- ‘uncle’ / ‘aunt’. All of the other relational basic vocabulary. As demonstrated by the mani morphology and syntax.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The most extensive lexical resource of Romani is ROMLEX: http://romani.uni-graz.at/romlex/. Valuable information is i. a. provided in: Boretzky, Norbert (1992) Zum Erbwortschatz des Romani, Zeitschrift für Phonetik Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 45, p. 227–251. | Boretzky, Norbert / Igla, Birgit (1994) Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum: Mit einer Grammatik der Dialektvarianten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. | Heinschink, Mozes (1999) Sprachen der Sinti und Roma, In: Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Kienpointner, Manfred / Kalb, Helmut (eds.) Sprachen in Europa. Innsbruck: p. 177–190. | Matras, Yaron (2002) Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. | Sampson, John (1926) The Dialect of the Gypsies of Wales. Being the Older Form of British Romani Preserved in the Speech of the Clan of Abram Wood. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [reprint 1968]

Dialects / Dialectology I. 6.0

Manchester Romani Project / Yaron Matras

There is a tendency in Romani linguistics to identify, tentatively at least, the dialect groups of the Balkan Dialects, the Vlax Dialects, the Central Dialects, the Northwestern Dialects, the North- eastern Dialects, the Britisch Dialects and the Iberian Dialects.

ROMANI DIALECT GROUPS Ill. 1

BALKAN VLAX CENTRAL

ARLI “zis-dialects” Southern Northern Southern Northern

Krim Bugurdži Agia Varvara KALDERAŠ Roman Bergitka

Sepečides Drindari Čergari LOVARI “ROMUNGRO” Bohemian

URSARI Kalajdži GURBET Mačvaja Vend East-Slovak

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

NORTHEAST NORTHWEST BRITISH IBERIAN

Lithuanian Sinte Manuš Finnish Welsh (Caló)

Lotfika Estrexarja (Scandoromani) (Angloromani) (Errumantxela)

Polska Manouche

Xaladitka RÓMANES

etc. etc. CAPITALS = dialect clusters ( ) = Para-Romani varieties1

lexicon, phonology, morphology – of the As a result, is not unusual to find diffe- DIALECT CLASSIFICATION dialects. In the latter case, it is necessary rent classification models. There is also to select those features that are of global an objective difficulty: Some dialects There is no ‘easy’ way to classify di- relevance and that can be used as a re- may share ‘typical’ features with two dialects. One must first select the criteria ference grid to compare the different distinct dialect branches. Such transitional on which a classification is to be based. alects and to determine the relationships dialects are part of any linguistic lands- Sometimes dialect classification is based among them. Scholars often disagree on cape. It is therefore almost impossible strictly on geography, sometimes it is which features should be given greater to postulate clear-cut divisions between based strictly on the structural features – attention as a basis for a classification. dialect groups or ‘branches’.

1 Para-Romani varieties are ethnolects of the respective majority language with (mostly lexical) elements from Romani; e.g. Angloromani is a variety of English with Romani elements. Speakers of such varieties often label their ethnolects “their Romani language”. DIALECTS / DIALECTOLOGY I.

THE BALKAN DIALECTS Ill. 2a THE VLAX DIALECTS Ill. 2b

ZIS-DIALECTS NORTHERN VLAX (BALKAN) DIALECTS

BLACK SEA BLACK SEA

BALKAN SOUTHERN VLAX DIALECTS DIALECTS

Several factors are responsible for dialect differentiation –– The geographical spread of structural changes, creating in Romani: ‘isoglosses’ –– The influence of contact languages –– The migration of Romani-speaking populations throughout –– Specific changes that are limited to the structure of indivi- Europe, in different periods dual dialects

Drindari, Kovački, Kalajdži and Bugurdži (but note that these are THE BALKAN DIALECTS occupational designations, and are sometimes also found among groups speaking other types of dialects). [Ill. 2a] Balkan dialects of Romani (also called: ‘Southern Balkan’, The diagnostic of characteristic features ‘Southern Balkan I’) are spoken in Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, of this group of dialects include: Macedonia, Albania, Serbia (Kosovo), Romania, Ukraine, and Iran. Dialects belonging to this group include Arli (Mace- • Demonstratives kaka or kəka donia, Kosovo, Greece), Erli (Bulgaria), Mečkar (Albania), • Loan verbs are adapted with -iz- Sepeči (Greece, Turkey), Ursari (Romania), Crimean Romani • z- in zis ‘day’ and zi ‘soul’ (Ukraine), Zargari (Iran), and others. [Ill. 2a] • c- in buci ‘work’ and cin- ‘to buy’ • reduction of -e- kerela > kerla ‘s/he does’ The diagnostic of characteristic features of this group of dialects include: • sine for ‘he/she was’ THE SOUTHERN VLAX DIALECTS • Third person pronouns ov, oj, on • Shortened possessive pronouns mo ‘my’, to ‘your’ These dialects are spoken in Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia, • Demonstratives akava and adava, sometimes akavka Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, southern Romania, Bulga- • Loan verbs are usually adapted with -in- (but -iz- ap- ria, Greece, Albania, and Turkey. They include the dialects of pears in the Black Sea region) the Gurbet or Džambazi and groups known by other names • 2nd pl. past tense -en in tume kerden ‘you.PL did’ such as Kalburdžu and Čergar. [Ill. 2b] • Future tense in ka, sometimes ma Their diagnostic features include: • seha or sesa for ‘he/she was’ THE BALKAN ZIS-DIALECTS • Third person pronouns vov, voj, von • Possessive mənro ‘my’, čo ‘your’ These dialects (also called: ‘Drindari-Bugurdži-Kalajdži group’, • Demonstrative gava ‘Southern Balkan II’) are spoken in northern and central Bulga- • Nominal plural endings in -uri, -ura ria and Macedonia. They include the dialects of the Drandari/ • Loan verbs are adapted with -isar-

2 COUNCIL OF EUROPE PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE

THE CENTRAL DIALECTS Ill. 2c THE “NORTHERN” DIALECTS Ill. 2d

NORTHERN CENTRAL NORTHWESTERN DIALECTS DIALECTS

EUROPE

SOUTHERN CENTRAL NORTHEASTERN DIALECTS DIALECTS

• Past tense and copula 1.SG in -em as in sem ‘I am’ • 2nd pl. past in -en in tume kerden ‘you.PL did’ SOUTHERN CENTRAL DIALECTS • Future tense in ka • Negation in in or ni These dialects are spoken in Hungary, Slovakia, northern Slo- • dž- in dživeh ‘day’ venia, eastern Austria, Ukraine, Romania. They include the di- • -č- in buči ‘work’ alects of the Romungri, Vend and Burgenland Roman. [Ill. 2c] • -rn- in marno ‘bread’ Their diagnostic features include: • -ej in dej ‘mother’ • a- in ašunav ‘I hear’ • sina for ‘he/she was’ • Third person pronouns ov, oj, on • Demonstratives in ada NORTHERN VLAX DIALECTS • Loan verbs are adapted with -in- • 2nd sg. past and copula -al as in sal ‘you are’ These dialects are spoken in Romania, Moldova, Hungary, • kereha for ‘you shall do’ Serbia, as well as in migrant communities worldwide. The • Imperfect in -ahi most widespread and well-known Northern Vlax dialects in- • -h- in leha ‘with him’ clude Kelderaš (Kalderaš), Lovari, Čurari and the dialect of • Loss of final-s as in dive, di ‘day’, va ‘hand’ the Mačvaja. [Ill. 2b] • -r- in maro ‘bread‘

Their diagnostic features include: • sas for ‘he/she was’ NORTHERN CENTRAL DIALECTS • Third person pronouns vov, voj, von • Possessives muro ‘my’, čiro ‘your’ These are spoken in Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Ukra- • Nominal plural endings in -uri, -ura ine. They include East Slovak Romani and the dialect of the • Loan verbs are adapted with -isar-, -osar- or shortened Bergitka Roma of Poland. [Ill. 2c] forms -i-, -o-. Their diagnostic features include: • 1st person past tense in -em • džes for ‘day’ • ehas or has for ‘he/she was’, hin for ‘he/she is’ • -č- or -kj- in buči, bukji ‘work’ • Third person pronouns jov, joj, jon • Negation in či • Demonstratives in kada • ž- in žanav ‘I know’ • Loan verbs are adapted with -in- • š- in šavo ‘child’ • 2nd sg. past and copula -al as in sal ‘you are’ • -nr- or -nř- in manro, manřo ‘bread’ • kereha for ‘you shall do’ • -ej in dej ‘mother’, • Imperfect in -as • khanči for ‘nothing’ • -h- in leha ‘with him’; -r- in maro ‘bread’

3 COUNCIL OF EUROPE PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE

• Demonstratives in adava, dava NORTHWESTERN DIALECTS • 2nd pl. past in -e as in tume kerde ‘you.PL did’ • 3rd pl. past in -ine as in jone kerdine ‘they did’ Spoken in Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Netherlands, • 3rd sg. past in -a as in jov kerdja ‘he did’ Belgium, Finland. They include the Sinti-Manuš dialects of • Loan verbs are adapted with -in- Germany, France and surrounding regions, as well as Fin- • pšal for ‘brother’, nish Romani or Kaale dialect. [Ill. 2d] • -r- in maro ‘bread’ • Their diagnostic features include: • his for ‘he/she was’ (Sinti only) OTHER DIALECT GROUPS • Third person pronouns jov/job, joj, jon • Demonstratives in kava Some additional dialects show their own distinct features. This • Loan verbs are adapted with -av- or -ar- is due either to a period of isolation from other dialects, or to • 2nd sg. past and copula -al as in sal/hal ‘you are’ the development of features shared with several different di- • -h- in leha ‘with him’ alect branches. As separate groups we can define the following: • h- in hom ‘I am’ and ho ‘what’ (Sinti only) • -r- in maro ‘bread’; long vowel in diives ‘day’ –– British Romani, including English Romani and Welsh • Romani (now extinct, and surviving as a vocabulary only, known as ‘Angloromani’) NORTHEASTERN DIALECTS –– Iberian Romani, including Spanish Romani, Catalonian Romani, and Errumantxela (Basque Romani), (all extinct, Spoken in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Bela- and surviving as a vocabulary only, known as ‘Caló’) rus, Ukraine. They include the Polska Romani dialect, the –– The Romani dialects of southern Italy, including Abruzzi- North Russian or Xaladitka Romani dialect, the dialects of an and Calabrian Romani Latvia (Lotfitka), Lithuania, etc. [Ill. 2d] –– The Slovene Romani dialect (also known as Istriani, Hrva- ti or Dolenjski) Their diagnostic features include: –– The Romani dialects of Iranian Azerbaijan, Zargari and • isys for ‘he/she was’ Romano (although these have very close connections to • Third person pronouns jov, joj/jej, jone the Balkan dialects, see above)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bakker, Peter, and Matras, Yaron. 1997. Introduction. In: Matras, Yaron, Bakker, Peter, and Kyuchukov, Hristo. eds. The typology and dialectology of Romani. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. vii-xxx. | Boretzky, Norbert. 1999a. Die Gliederung der Zentralen Dialekte und die Beziehungen zwischen Südlichen Zentralen Dialekten (Romungro) und Südbalkanischen Romani-Dialekten. In: Halwachs, Dieter W., and Menz, Florian. Eds. Die Sprache der Roma: Perspektiven der Romani-Forschung in Österreich im interdisziplinären und internationalen Kontext. Klagenfurt: Drava. 210-276. | Boretzky, Norbert. 1999b. Die Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen den Südbalkanischen Romani-Dialekten. Mit einem Kartenanhang. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. | Boretzky, Norbert. 2000b. South Balkan II as a Romani dialect branch: Bugurdži, Drindari, and Kalajdži. Romani Studies, fifth series, 10: 105-183. | Boretzky, Norbert. 2003. Die Vlach-Dialekte des Romani. Strukturen – Sprachgeschichte – Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse – Dialektkarten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. | Kaufman, Terrence. 1979. Review of Weer Rajendra Rishi, Multilingual Romani Dictionary. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 19: 131-144. | Matras, Yaron. 2002. Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: CUP. (chapters 2 and 9). | Matras, Yaron. 2005. The classification of Romani dialects: A geographical-historical perspective. In: Schrammel, Barbara, Halwachs, Dieter W. & Ambrosch, Gerd, eds.: 7-26. | Schrammel, Barbara, Halwachs, Dieter W. & Ambrosch, Gerd, eds. 2005. General and Applied Romani Linguistics. Munich: Lincom.

Dialects / Dialectology II. 6.1

Manchester Romani Project / Yaron Matras

The divisions between the dialects can be plotted in the form of lines on the map, each line or ‘isogloss’ representing a difference in the realisation of a particular structural feature.

THE NORTH-SOUTH DIVIDE Belarus Ill. 1

Russia Poland xač-, gi/zi/dži, men, stariben CAPITALS = dialect clusters ( ) = Para-Romani varieties1 Ukraine khar-, sa-, mal Slovakia graj, -ipen/-iben France Austria jov, jaro; tikno phabar-, ilo, kor, phanglipen

ge(l)ja(s), beš-t-om Italy akhar-, asa-, amal maro grast, -ipe/-ibe (v)ov, (v)an(d)ro; cikno gelo/geli, beš-l-om man(d)řo

INTRODUCTION and clans differed only slightly before ring which distinct regional Romani they migrated into Europe between the identities emerged. This period left its Romani dialects have been grouped late fourteenth and fifteenth century. mark on the speech forms of Roma in mainly on the basis of their geographical Although they were often known as various locations. Each community de- location: The conventional classificatory Travellers due to their specialisation veloped its own structural preferences grid recognises a Northwestern, Nor- in itinerant trades, most Roma did not and adopted influences from the new theastern, Central, Vlax (centred around habitually travel long distances but re- contact languages. Documentation of Romania and neighbouring regions) and mained in familiar regions, interacting Romani proliferated in the early eigh- Balkan group, of which the latter three with a familiar population of settled teenth century, with scholars taking a are each further sub-divided into a nor- clients. They acquired local languages, keen interest in the language. By this thern and a southern sub-group. This took on local religions, and adopted a time, Romani dialects were already as suggests that the divisions between the role in local economies. Hybrid iden- diverse as we know them today. dialects can be plotted in the form of tities developed as each Romani po- The divisions between the di- lines on the map, each line or ‘isogloss’ pulation accommodated to its new en- alects are largely the result of changes representing a difference in the realisa- vironment while maintaining its own that accumulated since the disper- tion of a particular structural feature. language, beliefs and customs. sion of Romani populations throug- How do such geographical divisions in The period that followed set- hout the European continent. Some of the form of isoglosses come about? tlement in the individual regions in the changes were local, limited to the It is likely that the speech the sixteenth and seventeenth centu- speech form of several households or forms of different Romani families ries was a period of rapid change du- a group of closely related clans in a DIALECTS / DIALECTOLOGY II.

THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN SPREADZONE Ill. 2 THE THREE-ZONE PARTITION Finland Ill. 3

Finland jame, jach- United Denmark jone/vone United 2SG -an Kingdom 2PL -e Kingdom lesa me, ch- anglal/angil udar jon Poland

2SG -al Poland 2PL -an Ukraine leha France glan/gil Slovakia vudar Ukraine Hungary Italy ame, ach- Hungary Croatia on/von France Italy Romania 2PL -an/-en anglal/angil

small region. Roma continued to main- ties. The passing of structural innova- map we are therefore reconstructing the tain contact networks with other Roma tions from one community to another path of their historical diffusion among after settlement, and many changes is known as ‘diffusion’. When plotting population groups and so across geo- were passed on to other communi- the spread of structural features on the graphical space.

har‑, sa‑ ‘to laugh’ for asa‑, and more. preposition katar ‘from’, which is reta- THE NORTH-SOUTH SPLIT There is also a preference for initial jo- ined in Finnish Romani, and the assimi- tation in selected words, among them lation of verbs of motion and change of The differentiating features that capture jaro ‘egg’ and the 3rd person pronouns state into the dominant verb inflection our attention and are most relevant to jov ‘he’ etc., and the simplification of the and disappearance of gender-inflected a general classification of dialects are historical cluster n. d. to r in words like past-tense forms of the type gelo ‘he those that separate the entire Romani- jaro ‘egg’ and maro ‘bread’. The south, went’, geli ‘she went’ (equally retained speaking landscape into identifiable by contrast, maintains non-jotated forms in Finnish Romani). zones. In relation to several prominent and consonant clusters, as in (v)ov ‘he’, A series of lexical preferences features in phonology, morphology and an(d)ro ‘egg’, man(d)ro ‘bread’. spread throughout the north, while in- lexicon, there is a tendency toward a The remarkable coherence of herited variation often continues in the north-south split, with innovations oc- the northern area, from Britain to Fin- south. The north has xač‑ ‘to burn’ (in curring on both sides of the divide. This land, the Baltics and northern Russia, the south phabar‑) and stariben ‘prison’ division line tracks the older (sixteenth- might lead us to believe that the indivi- (phanglipe in the south, but also in Fin- seventeenth century) frontier zone bet- dual dialects split away from an earlier nish Romani), as well as angušt ‘finger’ ween the Habsburg Monarchy and the group that had settled around the Ger- (naj in the south), derivations of gi for Ottoman Empire. The political bounda- man-Polish contact area. Note that the ‘heart’ (ilo in the south), and men ‘neck’ ry prevented contacts between Roma on Romani dialects of the Iberian peninsula (kor in the south). either side and blocked the diffusion of tend to remain conservative with respect In the south, the epicentre of innovations, creating a dense and cons- to these features, indicating that they innovation appears to be Romania and picuous cluster of isoglosses [Ill. 1]. were not part of the network of contacts adjoining regions. Prominent southern In the north, syllable truncation that enabled their diffusion in the north. innovations include the loss of the na- is triggered in all likelihood by a shift A number of developments fail to reach sal segment at the end of the nominali- to word-initial stress as a result of Ro- Finland and appear to have been adopted sing suffix ‑iben/‑ipen, and affrication mani-German bilingualism. We find mal after the breakaway of the Scandinavian in tikno ‘small’ > cikno predominates in ‘friend’ for amal, khar‑ ‘to call’ for ak- sub-group. They include the loss of the the south, though the southern Balkans

2 COUNCIL OF EUROPE PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE

DEMONSTRATIVES tava Ill. 4 LOAN VERB MARKERS -ev-, -er- Ill. 5

Russia Russia -in-, -isar- United kada Kingdom Poland Germany -in- Germany dava: adava -ev-, -er- Czech Rep. Ukraine France Ukraine France Austria kava Romania kada Romania Italy -isar- Italy kaka -isar- -iz- -in-, -an- Turkey adava: akava -isker-, -in-, -iz-

show a mixed region. Verbs belonging historical Habsburg Monarchy and on av‑ ‘to come’ to čh‑ and v‑ (as examples to the perfective inflection classes that to some of the dialects of Trans-Carpa- for numerous other items affected by the had retained a perfective augment ‑t‑ are thian Ukraine, but leaves out the entire process) remain limited to Romani va- re-assigned to the class of verbs with an western periphery (Britain and Spain) as rieties spoken within the German-spea- augment ‑l‑ (originally representing verb well as northern Poland and the Baltic king area and neighbouring regions. The roots ending in vowels): beš‑t‑jom ‘I sat’ areas. A very similar diffusion pattern is areas south of the Great Divide remain > beš‑l‑jom. Conservative forms occur found for the predominance of ‑h‑ over unaffected by these developments, while occasionally in isolation in the south, es- ‑s‑ in grammatical paradigms and in in the northeastern zone jotation appears pecially along the Black Sea coast. particular in intervocalic position such consistently so that ame ‘we’ becomes The north-south divide is complemen- the singular instrumental/sociative case jame, and the verbs ačh‑ ‘to stay’ and ted by a further divide between a (north) endings (leha ‘with him’ vs. lesa). Here av‑ ‘to come’ become jačh‑ and jav‑. western zone with its centre in Germa- too, the variation appears to go back to A partition similar in shape emerges ny and northeastern zone comprising Early Romani. Note that s/h alternation around analogies in the past-tense mar- the Baltics and North Russia [Ill. 2, 3]. is found in a wide transition zone en- ker of the 2PL. The original ‑an prevails The 2SG past-tense and present copu- compassing the continental side of the in the northwest as well as in a central la conjugation marker ‑al was probably Adriatic and stretching all the way to belt connecting Germany all the way the older historical form (going back to Transylvania. Finnish Romani matches with the Romanian Black Sea Coast. the 2SG oblique enclitic pronoun *te). this western-central diffusion zone for The innovation centres are once again In Early Romani it appears to have com- both items, indicating that the develop- the northeastern zone, where the pre- peted with ‑an, an analogy to the 2PL ment preceded the separation from the dominant form is ‑e (by analogy to the marker. The form in ‑al is generalised in continental dialects. 3PL), and the southern periphery, from the western innovation zone in Germany The shortening of anglal/an- southern Romania through to the Medi- and spreads eastwards into central Eu- gil ‘in front’ to glan/gil, of ame ‘we’ to terranean coast of France, where a parti- rope to include the Romani dialects of me, and of the verbs ačh‑ ‘to stay’ and al analogy renders the form ‑en.

mani appears to have had at least the segments in the south shifted the ba- CORE VS. PERIPHERY two variants, with an without initial lance in favour of a generalisation of v‑ (ařo and vařo). In the northern re- the more conservative form ařo. But Many developments spread following gions the pressure toward initial jota- in the geographical periphery, in the a pattern of core vs. periphery. In the tion affected the word, which became absence of pressure in any particular case of the word for ‘flour’, Early Ro- jařo. The general absence of initial direction, the more innovative of the

3 COUNCIL OF EUROPE PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE

two Early Romani variants vařo was A conservative periphery is periods of time, allowing the diffusion selected. also encountered in the retention of of several distinct innovations to fol- Often the periphery remains Greek-derived verb inflection mar- low similar pathways, while divisions conservative. The original Early Ro- kers, used in Romani as a means of between groups – through political mani demonstrative opposition set in adapting loan verbs from Greek and borders, migrations, or simply through adava : akava (with corresponding subsequent contact languages [Ill. a collapse of social contacts – set de- forms in ‑o‑) is retained in the geogra- 5]. Romani dialects of present-day marcations boundaries that contained phical periphery comprising Britain, Greece show a proliferation of forms. the diffusion. The result is an accu- Spain, Italy, and the southern Balkans Several forms are retained in Welsh mulation of a complex matrix of diffe- [Ill. 4]. The core, by contrast, shows Romani too. Crimean and Zargari Ro- rent diffusion patterns, yet not without various innovation zones where the mani keep ‑isker‑ and ‑isar‑ appears overlap of a number of prominent iso- original forms are simplified or rein- in Romania-Moldavia and in Spain. glosses. forced to create opposition pairs such The distribution of other forms shows When consideration is given as adava : dava, kada : kaka, kava : a German-Scandinavian dialect group to the various bundles of isoglosses re- kavka etc. Though zones partly over- with ‑er‑/‑ev‑, a Black Sea coast group presenting prominent structural features lap due to the many forms that can with ‑iz‑, and a central-eastern zone – such as essential vocabulary items, become part of the paradigm, a rough from the Baltics and all the way down salient lexico-phonological develop- geographical split can be identified to western Bulgaria and southern Ita- ments, and especially the organisation between a zone in northern Bulgaria ly, with ‑in‑ (primarily, with additio- of recurrent morphological paradigms and Romania (kaka), a central zone nal vocalic variation in the Balkans). – then we obtain a picture that is quite around Hungary and Slovakia (kada), Note that each isogloss has its similar to the prevailing reference grid a northeastern zone comprising Po- own unique pattern of diffusion. The of dialect classification. The classifi- land and Russia (dava : adava) with a fact that we are able to review a set of cation is thus inspired by the reality of unique retention sub-zone in the Bal- numerable such patterns mirrors the clusters of isoglosses, which in turn are tics (kada), a major zone stretching historical fact that networks of social the accumulated result of the diffusion from the Black Sea coast to the North contacts between Romani communi- of structural innovation among popula- Sea (kava), and a Finnish zone (tava). ties remained stable for considerable tions and across geographical space.

For more information on dialect differentiation in Romani consult the online Romani Morpho-Syntax Database and its interactive map-generating function: http://romani.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/ rms

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boretzky, N. 2002. Die Vlach-Dialekte des Romani: Strukturen - Sprachgeschichte - Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse - Dialektkarten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. | Boretzky, N. & Igla, B. 2004. Kommentierter Dialektatlas des Romani. Vol. 1: Vergleich der Dialekte. Vol. 2: Dialektkarten mit einer CD Rom. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. | Boretzky, N. & Cech, P. & Igla, B. 2008. Die Südbalkanischen Dialekte (SB I) des Romani und ihre innere Gliederung. Graz: GLM. (= Grazer Linguistische Monographien 26) | Elsik, V & Matras, Y. 2006. Markedness and language change. The Romani sample. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. | Gilliat-Smith, B.J. 1915. A report on the Gypsy tribes of North East Bulgaria. JGLS, new series, 9: 1-54, 65-109. | Matras, Yaron. 2002. Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: CU P. (chapters 2 and 9). | Matras, Yaron. 2005. The classification of Romani dialects: A geographical-historical perspective. In: Schrammel, Barbara, Halwachs, Dieter W. & Ambrosch, Gerd, eds.: 7-26. | Schrammel, Barbara, Halwachs, Dieter W. & Ambrosch, Gerd, eds. 2005. General and Applied Romani Linguistics. Munich: Lincom.

Sociolinguistics 7.0

Romani-Project Graz / Dieter W. Halwachs

The sociolinguistic situation of Romani reflects the sociopolitical and the sociocultural status of its speakers. Consequently Romani has to be described as a primarily oral, functionally restricted, dominated, stateless diaspora language with no monolingual speakers.

PRIVATE EVERYDAY LIFE PUBLIC REPERTOIRES OF varieties in the social microcosm that varieties in the social macrocosm that are varieties used in formal public ROMANI SPEAKERS are used in informal private domains: used in domains of everyday life: with domains: in the media, in religious with the partner, in the family, when acquaintances (at work, at school, etc.), contexts, in higher education, when in contact with close friends, etc. with strangers, when shopping, etc. dealing with authorities, etc.

REPERTOIRE 1: MAJORITY LANGUAGE(S) language use of most MAJORITY LANGUAGE(S) MAJORITY LANGUAGE(S) Romani speakers Romani

REPERTOIRE 2: majority language(s) MAJORITY LANGUAGE(S) language use of speakers MAJORITY LANGUAGE(S) of vital (Vlax) varieties ROMANI Romani

REPERTOIRE 3: language use of inter- MAJORITY LANGUAGE(S) MAJORITY LANGUAGE(S) MAJORITY LANGUAGE(S) national Romani Romani Romani Romani activists

A linguistic repertoire is the set of distinguishable linguistic varieties used in different social contexts by a particular speech community. Ill. 1

Romani is a language that until recent- ethnically stigmatised, discriminated power. Considering the fact that the ly has not existed in a written form and against and persecuted up to genocide, development of standard varieties ge- has exclusively been passed on orally. It the Roma could only survive in small nerally follows the development of po- has not developed a generally accepted groups which led to the geographi- litical and economic power structures, written standard and, as a consequence, cal and social heterogeneity that still it becomes clear why Romani has not has no prescriptive norms. This lingu- exists today. Consequently, Roma have developed such a variety. Furthermore, istic situation reflects the sociopolitical never been in a position to build large the outlined sociohistorical situation situation of the Roma: Politically, eco- political-economic structures or to get explains why Romani is labelled a sta- nomically and culturally marginalised, their share of political and economic teless diaspora language.

intimate variety in the social microcosm. kers may be described as non-monolingual. LANGUAGE USE Adult Romani speakers are always bi- or Compared to the use of Romani, the domi- multilingual and use the language(s) of nance in the use of the respective majori- For most Roma their respective Romani the respective majority population(s) for ty language(s) is shown in the abstracted variety is reduced to intra-group commu- inter-group communication in the public linguistic repertoire of Romani speakers. nication, and thus limited to the private do- domains and more often in the domains of Repertoire 2 above displays the mains. Romani primarily functions as an everyday life. Consequently, Romani spea- full range of functions as, for example, SOCIOLINGUISTICS

in Kalderaš Romani which dominates the influence or rather pressure of -majori mani has been written for some decades internal communication and is also used ty languages on Romani. This influence now, the constant communicative need to when in contact with speakers of other results in lexical loans as well as in the functionally expand it into all domains of Vlax varieties. More frequently, however, replication of patterns of the majority lan- everyday and public life has not generally the functions of Romani as the inter-group guages, which account for the differences been given until now. In inter-group com- variety in everyday life are extremely li- between individual Romani varieties. The- munication Romani is primarily used by mited. In many cases it only functions as se lexical and structural differences are activists who are able and willing to ad- an intimate variety in the social micro- often perceived as obstacles to inter-group apt to each other linguistically. The same cosm, and even in these domains majority communication and sometimes even lead applies to the oral use of Romani in for- languages are often more frequently used speakers of a particular Romani variety to mal domains (see repertoire 3 in Ill. 1). than Romani (see repertoire 1 in Ill. 1). value other varieties as different langu- Formal written Romani, above all, This dominance of majority languages in ages. Essentially, problems in inter-group has symbolic functions with only marginal the linguistic repertoires of Romani spee- communication are caused by the functio- communicative ones. The overwhelming ch communities – not only in the public nal restriction of Romani to intra-group majority of texts are translations from ma- sphere but also in everyday life and in pri- communication in the private sphere. If jority languages into Romani. Their main vate contexts – characterises Romani as a there is a constant need to use Romani in purposes are to highlight the ability of Ro- dominated language. inter-group communication and in public mani to function in these contexts, to sup- This asymmetrical relationship life, Romani will adapt to these new situ- port the struggle for sociocultural equality between Romani and the majority lan- ations. The ability to meet the communi- of the Roma, to symbolise the will, need guages results not only in the functional cative needs of its speakers is inherent to or demand for the sociopolitical integrati- restrictions mentioned, but also in strong any language of the world. Although Ro- on of the Roma, etc.

language. But despite its presence in the the European Charter for Regional or Mi- SOCIOPOLITICAL STATUS media, compared to dominant languages, nority Languages which will be dealt with the impact of Romani media on Romani in the following chapter. The vast majority of Romani speakers still speakers is insignificant. Romani speakers Both recommendations and treaties use Romani exclusively for intra-group are above all exposed to the mainstream are top-down instruments that are often communication, and majority languages in media of dominant languages and Romani accompanied by national or regional mea- all other domains. As outlined in the last media products and broadcasts are in most sures which – at least legally – make Ro- paragraph, this has nothing to do with the cases symbolic, as is written Romani. mani teaching possible. In most cases such linguistic insufficiencies of Romani, but is In most cases the demand to use measures are embedded into the legal fra- sociolinguistically rooted. The functional Romani in education is part of the political mework for the protection of (national) mi- restrictions of Romani are reflected by its agenda of the struggle of Roma for equal norities of a particular country or region and sociopolitical status. Romani is margina- rights and equal opportunities. Resulting are formulated in the accompanying regula- lised in the media, marginalised in educa- activities range from grassroots level ac- tions for minority language teaching. In the tion, irrelevant in public life, and neglected tions via national and regional measures case of Romani these top-down measures in administration. to European-wide initiatives. The latter are, almost as a rule, not actively implemen- Romani is present in almost all ty- mostly are international treaties or recom- ted by the authorities. They just provide the pes of media. Apart from daily and weekly mendations of supranational organisations possibility for Romani teaching but leave newspapers, Romani is used in journals, which in a few cases are accompanied by the implementation to NGOs. This has to brochures and books. There are radio and concrete measures. One of these rare cases be seen in connection with the plurality of television broadcasts on public and private is the Council of Europe’s Curriculum Fra- Romani, educational authorities are used to channels and even a few private radio and mework for Romani and its corresponding dealing with homogeneous languages with television stations broadcasting exclusi- Language Portfolios. These tools were de- a standard that serves as the norm in te- vely in Romani. Radio and television are veloped according to the standards of the aching. Furthermore, most top-down mea- also present on the internet, as are web- Common European Framework of Refe- sures are triggered by bottom-up demands. sites, mailing lists and chat rooms. Espe- rence for Languages (CEFR) which was Without grassroots initiatives, most cially print publications, but also radio and recommended by the European Union as of the top-down measures would not be television broadcasts, are often bilingual, an instrument in setting up systems of vali- brought into force or would remain inef- thus reflecting both the linguistic -reper dation of language competences. The most fective declarations of good will. Only a toires of Romani speakers and the sociolin- prominent example of an international tre- productive cooperation between NGOs guistic situation of Romani as a dominated aty with an impact on Romani teaching is and authorities offers the possibility that

2 COUNCIL OF EUROPE PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE

Romani teaching becomes part of the edu- is used systematically to teach literacy to ted to a small subgroup of speakers, as a cation system. But being part of the system children who have acquired it as their mo- means of communication of the political does not automatically mean that Romani ther tongue during their primary socialisati- movement, Romani is functionally expan- is integrated into the regular curriculum. on. Such a systematic approach to Romani ding into formal domains. This expansion On the contrary, for the most part Romani teaching would be the most suitable reason results in lexical enrichment as well as in is taught in extracurricular lessons, often to include it into mainstream education. structural changes. Romani is developing only in the framework of lessons on Roma- This would be in line with a recommendati- the vocabulary needed to discuss legal, ni history and culture. Romani as a langua- on of UNESCO (1953) that the best way to administrative, scientific, etc. topics, as ge of instruction is even more marginalised teach literacy is to use the mother tongue of well as structures that enable its users to than Romani as a subject. If a teacher is the learner. The marginalisation of Roma- reflect, write and publicly talk about any competent in Romani – which is quite ex- ni in education, again, is a direct result of relevant topic. Due to its communicative ceptional – it might be used with children the sociolinguistic situation of a dominated use in formal domains among Romani whose mother tongue is Romani and who diaspora language with almost no tradition representatives, Romani has entered the have a low competence in the majority lan- in literacy. As public life as well as admi- stage of development from a vernacular guage. In such exceptional cases Romani nistration are always connected with domi- to a standard language. This development functions as an auxiliary language for the nant languages with a profound tradition in in no case follows the traditional standar- purpose of acquiring the majority language. literacy, it becomes obvious why Romani disation pattern – i.e. the imposition of a The outlined situation is most pro- is irrelevant in public life and neglected in codified variety by law through education bably related to the fact that Romani tea- administration. – but has to be described as harmonisation, ching, and up to a certain point, minority The sociolinguistic status of Ro- by trial and error in actual communication language teaching in Europe in general is mani outlined so far explains that changes processes using all linguistic resources at less a pedagogical than a political matter. in the situation of Romani will only result hand. Therefore, translations and standar- Romani NGOs see Romani teaching as part in improvements in the status of its spea- disation products with primarily symbolic of the political struggle for emancipation kers, the Roma. Although it is obvious that functions as well as communicative ex- from the majority population and their do- Romani will most probably never reach a perience, repertoire resources, etc. of all minant culture and language. Representa- balanced relationship with the dominant speakers involved contribute to this harmo- tives and authorities of the majority try to national languages of Europe, the ongoing nisation process, which is slowly resulting value the language and the culture of the emancipation process is already effecting in something like an international Romani. Romani minority by declarative acts which changes in its status. Romani is perceived The higher the numbers of Romani spea- grant Romani a marginal role in main- by the majority population as a primary kers participating in this process, the more stream education. Depending on the prevai- cultural identity factor, public opinion this international variety will spread and ling conditions, extracurricular Romani les- more often attributes it the status of a lan- contribute to overcome the communication sons which also discuss culture and history guage. The previously dominant opinion obstacles between speakers of different contribute to the empowerment of Romani that regarded it as gibberish, as the jargon Romani varieties. Preconditions for the children and counteract, at least to some of fringe groups and as the idiom of crooks further development of this international extent, the pressure to linguistically and is slowly losing strength. This change in variety are further improvements of the so- culturally assimilate into the majority po- opinion results, inter alia, in moderate of- ciopolitical situation of the Roma. Current pulation. Yet despite these side effects, the ficial attention attributed to Romani as a conditions not only limit the development main function of Romani teaching remains, European minority language. Furthermore, of Romani, but above all hamper the inte- once again with the background of primari- the use of Romani among activists on the gration of Roma as equal citizens of their ly political motivation, on a symbolic level. international level has an effect on both its native countries and, consequently, also as There are no known cases where Romani functions and structures. Although limi- European citizens.

the last decades. This is above all due to of the 20th century. The most important ROMANI AND THE CHARTER the ongoing emancipation process which instrument created in this context is the FOR REGIONAL OR MINORITY would not have been possible without European Charter for Regional or Mi- LANGUAGES changes in the general approach towards nority Languages. The Charter was ad- minority languages at an overall Europe- opted as a convention by the Committee Despite the ongoing socioeconomic mar- an level. These changes were initiated by of Ministers of the Council of Europe in ginalisation and sociopolitical stigmati- the representatives of traditional linguistic 1992, and entered into force on 1 Mar- sation of the Roma, the status of Romani minorities of western Europe – Frisians, ch 1998. On the web page of the Char- has – as indicated above – improved over Irish, Welsh, etc. – during the second half ter its purpose is described as follows:

3 COUNCIL OF EUROPE PROJECT EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE ROMANI | LANGUAGE

The Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is a convention designed on the one hand to protect and promote regional and minority languages as a threatened aspect of Europe’s cultural heritage and on the other hand to enable speakers of a regional or minority language to use it in private and public life. Ill. 2

The Charter defines regional or tenstein, which declared that there are no Another consequence of margina- minority languages as different from the regional or minority languages in the sen- lisation and discrimination is ongoing mi- official language(s) of a state and not a se of the Charter spoken on its territory, gration which, again, is used to make a case dialect of an official language, as tradi- and also countries with quite a number of against the autochthonous status of Roma. tionally used by nationals within a given Roma like Croatia. In this case non-ter- The differentiation between autochtho- territory (= territorial languages) or by ritorial languages are excluded from the nous, or indigenous Roma, and allochtho- nationals within the territory of that state ratification in general, thus avoiding the nous, migrant Roma, is another symptom (= non-territorial languages), and as not a official recognition of Romani. This does of the low support for Romani as a minori- language of (recent) migrants. not mean that Croatian authorities neg- ty language. For instance, Austria declared This basic blue print for the de- lect Romani. There is support for Romani Romani in its ratification of the Charter as a finition of a European minority langua- speaking communities both in education non-territorial language on the territory of ge fully complies with Romani. On the and in the media. But the Croatian non- Burgenland, which is the easternmost pro- background of the criteria listed, Romani ratification of the Charter for Romani is a vince bordering Hungary. Therefore, the has to be described as different from all symptom of the low sociopolitical status recognition of Romani is legally limited to official languages of Europe and as used of the Roma in general. the variety of a minority among the Aus- all over Europe since the Middle Ages by To declare the whole Romani po- trian Romani population. The Romani va- nationals of all states of Europe. pulation of a particular country as recent rieties of recent migrants are not only the- Consequently, Romani should be migrants is another way to neglect the ne- oretically excluded from protection by the protected as a minority language by the cessity to recognise Romani as an official Charter, but also of other autochthonous Charter in the territories of all countries minority language. To counter-argue such groups. Practically, the other speakers are which have ratified it up to 2011. But not an assertion and to prove that Romani is supported by the authorities as well. Ne- all countries have recognised Romani spoken traditionally in a specific European vertheless, the fact that this distinction is and the majority of these opted for the country is sometimes almost impossible: made in a legally binding convention not minimum protection as a non-territorial Because of social exclusion Roma have only demonstrates the low sociopolitical language. been prevented from owning land and pro- status of Roma and, consequently, Ro- Among the states that excluded perty. Furthermore, quite often their settle- mani, but also the reservations about the Romani are small countries like Liech- ments have not been registered properly. status of Roma as one linguistic minority.

Literature

Friedman, Victor A. (2005.) The Romani Language in Macedonia in the third millenium: Progress and Problems; in: Schrammel, Barbara / Halwachs, Dieter W. / Ambrosch, Gerd (eds.) General and Applied Romani Linguistics. Proceedings from the 6th International Conference on Romani Linguistics, Munich: Lincom Europa: 163-173. | Halwachs, Dieter W. (2003) The Changing Status of Romani in Europe, in: Hogan-Brun, Gabrielle / Wolff, Stephen (eds.) Minority Languages in Europe. Frameworks, Status, Prospects, Houndmills/New York: Palgrave: 192-207. | Hancock, Ian (ed.) (1979) Romani Sociolinguistics, The Hague: Mouton. (= International Journal of the Sociology of Language 19). | Matras, Yaron (2005) The future of Romani: Toward a policy of linguistic pluralism, Roma Rights 1/2005: 31-44. | Matras, Yaron (1999) Writing Romani: The pragmatics of codification in a stateless language, Applied Linguistics 20/4: 481-502. | UNESCO (1953) The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education

© Council of Europe. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be PROJECT EDUCATION OF translated, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic ROMA CHILDREN IN EUROPE (CD-Rom, Internet, etc.) or mechanical, including photocopying, recording http://www.coe.int/education/roma or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior permis- COUNCIL CONSEIL sion in writing from the Publishing Division, Directorate of Communica- OF EUROPE DE L´EUROPE http://romani.uni-graz.at/romani tion (F-67075, Strasbourg cedex or [email protected]) http://www.coe.int